RESEARCH ON THE STABILITY AND CONTROL

OF SOARING BIRDS
by

Robert G. Hoey
Flight Test Consultant
Lancaster, CA

Abstract Iyy Moment of inertia about y axis

Izz Moment of inertia about z axis
A research effort was undertaken to determine if L/D Lift to drag ratio
birds are statically stable in soaring flight, and to identify the L Rolling moment due to sideslip
control method they use for initiating turns. A full-scale radio- Lt Tail lift force
controlled glider model of a soaring Raven was successfully ly Rolling moment at element y
developed and flown in a manner which emulates the Lydih Lift at element y with dihedral
soaring flight of a bird. It has no vertical stabilizing surfaces effects
and no rudder. The model was air-launched from a 2nd Lyo Zero sideslip lift at element y
radio-controlled mother ship which allowed consistent and Lytot Lift at element y with dihedral
repeatable tests to be performed. Experiments with the & sweep effects
model indicate that soaring birds are probably neutrally MAC Mean aerodynamic chord
stable in the pitch axis but seem to soar with positive lateral- ny Yawing moment at element y
directional static stability. The stability source is the OSH2, OSH4 Airfoil designations
spanwise distribution of both dihedral and wing sweep. P Dutch roll period
Simple theoretical equations were developed which roughly q Dynamic pressure
predicted the observed Dutch roll period of the model. S Ref. wing area
Experiments also indicate that soaring birds control STOL Slow Take-Off & Landing
turns strictly through dihedral effect and the application of a Sw Local sweep angle of 1/4 chord line
yawing moment to induce sideslip. Successful model flights t Wing thickness
were completed using up-and-down tail movement for pitch Theta Pitch angle
control and tail-tilt for lateral control. W, Wt Weight
The simple baseline Raven model which evolved wn Dutch roll natural frequency
should provide an excellent starting point for continued x Wing x coordinate
research on bird flight. y Spanwise distance to element y
Yt Tail side force
Nomenclature Angle of sideslip

ac Wing aerodynamic center

AOA, Angle of attack Introduction
b Ref. wing span
c Wing chord Prior to the Wright brothers historic flight there was
cg Center of gravity considerable interest within the scientific community
CL Lift coefficient (including the Wrights) in the study of bird flight. Once man
Cl Rolling moment coef. due to sideslip learned how to fly on his own terms, the rapidly evolving
Cmac Pitching moment about wing ac fields of aeronautics and aerodynamics focussed on
Cn Yawing moment coef. due to sideslip improving man's ability to fly, and interest in how the birds do
Cn* "Dynamic" Cn or Cn "star" it waned. My background in stability and control flight testing
CP, Cp Pressure coefficient fostered an interest in learning more about the stability and
CR1, CR3 "Cruise" wing planforms control mechanisms employed by birds. After all, they must
DE Tail angle in pitch abide by the same laws of physics as we do. Since large
dih Local dihedral angle soaring birds appear to be relatively passive while in soaring
Dyo Zero sideslip drag at element y flight, it was felt that this might be a good place to start. The
Gamma Flight path angle specific objectives of the initial study were;
hz Hertz 1) Determine if soaring birds are statically stable in
Ixx Moment of inertia about x axis the lateral-directional axis and, if so, identify the stability
Copyright c 1992 by the American Institute of source.
Aeronautics and Astonautics, Inc. All rights 2) Determine if soaring birds are statically stable in
reserved.
the pitch axis.
 3) Identify the aerodynamic method used by birds
for controlling turns in soaring flight.
Method
Since large birds are of the same general size and
wing loading as a typical radio-controlled model airplane, I
reasoned that I should be able to construct and fly a full
scale radio-controlled glider model of a soaring bird. The
Raven was chosen as the initial subject since they are
plentiful in the California desert for photographing and
observing, and since they soar with their wings essentially
flat, making for easy construction. A baseline configuration
was established which was a composite of many telephoto
and video pictures of these variable-geometry creatures. The
planform was found to vary only slightly between different
birds that were actually circling in thermals, the primary
variation being the amount of "fan" of the tail feathers. An
actual Raven was weighed and measured and the model
configuration was scaled to be about 8% larger than a real
bird to allow for radio equipment in the fuselage. Early flights
of the model were hand-launched from a gently sloping hill.
A video camera was used to record different test results and
to measure speeds and flight path. An air-launch technique
was developed utilizing another radio-controlled mothership.
This was a key factor in the research effort allowing
consistent and repeatable experiments to be performed.
Testing proceeded by making small configuration changes
and qualitatively observing differences in stability or
controllability. Test maneuvers were generally step turn
inputs for lateral control or speed changes using the
elevator.
Early Development Flights
Initial speculation was that the flight controls of
soaring birds had probably evolved toward a minimum
energy solution, both for trim and for maneuvering. This
would imply neutral stability in all axes. Prior to the first
flights of the radio-controlled Raven model several small
profile free flight models were built to test various control
methods. The initial flights of these models showed, to my
surprise, that the configuration was statically stable in all
axes. Longitudinal control was straight forward using the aft
third of the tail as an elevator and adjusting cg position for
stability. Lateral control was more of a challenge. All
combinations of wing twisting methods such as ailerons,
differential leading edge flaps, spoilers, full chord pivoting
wing tips, etc were tried. The results were fairly consistent.
The small models would yaw and turn in the opposite
direction to the applied roll control due to adverse yaw and
dihedral effect. When a vertical fin was added to these small
models the roll control devices behaved in their normal
sense. It became obvious that if the larger radio-controlled
version was to be flown without a vertical tail it would have to
be flown using a yaw-producing control device and dihedral
effect for lateral control. The use of drag flaps, acting
downward only, on the lower surface of each wing provided
a yawing moment which caused the model to turn in the
direction of the deflected flap. (the reverse of a normal
aileron.) This proved to be a consistent control scheme and
was utilized for the baseline model. (Although there is little
evidence that birds use this control method there is a
secondary row of feathers mid-chord on the lower surface of
the wing of most large soaring birds which might be used in
a similar manner.)
The first few flights of the full scale radio-controlled
model showed positive static stability but exhibited a
neutrally damped lateral-directional oscillation with a period
of 3.25 seconds. These oscillations were eventually
eliminated by reducing the weight (and thus the roll and yaw
inertia) of the wing structure which was initially built quite
strong and heavy to survive expected crashes.
The fully developed baseline Raven model is quite
easy to fly in spite of the lack of a vertical tail and has
excellent turning capability. It has been thermalled frequently
and has been joined by real Ravens and Hawks on several
occasions. A typical flight is launched from an altitude of
about 500 feet. In still air the flight time is about 3 minutes,
however thermalling flights often exceed 30 minutes.
With this stable and controllable model and a
consistent launch method as the baseline, a series of
experiments were conducted between June 1991 and Feb
1992. Concurrent theoretical analyses of the test
configurations were also undertaken. The remainder of this
paper discusses the results of these experiments.
Test Article
The layout of the baseline Raven model is shown in
Fig. 1 along with pertinent dimensions. The moments of
inertia were measured whenever major configuration
changes were made. The model was suspended in a cradle
from a fixed pivot point about 3 inches above the center of
gravity. The frequency of the free oscillation was measured
in each axis and the pendulum equations used to compute
the inertia's. The range of weights and inertia's that have
been flown are shown in Table 1. The real Raven weighed
1.94 pounds so the wing loading of the model is still only
about 2/3 of the real-life wing loading of a bird.
Control is provided through a 2 or 3-channel model
airplane transmitter, receiver and servos. Drag flaps on the
lower surface of each wing provide a yawing moment to
initiate turns. Two tail configurations have been flown. The
first consisted of a simple elevator at the back of the tail
feathers as shown in fig. 1. The second was a more complex
"rolling tail" mechanism which allowed the entire tail area aft
of the wing to pivot up and down for pitch control and also
rotate around a longitudinal axis for combined pitch and yaw
control (Fig. 2). The rolling tail was flown primarily with the
"cruise" (CR3) wing as shown in Fig 2. Over 300 air-
launched flights have been accomplished on three test
articles over the past year.
Performance
There were no specific performance objectives of
this study since it was known that lift and drag
measurements would be very difficult. In addition there was
only a cursory attempt to duplicate the thin, undercambered
airfoil of a bird. Nevertheless some differences in the flight
characteristics of the model have been observed which are
associated with different wing airfoils. The prototype airfoil
was an angular, cambered airfoil with a small reflex near the
trailing edge (Fig. 3).Initial flights showed a very narrow
angle of attack range for this airfoil and a rapid "nodding"
characteristic (small, neutrally damped pitch oscillation of
about 2 hz) when full aft stick was applied rather than a
classical stall. Tuft studies were done by holding the model
into the afternoon desert winds, and taking video photos of
the tufted wing. The flow over the entire wing was observed
to separate abruptly right at the leading edge. The
coordinates of this airfoil were approximated using R.T.
Jones and R. McWilliams "Oshkosh Airfoil Program". The
resulting pressure distributions are shown in fig. 3 (OSH2)
and show a sharp pressure spike developing at the leading
edge at fairly low angles of attack; consistent with the tuft
observations. The computer program was then used to
develop a second airfoil with a more gentle pressure
distribution but with the same, positive pitching moment
coefficient. (OSH4, Fig. 4). (The Cmac for both airfoils was
about +.03). With this airfoil the model had a wider speed
range, a much improved glide (comparable to more
conventional glider models), but still exhibited the "nodding"
stall characteristic, although both the frequency of the
nodding and the airspeed at which it occurred were slower.
This "nodding" stall characteristic has been observed on all
configurations and cg positions flown and appears to be
associated more with the planform than with the airfoil.
Frame-by-frame analysis of video pictures were
used to determine flight speed. The vertical and horizontal
distance traveled between frames was measured against a
distant, fixed background in terms of per cent of body length.
A camera perspective angle was determined by also
measuring the apparent horizontal distance between wing
tips. A foreshortening factor was then applied to the body
length to allow computation of velocity along the flight path.
A sample time history of one of these analyses is shown in
Fig. 5 for a flight with the OSH4 airfoil. Flight velocities are
seen to be about 20 fps (14 mph) at an angle of attack of
about 12 deg. For this particular landing full up-elevator was
applied 1.7 seconds before landing and the "nodding"
oscillation of about 2 hz can be clearly seen in the angle of
attack data. Although the measurement is of very low
confidence, a lift-to-drag ratio of about 8 was determined
from this analysis. Calculated lift coefficients are plotted vs
angle of attack in Fig. 6 and compared with the OSH4 airfoil
predictions corrected for aspect ratio. Correlation is not bad
considering the instrumentation and test methodology.
Longitudinal Stability
The Raven model is quite short-coupled in the pitch
axis and was treated during the design phase as a flying
wing. The slightly reflexed airfoil was felt to be consistent
with some slight flexing or unloading of the wing feathers at
the trailing edge of a real bird. More importantly the reflex
has allowed the model to be flown with the tail loaded both
upward and downward as determined by the turn direction
when the tail was tilted (discussed later). Successful flights
have been flown with cg positions between 23% and 29.3%
MAC. The resulting trim tail deflections at landing are shown
in Fig. 7. A cg position of 29.3% was obviously very close to
the neutral point and required constant attention in flight to
maintain a proper speed and attitude. Keep in mind that real
birds don't really alter their cg. Instead they utilize fore and
aft wing articulation for active and rapid control of the
location of the wing lift vector and thus the static margin. If
the airfoil of a real bird does not unload (or reflex) at the
trailing edge as assumed here, then the Cmac is negative
and the bird must surely be flying with a slightly negative
static margin if observations of an up-loaded tail are correct.
The "nodding" stall characteristic mentioned earlier
was present over the entire cg range flown. Except for the
most aft cg conditions the model could be controlled laterally
with the drag flaps while maintaining full aft stick. (At aft cg's
the model tended to roll-off into a steep spiral) This pitch-
stable region of flight and parachute-like descent was
occasionally used as a momentary "safe haven" during aft
cg tests when flight in the normal speed range was
extremely sensitive. This stall-proof characteristic would
indicate that the basic pitching moment curve breaks in the
stable direction as the wing begins to stall. High speed dives
have also shown evidence of a slight tuck near the point of
zero lift.
Flights have shown evidence of a persistent
longitudinal phugoid oscillation which is divergent for some
configurations. It is most noticeable on the wing with the
OSH4 airfoil. Testing for the phugoid requires very smooth
air and the characteristics have not as yet been tied to any
particular configuration or flight condition. It is annoying but
easily controlled.
Lateral-Directional Stability
One of the first experiments after establishing a
flyable baseline model was to try to identify the effects of
various tip feather shapes and airfoils. The prototype model
had a double laminated feather structure in an attempt to
keep the elastic axis well forward and avoid flutter on
individual feathers. The original airfoil at the tip was an
extension of the double surface wing airfoil (Fig 3). Some of
the different wing tip-feather configurations that were flown
are shown in Fig. 8. The results of these tests showed no
noticeable difference in the lateral stability or controllability
due to the wing tip shape. Most configurations were
eventually tested on only one wing to try to amplify any
differences. As the tip feathers got simpler and flatter the
glide appeared to improve very slightly so the final
configuration was a simple flat surface with an outline shape
similar to the Raven photos.
As mentioned above the early flights of the model
exhibited an undamped lateral oscillation. The period of this
oscillation was measured through video analysis as 3.25
seconds. A reduction in the roll and yaw moments of inertia
of 10 percent (see table 1) provided a noticeable increase in
damping. The roll and yaw inertia's with the OSH4 wing were
30 percent lower than the prototype and the lateral
oscillation was heavily damped. To attempt to explain this
oscillation a very rudimentary analysis of the Dutch roll
characteristics of the configuration was attempted. The static
lateral-directional stability of the Raven was analyzed by
developing simplified equations for the rolling and yawing
moments produced when the wing was in a sideslip. It was
assumed that there were no contributions to static lateral-
directional stability from the fuselage or horizontal tail. An
elliptical spanwise lift distribution was assumed and lift was
normalized to weight and span. (Fig 9a) The drag on each
spanwise element was assumed to be related to the lift on
that element by the overall L/D ratio (ie, Dyo = Lyo/(L/D))
The change in lift on each element due to the effect of local
dihedral and sweep were assessed. (Fig. 9b).
The change in lift due to dihedral was approximated
as the product of the sine of the sideslip angle, , and the
sine of the local dihedral angle, dih;
Left Lydih=Lifty*(1-sin(y)*sin(dihy))
Right Lydih=Lifty*(1+sin(y)*sin(dihy))
The change in lift due to wing sweep was assumed
to be related to the change in the width of the element
normal to the free stream (essentially an incremental change
in area). Wing sweep at the 1/4 chord, Sw, was
approximated as 1/2 of the leading edge sweep angle. The
total lift on each wing at each spanwise element was;
Left Lytot=Lydih*cos(Swy+)/cos(Swy)
Right Lytot=Lydih*cos(Swy-)/cos(Swy)
The total rolling and yawing moment were
computed by multiplying the change in lift and drag at each
element by the spanwise distance to the element.
ly=y(Lytot-Lyo)
ny=y(Dytot-Dyo)=ly/(L/D)
 The resulting rolling moment calculations
for the baseline Raven configuration are shown for the
semispan of each wing in Figs. 10 and 11. The inboard 2/3
of the wing is influenced solely by the effects of sweep. The
forward sweep of the inboard segment produces a slight
destabilizing effect while the aft sweep outboard produces a
stabilizing influence. The outboard 1/3 of the wing has both
sweep and dihedral which produces a noticeable stabilizing
effect (negative L).
The video analysis described earlier provided a
reasonable source for angle of attack, dynamic pressure and
lift-drag ratio. For the prototype Raven the values were,
q=.405, L/D=8, AOA=11 deg.
The weight and inertia measurements (Table I) allowed
direct calculations of predicted dynamic characteristics. The
value of "dynamic" Cn (or Cn*) was computed as;
Cn*=Cn(cos ) - Cl(sin )Iz/Ix (as they are in manned airplanes). Trends indicate that most
The natural frequency was then computed as;
2
wn = Cn*(qSb)/Iz
and the Dutch roll period as;
P=2/wn
These calculations produced a value of Cn* of
.009 and a predicted period of 3.71 seconds for the early,
heavy wing configuration, compared with an observed period
of 3.25 seconds. Again this was considered reasonable
correlation considering the simplistic approach to the
analysis. It is interesting to note that the observed period is
shorter than that calculated implying an even higher level of
static stability than estimated. It is also possible that the
observed oscillation is not a pure Dutch roll but rather a
coupled roll-spiral or some other more complex mode
associated with very low levels of yaw static stability and
damping, and very high levels of roll damping.
It is noteworthy that this analysis of a fin-less
configuration produced a positive value for static directional
stability, Cn. The value was .0036 per radian which is only
1 or 2 per cent of the value we would expect to see for an
airplane with a vertical tail. This combination of very low
directional stability and low, but stable, dihedral effect seems
to work well. The model has been intentionally flown into
many unusual attitudes (tail slides, wing-overs etc.) and
recovery to normal flight is both rapid and natural requiring
no unusual piloting technique.
The next step was to attempt to validate the static
stability trade-off between wing sweep and wing dihedral
which was predicted by the analytical equations. The wing
tip feathers were modified to a more highly swept planform
(CR1 configuration Fig 12). The analytical model showed
that this configuration should have acceptable static stability
without any dihedral (Cn*=.00695). Flights were made with
successively less tip dihedral until the wing was flat.
Although the model in the CR1 configuration appeared to
have less stability at high speed, the stability and
controllability at normal soaring speeds was similar to the
baseline configuration thus increasing confidence in the
analytical prediction.
The wing planform was then reconfigured to the
CR3 configuration which is a shape more typical of Ravens
in straight gliding flight (not soaring). A small amount of tip
dihedral was chosen so that the predicted lateral-directional
stability (Fig 13) was similar to that of the baseline
configuration (Cn*=.00899). Flights in this configuration
exhibited very similar stability and controllability
characteristics to the baseline.
A seagull wing of the planform and dihedral shown
in Fig. 14 has also been flown. Although the wing shape is
radically different than the Raven, the observed flight
characteristics were also consistent with predicted stability
levels. The first flight, flown with -7 deg of dihedral in the
outer panels (dashed line) could be yawed, but could not be
turned except for very slow speeds near stall. (Cn*
=.00527, only 62% of the value for the baseline Raven) Later
flights with only -2 degrees of dihedral in the outer panels
exhibited normal turning characteristics. Predicted Cn* for -
2 degrees of dihedral was .00926 which was similar to the
Baseline Raven. Notice that the value of Cn* reaches zero
at a dihedral value of -13.5 deg. for the Seagull wing shape.
Spiral stability tests have been attempted but are
highly susceptable to turbulence and initial trim conditions
configurations tested are spirally stable and must be held
into a turn with sustained lateral control. Some
configurations appeared neutral but none showed negative
spiral stability.
Lateral-Directional Controllability
The drag flaps were found to be quite powerful in
controlling turns and recovering from upsets for the baseline
configuration. From the piloting standpoint the control was
natural and required no special technique. Roll control using
dihedral effect was greatly enhanced by the lack of
directional stability since sideslip could be produced with
small yaw inputs.
Following the dihedral/wing sweep tests the "rolling
tail" which was described earlier was installed on the model
with the CR3 wing configuration. The drag flaps were
retained as a backup control method.
The effectiveness of the rolling tail in yawing and
turning the model depended on the lift load on the tail in
trimmed flight. For a forward cg the tail was loaded
downward (Fig. 15a). Rotating the tail clockwise produced a
left force at the tail and dihedral effect caused a right turn.
For an aft cg the tail was loaded upward and the same
clockwise tail rotation produced a right force, thus a left turn
(Fig 15b).
Initial flights were with a forward cg and the model
could be turned smoothly and easily by merely rolling the
tail. The model would turn in the direction that the tail was
tilted. This is consistent with a forward cg and the down-
loaded tail of Fig. 15a. As the cg was moved aft on
successive flights the ability to turn by rolling the tail
diminished although turns could still be produced by
combining roll and pitch commands. At the most aft cg
tested the rolling tail control was reversed and the model
would turn away from the direction of tail tilt. This is
consistent with the up-loaded tail of Fig 15b. Trailing-edge-
down elevator deflections were also observed after landing
for these flights (Fig. 7). Several flights were completed in
this configuration using only the rolling tail for pitch and yaw
control. Although flying the model required constant attention
in pitch, the observed tail activity was very similar to that
observed on actual Ravens in soaring flight. The handling
qualities were not very comfortable for a human pilot but
they are probably completely normal to a Raven. It is likely
that, with the on-board sensors and control effectors
available to a Raven, he frequently flies with negative static
margins. His handling quality requirements are substantially
different than those of a human pilot responding only to
external visual cues.
 It is also interesting to realize that the adverse-yaw
phenomenon that we find so annoying in human-controlled
airplanes is the primary, and possibly only, method of lateral
control used by a soaring bird. Small changes in tip dihedral
and/or wing sweep produced rather large percentage
changes in the total dihedral effect for the model. A soaring
bird can increase the dihedral simultaneously with an applied
tail yawing moment to initiate a rapid turn, then immediately
reduce the dihedral back to zero for increased efficiency in
straight flight. Soaring birds have been observed to use
more dihedral when soaring than when gliding in straight
flight. It appears that they configure their wings for more
positive static lateral-directional stability when soaring due to
the requirement for continuous control inputs for turning
and/or recoveries from upsets.
Future Research
Now that a simple and flyable test vehicle has been
developed which emulates the flight of a soaring bird a
whole array of potential experiments comes to mind.
Certainly the planform/dihedral equations for lateral-
directional stability should be tested against the wing shapes
of other bird species such as the Pelican, Hawk, Buzzard,
and Albatross. Additional mechanisms could be added to the
models to test the following features;
1) Variable dihedral
2) Variable sweep
3) Wing flapping concepts
4) Wing shapes near landing (STOL)
It would be extremely interesting to conduct a low
speed force and moment wind tunnel test of the Raven
baseline configuration.
The results presented in this paper must be
considered preliminary and applicable only in the realm of
soaring flight. Additional tests and better test methods could
well invalidate some of the conclusions drawn thus far, but
the framework for continued research is established.
directional stability based on the spanwise distribution of
dihedral and wing sweep. The soaring Raven wing exhibits
very low static directional stability and low, but stable,
dihedral effect. These results indicate that soaring birds do
(or can) fly with positive levels of Dutch Roll stability. The
level of stability is quite sensitive to wing shape and dihedral.
Tests of different planform/dihedral combinations on the
model validated the predicted trade-off between wing sweep
and dihedral.
(2) Longitudinal Stability
The Raven model was flown over a cg range that
encompassed both up-loaded and down-loaded tail surfaces
based on observations of turn direction when the tail was
tilted. Most observations of the tail-tilt on real Ravens are
consistent with an up-loaded tail which implies that they soar
with very low, and possibly negative, static margins in pitch.
The observed tail activities of actual birds was most closely
duplicated with the model when the static margin was very
close to zero. The Raven model was highly resistant to a
normal stall when controlled with upward tail deflections.
Instead it exhibited a rapid "nodding" oscillation and a small
increase in descent rate.
(3) Lateral Control
While in soaring flight Ravens apparently control
roll attitude, and thus turning flight, strictly through dihedral
effect and the application of a yawing moment to produce
sideslip. The yawing moment is typically introduced by tilting
the tail but could also be produced by drag differential on the
wings.
The technique of air-launching radio-controlled full-
scale models of birds offers an excellent, low cost method of
testing various hypotheses of the mechanics of bird flight.
Table I
RAVEN MODEL MEASURED WEIGHTS AND INERTIAS

Conclusions CONFIG. Wt. Lb Ixx Iyy Izz

A full-scale radio-controlled glider model of a Prototype 1.125 0.01515 0.00395 0.01475

soaring Raven has been successfully developed and flown Prototype 1.169 0.01526 0.00394 0.01428
in a manner which emulates the soaring flight of a bird. Light Wing 1.119 0.01364 0.00408 0.01369
Although the model has no vertical stabilizing or controlling OSH4 wing 1.050 0.01084 0.00289 0.00960
surfaces, it is statically stable and controllable in all axes. Rolling Tail 1.281 0.01364 0.00441 0.01402
(1) Lateral-Directional Stability
Flight results of the model correlated reasonably
well with a simple analysis which predicted static lateral-