Queen Mary University Of London School of Engineering and Materials Science

Rolling moment due to rate of roll

DEN 303: Stability and Control of Aircraft

Kedian Lamin 100407518

Abstract
This report demonstrates how to experimentally determine the dimensionless rolling moment due to roll rate derivative Lp. The experiment was carried out on a straight tapered wing with moderate aspect ratio placed on an open circuit wind tunnel. The model was tested over a range of three air velocities. The obtained results were analysed and compared to theoretical predictions given by the strip theory, the modified strip theory and the lifting line theory, for both elliptical and straight tapered planforms. The experiment was fairly successful as the obtained values were in accordance with the theoretical estimates. It has also be observed that the predictions given for elliptical wings were the closest to the results obtained in the experiment as opposed to straight-tapered wings. However, only the lifting line theory provided satisfactory predictions.

Table of Contents
Abstract .2 I. Introduction ..3 Theoretical estimates of Lp (straight-tapered wing)3 Experimental procedure.6 Sample calculations6 Results...9 Discussion...15 References15

II.

III. IV.

V. VI. VII.

I.

Introduction

Roll is a complex but important aspect in flight dynamics. It starts with the creation of an asymmetric lift distribution along the wingspan which causes a rolling torque. As the plane rolls, the wing going down has an increased incidence , thus produces more lift, while the other wing undergoes the opposite effect. This results in a difference in lift generated by both wings, which creates a restoring moment that is opposing the rolling motion. After a disturbing rolling moment is created, the roll rate p increases exponentially until flight equilibrium is restored, and a steady roll rate is established. In order to understand the effects of roll motion it is necessary to define important lateral stability derivatives such as the rolling moment due to roll rate Lp. For conventional aircrafts the major contribution in Lp comes from the wings which provide great resistance to rolling (roll damping). This experiment proposes a simple method to determine the rolling damping derivative of a straight-tapered wing planform.

II.

Theoretical estimates of Lp (straight-tapered wing)

This part provides a derivation of the simple strip theory for straight-tapered wings. It does not include theoretical estimates for elliptical wings, as these have already been derived in the laboratory handout. The wing planform illustrated below is a straight-tapered wing. The three theories used for elliptic planform can be adjusted based on the geometry of the model.

Figure 1. Local chordwise strip distribution for an elliptic planform

Simple Strip Theory

The dimensionless rolling moment due to rate of roll derivative, Lp is defined by:

Rearranging equation (1) gives:

The total rolling moment about axis Ox is given as:

This may be re-written as:

Equating (2) and (4) gives:

Now, let (5)

Calculating a specific value for d allows the modification of the elliptical wing formulas. Firstly solving the integral in the denominator of equation (5) Substituting

in R.H.S of the above equation yields: [ ]

In the experiment, the model used had the following characteristics :-

Substituting these values into equation [14] gives: Recalling equation (5) Here, and (7)

=0.047638 m2

Now x can be calculated by substituting those values mentioned above and (7) into equation (5) 14.29 Recalling the original Lp equation:

Hence by replacing d back into the equation, Lp is estimated for a straight-tapered wing as:

Although the value for d was calculated for the two dimensional case, it can still be applied to 3D cases. Consequently we can adjust the modified strip theory and lifting line theories for straight tapered wings:

 Modified Strip Theory Modified strip theory can be adjusted to:

{ }

(9)

Lifting Line Theory Lifting line theory can be adjusted to:

{ }

(10)

III.

Experimental procedure
The experiment conditions (atmospheric pressure and temperature) were noted. The dimensions of the straight tapered wing were measured using measuring tape. The distance travelled by weight pan for ten revolutions was measured in order to estimate the effective radius of bobbin on which the cord was wound. The lever handle was turned in the clockwise direction to rewind the cord and gear was engaged to make sure cord stayed in place and fully wounded before starting the motion. The motion was started with tunnel reference pressure of 11.2 mmH2O by disengaging the gear and releasing weight from the rest. The time displayed for ten revolutions of shaft was noted and time was reset to zero afterwards. The two previous steps were repeated for two more tunnel reference pressure of 13.2 mmH2O and 14.5 mmH2O, with series of masses up to 2.5 kg for positive rate of roll and for negative rate of roll incrementing the mass by 0.5 kg in each case.

IV.

Sample calculations
A. Pressure drop across the Betz manometer (H=11.2 mmH2O)

B. Air density and local temperature

C. Tunnel air speed (H=11.2 mmH2O)

D. Reynolds number (U=13.795 m.s-1)

)(

)(

E. Angle of attack of wing tips relative to wing (y=s, p=4.19 rad.s-1, U=13.795 m.s-1)

F. Rolling moment due to rate of roll (modified strip theory, elliptical wing, a=5.7)

V.

Results A. Raw data

Atmospheric pressure, Patm = 760.50 mmHg Atmospheric temperature, Tatm = 24C Wing span = 51.5 cm =0.515 m Wing tip = 6.2 cm =0.062 m Wing chord = 12.3 cm =0.123 m Length before 10 revolutions, Length after 10 revolutions,

Pressure (mmH2O)

Mass (kg) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Time for 10 revolutions (s) Clockwise Anticlockwise

29.3 14.99 9.22 6.95 5.06 3.87 30.09 15.22 9.87 7.35 6 4.81 30.32 15.39 10.33 7.2 6.26 5.28 36.27 16.91 9.92 7.35 5.32 4.21 38.24 17.15 11.24 7.83 6.35 5.06 39.31 17.93 11.31 8.28 6.31 5.12

11.2

13.2

14.5

Table 1. Experimental data

Tunnel reference pressure (mmH2O) 11.2 13.2 14.5

Tunnel reference Pressure (Pa) 109.84 129.45 142.20

Wind speed (m/s) 13.795 14.976 15.696

Table 2. Tunnel reference pressure and equivalent wind speed

B. Rolling moment variation due to rate of roll

Rolling moment vs. roll rate

0.3 0.25 0.2

L (N.m)

clockwise
0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

anti-clockwise

p (rad/s)

Figure 2. Rolling moment due to rate of roll (p=11.2 mmH2O)

Rolling moment vs. roll rate

0.3 0.25

0.2

L (N.m)

0.15

clockwise anti-clockwise

0.1

0.05

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

p (rad/s)

Figure 3. Rolling moment due10 to rate of roll (p=13.2 mmH2O)

Rolling moment vs. roll rate

0.3 0.25 0.2

L (N.m)

0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 2 4 6 8 10

clockwise anti-clockwise

12

14

p (rad/s)

Figure 4. Rolling moment due to rate of roll (p=14.5 mmH2O)

L/U vs. p
0.02 Re=82813.58, clock-wise Re=82813.58, anticlockwise Re=89903.31, clockwise Re=89903.31, anticlockwise Re=94225.59, clockwise Re=94225.59, anticlockwise 0 5 10 p (rad/s) 15 20

0.015 L/U (N.s)

0.01

0.005

11

C. Experimental assessment of Lp
Air speed (m s-1) 13.795 14.976 15.696 Slope of straight-line portion of L vs. p graph Clockwise Anticlockwise 0.0018 0.0019 0.0016 0.0017 0.0017 0.0016 Experimental Lp Clockwise -0.23965 -0.21302 -0.22633 Anticlockwise -0.25296 -0.22633 -0.21302

Table 3. Experimental values of Lp according to roll direction

The minus sign in front of the Lp values accounts for the fact that Lp is indeed opposing rolling motion. The final experimental value for Lp can be obtained with the following formula:

, where

is the best estimation (average) for Lp and

x
-0.23965 -0.25296 -0.21302 -0.22633 -0.22633 -0.21302

(x-)2
0.0001232 0.00059585 0.00024118 0.0000049284 0.0000049284 0.00024118

Table 4. Standard deviation method explained

12

D. Comparison with theoretical estimates

a (rad-1) Elliptical wing 5.7 2 Straighttapered wing 5.7 2

Strip Theory -0.3563 -0.3927 -0.3989

Modified Strip Theory -0.2687 -0.2889 -0.3009

Lifting Line Theory -0.2157 -0.2286 -0.2415

-0.4397

-0.3317

-0.2662

Table 5. Theoretical Lp values (elliptical and straight-tapered wing models)

a (rad-1) Elliptical wing 5.7 2 Straighttapered wing 5.7 2

Strip Theory 35.85% 41.8% 42.70%

Modified Strip Theory 14.94% 20.89% 24.04%

Lifting Line Theory 5.96% 0.0219% 5.36%

48.02%

31.10%

14.14%

Table 6. Percentage error (elliptical and straight-tapered wing models)

13

E. Incidence of the wings relative to wind at stall

Air velocity (m/s) 13.795 14.976 15.696

Roll rate, p (rad/s) Clockwise 4.19 8.55 6.08 Anticlockwise 3.72 5.59 5.56

Angle of attack at stall () Clockwise Anticlockwise 4.47 8.36 5.70 3.97 5.49 5.49

Table 7. Angle of incidence of wing tips near stall

VI.

Discussion
From Figure 2.- Figure 4 , it can be observed that as the velocity of air is increased inside the tunnel , the relationship between the roll rate and the applied rolling moment becomes more linear i.e. stall occurs at a higher applied rolling moment. This suggests that the effect of roll damping is less critical for higher speeds. In addition, for all three tunnel reference pressures , the corresponding graphs from Figure 2- Figure 4 were fairly symmetrical which means that the magnitude of the values for clockwise roll rate and anticlockwise roll rate were fairly similar. However, in each graph, it seems that the direction of roll tends to affect the linearity of the relationship between rolling moment and rate of roll: the trend for the clockwise roll direction is more linear than anticlockwise roll direction which indicates that the roll damping is losing its effect quicker for anticlockwise roll. For the lower speed, the wing is closer to the stall angle which means fluctuations in drag across the wing is affecting the roll rate. Also it can be seen in the same graphs that the magnitude of the disparity in the values for clockwise and anti-clockwise roll rate increases with air velocity. Table 6. Highlights significant disparities in Lp values for the different theories. The accuracy of the experimental results was determined by percentage error between theoretical values and average experimental value. This showed that predictions given for elliptical wings were much more accurate than those given for straight-tapered wings. It also became apparent that the lifting line theory provided predictions that came closest to the experimental results. This may be explained by the fact that the

14

straight-tapered wing used in the experiment may present a lift distribution similar to that of an elliptical wing. Table 7. shows that the angle of attack at stall is influenced by the direction of roll: values are higher for clockwise rate of roll than for anti-clockwise rate of roll. Although the results can be considered as fairly reliable, it should be noted that they have most definitely been subject to limitations that led to uncertainties of variable sources. The main source of error is human error, as the most important part of the experiment involved recording the time taken to achieve ten revolutions. In figure 5. It is seen that as roll rate increases the roll damping effect is diminished. Noticeably, roll damping is fading fast near stall. When the roll rate increases, a change in incidence is observed: the left (downgoing) wingtip is flying at a higher angle of attack, which (in this regime) produces more lift, compared to the right wingtip. At normal airspeed, if both wing tips are flying below critical angle, this generates large forces which oppose the rolling motion: a large amount of roll damping is observed. However, when the angle of attack is increased beyond stall angle, the left wingtip no longer produces more lift: the aerodynamic forces do not oppose the initial rolling motion. The effect roll damping loss presented above may represent an extreme case where Lp is positive: the aerodynamic forces generated by the downward going wing tip tend to amplify rolling motion instead of nullifying it. In a particular case where both wing tips are flying above critical angle, the aircraft may unintentionally enter spin roll. Wing tips tend to contribute more to rolling damping that wing roots because the value of r is greater at this location. If an aircraft is designed such that the incidence at the tips is set to be greater than at the roots, the former will stall first when maximum lift coefficient is reached. This design technique is known as washin. Furthermore, it is possible to combine it with the addition of winglets which will allow a greater amount of lift to be generated near the wing tips.

VII.

References

[1] DEN 303, Rolling moment due to rate of roll Laboratory Experiment handout. Queen Mary University of London, 2013-1014. [2] DEN 303, Rolling moment due to rate of roll Laboratory Experiment slides. Queen Mary University of London, 2013-1014.

15