MINOR PROJECT

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University Teaching Department, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, Rajasthan

Report on

SIMULATION OF LONGITUDINAL DYNAMIC STABILITY OF

BOEING 747

Under the Guidance of

Mr. M shahid
Department of Mechanical engineering
University Teaching Department, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, Rajasthan

ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-2019

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Department of Mechanical Engineering 1. Mahendra Gehlot (15/551)
2. Mousam Kumari (15/562)
University Teaching Department, Rajasthan 3. Krishna Shekhawat (15/544)
Technical University, Kota, Rajasthan 4. Ishank Srivastava (15/679)
 Acknowledgement

We would like to express our sincerest appreciation to all those people who has supported
us either physically or intellectually or morally during our study.
We owe an immense sense of gratitude to our guide Mr. M. Shahid for his unmatched
guidance, encouragement, support and invaluable supervision. We are also grateful to
him for sharing with us his experiences about real life, practical problems and simulation
work. We feel blessed to have opportunity to work with him.
Last but not the least, we owe our deepest gratitude for our parents for their unconditional
love and support

Thank you

MAHENDRA GEHLOT

MOUSAM KUMARI

KRISHNA SHEKHAWAT

ISHANK SRIVASTAVA
 Declaration
We hereby declare that this report contains Simulation of Longitudinal Dynamic Stability
of Boeing 747, using MATLAB and Flight Gear by undersigned candidates, as part of
their Minor Project at Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rajasthan Technical
University Kota, Rajasthan. All the information in the report has been obtained and
presented in accordance with the academic rules and ethical conduct.

We also declare, as required by report rules, we referenced all material and results that
are not original to this work.

Mahendra Gehlot Mousam Kumari

Signature with date Signature with date

Krishna Shekhawat Ishank Srivastava

Signature with date Signature with date

Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 4
1.1 Stability ....................................................................................................................... 6
1.1.1 Static Stability .......................................................................................................... 6
1.1.2 Dynamic Stability ..................................................................................................... 6
1. Longitudinal Mode ........................................................................................................ 6
I.Phugoid (Longer Period) Oscillation ............................................................................... 6
II.Short Period Oscillations ................................................................................................ 7
1.2 Aircraft Axis System ................................................................................................... 7
1. Body Axis System ......................................................................................................... 7
2. Earth Axis System ......................................................................................................... 7
3. Stability Axis System..................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2: MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION ........................................................... 9
2.1 Longitudinal Equations ................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Routh-Hurwitz Analysis of the Longitudinal Stability ................................................ 13
2.3 Longitudinal Dynamic Modes: Short Period and Phugoid .......................................... 15
2.3.1 Short Period Approximation ................................................................................... 16
2.3.2 Phugoid Approximation .......................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 3: SIMULATION ............................................................................................. 18
3.1 Simulink .................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Simulation Model: Boeing 747 .................................................................................. 18
3.3 FlightGear ................................................................................................................. 21
CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DISCUSSION...................................................................... 22
Input 1: Single Doublet Impulse ...................................................................................... 22
Output 1: Alpha Time History .......................................................................................... 22
Output 1: Velocity Time History ...................................................................................... 23
Output 1: Theta Time History ........................................................................................... 23
Input 2: Multiple Doublet Impulse ................................................................................... 24
Output 2: Alpha Time Histories........................................................................................ 24
Output 2: Velocity Time History ...................................................................................... 24

1|Page
 Output 2: Theta Time Histories ........................................................................................ 25
Input 3: Single Doublets .................................................................................................. 25
Output 3: Alpha Time Histories........................................................................................ 25
Output 3: Velocity Time History ...................................................................................... 26
Output 3: Theta Time Histories ........................................................................................ 26
Input 4: Multiple Doublets ............................................................................................... 26
Output 4: Alpha Time Histories........................................................................................ 26
Output 4: Velocity Time History ...................................................................................... 27
Output 4: Theta Time History ........................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 29
5.1. What we conclude? ................................................................................................... 29
5.2. Future scope ............................................................................................................. 29
References .......................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix A......................................................................................................................... 31

2|Page
 Abstract
Dynamic stability of an aircraft refers to how the aircraft behaves after it has been disturbed
and it play crucial role in understanding of control system. It is used to predict the natural
frequencies, damping ratios and time constants of following modes such as short period, long
period (phugoid mode), Dutch roll, spiral mode and rolling mode.

In this project, Aircraft Longitudinal modes such as phugoid and short-period are consider,
where phugoid mode is a lowly damped, low-frequency oscillatory motion representing
vertical translation usually related to kinetic and potential energy interchange and short-
period mode is a usually heavily damped oscillation with a period of only a few seconds and
its motion is a rapid pitching of the aircraft about the center of gravity.

Further, exact solution of longitudinal mode is formulated in MATLAB with approximation

solution of phugoid and short-period and percentage error of approximate solution is also
calculated with respect to exact solution. Visual simulation of exact solution is performed
using flight gear software.

3|Page
List of Symbols

AR Aspect ratio

A System matrix (within the state variable

model)

B Input matrix (within the state variable

model)

C Observation matrix (within the state

variable model)

D Observation input matrix (within the state

variable model)

c Aerodynamic coefficient
D Aerodynamic drag force

g Gravity acceleration

i Incidence angle

l Relative to rolling moment

m Relative to pitching moment

M Aerodynamic pitching moment

F Generic force

L Aerodynamic rolling moment

n Relative to yawing moment

N Aerodynamic yawing moment

p Roll angular rate (around the X axis)

q Pitch angular rate (around the Y axis)

r Yaw angular rate (around the Z axis)

u Column vector of system inputs

U Linear longitudinal velocity (along the w

Wing X axis)

X Longitudinal axis

4|Page
Z Directional axis

α Longitudinal angle of attack

β Lateral angle of attack (a.k.a sideslip angle)

γ Climb or descent angle

δ Angular deflection of control surfaces

θ Euler Pitch angle

∅ Euler Roll angle

σ Sidewash angle

ψ Euler Yaw angle

ωsp Natural Frequency for Short Period

ωph Natural Frequency for Phugoid

ζsp Damping Ratio for Short Period

ζph Damping Ratio for Phugoid

5|Page
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Stability

Stability is the ability of an aircraft to correct for conditions that act on it, like turbulence or
flight control inputs. For aircraft, there are two general types of stability:
1. Static stability

2. Dynamic stability

1.1.1 Static Stability

Static stability is the initial tendency of an aircraft to return to its original position when it's
disturbed. There are three kinds of static stability.
1. Positive Static Stability: An aircraft that has positive static stability tends to return to its
original attitude when it's disturbed.

2. Neutral Static Stability: An aircraft that has neutral static stability tends to stay in its new
attitude when it's disturbed.

3. Negative Static Stability: An aircraft that has negative static stability tends to continue
moving away from its original attitude when it's disturbed.

1.1.2 Dynamic Stability

The characteristic of a body, such as an aircraft, rocket, or ship, that causes it, when disturbed
from an original state of steady motion in an upright position, to damp the oscillations set up
by restoring moments and gradually return to its original state.

1. Longitudinal Mode

Oscillating motions can be described by two parameters, the period of time required for one
complete oscillation, and the time required to damp to half-amplitude, or the time to double
the amplitude for a dynamically unstable motion. The longitudinal motion consists of two
distinct oscillations, a long-period oscillation called a phugoid mode and a short-period
oscillation referred to as the short-period mode.

I.Phugoid (Longer Period) Oscillation

6|Page
The longer period mode, called the "phugoid mode" is the one in which includes a large-
amplitude variation of air-speed, pitch angle, and altitude, but almost no angle-of-attack
variation. Typically the period is 20–60 seconds. This oscillation can generally be controlled
by the pilot.

II.Short Period Oscillations

With no special name, the shorter period mode is called simply the "short-period mode". The
short-period mode is a usually heavily damped oscillation with a period of only a few
seconds. The motion is a rapid pitching of the aircraft about the center of gravity. The period
is so short that the speed does not have time to change, so the oscillation is essentially an
angle-of-attack variation. The time to damp the amplitude to one-half of its value is usually
on the order of 1 second. Ability to quickly self damp when the stick is briefly displaced is
one of the many criteria for general aircraft certification.

1.2 Aircraft Axis System

An aircraft in flight is free to rotate in three dimensions: yaw, nose left or right about an axis
running up and down; pitch, nose up or down about an axis running from wing to wing; and
roll, rotation about an axis running from nose to tail.

1. Body Axis System

The body axis system is fixed to the aircraft with its origin at the aircraft center of gravity.
The x axis is defined out the nose of the aircraft along some reference line. Y axis is defined
out the right wing of the aircraft and z axis is defined as down through the bottom of the
aircraft in accordance with the right hand rule.

2. Earth Axis System

The earth axis system is fixed to the earth with its z axis pointing to the center of the earth.
The x axis and y axis are local orthogonal and lie in the local horizontal plane with the origin
at the aircraft center of gravity.

3. Stability Axis System

7|Page
The stability axis system is rotated relatively to the body axis system through the angle of
attack. This means that the stability x axis points in the direction of the projection of the
relative wind onto the xz plane of of the aircraft. The origin of the stability axis system is also
at the aircraft center of gravity. The y axis is out the right the wing and coincident with the y
axis of the body axis system. The z axis is orthogonal and point downward in accordance
with the right-hand rule.

8|Page
 CHAPTER 2: MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION

2.1 Longitudinal Equations

Here are the longitudinal equations with respect to the aircraft body axes (X, Y, Z):

……..(1)

Applying small perturbations assumptions on equations (1) and converting aircraft body axes
to stability axes. A specific property of this frame is that the only nonzero component of the
linear velocity is along the 𝑋 axis with 𝑈 =𝑉 , 𝑊 = 0, redefined in the stability axes
(𝑋 , 𝑌 , 𝑍 ) as shown below:

𝑚 𝑈̇ + 𝑄𝑊 − 𝑅𝑉 = −𝑚𝑔 sin 𝜃 + (−𝐷 cos 𝛼 + 𝐿 sin 𝛼) + 𝑇 sin ∅ ………..(2)

𝑄̇ 𝐼 − 𝑃𝑅 (𝐼 − 𝐼 ) + (𝑃 − 𝑅 )𝐼 =𝑀 +𝑀 …………(3)

𝑚 𝑊̇ + 𝑃𝑉 − 𝑄𝑉 = 𝑚𝑔 cos 𝜃 cos 𝜑 + (−𝐷 sin 𝛼 − 𝐿 cos 𝛼) − 𝑇 sin ∅ …………(4)

An important transformation of variables is required to address an inconsistency in the setup

of the equations. In fact the second equation along the Z axis (equation (4)) is formulated in
the small perturbation vertical velocity w, while for aerodynamic modelling purposes the
aircraft stability derivatives are expressed in terms of the longitudinal angle of attack a.
Therefore, the following transformation of variables is introduced,

𝑊 → 𝛼, q→ 𝜃

q= 𝜃,̇ 𝑞 =̇ 𝜃̈,
𝑊 ≈ 𝑉 𝛼, 𝑤̇ = 𝑉 𝛼̇

Leading to new set of equations of (2), (3) and (4):

𝑢̇ = −𝑔 sin 𝜃 𝜃 + − 𝑐 2𝑐 + 𝑐 + 2𝑐 − 𝑐 −𝑐 𝛼−𝑐 𝛿𝐸 ………..(5)

̇
𝑉 𝛼 − ̇ 𝑉 𝑞 = −𝑔 sin 𝜃 𝜃 + − 𝑐 + 2𝑐 − 𝑐 +𝑐 𝛼−𝑐 ̇
−𝑐 −𝑐 𝛿𝐸 ……(6)

9|Page
 ̇
𝐼 ̇ 𝑞 𝑠𝑐 𝑐 + 2𝑐 + 𝑐 + 2𝑐 + 𝑐 +𝑐 𝛼+𝑐 ̇
+𝑐 +𝑐 𝛿𝐸 …(7)

From the equation (5), (6) and (7) following longitudinal dimensional stability and control
derivative are obtained:

Table 1.1 Longitudinal Dimensional Stability and Control Derivatives

Using table 1.1, we obtain the following equations-

𝑢̇ = −𝑔 cos 𝜃 𝜃̇ + 𝑋 + 𝑋 𝑢 + 𝑋 𝛼 + 𝑋 𝛿𝐸

𝑉 𝛼̇ = −𝑔 sin 𝜃 𝜃 + 𝑍 𝑢 + 𝑍 𝛼 + 𝑍 ̇ 𝛼̇ + 𝑍 + 𝑉 𝜃̇ + 𝑍 𝛿𝐸

𝜃̈ = 𝑀 + 𝑀 𝑢+ 𝑀 +𝑀 ̇ 𝑀 𝛿𝐸
̇ 𝑀 𝜃+
𝛼+𝑀 ̇𝛼+

Laplace transformations are applied to the RHS and LHS of the equations, assuming zero
initial conditions (since the small perturbations are considered with respect to a steady-state
rectilinear flight)

𝐿 (𝛿 ) = 𝛿 ( )

L(u)=u(s), L(𝑢̇ )=su(s)

L(𝛼)=𝛼(𝑠) , L(𝛼̇ ) = 𝑠𝛼(𝑠)

10 | P a g e
 L(𝜃)=𝜃 (𝑠), 𝐿 𝜃̇ = 𝑠(𝜃 )𝑠, L(𝜃̈ )=𝑠 𝜃(𝑠)

In this system the known input is the longitudinal control surface, 𝛿 Without loss of
generality, the preceding modeling can be applied to any other longitudinal control surface
(such as stabilators, flaps, symmetric spoilers. and so on). Next, the coefficients of the
equations are grouped in terms of (u(s), a(s), B(s)), leading to

𝑠− 𝑋 +𝑋 𝑢(𝑠) − 𝑋 𝛼(𝑠) + 𝑔 cos 𝜃 𝜃(𝑠) = 𝑋 𝛿𝐸(𝑠)

−𝑍 𝑢(𝑠)+ 𝑠 𝑉 − 𝑍 ̇ − 𝑍 𝛼(𝑠) + −𝑠 𝑍 + 𝑉 + 𝑔 sin 𝜃 𝜃 (𝑠) = 𝑍 𝛿𝐸 (𝑠)

-(𝑀 + 𝑀 )u(𝑠) − 𝑀 ̇ 𝑠 + 𝑀 + 𝑀 𝛼(𝑠) + 𝑠 𝑠 − 𝑀 𝜃(𝑠) = 𝑀 𝛿𝐸(𝑠)

In general, given a known input u(t) and its Laplace transform U(s) = L(u(t) ), the output y(t)
of a generic system in the time domain can be derived as the inverse Laplace transform y(t) =
( ) ( )
𝐿 (Y(s)) = 𝐿 ( U(s) )where is known as the transfer function. The concept of
( ) ( )

transfer function is shown

For the longitudinal dynamics the input is represented by the deflection of the elevator 𝛿 (t),
whereas the individual outputs are represented by the small perturbation variables (u(t), 𝛼(𝑡)
( ) ( ) ( )
,𝜃(t)). Therefore, using the transfer functions { , , } the preceding equations can
( ) ( ) ( )

be rearranged in the following matrix format:

𝑢(𝑠)
⎧ ⎫
(𝑠 − (𝑋 + 𝑋 )) −𝑋 +𝑔 cos 𝜃 ⎪𝛿 (𝑠)⎪
⎪ 𝛼(𝑠) ⎪ 𝑋
−𝑍 (𝑠 𝑉 − 𝑍 ̇ −𝑍 ) −𝑠 𝑍 + 𝑉 + 𝑔 sin 𝜃 = 𝑍
⎨𝛿 (𝑠)⎬ 𝑀
−(𝑀 + 𝑀 )u − 𝑀̇𝑠+ 𝑀 +𝑀 𝑠 𝑠−𝑀
⎪ 𝜃(𝑠) ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎩𝛿 (𝑠)⎭

11 | P a g e
The application of Cramer’s rule leads to the following solutions for the preceding transfer
functions:

𝑢(𝑠) 𝑁𝑢𝑚 (s)

=
𝛿 (𝑠) 𝐷 (𝑠)

𝛼(𝑠) 𝑁𝑢𝑚 (s)

=
𝛿 (𝑠) 𝐷 (𝑠)

𝜃(𝑠) 𝑁𝑢𝑚 (s)

=
𝛿 (𝑠) 𝐷 (𝑠)

A detailed understanding of the time response of the aircraft system requires an analysis of
the coefficients of the polynomials at the numerator and, more importantly, the denominator
of the preceding transfer functions. These coefficients are derived from grouping terms with
the same order from the calculation of the preceding determinants. The expressions for the
coefficients of the numerator polynomials (𝑁𝑢𝑚 (s), 𝑁𝑢𝑚 (s), 𝑁𝑢𝑚 (s)) are given by

𝑁𝑢𝑚 (s) = A s + B s + C s + D

A =𝑋 𝑉 −𝑍 ̇

B = −𝑋 𝑉 −𝑍̇ 𝑀 +𝑍 +𝑀̇ 𝑍 +𝑉 +𝑍 𝑋

𝐶 =𝑋 [𝑀 𝑍 + 𝑀 ̇ 𝑔 sin 𝜃 − 𝑀 + 𝑀 (𝑉 + 𝑍 )]

𝐷 = 𝑔 sin 𝜃 𝑋 𝑀 +𝑀 − 𝑔 cos 𝜃 𝑍 𝑀 +𝑀 + 𝑀 (𝑔 cos 𝜃 𝑍 − 𝑔 sin 𝜃 𝑋 )

𝑁𝑢𝑚 (s) = A s + B s + C s + D

A =𝑍

B = 𝑋 𝑍 −𝑍 ( 𝑋 +𝑋 + 𝑀 + 𝑀 (𝑍 + 𝑉 ))

C = [𝑋 𝑍 +𝑉 𝑀 +𝑀 −𝑀 𝑍 ]+ 𝑍 𝑀 𝑋 +𝑋 -𝑀 𝑔 sin 𝜃 + 𝑍 + 𝑉 𝑋 +𝑋

D =−𝑔 sin 𝜃 𝑋 𝑀 +𝑀 + 𝑔 cos 𝜃 𝑍 𝑀 +𝑀 +𝑀 [𝑔 sin 𝜃 𝑋 + 𝑋 − 𝑔 cos 𝜃 𝑍 ]

𝑁𝑢𝑚 (s)=A s + B s + C

A = 𝑍 𝑀 ̇ +𝑀 (𝑉 − 𝑍 )

12 | P a g e
B = 𝑋 [𝑀 ̇ 𝑍 + (𝑉 − 𝑍 ̇ ) 𝑀 + 𝑀 ]+ 𝑍 [ 𝑀 + 𝑀 −𝑀̇ 𝑋 +𝑋 ]- 𝑀 (𝑉 − 𝑍 ̇ ) 𝑋 +

𝑋 )−𝑍

C =𝑋 𝑀 +𝑀 𝑍 − 𝑀 +𝑀 𝑍 −𝑍 [ 𝑀 + 𝑀 𝑋 +𝑋 +𝑋 𝑀 +𝑀 ]+ 𝑀 [ 𝑋 +
𝑋 )𝑍 − 𝑋 𝑍 ]

All the transfer functions share a common denominator, which will be referred to as the
longitudinal characteristic equation (CE) and indicated by 𝐷 (s). By grouping the terms with
the same exponent, an expression for the CE is given by

𝐷 (s)= A s + B s + C s + D s + E

A = 𝑉 −𝑍 ̇

B =− 𝑉 −𝑍̇ 𝑋 +𝑋 + 𝑀 −𝑍 − 𝑀 ̇ 𝑍 + 𝑉

C = 𝑋 +𝑋 𝑀 𝑉 −𝑍̇ +𝑍 +𝑀̇ 𝑍 +𝑉 + 𝑀 𝑍 − 𝑍 𝑋 +𝑀 ̇ 𝑔 sin 𝜃 − 𝑀 + 𝑀 𝑉 +

D = 𝑔 sin 𝜃 [ 𝑀 + 𝑀 −𝑀̇ 𝑋 +𝑋 ] + 𝑔 cos 𝜃 [𝑀 ̇ 𝑍 + 𝑀 + 𝑀 𝑉 −𝑍 ̇ ]

−𝑋 𝑀 + 𝑀 𝑍 +𝑉 +𝑍 𝑋 𝑀 + 𝑋 + 𝑋 [ 𝑀 +𝑀 𝑍 +𝑉 −𝑀 𝑍 ]

E = g cos 𝜃 [𝑍 𝑀 + 𝑀 −𝑍 𝑀 + 𝑀 + 𝑔 sin 𝜃 [ 𝑀 + 𝑀 𝑋 − 𝑋 +𝑋 𝑀 +𝑀 ]

The stability of the longitudinal dynamics is directly related to the values of the preceding
coefficients. A simple tool for assessing the dynamic stability is given by the application of
the Routh - Hurwitz stability criteria.

2.2 Routh-Hurwitz Analysis of the Longitudinal Stability

According to the Routh- Hurwitz stability criterion, a dynamic system with a given CE is
dynamically stable if all the coefficients in the first column of the Routh- Hurwitz array have
the same sign. Furthermore, the number of unstable roots of the CE (that is positive, if real, or
with positive real part, if complex conjugate) is equal to the number of sign changes in the
first column of the Routh- Hurwitz array. Therefore, the following conditions must be
satisfied for longitudinal dynamic stability:

𝐷 (s)= A s + B s + C s + D s + E

13 | P a g e
 s A C E
s B D
s k k
S k
s E

Where,

𝐵 𝐶 −𝐴 𝐷
𝑘 =
𝐵

𝑘 = =𝐸

( )
𝑘 = =

𝐴 > 0, 𝐵 > 0, (𝐵 𝐶 − 𝐴 𝐷 ) > 0, ∆ > 0, 𝐸 > 0

From the preceding analysis the assessment of the longitudinal stability requires the
verification of each of the five preceding conditions. While some of these conditions are
trivially satisfied (for example, A 1 > 0, B1 > 0), the other conditions might be substantially
more restrictive. Typically, longitudinal dynamic instability might potentially arise from the
following two sources:

∆ = 𝐷 (𝐵 𝐶 − 𝐴 𝐷 ) − 𝐵 𝐸 < 0

𝐸 <0

The condition ∆= 𝐷1 (𝐵1 𝐶1 − 𝐴1𝐷1 ) − 𝐵12 𝐸1 < 0 along with the condition E1 > 0 is
associated with two unstable roots. It will be shown later that this situation is related to the
pair of unstable complex conjugate roots associated with an unstable phugoid mode. The
condition ∆= 𝐷 (𝐵 𝐶 − 𝐴 𝐷 ) − 𝐵 𝐸 > 0 along with the condition Et < 0 is associated
instead with one unstable root Recall that

E = g cos 𝜃 [𝑍 𝑀 + 𝑀 −𝑍 𝑀 + 𝑀 + 𝑔 sin 𝜃 [ 𝑀 + 𝑀 𝑋 − 𝑋 +𝑋 𝑀 +𝑀 ]

For small values of 𝜃 we can approximate

𝐸 ≈ [𝑍 𝑀 + 𝑀 − 𝑍 (𝑀 + 𝑀 )]

14 | P a g e
Neglecting the contribution from the propulsive dimensional derivatives and recalling the
relationships for the aerodynamic dimensional derivatives

( )
𝑍 = <0

( )
𝑍 =- <0

( )
𝑀 = ≤ ≈ ≥ 0,

̅
𝑀 = <0

With 𝑐 , 𝑐 , 𝑐 being the values of 𝑐 , 𝑐 , 𝑐 at trim conditions (with 𝑐 0).

( )
It turns out that the condition 𝑀 = ≤ ≈ ≥ 0 is the most critical condition for

satisfying the Hurwitz stability criteria. In fact, for longitudinal dynamic stability purposes it
is desirable to have

𝑀 >0→𝑐 >0

From the relationships

𝐴 > 0, 𝐵 > 0, (𝐵 𝐶 − 𝐴 𝐷 ) > 0, 𝐸 > 0

It is clear that the conditions for stability are functions of a large number of variables,
including flight conditions, geometric parameters, and inertial characteristics, in addition to
the aerodynamic behaviour. A number of studies are typically performed to evaluate the
effect of specific parameters (related to the aerodynamic behaviour, Flight conditions, or
aircraft geometry) on the overall longitudinal stability.

2.3 Longitudinal Dynamic Modes: Short Period and Phugoid

For dynamically stable aircraft the longitudinal CE has two pairs of complex conjugate roots.
Each pair is associated with a specific dynamic mode related to a second order system. The
longitudinal dynamic modes are called short period and phugoid Therefore, the longitudinal
CE takes on the form:

𝐷 =A1s4+B1s3+C1s2+D1s+E1(s2+2ζSP*ω *s+ω )(s2+sζPH*ω *s+ω )

15 | P a g e
The short period is characterized by fairly high values of damping coefficient ζSP along with
high values of natural frequency ωSP.

Conversely, the phugoid is characterized by low values of damping coefficient ζ PH along with
generally low values of natural frequency ωPH.

ω >> ω , ζSP >> ζPH

2.3.1 Short Period Approximation

The application of Laplace transformations to the linearized longitudinal equations leads to

the solution of the longitudinal transfer functions using,

( )
(𝑠 − 𝑋 + 𝑋 ) −𝑋 𝑔𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 ⎧ ( )⎫ 𝑋
⎪ ( )⎪
−𝑍 (𝑠 𝑉 − 𝑍 ̇ −𝑍 ) (−𝑠 𝑍 + 𝑉 + 𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 ) ( )
= 𝑍
⎨ ⎬ 𝑀
−(𝑀 + 𝑀 ) −(𝑀 ̇ 𝑠 + 𝑀 + 𝑀 ) 𝑠(𝑠 − 𝑀 ) ⎪ ( )⎪
⎩ ( )⎭

From an analysis of the longitudinal dynamics it can be seen that typically for longitudinally
stable aircraft the short period dynamics is so fast that the condition u(t) ≈ 0 can be
approximated to be valid throughout the limited duration of the short period dynamics. This
approximation allows a major simplification of the preceding relationship, leading to

( )
(𝑠 − 𝑋 + 𝑋 ) −𝑋 𝑔𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 ⎧ ( )⎫ 𝑋
⎪ ( )⎪
−𝑍 (𝑠 𝑉 − 𝑍 ̇ −𝑍 ) (−𝑠 𝑍 + 𝑉 + 𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 ) ( )
= 𝑍
⎨ ⎬ 𝑀
−(𝑀 + 𝑀 ) −(𝑀 ̇ 𝑠 + 𝑀 + 𝑀 ) 𝑠(𝑠 − 𝑀 ) ⎪ ( )⎪
⎩ ( )⎭

Therefore, the previous (3 x 3) system can be reduced to the following (2 x 2) system:

( )
(𝑠 𝑉 − 𝑍 ̇ −𝑍 ) (−𝑠 𝑍 + 𝑉 + 𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 ) ( ) 𝑍
=
−(𝑀 ̇ 𝑠 + 𝑀 + 𝑀 ) 𝑠(𝑠 − 𝑀 ) ( ) 𝑀
( )

2.3.2 Phugoid Approximation

Considering longitudinal state matrix whose determinant provides the full fourth order
longitudinal characteristic equation n-1(s).

16 | P a g e
 ( )
(𝑠 − 𝑋 + 𝑋 ) −𝑋 𝑔𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 ⎧ ( )⎫ 𝑋
⎪ ( )⎪
−𝑍 (𝑠 𝑉 − 𝑍 ̇ −𝑍 ) (−𝑠 𝑍 + 𝑉 + 𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 ) ( )
= 𝑍
⎨ ⎬ 𝑀
−(𝑀 + 𝑀 ) −(𝑀 ̇ 𝑠 + 𝑀 + 𝑀 ) 𝑠(𝑠 − 𝑀 ) ⎪ ( )⎪
⎩ ( )⎭

It can be approximated that after the effects of the short period have vanished, the aircraft
dynamic response shows no changes in the angle of attack. This implies that the pitching
moment equation can be neglected. All the terms associated with the perturbations in the
angle of attack can be discarded. Means, during a typical phugoid oscillation we have a(t) ≈
0. Therefore, the preceding relationship can be simplified to,

( )
(𝑠 − 𝑋 + 𝑋 ) −𝑋 𝑔𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 ⎧ ( )⎫ 𝑋
⎪ ( )⎪
−𝑍 (𝑠 𝑉 − 𝑍 ̇ −𝑍 ) (−𝑠 𝑍 + 𝑉 + 𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 ) ( )
= 𝑍
⎨ ⎬ 𝑀
−(𝑀 + 𝑀 ) −(𝑀 ̇ 𝑠 + 𝑀 + 𝑀 ) 𝑠(𝑠 − 𝑀 ) ⎪ ( )⎪
⎩ ( )⎭

( )
(𝑠 − 𝑋 + 𝑋 ) 𝑔𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 ( ) 𝑋
=
−𝑍 (−𝑠 𝑍 + 𝑉 + 𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 ) ( ) 𝑍
( )

17 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 3: SIMULATION

3.1 Simulink
Simulink was developed by MathWorks. It is a graphical programming environment for
modelling, simulating and analysing multi domain dynamical systems. Its primary interface
is a graphical block diagramming tool and a customizable set of block libraries. It offers tight
integration with the rest of the MATLAB environment and can either drive MATLAB or be
scripted from it. Simulink is widely used in automatic control and digital signal
processing for multi domain simulation and Model-Based Design.

MathWorks and other third-party hardware and software products can be used with Simulink.
For example, Stateflow extends Simulink with a design environment for developing state
machines and flow charts. MathWorks claims that, coupled with another of their products,
Simulink can automatically generate C source code for real-time implementation of systems.

3.2 Simulation Model: Boeing 747

Table 3.1 Geometric Data for the Boeing 747 Aircraft

Wing Surface (ft2) Ѕ 5500

Mean Aerodynamic Chord (ft) 𝑐̅ 27.3
Wing Span (ft) 𝑏 196

Table 3.2 Flight Conditions Data for the Boeing 747 Aircraft

Approach Cruise(low) Cruise(high)

Altitude(ft) ℎ 0 20000 40000
Mach Number 𝑀 0.198 0.65 0.90
True Airspeed(ft/sec) 𝑉 221 673 871
Dynamic Pressure(lbs/ft2) 𝑞 58 287.2 222.8
Location of CG %MAC 𝑥 0.25 0.25 0.25
Steady state AOA(deg) 𝛼 8.5 2.5 2.4

18 | P a g e
 Table 3.3 Mass and Inertial Data for the Boeing 747 Aircraft

Approach Cruise(low) Cruise(high)

Mass (lbs) 𝑚 564000 636636 636636
Moment of inertia x-axis 𝐼 13700000 18200000 18200000
2
(slug.ft )
Moment of inertia y-axis 𝐼 30500000 33100000 33100000
2
(slug.ft )
Moment of inertia z-axis 𝐼 43100000 49700000 49700000
2
(slug.ft )
Product of inertia xz-plane 𝐼 830000 970000 970000

Table 3.4 Longitudinal Aerodynamic Coefficients for the Boeing B747 Aircraft

Steady State Approach Cruise(low) Cruise(high)

𝐶 1.76 0.4 0.52
𝐶 0.2630 0.0250 0.0450
𝐶 0 0 0
𝐶 0.2630 0.0250 0.0450

𝐶 0 0 0

Stability
Derivatives
𝐶 0.0751 0.0164 0.0305
𝐶 0 0 0
𝐶 1.13 0.20 0.50
𝐶 -0.5523 -0.055 -0.950

𝐶 0.92 0.21 0.29

𝐶 -0.22 0.13 -0.23
𝐶 5.67 4.4 5.5
𝐶 ̇
6.7 7.0 8.0
𝐶 5.65 6.6 7.8

𝐶 0 0 0

19 | P a g e
 𝐶 0.071 0.013 -0.09
𝐶 -1.45 -1.00 -1.60
𝐶 ̇
-3.3 -4.0 -9.0
𝐶 -21.4 -20.5 -25.5

𝐶 0 0 0

𝐶 0 0 0

Control
Derivatives
𝐶 /𝐶 0/0 0/0 0/0

𝐶 /𝐶 0.36/0.75 0.32/0.70 0.30/0.65

𝐶 /𝐶 -1.40/-3.0 -1.30/-2.70 1.20/-2.50

Simulink Verification and Validation enables systematic verification and validation of

models through modelling style checking, requirements traceability and model coverage
analysis. Simulink Design Verifier uses formal methods to identify design errors like integer
overflow, division by zero and dead logic, and generates test case scenarios for model
checking within the Simulink environment. Aircraft Dynamics Simulink model is created
using workspace input from MATLAB based mathematical model. It connects aircraft model
to Flight Gear visual simulator. Simulink model is shown in figure below.

Figure 3.1 – Simulink Model

20 | P a g e
3.3 FlightGear
FlightGear Flight Simulator (or FGFS) is a free, open source multi-platform flight
simulator developed by the FlightGear project since 1997. The goal is to create a
sophisticated and open flight simulator framework for use in research or academic
environments, pilot training, as an industry engineering tool, for DIY-ers to pursue their
favourite interesting flight simulation idea, and last but certainly not least as a fun, realistic,
and challenging desktop flight simulator. FlightGear has been used in a range of projects in
academia and industry (including NASA) and even home-built cockpits.

Several networking options allow FlightGear to communicate with other instances of

FlightGear. A multiplayer protocol is available for using FlightGear on a local network in a
multi aircraft environment. This can be used for formation flight or air traffic
control simulation. Soon after the original Multiplayer Protocol became available, it was
expanded to allow playing over the internet. Several instances of FlightGear can be
synchronized to allow for a multi monitor environment.

21 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DISCUSSION
MATLAB (matrix laboratory) is a multi-paradigm numerical computing environment and
proprietary programming language developed by MathWorks. MATLAB allows matrix
manipulations, plotting of functions and data, implementation of algorithms, creation of user
interfaces, and interfacing with programs written in other languages, including C, C++, C#,
Java, Fortran and Python. Although MATLAB is intended primarily for numerical
computing, an optional toolbox uses the MuPAD symbolic engine, allowing access to
symbolic computing abilities. An additional package, Simulink, adds graphical multi-domain
simulation and model-based design for dynamic and embedded systems.

A script has written to determine the dynamic behaviour of Boeing 747 (Appendix A).
Aircraft dynamic model is solved and following results is obtained for corresponding input.

These are the following graphs that are obtained from different inputs of elevator deflection:

Input 1: Single Doublet Impulse

Output 1: Alpha Time History

22 | P a g e
Output 1: Velocity Time History

Output 1: Theta Time History

23 | P a g e
Input 2: Multiple Doublet Impulse

Output 2: Alpha Time Histories

Output 2: Velocity Time History

24 | P a g e
Output 2: Theta Time Histories

Input 3: Single Doublets

Output 3: Alpha Time Histories

25 | P a g e
Output 3: Velocity Time History

Output 3: Theta Time Histories

Input 4: Multiple Doublets

Output 4: Alpha Time Histories

26 | P a g e
Output 4: Velocity Time History

Output 4: Theta Time History

Hence, we can estimate time to be stabilizing the system after a disturbance given to the
system. Following results are obtained from mathematical model –

27 | P a g e
 Table 4.1 Exact Solution

Natural Damping
Mode
Frequency Ratio
Short
1.3201 0.3555
Period
Phugoid 0.0333 0.9625

Table 4.2 Approximate Solution

Natural Damping
Mode
Frequency Ratio
Short Period 1.3328 0.3530
Phugoid 0.0452 0.7307

Table 4.3 Percentage Error in Approximate Solution

Natural Damping
Mode
Frequency Ratio
Short Period 0.96 0.70
Phugoid 35.73 24.08
From table 4.2 we can see that the damping ratio and natural frequency of short-period is
high where damping ratio and natural frequency of phugoid mode is low.

From table 4.3 we can see that the percentage error of natural frequency and damping ratio in
phugoid mode is high as compare to short-period.

28 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

5.1. What we conclude?

According to our results that are obtained from exact solution of longitudinal mode and
approximate solution of short and phugoid mode, here are the following conclusion obtained:

 It is shown in this flight dynamics model that the phugoid approximations provide
poor estimates while the short period approximations are accurate.
 Time taken in short period mode to reach the equilibrium is 20 seconds after being
disturbed and on the other hand 150-160 seconds for phugoid mode.

5.2. Future scope

 This project ended up with longitudinal mode only, we can also estimate it with
lateral mode to know overall dynamic stability of aircraft which is major concern in
the control system of aircraft.
 There are many methods to estimate the dynamic stability of aircraft, we can compare
these methods to pull out the best one for aircraft dynamic stability by comparing
their results.

29 | P a g e
References
1. Guilherme Aschauer, Alexander Schirrer, Martin Kozek, “Co-Simulation of Matlab and
FlightGear for Identification and Control of Aircraft”, IFAC-PapersOnLine, Volume 48,
Issue 1, 2015, Pages 67-72, ISSN 2405-8963, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.05.071.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405896315000725)
2. Mingzhou Gao, Guoping Cai, “Robust fault-tolerant control for wing flutter under actuator
failure” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, Volume 29, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 1007-1017, ISSN
1000-9361,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2016.06.014.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936116300693)
3. Comments on "Literal Approximations to Aircraft Dynamics Modes" and "Consistent
Approximations to Aircraft Longitudinal Modes" Giovanni Mengali Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics 2003 26:2, 380-383
4. “Oscillation Analysis for Longitudinal Dynamics of a Fixed-Wing UAV Using PID Control
Design”B. K. Aliyu, C. A. Osheku1, P. N. Okeke2, F. E. Opara2 and B. I. Okere2
1
Centre for Space Transport and Propulsion (CSTP), Epe Lagos-State, Nigeria.
2
Centre for Basic Space Science (CBSS), Nsukka Enugu-State, Nigeria.
5. Seyed Amin Bagherzadeh, Mahdi Sabzehparvar, (2015) "Estimation of flight modes with
Hilbert-Huang transform", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 87 Issue: 5,
pp.402-417, https://doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-10-2013-0185
6. “Aircraft Dynamics: From Modeling to Simulation” by Agostino De Marco and Marcello R.
Napolitano
7. “Introduction of full flight dynamic stability constraints in aircraft multidisciplinary
optimization” J.Mieloszyk T.Goetzendorf-Grabowski
8. “A century of phugoid approximations” S.Pradeep Department of Aerospace
Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India

30 | P a g e
Appendix A
Exact Solution MALAB Script

%////// Minor Project Submission at Rajasthan Technical University,Kota

%///// Submitted by - Mahendra Gehlot 15/551 Mousam Kumari 15/561
%////// Krishna Shekhawat 15/544 Ishank Srivastava 15/679

%Airplane type: Boeing 747-200

clc
clear
%Flight condition: Cruise at altitude of 40,000 ft

%Refernce Geomatry
S = 5500; %(ft^2)
cbar = 27.3; %(ft)
b = 196; %(ft)
xcg_bar = 0.25; %(x_cg dimensionless location along MAC)

%Flight Condition data

U1 = 871; %(ft/s)
M = 0.9; %Mach number
alpha1 = 2.4/57.3; %(rad)
theta1 = alpha1;
q1 = 222.8; % lbs/ft^2
g = 32.2; %(ft/s^2)
rad2deg = 57.3;
deg2rad = 1/57.3;

% Mass and inertial data

W = 636636; %(lbs)
m = (W/g); %(slugs)
IxxB = 18200000; %(slug*ft^2)
IyyB = 33100000; %(slug*ft^2)
IzzB = 49700000; %(slug*ft^2)
IxzB = 970000; %(slug*ft^2)

% Steady State Coefficients

CL1 = 0.52 ;
CD1 = 0.0450;
CTx1 = 0.0450;
Cm1 = 0;
CmT1 = 0;

% Longitudnal Stability Derivatives

%(dimensionless - along stability Axes)
CD0 = 0.0305;
CDu = 0;
CDalpha = 0.5;
CTxu = -0.950;
CL0 = 0.29;
CLu = -0.23;
CLalpha = 5.5;
CLalphadot = 8.0;
CLq = 7.8;
Cm0 = 0.0;
Cmu = -0.09;

31 | P a g e
Cmalpha = -1.60;
Cmalphadot = -9.0;
Cmq = -25.5;
CmTu = 0;
CmTalpha = 0;

% Longitudnal Control Derivatives

% (dimensionless - along stability Axes)
CDdeltaE = 0 ;
CLdeltaE = 0.30;
CmdeltaE = 1.20;
CDih = 0;
CLih = 0.65;
Cmih = -2.5;

%Longitudnal Dimensional Stability Derivatives

Xu = ((-q1)*S*(CDu+(2*CD1)))/(m*U1); %(ft/sec^2)/(ft/sec)
XTu = ((q1*S*(CTxu+(2*CTx1)))/(m*U1));
Xalpha = ((-q1)*S*(CDalpha-CL1))/m; %(ft/sec^2)/rad
Zu = ((-q1)*S*(CLu+(2*CL1)))/(m*U1); %(ft/sec^2)/(ft/sec)
Zalpha = ((-q1)*S*(CLalpha+CD1))/m; %(ft/sec^2)/rad
Zalphadot = -(q1*S*cbar*CLalphadot)/(2*m*U1); %(ft/sec^2)/(rad/sec)
Zq = -(q1*S*cbar*CLq)/(2*m*U1); %(ft/sec^2)/(rad/sec)
Mu = (q1*S*cbar*(Cmu+(2*Cm1)))/(IyyB*U1); %(rad/sec^2)/(ft/sec)
MTu = (q1*S*cbar*(CmTu+(2*CmT1)))/(IyyB*U1); %(rad/sec^2)/(ft/sec)
Malpha = (q1*S*cbar*Cmalpha)/IyyB; %(rad/sec^2)/rad
MTalpha = (q1*S*cbar*CmTalpha)/IyyB; %''''
Malphadot = (q1*S*cbar^2*Cmalphadot)/(2*IyyB*U1); %(rad/sec^2)/(rad/sec)
Mq = (q1*S*cbar^2*Cmq)/(2*IyyB*U1); %(rad/sec^2)/(rad/sec)

% Longitudinal Dimensional Control Derivatives

xdeltaE = -(q1*S*CDdeltaE)/m;
zdeltaE = -(q1*S*CLdeltaE)/m; %(ft/sec^2)/rad
MdeltaE = (q1*S*cbar*CmdeltaE)/IyyB; %(rad/sec^2)/rad

%Coefficients of the NUM(s) of u-Transfer Function

Au = xdeltaE*(U1-Zalphadot);
Bu = -xdeltaE*(((U1-Zalphadot)*Mq)+Zalpha+(Malphadot*(U1+Zq))+(zdeltaE*Xalpha));
Cu = (xdeltaE*((Mq*Zalpha)+(Malphadot*g*sin(theta1))-((Malpha+MTalpha)*(U1+Zq))))+(zdeltaE*((-
Malphadot*g*cos(theta1))-(Xalpha*Mq)))+(MdeltaE*((Xalpha*(U1+Zq))-((U1-Zalphadot)*g*cos(theta1))));
Du = (xdeltaE*(Malpha+MTalpha)*g*sin(theta1))-
(zdeltaE*Malpha*g*cos(theta1))+(MdeltaE*((Zalpha*g*cos(theta1))-(Xalpha*g*sin(theta1))));
Nu = [Au Bu Cu Du];

%Coefficients of the NUM(s) of alpha-transfer Function

Aalpha = zdeltaE;
Balpha = (xdeltaE*Zu)+(zdeltaE*(-Mq-(Xu+XTu)))+(MdeltaE*(U1+Zq));
Calpha = (xdeltaE*(((U1+Zq)*(Mu+MTu))-(Mq*Zu)))+(zdeltaE*Mq*(Xu+XTu))+(MdeltaE*((-g*sin(theta1))-
((U1+Zq)*(Xu+XTu))));
Dalpha = -
(xdeltaE*(Mu+MTu)*g*sin(theta1)+(zdeltaE*(Mu+MTu)*g*cos(theta1))+(MdeltaE*((Xu+XTu)*g*sin(theta1)
)-(Zu*g*cos(theta1))));
Nalpha = [Aalpha Balpha Calpha Dalpha];

%Coeffiecients of the NUM(s) of the theta transfer Function

Atheta = (zdeltaE*Malphadot)+(MdeltaE*(U1-Zalphadot));
Btheta = (xdeltaE*((Zu*Malphadot)+((U1-Zalphadot)*(Mu+MTu))))+(zdeltaE*((Malpha+MTalpha)-
(Malphadot*(Xu+XTu))))+(MdeltaE*(-Zalpha-((U1-Zalphadot)+(Xu+XTu))));

32 | P a g e
Ctheta = (xdeltaE*(((Malpha+MTu)*Zu)-(Zalpha*(Mu+MTu))))+(zdeltaE*((-
(Malpha+MTu)*(Xu+XTu))+(Xalpha*(Mu+MTu))))+(MdeltaE*((Zalpha*(Xu+XTu))-(Xalpha*Zu)));
Ntheta = [Atheta Btheta Ctheta];

%Coeffiecients of the Longitudnal Characterstic Equation (DEN(s))

Al = U1-Zalphadot;
Bl = -(U1-Zalphadot)*(Xu+XTu+Mq)-Zalpha-(Malphadot*(U1+Zq));
Cl = Xu+(XTu*(Mq*(U1-Zalphadot)+Zalpha+(Malphadot*(U1+Zq))))+(Mq*Zalpha)-
(Zu*Xalpha)+(Malphadot*g*sin(theta1))-((Malpha+MTalpha)*(U1+Zq));
Dl = g*sin(theta1)*(Malpha+MTalpha-
(Malphadot*(Xu+XTu)))+(g*cos(theta1)*((Zu*Malphadot)+((Mu+MTu)*(U1-Zalphadot))))+((Mu+MTu)*(-
Xalpha*(U1+Zq)))+(Zu*Xalpha*Mq)+((Xu+XTu)*(((Malpha+MTalpha)*(U1+Zq))-(Mq*Zalpha)));
El = (g*cos(theta1)*(((Malpha+MTalpha)*Zu)-(Zalpha*(Mu+MTu))))+(g*sin(theta1)*(((Mu+MTu)*Xalpha)-
((Xu+XTu)*(Malpha+MTalpha))));
Dbarl = [Al Bl Cl Dl El];

%Check Of Dynamics Stability Via Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criteria

Routh = Dl*((Bl*Cl)-(Al*Dl))-((Bl^2)*El);
if Al<=0
printf('Longitudnal Dynmaic Stability NOT Satisfied!');
elseif Bl<=0
printf('Longitudnal Dynmaic Stability NOT Satisfied!');
elseif Cl<=0
printf('Longitudnal Dynmaic Stability NOT Satisfied!');
elseif Dl<=0
printf('Longitudnal Dynmaic Stability NOT Satisfied!');
elseif El<=0
printf('Longitudnal Dynmaic Stability NOT Satisfied!');
elseif Routh<=0
printf('Longitudnal Dynmaic Stability NOT Satisfied!');
end

%Time Column Vector for Simulaiton (12001 time steps)

t =[0:0.025:300];

%Small Library of pilot maneuvers

Library = menu('SAMPLES OF ELEVATOR INPUTS','SINGLE DOUBLET IMPULSE','Multiple Doublet
Impulses','Single Doublet','Multiple Doublets','New_by_MS_SIR');
%Single Doublet Impulse
if Library == 1
clf;
echo off;
for i = 1:200
de(i,1)= 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 201:205
de(i,1)= -4/57.3;
end
for i = 206:1200
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 1201:1205
de(i,1) = 4/57.3;
end
for i = 1206:12001
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end

33 | P a g e
 echo on;
end
%Multiple Doublets Impulse
if Library == 2
clf;
echo off;
for i = 1:200
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 201:215
de(i,1) = -4/57.3;
end
for i = 216:400
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 400:415
de(i,1) = 4/57.3;
end
for i = 416:800
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 801:815
de(i,1) = -2/57.3;
end
for i = 816:1000
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 1001:1015
de(i,1) = 2/57.3;
end
for i = 1016:12001
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
echo on;
end
%Single Doublet
if Library == 3
clf;
echo off;
for i = 1:200
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 201:400
de(i,1) = -2/57.3;
end
for i = 400:1200
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 1201:1400
de(i,1) = 2/57.3;
end
for i = 1401:12001
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
echo on;
end
%Multiple Doublets
if Library == 4

34 | P a g e
 clf;
echo off;
for i = 1:200
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 201:300
de(i,1) = -2/57.3;
end
for i = 301:1600
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 1601:1700
de(i,1) = 2/57.3;
end
for i = 1701:3000
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 3001:3100
de(i,1) = -1/57.3;
end
for i = 3101:4400
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 4401:4500
de(i,1) = 1/57.3;
end
for i = 4501:12001
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
echo on;
end
if Library == 5
clf;
echo off;
for i = 1:200
de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
for i = 201:500
de(i,1) = -2/57.3;
end
for i = 501:800
de(i,1) = 2/57.3;
end
for i = 801:1100
de(i,1) = -2/57.3;
end
for i = 1101:1400
de(i,1) = 2/57.3;
end
for i = 1401:1700
de(i,1) = -2/57.3;
end
for i = 1701:2000
de(i,1) = 2.0/57.3;
end
for i = 2001:2500
de(i,1) = -2.0/57.3;
end
for i = 2501:12001

35 | P a g e
 de(i,1) = 0.0/57.3;
end
echo on;
end
tn = t.';
in1 = [tn de];
%Simulation
sys_1 = tf(Nalpha,Dbarl);
alpha = lsim(sys_1,de,t);
sys_2 = tf(Nu,Dbarl);
u = lsim(sys_2,de,t);
sys_3 = tf(Ntheta,Dbarl);
theta = lsim(sys_3,de,t);

%Plot Results
ans = menu('PLOTS','Alpha','U','Theta','Elevator','All');
if ans == 1
close all;
alpha_deg=alpha*rad2deg;
plot(t,alpha_deg,'r');
title('Small Perturbation Alpha Vs Time');
xlabel('Time(s)');
ylabel('Alpha(deg)');
grid on;
end
if ans == 2
close all;
plot(t,u,'g');
title('Small Perturbation Velocity vs. Time');
xlabel('Time(s)');
ylabel('Velocity(ft/s)');
grid on;
end
if ans == 3
close all;
theta_deg = theta*rad2deg;
plot(t,theta_deg,'b');
title('Small Perturbation Theta Vs Time');
xlabel('Time(s)');
ylabel('Theta (deg)');
grid on;
end
if ans == 4
close all;
de_deg=de*rad2deg;
plot(t,de_deg,'m');
title('Elevator Deflection vs. Time');
xlabel('Time (s)');
ylabel('Elevator Deflection(deg)');
grid on;
end
if ans == 5
close all;
alpha_deg=alpha*rad2deg;
theta_deg=theta*rad2deg;
de_deg=de*rad2deg;
subplot(221),plot(t,alpha_deg,'r');
title('Alpha vs Time');
xlabel('Time(s)');

36 | P a g e
 ylabel('Alpha(deg)');
grid on;
subplot(222),plot(t,u,'g');
title('Velocity vs Time');
xlabel('Time (s)');
ylabel('Velocity (ft/s)');
grid on;
subplot(223),plot(t,theta_deg,'b');
title('Theta vs. Time');
xlabel('Time(s)');
ylabel('Theta(deg)');
grid on;
subplot(224),plot(t, de_deg,'m');
title('Elevator Deflection vs Time');
xlabel('Time(s)');
ylabel('Elevator Deflection(deg)');
grid on;
end

%plot the poles on the S-domain

poles = roots(Dbarl);
figure
plot(poles,'*');
poles
grid on
title('Longitundal Poles in the S-Domain');
xlabel('Real Axis');
ylabel('Imaginary Axis');
omega_sp=sqrt(abs(poles(1,1)^2));
omega_ph=sqrt(abs(poles(3,1)^2));
damp_sp=abs(real(poles(1,1)))/omega_sp;
damp_ph=abs(real(poles(3,1)))/omega_ph;

omega_sp
omega_ph
damp_sp
damp_ph

37 | P a g e