Longitudinal Stability

Contents
Stability Derivatives
Stick Fixed Static Stability

Through the remainder of the course, means will be developed to analyse the full stability
characteristics of aircraft, including the dynamic behaviour. For this, we will separate the aircraft
into longitudinal motion (pitching), and combined lateral/directional (rolling/yawing).

For the purposes of static stability, aircraft motion can be isolated to looking at moments about
each of the three axes independently.

Longitudinal stability is more interesting and more complicated than than both lateral and
directional stability, so it will be analysed first and the same techniques used to explore the
other two axes.

For longitudinal stability, the static response is concerned with the aircraft pitching motion - so
the parameter of interest is the pitching moment. A model needs to be formulated than can
account for the combined effect of the wing, horizontal stabiliser, the elevator, and the aircraft
weight therereupon. The pitching moment coefficient is defined

M
Cm ≜
1 2
ρV S c̄
2

Before building a model, consider what stability would look like for aircraft pitching motion. The
desired behaviour for stability would be that if the aircraft were perturbed in pitch, it would
return to the equilibrium position. That is, pitch stability means that a nose-up perturbation is
accompanied by a nose-down pitching moment.

Stability Derivatives
The assumption is made that the aircraft pitching moment can be represented as the product of
terms comprising the product of stability derivatives and variables, and constants.

The stability derivatives are written in non-dimensional form as:

∂CA
CA =
B
B

The pitching moment coefficient is assumed to be of the form:

Cm = Cm + Cm ⋅ α + Cm ⋅ Q
0 α Q

where C m0 is a constant term and hence does not affect stability in any way.

Condition for C mα

Since α is defined as a nose-up motion, and M is defined positive nose-up, it follows that for
stability, C mα must be negative

Cmα < 0 → stable

Cmα > 0 → unstable

What aircraft design parameters lead to C mα being negative? A full model will be formulated
that will lead to design parameters, but some simple observations can be made from first
principles. Consider the respective longitudinal locations of the aircraft centre of gravity (CG),
and the aircaft aerodynamic centre (AC).

There are two possibilties; the AC can be ahead of the CG, or the AC can be behind the CG. Aircraft AC
You will be familiar with centre of
AC Ahead of CG pressure and aerodynamic centre from
2D aerofoil theory - the point at which
the lift can be assumed to act as a
resultant force, and the point at which
the moment is independent of AoA,
respectively.

The CP moves with angle of attack for a

cambered aerofoil, whilst the AC is a
fixed position.

Fig. 30 AC ahead of CG

Consider the case with the AC ahead of the CG. The lift is directly proportional to the angle of
attack, and the nose-up moment is directly proportional to the lift. In the following, M 0

represents the lift independent pitching moment and the pitching moment at α = 0 for the
sake of mathematical simplicity.

M (α) = M0 + a ⋅ α ⋅ l

dM
= a ⋅ l > 0
dα

So with the AC ahead of the CG, the aircraft is statically unstable in pitch.

AC Aft of CG

Fig. 31 AC aft of CG

Consider the case with the AC aft of the CG.

M (α) = M0 − a ⋅ α ⋅ l

dM
= −a ⋅ l < 0
dα

So with the AC aft of the CG, the aircraft is statically stable in pitch.
This shows why most aircraft except fighter aircraft have aft horizontal tails - the horizontal tail
pulls the aerodynamic centre aft, and allows the CG to be moved further aft.

A model will be formulated to show the numerical relationship between the tail and the
aerodynamic centre, but the result above has been shown from first principles, and is instructive
and intuitive. If you’re still not wholly satisfied in this result - try throwing a dart/nerf
vortex/arrow “tail first”. It will immediately flip over.

So the stability condition for C mα has been established, and a model will be developed to relate
design parameters to the numerical value thereof. Before this, though, the stability of C MQ will
be explored.

Condition for C mQ

Using similar reasoning, both conditions for AC/CG location can be overlaid in a single diagram:

Fig. 32 CP and CG with a pitch rate

Looking at Figure CP and CG with a pitch rate it can be readily seen that a positive pitch rate will
cause an downwash for AC ahead of CG, and a upwash for AC aft of CG. This causes a respective
decrease and increase in angle of attack, and lift. So for any AC/CG location, the derivative
CMQ will always be negative and hence restorative.

Second order system representation

The aircraft pitching motion can be modeled as a second order system
 Fig. 33 Second order system for pitching motion

This representation should be familiar for you from previous courses, and will be used more in
later modules - but for now it serves to help understand the concepts of C mα and C . The
mQ

former represents the pitch stiffness, whilst the latter represents the pitch damping.

Too much stability?

Whilst it can be readily observed that for stability C mα < 0 , with this term now being described
as pitch stiffness, you will be able to further observe that it gives an indication of how difficult it
is to get an aircraft to move manoeuvred from steady flight. As such, if an aircraft is too stable,
its handling is sluggish. Fundamentally, this explains the planform differences between fighter
aircraft and commuter aircraft.

A model for pitch stability

A simplified aircraft representation will be used that comprises the aircraft wing, HT, elevator,
and centre of gravity:

Fig. 34 Model for wing/HT contribution to pitching moment

where
 c̄ = Mean aerodynamic chord

Lw = Wing lif t

Lt = Tail lif t

M0 = Zero lif t pitching moment (taken to represent wing/tail combination)

α = AoA at the main wing

it = Tail incidence

δe = Elevator def lection angle

wi = Downwash due to wing

ϵ = Resultant change to incidence at tail due to downwash

′
V = Resultant velocity vector at tail

h0c̄ = Distance between f orward moment ref . point and wing AC

hc̄ = Distance between f orward moment ref . point and a/c CG

lt = Distance between CG and AC of tail

¯
lt = Distance between wing AC and tail AC

Note that the forward moment reference point has been written as the leading edge of the Control surface deflections
wing, but this is an arbitrary point about which moments are evaluated. It could be the nose, for Some texts use ξ, η, and ζ for aileron,
example. elevator, and rudder deflections - but
who, aside from actual Greeks, can write

Collecting moments ξ and ζ consistently distinguishable?

Certainly not me.
One can evaluate the moments anywhere using this model and they should equal zero for trim.
We’ll use the slightly-more accessible
They will be evaluated at the wing AC and the aircraft CG.
nomenclature of δ , δ , and δ . This is
a e r

more commonplace in US texts anyway.

First, at the AC:
CP or AC?
¯
ΣMac = M0 + W (h − h0)c̄ − Lt ⋅ lt
To resolve lift as a constant force, it

with the equilibrium steady flight condition this becomes should be applied at the centre of
pressure. To decouple the moment from
¯
ΣMac = M0 + L (h − h0)c̄ − Lt ⋅ lt incidence, the lift force should be
applied at the aerodynamic centre.
since
In the analysis herein, the aerofoils are
M
Cm = approximated as thin and symmetric
1 2
2
ρV S c̄
which means both the AC and CP can
be treated as the quarter chord position.
then
For a real cambered aerofoil, the CP
St l̄t
Cmac = Cm0 + CL (h − h0) − CLtηt moves with angle of attack and is at a
SW c̄
location infinitely far behind the

where η =
qt
and represents the loss in total head from the freestream to the tail. aerofoil. This obviously makes the
t q
analysis difficult, so we use the AC as

Similarly the moments can be evaluated at the centre of gravity: the point of force application.

ΣMcg = M0 + Lw (h − h0)c̄ − Lt ⋅ lt

and in coefficient form

St lt
Cm = Cm + CL (h − h0) − CL ηt
cg 0 w t
SW c̄

Two dimensionless parameters appear in the above expressions as the modified tail volume
coefficient and tail volume coefficient, respectively:

St l̄t
¯
VH = ⋅
SW c̄

St lt
VH = ⋅
SW c̄

giving

¯
Cmac = Cm0 + CL (h − h0) − CLtηt VH

Cmcg = Cm0 + CLw (h − h0) − CLtηt VH

For the aircraft to be in trim, the total moment must be zero - so these can be rearranged to
yield an expression for the lift that the tail must produce to give trim

Cm0 + CL (h − h0) Cm0 + CL (h − h0)

W
CLT = =
¯ ηT VH
ηT VH

The quanity (h − h 0) is how far the CG is aft of the AC, so the tail lift is clearly directly
proportional to this quantity. In reality, this relationship is more useful the other way around -
that is, the amount of lift that the tail can produce dictates the CG limits.

A model for tail lift

The tail lift is assumed to be a function of the angle of attack and the elevator deflection angle

CL = atαt + aeδe
T

where a is the tail lift curve slope, and a is the rate of change of tail lift with elevator deflection
t e

angle.

The angle of attack at the tail will be different to that of the wing due to the tailplane incidence,
and the fact that the wing sits in the downwash of the wing.

αt = α + it − ϵ

hence

CLT = at (α + it − ϵ) + aeδe

the downwash at the tail is a function of the main wing bound vortex strength, and hence of the
angle of attack

∂ϵ
CLT = at (it + α {1 − }) + aeδe
∂α

CL = at (it + α {1 − ϵα}) + aeδe

T

The expression above can be substituted into the two expressions for the pitching moment
coefficient

Cm = Cm + CL (h − h0) − [at (it + α {1 − ϵα}) + aeδe]ηt V¯

H
ac 0

Cmcg = Cm0 + CLw (h − h0) − [at (it + α {1 − ϵα}) + aeδe]ηt VH

Downwash angle?
The derivative ϵ α =
∂ϵ

∂α
is the rate of change of downwash angle with wing angle of attack. A
detailed consideration of this effect is beyond the scope of this course, but you should be able
to intuit the qualitative relatioship:

The downwash will be larger with more lift, so ϵ must be positive for an aft tail
α

ϵα should be inversely proportional to the vertical and horizontal separation of the wing
and tail
ϵα will increase with sweepback
ϵα will decrease with aspect ratio

A detailed discussion of a potential solution to ϵ is provided in

α

MacCormick:cite:`MacCormick:1995wq`, pg 486. I may include the potential model in this section

as an interactive script at a future date…remind me if I haven’t.

For our purposes, an approximation will suffice. For an aircraft with an elliptical lift distribution, if
it is assumed that the tail is ‘far’ downstream of the wing, then the induced angle of attack at the
tail is reduced by twice the induced angle of attack at the wing. That is

ϵ = −δαt = 2αw

which, from lifting line theory is

 2 ⋅ CL
ϵ =
π ⋅ AR

4
ϵα =
AR

Elevator angle to trim

The equations derived are useful in that they can be set to zero and rearranged for the elevator
deflection or the lift coefficient. This gives either the elevator deflection as a function of C or L

vice versa. This then enables determintion of the elevator angle required to reach certain
speeds, or the speeds achievable with given elevator deflection angles.

Seeting C mac = 0 and rearranging for δ yields

e

1 at CL

(13)
0
δe = [Cm − CL { [1 − ϵα] ηt V̄t − (h − h0)} − at ηt V̄T {it − [1 − ϵα]}
0

ae ηT V̄T a a

The expression above can be sense checked to prove that it shows sensible relationships based
on what we know about aircraft:

1. From the model developed, the sign convention is that elevator deflection is positive Sign convention
trailing edge down. The sign convention is not consistent
2. The equation above shows that the elevator angle is a linear, inverse function of C . This is L for control surface deflectons from book
actually just due to the way that I’ve written it since the sign of to book, and often depends on different

{
at ¯
[1 − ϵα] ηt Vt − (h − h0)} is ambiguous at first glance. Generally, though, the left airframers. In my previous life doing
a
stability and control transonic wind
hand side terms will be greater than the right hand ones. So, δ e ∝ −CL
tunnel testing for different
This makes sense as we’d expect the elevator angle to become more negative with an manufacturers, this could lead to
increase in C . If this doesn’t make sense to you, then consider that an increase on C is
L L confusing moments.
caused by an increase in α hence requiring a nose up moment - hence, a reduction in lift
on the tail. C’mon, that’s an amazing pun.

3. It further shows that the elevator angle is a linear and positive function of the quantity
(h − h0) . Recall that this represents the CG position aft of the wing AC. Hence, with an aft
CG, more elevator deflection is required.

 Try and do this rearrangement yourself Click to show

It is also common to wish to have zero elevator deflection at the cruise condition.

 Why do we wish to have δ e = 0 at cruise? Click to show

Setting the elevator deflection to zero allows for solution of either V̄ for a given i OR solution
H t

of i for a given V¯ .
t H

Relationship between lift coefficients, lift curve slopes

Quantities with a subscript () denote wing quantities, and () denote tail quantities. The
w t

dimensional lift is the sum of wing and lift

L = Lw + Lt

but

CL ≠ CL + CL
w t

because of the different denominators in the two coefficients. Rather,

St
CL = CLw + ηt CLt
S

using the tail lift model:

 St
CL = CL + ηt [at (it + α (1 − ϵα)) + aeδe]
w
S

hence the total aircraft lift curve slope can now be denoted - for the stick-fixed case.

∂CL St
a = = aw + ηt at (1 − ϵα) Stick Fixed meaning no input, since for
∂α S
steady flight, δ is a function of α and
e

that’d be a much more complicated

derivative to solve. Furthermore, we’re

Stick Fixed Static Stability after the response of the aircraft withut
any changes to controls.
With no control input, we will use the expression for C mac and differentiate wrt α to get C mα

thus yielding the stability criteria - since we know that C mα < 0 for stability.

∂Cm
ac
¯
= a (h − h0) − VH ⋅ ηt ⋅ at (1 − ϵα)
∂α

It is more common to work in terms of C rather than α so L

∂Cm ∂Cm ∂α ∂Cm 1

= =
∂CL ∂α ∂CL ∂α a

at ∂Cm
= (h − h0) − V̄H ⋅ ηt ⋅ (1 − ϵα)
∂CL

    a

   
Distance between CG
and wing AC Horizontal Tail
Parameters

Since ∂Cm

∂CL
will have the same sign as ∂Cm

∂α
, the stability criteria are the same. The boundary
between positive and negative stability is governed by the above equation equallying zero.

Neutral Point
This defines the neutral point, which is the centre of gravity position that provides neutral
stability. This is the most aft the CG can be before instability occurs (although flight with h = h0

is clearly not safe, either).

The neutral point has the symbol h and it can be shown:

n

at
¯
hn = h0 + VH ⋅ ηt ⋅ (1 − ϵα)

   a

   
Wing AC
Horizontal Tail
Parameters

Therefore, without the tail, the neutral point is the wing AC. The horizontal tail “pulls” the neutral
point aft of this position

Static Margin
It follows from the above that the distance between the centre of gravity position and the
neutral point dictates the degree of stability. This non-dimensional quantity is termed the static
margin, H n

Hn = hn − h
Nondimensional?

Substituting h into the above yields

n
Recall that h is the longitudinal CG
location, nondimensionalised by MAC
at
Hn = h0 − h + ηtV̄H (1 − ϵα)
a
∂Cm
= −
∂CL

Since we need and hence , it can be observed that the static margin IS the
∂Cm ∂Cm
< 0 < 0
∂α ∂CL

pitch stiffness (well, it’s proportional to the pitch stiffness since C mα is the actual stiffness) of
the aircraft, and hence dictates the stability and how difficult it is to pitch the aircraft.

The aircraft becomes more difficult to pitch with an increase in static margin, and this can be
shown.
Elevator lift coefficient gradient
Taking the elevator angle to trim, (13), and differentiating with respect to lift coefficient yields

∂δe 1 at
= − [ (1 − ϵα)ηtV̄H − (h − h0)]
∂CL ¯ a
ae ηt VH

1
= − Hn
ae ηt V̄H

again showing that a more stable aircraft is harder to change cruise speed.

Determination of NP by flight test

To determine/confirm the Neutral Point of an aircraft using flight test, a series of flights are
performed with the longitudinal CG position varied (but still with the CG ahead of the predicted
neutral point - else flight would occur with neutral stability, which is dangerous. During these
flights, cruise trim is reached at a range of different lift coefficients to provide data such as the
following, whereby the slope of ∂δe

∂CL
may be determined.

Three different CG positions, elevator angle to trim - FT data and linear fit

CG Aft - FT Data
dE/dCL=-21.9
0
CG Med - FT Data
dE/dCL=-32.8
CG Fwd - FT Data
−10 dE/dCL=-43.8

−20

−30

−40

−50
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

StaticStability/FTdata
Fig. 35 Flight test data (obviously simulated) for elevator deflection angle for three CG
locations

The gradient of a straight line through the data is proportional to C Mα, so the stability boundary
is the case with h = hn . The gradient can be plotted against the CG location, and a line fitted
through these data:

Three different CG positions, elevator trim/CL gradient - FT data and linear fit

CG Aft - FT Data
0
CG Med - FT Data
CG Fwd - FT Data
Linear Fit
−10 NP Location
 −20

−30

−40

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

By Harry Smith
© Copyright 2022.

Aircraft Flight Mechanics by Harry Smith is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.aircraftflightmechanics.com.