APPENDIX C1: Design of Conventional Aircraft: Chapter 4, Aircraft Conceptual Layout

CuuMunuSSCn CLnL8AL AvlA1lCn Al8C8Al1 uLSlCn ALnulx C1 uLSlCn Cl CCnvLn1lCnAL Al8C8Al1 1
2013 Llsevler, lnc. 1hls maLerlal may noL be copled or dlsLrlbuLed wlLhouL permlsslon from Lhe ubllsher.
APPENBIX C1: Besign of Conventional Aiiciaft
1hls appendlx ls a parL of Lhe book Genera| Av|at|on
A|rcraft Des|gn: App||ed Methods and rocedures by
Snorrl Cudmundsson, publlshed by Llsevler, lnc. 1he book
ls avallable Lhrough varlous booksLores and onllne
reLallers, such as www.elsevler.com, www.amazon.com,
and many oLhers.

1he purpose of Lhe appendlces denoLed by C1 Lhrough C3
ls Lo provlde addlLlonal lnformaLlon on Lhe deslgn of
selecLed alrcrafL conflguraLlons, beyond whaL ls posslble ln
Lhe maln parL of ChapLer 4, Altctoft cooceptool loyoot.
Some of Lhe lnformaLlon ls lnLended for Lhe novlce
englneer, buL oLher ls advanced and well beyond whaL ls
posslble Lo presenL ln undergraduaLe deslgn classes. 1hls
way, Lhe appendlces can serve as a refresher maLerlal for
Lhe experlenced alrcrafL deslgner, whlle lnLroduclng new
maLerlal Lo Lhe sLudenL. AddlLlonally, many helpful deslgn
phllosophles are presenLed ln Lhe LexL. Slnce Lhls appendlx
ls offered onllne raLher Lhan ln Lhe acLual book, lL ls
posslble Lo revlse lL regularly and boLh add Lo Lhe
lnformaLlon and new Lypes of alrcrafL. 1he followlng
appendlces are offered:

C1 ueslgn of ConvenLlonal AlrcrafL (Lhls appendlx)
C2 ueslgn of Canard AlrcrafL
C3 ueslgn of Seaplanes
C4 ueslgn of Sallplanes
C3 ueslgn of unusual ConflguraLlons

I|gure C1-1: An LDkA Super etre| LS on f|na|. 1he a|rp|ane comb|nes a number of conf|gurat|on features
presented |n append|ces C1 and C3, an amph|b|an, a b|p|ane, and a pusher. (hoto by h|| kademacher)

C1.1 Conventional Single Engine Propeller Aircraft

1hls secLlon ls lnLended Lo elaboraLe on Lhe deslgn of small convenLlonal alrcrafL. ln Lhls LexL, a small alrcrafL ls one
deslgned Lo carry one Lo Len people (e.g. 14 Cl8 arL 23, normal, uLlllLy, and aerobaLlc caLegorles, or slmllar). Such
alrcrafL are generally powered by plsLon or Lurblne englnes, swlnglng 2- Lo 4-bladed propellers, alLhough some are
also drlven by [eL englnes. Pere, only propeller drlven alrcrafL wlll be consldered. 1he sLalllng speed for Lhls class of
alrcrafL ls low, usually ranglng from 33 Lo 70 kCAS. 1he crulslng speed ls Lyplcally ln Lhe 100-330 k1AS range and
servlce celllng varles from 13000 Lo 33000 fL. Such alrcrafL are ofLen owner operaLed and Lhelr lnLended use ranges
from acLlvlLles llke sporL flylng and plloL Lralnlng Lo serlous buslness LransporLaLlon.

1he convenLlonal propeller powered CA alrcrafL ls elLher a LracLor or a pusher (as dlscussed ln SecLlon 14.1.2,
ltopellet cooflqototloos).

C1.1.1 Tractor Propeller Aircraft
1racLor alrcrafL have already been Lhoroughly dlscussed ln Lhe book. MosL of whaL ls presenLed ln ChapLer 4,
Altctoft cooceptool loyoot regardlng propeller alrcrafL perLalns Lo Lhls conflguraLlon. 1he purpose of Lhls secLlon ls
Lo provlde addlLlonal lnformaLlon Lo help Lhe reader welgh Lhe merlLs of Lhe dlfferenL Lall, wlng poslLlon, cabln, and
landlng gear opLlons sulLable for such alrcrafL.

A number of posslble concepLs are shown ln llgure C1-2 and llgure C1-3. 1he reader should revlew Lhe flgures
carefully and noLe Lhe dlfferences. 1he lnevlLable quesLlon ls, whlch conflguraLlon ls Lhe besL and why? 1he answer
ls LhaL all of Lhem can be shown Lo saLlsfy Lhe same seL of performance and sLablllLy and conLrol requlremenLs.
ulLlmaLely, Lhere are oLher lssues LhaL deLermlne whlch ls Lhe mosL approprlaLe. 1he flnal selecLlon may conslder
deslred sLrucLural arrangemenL, landlng gear characLerlsLlcs, ground handllng, conLrol sysLem complexlLy, and
many oLhers. AesLheLlcs also plays an lmporLanL role, because lf all Lhe conflguraLlons are essenLlally capable of
fulfllllng Lhe performance requlremenLs, Lhen, effecLlvely, looks can be a decldlng facLor as well.

Many of Lhese alrcrafL are deslgned wlLh Lhe sporL plloL ln mlnd, who wanLs noLhlng more Lhan belng able Lo [ump
lnLo own alrcrafL and Lake-off for a fun fllled fllghL wlLhouL havlng Lo deal wlLh Lhe bureaucracy ofLen assoclaLed
wlLh more formal operaLlon of Lralnlng and buslness alrcrafL. Some of Lhese alrcrafL are bullL by amaLeurs
(homebullders), sLored ln convenLlonal car garages, and easlly LransporLed on Lrallers Lo Lhe nearesL alrfleld, where
Lhey can be assembled and prepared for fllghL ln as llLLle as Len mlnuLes. Some of Lhese alrcrafL run on ordlnary car
fuel (mogas) and can Lake-off and land on unprepared grass flelds, maklng Lhem Lhe ldeal as Lourlng alrcrafL.
CLhers, for lnsLance Lhe Lurblne powered Cessna 208 Caravan and Lhe plsLon powered Clrrus S822 are serlous
buslness equlpmenL. 1hls ls evldenL by Lhelr use as feeder or frelghL alrcrafL (Caravan) and a fasL buL economlcal
buslness LransporL alrcrafL (S822).

1he deslgner should be mlndful of hangar slzes, mosL prlvaLely owned llghL-planes ln Lhe uS are sLored ln hangars
whose open door space ls 40 fL. lf posslble, keep Lhe wlng span below 39 fL Lo allow Lhe operaLor Lo use exlsLlng
faclllLles.

lL ls also lmporLanL Lo conslder how Lyplcal LracLor alrplanes are used. An alrcrafL llke Lhe 208 Caravan needs a
large door Lo allow frelghL Lo be easlly loaded and unloaded. lL does noL have Lo offer Lhe responslveness of an
S822, leL alone an aerobaLlc alrplane. lL should have a hlgh degree of sLaLlc sLablllLy and a wlde CC envelope. 1hls
helps making the airplane feel solid and trusty. Once the desired cruise heading and altitude have been
established, the pilot feels like the airplane wants to maintain these with minimal correction, someLhlng LhaL
can help bulld a repuLaLlon of rellablllLy. Such alrcrafL should be of rugged and dependable consLrucLlon so Lhey
wont become hangar queens. lf posslble, Lhey should feaLure flxed landlng gear wlLh low drag wheel falrlngs and
lLs wheel Lrack should be wlde Lo ensure greaL ground handllng. Also, lL should offer reasonably hlgh crulslng
speeds and low sLalllng speeds.


I|gure C1-2: A matr|x of tr|cyc|e |and|ng gear tractor conf|gurat|ons.

I|gure C1-3: A matr|x of ta||dragger |and|ng gear tractor conf|gurat|ons.

An alrcrafL llke Lhe S822 should offer enLry doors on Lhe lefL and rlghL sldes for an easy cabln enLry. 1he cabln
should be spaclous and fuselage should be of Lhe Ladpole shape. lL should feaLure a Lrlcycle conflguraLlon for
beLLer ground handllng. Also, lL should offer Lhe laLesL ln avlonlcs ln a sLyllsh lnLerlor wlLh small area lnsLrumenL
panel Lo glve a sense of openness Lo Lhe occupanLs, many who become clausLrophoblc ln small alrplanes. 1he
deslgn of Lhe S820 and S822 demonsLraLed LhaL 30 lnch wlde cablns for alrcrafL powered by 200-300 8P englnes
dld noL cosL Loo much ln Lerms of alrspeed (l.e. drag). 1hls ls close Lo 8-10 lnches wlder Lhan Lhe compeLlLlon (see
1able 12-3 for oLher alrcrafL). CccupanL comforL ln such alrplanes ls vasLly lmproved, such wlde cablns have now
become Lhe norm ln Lhe deslgn of modern small alrcrafL.

Cf course, LracLor alrcrafL have a greaL uLlllLy poLenLlal, someLhlng lmposslble Lo address fully here. lL explalns Lhe
popularlLy of Lhe conflguraLlon. Cf course, lL ls lmporLanL Lo compleLe a sLudy of as many alrcrafL as posslble LhaL
belong Lo Lhe same class as Lhe one belng deslgned, cerLalnly before beglnnlng serlous analysls work. Slnce so
many LracLor alrcrafL exlsL, clever, useful, and plloL-frlendly feaLures can be dlscovered among Lhem and
lncorporaLed early on ln Lhe deslgn process. 1hls ls always easler Lhan lf suggesLed laLer. ln Lhls conLexL, obLalnlng
operaLor lnpuL (e.g. plloL lnpuL) ls sLrongly recommended. AfLer all, Lhe alrplane ls belng deslgned for Lhe end-user
and noL Lhe englneerlng Leam.

1he followlng response ls lndlcaLlve of whaL can be dlscovered on one of Lhe counLless forums presenL onllne and
lnLended for plloLs. Whlle lL ls buL one of Lhousands of oplnlons expressed, lL hlghllghLs Lhe naLure of Lhe dlscusslon
LhaL Lakes place beLween owners and operaLors of alrcrafL. And Lhls can be very valuable Lo Lhe deslgner of a new
alrcrafL, as lL demonsLraLes LhaL owners and bullders of llghL alrcrafL ofLen conslder a compllcaLed comblnaLlon of
pros and cons when selecLlng alrcrafL, and noL [usL one or Lwo pros.

A ftleoJ ooJ l lookeJ tbotooqbly ot !"#$#%&' ! lost yeot. we qot to look ooe ovet ot Osbkosb ooJ we slqoeJ
op fot o Jemo fllqbt two weeks lotet, wbeo tbe solespeople wete lo oot oteo.

llkes.
1be oltplooe ls vety lmptesslve lo oppeotooce, petfotmooce, ecooomy, ooJ speeJ. 1be stoll ls o ooo-eveot,
mote of o mosb ot osclllotloo. 1be ceotet stlck felt o llttle owkwotJ ot fltst bot sevetol pllots tolJ os yoo qet
oseJ to lt fost. 1be opeooess ooJ toom lo tbe coblo wltboot o yoke lo ftoot of yoo ls olce. 1be teot seot ls
boqe wltb lots of posseoqet spoce. lt ls fost eoooqb to keep op wltb oo 5k22 wltb tbe some nl.

ulsllkes.
we JlJo't llke tbe low seotloq posltloo, especlolly lo tbe bock seot. Also, qettloq lo ooJ oot of tbe bock seot
wos owkwotJ. 1be stooJotJ moJel JlJo't bove mocb cotqo toom oot JlJ tbe eolotqeJ moJel. lo foct, lt
cooslsteJ of two tloy pockets lo tbe wloq toot. we JlJo't cote fot tbe tokeoff ooJ looJloq tecbolpoe. 1be
plooe tepoltes o looq poveJ toowoy. looJloqs ote moJe telotlvely fost to molotolo elevotot effectlveoess
ooJ btokes bove to be oseJ tbtooqboot tbe tokeoff ooJ looJloq toll to bolJ tbe ceotet lloe. At speeJs
below oboot 90 koots, tbe olletoos lose effectlveoess ooJ most of tbe steetloq bos to be Jooe wltb tbe
toJJet. we tbooqbt tbe posbet-eoqloe woolJ moke lt poletet, bot tbls ls oot tbe cose. 1be eoqloe ls tlqbt
bebloJ tbe teot seots ooJ ls jost os looJ os ooy otbet oltplooe.

lo cooclosloo, we JeclJeJ lt woso't tbe tlqbt plooe fot os. we ote oow pooJetloq !"#$#%&' ), os we boJ oo
oppottoolty to slt lo ooe ooJ tolk wltb tbe bollJet. lt too ls oo lmptesslve oltctoft. we bove to fly ooe yet,
bot wete tolJ lt flles llke ooy otbet low-wloq ttlcycle qeot. lt coo be potcboseJ ooJ ossembleJ lo stoqes,
wbete os !"#$#%&' ! most be booqbt oll ot ooce.

C1.1.2 Pusher Propeller Aircraft
As sLaLed ln SecLlon 14.1.2, ltopellet cooflqototloo, Lhe pusher propeller ls a good soluLlon Lo some speclallzed
mlsslon requlremenLs. ln parLlcular, lL ls ldeal for slngle englne reconnalssance or observaLlon alrcrafL, as well as
sporLlng and Lourlng alrcrafL. 1he conflguraLlon ls also ldeal for uAvs as Lhe propeller wlll noL obsLrucL Lhe camera
vlew, or blow forelgn ob[ecLs Loward lL when maneuverlng on Lhe ground. 1he afL placemenL of Lhe propeller
allows a hlgh fleld-of-vlew cockplL Lo be deslgned. All Lhe pusher conflguraLlons ln Lhls secLlon feaLure such cablns
(see ConflguraLlons A Lhrough u ln llgure C1-4).

As dlscussed ln SecLlon 14.1.2, ltopellet cooflqototloos, Lhe pusher conflguraLlon brlngs a number of challenges Lo
propeller alrcrafL. lL ls lmperaLlve LhaL an accuraLe assessmenL of Lhe empLy welghL CC locaLlon and CC Lravel wlLh
loadlng precedes Lhe conflguraLlon layouL. 1he procedure of SecLlon 12.3.1, loltlol ueslqo of tbe xtetool 5bope of
tbe loseloqe wlll sufflce ln Lhls respecL. A llkely plLfall ls Lo slze Lhe fuselage and place Lhe occupanLs Loo far
forward of Lhe englne (and wlng). 1hls can easlly lead Lo a deslgn whose empLy welghL CC locaLlon causes lL Lo fall
on Lhe Lall when empLy and a large forward CC movemenL when loaded requlres hlgh alrspeed before lL can roLaLe
Lo Lake-off. 1he soluLlon requlres Lhe placemenL of Lhe maln and nose landlng gear, as well as occupanLs, Lo be
esLabllshed early on. AddlLlonally, Lhe wlng may have Lo be swepL forward or afL Lo resolve CC lssues assoclaLed
wlLh Loo much or Loo llLLle sLaLlc sLablllLy.

I|gure C1-4: I|ve s|ng|e-eng|ne, tr|cyc|e pusher conf|gurat|ons w|th canopy.
All Lhe conflguraLlons ln llgure C1-4 feaLure a Lrlcycle landlng gear, whlch, as sLaLed ln ChapLer 13, 1be Aootomy of
tbe looJloq Ceot, lmproves ground handllng. Powever, Lhe deslgner musL ensure ample propeller ground
clearance when Lhe alrplane roLaLes for 1-C or flares before Louch-down. lL ls prudenL Lo ensure sufflclenL
propeller clearance for a Louch-down wlLhouL flaps (whlch mosL llkely presenLs Lhe hlghesL flare angle), wlLh flaL
maln Llres and maln landlng gear fully flexed. Clearance problems can be solved wlLh a hlgher LhrusLllne
(drawbacks are dlscussed below), smaller dlameLer propeller, or longer landlng gear (whlch would lncrease Lhe
welghL of Lhe landlng gear sLruL and lLs supporL sLrucLure). lL ls a problem LhaL Lhe propeller may be damaged from
pebbles LhaL may shooL from Lhe nose or maln landlng gear.

AddlLlonal advanLages of Lhe conflguraLlon lnclude LhaL Lhe forward parL of Lhe fuselage can be shaped Lo promoLe
lamlnar boundary layer and, LhaL way, reduce lLs drag. 1he pusher conflguraLlon wlll noL blasL LurbulenL alr over
Lhe fuselage, promoLlng less drag. lurLhermore, Lhe conflguraLlon looks sporLy Lo many and can be deslgned Lo
allow an easy access Lo Lhe cabln. noLe LhaL whlle Lhe canopy makes for an excellenL vlew, lL may be expenslve Lo
produce.

All Lhe conflguraLlons shown ln here allow for a structural hub, a cenLral sLrucLure Lo whlch Lhe englne, wlng, and
maln landlng gear aLLach and may resulL ln a llghLer alrframe. ConflguraLlons A Lhrough C enclose Lhe propeller
wlLh Lhe Lall booms, renderlng Lhem much safer on Lhe ground as lL really Lakes a focused effort to walk lnLo lL. lL
ls ofLen LhoughL Lhe propeller and englne belng mounLed behlnd Lhe cabln should reduce Lhe nolse ln Lhe cabln,
alLhough Lhls may slmply noL be reallzed due Lo Lhe facL LhaL Lhe wake from Lhe fuselage generaLes addlLlonal
broadband nolse
1
that often adds several dB(A) to the airplanes overall noise level. lL would be more approprlaLe
Lo say lL generaLes a different noise than a tractor.

All Lhe conflguraLlons ln llgure C1-4 feaLure a hlgh LhrusLllne, whlch leads Lo Lhe followlng dlsadvanLages:

(1) A larger elevaLor deflecLlon ls requlred for Lrlm ln crulslng fllghL or when cllmblng, ln facL, noLlceable
plLch effecLs are noLlced when LhroLLllng up or down. 1hls effecL ls presenL regardless of wheLher Lhe P1 ls
lmmersed ln Lhe propwash, buL can be amelloraLed by a lower LhrusLllne.
(2) lL loads up Lhe nose landlng gear durlng 1-C and calls for an lncreased ground run, as a hlgher alrspeed
ls requlred Lo roLaLe Lhe nose.

Cf Lhe models shown, ConflguraLlon A ls Lhe leasL affecLed by propwash over Lhe P1.

1he pusher conflguraLlon may brlng abouL englne coollng problems. naLurally, one musL remember LhaL [usL
because something adds a challenge does not mean there isnt a solution to it. 1he Cessna 337 SkymasLer ls an
example of a successful Lwln LhaL has a LracLor and pusher englne. 1he heaLlng problem ls solved wlLh a scoop-Lype
coollng alr lnleL, alLhough Lhls does noL prevenL Lhe rear englne from runnlng 20-30 l warmer Lhan Lhe fronL one
2
.
CLher pushers, such as 8uLans LongLz ls well known for a perslsLenL englne coollng problem whlch has called for
carefully deslgned englne lnleL and exlLs. osslble soluLlons are shown ln SecLlon 7.3.2, llstoo oqloe lolet ooJ xlt
5lzloq. ln parLlcular, refer Lo llgure 7-21 (reproduced below for convenlence as llgure C1-3) and llgure 7-22 for
rules-of-Lhumb regardlng alrflow Lhrough plsLon englne lnsLallaLlons. ulLlmaLely, some soluLlons may call for Lhe
lnsLallaLlon of a cowl flap or Lhe use of waLer-cooled englnes.

I|gure C1-S: A|rf|ow through a convent|ona| tractor eng|ne |nsta||at|on (I|gure 7-21 reproduced).
Conf|gurat|on A provldes an excellenL low speed elevaLor auLhorlLy (aL hlgh power seLLlngs) as Lhe propwash ls
dlrecLed over Lhe PorlzonLal 1all (P1). 1hls wlll lncrease Lhe drag of Lhe P1 and Lhe deslgner (who should be able Lo
assess Lhe drag lncrease) can evaluaLe wheLher Lhls drawback ls greaLer Lhan Lhe lmproved low-speed handllng.
lor small LSA Lype alrcrafL, Lhe addlLlonal drag may lndeed be mlnuLe. Whlle Lhls auLhor seeks Lo ellmlnaLe drag
wherever lL can be found, for LSA alrcrafL, Lhe added drag may slmply be less lmporLanL Lhan Lhe lmproved low-
speed elevaLor auLhorlLy. 1he helghL of Lhe LhrusLllne, comblned wlLh how Lhe P1 ls lmmersed ln Lhe propwash,
wlll dlcLaLe Lhe magnlLude of Lhe plLch changes wlLh power seLLlng.

A well known verslon of Lhls conflguraLlon ls Lhe Cessna xMC (nlcknamed Lhe LxperlmenLal Maglc CarpeL), whlch
was deslgned ln Lhe laLe 1960s and early 1970s as a replacemenL for Lhe Cessna 130 Lralner alrcrafL. Llke Lhe Model
130, Lhe xMC was a Lwln-seaL, hlgh-wlng alrcrafL, powered by a 100 8P ConLlnenLal C-200 englne. 1he alrplane
was used Lo lnLroduce some novelLles ln alrcrafL deslgn, havlng conLrol columns raLher Lhan a wheel, corrugaLed
sklns, and, lnlLlally, only 3 rlbs per wlng. uue Lo Lhe afL CC of Lhe alrcrafL, lL feaLured a sllghLly swepL afL wlng
leading edge. To paraphrase a former test pilot: The airplane was OK statically but had a terrible Dutch roll mode.
It flew like it was very nose heavy. The swepL hlgh wlng resulLed ln a very hlgh dlhedral effecL, whlch almosL
cerLalnly was deLrlmenLal Lo Lhe uuLch roll mode. Accordlng Lo Lhe LesL plloL, Lhe alrplane dld noL dlsplay bad 1-C
handllng as one would suspecL from a hlgh LhrusLllne. 1hls may have been remedled by Lhe horlzonLal Lall, whlch
was lmmersed ln Lhe propwash. 1he alrplane was alleged Lo have a hlgh cabln nolse, buL, ulLlmaLely, dld noL offer
performance beneflLs above Lhe Model 130 and Lhe pro[ecL was cancelled.

Conf|gurat|on 8 has an A-tail, which effectively is an inverted V-Lall. WlLh lL come many advanLages and
dlsadvanLages clLed ln SecLlon 11.3.10, A-1oll. lL ls a clever way of lnLroduclng pro-verse roll when correcLlng a sllp
or skld, buL requlres a more compllcaLed conLrol sysLem, as conLrol cables (or pushrods) musL go Lhrough boLh
Lallbooms. 1he Lall conflguraLlon, as shown ln llgure C1-4, also slLs above Lhe propwash, whlch reduces lLs low
speed elevaLor auLhorlLy (aL hlgher power seLLlngs) and drag. Powever, belng ouL of Lhe propwash, Lhere ls no yaw
conLrlbuLlon due Lo a v1 sldewash (see Appendlx C3, ueslqo of uoosool cooflqototloos). 1hls wlll help reduce splral
lnsLablllLy due Lo propeller effecLs, whlch requlres consLanL correcLlon by Lhe plloL (or auLoplloL).

Conf|gurat|on C ls slmllar Lo A, buL shares some of Lhe characLerlsLlcs of ConflguraLlon 8 (assumlng a slngle prop as
shown). lL ls less affecLed by propeller lnduced splral lnsLablllLy, buL suffers from reduced low speed elevaLor
auLhorlLy compared Lo ConflguraLlon A. Some drag reducLlon, assoclaLed wlLh Lhe Lall noL belng lmmersed ln Lhe
propwash, ls Lo be expecLed, alLhough (as already dlscussed) Lhls may be negllglble for many appllcaLlons.
lurLhermore, Lhe elevaLor conLrol sysLem wlll be sllghLly heavler, wlLh a greaLer parL-counL, as conLrol cables or
pushrods musL be run Lhrough one of Lhe flns (someLhlng noL requlred for ConflguraLlon A).

Conf|gurat|on D ls a llghLwelghL conflguraLlon, wlLh a slender Lallboom Lo whlch a 1-Lall ls mounLed. Many of Lhe
pros and cons already dlscussed apply Lo lL. 1he Lallboom musL be very sLlff and sLrong Lo allow Lhe Lall bendlng
and Lorslonal loads Lo be reacLed and Lo reslsL fluLLer. Whlle llghL, Lhe presence of Lhe Lallboom prevenLs a large
dlameLer propeller from belng used, unless Lhe englne ls ralsed above whaL ls shown ln Lhe flgure. ln order Lo allow
Lhe alrcrafL Lo roLaLe for Lake-off or flare for landlng, Lhe maln landlng gear should be made Laller or Lhe Lallboom
should be mounLed aL an angle so Lhe alrcrafL can be roLaLed Lo lLs sLall ACA on Lhe ground. 1he conflguraLlon
proLecLs Lhe propeller from damage caused by rocks belng Lhrown by Lhe landlng gear, as Lhe propeller lnevlLably
slLs hlgh above Lhe cone of Lra[ecLorles. lL effecLlvely renders a propeller ground sLrlke lmposslble.

C1.2 Conceptual Design of Small Biplanes

1he golden age of Lhe blplane ls usually consldered Lo have lasLed from 1903 Lo 1940
3
. uurlng Lhls era Lhe
conflguraLlon domlnaLed alrcrafL deslgn. AlLhough Lhe monoplane has slnce surpassed Lhe blplane, lL ls sLlll a vlable
opLlon for many Lasks, e.g. as an aerobaLlc or agrlculLural alrcrafL. 8oLh mlsslons requlre rapld and responslve roll
capablllLy made posslble by Lhe compacL slze of lLs Lwo wlngs. A shorLer wlng span ls achleved by spllLLlng Lhe
necessary wlng area lnLo Lwo wlng panels. 1hls ls beneflclal ln several ways. llrsL, lL subsLanLlally reduces roll
damplng when compared Lo a monoplane of Lhe same wlng area, resulLlng ln greaLer roll raLe. Second, Lhe shorLer
wlng span furLher reduces Lhe momenL of lnerLla abouL Lhe roll axls, lncreaslng Lhe roll acceleraLlon and reduclng
Llme requlred Lo achleve sLeady-sLaLe roll raLe, glvlng Lhe blplane greaL roll responslveness. 1hlrd, Lhe shorLer
wlngspan reduces wlng bendlng momenLs, so Lhe wlng can be made llghLer and sLlffer. lourLh, blplanes pack a
large wlng area lnslde a small span, allowlng for reduced Lake-off and landlng dlsLances whlle ellmlnaLlng Lhe need
for a heavy or complex hlgh llfL sysLem. 1hls also allows blplanes Lo operaLe ouL of unlmproved landlng sLrlps wlLh
ease. llfLh, Lhey can be deslgned Lo offer greaL sLall characLerlsLlcs by ensurlng Lhe upper wlng (lf a forward sLagger
conflguraLlon) or lower wlng (lf an afL sLagger) sLalls flrsL. 1he sudden drop ln llfL of one of Lhe Lwo wlngs generaLes
a nose down plLchlng momenL, necessary for good sLall recovery. llgure C1-6 shows examples of flve slngle englne
blplanes wlLh dlfferenL Lall conflguraLlons, all Lalldraggers.

I|gure C1-6: I|ve s|ng|e-eng|ne, ta||dragger b|p|ane conf|gurat|ons w|th tractor prope||ers.
Among drawbacks of Lhe conflguraLlon ls Lhe hlgh drag of Lhe exLernal sLruLs and braclng, whlch effecLlvely renders
Lhe convenLlonal blplane unsulLable for mlsslons LhaL lnvolve exLended range or endurance. A posslble excepLlon
Lo Lhls ls Lhe Crlffon Aerospace LlonhearL, a slx-seat modernized replica of Beechs famed 1930s Staggerwing. lL
was deslgned and bullL ln Lhe early 2000s. lL feaLured naLural Lamlnar llow alrfolls and reLracLable landlng gear
and was compleLely vold of exLernal sLruLs and braclng. lL was boLh clean and fasL for a blplane, alLhough lLs 430
8P raLL & WhlLney 8-943 radlal englne gave lL a crulslng speed slmllar Lo Lhe 300 8P Clrrus S822 and Cessna
Corvalls (boLh whlch en[oy Lhe safeLy and reduced malnLenance cosL of a flxed landlng gear). 1he orlglnal 8eech
SLaggerwlng, had Lhe upper wlng afL of Lhe lower wlng, a conflguraLlon relaLlvely rare ln Lhe hlsLory of avlaLlon. As
can be seen later, this configuration leads to a less destructive intereference between the two wings than the
convenLlonal arrangemenL, alLhough only marglnally so.

An lmporLanL shorLcomlng of Lhe blplane conflguraLlon ls how Lhe hlgh pressure reglon of Lhe upper wlng affecLs
Lhe low pressure reglon of Lhe lower wlng. 1hls effecL can also be explalned ln Lerms of spanwlse vorLlclLy: 1he
lower wlng lncreases Lhe clrculaLlon around Lhe upper wlng, whlle sufferlng from Lhe vorLlclLy of Lhe upper one.
1hls ls shown ln llgure C1-7. 1he severlLy of Lhls effecL depends on Lhe relaLlve geomeLry of Lhe Lwo wlngs, ln
parLlcular Lhe decalage angle (see llgure C1-9). 1he lnfluence ls low for zero decalage, buL oLherwlse can be qulLe
slgnlflcanL. As an example, uslng poLenLlal flow analysls, an average A8 blplane wlLh a 4 decalage can easlly resulL
ln Lhe upper wlng generaLlng 2-Llmes more llfL Lhan Lhe lower one. A 2-Lo-1 raLlo ls a very lnefflclenL conflguraLlon -
ldeally, boLh wlngs should conLrlbuLe equally Lo Lhe LoLal llfL. 1hls, ln effecL, means Lhe lower wlng ls Lhere for Lhe
rlde. 1he blplane musL make up for Lhls lnefflclency by flylng aL a hlgher ACA Lhan a comparable monoplane. A
hlgher ACA means lncreased downwash, whlch, ln Lurn, means hlgher llfL-lnduced drag. 1hls ls also evldenL by Lhe
four wlngLlp vorLlces produced by Lhe conflguraLlon, lL ls lndlcaLlve of a less efflclenL llfL generaLlon.

I|gure C1-7: 1he upper w|ng generates more ||ft than the |ower one due to |ts contr|but|on to the upper
c|rcu|at|on. S|m||ar|y, the upper w|ng vortex reduces the ||ft of the |ower one by s|ow|ng a|rf|ow over |ts top
surface.
8lplanes have a very shallow llfL curve slope (see llgure C1-10). 1herefore, Lhey operaLe aL hlgh ACAs and are
sub[ecL Lo relaLlvely large changes ln deck angle wlLh alrspeed. Powever, lL ls an advanLage LhaL lL makes Lhe
alrplane less suscepLlble Lo gusL loadlng.

1he 8|p|ane as an Agr|cu|tura| A|rcraft
As sLaLed earller, Lhe blplane conflguraLlon ls well sulLed for agrlculLural alrcrafL. Lxamples of such alrcrafL lnclude
Lhe AnLonov An-2, Crumman Ag-CaL, 1ransavla L-12 AlrLruk, and Lhe ZL M-13 8elphegor. 1he ldeal Ag-plane
musL be efflclenL, safe and durable. ln Lhls conLexL, efflclency refers Lo Lhe airplanes ablllLy Lo spray a large
acreage of farmland each hour. lrequenL fuel sLops are a slgnlflcanL drawback ln Lhe operaLlon of such alrcrafL, so
lL should feaLure a large fuel Lank ln addlLlon Lo a large ferLlllzer Lank (or boppet as lL ls referred Lo by operaLors).
1he alrplane should also be capable of hlgh crulslng speed Lo allow lL Lo be qulckly ferrled from one farm fleld Lo
Lhe nexL. 1he Ag-plane should be sLrong, rellable, and durable, capable of provldlng years of hard servlce wlLh
mlnlmum malnLenance. 1he ldeal Ag-plane has a sLrong proLecLed cockplL capable of survlvlng ln one plece ln case
of even a severe accldenL. 1he cockplL should be carefully deslgned wlLh plloL ergonomlcs and safeLy as prlorlLles.
lor lnsLance, plloL egress should be made easy and llghLnlng fasL. lL should also feaLure common sense amenlLles
llke alr condlLlonlng sysLem for added comforL, afLer all, lL ls frequenLly Lhe pilots office for up to 15 hours a day.
1he blplane offers an ldeal soluLlon Lo many of Lhese conslderaLlons.
C1.2.1 Nomenclature for Biplanes
llgure C1-8 shows Lhe fronL vlew of a Lyplcal blplane and Lhe nomenclaLure applled Lo Lhe sLrucLural arrangemenL
beLween Lhe Lwo wlngs. As wlll be shown laLer, Lhe AspecL 8aLlo for a blplane ls obLalned by dlvldlng Lhe square of
Lhe span of Lhe larger wlng (Lhe upper one ln llgure C1-8) by Lhe LoLal planform area of boLh wlngs.

I|gure C1-8: Nomenc|ature for the w|ng |ayout of a b|p|ane.

C1.2.2 Various Effects that Apply to Biplanes Only
Lffect of Deca|age Ang|e
Cn a blplane, a Jecoloqe ooqle ls Lhe dlfference beLween Lhe lncldence angles of Lhe Lop and boLLom wlng (see
llgure C1-9). 1he decalage ls called poslLlve when Lhe ACl of Lhe lower wlng ls less Lhan LhaL of Lhe upper wlng, as
shown ln llgure C1-9. lor one, decalage ls a way Lo conLrol wheLher Lhe upper or lower wlng sLalls flrsL. lf Lhe
blplane has a poslLlve sLagger, lL ls deslrable Lo ensure Lhe upper wlng sLalls flrsL. 1hls wlll shlfL Lhe cenLer of llfL
farLher afL, ensurlng Lhe alrplane drops Lhe nose genLly aL sLall. Powever, Lhe effecL ls more profound Lhan LhaL, as
dlscussed ln nACA 1n-269
4
. 1he decalage also conLrols Lhe clrculaLlon sLrengLh around Lhe Lwo wlngs. 1he sLagger
angle and gap are lmporLanL characLerlsLlcs because Lhey dlcLaLe Lhe pressure dlsLrlbuLlon beLween Lhe Lwo wlngs
and lmpacL Lhe maxlmum llfL capablllLy (see dlscusslon on comblned effecL momenLarlly).

SLlnLon
3
deLalls LhaL Lhe average wlng lncldence for early blplanes (Lhose LhaL had Lhln undercambered alrfolls)
ranges from +2 Lo +3. lor posL World War l blplanes, Lhls value ranges from +2 Lo +3. Pe also sLaLes LhaL Lhe
decalage varles from 0 Lo +1 for boLh classes.

I|gure C1-9: Def|n|t|on of a deca|age ang|e for a b|p|ane.
Lffect of os|t|ve and Negat|ve Stagger
SLagger ls Lhe relaLlve poslLlon of Lhe leadlng edges of Lhe upper and lower wlngs. A poslLlve sLagger ls one ln
whlch Lhe upper wlng ls ahead of Lhe lower wlng. A negaLlve sLagger ls Lhe opposlLe. MosL blplanes feaLure a
poslLlve sLagger. 1he effecL of sLagger ls lnvesLlgaLed ln nACA 8-70
6
, where lL was concluded LhaL a poslLlve sLagger
ylelds a hlgher C
Lmax
Lhan a negaLlve sLagger. 1he greaLer Lhe poslLlve sLagger, Lhe greaLer Lhe maxlmum llfL.
AddlLlonally, poslLlve sLagger resLrlcLs Lhe Lravel of Lhe Aerodynamlc CenLer (AC), whlch ls helpful ln sLablllLy and
conLrol. 1he crulse drag was marglnally hlgher for Lhe poslLlve sLagger, Lhough. SLagger may be selecLed based on
plloL vlslblllLy, as long as Lhe deslgner ls aware of Lhe lmpllcaLlons.

I|gure C1-10: 1he |mpact of stagger on ||ft curve s|ope and st|ck f|xed neutra| po|nt of a typ|ca| b|p|ane w|ng
conf|gurat|on. Negat|ve stagger means the LL of the upper w|ng |s ahead of the |ower w|ng LL.
llgure C1-10 shows how sLagger affecLs Lhe llfL curve slope and Lhe sLlck-flxed neuLral polnL for a speclflc blplane
conflguraLlon. ln Lhe graph, a poslLlve sLagger means Lhe leadlng edge of Lhe upper wlng ls ahead of Lhe lower wlng
(noLe Lhe lnverLed x-axls). 1hls way, a poslLlve sLagger of 1xChord means LhaL Lhe Lralllng edge of Lhe upper wlng ls
dlrecLly above Lhe leadlng edge of Lhe lower one (assumlng boLh wlngs have Lhe same chord). WlLh Lhls ln mlnd,
conslder flrsL Lhe llfL curve slope (Lhe solld curve). lL can be seen LhaL Lhe maxlmum value of C
Lo
ls reached aL elLher
exLreme of Lhe range evaluaLed. As one would expecL, Lhe mlnlmum occurs when Lhe upper wlng ls rlghL on Lop of
Lhe lower one. As menLloned earller, Lhls ls caused by Lhe desLrucLlve lnLerference beLween Lhe hlgh pressure
reglon of Lhe upper wlng and Lhe low pressure of Lhe lower one. 1he llfL curve slope of Lhls conflguraLlon ls
approxlmaLely 93 of Lhe exLreme poslLlve sLagger (upper wlng ls forward of lower wlng). 1he second observaLlon
ls Lhe change ln Lhe sLlck-flxed neuLral polnL (dashed curve), here referenced Lo Lhe upper wlng, whlch moves fore
and afL wlLh lL. 1hls way, for Lhe full poslLlve sLagger, Lhe neuLral polnL ls approxlmaLely aL 68 MCC. 1he MCC ls
consldered on Lhe upper wlng. When Lhe wlngs are rlghL on Lop of each oLher, Lhe neuLral polnL has moved Lo
approxlmaLely 27 MCC, and when aL full poslLlve sLagger (Lop wlng leadlng edge ls rlghL above Lhe Lralllng edge
of Lhe lower wlng), Lhe neuLral polnL ls aL -32 MCC. 1hls way, Lhe sLagger ls a Lool Lo modlfy Lhe longlLudlnal
sLablllLy characLerlsLlcs of Lhe deslgn.

Comb|ned Lffect of Stagger and Deca|age
llgure C1-11 shows Lhe lnfluence of selecLed comblnaLlons of poslLlve and negaLlve sLagger and decalage. uslng
Lhe vorLex analogy of llgure C1-7, lL can be seen LhaL Lhe poslLlve decalage resulLs ln Lhe llfL forces addlng Lo form
Lhe LoLal llfL. Powever, Lhe lnLerference ls desLrucLlve because lL reduces Lhe llfL effecLlveness of boLh wlngs (l.e.
Lhe LoLal llfL ls less Lhan lL would be ln lLs absence). 1he opposlLe holds for Lhe negaLlve sLagger, Lhe llfL forces musL
be subLracLed. Powever, Lhe clrculaLlon dlrecLlon wlll be addlLlve Lherefore, Lhe magnlLude of Lhe Lwo forces can
be expecLed Lo be greaLer.

llgure C1-12 shows an example of some arblLrary blplane conflguraLlon, for whlch Lhe Lwo wlngs have an equal
chord. 1he upper wlng of Lhe lefL comblnaLlon has an ACl of +6 and generaLes a C
LLoL
of 0.2441. 1he upper wlng of
Lhe rlghL comblnaLlon has an ACl of -6 wlLh a C
LLoL
of 0.0163. AlLhough Lhls comblnaLlon generaLes Lhe leasL
amounL of LoLal llfL, Lhe lower wlng ls operaLlng aL a hlgher C
L
Lhan Lhe oLhers, due Lo Lhe consLrucLlve lnLerference
of Lhe wlng clrculaLlon. 1he rlghLmosL conflguraLlon presenLs a posslble alrcrafL conflguraLlon ln whlch Lhe upper
wlng, of a reduced chord, can be used Lo enhance llfL on Lhe lower one (Lhe maln wlng) whlle acLlng as a posslble
horlzonLal Lall or as a parL of a Landem wlng layouL.

I|gure C1-11: 1he |mpact of stagger on ||ft curve s|ope and st|ck f|xed neutra| po|nt of a typ|ca| b|p|ane w|ng
conf|gurat|on. os|t|ve stagger means the LL of the upper w|ng |s ahead of the |ower w|ng LL.

I|gure C1-12: 1yp|ca| resu|ts for a negat|ve stagger for some arb|trary b|p|ane conf|gurat|on us|ng potent|a| f|ow
theory. 1hat o of the |ower w|ng |s 2 for a|| comb|nat|ons. 1he |eft comb|nat|on has a pos|t|ve deca|age and the
r|ght comb|nat|on has a negat|ve deca|age. 1o generate a pos|t|ve f|xed CL, the r|ghtmost conf|gurat|on must
operate at the |argest ACA of the three.
Lffect of Gap
1he qop ls Lhe space beLween Lhe upper and lower wlngs. A large gap wlll generally reduce drag by lmprovlng Lhe
flow fleld beLween Lhe Lwo wlngs. Cf course, Lhe larger Lhe separaLlon, Lhe larger wlll be Lhe weLLed area of Lhe
supporL sLruLs and braclng wlres, noL Lo menLlon reduced buckllng sLrengLh of sLruLs LhaL reacL compresslve fllghL
loads. 1he effecL of drag ls accounLed for uslng Lhe formulaLlon LhaL follows. 8uckllng sLrengLh ls handled durlng
Lhe deLall deslgn phase.

C1.2.3 Aerodynamic Properties of the Biplane Configuration
1he followlng ls a summary of how Lo deLermlne lmporLanL deslgn parameLers for Lhe blplane conflguraLlon.

8|p|ane Aspect kat|o
1he AspecL 8aLlo of a blplane ls glven by:

S
b
AR
biplane
2
g larger win
2
=
(C1-1)

Lqu|va|ent Monop|ane 1heorem
1he concepL of an epolvoleot moooplooe was proposed by Munk
7
ln Lhe early 1900s Lo help slmpllfy analyses of
blplanes. lL presumes Lhe blplane conflguraLlon can be replaced wlLh a monoplane wlng of equal wlng area and llfL-
lnduced drag. lL has already been sLaLed LhaL Lhe blplane musL generaLe greaLer downwash Lhan a monoplane Lo
malnLaln alLlLude. 1hls dlfference can be represenLed as follows:

o + =
c
c A
+ =
c
c
1 1
monoplane
biplane
(C1-2)

Where: c
monoplane
= uownwash by a monoplane
e AR
C
L
t
=
c
blplane
= uownwash by a blplane of equal welghL and wlng area
( )
e AR
C
L
t
o +
=
1

o = 8lplane lnLerference facLor (Lo be dlscussed momenLarlly ln more deLall)

Munks Span Factor, *
As stated above, Munks polvoleot Moooplooe 1beotem replaces Lhe blplane wlngs wlLh a monoplane wlng of
equal area and llfL-lnduced drag. 1hls way, lf Lhe maxlmum wlng span of Lhe blplane ls glven by b, Lhen a
correspondlng equlvalenL monoplane wingspan will be kb, where k ls called Lhe Munks 5poo loctot
8
. 1he facLor k
has a value of 1 for monoplanes, buL for blplanes lL ls always larger Lhan 1 and ls a funcLlon of Lhe followlng raLlos:

(1) Cap raLlo, whlch ls gap/(average wlngspan) = ( )
avg
b h ,
(2) Span raLlo, whlch ls (shorLer wlngspan)/(longer wlngspan),
long short
b b = , and
(3) Area raLlo, ( ) S S S S S r
short long
= = .

Where: h = Cap helghL (see llgure C1-9)
( )
short long avg
b b b + =
2
1
(see llgure C1-8)
S = 1oLal area of boLh wlngs.
S
long
and S
shorL
= lanform areas of Lhe Lwo wlngs.

1he Munks span facLor ls glven by Lhe followlng expresslon:

o +
=
1
2
k
(C1-3)

8|p|ane Interference Iactor, o
1he blplane lnLerference facLor accounLs for Lhe facL LhaL Lhe presence of Lwo llfLlng surfaces ln a close proxlmlLy
wlll affecL Lhe resulLlng flow fleld. ln oLher words, Lhe upper wlng affecLs Lhe lower wlng and vlce versa. 1hls
lnLeracLlon can be measured and ls represenLed uslng Lhe facLor o. A meLhod developed by randLl
9
can be used Lo
esLlmaLe o lf boLh wlngs are of an equal span. lL ls valld for ( ) 5 . 0 05 . 0 s s
avg
b h :

( )
( )
avg
avg
b h
b h
7 . 3 055 . 1
66 . 0 1
+
= o (C1-4)

ulehl8 presents a graph of Prandtls biplane interference facLors for oLher span raLlos, . uslng surrepLlLlous
maLhemaLlcal wlzardry, Lhe followlng expresslon was derlved Lo calculaLe o for oLher span raLlos. lL ls valld for
0 . 1 4 . 0 s s and ( ) 5 . 0 05 . 0 s s
avg
b h . lL provides an acceptable fit for the curves in Diehls graph.

( )( )
( )( )
avg
avg
b h
b h
5 29 6
20 28 75
75
6
+
+
|
.
|
\
|
= o (C1-3)

1hls ls ploLLed ln llgure C1-13.

I|gure C1-13: A map of Prandtls biplane interference factors as functions of the gap and span ratios. (8ased on
keference 8.)
L|ft-Induced Drag of a 8|p|ane
Cnce Lhe blplane lnLerference facLor has been deLermlned, Lhe llfL-lnduced drag can be deLermlned uslng Lhe
followlng expresslon:

8lplane llfL-lnduced drag: ( )
( )
( ) o +
t
= o +
t
= 1
2
1
2
2 2
e b
SC
e AR
C
C
L L
Di
(C1-6)
randLl also showed LhaL Lhe drag of one wlng ln Lhe presence of Lhe oLher ls glven by:

short long
short long
b b
L L
q
D
|
|
.
|
\
|
t
o
=
12
(C1-7)

Where: q = uynamlc pressure
L
long
and L
shorL
= LlfL of Lhe Lwo wlngs
b
long
and b
shorL
= Span of Lhe Lwo wlngs.

lurLhermore, he deLermlned Lhe LoLal llfL-lnduced drag Lo be:

(
(
+ o +
|
|
.
|
\
|
t
=
2
2
2
2
2
1
short
short
short long
short long
long
long
i
b
L
b b
L L
b
L
q
D (C1-8)

1he expresslon allows Lhe geomeLry for mlnlmum llfL-lnduced drag Lo be deLermlned. 1hls happens when:

o
o
=
1
short
long
L
L

1he resulLlng mlnlmum llfL-lnduced drag ls Lhus found Lo be:

Mlnlmum llfL-lnduced drag:
(
+ o
o
|
|
.
|
\
|
t
=
2
2
2
2
2 1
1
long
i
qb
L
D (C1-9)

Where: L = L
long
+ L
shorL
= LlfL (or welghL of Lhe alrcrafL)

lf Lhe Lwo wlngs are of dlfferenL geomeLry, Lhen lL ls LradlLlonal Lo assume Lhe llfL ls proporLlonal Lo Lhe area raLlo, r
(deflned earller). 1hls way, Lhe followlng rules hold:

Wlng areas: ( )S r S and rS S
S
S S
S
S
r
short long
short
long
= =
= = 1
Wlng llfL: ( ) ( )W r L r L and rW rL L
short long
= = = = 1 1

SubsLlLuLlng Lhls lnLo LquaLlon (C1-9) leads Lo anoLher helpful expresslon ln Lerms of welghL aL condlLlon, W, and
Lhe area raLlo:

Mlnlmum llfL-lnduced drag: ( )
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
o
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
t
=
2
2
2
2
1
1
2 r
r r r
qb
W
D
long
i
(C1-10)

llnally, as presenLed by ulehl8, the Munks span factor for this optimized configuration is then given by:

( ) ( ) 1 1 2 1 2
2 2
2
+ o + + o

=
r r
k

(C1-11)

ulehl also presenLs a number of graphs, noL presenLed here, LhaL wlll help furLher ln Lhe deslgn of efflclenL
blplanes.

WlLh Lhese Lools ln hand, lL ls now posslble Lo lmplemenL a reasonable performance analysls for Lhe blplane. 1he
foregolng formulaLlon, and ln parLlcular Lhe presence of Lhe blplane lnLerference facLor, o, reveals LhaL even a very
clean blplane wlll always generaLe more drag Lhan a comparable monoplane. 1hls ls furLher compounded by a
larger lnLerference drag due Lo Lwo raLher Lhan one wlng, whlch lncreases C
umln
as well. lor Lhls reason, L/u
efflclency ls noL a compelllng argumenL for such a deslgn, buL raLher Lhe oLher favorable properLles dlscussed aL
Lhe beglnnlng of Lhls secLlon.

DLkIVA1ICN CI LUA1ICN (C1-3):
LlfL-induced drag of the equivalent monoplane of wing span kb is given by:

( ) ( ) e b k
SC
e S b k
C
e AR
C
C
L L L
Di
t
=
t
=
t
=
2 2
2
2 2
2 2
(l)

LlfL-lnduced drag of Lhe blplane:

( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) o +
t
= o +
t
= o +
t
= 1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2 2
e b
SC
e S b
C
e AR
C
C
L L L
Di
(ll)

er Munk, Lhe llfL-lnduced drag for Lhe blplane and lLs equlvalenL monoplane conflguraLlon musL be equal, buL Lhls
allows Lhe facLor k Lo be deLermlned, yleldlng LquaLlon (C1-3).
LD

C1.3 Conventional Multi-Engine GA Aircraft

1wln-englne, and even four-englne propeller powered alrcrafL are wldely used for shorL domesLlc rouLes and as
cargo-feeder aircraft for cargo companies like UPS and Fedex. Many airlines use such alrcrafL ln Lhelr hub-and-
spoke alrway sysLems, operaLlng Lhem beLween large clLles and less dense rural area alrporLs. Modern alrcrafL of
Lhls klnd usually feaLure Lurboprop or Lurbofan englnes and offer pressurlzed cablns, allowlng Lhem Lo be operaLed
above weaLher, resulLlng ln a more rellable scheduled servlce. ln splLe of greaL uLlllLy, mulLl-englne alrcrafL are
challenglng Lo operaLe and requlre speclal plloL raLlngs. 1he prlmary area of concern and Lhe one LhaL mosL
forcefully requlres addlLlonal plloL raLlng ls operaLlon wlLh Cne Lnglne lnoperaLlve (CLl). ln addlLlon Lo whaL ls
presenLed here, Lhe deslgner of mulLl-propeller alrcrafL ls encouraged Lo read SecLlon 14.2.3, Asymmettlc ow
ffect fot o 1wlo oqloe Altctoft Lo beLLer undersLand Lhe flaws of Lhe conflguraLlon. A number of such
conflguraLlons wlll now be brlefly dlscussed.

C1.3.1 Turboprop Commuter Aircraft
1hls secLlon conslders only convenLlonal, Lall-afL conflguraLlons wlLh Lurboprop englnes mounLed on Lhe wlng.
ulsLlncLlon wlll be made for the wings vertical position. As with any other aircraft, a number of pros and cons
apply Lo all Lurboprop alrcrafL, regardless of wlng placemenL. ln general, Lurboprop englnes provlde far beLLer
power/englne welghL Lhan plsLon englnes (see SecLlon 7.2.2, 1otboptops). 1hls ls a greaL advanLage as lL leads Lo
greaLer useful load. 1urboprops are very rellable and operaLe wlLh smooLhness noL posslble ln plsLon englnes.
AddlLlonally, Lhey offer abundanL power aL hlgh alLlLudes. 1hls allows many Lurboprop alrcrafL Lo operaLe from
unlmproved landlng sLrlps and Lhen Lake-off and cllmb Lo alLlLudes above weaLher. MosL mulLl-englne alrcrafL
feaLure Lhe englnes on Lhe wlng, whlch reduces bendlng momenLs and llghLens Lhe wlng sLrucLure.

Among flaws ls Lhe slze of Lhe propeller, whlch requlres longer landlng gear LhaL adds Lo sLrucLural welghL. 1hls ls
ofLen remedled by Lhe use of mulLl-blade propellers (flve- Lo slx-bladed props), whlch allow smaller dlameLer
propellers. A separaLlon of a propeller blade from Lhe hub would presenL Lhe passengers ad[acenL Lo lL wlLh faLal
rlsk, alLhough such evenLs are exceedlngly rare. 1here may be noLlceable plLch-up effecLs due Lo normal force.
AddlLlonally, nolse ln Lhe forward half of Lhe cabln (nexL Lo Lhe englnes) ls noLlceably greaLer Lhan ln Lhe fronL half,
parLlcularly durlng 1ake-Cff. AnoLher drawback ls LhaL Lhe low welghL of Lurboprop englnes requlres Lhem Lo be
mounLed farLher ahead of Lhe flrewall or Lhe maln spar of Lhe wlng for CC reasons. 1hls can lead Lo large ampllLude
sLrucLural osclllaLlons LhaL can cause early meLal faLlgue due Lo Lhe resulLlng sLresses. 1hls musL be accounLed for
ln Lhe alrframe deslgn. 1he sLrucLure musL be deslgned wlLh whlrl-fluLLer phenomena ln mlnd.

AddlLlonal drawbacks lnclude LhaL asymmeLrlc yaw due Lo CLl calls for a large verLlcal Lall Lo help brlng down Lhe
mlnlmum conLrol speed, v
MC
. 1hls requlres larger fln loads Lo be reacLed by Lhe fuselage and, Lhus, leads Lo a
heavler alrframe. Cf course Lhls ls a double-edged sword, lL makes Lhe Lurboprop a far more capable alrcrafL ln an
CLl slLuaLlon.

Low W|ng Conf|gurat|on
1hls conflguraLlon shares many of Lhe advanLages of Lhe low-wlng, wlng mounLed [eL alrcrafL (see llgure C1-14).
Lnglne replacemenL and fleld malnLenance ls easler, as ls fuellng Lhe alrcrafL. lL ls an advanLage LhaL Lhe cabln ls
clear of sLrucLural members. 1he englne conflguraLlon resulLs ln hlgh quallLy alrflow Lhrough Lhe propeller and Lhe
relaLlvely small aerodynamlcally shaped nacelle llmlLs blockage effecLs. 1he LhrusL llne ls relaLlvely close Lo Lhe
verLlcal cenLerllne of Lhe alrcrafL, reduclng plLch-up or -down effecLs wlLh power changes. 1he low wlng provldes
added safeLy for Lhe passengers ln landlng gear up (or belly) landlngs, alLhough some polnL ouL Lhe wlng may be
sub[ecL Lo slgnlflcanL damage ln such an evenL, posslbly rupLurlng Lhe fuel Lanks wlLh devasLaLlng consequences for
passengers slLLlng nearby. CLhers polnL ouL LhaL passengers slLLlng rlghL above Lhe wlng sLrucLure may be affecLed
by hlgher lmpacL acceleraLlon Lhan passengers slLLlng farLher away, whlle oLhers argue Lhe effecLs of angular
acceleraLlon are felL more forcefully away from Lhe wlng. Cf course, no accldenL ls slmllar and such debaLes are of
llmlLed value.

AddlLlonal drawbacks lnclude LhaL Lhe movemenL of supporL vehlcles durlng ground operaLlons ls made harder
Lhan for a hlgh wlng locaLlon. 1he lower verLlcal poslLlon of Lhe propeller puLs lL aL rlsk of damage due Lo small
debrls belng launched from Lhe nose landlng gear. 1here ls also a real rlsk of ln[urles Lo ground sLaff and Lravellng
passengers around Lhe propeller (alLhough lL can be argued Lhe same holds for Lhe hlgh-wlng conflguraLlon).

I|gure C1-14: Lxamp|e of a |ow w|ng conf|gurat|on w|th eng|nes mounted |n nace||es.
M|d-W|ng Conf|gurat|on
As was sLaLed ln SecLlon 4.2.1, vettlcol wloq locotloo, Lhe mld-wlng conflguraLlon ls hlghly lmpracLlcal for use ln
passenger alrcrafL, as Lhls would resulL ln a wlng sLrucLure lnslde Lhe cabln (see llgure C1-13). unless Lhe alrplane
ls noL belng deslgned for passenger LransporLaLlon, Lhls conflguraLlon should be avolded.

I|gure C1-1S: A m|d w|ng conf|gurat|ons show|ng the prob|em assoc|ated w|th cab|n space.
n|gh W|ng Conf|gurat|on
MulLl-englne propeller powered alrcrafL wlLh wlngs mounLed hlgh on Lhe fuselage are equally pracLlcal for shorL
domestic routes (or as cargo-feeder aircraft) as are low winged aircraft (see llgure C1-16). Such alrcrafL share
many of Lhe characLerlsLlcs of low wlnged alrcrafL wlLh Lhe excepLlon of Lhe followlng ones:

Among dlsadvanLages ls LhaL fuellng requlres sLep ladder, even on smaller alrcrafL, and englne replacemenL and
fleld malnLenance ls harder Lhan for Lhe low wlnged conflguraLlon as Lhe helghL of Lhe englne above ground can
presenL challenges. Cf course, malnLenance sLaLlons have developed equlpmenL Lo make Lhls easler. lf Lhe alrplane
carrles subsLanLlal amounLs of fuel (e.g. 1000 gallons or more see LangLon
10
eL al.), pressure refuellng ls used.
1hls calls for speclal refuellng sLaLlons on Lhe alrcrafL LhaL may noL be on Lhe wlng. lor lnsLance, Lhe lagglo .180
AvanLl has a refuellng sLaLlon on Lhe fuselage below Lhe wlng.

1he hlgh wlng conflguraLlon generally requlres Lhe maln landlng gear Lo be mounLed ln speclal houslng mounLed Lo
Lhe boLLom of Lhe fuselage, whlch lncreases Lhe drag and sLrucLural welghL. Powever, Lhere are lmporLanL
excepLlons. 1he lokker l-27 lrlendshlp and lokker l-30, as well as Lhe ue Pavllland of Canada uASP 8 Lwln
Lurboprop alrcrafL feaLure maln landlng gear LhaL reLracLs lnLo Lhe englne nacelles. 1hls reduces Lhe mlnlmum drag
of Lhe alrcrafL, however, Lhe maln landlng gear on Lhese alrcrafL ls longer and heavler. 1he deslgner should be
aware of Lhls meLhod as lL ellmlnaLes Lhe need Lo relnforce Lhe fuselage ln excess of whaL ls needed for Lhe wlng-
Lo-fuselage [olnlng. lL ls hard Lo say wheLher feaLurlng Lhe maln landlng gear on Lhe fuselage boLLom ls heavler
Lhan placlng lL ln Lhe englne nacelles, buL Lhe laLLer meLhod has manufacLurlng advanLages, as mosL of Lhe frames
for Lhe fuselage can be of ldenLlcal deslgn. 1he absence of wlng sLrucLure on Lhe boLLom of Lhe fuselage ls
dlsadvanLageous ln case of a belly landlng, requlrlng Lhe boLLom of Lhe fuselage Lo be relnforced.

I|gure C1-16: I|ve h|gh w|ng conf|gurat|ons w|th eng|nes mounted on the w|ng.
Among advanLages of Lhe hlgh wlng conflguraLlon ls LhaL Lhe LhrusL llne, whlch ls relaLlvely hlgh and causes
sLablllzlng longlLudlnal plLchlng momenL, ls parLlally offseL by Lhe desLablllzlng propeller normal force. 1hls would
allevlaLe some of Lhe plLch changes due Lo power. As wlLh Lhe hlgh wlnged [eLs, Lhe conflguraLlon ls advanLageous
because Lhe fuselage Lo slLs much closer Lo Lhe ground and Lhls, besldes maklng loadlng and unloadlng easler, also
allows smaller sLalrs Lo be used for passenger embarklng and dlsembarklng. 1hls can be beneflclal lf Lhe alrplane ls
lnLended Lo operaLe from smaller alrporLs where ground supporL equlpmenL may noL be readlly avallable.
AddlLlonally, lL allows for a pracLlcal use of Lhe enLry door as a walkway lnLo and ouL of Lhe alrplane. AnoLher
beneflL ls LhaL Lhe propellers slL hlgher above ground, whlch reduces Lhe rlsk of a propeller ground sLrlke.

araso| W|ngs
1he parasol wlng conflguraLlon, of whlch an example ls shown ln llgure C1-17, was dlscussed ln SecLlon 4.2.1,
vettlcol wloq locotloo and no addlLlonal lnformaLlon ls presenLed here. Many of Lhe same pros and cons apply Lo
lL as for Lhe hlgh wlng conflguraLlon.

I|gure C1-17: I|ve paraso| w|ng conf|gurat|ons w|th eng|nes mounted on the w|ng.
1hree-Surface A|rcraft
A Lhree-surface alrcrafL ls one LhaL feaLures a sysLem of Lwo sLablllzlng surfaces and one maln llfLlng surface. WlLh
Lhe CC ln Lhe proper locaLlon, such alrcrafL achleve sLaLlc sLablllLy wlLh all Lhree surfaces conLrlbuLlng Lo Lhe LoLal
llfL. 1he maln llfLlng surface can conslsL of one or more separaLe wlngs. ln Lhls conLexL, a blplane wlLh Lwo
sLablllzlng surfaces ls consldered a Lhree surface alrcrafL.

Modern Llmes have only seen a few examples of such alrcrafL maklng lL Lo Lhe producLlon sLage. Powever, a
number of Lhree surface blplane conflguraLlons were developed ln Lhe early parL of Lhe 20
Lh
cenLury. Among Lhe
flrsL was Lhe volsln 1907 blplane, also called Lhe volsln-larman no. 1 afLer Lhe lrench avlaLor and alrcrafL deslgner
Penrl larman (1874-1938). larman deslgned and bullL Lhe Penrl larman 8lplane, whlch flrsL flew ln 1909. lL ls also
known as Lhe larman lll. CLher alrplanes lnclude Lhe 8rlsLol 8ox klLe, whlch flrsL flew ln 1910, and Lhe Cody 8lplane
no. 3, whlch flrsL flew ln 1911. AL leasL Lhree 3-surface alrcrafL deslgned by !oseph Albessard feaLured monoplane
wlngs. 1hese were Lhe Albessard 1911, Albessard 1912, and Lhe Albessard 1rlavlon
11
, whlch flew for Lhe flrsL Llme
ln 1926. All are pecullar alrcrafL wlLh Lhe maln wlng ln fronL, a smaller wlng ln Lhe mlddle of Lhe fuselage, and a
smaller yeL horlzonLal Lall locaLed afL.

1he besL known modern Lhree-surface alrcrafL ls Lhe lagglo .180 AvanLl, an lLallan Lwln-Lurboprop buslness
LransporL LhaL carrles up Lo 10 occupanLs (see llgure C1-18). lL ls a Lruly unlque deslgn lnLended Lo compeLe wlLh
buslness [eL alrcrafL and ls LouLed as one of Lhe fasLesL Lurboprop ever bullL, capable of 402 k1AS aL 38000 fL (M ~
0.70). ln comparlson, Lhe fasLesL Lurboprop ever bullL remalns Lhe 1upolev 1u-114, a four-englne passenger
LransporL alrcrafL. lL holds Lhe maxlmum speed record for a Lurboprop, some 473.66 k1AS (M ~ 0.82), seL on Aprll
9
Lh
, 1960
12
(lL would rouLlnely crulse aL 413 k1AS or M ~ 0.72). 1haL aslde, Lhe lagglo clalms Lhe Lhree surface
conflguraLlon resulLs ln 34 less drag Lhan comparable Lurbofan alrcrafL and offers 40 lmprovemenL ln fuel
consumpLlon. 1he alrcrafL feaLures a flap on Lhe forewlng LhaL deflecLs 1ralllng Ldge uown (1Lu) when Lhe flaps
are deployed Lo counLer Lhe resulLlng plLch-down momenL (lrrefuLably showlng lL ls a sLablllzlng surface). 1he
elevaLor ls locaLed on Lhe afL surface.

I|gure C1-18: A |agg|o .180 Avant| turboprop tax||ng. 1he forew|ng features a f|ap that dep|oys when the ma|n
w|ng f|aps are dep|oyed to he|p counter the nose-down p|tch|ng moment. (hoto by h|| kademacher)

C1.3.2 Turbofan Commuter Aircraft
1here ls an undenlable regularlLy ln Lhe shape of commuLer and commerclal [eL alrcrafL. Such alrplanes largely
comprlse a Lubular fuselage Lo whlch varlous conflguraLlons of wlngs, sLablllzlng surfaces, and englnes are
mounLed. 1hls conflguraLlon ls Lhe esLabllshed norm of Loday, supporLed by many decades of safe operaLlonal
experlence. ManufacLurers see no presslng reason Lo change Lhls safe and rellable reclpe. As an example, Lhe
Lubular fuselage represenLs Lhe mosL efflclenL means of reacLlng pressurlzaLlon loads of hlgh-flylng alrcrafL. 1hls
means LhaL any oLher shape ls sLrucLurally less efflclenL and resulLs ln a heavler alrframe.

1here ls an excepLlon from such clrcular shapes ln LhaL CulfsLream Aerospace, a manufacLurer of hlgh end buslness
[eLs, has developed a non-clrcular fuselage secLlon for lLs CulfsLream 630 buslness [eL. 1he purpose ls Lo lncrease
headroom for Lhe occupanLs for lmproved comforL level. 1he resulL ls hlgher bendlng momenLs ln Lhe oblong hoop
frames, buL Lhls ls cleverly reacLed by sLrucLural deslgn deLall, whose descrlpLlon ls beyond Lhe scope of Lhls book.
8egardless, even Lhe fuselage of Lhe CulfsLream 630 ls largely clrcular. So, Lo sLray from Lhe norm and use a
dlfferenL shape requlres a compelllng [usLlflcaLlon.

Slmllarly, a hlgh or low wlng poslLlon on Lhe fuselage of commerclal [eLllners also ls Lhe norm. A mld-wlng poslLlon
slmply places Lhe wlng sLrucLure lnslde Lhe passenger cabln and, as already been dlscussed, Lhls ls clearly
lmpracLlcal. A number of unorLhodox conflguraLlons have already been suggesLed ln Lhe llLeraLure: blended-wlng-
bodles, double-hulls, and many oLhers. Powever, noL one has made lL Lo producLlon aL Lhe Llme of Lhls wrlLlng.
uesplLe whaL Lhe fuLure beholds, Lhe convenLlonal conflguraLlon ls here Lo sLay and should really be revered as
sLaLe of Lhe arL raLher Lhan someLhlng Lo be avolded.

1hls secLlon only conslders convenLlonal Lall-afL commuLer alrcrafL, powered by Lurbofan englnes LhaL are elLher
mounLed on Lhe wlng or Lhe afL parL of Lhe fuselage. 1he Lurbofan englne ls presenLed ln deLall ln SecLlon 7.2.4,
1otbofoos. Many of Lhe pros and cons already dlscussed ln Lhe prevlous secLlon also apply Lo Lurbofan commuLers.
lor Lhls reason, Lhe dlscusslon ls llmlLed Lo addlLlonal Loplcs only.

A number of conflguraLlons LhaL prlmarlly dlffer ln Lall conflguraLlons are shown ln llgure C1-19, llgure C1-20, and
llgure C1-21. 1hey are presenLed as an ald for Lhe sLudenL of alrcrafL deslgn, when selecLlng a sulLable
conflguraLlon for a glven mlsslon. 1hey also serve Lo help wlLh aesLheLlc appralsals. vlewlng varlaLlons of a
parLlcular conflguraLlon ls helpful when comparlng Lhe lmpllcaLlons on sLrucLures, sysLems, operaLlon, poLenLlal
producLlon and malnLenance lssues, all of whlch should be dlscussed wlLh Lhe same promlnence as Lhe
aerodynamlc characLerlsLlcs.

Low W|ng Iet A|rcraft w|th W|ng Mounted Lng|nes
All of Lhe concepLs ln llgure C1-19 fall lnLo Lhls class of alrcrafL conflguraLlon. All, excepL ConflguraLlon u, wlll be
affecLed by a powerful nose plLch-up momenL ln fllghL, when englne LhrusL ls lncreased. 1he conLrol sysLem deslgn
musL accommodaLe Lhls lmporLanL effecL. 1hls means LhaL Lhe horlzonLal Lall musL be capable of reacLlng Lhls
sLrong momenL, parLlcularly aL low alrspeeds, wlLhouL requlrlng excesslve conLrol surface deflecLlon or sLlck forces.
ConflguraLlon u (whlch some mlghL refer Lo as a Ponda-[eL conflguraLlon, alLhough lL ls more accuraLely called Lhe
vlW-lokker 614 conflguraLlon) may experlence a powerful nose down plLchlng momenL, governed by Lhe helghL
of Lhe pylon.

Agaln, all Lhe conflguraLlons, excepL ConflguraLlon u, requlre Lhe landlng gear legs Lo be longer Lo accommodaLe
Lhe englnes. 1he longer landlng gear legs cause hlgher landlng gear loads LhaL lncrease sLrucLural welghL. 1he
englne conflguraLlon also exposes Lhem Lo Lhe rlsk of lorelgn Cb[ecL uamage (lCu), as Lhelr powerful sucLlon can
easlly plck up and lngesL loose ob[ecLs. ln case of an unconLalned roLor bursL, all Lhe conflguraLlons expose faLal
rlsks Lo passengers slLLlng ad[acenL Lo Lhe englnes. noLe LhaL 14 Cl8 23.873 kelofotcemeot oeot ptopellets requlres
Lhe fuselage ad[acenL Lo propeller Llps Lo be relnforced Lo wlLhsLand lce Lhrown off Lhe propeller. 1rafflc of supporL
vehlcles durlng ground operaLlons ls made harder Lhan for a hlgh wlng locaLlon. AddlLlonally, nolse ln Lhe afL half of
Lhe cabln (behlnd Lhe englnes) ls noLlceably greaLer Lhan ln Lhe fronL half, parLlcularly durlng 1ake-Cff. 1here ls a
posslble fuel sysLem problem lf Lhe alrplane feaLures afL swepL wlngs. As Lhe alrplane roLaLes for 1ake-Cff and
beglns Lo cllmb, Lhe Llp of wlng ls closer Lo Lhe ground Lhan Lhe rooL. 1herefore, lf fuel Lanks are noL full, fuel may
flow Lo Lhe ouLboard Lank causlng a sudden afL shlfL of Lhe CenLer-of-CravlLy. 1hls calls for a compllcaLed fuel
sysLem LhaL requlres several lnLerconnecLed fuel Lanks ln Lhe wlng wlLh lnLernal baffles, one-way gaLes LhaL only
permlL lnboard flow of fuel, and dedlcaLed fuel pumps Lo resolve (see 8eference 10 for furLher deLalls).

Powever, on Lhe pro slde ls much easler englne replacemenL and fleld malnLenance (naLurally, Lhls excludes
ConflguraLlon u). Also, Lhe welghL of Lhe englnes offer greaL wlng bendlng momenL rellef, whlch can be used Lo
llghLen Lhe wlng sLrucLure. 1he low wlng conflguraLlon also makes lL easler Lo fuel Lhe alrcrafL, lf Lhe refuellng
polnLs are under Lhe wlngs. ln fllghL, slnce Lhe englnes are placed far from Lhe fuselage, Lhey suffer hlgher quallLy
alr as Lhe sLream Lube flowlng lnLo Lhe englne ls much less prone Lo dlsLorLlon ln yaw Lhan, say, englne mounLed Lo
Lhe afL parL of Lhe fuselage.


I|gure C1-19: N|ne conf|gurat|ons featur|ng the eng|nes mounted on the w|ng.
ln addlLlon Lo whaL has already been dlscussed regardlng Lhe added safeLy of Lhe low wlng for passengers ln
landlng gear up (or belly) landlngs, Lhe englnes wlll absorb a large parL of such an emergency landlng lmpacL.
Modern engine mounts are usually designed to enable the engines to break free and be thrown up and over the
wlng. 1hls ls done Lo prevenL Lhe sLrucLure from puncLurlng Lhe fuel Lanks and, LhaL way, reduce flre hazard ln such
wheels-up landings. One of the primary advantages of mounting the engine low is that the cabin is kept clear of
sLrucLural members requlred Lo mounL Lhe englne. lL ls also of lmporLance Lo noLe LhaL Lhe englne and Lhe pylon of
Lhe wlng mounLed conflguraLlon acLually lmproves roll sLablllLy aL hlgh ACA Lhrough Lhe formaLlon of a vorLex LhaL
delays wlng Llp separaLlon.

1hen conslder Lhe ConflguraLlons C Lhrough l ln llgure C1-19, whlch feaLure unconvenLlonal Lall conflguraLlons.
8egardless of any aerodynamlc advanLages such Lalls mlghL offer (and are dlscussed ln SecLlon 11.3, Oo tbe ltos
ooJ coos of 1oll cooflqototloos), all wlll llmlL Lhe roLaLlon of Lhe alrplanes ln Lhe proxlmlLy of Lhe ground, l.e durlng
1-C roLaLlon and flare before landlng. 1he remedy would have Lo be longer landlng gear legs, a very hlgh
empennage, or an excesslvely hlgh wlng angle-of-lncldence Lo counLeracL Lhls llmlLaLlon. none ls feaslble for a
passenger alrcrafL deslgn. Powever, Lhese Lall conflguraLlons have seen use ln some uAv alrcrafL deslgns.

Low W|ng Iet A|rcraft w|th Aft Mounted Lng|nes
AlrcrafL conflguraLlons A Lhrough u ln llgure C1-20 dlffer only from Lhe ones ln llgure C1-19 ln Lhe locaLlon of Lhe
englne, whlch ls mounLed Lo Lhe afL parL of Lhe fuselage. 1hls arrangemenL subsLanLlally lowers cabln nolse,
alLhough Lhe afL mosL seaL rows are sub[ecL Lo louder nolse Lhan even Lhe wlng mounLed englnes, as Lhey are
slmply much closer Lo Lhe englne. 1he conflguraLlon ls sub[ecL Lo subsLanLlally less plLch changes wlLh LhrusL, as Lhe
englne ls mounLed closer Lhe cenLerllne of Lhe alrcrafL. Also, lCu reslsLance ls subsLanLlally lmproved as Lhe englne
slLs hlgher above Lhe ground and Lhe wlng ls aerodynamlcally cleaner, Lhanks Lo Lhe absence of a pylon.

I|gure C1-20: Seven conf|gurat|ons featur|ng aft mounted eng|nes.
ulsadvanLages lnclude a loss of bendlng rellef on Lhe wlng LhaL may resulL ln a heavler wlng. AddlLlonally, Lhe afL
fuselage musL be relnforced Lo reacL Lhe LhrusL and lnerLla loads. 1he sLream Lube golng lnLo Lhe englnes ls
someLlmes affecLed by Lhe wlng ln fronL of Lhe englne and requlres Lhe englne compressor facL Lo be allgned aL a
sllghL angle (lnleL up) Lo reduce lnleL flow dlsLorLlon. 1hls may requlre a sllghLly ad[usLed nozzle Lo prevenL Lhe
LhrusL vecLor from polnLlng a downward (whlch mlghL lnLroduce a nose plLch-down LhrusL effecL). 1hls may cause a
reducLlon ln maxlmum LhrusL, alLhough Lhls reducLlon ls negllglble for small angles. A [eL englne on Lhe leeward
slde may experlence slgnlflcanL flow dlsLorLlon ln a yawed conflguraLlon and posslbly suffer a flameouL. lL may also
experlence slgnlflcanL flow dlsLorLlon aL sLall, lf Lhe separaLed flow from Lhe wlng ls lngesLed. AnoLher consequence
of Lhe englne conflguraLlon ls lLs lmpacL on Lhe CC, whlch ls shlfLed farLher afL. 1hls calls for a more afL poslLlonlng
of Lhe wlng, yleldlng a shorLer Lall arm. 1he remedy ls Lo place Lhe horlzonLal Lall on Lop of an afL swepL Lall (1-Lall)
and enlarglng Lhe horlzonLal and verLlcal Lall areas.

nexL, conslder Lhe conflguraLlons L Lhrough C ln llgure C1-20, whlch feaLure unconvenLlonal Lall conflguraLlons.
LffecLlvely, Lhe same llmlLaLlons apply as dlscussed for Lhe wlng mounLed englnes. 8egardless of any aerodynamlc
advanLages such Lalls mlghL offer (and are dlscussed ln SecLlon 11.3, Oo tbe ltos ooJ coos of 1oll cooflqototloos),
Lhey wlll all llmlL Lhe roLaLlon of Lhe alrplanes ln Lhe proxlmlLy of Lhe ground.

n|gh W|ng Iet A|rcraft w|th W|ng Mounted Lng|nes
A number of hlgh wlng alrcrafL wlLh wlng mounLed englnes are shown ln llgure C1-21. 1he conflguraLlon ls used for
many mlllLary LransporL alrcrafL. Among Lhe besL known are Lhe Lockheed C-3 Calaxy and C-141 SLarllfLer, as well
as Lhe relaLlvely recenL 8oelng C-17. 1he conflguraLlon has also been used for some speclalLy alrcrafL such as Lhe
Lockheed S-3A vlklng and passenger [eLllners, llke Lhe four-englne 8rlLlsh Aerospace 8Ae-146 and Lhe Lwln englne
lalrchlld uornler 328!L1.

1hls conflguraLlon ofLen requlres anhedral Lo reduce Lhe roll sLablllLy of Lhe hlgh wlng, someLhlng needed Lo
lncrease Lhe roll responslveness of Lhe alrplane. Powever, lL ls deLrlmenLal LhaL Lhe fuel ln Lhe wlng Lends Lo seLLle
ln Lhe ouLboard fuel Lanks ln Lhe wlng, requlrlng a compllcaLed fuel sysLem Lo resolve. 1hls compounds Lhe lmpacL
of swepL back wlngs on fuel, as descrlbed earller under Low W|ng Iet A|rcraft w|th W|ng Mounted Lng|nes. MosL
of Lhe Llme Lhe conflguraLlon requlres Lhe maln landlng gear Lo be mounLed ln a speclal aerodynamlcally shaped
houslng mounLed Lo Lhe boLLom of Lhe fuselage. 1hls lncreases Lhe drag of Lhe conflguraLlon and requlres
sLrucLural relnforcemenL of Lhe fuselage ln an area where Lhe landlng loads are reacLed. AddlLlonally, ln order Lo
avold havlng Lhe wlng sLrucLure peneLraLe Lhe celllng of Lhe cabln, Lhe wlng musL be placed on Lop, whlch may
requlre subsLanLlal wlng rooL falrlngs Lo lmprove Lhe aerodynamlc properLles of Lhe geomeLry.

ConflguraLlons A Lhrough l shown ln llgure C1-21 presenL rlsks Lo passengers ln case of an unconLalned roLor bursL.
lf equlpped wlLh [eL englnes, Lhe Lall of conflguraLlon L should be slzed so lL ls ouLslde of Lhe hoL [eL exhausL, so lLs
sLrucLural lnLegrlLy ls noL compromlsed. 1he shorLcomlngs of Lhe Lall conflguraLlons of opLlons C Lhrough l have
already been sLaLed. An addlLlonal shorLcomlng ls LhaL, for cargo alrcrafL, Lhe sLrucLure of such Lall conflguraLlons
would make lL hard, lf noL lmposslble, Lo feaLure loadlng doors aL Lhe rear end of Lhe alrplane.

1he hlgh wlng conflguraLlon offers hlgh roll sLablllLy (whlch ls reduced wlLh Lhe anhedral). Powever, Lhe sLrongesL
advanLage of Lhe conflguraLlon ls LhaL Lhe fuselage slLs close Lo Lhe ground, maklng loadlng and unloadlng much
easler. As sLaLed earller, Lhls ls very lmporLanL for LransporL alrcrafL LhaL have Lo operaLe from alrflelds LhaL have a
llmlLed array of ground supporL equlpmenL. 1hls explalns lLs common use for mlllLary LransporL alrcrafL.


I|gure C1-21: L|ght h|gh w|ng conf|gurat|ons w|th eng|nes mounted on the w|ng.

C1.4 Personal Jet Aircraft Configurations

8ecenL years have seen Lhe developmenL of a number of small [eLs lnLended as an owner flown and operaLed
alrcrafL. 1hese alrcrafL carry 2-7 occupanLs aL alrspeed ln Lhe mld- Lo upper subsonlc range. 1he besL known among
Lhose are Lhe Clrrus Sl30 vlslon, ulamond u-!eL, Lcllpse 400. A number of oLher alrcrafL LhaL may be of lnLeresL Lo
Lhe deslgner and some of Lhose are llsLed ln 1able C1-1. MosL are slngle englne alrcrafL. Cf all Lhese, only Lhe Sl30
appears Lo be headed Loward cerLlflcaLlon and producLlon, Lhe oLhers have elLher succumbed Lo a flnanclal demlse
or are on hold for one reason or anoLher.

noLe LhaL Lhe aforemenLloned alrcrafL should noL be consldered Lo belong Lo Lhe so-called vety llqbt Iet (vL!)
caLegory, whlch by lLself ls a raLher Lenuous concepL. ln Lhe pasL, a vL! has been consldered a Lwln englne [eL LhaL
carrles 4-8 occupanLs, a slngle plloL, has a gross welghL less Lhan 10000 lb
f
, and crulses aL hlgh subsonlc alrspeeds
aL alLlLudes as hlgh as 42000 fL. 1he alrcrafL consldered here are more properly called letsoool Iets (!) as Lhey are
boLh smaller, llghLer (gross welghL ls <6000 lb
f
) and usually have lesser performance. AdmlLLedly, some of Lhe
alrcrafL ln 1able C1-1 do noL quallfy as a !. 1hls secLlon brlefly dlscusses !s and some of Lhelr pros and cons.

ln shorL, Lhese small [eLs are CA alrcrafL lnLended as a fasL Lourlng, vl, or execuLlve alrcrafL. Such alrcrafL have
wlngspan less Lhan 40 fL, have one or Lwo small [eL englnes wlLh a LoLal sLaLlc LhrusL ln Lhe 1000-2000 lb
f
range, and
may or may noL feaLure pressurlzaLlon or anLl-lce sysLems. Whlle some are raLher large, such as Lhe 3-7 seaL Clrrus
Sl30, oLhers are closer Lo LhaL of a 2-4 seaL plsLon propeller alrcrafL (e.g. Lhe Capronl vlzzola C22 venLura or Lhe
SlA S-200). 1hls means a maxlmum exLernal fuselage wldLh of some 42-63 lnches. 1he auLhors experlence of
guldlng sLudenLs deslgnlng !s shows Lhey Lend Lo overslze Lhem, as lf Lhey were ln a class wlLh much larger
buslness [eLs. ungulded sLudenLs wlll lncorporaLe a large enLry door, a foyer, and separaLe Lhe cabln seaLs wlLh a
wlde alsle (all whlch leads Lo an overslzed fuselage) for an alrcrafL wlLh a maxlmum of 1200-1400 lb
f
LhrusL. ln facL,
!s are much smaller Lhelr slze more closely resembles LhaL shown by Lhe arLlsL lmpresslon ln llgure C1-22. Whlle
Lhey should feaLure roomy cablns slzed Lo seaL Lwo Lo four occupanLs ln greaL comforL, a wlde-body alsle beLween
seaLs ls noL pracLlcal.

I|gure C1-22: 1he authors proposal for a sma||, tw|n eng|ne, four seat persona| [et, |ntended as a VI transport
or a pr|mary m|||tary tra|ner, powered by two 730 |b
f
turbofan eng|nes. 1he [et eff|ux w||| not |mp|nge on the ta||
surfaces.
Several posslble conflguraLlons for a ! are shown ln llgure C1-23. Whlle all are low wlng and feaLure a canopy,
Lhere ls no reason for noL uslng a mld- or hlgh wlng conflguraLlon or a roofed cabln. 1he flgure ls lnLended Lo show
varlous comblnaLlons of Lall and englne lnsLallaLlon. ConflguraLlons A and 8 feaLure a slngle englne on a pylon on
Lop of Lhe fuselage on Lhe plane-of-symmeLry. 8oLh Lall conflguraLlons are ldeal for such an englne conflguraLlon,
as lL poslLlons Lhe llfLlng surfaces farLher from Lhe exhausL plume. AlLhough noL shown, lL mlghL be necessary Lo
allgn Lhe englne Lo Lhe flow enLerlng Lhe englne. lL ls unllkely LhaL elLher conflguraLlon wlll experlence a rlsk of
compressor dlsLorLlon aL sLall a common flrsL glance concern. 8oLh wlll have excellenL pressure recovery aL mosL
ACAs, even well beyond posL-sLall. 1he same holds for ConflguraLlon I. 8oLh conflguraLlons wlll experlence nose
plLch-up or down momenLs wlLh change ln LhrusL, buL Lhls can be reduced by Lurnlng Lhe Lallplpe a few degrees
up wlLhouL a noLlceable loss ln LhrusL. 1he magnlLude of Lhls plLch-varlaLlon ulLlmaLely depends on Lhe maxlmum
englne LhrusL and Lhe helghL of Lhe englne above Lhe CenLer of CravlLy. 1he Lall musL be slzed Lo arresL Lhls
momenL, whlch ls Lyplcally mosL crlLlcal aL forward CC durlng a balked landlng.

I|gure C1-23: L|ght turbofan concepts, featur|ng a tr|cyc|e |and|ng gear, |ow-w|ng w|th canopy.
ConflguraLlons C, D, and L feaLure a burled [eL englne, whlch ls fed alr Lhrough blfurcaLed lnleLs. Some small
Lurbofan englnes may noL work wlLh such lnleLs due Lo poor pressure recovery. 1hey can also presenL serlous
compllcaLlons lf Lhe alrplane ls Lo be cerLlfled for lllghL lnLo known lclng (llkl). 1he reason ls LhaL lce Lends Lo
accumulaLe ln Lhe bends of Lhe ducL. A posslble remedy ls Lo lnsLall a Lhermal blankeL ln Lhe ducL Lo prevenL Lhe lce
accreLlon. Powever, dependlng on Lhe slze of Lhe lnsLalled englne, such a soluLlon may pose serlous challenges Lo
the aircrafts electrical system due to a demand for elecLrlc power. lf selecLed for a new deslgn Lo be cerLlfled for
llkl, lL ls prudenL Lo lnvesLlgaLe early Lhe demand for elecLrlc power and seek consulLaLlon wlLh Lhe elecLronlcs
group. 1he producLlon of sufflclenL elecLrlclLy wlll call for a larger generaLor and Lhls may severely lmpacL englne
LhrusL of small englnes whlle flylng ln lce. AlLernaLlvely, Lhe ducL may be heaLed uslng bleed alr. Powever, Lhls ls
noL readlly avallable uslng very small englnes avallable for CA alrcrafL and lL, Loo, reduces Lhe avallable LhrusL.
AnoLher drawback of Lhe burled englne conflguraLlon has Lo do wlLh Lhe sLrucLure around Lhe englne, whlch musL
be boLh fall-safe ln case of a roLor bursL and flre-proof ln case of an englne flre. 8oLh requlremenLs lncrease Lhe
welghL of Lhe sLrucLure.
1ab|e C1-1: Se|ected Sma|| Iets
Make and Mode| No. and type of eng|nes
Max thrust, |b
f

(tota|)
Gross we|ght,
|b
f

Cccupants
Cru|se speed,
k1AS
A1C !avelln 2 x Wllllams l!33 3300 6900 2 400+
8ede 8u-3! 1 x MlcroLurbo 18S-18 223 830 1 209
Capronl vlzzola C22! 2 x MlcroLurbo 18S-18 637 2760 2 260
Cessna 407 2 x ConLlnenLal 336-9 2800 9300 4 404
Clrrus Sl30 1 x Wllllams l!33 1800 6000 3-7 300
CMC Leopard 2 x noel enny n1301 700 4000 4 437
Cobra 400 1 x 1urbomeca Marbore ll 880 3748 2 260
ulamon u-!eL 1 x Wllllams l!33 1900 3113 3 240
Lcllpse 400 1 x W613l 1200 4480 3-3 330
lox[eL 2 x Wllllams W844-800 1700 4330 6 336
!eL Squalus 1 x CarreLL 1lL/l109 1330 3260 2 280
Mlcro[eL 2 x MlcroLurbo 18S-18 386 1719 2 230
Mlles SLudenL 1 x 1urbomeca Marbore ll 880 3600 2 260
MS760 arls !eL 2 x 1urbomeca Marbore 2116 8820 4 340
eregrlne 1 x CarreLL 1lL731 3300 9400 6 403
lper A-47 lper[eL 1 x Wllllams l!44 2820 7230 8-9 360
oLez Pelnkel C.M. 191 2 x 1urbomeca Marbore vl 2120 7693 4 380
SlA 200 1 x 1urbomeca alas 330 1819 2 194
SlA 3008 1 x 1urbomeca alas 330 2028 2 168
vlper AlrcrafL vlper[eL 1 x CL !83 2830 3100 2 340
Wee[eL 800 1 x ConLlnenLal !69 920 4341 2 246

A number of oLher small [eL alrcrafL are presenLed on Lhe webslLe www.mlnl[eLs.org.

lL ls an advanLage of Lhe burled englne conflguraLlon LhaL lL effecLlvely ellmlnaLes longlLudlnal plLch changes due Lo
changes ln LhrusL. 1hls glves Lhe alrplane more pleasanL fllghL characLerlsLlcs. Powever, Lhe lengLh of Lhe lnleL ducL
and Lallplpe ls of concern. 1he lengLh of elLher one ampllfles Lhe loss ln LhrusL. lor lnsLance, an afL mounLed englne
reduces Lhe lengLh of Lhe Lallplpe, buL lengLhens Lhe lnleL (assumlng no CC lssues surface). 1he opposlLe holds as
well. A good soluLlon ls Lo have a shorL Lallplpe under Lhe fuselage, a soluLlon uLlllzed by Lhe ulamond u-[eL.

1he ! should have reLracLable landlng gear and posslbly even spollers Lo allow approach Lo landlng Lo be
conLrolled. Lnglne prefllghL checks should be easlly performed. lor lnsLance, ConflguraLlons A and 8 ln llgure C1-
23 would presenL challenges ln Lhls respecL. 1herefore, provlslons, such as an aerodynamlcally shaped handle and
a fooL-sLep should be lncluded so Lhe plloL wlll noL need a sLep ladder Lo perform Lhls slmple Lask. 8efuellng Lhe
alrcrafL should also be made as efforLless as posslble by placlng fuel caps ln accesslble locaLlons. 1he fuel sysLem
for [eL alrcrafL ofLen requlres excess fuel Lo be redlrecLed from Lhe englne back Lo Lhe fuel Lank, addlng Lo lLs
complexlLy. 1hls ls compounded by an lncrease ln fuel LemperaLure compared Lo when lL began lLs [ourney Lo Lhe
englne. lL ls lmperaLlve LhaL Lhe sLrucLures, powerplanL, sysLems, avlonlcs, and manufacLurlng groups work closely
LogeLher Lo avold space clalm confllcLs.

LnLry lnLo Lhe alrcrafL should be made as slmple as posslble. Means Lo enLer and dlsembark gracefully should be
offered wlLhouL requlrlng ground equlpmenL. All Lhe conflguraLlons shown ln llgure C1-23 could allow for cabln
enLry vla wlng walkway. 8uL oLher means can be consldered as well. lor lnsLance, a compacL and reLracLable sLep
ladder can be consldered. Such a gadgeL can be deslgned Lo reLracL lnLo Lhe fuselage, noL necessarlly slmple, buL
arguably a greaL Lask for Lhe lndusLrlal englneers lnslde Lhe organlzaLlon. 1hls wlll allow for an alrcrafL LhaL can be
operaLed from smaller alrflelds, someLhlng guaranLeed Lo lmpress Lhe cusLomer. uoors and canoples presenL
challenges for Lhe sLrucLural and manufacLurlng englneers. lL ls easler sald Lhan done Lo geL doors on llghL
sLrucLures Lo work well. A common problem ls a door Lhe flexes [usL enough ln fllghL Lo generaLe unaccepLable
wlnd nolse ln Lhe cabln. Clearly for pressurlzed alrcrafL Lhls would be unaccepLable and could make lL lmposslble Lo
malnLaln cabln pressure.

C1.5 Wings Past and Present

lL ls undenlable LhaL alrcrafL deslgners have dlsplayed boLh orlglnallLy and wllllngness Lo experlmenL wlLh a large
number of geomeLrlc shapes for Lhelr wlngs. Some have been lnsplred by sclenLlflc knowledge, oLhers by a deslre
Lo emulaLe naLure, and, yes, a few have been moLlvaLed by wlshful Lhlnklng. 1he resulLs have ranged from sheer
exhllaraLlon Lo caLasLrophlc dlsappolnLmenL. lL ls Lo be expecLed LhaL some wlng planform shapes would have been
more successful Lhan oLhers. 1he elllpLlcal planform feaLured on Lhe Supermarlne SplLflre ls a perfecL example of
such geomeLry. So ls Lhe delLa wlng. noL only are Lhe Lwo well known by alrcrafL enLhuslasLs, even laypeople have
heard of Lhem, maklng Lhem unlque among wlngs.

Whlle Lhe wlng of Lhe SplLflre ls a marvel of englneerlng, Lhe fame en[oyed by any parLlcular planform ls noL always
a measure of lLs superlorlLy. Any glven shape ls a compromlse. lor lnsLance, ln Lhe case of Lhe SplLflre, whlle
generaLlng low lnduced drag, Lhanks Lo efflclenL llfL dlsLrlbuLlon, Lhe wlng was cosLly Lo manufacLure due Lo lLs
compound geomeLry. And cosL ls Lhe greaL equallzer lL shows Lhere ls far more Lo alrplane deslgn Lhan
aerodynamlcs only. 1he followlng dlscusslon presenLs a few well known planform shapes, selecLed because Lhey
are lnLeresLlng. All glve a greaL lnslghL lnLo varlous deslgn lssues developers have had Lo conLend wlLh. llrsL,
however, we musL polnL ouL a deflclency ln Lhe sLandard formulaLlon of llfL-lnduced drag, as Lhls ls paramounL Lo
Lhe dlscusslon LhaL follows.

Comments about L|ft-Induced Drag and Lff|c|ency
1here ls an lnherenL deflclency ln Lhe sLandard formulaLlon for Lhe llfL-lnduced drag, lL does noL accounL accuraLely
for Lhe geomeLry of Lhe planform, ouLslde of Lhe AspecL 8aLlo, A8. (A case ln polnL ls Lhe sLandard formulaLlon
provlded ln SecLlon 9.3.14, Estimation of Oswalds Span Efficiency.) 1hls way, a Pershey bar wlng appears equally
as efflclenL as an elllpLlcal wlng as long as boLh have Lhe same A8, someLhlng Lerrlbly askew wlLh experlence and
Lheory. lor why would we boLher Lo manufacLure an elllpLlcal wlng for efflclency lf a Pershey bar of Lhe same A8
wlll do?

Cenerally, lL ls posslble Lo assoclaLe Lhe llfL-lnduced
drag wlLh Lhe ACA aL whlch a wlng operaLes. 1hls way,
lL ls posslble Lo presenL Lhe followlng posLulaLe for a
Lyplcal quadraLlc drag polar LhaL applles Lo some glven
wlng geomeLry:

osLulaLe: wltblo cettolo llmlts, tbe lowet tbe AOA
tepolteJ to qeoetote some JeslteJ posltlve llft
coefflcleot, c
l
, tbe lowet ls tbe llft-loJoceJ Jtoq
coefflcleot, c
ul
.

An example of Lhls ls shown ln llgure C1-24, whlch
deplcLs Lhe drag coefflclenL C
u
as a funcLlon of ACA,
raLher Lhan C
L
. lL can be seen LhaL lnslde Lhe shaded
reglon, Lhe above posLulaLe lndeed holds Lrue. ln
ploLLlng Lhe graph, Lhe C
L
ls calculaLed dlrecLly from
LquaLlon (9-48) uslng ACA (or o) and drag ls calculaLed
uslng LquaLlon (13-3), repeaLed here for convenlence:

I|gure C1-24: A standard quadrat|c drag po|ar that
references ACA rather than C
L
.
( )
ZL L L L L
C C C C o o = o + =
o o 0

(9-48)
2
min L D D
kC C C + = (13-3)

1hls ylelds Lhe followlng expresslon for Lhe drag as a funcLlon of ACA:
( )
2 2
min ZL L D D
kC C C o o + =
o

(C1-12)

1he problem ls LhaL nelLher Lhe sLandard expresslons for Lhe llfL curve slope,
o
L
C
, nor Lhe llfL-lnduced drag
consLanL, k, accuraLely accounL for Lhe acLual planform shape beyond Lhe A8 (e.g., revlew 1able 9-7). now,
conslder Lhe scenarlo ln whlch we are comparlng Lwo wlngs (call Lhem W|ng A and W|ng 8) of equal wlng area and
A8, buL dlsslmllar wlng planform geomeLry. lurLhermore, assume boLh wlngs feaLure ldenLlcal alrfolls. 1he equal
area assumpLlon means LhaL each wlng generaLes Lhe same C
L
aL any glven fllghL condlLlon and welghL. lL has
already been demonsLraLed uslng poLenLlal flow Lheory ln ChapLer 9 LhaL Lhe Lwo planform geomeLrles wlll lndeed
yleld dlfferenL values of
o
L
C
. 1hls maLches experlmenL as well. For the following demonstration, lets assume that
uslng poLenLlal flow Lheory we have already deLermlned Lhe
o
L
C
for Lhe Lwo wlngs and found Lhese Lo equal
( ) radian per 5 . 4 =
o A
L
C
and ( ) radian per 5 . 5 =
o B
L
C
, where Lhe subscrlpLs A and 8 refer Lo Lhe Lwo wlngs. lL can
be argued LhaL, aerodynamlcally, W|ng 8 ls more efflclenL because lL generaLes more llfL wlLh a unlL change ln ACA
Lhan W|ng A. nexL we wanL Lo esLlmaLe drag uslng Lhe sLandard quadraLlc drag modellng, so conLlnulng Lo
estimating the Oswalds

uslng Lhe meLhods of SecLlon 9.3.14, we can use Lhls lnformaLlon Lo ploL Lhe llfL curve and drag polar as funcLlons
of Lhe ACA for Lhe Lwo wlngs. noLe LhaL our sLandard formulaLlon leads Lo Lhe same value of Lhe llfL-lnduced drag
consLanL, k, ln LquaLlon (13-3) above. lor Lhese reasons, Lhe llfL curve and drag polar for Lhe Lwo wlngs are
rendered as shown ln llgure C1-23.

I|gure C1-2S: Standard formu|at|on of the drag po|ar for a 3-d|mens|ona| w|ng |s |ncapab|e of revea||ng the effect
of d|ss|m||ar w|ng p|anform shapes on the drag po|ar.
now conslder a scenarlo ln whlch we are evaluaLlng Lhe capablllLy of Lhe Lwo wlngs aL a C
L
= 0.3. lL can be seen ln
Lhe lefL graph of llgure C1-23 LhaL W|ng A requlres o ~ 4.4, whlle W|ng 8 requlres o ~ 3.2. We know from alrfoll
Lheory (ChapLer 8 and 13) LhaL Lhe lower ACA of Lhe laLLer ylelds less alrfoll drag as flow separaLlon ls reduced (e.g.
see Lhe alrfoll paraslLlc lncrease ln llgure 13-4). 1hls effecL alone should lower Lhe LoLal drag of Lhe wlng. Powever,
Lhe rlghL graph of llgure C1-23 reveals LhaL Lhe formulaLlon does noL deLecL Lhls effecL. ln facL, Lhe Lwo wlngs
appear Lo generaLe an equal amounL of drag! 1he formulaLlon ls lncapable of accounLlng for Lhe effecL of Lhe wlng
planform shape. lf lL dld, Lhe drag coefflclenL of W|ng 8 would slmply be lower Lhan LhaL of W|ng A. Powever,
agaln Lhe formulaLlon ls llmlLed Lo dlfferences ln A8 only. lL ls lmperaLlve Lhe alrcrafL deslgner ls aware of Lhls
deflclency and avolds unnecessarlly penallzlng an efflclenL wlng by noL accounLlng for Lhls lesser drag.
lf one ls unaware of Lhls effecL and bllndly relles on Lhe sLandard drag formulaLlon, one has no cholce buL Lo
conclude LhaL Lhe posLulaLe presenLed above musL be lnvalld. Powever, Lhls concluslon ls erroneous because lL
lmplles LhaL, when comes Lo drag, Lhe wlng planform shape ls lrrelevanL, whereas we know from experlence (and
Lheory) lL ls noL. 1haL aslde, lf Lhe planform shape were lrrelevanL, Lapered wlngs would probably be exceedlngly
rare as Lhey are more expenslve Lo make Lhan Pershey bars.

All of Lhls begs Lhe quesLlon: Pow do we geL around
Lhls deflclency and lmprove our analysls meLhodology?
Cne way ls Lo perform a more deLalled evaluaLlon of
Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of secLlon llfL coefflclenLs along each
wlng and esLlmaLe lLs LoLal drag, for lnsLance uslng
acLual alrfoll drag characLerlsLlcs wlLh LquaLlon (13-
40), for lnsLance ln Lhe followlng:

( ) ( ) dy y C y C
S
C
b
di Di
=
}
2
0
2

1hls lnformaLlon can be used Lo esLlmaLe a facLor by
dlvldlng Lhe drag of W|ng 8 by LhaL of W|ng A and Lhen
use lL Lo mulLlply Lhe llfL-lnduced drag consLanL, k. An
example of Lhls ls shown ln llgure C1-26. ln Lhls case lL
was found LhaL Lhe k for W|ng 8 was abouL 90 of LhaL
for W|ng A. AL Lhls parLlcular C
L
(=0.3) W|ng 8
generaLes some 10 drag counLs less drag Lhan W|ng A.
1he deslgner of efflclenL alrcrafL would conslder LhaL a
subsLanLlal lmprovemenL. 1hls also shows LhaL Lhe
posLulaLe presenLed earller ls lndeed valld and LhaL,
generally, deslgnlng a wlng LhaL operaLes aL a lower
ACA wlll lndeed lead Lo a lower C
ul
.

I|gure C1-26: When the drag po|ar |s corrected to
account for the |mprovements ava||ab|e by se|ect|ng a
more efficient planform, we can see this really
|mproves the overa|| drag of the w|ng.

C1.5.1 The Davis Wing
1he uavls wlng was concelved ln Lhe 1930s by uavld 8. uavls, a self-LaughL aeronauLlcal englneer whose
conLrlbuLlon Lo aeronauLlcs was Lo comblne a Lhlck Leardrop shaped airfoil with a high Aspect Ratio wing. Davis
alrfoll was subsLanLlally Lhlcker Lhan conLemporary alrfolls and offered hlgher maxlmum llfL and surprlslngly low
drag for such a Lhlck geomeLry. 1he comparaLlvely larger sLrucLural depLh offered greaLer lnLernal volume for fuel
and was even beneflclal Lo Lhe phllosophy of lnLernal englnes (a fashlonable ldea aL Lhe Llme). lL ls unquesLlonable
LhaL Lhe wlngs rise to fame can be attributed to its use on a number of World War ll alrcrafL, ln parLlcular alrcrafL
produced by ConsolldaLed AlrcrafL, such as Lhe 8-24 LlberaLor (see llgure C1-27). Surprlslngly, Lhe alrfoll, ofLen
referred to as a teardrop airfoil
13
, was based on the designers contemporary understanding of what a teardrop
had Lo look like. Luckily for Davis, this was long before slow-moLlon lmages revealed Lhe Lrue shape of a llquld
dropleL, lL does noL make a good alrfoll.

The use of Davis wing geometry, in particular the airfoil, ceased at the end of the war, although the high Aspect
Ratio wing remains an attribute to its success. The airfoils thickness may explain why wet wings were lnvenLed by
ConsolldaLed AlrcrafL
14
. 1he hlsLory of how Lhls wlng became Lhe focus of ConsolldaLed ls beyond Lhe scope of Lhls
LexL, buL lL ls a fasclnaLlng read offered by boLh vlncenLl
13
and 8radley
16
. 1hls sLory ls only beLLered by Lhe facL LhaL
wlnd Lunnel LesLlng of Lhe wlng, performed by nACA ln Lhe early 1940s
17,18
, supported Davis contentions.

LaLer lnvesLlgaLlon of Lhe uavls wlng revealed LhaL Lhe alrfoll susLalned more exLenslve lamlnar boundary layer
Lhan oLher alrfolls of Lhe day. Powever, Lhe lnLrlcacles of Lhe phenomenon were noL as clearly undersLood as Lhey
are today. At Davis time, natural laminar flow was not reliably achieved due to the crude finish on the leading
edges of operaLlonal alrplanes. neverLheless, wlnd Lunnel models, whlch feaLured surface quallLles far superlor Lo
LhaL of real alrplanes, demonsLraLed subsLanLlally lower drag and hlgher llfL Lhan researchers expecLed.
AddlLlonally, Lhe hlgh AspecL 8aLlo wlng, on whlch lL was feaLured, ylelded less llfL-lnduced drag Lhan Lhe sLandard
geomeLry of Lhe day. 1hese characLerlsLlcs gave Lhe wlng Lhe hlgh llfL and low drag characLerlsLlcs for whlch lL
became known for. As an example, Lhe A8 for Lhe 8-24 was 11.3, whlch conLrasLs 7.38 of Lhe 8oelng 8-17, lLs
nearesL rlval.

1he llfL dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe uavls wlng ls akln Lo LhaL shown for Lhe sLralghL Lapered wlng ln SecLlon 9.4.3, 5ttolqbt
1opeteJ lloofotms. 1he 8-24 LlberaLor has been accused of belng suscepLlble Lo caLasLrophlc ln-fllghL fallures
when hlL by anLl-alrcrafL flre (poor reslllence). 1hls was aLLrlbuLed, aL leasL ln parL, Lo Lhe fuel carrled ln Lhe wlng.
As such, lL has been compared unfavorably Lo Lhe 8oelng 8-17, whlch had beLLer reslllence even Lhough lL carrled a
llghLer load of bombs.

I|gure C1-27: A Conso||dated 8-24I-90-CI L|berator (USAAI Code 44-44272) bomber bu||t |n 1944 parked |n o|k
C|ty, I|or|da, boast|ng |ts h|gh Aspect kat|o Dav|s w|ng. (hoto by h|| kademacher)
C1.5.2 The Schuemann Wing
1he wlng Lype ls named afLer Wll Schuemann, who ln a 1983 arLlcle
19
argued LhaL a wlng planform havlng a sLralghL
Lralllng edge and afL-swepL wlng Llp reduced spanwlse pressure gradlenLs on Lhe surface responslble for spanwlse
flow along Lhe Lralllng edge aL hlgher ACA. 1hls, lL was alleged, suppressed Lhe formaLlon of a more exLenslve
separaLlon reglon LhaL exLended from Lhe wlng Llp Lo wlng rooL, whlch among oLher Lhlngs boosLs Lhe slze of Lhe
wlng/fuselage separaLlon bubble. 1he overall effecL of Lhls suppresslon was a reducLlon ln lnduced drag.
AddlLlonally, lL was suggesLed LhaL Lhe swepL planform would reduce Llp sLalllng and lmprove handllng quallLles. ln
hls arLlcle Mr. Schuemann acknowledged lack of evldence Lo supporL Lhe hypoLhesls and expressed hope LhaL
fuLure researchers would lnvesLlgaLe lL furLher. 1hls, however, has noL sLopped Lhe lnLroducLlon of Lhe Schuemann
wlng ln a range of sallplanes, e.g. Lhe SLemme S-10 (see llgure C1-28) and even commerclal alrcrafL, mosL noLably
uornler alrcrafL (228, 328, and oLhers) where lL ls called Lhe uotolet New 1ecbooloqy wloq.

lurLher research of Lhls planform can be found ln AlAA paper 2777-2003 by Maughmer
20
. lL sLaLes LhaL llnear
theory such as Prandtls lifting line theory fails to predict important dlfferences beLween elllpLlcal planforms for
whlch Lhe Leadlng Ldge (LL) ls sLralghL or Lhe 1ralllng Ldge (1L) ls sLralghL. 1hls would supporL Lhe noLlon LhaL Lhe
Schuemann wing planform is really a simplified elliptical planform. The paper references work by van uam
21

whlch argued LhaL Lhe lnduced drag reducLlon was due Lo and lncreased separaLlon of Lhe wlngLlp vorLlces (l.e.
dlsLance beLween Lhe cores of Lhe wlngLlp vorLlces ls greaLer). Powever, furLher work has revealed LhaL Lhe
lmprovemenL ls ln facL modesL, a couple of percenL aL besL.

I|gure C1-28: Schuemann w|ng used for the Stemme S-10 se|f-|aunched sa||p|ane.
vorLex-LaLLlce analysls on Lhe Schuemann wlng (see Lhe planform ln SecLlon 9.4.7, ctookeJ lloofotms) reveals how
Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of secLlon llfL coefflclenLs resembles LhaL of an elllpLlcal planform (see llgure C1-29). lLs secLlon llfL
coefflclenLs are hlgher aL Lhe Llp Lhan, say, a recLangular basellne secLlon, lmprovlng lLs overall llfL coefflclenL aL a
glven ACA (also see llgures 9-24 and 9-42). Powever, Lhe analysls also lndlcaLes Lhe afL-sweep of Lhe ouLboard
planform wlll promoLe Llp sLall aL low ACAs, [usL as lL would on any oLher swepL back planform (see SecLlon 9.6.3,
coose of 5poowlse llow fot o 5wept 8ock wloq lloofotm). 1he prevenLlon of Lhls would requlre subsLanLlal wlng
LwlsL (washouL) Lo brlng down Lhe local secLlon llfL coefflclenLs, ln parL reduclng Lhe beneflL of Lhe deslgn. ?eL, as
shown ln SecLlon 9.6.3, uevlotloo ftom Ceoetlc 5toll lottetos, vlscous effecLs aL Lhe wlngLlp may render Lhls less
severe Lhan lndlcaLed by Lhe lnvlscld analysls. 1hese may lnvolve vorLex rollup aL Lhe Llp aL hlgher ACAs LhaL delay
full separaLlon and may lndeed lmprove sLall characLerlsLlcs. Sallplanes and oLher hlgh A8 alrcrafL experlence large
wlngflex aL sLall LhaL unloads Lhe wlngLlp, even Lhose LhaL have hlghly swepL leadlng edges, forclng Lhe lnboard
wlng Lo sLall before Lhe ouLboard one. lor Lhls reason sallplanes generally have good sLall characLerlsLlcs.

I|gure C1-29: Compar|son of the spanw|se ||ft of untw|sted e|||pt|ca| and Schuemann w|ngs.
C1.5.3 The Yehudi Flap
1he ?ehudl flap ls noL exacLly a Lype of a wlng
planform, nor ls lL a flap ln Lhe sense of a conLrol
surface deflecLed Lo lncrease llfL. lL ls a
modlflcaLlon Lo an exlsLlng wlng planform
achleved by lncreaslng Lhe rooL chord, whlle
breaklng Lhe sLralghL llne of Lhe Lralllng edge (see
Lhe dark area ln llgure C1-30). Cenerally, Lwo
reasons are clLed for Lhe presence of Lhls exLra
area: (1) lL allows sLrucLure Lo be accommodaLed
Lo help reacL maln landlng gear loads, and (2) lL
lowers Lhe secLlon llfL coefflclenLs ln Lhe area
ad[acenL Lo Lhe fuselage, and Lhls helps prevenLlng
flow separaLlon along Lhe wlng rooL. 1he added
dlsLance from Lhe leadlng edge Lo Lhe Lralllng edge
of Lhe rooL allows for a greaLer dlsLance for
pressure recovery, suppresslng Lhe Lendency for
flow separaLlon. 1he effecL on Lhe secLlon llfL
coefflclenL ls deplcLed ln llgure C1-31. noLe LhaL
Lhe example wlng planform does noL feaLure a
washouL, whlch explalns Lhe hlghly Llp loaded
dlsLrlbuLlon of secLlon llfL coefflclenLs.

I|gure C1-30: 1he ehud| f|ap.

I|gure C1-31: 1he effect of the ehud| f|ap on sect|on ||ft coeff|c|ents for a typ|ca| sweptback w|ng. Note that the
w|ng area of the mod|f|ed w|ng |s |arger than that of the or|g|na| w|ng.
Cook
22, pg. 83
explalns Lhe ?ehudl flap was flrsL lnLroduced on Lhe 8oelng 8-29 SuperforLress bomber, as Lhe small
chord exLenslon behlnd Lhe lnboard englne nacelle. 1hls was done Lo make up for Lhe loss of llfL of Lhe unmodlfled
nacelle. More deLalls on lLs aerodynamlc beneflLs are glven by Snyder
23
. LaLer lL was lnLroduced on Lhe 8oelng 707-
320 and uC-8 [eLllners. Mason
24
explalns ln hls onllne wrlLlng LhaL Lhe name ?ehudl came from when Lhe
modlflcaLlon was belng wlnd Lunnel LesLed by 8oelng. Lach componenL belng LesLed requlred a speclflc name, buL
the flap didnt have one. At the time popular radio show starring the late Bob Hope featured the late violinist
Yehudi Menuhin as a frequent guest. In the show Bob Hopes sidekick Jerry Colonna, who apparently was
enLertained by the name, would repeatedly ask Whos Yehudi? According to the reference, a Boeing engineer
worklng on Lhe wlnd Lunnel LesLlng LhoughL LhaL ?ehudl was as good a name as any oLher, and declded Lo call Lhe
parL a ?ehudl flap.

C1.5.4 The Jodel Wing
ln 1946, Lhe lrenchmen Ldouard !oly and hls son-ln-law !ean uelemonLez esLabllshed a company lnLended Lo
deslgn, consLrucL, and repalr alrcrafL. A popular myLh holds Lhey dld Lhls work wlLhouL any englneerlng Lralnlng,
however, oLhers clalm Lhls ls noL accuraLe and LhaL boLh lndlvlduals had galned experlence of bulldlng and
deslgnlng alrcrafL prlor Lo foundlng Lhelr company. Allegedly, Mr. uelemonLez was a Lralned aeronauLlcal englneer,
and Mr. !oly had bullL an alrcrafL before Lhe Second World War. 1he company was named !odel, from Lhe flrsL
syllables of Lhelr lasL names. ln !anuary of 1947 Lhey deslgned and bullL Lhe u9 8ebe, Lhe flrsL among a number of
subsequenL models deslgned and bullL by Lhe company. 1he u9 was a slngle-seaL, slngle englne alrcrafL LhaL could
be powered by englnes ranglng from 33 Lo 70 8P. lLs mosL dlsLlncLlve feaLure was lLs wlng deslgn, whlch boasLed
a cranked dlhedral. 1hls became a slgnaLure feaLure on all subsequenL !odel alrcrafL, as well as on anoLher lrench
alrcrafL, Lhe 8obln u400.

ln shorL, Lhe company clLed some speclflc advanLages for Lhls wlng and varlous clalms have been made abouL lL
among aviation enthusiasts. For instance, one website describes the wings advantages as follows:

lt woolJ seem tbot tbe flot, potollel cotJeJ ceotte sectloo wltb topeteJ ootet pooels (tbe ctook), wltb
tbelt ptoooooceJ JlbeJtol ooqle, ptoJoce o oeot elllptlcol llft eovelope slmllot to tbot of o spltflte's wloq.
1be ootet pooels bove o cooslJetoble omooot of wosboot, olooq wltb o teJoceJ ooqle of loclJeoce. wbeo
tbe oltctoft ls ctolsloq, most of lts welqbt ls soppotteJ by tbe wlJet ceotet sectloo of tbe wloq. 1be topeteJ
ootet pottloos, beloq ot o lesset ooqle of ottock, offet llttle Jtoq ooJ ooly stott to wotk lo eotoest ot lowet
oltspeeJs. 1be teJoceJ ooqle of ottock ot tbe wloqtlps olso pteveots o wloqtlp-fltst stoll to Jevelop,
coottlbotloq to tbe IoJels[slc] pleosoot stoll cbotoctetlstlcs.
23

1hese clalms are ofLen heard repeaLed by Lhe fans of Lhls oLherwlse flne alrcrafL. lL ls of lnLeresL Lo Lake a closer
look aL Lhelr accuracy, ls lL spoL on or ls lL [usL a half LruLh half myLh perpeLuaLed by !odel bellevers? Cne way Lo
assess lLs LruLhfulness ls Lo evaluaLe Lhe wlng uslng a Lool such as oLenLlal llow 1heory (l1). 8y modellng a
typical Jodel style wing, lL ls posslble Lo unlock many of lLs secreLs. Since fans attribute the wings characteristics
Lo Lhe cranked dlhedral, lL ls of lmporLance Lo compare the wing style to a flat wing of identical planform Lo
deLermlne lf any lmprovemenLs are galned by lnLroduclng Lhe cranked dlhedral. Also, one of Lhe above clalms
implies that the severe washout of the outboard wing panel aid by contributing only at lower airspeeds. Does it
make a dlfference?

A model of a typical Jodel wing configuration was creaLed and analyzed uslng Lhe vorLex-LaLLlce MeLhod (vLM)
aL a low and hlgh ACA. A generlc Jodel wing configuration was modeled raLher Lhan plcklng a speclflc !odel
alrcrafL model, as Lhe goal here ls Lo only conslder Lhe properLles of a general wlng conflguraLlon.

1here are Lhree clalms made ln Lhe above quoLe and all wlll be addressed:

(1) 1he flrsL clalm conLends LhaL Lhe flaL consLanL chord secLlon comblned wlLh a Lapered ouLboard secLlon
produces a near elllpLlcal llfL dlsLrlbuLlon, whlch ls Laken Lo mean: a llfL dlsLrlbuLlon as produced by an elllpLlcal
wlng, buL as ls well recognlzed, such a dlsLrlbuLlon ls deslrable as lL produces Lhe leasL amounL of llfL-lnduced drag.
1hls ls easlly answered by Lhe vLM analysls.
(2) 1he second clalm argues LhaL aL hlgh alrspeeds mosL of Lhe llfL ls generaLed by Lhe lnboard secLlon of Lhe wlng
and LhaL Lhe ouLboard wlng panel, belng aL a lower ACA due Lo Lhe conslderable washouL, somehow reduces Lhe
drag. 1he vLM analysls also addresses Lhls.

(3) 1he Lhlrd clalm asserts that the washout makes the wing work in earnest at higher AOA (lower airspeeds) and
that this contributes to the airplanes pleasant stall characteristics.

1o evaluaLe Lhese clalms, Lhree vLM models were creaLed, call Lhem A, 8, and C. All feaLure Lhe same general seml-
Lapered planform. Model A ls a flat wing, while both Model B and C feature Jodels easily recognizable cranked
dlhedral, whlch here ls abouL 17. AddlLlonally, Model 8 does noL have a washouL, whlle Model C has a 3 washouL.
1he dlsLrlbuLlon of secLlon llfL coefflclenLs of Lhe Lhree models was deLermlned aL Lwo ACAs, 0 and 14 and Lhen
compared quallLaLlvely, as an lnspecLlon of Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of llfL provldes a sLrong argumenL for or agalnsL Lhe
Lhree clalms. llgure C1-32 shows Lwo of Lhe Lhree conflguraLlons, Lhe basellne Model A (flaL planform, Lop) and Lhe
mosL compllcaLed one, Model C (boLLom), whlch feaLures a cranked dlhedral and washouL.

1he resulLlng llfL dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe Lhree
planforms aL Lhe Lwo ACAs (0 and 14) ls
deplcLed ln llgure C1-33. 1he flgure
shows Lwo seLs of Lhree curves, Lhree aL a
low ACA (0 LhaL represenLs hlgh speed
crulse) and Lhree aL a hlgh ACA (14 LhaL
represenLs near sLall). lL should be
polnLed ouL LhaL lnvlscld CompuLaLlonal
lluld uynamlcs meLhods llke Lhe vorLex-
LaLLlce MeLhod (vLM) do noL model flow
separaLlon llke Lhe one assoclaLed wlLh a
hlgh ACA. 1herefore, Lhe hlgh ACA
curves should be regarded wlLh cauLlon,
Lhey really represenL Lhe flow of a perfecL
fluld (one whlch ls vold of flow
separaLlon). Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhe
curves aL Lhe low ACA are a reasonable
presenLaLlon of Lhe llfL generaLed.

I|gure C1-32: Three Jodel style planforms are evaluated, of which
the f|at (Mode| A top) and the cranked d|hedra| w|th a S washout
(Mode| C bottom) are shown.

A Loken represenLaLlon of Lhe performance of an elllpLlcal planform has been superlmposed on Lhe graph ln llgure
C1-33. 1he flrsL observaLlon Lo be made ls LhaL aL hlgh alrspeed (o = 0) Lhe secLlon llfL coefflclenL of Model A (flaL)
and 8 (dlhedral only) are boLh much closer Lo an elllpLlcal llfL dlsLrlbuLlon (Lhe horlzonLal dashed llne) Lhan ls Model
C (dlhedral and washouL, whlch mosL closely represenLs a !odel wlng). Powever, aL low alrspeed (o = 14), all are
far from being close to the elliptical lift distribution.
1he reader can develop an lnLulLlon for how Lhe cranked dlhedral affecLs Lhe llfL dlsLrlbuLlon by slmply comparlng a
Model A sLyle wlng Lo one for whlch Lhe dlhedral angle ls 90. lL ls clear LhaL Lhe laLLer generaLes no llfL, as Lhe
ouLboard porLlon ls verLlcal. 1hls should make lL obvlous LhaL Lhe secLlon llfL coefflclenLs decrease wlLh lncreased
dlhedral angle. 1hls facL ls evldenL ln Lhe analysls ln llgure C1-33.

As stated earlier, the elliptical representation indicates the perfect wing from the standpoint of the least amount
of llfL-induced drag generated. The gap on the right half of the graph, between the horizontal curve and the
curves of Lhe Lhree conflguraLlons represenLs Lhe dlfference ln llfL beLween Lhe former and Lhe laLLer. Cf Lhe Lhree
models, Model A ls closesL Lo Lhe elllpLlcal wlng and Model C ls farLhesL and, Lherefore, Lhe leasL efflclenL. And
Model C mosL closely resembles Lhe sLandard !odel wlng. Also, Lhe flgure reveals clearly how effecLlvely Lhe
pronounced washouL suppresses Lhe secLlon llfL coefflclenLs ln Lhe ouLboard parL of Lhe wlng maklng lL more
dlsslmllar Lo an elllpLlcal wlng Lhan wlLhouL lL. ln llghL of Lhe Lhree clalms llsLed above we can now make Lhe
followlng observaLlons.


I|gure C1-33: 1he d|str|but|on of sect|on ||ft coeff|c|ents a|ong a Iode| sty|e p|anform at a |ow and h|gh ACA.
(1) 1he flrsL clalm LhaL Lhe flaL consLanL chord secLlon comblned wlLh Lhe Lapered ouLboard secLlon produces near
elllpLlcal llfL dlsLrlbuLlon ls slmply noL Lrue. lL mlghL be arguable lf Lhe wlng dld noL feaLure abouL 3 washouL,
someLhlng LhaL effecLlvely suppresses Lhe ouLboard secLlon llfL coefflclenLs. 1he flaL Model A and Lhe unLwlsLed
Model 8 are slgnlflcanLly closer Lo an elllpLlcal dlsLrlbuLlon, alLhough nelLher comes close Lo whaL, for lnsLance, a
Schuemann planform achleves.

(2) 1he second clalm sLaLes LhaL, aL hlgh alrspeeds, mosL of Lhe llfL ls generaLed by Lhe lnboard secLlon of Lhe wlng
and, due Lo Lhe conslderable washouL of Lhe ouLboard secLlon, Lhe ouLboard wlng, belng aL a lower ACA, somehow
reduces Lhe drag. 1hls ls only parLly Lrue. lL ls Lrue LhaL Lhe lnboard secLlon generaLes more llfL Lhan Lhe ouLboard
secLlon. Powever, Lhls has an opposlLe effecL Lo Lhe one clalmed. 1he lack of llfL generaLed by Lhe ouLboard secLlon
musL be made up by oLher means. ln oLher words, Lhe alrcrafL musL be flown aL a hlgher ACA Lhan oLherwlse.
ConsequenLly, Lhe alrcrafL wlll generaLe hlgher lnduced drag Lhan Lhe flaL wlng planform (Model A), and noL lower
as clalmed. lL should be clear LhaL by clalmlng a glven wlng ls efflclenL, one musL assume LhaL mosL of lLs span ls
conLrlbuLlng equally Lo Lhe LoLal llfL, someLhlng noL evldenL ln Lhe !odel wlng. As an example, wlng Model C musL
fly aL an ACA of 0.6 Lo generaLe Lhe same llfL coefflclenL Model A generaLes aL an ACA of 0.

(3) The third claim stated that the washout makes the wing work in earnest at higher AOA (lower airspeeds) and
that this contributes the airplanes pleasant stall characteristics. This claim is indeed supported by the analysis. As
sald earller, Lhe washouL of Lhe ouLboard wlng of Model C slgnlflcanLly suppresses Lhe secLlon llfL coefflclenLs
generaLed Lhere. ConsequenLly, Lhe ouLboard secLlon oughL Lo remaln un-sLalled when Lhe lnboard wlng sLalls,
promoLlng ample roll conLrol durlng aL sLall. 1hls, coupled wlLh Lhe hlgher laLeral sLablllLy (dlhedral effecL) lends a
theoretical support to the airplanes repuLaLlon of pleasanL sLall characLerlsLlcs.

ln concluslon, Lhe !odel wlng shape, wlLh lLs large
amounL of washouL, ls ldeal for an alrplane lf doclle
sLall characLerlsLlcs are more lmporLanL Lhan
aerodynamlc efflclency. lf aerodynamlc efflclency ls
lmporLanL Loo, Lhen a planform such as Lhe one shown
ln llgure C1-34, whlch shows a uAv deslgn LhaL
feaLures segmenLed planform Laper wlLh a modesL
cranked dlhedral wlLh a sllghL washouL, ls preferable.
1he Lapered mld and ouLboard span secLlons brlng Lhe
secLlon llfL coefflclenLs closer Lo LhaL of an elllpLlc llfL
dlsLrlbuLlon Lhan does Lhe !odel wlng and Lhe forward
sweep of Lhe ouLboard panels moderaLes Lhe secLlon
llfL coefflclenLs aL hlgh ACAs (ln conLrasL Lo lncreaslng
Lhem ln Lhe sLandard Schuemann wlng). neverLheless,
one does noL have Lo resorL Lo a rebelllous soluLlon
such as a brand new planform Lo lmprove Lhe
efflclency of Lhe !odel wlng llgure C1-33 lndlcaLes
LhaL reduced washouL has a good poLenLlal, alLhough
Lhe rlsk mlghL be dlmlnlshed roll sLablllLy aL sLall.

I|gure C1-34: A stra|ght Lead|ng Ldge (LL) w|ng w|th
gradua||y or segmented tapered p|anform, featur|ng a
cranked d|hedra| and on|y modest outboard washout
(2) ||ke chosen for th|s UAV des|gn, offers both
eff|c|ency and good sta|| character|st|cs.

C1.5.5 The Delta Wing
A delLa wlng ls one whose planform shape resembles LhaL of Lhe Creek leLLer A. Such wlngs are prlmarlly lnLended
for supersonlc fllghL and have been used successfully on a number of flghLer alrcrafL for lnsLance Lhe uassaulL
Mlrage famlly of flghLers buL, undersLandably, Lo a much lesser exLenL on llghL Ceneral AvlaLlon alrcrafL. 1hree
dlsLlncL llghL planes are Lhe homebullL uyke uelLa, Lhe 8aker M8-1 uelLa klLLen, and Lhe Walnfan lMx-04
laceLmoblle. 1he lasL Lwo are experlmenLal proLoLypes and perhaps some 30 uyke uelLas have ever been bullL. All
Lhree demonsLraLe LhaL a delLa wlng conflguraLlon can lndeed by employed for slow alrcrafL and such alrplanes are
cerLalnly orlglnal ln appearance when compared Lo convenLlonal low speed alrcrafL. 1haL aslde, [usLlfylng Lhe
selecLlon of such a planform for a llghL alrcrafL based on lLs aerodynamlc merlL ls a sLeep mounLaln Lo cllmb. As a
low speed conflguraLlon Lhe delLa ls slmply very lnefflclenL due Lo reasons LhaL wlll be explalned below.
neverLheless, Lhe conflguraLlon ls lnLrlgulng enough Lo warranL lLs lncluslon ln Lhls LexL.

A generlc delLa wlng planform ls shown ln
llgure C1-33. The wings primary control
surfaces are Lhe elevoos, whlch are used
boLh for roll conLrol (allerons) and plLch
conLrol (elevaLor). uelLa wlngs ofLen feaLure
leadlng edge devlces, buL flaps requlre Lhe
addlLlon of a horlzonLal sLablllzlng surface,
such as a horlzonLal Lall or a canard.

8esearch on delLa wlngs daLes back Lo
ploneerlng work performed ln Cermany
durlng Lhe Second World War. 1oward Lhe
end of Lhe war Lhe Cerman sclenLlsL
Alexander Llpplsch (1894-1976) deslgned
Lwo alrcrafL LhaL feaLured delLa wlngs and
ram[eL englnes. 1hese are Lhe Llpplsch L.13A
and L.138 (see llgure C1-36).

I|gure C1-3S: A gener|c de|ta w|ng p|anform.

I|gure C1-36: An art|st |mpress|on of the L|pp|sch .13A, an examp|e of ear|y German p|oneer|ng work on de|ta
w|ngs.
ln Lhe 1930s, sLlll early ln Lhe exploraLlon of supersonlc fllghL, Lhe delLa wlng was a welcome advancemenL.
rogress Loward susLalned supersonlc fllghL had been slowed by Lhe large number of englneerlng challenges LhaL
had yeL Lo be Lackled. 1he delLa planform offered a number of soluLlons Lo a varleLy of problems and several
alrcrafL manufacLurers deslgned and manufacLured delLa wlnged alrcrafL wlLh greaL success. 1hese lncluded
Amerlcan manufacLurers such as Convalr and uouglas. Among Luropean manufacLurers were SAA8 and uassaulL,
[usL Lo name a few.

1he flow around Lhe delLa wlng ls hlghly lnfluenced by Lhe LL sweep, cross-secLlon normal and parallel Lo Lhe flow
dlrecLlon, and ACA
26
. 1he mosL promlnenL feaLure of Lhe flow fleld aL hlgh ACA ls Lhe formaLlon of Lwo powerful
vorLlces on Lhe Lop surface of Lhe wlng LhaL have a profound lmpacL on lLs llfLlng capablllLy (see llgure C1-37). As
shown ln Lhe flgure, Lhls phenomenon ls qulLe compllcaLed. 1he vorLlces are offseL from Lhe leadlng edge and Lhelr
cores form an angle greaLer Lhan Lhe LL sweep. 1he axlal flow beLween Lhe Lwo ls malnLalned by Lhe downwash,
whlch prevenLs furLher separaLlon Lo ACAs as hlgh as 30-40. llgure C1-38 shows experlmenLal daLa for Lwo Lypes
of delLa wlngs of A8 = 1 (from 8eference 27). 1he graph shows clearly Lhe so-called vottex-llft, whlch ls Lhe
dlfference beLween Lhe llfL predlcLed by Lhe lnvlscld poLenLlal flow Lheory (e.g. vorLex-LaLLlce, uoubleL-LaLLlce, and
anel codes) and, Lhus, does noL predlcL Lhe formaLlon of Lhe powerful vorLex. 1hls ls usually remedled uslng Lhe
so-called lolbomos leoJloq eJqe soctloo oooloqy
28
, whlch unforLunaLely ls beyond Lhe scope of Lhls dlscusslon.

1wo oLher lmporLanL observaLlons can be made wlLh respecL Lo llgure C1-38. llrsL, aL an ACA of almosL 33 Lhe
LesL daLa lndlcaLes Lhe delLa wlngs have yeL Lo sLall. 1hls conLrasLs convenLlonal wlngs, whlch Lyplcally sLall ln Lhe
nelghborhood of 13. Second, aL such an ACA (l.e. of 13) Lhe C
L
for Lhe delLas ls [usL around 0.30 versus 1.2-1.6 for
convenLlonal alrcrafL. 1hls means LhaL a delLa wlng wlll requlre a very hlgh alrspeed and deck angle when landlng,
someLhlng very unfavorable for a CA alrcrafL.

A greaL llsLlng of Lhe pros and cons of delLa wlngs ls presenLed by WhlLford
29
. Among a number of advanLages
offered by Lhe conflguraLlon ls a far more gradual rlse ln supersonlc drag Lhan convenLlonal wlngs. 1hls means LhaL
hlgher subsonlc, Lransonlc, and supersonlc alrspeeds can be malnLalned wlLh a glven englne. AddlLlonally, Lhe peak
supersonlc drag ls found Lo be less because of a reducLlon ln wave drag due Lo Lhe volume of Lhe vehlcle. 1hls ls
aLLrlbuLed Lo Lhe hlgh LL sweep and low Lhlckness-Lo-chord raLlo, boLh of whlch are lmporLanL conLrlbuLors Lo
wave drag. 1he hlgh LL sweep ensures Lhe wlng ls lnslde of Lhe shock cone formed by Lhe nose of Lhe alrcrafL. 1he
alrspeed lnslde Lhe cone ls less Lhan LhaL ouLslde of lL, so secondary shocks formed by Lhe wlng are weaker. 1he
wlng conflguraLlon beLLer complles wlLh Lhe so-called Area 8ule Lhan convenLlonal conflguraLlons, maklng lL less
senslLlve Lo changes ln Mach number (M) over a wlder range of alrspeeds. 1he maxlmum llfL coefflclenL for Lhe
conflguraLlon also lncreases gradually wlLh M up Lo Mach 1 and Lhen decreases smooLhly aL supersonlc speeds
wlLhouL abrupL changes ln llfL curve slope, maklng lL ldeal Lo perform hlgh ACA maneuvers aL hlgh alrspeeds. 1he
powerful vorLex LhaL forms along lLs leadlng edge aL hlgh ACA reduces pre-sLall buffeLlng. 1hls ylelds a C
Lmax
LhaL ls
much greaLer Lhan predlcLed by llnear Lheory (such as unmodlfled vorLex-LaLLlce or uoubleL-LaLLlce meLhods).
AddlLlonally, a large wlng area ls provlded ln a small compacL alrcrafL, whlch ls ldeal for mlllLary alrcrafL as lL resulLs
ln less wlng loadlng and, Lherefore, lmproved maneuverablllLy aL hlgh alLlLudes.

I|gure C1-37: 1wo powerfu| vort|ces form as the ACA of the de|ta |ncreases. 1hese are reason why the max|mum
||ft of a de|ta |s much h|gher than pred|cted by |nv|sc|d theory. (8ased on keference 26.)
Among sLrucLural advanLages are LhaL for a glven wlng area, Lhe resulLlng span ls small and Lhe rooL chord ls large.
Lven small Lhlckness-Lo-chord raLlos common among flghLer alrcrafL (3-4) resulL ln a large sLrucLural depLh and
cross-secLlonal area, whlch glve lL greaL bendlng and Lorslonal rlgldlLy. 8oLh lmprove reslsLance agalnsL fluLLer and
alleron reversal. Coupled wlLh a comparaLlvely small bendlng momenL (Lhanks Lo Lhe cenLer of llfL acLlng closer Lo
Lhe cenLerllne of Lhe alrcrafL due Lo Lhe smaller wlng A8) Lhe resulLlng sLrucLure ends up belng much llghLer. lor
Lhe same reason, Lhe lnboard wlng provldes large volume for fuel Lanks and sLowage of Lhe maln landlng gear. 1he
large wlng area allows mlllLary ordnance Lo be carrled wlLh ease under Lhe wlng.

uelLa wlngs also have a number of drawbacks. 1o begln wlLh, Lhe hlgh LL sweep angle and low A8 renders Lhe llfL
generaLlon of Lhe conflguraLlon far less efflclenL by slgnlflcanLly lowerlng Lhe llfL curve slope (keep ln mlnd
LquaLlon (9-37)). 1hls, ln Lurn, means Lhe alrcrafL musL be flown aL a much hlgher ACA Lo generaLe Lhe same llfL aL
a glven alrspeed, whlch ls deLrlmenLal for boLh 1-C and landlng. ConsequenLly, Lhe 1-C run requlres Lhe alrcrafL Lo
be roLaLed Lo a hlgher ACA or acceleraLed Lo a hlgher 1-C speed Lhan a comparable convenLlonal wlng alrcrafL. 1he
laLLer ls Lyplcally Lhe more pracLlcal, albelL deLrlmenLal as lL calls for a greaLer runway lengLh and, Lhus, can presenL
challenges ln Lhe operaLlon of mlllLary alrcrafL. uurlng landlng, slowlng down for landlng requlres a hlgher deck
angle, limiting the pilots Field-of-vlew. 1hls ls furLher compounded by Lhe lnablllLy of Lhe delLa Lo use a flap, unless
lL has a separaLe horlzonLal Lall Lo reacL Lhe resulLlng nose-down plLchlng momenL. 1he delLa wlng also suffers
hlgher llfL-lnduced drag as a resulL of lLs large area, buL shorL span (see LquaLlon 13-39), whlch ls dlsadvanLageous
durlng maneuverlng and requlres hlgher LhrusL Lhan oLherwlse. lor mlllLary alrcrafL, Lhe lower wlng loadlng resulLs
ln more senslLlvlLy Lo gusLs, maklng Lhem harder Lo operaLe a hlgh-speed Lree-Lop level combaL operaLlons. Cf
course, gusL loadlng ls parLly lmproved by Lhe low llfL curve slope of Lhe conflguraLlon.

I|gure C1-38: 1he consequence of the format|on of the vortex |s ||ft add|t|ona| to that pred|cted by ||near theory.
1h|s ||ft |s ca||ed +,#'-. /"&'. (8ased on keference 27.)
When comes Lo sLablllLy and conLrol, Lhe elevons become less effecLlve aL supersonlc alrspeeds. 1hls ls
compounded by Lhe long dlsLance Lhe aerodynamlc cenLer moves as Lhe alrplane acceleraLes (or deceleraLes)
Lhrough Mach 1. normally, when an alrplane accelerates from subsonic to supersonic airspeeds the wings
aerodynamlc cenLer moves approxlmaLely from Lhe quarLer-chord Lo Lhe half-chord. 1hls movemenL lncreases Lhe
dlsLance beLween Lhe CC and Lhe aerodynamlc cenLer, causlng a subsLanLlal lncrease ln Lhe nose plLch-down
momenL. A longlLudlnally sLaLlcally sLable delLa wlng alrcrafL would requlre a hlgh 1Lu deflecLlon of Lhe elevons Lo
compensaLe for Lhls. lL would also resulLs ln a large change ln hlgher Lrlm drag. Some alrcrafL, such as Lhe S8-71
8lackblrd and Lhe Concorde (boLh of whlch have been phased ouL of servlce), would pump fuel Lo and from speclal
fuel Lanks ln Lhe afL parL of Lhe fuselage Lo help move Lhe CC afL aL supersonlc alrspeeds, slgnlflcanLly reduclng Lrlm
drag.

Among oLher sLablllLy and conLrol relaLed deLrlmenLs ls Lhe hlgher C
l|
aL hlgher ACA (low alrspeeds). Cenerally,
delLa wlng alrcrafL are deslgned for proper laLeral-dlrecLlonal sLablllLy aL hlgher speeds, such as crulslng speed or
some combaL relaLed alrspeed. As Lhe alrplane slows down for landlng and lLs ACA beglns Lo lncrease, Lhe hlgh LL
sweep may cause slgnlflcanL reducLlon ln uuLch roll damplng (because of Lhe hlgher C
l|
). 1he remedy ls an
lnsLallaLlon of yaw dampers. AddlLlonally, slnce Lhe conflguraLlon ls ofLen wlLhouL a horlzonLal sLablllzer, Lhe plLch
damplng (C
Mq
) ls small maklng Lhe longlLudlnal shorL perlod osclllaLlon ob[ecLlonable. 1hls ls noL Lrue for modern
delLa wlng conflguraLlons, whlch all feaLure canards (LuroflghLer 1yphoon, uassaulL 8afale, SAA8 !AS-39 Crlpen,
and oLhers). 1he plLch auLhorlLy of delLa wlng conflguraLlons equlpped wlLh a PorlzonLal 1all (P1) may be
deLrlmenLally affecLed aL hlgh ACA due Lo Lhe masslve wlng wake. 1hls ls remedled ln Lhe deslgn of alrcrafL llke Lhe
MlC-21, Sukhol Su-22, and Lhe A-4 Skyhawk, by low mounLed P1s. A delLa conflguraLlon llke Lhe ClosLer !avelln
feaLured a 1-Lall and suffered deep sLall problems
30
.
1he delLa wlng planform was abandoned by mosL manufacLurers of flghLers ln Lhe early 1970s. Lven uassaulL
abandoned lL when developlng Lhe Mlrage l1. Powever, Lhe developmenL of compuLerlzed fllghL managemenL
sysLems LhaL conLrol Lhe alrcrafL Lhrough a fly-by-wlre conLrol sysLem has lead Lo resurgence ln Lhe deslgn of delLa
wlng alrcrafL. AlrcrafL LhaL prove LhaL polnL are Lhe LuroflghLer 1yphoon, uassaulL 8afale, SAA8 Crlpen, and Lhe
8oelng x-32. MeLhods Lo help wlLh Lhe analysls of Lhe llfL and drag of Lhe delLa wlng planform are provlded ln
8eference 31.

C1.6 Additional Tools for Tail Sizing

Whlle Lhe hlsLorlcal meLhods presenLed ln ChapLer 11 serve as a greaL way Lo come up wlLh lnlLlal Lall geomeLry, lL
ls noL always sufflclenL Lo guaranLee unfavorable handllng characLerlsLlcs wlll noL surface. 1hls ls why Lhe reader ls
urged Lo check for posslble Lall slzlng deflclencles uslng Lhe checkllsL of SecLlon 23.3, Ceoetol Avlotloo Altctoft
ueslqo cbeckllst. ln Lhls secLlon, addlLlonal Lools are offered LhaL could noL be presenLed ln Lhe maln LexL due Lo
space consLralnLs.

C1.6.1 Review of Applicable Longitudinal Formulation
Several equaLlons of lmporLance have already been derlved ln SecLlon 11.2, looJomeotols of 5totlc 5toblllty ooJ
coottol. 1hese are llsLed below for convenlence and can be applled Lo a large number of conflguraLlons, provlded
Lhe coefflclenLs are properly esLlmaLed. CLher varlables are llsLed aL Lhe end of ChapLer 11.

1oLal llfL coefflclenL:
+ o + o + o + =
o o o
f L e L L L L
f e
C C C C C
0

(11-7)

1oLal plLchlng momenL coefflclenL:
+ o + o + o + =
o o
o
f m e m m mo m
f e
C C C C C
(11-10)

SLaLlc longlLudlnal equlllbrlum (1rlm LquaLlon):

o
o
=
o
o
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
c
c
o
o
o
o o
o o
o o
f m m
MGC
T N
f L L
f D D
e
MGC
T
m m
T
L L
T
D D
f
f
f
e
e
e
C C
qSC
x T
C C
qS
W
C C
T
qSC
z
C C
qS
C C
qS
C C
0
0
min
sin
cos

(11-23)

SLlck flxed neuLral polnL:
W
AC W
W
HT
L
m L
L
L
HT HT
MGC
AC
MGC
n
C
C
AR
C
C
C
V
C
h
C
h
o
o o
o
o
|
|
.
|
\
|
t
q + =
2
1 (11-26)

Cf Lhese, Lhe
AC
m
C
o
, whlch ls Lhe longlLudlnal sLablllLy conLrlbuLlon of componenLs oLher Lhan Lhe wlng, ls
probably Lhe mosL mysLerlous one. lL accounLs for Lhe conLrlbuLlon of Lhe fuselage, nacelles, LhrusL, landlng gear,
and anyLhlng besldes Lhe wlng Lo Lhe LoLal longlLudlnal sLablllLy of Lhe alrcrafL. Cf Lhese, accounLlng for Lhe
fuselage, nacelles, and LhrusL ofLen presenLs Lhe greaLesL dlfflculLy Lo Lhe deslgner. lL Lurns ouL LhaL Lhe fuselage
and nacelles (lf presenL) can be LreaLed uslng Lhe same baslc Lheory and Lhls ls presenLed ln SecLlon C1.6.2,
coottlbotloo of tbe loseloqe ooJ Nocelles. A LreaLmenL of LhrusL, ln parLlcular propeller LhrusL, whlch ls harder Lo
accounL for, ls presenLed ln SecLlon C1.6.3, coottlbotloo of 1btost. 8oLh follow Lhls dlscusslon.

C1.6.2 Estimation of Selected Stability Derivatives
A number of varlables need Lo be esLlmaLed before LquaLlon (11-23) can be uLlllzed. uurlng Lhe concepLual deslgn
phase lL ls accepLable Lo use slmpllfled expresslons. 1he llfL coefflclenL ls approxlmaLed uslng Lhe llnear model
o + =
o
L L L
C C C
0
. lL ls accepLable Lo use Lhe slmpllfled drag model,
2
min L D D
kC C C + = . CLher varlables can
be esLlmaLed as shown below.

Slope of Lhe drag polar:
L L
D
D
C kC
C
C
o o
=
o c
c
= 2 (C1-13)

ueflecLlng Lhe elevaLor of a horlzonLal surface (afL Lall or canard conflguraLlon) wlll change Lhe LoLal llfL and
plLchlng momenL of Lhe enLlre alrcrafL. Conslderlng only changes due Lo elevaLor deflecLlon and ACA, Lhe change ln
llfL ls represenLed uslng LquaLlon (11-7) and Lhe change ln plLchlng momenL ls represenLed uslng LquaLlon (11-10),
as follows:

Change ln llfL coefflclenL:
e L L L L
e
C C C C o + o + =
o o 0
(11-7)

Change ln plLchlng momenL coefflclenL:
e m m mo m
e
C C C C o + o + =
o
o
(11-10)

Cf Lhese Lerms, only Lhe change ln llfL and momenL coefflclenLs wlLh elevaLor deflecLlon,
e
L
C
o
and
e
m
C
o
, need Lo
be elaboraLed on. LLkln
32
shows LhaL
e
L
C
o
can be approxlmaLed by:

e
L
HT
HT
e
L
HT
HT
e
L
e
L
L
HT HT W
e
C
S
S
C
S
S
C
C
C
o c
c
|
.
|
\
|
q ~
o c
c
|
.
|
\
|
q +
o c
c
=
o c
c
=
o

dominant negligible

(C1-14)

LLkln also shows LhaL Lhe elevaLor auLhorlLy derlvaLlve,
e
m
C
o
, can be approxlmaLed by:

( ) ( )
e
L
HT AC
HT
HT
e
L
HT AC L
e
m
m
HT HT
e e
C
V h h
S
S
C
V h h C
C
C
o c
c
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
q ~
o c
c
~
o c
c
=
o o
(C1-13)

Where Lhe derlvaLlve
e L
HT
C o c c can be represenLed
uslng Lhe followlng relaLlon:

t =
o c
o c
o c
c
=
o c
c
o
o
t
HT
HT
L
HT HT
L
e
HT
C
HT
L
e
L
C
C C

(C1-16)

1he value of t ls glven ln 8eference 33, where lL ls
esLlmaLed uslng a graph ln Lerms of Lhe raLlo of Lhe
elevaLor area, S
e
, Lo Lhe LoLal area of Lhe P1, S
P1
. noLe
LhaL Lhls ls Lhe LoLal area bebloJ Lhe hlngellne. lor
many appllcaLlons, Lhls ls close Lo Lhe chord of Lhe
elevaLor. naLurally, a graph ls never convenlenL enough
for Lhe spreadsheeL savvy englneer, so Lhe curve has
been dlglLlzed lnLo Lhe followlng relaLlon, whlch can be
used Lo esLlmaLe t for elevaLor raLlos of 0.023 < t
e
< 0.3.

0316 . 0 85 . 2 44 . 6 79 . 8 66 . 4
2 3 4
+ + + ~ t
e e e e
r r r r
(C1-17)

I|gure C1-39: L|evator effect|veness can be
approx|mated us|ng the po|ynom|a| shown.
noLe LhaL 8eference 34 presenLs Lwo oLher meLhods Lo approxlmaLe t, buL we wlll leL Lhls sufflce here.

C1.6.3 Contribution of the Fuselage and Nacelles
1he conLrlbuLlon of Lhe fuselage and nacelles Lo Lhe sLaLlc longlLudlnal sLablllLy ls usually desLablllzlng. 1he funcLlon
of such bodles usually requlres a shape LhaL ls a derlvaLlve of a body of revoluLlon. 1he geomeLry acceleraLes Lhe
alrflow aL Lhelr fronL and afL ends, such LhaL hlgh and low pressure reglons are formed, as shown ln llgure C1-40.
ConsequenLly, a neL desLablllzlng plLchlng momenL ls generaLed. 1hls ls manlfesLed as a Lendency of Lhe body Lo
roLaLe away from a low ACA. uependlng on Lhe lnlLlal ACA, Lhe body wlll elLher roLaLe Lo a hlgher or lower ACA. ln
facL, Lhe body may have Lo roLaLe Lhrough a large ACA before a balanclng pressure fleld forms, explalnlng why Lhe
neuLral polnL of bodles of revoluLlon ls far ahead of Lhe nose. ln Lhe absence of wlnd Lunnel LesLlng (or rellable Clu
sofLware), Lhe magnlLude of Lhls momenL can be esLlmaLed uslng Lhe so-called Munk-MulLhopp meLhod. 1he
magnlLude of Lhe llfL and drag generaLed by Lhe body can also be of lmporLance. MeLhods Lo esLlmaLe each are
presenLed below.

I|gure C1-40: 1he cause of the destab|||z|ng fuse|age moment.
Iuse|age L|ft and Drag
1he forces and momenLs due Lo Lhe fuselage are shown schemaLlcally ln llgure C1-41. lor mosL appllcaLlons lL ls
accepLable Lo assume Lhese Lo acL aL Lhe CC. Pere, Lhree meLhods can be used Lo calculaLe fuselage drag:

I|gure C1-41: 1he contr|but|on of the fuse|age.
(1) 1he meLhod of SecLlon 13.4.3, 1be koplJ utoq stlmotloo MetboJ. 1hls ls a low accuracy meLhod.

(2) 1he meLhod of SecLlon 13.4.6, 1be compooeot utoq 8ollJop MetboJ. ln Lhls meLhod, Lhe drag of a body of
revoluLlon can be esLlmaLed by flrsL calculaLlng lLs skln frlcLlon coefflclenL uslng Lhe meLhod of SecLlon 13.3.3,
51l-8-51l. colcolotloq tbe 5klo ltlctloo utoq coefflcleot. 1hen, Lhe approprlaLe lorm lacLor can be applled ln
accordance wlLh SecLlon 13.4.9, lotm loctots fot o loseloqe ooJ o 5mootb cooopy. Cnce, compleLed, Lhe resulLlng
drag coefflclenL ls already ln Lerms of Lhe reference area, S, ln accordance wlLh:

S
S FF C
C
FUS FUS
FUS
WET FUS f
D

=
(C1-18)

(3) 1he followlng meLhod uses emplrlcal approxlmaLlons Lo esLlmaLe boLh llfL and drag.

1he llfL of a Lyplcal fuselage ls generally modesL compared Lo LhaL of Lhe wlng, ranglng from 2 Lo 12 of Lhe LoLal
llfL. nACA 8-340
33
lnvesLlgaLed 209 wlng-fuselage comblnaLlons, uslng a fuselage of round and recLangular cross-
secLlon. 1he reference provlded Lhe daLa used Lo generaLe llgure C1-42. noLe LhaL Lhe daLa from 8eference 33 has
been normallzed Lo Lhe fuselage geomeLry, raLher Lhan Lhe wlng dlmenslons used ln Lhe reference, Lo make lL
more useful Lo oLher fuselage geomeLrles. 1he ad[usLmenL for Lhe force was done by mulLlplylng Lhe experlmenLal
values (1able ll ln Lhe reference) by S/A
max
, where S ls Lhe LesL wlng area and A
max
ls Lhe maxlmum cross-secLlonal
area of Lhe fuselage. Slmllarly, Lhe plLchlng momenL was ad[usLed by mulLlplylng Lhe experlmenLal daLa by C/l
luS
x
S/A
max
, where C ls Lhe average chord of Lhe wlng and l
luS
ls Lhe fuselage lengLh used ln Lhe reference. 1he llfL and
drag can be represenLed uslng Lhe followlng polynomlals.

I|gure C1-42: Lxper|menta| ||ft, drag, and p|tch|ng moment for a gener|c round and rectangu|ar fuse|age (from
keference 3S).

2
2
2
2
0008142 . 0 003061 . 0 08157 . 0
001513 . 0 01654 . 0
0003603 . 0 001406 . 0 06672 . 0
001153 . 0 0009223 . 0
o + o =
o + o =
o + o =
o + o =
RECT FUS
RECT FUS
ROUND FUS
ROUND FUS
D
L
D
L
C
C
C
C
(C1-19)

Agaln, Lhe reference area ls Lhe maxlmum cross-secLlonal area of Lhe fuselage and Lhe expresslons are appllcable
Lo fuselages whose flneness raLlo ls around 0.13 Lo 0.20. noLe LhaL ln order Lo ad[usL Lhese coefflclenLs for use wlLh
Lhe reference area, S
ref
, use LquaLlon (13-79), where S
S
= A
max
.

|tch|ng Moment about the CG due to the Iuse|age:
1hls ls mosL commonly accounLed for uslng Lhe Munk-MulLhopp meLhod, whlch ls aLLrlbuLed Lo Max Munk (1890-
1986) and Pans MulLhopp (1913-1972). Munks work on airship hulls was presented in NACA R-184
36
. uslng
poLenLlal flow Lheory, he demonsLraLed LhaL Lhe plLchlng momenL of a body of revoluLlon was a funcLlon of lLs
volume and Lhe dynamlc pressure. 1he effecL of Lhe slenderness of Lhe body was accounLed for uslng a speclal
correction factor. Munks method was originally developed for airships. For that reason it did not account for the
upwash and downwash LhaL Lakes place ln fronL of and behlnd a wlng and affecLs Lhe sLablllLy of Lhe body. lL was
MulLhopp, ln nACA 1M-1036
37
, who improved Munks method so the lnfluence of wlngs could be accounLed for.
1hls way, Lhe plLchlng momenL of a fuselage ls compuLed uslng Lhe followlng expresslon:

o + =
o
FUS FUS
FUS
m m m
C C C
0

(C1-20)

Where Lhe zero-alpha momenL ls calculaLed uslng Lhe followlng expresslon, where Lhe consLanL 36.3 converLs
radlans Lo degrees (allowlng Lhe use of degrees raLher Lhan radlan) and accounLs for bodles LhaL are noL:

( )
}
+ o

=
FUS
W
FUS
l
f ZL f
MGC
m
dx i w
C S
k k
C
0
2 1 2
5 . 36
0

(C1-21)

1he dependency on Lhe ACA ls glven by:

}
o c
| c

=
o
FUS
FUS
l
f
MGC
m
dx w
C S
C
0
2
5 . 36
1

(C1-22)

Where: k
2
k
1
= CorrecLlon facLor Lo accounL for Lhe fuselage slenderness raLlo (see llgure C1-44 and
LquaLlon (C1-23)).
w
f
= Average wldLh of a fuselage secLlon

= o
W
ZL

Wlng zero-llfL angle relaLlve Lo Lhe fuselage reference llne (see llgure C1-41).
Conslderlng llgure C1-43, lf Lhe zero llfL ACA ls -2 and Lhe ACl of Lhe wlng ls +1,
Lhen Lhls angle ls +3.
l
f
=

luselage camber lncldence angle. See llgure C1-43 for more deLalls of how lL ls
deflned.

= o c | c upwash gradlenL (see llgure C1-44)

1he slenderness raLlo, k
2
k
1
, can be deLermlned from llgure C1-44 or Lhrough Lhe followlng approxlmaLlon (curve
flL) Lo Lhe daLa:

|
|
.
|
\
| +
+ =
1000
72 44 6 . 5 24 0 1
1
2 3
1 2
f f f .
f
k k (C1-23)

Where: = =
FUS FUS
d l f luselage flneness raLlo
l
luS
=

luselage lengLh
d
luS
= luselage wldLh or depLh


I|gure C1-43: Def|n|t|on of a pos|t|ve and negat|ve fuse|age camber |nc|dence.
1he followlng curve flLs wlll generaLe Lhe curves ln Lhe rlghL graph of llgure C1-44. See llgure C1-43 for lnsLrucLlons
on where Lo apply Lhem.

upwash Curve 1
2
1
09107 0 40485 0 4758 1
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
.
|
\
|
o c
| c
MGC MGC
C
x
. +
C
x
. . (C1-24)

upwash Curve 2
4254 . 0
2
74611 1

|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
.
|
\
|
o c
| c
MGC
C
x
. (C1-23)

I|gure C1-44: Iuse|age s|enderness correct|on and a handy approx|mat|on.
usually, Lhe compuLaLlon of Lhe Lwo coefflclenLs ls lmplemenLed Lhrough numerlcal lnLegraLlon. 1hls ls done by
segmenLlng Lhe fuselage as shown ln llgure C1-43. noLe LhaL Lhe number of segmenLs should be based on Lhe
complexlLy of Lhe fuselage geomeLry. lor mosL appllcaLlons 10-20 segmenLs mosL llkely covers lL. 1hen, Lhe
coefflclenLs of LquaLlon (C1-20) are calculaLed uslng Lhe followlng dlscreLe represenLaLlons:
( )
=
=
A + o

=
FUS
W
FUS
l x
x
f ZL f
MGC
m
x i w
C S
k k
C
0
2 1 2
5 . 36
0
(C1-26)

=
=
A
o c
| c

=
o
FUS
FUS
l x
x
f
MGC
m
x w
C S
C
0
2
5 . 36
1
(C1-27)

1he soluLlon process ls besL demonsLraLed ln Lxample C1-1, below.

I|gure C1-4S: 1he |mp|ementat|on of the Munk-Mu|thopp method for est|mat|ng the p|tch contr|but|on of a
fuse|age or a nace||e.

LkAMLL C1-1:
ueLermlne Lhe plLchlng momenL coefflclenLs for Lhe fuselage of Lhe S822.

SCLU1ICN:
1he process can be lmplemenLed as shown ln Lhe example ln 1able C1-3 below. ln lL, Column C conLalns Lhe
dlsLance Lo each segmenL, as shown ln llgure C1-43. Column C ls Lhe lengLh of each segmenL, calculaLed by
subLracLlng subsequenL secLlons. 1hls way, lf Lhe segmenL belongs Lo Lhe forward fuselage, lL ls calculaLed uslng Lhe
expresslon Ax
l
= l
l-1
l
l
. 1hls means LhaL Lhe segmenL dlsLance ln 8ow 3 ls Ax
3
= l
2
l
3
. 1he value of Ax for Lhe wlng
row ls slmply Lhe wlng chord aL rooL. lor Lhe afL fuselage, Lhe process ls reversed, l.e. Ax
l
= l
l
l
l+1
. 1herefore, ln
8ow 7, we would geL: Ax
7
= l
7
l
8
.

Column C ls Lhe dlsLance Lo Lhe cenLer of Lhe segmenL. lL ls equal Lo Lhe lengLh Lo Lhe segmenL plus one-half of
Lhe wldLh of Lhe prevlous segmenL. 1hls way, Lhe cenLer of a segmenL ln Lhe forward fuselage ls x
Cl
= l
l
+ x Ax
l-1
,
whlle for Lhe afL fuselage lL ls x
Cl
= l
l
- x Ax
l+1
.

I|gure C1-46: 1he |mp|ementat|on of the Munk-Mu|thopp method for the Sk22.
Column C ls Lhe wldLh of Lhe segmenL aL Lhe sLaLlon ldenLlfled by lu (flrsL column), whlle Column C ls Lhe
average wldLh of Lhe segmenL. Agaln Lhe average of a segmenL belonglng Lo Lhe forward fuselage ls calculaLed by
w
fl
= x (w
l
+ w
l-1
), whlle for Lhe afL fuselage ls ls deLermlned from: w
fl
= x (w
l
+ w
l+1
).

Column conLalns Lhe sum of Lhe angle Lhe zero llfL llne of Lhe wlng makes Lo Lhe luselage 8eference Llne (o
ZLW
)
and Lhe angle of Lhe fuselage camber llne aL Lhe cenLer of each segmenL wlLh respecL Lo Lhe luselage 8eference
Llne (l
f
) as shown ln llgure C1-43. 1he o
ZLW
was esLlmaLed Lo be 2.9 and Lhe slope of Lhe fuselage camber was
esLlmaLed by represenLlng lL wlLh a fourLh order polynomlal LhaL Lhen was dlfferenLlaLed Lo geL Lhe slope. llnally,
Lhe slope was converLed Lo an angle by evaluaLlng Lhe lnverse LangenL.

Column C ls Lhe producL of Columns C, C, and . Column ls Lhe upwash and downwash around Lhe
fuselage, calculaLed dependlng on reglon as shown ln llgure C1-43. An flnally, Column ls Lhe producL of
Columns C, C, and .

Cnce all Lhe rows have been deLermlned, Lhe numbers ln columns C and are summed up. 1hese are Lhen used
wlLh LquaLlons (C1-26) and (C1-27) Lo deLermlne Lhe Lwo coefflclenLs for Lhe fuselage. 1hls meLhod ls ldenLlcal for
nacelles, although there often is very limited aft fuselage. The nacelles of many twin engine aircraft featuring the
engines mounted on the wing would only consist of a forward fuselage. The nacelles of aircraft such as the
lokker l-27 lrlendshlp, on Lhe oLher hand, would be represented using both a forward and aft fuselage
segmenLs. 1he nacelles of Lhe 8ockwell Cv-10 8ronco, whlch also serve as Lallbooms, would conslsL mosLly of an
afL secLlon and pracLlcally negllglble forward secLlon.

1he resulLlng zero ACA and ACA dependenL plLchlng momenL coefflclenLs are shown ln Lhe shaded box above Lhe
maln Lable. 1hese can be presenLed uslng LquaLlon (C1-20) as shown below:

o + = o + =
o
01028 . 0 00338 . 0
0
FUS FUS
FUS
m m m
C C C

Where o ls ln degrees.

1ab|e C1-2: Determ|nat|on of Iuse|age Stab|||ty Der|vat|ves

C1.6.4 Contribution of Thrust Normal Force
1hrusL conLrlbuLes Lo sLablllLy ln Lwo lmporLanL ways. llrsL, momenL due Lo Lhe locaLlon of Lhe LhrusLllne above or
below Lhe CC (z
1
) and, second, Lhe normal force (1
n
) acLlng on a propeller or Lhe nacelle of a [eL englne (see llgure
C1-47). lor [eL englnes, Lhe presence of Lhe exhausL near a sLablllzlng surface can affecL Lhe local flow fleld as
shown ln llgure 11-29, alLhough Lhls effecL ls noL consldered here. 1he propeller normal force ls also recognlzed as
flo effect ln some llLeraLure. 8oLh conLrlbuLlons are very lmporLanL and very noLlceable Lo plloLs.

I|gure C1-47: 1he contr|but|on of thrust on|y.

|tch|ng Moment about the CG due to 1hrust||ne:
1he momenL due Lo Lhe locaLlon of Lhe LhrusLllne applles Lo all propulslve devlces and ls glven by:

MGC
T
m
qSC
z T
C
T
= (C1-28)

Where 1 ls Lhe englne LhrusL and dlmenslonal varlables are shown ln llgure C1-47. 1hls momenL ls negaLlve
(sLablllzlng) lf Lhe LhrusLllne ls above Lhe CC and poslLlve (desLablllzlng) lf lL ls below. 1he prlmary challenge ls Lhe
esLlmaLlon of LhrusL, buL a number of meLhods are provlded ln Lhls LexL, ln ChapLer 7, 5electloq tbe lowet lloot
and ChapLer 14, 1be Aootomy of tbe ltopellet.

|tch|ng Moment about the CG due to Norma| Iorce:
1he normal force depends on wheLher Lhe englne ls a [eL or a propeller.

MGC
T N
m
qSC
x T
C
N
T
=
(C1-29)

Seckel
38
presenLs an emplrlcal meLhod based on Lhe work of 8lbner
39
Lo esLlmaLe Lhe normal force uslng Lhe

( ) T f
C
A qN T
blade
N
P B N
o c
c
= (C1-30)

Where: q = uynamlc pressure
n
8
= number of blades
A
= ropeller dlsc area = t u
/4, where u
= ropeller dlameLer
= o c c
blade
N
C ropeller normal force coefflclenL
( ) = T f ropeller normal force facLor

1he propeller normal force coefflclenL ls dependenL on Lhe geomeLry of Lhe blades and Lhe Advance 8aLlo (see
SecLlon 14.3.3, AJvooce kotlo). ln order Lo accounL for Lhe blade geomeLry, a speclal parameLer, called Lhe 5lJe-
lotce loctot (Sll) ls deflned and calculaLed uslng Lhe expresslon below:

Slde-lorce lacLor:
R R R
D
b
D
b
D
b
SFF
9 . 0 6 . 0 3 . 0
270 525
|
.
|
\
|
+
(
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
= (C1-31)

Where: b = 8lade chord aL sLaLlons 0.38, 0.68, and 0.98 (8 = ropeller radlus = u/2)
u = ropeller dlameLer

A propeller blade wlLh an Sll = 132 ls lndlcaLlve of a wlde chord blade (Lhlnk Lockheed -3C Crlon props). A
propeller blade wlLh an Sll = 81 ls lndlcaLlve of a narrow chord blade (Lhlnk Cessna 172 Skyhawk prop).

1he propeller normal force coefflclenL can be deLermlned uslng Lhe followlng approxlmaLlons for wlde and narrow
bladed propellers. Wlde bladed propellers are commonly found on Lurboprop alrcrafL, buL are also found on a
number of recenL propeller drlven CA plsLon alrcrafL. narrow bladed propellers are Lyplcally found on CA alrcrafL:

Wlde bladed propeller:
1000
4696 . 0 392 . 6 69 . 33 83 . 93 773 . 1
4 3 2
J J J J
C
blade
N + +
=
o c
c
(C1-32)
narrow bladed propeller:
10000
302 . 1 47 . 20 6 . 140 7 . 545 7053 . 0
4 3 2
J J J J
C
blade
N + +
=
o c
c
(C1-33)

1he propeller normal force facLor, ( ) T f , ls used Lo accounL for non-zero LhrusL. lL can be approxlmaLed uslng Lhe

( ) 012 . 1 7546 . 0 2228 . 0 03392 . 0
2 3
+ + =
T T T
C C C T f (C1-34)

Where: C
1
= 1hrusL coefflclenL = 1/vu

I|gure C1-48: Graphs used to determ|ne prope||er norma| force. (8ased on keference 38)

DLkIVA1ICN CI LUA1ICN (C1-28):
1he momenL abouL Lhe CC due Lo Lhe landlng gear can be wrlLLen as follows:

MGC
T
m T m MGC
qSC
z T
C z T C qSC
T T
= =
LD

C1.6.5 Modeling the Pitching Moment for a Simple Wing-HT System
llgure C1-49 shows a slmple Wlng-P1 sysLem, lnLended Lo derlve a few longlLudlnal sLaLlc sLablllLy meLhods LhaL
are helpful when slzlng convenLlonal alrcrafL. 1he longlLudlnal sLaLlc sLablllLy of Lhe conflguraLlon can be
represenLed uslng a shorLened verslon of LquaLlon (11-10), repeaLed here for convenlence:

e m m mo m
e
C C C C o + o + =
o o

(C1-33)

Where: =
mo
C CoefflclenL of momenL aL zero ACA
=
o
m
C Change ln coefflclenL of plLchlng momenL due Lo ACA
=
o
e
m
C LlevaLor auLhorlLy, change ln coefflclenL of plLchlng momenL due Lo elevaLor deflecLlon

I|gure C1-49: 1he bas|c W|ng-n1-Iuse|age system used for |ong|tud|na| stab|||ty ana|yses.
1he above Lerms can be deLermlned for Lhls sysLem uslng Lhe followlng expresslons:

(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
t
+ q + =
o
HT W
L
L L HT HT mo mo mo
i i
AR
C
C C V C C C
W
HT HT
AC W
0
0
2
(C1-36)

( )
HT
W
AC W
L
L
HT HT m L
MGC
AC
m
C
AR
C
V C C
C
h h
C
o
o
o o o
|
|
.
|
\
|
t
q +
=
2
1 (C1-37)

Where:
MGC
C = Mean CeomeLrlc Chord
h
n
= hyslcal locaLlon of Lhe CC aL whlch C
mo
= 0, l.e. Lhe sLlck-flxed neuLral polnL
h
AC
= hyslcal locaLlon of Lhe Aerodynamlc CenLer (Lyplcally aL 0.23C
MCC
)

HT
l = ulsLance beLween Lhe aerodynamlc cenLers of Lhe P1 and Lhe CC
S = 8eference wlng area
S
P1
= lanform area of Lhe P1
v
P1
= PorlzonLal Lall volume
MGC
HT HT
C S
l S

=
=
AC
mo
C LonglLudlnal sLablllLy conLrlbuLlon of componenLs oLher Lhan Lhe wlng

( )
=
=
W
W
L
MGC
AC
mo
C
C
h h
C
0
Wlng plLchlng momenL due Lo alrfoll camber

HT
L
C
0
= P1 llfL coefflclenL aL zero ACA

AC
m
C
o
= LonglLudlnal sLablllLy conLrlbuLlon of componenLs oLher Lhan Lhe wlng

HT
L
C
o
= LlfL curve slope of Lhe P1

W
L
C
o
= Wlng llfL curve slope

noLe LhaL Lhe Lerm
AC
m
C
o
refers Lo Lhe sLablllzlng effecLs of componenLs such as Lhe fuselage, nacelles, landlng
gear, Lhe wlng lLself, and so on, as a funcLlon of Lhe ACA. lf Lhe sum of Lhese momenLs acLs Lo roLaLe Lhe nose
down, Lhen 0 <
AC
M (has a negaLlve slgn and ls sLablllzlng). lf lL acLs Lo roLaLe nose up, Lhen 0 >
AC
M (has a
poslLlve slgn and ls desLablllzlng). 1he slgn ulLlmaLely depends on Lhe alrcrafL conflguraLlon. noLe LhaL Lhe
desLablllzlng effecLs of fuselages and nacelles can be esLlmaLed uslng Lhe so-called Munk-MulLhopp meLhod, whlch
ls presenLed ln SecLlon C1.6.3, coottlbotloo of tbe loseloqe ooJ Nocelles.

DLkIVA1ICN:
lL ls lmperaLlve Lo keep Lhe orlenLaLlon of Lhe M
AC
ln mlnd ln Lhe followlng derlvaLlon. Also, by defaulL, lL ls
assumed LhaL Lhe elevaLor deflecLlon ls neuLral, l.e. o
e
= 0. lurLhermore, Lhe conLrlbuLlon of Lhe LhrusL and
fuselage ls rolled lnLo M
AC
.

llrsL, deLermlne Lhe sum of momenLs abouL Lhe CC, assumlng Lhe orlenLaLlon of forces and momenLs as shown ln
llgure C1-49. lor sLaLlc sLablllLy, Lhls musL equal zero. 1aklng nose down momenLs Lo be negaLlve and poslLlve
forces Lo polnL up, Lhls requlres:

( ) 0 0 = + =
AC HT HT AC W CG
M l L h h L M (l)

noLe LhaL Lhe slgn for M
AC
here is +. Therefore, if M
AC
ls sLablllzlng ( 0 <
AC
M ) we wlll geL
( )
AC AC
M M = + , where |.| sLands for Lhe absoluLe value.

1he deflnlLlons of wlng llfL ls
W
L W
C S q L = , Lhe llfL of Lhe P1 ls
HT
L HT HT
C S q L = , and addlLlonal
momenLs,
AC
m MGC AC
C C S q M = . Insert these into Equation (i) and divide through by qSC
MCC
, as shown
below:

( )
( )
0
0
= +

= + q
AC HT
HT
W
AC HT W
m L
V
MGC
HT HT
HT L
MGC
AC
m MGC HT L HT HT AC L
C C
C S
l S
C
C
h h
C C S q l C S q h h C S q

Where
HT
q ls Lhe Lall efflclency facLor, whlch accounLs for Lhe lncrease ln dynamlc pressure due Lo propwash, and
v
P1
Lhe botlzootol toll volome. noLe LhaL
HT
q can also be used Lo denoLe cases ln whlch Lhere ls dlmlnlshed Lall
effecLlveness, for lnsLance lf Lhe P1 resldes ln a LurbulenL wake from Lhe fuselage. lLs range ls Lyplcally 0.8 Lo 1.2.
nexL, lnserL Lhe deflnlLlons for
W
L
C and
HT
L
C :

( )
( ) ( ) 0
0 0
= + o + q o +
o o AC
HT HT W W
m HT L L HT HT L L
MGC
AC
C C C V C C
C
h h
(ll)

8earrange Lhe h and h
AC
Lo geL:

( )
( ) ( ) 0
0 0
= + o + q o +
o o AC
HT HT W W
m HT L L HT HT L L
MGC
AC
C C C V C C
C
h h
(lll)

Some alrcrafL use cambered alrfolls for Lhe P1, Lyplcally as an lnverLed or wlLh a negaLlve camber. 1hls can be
accounLed for wlLh a 0
0
<
HT
L
C . naLurally, lf Lhe alrfoll ls symmeLrlcal, Lhls value ls zero. Slnce Lhe P1 resldes ln
Lhe downwash of Lhe wlng, lLs ACA and, Lhus, llfL coefflclenL ls greaLly affecLed. 1hls effecL ls accounLed for uslng
LquaLlon (11-16). 1herefore,

HT W
L L
HT
i i
AR
C
AR
C
W W
+
t
|
|
.
|
\
|
t
o = o
o 0
2 2
1
(11-16)

1hls expresslon provldes Lhe deslgner wlLh a few deslgn varlables, A8,
W
L
C
0
, l
W
, and l
P1
. nexL, expand LquaLlon (lll):

( ) ( )
0
0 0
= + o q q o
o o AC
HT HT W W
m HT L HT HT L HT HT L
MGC
AC
L
MGC
AC
C C V C V C
C
h h
C
C
h h

LeL
( )
W
W
L
MGC
AC
mo
C
C
h h
C
0
= and recall LhaL o + =

o
AC
AC AC
m mo m
C C C . 1hen, slmpllfy by gaLherlng
conLrlbuLlons LhaL do and do noL change wlLh Lhe ACA:

( )
0
2
1
2
AOA with changes on that Contributi
AOA with change not does on that Contributi
0
0
= o
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
t
q +
. +
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
t
+ q +
o
o o o
o

AR
C
C V C C
C
h h
i i
AR
C
C C V C C
W
HT AC W
W
HT HT
AC W
L
L HT HT m L
MGC
AC
HT W
L
L L HT HT mo mo

1he conLrlbuLlon LhaL does noL change wlLh ACA (consLanL Lerms) are Lyplcally denoLed by C
mo
, whereas
conLrlbuLlon LhaL changes wlLh ACA ls denoLed by C
mo
. 1hls convenLlon ls malnLalned here as well.
LD

LkAMLL C1-1:
Conslder Lhe wlng-P1 conflguraLlon ln llgure C1-30 and Lhe addlLlonal daLa ls glven below. LsLlmaLe Lhe followlng,
assumlng lL has no fuselage and no power planL:

(a) LsLlmaLe Lhe locaLlon of Lhe sLlck-flxed neuLral polnL
(b) LsLlmaLe C
mo
and C
mo
and ploL for ACAs ranglng from -3 Lo 20, uslng Lhe followlng daLa. Also,
deLermlne Lhe value of C
mo
LhaL allows Lhe alrplane Lo be Lrlmmed aL o = 10.

MAIN WING:
C
MCC
= 2.0 fL
b = 20.0 fL
S = 40 fL
A8 = 10
35 . 0
0
=
W
L
C
W
L
C
o
= 3.012 per radlan
ACl = l
W
= 0
nCkI2CN1AL 1AIL
C
P1
= 1.0 fL
8
P1
= 6.0 fL
S
P1
= 6.0 fL
0 . 0
0
=
HT
L
C (symmeLrlcal alrfoll)
HT
L
C
o
= 4.247 per radlan
ACl
P1
= l
P1
= 0
C1nLk
h
AC
= 0.25C
MCC
= 0.3 fL
h = 1.039 fL (afL of wlng LL)
l
P1
= 8.30+1.0/4-1.039 = 7.711 fL
0
0
=
AC
m
C
0 =
o
AC
m
C
1 = q
HT

Assume Lhe wlng alrfoll ls nACA 4413 and LhaL Lhe P1
has a symmeLrlcal alrfoll. noLe LhaL Lhe llfL curve
slopes were calculaLed uslng LquaLlon (9-37). Assume
LhaL Lhe 3-dlmenslonal
W
L
C
0
Lo be Lhe same as LhaL of
Lhe alrfoll (0.4).

SCLU1ICN:
(a) SLlck flxed neuLral polnL ls calculaLed uslng
LquaLlon (11-26), as shown below:

8egln by calculaLlng Lhe P1 volume:

5783 . 0
0 . 2 40
711 . 7 0 . 6
=

=
MGC
HT HT
HT
C S
l S
V

1hen, esLlmaLe llfL properLles. C
lo
for Lhe nACA 4413
ls glven ln 1able 8-3, where lL ls seen Lo be 0.106 per
degree or 6.073 per radlan. C
lo
for a Lyplcal
symmeLrlcal nACA alrfoll ls 0.100 per degree or 3.730
per radlan. Assumlng low subsonlc alrspeed (M ~ 0)
and uslng LquaLlon (9-37) Lo esLlmaLe Lhe 3u llfL curve
slope of Lhe wlng (A8 = 10) and canard (A8
C
= 6),
ylelds a 012 . 5 =
o
W
L
C and 247 . 4 =
o
HT
L
C ,
respecLlvely. Cn slmllar noLes,
W
L
C
0
can be
esLlmaLed uslng LquaLlon (9-61) and daLa from 1able
8-3, where Lhe o
ZL
= -4 for Lhe nACA 4413 alrfoll.
1herefore,
W
L
C
0
ls calculaLed as follows:

I|gure C1-S0: Lxamp|e conf|gurat|on.

( ) 350 . 0 012 . 5
180
4
0
=
t
= o =
o
W W
L ZL L
C C

1hen, Lo calculaLe Lhe sLlck-flxed neuLral polnL plug and chug LquaLlon (11-26):

( )( ) 5837 . 0
012 . 5
0
10
012 . 5 2
1
012 . 5
247 . 4
5783 . 0 1
0 . 2
5 . 0
2
1
=
|
.
|
\
|
t
+ =
|
|
.
|
\
|
t
q + =
o
o o
o
o
W
AC W
W
HT
L
m L
L
L
HT HT
MGC
AC
MGC
n
C
C
AR
C
C
C
V
C
h
C
h

1hls corresponds Lo 38.4 of Lhe C
MCC
, or 1.182 fL. ln comparlson, a poLenLlal flow soluLlon uslng Lhls geomeLry
ylelded Lhe sLlck-flxed neuLral polnL aL 1.239 fL, or 62.0 MCC.

(b) llrsL calculaLe:
( ) ( )
09433 . 0 35 . 0
0 . 2
5 . 0 039 . 1
0
=
=
W
W
L
MGC
AC
mo
C
C
h h
C

Where o musL be ln radlans. 8y plugglng and chugglng LquaLlons (C1-36) and (C1-37) we geL:


( )( ) 03960 . 0 0 0
10
35 . 0 2
247 . 4 0 5783 . 0 1 0 09433 . 0
2
0
0
=
(
|
.
|
\
|
+
t
+ + =
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
t
+ q + =
o
HT W
L
L L HT HT mo mo mo
i i
AR
C
C C V C C C
W
HT HT
AC W

and
( )
HT
W
AC W
L
L
HT HT m L
MGC
AC
m
C
AR
C
V C C
C
h h
C
o
o
o o o
|
|
.
|
\
|
t
q +
=
2
1

( )
( )( ) ( )
radian per 3217 . 0
247 . 4
10
012 . 5 2
1 5783 . 0 1 0 012 . 5
0 . 2
5 . 0 039 . 1
=
|
.
|
\
|
t
=

1he poslLlve C
mo
and negaLlve C
mo
show Lhe conflguraLlon ls lndeed sLaLlcally sLable and Lrlmmable aL a poslLlve
ACA. A ploL of Lhe C
m
from -3 < o < 20 ls shown ln llgure C1-31. lL shows LhaL Lhe above predlcLlon places Lhe
plLchlng momenL curve parLlally above Lhe horlzonLal axls. 1o Lrlm Lhe alrcrafL aL o = 10, Lhe C
mo
musL by shlfLed
up by a magnlLude of 0.0163, or Lo C
mo
= +0.03613. 1hls addlLlonal momenL ls Lyplcally provlded by playlng wlLh
Lhe varlable
e
o (elevaLor deflecLlon) of LquaLlon (C1-33). Powever, someLlmes lL ls necessary Lo slze Lhe alrplane
such Lhe elevaLor deflecLlon ls zero aL some nomlnal loadlng and CC durlng crulse. 1hen, varlables such as v
P1
,
W
L
C
0
,
HT
L
C
0
, l
W
, and l
P1
of LquaLlon (C1-36) can be used Lo achleve Lhe goal.

I|gure C1-S1: 1he p|tch|ng moment coeff|c|ent ca|cu|ated d|rect|y, compared to potent|a| f|ow ana|ys|s. Cne of
the factors that exp|a|n the s||ght sh|ft |s that the downwash of the canard on the w|ng |s not accounted for
us|ng hand ca|cu|at|ons, but |s automat|ca||y determ|ned us|ng the Vortex-Latt|ce Method.

kLILkLNCLS

1
8roadband nolse refers Lo sound LhaL, by deflnlLlon, exLends over a wlde range of frequencles, perhaps even Lhe
enLlre range of audlble frequencles.
2
See hLLp://www.cessnaskymasLer.com/rear-englne-coollng.hLml
3
8owyer, Chaz, 1be Aqe of tbe 8lplooe, 1he Pamlyn ubllshlng Croup, 1981.
4
nACA 1n-269, 1be ulsttlbotloo of looJs betweeo tbe wloqs of o 8lplooe bovloq uecoloqe, Mock, 8lchard M.,
1927.
3
SLlnLon, uarrol, 1be ueslqo of tbe Aetoplooe, Colllns rofesslonal and 1echnlcal 8ooks, 1983.
6
nACA 8-70, 1be ffect of 5toqqet, norLon, l. P., 1921.
7
Max M. Munk, looJomeotols of llolJ uyoomlcs fot Altctoft ueslqoets, 1923.
8
ulehl, WalLer SLuarL, oqloeetloq AetoJyoomlcs, 8onald ress Company, 1936.
9
nACA 8-116, Appllcotloos of MoJeto nyJtoJyoomlcs to Aetooootlcs, randLl, Ludwlg, 1923.
10
LangLon, 8oy, eL al., Altctoft loel 5ystems, !ohn Wlley and Sons, LLd., 2009.
11
lor lnsLance see: nACA AC-89, AlbessotJ 1tlovloo Altctoft, ! Serryer, 1929.
12
1aylor, !ohn W. 8. (ed.), Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 1976-77, Janes Yearbooks, 1976, pg. [72].
13
lor whlch uavls holds Lhe paLenL uS 1942688 (lluld loll).
14
coovolt AJvooceJ ueslqos. 5ectet ltojects ftom 5oo uleqo, 1923-1962, 8oberL L. 8radley, 2010.
13
1be uovls wloq ooJ tbe ltoblem of Altfoll ueslqo, WalLer C. vlncenLl, 1echnology and CulLure, vol. 27, no. 4,
CcL., 1986, pp. 717-738.
16
coovolt AJvooceJ ueslqos. 5ectet ltojects ftom 5oo uleqo, 1923-1962, 8oberL L. 8radley, 2010.
17
nACA W8-L-677 llft ooJ utoq 1ests of 1btee Altfoll MoJels wltb lowlet llops, submlLLed by ConsolldaLed AlrcrafL
CorporaLlon, 1urner, Parold 8., !r, 1941.
18
nACA W8-L-678 ltessote-ulsttlbotloo Meosotemeots of o MoJel of o uovls wloq 5ectloo wltb lowlet llop,
submlLLed by ConsolldaLed AlrcrafL CorporaLlon, AbboLL, lra P., 1942.
19
Schuemann, W., A New wloq lloofotm ooJ lmptoveJ low-5peeJ letfotmooce, Soarlng, vol. 47, no. 2, leb. 1983,
pp. 16-26.
20
Maughmer, Mark u., 1be volotloo of 5ollplooe wloq ueslqo, AlAA 2003-2777.
21
van uam, C.., loJoceJ-utoq cbotoctetlstlcs of ctesceot-Mooo-5bopeJ wloqs, !ournal of AlrcrafL, vol. 24, no. 2,
leb. 1987, pp. 113-119.
22
Cook, Wllllam C., 1be kooJ to tbe 707, 1?C ubllshlng, 8ellevue, 1991.
23
Snyder, Ceorge, 5ttoctotol ueslqo ltoblems lo tbe 8-29 Altplooe, AeronauLlcal Lnglneerlng 8evlew, leb. 1946,
pp. 9-12.
24
Mason, W. P., 6. Subsonlc Aerodynamlcs of Alrfolls and Wlngs.
hLLp://www.depL.aoe.vL.edu/~mason/Mason_f/ConflgAeroSublollWlng.pdf.
23
Source: hLLp://www.[odel.com/lndex.asp?p=wlng&general
26
Poerner, Slghard l., and Penry v. 8orsL, llolJ-uyoomlc llft, L. Poerner, 1983.
27
8.&M. no. 3186, low-5peeJ wloJ-1oooel 1ests oo o 5etles of uocombeteJ 5leoJet loloteJ wloqs wltb 5botp
Jqes, AeronauLlcal 8esearch Councll, u. P. eckham, 1939.
28
nACA 1n u-3767, A coocept of tbe vottex llft oo 5botp-Jqe uelto wloqs 8oseJ oo o
leoJloq-Jqe 5octloo Aooloqy, olhamus, Ldward C., 1966.
29
WhlLford, 8ay, ueslqo fot Alt combot, Janes Publishing Company Limited, 1987.
30
Source: hLLp://www.Lhunder-and-llghLnlngs.co.uk/[avelln/hlsLory.php?comm_page=2
31
Poak, u. L., u5Al 5toblllty ooJ coottol uA1cOM, lllghL ConLrol ulvlslon, Alr lorce lllghL uynamlcs LaboraLory,
Aprll, 1978.
32
LLkln, 8ernard, uyoomlcs of lllqbt 5toblllty ooJ coottol, 2nd Ld., !ohn Wlley and Sons, 1982.
33
erklns, CourLland u. and 8oberL L. Page, Altplooe letfotmooce, 5toblllty, ooJ coottol, !ohn Wlley & Sons, 1949.
34
McCormlck, 8arnes W., AetoJyoomlcs, Aetooootlcs, ooJ lllqbt Mecboolcs, !ohn Wlley & Sons, 1979.
33
nACA 8-340, lotetfeteoce of wloq ooJ loseloqe ftom 1ests of 209 comblootloos lo tbe NAcA votloble-ueoslty
1oooel, !acobs, LasLman n and kenneLh L. Ward.
36
nACA 8-184, 1be AetoJyoomlc lotces oo Altsblp nolls, Munk, Max M., 1924.

37
nACA 1M-1036, AetoJyoomlcs of tbe loseloqe, MulLhopp, Pans, 1942.
38
Seckel, L., 5toblllty ooJ coottol of Altplooes ooJ nellcoptets, Academlc ress, 1964.
39
nACA 8-819, lotmolos fot ltopellets lo ow ooJ cbotts of tbe 5lJe-lotce uetlvotlve, 8lbner, PerberL S., 1943.

APPENDIX C1: Design of Conventional Aircraft: Chapter 4, Aircraft Conceptual Layout

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

APPENDIX C1: Design of Conventional Aircraft: Chapter 4, Aircraft Conceptual Layout

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CuuMunuSSCn CLnL8AL AvlA1lCn Al8C8Al1 uLSlCn ALnulx C1 uLSlCn Cl CCnvLn1lCnAL Al8C8Al1 1

= ropeller dlsc area = t u

= and recall LhaL o + =

You might also like