In loading an aircraft with either passengers or cargo, the structure must be considered. Seats, baggage compartments, and cabin floors are designed for a certain load or concentration of load and no more. For example, a light plane baggage compartment may be placarded for 20 pounds because of the limited strength of its supporting structure even though the aircraft may not be overloaded or out of CG limits with more weight at that location.
Effect of Weight on Stability and Controllability
Overloading also affects stability. An aircraft that is stable and controllable when loaded normally may have very different flight characteristics when overloaded. Although the distribution of weight has the most direct effect on this, an increase in the aircraft’s gross weight may be expected to have an adverse effect on stability, regardless of location of the CG. The stability of many certificated aircraft is completely unsatisfactory if the gross weight is exceeded.
Effect of Load Distribution
The effect of the position of the CG on the load imposed on an aircraft’s wing in flight is significant to climb and cruising performance. An aircraft with forward loading is “heavier” and consequently, slower than the same aircraft with the CG further aft.
Figure 5-63 illustrates why this is true. With forward loading, “nose-up” trim is required in most aircraft to maintain level cruising flight. Nose-up trim involves setting the tail surfaces to produce a greater down load on the aft portion of the fuselage, which adds to the wing loading and the total lift required from the wing if altitude is to be maintained. This requires a higher AOA of the wing, which results in more drag and, in turn, produces a higher stalling speed.
With aft loading and “nose-down” trim, the tail surfaces exert less down load, relieving the wing of that much wing loading and lift required to maintain altitude. The required AOA of the wing is less, so the drag is less, allowing for a faster cruise speed. Theoretically, a neutral load on the tail surfaces in cruising flight would produce the most efficient overall performance and fastest cruising speed, but it would also result in instability. Modern aircraft are designed to require a down load on the tail for stability and controllability. A zero indication on the trim tab control is not necessarily the same as “neutral trim” because of the force exerted by downwash from the wings and the fuselage on the tail surfaces.
Figure 5-63. Effect of load distribution on balance.
The effects of the distribution of the aircraft’s useful load have a significant influence on its flight characteristics, even when the load is within the CG limits and the maximum permissible gross weight. Important among these effects are changes in controllability, stability, and the actual load imposed on the wing.
Generally, an aircraft becomes less controllable, especially at slow flight speeds, as the CG is moved further aft. An aircraft that cleanly recovers from a prolonged spin with the CG at one position may fail completely to respond to normal recovery attempts when the CG is moved aft by one or two inches.
It is common practice for aircraft designers to establish an aft CG limit that is within one inch of the maximum, which allows normal recovery from a one-turn spin. When certificating an aircraft in the utility category to permit intentional spins, the aft CG limit is usually established at a point several inches forward of that permissible for certification in the normal category.
Another factor affecting controllability, which has become more important in current designs of large aircraft, is the effect of long moment arms to the positions of heavy equipment and cargo. The same aircraft may be loaded to maximum gross weight within its CG limits by concentrating fuel, passengers, and cargo near the design CG, or by dispersing fuel and cargo loads in wingtip tanks and cargo bins forward and aft of the cabin.
With the same total weight and CG, maneuvering the aircraft or maintaining level flight in turbulent air requires the application of greater control forces when the load is dispersed. The longer moment arms to the positions of the heavy fuel and cargo loads must be overcome by the action of the control surfaces. An aircraft with full outboard wing tanks or tip tanks tends to be sluggish in roll when control situations are marginal, while one with full nose and aft cargo bins tends to be less responsive to the elevator controls.
The rearward CG limit of an aircraft is determined largely by considerations of stability. The original airworthiness requirements for a type certificate specify that an aircraft in flight at a certain speed dampens out vertical displacement of the nose within a certain number of oscillations. An aircraft loaded too far rearward may not do this. Instead, when the nose is momentarily pulled up, it may alternately climb and dive becoming steeper with each oscillation. This instability is not only uncomfortable to occupants, but it could even become dangerous by making the aircraft unmanageable under certain conditions.
The recovery from a stall in any aircraft becomes progressively more difficult as its CG moves aft. This is particularly important in spin recovery, as there is a point in rearward loading of any aircraft at which a “flat” spin develops. A flat spin is one in which centrifugal force, acting through a CG located well to the rear, pulls the tail of the aircraft out away from the axis of the spin, making it impossible to get the nose down and recover.
An aircraft loaded to the rear limit of its permissible CG range handles differently in turns and stall maneuvers and has different landing characteristics than when it is loaded near the forward limit.
The forward CG limit is determined by a number of considerations. As a safety measure, it is required that the trimming device, whether tab or adjustable stabilizer, be capable of holding the aircraft in a normal glide with the power off. A conventional aircraft must be capable of a full stall, power-off landing in order to ensure minimum landing speed in emergencies. A tailwheel-type aircraft loaded excessively nose-heavy is difficult to taxi, particularly in high winds. It can be nosed over easily by use of the brakes, and it is difficult to land without bouncing since it tends to pitch down on the wheels as it is slowed down and flared for landing. Steering difficulties on the ground may occur in nosewheel-type aircraft, particularly during the landing roll and takeoff. The effects of load distribution are summarized as follows:
• The CG position influences the lift and AOA of the wing, the amount and direction of force on the tail, and the degree of deflection of the stabilizer needed to supply the proper tail force for equilibrium. The latter is very important because of its relationship to elevator control force.
• The aircraft stalls at a higher speed with a forward CG location. This is because the stalling AOA is reached at a higher speed due to increased wing loading.
• Higher elevator control forces normally exist with a forward CG location due to the increased stabilizer deflection required to balance the aircraft.
• The aircraft cruises faster with an aft CG location because of reduced drag. The drag is reduced because a smaller AOA and less downward deflection of the stabilizer are required to support the aircraft and overcome the nose-down pitching tendency.
• The aircraft becomes less stable as the CG is moved rearward. This is because when the CG is moved rearward, it causes a decrease in the AOA. Therefore, the wing contribution to the aircraft’s stability is now decreased, while the tail contribution is still stabilizing. When the point is reached that the wing and tail contributions balance, then neutral stability exists. Any CG movement further aft results in an unstable aircraft.
• A forward CG location increases the need for greater back elevator pressure. The elevator may no longer be able to oppose any increase in nose-down pitching. Adequate elevator control is needed to control the aircraft throughout the airspeed range down to the stall.
A detailed discussion and additional information relating to weight and balance can be found in Chapter 10, Weight and Balance.
High Speed Flight
Subsonic Versus Supersonic Flow
In subsonic aerodynamics, the theory of lift is based upon the forces genera
ted on a body and a moving gas (air) in which it is immersed. At speeds of approximately 260 knots or less, air can be considered incompressible in that, at a fixed altitude, its density remains nearly constant while its pressure varies. Under this assumption, air acts the same as water and is classified as a fluid. Subsonic aerodynamic theory also assumes the effects of viscosity (the property of a fluid that tends to prevent motion of one part of the fluid with respect to another) are negligible and classifies air as an ideal fluid conforming to the principles of ideal-fluid aerodynamics such as continuity, Bernoulli’s principle, and circulation.
In reality, air is compressible and viscous. While the effects of these properties are negligible at low speeds, compressibility effects in particular become increasingly important as speed increases. Compressibility (and to a lesser extent viscosity) is of paramount importance at speeds approaching the speed of sound. In these speed ranges, compressibility causes a change in the density of the air around an aircraft.
During flight, a wing produces lift by accelerating the airflow over the upper surface. This accelerated air can, and does, reach sonic speeds even though the aircraft itself may be flying subsonic. At some extreme AOAs, in some aircraft, the speed of the air over the top surface of the wing may be double the aircraft’s speed. It is therefore entirely possible to have both supersonic and subsonic airflow on an aircraft at the same time. When flow velocities reach sonic speeds at some location on an aircraft (such as the area of maximum camber on the wing), further acceleration results in the onset of compressibility effects, such as shock wave formation, drag increase, buffeting, stability, and control difficulties. Subsonic flow principles are invalid at all speeds above this point. [Figure 5-64]
Speed Ranges
The speed of sound varies with temperature. Under standard temperature conditions of 15 °C, the speed of sound at sea level is 661 knots. At 40,000 feet, where the temperature is –55 °C, the speed of sound decreases to 574 knots. In high-speed flight and/or high-altitude flight, the measurement of speed is expressed in terms of a “Mach number”—the ratio of the true airspeed of the aircraft to the speed of sound in the same atmospheric conditions. An aircraft traveling at the speed of sound is traveling at Mach 1.0. Aircraft speed regimes are defined approximately as follows:
Figure 5-64. Wing airflow.
Subsonic—Mach numbers below 0.75
Transonic—Mach numbers from 0.75 to 1.20
Supersonic—Mach numbers from 1.20 to 5.00
Hypersonic—Mach numbers above 5.00
While flights in the transonic and supersonic ranges are common occurrences for military aircraft, civilian jet aircraft normally operate in a cruise speed range of Mach 0.7 to Mach 0.90.
The speed of an aircraft in which airflow over any part of the aircraft or structure under consideration first reaches (but does not exceed) Mach 1.0 is termed “critical Mach number” or “Mach Crit.” Thus, critical Mach number is the boundary between subsonic and transonic flight and is largely dependent on the wing and airfoil design. Critical Mach number is an important point in transonic flight. When shock waves form on the aircraft, airflow separation followed by buffet and aircraft control difficulties can occur. Shock waves, buffet, and airflow separation take place above critical Mach number. A jet aircraft typically is most efficient when cruising at or near its critical Mach number. At speeds 5–10 percent above the critical Mach number, compressibility effects begin. Drag begins to rise sharply. Associated with the “drag rise” are buffet, trim, and stability changes and a decrease in control surface effectiveness. This is the point of “drag divergence.” [Figure 5-65]
VMO/MMO is defined as the maximum operating limit speed. VMO is expressed in knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS), while MMO is expressed in Mach number. The VMO limit is usually associated with operations at lower altitudes and deals with structural loads and flutter. The MMO limit is associated with operations at higher altitudes and is usually more concerned with compressibility effects and flutter. At lower altitudes, structural loads and flutter are of concern; at higher altitudes, compressibility effects and flutter are of concern.
Adherence to these speeds prevents structural problems due to dynamic pressure or flutter, degradation in aircraft control response due to compressibility effects (e.g., Mach Tuck, aileron reversal, or buzz), and separated airflow due to shock waves resulting in loss of lift or vibration and buffet. Any of these phenomena could prevent the pilot from being able to adequately control the aircraft.
For example, an early civilian jet aircraft had a VMO limit of 306 KCAS up to approximately FL 310 (on a standard day). At this altitude (FL 310), an MMO of 0.82 was approximately equal to 306 KCAS. Above this altitude, an MMO of 0.82 always equaled a KCAS less than 306 KCAS and, thus, became the operating limit as you could not reach the VMO limit without first reaching the MMO limit. For example, at FL 380, an MMO of 0.82 is equal to 261 KCAS.
Mach Number Versus Airspeed
It is important to understand how airspeed varies with Mach number. As an example, consider how the stall speed of a jet transport aircraft varies with an increase in altitude. The increase in altitude results in a corresponding drop in air density and outside temperature. Suppose this jet transport is in the clean configuration (gear and flaps up) and weighs 550,000 pounds. The aircraft might stall at approximately 152 KCAS at sea level. This is equal to (on a standard day) a true velocity of 152 KTAS and a Mach number of 0.23. At FL 380, the aircraft will still stall at approximately 152 KCAS, but the true velocity is about 287 KTAS with a Mach number of 0.50.
Figure 5-65. Critical Mach.
Although the stalling speed has remained the same for our purposes, both the Mach number and TAS have increased. With increasing altitude, the air density has decreased; this requires a faster true airspeed in order to have the same pressure sensed by the pitot tube for the same KCAS, or KIAS (for our purposes, KCAS and KIAS are relatively close to each other). The dynamic pressure the wing experiences at FL 380 at 287 KTAS is the same as at sea level at 152 KTAS. However, it is flying at higher Mach number.
Another factor to consider is the speed of sound. A decrease in temperature in a gas results in a decrease in the speed of sound. Thus, as the aircraft climbs in altitude with outside temperature dropping, the speed of sound is dropping. At sea level, the speed of sound is approximately 661 KCAS, while at FL 380 it is 574 KCAS. Thus, for our jet transport aircraft, the stall speed (in KTAS) has gone from 152 at sea level to 287 at FL 380. Simultaneously, the speed of sound (in KCAS) has decreased from 661 to 574 and the Mach number has increased from 0.23 (152 KTAS divided by 661 KTAS) to 0.50 (287 KTAS divided by 574 KTAS). All the while, the KCAS for stall has remained constant at 152. This describes what happens when the aircraft is at a constant KCAS with increasing altitude, but what happens when the pilot keeps Mach constant during the climb? In normal jet flight operations, the climb is at 250 KIAS (or higher (e.g. heavy)) to 10,000 feet and then at a specified en route climb airspeed (about 330 if a DC10) until reaching an altitude in the “mid-twenties” where the pilot then climbs at a constant Mach number to cruise altitude.
Assuming for illustration purposes that the pilot climbs at a MMO of 0.82 from sea level up to FL 380. KCAS goes from 543 to 261. The KIAS at each altitude would follow the same behavior and just differ by a few knots. Recall from the earlier discussion that the speed of sound is decreasing with the drop in temperature as the aircraft climbs. The Mach number is simply the ratio of the true airspeed to the speed of sound at flight conditions. The significance of this is that at a constant Mach number climb, the KCAS (and KTAS or KIAS as well) is falling off.
If the aircraft climbed high enough at this constant MMO with decreasing KIAS, KCAS, and KTAS, it would begin to approach its stall speed. At some point, the stall speed of the aircraft in Mach number could equal the MMO of the aircraft, and the pilot could neither slow down (without stalling) nor speed up (without exceeding the max operating speed of the aircraft). Th
is has been dubbed the “coffin corner.”
Boundary Layer
The viscous nature of airflow reduces the local velocities on a surface and is responsible for skin friction. As discussed earlier in the chapter, the layer of air over the wing’s surface that is slowed down or stopped by viscosity is the boundary layer. There are two different types of boundary layer flow: laminar and turbulent.
Laminar Boundary Layer Flow
The laminar boundary layer is a very smooth flow, while the turbulent boundary layer contains swirls or eddies. The laminar flow creates less skin friction drag than the turbulent flow but is less stable. Boundary layer flow over a wing surface begins as a smooth laminar flow. As the flow continues back from the leading edge, the laminar boundary layer increases in thickness.
Turbulent Boundary Layer Flow
At some distance back from the leading edge, the smooth laminar flow breaks down and transitions to a turbulent flow. From a drag standpoint, it is advisable to have the transition from laminar to turbulent flow as far aft on the wing as possible or have a large amount of the wing surface within the laminar portion of the boundary layer. The low energy laminar flow, however, tends to break down more suddenly than the turbulent layer.
Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (Federal Aviation Administration) Page 25
