Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tail Size Vs Plane Length  
User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1091 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 2 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5995 times:

It is well known that the longer the airplane, the smaller the tail needs to be as there is a stronger leverage arm for elevator and rudder and thus better control authority with less size.

The 747 SP and the A318 have larger tails than the rest of their respective family because of that. Yet, the 747-8 has the same tail and it does not look like aircraft makers are taking advantage of this most of the time.

A340-500 and 600 have same tails. All the A32- except A318. All the 777 have same tail... I haven't checked

Can anyone shed more light on this subject?
Do you guys think a longer A380 would have a smaller tail than the 800?

[Edited 2011-02-14 12:05:57]

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6264 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5972 times:

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
Can anyone shed more light on this subject?
Do you guys think a longer A380 would have a smaller tail than the 800?

For the Rudder/vertical stabilizer (technically only one half of the "tail", as the horizontal stabilizer and elevator are also part of the "tail"), it will depend on how much engine-out rudder authority that the engineers (and the regulations!) deem as being necessary. On a large multiengine plane, this is probably the primary factor that drives the size of the rudder and vertical stabilizer. And yes, in the end, it is about how large of a moment the rudder can create  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5969 times:

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
The 747 SP and the A318 have larger tails than the rest of their respective family because of that. Yet, the 747-8 has the same tail and it does not look like aircraft makers are taking advantage of this most of the time.

That's because "this", in your context, means a lot more than just required tail authority. There are major manufacturing (read: cost) efficiencies to only running a single tail. You have to weight all the design/manufacture/upkeep/maintenance/support costs of multiple tails against the potential weight savings of the smaller tail. Sometimes it wins, sometimes it doesn't.

Tom.


User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5961 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
That's because "this", in your context, means a lot more than just required tail authority. There are major manufacturing (read: cost) efficiencies to only running a single tail. You have to weight all the design/manufacture/upkeep/maintenance/support costs of multiple tails against the potential weight savings of the smaller tail. Sometimes it wins, sometimes it doesn't.

The A321 has a smaller tail than the A320 or A319. I guess here the production disadvantages were outweighted by the advantages. Or a classical case of German tradition to over-engineer a system for optimum performance irregardless of the associated costs. The downside of the hailed German engineering.
The A320's tail weights less than 500kg, and the saving by making it slightly smaller is probably limited.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlinedw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5932 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
it will depend on how much engine-out rudder authority that the engineers (and the regulations!) deem as being necessary.

Exactly. The higher thrust engines likely require more authority, which is achieved by increasing arm while maintaining the same sized tail. It probably was not feasible to make any substantial tail reduction (or any reduction at all). Thus, with not significant benefit it makes no economic sense to do a redesign.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5903 times:

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
The 747 SP and the A318 have larger tails than the rest of their respective family because of that.

Not only does the fuselage length affect the required size of the vert stab, but so does the distance of the thrust from the plane's fuselage centerline. The more "outboard" the overall thrust is, the more impact an assymetrical-thrust situation would have...requiring a larger vert stab. Good 'ol physics.  



Jack @ AUS
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5877 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 1):
For the Rudder/vertical stabilizer (technically only one half of the "tail", as the horizontal stabilizer and elevator are also part of the "tail")...


Technically, the vertical stabilizer, rudder, horizontal stabilizer and elevators make up the "empennage"!


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6676 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5618 times:

I suspect that the bigger reason for making the empennage smaller with longer fuselages is drag, not weight. But I suspect that the difference would be far outweighed by the higher costs involved. The 747SP was not considered in the initial design of the 747, and one of the requirements that they wanted to meet was that its handling would match the regular 747. I believe that that requirement, as much as the engine out control authority requirement, drove the size of the empennage (the horizontal stabilizer/elevator is larger as well).


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinekalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 485 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5480 times:

Extending original question.. Is there similar size dependence for horizontal stabilizer?
My understanding is that horizontal stabilizer has to be big enough to neutralize momentum of CoG shifted with respect to lift generated by the wing. For longer plane momentum generated by same CoG shift s larger due to higher wight of a plane - but I doubt it's linear with length.
If that is correct, there should be some correlation between plane balance limits and stabilizer size - but it's just speculation on my side.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6676 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5470 times:

Quoting kalvado (Reply 8):
Extending original question.. Is there similar size dependence for horizontal stabilizer?

Yes. Note that the 747 horizontal stabilizer is also larger than the standard one.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinemusang From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 845 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks ago) and read 5058 times:

Quoting kalvado (Reply 8):
For longer plane momentum generated by same CoG shift

Your argument's basically correct, but its "moment". Momentum is a quantity of kinetic energy or something like that, the product of an object's mass x its velocity. You're not alone, we had an instructor on staff who always said "momentum" and wouldn't be told.....

Anyway, I believe the A330-200 has a larger fin than the -300, and BWIA's TriStars had enlarged fin area by means of a rudder chord extension, so they could handle wing engine failures on take-off from short runways in high WAT conditions.

On the subject of tailplanes (horizontal stabilizers to some), I always wondered whether the MD-11 stab, smaller than that of the DC-10, was because design had improved such that a smaller one could do the same job, or because the longer fuselage didn't require the large one, and weight saving considerations made the lighter one viable.

Regards - musang


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6676 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4973 times:

Quoting musang (Reply 10):
On the subject of tailplanes (horizontal stabilizers to some), I always wondered whether the MD-11 stab, smaller than that of the DC-10, was because design had improved such that a smaller one could do the same job, or because the longer fuselage didn't require the large one, and weight saving considerations made the lighter one viable.

My understanding it was because of the longer fuselage, more rearward CG, and using artificial stability (FBW). The longer fuselage increases the moment arm, the rearward CG reduces amount of downforce required, and the FBW makes it more effective. They had to make the horizontal stabilizer as small as they could to reduce drag to meet performance goals.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinemusang From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 845 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4854 times:

Clear, consise, convincing reply. Thanks!

musang


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Tail Size Vs Plane Length
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Glider Vs. GA Plane Wings posted Sat Aug 9 2008 16:29:40 by Flexo
Take-off Runway Length Vs Length Of Runway posted Tue Feb 12 2008 15:02:13 by CRJ900
Aircraft Registration Number Vs. Tail/Fleet Number posted Tue Jul 24 2007 21:07:14 by Aogdesk
A380 Vs 777 Engine Size posted Wed Mar 1 2006 22:43:06 by Okees
Advantages Of A T-tail Vs. A Conventional Tail posted Sat Dec 17 2005 03:15:13 by Thrust
Length Vs. Stabilizer Height posted Fri Dec 31 2004 20:44:08 by Klc317
T-Tail Vs. Conventional Tail posted Sat Sep 29 2001 17:01:06 by Cool777
737 Vs A319/A320 Gear Length posted Thu Jul 12 2001 18:48:29 by BUFjets
T Tail Vs. V Tail posted Thu Jan 11 2001 21:42:34 by CX744
T-Tail Vs Conventional posted Mon Sep 25 2000 09:01:32 by FG
Fuel Exp Per ASK Vs Stage Length posted Tue Nov 5 2013 05:18:51 by ptahturan88
Tail Number Vs. Ship Number posted Thu Jul 17 2008 10:40:01 by Fbgdavidson
Longer Plane, Smaller Tail: Even For The A380-900? posted Thu May 30 2013 22:08:34 by A380900
Glider Vs. GA Plane Wings posted Sat Aug 9 2008 16:29:40 by Flexo
Take-off Runway Length Vs Length Of Runway posted Tue Feb 12 2008 15:02:13 by CRJ900
Aircraft Registration Number Vs. Tail/Fleet Number posted Tue Jul 24 2007 21:07:14 by Aogdesk
A380 Vs 777 Engine Size posted Wed Mar 1 2006 22:43:06 by Okees
Advantages Of A T-tail Vs. A Conventional Tail posted Sat Dec 17 2005 03:15:13 by Thrust
Length Vs. Stabilizer Height posted Fri Dec 31 2004 20:44:08 by Klc317

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format