007 - Chapter 2 - L5 PDF
007 - Chapter 2 - L5 PDF
007 - Chapter 2 - L5 PDF
Tulapurkara
Stability and control
Chapter 2
Lecture 5
Longitudinal stick–fixed static stability and control – 2
Topics
2.2 Cmcg and Cmα as sum of the contributions of various component
2.3 Contributions of wing to Cmcg and Cmα
2.3.1 Correction to Cmαw for effects of horizontal components of lift and
drag – secondary effect of wing location on static stability
Example 2.1
Example 2.2
Example 2.3
The horizontal tail is also represented by its mean aerodynamic chord. The
aerodynamic centre of the tail is located at a distance lt behind the c.g. The tail is
mounted at an angle it with respect to the FRL. The lift, drag and pitching
moment due to the tail are Lt, Dt and Mact respectively. As the air flows past the
wing, it experiences a downwash ε which is shown schematically in Fig.2.8.
Owing to this the angle of attack of the horizontal tail would be (α + it - ε ).
Further, due to the interference effects the tail would experience a dynamic
pressure different from the free stream dynamic pressure. These aspects will be
Mcg
Cmcg = = (Cmcg )w + (Cmcg )f,n,p + (Cmcg )t (2.12)
1
ρV2Sc
2
Cmα = (Cmα )w + (Cmα )f,n,p + (Cmα )t (2.13)
Note:
(i) For convenience the derivative of Cmcg with α is denoted as Cmα .
(ii) In Fig.2.8 the angle ‘it’ is shown positive for the sake of indicating the notation;
generally ‘it’ is negative.
The contributions to Cmcg and Cmα of the individual components are described in
Taking moment about c.g., gives the contribution of wing (Mcgw) to the moment
about c.g as:
Mcgw = L w cos(α w - iw )[x cg - x ac ] + Dw sin (αw - iw ) [x cg - x ac ]
Noting that,
Mcgw Lw Dw Macw
Cmcgw= ; CLw= ; CDw= ;Cmacw= , (2.15)
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
ρV Sc ρV S ρV S ρV Sc
2 2 2 2
yields:
x cg x ac x cg x ac
Cmcgw = CLw cos(α w - iw )[ - ] + CDw sin(α w - iw )[ - ]
c c c c
Zcgw Zcgw
+ CLw sin(α w - iw ) - CDw cos(αw - iw ) + Cmacw (2.16)
c c
Remark:
(αw – iw) is generally less than 100.Hence, cos (αw – iw) ≈ 1; and
sin(αw – iw) ≈ (αw– iw) . Further CL >> CD.
Neglecting the products of small quantities, Eq.(2.16) reduces to:
Hence,
x cg x ac x cg x ac
Cmcgw = Cmacw + CL0w [ - ] + CLαw α [ - ] (2.19)
c c c c
Differentiating with respect to α , gives the contribution of wing to Cmα as :
x cg x ac
Cmαw = CLαw [ - ] (2.20)
c c
Remark:
The contribution of wing (Cmcgw) as approximately calculated above and given by
x cg x ac
Eq.(2.19) is linear with α. When the a.c. is ahead of c.g., the term [ - ] is
c c
positive and consequently Cmαw is positive (Eq.2.20). Since, Cmα should be
negative for static stability, a positive contribution to Cmα is called destabilizing
contribution. When the a.c. is ahead of c.g. the wing contribution is destabilizing.
Figure 2.10 shows Cmcgw vs α in this case.
Zcgw
Cmcgwh = [CLw sin(α w -iw ) - CDw ] ; (2.22)
c
DifferentiatingEq.(2.22) with α gives:
dCDw Zcgw
Thus, Cmαwh = [2CLw - CL0w - CLαw ] (2.25)
dCL c
The drag polar of the wing can be assumed as :
C2Lw
CDw = CD0w + ,
πAe
dCDw 2CLw
Then, =
dCL πAe
An important aspect of the above derivation may be pointed out here. The
expression for Cmαwh involves CL or the slope of Cmcgw vs α curve depends on CL
or α (see example 2.3) . Hence, Cmcgw become slightly non-linear. The usual
practice, is to ignore the contributions of the horizontal components to Cmαw.
However, the following aspects may be pointed out. (a) A high wing configuration
is slightly more stable than a mid-wing configuration. A low wing configuration is
slightly less stable than the mid-wing configuration. (b) In the simpler analysis
the Cmcgw vs α curve is treated as straight line but the Cmcg vs α curves, obtained
from flight tests on airplanes, are found to be slightly non-linear. One of the
reasons for the non-linearity in actual curves is the term Megwh.
0.088
x cg - x ac = 3.05 + = 0.671m
0.4
x cg x 0.671
or = ac + = (0.24 + 0.22) = 0.46
c c c
This equilibrium is unstable as a.c. is ahead of c.g.
Example 2.2
If the wing given example 2.1 is rebuilt maintaining the same planform, but
using reflex cambered airfoil section such that Cmac = 0.02, with the a.c. still at
0.24 c . Calculate the c.g. position for equilibrium at CL = 0.4. Is this equilibrium
statically stable?
Example 2.3
An airplane is equipped with a wing of aspect ratio 6 (Clαw = 0.095) and
span efficiency factor e of 0.78, with an airfoil section giving Cmac = 0.02.
Calculate, for CL between 0 and 1.2, the pitching moment coefficient of the wing
about the c.g. which is located 0.05 c ahead of a.c. and 0.06 c under a.c..
Repeat the calculations when chord wise force component is neglected. Assume
CD0w = 0.008, αoLw = 10, iw = 50.
Solution:
The given data about the wing are: A = 6, Clα = 0.095, e = 0.78, Cmac = 0.02,
αoLw = 10, CD0w = 0.008, iw = 50,
From Fig.5.5 of Ref.1.7, CLαw = 0.074 deg-1 = 4.24 rad-1
CL0w = 0.074 (5-1) = 0.296.
CL2 CL2
CDw = 0.008 + = 0.008 + = 0.008 + 0.068 CL2
πA e 3.14×6×0.78
0 0.02 0.0336
0.4 0 0.0141
0.8 -0.02 -0.0112
1.2 -0.04 -0.04314