Analytical Assessment of the Spin Susceptibility of the

NASA Generic Transport Model

Aditya A. Paranjape∗
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, United States
Stephen J. Gill†
University of Bristol, Bristol, England, BS8 1TR, United Kingdom
Narayan Ananthkrishnan‡
B.257, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India
§
Mark H. Lowenberg
University of Bristol, Bristol, England, BS8 1TR, United Kingdom

A recently derived analytical criterion for predicting the spin susceptibility of aircraft
is applied to the Generic Transport Model (GTM). The criterion is unique among spin
prediction criteria in that it involves computing the zeros of a single nonlinear expression
which is a function of the aerodynamic moments acting on the aircraft and their derivatives.
The results obtained from the criterion are compared with traditional spin-susceptibility
criteria and with results obtained from bifurcation analysis, and a good correlation is found
for spin susceptibility in two angle-of-attack regions.

I. Introduction
Aircraft spin is one of the most dangerous phenomena encountered in flight. Although spins have been
recorded for nearly a century (since 1916 to be precise), it is only in the last thirty years or so that it has
found a rigorous explanation within the ambit of our formal knowledge of flight mechanics.
The first analytical criterion to predict spin susceptibility of aircraft came from Weissman in 1975,1
a probabilistic criterion based on Cnβ ,dyn and the so-called lateral control departure parameter (LCDP).
Bihrle and Barnhart2 correctly identified that equilibrium spin could be modelled accurately using only
Euler’s equations for rotational dynamics. Although their model did not yield an analytically tractable
criterion and was restricted to equilibrium spins, they correctly observed that, for a given control surface
deflection, spin equilibria (if any) coexist with benign trim conditions.
The traditional view of spin as an instability (along the lines of Dutch roll, wing rock, etc.) was refuted
by analyses of complete nonlinear flight dynamic models which became possible after the introduction of
bifurcation and continuation methods. It became clear that spins were primarily high-α steady states with
large angular rates. The spin solutions could themselves be stable or unstable. Entry into spin was typically
found to occur by way of a jump phenomenon due to onset of an instability on a coexisting low-α branch
of steady states.4 The nature of the spin (steady or oscillatory, erect or inverted, flat or steep, left- or
right-hand) could be predicted from a bifurcation analysis and strategies to recover from spin could be
deduced.6
Thus, traditional spin onset criteria may not always provide a good indicator to the spin susceptibility
of a given configuration. Instead, it makes sense to evaluate the spin susceptibility of an aircraft by looking
for the existence of high-α, high-angular-rate steady states regardless of their stability. The presence of
unstable spin equilibria merely implies that the spin dynamics is more complicated, perhaps a limit cycle or
∗ Post-DoctoralResearch Associate, Department of Aerospace Engineering and AIAA Member
† Ph.D. Student, Department of Aerospace Engineering/Department of Engineering Mathematics
‡ Independent Consultant and AIAA Associate Fellow
§ Reader, Department of Aerospace Engineering and AIAA Senior Member

1 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

even chaotic. Given such a spin state, the existence of some instability or the other, and a combination of
control inputs, a jump to that spin state may be expected. Conversely, in the absence of such a spin state,
the aircraft may be ruled as not susceptible to spin.
Recently, an analytical criterion for predicting aircraft spin susceptibility was derived by Paranjape and
Ananthkrishnan.3 The central premise of the criterion is that the presence of a large class of spin solutions
(and hence spin susceptibility) can be inferred from the existence of certain saddle node bifurcations (SNBs)
whose location depends on the angle of attack, roll rate, and yaw rate. Interestingly, this rules out any role
for Cnβ ,dyn in determining spin susceptibility, although lateral-directional instabilities caused by Cnβ ,dyn
could conceivably provide a route to spin without actually influencing the existence of spin solutions.
Strictly speaking, the criterion can locate equilibrium spin solutions and spin solutions which bifurcate
from a branch of equilibrium spins. Spin solutions which arise due to bifurcations of limit cycles and quasi-
periodic solutions, or which exist as isolated periodic or quasi-periodic orbits in the state-parameter space
cannot be predicted by the criterion.
In addition to the saddle node bifurcations, it is possible to compute which of the equilibrium states are
accessible, i.e., can be achieved with control surface deflections within permissible limits. This accessibility
analysis4 can be combined with the computation of SNBs to compute the equilibrium spin solutions, deduce
whether a given spin state is attainable with benign pilot inputs and, conversely, whether and how the
aircraft may recover safely from the particular spin condition.
Note that SNBs may occur outside the accessible set, i.e., the control inputs required to trim at the
SNBs are beyond allowable limits. However, it is perfectly possible, and it does happen often, that the
solution branch re-enters the accessible region for a range of continuation parameter values. An inaccessible
equilibrium solution branch arising from inaccessible or accessible SNBs can itself undergo a bifurcation
(e.g., a Hopf bifurcation) and give rise to accessible spin solutions which need not necessarily be equilibria.
Therefore, inaccessible SNBs can give rise to accessible spin solutions which could be equilibria, periodic,
quasi-periodic, and even chaotic.
Paranjape and Ananthkrishnan3 applied the analytical criterion to the aerodynamic data of the F/A-18
High Angle of Attack Research Vehicle (HARV). A comparison with spin test results in the literature5, 6
showed that the criterion correctly predicted the spin susceptibility of the HARV. The immediate objective
of this paper is to apply the authors’ analytical criterion to NASA’s Generic Transport Model (GTM) data.
The results obtained using the criterion are compared to (1) the available spin tunnel test data,7, 8, 9 and
(2) results obtained by Gill et al 10 using bifurcation analysis of a high fidelity nonlinear model of the GTM.
The broader goal is to demonstrate the utility and the limitations of this criterion for use in aircraft design
and flight testing.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the derivation of the analytical criterion. In section
III, the spin susceptibility predictions based on the analytical criterion are compared to the traditional
susceptibility criteria as well as results obtained using bifurcation analysis. Section IV concludes the paper.

II. Analytical Criterion for Spin Susceptibility

The analytical criterion for predicting spin susceptibility derived by Paranjape and Ananthkrishnan,3
is briefly recapitulated in this section. Spin dynamics can be described well by Euler’s equations,2 and
furthermore, incipient spin solutions are known to satisfy q ≈ 0 (zero pitch rate) and β ≈ 0 (zero sideslip).11
The equilibrium solutions of Euler’s equations are found by solving
ṗ = 0 = L0 (α, δ) + Lp (α)p + Lr (α)r,
q̇ = 0 = Apr + M0 + Mα (α)α + Mδe (α)δe (1)
ṙ = 0 = N0 (α, δ) + Np (α)p + Nr (α)r,
where p, r denote the roll and yaw rate; L, M, N denote the rolling, pitching, and yawing moments, respec-
tively, and δe is the elevator deflection. The terms L0 (α, δ) and N0 (α, δ) contain the contributions of the
control inputs as well as α-dependent terms which do not depend on the angular rates or the control inputs.
Iz −Ix
Furthermore, Lp is a shorthand for ∂L ∂p , and likewise for the other terms. Finally, A = Iy , with Ix , Iy , Iz
the principal moments of inertia.
Solving for the roll rate and yaw rate, p and r, in terms of α yields a single consolidated trim equation
A(Lr N0 − Nr L0 )(Np L0 − Lp N0 ) + ∆2 (M (α) + Mδe δe ) = 0, (2)

2 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

where ∆ = Lp Nr − Np Lr and M (α) = M0 + Mα (α)α. The aerodynamic coefficients and their derivatives are
functions of α. This dependence has been dropped from the notation for convenience, except in the case of
M (α) where there is some room for ambiguity. Note that although δe is treated as the independent variable,
the approach taken here works equally well for any other choice of control input.
Equation (2) can be solved to yield the control input δe required to trim at a given α. As explained in
[3], incipient spin can be directly related to the existence of saddle node bifurcations (SNBs). Saddle node
bifurcations satisfy the equation
∂δe
=0 (3)
∂α
which, in turn, yields

A [(Lr,α N0 − Nr,α L0 )(Np L0 − Lp N0 ) + (Lr N0 − Nr L0 )(Np,α L0 − Lp,α N0 )]

∆α
+∆2 Mα (α) − 2A (Lr N0 − Nr L0 )(Np L0 − Lp N0 ) = 0 (4)
∆
where ∆α = ∂∆
∂α . Substituting for L0 and N0 in terms of p, r and α from Eq. (2), along with the additional
approximation p = r cot α, gives a modified SNB condition

Ar2 (Lp,α Np − Np,α Lp ) cot2 α + (Nr,α Lr − Lr,α Nr ) − cot α ∆α ) + ∆ Mα (α) = 0

 
(5)

Note that p = r cot α is obtained as a result of assuming that the flight path angle γ ≈ −90 deg.
Equation (5) locates all SNBs in the α − r parameter space. Of all SNBs in the α − r parameter space,
we wish to isolate the ones with the special property of being an incipient spin solution. An elegant way to
do this is to obtain the accessible region plot, which gives all possible equilibrium states at which the aircraft
may be trimmed (balance of moments about all three axes) subject to availability of control. As suggested
in Ref. [4], the accessible region may be computed by solving the trim moment equations in the form below:
qSc Iz − Ix 2
Cl = 0; Cm = − r cot α; Cn = 0 (6)
Iy Iy

A. Numerical Computations
The accessible region (AR) is composed of all those trims for which the control deflections are within
permissible limits. The AR is computed by calculating the control deflections required to trim across a grid
of α and p values, with the aforementioned assumption that r = p tan α. The aerodynamic data for GTM
is provided in a tabular forma , and linear interpolation is used to compute the coefficients at intermediate
values of α, p and r for the purposes of computing the accessible region.
In order to compute the derivatives of the aerodynamic coefficients, we need to compute partial derivatives
of the aerodynamic coefficients. In order to compute the partial derivatives of aerodynamic coefficients, we
use the following two-step approach. In the first step, we prepare an α - p grid which is refined to the desired
accuracy (along with the condition r = p tan α) and obtain the aerodynamic coefficients at the grid points
from the tabular data using linear interpolation. Next, we use finite difference over α and p, together with
a smooth fit over r, to obtain the partial derivatives.
For example, consider Cl and suppose that we wish to compute Clp . Let the α − p grid have δa and
δp as the spacing between the grid points along α and p axes, respectively. We seek to compute its partial
derivative, Clp at a point (α, p, r). Note that the projection of this point on the α − p space coincides
with the grid point (α, p, 0). Let (α, p, r1 ) and (α, p, r2 ) denote the nearest grid points, so that r1 < r < r2
(without loss of generality). Then, we write

Clp = (1 − f )Clp ,1 + f Clp ,2

where
Cl (α, p + δp , ri ) − Cl (α, p − δp , ri ) r − r1
Clp ,i = and f =
2δp r2 − r1

A similar approach is used to compute other first and second order partial derivatives.
a GTM data to which the public can request access is designated as Design Sim v0912

3 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 An alternative to the aforementioned finite difference scheme it to fit a polynomial in α, p and r to the
tabular data using a least squares approach. The criterion does not yield false positives arising from noise in
the data set. However, because the tabular data in the moderate and high α regime is sparse, the polynomial
approximation (and hence the criterion) is highly sensitive to the choice of basis functions and boundary
conditions imposed on the approximation. The basis polynomials chosen for our analysis, aside from the
linear terms α, p, r, are of the form αj s, where j = 1, 2, 3 and s = {p, r}. Notice that left-right symmetry
(as against the usual anti-symmetry) can be obtained if sk (k even) is used instead of s. Coefficients of the
form αj p2i and αj r2i were seen to be insignificant for the GTM aerodynamic data set for non-zero values of
i, and significant for i = 0. Asymmetric terms in the rolling and yawing moments were also obtained as a
result of contributions from the GTM’s engines.

III. Results and Discussion

The analytical criterion picks up the incipient spin solutions accurately. It is not meant to identify other
spin trims and steady states. Superimposing the set of SNB points from Eq. (5) and the accessible region
trims from Eq. (6), yields the plot in Fig. 1. The blue patch in Fig. 1 is the accessible region in the p − α
space, whereas the set of SNB points are shown in red. The two plots show SNBs obtained using the two
numerical schemes described in the previous section, viz., finite difference and polynomial approximation.
Since the accessible region is computed independently of the SNBs, we illustrate the accessible region for two
separate cases: the first plot shows the accessible region when the aileron and rudder are held close to zero
and the throttle is held at 0.22, while the accessible region in the second plot is obtained by constraining
just the throttle to 0.22.
The first set of couplets occurs for α = 20 − 24 deg, while the second occurs for α = 35 − 37 deg. The
SNBs in the first set are all accessible, while a vast majority in the second set are not. When the aircraft
is pitched up from a sufficiently low α with rudder and aileron held fixed, the aircraft jumps at a saddle
node from the first (low α) set to a solution which arises directly or otherwise at an SNB from the second
(higher α) set. By “arise directly,” we mean an equilibrium branch (i.e., equilibrium spin), while “indirectly”
refers to a limit cycle (oscillatory spin) which bifurcates off the equilibrium branch. Different combinations
of aileron and rudder deflections lead to different pairs of SNBs being chosen from the set in Fig. 1.
It is of interest to note that the two plots do show the same SNBs; to be precise, the SNBs from the
polynomial approximation appear as a subset of those obtained from the finite difference scheme. The
SNBs from the finite difference appear lumped. This is caused by the discontinuities that result from finite
differencing. However, the two plots agree on their conclusions, described above, about the spin susceptibility
of the aircraft.
It is important to note that although the above explanation centred around a pitch-up maneuver which
would use the elevator as a primary control input, it is perfectly possible to evaluate different scenarios such
as a roll (elevator held fixed; rudder fixed or scheduled with aileron as the primary input) or a nose slice
within the framework of Fig. 1. One example of the latter kind can be found in Carroll and Mehra.12
Figure 2, taken from Ref. [7], depicts the effect of lateral/directional stability on stall and departure
characteristics observed during piloted simulations of the GTM. In conjunction with Fig. 1, one may further
predict oscillatory spin at angles of attack around α > 35 deg.
A sample time history of GTM in oscillatory spin, taken from Murch and Foster,8 is shown in Fig. 3.
It is evident that the mean angle of attack is approximately 35 degrees, and the angular motion is domi-
nated by roll, followed by pitch and yaw. Although the amplitude of oscillations in sideslip are large, the
mean value (around 5 deg) is small. The (mean) angle of attack seen in the time history corresponds well
with the predictions of the analytical criterion. Even the mean roll rate (around 175 deg/s) and yaw rate
(approximately 130 deg/s) are close to the values expected from the accessibility region.
Bifurcation analysis was adopted in Ref. [10] to gain insight into open-loop GTM upset dynamics, in-
cluding the influence of spin attractors. Figure 4 is a representation of a bifurcation diagram from Ref. [10]
with α and p plotted as functions of δe . Aileron and rudder were held close to zero, and the thrust was set
to 22% of the maximum value. The elevator saturates at −30 deg, but the constraint was relaxed to obtain
the plots. Solid blue lines denote stable equilibria, while red dotted lines denote unstable equilibria. Green
and yellow lines denote the maximum and minimum values of the corresponding state on stable and unstable
limit cycles, respectively.
Two saddle nodes leading to the high-α spin solutions are visible in Fig. 4(a), and are marked in Figs. 4(c)

4 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 40

Angle of Attack (deg)

35

30

25

20
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Roll Rate (rad/s)

(a) Finite difference and accessible set with δa , δr ≈ 0 and throttle 0.22

40

35
[deg]

30

25

20
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Roll rate [deg]
p [rad/s]

(b) Polynomial approximation and the complete accessible set for throt-
tle held at 0.22

Figure 1. Plot showing the accessible region (blue) and the saddle node bifurcations (red) in the α - p parameter
space. Black ellipses are used to identify accessible incipient spin solutions (SNBs).

and 4(d) which show the magnified regions around the saddle nodes. The first saddle node marks the location
where the primary equilibrium branch turns first turns around, before leading to the second SNB where it
turns around again to create an (unstable) equilibrium spin branch. The SNB marked in Figure 4(c) is seen
in left as well as right “turning” flight. On the other hand, the second pair of SNBs corresponding to left
and right spins, marked in Fig. 4(d), are not coincident in the α − δe projection. The sense of the turn is
clear from the roll rate in Fig. 4(b), as the roll rate has the same sign as the turn rate.
The SNBs from Fig. 1 correlate well with two SNBs in Fig. 4: the first around α = 27 deg in Fig. 4(c)

5 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 2. Effect of lateral/directional aerodynamic stability on stall/departure characteristics, taken from
Ref. [7].

(a) Wind angles

(b) Body axis angular rates

Figure 3. Sample time history of an oscillatory spin of the GTM.8

and α = 36 deg in Fig. 4(d). The reader is reminded that the time histories in Fig. 3 and the spin solutions
in Fig. 4 represent fully developed spins and therefore, it is natural to expect a mismatch between the
trim angular speeds computed as part of the criterion and those obtained through actual simulation of a
6-dof model. The important point, though, is that incipient spin solutions are identified accurately by the
criterion - this enables the criterion to identify spin boundaries correctly although spin behaviour away from

6 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 40

200
35 Oscillatory spin
150
30 Oscillatory spins
100

25 Steep spiral
50
α (deg)

p (deg/s)
20 0
Steep spirals
−50
15 Steep spiral

−100
10
−150

5
−200
Oscillatory spin

0 −250
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 −30 −25 −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15
δe (deg) δe (deg)

(a) α vs δe (b) p vs δe

40 37

36
36.5

32
α (deg)
α (deg)

36

28

35.5

24

35
−54 −52 −50 −48 −46 −44 −42 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
δe (deg) δe (deg)

(c) α vs δe (local) (d) α vs δe (local)

Figure 4. Bifurcation diagrams showing the angle of attack α and the roll rate p as functions of the elevator
deflection. Solid blue lines denote stable equilibria, while red dotted lines denote unstable equilibria. Green
and yellow lines denote the maximum and minimum values of the corresponding state on stable and unstable
limit cycles, respectively. Stars denote Hopf bifurcations, while empty circles (◦) denote torus bifurcations.
Saddle nodes marked with arrows are correlated to SNBs in Fig. 1.

the boundaries need not be predicted precisely. But then, spin behaviour away from the spin boundary is
not germane to predicting spin susceptibility.
Figures 4(a) and 4(b) show an isolated limit cycle branch between δe = −15 deg and δe = −30 deg.
Figure 4(b) reveals these isolated sets to be left spins. These two sets appear in the form of closed loops in
the bifurcation diagrams, and their origin is not altogether apparent. One may conjecture that these limit
cycles arise from the bifurcation equilibrium branches which occur for a different combination of control
inputs than that for which the bifurcation diagrams are plotted, in which case it may be possible to correlate
them with SNBs from Fig. 1.
It is of interest, for the sake of completeness, to compare the aforementioned results with traditional spin
prediction criteria. Two traditional spin criteria are shown in Fig. 5: the revised Weissman criterion and the
Kalviste criterion, and the legend is been explained in Table 1.
The results in Fig. 5 can be summarized as follows. The aircraft has a moderate to strong tendency
for departure and spin in the range α = 18 deg to 31 deg. In the range from α = 33 − 41 deg, it has

7 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 −3
x 10 35
= −5 deg
4 30
High Directional A
3 instability − little
data 25
=18 deg = 60 deg
2
=31 deg
20
1 =33 deg

(deg)
F =40 deg
LCDP

0 15

−1 10
E
−2
D = 46 deg 5
−3
C 0
−4 B
−5
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
Cn Dynamic −3 (deg)
x 10

(a) Revised Weissman (b) Kalviste

Figure 5. Revised Weissman criterion and Kalviste’s criterion applied to the GTM.

Table 1. Legend in Fig. 5

Criterion Legend Meaning

Revised Weissman A Departure and spin resistant
B Spin resistant; roll reversals-induced departure
C Weak spin tendency; strong roll reversal
D Strong spin and departure tendencies
E Weak spin tendency; moderate departure and roll reversals
F Weak departure and spin resistance; no roll reversals
heavily influenced by secondary factors
Kalviste Yellow Longitudinal divergence
Green Lateral divergence
Red Oscillatory instability
Dashed black line Pitch trim curve
Solid black line Yaw trim curve

a weak tendency to spin. In Kalviste’s criterion, these regions are marked by combination of lateral and
longitudinal divergence. These results can be explained in terms of Fig. 1 as follows. The first set of SNBs
are encountered in Fig. 1 in the region α = 20 deg to 30 deg, while the second set of SNBs are encountered
in the high-α range of α = 35 − 38 deg. The first set of SNBs typically correspond to a departure from
“nominal” equilibrium flight. The mechanisms are typically lateral-directional, and primarily yaw departure.
The second set of SNBs give rise to spin equilibria which could be stable or unstable, yielding equilibrium
spin and oscillatory or more complex spins, respectively. Notice that the second set of SNBs in Fig. 1 coincide
with the region demarcated by yellow lines (i.e., corresponding to longitudinal divergence) in the Kalviste
criterion plot shown in Fig. 5.
One interesting difference between the SNB-based criterion presented in this paper and the traditional
criteria is the dependence of the latter on β and its aerodynamic derivatives. Despite this fundamental
difference, the spin susceptibility assessments match. The reason for the concurrent assessments remains an
open problem.

8 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 IV. Conclusions
This paper reviewed a new analytical criterion derived by the authors for predicting spin susceptibility.
The criterion was applied to the aerodynamic data for NASA’s GTM aircraft. Spin predictions based on the
criterion were matched with predictions made using bifurcation analysis and traditional departure criteria;
the correlations are good, although it is not clear why the simplified Weissman departure criterion should
necessarily concur The simplicity of the criterion, together with its mathematically soundness, would make
it a handy metric during design and testing of future aircraft.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Dr. Austin Murch, Mr. Bruce Owens and others
members of the NASA’s Langley Flight Dynamics Branch and Dynamics Systems and Control Branch for
provision of the GTM model and advice on its use and flight characteristics. Dr. Murch kindly allowed us
to liberally use material from his Masters thesis which presented a series of spin test results for the GTM.
The first author would like to acknowledge his supervisor at UIUC, Prof. Soon-Jo Chung, for his support
and mentorship. The second author is supported by an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
(EPSRC) Award grant in collaboration with Airbus.

References
1 Weissman, R., “Status of Design Criteria for Predicting Departure Characteristics and Spin Susceptibility,” Journal of

Aircraft, Vol. 12, No. 12, 1975, pp. 989-993.

2 Bihrle, W., Jr., and Barnhart, B., “Spin Prediction Techniques,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1983, pp. 97-101.
3 Paranjape, A. A., and Ananthkrishnan, N., “Analytical Criterion for Aircraft Spin Susceptibility,” Journal of Aircraft,

Vol. 47, No. 5, 2010, pp. 1804-1807

4 Goman, M. G., Khramtovsky, A. V., and Kolesnikov, E. H., “Evaluation of Aircraft Performance and Maneuverability by

Computation of Attainable Equilibrium Sets,” Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2008, pp. 329-339.
5 Fremaux, C.M., “Spin Tunnel Investigation of a 1/28-Scale Model of the NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle

(HARV) With and Without Vertical Tails,” NASA CR-201687, Apr. 1997.
6 Raghavendra, P. K., Sahai, T., Kumar, P. A., Chauhan, M., and Ananthkrishnan, N., “Aircraft Spin Recovery, with and

without Thrust Vectoring, using Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1492-1503.
7 Foster, J. V. et al, “Dynamics Modeling and Simulation of Large Transport Airplanes in Upset Conditions,” AIAA

Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2005, AIAA 2005-5933.
8 Murch, A. M., and Foster, J. V., “Recent NASA Research on Aerodynamic Modeling of Post Stall and Spin Dynamics

of Large Transport Airplanes,” 45th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2007, AIAA 2007-463.
9 Murch, A. M., Aerodynamic Modeling of Post-Stall and Spin Dynamics of Large Transport Airplanes, M.S Thesis,

Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007.

10 S. Gill, M. Lowenberg, S. Neild, B. Krauskopf, G. Puyou and E. Coetzee, “Upset Dynamics of an Airliner Model: A

Nonlinear Bifurcation Analysis,” Journal of Aircraft, in press.

11 Chambers, J.R., and Grafton, S.B., “Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airplanes at High Angles of Attack,” NASA TM

74097, Dec. 1977.

12 Carroll, J. V., and Mehra, R. K., “Bifurcation Analysis of Nonlinear Aircraft Dynamics,” Journal of Guidance, Control

and Dynamics, Vol. 5, No. 5, 1982, pp. 529-536.

9 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics