Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:07:35.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An analytical study of the induced drag of canard-wing-tail aircraft configurations with various levels of static stability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

G. F. Butler
G. F. Butler*
Affiliation:
Flight Systems Department, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The prospect of reducing the induced drag of an aircraft by using both a canard and tailplane for trimming is investigated and results are compared with those for conventional tail-aft and canard arrangements. It is concluded that improvements of approximately 20% in lift-drag ratio are theoretically possible at high lift coefficients by the use of an additional trimming surface.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 87 , Issue 868 , October 1983 , pp. 293 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1992 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Stumpfl, S.C. and Whitmoyer, R. A. Horizontal canards for two-axis CCV fighter control. AGARD CP-157,1975.Google Scholar
2. Gloss, B. B. Effect of wing planform and canard location and geometry on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of a close-coupled canard wing model at subsonic speeds. NASA TN D-7910,1975.Google Scholar
3. McLaughlin, M. D. Calculations, and comparison with an ideal minimum, of trimmed drag for conventional and canard configurations having various levels of static-stability. NASA TN D-8391,1977.Google Scholar
4. Laitone, E. V. Positive tail loads for minimum induced drag of subsonic aircraft. J. Aircraft, 1978,15,837.Google Scholar
5. Durand, W. F. Aerodynamic theory, Vol II, Division E. Springer, Berlin, 1935.Google Scholar
6. Glauert, H. The elements of aerofoil and airscrew theory. University Press, Cambridge, 1926.Google Scholar
7. Decker, J. L. Prediction of downwash at various angles of attack at arbitrary tail locations. Aeronautical Eng. Rev. August 1956, 15,22.Google Scholar
8. Houghton, E. L. and Brock, A. E. Aerodynamics. Arnold, London, 1970.Google Scholar
9. Henderson, W. P. Studies of various factors affecting drag due to lift at subsonic speeds. NASA TN D-3584,1966.Google Scholar
10. McKinney, L. W. and Dollyhigh, S. M. Some trim drag considerations for manoeuvring aircraft. J. Aircraft, 1971,8,623.Google Scholar
11. Ross, A. J. and Reid, G. E. A. The development of mathematical models for a high-incidence research aircraft. RAE Technical Report 83037,1983.Google Scholar
12. Agnew, J. W. and Hess, J. R. Jnr. Benefits of aerodynamic interaction to the three-surface configuration. J. Aircraft, 1980, 17,823.Google Scholar
13. Butler, G. F. Effect of downwash on the induced drag of canard-wing combinations, J. Aircraft, 1982, 19,410.Google Scholar
14. Kroo, I. M. Minimum induced drag of canard configurations, J. Aircraft, 1982,19,792.Google Scholar