Control and Stability of Aircraft

ON J A N U A R Y 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 · IN A E R O D Y N A M I C S , G E N E R A L A E R O S P A C E

One of the key factors in the Wright brothers’ achievement of building the first heavier-
than-air aircraft was their insight that a functional airplane would require a mastery of three
disciplines:
1. Lift
2. Propulsion
3. Control
Whereas the first two had been studied to some success by earlier pioneers such as Sir
George Cayley, Otto Lilienthal, Octave Chanute, Samuel Langley and others, the question of
control seemed to have fallen by the wayside in the early days of aviation. Even though the
Wright brothers build their own little wind tunnel to experiment with different airfoil
shapes (mastering lift) and also built their own lightweight engine (improving propulsion)
for the Wright flyer, a bigger innovation was the control system they installed on the
aircraft.

The Wright Flyer: Wilbur makes a turn using wing-warping and the movable rudder, October 24, 1902. By Attributed to
Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) and/or Orville Wright (1871–1948). [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Fundamentally, an aircraft manoeuvres about its centre of gravity and there are three
unique axes about which the aircraft can rotate:
1. The longitudinal axis from nose to tail, also called the axis of roll, i.e. rolling one wing up
and one wing down.
2. The lateral axis from wing tip to wing tip, also called the axis of pitch, i.e. nose up or
nose down.
3. The normal axis from the top of the cabin to the bottom of landing gear, also called the
axis of yaw, i.e. nose rotates left or right.

Aircraft Principal Axes (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

In a conventional aircraft we have a horizontal elevator attached to the tail to control the
pitch. Second, a vertical tail plane features a rudder (much like on a boat) that controls the
yawing. Finally, ailerons fitted to the wings can be used to roll the aircraft from side to side.
In each case, a change in attitude of the aircraft is accomplished by changing the lift over
one of these control surfaces.
For example:
1. Moving the elevator down increases the effective camber across the horizontal tail plane,
thereby increasing the aerodynamic lift at the rear of the aircraft and causing a nose-
downward moment about the aircraft’s centre of gravity. Alternatively, an upward
movement of the elevator induces a nose-up movement.
2. In the case of the rudder, deflecting the rudder to one side increases the lift in the
opposite direction and hence rotates the aircraft nose in the direction of the rudder
deflection.
3. In the case of ailerons, one side is being depressed while the other is raised to produce
increased lift on one side and decreased lift on the other, thereby rolling the aircraft.

Aircraft Control Surfaces By Piotr Jaworski (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) via Wikimedia Commons

In the early 20th century the notion of using an elevator and rudder to control pitching and
yawing were appreciated by aircraft pioneers. However, the idea of banking an aircraft to
control its direction was relatively new. This is fundamentally what the Wright brothers
understood. Looking at the Wright Flyer from 1903 we can clearly see a horizontal elevator
at the front and a vertical rudder at the back to control pitch and yaw. But the big innovation
was the wing warping mechanism which was used to control the sideways rolling of the
aircraft. Check out the video below to see the elevator, rudder and wing warping
mechanisms in action.

Today, many other control systems are being used in addition to, or instead of, the
conventional system outlined above. Some of these are:

1. Elevons – combined ailerons and elevators.

2. Tailerons – two differentially moving tailplanes.
3. Leading edge slats and trailing edge flaps – mostly for increased lift at takeoff and
landing.
But ultimately the action of operation is fundamentally the same, the lift over a certain
portion of the aircraft is changed, causing a moment about the centre of gravity.

Special Aileron Conditions

Two special conditions arise in the operation of the ailerons.
The first is known as adverse yaw. As the ailerons are deflected, one up and one down, the
aileron pointing down induces more aerodynamic drag than the aileron pointing up. This
induced drag is a function of the amount of lift created by the airfoil. In simplistic terms, an
increase in lift causes more pronounced vortex shedding activity, and therefore a high-
pressure area behind the wing, which acts as a net retarding force on the aircraft. As the
downward pointing airfoil produces more lift, induced drag is correspondingly greater. This
increased drag on the downward aileron (upward wing) yaws the aircraft towards this wing,
which must be counterbalanced by the rudder. Aerodynamicists can counteract the adverse
yawing effect by requiring that the downward pointing aileron deflects less than the upward
pointing one. Alternatively, Frise ailerons are used, which employ ailerons with excessively
rounded leading edges to increase the drag on the upward pointing aileron and thereby help
to counteract the induced drag on the downward pointing aileron of the other wing. The
problem with Frise ailerons is that they can lead to dangerous flutter vibrations, and
therefore differential aileron movement is typically preferred.

The second effect is known as aileron reversal, which occurs under two different scenarios.

 At very low speeds with high angles of attack, e.g. during takeoff or landing, the
downward deflection of an aileron can stall a wing, or at the least reduce the lift across
the wing, by increasing the effective angle of attack past sustainable levels (boundary
layer separation). In this case, the downward aileron produces the opposite of the
intended effect.
 At very high airspeeds, the upward or downward deflection of an aileron may produce
large torsional moments about the wing, such that the entire wing twists. For example, a
downward aileron will twist the trailing edge up and leading edge down, thereby
decreasing the angle of attack and consequently also the lift over that wing rather than
increasing it. In this case, the structural designer needs to ensure that the torsional
rigidity of the wing is sufficient to minimise deflections under the torsional loads, or that
the speed at which this effect occurs is outside the design envelope of the aircraft.
Stability
What do we mean by the stability of an aircraft? Fundamentally we have to discern between
the stability of the aircraft to external impetus, with and without the pilot responding to the
perturbation. Here we will limit ourselves to the inherent stability of the aircraft. Hence the
aircraft is said to be stable if it returns back to its original equilibrium state after a small
perturbing displacement, without the pilot intervening. Thus, the aircraft’s response arises
purely from the inherent design. At level flight we tend to refer to this as static stability. In
effect the airplane is statically stable when it returns to the original steady flight condition
after a small disturbance; statically unstable when it continues to move away from the
original steady flight condition upon a disturbance; and neutrally stable when it remains
steady in a new condition upon a disturbance. The second, and more pernicious type of
stability is dynamic stability. The airplane may converge continuously back to the original
steady flight state; it may overcorrect and then converge to the original configuration in a
oscillatory manner; or it can diverge completely and behave uncontrollably, in which case
the pilot is well-advised to intervene. Static instability naturally implies dynamic instability,
but static stability does not generally guarantee dynamic stability.

Three cases for static stability: following a pitch disturbance, aircraft can be either unstable, neutral, or stable. By Olivier
Cleynen via Wikimedia Commons.

Longitudinal/Directional stability
By longitudinal stability we refer to the stability of the aircraft around the pitching axis. The
characteristics of the aircraft in this respect are influenced by three factors:
1. The position of the centre of gravity (CG). As a rule of thumb, the further forward
(towards the nose) the CG, the more stable the aircraft with respect to pitching.
However, far-forward CG positions make the aircraft difficult to control, and in fact the
aircraft becomes increasingly nose heavy at lower airspeeds, e.g. during landing. The
further back the CG is moved the less statically stable the aircraft becomes. There is a
critical point at which the aircraft becomes neutrally stable and any further backwards
movement of the CG leads to uncontrollable divergence during flight.
2. The position of the centre of pressure (CP). The centre of pressure is the point at which
the aerodynamic lift forces are assumed to act if discretised onto a single point. Thus, if
the CP does not coincide with the CG, pitching moments will naturally be induced about
the CG. The difficulty is that the CP is not static, but can move during flight depending
on the angle of incidence of the wings.
3. The design of the tailplane and particularly the elevator. As described previously, the
role of the elevator is to control the pitching rotations of the aircraft. Thus, the elevator
can be used to counter any undesirable pitching rotations. During the design of the
tailplane and aircraft on a whole it is crucial that the engineers take advantage of the
inherent passive restoring capabilities of the elevator. For example, assume that the
angle of incidence of the wings increases (nose moves up) during flight as a result of a
sudden gust, which gives rise to increased wing lift and a change in the position of the
CP. Therefore, the aircraft experiences an incremental change in the pitching moment
about the CG given by

At the same time, the elevator angle of attack also increases due to the nose up/tail down
perturbation. Hence, the designer has to make sure that the incremental lift of the elevator
multiplied by its distance from the CG is greater than the effect of the wings, i.e.

As a result the interplay between CP and CG, tailplane design greatly influences the degree
of static pitching stability of an aircraft. In general, due to the general tear-drop shape of an
aircraft fuselage, the CP of an aircraft is typically ahead of it’s CG. Thus, the lift forces acting
on the aircraft will always contribute some form of destabilising moment about the CG. It is
mainly the job of the vertical tailplane (the fin) to provide directional stability, and without
the fin most aircraft would be incredibly difficult to fly if not outright unstable.

Lateral Stability
By lateral stability we are referring to the stability of the aircraft when rolling one wing
down/one wing up, and vice versa. As an aircraft rolls and the wings are no longer
perpendicular to the direction of gravitational acceleration, the lift force, which acts
perpendicular to the surface of the wings, is also no longer parallel with gravity. Hence,
rolling an aircraft creates both a vertical lift component in the direction of gravity and a
horizontal side load component, thereby causing the aircraft to sideslip. If these sideslip
loads contribute towards returning the aircraft to its original configuration, then the aircraft
is laterally stable. Two of the more popular methods of achieving this are:
1. Upward-inclined wings, which take advantage of the dihedral effect. As an aircraft is
disturbed laterally, the rolling action to one side results in a greater angle of incidence
on the downward-facing wing than the upward-facing one. This occurs because the
forward and downward motion of the wing is equivalent to a net increase in angle of
attack, whereas the forward and upward motion of the other wing is equivalent to a net
decrease. Therefore, the lift acting on the downward wing is greater than on the upward
wing. This means that as the aircraft starts to roll sideways, the lateral difference in the
two lift components produces a moment imbalance that tends to restore the aircraft
back to its original configuration. This is in effect a passive controlling mechanism that
does not need to be initiated by the pilot or any electronic stabilising control system
onboard. The opposite destabilising effect can be produced by downward pointing
anhedral wings, but conversely this design improves manoeuvrability.

The Dihedral Effect with Sideslip. Figure from (1).

2. Swept back wings. As the aircraft sideslips, the downward-pointing wing has a shorter
effective chord length in the direction of the airflow than the upward-pointing wing. The
shorter chord length increases the effective camber (curvature) of the lower wing and
therefore leads to more lift on the lower wing than on the upper. This results in the same
restoring moment discussed for dihedral wings above.
 The Sweepback Effect of Shortened Chord. Figure from (1).

It is worth mentioning that the anhedral and backward wept wings can be combined to
reach a compromise between stability and manoeuvrability. For example, an aircraft may be
over-designed with heavily swept wings, with some of the stability then removed by an
anhedral design to improve the manoeuvrability.

From Calvin and Hobbes Daily (http://calvinhobbesdaily.tumblr.com/image/137916137184)

Interaction of Longitudnal/Directional and Lateral Stability

As described above, movement of the aircraft in one plane is often coupled to movement in
another. The yawing of an aircraft causes one wing to move forwards and the other
backwards, and thus alters the relative velocities of the airflow over the wings, thereby
resulting in differences in the lift produced by the two wings. The result is that yawing is
coupled to rolling. These interaction and coupling effects can lead to secondary types of
instability.
For example, in spiral instability the directional stability of yawing and lateral stability of
rolling interact. When we discussed lateral stability, we noted that the sideslip induced by a
rolling disturbance produces a restoring moment against rolling. However, due to
directional stability it also produces a yawing effect that increases the bank. The relative
magnitude of the lateral and directional restoring effects define what will happen in a given
scenario. Most aircraft are designed with greater directional stability, and therefore a small
disturbance in the rolling direction tends to lead to greater banking. If not counterbalanced
by the pilot or electronic control system, the aircraft could enter an ever-increasing diving
turn.

Another example is the dutch roll, an intricate back-and-forth between yawing and rolling.
If a swept wing is perturbed by a yawing disturbance, the now slightly more forward-
pointing wing generates more lift, exactly for the same argument as in the sideswipe case of
shorter effective chord and larger effective area to the airflow. As a result, the aircraft rolls
to the side of the slightly more backward-pointing wing. However, the same forward-
pointing wing with higher lift also creates more induced drag, which tends to yaw the
aircraft back in the opposite direction. Under the right circumstances this sequence of
events can perpetuate to create an uncomfortable wobbling motion. In most aircrafts today,
dampers in the automatic control system are installed to prevent this oscillatory instability.

In this post I have only described a small number of control challenges that engineers face
when designing aircraft. Most aircraft today are controlled by highly sophisticated computer
programmes that make loss of control or stability highly unlikely. Free unassisted “Flying-
by-wire”, as it is called, is getting rarer and mostly limited to start and landing manoeuvres.
In fact, it is more likely that the interface between human and machine is what will cause
most system failures in the future.
References
(1) Richard Bowyer (1992). Aerodynamics for the Professional Pilot. Airlife Publishing Ltd.,
Shrewsbury, UK.