See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321270376

Aircraft directional stability and vertical tail

design: A review of semi-empirical methods

Article in Progress in Aerospace Sciences · November 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2017.11.001

CITATION READS

1 118

4 authors:

Danilo Ciliberti Pierluigi Della Vecchia

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
30 PUBLICATIONS 110 CITATIONS 58 PUBLICATIONS 275 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fabrizio Nicolosi Agostino De Marco

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
77 PUBLICATIONS 415 CITATIONS 63 PUBLICATIONS 206 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AGILE - Aircraft 3rd Generation MDO for Innovative Collaboration of Heterogeneous Teams of Experts
View project

Vertical tail design, stability and control View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Danilo Ciliberti on 01 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

AIRCRAFT DIRECTIONAL STABILITY AND VERTICAL TAIL DESIGN: A

REVIEW OF SEMI-EMPIRICAL METHODS1

Danilo Ciliberti*

University of Naples “Federico II”, Post-doc Researcher, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples

Italy, danilo.cilberti@unina.it

*corresponding author

Pierluigi Della Vecchia

University of Naples “Federico II”, Assistant Professor, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples

Italy, pierluigi.dellavecchia@unina.it

Fabrizio Nicolosi

University of Naples “Federico II”, Associate Professor, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples

Italy, fabrizio.nicolosi@unina.it

Agostino De Marco

University of Naples “Federico II”, Assistant Professor, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples

Italy, agostino.demarco@unina.it

Abstract

1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2017.11.001

Published on Progress in Aerospace Sciences. Available online 23 November 2017.

Aircraft directional stability and control are related to vertical tail design. The safety,

performance, and flight qualities of an aircraft also depend on a correct empennage

sizing. Specifically, the vertical tail is responsible for the aircraft yaw stability and

control. If these characteristics are not well balanced, the entire aircraft design may fail.

Stability and control are often evaluated, especially in the preliminary design phase,

with semi-empirical methods, which are based on the results of experimental

investigations performed in the past decades, and occasionally are merged with data

provided by theoretical assumptions. This paper reviews the standard semi-empirical

methods usually applied in the estimation of airplane directional stability derivatives in

preliminary design, highlighting the advantages and drawbacks of these approaches that

were developed from wind tunnel tests performed mainly on fighter airplane

configurations of the first decades of the past century, and discussing their applicability

on current transport aircraft configurations. Recent investigations made by the authors

have shown the limit of these methods, proving the existence of aerodynamic

interference effects in sideslip conditions which are not adequately considered in

classical formulations. The article continues with a concise review of the numerical

methods for aerodynamics and their applicability in aircraft design, highlighting how

Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) solvers are well-suited to attain reliable

results in attached flow conditions, with reasonable computational times. From the

results of RANS simulations on a modular model of a representative regional turboprop

airplane layout, the authors have developed a modern method to evaluate the vertical

tail and fuselage contributions to aircraft directional stability. The investigation on the

modular model has permitted an effective analysis of the aerodynamic interference

effects by moving, changing, and expanding the available airplane components. Wind
tunnel tests over a wide range of airplane configurations have been used to validate the

numerical approach. The comparison between the proposed method and the standard

semi-empirical methods available in literature proves the reliability of the innovative

approach, according to the available experimental data collected in the wind tunnel test

campaign.

Keywords

Aircraft Aerodynamic Design, CFD, Directional Stability, Vertical Tail Sizing

Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 9

2. Early wind tunnel tests ........................................................................................... 13

3. Semi-empirical methods ......................................................................................... 15

4. Numerical methods ................................................................................................. 19

5. Design of CFD experiments on a reference aircraft configuration ........................ 22

5.1 The aircraft model and sampling plan ............................................................. 23

5.2 Mesh set-up ...................................................................................................... 25

5.3 Effect of the Reynolds number ........................................................................ 25

5.4 Aerodynamic interference ................................................................................ 26

5.4.1 Effect of the fuselage ................................................................................ 26

5.4.2 Effect of the wing ..................................................................................... 27

5.4.3 Effect of the horizontal tail ....................................................................... 28

6. A modern semi-empirical method for the evaluation of aircraft directional stability

29

6.1 Isolated vertical tail and fuselage ..................................................................... 30

6.2 Fuselage - vertical tail interference factors KFv and KVf .................................. 31

6.3 Wing interference factors KWv and KWf ........................................................... 32

6.4 Horizontal tail interference factors KHv and KHf .............................................. 33

7. Wind tunnel validation ........................................................................................... 35

7.1 The wind tunnel test model .............................................................................. 35

7.2 The wind tunnel facility ................................................................................... 37

7.3 Wind tunnel corrections, transitional strips, and uncertainty of measures ...... 40

7.4 Wind tunnel results .......................................................................................... 41

8. Application of the proposed modern method and comparison with other semi-

empirical methods and experimental data ...................................................................... 45

9. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 47

References ...................................................................................................................... 48

Nomenclature

Acronyms

AGILE = Aircraft 3rd Generation MDO for Innovative Collaboration of Heterogeneous

Teams of Experts

CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics

CNC = Computer Numerical Control

DES = Detached Eddy Simulation

DII = Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale

DNS = Direct Navier-Stokes

ESDU = Engineering Science Data Unit

F = fuselage

FV = fuselage – vertical tail combination

H = horizontal tail

LES = Large Eddy Simulation

m.a.c. = mean aerodynamic chord

MDO = Multidisciplinary Design Optimization

NACA = National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

OAD = Overall Aircraft Design

RANS = Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes

SCoPE = Sistema Cooperativo Per Elaborazioni scientifiche multidisciplinari

USAF DATCOM = United States Air Force Data Compendium

V = vertical tail

W = wing

WFV = fuselage – wing – vertical tail combination

WFVH = fuselage – wing – vertical tail – horizontal tail combination

Notation

A = wing aspect ratio

Ah = horizontal tailplane aspect ratio

Av = vertical tailplane aspect ratio

Aveff = vertical tailplane effective aspect ratio

B = compressibility parameter 1  M 2

Ch = hinge moment coefficient

CL = airplane rolling moment coefficient

CLαv = vertical tail lift curve slope

CLβ = airplane rolling moment coefficient derivative due to sideslip

CN = airplane yawing moment coefficient

CNf = fuselage yawing moment coefficient

CNv = vertical tail yawing moment coefficient

CNβ = airplane yawing moment coefficient derivative due to sideslip

CNβf = fuselage yawing moment coefficient derivative due to sideslip

CNβh = horizontal tail yawing moment coefficient derivative due to sideslip

CNβv = vertical tail yawing moment coefficient derivative due to sideslip

CNβw = wing yawing moment coefficient derivative due to sideslip

CYβ = airplane sideforce coefficient derivative due to sideslip

Df = fuselage max diameter

KFv = coefficient to account for fuselage interference on vertical tail

KHf = coefficient to account for horizontal tail interference on fuselage

KHv = coefficient to account for horizontal tail interference on vertical tail

KVf = coefficient to account for vertical tail interference on fuselage

KWf = coefficient to account for wing interference on fuselage

KWv = coefficient to account for wing interference on vertical tail

Lf = fuselage length

Ln = fuselage nose length

Lt = fuselage tail-cone length

S = wing planform area

Sr = rudder planform area

Sfront = fuselage frontal area

Sh = horizontal tailplane area

Sv = vertical tailplane area

VsTO = take-off stall speed

V∞ = asymptotic velocity

b = wing span

bv = vertical tailplane span

bv1 = vertical tailplane span extended to the fuselage centerline

cr = rudder m.a.c.

df = fuselage equivalent diameter

dfv = fuselage height at vertical tail aerodynamic center

lv = vertical tail directional moment arm

rf = fuselage max radius

y+ = dimensionless wall distance

zftc = height of the fuselage tail-cone

zh = position of the horizontal tail on the vertical tail

zw = wing position in fuselage

α = angle of attack

 = angle of sideslip
 = taper ratio

Δ = difference

Λ = sweep angle
1. Introduction

The empennages in traditional aircraft configurations (Figure 1) perform three

fundamental functions: (i) they provide static and dynamic stability; (ii) through their

movable parts, they enable aircraft control; (iii) they allow to reach a state of

equilibrium in each flight condition.

Tail surfaces sizing and shaping are almost exclusively determined by stability

and control considerations. Both horizontal and vertical tailplanes usually operate at

only a fraction of their lift capability, since stall conditions should never be achieved.

The vertical tail provides directional (i.e. around the vertical axis) equilibrium, stability,

and control. The concept of equilibrium is inherent to the absence of accelerations on

the aircraft. Directional stability is the aircraft tendency to return to the initial

equilibrium condition, if perturbed. Directional control is the aircraft ability to maintain

equilibrium at a desired sideslip angle, i.e. the angle between the relative wind and the

aircraft longitudinal axis [1]. From the dynamic point of view, the role of the vertical

tail is to provide yaw damping, that is to reduce the oscillations around the vertical axis

(dynamic directional stability). If the aircraft directional stability is too small with

respect to its lateral stability (i.e. around the longitudinal axis), the aircraft tends to

oscillate in yaw as the pilot gives rudder or aileron inputs. This tendency is called dutch

roll and makes precise directional control difficult.

Extreme flight conditions usually set design requirements for tail surfaces, as

minimum control speed with one engine inoperative (Figure 2) or maximum cross-wind

capability (Figure 3). Stability and control must be ensured even in large angles of

sideslip as 25° [2]. The design of a vertical tailplane depends mainly on the type of

airplane (configuration layout, flow regime, aesthetics, costs), and on engines number
and position. For a given layout, the vertical tail design should take into account the

relative size and position of other elements in the whole aerodynamic configuration,

such as wing, fuselage, and horizontal tail [3]. These factors affect the aircraft stability

derivatives, i.e. the variation of aerodynamic coefficients with the main flight variables,

and, in particular, the vertical fin design influences all derivatives with respect to the

angle of sideslip . Such design is not a simple task, since it involves the prediction of

nontrivial phenomena, such as the asymmetrical flow behind the wing-fuselage

combination, and the solution of lateral cross-control issues (due to side force on the fin

causing a rolling moment).

The following design requirements can be formulated for vertical tailplanes, as

suggested in Ref. [2]-[5]:

1. The vertical fin must provide a sufficient contribution to static and dynamic

stability, which is function of the vertical tail lift curve slope and planform area

(Figure 4) or volume coefficient. These are ensured by a sufficiently high value

of the derivative

 S l 
CN   f  CL , v v  (1)
v
 v
S b

Thus, a high lift gradient CLαv is desirable, which is typically due to a largest

possible aspect ratio Av and a minimum sweep angle Λv.

2. The tail stall angle must be large, i.e. a sideslip angle greater than 25°, especially

in possible icing conditions. This requires a low aspect ratio and a swept

planform, which delay the stall at higher angles of sideslip, but reduce the lift

gradient.

3. The aircraft must be directionally controllable in all flight conditions. This leads

to specific requirements on both vertical stabilizer and rudder areas, on the

 maximum lift coefficient with various amount of control surface deflection, and

should include the effect of ice roughness.

4. The directional control of the airplane must be ensured with an acceptable

control torque

1
Mh  V 2Ch Sr cr (2)
2

which depends on rudder planform area Sr, mean aerodynamic chord cr,

1
dynamic pressure V 2 , and hinge moment coefficient Ch. This is important
2

for the sizing of control surface actuators and pedal control forces.

5. Generally, the tail weight must be as low as possible, and this calls for low

aspect ratios. Moreover, for T-tail configurations higher aspect ratios might

make the flutter phenomenon even more critical.

6. A tapered planform, of taper ratio λv, leads to lower fin weight. On the other

hand, excessive taper ratios may lead to premature tip stall.

Thus, the designer must seek for an optimal compromise between a sufficiently high lift

gradient, a sufficiently low aspect ratio, reasonable taper ratio and sweep angle,

ensuring a sufficiently high sideslip angle of stall.

This paper reviews the approaches taken in the past decades for the preliminary

evaluation of the aircraft directional static stability CNβv, from the first experimental

investigations to the modern numerical analyses, and proposes a method recently

developed by the authors on the basis of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

simulations and validated through several wind tunnel tests.

The design of a complex system like an aircraft involves many disciplines and

specialists distributed in several groups. New aircraft Multidisciplinary Design

Optimization (MDO) processes target significant reductions in aircraft development

costs, leading to cost-effective and greener aircraft [6]. This leads to the need for

reliable semi-empirical methods in the MDO process, especially in the Overall Aircraft

Design (OAD). At the University of Naples “Federico II”, research engineers cooperate

to find and develop more reliable methods, update those available in literature,

implement them into state-of-the-art framework and software language, and integrate

these new procedures into a cluster of partners in order to perform MDO on

conventional and innovative aircraft configurations, such in the AGILE (Aircraft 3rd

Generation MDO for Innovative Collaboration of Heterogeneous Teams of Experts)

European project [6]-[8].

Section 2 reviews the results of wind tunnel tests conducted by the National

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in the first half of the XX century on

several airplane models, to systematically investigate aircraft directional stability. From

these results, the semi-empirical methods available in literature and used in preliminary

vertical tail design and analysis have been derived. Section 3 presents an application of

the standard semi-empirical methods available in literature for the evaluation of aircraft

directional stability, highlighting how different results and vertical tail incorrect sizing

may fail the entire aircraft design. Section 4 briefly describes advantages and drawbacks

of several numerical methods, which can be applied in aircraft aerodynamic analysis

and design. Section 5 describes the design of CFD experiments performed to develop a

modern up-to-date aircraft directional stability evaluation method, suitable for current

traditional configurations. The same section introduces the reference aircraft model

layout, its geometric parameters, the characteristics of computational grids, and the

physics model used in aerodynamic analyses. Section 6 presents the metamodel derived
from the numerical analyses as an alternative method to evaluate aircraft directional

stability. The validation of the innovative approach with wind tunnel tests is described

in Section 7. Conclusions are drawn in Section 9.

2. Early wind tunnel tests

From the ‘30s to the ‘50s in the USA, the NACA provided useful results about the

directional stability on isolated vertical tailplanes, partial and complete aircraft

configurations through many wind tunnel tests. These results were summed up in a

semi-empirical method of analysis reported in USAF DATCOM [9]. The investigations

were focused on separating the effects of fuselage, wing, and horizontal tail from the

isolated vertical tail. In the first half of the XX century, many different models and

configurations were tested: rectangular, elliptical and swept wings; symmetrical and

unsymmetrical airfoils; slender bodies with rounded or sharp edges; tails of different

aspect ratio and size [10]-[14]. Two of these models are shown in Figure 5. It is clear

that they are quite different from the current transport airplanes. As matter of fact,

decades before the CFD era, most of the work done by NACA was pushed by military

needs, where the aim of the early tests was to gain knowledge on the mutual

interference among aircraft components [10] and on the physics of the problem of

directional stability and control [11][12], while later tests aimed to improve stability and

maneuverability of high speed combat airplanes [13].

The aerodynamic interference of the wing-fuselage system on the vertical tail

has been investigated by Bamber and House [12] in 1939. The general trend of their

results revealed an increase in the sideforce due to sideslip coefficient CYβv and the

yawing moment derivative CNβv by moving the wing from high to low position in
fuselage, except for the fin-off combination where there is a minimum for the mid wing

position. This trend holds at different wing dihedral angles, flap deflections, and angles

of attack, although different values have been achieved for each combination. In other

words, it is found that a low wing is beneficial to directional stability. The rolling

moment derivative CLβv decreases and changes sign as the wing is moved downward.

This is the well-known dihedral effect due to wing position, where a high wing provides

an increased lateral stability [1]. This work did not include the horizontal tail, therefore

the interference effect on lateral-directional stability is due to the wing – body – vertical

tail combination.

To evaluate the effect of the fuselage on the vertical tail, without horizontal tail,

Queijo and Wolhart [13] in 1950 defined an effective aspect ratio Aveff as function of the

ratio of vertical tail span bv to the fuselage diameter dfv at the longitudinal location of

the vertical tail aerodynamic center (shortly: tail span per body depth), for various tail-

fuselage combinations. The vertical tail effective aspect ratio increases as the ratio bv/dfv

decreases, that is, as the vertical tail becomes small compared to the fuselage. The

theory based on the assumption that the body acts as an infinite plate at the base of the

vertical tail suggested a non-linear increase of the effective aspect ratio with the above-

mentioned tail span over body height ratio. The scatter in experimental data is such that

best fitting lines between theory and experiments are drawn as a function of both the

bv/dfv ratio and the vertical tail geometric aspect ratio Av, whereas in USAF DATCOM

[9] the dependency from the aspect ratio disappears and the effect of taper ratio is

included.

The effect of size and position of horizontal tail on vertical tail characteristics

was studied by Brewer and Lichtenstein [14] in 1950, who also found that previous
results [15][16] could not be extended to swept planforms. Results of their work have

shown that the effect of the horizontal tail is advantageous to directional stability, at low

angles of attack, if it is positioned upward and rearward on the vertical tail (T-tail

configuration) or if it is located on the fuselage. At high angles of attack, flow

separation and wing downwash can highly affect the directional stability, although

positive effects can be obtained by moving the horizontal tail forward and upward. The

vertical tail effective aspect ratio was found to be function of the combination of the

effects due to the fuselage, to the horizontal tail position and size. Their work has also

shown that the experimental lift curve slope of the isolated vertical tail was about 13%

higher than the value predicted by theory. Indeed, according to the lifting surface

theory, the gradient of the lift coefficient versus the angle of attack is linear with aspect

ratio for planforms with Av < 1.5 and this leads to the conclusion that, for most vertical

tail surfaces at a given angle of sideslip, the side force is only dependent on the tail span

bv, whereas planform is of secondary importance [2].

3. Semi-empirical methods

Results of NACA wind tunnel tests previously described were organized and used to

formulate a set of semi-empirical procedures presented in USAF DATCOM [9]. Semi-

empirical methods are simple mathematical models of a physic phenomenon, based on

both theoretical assumptions and on experimental evidence. They provide a valuable aid

in the conceptual and preliminary aircraft design stages, even if the aircraft layout has

not been sketched yet. They have the advantage to be simple and rapid to compute,

especially on electronic spreadsheets, allowing quick design of experiments and

optimization. They are categorized as low fidelity models, because they are typically
used by designers when the exact shape of the aircraft is not well defined, as the

aerodynamics, structures, and performance.

It is here remarked that the DATCOM method for the evaluation of aircraft

directional stability has been mainly derived from the results on the geometries

previously presented, i.e. elliptical bodies, swept wing and tails (see again Figure 5).

Apart from the NACA, in the UK an alternative method to compute the vertical

tailplane contribution to directional stability in presence of body, wing, and horizontal

tailplane, was proposed and described in the Engineering Science Data Unit (ESDU)

report [17]. This method assumes an almost circular fuselage and a constant sidewash. It

is a synthesis of experimental analyses performed by NACA, British Aerospace, SAAB,

and others, from the ‘40s to the ‘70s, with application of the potential flow theory in

highly scattered data zones. The theory at the base is found in the work of Weber and

Hawk [18], dating back to 1954, who assumes that a fin-body-tailplane combination at

incidence (or sideslip) develops a vortex system that induces a constant velocity

distribution along the wing span. Here the term wing is used as generic lifting surface,

since the vertical fin in fuselage is considered as a wing with a cylinder at its root. Load

distribution is computed in the Trefftz-plane (located far downwind for high aspect ratio

wings) once the induced velocity is known. The induced velocity is calculated from the

wing characteristics as planform, sweep angle, and wing section lift curve slope. The

definitions of vertical tail planform area and aspect ratio, as well as the aerodynamic

interference factors, are quite different from those of DATCOM.

Recently, the authors have found that the results of DATCOM and ESDU

methods for aircraft directional stability evaluation can lead to significant discrepancies

for some configurations [19]. For instance, considering a typical turboprop aircraft
geometry, a sensitivity study on the effects of wing position (Figure 6) and of horizontal

tail position (Figure 7) has shown that the predicted values of vertical tail contribution

to aircraft directional stability may lead to a different vertical tail sizing and

performance. This is due to the different estimation of the aerodynamic interference

effects, which will be described in Section 5.4. Figure 6 shows that, while DATCOM

and ESDU methods agree for a high wing airplane, the latter predicts a vertical tail

yawing moment coefficient derivative that is 25% higher than the former for a low wing

aircraft. Figure 7 shows that the two methods disagree on the most significant

empennage configurations, with ESDU giving a vertical tail contribution to directional

stability that with respect to DATCOM is 25% higher in the case of body-mounted

horizontal tail, 10% higher for a cruciform tail, and 7% lower in the case of a T-tail

configuration.

In another recent work [20], the authors have highlighted the importance of a

correct vertical tail sizing to avoid stability and control issues. Perkins and Hage [1]

stated that the airplane has better flying qualities with a high directional stability, with

typical values (per degree) of CNβ from 0.0015 to 0.0020 for normal aircraft and from

0.0008 to 0.0010 for World War II fighters. A high wing loading should increase the

aircraft directional stability because a reduced wing span should lead to reduced

directional perturbations. For this reason, they suggested an expression of the desirable

aircraft directional stability as a fraction of the span loading

𝑊
𝐶𝑁𝛽 = 0.0005√𝑏2 (3)

which holds true as long as linearity of CN with β is valid. In ref. [20] the authors have

also highlighted the importance of non-linear effects in aircraft directional stability and

control. For instance, an oversized vertical tail planform area can lead to insufficient
control capability, since the aircraft becomes directionally too stable and it is unable to

counteract crosswinds and lateral gusts. Figure 8 shows the required rudder deflections

to fly with given sideslip angles, for two identical regional turboprop airplanes with

different vertical tail planform areas and same rudder chord ratios. The baseline aircraft

with a tail area of 13 m2 can maintain control linearity, with good approximation, up to

15° of sideslip angle; the same aircraft is able to keep 24° of sideslip at full rudder

deflection. On the other hand, the aircraft with an increased tail area of 20 m2 maintains

a linear control up to 12° of sideslip, then a further rudder deflection stalls the vertical

tail, which now needs 25° of rudder deflection to counteract less than 14° of sideslip

angle. This leads to the rule of thumb of keeping the derivative dδr/dβ < 1, that is the

value of directional stability derivative CNβ should be lower than the value of the

directional control derivative CNδr. Moreover, an oversized tail is heavier, produces

more parasite drag, and may result in an airborne minimum control speed that is below

the minimum airspeed value (usually 1.13 times the stall speed at take-off VsTO) stated

by aviation authorities (Figure 9). If this happens, the airplane becomes directionally

controllable in flight at airspeed below the stall speed (multiplied by a safety factor),

which is clearly useless.

For the reasons stated in this section, the authors focused their research on the

aircraft aerodynamics in sideslip, with the objective to develop an alternative method to

those provided by DATCOM and ESDU. To highlight the aerodynamic interference

between aircraft components, many numerical simulations have been performed and

validated through wind tunnel tests. Advantages and drawbacks of several numerical

techniques are discussed in the next section.

4. Numerical methods

The use of Computational Fluid Dynamics for industrial aircraft design started

in the ’60s as a support to wind tunnel or flight experiments, making important

contributions to all stages of the design of a flight vehicle [21]. Until then, only wind

tunnel tests could provide useful information about directional stability. The wind

tunnel is traditionally the primary tool to provide aerodynamic inputs for simulation

databases, yet some issues can lead to serious errors in the predicted stability and

control characteristics [22]. For instance, the operation at a lower than free flight

Reynolds number causes large discrepancies on boundary layer separation in certain

configurations. Moreover, wind tunnel tests require both the construction of a model

and an adequate test facility. Additionally, the lag time between the outputs of

preliminary calculations and wind tunnel results on the same given design can be

considerable. Finally, any configuration change requires a change of the test model.

This greatly increases the cost of the product and the product time to market. In

numerical analyses, the computer acts as a virtual wind tunnel, where the fundamental

equations of fluid dynamics are manipulated to the desired degree of accuracy and

eventually solved around the bodies of interests. There are several techniques available

that are shortly discussed here.

The first numerical codes available for aerodynamic investigation were panel

methods [23], in which the linear, potential, subsonic flow theory is applied. They solve

the Prandtl-Glauert equation for linear, inviscid, irrotational flow about aircraft flying at

subsonic or supersonic speeds. There are fundamental analytic solutions to the Prandtl-

Glauert equation known as source, doublet, and vorticity singularities. Panel methods

are based on the principle of superimposing surface distributions of these singularities

over small quadrilateral portions, called panels, of the (approximate) aircraft surface.

The resulting distribution of superimposed singularities automatically satisfies the

Prandtl-Glauert equation. To make the solution correspond to the desired geometry,

boundary conditions are imposed at discrete points (named control points) of the panels

[23]. The unknowns of the equations are located only on the panels, that is on the

aircraft surface, hence panel methods reduce the order of the aerodynamic problem by

one, avoiding solving the three-dimensional flow field, and permit the handling of

complex geometries with a relative small number of unknowns [24].

In their simplest form, panel codes do not account for viscosity. Viscosity is

responsible of momentum loss in boundary layer because of skin-friction and pressure

drag, increasing boundary layer thickness, decreasing lift gradient, and flow separation.

Neglecting viscosity gives a fair good approximation only in attached flow regimes at

high Reynolds numbers. Panel codes can be coupled with boundary layer codes to

estimate the friction drag: a displacement thickness, due to the loss of momentum in the

boundary layer, is calculated on the body walls by the viscous code; this displacement

thickness is added to the previous geometry, providing the new input surface of the

panel code; the process is repeated until a convergence criterion is finally satisfied [23].

However, a fundamental limitation remains: panel methods solve only linear differential

equations, i.e. they can simulate only attached flows. Also, since panel methods do not

compute the pressure in the separated flow regime, prediction of pressure drag is not

possible. Finally, by their own nature, panel codes can hardly provide wake-body

interference, since the shape of the vortex sheet is unknown a priori [24]. It is possible

to determine the pressure acting on bodies in the region of wing-body interference in

subsonic flow with a hybrid panel method [25], but viscosity is neglected again.
 The complexity and costs of wind tunnel tests and the increasing viscosity

effects at high angles of incidence led to the development of Navier-Stokes solvers [26],

which represent, in principle, the true simulation of the physics of the viscous flow.

Compared to the panel codes, they are much more computationally expensive, also due

to the generation of an adequate computational mesh, and the problem of turbulence

modeling is still open. However, adequate turbulence models do exist for aeronautical

applications and the possibility to simulate and visualize a viscous flow pay back these

disadvantages, as will be shown next.

Thus, the limits of wind-tunnel investigation and panel codes can be overcome

by modern CFD. The available Navier-Stokes solvers are so powerful to offer

significant benefits as companions to the experimental methods when designers need

reasonably accurate aerodynamic predictions. Since 1985 the increased computational

power and the development of new solution techniques and turbulence modeling have

permitted an extensive application of CFD in aircraft aerodynamic analysis and design

[21][27][28]. Panel methods have been discarded in the numerical investigations

performed by the authors, because of their misprediction of the aerodynamic

interference.

Although other more complex numerical techniques and tools are available, as

Large Eddy Simulations (LES) or Detached Eddy Simulations (DES) solvers, which are

naturally unsteady, and even Direct Navier-Stokes (DNS) codes, which are practically

applicable only to very simple geometries, the authors focused on the applications of

RANS. This is motivated by the nature of the topic and by the encouraging results

attained in several years of research in numerical and experimental aerodynamics,

which have led to the evaluation of performance, high lift, flight loads, stability and
control, and to the overall design of various general aviation and regional turboprop

airplanes. In recent years, the aerodynamics characteristics of a new commuter aircraft

have been deeply investigated, the satisfying agreement between numerical predictions

and wind tunnel tests both in longitudinal and lateral-directional axes are highlighted in

refs. [29]-[31]. Aerodynamic design, analysis, and optimization of regional turboprop

airplanes have also deeply exploited the numerical tools [32]. The numerical high lift

prediction on the NASA common research model [33] and the parametric investigations

on aircraft dorsal fin [34] enabled further confidence in the available numerical

capabilities in the non-linear range of aerodynamics.

The analysis on the aerodynamic interference effects involved in sideslip

conditions [19] stimulated further investigations to develop an alternative method to

evaluate aircraft directional stability [35]-[37] and to provide a more reliable tool for the

preliminary design of the vertical stabilizer of a regional turboprop aircraft. The same

approach has been applied to fuselage aerodynamics [38] and control power estimation

of a directional rudder [39]. The numerical analyses that allowed to highlight the

aerodynamic interference issues in aircraft directional stability are described in the next

section.

5. Design of CFD experiments on a reference aircraft configuration

The mutual aerodynamic interference between the main aerodynamic components of a

generic regional turboprop airplane has been investigated for hundreds of configurations

with STAR-CCM+ [40]. The solver has been widely used on the computing grid

infrastructure SCoPE (www.scope.unina.it) provided by the University of Naples

Federico II to simulate many configurations in a reasonably short amount of time.

Figure 10 shows the time necessary to solve a RANS simulation versus CPUs number

for two configurations: a body-tail combination with 1.8 million cells and 2000

iterations and a complete aircraft in high lift configuration with 18 million cells and

10000 iterations. Simple configurations, such as isolated fin or fuselage-fin, can be

analyzed on desktop workstations within hours, while more complex geometries, such

as wing-body with flap and slat, require a fine mesh and many iterations to achieve

numerical convergence. In these cases, the typical computational time is 1 or 2 days per

angle of attack.

The numerical investigation campaign has been performed assuming a subsonic,

incompressible, stationary, and fully turbulent flow regime. STAR-CCM+ applies the

finite volume method to convert the continuous system of flow equations to a set of

discrete algebraic equations [40].

The Spalart-Allmaras (SA) turbulence model [41] has been applied. The original

model was developed primarily for the aerospace industry for attached boundary layers

and flows with mild separation (such as flow past a wing). It has been found that this

model is reliable for external aerodynamics, even at high angles of attack and in high

lift configurations [33][42][43], provided that a properly refined mesh is chosen and the

level of refinement is determined on the basis of a grid convergence study.

5.1 The aircraft model and sampling plan

The aircraft investigated is the modular model shown in Figure 11. Several wing

positions, wing aspect ratios, vertical tailplane planforms, horizontal tailplane positions,

and three fuselages have been arranged in many different combinations to perform a

parametric investigation. The wing is straight and untapered with an aspect ratio A
varying from 6 to 14, with step 2. The fuselage is a narrow body with a circular section

and with three different after-bodies (tail-cones). These parameters are summarized in

Table 1. The horizontal stabilizer is straight and untapered, with a fixed aspect ratio (Ah

= 4.5). The vertical tailplane aspect ratio Av is varied from 0.4 to 4, the sweep angle Λv

from 0° to 60°, and the taper ratio λv from 0.3 to 1. Three different vertical tail

planforms families have been analyzed. The main set, which has been used throughout

the investigation, is made up of four planforms with the same sweep angles, but

different aspect ratios, areas and taper ratios. A single vertical tail in this set has been

cut in distinct parts by 3 horizontal planes (Figure 12a). The choice of the second set

follows the same principles of the previous one, except that the fin planforms are

unswept and untapered (Figure 12b). The third set is made up of planforms with a

constant taper ratio, but different areas and aspect ratios (Figure 12c). The last two

families have been used only in the investigation on the fuselage effect described in

Section 6.2. The vertical tail parameters are summarized in Table 2. The use of different

planform areas is not an issue, because, for the evaluation of the aerodynamic

interference, the effect of vertical tail area is canceled, as shown in the following

sections. The number of simulations for each configuration is reported in Table 3. More

than 200 simulations have been performed to write a database on the regional turboprop

aircraft directional stability. The geometries have been kept simple to automate the

mesh generation process and to realize a modular model to be tested in the wind tunnel.

Particular attention has been given to the vertical tailplane and the fuselage, since these

are the most important components in aircraft directional stability. The analyses have

shown that wing and horizontal stabilizer do not directly affect directional stability, but

rather influence the vertical tailplane and fuselage behavior in sideslip.

5.2 Mesh set-up

The computational domain is made up of polyhedral cells, whose number changes

according to the configuration analyzed and increases up to 10 million for a complete

aircraft configuration. A careful grid optimization study enabled to find a convenient

expansion rate of the volume of cells from the no-slip walls to the external boundaries

of the computational domain. This allowed to save up memory and computational time,

reducing the total cells number to 3 million for a complete aircraft configuration,

keeping the same aircraft surface mesh distribution. It has been also verified that this

grid density optimization option did not alter the results and saved hours of

computational time in later analyses. A mesh scene is shown in Figure 13. The far-field

dimensions are 30b × 20b × 20b, where b is the wing span, and the model is located at a

distance of 10b from the inlet face. To account for boundary layer effect, a prismatic

mesh of 20 layers has been extruded from the aircraft walls. The prism layer distribution

and thickness are such that the dimensionless wall distance y+ ≤ 1 on the model surface.

This is necessary to correctly capture the viscous effects with the Spalart-Allmaras

turbulence model [40].

5.3 Effect of the Reynolds number

The effects of the Reynolds number on the stability derivatives is negligible at low

sideslip angles, as shown in Figure 14. Test cases for several models in different

conditions of Reynolds and Mach numbers have been presented in [19]. All the

numerical analyses, whose results have been organized in the metamodel introduced in

Section 6, have been performed at angle of attack α = 0° and angle of sideslip β = 5°,
with a Reynolds number based on the wing mean aerodynamic chord Re ≈ 1000000,

which is close to the value attainable in low-speed wind tunnels.

5.4 Aerodynamic interference

A typical aircraft yawing moment coefficient breakdown is shown in Figure 15. The

fuselage contribution is unstable (dCN/dβ < 0), whereas the vertical tail contribution is

stabilizing (dCN/dβ > 0) and about twice the fuselage contribution, which is a typical

result for regional turboprop aircraft. Straight wing surfaces give negligible direct

contribution to directional stability, whereas their aerodynamic interference on the

vertical tail may be significant, as described in the following.

5.4.1 Effect of the fuselage

The crossflow of a fuselage in sideslip exhibits a behavior similar to a two-dimensional

airflow over a cylinder. The effect of the fuselage is to accelerate the lateral velocity

near the root of the vertical tail, see Figure 16. The max local velocity occurs at the

intersection between the fuselage and the vertical tail. For potential flow, such velocity

is equal to twice the free-stream cross-flow velocity V∞ sinβ. In a viscous flow,

separation exists on the leeward side, reducing the maximum velocity with respect to

the value attainable by an ideal potential flow. Velocity magnitude decays to the free-

stream cross-flow value with aft distance from the body surface. Test data (see [9],

§5.3.1.1) show that tail-body combinations with large bodies and small tails have a

greater effectiveness per unit area than combinations with large tails and small bodies.

The fuselage directly alters the vertical tail incidence because of the cross-flow around

the body. Also, the vertical tail influences the fuselage, decreasing its unstable
contribution. Typical values of vertical tail increment in yawing moment coefficient

vary from 10% to 20%. The effect of the vertical tail on the fuselage is typically

between 13% to 20% of directional instability reduction compared with an isolated

fuselage. For a regional turboprop, the fuselage contribution is usually half of the

absolute value of vertical tail contribution, hence the total effect due to the vertical tail –

body aerodynamic interference may be an increase from 16% to 30% of directional

stability with respect to the isolated vertical stabilizer.

5.4.2 Effect of the wing

Sidewash is an aerodynamic interference effect analogous to the downwash in the

longitudinal plane, which indirectly affects the incidence of the vertical tail because of

the generation of a vortex system from the wing-body in sideslip (see [9], §5.3.1.1).

Computational aerodynamics shows that wing and fuselage exhibit a significant mutual

interference and that most of the sidewash is due to the wing vertical mounting position

in fuselage. Aspect ratio has a minor effect; a wing of smaller aspect ratio typically

produces a stronger sidewash.

Figure 17 shows the flow field around two airplane configurations with low and

high wing, with no horizontal stabilizer. Streamlines departing from the wing trailing

edge show the effect of the aerodynamic interference of the wing-fuselage system and

help to explain why a low wing configuration induces an increased effectiveness of the

vertical tail in sideslip with respect to a high wing configuration. In the case of low

wing, the streamlines close to the body deviate upward following the fuselage upsweep

until separation at the body stern (Figure 17a). In the case of high wing, the streamlines

in proximity of the fuselage are pushed down, then proceed downwind almost parallel
to the other streamlines (Figure 17b). For both configurations, the aerodynamic force

(pressure + shear) and pressure coefficient distribution at the vertical tail mean

aerodynamic chord section are also shown. The low wing configuration has a higher

peak of pressure coefficient, although the difference with the high wing configuration is

small. The increase (low wing) or decrease (high wing) of vertical tail effectiveness due

to the wing mounting position in fuselage is around 10%.

5.4.3 Effect of the horizontal tail

The presence of a horizontal panel near a vertical tail causes a change in the pressure

loading of the latter. This effect is more significant if the horizontal panel is mounted

where the vertical tail exhibits an appreciable gradient, i.e. at a relatively high or low

position, as shown in Figure 18. Test data (see [9], §5.3.1.1) highlight the greater

effectiveness of horizontal panels in these positions and the relative ineffectiveness of a

horizontal panel at the midspan position on the vertical tail (cruciform empennage). At

subsonic speeds, the aircraft fuselage and horizontal tail affect the flow on the vertical

tail in such a way as to increase the effectiveness of the vertical tail. This phenomenon,

known as the end-plate effect, is represented in DATCOM [9] by an effective change in

vertical tail aspect ratio required to give the same lift effectiveness as the actual

planform in the presence of the other airplane components. The magnitude of this effect

depends also from vertical tail aspect ratio, wing position, and fuselage after-body

shape. The increase of vertical tail effectiveness in sideslip may be up to 45% for a T-

tail configuration, whereas the fuselage unstable contribution may be reduced up to 10%

for a body-mounted horizontal tail. Cruciform empennage configurations slightly

decrease the effectiveness of vertical tail in sideslip.

6. A modern semi-empirical method for the evaluation of aircraft directional

stability

By combining the geometries presented in the previous sections, a metamodel has been

generated from the results of the numerical analyses. The aircraft yawing moment

coefficient derivative due to sideslip can be calculated as the sum of the contributions of

vertical tail, fuselage, wing, and horizontal tail

𝐶𝑁𝛽 = 𝐶𝑁𝛽𝑣 + 𝐶𝑁𝛽 + 𝐶𝑁𝛽𝑤 + 𝐶𝑁𝛽 (4)

𝑓 ℎ

where each term includes the aerodynamic interference, which will be calculated in the

following. For a regional turboprop airplane, with a straight tapered wing, the vertical

tailplane and the fuselage give the main contributions, defined as follows
𝑙𝑣 𝑆𝑣
𝐶𝑁𝛽𝑣 = 𝐾𝐹𝑣 𝐾𝑊𝑣 𝐾𝐻𝑣 𝐶𝐿𝛼𝑣 (5)
𝑏 𝑆

𝐶𝑁𝛽 = 𝐾𝑉𝑓 𝐾𝑊𝑓 𝐾𝐻𝑓 𝐶𝑁isolated

𝛽
(6)
𝑓 𝑓

The vertical tail contribution is stable (and usually reported with positive sign), whereas

the fuselage contribution is unstable. The lift curve slope of the isolated vertical

tailplane CLαv and the yawing moment coefficient derivative due to sideslip of the

isolated fuselage CNβf are corrected by the interference factors K(∙), which are ratios of

aerodynamic coefficients between two configurations differing for only one component.

For instance, the effect of the fuselage on the vertical tail contribution to directional

stability is given by the ratio CNβv (FV) / CNβv (V), where F stands for fuselage and V

stands for vertical tailplane. The effect of the wing (W) on the vertical tail is given by

the ratio CNβv (WFV) / CNβv (FV), that is wing – fuselage – vertical tail combination

over fuselage – vertical tail combination. Similarly, for the horizontal tailplane (H) the

effect is measured by the ratio CNβv (WFVH) / CNβv (WFV). In this way, the global
effect of the aerodynamic interference can be obtained by multiplying these factors.

Each interference factor K(∙) is defined such that K(∙) > 1 means that the aerodynamic

interference increases the value of the derivative CNβ, while K(∙) < 1 reduces the amount

of directional stability.

6.1 Isolated vertical tail and fuselage

The lift curve slope CLαv of the isolated vertical tailplane is a function of its planform

(Figure 4), airfoil shape, and Mach number. It can be predicted by the Helmbold-

Diederich [44][45] formula for vertical tail, also illustrated in Figure 19 at M = 0

2 Av
CL v  (7)
B Av  tan  v ,c /2 
2 2 2
2 1  4
 
2
B2 

where Av is the vertical tail aspect ratio, B is the compressibility parameter 1  M 2 , κ

is the ratio of section lift-curve slope to theoretical thin-section value that for thin

airfoils can be approximated to 1/B, Λv,c/2 is the vertical tail sweep angle at half chord.

The yawing moment coefficient derivative CNβf of the isolated fuselage may be

evaluated as described in Ref. [38]

𝑆front 𝑑𝑓
𝐶𝑁isolated = (𝐶𝑁𝛽 + ∆𝐶𝑁𝛽 + ∆𝐶𝑁𝛽 ) (8)
𝛽
𝑓 𝑓slend 𝑓nose 𝑓tail 𝑆 𝑏

where the reference system of the isolated fuselage is shown in Figure 20; CNf slend is the

yawing moment coefficient as function of fuselage slenderness ratio Lf/Df (see Figure

21); ΔCNf nose is the yawing moment correction factor due to the nose slenderness ratio

Ln/Df (see Figure 22); ΔCNf tail is the yawing moment correction factor due to the tail-

cone slenderness ratio Lt/Df (see Figure 23). These data are referred to the fuselage

frontal area Sfront and cabin equivalent diameter df, which are related as follows
 𝑑𝑓2
𝑆front = 𝜋 (9)
4

In the case of a cabin with circular cross-section one has df = Df.

6.2 Fuselage - vertical tail interference factors KFv and KVf

The interference factor KFv is defined as the ratio between the yawing moment

coefficient of the fuselage - vertical tail combination to the yawing moment coefficient

of the isolated vertical tailplane

𝐶𝑁𝛽 (FV)
𝐾𝐹𝑣 = 𝑣
(10)
𝐶𝑁𝛽 (V)
𝑣

where the geometric parameter governing this factor is the ratio of the vertical tail span

bv to fuselage height dfv at vertical tail mean aerodynamic chord, representing the

relative size between the vertical stabilizer and the fuselage section, see Figure 24. Data

points have been parameterized with fuselage tail-cone shape, defined in Figure 25. The

effect of the fuselage on the vertical tailplane in sideslip is represented in Figure 26. The

markers represent the combinations analyzed with CFD. There is an increase of vertical

tail effectiveness in sideslip (i.e. KFv > 1) in almost all the configurations analyzed,

although each fuselage exhibits a different trend.

The effect of the vertical tailplane on the fuselage in sideslip is represented in

Figure 27. The interference factor KVf is defined as the ratio between the yawing

moment coefficient of the fuselage - vertical tail combination to

the yawing moment coefficient of the isolated fuselage

𝐶𝑁𝛽 (FV)
𝑓
𝐾𝑉𝑓 = (11)
𝐶𝑁𝛽 (F)
𝑓

that depends again on the geometric parameter bv/dfv. It is here noted that for all the

combinations investigated, the interference factor KVf < 1 anywhere, therefore the
vertical tailplane always reduces the fuselage instability in the sideslip range

investigated. Typical regional turboprop values of bv/dfv vary from 3 to 5. In this range,

the coupling between vertical tailplane and fuselage is always beneficial for both: the

vertical tailplane increases its effectiveness in sideslip by 10% to 20%, whereas the

fuselage directional instability is reduced by the same amount. Both contribute to

increase the yawing moment coefficient derivative CNβ of the airplane from 15% to

30%.

6.3 Wing interference factors KWv and KWf

The wing interference factors KWv and KWf represent the effects of wing sidewash on the

vertical tailplane and fuselage, respectively defined as

𝐶𝑁𝛽 (WFV)
𝐾𝑊𝑣 = 𝑣
(12)
𝐶𝑁𝛽 (FV)
𝑣

𝐶𝑁𝛽 (WFV)
𝑓
𝐾𝑊𝑓 = (13)
𝐶𝑁𝛽 (FV)
𝑓

These effects are functions of the vertical wing location on the fuselage zw/rf , fuselage

tail-cone shape zftc/rf (i.e. wing - vertical tailplane relative position), and wing aspect

ratio A. A previous investigation [19] has shown that results do not change with vertical

tail aspect ratio Av. If an aircraft configuration is not directly represented, it is always

possible to interpolate values between two charts. The reference system for wing

position is shown in Figure 28, whereas that describing the fuselage tail-cone shape has

been reported in Figure 25.

The effect KWv of the aerodynamic interference of the wing on the vertical tail is

reported in Figure 29. The markers represent the results of CFD analyses. The mid-low

position is the most favorable, increasing the vertical tail contribution to directional
stability up to 13%, whereas the high wing reduces this contribution from 7% to 17%

according to wing position and fuselage tail-cone shape. The effect of the wing aspect

ratio is to slightly modify the KWv factor, especially at the high and low wing positions,

zw/rf = −1 and 1 respectively. The typical effect of larger wing aspect ratios is to reduce

both the positive and negative perturbation of the wing, with the exception of the

configurations with low-wing (zw/rf = −1) and fuselage tail-cones with zftc/rf = 0.5 to 1,

where the KWv factor is greater than that due to a lower aspect ratio wings. This is

probably due to the longer distance between wing wake and wingtip vortices from the

vertical tail surface.

The charts representing the interference effect of the wing on the fuselage KWf

are shown in Figure 30. Their trend is the opposite of the KWv factor. Since the fuselage

is an aerodynamically unstable body, an interference factor K > 1 indicates an increase

in directional instability. The numerical analyses show variations from −14% to 16% of

fuselage directional instability.

6.4 Horizontal tail interference factors KHv and KHf

The horizontal tailplane interference factors are defined as follows, for the vertical tail

and fuselage, respectively

𝐶𝑁𝛽 (WFVH)
𝐾𝐻𝑣 = 𝑣
(14)
𝐶𝑁𝛽 (WFV)
𝑣

𝐶𝑁𝛽 (WFVH)
𝑓
𝐾𝐻𝑓 = (15)
𝐶𝑁𝛽 (WFV)
𝑓

To evaluate the effects of the empennage configuration under the influence of fuselage

tail-cone shape zftc/rf, wing position zw/rf, vertical tail aspect ratio Av, and horizontal tail

position zh/bv1, 18 charts are needed. If an aircraft configuration is not directly

represented, it is always possible to interpolate values between curves and charts. Also,

the effects of a translation of the horizontal tailplane along a chord of the vertical

stabilizer and the effects of the relative size of tailplanes are one order of magnitude less

than the presented values [19], therefore they are here neglected.

The reference system describing the empennage configuration is shown in

Figure 31, whereas that describing the fuselage tail-cone shape has been reported in

Figure 25.

Results of the aerodynamic interference on the vertical tail are reported in Figure

32. The horizontal tailplane may increase or decrease the effectiveness of the vertical

stabilizer according to the empennage configuration. The end-plate effect is apparent in

all wing-fuselage combinations, where the increment of the vertical tail contribution to

directional stability varies from 16% to 45%, according to the vertical tail aspect ratio,

wing position, and fuselage tail-cone shape. The lower is the vertical tail aspect ratio,

the stronger is the interference effect. The body-mounted horizontal tail also exhibits an

increase of vertical tail effectiveness in sideslip, although less strong than the T-tail

configuration and with a reduced influence of vertical tail aspect ratio. In this case the

interference factor ranges from 11% to 28%. If the relative position of the horizontal tail

is between the 30% and the 75% of the vertical tail span (extended to the body-mounted

tail position), the aerodynamic interference effect is usually unfavorable, with a

directional stability reduction up to 8%. For this reason, cruciform tailplane

configurations should be avoided, if not required by other constraints.

Results of the aerodynamic interference on the fuselage are reported in Figure

33. The fuselage directional instability is usually reduced in the body-mounted

horizontal tail configuration by 4% to 12%. The highest reduction in fuselage

directional instability happens when the horizontal tail is mounted on the fuselage itself,

as expected. As the horizontal panel is moved on the vertical tail, up to the T-tail

configuration, this effect is reduced, as the interference factor tends to 1 for most of the

airplane configurations. Further details about these numerical analyses are given in

Appendix A of Ref. [46], where the effect of the horizontal tail longitudinal position

and its size with respect to the vertical tail size are accounted for.

7. Wind tunnel validation

7.1 The wind tunnel test model

The aircraft model for the wind tunnel has been designed to have interchangeable

components. The aim is to reproduce the configurations investigated by numerical

analyses. Most of the layouts described in Section 5.1 have been reproduced. The

design effort was to provide a model easy to manufacture and assembly. The geometric

numerical model for the CFD analyses has been designed to comply with these

requirements, but the physical model for the wind tunnel analyses must also be easy to

setup quickly, since the objective of the experimental investigations is to provide

aerodynamic data (force and moment coefficients) for many configurations. Therefore,

the time to switch among configurations must be as short as possible. Moreover, to

assess the effects of aerodynamic interference on the vertical tail, a solution allowing

the direct measure of the aerodynamic force on the empennage has been provided.

The model main dimensions are reported in Figure 34. It is 2.0 m long and 1.5 m

wide. The wing span is limited by the wind tunnel test section width. The aspect ratio is

held to A = 8.3. The model total height (with the longest vertical tail span) is about

0.6 m. An exploded view of the model is reported in Figure 35. The dimensions of the
main components are reported in Table 4 and Table 5. Some details about these

components are given in the following.

The fuselage central body (Figure 36) is the component to which all the other main

parts are linked. It provides housing for the wind tunnel balance, obtained by hollowing

the central, lower part. It allows the wing to be placed in low, mid, and high position.

The wing airfoil section is a NACA 23015, typical for regional turbopropeller

transport airplane. The wing has a straight untapered planform of 1.5 m span and 8.3

aspect ratio. The effects of the latter have not been investigated experimentally. As

previously stated, the wing span, and hence the aspect ratio, is limited by the wind

tunnel test section width. Four countersunk M6 screws are used to attach the wing in

high and low positions in fuselage.

Three vertical tail planforms, shown in Figure 37, are provided. The airfoil

section is the NACA 0012. The root chord and the sweep angle is the same for the three

planforms. The aspect ratios Av investigated are 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0. Each planform

presents pairs of holes at several span stations. These are used to insert the horizontal

tail spars to get different empennage configurations.

Three fuselage tail-cones, shown in Figure 38, are provided to investigate the

effects of the wing-body wake on the empennage. To get experimental data about the

vertical tail in various aircraft configurations, the vertical stabilizer has been attached to

a separate load cell, which, in turn, is attached to the fuselage. The space to allow load

cell and empennage mounting is shown in Figure 39. It provides enough volume to

protect the load cell and its supporting plates from the aerodynamic flow. A slot on the

bottom fuselage surface has been designed to accommodate the data acquisition cable

from the load cell to the wind tunnel acquisition system. The slot continues through the
fuselage cabin, allowing the cable to be safely taken to the wind tunnel balance sting,

avoiding aerodynamic interference. The tail-cone is a crucial component, because it

must: (i) support the empennage; (ii) be stiff enough to not be deformed under

aerodynamic loads; (iii) be easily handled during the change of configuration; (iv) not

weigh too much on the fuselage cabin.

The only constraint between the vertical tail and the fuselage is a mono-axial

load cell, which is linked to the fuselage on one side and to the vertical stabilizer on the

other side. Thus, the latter is suspended on the load cell, since no contact can be allowed

with the fuselage to avoid the direct transmission of the aerodynamic loads from the tail

to the body, to measure the aerodynamic forces acting on the vertical tail in each aircraft

configuration. For this reason, an empty space, few millimeters thick, between the

vertical tail root section and the fuselage has been provided. The empennage assembly

is shown in Figure 40 and a description of the load path is reported in Figure 41. The

idea is to get aerodynamic data from both the vertical tail (through the load cell) and the

entire aircraft (through the wind tunnel balance) at the same time, to evaluate the

aerodynamic interference following the approach of the metamodel described in

Section 6.

The aircraft model has been mainly realized by computer numerical control (CNC)

milling. The non-metal parts are made from a high density machinable polyurethane

slab named PROLAB 65, which properties are described in Table 6. The total milled

surface is about 3.90 m2. The complete model weighs 50 kg, with a center of gravity

close to the wing leading edge.

7.2 The wind tunnel facility

The experimental tests campaign has been performed in the main subsonic wind tunnel

facility of the Department of Industrial Engineering (DII). This is a subsonic, closed-

circuit tunnel shown in Figure 42, with a tempered rectangular cross section. The main

wind-tunnel characteristics are summarized in Table 7. The main components of the

closed-circuit tunnel are described in detail in [47].

The measurement instrumentation consists of an internal strain gage balance for

the measurement of aerodynamic forces and moments, a Venturi system to measure the

dynamic pressure, a potentiometer to measure the sideslip angle, and a temperature

probe to measure the static temperature in the test section. Some details are given in the

following.

The internal strain gage balance has three channels and it is used to measure the

sideforce, yawing moment, and rolling moment. It is made from an Al-2024-T3

aluminum block. The calibration has been previously performed by Corcione [47], who

followed the procedure described in the book of Barlow, Rae, and Pope [48]. The

calibration procedure is also essential to estimate the balance center to transfer forces

and moments to the desired reference point, e.g. the 25% of wing m.a.c. The maximum

error in average is about 0.1% of the full scale maximum load of each measured force or

moment.

The off-center load cell is a Picotronik AAC model, used to directly measure

the sideforce generated by the vertical tail. It is made from aluminum alloy and it has 15

kgf full scale, with 2.0mV/V ±10% nominal sensitivity. Its dimensions are 130 × 30 ×

22 mm.

The wind tunnel is equipped with 4 static pressure probes placed on both faces

of initial and final sections of the nozzle. A pressure transducer (with 2500 Pa full scale
and 3 Pa accuracy) measures the static pressure variation between these sections and,

through the continuity equation, gives the dynamic pressure at the exit of the nozzle.

Several tests without the model in the test section and at different air speeds have shown

that the dynamic pressure at the end of the nozzle is 1.09 the measured dynamic

pressure. Since it is impossible to use a Pitot probe to measure the dynamic pressure in

the test section in presence of the scale model (the test section should be long enough to

guarantee that the measure is not affected by the pressure field produced by the model

in the test section), the only available measure of the dynamic pressure is obtained by

the Venturi, thus the above-mentioned 9% increase is assumed to be valid also with the

model in the test section.

The sideslip angle has been measured with a potentiometer having an accuracy

of 0.1°. Once installed, the available range for the sideslip angle is from −15° to +25°.

The sideslip angle has been defined positive when the airflow comes from the left wing

of the model. This is the opposite of the usual convention [48], because of the operator’s

point of view of the test chamber.

The temperature probe is a flush wall-mounted probe for the measurement of

the static temperature to determine the true test section speed, using the Bernoulli

incompressible equation, and to obtain the mass density through the equation of state.

The control instrumentation used in this test campaign consists of a kinematic

mechanism (handled by the operator) with a crank handle fixed at the end of a

horizontal shaft acting as worm-screw. This shaft transmits the rotatory motion to the

vertical axis of a small diameter gear wheel. The rotatory motion is then transmitted to a

larger gear wheel through a steel chain reducing the angular velocity of the model. A
steel plate, which is at level with the floor, is fixed to the axis of the second gear wheel.

The steel plate allows the whole assembly sting-balance-model to rotate.

The instrumentation for acquisition and elaboration consist of: a 16 channels

SPARTAN system (produced by Imc DataWorks, LLC) for the acquisition and

conversion into 16 bit of output data coming from the measurement instrumentation; a

desktop PC, provided with an interface software for the A/D converter; a software for

the elaboration and visualization of the acquired data. The software, named WT6, has

been developed by researchers of the DII laboratory.

7.3 Wind tunnel corrections, transitional strips, and uncertainty of measures

In wind tunnel testing there are some constraints due to the nature of the tunnel

itself. While there is no difference in having the model at rest and the air moving around

it, the distances of some or all the stream boundaries from the model under test are

usually less than the corresponding distances for flight operations. In addition, the flow

properties in the test section may not be the same in space and time. To include

appropriate corrections, the effects of horizontal buoyancy, solid and wake blockages,

streamline curvature, and normal, spanwise, and tail downwash have been considered as

described in Ref. [48]. For a typical configuration, as shown in Figure 43, the solid

blockage is 0.0115, whereas for the fuselage alone it is 0.0101.

Since the Reynolds number of scaled aircraft models in low-speed wind tunnels

cannot be as large as those occurring in real flight conditions, the boundary-layer

transition on wind tunnel models must be promoted artificially. In the experimental

campaign presented here this has been achieved by means of trip strips, made of

adhesive tape with triangular edges, placed on all components of the aircraft. The
thickness and the right position of the trip strips have been estimated by arranging ad

hoc of flow visualizations using fluorescent oil. Results led to the conclusion that 2

layers of tape are sufficient to get the boundary layer transition at the desired place. The

location of the trip strips is at about 5% local chord for wing and horizontal tail, even

closer to the leading edge for the vertical tail, whereas they have been placed at 20%

nose length on the fuselage.

Effects of uncertainty of measurements on the lateral-directional static stability

derivatives have been estimated below 3%. Details about the wind tunnel preliminary

tests, including the effects of transition, the assessment of the uncertainty, as well as

further details on the CAD model are available in Ref. [46].

7.4 Wind tunnel results

The reference system adopted, shown in Figure 44, has the origin of the axes

at the balance center, with the x-axis parallel to the fuselage waterline and positive

towards the fuselage stern, the y-axis perpendicular to the symmetry plane and positive

towards the right wing, and the z-axis perpendicular to the other two and positive

upward. The sideslip angle is considered positive when both the wind components are

positive, i.e. when the side wind is coming from the left wing. With this reference

system, for a positive sideslip angle, a yawing moment N > 0 means the model is

directionally stable, whereas a rolling moment L < 0 means the model is laterally stable.

In other words:

CNβ > 0 is required for directional stability;

CLβ < 0 is required for lateral stability.

Yawing, rolling moments, and their derivatives have been reduced to the mid wing

aerodynamic center, which is also the reference point in the numerical analyses of

Section 5.4. Its location related to the balance center is shown in Figure 45. The

quantities of interest are the model total yawing moment coefficient derivative CNβ and

the vertical tail yawing moment coefficient derivative CNβv, approximated as the

incremental ratio

Cx  1   Cx   2 
C x  (16)
1   2

between β = −6° and +6° (Cxβ represents the generic directional stability derivative).

The Reynolds number based on wing mean aerodynamic chord is 470000. Features of

the aircraft configurations are shown from Figure 46 to Figure 49.

Comparisons between numerical and wind tunnel tests are here presented for

two configurations with the high after-body, the vertical tail planform with Av = 1.5,

high and low wing, and T-tail horizontal stabilizer, shown in Figure 50. Results for the

isolated components (vertical tail and fuselage) are reported in Figure 51 and Figure 52,

where the significant difference between numerical and experimental data at high

sideslip angles is worthy of further investigations.

Figure 53 shows the results for the body - vertical tail combination (BV). The

total and the vertical tail contributions, BV and V respectively, have been directly

measured, whereas the fuselage contribution B has been measured as the difference

(CN − CNv). The numerical results for the vertical tail contribution are overlapped by

experimental measurements, therefore the numerical prediction of the vertical tail

aerodynamics in the presence of other components is correct. As stated in Section 5.4.1,

the fuselage in sideslip conditions exhibits a crossflow similar to a two-dimensional

flow field past a cylinder, where the maximum local velocity occurs at the top at the
cylinder and decays further downstream to the freestream cross-flow value V∞ sinβ at

distance from the body surface. This phenomenon tends to increase the effectiveness of

the vertical tail: the fuselage directly alters the vertical tail incidence because of the

cross-flow around the body. At the same time, the vertical tail reduces the fuselage

instability in sideslip. In fact, the experimental results reported from Figure 54 to Figure

56 show that, as the sideslip angle increases over a certain value, the total yawing

moment coefficient CN increases its slope, while the slope of the vertical tail

contribution CNv remains almost constant up to the stall, and the fuselage instability,

represented by the negative slope of the CNf curve, is decreased. While the standard

semi-empirical methods consider the fuselage contribution to aircraft directional

stability unaffected by the presence of the vertical stabilizer [9], these wind tunnel tests

have shown the true repartition of the aerodynamic forces.

The wing gives a direct and favorable contribution to airplane directional

stability if it has a positive sweep angle [1]. For any sweep angle, the wing has always

an indirect effect due to the aerodynamic interference. The vortex system developed by

the wing-fuselage combination in sideslip, named sidewash and analogous to the

downwash in the longitudinal plane, indirectly affects the incidence of the vertical tail.

This effect is such to increase the vertical tail contribution to directional stability if the

wing is positioned low in fuselage, the contrary happens if the wing is high. The

comparison between numerical and experimental results is reported in Figure 57, for the

WBV configuration with high and low wing respectively. Again, the total and the

vertical tail contributions, WBV and V respectively, have been directly measured,

whereas the wing-body contribution WB has been measured as the difference

(CN − CNv).
 With the horizontal tail mounted on the vertical tail, the off-center load cell

measures the aerodynamic forces on the entire empennage (VH). However, the

horizontal tail provides only aerodynamic interference and not a direct contribution to

directional stability, as also proved by the significant agreement between numerical and

experimental data about the vertical tail in Figure 58. The maximum deviation from

wind tunnel results of the stability derivative CNβ predicted by CFD is about 15% on the

isolated fuselage and from 2% to 6% on the vertical tail in all the configurations.

The modern method of Section 6 has also been verified with wind tunnel data.

Some comparison between the curves of the proposed modern method and the data

points extracted from several wind tunnel tests are presented here. Figure 59 shows that

the effect of the fuselage on the vertical tail is captured with acceptable approximation.

The difference between results at zftc/rf = 0.5 is due to the arrangement of the tested

assembly, designed to avoid the direct contact of the surfaces of the vertical tail and the

fuselage, to allow a direct measure of the aerodynamic forces on the fin by means of the

load cell installed in the fuselage tail-cone. Such arrangement provides a gap at the

intersection between the vertical tail and the fuselage. This gap has been somewhat

reduced by using tape to extend the vertical tail root downward to prevent cross-flow at

the intersection, yet complete sealing of the assembly could not be achieved. The effect

of the horizontal tail is shown in Figure 60 for several possible configurations. This is

well predicted numerically, especially for the high-winged, high tail-cone configuration,

which represents the typical regional turboprop layout. Some data points are out of the

trend highlighted from numerical analyses. This is probably due to misalignment during

assembly and gaps between the empennage components.

8. Application of the proposed modern method and comparison with other semi-

empirical methods and experimental data

The proposed semi-empirical method for the evaluation of aircraft directional stability

has been implemented in JPAD [49], a Java-based computing library for aircraft

designers, developed by the authors at the University of Naples Federico II. A

standalone Java application dedicated to the aircraft directional stability has been

provided for this work and it has been called within a MATLAB script for each of the

complete aircraft configurations investigated in the wind tunnel test campaign. The

aerodynamic interference factors predicted by numerical analyses have been collected

as multi-dimensional arrays and stored into hierarchical data format HDF5 files. The

Java application reads an XML input file, interrogates the database, if necessary it

performs a linear interpolation among the available data, provides the interference

factors and the aerodynamic coefficients, then writes the results in an output XML file.

Each call to the Java application returns a point of a linear surface response of the

metamodel described in Section 6. Future development of the code may include other

polynomial surface responses. The MATLAB scripts written for this work calculates the

vertical tail directional stability derivatives with DATCOM [9] and ESDU [17]

methods, then calls the Java application that applies the alternative method, and

compare the results. Data are reported from Table 8 to Table 10, assuming wind tunnel

results as reference, with the following nomenclature:

• Aircraft components IDs are separated by underscores _

• Body is indicated by two letters (Figure 46)

o BH - body high zftc/rf =1.0

o BM - body mid zftc/rf =0.5

 o BL - body low zftc/rf =0

• Wing is indicated by two letters (Figure 47)

o WH - wing high zw/rf = 1

o WM - wing mid zw/rf = 0

o WL - wing low zw/rf = −1

• Vertical tail is indicated by a letter and two digits (Figure 48)

o V10 - Av = 1.0

o V15 - Av = 1.5

o V20 - Av = 2.0

• Horizontal tail is indicated by a letter and a digit (Figure 49)

o H1 – body-mounted tailplane zh/bv1 = 0

o H2 – low cruciform tailplane zh/bv1 = 0.38

o H3 – cruciform tailplane zh/bv1 = 0.62

o H4 – high cruciform tailplane zh/bv1 = 0.82

o H5 – T-tail configuration zh/bv1 = 1.0

Experimental data for the V10_H2 and V15_H2 combinations are not available due to

manufacturing reasons, hence they are not presented.

It can be observed that DATCOM and ESDU results do not change with

fuselage after-body shape, as the aerodynamic interference is calculated as function of

the vertical tail planform, vertical tail size with respect to the fuselage after-body, and

wing position with respect to the fuselage [9][17], while the relative position of the

vertical tail with respect to the fuselage central body and wing is not considered.

To get a clearer view of the reliability of the three methods, Figure 61 to Figure

63 show the relative error with respect to wind tunnel data, highlighting that the
alternative method performs better than the classical semi-empirical methods.

DATCOM and ESDU methods well predict configurations with high wing (WH) and

high tail-cones (BH), achieving an error below 15%. The relative error from wind

tunnel data increases up to 40% for mid wing (WM) configurations and up to 65% for

low wing configurations (WL). The proposed method exhibits an error below 20% for

all the configurations. For the body-mounted and T-tail configurations the error is below

5%, except for the low wing (WL), mid tail-cone (BM) configuration. As expected, the

new method is generally more reliable than the standard methods on the regional

turboprop aircraft configurations, because it has been developed from high fidelity

analyses.

9. Conclusion

The authors have reviewed the main semi-empirical methods available in literature for

the evaluation of aircraft directional stability and assessed their applicability in aircraft

design with computational aerodynamics examples. This review has highlighted the

limits of the available approaches, based on the results of wind tunnel tests performed in

the past decades on aircraft shapes quite different from modern transport airplanes, and

the need of a more reliable preliminary design method for airplane vertical stabilizers.

This has led to the development of an up-to-date semi-empirical method, based on the

results of CFD RANS simulations on hundreds of aircraft configurations obtained by

varying the layout of a modern representative regional transport airplane. The method

has been validated with wind tunnel results and performs better than the other semi-

empirical methods. This will hopefully reduce the sizing uncertainties in the aircraft

preliminary design phase. The methodology has also been successfully implemented in
the AGILE framework for the design and optimization of turboprop aircraft. Following

the AGILE paradigm, the method can be continuously enhanced. For instance, further

analyses can extend it to account for the effect of wing sweep (DATCOM provides a

small effect on the sidewash, while ESDU does not account for sweep angle) and to

include directional control derivatives. It has to be highlighted that the approach

adopted to develop the proposed method is also applicable to other types of research. In

such cases a convenient database of numerical results will be generated using high

fidelity tools and, successively, some meaningful flow conditions will be verified in

wind tunnel experiments. This could be useful in assessing the stability derivatives of

innovative aircraft configurations, which are not provided in standard semi-empirical

methods, and fully complies with the AGILE paradigm.

References

[1] Perkins CD, Hage RE. Airplane performance stability and control. Wiley, New

York, 1949. ISBN 9780471680468.

[2] Obert E. Aerodynamic design of transport aircraft. Ios Press, Amsterdam, The

Netherlands, 2009. ISBN 9781586039707.

[3] Torenbeek E. Synthesis of subsonic airplane design. Delft University Press, Delft,

1982. ISBN 9024727243.

[4] Raymer DP. Aircraft design: a conceptual approach. AIAA education series.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 5th edition, 2012.

ISBN 9781600869112.

[5] Gudmundsson S. General aviation aircraft design: applied methods and procedures.

Butterworth-Heinemann, 2013. ISBN 9780123973290.

[6] Ciampa PD, Nagel B. The AGILE Paradigm: the next generation of collaborative

MDO. In: 18th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization

Conference, Denver, Colorado, 2017.

[7] Lefebvre T, Bartoli N, Dubreuil S, Panzeri M, Lombardi R, D'Ippolito R, Della

Vecchia P, Nicolosi F, Ciampa PD. Methodological enhancements in MDO process

investigated in the AGILE European project. In: 18th AIAA/ISSMO

Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Denver, Colorado, 2017.

[8] Della Vecchia P, Stingo L, Corcione S, Ciliberti D, Nicolosi F, De Marco A,

Nardone G. Game theory and evolutionary algorithms applied to MDO in the

AGILE European project. In: 18th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and

Optimization Conference, Denver, Colorado, 2017.

[9] Finck RD. USAF stability and control DATCOM. AFWAL-TR-83-3048,

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1978.

[10] Jacobs EN, Ward KE. Interferences of wing and fuselage from tests of 209

combinations in the NACA variable density wind tunnel. Technical Report 540,

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1935.

[11] House RO, Wallace AR. Wind-tunnel investigation of effect of interference on

lateral-stability characteristics of four NACA 23012 wings, an elliptical and circular

fuselage and vertical fins. Report 705, National Advisory Committee for

Aeronautics, 1940.

[12] Bamber RJ, House RO. Wind-tunnel investigation of effect of yaw on lateral-

stability characteristics. II – Rectangular NACA 23012 wing with a circular fuselage

and a fin. Report 730, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1939.
[13] Queijo MJ, Wolhart WD. Experimental investigation of the effect of the

vertical-tail size and length and of fuselage shape and length on the static lateral

stability characteristics of a model with 45° sweptback wing and tail surfaces.

Report 1049, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1950.

[14] Brewer JD, Lichtenstein JH. Effect of horizontal tail on low-speed static lateral

stability characteristics of a model having 45° sweptback wing and tail surfaces.

Technical Note 2010, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1950.

[15] Pass HR. Analysis of wind-tunnel data on directional stability and control.

Technical Note 775, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1940.

[16] Murray HE. Wind-tunnel investigation of end-plate effects of horizontal tails on

a vertical tail compared with available theory. Technical Note 1050, National

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1946.

[17] Gilbey RW. Contribution of fin to sideforce, yawing moment and rolling

moment derivatives due to sideslip, (Yv)F , (Nv)F , (Lv)F , in the presence of body,

wing and tailplane. Item 82010, ESDU, 1982.

[18] Weber J, Hawk AC. Theoretical load distributions on fin-body-tailplane

arrangements in a side-wind. Reports and memoranda no. 2992, Ministry of Supply,

London, UK, 1954.

[19] Nicolosi F, Della Vecchia P, Ciliberti D. An investigation on vertical tailplane

contribution to aircraft sideforce. Aerospace Science and Technology

2013;28(1):401-416.

[20] Nicolosi F, Della Vecchia P, Ciliberti D, Corcione S, Cusati V. A

comprehensive review of vertical tail design. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace

Technology 2017, Volume 89, Issue 4.

[21] Vos JB, Rizzi A, Darracq D, Hirschel EH. Navier-Stokes solvers in European

aircraft design. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 2002;38(8):601-697.

[22] Hall RM et al. Computational Methods for Stability and Control (COMSAC):

the time has come. Tech. rep. 6121. American Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics, 2005.

[23] Erickson LL. Panel methods: An introduction. Vol. 2995. National Aeronautics,

Space Administration, Office of Management, Scientific, and Technical Information

Division, 1990.

[24] Terzi A, Chiu TW. Modern panel method techniques for modeling wake body

interference. In: 28th Fluid Dynamics Conference, Snowmass Village (Colorado),

1997.

[25] Dutt H, Rajeswari S. Wing-body interference using a hybrid panel method. Acta

mechanica 1994;106(3-4):111-126.

[26] Johnson FT, Tinoco EN, Yu NJ. Thirty years of development and application of

CFD at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle. In: Computers & Fluids

2005;34(10):1115-1151.

[27] Shang JS. Three decades of accomplishments in computational fluid dynamics.

Progress in Aerospace Sciences 2004;40(3):173-197.

[28] Fujii K. Progress and future prospects of CFD in aerospace – Wind tunnel and

beyond. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 2005;41(6):455-470.

[29] Nicolosi F, Corcione S, Della Vecchia P. Commuter aircraft aerodynamic

design: wind-tunnel tests and CFD analysis. In: ICAS 2014 Proceedings.

International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences. Optimage Ltd., 2014.

[30] Nicolosi F, Della Vecchia P, Corcione S. Design and aerodynamic analysis of a

twin-engine commuter aircraft. Aerospace Science and Technology 2015;40:1-16.

[31] Nicolosi F, Corcione S, Della Vecchia P. Commuter aircraft aerodynamic

characteristics through wind tunnel tests. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace

Technology 2016;88(4):523-534.

[32] Della Vecchia P, Nicolosi F. Aerodynamic guidelines in the design and

optimization of new regional turboprop aircraft. Aerospace Science and Technology

2014;38:88-104.

[33] Della Vecchia P, Ciliberti D. Numerical aerodynamic analysis on a trapezoidal

wing with high lift devices: a comparison with experimental data. In: 22th AIDAA

Conference. Associazione Italiana di Aeronautica e Astronautica, Naples (Italy),

2013.

[34] Nicolosi F, Ciliberti D, Della Vecchia P. Aerodynamic design guidelines of

aircraft dorsal fin. In: 34th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Washington

D.C., 2016.

[35] Ciliberti D, Nicolosi F, Della Vecchia P. A new approach in aircraft vertical

tailplane design. In: 22th AIDAA Conference. Associazione Italiana di Aeronautica

e Astronautica, Naples (Italy), 2013.

[36] Nicolosi F, Della Vecchia P, Ciliberti D. Development of new preliminary

design methodologies for regional turboprop aircraft by CFD analyses. In: ICAS

2014 Proceedings. International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences. Optimage

Ltd., 2014.
[37] Della Vecchia P, Nicolosi F, Ciliberti D. Aircraft directional stability prediction

method by CFD. In: 33rd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Dallas (Texas)

2015.

[38] Nicolosi F, Della Vecchia P, Ciliberti D, Cusati V. Fuselage aerodynamic

prediction methods. Aerospace Science and Technology 2016;55:332-343.

[39] Nicolosi F, Della Vecchia P, Ciliberti D. Aerodynamic interference issues in

aircraft directional control. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2015;28(1):1-7.

[40] STAR-CCM+ version 11.06 User Guide. Siemens.

[41] Spalart PR, Allmaras SR. A one equation turbulence model for aerodynamic

flows. AIAA Journal 94.

[42] Rumsey CL et al. Summary of the first AIAA CFD high-lift prediction

workshop. Journal of Aircraft 2011;48(6):2068-2079.

[43] Antunes AP, da Silva RG, Azevedo JFL. On the effects of turbulence modeling

and grid refinement on high lift configuration aerodynamic simulations. In: ICAS

2012 Proceedings. Vol. 23. International Council of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Optimage Ltd., 2012, p. 28.

[44] Diederich F. A plan-form parameter for correlating certain aerodynamic

characteristics of swept wings. Technical Note 2335. National Advisory Committee

for Aeronautics, 1951.

[45] Chappell PD, Gilbey RW. Lift-curve slope and aerodynamic centre position of

wings in inviscid subsonic flow. Item 70011. Engineering Science Data Unit, 1970.

[46] Ciliberti D. An improved preliminary design methodology for aircraft

directional stability prediction and vertical tailplane sizing. PhD Thesis,

YouCanPrint, 2016. ISBN 9788892608825.

[47] Corcione S. Design Guidelines, Experimental Investigation and Numerical

Analysis of a New Twin Engine Commuter Aircraft. PhD thesis. 3D Tech, 2015.

ISBN 889838212X.

[48] Barlow JB, Rae WH, Pope A. Low-speed wind tunnel testing. 3rd ed. New

York: Wiley, 1999. ISBN: 0471557749.

[49] Nicolosi F, De Marco A, Attanasio L, Della Vecchia P. Development of a Java-

Based Framework for Aircraft Preliminary Design and Optimization. Journal of

Aerospace Information Systems 2016;13(6):234-242.

Table 1. Geometric data of the aircraft simulated with CFD.

Parameter Symbol Values

Wing aspect ratio A 6 to 14, step 2

Wing position zw/rf −1, 0, 1

Horizontal tail position zh/bv1 0, 0.38, 0.62, 0.82, 1.0

Fuselage tail-cone ratio zftc/rf 0, 0.5, 1.0

Fuselage slenderness ratio Lf/Df 7.0, 8.0, 8.7, 9.5, 11.0, 12.0

Fuselage nose slenderness ratio Ln/Df 1.1 to 1.7, step 0.1

Fuselage tail-cone slenderness ratio Lt/Df 2.3 to 3.0, step 0.1

Table 2. Vertical tail planform data. See Figure 12.

Parameter Set A Set B Set C

Aspect ratio Av 0.5, 2.0, step 0.25, 0.5 to 2.5, 0.40, 0.80, 1.59, 2.39,

0.5 step 0.5 3.19, 3.98

Taper ratio λv 0.86, 0.73, 1.0 0.62

0.62, 0.53

Leading edge sweep 26.6° 0° 13.7°, 16.9°, 22.1°,

angle Λv 31.4°, 50.6°, 67.7°

Table 3. Number of configurations in the numerical analyses.

Conf. No. of sims Modified parameters

F 3 zftc/rf

V 18 Av ; λv ; Λv

FV 30 Av ; λv ; Λv ; zftc/rf

WFV 45 λv ; zftc/rf ; A ; zw/rf

WFVH 135 Av ; λv ; zftc/rf ; zw/rf ; zh/bv1

Table 4. Dimensions of the fuselage components of the aircraft model. Items ID are

shown in Figure 35.

ID Description Length (m) Width (m)

2 Fuselage nose 0.293 0.222

3, 21, 22 Fuselage tail-cone 0.733 0.222

4 Fuselage cabin 0.978 0.222

Table 5. Dimensions of the lifting surfaces of the aircraft model. Items ID are shown

inFigure 35.

ID Description A λ S (m2) croot (m) ctip (m) b (m)

26 Wing 8.3 1.0 0.273 0.182 0.182 1.5

5 to 8 Hor. tail 4.1 1.0 0.066 0.128 0.128 0.521

11 Ver. tail 1.0 0.73 0.044 0.242 0.177 0.210

12 Ver. tail 1.5 0.62 0.058 0.242 0.151 0.295

13 Ver. tail 2.0 0.53 0.068 0.242 0.128 0.370

Table 6. PROLAB 65 properties.

Property Unit Value

Color n.a. brown

Density at 23°C g/cm3 0.65

Hardness Shore D1 63

Flexural modulus MPa 1000

Flexural strength MPa 34

Compressive strength MPa 28

Table 7. Wind tunnel main characteristics.

Test section dimensions 2.0 m × 1.4 m

Maximum wind speed 50 m/s

Turbulence level 0.10%

Maximum power 150 kW

Table 8. Comparison of semi-empirical methods with wind tunnel data for zftc/rf = 1.0

(high tail-cone).

WT DATCOM ESDU Method

Configuration Ref. value Value % error Value % error Value % error

BH_WH_V10_H1 0.0036 0.0023 -36.1 0.0039 8.3 0.0035 -2.8

BH_WH_V10_H3 0.0030 0.0021 -30.0 0.0031 3.3 0.0028 -6.7

BH_WH_V10_H4 0.0034 0.0025 -26.5 0.0033 -2.9 0.0031 -8.8

BH_WH_V10_H5 0.0041 0.0032 -22.0 0.0039 -4.9 0.0040 -2.4

BH_WH_V15_H1 0.0059 0.0047 -20.3 0.0061 3.4 0.0059 0.0

BH_WH_V15_H3 0.0051 0.0042 -17.6 0.0047 -7.8 0.0049 -3.9

BH_WH_V15_H4 0.0045 0.0048 6.7 0.0051 13.3 0.0053 17.8

BH_WH_V15_H5 0.0064 0.0061 -4.7 0.0060 -6.3 0.0065 1.6

BH_WH_V20_H1 0.0080 0.0068 -15.0 0.0081 1.2 0.0081 1.2

BH_WH_V20_H2 0.0067 0.0061 -9.0 0.0061 -9.0 0.0070 4.5

BH_WH_V20_H3 0.0068 0.0061 -10.3 0.0061 -10.3 0.0069 1.5

BH_WH_V20_H4 0.0072 0.0069 -4.2 0.0067 -6.9 0.0073 1.4

BH_WH_V20_H5 0.0080 0.0084 5.0 0.0079 -1.2 0.0083 3.8

BH_WM_V10_H1 0.0038 0.0029 -23.7 0.0045 18.4 0.0035 -7.9

BH_WM_V10_H3 0.0032 0.0025 -21.9 0.0042 31.3 0.0029 -9.4

BH_WM_V10_H4 0.0035 0.0030 -14.3 0.0046 31.4 0.0032 -8.6

BH_WM_V10_H5 0.0043 0.0040 -7.0 0.0054 25.6 0.0041 -4.7

BH_WM_V15_H1 0.0060 0.0057 -5.0 0.0071 18.3 0.0060 0.0

BH_WM_V15_H3 0.0051 0.0050 -2.0 0.0064 25.5 0.0051 0.0

BH_WM_V15_H4 0.0054 0.0058 7.4 0.0070 29.6 0.0056 3.7

BH_WM_V15_H5 0.0059 0.0074 25.4 0.0082 39.0 0.0068 15.3

BH_WM_V20_H1 0.0080 0.0081 1.2 0.0095 18.8 0.0085 6.3

BH_WM_V20_H2 0.0070 0.0074 5.7 0.0083 18.6 0.0076 8.6

BH_WM_V20_H3 0.0070 0.0074 5.7 0.0084 20.0 0.0074 5.7

BH_WM_V20_H4 0.0066 0.0083 25.8 0.0092 39.4 0.0079 19.7

BH_WM_V20_H5 0.0080 0.0101 26.3 0.0108 35.0 0.0090 12.5

BH_WL_V10_H1 0.0038 0.0034 -10.5 0.0051 34.2 0.0035 -7.9

BH_WL_V10_H3 0.0032 0.0030 -6.3 0.0054 68.8 0.0029 -9.4

BH_WL_V10_H4 0.0037 0.0036 -2.7 0.0059 59.5 0.0033 -10.8

BH_WL_V10_H5 0.0044 0.0047 6.8 0.0069 56.8 0.0043 -2.3

BH_WL_V15_H1 0.0062 0.0067 8.1 0.0080 29.0 0.0063 1.6

BH_WL_V15_H3 0.0053 0.0059 11.3 0.0082 54.7 0.0054 1.9

BH_WL_V15_H4 0.0056 0.0069 23.2 0.0089 58.9 0.0059 5.4

BH_WL_V15_H5 0.0066 0.0087 31.8 0.0105 59.1 0.0070 6.1

BH_WL_V20_H1 0.0083 0.0095 14.5 0.0108 30.1 0.0087 4.8

BH_WL_V20_H2 0.0072 0.0086 19.4 0.0107 48.6 0.0077 6.9

BH_WL_V20_H3 0.0073 0.0086 17.8 0.0108 47.9 0.0075 2.7

BH_WL_V20_H4 0.0071 0.0096 35.2 0.0117 64.8 0.0079 11.3

BH_WL_V20_H5 0.0087 0.0118 35.6 0.0139 59.8 0.0090 3.4

Table 9. Comparison of semi-empirical methods with wind tunnel data for zftc/rf = 0.5

(mid tail-cone).

WT DATCOM ESDU Method

Configuration Ref. value Value % error Value % error Value % error

BM_WH_V10_H1 0.0030 0.0023 -23.3 0.0039 30.0 0.0028 -6.7

BM_WH_V10_H3 0.0025 0.0021 -16.0 0.0031 24.0 0.0022 -12.0

BM_WH_V10_H4 0.0028 0.0025 -10.7 0.0033 17.9 0.0025 -10.7

BM_WH_V10_H5 0.0033 0.0032 -3.0 0.0039 18.2 0.0031 -6.1

BM_WH_V15_H1 0.0050 0.0047 -6.0 0.0061 22.0 0.0053 6.0

BM_WH_V15_H3 0.0042 0.0042 0.0 0.0047 11.9 0.0043 2.4

BM_WH_V15_H4 0.0044 0.0048 9.1 0.0051 15.9 0.0047 6.8

BM_WH_V15_H5 0.0053 0.0061 15.1 0.006 13.2 0.0056 5.7

BM_WH_V20_H1 0.0068 0.0068 0.0 0.0081 19.1 0.0075 10.3

BM_WH_V20_H2 0.0061 0.0061 0.0 0.0061 0.0 0.0064 4.9

BM_WH_V20_H3 0.0059 0.0061 3.4 0.0061 3.4 0.0063 6.8

BM_WH_V20_H4 0.0060 0.0069 15.0 0.0067 11.7 0.0067 11.7

BM_WH_V20_H5 0.0068 0.0084 23.5 0.0079 16.2 0.0077 13.2

BM_WM_V10_H1 0.0030 0.0029 -3.3 0.0045 50.0 0.0031 3.3

BM_WM_V10_H3 0.0026 0.0025 -3.8 0.0042 61.5 0.0025 -3.8

BM_WM_V10_H4 0.0030 0.003 0.0 0.0046 53.3 0.0028 -6.7

BM_WM_V10_H5 0.0036 0.004 11.1 0.0054 50.0 0.0035 -2.8

BM_WM_V15_H1 0.0052 0.0057 9.6 0.0071 36.5 0.0059 13.5

BM_WM_V15_H3 0.0046 0.005 8.7 0.0064 39.1 0.005 8.7

BM_WM_V15_H4 0.0049 0.0058 18.4 0.007 42.9 0.0054 10.2

BM_WM_V15_H5 0.0055 0.0074 34.5 0.0082 49.1 0.0064 16.4

BM_WM_V20_H1 0.0071 0.0081 14.1 0.0095 33.8 0.0081 14.1

BM_WM_V20_H2 0.0063 0.0074 17.5 0.0083 31.7 0.0071 12.7

BM_WM_V20_H3 0.0062 0.0074 19.4 0.0084 35.5 0.007 12.9

BM_WM_V20_H4 0.0066 0.0083 25.8 0.0092 39.4 0.0074 12.1

BM_WM_V20_H5 0.0070 0.0101 44.3 0.0108 54.3 0.0084 20.0

BM_WL_V10_H1 0.0033 0.0034 3.0 0.0051 54.5 0.0032 -3.0

BM_WL_V10_H3 0.0028 0.003 7.1 0.0054 92.9 0.0026 -7.1

BM_WL_V10_H4 0.0032 0.0036 12.5 0.0059 84.4 0.0029 -9.4

BM_WL_V10_H5 0.0040 0.0047 17.5 0.0069 72.5 0.0036 -10.0

BM_WL_V15_H1 0.0054 0.0067 24.1 0.008 48.1 0.0058 7.4

BM_WL_V15_H3 0.0046 0.0059 28.3 0.0082 78.3 0.0049 6.5

BM_WL_V15_H4 0.0050 0.0069 38.0 0.0089 78.0 0.0054 8.0

BM_WL_V15_H5 0.0059 0.0087 47.5 0.0105 78.0 0.0063 6.8

BM_WL_V20_H1 0.0073 0.0095 30.1 0.0108 47.9 0.0084 15.1

BM_WL_V20_H2 0.0066 0.0086 30.3 0.0107 62.1 0.0073 10.6

BM_WL_V20_H3 0.0060 0.0086 43.3 0.0108 80.0 0.0073 21.7

BM_WL_V20_H4 0.0067 0.0096 43.3 0.0117 74.6 0.0078 16.4

BM_WL_V20_H5 0.0074 0.0118 59.5 0.0139 87.8 0.0087 17.6

Table 10. Comparison of semi-empirical methods with wind tunnel data for zftc/rf = 0

(low tail-cone).

WT DATCOM ESDU Method

Configuration Ref. value Value % error Value % error Value % error

BL_WH_V10_H1 0.0025 0.0023 -8.0 0.0039 56.0 0.0026 4.0

BL_WH_V10_H3 0.0021 0.0021 0.0 0.0031 47.6 0.0020 -4.8

BL_WH_V10_H4 0.0024 0.0025 4.2 0.0033 37.5 0.0022 -8.3

BL_WH_V10_H5 0.0030 0.0032 6.7 0.0039 30.0 0.0028 -6.7

BL_WH_V15_H1 0.0044 0.0047 6.8 0.0061 38.6 0.0049 11.4

BL_WH_V15_H3 0.0039 0.0042 7.7 0.0047 20.5 0.0040 2.6

BL_WH_V15_H4 0.0041 0.0048 17.1 0.0051 24.4 0.0044 7.3

BL_WH_V15_H5 0.0050 0.0061 22.0 0.0060 20.0 0.0051 2.0

BL_WH_V20_H1 0.0063 0.0068 7.9 0.0081 28.6 0.0071 12.7

BL_WH_V20_H2 0.0058 0.0061 5.2 0.0061 5.2 0.0061 5.2

BL_WH_V20_H3 0.0056 0.0061 8.9 0.0061 8.9 0.0060 7.1

BL_WH_V20_H4 0.0060 0.0069 15.0 0.0067 11.7 0.0063 5.0

BL_WH_V20_H5 0.0065 0.0084 29.2 0.0079 21.5 0.0071 9.2

BL_WM_V10_H1 0.0027 0.0029 7.4 0.0045 66.7 0.0027 0.0

BL_WM_V10_H3 0.0023 0.0025 8.7 0.0042 82.6 0.0022 -4.3

BL_WM_V10_H4 0.0024 0.0030 25.0 0.0046 91.7 0.0025 4.2

BL_WM_V10_H5 0.0028 0.0040 42.9 0.0054 92.9 0.0030 7.1

BL_WM_V15_H1 0.0048 0.0057 18.8 0.0071 47.9 0.0052 8.3

BL_WM_V15_H3 0.0042 0.0050 19.0 0.0064 52.4 0.0044 4.8

BL_WM_V15_H4 0.0046 0.0058 26.1 0.0070 52.2 0.0048 4.3

BL_WM_V15_H5 0.0054 0.0074 37.0 0.0082 51.9 0.0056 3.7

BL_WM_V20_H1 0.0067 0.0081 20.9 0.0095 41.8 0.0076 13.4

BL_WM_V20_H2 0.0060 0.0074 23.3 0.0083 38.3 0.0065 8.3

BL_WM_V20_H3 0.0060 0.0074 23.3 0.0084 40.0 0.0065 8.3

BL_WM_V20_H4 0.0063 0.0083 31.7 0.0092 46.0 0.0069 9.5

BL_WM_V20_H5 0.0069 0.0101 46.4 0.0108 56.5 0.0077 11.6

BL_WL_V10_H1 0.0027 0.0034 25.9 0.0051 88.9 0.0027 0.0

BL_WL_V10_H3 0.0024 0.0030 25.0 0.0054 125.0 0.0023 -4.2

BL_WL_V10_H4 0.0027 0.0036 33.3 0.0059 118.5 0.0026 -3.7

BL_WL_V10_H5 0.0033 0.0047 42.4 0.0069 109.1 0.0031 -6.1

BL_WL_V15_H1 0.0047 0.0067 42.6 0.0080 70.2 0.0053 12.8

BL_WL_V15_H3 0.0042 0.0059 40.5 0.0082 95.2 0.0046 9.5

BL_WL_V15_H4 0.0046 0.0069 50.0 0.0089 93.5 0.0049 6.5

BL_WL_V15_H5 0.0054 0.0087 61.1 0.0105 94.4 0.0057 5.6

BL_WL_V20_H1 0.0068 0.0095 39.7 0.0108 58.8 0.0076 11.8

BL_WL_V20_H2 0.0061 0.0086 41.0 0.0107 75.4 0.0067 9.8

BL_WL_V20_H3 0.0061 0.0086 41.0 0.0108 77.0 0.0067 9.8

BL_WL_V20_H4 0.0063 0.0096 52.4 0.0117 85.7 0.0071 12.7

BL_WL_V20_H5 0.0071 0.0118 66.2 0.0139 95.8 0.0080 12.7

 Figure 1. Aircraft empennage components.

Figure 2. Airborne one engine inoperative condition.

 Figure 3. Cross-wind landing.

Figure 4. Definition of vertical tail planform.

Figure 5. Aircraft models investigated by NACA in 1939 and 1950. Reproduced from

Report 730 [12] (left) and Report 1049 [13] (right).

Figure 6. Effects of wing position on vertical tail yawing moment coefficient derivative

provided by DATCOM and ESDU.

Figure 7. Effects of horizontal tail position on vertical tail yawing moment coefficient

derivative provided by DATCOM and ESDU.

Figure 8. Rudder equilibrium angle versus sideslip angle for two vertical tailplanes.
Figure 9. Minimum control speed as function of engine yawing moment and vertical tail

planform area.

Figure 10. Computational time versus CPUs number for RANS simulations.
Figure 11. Layout of the aircraft model for the numerical analyses.

Figure 12. Vertical tail planform families.

 Figure 13. Volume mesh around the aircraft model.

Figure 14. Effects of Reynolds number on sideforce aerodynamic coefficient.

 Figure 15. Typical aircraft components contributions to yawing moment coefficient.

Figure 16. Effects of the fuselage on the vertical tail: acceleration of the flow at the root

of the vertical tail.

 Figure 17. Effects of the wing position on the vertical tail.

Figure 18. Effects of the horizontal tail on the vertical tail: the end-plate effect.
Figure 19. Isolated vertical tail lift curve slope versus aspect ratio. Planform set of

Figure 12a, M = 0, Λv = 26.6°.

Figure 20. Fuselage reference system.

 Figure 21. Effect of fuselage slenderness ratio, non-dimensioned on max fuselage

diameter df and frontal area Sfront. Each marker represents a CFD analysis.

Figure 22. Effect of fuselage nose slenderness ratio, non-dimensioned on max fuselage

diameter df and frontal area Sfront. Each marker represents a CFD analysis.
Figure 23. Effect of fuselage tail-cone slenderness ratio, non-dimensioned on max

fuselage diameter df and frontal area Sfront. Each marker represents a CFD analysis.

Figure 24. Definition of vertical tail span over fuselage diameter bv/dfv.
 Figure 25. Definition of fuselage tail-cone shape zftc/dfv.

Figure 26. Aerodynamic interference factor KFv. Effect of the fuselage on the vertical

tail. The markers are results of CFD analyses.

 Figure 27. Aerodynamic interference factor KVf. Effect of the vertical tail on the

fuselage. The markers are results of CFD analyses.

Figure 28. Wing position reference system.

Figure 29. Aerodynamic interference factor KWv. Effect of the wing on the vertical tail.

The markers are results of CFD analyses.

Figure 30. Aerodynamic interference factor KWf. Effect of the wing on the fuselage. The

markers are results of CFD analyses.

Figure 31. Horizontal tail position reference system.

Figure 32. Aerodynamic interference factor KHv. Effect of the horizontal tail on the

vertical tail. The markers are results of CFD analyses.

Figure 33. Aerodynamic interference factor KHf. Effect of the horizontal tail on the

fuselage. The markers are results of CFD analyses.

Figure 34. Aircraft model main dimensions. Units in mm.

Figure 35. Aircraft model exploded view.

Figure 36. Fuselage central body.

Figure 37. Vertical tail planforms.

Figure 38. Fuselage tail-cones.

 Figure 39. Fuselage tail-cone detail.

Figure 40. Vertical tail assembly with load cell.

Figure 41. Loads path with the vertical tail load cell.

Figure 42. Wind tunnel diagram.

Figure 43. The aircraft model in the test section.

Figure 44. Wind tunnel model reference system.

Figure 45. Relative position of moments reference points. Units in mm.
Figure 46. The three fuselage groups.
Figure 47. Wing positions in fuselage.
Figure 48. Vertical tails in fuselage.
Figure 49. Horizontal tail positions.
 Figure 50. Two complete aircraft configurations.

Figure 51. Comparison of numerical and experimental data on the isolated vertical tail

with Av = 1.5. Re = 470000, α = 0°.

Figure 52. Comparison of numerical and experimental data on the isolated fuselage with

zftc/rf = 1.0. Re = 470000, α = 0°.

Figure 53. Comparison of numerical and experimental data on the body – vertical tail

combination. Re = 470000, α = 0°.

Figure 54. Non-linear effects on the yawing moment coefficient of the body – vertical

tail combination in the wind tunnel at Re = 470000 and α = 0°.

Figure 55. Non-linear effects on the vertical tail yawing moment coefficient of the body

– vertical tail combination in the wind tunnel at Re = 470000 and α = 0°.

Figure 56. Non-linear effects on the fuselage yawing moment coefficient of the body –

vertical tail combination in the wind tunnel at Re = 470000 and α = 0°.

Figure 57. Comparison of numerical and experimental data on the wing – body –

vertical tail combination. Re = 470000, α = 0°.

Figure 58. Comparison of numerical and experimental data on complete aircraft

configuration. Re = 470000, α = 0°.

Figure 59. The effect of the fuselage on the vertical tail. Comparison between the curves

derived from numerical analyses and the experimental data.

Figure 60. The effect of the horizontal tail on the vertical tail. Comparison between the

curves derived from numerical analyses and the experimental data.

Figure 61. Relative error of semi-empirical methods with respect to wind tunnel data for

high tail-cone configurations.

Figure 62. Relative error of semi-empirical methods with respect to wind tunnel data for

mid tail-cone configurations.

 Figure 63. Relative error of semi-empirical methods with respect to wind tunnel data for

low tail-cone configurations.

View publication stats