College of Engineering

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department

MECH 416

Spring 2024

Student Name QU ID

Abdulla Embaby 201801743

Abdulrhman Saleh 201807844

Ahmad Alahmad 201902320

Salem Al-Amri 201805696

Mustafa Alsheikh 201808214

Habibu Rahman 201912669

Mohamed Mohamedali 201908634

Project No (01): Design a Stability Augmentation System (SAS) for a General

Aviation (GA) Aircraft

Dr. Yasser Nogoud

Contents
Aircraft Data Acquisition and Stability Derivative Estimation: ............................................................3
Lateral motion: .............................................................................................................................4
Longtindunal motion ....................................................................................................................5
Longitudinal/Lateral Motion Linearization: .......................................................................................7
Linearization of Longitudinal Dimensionless Derivatives ................................................................7
Linearization of Lateral Dimensionless Derivatives ...................................................................... 11
Stability Analysis: ........................................................................................................................... 19
Flying Qualities Evaluation:............................................................................................................. 41
Stability Augmentation System (SAS) Design: .................................................................................. 48
Conclusion: .................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix A (Used Equations):......................................................................................................... 54
Appendix B (MATLAB Code): ........................................................................................................... 59
Appendix C (MATLAB Code): ........................................................................................................... 61
Aircraft Data Acquisition and Stability Derivative Estimation:
Introduction: To build flight control systems and evaluate an aircraft's stability characteristics, this paper
delivers an integrated study of data. The information supplied covers the mass and center of gravity of
the aircraft, reference geometry, aerodynamic characteristics, and flight circumstances.

Analysis of Stability: Longitudinal Stability: The center of gravity (CG), aerodynamic center (AC), and
neutral point (NP) were analyzed in order to assess the stability in the pitch axis. Aerodynamic
coefficients and moments of inertia data were used to calculate parameters like the static margin.

Lateral and Directional Stability: Roll and yaw aerodynamic coefficients and wing and tail geometry data
were used to evaluate stability in these two axes. The dihedral effect, spiral stability, and directional
stability were all considered in this analysis.

Control Surface Effectiveness and Sizing: It was established how well control surfaces—like the elevator
and tail—manage and stabilize the aircraft's flight. In order to guarantee that there was enough control
authority to maintain the desired flight attitudes, data on control surface areas, tail moment arm, and
aerodynamic coefficients were used.

Performance Analysis: The characteristics of the aircraft's performance during climb, cruise, and descent
were evaluated. Data on reference flight speed, dynamic pressure, and aerodynamic coefficients were
used to compute parameters including lift-to-drag ratio, thrust required, and specific fuel consumption.

Design of Flight Control Systems: Throughout the aircraft's operational envelope, stability and
maneuverability were guaranteed by the design of flight control systems. Control algorithms and
autopilot systems were developed using data on aerodynamic properties, stability derivatives, and
control efficacy in order to achieve desired flight trajectories and handling qualities.

Conclusion: Through the integration and analysis of the available data, a thorough understanding of the
aircraft's stability characteristics and the design of its flight control systems was obtained. This method
achieves the desired handling characteristics and operational efficiency while guaranteeing that the
aircraft satisfies safety, performance, and regulatory criteria.

Recommendations: To validate the design choices chosen considering the integrated data analysis, more
simulations and tests may be conducted in future research. Furthermore, investigating cutting-edge
optimization and control strategies may result in additional gains in the performance and stability of
aircraft.
Lateral motion:
Longtindunal motion
Longitudinal/Lateral Motion Linearization:

Linearization of Longitudinal Dimensionless Derivatives

Understanding the stability and control characteristics of an aircraft requires an understanding

of the longitudinal dimensionless derivatives. A small perturbation analysis will be based on the
linearized derivatives given in the table, which will revolve around a reference flight condition.

U derivatives: -

𝐶𝑥𝑢 : −0.100 is the axial force coefficient derivative with respect to forward speed. This suggests that
axial force will slightly decrease with a small increase in forward speed.

𝐶𝑧𝑢 : The derivative of the normal force coefficient in relation to forward speed is -0.82. This implies that
normal force significantly decreases as forward speed increases.

𝐶𝑚𝑢 : Regarding forward speed, the derivative of the pitching moment coefficient is zero. Changes in
forward speed, therefore, have no effect on the pitching moment.
W derivatives: -

𝐶𝑥𝑤 : The axial force coefficient derivative with respect to forward speed is given as −0.100. This
indicates that a small increase in forward speed will result in a small decrease in axial force.

𝐶𝑧𝑤 : The axial force coefficient derivative with respect to forward speed is given as −0.100. This
indicates that a small increase in forward speed will result in a small decrease in axial force.

𝐶𝑚𝑤 : The axial force coefficient derivative with respect to forward speed is given as −0.100. This
indicates that a small increase in forward speed will result in a small decrease in axial force.

𝑤̇ derivatives: -

𝐶𝑥𝑤̇ : The derivative of the axial force coefficient in relation to vertical speed is -0.074. The axial force
slightly decreases with a small increase in vertical speed.

𝐶𝑧𝑤̇ : −1.41 is the derivative of the normal force coefficient in relation to the rate of change of vertical
speed. This suggests that as vertical speed increases, normal force will decrease.

𝐶𝑚𝑤̇ : The derivative of the pitching moment coefficient in relation to the vertical speed change rate is
−2.44. This indicates that when the rate of vertical speed increases, the pitching moment will likely
decrease significantly.

q derivatives: -

𝐶𝑥𝑞 : The axial force coefficient derivative is zero with respect to pitch rate. So, it will not affect the axial
force.

𝐶𝑧𝑞 : The normal force coefficient derivative is -2.18 with respect to pitch rate. Which implies a decrease
in normal force and increase in pitch rate.

𝐶𝑚𝑞 : The pitching moment coefficient derivative is −3.77 with respect to pitch rate. Which means a
significant decrease in pitching moment with an increase in pitch rate.

Control derivatives 𝛿𝑒 : -

𝐶𝑥𝛿𝑒 : The axial force coefficient derivative with respect to elevator deflection is zero. Therefore, elevator
deflections do not influence the axial force.

𝐶𝑧𝛿𝑒 : The normal force coefficient derivative with respect to elevator deflection is −0.36. This indicates a
small decrease in normal force with an increase in elevator deflection.

𝐶𝑚𝛿𝑒 : The pitching moment coefficient derivative with respect to elevator deflection is −0.50. This
suggests a decrease in pitching moment with an increase in elevator deflection.
 The longitudinal dimensional derivatives are crucial in analyzing the stability and control
dynamics of an aircraft. These derivatives describe how the aerodynamic forces and moments change
with variations in flight conditions. The following is a detailed linearization of the provided longitudinal
dimensional derivatives.

u derivatives: -

𝑋𝑢 : The axial force derivative with respect to forward speed is −0.045 𝑠 −1 . This indicates that a small
increase in forward speed will result in a slight decrease in axial force.𝐶𝑧𝑢 : The derivative of the normal
force coefficient in relation to forward speed is -0.82. This implies that normal force significantly
decreases as forward speed increases.

𝑍𝑢 : The normal force derivative with respect to forward speed is −0.365 𝑠 −1 . This suggests that an
increase in forward speed leads to a moderate decrease in normal force.

𝑀𝑢 : The pitching moment derivative with respect to forward speed is zero. Therefore, changes in
forward speed do not influence the pitching moment.
W derivatives: -

𝑋𝑤 : The axial force derivative with respect to vertical speed is 0.033 𝑆 −1. A small increase in vertical
speed results in a slight increase in axial force.

𝑍𝑤 : The normal force derivative with respect to vertical speed is −1.98 𝑆 −1 . This value implies a
significant decrease in normal force with an increase in vertical speed.

𝑀𝑤 : The pitching moment derivative with respect to vertical speed is −0.577/𝑚. 𝑠 . This indicates a
notable decrease in pitching moment with an increase in vertical speed.

𝑤̇ derivatives: -

𝑋𝑤̇ : The axial force derivative with respect to the rate of change of vertical speed is zero. Therefore,
there is no effect of 𝑤̇ on the axial force.

𝑍𝑤̇ : The normal force derivative with respect to the rate of change of vertical speed is 0.01/𝑚. 𝑠. This
indicates a slight increase in normal force with an increasing rate of vertical speed.

𝑀𝑤̇ : The pitching moment derivative with respect to the rate of change of vertical speed is −0.017 𝑚−1.
This suggests a slight decrease in pitching moment with an increasing rate of vertical speed.

q derivatives: -

𝑋𝑞 : The axial force derivative with respect to pitch rate is zero. Hence, pitch rate variations do not affect
the axial force.

𝑍𝑞 : The normal force derivative with respect to pitch rate is 0.8 𝑏𝑚/𝑠 −1 . This value implies a reduction
in normal force with an increase in pitch rate.

𝑀𝑞 : The pitching moment derivative with respect to pitch rate is −0.79 𝑠 −1 . This denotes a significant
decrease in pitching moment with an increase in pitch rate.

Control derivatives 𝛿𝑒 : -

𝑋𝛿𝑒 The axial force derivative with respect to elevator deflection is zero. Therefore, elevator deflections
do not influence the axial force.

𝑍𝛿𝑒 : The normal force derivative with respect to elevator deflection is 8.62 𝑚. 𝑠 −2 . This indicates a
substantial increase in normal force with an increase in elevator deflection.

𝑀𝛿𝑒 : The pitching moment derivative with respect to elevator deflection is −6.448 𝑠 −1. This suggests a
significant decrease in pitching moment with an increase in elevator deflection.
Linearization of Lateral Dimensionless Derivatives

The lateral dimensionless derivatives play a crucial role in the analysis of an aircraft's lateral
stability and control. These derivatives describe how the aerodynamic forces and moments change with
variations in sideslip angle, roll rate, yaw rate, and other lateral dynamic parameters. The following is a
detailed linearization of the provided lateral dimensionless derivatives.

𝛽 derivatives: -

𝐶𝑌𝛽 : The side force coefficient derivative with respect to sideslip angle is −0.564. This indicates that a
small increase in sideslip angle will result in a significant decrease inside force.

𝐶𝑛𝛽 : The yawing moment coefficient derivative with respect to sideslip angle is 0.07. This suggests that
an increase in sideslip angle leads to a small increase in yawing moment.

𝐶𝑙𝛽 : The rolling moment coefficient derivative with respect to sideslip angle is −0.074. This implies a
slight decrease in rolling moment with an increase in sideslip angle.

P derivatives: -

𝐶𝑌𝑝 : The side force coefficient derivative with respect to roll rate is zero. Therefore, changes in roll rate
do not influence the side force.
𝐶𝑛𝑝 : The yawing moment coefficient derivative with respect to roll rate is −0.05125. This indicates a
small decrease in yawing moment with an increase in roll rate.

𝐶𝑙𝑝 : The rolling moment coefficient derivative with respect to roll rate is −0.41. This suggests a
significant decrease in rolling moment with an increase in roll rate.

𝑟 derivatives: -

𝐶𝑌𝑟 : The side force coefficient derivative with respect to yaw rate is 0.54035928. This indicates a notable
increase inside force with an increase in yaw rate.

𝐶𝑛𝑟 : The yawing moment coefficient derivative with respect to yaw rate is −0.125. This suggests a
moderate decrease in yawing moment with an increase in yaw rate.

𝐶𝑙𝑟 : The rolling moment coefficient derivative with respect to yaw rate is 0.107. This implies a slight
increase in rolling moment with an increase in yaw rate.

v derivatives: -

𝐶𝑌𝑣 : The side force coefficient derivative with respect to lateral speed is −0.564. This indicates that a
small increase in lateral speed will result in a significant decrease inside force.

𝐶𝑛𝑣 : The yawing moment coefficient derivative with respect to lateral speed is 0.071. This suggests a
slight increase in yawing moment with an increase in lateral speed.

𝐶𝑙𝑣 : The rolling moment coefficient derivative with respect to lateral speed is −0.074. This implies a
slight decrease in rolling moment with an increase in lateral speed.

Control derivatives 𝛿𝑎 𝑎𝑛𝑑𝛿𝑟 : -

𝐶𝑌𝛿𝑎 : The side force coefficient derivative with respect to aileron deflection is zero. Therefore, aileron
deflections do not influence the side force.

𝐶𝑌𝛿𝑟 : The side force coefficient derivative with respect to rudder deflection is 0.157. This indicates a
small increase inside force with an increase in rudder deflection.

𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑎 : The yawing moment coefficient derivative with respect to aileron deflection is −0.0035. This
suggests a negligible decrease in yawing moment with an increase in aileron deflection.

𝐶𝑛𝛿𝑟 : The yawing moment coefficient derivative with respect to rudder deflection is −0.07. This implies
a slight decrease in yawing moment with an increase in rudder deflection.

𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑎 : The rolling moment coefficient derivative with respect to aileron deflection is −0.13. This indicates
a moderate decrease in rolling moment with an increase in aileron deflection.

𝐶𝑙𝛿𝑟 : The rolling moment coefficient derivative with respect to rudder deflection is 0.107. This suggests a
slight increase in rolling moment with an increase in rudder deflection.
 The lateral dimensional derivatives are integral to understanding the dynamics and stability of
an aircraft in response to lateral perturbations. These derivatives quantify the change in aerodynamic
forces and moments with respect to changes in sideslip angle, roll rate, yaw rate, and control inputs.
Below is a comprehensive linearization of the provided lateral dimensional derivatives.

𝛽 derivatives: -

𝑌𝛽 : The side force derivative with respect to sideslip angle is −13.69 𝑚/𝑠 2 . This indicates that a small
increase in sideslip angle results in a significant decrease inside force.

𝑁𝛽 : The yawing moment derivative with respect to sideslip angle is 4.571 𝑠 −2 . This suggests that an
increase in sideslip angle leads to a moderate increase in yawing moment.
𝐿𝛽 : The rolling moment derivative with respect to sideslip angle is −16.0475 𝑠 −2 . This implies a
significant decrease in rolling moment with an increase in sideslip angle.

P derivatives: -

𝑌𝑝 : The side force derivative with respect to roll rate is zero. Therefore, changes in roll rate do not
influence the side force.

𝑁𝑝 : The yawing moment derivative with respect to roll rate is −1.05 𝑠 −1. This indicates a decrease in
yawing moment with an increase in roll rate.

𝐿𝑝 : The rolling moment derivative with respect to roll rate is −8.417 𝑠 −1. This suggests a significant
decrease in rolling moment with an increase in roll rate.

𝑟 derivatives: -

𝑌𝑟 : The side force derivative with respect to yaw rate is 1.241696 𝑚/𝑠. This indicates a notable increase
inside force with an increase in yaw rate.

𝑁𝑟 : The yawing moment derivative with respect to yaw rate is −2.57 𝑠 −1 . This suggests a moderate
decrease in yawing moment with an increase in yaw rate.

𝐿𝑟 : The rolling moment derivative with respect to yaw rate is 2.197 𝑠 −1 . This implies a slight increase in
rolling moment with an increase in yaw rate.

v derivatives: -

𝑌𝑣 : The side force derivative with respect to lateral speed is −0.25461 𝑠 −1 . This indicates that a small
increase in lateral speed results in a slight decrease inside force.
𝑚 −1
𝑁𝑣 : The yawing moment derivative with respect to lateral speed is 0.085018 ( 𝑠 ) . This suggests a
negligible increase in yawing moment with an increase in lateral speed.
𝑚 −1
𝐿𝑣 : The rolling moment derivative with respect to lateral speed is −0.29847 ( 𝑠 ) . This implies a slight
decrease in rolling moment with an increase in lateral speed.

Control derivatives 𝛿𝑎 𝑎𝑛𝑑𝛿𝑟 : -

𝑌𝛿𝑎 : The side force derivative with respect to aileron deflection is zero. Therefore, aileron deflections do
not influence the side force.

𝑌𝛿𝑟 : The side force derivative with respect to rudder deflection is 3.810766 𝑚/𝑠 2 . This indicates a
moderate increase inside force with an increase in rudder deflection.

𝑁𝛿𝑎 : The yawing moment derivative with respect to aileron deflection is −0.22534 𝑠 −2 . This suggests a
slight decrease in yawing moment with an increase in aileron deflection.

𝑁𝛿𝑟 : The yawing moment derivative with respect to rudder deflection is −4.63548 𝑠 −1 . This implies a
significant decrease in yawing moment with an increase in rudder deflection.
𝐿𝛿𝑎 : The rolling moment derivative with respect to aileron deflection is −29.059 𝑠 −2 . This indicates a
significant decrease in rolling moment with an increase in aileron deflection.

𝐿𝛿𝑟 : The rolling moment derivative with respect to rudder deflection is 23.2038 𝑠 −2 . This suggests a
substantial increase in rolling moment with an increase in rudder deflection.

Matrix Components:

State Vector 𝑥˙:

• The state vector typically consists of variables that describe the motion of the aircraft
along its path. In your matrix:

• 𝑢′: Change in forward velocity.

• 𝑤′: Change in vertical velocity.

• 𝑞′: Change in pitch rate.

• 𝜃′: Change in pitch angle.

• ℎ′: Change in altitude.

State Matrix (A):

• The A matrix contains the coefficients that relate the state variables to their derivatives
and describes how the state changes with time in absence of external inputs. Here's the
breakdown:

• Xu, Zw, etc.: These coefficients relate changes in velocity, angle, and rates with
respect to each state variable. For example, Xu affects the change in forward
velocity due to current forward velocity, while Zw affects the change in vertical
velocity due to current forward velocity.

• Mw+Mw*Zw: This is a combination term which accounts for the influence of

pitch dynamics coupled with vertical motion effects.

Input Matrix (B):

 • The B matrix relates how the external inputs (like elevator deflection 𝛿𝑒δe) affect the
state variables.

• Xδe, Mδe + Mw*Mδe: These terms specify how the elevator deflection affects
the longitudinal motion parameters.

Control Input 𝛿𝑒:

• Represents the elevator deflection input, which is a primary control surface affecting
pitch and altitude.

Gravity and other constants:

• The gravity 𝑔 appears in the matrix to account for its effect on the pitching moment and
vertical motion.

State Equation:

The overall equation modeled by the matrices is:

𝑥˙=𝐴𝑥+𝐵𝑢

where:

• 𝑥˙ is the derivative of the state vector, representing rates of change in motion parameters.

• 𝐴 is the state matrix, mapping the effect of current states on their rates of change.

• 𝐵 is the input matrix, mapping how control inputs affect state changes.

• 𝑢 is the control input vector (elevator deflection in this case).

Usage:

This model is crucial for designing aircraft control systems, stability analysis, and for simulation purposes
in flight dynamics software. It provides a framework for predicting the response of an aircraft to pilot
inputs and atmospheric disturbances, which is essential for safe and efficient aircraft operation.

The augmented state equation

Matrix Components:

State Vector:

The state vector includes:

• 𝑢′: Change in forward velocity.

• 𝛼′: Change in angle of attack.

• 𝑞′: Change in pitch rate.

• 𝜃′: Change in pitch angle.

• ℎ′: Change in altitude.

State Matrix (A):

The A matrix contains the aerodynamic and inertial coefficients that relate the state variables to their
derivatives:

• Xu, Zw, Mw+Mw*Zw, etc.: These coefficients influence how changes in velocity, angle of attack,
and pitch rate affect each other. For example:

• 𝑋𝑢 affects how changes in forward velocity influence itself.

• 𝑍𝑤 affects how changes in forward velocity influence angle of attack.

• 𝑀𝑤+𝑀𝑤\*𝑍𝑤 represents a combined effect of pitch moment due to vertical velocity

and the additional pitch moment due to interaction with changes in angle of attack.

Input Matrix (B):

• This matrix captures how changes in elevator deflection (𝛿𝑒) affect the state variables:

• Xδe, Mδe + Mw*Mδe: Coefficients that determine the influence of elevator deflection
on forward velocity and pitch rate, respectively.

Control Input:

• 𝛿𝑒: Elevator deflection, which is a control input affecting the aircraft's pitch and therefore its
trajectory.

Dynamics Explained:

• The system dynamics can be described by the state-space equation 𝑥˙=𝐴𝑥+𝐵𝑢, where 𝑥˙ is the
derivative of the state vector, 𝐴 is the state matrix, 𝐵 is the input matrix, and 𝑢 is the input
vector.

• The terms involving 𝑢0, which appears in the state matrix, suggest normalization or scaling
factors based on the trim speed of the aircraft.

• Gravity (−𝑔) appears directly in the matrix equations reflecting its influence on the pitch
dynamics and vertical motion of the aircraft.
Usage:

This augmented state-space model provides a detailed representation of how an aircraft's motion in the
longitudinal plane is influenced by its aerodynamic characteristics, inertial properties, and control
inputs. It is crucial for analyzing the stability and control dynamics, particularly for design and simulation
purposes in aerospace engineering. The numerical values in the matrix determine the sensitivity of each
state variable to changes in another, crucial for predicting the aircraft's response to pilot inputs and
environmental disturbances.

Matrix Components:

State Vector:

• 𝛽′: Rate of change of sideslip angle.

• 𝑝′: Rate of change of roll rate.

• 𝑟′: Rate of change of yaw rate.

• 𝜙′: Rate of change of roll angle.

State Matrix (A):

This matrix defines how the current state variables affect their rates of change:

• Yβ, Lβ, Nβ: These coefficients describe how the sideslip angle affects sideslip, roll, and yaw rates
respectively.

• Yp, Lp, Np: These coefficients detail how the roll rate affects sideslip, roll, and yaw rates.

• Yr, Lr, Nr: These coefficients express how the yaw rate impacts sideslip, roll, and yaw rates.

• The matrix also incorporates terms like (−1−𝑌𝑟/𝑢0) and (𝑔/𝑢0)cos(𝜃0) which account for non-
linear effects and coupling between motions due to sideslip and yaw at a particular flight
condition.

Input Matrix (B):

This matrix describes how control inputs (aileron and rudder) influence the state variables:

• Yδa, Lδa, Nδa: Influence of aileron deflection on sideslip, roll, and yaw rates.

• Yδr, Lδr, Nδr: Influence of rudder deflection on sideslip, roll, and yaw rates.

Control Input Vector:

• 𝛿𝑒: Aileron deflection.

• 𝛿𝑟: Rudder deflection.

Dynamics Explained:

The complete dynamics of the aircraft's lateral motion are modeled by the equation 𝑥˙=𝐴𝑥+𝐵𝑢, where:

• 𝑥˙ represents the derivative of the state vector (change in lateral motion states).

• 𝐴 is the state matrix detailing the aerodynamic and inertial interactions between different
motion states.

• 𝐵 is the input matrix showing how the control inputs (ailerons and rudder) affect these states.

• 𝑢 is the control input vector containing the deflections of ailerons and rudder.

Usage:

This state-space model is crucial for simulating and analyzing the aircraft's response to lateral control
inputs, understanding stability in the roll and yaw axes, and designing control systems to manage or
enhance lateral stability and handling characteristics. Each element in the matrix is typically derived
from flight dynamics theory, wind tunnel testing, or flight-testing data. This model allows engineers to
predict how the aircraft will behave in response to pilot inputs or atmospheric disturbances laterally,
which is essential for safe and efficient aircraft operation.

Stability Analysis:
Overview

Flying qualities of an aircraft refer to the characteristics that define its stability and control in flight.
These qualities are crucial as they impact a pilot’s ability to control the aircraft under various conditions
and execute the intended missions effectively. Essentially, flying qualities can be described in three
domains:

1. Stability: How well the aircraft returns to a steady state after a disturbance.

2. Control: The ease and precision with which a pilot can command the aircraft to perform desired
maneuvers.

3. Response: The aircraft's reaction to control inputs and external factors.

These characteristics help determine how an aircraft will perform during different phases of flight and
how much effort the pilot must exert to maintain or change the flight path.
From Excel Data:
The State space Matrix for Longitudinal Motion:

Solve for characteristic equation:

The characteristic equation that we got:
From characteristics equation we get 5 roots:

A- Complex roots:

λ = -2.49144 - 2.60412 i

λ = -2.49144 + 2.60412 i

λ = -0.0170593 - 0.211648 i

λ = -0.0170593 + 0.211648 i

B- Real root:

λ =0

Find linearly independent generalized eigenvectors for every eigenvalue:

Eigenvalue λ_1=0, algebraic multiplicity μ_1=1:

Determine each Jordan chain:

Same process for the other eigenvectors:

We get.
Roots in the complex plane: To check the stability of the

From this graph it’s clear that the aircraft is a Stable because the roots are in the left side of the
graph or (they have negative sign)
Summaries of Eigenvectors and eigenvalues that we got above:

A- Complex roots:

λ = -2.49144 - 2.60412 i

λ = -2.49144 + 2.60412 i

λ = -0.0170593 - 0.211648 i

λ = -0.0170593 + 0.211648 i

B- Real root:

λ =0
Using the MATLAB code in appendix A we will check validity of the theoretical calculations is
correct the output:

The 3 roots near to zero y-axis but 2 of them are in – side and 1 at y=0 :

The rest was located at the negative side which is indicate the stability:
So, our theoretical calculation (hand calculations) was same as the Matlap code.

This was the graph for the theoretical calculation (hand calculations) output:
From output of the code in appendix B:
Using this code for compare the influence of key stability derivatives (Cmα, Cmq,
Czα, Cxu) on longitudinal eigenvalues:

the output:
Influence of Cmα (Pitch Moment Coefficient with Angle of Attack)
• Graph Observation: Eigenvalues show small shifts in real parts with
significant imaginary parts.
• Impact: Primarily affects the damping of the short-period mode, with increased
𝐶𝑚𝛼Cmα (more negative) leading to more damping and stability.
• Comparison:
• Short-Period Mode: Increased stability and damping with more negative
𝐶𝑚𝛼Cmα.
• Phugoid Mode: Minimal impact compared to short-period mode.
Influence of 𝐶𝑧𝛼 (Lift Coefficient with Angle of Attack)
• Graph Observation: Substantial changes in both real and imaginary parts.
• Impact: Affects both short-period and phugoid modes, increasing overall stability with
more negative Czα.
• Comparison:
• Short-Period Mode: Increased damping and stability.
• Phugoid Mode: Significant improvement in stability, showing substantial
damping.
Influence of 𝐶𝑚𝑞(Pitch Moment Coefficient with Pitch Rate)
• Graph Observation: Significant movement in both real and imaginary parts.
• Impact: Strongly increases the damping of the short-period mode, stabilizing the
aircraft's pitch oscillations.
• Comparison:
• Short-Period Mode: Higher magnitude (more negative) of 𝐶𝑚𝑞 results in
significant damping and increased stability.
• Phugoid Mode: Less affected compared to short-period mode, but still shows an
increase in stability.
Influence of 𝐶𝑥𝑢 (Drag Coefficient with Forward Velocity)
• Graph Observation: Changes primarily in real parts with slight movement in imaginary
parts.
• Impact: Primarily affects the damping of the phugoid mode, increasing stability with
more negative Cxu.
• Comparison:
• Short-Period Mode: Minimal impact, primarily influences damping slightly.
• Phugoid Mode: Significant increase in damping and stability with more negative
Cxu.

For lateral:
 State space Matrix for Lateral Motion
Ẋ= AX+BU

β' Yβ Yp -(1-Yr/uo) (g/uo)cos(θ0) β 0 Yδr

δe
p' Lβ Lp Lr 0 p Lδa Lδr
= +
r' Nβ Np Nr 0 r Nδa Nδr
δr
φ' 0 1 0 0 φ 0 0

β' -0.255 0.000 -0.97691 0.182 β 0 3.810766153

δe
p' -16.047 -8.42 2.20 0 p -29.059 23.20
= +
r' 4.57110 -1.052 -2.566 0 r -0.22534 -4.635
δr
φ' 0 1 0 0 φ 0 0

Finding the stability analysis:

By solving the data on MATLAB.

The characteristics Equation of the Lateral motion of the system:

By using the MATLAB formula table, we are able to find the required parameters to calculate time to
half, mode and other required parameters.

To check the stability of the system.

Damping T Natural Frequency Time to Half Mode
0.413 0.398 6.09 1.67832247 SHORT
0.413 0.398 6.09 1.67832247 SHORT
0.0803 50.7 0.245 8.63196987 PHUGOID
0.0803 50.7 0.245 8.63196987 PHUGOID
1 0.0789 12.7 0.69314718 ROLL
0.559 0.696 2.57 1.23997707 DUTCH ROLL
0.559 0.696 2.57 1.23997707 DUTCH ROLL
1 14.7 0.0679 0.69314718 SPIRAL

Unit Response:

Response for longitudinal.

Flying Qualities Evaluation:

Classification of Aircraft and Flight Qualities

Aircraft are classified into different types based on size and maneuverability, which directly influences
their flying qualities:

• Class I: Small light airplanes used for basic training and light duties.

• Class II: Medium-weight aircraft designed for moderate maneuverability and utility roles.

• Class III: Larger, heavier aircraft with moderate to low maneuverability, typically used for
transport and heavy-duty tasks.
 • Class IV: Highly maneuverable aircraft, usually military, designed for combat and high-
performance tasks.

Levels of Flying Qualities

Flying qualities are assessed at three levels:

• Level 1: The aircraft exhibits qualities that are clearly adequate for the mission’s flight phase,
requiring minimal pilot workload.

• Level 2: Adequate for the mission but may increase pilot workload or slightly degrade mission
effectiveness.

• Level 3: Safe to control but with high pilot workload and possibly inadequate mission
effectiveness.

Our Aircraft (Level 1, Class I, Category C )

When referring to an aircraft that is Level 1, Class I, and operates in Category C of flight phases:

• Level 1: This level indicates that the aircraft performs exceptionally well with regards to flying
qualities, ensuring that the pilot can operate with minimal workload and the mission can be
accomplished effectively.

• Class I: Being a small, light airplane, it is typically used for less demanding roles, such as training
or light transport, which aligns well with the high-flying qualities found in Level 1.

• Category C (Terminal Flight): This category involves demanding flight maneuvers and conditions
where superior aircraft control and stability are crucial. The high performance in flying qualities
ensures that the aircraft can handle these demanding tasks efficiently, often seen in roles
requiring rapid response and precision like aerobatics or advanced training maneuvers.

Operational Implications for Level 1, Class I, Category C Aircraft

Given the combination of Level 1 flying qualities and Class I characteristics, an aircraft in this
category is exceptionally well-suited for pilot training and entry-level operational tasks that involve
terminal flight phases. Here’s why:

Ease of Control: The aircraft’s excellent flying qualities ensure that takeoffs, landings, and other
close-to-ground maneuvers can be performed smoothly and safely, reducing the risk of accidents
during these critical phases.

Predictable Performance: Predictability in response to pilot inputs is vital during takeoff and
landing. The stable characteristics of a Level 1, Class I aircraft allow new pilots to learn with
confidence, knowing that the aircraft will behave as expected.

Minimal Workload: The minimal pilot workload required by Level 1 flying qualities means that pilots
can focus more on external conditions and less on managing the aircraft’s behavior, which is
particularly beneficial during the complex and workload-intensive phases of takeoff and landing.
An aircraft's stability, control, and overall handling characteristics are evaluated under a variety of flight
conditions in order to determine its flying qualities. An extensive analysis and assessment based on the
project's primary parameters is given below.

1. Stability Analysis

Longitudinal Stability:

Static Stability: When the center of gravity (CG) is ahead of the aerodynamic center (AC), the aircraft
displays static longitudinal stability. To ensure stability, the location of the CG, which is 0.295% MAC
according to the data provided, should be compared to the AC location.

Dynamic Stability: Evaluated using the longitudinal dimensional derivatives (𝑋𝑢 , 𝑍𝑢 , 𝑀𝑢 , etc.). The
provided values:

𝑋𝑢 = −0.045 𝑠 −1
𝑍𝑢 = −0.365 𝑠 −1

𝑀𝑢 = 0
𝑋𝑤 = 0.033 𝑠 −1

𝑍𝑤 = −1.98 𝑠 −1

𝑀𝑤 = −0.577 (𝑚. 𝑠)−1

𝑋𝑤̇ = 0
𝑚
𝑍𝑤̇ = 0.01
𝑠
𝑀𝑤̇ = −0.017 𝑚−1
𝑋𝑞 = 0
𝑚
𝑍𝑞 = −0.86
𝑠
𝑀𝑞 = −0.79 𝑠 −1

Positive 𝑀𝑤 and 𝑍𝑤 negative indicate damping in pitch, which contributes to dynamic stability.

Lateral Stability:

Static Stability: Achieved if the aircraft has a dihedral effect and proper distribution of lift between
wings. The provided lateral dimensional derivatives:
𝑚
𝑌𝛽 = 13.69
𝑠2
𝑁𝛽 = 4.571 𝑠 −2
𝐿𝛽 = −16.0475 𝑠 −2

Dynamic Stability: Evaluated using lateral derivatives (𝑌𝑝 , 𝑁𝑝 , 𝐿𝑝 , etc.):

𝑌𝑝 = 0

𝑁𝑝 = −1.05 𝑠 −1

𝐿𝑝 = −8.417 𝑠 −1
𝑚
𝑌𝑟 = 1.241696
𝑠
𝑁𝑟 = −2.57 𝑠 −1

𝐿𝑟 = 2.197 𝑠 −1
Negative 𝑁𝑝 and 𝑁𝑟 indicate stable yaw dynamics, and positive 𝑌𝑟 implies that the yaw rate generates
side force.

2. Control Analysis

Longitudinal Control:

Evaluated using control derivatives (𝑋𝛿𝑒 , 𝑍𝛿𝑒 , 𝑀𝛿𝑒 ):

𝑋𝛿𝑒 = 0
𝑚
𝑍𝛿𝑒 = 8.62
𝑠2
𝑀𝛿𝑒 = −6.448 𝑠 −1
A positive 𝑍𝛿𝑒 indicates that elevator deflection effectively changes the lift force, and a negative 𝑀𝛿𝑒
indicates effective control over pitching moment.

Lateral Control:

Evaluated using aileron and rudder derivatives (𝑌𝛿𝑎 , 𝑌𝛿𝑟 , 𝑁𝛿𝑎 , etc.):

𝑌𝛿𝑎 = 0

𝑌𝛿𝑟 = 3.810766 𝑚/𝑠 2

𝑌𝛿𝑎 = −0.225336 𝑠 −2

𝑁𝛿𝑎 = −0.225336 𝑠 −2

𝑁𝛿𝑟 = −4.63548 𝑠 −1

𝐿𝛿𝑎 = −29.059 𝑠 −2

𝐿𝛿𝑟 = 23.2038 𝑠 −2
Positive 𝑌𝛿𝑟 and 𝑁𝛿𝑟 negative indicate effective rudder control for yaw stability. Significant 𝐿𝛿𝑎 and
𝐿𝛿𝑟 values indicate effective aileron and rudder control over rolling moments.

Established Criteria Highlighted by red square:

The graph presents a flying qualities evaluation chart for the short-period mode of an aircraft, plotting
the undamped natural frequency (𝜔𝑛) against the damping ratio (𝜁𝑠). The chart categorizes the aircraft's
dynamic response into four regions: "Satisfactory," "Acceptable," "Poor," and "Unacceptable." These
regions provide a visual representation of how well the aircraft meets the desired flying qualities
criteria. The red dot on the graph represents the specific damping ratio and natural frequency of the
aircraft under the evaluated conditions. In this case, the red dot falls within the "Satisfactory" region,
indicating that the aircraft's short-period dynamics are optimal, providing good handling qualities and
stability for the chosen flight condition. This positioning suggests that the aircraft meets or exceeds the
established criteria for acceptable flying qualities, ensuring safe and efficient operation.
This graph shows the Short Period Frequency Requirements according to the Military Specification 8785-
C. The graph is designed to assess and categorize the flight handling qualities of an aircraft based on its
short period oscillation mode. The axes represent:

• Frequency (rad/sec): The vertical axis, plotted on a logarithmic scale, indicates the natural
frequency of the short period mode.

• n/α (g's/rad): The horizontal axis, also on a logarithmic scale, represents the ratio of the normal
acceleration to the angle of attack.

The graph is divided into three distinct levels of handling qualities:

1. Level 1 (Green Area): This level represents the highest standard of handling qualities. An aircraft
in this zone is expected to exhibit excellent controllability and responsiveness, resulting in
minimal pilot workload during normal operational conditions.

2. Level 2 (Yellow Area): This level signifies acceptable handling qualities with some deficiencies.
While the aircraft remains controllable, these deficiencies might increase pilot workload under
specific conditions or reduce overall safety margins.
 3. Level 3 (Red Area): This level indicates marginal handling qualities that may impose significant
pilot workload and potentially compromise safety. Aircraft in this zone are considered to have
substandard performance.

The red dot within the green area of the graph indicates the chosen point for the aircraft's short period
mode characteristics. Since this point falls within the Level 1 region, it signifies that the aircraft meets
the highest handling quality standards. This implies:

• Natural Frequency: The aircraft's short period natural frequency falls within the acceptable
range for Level 1, ensuring the aircraft responds promptly and appropriately to control inputs.

• n/α Ratio: The ratio of normal acceleration to angle of attack is also within the Level 1 range,
indicating that the aircraft maintains a stable and predictable response to changes in angle of
attack.

Overall, the placement of the red dot in the Level 1 region confirms that the aircraft has excellent short
period dynamic stability, providing pilots with a high degree of confidence in the aircraft's handling
qualities. This is crucial for ensuring safety and performance during various flight conditions.

Stability Augmentation System (SAS) Design:

An example of how to design an SAS will be shown based on the pitching motion.

Transfer Function:
Since we have these data from the Excel sheet we did:
Mδ -6.448
Mq= -0.79
Mά= -0.911
Mα= -31.028

−6.448
𝑇𝐹 =
𝑆 2 + (1.701)𝑆 − 31.028

𝑟𝑎𝑑
𝑊𝑛 = (31.028)0.5 = 5.57
𝑠
𝑍𝑒𝑡𝑎 = 2 ∗ 5.57 ∗ 𝑍𝑒𝑡𝑎 = 1.701
𝑍𝑒𝑡𝑎 = 0.153
Since we have a general aviation aircraft GA, we assumed it to be a class I aircraft and we want to
achieve level 1 flying quality.

To achieve stability here we need to solve based on the desired zeta value of level 1 flying quality and
the desired natural frequency.

Close-loop transfer function:

The new aircraft characteristic equation is given by:

−6.448
𝑇𝐹 =
𝑆 2 + (1.701)𝑆 + (−31.028 + 6.448K)
𝑊𝑛 = (−31.028 + 6.448K)0.5
Based on level 1 flying qualities the short period damping to equal to:

𝑍𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑠𝑝 = 0.3
 2 ∗ (−31.028 + 6.448K)0.5 ∗ 0.3 = 1.701
𝐾 = 6.06

−6.448
𝑇𝐹 =
𝑆 2 + (1.701 + 6.448K)𝑆 − 31.028
𝑊𝑛 = (31.028)0.5 = 5.57
𝑍𝑒𝑡𝑎 = (1.701 + 6.448K)
Based on level 1 flying qualities the short period damping to equal to:

𝑍𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑠𝑝 = 0.3
2 ∗ 5.57 ∗ 0.3 = (1.701 + 6.448K)
𝐾 = 0.25
When we implement these data in MATLAB Simulink to test the response of the
system compared to a step response, we get the following graphs
K=6.06

K=0.25
Conclusion:
This project brought together various concepts we've learned in our Flight Dynamics and Control
course, allowing us to apply them in a practical and collaborative setting. We estimated stability and
control derivatives, analyzed aircraft dynamics, and designed a Stability Augmentation System (SAS) to
enhance the stability of a general aviation aircraft. Through this hands-on experience, we not only
deepened our understanding of flight dynamics but also improved our teamwork and communication
skills.

The process of developing an aircraft model, performing stability analysis, and creating a control
system was challenging yet rewarding. We learned how stability derivatives affect aircraft behavior and
how to use state-space representation to simplify complex dynamics. Designing the SAS showed us the
importance of control systems in aviation and how they can improve aircraft handling and safety.

Working as a team, we overcame obstacles and shared knowledge, which made the project a
rich learning experience. Writing the report and preparing the presentation helped us articulate our
findings clearly and effectively. Overall, this project has been an invaluable opportunity to apply
theoretical knowledge in a real-world context and to grow both as engineers and as communicators.
Appendix A (Used Equations):
Appendix B (MATLAB Code):
% Define the system matrices A and B
A = [-0.045, 0.033, 0.00, -9.81, 0.00;
-0.365, -1.98, 53.77, 0.00, 0.00;
0.006, -0.544, -1.698, 0.00, 0.00;
0.00, 0.00, 1.00, 0.00, 0.00;
0.00, -1.00, 0.00, 53.77, 0.00];

B = [0.00;
8.62;
-6.594;
0.00;
0.00];

% Create state-space system

sys = ss(A, B, eye(size(A)), zeros(size(B)));

% Plot the pole-zero map

figure;
pzmap(sys);
title('Pole-Zero Map');
xlabel('Real Part');
ylabel('Imaginary Part');
grid on;

% Compute the eigenvalues of the A matrix (poles)

poles = eig(A);

% Calculate damping ratios, natural frequencies, and time constants

[damping_ratios, natural_freqs, time_constants] = calculate_damping(sys);

% Identify short-period and long-period modes based on eigenvalues

% Assuming the first two eigenvalues correspond to short-period and the next two to
long-period modes
short_period_indices = [1, 2];
long_period_indices = [3, 4];

% Extract short-period and long-period mode eigenvalues

short_period_eigenvalues = poles(short_period_indices);
long_period_eigenvalues = poles(long_period_indices);

% Calculate damping ratios and natural frequencies for short-period and long-period
modes
[short_period_wn, short_period_zeta] =
extract_damping_natural_frequencies(short_period_eigenvalues);
[long_period_wn, long_period_zeta] =
extract_damping_natural_frequencies(long_period_eigenvalues);

% Display the poles, damping ratios, frequencies, and time constants

disp('Poles, Damping Ratios, Frequencies, and Time Constants:');
T = table(poles, damping_ratios, natural_freqs, time_constants);
disp(T);

% Display short-period and long-period mode details

disp('Short-Period Mode:');
short_period_T = table(short_period_eigenvalues, short_period_zeta, short_period_wn);
disp(short_period_T);

disp('Long-Period Mode:');
long_period_T = table(long_period_eigenvalues, long_period_zeta, long_period_wn);
disp(long_period_T);

% Plot the eigenvalues on the complex plane

figure;
plot(real(poles), imag(poles), 'x');
title('Eigenvalues of A matrix');
xlabel('Real Part');
ylabel('Imaginary Part');
grid on;

% Function to calculate and display the damping, frequency, and time constant
function [damping_ratios, natural_freqs, time_constants] = calculate_damping(sys)
[wn, zeta, p] = damp(sys);
damping_ratios = zeta;
natural_freqs = wn;
time_constants = 1 ./ abs(real(p));
end

% Function to calculate and return damping ratios and natural frequencies

function [wn, zeta] = extract_damping_natural_frequencies(eigenvalues)
wn = abs(eigenvalues);
zeta = -real(eigenvalues) ./ wn;
end
Appendix C (MATLAB Code):
% Define the baseline system matrices A and B
A_baseline = [-0.045, 0.033, 0.00, -9.81, 0.00;
-0.365, -1.98, 53.77, 0.00, 0.00;
0.006, -0.544, -1.698, 0.00, 0.00;
0.00, 0.00, 1.00, 0.00, 0.00;
0.00, -1.00, 0.00, 53.77, 0.00];

B_baseline = [0.00;
8.62;
-6.594;
0.00;
0.00];

% Define the actual stability derivatives

Cm_alpha_actual = -2.4;
Cmq_actual = -9.96;
Cz_alpha_actual = -4.399;
Cxu_actual = -0.100;

% Define the variations for each stability derivative around the actual value
Cm_alpha_variations = linspace(Cm_alpha_actual - 0.5, Cm_alpha_actual + 0.5, 5);
Cmq_variations = linspace(Cmq_actual - 1, Cmq_actual + 1, 5);
Cz_alpha_variations = linspace(Cz_alpha_actual - 0.5, Cz_alpha_actual + 0.5, 5);
Cxu_variations = linspace(Cxu_actual - 0.05, Cxu_actual + 0.05, 5);

% Preallocate arrays to store eigenvalues

eigenvalues_Cm_alpha = zeros(length(Cm_alpha_variations), size(A_baseline, 1));
eigenvalues_Cmq = zeros(length(Cmq_variations), size(A_baseline, 1));
eigenvalues_Cz_alpha = zeros(length(Cz_alpha_variations), size(A_baseline, 1));
eigenvalues_Cxu = zeros(length(Cxu_variations), size(A_baseline, 1));

% Investigate the influence of Cm_alpha

for i = 1:length(Cm_alpha_variations)
A_modified = A_baseline;
A_modified(3, 2) = Cm_alpha_variations(i); % Modify Cm_alpha
eigenvalues_Cm_alpha(i, :) = eig(A_modified);
end

% Investigate the influence of Cmq

for i = 1:length(Cmq_variations)
A_modified = A_baseline;
A_modified(3, 3) = Cmq_variations(i); % Modify Cmq
eigenvalues_Cmq(i, :) = eig(A_modified);
end

% Investigate the influence of Cz_alpha

for i = 1:length(Cz_alpha_variations)
A_modified = A_baseline;
A_modified(2, 2) = Cz_alpha_variations(i); % Modify Cz_alpha
eigenvalues_Cz_alpha(i, :) = eig(A_modified);
end

% Investigate the influence of Cxu

for i = 1:length(Cxu_variations)
A_modified = A_baseline;
A_modified(1, 1) = Cxu_variations(i); % Modify Cxu
eigenvalues_Cxu(i, :) = eig(A_modified);
end

% Plot the influence of each stability derivative on the eigenvalues

figure;
subplot(2, 2, 1);
plot(real(eigenvalues_Cm_alpha), imag(eigenvalues_Cm_alpha), 'x');
title('Influence of C_{m\alpha} on Eigenvalues');
xlabel('Real Part');
ylabel('Imaginary Part');
grid on;

subplot(2, 2, 2);
plot(real(eigenvalues_Cmq), imag(eigenvalues_Cmq), 'x');
title('Influence of C_{mq} on Eigenvalues');
xlabel('Real Part');
ylabel('Imaginary Part');
grid on;

subplot(2, 2, 3);
plot(real(eigenvalues_Cz_alpha), imag(eigenvalues_Cz_alpha), 'x');
title('Influence of C_{z\alpha} on Eigenvalues');
xlabel('Real Part');
ylabel('Imaginary Part');
grid on;

subplot(2, 2, 4);
plot(real(eigenvalues_Cxu), imag(eigenvalues_Cxu), 'x');
title('Influence of C_{xu} on Eigenvalues');
xlabel('Real Part');
ylabel('Imaginary Part');
grid on;

% Display eigenvalues for analysis

disp('Eigenvalues for different Cm_alpha:');
disp(eigenvalues_Cm_alpha);

disp('Eigenvalues for different Cmq:');

disp(eigenvalues_Cmq);

disp('Eigenvalues for different Cz_alpha:');

disp(eigenvalues_Cz_alpha);

disp('Eigenvalues for different Cxu:');

disp(eigenvalues_Cxu);