Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Nov 20, 2009 #61

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,873
    Likes Received:
    5,484
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Not to be persnickity, but you really aren't building 'one less surface.' You're still building the same area and weight of tail surface, but you're just distributing it differently and putting the mounting point of both of them on the end, instead of a conventional horizontal where the mount is in the middle.

    In the end, you're actually building exactly the same amount of structure. I guess you're building one less tip, but that's not much of an advantage.
     
  2. Nov 20, 2009 #62

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,974
    Likes Received:
    4,919
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    And don't forget you have to build a mixing system too.
     
  3. Nov 20, 2009 #63

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Well, you are a pit picky :)

    A conventional tail or t-tail really are constructed as 3 surfaces. I was only referring to the complexity, two surfaces to actuate, only two (straight) leading edges, only two spars (a t-tail still has a concentrated load in the middle as does a conventional) and so on.
     
  4. Nov 20, 2009 #64

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,873
    Likes Received:
    5,484
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Understand that I mean this in good fun, but no, most small-plane horizontal tails are built in a single piece that is then attached to the airframe. More often than not, the elevator is really just one piece with a cutout for the rudder.

    Sure, there are minor build advantages to V-tails, but it's definitely a lot less than "you only have to build two surfaces instead of three", and as BMCJ points out, that is largely negated by the necessity to build a control mixer.

    When you factor in the tendency of most V-tail aircraft to 'wander the nose' a bit in turbulence, I'm pretty sure there's only one good reason to go with that configuration:

    It sure looks cool.

    That's not a trivial concern. "Looks cool" sells more airplanes than you might expect.
     
  5. Nov 21, 2009 #65

    pie_row

    pie_row

    pie_row

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    salt lake city Ut
    good by
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2009
  6. Nov 29, 2009 #66

    mikemill757

    mikemill757

    mikemill757

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Portland metro, Oregon
    The more an elevator is away from horizontal, the less efficient it is (rudders make lousy elevators) and so need to be larger (more drag/weight) in V-tails. Same for non-vertical rudders.
    On an upward, aft mounted V-ail, a rudder input will add roll counter to normal turn co-ordination, ala V-tailed Bonanzas. A better design might be a) a downward, aft mount that would help avoid prop strikes on rotation, b) a upward, forward mount, or c) one from each twin tail boom angled up and inboard, joined the middle. Any of these would aid in turn co-ordination.
    IIRC, the best compromise was a 34 degree angle from horizontal.
    Still, there is that "cool" factor....
    Mike
     
  7. Dec 1, 2009 #67

    Michealvalentinsmith

    Michealvalentinsmith

    Michealvalentinsmith

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Rainbow beach QLD Australia
    So In theory an inverted V tail should give the correct rolling moments coupled with ailerons? I knew an Ultralight Lazair pilot who claimed it rolled quite well on rudder alone and it had a large inverted V tail - which if I recall was more to position the tail dragger wheels that for control. There wasn't much dihedral for yaw roll coupling either.

    I know in the past there have been aircraft with rolling tails - that still got adverse yaw (which makes you wonder about the drag only explanation).
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2009
  8. Dec 1, 2009 #68

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,974
    Likes Received:
    4,919
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Dihedral is not the only feature that feeds into the roll coupling effect. Wing sweep will because the wing on the outside of the yaw will have a more effective span (it sticks further out into the airstream than the inboard wing, so it generates a greater rolling force). Also, just the fact that the wing is generating lift will give you a little roll because the outside wing is moving faster than the inside wing, so it generates a little more lift.

    This has no real relationship to tail design though.
     
  9. Dec 2, 2009 #69

    Michealvalentinsmith

    Michealvalentinsmith

    Michealvalentinsmith

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Rainbow beach QLD Australia
    The Lazier had no wing sweep either but I take your point about their being other factors than dihedral.

    If so though you would expect some skid into the turn from rudder only and a non dihedral straight wing before yaw coupled roll occurred.

    I can't be sure, and never flew one, but the pilot didn't mention any skid, so something else may have been at work. I can't imagine the roll forces from a V tail being significant - or it would not of had ailerons. But it seems the effect was there.

    I expect those aircraft will rolling tails had large tail volumes - now I think about it they may have been military jets with all moving, anhedral tails and high speeds - I think.
     
  10. Dec 3, 2009 #70

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,974
    Likes Received:
    4,919
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    We did a lot of flying in the two-seat Quicksilver (MX2). It had the rudder connected to the stick and the differential spoilers connected to the pedals. With the high-lift wing and high dihedral, we never used the spoilers (except to deploy them together to descend faster). Any movement of the stick translated to almost instant roll. Sure, there was also a yawing motion, but the roll response was so closely coupled that the yaw went largely unnoticed.
     
  11. Dec 10, 2009 #71

    robbienick

    robbienick

    robbienick

    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Buckie, Moray,Scotland
    Re Vee tails , very interesting the various fors and against vtails. What are the opinions with regard to a twin boom fuselage with an upward/ inward facing veetail joined in the centre. Stiffer rear end ? fewer vortices( no rudder, fin or tail plane tips), well positioned to avoid missiles from the wheels.Giving a lower fuselage for a pusher, besides I like this layout and it looks cool.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2009
  12. Dec 10, 2009 #72

    K-Rigg

    K-Rigg

    K-Rigg

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Round Rock TX

    or how about an x tail that has the lower surfaces on the fuselage to be half as big as the top to allow for ground clearances, but have some of the benefits of an x tail.

    Taking 1/3 of the area off the v tail and putting it down on the bottom of the fuselage to form an x tail.
     
  13. Dec 31, 2009 #73

    Mac790

    Mac790

    Mac790

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Poznan, Poland
    Hope you are right about copyright issues.


    Seb
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Dec 31, 2009 #74

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,873
    Likes Received:
    5,484
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    You're fine, at least in the USA. Can't say how it works in other countries.

    You're showing a fragment of the original work, for a definite illustrative purpose, in a non-commercial setting. Falls under the "Fair Use" clause of the Copyright Act. That clause, thanks to the music industry, is probably the most endangered species on the planet, but you're still good in this case.
     
  15. Apr 16, 2010 #75

    rtfm

    rtfm

    rtfm

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,192
    Likes Received:
    572
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Twin tails vs V-tails

    Hi,
    Rather than start another thread on a very closely related topic, allow me to ask this question here instead...

    Do twin tails (eg like those used on the F/A-18 Hornet) suffer from the same drawbacks as V-tails? I noticed the other day that the Aquaglide 5 WIG also used almost vertical twin tails. I would imagine that one would simply treat these as two vertical tails (ie no need to mix the rudder movements) since the horisontal component of rudder deflection is so much less than the vertical component.

    Would this be fair comment?

    Of course, one would then still need a h-stab - but that's another issue.

    Duncan
     
  16. Apr 16, 2010 #76

    Bart

    Bart

    Bart

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    2
    An alternative with low interference drag mighty be U tail--with proper radius of horizontal and vertical junctures.

    Bruce Carmichael advocated this in his pod and boom pusher concepts, so the thrust column from the mid-mounted propeller goes between the vertical fins.

    Just a thought.
     
  17. Apr 16, 2010 #77

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Re: Twin tails vs V-tails

    The main problem is interference between those V-stabs. Jet fighters need it because of stealth and vortex tail blanketing. When those 2 v-stabs are close enough to influence each other their effectiveness is reduced, and in most cases considerably.
    That's the reason you barely ever see a tail configuration as in the aquaglide, one single tail or an H-stab is lower-drag and probably more effective.
     
  18. Apr 16, 2010 #78

    rtfm

    rtfm

    rtfm

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,192
    Likes Received:
    572
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Hi, and thanks for the input. This is very disappointing, because my preliminary estimates indicate that twin tails with an h-stab attached to the tops (ie two t-tails, if you will) would actually weigh only a little more than a more beefy single t-tail. Construction would be a bit more involved, and there would be additional interference drag - but it would make the tail feathers so much more rigid.

    I'm intrigued by the loss of v-stab effectiveness you mention, however, since this is not intuitive.

    How close is "close"? What type of interference are we talking about here? Under what conditions is this interference experienced?

    Can you point me to references which quantify these concerns? I checked Raymer (Conceptual Approach textbook) who says (pg 79) "Twin tails are usually heavier than an equal-area centreline-mounted single tail, but are often more effective"

    As I said, I'm attracted to this design both from the fact that it will be easier to make the tail feathers rigid in this configuration, and also because of the aesthetics of the design. But I'm not wedded to it, and obviously will have to weigh up the pros and cons before committing to it.

    Thanks for your help,
    Duncan
    PS Some sketches of this configuration attached.
     

    Attached Files:

  19. Apr 16, 2010 #79

    rtfm

    rtfm

    rtfm

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,192
    Likes Received:
    572
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Aha! I think I've answered my own questions... I found the following post from Orion

    The full text can be found here:
    https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/...-technology/3515-single-versus-twin-tail.html

    I guess this means bigger tails than I had intended. But I still like the rigidity it provides, and of course, the cool look...

    Duncan
     
  20. Apr 17, 2010 #80

    lr27

    lr27

    lr27

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,226
    Likes Received:
    469
    You probably get more drag with all those intersections, too.

    I just noticed that your stab looks like might drop into the wing wake at high angles of attack. Have you evaluated that? Seems like if it was down there on the tailwheel strut, it would be in free air all the time. But I suppose that would be too close to the ground.
     

Share This Page



arrow_white