CG and stability
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CG and stability
Anyone know why forward CG improves longitudinal stability? Or why aft CG worsens it?
I can visualize that an arrow shot from a bow would be unstable if the CG were at the tail end (if that's an appropriate analogy), I just can't figure out why that would be...
I can visualize that an arrow shot from a bow would be unstable if the CG were at the tail end (if that's an appropriate analogy), I just can't figure out why that would be...
Think of it as the weight pulling versus the weight pushing.
Think of forward CG pulling the aircraft along versus pushing it along which means when a small deviation occurs it will push it further out or worsen it. That’s instability.
Think of forward CG pulling the aircraft along versus pushing it along which means when a small deviation occurs it will push it further out or worsen it. That’s instability.
When an aircraft is moving, it has mometum that tries to keep it going. Think that the cg has all that momentum and it will try to pull forward if anything tries to slow down the aircraft. Then think the center of lift as a point where the air resistance tries to slow or pull back the aircraft. Now you shoud see that if you apply those pulls, the aircraft will always end up cg beeing forward of center of lift.
There are also aerodynamic forces in play that try to keep the pointy end going first and that's why stability is slowly getting worse with cg moving aft instead of momentarily flip when cg moves behind center of lift.
There are also aerodynamic forces in play that try to keep the pointy end going first and that's why stability is slowly getting worse with cg moving aft instead of momentarily flip when cg moves behind center of lift.
There are 2 concepts to think about, controllability (how easy is it for pilot to change the aircrafts pitch) and stability (how the aircraft resists/reacts to changes in pitch).
An aircraft that is more stable (ie one that tends to maintain its pitch attitude) is less controllable (ie it is less responsive to pilot inputs) and vice-a-versa.
The tail surfaces of the aircraft provide a balancing force to make the aircraft more stable in pitch - if the nose pitches down, the tailsurfaces, rise up and the airflow over them will act to produce a downward force on the tail, this will tend to raise the nose.
If the nose pitches up, the tail goes down and the airflow now produces an upward force on the tailplane, acting to lower the nose.
The aircraft pitches around the CofG position.
Like lifting a long armed lever, if the CofG is more forward, it doesn't need much force on the tail to get it to pitch (making it more stable) however it requires a large up/down movement of the tail to make it pitch by a certain angle (making it less controllable).
With that forward CofG, if the aircraft's pitch is changed, eg by turbulence, the tail will only need to change its angle of attack by a small amount to get it to give enough force to correct for the pitch deviation - so it is more stable. However if the pilot wants to pull up into a loop, they may not have enough control deflection to get it to pitch up as desired.
Conversely a rearward CofG gives you the opposite effect - more controllability - it is easy to pitch the nose up into a loop but you also get less stability - the tail will need to generate more force to correct for unwanted pitch.
Not exactly an aerodynamicists explanation but that is how I would explain it.
An aircraft that is more stable (ie one that tends to maintain its pitch attitude) is less controllable (ie it is less responsive to pilot inputs) and vice-a-versa.
The tail surfaces of the aircraft provide a balancing force to make the aircraft more stable in pitch - if the nose pitches down, the tailsurfaces, rise up and the airflow over them will act to produce a downward force on the tail, this will tend to raise the nose.
If the nose pitches up, the tail goes down and the airflow now produces an upward force on the tailplane, acting to lower the nose.
The aircraft pitches around the CofG position.
Like lifting a long armed lever, if the CofG is more forward, it doesn't need much force on the tail to get it to pitch (making it more stable) however it requires a large up/down movement of the tail to make it pitch by a certain angle (making it less controllable).
With that forward CofG, if the aircraft's pitch is changed, eg by turbulence, the tail will only need to change its angle of attack by a small amount to get it to give enough force to correct for the pitch deviation - so it is more stable. However if the pilot wants to pull up into a loop, they may not have enough control deflection to get it to pitch up as desired.
Conversely a rearward CofG gives you the opposite effect - more controllability - it is easy to pitch the nose up into a loop but you also get less stability - the tail will need to generate more force to correct for unwanted pitch.
Not exactly an aerodynamicists explanation but that is how I would explain it.
From 'Handling Light Aircraft' by Julien Evans:
3.8.1 Longitudinal stability
Remember that the tailplane generates the tail down-force, and that this force, because of the manner in which it is generated, responds to the same factors which affect the lift force generated by the wings.
Suppose that while an aircraft is in level flight, a gust of air disturbs it, causing the nose to pitch upwards. The aircraft will now start to climb, decelerating as it does so (in the same manner as a car tends to slow down as it runs up a hill).
The reduced speed will decrease the tail down-force. From consultation of Figure 2, we can see that in this situation the lift force, acting behind the CG as it does, will now raise the tail, so restoring the aircraft to level flight. Thus although the gust upsets the aircraft, the stability conferred by the tailplane will soon restore it to its original flight path.
If a gust pitches the nose downwards, the aircraft will start to descend, accelerating as it does so. The faster speed will increase the tail down-force and the tailplane will be pulled down, again bringing the aircraft back to level flight.
3.8.5.1 Effect of position of centre of gravity on longitudinal stability
The tail down-force has the stabilising effect of bringing the nose of the aircraft back to its original position after disturbance. Refer back to Figure 2, which showed the usual disposition of the weight force, the lift force and the tail down-force during flight. It is possible for the pilot to vary the magnitude of the tail down-force, using the aircraft's controls.
Now, suppose that the aircraft is loaded so that its CG is further rearward, coinciding with the point from which the lift force acts, as in Figure 121. In this case, the original tail down-force would now pull the tail down, thus pitching the nose up.
To prevent this, the pilot would have to use his controls to reduce the tail down-force to zero, thus restoring the equilibrium. But now, if a gust upsets the aircraft, the tailplane will have no stabilising effect, because, regardless of the aircraft's speed, the tail down-force would remain zero.
Taking the argument a stage further, suppose now that the CG was so far to the rear that it was behind the point from which the lift force acts, as in the top image in Figure 122.
It can be seen that the lift force, because it is now acting ahead of the CG, will have the effect of pitching the nose up, and to prevent this from happening, the pilot would have to adjust his controls so that the tail force acted upwards, as in the lower image in Figure 122.
Well, the equilibrium has been restored again, but imagine that a gust now pitches the nose down. The aircraft will, of course, start to accelerate––the tail force will increase, pulling the tail further up, and the situation would quickly develop into a steep dive. In other words, the aircraft is longitudinally unstable. (The reader is left to prove that this instability would aggravate any pitch up of the nose caused by a gust.)
The conclusion can be drawn that, as the CG of an aircraft is positioned further rearwards, so its longitudinal stability decreases, and, at extreme rear CG positions, the aircraft may become longitudinally unstable. Conversely, forward CG positions enhance longitudinal stability. (However, extreme forward positions of CG have a detrimental effect on aircraft controllability, for reasons which will be explained later.)
Now it can be understood why the manufacturer specifies limits for the CG positions in his aircraft. A CG position outside these limits renders the machine unsafe for flight. The importance of correct loading can be appreciated, and one of the pilot's responsibilities is to ensure that this requirement is complied with.
3.8.1 Longitudinal stability
Remember that the tailplane generates the tail down-force, and that this force, because of the manner in which it is generated, responds to the same factors which affect the lift force generated by the wings.
Suppose that while an aircraft is in level flight, a gust of air disturbs it, causing the nose to pitch upwards. The aircraft will now start to climb, decelerating as it does so (in the same manner as a car tends to slow down as it runs up a hill).
The reduced speed will decrease the tail down-force. From consultation of Figure 2, we can see that in this situation the lift force, acting behind the CG as it does, will now raise the tail, so restoring the aircraft to level flight. Thus although the gust upsets the aircraft, the stability conferred by the tailplane will soon restore it to its original flight path.
If a gust pitches the nose downwards, the aircraft will start to descend, accelerating as it does so. The faster speed will increase the tail down-force and the tailplane will be pulled down, again bringing the aircraft back to level flight.
3.8.5.1 Effect of position of centre of gravity on longitudinal stability
The tail down-force has the stabilising effect of bringing the nose of the aircraft back to its original position after disturbance. Refer back to Figure 2, which showed the usual disposition of the weight force, the lift force and the tail down-force during flight. It is possible for the pilot to vary the magnitude of the tail down-force, using the aircraft's controls.
Now, suppose that the aircraft is loaded so that its CG is further rearward, coinciding with the point from which the lift force acts, as in Figure 121. In this case, the original tail down-force would now pull the tail down, thus pitching the nose up.
To prevent this, the pilot would have to use his controls to reduce the tail down-force to zero, thus restoring the equilibrium. But now, if a gust upsets the aircraft, the tailplane will have no stabilising effect, because, regardless of the aircraft's speed, the tail down-force would remain zero.
Taking the argument a stage further, suppose now that the CG was so far to the rear that it was behind the point from which the lift force acts, as in the top image in Figure 122.
It can be seen that the lift force, because it is now acting ahead of the CG, will have the effect of pitching the nose up, and to prevent this from happening, the pilot would have to adjust his controls so that the tail force acted upwards, as in the lower image in Figure 122.
Well, the equilibrium has been restored again, but imagine that a gust now pitches the nose down. The aircraft will, of course, start to accelerate––the tail force will increase, pulling the tail further up, and the situation would quickly develop into a steep dive. In other words, the aircraft is longitudinally unstable. (The reader is left to prove that this instability would aggravate any pitch up of the nose caused by a gust.)
The conclusion can be drawn that, as the CG of an aircraft is positioned further rearwards, so its longitudinal stability decreases, and, at extreme rear CG positions, the aircraft may become longitudinally unstable. Conversely, forward CG positions enhance longitudinal stability. (However, extreme forward positions of CG have a detrimental effect on aircraft controllability, for reasons which will be explained later.)
Now it can be understood why the manufacturer specifies limits for the CG positions in his aircraft. A CG position outside these limits renders the machine unsafe for flight. The importance of correct loading can be appreciated, and one of the pilot's responsibilities is to ensure that this requirement is complied with.
Last edited by Discorde; 6th Mar 2024 at 10:53. Reason: amended layout
Further to the above:
3.3 TAIL DOWN-FORCE
As previously mentioned, the tailplane generates the tail down-force. To understand how this force is generated, it is merely necessary to visualise the airflow past the aircraft (Figure 105).
Notice that the downwash strikes the tailplane at an angle. If the diagram is now turned upside-down, it will be appreciated that the tailplane will generate a force in the same manner as do the wings. Figure 105 shows the force resolved into a downward-acting component, which is the tail down-force, and a backward-acting component, which is obviously drag.
3.3 TAIL DOWN-FORCE
As previously mentioned, the tailplane generates the tail down-force. To understand how this force is generated, it is merely necessary to visualise the airflow past the aircraft (Figure 105).
Notice that the downwash strikes the tailplane at an angle. If the diagram is now turned upside-down, it will be appreciated that the tailplane will generate a force in the same manner as do the wings. Figure 105 shows the force resolved into a downward-acting component, which is the tail down-force, and a backward-acting component, which is obviously drag.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would I be correct in saying that whatever force is required by the tailplane for level trimmed flight is just exaggerated depending on whether airspeed increases or decreases?
The following bit I find a bit confusing though:
If an aircraft with a tailplane applying zero TDF is displaced by a gust into, say, a pitch up attitude, wouldn't the AOA increase on the tailplane causing the tail to rise? Or is the airflow the tail experiences purely from the wings downwash?
The following bit I find a bit confusing though:
Now, suppose that the aircraft is loaded so that its CG is further rearward, coinciding with the point from which the lift force acts, as in Figure 121. In this case, the original tail down-force would now pull the tail down, thus pitching the nose up.
To prevent this, the pilot would have to use his controls to reduce the tail down-force to zero, thus restoring the equilibrium. But now, if a gust upsets the aircraft, the tailplane will have no stabilising effect, because, regardless of the aircraft's speed, the tail down-force would remain zero.
To prevent this, the pilot would have to use his controls to reduce the tail down-force to zero, thus restoring the equilibrium. But now, if a gust upsets the aircraft, the tailplane will have no stabilising effect, because, regardless of the aircraft's speed, the tail down-force would remain zero.
Moderator
Avoid considering a horizontal tail with zero downforce, it is so incredibly rare in certified airplanes, it is not worth consideration, and really fusses up the logic path. The tail always exerts some downforce - more downforce for forward C of G, less for aft C of G. The difference is trimmed out by the pilot to bring the pitch control force to zero (but there is still tail downforce, it's just trimmed to no control force for pilot comfort). For economy cruise flight, and aft C of G is preferred, because less tail downforce is required, so less drag.
If there were no tail downforce, the airplane would not behave as expected (and required for certification) in stall recovery. This is a prime element of determining the aft C of G limit - there still must be enough tail downforce, that the nose wants to drop when down elevator is applied. During spin testing, I have flown a few types, where spin recovery at the aft C of G limit requires that full nose down elevator be applied and held during the recovery - you know that you're at that plane's aft C of G limit then!
Certification requires that a pull always be required when airspeed is slowing toward the stall. This pull could be trimmed out if the pilot desires, but is the stability indicator to the pilot that they are approaching the stall. I have flown two types where under certain configurations a pull was not required to slow, but rather at a certain [slowing] airspeed, the pitch control force went to zero, and then a restrained push was required to slow more. This is a pitch unstable airplane. The two examples I have flown which had this characteristic were the turbine DC-3 and the Siai Marchetti 1019. It is very un nerving! Modern certified airplanes either do not have this characteristic, or have artificial stall barriers to simply keep you away from this regime of flight.
I was initially thinking to say no to this, but upon further reflection, it's not a full no. In the yaw axis, a taildragger is stable during ground roll until the fin stops being effective, then a groundloop is possible if the pilot is inattentive to maintaining heading with rudder. This does have similarities to the pitch scenario, when the horizontal tail stops being effective, and the nose drops. So yes, kinda like a groundloop in flight in the pitch axis, other than it is an intended design characteristic for safety, and automaticcally corrects itself when airspeed returns (which a groundlooping taildragger generally would too, if the pilot increased speed during the groundloop, to make the fin effective again. Any stalled tail surface ceases to be effective in maintaining stability in that axis.
If there were no tail downforce, the airplane would not behave as expected (and required for certification) in stall recovery. This is a prime element of determining the aft C of G limit - there still must be enough tail downforce, that the nose wants to drop when down elevator is applied. During spin testing, I have flown a few types, where spin recovery at the aft C of G limit requires that full nose down elevator be applied and held during the recovery - you know that you're at that plane's aft C of G limit then!
Certification requires that a pull always be required when airspeed is slowing toward the stall. This pull could be trimmed out if the pilot desires, but is the stability indicator to the pilot that they are approaching the stall. I have flown two types where under certain configurations a pull was not required to slow, but rather at a certain [slowing] airspeed, the pitch control force went to zero, and then a restrained push was required to slow more. This is a pitch unstable airplane. The two examples I have flown which had this characteristic were the turbine DC-3 and the Siai Marchetti 1019. It is very un nerving! Modern certified airplanes either do not have this characteristic, or have artificial stall barriers to simply keep you away from this regime of flight.
is there a parallel with taildraggers risking groundlooping, because their CG is behind the main wheels?
Last edited by Pilot DAR; 16th Mar 2024 at 12:31. Reason: typo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone. So far my understanding is this (...hopefully I'm in the right ballpark):
i.e. what could cause dynamic instability?
- Forward CG = more TDF required
- Aft CG = less TDF required
- If the aircraft is disturbed and it...
- pitches up, airspeed decreases = TDF decrease = nose goes back down
- pitches down, airspeed increases = TDF increases = nose goes back up
i.e. what could cause dynamic instability?
Last edited by sdwings; 7th Mar 2024 at 04:42.
You're about right for static stability.
There are two different dynamic modes, the long period - commonly called the phugoid or sometimes "porpoising" typically with a period around half a minute in light aeroplanes, and the short period. They are driven by static stability, but the dynamic stability is down to damping terms. At first approximation I would tend to expect the phugoid to be stabilised at aft CG but the SPO to be destabilised, and vice-versa, but those are not universal rules.
G
There are two different dynamic modes, the long period - commonly called the phugoid or sometimes "porpoising" typically with a period around half a minute in light aeroplanes, and the short period. They are driven by static stability, but the dynamic stability is down to damping terms. At first approximation I would tend to expect the phugoid to be stabilised at aft CG but the SPO to be destabilised, and vice-versa, but those are not universal rules.
G
The main reason single-engined propeller-driven aircraft tend to pitch up when thrust is increased is the more powerful propwash generating greater TDF as it flows past the tailplane.
Last edited by Discorde; 7th Mar 2024 at 08:53. Reason: propwash effect added
If there were no tail downforce, the airplane would not behave as expected (and required for certification) in stall recovery. This is a prime element of determining the aft C of G limit - there still must be enough tail downforce, that the nose wants to drop when down elevator is applied . . . Certification requires that a pull always be required when airspeed is slowing toward the stall.
Proper failsafe wants three AoA sensors, then if any one is out of alignment, you disregard it and take the mean of the other two.
Two sensors is not really any better than one in a safety critical system like that, as if they're reading differently, you don't automatically know which one is wrong.
G
Two sensors is not really any better than one in a safety critical system like that, as if they're reading differently, you don't automatically know which one is wrong.
G
Proper failsafe wants three AoA sensors, then if any one is out of alignment, you disregard it and take the mean of the other two.
Two sensors is not really any better than one in a safety critical system like that, as if they're reading differently, you don't automatically know which one is wrong.
G
Two sensors is not really any better than one in a safety critical system like that, as if they're reading differently, you don't automatically know which one is wrong.
G
Discrepancy between sensors --> no stab trim input (but possibly reduced stall protection).
Fair point, although the AoA sensor wasn't just used for MCAS, it was also used to feed the AFCS.
There's actually also a bunch of logic Boeing employed to tell you if you think you have a problem with a single sensor - but as we've clearly seen, those tools can sometimes be flawed. The cost of three sensors, versus one or two, on an aeroplane as big and complex as a B737 is trivial and should have been done.
G
There's actually also a bunch of logic Boeing employed to tell you if you think you have a problem with a single sensor - but as we've clearly seen, those tools can sometimes be flawed. The cost of three sensors, versus one or two, on an aeroplane as big and complex as a B737 is trivial and should have been done.
G
A bit off-topic, but I'd like to reference my own trade (when I had one): high availability IT. This is usually accomplished by having all critical components duplicated, with one active and the other standby*; and the two in permanent communication to determine the status. If the one says "temperature is 15 degrees" and the other says" temperature is 25 degrees" then there is a problem, called a "split brain" situation, which is normally solved by adding a third component, called the quorum device. Funny how totally different technologies apply the same tactics.
And indeed the cost and complexity of adding a third AoA sensor to a plane as complex and expensive as an airliner must be more than bearable - Boeing certainly spent a lot more money now.
* this is called an active/passive setup; there are other configurations, load sharing and what not, but let us not diverge too far
And indeed the cost and complexity of adding a third AoA sensor to a plane as complex and expensive as an airliner must be more than bearable - Boeing certainly spent a lot more money now.
* this is called an active/passive setup; there are other configurations, load sharing and what not, but let us not diverge too far
3rd Component.
Quote from Jan... which is normally solved by adding a third component,
So maybe all commercial aircraft should have 3 pilots.. Just in case one pushes whilst the other pulls..?
So maybe all commercial aircraft should have 3 pilots.. Just in case one pushes whilst the other pulls..?
The following users liked this post: