Myth of the Maneuver Point

N. Ananthkrishnan1
Independent Consultant, IIT Powai, Mumbai 400076, India
Nandan K. Sinha2
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India

There is no maneuver point distinct from the neutral point.

Nomenclature
CG

center of gravity

CL

derivative of lift coefficient with angle of attack

CLe

derivative of lift coefficient with elevator deflection

Cmq

traditional pitch damping derivative

Cmq1 =

revised pitch damping derivative

Cmq2 =

pitch derivative due to flow curvature

Cm =

derivative of pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack

Cme =

derivative of pitching moment coefficient with elevator deflection

reference length, mean aerodynamic chord, m

drag force, N

acceleration due to gravity, m/s2

lift force, N

lt

tail arm from airplane CG, m

pitching moment, N.m

MP

Maneuver Point

NP

Neutral Point

normal acceleration, in g

q, qb =
1
2

body-axis pitch rate, rad/s

Independent Consultant, B-257, IIT Powai, Mumbai 400076, India; AIAA Associate Fellow
Associate Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai 600036, India; AIAA Member

qw

wind-axis pitch rate, rad/s

dynamic pressure, N/m2

reference area, wing planform area, m2

thrust force, N

airplane velocity, m/s

airplane weight, N

XB

body-fixed X axis

YB

body-fixed Y axis

angle of attack, rad

flight path angle, rad

CL

incremental lift coefficient

induced angle of attack, rad

incremental rate of change of flight path angle, rad/s

elevator deflection, rad

Superscript
(. )

derivative with time

I.

Introduction

HE concept of the Maneuver Point has been traced back to S. B. Gates (1942) and has since been faithfully

reproduced in almost every textbook on airplane flight dynamics [1]. An airplane in maneuvering flight, such as a
vertical pull-up or a banked horizontal level turn, has a non-zero value of body-axis pitch rate, which is supposed to
provide an additional pitching moment due to the pitch damping effect, quantified by the derivative Cmq. It is
contended that, as against an airplane in steady, level flight, a maneuvering airplane obtains an additional
contribution to pitch stiffness on account of this pitch damping effect. Consequently, the Neutral Point, which is the
theoretical aft limit of CG location for non-maneuvering flight to ensure positive pitch stiffness, is replaced by the
Maneuver Point for a maneuvering flight. The Maneuver Point typically lies further aft of the Neutral Point
suggesting a greater degree of pitch stiffness as measured by the distance between the CG and the Neutral Point
(called Static Margin) or the Maneuver Point (called Maneuver Margin), as the case may be.

That a damping effect purportedly contributes to the stiffness should have set alarm bells ringing, but it did not
until 2004 when Ref. [2] pointed out a flaw in the very definition of the damping (rate) derivatives. The damping
(rate) derivatives were redefined and revised literal approximations for the modal parameters were obtained in Ref.
[3]. The revised results clearly showed for the first time that the pitch stiffness (short period frequency) did not
depend on the pitch damping derivative, Cmq the earlier dependence of short period frequency on Cmq was an
aberration caused by the flawed definition of the damping (rate) derivatives. A pedagogical presentation of the
revised theory of airplane small-perturbation dynamics has been made in Refs. [4,5] and in a recent textbook by the
authors [6].
The purpose of this article is to show that the concept of the Maneuver Point is likewise unjustified and again a
product of the previously flawed definition of the damping (rate) derivatives. When the corrected definition of the
damping (rate) derivatives as in Refs. [2-6] is used the Maneuver Point is seen to be no different from the Neutral
Point. In other words, the Maneuver Point as a concept ceases to exist.
In the rest of this article, the traditional concept of the Maneuver Point is first explained in simple terms. Then
the corrected definition of the dynamic (rate) derivatives as presented in Refs. [2-6] is briefly described. Finally, the
error in the traditional concept of the Maneuver Point is pointed out and a revised expression for the elevator
deflection per g is presented.

II.

Traditional Maneuver Point Concept

Consider the sketch in Fig. 1 showing an airplane (wing-body-tail configuration) in two different flight
conditions. The sketch on the left of Fig. 1 shows the airplane in steady and level flight trim as indicated by the
velocity vector V. The CG and NP are marked therein; the body-fixed axes are located at the CG, the aerodynamic
forces and moment are placed at the NP, the thrust is assumed to pass through the CG and the weight acts vertically
at the CG. The various forces are balanced and the net moment about the CG is zero at a trim state. Assuming a
small perturbation in angle of attack about this trim state, a) the moment M at the NP, by definition, is not a function
of the angle of attack, b) the forces other than lift produce little or no moment about the CG, c) the change in lift acts
to produce a moment at the CG that tends to oppose the perturbed angle of attack provided the CG is ahead of the
NP. In this manner, pitch stiffness is assured for an airplane with CG located ahead of the NP. As the CG moves

back tending towards the NP, the restoring moment created by the lift tends to zero, and the pitch stiffness tends to
vanish.
An alternative viewpoint is to talk in terms of elevator deflection per unit change in angle in attack. With
vanishing stiffness, there is a decreasingly small opposing moment to the forcing moment applied by the elevator,
and a very tiny elevator deflection can cause a very huge (theoretically infinite) change in angle of attack in the limit
as CG tends to NP. In effect, de/d0 or equivalently de/dCL0 [6, Chap. 4].

qw

V
B

M
CG NP

XB

qb
M
CG
NP
T

ZB

ZB

Fig. 1 Traditional concept of Neutral Point and Maneuver Point.

Now consider the sketch on the right of Fig. 1 which is seemingly similar to the one on the left except that the
airplane is now at the bottom of a shallow pull-up as indicated by the curved trajectory and the velocity vector V.
The lift is now marginally larger than the weight which provides the desired normal acceleration. All else is the
same except that the airplane on the right has a certain body-axis pitch rate qb which is equal to the angular velocity
of the pull-up maneuver given by

(which is equal to the rate at which the velocity vector reorients itself, qw).

Traditionally, it is believed that the airplane experiences a moment proportional to the pitch rate qb, quantified by the
pitch damping derivative Cmq, which is usually of negative sign; hence the moment is considered to be stabilizing.
That is, for a pull-up maneuver the pitch damping moment is nose-down, and for a push-down maneuver it is nose
up. Consequently, it is argued that even as the CG moves aft towards the NP and the restoring moment due to the lift
diminishes, the pitch damping moment continues to contribute towards pitch stiffness. As the CG moves aft of the
NP, and the moment due to the lift changes its sense, a limiting point is reached which is called the Maneuver Point.

Formally, at the Maneuver Point the elevator angle per g (non-dimensional normal acceleration) is considered to be
zero, that is, de/dn0. In other words, a very small elevator deflection is all it takes to produce an extreme pull-up
maneuver. This is along similar lines as the condition de/d0 above for the Neutral Point.
Understandably, the Maneuver Point is expected to lie aft of the Neutral Point with the distance between the two
directly dependent on the pitch damping derivative, Cmq. If Cmq=0, then the Maneuver Point becomes identical to
the Neutral Point [1].

III.

Corrected Definition of Dynamic (Rate) Derivatives

lt
Lt

qb
V

XB

CG

ACt

ZB

qblt

Fig. 2 Traditional Cmq mechanism.

The traditional Cmq mechanism for an airplane (wing-body-tail configuration) arises when there is a body-axis
pitch rate qb and the velocity vector does not reorient itself. In that case, as sketched in Fig. 2, the horizontal tail
experiences a velocity component qblt orthogonal to the velocity vector V, which results in an induced angle of
attack at the tail. The consequent change in tail lift creates a pitching moment about the airplane CG, which is the
pitch damping effect. In case of a pull-up maneuver where the airplane nose and the velocity vector rotate in sync
(that is, the body-axis and wind-axis pitch rates are identical), such a pitch damping effect does not exist physically.
This is even more starkly obvious in case of a level turn where, despite the presence of a body-axis pitch rate qb, the
horizontal tail clearly does not experience the induced velocity seen in Fig. 2 that is responsible for the pitch
damping mechanism. That is, physically the pitch damping mechanism depicted in Fig. 2 is absent in these two
maneuvering flights. However, by modeling the pitch damping effect as Cmq qb (c/2V) depending only on the bodyaxis pitch rate irrespective of the wind-axis rate (that is, the rate of reorientation of the velocity vector), a false pitch

damping moment is introduced in the analysis in case of maneuvering flight such as pull-ups or turns. It is this
spurious Cmq term in the analysis that is responsible for supposedly distinguishing the Maneuver Point from the
Neutral Point.
The correct pitch damping model must discriminate between these two cases it must admit the pitch damping
mechanism in case of a pitch-up (nose rotates but velocity vector does not reorient) but deny it in case of a pull-up
or a level turn. Following Refs. [2-6], this is possible if the pitch damping derivative is defined as follows:

Cmq1

Cm
( qb qw )(c / 2V )

(1)

and the pitch damping term is modeled as Cmq1 (qb-qw) (c/2V), where qw is the wind-axis pitch rate. Then in case of a
pitch-up, qw=0 and the pitch damping mechanism is correctly recovered, and in case of maneuvers where qb-qw=0,
the pitch damping mechanism does not introduce a spurious term in the pitching moment equation.
In case of curved flight paths, an additional derivative is defined to account for the aerodynamic effect of flow
curvature [6, Chap. 5]:

Cmq 2

Cm
qw (c / 2V )

(2)

and a corresponding term Cmq2 qw (c/2V) is introduced in the analysis. However, this effect is usually negligible for
most airplanes and may be of some slight significance in case of configurations where one lifting surface is at a
height from the fuselage reference line, such as T-tail airplanes.
For a general maneuver with arbitrary values of body-axis and wind-axis pitch rates, qb and qw respectively, the
correct way to model the pitch damping and flow curvature effects would be a combination of the two thus:

Cmq 2qw (c / 2V ) Cmq1 (qb qw )(c / 2V )

IV.

Maneuver Point is the same as Neutral Point

Using the revised definition of the pitch damping derivative in Eq. (1), in case of a pull-up maneuver (as
sketched on the right in Fig. 1) with the body-axis and the velocity vector rotating in sync, qb-qw=0 and there is no
contribution to the pitching moment due to Cmq1. Without the so-called pitch damping effect, there is no difference
between the pitch stiffness conditions in the two cases sketched in Fig. 1. That is, in either case pitch stiffness is lost
when the CG moves aft of the NP. In other words, the aft CG limit in case of level flight or a pull-up maneuver (or a

level turn for that matter) is the same it is the Neutral Point. A Maneuver Point distinct from the Neutral Point does
not exist; the traditional Maneuver Point was an artifact of the flawed definition of the dynamic (rate) derivatives,
particularly the pitch damping derivative Cmq in this case. When that is corrected and the pitch damping derivative
redefined as Cmq1 in Eq. (1), the Maneuver Point ceases to exist as a separate entity.
This can be seen formally by writing down the revised expression for elevator deflection per g. The elevator
deflection per lift coefficient is well known [6, Chap. 4]:

d e
Cm

dCL
Cm eCL Cm CL e

(3)

In the limit of de/dCL0, Eq. (3) shows that Cm tends to zero, which defines the Neutral Point the point
where pitch stiffness vanishes in case of a level flight trim. In a pull-up maneuver, the additional lift produces a
normal acceleration, and the two can be related by [6, Chap. 5]:

V qS

CL
g
W

or

dCL W

dn qS

(4)

where n is the normal acceleration in g. Combining Eqs. (3) and (4), we obtain the elevator deflection per g as:

W
d e
Cm

dn
qS Cm eCL Cm CL e

(5)

From Eq. (5) it is obvious that the limit de/dn0 corresponds to Cm tending to zero, which defines the Neutral
Point. That is, the point where the elevator deflection per g vanishes (previously called the Maneuver Point) is none
other than the Neutral Point.

V.

Conclusion

It is shown that the so-called Maneuver Point which was meant to signify the aft limit of CG location to ensure
positive pitch stiffness in maneuvering flight (pull-up, turn) is no different from the Neutral Point. The erroneous
distinction between the Maneuver Point and the Neutral Point in the traditional analysis is seen to be due to a faulty
definition of the dynamic (rate) derivatives whereby a pitch damping term was claimed to provide an additional
pitch stiffness effect. The pitch damping derivative has been correctly redefined and now the offending pitch
damping term disappears. It is clear from the revised form of the expression for elevator deflection per g that the socalled Maneuver Point is nothing but the Neutral Point itself.

References
[1] Etkin, B., and Reid, L. D., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York, 1996, Chap. 3.
[2] Ananthkrishnan, N., Small-Perturbation Analysis of Airplane Flight Dynamics A Reappraisal. I: Longitudinal Modes,
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, Providence RI, Aug 16-19, 2004, pp. 643-659.
[3] Raghavan, B., and Ananthkrishnan, N., Small-Perturbation Analysis of Airplane Dynamics with Dynamic Stability
Derivatives Redefined, Journal of Aerospace Sciences and Technologies, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2009, pp. 365-380.
[4] Ananthkrishnan, N., and Sinha, N. K., A Simple, Correct Pedagogical Presentation of Airplane Longitudinal Dynamics,
Journal of Aerospace Sciences and Technologies, Vol. 65, No. 4, 2013, pp. 328-341.
[5] Ananthkrishnan, N., and Sinha, N. K., A Simple, Correct Pedagogical Presentation of Airplane Lateral-Directional
Dynamics, Journal of Aerospace Sciences and Technologies, Vol. 65, No. 3, 2013, pp. 235-245.
[6] Sinha, N. K., and Ananthkrishnan, N., Elementary Flight Dynamics with an Introduction to Bifurcation and Continuation
Methods, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton FL, 2013.