Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-qfg88 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T04:44:39.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting the apparent longitudinal stick-free static stability of a typical high-wing light aeroplane

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

M. A. Bromfield  and
G. B. Gratton
M. A. Bromfield*
Affiliation:
Brunel Flight Safety Laboratory, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, UK
G. B. Gratton*
Affiliation:
Brunel Flight Safety Laboratory, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, UK
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flying a light aeroplane involves a combination of pilot and aeroplane performing a set task, within a specific environment. The pilot is continuously sampling and selecting available sensory cues, interpreting those cues, making decisions and manipulating the primary controls (stick and rudder) to safely achieve flying objectives. The ‘feel’ of an aeroplane (a flying quality) is directly associated with the stick and rudder forces and how the aeroplane responds to control inputs. Classical theory has been applied to estimate the apparent (as felt by the pilot) longitudinal stick-free static stability (change of stick force with airspeed) of a typical, two-seat, high-wing light aeroplane. The theory has been extended to consider the effects of tail downwash and flap deflection. The results are compared with actual flight tests and show that the method may be used for the initial assessment of longitudinal stick-free static stability and more importantly, tendencies towards neutral or negative stability affecting flight safety.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 116 , Issue 1179 , May 2012 , pp. 467 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. European Aviation Safety Agency, Certification Specifications for Certification Specifications for Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes, CS-22, Amendment 2, 5 March 2009.Google Scholar
2. European Aviation Safety Agency, Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes, CS-25, Amendment 9, 25 August 2009.Google Scholar
3. Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Airworthiness Requirements for Transport Category Airplanes, FAR-25.Google Scholar
4. European Aviation Safety Agency, Certification Specifications for Normal, Utility, Aerobatic and Commuter Aeroplanes, CS-23, Amendment 2, 28 September 2010.Google Scholar
5. Federal Aviation Administration, Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes, FAR-23.Google Scholar
6. Ministry of Defence, Design and Airworthiness Requirements For Service Aircraft Part 1 – Fixed Wing Section 2, Defence Standard 00-970 Part 1 Issue 5, 31 January 2007.Google Scholar
7. Us Department of Defence, Military Specification, Flying Qualities of Piloted Airplanes, MIL Spec 8785C, US DOD, 5 November 1980.Google Scholar
8. Department of Defense, Handbook Flying Qualities of Piloted Aircraft, MIL-HDBK-1797, 19 December 1997.Google Scholar
9. Civil Aviation Authority, British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, CAP 482 Section S, Small Light Aeroplanes, Issue 5, 21 October 2009.Google Scholar
10. Civil Aviation Authority, British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, CAP 467 Section K, Light Aeroplanes, Issue 7, 23 October 1992.Google Scholar
11. European Aviation Safety Agency, Certification Specifications for Very Light Aeroplanes, CS-VLA, Amendment 1, 5 March 2009.Google Scholar
12. Etkin, B. and Reid, L.D. Dynamics of Flight – Stability & Control, 3rd ed, John Wiley & Sons, 1996.Google Scholar
13. Stinton, D. Flying Qualities and Flight Testing of the Aeroplane, Blackwell Science, 1996.Google Scholar
14. Smetana, F.O. et al, Riding and Handling Qualities of Light Aeroplane – A Review and Analysis, NASA Contractor Report CR –1975, March 1972.Google Scholar
15. Mathworks, MATLAB R2007a User Manual, Mathworks, 2007.Google Scholar
16. Leisher, L.L. and Walter, H.L. Stability Derivatives of Cessna Aircraft, Report Number 1356, Cessna Aircraft Company, Wichita, 1956.Google Scholar
17. Hoak, D.E. et al, USAF Stability and Control Datcom, Flight Control Division, Air Force Fight Dynamics, Laboratory, WPAFB, Ohio, USA, 1978, revised.Google Scholar
18. Perkins, D.C. and Hage, R.E. Airplane Performance Stability and Control, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, September 1949.Google Scholar
19. Clarke, B. The Cessna 150 and 152, 2nd ed, TAB Books, 1993.Google Scholar
20. Cessna Aeroplane Corporation, Spin Characteristics of Cessna Models 150, A150, 152, A152, 172, R172, 177, Cessna Publications, August 1981.Google Scholar
21. Appareo, Appareo AS Flight Recorder GAU 1000 General Specification, Fargo, ND, USA, June 2008.Google Scholar
22. Bromfield, M.A. and Gratton, G.B. Supporting the investigation of factors affecting loss of control of light aeroplane, Proceedings of the 40th Annual International Symposium – Society of Flight Test Engineers, Sweden, September 2009.Google Scholar
23. Roskam, J. Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls – Part 1, DAR Corporation, Kansas, 2007.Google Scholar
24. Cessna Aircraft Company, Cessna Model 150M, Pilots Operating Handbook, Cessna Publications, 1975.Google Scholar
25. Cessna Aircraft Company, 1982 Model 152 Information Manual, Reprint, Cessna Publications 31 March 1983.Google Scholar