ESDU 03011: An Introduction To Lateral Static Aeroelasticity: Controllability, Loads and Stability

ESDU 03011
Issued May 2003
An introduction to lateral static

aeroelasticity: controllability,
ESDU Copyright material. For current status contact ESDU.
loads and stability
Endorsed by
The Royal Aeronautical Society
ESDU 03011
ESDU DATA ITEMS
Data Items provide validated information in engineering design and analysis for use by, or under the supervision
of, professionally qualified engineers. The data are founded on an evaluation of all the relevant information, both
published and unpublished, and are invariably supported by original work of ESDU staff engineers or consultants.
The whole process is subject to independent review for which crucial support is provided by industrial companies,
government research laboratories, universities and others from around the world through the participation of some
of their leading experts on ESDU Technical Committees. This process ensures that the results of much valuable
work (theoretical, experimental and operational), which may not be widely available or in a readily usable form, can
be communicated concisely and accurately to the engineering community.
We are constantly striving to develop new work and review data already issued. Any comments arising out of your
use of our data, or any suggestions for new topics or information that might lead to improvements, will help us to
provide a better service.
THE PREPARATION OF THIS DATA ITEM

The work on this particular Data Item was monitored and guided by the Dynamics Committee which has the following
constitution:
Chairman
Prof. G.J. Hancock — Independent
Members
Prof. J.E. Cooper — University of Manchester
Prof. G.T.S. Done — City University, London
Dr N.S. Ferguson — Institute of Sound & Vibration Research, University of
Southampton
Mr J.S. Howes — Civil Aviation Authority
Mr S. Nelson — BAE SYSTEMS, Military Aircraft and Aerostructures, Brough
Mr G.E. Smith — Independent
Mr P.G. Thomasson — Cranfield University, Bedford
Mr M. Tobak* — NASA, Ames Research Center, Calif., USA
Prof. M.A. Woodhead — University of Loughborough
Prof. R.J. Zwaan* — Independent.
* Corresponding Member
The construction and subsequent development of the Data Item was undertaken by
Mr C.J. Loughton — Head of Mechanical Motion and System Dynamics Group.
The Dynamics Committee, which first met in January 1962, has the co-operation of many engineers and scientists
in industry, research establishments and universities from whom much assistance and unpublished information is
being received.
ESDU 03011
AN INTRODUCTION TO LATERAL STATIC AEROELASTICITY:
CONTROLLABILITY, LOADS AND STABILITY
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. NOTATION 2
3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 5
3.1 Scope and Applicability 5
3.2 Reference Shape, Axis System and Motion 5

3.3 Controls 7
4. FLEXIBLE AEROPLANES 8
4.1 Component Flexibility 8
4.1.1 Wing 8
4.1.2 Fuselage 10
4.1.3 Tailplane 10
4.1.4 Fin 11
4.1.5 Engine Nacelles and Pylons 11
5. QUASI-STEADY LATERAL DERIVATIVES 12

5.1 Sideslip Derivatives 13
5.2 Roll Rate Derivatives 18
5.3 Yaw Rate Derivatives 20
5.4 Control Derivatives 21
6. LATERAL STABILITY 26
7. OVERALL LOADS IN STEADY LATERAL MANOEUVRES 29
8. CONTROLLABILITY IN STEADY LATERAL MANOEUVRES 30

8.1 Rudder Effectiveness 30
8.2 Aileron Effectiveness 32
9. AEROPLANE ANTISYMMETRIC LOADING DISTRIBUTIONS 35

9.1 Fin Deformation Characteristics 35
9.2 Fin Aerodynamic Sideforce Distributions 35
9.3 Fin Equilibrium Equations 37
10. REFERENCES 39
APPENDIX A – THE LATERAL STABILITY CHARACTERISTIC EQUATION

A1. Derivation 40
i
ESDU 03011
AN INTRODUCTION TO LATERAL STATIC AEROELASTICITY:
CONTROLLABILITY, LOADS AND STABILITY
1. INTRODUCTION
This Data Item introduces lateral static aeroelasticity in which the effects of structural deformation on lateral
stability, controllability and loading in steady lateral manoeuvres are considered.
The analysis of this Item is in line with the approach of Item 96037[8], which provided a qualitative
introduction to longitudinal aeroelasticity, where the effects of symmetric deformations on longitudinal
controllability, quasi-static loads, static stability, trim characteristics and quasi-steady pull-out manoeuvres
of both swept and unswept configurations are described. In this Item, like the previous Item, consideration
is given to what happens when deformation, relative to a reference state, of the various components, wing,
tailplane, fin, fuselage and engine nacelles and pylons, but here the deformations are antisymmetric, giving
rise to changes in lateral stability, controllability and in the antisymmetric loading distributions.
The effects of deformations are quantified using the concept of modified derivatives in which the stability
derivatives associated with rigid aeroplane stability and controllability are changed to incorporate
deformation effects, assuming all dynamic effects can be neglected, a reasonable assumption in lateral
stability motions and lateral manoeuvres. The modified derivatives are derived in qualitative terms to
illustrate their behaviour, and the important roles of divergence speeds and reversal speeds are identified.
The effects of structural flexibility on the lateral stability characteristics are assessed by noting the changes
in the approximations for static stability, spiral mode, rolling subsidence and Dutch roll in terms of the
lateral stability derivatives when modified derivatives are used.
The steady lateral manoeuvres considered are those identified in 'Loading on a rigid aeroplane in steady
lateral manoeuvres', Data Item 01010[11], namely, a 'steady horizontal turn', 'steady horizontal straight
motion with an engine out' and 'steady horizontal straight sideslipping flight'. It is shown that although the
overall loads on a configuration with a flexible wing, fin and fuselage are the same as for the rigid
configuration, the loading distributions on wing and fin, as well as the effectiveness of the aileron and
rudder, are affected by structural flexibility.
Related Items that deal with loading in quasi-steady longitudinal manoeuvres are Items 94009[6], which
concentrates on loading aspects, and 94045[7], which deals with shear force, bending moment and torque.
Longitudinal static aeroelasticity analysis with assumed modes and normal modes are dealt with in Items
97032[9] and 99033[10], respectively.
Issued May 2003 – 40 pages

1
ESDU 03011
2. NOTATION
Any coherent system of units may be used.
A1, A2, ... , A5 coefficients of stability quartic (see Appendix A)
aFin , a ζ rate of change of sideforce coefficient with sideslip angle and rudder angle,
respectively ( = dCY /dβ , dCY /dξ )
b , bFin wing span and fin height, respectively
2
CQ dynamic pressure coefficient ( = ( W/S )/ ( ½ρVtrim ) )
2 2
CL , C Y lift and sideforce coefficients, respectively (= L/ ( ½ρVtrim S ) , Y /( ½ ρVtrim S Fin ))
cFin , cW chord of fin and wing, respectively
D drag
EI { zf } bending moment stiffness distribution

eFin , eW denotes distance between aerodynamic centre and flexural axis as a fraction of
chord, for fin and wing, respectively
ex , ez constant-of-inertia ratios (see Item 67002[2])

eζ , eξ denotes distance from flexural axis of centre of lift due to rudder and aileron,
respectively, as fraction of fin chord and wing chord
GJ { zf } torsional stiffness distribution

g acceleration due to gravity
hFin distance in z-direction of aeroplane mass centre to aerodynamic centre of fin
hζ , hξ = ( eFin + eζ ) and ( eW + e ξ ), respectively

ix , iz inertia parameters (see Item 67002[2])
kγ , kθ bending stiffness about built-in root and torsional stiffness about flexural axis,
respectively
L, N overall moments about axes Ox and Oz, respectively
L aeroplane lift
Lp , Lr , Lv aero-normalised rolling moment derivatives due to p, r and v, respectively

2
( = ( ∂L/ ∂p )/ ( ½ρVtrim Sb ) , ( ∂L/ ∂r )/ ( ½ρVtrim Sb 2 ) , ( ∂L/ ∂v )/ ( ½ρVtrim Sb ) )
( L W )α , ( LW )ξ dimensional wing lift curve slopes due to incidence and aileron, respectively
Lζ , Nζ aero-normalised rolling and yawing moment derivatives due to rudder deflection

2 2
( = ( ∂L/ ∂ζ )/ ( ½ρVtrim Sb ) , ( ∂N/ ∂ζ )/ ( ½ρVtrim Sb ) )
Lξ , Nξ aero-normalised rolling and yawing moment derivatives due to aileron deflection
2 2
( = ( ∂L/ ∂ξ )/ ( ½ρVtrim Sb ) , ( ∂N/ ∂ξ )/ ( ½ρV trim Sb ) )
lFin , lNose distances in x-direction from aeroplane mass centre to aerodynamic centres of fin
and nose of aeroplane, respectively
2
ESDU 03011
R local lift
m mass or mass distribution
Np , Nr , Nv aero-normalised yawing moment derivatives due to p , r and v , respectively

2 2
( = ( ∂N/ ∂p )/ ( ½ρV trim Sb ) , ( ∂N/ ∂r )/ ( ½ρVtrim Sb ) , ( ∂N/ ∂v )/ ( ½ρV trim Sb ) )
O origin of axis system for overall aeroplane

O {...} relates to order of magnitude of {...}
p, q, r aeroplane angular velocities about x-, y-, z-directions, respectively
S , SFin wing area and fin area, respectively

T torque distribution
Th engine thrust
Vtrim trimmed velocity of aeroplane in flight direction

u, v, w aeroplane velocities in the x-, y-, z-directions, respectively
W aeroplane weight
x, y, z body axis directions for overall aeroplane with respect to origin O

xf , yf , zf axes associated with flexural axis, with origin at built-in root
Y overall force in y -direction
YSFin fin sideforce distibution

Yp , Yr , Yv aero-normalised sideforce derivatives due to p , r and v , respectively
( = ( ∂Y/ ∂p )/ ( ½ρVtrim Sb ) , ( ∂Y/ ∂r )/ ( ½ρVtrim Sb ) , ( ∂Y/ ∂v )/ ( ½ρVtrim S ) )
Yξ , Yζ aero-normalised sideforce derivatives due to ξ and ζ , respectively

2 2
( = ( ∂Y/ ∂ξ )/ ( ½ρVtrim S ) , ( ∂Y/ ∂ζ ) / ( ½ρVtrim S ) )
ye ( zf ) , γe ( zf ) distributions of bending and twist deformations along and about the flexural axis
yγ ( zf ) , yθ ( zf ) assumed bending and twisting mode shapes, respectively
α aeroplane angle of attack
β aeroplane sideslip angle
Γ dihedral angle
γe bending of flexural axis due to structural deformation
ζ rudder angle or damping ratio
ηFin distance in z f -direction between aerodynamic centre of fin and effective fin root as a
fraction of fin height (see Equation (5.11))
θ aeroplane pitch angle
θe twist about flexural axis due to structural deformation
3
ESDU 03011
Λ sweep angle
λ eigenvalue of stability characteristic equation
µ relative density parameter ( = ( W/g )/ ( ½ρSb ) )
ξ aileron angle
ρ air density
τ unit of time in aero-normalised system ( = m/ ( ½ρVtrim S ) )
φ aeroplane bank angle
ψ aeroplane yaw angle

ωN natural frequency of oscillation
Subscripts
DR relates to Dutch roll oscillation

div denotes divergence
E denotes external
F fuselage
Fin fin
f relates to flexural axis
Nac nacelle
Nose nose of aeroplane
rev denotes reversal
rigid denotes rigid aeroplane
T tailplane
trim denotes trimmed flight
unswept denotes unswept flexural axis
W wing
α relates to angle of attack
ζ relates to rudder
ξ relates to aileron
2D refers to two-dimensional
4
ESDU 03011
3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
3.1 Scope and Applicability
In line with Item 96037[8] which provided an introduction to symmetric static aeroelasticity, the same
simplifications in terms of aeroplane configuration and flight condition are introduced for asymmetric static
aeroelasticity in the present Item.
(i) The aeroplane is assumed to be a classically-configured transport type aeroplane which restricts
the wing, tailplane and fin to medium and high aspect ratios, typically ≥ 4 , and up to moderate
sweep angles, typically Λ ≤ 35° .
(ii) The aeroplane flight condition is restricted to subsonic, asymmetric flight at either a steady level
flight condition or a quasi-steady asymmetric manoeuvring condition. All Mach number effects
are ignored. Values in flight of the angle of incidence, pitch angle, flight path angle and sideslip
angle are assumed small. The contribution to lift from the thrust is neglected in line with the
qualitative nature of the discussion.
(iii) Wing, tailplane, fin and wing pylon flexibilities are assumed to take the form of bending and
twist about an elastic, or flexural axis. Chordwise deformations are ignored.
(iv) Fuselage flexibility is assumed to be limited to the aft fuselage; the front fuselage including the
wing-fuselage junction is assumed to be rigid.
(v) Weight distributions of all parts of the aeroplane are assumed unaffected by deformation effects.
3.2 Reference Shape, Axis System and Motion
The basic aeroplane datum shape, known as the ‘jig shape’, is the shape of the aeroplane when all
deformations are zero throughout the structure, i.e. when all loads and internal stresses are zero. The
reference shape is the shape of the aeroplane at a specified flight condition and deformations at other flight
conditions are then estimated relative to this flight condition. These definitions are fully described in Item
96037[8] and will be used in this Item.
The axis system is defined relative to the aeroplane reference shape and the Attached or Structural axis
system used here is the same as that used in Item 96037[8], namely the axes are fixed in the rigid front
fuselage. Sketch 3.1 illustrates this system which shows the aeroplane in steady level trimmed flight and
in perturbed asymmetric flight. The system is of the right handed Cartesian type, Oxyz, with the x- and z-
axes chosen in the plane of symmetry of the aeroplane, the x-axis pointing forward, the z-axis pointing
downwards and the y-axis pointing to starboard.
The aeroplane angular velocities about axes Ox, Oy and Oz, are respectively denoted by p , q and r .
The components of the linear velocity of the aeroplane in the x-, y- and z-axis directions are respectively
denoted by u, v and w, and the overall resultant velocity of the aeroplane, relative to air, is denoted by Vtrim .
The velocities in the y- and z-directions, v and w , are respectively related to the angle of sideslip, β , and
angle of attack, α , by
w = u tan α (3.1)
and v = Vtrim sin β . (3.2)
5
ESDU 03011

u . Vtrim

x
Vtrim θtrim αtrim

x
z

w . Vtrimα
yz

r φ
q y
v . Vtrimβ
z
w . Vtrimα
x
p
V
α
θ

x
z

w
Sketch 3.1 Attached axis system
The resultant aeroplane velocity, Vtrim , is given by
½
 2 2  2 2 ½
≈  u +  Vtrim sin β +  u tan α  .
2 2
Vtrim = u + v + w      
(3.3)
  
For small α and β , Equations (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3) reduce to
w = Vtrim α , v = V trim β and u = Vtrim . (3.4)
6
ESDU 03011
3.3 Controls
A conventional aeroplane is manoeuvred laterally by, usually, all controls,
(i) the two primary longitudinal controls of throttle, which alters the thrust setting of the engines,
and forward and aft stick, or yoke, movement, which rotates the elevator, together with
secondary trim control of the elevator,
and (ii) and the two primary lateral controls of lateral stick, or yoke, movement, which changes the
aileron setting angle, ξ , and rudder pedal movement, which alters the rudder setting angle, ζ ,
together with secondary trim control of the rudder.
The two main types of control system, manual control systems for smaller aeroplanes and powered control
systems for both larger aeroplanes and for high speed aeroplanes are described in Item 96037[8] and apply
equally to lateral controls as well as longitudinal controls. In both systems when it is assumed that the
control system is rigid, a simple gearing ratio exists between forward and aft stick displacement and change
in elevator angle, lateral stick displacement and change in aileron angle and rudder pedal displacement and
rudder angle. Hinge moments in the case of manual control systems and artificial ‘feel’ systems in the case
of powered controls provide stick and pedal forces that provide feedback to the pilot. Independent control
of elevator and rudder trim tabs is also available to the pilot to alter the elevator and rudder hinge moments,
and hence the stick and pedal forces, without altering the tailplane lift and fin force, respectively.
A lateral stick movement to starboard produces negative aileron deflection, i.e. an upward aileron deflection
on the starboard half-wing and a corresponding downward aileron deflection on the port half-wing, and
will generate a positive roll rate, p, about the x-axis of the aeroplane. A lateral stick movement to port will
produce identically opposite results.
A starboard pedal forward displacement and corresponding port pedal rearward displacement will produces
a negative rudder deflection angle, i.e. a starboard rudder deflection angle, generating a positive yaw rate,
r, about the z-axis of the aeroplane.
7
ESDU 03011
4. FLEXIBLE AEROPLANES
In Item 96037[8] the deformation of the aeroplane components, wing, tailplane, fuselage and engine nacelle
pylons, under symmetric static loading, resulted in symmetric wing bending and twist, symmetric fuselage
bending, symmetric tailplane bending and twist and symmetric bending and twist of a pair, or pairs, of
engine nacelle pylons (one of each pair of nacelles on either side of the fuselage). These deformations
depend upon the loading on the various surfaces, which in turn depend upon the stability and motion of the
aeroplane in the quasi-steady symmetric manoeuvre.
In lateral motion, asymmetric loading comprises symmetric plus antisymmetric loadings in which the
antisymmetric deformations are superimposed on the symmetric deformations. Antisymmetric loading on
the aeroplane components results in antisymmetric wing bending and twist, rear fuselage bending and
torsion, antisymmetric tailplane bending and twist, fin bending and twist and antisymmetric engine nacelle
pylon bending and twist. The flexible aeroplane model for the purpose of this Item is illustrated in
Sketch 4.1.
Fin flexible in
torsion and bending
Aft fuselage flexible
Wing flexible in in torsion and bending
Rigid front and torsion and bending
central fuselage
Engine nacelle pylon flexible Tailplane flexible in

in bending and torsion torsion and bending
Sketch 4.1 Flexible aeroplane model
The antisymmetric bending and torsion of the various components of the aeroplane can be represented by
the superposition of a set of semi-rigid modes or, alternatively, by a set of normal modes.
4.1 Component Flexibility
4.1.1 Wing
In line with the analysis of Item 96037[8], each flexible half-wing acts as a cantilever built-in to a central
rigid fuselage. Each half-wing bends about an effective wing root and twists about a flexural axis which
is normal to the wing root.
For an unswept half-wing the effective wing root is parallel to the aeroplane centre-line while for a swept
half-wing the effective wing root lies at an angle to the aeroplane centre-line. Sketch 4.2 illustrates both
an unswept and a swept half-wing in which the flexural axis is denoted by yf . The unswept half-wing
therefore bends in a plane parallel to the y-z plane of the aeroplane and twists about an axis in the y-direction,
whereas the swept half-wing bends in the yf -z plane, which is swept relative to the y-axis, and twists about
the yf -axis.
8
ESDU 03011
x Flexural axis x
(parallel to y-axis)
Flexural axis
yf
yf
O O
y y
Effective wing root Effective wing root
Sketch 4.2 Unswept and swept wing models
Antisymmetric bending, with zero twist, involves one half-wing bending upwards whilst the other bends
downwards, as illustrated in the simplified model of a unswept configuration shown in Sketch 4.3.
Wing yf
Fuselage Flexural axis
Fuselage
y
Antisymmetric
bending z
Sketch 4.3 Antisymmetric bending of a simplified unswept configuration
9
ESDU 03011
Antisymmetric twist of an unswept wing with zero bending, for the same simplified configuration, is
illustrated in Sketch 4.4 and shows twist relative to the effective wing root, one side of the half-wing twisting
nose-up whilst the other twists nose-down.
Antisymmetric twist
Flexural axis
x
Fuselage
Dotted lines indicate

initial position
Wing
Antisymmetric twist
Sketch 4.4 Twisting of a simplified unswept configuration
4.1.2 Fuselage
The flexible aeroplane model considered in this Item is illustrated in Sketch 4.1, in which the aft fuselage
is considered flexible in bending, laterally (in the x-y plane) and longitudinally (in the x-z plane).
The aft fuselage can also twist about the x-axis.
4.1.3 Tailplane
The tailplane flexibility characteristics are identical with those of the wing in which the two halves of the
flexible tailplane twist about the flexural axis of the tailplane and bend about an effective tailplane root.
The tailplane root is built-in to the flexible aft fuselage.
10
ESDU 03011
4.1.4 Fin
The fin flexibility characteristics are akin to those of a half-wing but transposed to a vertical plane. The
fin acts as a cantilever built-in to a fin root taken as perpendicular to the fin flexural axis. The fin will bend
about an effective fin root and twist about the fin flexural axis. The fin root is built-in to the flexible aft
fuselage.
4.1.5 Engine Nacelles and Pylons
Due to antisymmetric loading on the nacelles and pylons, the pylons supporting the engine nacelles will
twist and bend in a highly coupled way, leading to nacelle displacement which includes mainly a twist
about an axis parallel to the z-axis of the aeroplane and bending in a plane parallel to the aeroplane y-z
plane. Changes in loading due to nacelle twist dominate whereas those due to bending are very small
compared with wing bending effects and are generally ignored.
11
ESDU 03011
5. QUASI-STEADY LATERAL DERIVATIVES
Static aeroelasticity considers the effects of structural deformation on overall longitudinal and lateral
stability, controllability and loading in quasi-steady manoeuvres. In the case of lateral motion this covers
lateral stability, lateral controllability and asymmetric (symmetric plus antisymmetric) loading in the steady
lateral manoeuvres of Item 01010[11], identified as:
a steady horizontal turn,
steady horizontal straight motion with an engine out
and steady horizontal straight sideslipping flight.
The effect of quasi-steady deformations can be quantified using the concept of modified derivatives in
which the derivatives associated with rigid body stability and controllability are modified to incorporate
deformation effects assuming that any dynamic effects are sufficiently slow for deformations to be treated
as being quasi-steady.
For the purposes of this qualitative Item, the torsional flexibility of an unswept wing (or fin) is simplified
by defining
a representative (average) nose-up angle of twist, θ e , along the span and about an unswept flexural
axis
and a representative torsional stiffness, kθ ,
for which the structural equilibrium would then be expressed in the form
kθ θe = applied torque about the flexural axis. (5.1)
For an unswept wing (or fin), bending flexibility does not induce any aerodynamic effects and so there is
no need to take bending flexibility into account, although there is the implicit understanding that bending
deformations are not excessive.
A swept wing (or fin), as already described in Sketch 4.2, is assumed to twist about a swept flexural axis
with zero bending of the flexural axis and it is also assumed the flexural axis will bend with zero twist about
the flexural axis. Then the structural flexibility characteristics are defined by
a representative (average) nose-up angle of twist, θe , along the span and about the swept flexural
axis,
a representative upward angle of bending, γe , along the span of the flexural axis,
a representative torsional stiffness, kθ ,
and a representative bending stiffness, kγ ,
for which the equations of structural equilibrium are:
kθ θe = applied torque about the flexural axis

and kγ γe = applied bending moment about the effective root of wing or fin. (5.2)
12
ESDU 03011
5.1 Sideslip Derivatives
For a rigid aeroplane in (positive, i.e. +ve v) sideslip:

a wing with dihedral*, Γ , develops an increase in lift on the starboard wing and a decrease in lift
on the port wing; wing sweep significantly reinforces the increase in lift on the starboard wing and
proportionately decreases the lift on the port wing, both contributions resulting in a (negative)
rolling moment derivative, ( Lv )W ;
the sideforce derivative generated on the wing, ( Yv )W , is a combination of a (positive) sideforce
from the edge forces (suction forces[12,13]) in the plane of the wing on the leading edges and wing
tips and a net (negative) sideforce on a wing with dihedral because the components of the equal
and opposite antisymmetric lift forces on the inclined port and starboard wings in the y-direction
are additive;
the antisymmetric lift distribution on the wing gives rise to an antisymmetric distribution of induced
drag giving rise to a (positive) contribution to the yawing moment;
a (negative) sideforce derivative, ( Yv )Fin , is obtained on the fin because sideslip induces a fin
'angle of incidence';
a (negative) sideforce derivative, ( Yv )F , is obtained on the fuselage nose (other parts of the fuselage
are assumed to provide negligible contribution),
a net (negative) sideforce derivative, ( Yv )Nac , is obtained on the nacelles and pylons;
a sideforce is generated on the tailplane which is affected by interference effects from the aft
fuselage and fin and by the antisymmetric wake behind the wings.
The overall sideforce derivative due to sideslip, Yv , is dominated by the fin sideforce derivative, ( Yv )Fin .
The other sideforce derivatives, ( Yv )W , ( Yv )F and ( Yv )Nac are smaller but not negligible.
The overall yawing moment derivative due to sideslip, Nv , is a combination of the wing yawing moment
derivative due to the wing antisymmetric induced drag plus the effects of all the above mentioned sideforce
derivatives multiplied by their appropriate yawing moment arms measured from the aeroplane z-axis
through the aeroplane centre of mass.
The yawing moment derivatives arising from sideforces on the wing, ( Yv )W , and the nacelles and pylons,
( Yv )Nac , are negligible because their yawing moment arms are small. Thus the dominant contribution to
Nv is from the fin, ( Nv )Fin , with much smaller contributions from the fuselage nose, ( N v )F , and from the
wing antisymmetric induced drag.
The overall rolling moment derivative due to sideslip, Lv , is a combination of the wing rolling moment
derivative, ( Lv )W , plus the effects of all the above mentioned sideforces multiplied by their appropriate
rolling moment arms measured from the aeroplane x-axis through the aeroplane centre of mass.
The rolling moment derivatives arising from the sideforces on the wing, fuselage and nacelles, ( Yv )W ,
( Yv )F and ( Yv ) Nac , are negligible because their rolling moment arms are small. Thus the dominant
contribution to Lv is from the wing, ( Lv )W , but with a significant contribution from the fin, ( Lv )Fin .
For a flexible aeroplane, firstly it is important to appreciate that the effective wing dihedral angle combines
the built-in dihedral angle plus the symmetric upward bending of the wing(s) due to the symmetric loading
in a quasi-steady longitudinal manoeuvre and so in a pull-out manoeuvre the effective dihedral angle
increases with the pull-out normal acceleration.
*
The dihedral angle is the angle between the x-y plane and a plane in the wing and is positive when the plane in the wing is above the x-y
plane.
13
ESDU 03011
Since the fin plays such a dominant role in the sideslip derivatives, fin flexibility effects are described first
and the results are generalised for application to other derivatives.
The fin sideforce resulting from (positive) sideslip, β , for a rigid aeroplane, ( YFin )rigid , acts at the
aerodynamic centre of the fin and may be written in terms of the lift curve slope of the fin, a Fin , which
incorporates the interference flow effects as
( Y Fin ) = – ½ ρV trim S Fin  ( Y v )  V β

rigid  Fin rigid trim
2
≡ – ½ ρV trim S Fin a Fin β , (5.3)
where Vtrim is the aeroplane trim speed.

The rate of change of sideforce coefficient with sideslip angle of the fin, aFin , decreases with fin sweep;
however aFin will incorporate the mutual interference effect with the tailplane, which acts as a reflecting
surface, and also any interference effect of the aft fuselage. For aeroplanes with T-tails, a Fin will be
relatively high due to the end-plate effect of the tailplane.
The sideforce on a flexible unswept fin, YFin , acting at the fin aerodynamic centre, and the average angle
of twist of the fin due to fin deformation, denoted by ( θ e )Fin , are shown in Sketch 5.1. An implicit
assumption, expressed in Equations (5.1) and (5.2), is that the aerodynamic centre of (in this case) a fin,
the fin twist distribution, ( θ e )Fin , and the fin bending deformation, ( γe )Fin , are related to the same fin
section.
Aeroplane centre of y
mass and axis origin, O
Vtrim
β
(θe )Fin
Fin aerodynamic centre
YFin
eFincFin
(kθ )Fin(θe )Fin
Fin flexural axis
Sketch 5.1 Force and moment on flexible unswept fin in sideslip
14
ESDU 03011
For the flexible fin the fin sideforce may be written as
– ½ ρV trim S Fin a Fin  β + ( θ e ) .

2
Y Fin = (5.4)
 Fin 
With the use of Equation (5.1), the applied torque on the fin is equal to ( k θ )Fin ( θ e )Fin and so the structural
equilibrium of the fin is given by
( kθ ) ( θe ) = – Y Fin e Fin c Fin , (5.5)

Fin Fin
where eFin cFin is the distance of the fin flexural axis aft of the fin aerodynamic centre. Sketch 5.1 illustrates
these distances and the fin load and moment.
Eliminating ( θe )Fin between Equations (5.4) and (5.5), and incorporating ( YFin )rigid from Equation (5.3),
gives
( Y Fin )
rigid
Y Fin = - .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (5.6)
2 a Fin e Fin c Fin
1 – ½ ρV trim S Fin ---------------------------------
( kθ )
Fin
Equation (5.6) may be re-expressed in terms of the aero-normalised fin sideforce derivative due to
sideslip, ( Yv )Fin , as
(Y ) 
 v Fin rigid
( Yv ) ≡ - ,
---------------------------------------------- (5.7)
Fin
 V trim  2
1 –  ------------------------
 ( V div ) 
 Fin
where ( Vdiv )Fin is the fin divergence speed, i.e. the speed at which ( θ e )Fin theoretically tends to infinity,
which is given by
( kθ )
V  2 =
Fin
------------------------------------------------------------- . (5.8)
 div Fin ½ρS Fin a Fin e Fin c Fin
Equation (5.7) shows that the magnitude of the sideforce derivative due to sideslip for the flexible unswept
fin, ( Yv )Fin , increases with aeroplane trim speed, Vtrim , theoretically approaching infinity as Vtrim
approaches the fin divergence speed, ( Vdiv )Fin . The torsional stiffness of the fin, ( k θ )Fin , must be
sufficiently large to ensure that the fin divergence speed lies well outside the aeroplane flight envelope.
It is noted that the fin divergence speed is inversely proportional to the square root of the distance of the
fin flexural axis aft of the fin aerodynamic centre. When eFin cFin decreases, i.e. as the position of the fin
flexural axis moves towards the fin aerodynamic centre, the fin divergence speed increases, thus reducing
the effect of fin flexibility on ( Yv )Fin .
The effect of fin sweep can be determined by extending the analysis of the unswept fin presented above to
include sweepback, where the fin twists about a swept flexural axis without bending of the flexural axis
and the flexural axis bends laterally with zero twist about the flexural axis. Sketch 5.2 shows a fin in which
the flexural axis is swept at an angle, ΛFin , to the freestream.
15
ESDU 03011
zf Fin
θe Fin γe Fin

Vtrim
xf Fin ηFin bFin
ΛFin Fin Α β

x
z
Sketch 5.2 Swept fin
Denoting the angles ( θe )Fin and ( γe )Fin as representative of the twist about the fin flexural axis and the
lateral bending along the flexural axis, respectively, then the sideforce on the fin, YFin , in sideslip, β , may
be expressed as
– ½ ρV trim S Fin a Fin  β + ( θ e ) sin Λ Fin ,

2
Y Fin = cos Λ Fin – ( γ e ) (5.9)
 Fin Fin 
where ( β + ( θ e ) Fin cos ΛFin – ( γ e )Fin sin ΛFin ) is an equivalent 'angle of attack' in the streamwise direction
and aFin is the lift curve slope of the swept fin.
The equations of structural equilibrium may be expressed as

( kθ ) ( θe ) ≈ applied torsional moment ≈ – Y Fin e Fin c Fin (5.10)
Fin Fin
and ( kγ ) ( γe ) ≈ applied bending moment ≈ – Y Fin η Fin b Fin , (5.11)
Fin Fin
where e Fin c Fin is the 'torsional moment arm' about the fin flexural axis and η Fin b Fin is the 'bending
moment arm' about the effective fin root. With the use of Equations (5.9) to (5.11) the sideforce on the fin
may be re-expressed as
2
– ½ ρV trim S Fin a Fin β
Y Fin = --------------------------------------------------------------- , (5.12)
 V trim  2
1 –  ------------------------
 ( V div ) 
 Fin
where
( kθ )
Fin
------------------------
2
2 cos Λ Fin
( V div ) Fin ≈ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , (5.13)
 ( kθ ) 
Fin
½ρS Fin ( a Fin )  e c – η b tan Λ Fin ( k )
------------------
unswept Fin Fin Fin Fin
 γ Fin 
in which a Fin ≈ ( a Fin ) cos Λ Fin . (5.14)
unswept
16
ESDU 03011
The qualitative effect of fin sweep on the divergence speed is seen to be
a significant increase in the square of the divergence speed that is proportional to 1/ cos 2 ΛFin due
to twist.
plus a further increase (in the square of the divergence speed) that is proportional to tan ΛFin due to fin
bending.
For moderate angles of sweep, around 35º, the divergence speed is normally so high that flexibility effects
within the flight envelope are extremely small; effectively the increase in 'angle of attack' due to twist is
offset by the decrease in 'angle of attack' due to bending.
The effects of wing flexibility on the sideforce on the wing due to sideslip, ( Yv )W , is rather complicated
because the contribution from the edge forces (suction forces[12,13]) is nonlinear with respect to wing lift.
However, the contribution to ( Yv )W from the effective dihedral is increased relative to the equivalent value
for the rigid wing because it is a resolved force of the lift loading and because the lift loading will be affected
by wing flexibility in a similar manner to the fin flexibility effects on the fin sideforce as described above.
Aft fuselage lateral bending due to fin sideforce decreases the fin angle of attack slightly; this effect is
usually small. There is virtually no effect of aft fuselage torsion on the fin sideforce.
The sideforces on the flexible nacelles and pylons increase due to pylon flexibility in exactly the same
manner as the increase in fin sideforce described above, with the pylon parameters replacing the fin
parameters, which include a nacelle/pylon divergence speed, ( Vdiv )Nac .
For the yawing moment due to sideslip, the effects of aeroplane flexibility appear primarily in the yawing
moment from the fin, which is proportional to the fin sideforce, and so the aero-normalised fin yawing
moment due to sideslip, ( N v )Fin , is
(N ) 
 v Fin rigid
( Nv ) ≡ ----------------------------------------------- . (5.15)
Fin
 V trim  2
1 –  ------------------------
 ( V div ) 
 Fin
The change in the wing yawing moment derivative due to sideslip, ( Nv )W , is associated with the
antisymmetric induced drag, which will change slightly due to wing flexibility but in a nonlinear manner.
For the rolling moment due to sideslip, wing flexibility affects the wing lift loading in the same manner as
fin flexibility affects the fin loading as outlined above and so the aero-normalised wing rolling moment
derivative due to sideslip, ( Lv )W , is given by
(L ) 
 v W long
( Lv ) ≡ ------------------------------------------
- , (5.16)
W 2
 V trim 
1 –  --------------------
 ( V div ) 
 W
where ( Vdiv )W is given by Equation (5.13), replacing the fin parameters by the wing parameters and where
( ( Lv )W )long is evaluated for the rigid configuration, but the geometric dihedral angle is replaced by the
effective dihedral angle which includes the symmetric bending.
17
ESDU 03011
For the fin, the aero-normalised fin rolling moment derivative due to sideslip, ( L v )Fin , is given by
(L ) 
 v Fin  rigid
( Lv ) ≡ ----------------------------------------------
- . (5.17)
Fin 2
 V trim 
1 –  ------------------------
 ( V div ) 
 Fin
5.2 Roll Rate Derivatives
For a rigid aeroplane in roll:
due to a positive rate of roll (positive roll rate is a clockwise rotation about and in the direction of
the x-axis), a wing gives rise to a large upward force on the starboard wing and a large downward
force on the port wing, creating a large negative rolling moment derivative, ( L p )W ;
this antisymmetric wing loading gives rise to an antisymmetric distribution of induced drag which
gives a positive wing yawing moment;
a sideforce derivative, ( Yp )W , on the wing is obtained from the edge forces (suction forces[4,12,13])
on the leading edge and wing tip and from antisymmetric lift resolved through the effective dihedral
angle;
the tailplane generates a sideforce, a rolling moment and yawing moment in much the same way
as the wing, but the contributions are small;
due to roll rate, a (negative) sideforce derivative on the fin, ( Yp )Fin , is obtained;
the sideforce due to roll rate from the nacelles and pylons is negligible.
The overall sideforce derivative due to roll rate, Yp , is the sum of the wing contribution, ( Yp )W , and the
fin contribution, ( Yp )Fin , both relatively small terms.
The overall yawing moment derivative due to roll rate, Np , is the sum of the yawing moment derivatives
of the wing antisymmetric induced drag, ( N p )W , and the yawing moment from the fin, ( N p )Fin , which
arises from the fin sideforce multiplied by its yawing moment arm from the z-axis through the aeroplane
centre of mass. The dominant yawing moment due to roll rate is from the fin.
The overall rolling moment derivative due to roll rate, Lp , arises primarily from the wing; the
contribution from the fin, ( Lp )Fin , which is the fin sideforce, ( Yp )Fin , multiplied by its rolling moment
arm from the aeroplane x-axis, is much smaller.
For a flexible aeroplane the sideforce, yawing moment and rolling moment derivatives due to roll rate are
affected in the following way.
Wing flexibility affects the sideforce derivative due to roll rate, ( Yp )W , in a similar manner to ( Yv ) W , i.e.
in a nonlinear manner as explained earlier.
18
ESDU 03011
Fin flexibility changes the aero-normalised fin sideforce derivative due to rate of roll, ( Yp )Fin ,
according to the relationship
(Y ) 
 p Fin rigid
( Yp ) ≡ ----------------------------------------------- . (5.18)
Fin 2
 V trim 
1 –  ------------------------
 ( V div ) 
 Fin
in which the fin divergence speed is identical with that given by Equation (5.13).
Wing flexibility affects the yawing moment derivative due to roll rate, ( Np )W , in a similar manner to ( N v )W ,
i.e. in a nonlinear manner as explained earlier.
Fin flexibility changes the aero-normalised fin yawing moment derivative due to rate of roll, ( Np )Fin ,
(N ) 
 p Fin rigid
( Np ) ≡ ----------------------------------------------- . (5.19)
Fin
 V trim  2
1 –  ------------------------
 ( V div ) 
 Fin
Wing flexibility changes the aero-normalised wing rolling moment derivative due to roll rate, ( Lp )W ,
(L ) 
 p W rigid
( Lp ) ≡ ------------------------------------------- . (5.20)
W
 V trim  2
1 –  --------------------
 ( V div ) 
 W
Fin flexibility changes the aero-normalised fin rolling moment derivative due to rate of roll, ( Lp )Fin ,
(L ) 
 p Fin rigid
( Lp ) ≡ ----------------------------------------------- . (5.21)
Fin 2
 V trim 
1 –  ------------------------
 ( V div ) 
 Fin
19
ESDU 03011
5.3 Yaw Rate Derivatives
For a rigid aeroplane in yaw:
a positive rate of yaw (positive yaw rate is a clockwise rotation about and in the direction of the
z-axis) increases the lift on the port wing and decreases the lift on the starboard wing, resulting in
a antisymmetric lift distribution and a positive rolling moment derivative, ( L r )W ;
the antisymmetric wing lift distribution gives rise to a sideforce derivative on the wing, ( Yr )W ,
from the edge forces and the effective dihedral;
the antisymmetric lift distribution gives rise to an antisymmetric induced drag distribution which
gives a yawing moment;
during a motion associated with a yaw rate the port wing travels forward faster than the starboard
wing resulting in a negative antisymmetric viscous drag distribution further contributing to the
yawing moment;
the tailplane generates antisymmetric lift and drag contributions in much the same way as the wing,
but the contributions are small;
the rate of yaw results in a large positive fin sideforce derivative, ( Yr )Fin ;
the rate of yaw results in a negative fuselage nose sideforce derivative, ( Yr )F ;
the forces on the nacelle and pylons due to yaw rate can be neglected.
The overall sideforce derivative due to rate of yaw, Yr , arises primarily from the fin, ( Yr )Fin , but although
small, the fuselage nose contribution, ( Yr )F , and the wing contribution, ( Yr )W , are neither negligible.
The overall yawing moment derivative due to rate of yaw, N r , is dominated by the yawing moment
derivative from the fin, ( N r )Fin , which is given by the fin sideforce multiplied by its yawing moment arm
from the z-axis through the aeroplane centre of mass. The contribution to Nr from the sideforce on the
fuselage nose, ( Yr )F , multiplied by its yawing moment arm, is small but not negligible, while that for the
wing, ( Nr )W , resulting from yawing moments due to antisymmetric induced drag and viscous drag
contributions are smaller, but again not negligible. The yawing moment due to the wing sideforce, however,
is negligible since its yawing moment arm is small.
The overall rolling moment derivative due to yaw rate, Lr , arises primarily from the wing, ( Lr )W . The
contribution from the fin sideforce, ( Yr )Fin , multiplied by its rolling moment arm is small but not negligible.
On a flexible configuration the main changes to the derivatives due to yaw rate result from a change in the
fin sideforce leading to the following expression for the aero-normalised fin sideforce derivative due to
rate of yaw, ( Yr )Fin ,
(Y ) 
 r Fin rigid
( Yr ) ≡ ----------------------------------------------
- . (5.22)
Fin 2
 V trim 
1 –  ------------------------
 ( V div ) 
 Fin
20
ESDU 03011
This leads to a change in the aero-normalised fin yawing moment derivative due to yaw rate, ( N r ) Fin ,
given by
(N ) 
 r Fin rigid
( Nr ) ≡ ----------------------------------------------- (5.23)
Fin 2
 V trim 

1 – ------------------------ 
 ( V div ) 
 Fin
and a change in the aero-normalised wing rolling moment derivative due to yaw rate, ( Lr )W , given by
(L ) 
 r W rigid
( Lr ) ≡ ------------------------------------------- . (5.24)
W
 V trim  2
1 –  --------------------
 ( V div ) 
 W
5.4 Control Derivatives
The aeroplane control surfaces, elevator, ailerons and rudder, are all assumed to be rigid.
Incremental sideforce on a fin due to rudder deflection causes the fin to twist and bend which will change
the angle of sideslip of the fin. This changes the effective yawing power of the rudder for a given rudder
angle. The rolling power of the aileron is similarly affected by wing deformation.
The sideforce on a unswept rigid fin, ( YFin )rigid , with deflected rudder of angle, ζ rigid , may be written as
– ½ ρV trim S Fin  a Fin β rigid + a ζ ζ rigid ,

2
( Y Fin ) = (5.25)
rigid  
where βrigid is the sideslip angle of the rigid aeroplane and a Fin and a ζ are the rates of change of sideforce
coefficient with sideslip angle and rudder angle, respectively. The rudder is assumed to span the full height
of the fin. The pitch rate is assumed zero.
The fin sideforce for the flexible aeroplane is
 
– ½ ρV trim S Fin  a Fin  β + ( θ e )  + a ζ ζ .
2
Y Fin = (5.26)
  Fin 

The torsional stiffness of a flexible fin relative to the fuselage about the flexural axis of the fin, according
to Equation (5.1), is denoted by ( k θ ) Fin and so for moment equilibrium of the fin
= ½ ρV trim S Fin  a Fin  β + ( θ e )  e Fin c Fin – a ζ ζe ζ c Fin , (5.27)

2
( kθ ) ( θe )
Fin Fin   Fin 
where c Fin is the fin chord and e Fin c Fin and e ζ cFin are the distances of the fin sideforce and rudder
sideforce from the flexural axis. Sketch 5.3 illustrates these distances and shows the forces and moment
acting on the overall unswept fin.
21
ESDU 03011
x
O y
β Vtrim
(θe )Fin
Fin aerodynamic centre
(kθ )Fin(θe )Fin
2 S a (β + (θ ) )
½ρV trim Fin Fin e Fin
eFincFin
hζcFin
eζcFin
½ρV 2trimSFinaζζ
Fin flexural axis
ζ
Sketch 5.3 Overall force and moment on flexible unswept fin
Defining h ζ c Fin as the distance ( e Fin + eζ )c Fin then Equation (5.27) with the use of Equation (5.26)
becomes
2
( kθ ) ( θe ) = – Y Fin e Fin c Fin – ½ρV trim S Fin a ζ ζh ζ c Fin . (5.28)
Fin Fin
Combining Equations (5.26) and (5.28), eliminating ( θe )Fin , gives
  V trim  2

– a Fin β – a ζ ζ  1 –  ------------------- 
  ( V rev )  
 ζ
Y Fin  
--------------------------------- = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , (5.29)
2
½ρV trim S Fin  V trim  2
1 –  ------------------------
 ( V div ) 
 Fin
in which ( Vdiv )Fin is the fin divergence speed and ( Vrev )ζ is a rudder reversal speed that has been
introduced in the numerator of Equation (5.29), defined by
2 ( kθ )
Fin
( V rev ) = ------------------------------------------------- . (5.30)
ζ ½ρS Fin a Fin h ζ c Fin
Note that the reversal speed is independent of the location of the flexural axis but inversely proportional to
the distance between the aerodynamic centre and flexural axis.
22
ESDU 03011
It is noted that since hζ is usually greater than e Fin , i.e. the rudder sideforce usually acts aft of the fin
flexural axis, then the rudder reversal speed will usually be smaller than the fin divergence speed, that is
( V rev ) < ( V div ) (5.31)

ζ Fin
and so the rudder reversal speed will be reached before the fin divergence speed. At trim speeds in excess
of the rudder reversal speed the sideforce due to rudder will decrease with increase of trim speed so losing
rudder effectiveness.
Consider a swept fin, of sweep angle ΛFin , in which the hinge-line is swept at the same angle as the fin
sweep, illustrated in Sketch 5.4.
( zf )Fin
Angles (θe )Fin and (γe )Fin

relate to section as shown
Rudder at angle ζ
Effective built-in fin root Fin flexural axis
Vtrim
(xf )Fin ηFin bFin
ΛFin
OFin Αngle β relates to
section as shown
x O
z
Sketch 5.4 Flexible swept fin with rudder deflection
The sideforce on the swept fin, YFin , is given by
– ½ρV trim S Fin a Fin  β + ( θ e ) cos Λ Fin – γ e sin Λ Fin

2
Y Fin =
 Fin 
– ½ρ  V trim cos Λ Fin S Fin ( a ζ )

2
ζ , (5.32)
  2D
where ( aζ )2D is the two-dimensional value of the rate of change of fin lift with rudder and in which the
sideforce due to the rudder is based on the simple aerodynamic principle that the sideforce is generated by
the velocity component normal to the leading edge.
Moment equilibrium of the swept fin with rudder, using the same arguments as those used earlier in this
sub-section coupled with those used in Section 5.1 for the swept fin without rudder, provides the following
equations
2
( kθ )Fin ( θ e )Fin ≈ – YFin eFin cFin – ½ρ  V trim cos ΛFin S ( a ζ ) ζh ζ c (5.33)
  Fin 2D Fin
and ( kγ ) ( γe ) ≈ – Y Fin η Fin b Fin . (5.34)

Fin Fin
23
ESDU 03011
Combining Equations (5.32) to (5.34), eliminating ( θ e )Fin and ( γ e )Fin , gives the following expression for
the sideforce on the fin as
 
 2 
– ½ρVtrim S Fin
2
a β 2  ½ρVtrim S Fin aFin cos ΛFin h ζ cFin 
YFin = -----------------------------------------  Fin + cos ΛFin ( aζ )2D ζ  1 – --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  , (5.35)
 Vtrim 
2   kθ 
1 –  ----------------------  
 ( Vdiv ) Fin  
where ( Vdiv )Fin is given by Equation (5.13). Defining the rudder reversal speed for this swept fin as
2
( kθ ) / cos 2 Λ Fin
Fin
( V rev ) ζ = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- , (5.36)
½ρS Fin ( a Fin ) hζ c
unswept Fin
where ( a Fin ) is given by Equation (5.14) the fin sideforce of Equation (5.35) becomes
unswept
   V trim   
2
2    
– ½ ρV trim S Fin  a Fin β + ( a ζ ) ζ  1 – -------------------  
 2D
  ( V rev )   
 ζ
  
Y Fin = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . (5.37)
2
 V trim 
1 –  ------------------------
 ( V div ) 
 Fin
Comparison of the reversal speed for the unswept and swept fin, Equations (5.30) and (5.36), respectively,
shows that the reversal speed increases with fin sweep but not as rapidly as the divergence speed,
Equation (5.13). Note that the reversal speed is independent of the location of the flexural axis, but is
inversely proportional to the distance between the aerodynamic centre and the flexural axis, given by
hζ c Fin .
The sideforce derivative due to rudder deflection, ( Yζ )Fin , for a flexible swept fin may now be written
in terms of the rigid fin equivalent from inspection of Equation (5.37) and is given by
 2 
  V trim  
 1 –  ------------------- 
  ( V rev )  
 ζ
( Yζ ) = (Y )   ----------------------------------------------
- . (5.38)
Fin  ζ Fi n  rigid  2
  V trim  
 1 –  ----------------------- - 
  ( V div )  
  Fin 
24
ESDU 03011
The rolling and yawing moment derivatives due to rudder deflection, ( L ζ )Fin and ( N ζ )Fin , are related
directly to ( Yζ )Fin and so for a flexible swept fin may be similarly written in terms of the rigid fin equivalent
and become from inspection of Equation (5.38), respectively,
 2 
  V trim  
 1 –  ------------------- 
  ( V rev )  
 ζ
( Lζ ) = (L )   ----------------------------------------------
- , (5.39)
  V trim  
 1 –  ----------------------- - 
  ( V div )  
  Fin 
 2 
  V trim  
 1 –  ------------------- 
  ( V rev )  
 ζ
( Nζ ) = (N )   ----------------------------------------------
- . (5.40)
  V trim  
 1 –  ----------------------- - 
  ( V div )  
  Fin  
The foregoing analysis can be repeated for an aileron in a quasi-steady lateral manoeuvre in which the lift
on the wing due to aileron deflection causes the wing to twist and bend so changing the angle of incidence
of the wing. Thus the aileron effectiveness changes with flexibility of the wing.
So for a swept flexible wing in which the aileron hinge-line is parallel to the swept flexural axis of the wing,
the rolling moment derivative due to aileron deflection, ( Lξ )W , is given by
 2
  V trim  
 1 –  ------------------- 
  ( V rev )  
 ξ
( Lξ ) = (L )   ------------------------------------------
- , (5.41)
W  ξ W  rigid  2
  V trim  
 1 –  -------------------- 
  ( V div )  
  W 
in which the aileron reversal speed, ( Vrev )ξ , and wing divergence speed, ( Vdiv )W , are, with a suitable
change of variable from fin to wing, given by Equations (5.36) and (5.13), respectively.
Aft fuselage longitudinal bending in the x-y plane changes the antisymmetric loading on a swept tailplane
by changing the relative angle between the tailplane leading-edge and the free-stream; however the effect
is small since aft fuselage bending is small.
Aft fuselage lateral bending in the x-y plane changes the loading on the fin by changing the relative angle
of incidence of the fin. Bending of a swept fin introduces fin twist in much the same way as a swept wing.
25
ESDU 03011
6. LATERAL STABILITY
The longitudinal stability and lateral stability characteristics of rigid aeroplanes are uncoupled, which
implies that lateral stability is independent of any longitudinal manoeuvres. However for a flexible
aeroplane, symmetric wing bending induces an increase in effective dihedral so that the lateral derivative
Lv should incorporate its effect. A consequence of this is that for a flexible aeroplane the lateral stability
characteristics in a pull-out will differ from the lateral stability characteristics in steady level flight, because
there is more wing bending in a pull-out.
Aeroplane stability is assessed by analysing the small perturbation response of an aeroplane following a
disturbance about a trim condition and is expressed in terms of the damping ratios and frequencies of each
of the independent modes. Before an aeroplane can be considered stable all the modes of response must
be stable.
Appendix A details the lateral stick-fixed small disturbance stability characteristic matrix of the equations
of motion of a rigid aeroplane, in the eigenvalues, λ , in which the aerodynamic derivatives are in
aero-normalised form[1,2,3] and in which other quantities are in ordinary units. The fifth-order stability
characteristic equation is given as Equation (A1.2) and is repeated here as
 4 3 2 
λ  A 5 λ + A 4 λ + A 3 λ + A 2 λ + A 1 = 0 , (A1.2)
 
in which the coefficients, A5 to A1 , are given as Equations (A1.3) to (A1.7).
The trivial root within Equation (A1.2), given by λ = 0, represents the condition that a (stable) aeroplane
will not necessarily resume its original heading after a disturbance and so the root is immaterial as far as
stability is concerned and is unaffected by deformation effects.
The four non-trivial roots of Equation (A1.2) embody the nature of the lateral motion and in contrast to the
longitudinal motions the roots are more dependent on the geometry and inertia of the aeroplane through
the ratios ex and ez .
The condition for the overall static stability of the system* represented by Equation (A1.2) is governed
solely by
µg
A1 = ----------------------------  L v N – N v L  > 0 , (6.1)
3  r r
τ V trim i x i
z
where the sign of A1 depends on the relative magnitudes of the terms Lv Nr and N v Lr .
The dominant derivatives in the coefficient A1 are Lv which is negative, its overall value being dominated
by the contribution from the wing dihedral and sweep, although at very low incidence the fin contribution
can be large, and Nv which is positive and dominated by the fin, the wing-body contribution being negative
and approximately half the fin value. Both ( Lv )W and ( N v )Fin increase in magnitude with increase in
flexibility of the wing and fin, respectively.
*
A clarification of what is meant by static stability is given in Section 9 of Item 96037[8].
26
ESDU 03011
The derivative N r is negative and dominated by the fin with the fuselage contributing up to 20% of the
overall value. The derivative Lr is positive, the major contribution arising from the wing with up to 30%
from the fin. Both of these derivatives, are affected by flexibility effects but are less dominant than the
sideslip derivatives.
Consequently, the terms, Lv Nr and N v Lr , within the coefficient A1 are both positive and for conventional
aeroplanes the difference between them is small. The ratio Lv / N v plays an important role in determining
whether the aeroplane is statically stable or not. If it is too small then the aeroplane will be unstable.
Flexibility effects tend to increase the static stability of the aeroplane, since the change in magnitude of Lv
due to the flexibility of the wing and fin is greater than the change in N v due primarily to the fin.
For a wide range of aeroplanes with wings of high aspect ratio, typically ≥ 4, and up to moderate sweep
angles, typically ≤ 35º, there are two real roots corresponding to two exponential modes, known as the
spiral mode and rolling subsidence, and a pair of complex conjugate roots corresponding to an oscillation
known as the Dutch roll.
For aeroplanes in which A 5 ≈ 1 , A4 ≈ –Lp / ( τix ) and A1 « A2 , good approximations for conventional
aeroplanes, there are two simple approximations for the roots of the exponential modes.
The small root or spiral mode is approximated by
A1
λ = – --------- , (6.2)
A2
and is equivalent to a solution of the yaw and roll equations assuming that terms involving roll rate and
yaw rate are small and can therefore be neglected. Since for most conventional aeroplanes the coefficient
A2 is positive, the stability of the aeroplane spiral mode, in which the ratio Lv / Nv plays a vital role, is
directly dependent upon A1 .
The large root or rolling subsidence is approximated by
A4 Lp
λ = – --------- ≈ -------
- (6.3)
A5 τ ix
and is equivalent to pure rolling of the aeroplane with negligible sideslip or yaw. The sole derivative
affecting the rolling subsidence is Lp which is negative and dominated by the wing. The magnitude of this
derivative increases with flexibility of the wing, thereby increasing the stability of the roll mode.
The lateral or Dutch roll oscillation is more difficult to describe and also more difficult to approximate
independently* of the real roots. This motion involves yaw, bank and sideslip but it can be approximated
as an oscillation in roll and yaw of almost equal magnitude but of opposite phase, whilst the aeroplane
centre of mass continues along an almost steady flight path. It is generally a lightly damped oscillation
(the real part of the root is generally small for conventional aeroplanes), with the sign of this real part
determining the stability of this mode.
*
Once numerical approximations have been found for the real roots, these roots may be subtracted from the lateral quartic to give a remaining
quadratic which approximates the response of the Dutch roll oscillation.
27
ESDU 03011
One approximation to the Dutch roll consists of suppressing rolling and solving the sideforce and yaw
equations. Another (simpler) approximation is to neglect the effect of roll in the yaw equation and use the
lateral weathercock-type motion in which the sideslip angle, β , is made equal to a negative yaw angle, –ψ .
This approximation results in a second-order characteristic equation which provides a good approximation
for the natural frequency of the Dutch roll but a poor prediction for damping of the mode, predicting too
high a value.
A better approximation to the roots of this mode, provided that µ is large, may be found by the approximation
outlined in Item 83024[5] which has been extended by Hancock[13] to give
2 Lp Nr µNv µNv
( ωN )DR ≈ A3 ≈ ------------
- + ------------- ≈ ---------- (6.4)
2 2 2
τ ix iz τ iz τ iz
A2
and 2ζ DR ( ωN ) DR ≈ A4 – --------- ,
A3
2
Nr Yv  L p 1 N r Lv i  Np g 
≈ – ------- – ----- –  ------ ------ ------ – ------ ---z-  ------- – ------------- . (6.5)
τi z τ  i x  τµ N v Nv ix  τi z V trim
The natural frequency of the Dutch roll is given by Equation (6.4) and the approximation is identical to
what would be found if the simpler expressions mentioned earlier were used.
The associated damping, identified by Equation (6.5), is a significant reduction from that that would be
given by the simpler expressions described earlier; the second-order approximation gives the total damping
as the first term of Equation (6.5), i.e. – N r / ( τiz ) . Since Yv and N r are negative and Lp is squared, the
damping increases compared with the second-order approximation. However the damping decreases with
altitude as µ increases and decreases significantly as the speed decreases due to the last term in
Equation (6.5).
The ratio Lv / Nv is also present in the last term of Equation (6.5) and, as previously described, needs to be
large enough to ensure static (and hence spiral) stability, but here must not be too large otherwise Dutch
roll damping can be reduced to an unacceptable low level. It is at this stage that the symmetric manoeuvre
of an aeroplane can have an important effect on lateral stability. The higher the load factor or g in a
symmetric manoeuvre, the higher will be the symmetric bending and so the higher will be the effective
dihedral of the wing. Therefore in a symmetric pull-out, the derivative Lv will increase due to the effective
increase in wing dihedral, but this will not affect N v and so the ratio Lv / Nv will increase and in so doing
an aeroplane will lose Dutch roll damping. There have been incidents in flight in which lateral stability
has been lost in a severe pull-out.
28
ESDU 03011
7. OVERALL LOADS IN STEADY LATERAL MANOEUVRES
Item 01010[11] developed expressions for the loading characteristics of rigid aeroplanes in steady lateral
manoeuvres which included a steady horizontal turn, steady horizontal straight motion with an engine out
and steady horizontal straight sideslipping flight. The overall symmetric (longitudinal) and antisymmetric
(lateral) aerodynamic and inertial loads and moments for an aeroplane in a steady manoeuvre involving
sideslip and bank were identified and the conditions for independent longitudinal and lateral motion were
established.
The overall loads in steady lateral manoeuvres are the symmetric loads on the wing, fuselage and tailplane
on which are superimposed the antisymmetric loads of fin sideforce and antisymmetric wing loading.
Two equations of lateral equilibrium in a steady lateral manoeuvre for both rigid and flexible aeroplanes,
from which the fin sideforce, YFin , and wing antisymmetric rolling moment, LW , can be determined are
N W – Y Fin l + Y Nose l Nose = external applied yawing moment (7.1)

Fin
and L W + Y Fin h = external applied rolling moment. (7.2)

Fin
In these equations the aerodynamic sideforce on the fin includes the effects of the rudder and is taken to
act at an x-distance of lFin and a z-distance of h Fin from the aeroplane mass centre, YNose is the sideforce
on the aeroplane nose, taken to act at an x-distance of lNose from the aeroplane centre of mass, and NW is
the aerodynamic yawing moment on the wing, which includes the effects of the ailerons.
The yawing moment on the wing, NW , is due to the antisymmetric wing drag, arising firstly from the
antisymmetric viscous drag due to the rate of yaw, r, known for the manoeuvre, and secondly from
antisymmetric induced drag depending solely on the antisymmetric loading and so on the wing rolling
moment, LW . Therefore the change in NW due to flexibility is small. Also, since for the flexible aeroplane
model considered here, the front section of the fuselage is assumed rigid, the sideforce on the nose of the
aeroplane, YNose , is assumed unchanged from the rigid case. Consequently, from Equation (7.1), for a
given ‘external applied yawing moment’ the terms N W and YNose lNose are unchanged by flexibility effects
and so Y Fin is independent of structural flexibility.
From Equation (7.2) for a given ‘external applied rolling moment’ since YFin is unchanged by flexibility,
the rolling moment on the wing, LW , is also independent of structural flexibility. Since the wing rolling
moment is the wing lift, LW , multiplied by a rolling moment arm taken in the y-direction, then the overall
wing lift is also independent of structural flexibility.
Thus for both a rigid and a flexible aeroplane in the same steady manoeuvre the overall loads are unchanged
by flexibility effects although the derivatives will differ.
29
ESDU 03011
8. CONTROLLABILITY IN STEADY LATERAL MANOEUVRES
Controllability is governed by the stick displacement, longitudinal and lateral, and associated stick and
rudder pedal forces and displacements required to execute a manoeuvre. The control angles necessary for
such a manoeuvre are affected by component flexibility and so controllability is affected by aeroplane
component flexibility.
8.1 Rudder Effectiveness
For a given steady lateral manoeuvre the overall sideforce on the fin, YFin , is the same for a rigid aeroplane
as for a flexible aeroplane and written in terms of aero-normalised derivatives is
Y Fin = ½ρV trim S Fin  ( Y p ) ------------- + ( Y ζ ) ζ ,

2 pb rb
------------- + ( Y v ) β + ( Y r ) (8.1)
 Fin V Fin Fin V Fin 
trim trim
in which, for the flexible fin, the derivatives ( Yp )Fin , ( Yv )Fin , ( Yr )Fin and ( Yζ )Fin are the modified
derivatives. Note that the structural deformation, ( θ e )Fin , is not present explicitly in the right-hand-side
of Equation (8.1) but is contained within each of the modified derivatives.
With the use of Equations (5.18), (5.7), (5.22) and (5.38) the fin load may be expressed in terms of the
equivalent rigid component derivatives as
2
½ρV trim S Fin 
Y Fin = ------------------------------------------- (Y )  pb
------------- + (Y )  β
  p Fin rigid V  v Fin rigid
 V trim  2  trim
1 –  ------------------------
 ( V div )  Fin
  V trim  2  
+ (Y )  rb
------------- + (Y )  
ζ 1 –  ------------------- . (8.2)
 r Fin  rigid V  ζ Fin rigid   ( V rev ) ζ  
trim 
Knowing the fin sideforce, YFin , the rudder angle, ζ , may consequently be found from the following
expression, for a given steady manoeuvre,
  V trim  2
 Y  1 –  ----------------------- - 
 Fin   ( V div )  
1   Fin 
ζ = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  ---------------------------------------------------------------
  2
 V trim  2   ½ρV trim S Fin
(Y )   1 –  ------------------- 
 ζ Fin rigid  
  ( V rev ) ζ  



–  ( Yp )  ------------- –  ( Y v )  β –  ( Yr )  -------------  ,
pb rb
(8.3)
 Fin rigid V  Fin rigid  Fin rigid V 
trim trim 


in which the torsional stiffness of the fin about the fin flexural axis, ( k θ ) Fin , the rudder reversal speed,
( Vrev )ζ , and the fin divergence speed, ( Vdiv )Fin , are all assumed known.
30
ESDU 03011
The magnitude of the denominator of Equation (8.3) is less for the flexible fin than for the equivalent rigid
fin, and although the magnitude of the term in the numerator involving YFin is also less for the flexible fin
than the the rigid fin, since ( V rev )ζ is less than ( Vdiv )Fin , the decrease is less than that of the denominator
and so the rudder angle has increased relative to the rigid fin equivalent.
For steady straight motion with an engine out (see Item 01010[11]), with the order of magnitude estimates
2
for a large transport aeroplane that were used in Section 5 of Item 01010[11], the flight condition, ½ρVtrim ,
is known and the angular velocities, p , q and r , are all zero.
Due to the engine out flight condition an external yawing moment, NE , is given by
NE =  Th + DNac  y Nac , (8.4)

 
where Th is the thrust from the single operating engine and D Nac is the drag from a two-engine aeroplane
configuration in which the engine nacelle is located a y-distance of yNac from the mass centre of the
aeroplane.
An initial estimate for the sideforce on the fin, see Item 01010[11], is then given by
NE yNac
YFin ≈ --------- ≈  Th + D Nac  ----------
- (8.5)
lFin   lFin
and so an order of magnitude estimate for the fin sideforce is
YFin  Th + D Nac y Nac   1 1   1 

---------
- ≈ O  -------------------------------- -  ≈ O  ------ ---  ≈ O  ------  ,
---------- (8.6)
W  W lFin   10 2   20 
where O{...} indicates an order of magnitude of {...}.
Expressing the aeroplane wing loading in terms of a dynamic pressure coefficient, CQ , given by
W⁄S
CQ = --------------------- , (8.7)
2
½ρVtrim
then the rudder angle, ζ , from Equation (8.3) is approximated for the engine-out flight condition as
YFin   Vtrim  2

---------- CQ  1 –  --------------------- -
W   ( Vdiv )Fin 
 
ζ = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . (8.8)
 Vtrim  2
(Y )   1 –  ---------------- - 
 ζ Fin rigid   rev ζ 
( V )

31
ESDU 03011
Equation (8.8) may then be expressed as an order of magnitude estimate, taking a typical value of 0.3 for
( ( Yζ )Fin )rigid , given by
  V trim  2 
 1  1 –  --------------------- -  
 20  Q 
-----
- C

     div Fin 
( V ) 

ζ = O ----------------------------------------------------------------------- , (8.9)
  
  Vtrim  2 
 { 0.3 }  1 –  -----------------  
  ( Vrev )ζ 
  
and its variation with dynamic pressure coefficient, C Q , is shown plotted in Sketch 8.1. The sketch shows
that for the flexible fin the magnitude of the rudder angle increases with decrease in CQ and diverges as
Vtrim ⁄ ( Vrev )ζ approaches unity.
Vtrim /(Vrev)ζ
Reversal speed
1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4
20
16 Speed increasing
12
O{ ζ } Flexible fin
8
4
Rigid fin
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

CQ
Sketch 8.1 Estimate of rudder angle versus dynamic pressure coefficient
for steady straight motion with an engine out
The above analysis for the variation of rudder angle with dynamic pressure coefficient for the cases of a
steady horizontal turn and steady horizontal straight sideslipping flight will give similar results.
8.2 Aileron Effectiveness
For a given steady lateral manoeuvre the overall rolling moment on the wing, LW , is the same for a rigid
aeroplane as for a flexible aeroplane and written in terms of aero-normalised derivatives is
½ρV trim Sb  ( L p ) ------------- + ( L v ) β + ( L r ) ------------- + ( L ξ ) ξ ,

2 pb rb
LW = (8.10)
 W V W W V W 
trim trim
in which, for the flexible fin, the derivatives ( Lp )W , ( Lv )W , ( Lr )W and ( Lξ )W are the modified derivatives.
Note that the structural deformation, ( θe )W , is not present explicitly in the right-hand-side of
Equation (8.10) but is contained within each of the modified derivatives.
32
ESDU 03011
With the use of Equations (5.20), (5.16), (5.24) and (5.41) the wing rolling moment may be expressed in
terms of the equivalent rigid component derivatives and the equation re-arranged to give an expression for
the aileron angle as
  V trim  2
 L  1 –  ------------------- - 
 W  div W 
( V )
1  
ξ = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  -------------------------------------------------------
  2
 V trim  2   ½ρV trim Sb
(L )   1 –  ------------------- 
 ξ W rigid  
 ( V rev )   
 ξ 




–  ( Lp )  ------------- –  ( L v )  –  ( Lr ) 
pb rb
β -------------  , (8.11)
 W rigid V  W rigid  W rigid V
trim 
trim



in which the torsional stiffness of the wing about the flexural axis, ( k θ )W , the aileron reversal speed,
( Vrev )ξ , and the wing divergence speed, ( Vdiv )W , are all assumed known.
The magnitude of the denominator of Equation (8.11) is less for the flexible wing than for the rigid wing
equivalent and the magnitude of the term in the numerator associated with LW is also less for flexible wing,
so the magnitude of the aileron angle is greater for the flexible wing than for the rigid wing.
For steady straight motion with an engine out, with similar order of magnitude estimates for the various
2
flight quantities as were used for the rudder, i.e. known flight condition, ½ ρVtrim , and all angular velocities,
p, q and r, equal to zero, an initial estimate for the rolling moment on the wing, see Item 01010[11], is given by
LW  YFin h Fin   1 1   1 
-------- ≈ O  ---------- ----------  ≈ O  – ------ ------  ≈ O  – ---------  . (8.12)
Wb  W b   20 10   200 
The aileron angle, from Equation (8.11), for this case of steady straight motion with an engine out, becomes
LW   Vtrim  2
-------- CQ  1 –  ------------------ -
Wb   ( Vdiv )W 
 
ξ = -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (8.13)
  Vtrim  2
( ( Lξ )W )  1 –  -----------------
rigid   ( Vrev )ξ 

and, with the order of magnitude estimates, taking a typical value of –0.09 for ( ( Lξ ) W ) becomes
rigid
   Vtrim   2 
  1  
 – -------- -  C Q  1 –  ------------------ - 
   ( Vdiv ) W  
  200  
ξ = O ----------------------------------------------------------------------------  , (8.14)
  Vtrim  2 
  1 –  ---------------- -  
{ – 0.09 } 

   rev ξ 
( V ) 

33
ESDU 03011
and its variation with dynamic pressure coefficient, C Q , is shown plotted in Sketch 8.2. The sketch shows
that for the flexible wing the magnitude of the aileron angle increases with C Q and diverges as
Vtrim ⁄ ( Vrev )ξ approaches unity.
Reversal speed Vtrim /(Vrev) ξ

1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4
4
3
Flexible wing
O{ ξ } 2
Speed increasing
Rigid wing
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

CQ
Sketch 8.2 Estimate of aileron angle versus dynamic pressure coefficient

for steady straight motion with an engine out
The above analysis for the variation of aileron angle with dynamic pressure coefficient can be repeated for
the cases of a steady horizontal turn and steady horizontal straight sideslipping flight.
34
ESDU 03011
9. AEROPLANE ANTISYMMETRIC LOADING DISTRIBUTIONS
The antisymmetric loading distribution of fin and wing is estimated using an assumed deformation
characteristic shape in a manner similar to that used in Item 97032[9] in which the total fin load, YFin , and
wing rolling moment, LW , are known and, as previously explained, unchanged from that of a rigid aeroplane
configuration.
9.1 Fin Deformation Characteristics
Defining zf and x f as the distances along and perpendicular to the flexural axis of the fin with origin, O Fin ,
at the effective built-in root of the fin, as shown in Sketch 5.2, then bending of the flexural axis and twist
about the flexural axis can be defined in the following way.
The twist distribution about the flexural axis, θ e ( z f ) Fin , with zero bending of the flexural axis may be
expressed as
θe ( zf ) = yθ { zf } θ , (9.1)
Fin e
where yθ { zf } is an assumed mode shape and θ e is the twist amplitude.
Similarly the bending distribution along the flexural axis, ye ( zf ) Fin , with zero twist about the axis may be
expressed as
ye ( zf ) = yγ { zf } γe , (9.2)
Fin
where yγ { z f } is an assumed mode shape and γ e is the bending amplitude.
9.2 Fin Aerodynamic Sideforce Distributions
The aerodynamic sideforce distribution on the fin due to sideslip, β , roll rate, p, and yaw rate, r, at position
(xf ,zf) is denoted by R ( β, p, r, x f , zf ) .
The total fin sideforce, YFin , due to β , p and r is then given by
R  β,p,r;x ,z 
Y Fin { β,p,r } =
∫∫  f f Fin
dx f dz f . (9.3)
Fin
The sideforce distribution, YSFin , due to β , p and r along the flexural axis is
R  β,p,r;x ,z 
Y SFin { β,p,r,z f } =
∫  f f Fin
dx f . (9.4)
Fin
The torque distribution, TFin , along the flexural axis is
R  β,p,r;x ,z 
T Fin { β,p,r,z f } =
∫ 
x dx f .
f f Fin f
(9.5)
Fin
35
ESDU 03011
The fin aerodynamic loading distribution due to unit rudder deflection is denoted by R ( xf , z f )ζ and so the
total sideforce derivative due to rudder angle, ( YFin )ζ , is found from
 
( Y Fin )
ζ
=
∫ ∫ R  x f ,z f ζ dx f dz f . (9.6)
Fin
Similarly the sideforce distribution, ( YSFin )ζ , along the flexural axis due to unit rudder deflection is
R  x f ,z f dx f .
( Y SFin ) { z f }
ζ
=
∫  ζ
(9.7)
Fin
The torque distribution, ( TFin )ζ , along the flexural axis due to unit rudder deflection is
R  x f ,z f
( T Fin ) { z f }
ζ
=
∫ 
x dx .
 Fin f f
(9.8)
Fin
The fin aerodynamic loading distribution due to unit torsional deflection is denoted by R ( x f , z f )θ and so
the total sideforce derivative due to rudder angle, ( YFin )θ , is found from
R  x f ,z f dx f dz f .
( Y Fin )
θ
=
∫∫  θ
(9.9)
Fin
Similarly the sideforce distribution, ( YSFin )θ , along the flexural axis due to unit torsional deflection is
( Y SFin ) { z f }
θ
=
∫  θ
(9.10)
Fin
The torque distribution, ( TFin )θ , along the flexural axis due to unit torsional deflection is
R  x f ,z f x f dx f .
( T Fin ) { z f }
θ
=
∫  θ
(9.11)
Fin
The fin aerodynamic loading distribution due to unit bending deflection is denoted by R ( xf ,zf )γ and so the
total sideforce derivative due to rudder angle, ( YFin )γ , is found from
R  x f ,z f dx f dz f .
( Y Fin )
γ
=
∫∫  γ
(9.12)
Fin
Similarly the sideforce distribution, ( YSFin )γ , along the flexural axis due to unit rudder deflection is
( Y SFin ) { z f }
γ
=
∫  γ
(9.13)
Fin
36
ESDU 03011
The torque distribution, ( TFin )γ , along the flexural axis due to unit bending deflection is
R  x f ,z f x f dx f .
( T Fin ) { z f }
γ
=
∫  γ
(9.14)
Fin
9.3 Fin Equilibrium Equations
The three equations of equilibrium involving the three unknowns, rudder angle, ζ , angle of twist, θ e , and
angle of bending, γe , are as follows.
The overall sideforce on the fin is given by
Y Fin = Y Fin { β,p,r } + ( Y Fin ) ζ + ( Y Fin ) γ e + ( Y Fin ) θ e . (9.15)

ζ γ θ
The equation for structural torsional equilibrium is given by
 
( kθ )
Fin
( θe )
Fin
=
∫  T Fin { β,p,r,z f } + ( T Fin ) ζ { z f } ζ 
 
(9.16)
Fin

+ ( T Fin ) { z f } γ e + ( T Fin ) { z f } θ e  y θ { z f } dzf ,
γ θ

where the torsional stiffness is given by
 dy θ { z f } 
2

( kθ )
Fin
=
∫
 GJ { z f } Fin

 --------------------  dz f ,
 dz f  
(9.17)
Fin
in which GJ { zf }Fin is the structural torsional stiffness distribution of the fin.
The equation for structural bending equilibrium is given by

( kγ )
Fin
( γe )
Fin
=
∫  Y SFin { β,p,r,z f } + ( Y SFin ) ζ { z f } ζ

(9.18)
Fin

+ ( T SFin ) { z f } γ e + ( T SFin ) { z f }θ e  y γ { zf } dz f ,
γ θ

where the bending stiffness is given by
2
  d 2 y { z } 
γ f 
 EI { z }  ----------------------  dz ,
( kγ )
Fin
=
∫  f Fin  2   f (9.19)
Fin   dz f  
in which EI { zf } Fin is the structural bending moment stiffness distribution of the fin.
37
ESDU 03011
The same procedure may be used to obtain the antisymmetric lift distributions on the wing, the one
difference being that the wing inertial loads will need to be taken into account. Thus the equilibrium
equations for the wing will include the inertial load distribution, given by m ( xf , yf ) W ( 1 + ∆n )g in which
m ( xf , yf )W is the wing mass distribution and ∆n is the incremental acceleration in units of g.
The above procedure can be made more exact by extending the procedure to include more than one
semi-rigid mode. Such an analysis was used in Item 97032[9] for quasi-steady symmetric manoeuvres.
In a similar manner the analysis can be formulated in terms of a set of normal modes as used in Item
99033[10] for quasi-steady symmetric manoeuvres.
38
ESDU 03011
10. REFERENCES
1. ESDU Introduction to notation for aircraft dynamics. Data Item No. 67001, ESDU
International, London, 1967.
2. ESDU Notation for aircraft dynamics. Data Item No. 67002, ESDU International,
London, 1966.
3. ESDU The equations of motion of a rigid aircraft. Data Item No. 67003, ESDU
4. ESDU Contribution of wing planform to derivatives of yawing moment and sideforce
due to roll rate at subsonic speeds, ( Np )W and ( Yp )W . Data Item No. 81014,
ESDU International, London, 1981.
5. ESDU Approximation to the roots of the lateral equations of motion of an aircraft

with and without a simple yaw damper. Data Item No. 83024, ESDU
6. ESDU Symmetric steady manoeuvre loads on rigid aircraft of classical configuration
at subsonic speeds. Data Item No. 94009, ESDU International, London, 1994.
7. ESDU Shear force, bending moment and torque of rigid aircraft in symmetric steady
manoeuvring flight. Data Item No. 94045, ESDU International, London,
1994.
8. ESDU A qualitative introduction to static aeroelasticity: controllability, loads and
stability. Data Item No. 96037, ESDU International, London, 1996.
9. ESDU Static aeroelasticity: a formal analysis using assumed modes. Data Item No.
97032, ESDU International, London, 1997.
10. ESDU Static aeroelasticity: a formal analysis using normal modes. Data Item No.
11. ESDU Loading on a rigid aeroplane in steady lateral manoeuvres. Data Item No.
12. GARNER, H.C. On the application of subsonic wing-theory to edge forces and roll-rate
derivatives. R.A.E. Tech. Report 73030, 1973.
13. HANCOCK, G.J. An introduction to the flight dynamics of rigid aeroplanes. Ellis Horwood
Limited, 1995.
39
ESDU 03011
APPENDIX A – THE LATERAL STABILITY CHARACTERISTIC EQUATION
A1. Derivation
The stability characteristic matrix, in the eigenvalues, λ ’s, of the lateral stick-fixed small disturbance
equations of motion in a body-axis system, in which the aerodynamic derivatives are in aero-normalised
form[1,2,3] and in which other quantities are in ordinary units is
Yv
λ – ----- 0 V trim –g 0
τ
µL v Lp Lr
– ------------------------ λ – ------- e x λ – ------- 0 0
2
τ i x V trim τi x τi x
µN v Np Nr = 0 . (A1.1)
– ----------------------- e z λ – ------- λ – ------- 0 0
2
τ i z V trim τi z τi z
0 –1 0 λ 0
0 0 –1 0 λ
The stability characteristic equation and the coefficients of the equation are then given by
 4 3 2 
λ  A5 λ + A4 λ + A3 λ + A2 λ + A1  = 0 , (A1.2)
 
A5 = 1 – ex ez , (A1.3)
1   Nr Lp ex N ez L  
p r
A4 = ---  – Y v ( 1 – e x e z ) –  ------ + ------ – ------------ – -----------   , (A1.4)
τ   zi i x i z i x  
1   N L ex N ez L 
A3 = -----  Y v  ------r + -----p- – -----------p- – -----------r 
τ   iz ix 
2 ix iz
 Lp Nr Lr Np  e z µL µN v 
v
+  ------------ – ------------  – --------------- + ----------  , (A1.5)
 ix iz ix i 
z
ix iz 
1   Lr N Lp Nr  µN v L µL v N p
A2 = -----  Y v  ------------p – ------------ 
p
– ----------------- + -----------------
τ   ix iz ix i 
3 ix i ix i
z z z
τg  µL v µN v e x  
+ -------------  – --------- + ----------------   (A1.6)
V trim  ix iz  
µg
and A1 = ----------------------------  L v N – N v L  . (A1.7)
3  r r
τ V trim i x i
z
40
ESDU 03011
KEEPING UP TO DATE
Whenever Items are revised, subscribers to the service automatically receive the material required to update
the appropriate Volumes. If you are in any doubt as to whether or not your ESDU holding is up to date, please
contact us.
Please address all technical engineering enquiries and suggestions to:
ESDU International plc Tel: 020 7490 5151 (from the UK)
+44 20 7490 5151 (from outside the UK)
Fax: 020 7490 2701 (from the UK)
+44 20 7490 2701 (from outside the UK)
E-Mail: esdu@ihs.com
Website: www.esdu.com
For users in the USA, please address all Customer Service and Support enquiries and suggestions to:
IHS Engineering Products Tel: 1 800 447 3352 (toll free number)
and Fax: 1 303 397 2599
Global Engineering Documents Website: www.ihs.com
global.ihs.com
ESDU 03011
An introduction to lateral static aeroelasticity: controllability, loads
and stability.
ESDU 03011
ISBN 1 86246 227 5, ISSN 0141-3988
Available as part of the ESDU Series on Dynamics. For information on

all ESDU validated engineering data contact ESDU International plc,
27 Corsham Street, London N1 6UA.
This Item introduces lateral static aeroelasticity in which the effects of

structural deformation on lateral stability, controllability and loading in
steady lateral manoeuvres are considered.
The effect of deformations are quantified using the concept of modified

derivatives in which the stability derivatives associated with rigid
aeroplane stability and controllability are changed to incorporate
deformation effects, assuming all dynamic effects can be neglected. The

modified derivatives are derived in qualitative terms to illustrate their
behaviour, and the important roles of divergence speeds and reversal
speeds are identified.
The analysis of this Item is in line with the approach of Item 96037, which
provided a qualitative introduction to longitudinal aeroelasticity, where the
effects of symmetric deformations on longitudinal controllability,
quasi-static loads, static stability, trim characteristics and quasi-steady
pull-out manoeuvres of both swept and unswept configurations are
described. In this Item, like the previous Item, consideration is given to
what happens when deformation, relative to a reference state, of the
various components, wing, tailplane, fin, fuselage and engine nacelles
and pylons, but now the deformations are antisymmetric, giving rise to
changes in lateral stability and controllability and in the antisymmetric
loading distributions.
The effects of structural flexibility on the lateral stability characteristics

are assessed by noting the changes in the approximations for static
stability, spiral mode, rolling subsidence and Dutch roll in terms of the
lateral stability derivatives when modified derivatives are used.
© ESDU International plc, 2006
All rights are reserved. No part of any Data Item may be reprinted, reproduced, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, optical, electronic or mechanical including
photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without
permission from ESDU International plc in writing. Save for such permission all
copyright and other intellectual property rights belong to ESDU International plc.

ESDU 03011: An Introduction To Lateral Static Aeroelasticity: Controllability, Loads and Stability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESDU 03011: An Introduction To Lateral Static Aeroelasticity: Controllability, Loads and Stability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESDU 03011

Issued May 2003

An introduction to lateral static

loads and stability

THE PREPARATION OF THIS DATA ITEM

Mr C.J. Loughton — Head of Mechanical Motion and System Dynamics Group.

3.2 Reference Shape, Axis System and Motion 5

5. QUASI-STEADY LATERAL DERIVATIVES 12

7. OVERALL LOADS IN STEADY LATERAL MANOEUVRES 29

8. CONTROLLABILITY IN STEADY LATERAL MANOEUVRES 30

9. AEROPLANE ANTISYMMETRIC LOADING DISTRIBUTIONS 35

APPENDIX A – THE LATERAL STABILITY CHARACTERISTIC EQUATION

Issued May 2003 – 40 pages

Any coherent system of units may be used.

A1, A2, ... , A5 coefficients of stability quartic (see Appendix A)

EI { zf } bending moment stiffness distribution

ex , ez constant-of-inertia ratios (see Item 67002[2])

GJ { zf } torsional stiffness distribution

hFin distance in z-direction of aeroplane mass centre to aerodynamic centre of fin

hζ , hξ = ( eFin + eζ ) and ( eW + e ξ ), respectively

Lp , Lr , Lv aero-normalised rolling moment derivatives due to p, r and v, respectively

Lζ , Nζ aero-normalised rolling and yawing moment derivatives due to rudder deflection

m mass or mass distribution

Np , Nr , Nv aero-normalised yawing moment derivatives due to p , r and v , respectively

O origin of axis system for overall aeroplane

p, q, r aeroplane angular velocities about x-, y-, z-directions, respectively

S , SFin wing area and fin area, respectively

Vtrim trimmed velocity of aeroplane in flight direction

x, y, z body axis directions for overall aeroplane with respect to origin O

Y overall force in y -direction

YSFin fin sideforce distibution

Yξ , Yζ aero-normalised sideforce derivatives due to ξ and ζ , respectively

λ eigenvalue of stability characteristic equation

µ relative density parameter ( = ( W/g )/ ( ½ρSb ) )

τ unit of time in aero-normalised system ( = m/ ( ½ρVtrim S ) )

φ aeroplane bank angle

ψ aeroplane yaw angle

DR relates to Dutch roll oscillation

3.1 Scope and Applicability

3.2 Reference Shape, Axis System and Motion

and v = Vtrim sin β . (3.2)

Vtrim θtrim  αtrim 

    yz 

Sketch 3.1 Attached axis system

The resultant aeroplane velocity, Vtrim , is given by

For small α and β , Equations (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3) reduce to

w = Vtrim α , v = V trim β and u = Vtrim . (3.4)

A conventional aeroplane is manoeuvred laterally by, usually, all controls,

Engine nacelle pylon flexible Tailplane flexible in

Sketch 4.1 Flexible aeroplane model

4.1 Component Flexibility

Sketch 4.2 Unswept and swept wing models

Fuselage Flexural axis

Sketch 4.3 Antisymmetric bending of a simplified unswept configuration

Dotted lines indicate

Sketch 4.4 Twisting of a simplified unswept configuration

The aft fuselage can also twist about the x-axis.

4.1.5 Engine Nacelles and Pylons

a steady horizontal turn,

steady horizontal straight motion with an engine out

and steady horizontal straight sideslipping flight.

and a representative torsional stiffness, kθ ,

kθ θe = applied torque about the flexural axis. (5.1)

Vtrim θtrim αtrim

yz