3.

Discussion of Results (114 Marks)

Comments made in answer to the following questions provide a structured discussion of the results.
They should be answered in either hand-written form or using Word/Latex and inserted into this part
of the report. The comments must be made from an analysis of the all the test data obtained/provided
and from the lecture notes presented and not from a detailed review of literature. As guide to the
detail expected; students should note that there is a mark available for each concept required in the
expected answer and that each concept can be usually expressed in a single sentence. \emThe text
must be the sole work of the individual student. Examples where text is identical to other group
members will be treated as plagiarism or copying and will attract \rm zero marks.

3.1 Aerodynamic Properties

3.1.1 Clean Configuration

1. State the primary effect of the principal flying controls: (5 marks)

 The ailerons control the rolling moment of the aircraft (Roll).

 The Rudders controls the side to side moment of the aircraft, also known as the yaw of the
aircraft.
 Both the aileron and rudder work in tandem to maintain the directional and lateral stability of
the aircraft.
 The elevator controls the up and down nose moment of the aircraft, also known as the pitch of
the aircraft, with this the elevators are responsible for the longitudinal stability of the aircraft.
 The engines on the aircraft control the thrust needed for the flight of the aircraft, and also
control the direction of flight.

2. Estimate of minimum drag speed (CR) [VeMD] at average AUM (6500 kg): (1 mark)

 The minimum drag speed estimate for an AUM of 6500 is found to be 140 knots.
 With the help of the formulae as shown below.

3. Briefly explain th aning of th phras “The back-si of th rag curv .” and its effect on
aircraft handling: (5 marks)

 This Drag curve is obtained by plotting Thrust=Drag vs Speed of the aircraft, it basically
consists of three curves, the curve for induced drag, the curve for parasitic drag and the total
drag curve which is the sum of the induced drag and total drag.
 The induced drag varies inversely with speed and decreases as the speed increases.
 The parasitic drag is directly proportional to the square of the velocity and increases as the
speed increases.
 However at a certain speed the induced drag increases rapidly not allowing enough time for
the parasitic drag to diminish, hence the pilot finds that there is a rapid increase in total drag,
which reduces speed even further, cause the aircraft to lose lift, hence the pilot has to increase
 thrust to overcome this drag and sustain level flight, this condition of flight is known as the
back side of the drag curve, where more power is required to fly slower.

4. Explanation for increased data scatter at speeds below about 140 KIAS: (1 mark)

 When the aircraft is flying at speeds below 140 knots it is flying in the region known as the
back side of the drag curve, this causes a rapid increase in drag leading to constant inputs by
the pilot to maintain sustained flight, this is the main cause for data scatter in this flight region.

3.1.2 Effect of Flaps and Undercarriage

1. With reference to the use of prediction intervals, comment on suitability of all new test data (CL
and CD) for analysis: (1 mark)

 As there is no historical data available for landing configuration, we are unable to confirm
whether the new test data falls into the prediction intervals established by previous data,
hence no clear comment can be made regarding the suitability of the new data (CL and CD).

2. With reference to the use of lack-of-fit testing, comment on how well the aerodynamic
properties obey the following, taken from [4]: (3 marks)

 The R2 valu for CL vs αb is quite high (0.98237), there is linear fit in clean configuration , the
ata obtain will not satisfy th lin ar tr n at high α b , as tests have not been conducted at
high r αb closer to CLmax. Th quation CL=CL +a1*αb. Is not vali at high r angl s of α b. So for
CL=CL +a1*αb, the linear fit is satisfied, when th valu s of αb ≤ αb*.
 The Cd Prediction interval for clean configuration is also quite high R^2 = 0.986 and it lies with
linear fit. But sinc th αb > αb*, we cannot validate the fit for CL= CLmax-0.3(1-
(a1*∆α*/ .39))^1.3.
 But even then we have 95% confidence in the values of lift obtained. Even though 5%of the
values obtained are not on the linear fit. It does deviate much from the fit.

3. With reference to Tables 5.1 and 5.2 describe and explain the effect of flap and undercarriage
on the lift and drag characteristics of the aircraft: (8 marks)

 Flap Effect:
 From the table it can be inferred that as the flap deflection increases so does the value
of CL0 .this happens as the camber line of the wing increases.
 a1 (lift curv slop CL/ α) increases as the flap deflection increases, because a1 is
directly proportional to the aspect ratio of the wing, and as the flap deflection increases
so does the aspect ratio causing the a1 to increase.
 It can also be seen that the L/D ratio increases from a minimum of 9.197 at clean wing
configuration to a maximum of 12.658 at 35 Flap
  As the CL0 increases with increasing flap, the CD 0 also increases, this is caused by two
things, firstly the increase in CL leads to an increase in the induced drag and also as the
flap increases so does the chord length of the wing causing, a larger boundary layer to
be formed on the wing, which thickens over the wing causing a change in the effective
thickness of the aerofoil leading, to larger parasitic drag.
 The value of k is also found to be reducing as k is inversely proportional to e (Oswal ’s
efficiency factor) and as the flaps cause a better lift distribution over the entire wing,
almost similar to an elliptical wing, this increase causes e to increase hence k
decreases.
 UC Down:
 It can be very clearly seen from the table 5.2 that the main effect the undercarriage has
is the increase in drag (CD0), this is primarily parasitic drag caused by the large frontal
area that is now exposed to the oncoming flow
 It can also be seen from the table that there is an increase in the lift with the UC down
when compared to the aircraft being in clean condition, this might be attributed to a
favourable pressure gradient occurring when the undercarriage has been deployed
leading to a increase in lift (CL0)

4. With reference to Table 5.4 comment on match with data from wind tunnel tests given in
Appendix C.2 and by discussion of the effects of Reynolds number, Mach number and slipstream
provide reasons for discrepancies: (5 marks)

 Mach number: The Mach number for the tunnel and the flight test is found to be more or less
same, but there is a difference in the value calculated by empirical means when compared to
wind tunnel or flight values, the empirical calculation might have been conducted at a different
mach number, hence the difference.
 Slip Stream: The propeller is switched off in the tunnel hence no slipstream is seen by the wind
tunnel model from the engine, Even so it does not really affect the clean configuration as CL 0
remains the same, but there is change in the CL0 at 200 flap, the CL0 is decreasing in flight test as
compared to the wind tunnel, this is occurring cause the slipstream from the engine is
interacting with the flaps and creating a adverse pressure gradient.
 Reynolds number: The Reynolds number conditions have not been replicated in the wind
tunnel, the real flight test has a higher Reynolds number than the one seen in the tunnel.a1 is
increasing from empirical to flight test at clean configuration, and also increasing from wind
tunnel to flight test at 200 flap, this is occurring as there is a change in the Reynolds number ,
More turbulent flow is achieved in the flight test and flow separation occurs, also in the wind
tunnel test the boundary layer transition is forced for the fuselage, tail and nacelles (with
wings being free),whereas in the flight test this is not the case, hence there is delay in the
separation, also these changes caused by the changing Reynolds number lead to an increase in
the lift curve slope a1.Also as there is an increase in the turbulent boundary layer causing the
CD0 to increase.

5. With reference to Table 5.5 comment on the strength on any interference effects arising from
changes in the aircraft configuration: (2 marks)

 From the figure 5.5 it can be clearly seen that the interference effect from the undercarriage
reduces the effect of the flaps, 100 flap when deployed on its own has CL 0=0.48, Now at TO the
aircraft has 100 flap and also the under carriage down, when CL 0 for just the landing gear is
subtracted from the TO configuration, it should yield a value, similar drops in CL0 at 100 flap
 (0.48) similar effect is seen when 200 flap(APP) and 350 flap(LDG) when deployed along with
undercarriage, caused due to interference affect between the flaps and the landing gear.
 We can also see from the table that the there is a drastic drop when the UC is subtracted from
different configurations TO, APP and LDG there is a small decrease in CD0. On the contrary, K
increases. This is due to the fact that the effect of the undercarriage causes the flap to see a
disturbed flow. UC DWN increases the interference, and when we subtract this, we are also
subtracting this interference.

6. With reference to Tables 5.11 and 5.12 give reasons for any significant differences between
flight test estimates, empirical estimates from lecture notes, see Appendix G, and wind tunnel data,
given in Appendix C.3, for a1w, a1t and a2t (3 marks)

 From table 5.12 we can see that there is a reduction in the lift curve slope of the elevator, the
empirical calculations have an higher estimate of the elevator lift curve slope as when
compared to the real flight data, which shows a lower value of the lift curve slope, the reason
for this phenomenon to occur is aero elasticity, when the elevator is deflected at high dynamic
pressures which leads to a considerable reduction in the effectiveness of the elevator.
 From table 5.11 it can be seen that there is little change in the values of tail plane curve slope
from empirical and wind tunnel to actual flight test, with the test flight tail plane curve slope
being slightly higher, this is due to the increased Reynolds number under normal flying
conditions as opposed to a wind tunnel.
 The value lift curve slope of the wing will be very different in actual flight when compare to the
wind tunnel or empirical estimates as the Reynolds number acting in flight is way bigger, the
slip stream effect from the engines is greater as, the engines are kept of in the off condition
(providing no slip stream), also in the wind tunnel the flow transition is forced early for both
fuselage and nacelle, this will vary during flight changing the flow field about the wing.

3.1.3 Validation of Thrust Estimation Methodology

1. Comment on the descent angle estimated from data gathered during testing in cruising flight
and that obtained using the `drift- own’ t chniqu : (2 marks)

 The descent angle estimated from the data taken in cruise flight is found to be -2.690 (UCD) and
-5.220 (LDG).
 Th sc nt angl obtain fro “ rift own” is foun to b -2.770(UCD) and -5.240(LDG).
 The descent angle estimated in cruise condition is found to be lower than the one obtained in
“ rift own” con ition.
 Th r ason for this is that at cruis th alpha r ains constant, wh r as in “ rift own” th
alpha is constantly changing, this change of alpha needs to be accounted for by substituting
these changes in alpha, in the formulae used to calculate descent angle in cruise flight, to
improve the accuracy of descent angle estimated by data obtained during cruise conditions.
2. Estimate of minimum drag speed (LDG) [VeMD] at average AUM (6500 kg): (1 mark)

m = 6465 kg, g0 = 9.81 m/s2, ρ0 = 1.225 kg/m3 S = 25.084 m2, CD0 (LDG) = 0.1046, K (LDG) = 0.0513

The VeMD at LDG is found to be=104.44 knots

3. Explanation for increased scatter at higher CW: (3 marks)

 We know that at level flight conditions Cw=CL, hence as the Cw increases so does the CL.
 This higher value of CL needs a higher angle of attack (alpha) to increase lift.
 This increase in alpha also leads to decrease in the velocity of the aircraft.
 We are well aware of the problems of flying in low speed regime, where there is drastic
increase in drag causing the aircraft to lose altitude, to compensate for this the pilot has to
provide throttle and control inputs to maintain steady and level flight, these constant inputs
account for the scatter occurring at higher Cw.
 Also as the CL increase, the CL value enters the non linear region of the lift curve (dCL/ α),
hence causing even more scattering.

4. Comment on comparison between estimated (dV/dt) and measured along track acceleration:
(2 marks)

 The dV/dt estimated is in good accordance with the ones obtained by the method of level
acceleration, But there are discrepancies here and there with the dV/dt estimated and the
dV/dt measured by level acceleration, this is due to the inaccuracy in measuring the thrust of
the engines.
 Level acceleration in theory should be performed by allowing the aircraft to accelerate along a
straight line, while the thrust remains constant, but this is not the case practically.
 As can be seen clearly from the flight data obtained that there are constant fluctuations in the
values of thrust of starboard and the port engines of the aircraft, even though these
fluctuations are small they affect the accuracy of the final value of dV/dt.

5. Statement regarding suitability of thrust `measurement' as a basis for drag estimation:

(1 mark)

 As we are aware that the drag on the aircraft is directly proportional to the thrust provided by
the aircraft engines, hence the measurement of the thrust can be used to predict the drag
acting on the aircraft.
 But the problem with this method of calculating drag is that there are no ways of measuring
the thrust on the aircraft accurately and efficiently in normal flight conditions.
 Hence methods like level acceleration and drift down can used to reasonably measure the
thrust and in turn the drag acting on the aircraft.
3.1.4 Pressure Errors

1. Comments on consistency between tests and linearity of variation with Vi: (2 marks)

 With the exception of groups A and E the general trend is found to be linear with the r2 varying
from 0.97 to 0.99 for ∆ i vs i an is .99 for ∆Hp vs i
 The variation for the groups A and E can be accounted for by changes in the local atmospheric
conditions during flight like density, temperature and even possible gusts

2. Specification compliance statement [13]: (4 marks)

 Within the scope of the tests conducted the airspeed system fitted in the aircraft met the
requirements of CS 23.1323 (b). Further testing from 213 KIAS to V MO in configuration CR,
between 1.3 Vs1 and VFE with flaps extended in configuration 10FLP, 20FLP, and 35FLP. See fig
(6.1.1)
 Within the scope of the tests conducted the pressure system fitted in the aircraft met the
requirements of CS 23.1325 (e). Further tests required at 1.3 V so with flaps extended condition
to assess the compliance of the aircraft static pressure system. To fully meet the compliance
regarding the static pressure system further testing needs to be done using the various static
ports fitted on the aircraft. See fig (6.1.2)

3.2 Cruise Performance

1. Explanation for scatter in variation of FFR with Ve: (2 marks)

 From the figure 6.1.3 it can be clearly seen that there is scatter in variation of FFR at a V e=120
knots this occurs as the aircraft is flying in the low speed regime, which leads to changes in the
drag characteristics of the aircraft as has been discussed previously, because which there is
constant throttle input needed by the pilot, to sustain steady and level flight and this constant
input to the throttle changes the rate of fuel flow to the engine, leading to scatter in variation in
FFR at low Ve.

2. Comments on the effects of variations in WAT on VBR [14] and SAR max: (4 marks)

 Referring figure (6.1.4)

 For a power producing power plant VBR=vMD and VMD = (2 g/ ⍴S) (K/C O) ^.5
 For a given flight condition with constant altitude and constant velocity, if the weight of the
aircraft is increased then VBR of the aircraft increases as can be inferred from the formulae
above.
 As the weight of the aircraft is increased the SARmax, decreases, as SAR =Velocity/Fuel Flow, as
the weight increases more thrust is needed and hence more fuel flow is needed, reducing the
amount of fuel on the aircraft causing the SARmax to increase.
 Keeping weight and temperature constant if the altitude of the aircraft is changed then the V BR
increases hence the SARmax increases, but this only happens until a certain altitude, if the
aircraft climbs any higher then again both VBR and SARmax will go down, to get best VBR and
SARmax with respect to only altitude is obtained when the aircraft is flying at the optimum
altitude for which it has been designed.
 Similarly when weight and altitude are kept constant and the temperature is varied, at high
temperature the air is denser hence the drag increases on the aircraft reducing both VBR and
 SARmax. And the inverse happens when the density is reduced as the density of the air
decreases at high temperature.

3. Evidence of, and explanation for, the performance characteristics of a typical turbo-prop such
as the one fitted to G-NFLA: (6 marks)

 As a turbo prop engine is run by a propeller, it is considered to be a power producing engine.

The turbine in the turbo prop converts the thrust into shaft power for the propellers, even
though there is some residual thrust from the turbine it generally forms just 5% of the overall
thrust of the aircraft.
 As it is a power producing engine the VBR=VMD. From fig (6.1.3) we can see that when Fuel Flow
is plotted against Ve, from this graph we obtain the VBR and also it is found to be higher than
VBE. From the drag curve we can see that VMD, occurs when the drag is at its minimum value, at
minimum value of drag, the Lift to Drag ratio is maximum (L/D) max,. Hence the VBR occurs at
(L/D) max.
 Also VBE=0.76 VMD, again from fig (6.1.3), we find that velocity at which there is minimum fuel
flow rate, is the VBE. As can be clearly inferred that since the fuel flow required at VBE is
minimum it is occurring at the flight condition where power required by the aircraft is
minimum, at a velocity VMP .Minimum power (Maximum Endurance) varies with (CL3/2/CD) max,
from aerodynamic relations we know.
VBE=V (CL3/2/CD)max=0.76 V (L/D) max

3.3 Climb Performance

3.3.1 Both Engines Operative (BEO)

1. With reference to Table 5.19 comment on accuracy of data from the level acceleration method:
(2 marks)

 From table 5.8 for group c, the published values of climb gradient at different potential heights
can be obtained.
 A comparison between the maximum climb gradient values obtained from table 5.8 and the
values of maximum climb gradient in table 5.19 (obtained by flight test), shows that the
maximum climb gradient calculated using level acceleration, is found to be closer to the
published data, as compared to the maximum climb gradient obtained by means of climb.
 This is because during both acceleration and climb tests, mass is considered to be constant,
this is fine for level acceleration, as the loss of fuel in level acceleration is quite low (as it occurs
in a short time span) and can be neglected, whereas during climb more thrust is needed to
make the aircraft, climb from one altitude to the other. This leads to a lot of fuel being used by
the engines, due to which there is a significant change in the mass of the aircraft which needs
to be accounted for to obtain an accurate value.
2. With reference to Table 5.7 comment on comparison between the equivalent air speeds for
maximum climb gradient obtained from the level acceleration tests and the recommended climb
speeds given by the manufacturer: (2 marks)

 From the table 5.7 we can see that the equivalent air speed obtained from level acceleration is
very less when compared to the published equivalent air speed.
 This difference is caused by two things, Firstly thrust values are obtained from the flight to
perform further calculations, but there is no efficient method to measure the thrust under
normal flight conditions, hence there is error in the trust values taken for calculations of the
equivalent air speed for maximum climb gradient, Secondly while publishing the
manufacturer provides a value of equivalent air speed for maximum climb gradient higher
than the actual equivalent airspeed, so that the while climbing the pilot uses a higher speed (as
lift is more at higher velocity),providing a safety margin and preventing the aircraft from
entering into a stall during climb.

3. With reference to Table 5.8 comment on the acceptability of the published performance as being
representative of the aircraft: (2 marks)

 The published data for maximum climb gradient is shown in the table 5.8. And it has a δb of 0.5
(group C).
 Maximum climb gradient is obtained by means of level acceleration using Method A and
Method B, as can be clearly seen in the table. The maximum climb gradient obtained using
Method B is found to be closer to the published value, hence these values are used to obtain the
difference between the maximum climb gradient (calculated)and the maximum climb gradient
(published),the difference ranging from a minimum value of 0.13 to 0.4 is found to be inside
the rang of δb.
 Also since thrust prediction is not accurate the values of maximum climb gradient obtained by
calculations will have some error in them.
 From the above two points it can be established that the published data is acceptable as being
representative of the aircraft.

3.3.2 One engine Inoperative (OEI)

1. Reasons for any discrepancies between measured and published data for which no account has
been made: (2 marks)

 There are two major factors which cause discrepancies between the measured and published
data which not been taken into account
 The thrust values obtained during the flight have error in them as there is now way to measure
the thrust accurately in normal flight conditions, as explained before, this thrust values with
error filter down into the calculations, causing error in the final calculated values, leading to
discrepancies.
 Also for level acceleration tests, we are assuming that the AUM is constant, but this is not
actually the case, cause during the test, fuel is consumed by the engine hence there is a change
in the mass of the aircraft, and there is a change in the CG of the aircraft, even though errors
caused by this are not that significant, they still cause discrepancies in the final result.
 The above two factors need to be taken into account if the discrepancies between the measures
and published data need to be reduced.
2. Specification compliance statement: (3 marks)

 Within the scope of the test conducted the net climb gradient fails to meet the specification
compliance CS23.69 and CS 25.123(b). Which state that the net climb gradient should be more
than 1.2 for reliable flight in OEI Condition. From Table (5.9) the net gradient values are found
to be -3.1 at 12500 feet and -3.8 at 14500 feet. So it would not be ideal to fly the aircraft at OEI
conditions within the scope of test conducted. Further testing at different altitudes needs to be
conducted to obtain a more precise value of net gradient.

3.4 Longitudinal Stability

3.4.1 Longitudinal Static Stability

1. Evidence of, and explanation for, effect of flight condition on static stability: (4 marks)

 From figure (6.3.1) it can be clearly seen that for higher value of CG (CG moves more aft) the
amount of elevator deflection is greater, hence at more aft C.G the aircraft is less longitudinally
stable.
 As the aircraft is moving though the air the fuel weight of the aircraft is reducing, due to which
hn (CG moves aft) increases, enhancing the static margin, so as the aircrafts weight decreases
and the CG moves further aft the aircraft becomes less stable.
 This shows that distribution of weight, which in turn controls the forward and aft movement of
CG, is primarily responsible for increased or decreased static stability of the aircraft.

2. Specification compliance statement: (2 marks)

 Within the scope of the tests conducted the longitudinal static stability meets the compliance
CS 25.173(C), which charact ris s th l vator forc angl ‘Th av rag gra i nt of th stabl
slope of the stick force versus speed curve may not be less than 4N for each 6 knots.
 The gradient dPe/Dve was calculated at the CG limit (36.6%),This C.g position is at the neutral
stick point where the stick force is minimum, so if dP e is higher than 4N for Ve=6Knotsat this
point, that means the stick force will be higher than 4N for the forward position of CG.
 With reference to table 5.18,all the different configurations have dP eta>4N,we can say that the
specific compliance is met for 130 MPC,130CR,160CR,190CR for CS25.173(C).

3. Explanation of how a ‘down’ spring can ensure specification compliance: (3 marks)

 A down spring is present in the aircraft so as to produce a mechanical load on the elevator,
causing resultant nose down pitching moment, increasing the aircraft stability, during
disturbances in flight, the down spring will produce greater elevator deflection to bring the
nose of the aircraft down to attain stability, as quickly as possible, the spring always adds force
in order to move the elevator, that means the it increases the dPeta/dVe and in this way it
ensures specification compliance CS25.173.
3.4.2 Longitudinal Manoeuvre Stability

1. With reference to the prediction interval estimate the stick force [15] required, at 160 KEAS to
reach 3.2g at the aft CG limit: (2 marks)

 The graph between dPƞ/dg and c.g can be used to estimate the stick force at per g at a given c.g
position. The equation from the linear fit to the graph is found to be.

y = -227.9*x + 150.44 Where x = 0.366 (aft c.g location)

= 67 N/g

For 3.2g the stick force required is, as it is known for 1-g Pƞ = 0

So, 67 * 2.2 = 147.46 N

Substituting th valu s of Δyk,

At 3.2g, the stick force required along with prediction interval can be represented as 147.46 ± 5N

2. Specification compliance statement: (4 marks)

 Within the scope of the test, the longitudinal Manoeuvre stability met the requirement for CS
25.143(g) and AMC No.1 to CS 25.143(g).Although, AMC No.2 to CS 25.143 cannot be checked
due to absence of data to observe buffeting effects on the aircraft.
 Within the scope of the test, using reference to indicate requirements (Table F.3) for Jetstream
and based on average stick force required the longitudinal Manoeuvre Stability failed to meet
the requirement of CS 23.155(a) as the minimum stick force required is 71 N/g (in Table F.3)
for a yoke with one hand and from the flight test is 69N/g for aft limit C.G of the aircraft.

3.4.3 Dynamic Stability

3.4.3.1 SPPO

1. With reference to Table 5.14 provide evidence of, and explanation for, the effect of reduced
manoeuvre margin on the short period dynamics: (2 marks)
  From the table 5.14 it can be clearly seen that the manoeuvre margin (Hm) decreases, this in
turn reduces the natural frequency of response of the system, increasing the relative damping
of oscillations. The reduction in manoeuvre margin occurs because the centre of gravity moves
aft (in accordance with theory of longitudinal stability) The reduced margin produce a smaller
displacement in angle of attack, which leads to a lower frequency response and higher
damping caused by inertial forces due to pitch disturbance, the opposite effect of this is seen if
the CG moves forward.

2. With reference to Table5.14 explain any significant differences between flight test results and
estimates made using the empirical methodology described in Appendix G [16]: (2 marks)

 The effect of various factors acting together, leads to there being a difference between the actual
flight values and the ones calculated empirically.
 Firstly, the inertia about the roll axis is not accurate and is an approximation, which might be very
different from the actual values.
 The value of a1w used to calculate empirically will not be the same as for the actual flight, as there
will various factors like interference effects, gust, changing Reynolds number acting on the aircraft,
making the estimated value using a1w less accurate.
 Damping factor is depends on a1t.but elevator angle is constantly being applied to equalise pitching
moment. From (Fig 6.7.8) we can see that the oscillation with the short period pitch mode and the
duration of ramp is around 0.5s.and after the ramp the elevator does not come back to its original
position.
 Also the aircraft may be affected by various external factors.

3.4.3.2 Phugoid

1. Evidence of, and explanation for, the destabilising effect of the’ down’-spring on the phugoid
dynamics: (4 marks)

 When the pilot puts the plane into a free phugoid motion, and then l t’s go of th stick, th
down spring (which is present to meets the force requirements), hampers the damping of the
phugoid, and cause the destabilisation which is characterised by a large increase in the
amplitude of pitch attitude and also an increase in the velocity, the explanation for this can be
seen by using fig (6.7.3).
 In the figure (6.7.3) it can be seen that at seconds there is elevator deflection provided by the
pilot to excite phugoid motion, this cause the pitch attitude of the aircraft to rise to ,and there
is a change in the pitch angle as well, causing a nose up moment, the pitch attitude eventually
reduces to zero, but not before going to a higher value ,it is at this time when the pitch attitude
is decreasing, that there is an input from the down spring causing a nose down pitching
moment, along with the pitch down motion of the phugoid, which does not allow the phugoid
motion to damp on its own, causing the aircraft to go back into a phugoid with increasing pitch
amplitude and speed, which if unchecked, can be catastrophic.

2. With reference to Table 5.15 give evidence of, and explanation for, any significant differences
between flight test results and estimates made using the empirical methodology described in
Appendix G [16]: (1 mark)
  From table 5.15 it can be seen that estimated value is far greater than the one obtained from
th t st, th t st valu s of ωp an δp values can be deemed reasonably accurate as logarithmic
decrement is used to calculate them with few overshoots, the difference between the
calculated data from the test can be attributed to the fact that phugoid motion has a long
response time, hence various external factors like wind, direction and even gust would affect
the data that has been acquired during flight tests.

3.5 Lateral and Directional Stability

3.5.1 Static Stability

1. Evidence of, and explanation for, the effect of airspeed and configuration [17] on static
stability: (5 marks)

 From figure (6.4.1) it can be seen that at constant configuration (CR in this case) and
increasing velocity, the aileron deflection needed to trim the aircraft decreases, with increasing
lateral speed similarly from figure(6.4.2) it can be seen that at a constant configuration (CR)
and increasing velocity, the rudder deflection needed to trim the aircraft reduces , with
increasing lateral velocity, hence it can be concluded that the aircraft is more laterally and
directionally stable at higher speeds.
 From figure (6.4.3) it can be seen that at constant configuration (CR), and increasing velocity,
the bank angle increases, as the lateral velocity increases, this occurs because at higher velocity
there is more lift (CL is directly proportional to square of the velocity of aircraft), due to this
when side slip is acting on the aircraft at high speeds greater bank angle is produced.
 From figure (6.4.4) it can be seen at constant speed (140 knots),with changing configuration
(LDG, APP, CR) and increasing lateral velocity, the aileron deflection needed to trim the
aircraft is maximum for LDG and least for CR. Similarly from (6.4.5) at constant speed(140
knots) with changing configuration (LDG, APP, CR) and increasing lateral velocity, the rudder
deflection needed to trim the aircraft is maximum for LDG and least for CR, This shows us that
the aircraft has less lateral and directional stability at LDG when compared to other flight
configurations.
 From figure (6.4.4) it can be seen at constant speed (140 knots),with changing configuration
(LDG, APP, CR) and increasing lateral velocity, the bank angle is greater for LDG and least for
CR. This occurs (as explained earlier) because the lift increase at higher velocity, due to which
when side slip acts on the aircraft at a high speed and LDG configuration, greater bank angle is
produced, when compared to other aircraft configurations.

2. Explanation for non-zero bank angle intercepts: (2 marks)

 The J31 (G-NFLA) has asymmetrical thrust about the longitudinal axis, as both the propellers
as rotating in the same direction, causing the aircraft to yaw in one direction, which leads to
one wing having more lift than the other, to compensate for this moment and to trim the
aircraft both the rudder and ailerons have to be used, leading to non zero bank angle intercept
at zero side slip.

3. State the maximum lateral velocity and rudder deflection tested: (2 marks)
  For group the maximum lateral velocity=31.5 knots and maximum rudder deflection=120.
 From historical data maximum lateral velocity=42 knots and maximum rudder
deflection=16.80.

4. Specification compliance statement: (2 marks)

 Within the scope of the tests conducted, the aileron and rudder controls meet the
requirements for specification compliance CS 23.17 (d), though further testing needs to be
done at up to 50% continuous power at 1.2 V SR1 for both approach and landing configuration.
The tests conducted with up to half of rudder deflection available are also required to
completely meet CS 25.177(C).

3.5.2 Dynamic Stability

3.5.2.1 Dutch Roll Mode

1. With reference to Table 5.16 provide evidence of, and explanation for, any significant
differences between flight test results and estimates made using the empirical methodology described
in Appendix G [16]: (2 marks)

 There is a significant difference in the data obtained from the empirical estimates and flight
test results.
 a1f value used for calculation is taken from the wind tunnel, this will vary from the actual flight
values as there is a change in the Reynolds number, from wind tunnel to actual atmospheric
conditions.
 Similarly (CD0)w is also calculated from the wind tunnel and since the Reynolds number is
lesser in wind tunnel, the value of (CD0)w will be lower.
 Also there is forced transition in the wind tunnel for fuselage and nacelles, which will not be so
in real flight conditions hence the value of a1f obtained will again have some error in it

2. Specification compliance statement: (4 marks)

 Within the scope of the tests conducted the requirements of CS 23.181(b) (1) are met, The
Dutch Roll at 160 KEAS and below had negligible amplitude after 7cycles in the stick free
position. At 180 KEAS the Dutch Roll oscillation was damped to less than 1/70 amplitude in 7
cycles with controls free meeting the requirement. Further testing for Dutch Roll mode would
need to be repeated of speeds up to V MO and repeated with stick-fixed position tests to fully
meet the CS 23.181(b) requirement.

3.5.2.2 Roll Mode

1. With reference to Table 5.17 provide evidence of, and explanation for, any significant
differences between flight test results and estimates made using the empirical methodology
described in Appendix G [16]: (1 mark)

 The theoretical estimates made give a higher value of roll damping, when compared to the
values obtained from the flight test, but an uncertainty is present in the graphical analysis done
by using flight data, this uncertainty is given by δ(s).If this valu of δ(s) is high, th n th
difference between the flight test and empirical values would be quite high.