Hubbry Logo
Cruciform tailCruciform tailMain
Open search
Cruciform tail
Community hub
Cruciform tail
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cruciform tail
Cruciform tail
Cruciform tail
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

British Aerospace Jetstream 31 with cruciform tail
Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck showing its cruciform design tail

The cruciform tail is an aircraft empennage configuration which, when viewed from the aircraft's front or rear, looks much like a cross. The usual arrangement is to have the horizontal stabilizer intersect the vertical tail somewhere near the middle, and above the top of the fuselage. The design is often used to locate the horizontal stabilizer away from jet exhaust, propeller and wing wake, as well as to provide undisturbed airflow to the rudder.[1][2]

Prominent examples of aircraft with cruciform tails include the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck, the British Aerospace Jetstream 31, the MiG-15, the Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner, and the Rockwell B-1 Lancer.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Cruciform tail

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A cruciform tail is an configuration in featuring horizontal stabilizers mounted approximately midway along the height of the , creating a cross-like when viewed from the front or rear. This serves as a structural and aerodynamic compromise between the conventional tail—where horizontal surfaces are mounted at the base of the vertical fin—and the , where they are positioned at the top. It offers reduced weight compared to a T-tail while enabling higher engine placements, such as rear-mounted jets, without the need for extensive structural reinforcements. Key advantages include positioning the horizontal stabilizers outside of or wakes to minimize buffeting and ensure cleaner , as well as avoiding deep risks and flutter associated with higher-mounted tails. However, it lacks the end-plate effect of a , which can reduce the effective surface area efficiency for vertical stabilization. The cruciform tail has been employed across various aircraft types, including early jet fighters like the to steer clear of exhaust interference and wing wake; commercial airliners such as the for accommodating rear engines; and business jets like the Dassault Falcon series, which are among the few trijets using this layout.

Overview

Definition and Configuration

A cruciform tail is an configuration featuring a horizontal stabilizer that intersects the vertical fin at or near its , creating a cross-like (+) when viewed from the front or rear of the . This integrates the primary surfaces into a single, cohesive structure, where the horizontal and vertical elements cross perpendicularly to form the characteristic layout. The , or tail assembly, encompasses the rear control and stabilizing surfaces of an , working together to maintain equilibrium during flight. Within this, the vertical fin—also known as the —serves to provide by generating a restoring force against yaw, or side-to-side motion of the nose. Complementing it, the horizontal stabilizer manages , countering pitch by producing lift or to keep the aircraft's nose from excessive up-and-down movement. In the typical configuration, the horizontal stabilizer is mounted midway along the height of the vertical fin, positioning it above the fuselage centerline for balanced intersection. This mid-mounted placement ensures the horizontal surfaces extend symmetrically from the vertical fin, enhancing the overall cross-shaped profile while distinguishing the design from configurations where the stabilizers do not intersect, such as low-set horizontal tails that remain separate from the fin.

Basic Components

The cruciform tail consists of a vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer arranged in a cross-like configuration, with the horizontal surfaces intersecting the vertical fin near its midpoint. The vertical fin provides directional stability and includes a fixed portion, often referred to as the fixed fin, which acts like a weather vane to maintain the aircraft's heading against disturbances such as crosswinds. Attached to the trailing edge of this fixed fin is the rudder, a movable control surface hinged for deflection to enable yaw control, allowing the pilot to steer the aircraft left or right. The horizontal stabilizer components contribute to by generating a stabilizing force, typically downward in conventional , to counteract pitch tendencies. It features fixed surfaces that form the primary structure for this stability, with elevators as hinged movable sections at the trailing edges for pitch control, enabling nose-up or nose-down maneuvers. At the intersection joint where the horizontal stabilizer meets the vertical fin, reinforced attachments are employed to secure the connection and mitigate vibrations or structural flexing under aerodynamic loads. Integration at the junction emphasizes robust connectivity to ensure seamless operation, with hinges allowing independent movement of the and elevators while actuators—often hydraulic or electric—drive these control surfaces for precise response. Anti-interference reinforcements, such as additional or fairings, are incorporated at the junction to minimize aerodynamic disruptions and maintain structural integrity during high-speed flight. Typical materials for these components include carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP) composites in modern designs, offering weight savings of up to 15% as seen in the and Regional Jet's vertical stabilizers, while traditional constructions may use aluminum alloys for strength and corrosion resistance. Sizing of the cruciform tail components is determined relative to the main for balanced stability, with the horizontal tail volume coefficient typically ranging from 0.5 to 1.0, often translating to a horizontal surface area of 20-30% of the area to achieve adequate pitch control without excessive drag. The vertical fin is similarly proportioned, with its area contributing to a tail volume coefficient of 0.02 to 0.10 relative to the , ensuring sufficient yaw stability.

Historical Development

Early Adoption in Aircraft

The cruciform tail configuration first gained notable adoption in manned during the late 1940s and early 1950s, as designers sought to address aerodynamic challenges posed by emerging systems. One of the earliest prominent examples was the Soviet jet fighter, which achieved its first flight in 1947 and entered service in 1949. The MiG-15's cruciform tail, featuring the horizontal stabilizer intersecting the lower portion of the vertical fin, was selected to position the horizontal surfaces away from the disruptive generated by the mid-mounted wing and the hot jet exhaust from its rear-mounted engine, thereby ensuring cleaner airflow for improved stability at high speeds. This design choice proved particularly relevant during the (1950–1953), where the MiG-15 saw extensive combat deployment by North Korean and Chinese forces, engaging U.S. F-86 Sabre jets in the first major jet-vs.-jet battles. The cruciform arrangement contributed to the aircraft's agile handling and in dogfights, allowing pilots to maintain control amid the era's flight regimes without the added structural weight and complexity of a . The transition to commercial aviation followed soon after, with the French SE 210 Caravelle representing a milestone as the first to incorporate a cruciform tail when it flew in 1955 and entered service in 1958. Mounted with rear fuselage engines, the Caravelle required the horizontal stabilizer to be elevated mid- to avoid immersion in the exhaust wake, which could degrade control effectiveness; the cruciform layout achieved this while minimizing tail volume and weight through end-plate effects on the vertical surfaces. In the civilian turboprop sector, the U.S. , certified in 1969 after development in the mid-1960s, adopted a cruciform tail to position the horizontal stabilizer clear of the propeller slipstream from its wing-mounted Garrett TPE331 engines, enhancing low-speed control for short-haul commuter operations. Overall, these early adoptions were driven by the need to mitigate wake disturbances—jet exhaust in fighters and airliners, propeller slipstream in turboprops—while optimizing stability without excessive structural penalties, a priority amplified by the rapid evolution of post-World War II propulsion technologies.

Evolution in Missiles

The roots of the cruciform tail in guided missiles trace back to and the early , particularly through the U.S. Navy's program initiated in 1944 to develop supersonic surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) for shipboard defense. This effort introduced cruciform tail control surfaces as a standard configuration for high-speed designs, employing four symmetrically arranged fins to enable effective aerodynamic control in and supersonic regimes without compromising the missile's rearward visibility for propulsion systems. The program's outcomes, including the and missiles, demonstrated the cruciform tail's ability to provide omnidirectional stability and maneuverability, influencing subsequent SAM architectures during the late 1940s and early 1950s. In the 1950s and 1960s, the saw widespread adoption in air-to-air missiles (AAMs), exemplified by the , which entered U.S. Navy service in 1956 with a tail-controlled arrangement for enhanced supersonic performance and reduced drag compared to forward-control alternatives. Variants like the AIM-9B and subsequent models refined this design to support at speeds exceeding Mach 2, leveraging the for 360-degree roll control and pitch-yaw coupling minimization. Concurrently, surface-to-air systems evolved through programs such as the Army's initiative in the mid-1960s, which laid the groundwork for the Patriot missile's body- configuration, emphasizing tail surfaces for high-speed stability in anti-. This progression continued under the Field Army Defense System (FABMDS) efforts, where were optimized for intercepting tactical at altitudes up to 20 km. The supersonic focus of tails during this era stemmed from their aerodynamic advantages in providing static stability and control derivatives essential for missiles operating above Mach 1, where center-of-pressure shifts demand aft-mounted surfaces to maintain positive margins. The symmetric arrangement facilitates full-azimuth authority via differential deflection, avoiding fuselage shadowing that could limit response in non- setups, as validated in wind-tunnel tests of tail-control configurations achieving lift coefficients up to 0.5 at angles of attack beyond 20 degrees. These features proved critical for early ramjet-powered prototypes in the , such as those tested under programs, which informed the transition to sustained supersonic flight profiles. Key milestones in the marked the tail's adaptation to cruise missiles, evolving from 1950s ramjet experiments that addressed low-altitude, terrain-following challenges in subsonic regimes. The program, initiated in 1972, incorporated deployable tailfins for post-launch stability during low-level flights below 100 meters, enabling precise navigation over 1,000 km while minimizing radar detectability through folded-fin storage. This design built on prior supersonic heritage but prioritized endurance over speed, with variants like the Block IV enhancing control for sea-skimming profiles in contested environments.

Design and Aerodynamics

Aerodynamic Principles

The configuration optimizes airflow management by positioning its horizontal and vertical stabilizers in a symmetric, arrangement at the vehicle's aft end, typically outside the turbulent wake generated by forward wings or body crossflow. This placement ensures that the horizontal stabilizers experience reduced interference, preserving their lift-generating efficiency for pitch control, while the vertical fins benefit from cleaner incoming flow, which enhances effectiveness for yaw maneuvers. In missile applications, vortex path analyses examine body-induced effects across the tail surfaces at supersonic Mach numbers like 1.4 to 1.7 and angles of attack up to 22 degrees, revealing interferences in cruciform layouts. Force generation in the cruciform tail arises from the aerodynamic lift and drag produced by its four symmetrically arranged surfaces, with the horizontal pair primarily contributing to longitudinal forces and moments, and the vertical pair to lateral-directional ones. These stabilizers operate in a crossflow environment, where lift coefficients vary with deflection angles and , often decreasing inversely with speed due to effects. A key feature is the dihedral effect, achieved through inherent geometric symmetry or added cant angles on the fins (typically 10–45 degrees), which induces roll damping by generating differential lift during sideslip or roll rates; slender-body theory derivations indicate that roll damping coefficient ClpC_{l_p} increases with the span ratio KK of the mutually wings, though interference from the forward reduces damping to about 15% of isolated estimates. Cruciform tail fins, often mounted at mid-fuselage, experience aerodynamic interference at fin-body junctions, including . At high angles of attack, body-fin interactions in supersonic flows can lead to unsymmetric vortex formation, producing erratic side forces and rolling moments, as well as interference drag from crossflow separation. Cruciform tail sizing relies on the tail volume coefficient VhV_h, defined as Vh=ShlhSwcˉw,V_h = \frac{S_h l_h}{S_w \bar{c}_w}, where ShS_h is the horizontal stabilizer area, lhl_h the moment arm from the center of gravity, SwS_w the reference (wing) area, and cˉw\bar{c}_w the mean aerodynamic chord. This parameter originates from the longitudinal moment equation, where tail lift ΔLh=(CLαh)qSh(αt−α0)\Delta L_h = (C_{L_{\alpha_h}}) q S_h (\alpha_t - \alpha_0) (with αt\alpha_t the tail angle of attack and qq dynamic pressure) produces a stabilizing moment ΔM=−VhqSwcˉwCLαh(α−it)\Delta M = -V_h q S_w \bar{c}_w C_{L_{\alpha_h}} (\alpha - i_t), ensuring negative pitch stiffness Cmα<0C_{m_\alpha} < 0 for trim and stability; typical values range from 0.5 to 1.0, adjusted for cruciform layouts. An efficiency factor ηt≈0.9\eta_t \approx 0.9 is applied to account for dynamic pressure losses from wake or body proximity, with analogous vertical tail coefficients Vv=Svlv/(Swbw)V_v = S_v l_v / (S_w b_w) (using span bwb_w) guiding yaw stability in the symmetric design.

Stability and Control Features

The tail enhances through its vertical fins, which generate a positive yawing moment in response to sideslip, providing greater stability than alternative configurations such as three-fin arrangements. This design ensures the vehicle aligns with its flight path during yaw disturbances. The elevated positioning of the vertical fin in cruciform tails further improves yaw damping by increasing the effectiveness of control inputs, with the configuration exhibiting the highest yaw-control power across tested Mach numbers from 1.90 to 2.86. Longitudinal stability is supported by the horizontal tail surfaces, which produce restoring pitching moments to facilitate pitch recovery and return the vehicle to equilibrium after angle-of-attack perturbations. The cruciform arrangement minimizes sideslip-induced effects on the longitudinal axis due to its symmetric fin placement, reducing cross-coupling between yaw and pitch motions and promoting consistent stability across varying flight conditions. Control authority in cruciform tails enables full 3-axis maneuvering, with deflections on the vertical fins providing yaw control and deflections on the horizontal fins handling pitch adjustments. In applications, these surfaces often employ hydraulic or electric actuators to achieve rapid, precise deflections up to ±30 degrees, ensuring linear response in pitching and yawing moments even at high angles of attack. Unique to cruciform designs, roll control is accomplished through differential deflection of the horizontal tail surfaces, which can double the rolling-moment coefficient compared to non-cruciform setups and maintain effectiveness independent of . Static margin in configurations is typically adjusted to 5-15% to optimize the balance between inherent stability and high maneuverability requirements.

Applications

In Fixed-Wing Aircraft

The , introduced in the 1970s as a , utilizes a cruciform tail configuration to support its role in low-level penetration missions, keeping the horizontal stabilizers clear of exhaust during high-speed, terrain-following flights. This choice enhances the aircraft's ability to evade detection while maintaining stability in demanding operational profiles. Similarly, the British Aerospace Jetstream 31, a 1980s-era aircraft used for both and training roles, incorporates a cruciform tail. Such designs contribute to handling characteristics suitable for operations from unprepared airstrips with improved low-speed control. In civilian applications, cruciform tails appear in legacy commuter aircraft such as the , a 19-seat that entered service in the and remains in use for regional routes, where the configuration provides reliable handling for short-haul operations. However, such designs are rare in modern airliners, as industry preferences have shifted toward conventional or setups for superior aerodynamic efficiency and simpler manufacturing processes. The cruciform tail offers advantages in operational contexts like all-weather fighters, exemplified by the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck, where it ensures stable control amid turbulence and poor visibility, supporting interceptor duties in adverse conditions. Post-2000 trends show limited adoption in manned fixed-wing aircraft, but the design persists in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) adapted from missile architectures, including loitering munitions that leverage cruciform tails for agile, autonomous flight in tactical scenarios.

In Missiles and Projectiles

The , an in service since the 1950s, employs cruciform tail fins for control, with later variants like the AIM-9X featuring four movable surfaces arranged in a 60-degree/120-degree pattern to enable high-agility maneuvers during engagements. These tail fins, augmented by rollerons for passive roll stabilization, support the missile's , which uses an uncooled detector in early variants evolving to cooled seekers in modern iterations like the AIM-9X, achieving all-aspect targeting and over 80% kill probability in combat scenarios such as the Falklands and Gulf Wars. The configuration enhances performance by reducing drag compared to canard designs, allowing supersonic speeds up to Mach 2.5 and effective intercepts at ranges exceeding 10 nautical miles. In surface-to-air applications, the Patriot PAC-3 missile utilizes a body-cruciform tail configuration with four delta-shaped fins for aerodynamic control, upgraded in the to support hit-to-kill intercepts against tactical ballistic missiles and cruise threats. These fins, driven by hydraulic actuators, integrate with an active seeker and attitude control motors to provide high-maneuverability, enabling the missile to achieve velocities over Mach 5 and precise for direct body-to-body impacts within a defended of up to 20 kilometers radius. The design's emphasis on tail fin responsiveness contributes to the system's multi-kill capability per engagement, as demonstrated in operational deployments against short-range ballistic missiles. Cruise missiles like the , operational since the 1970s, incorporate cruciform tail fins that deploy via springs after launch, providing stability during low-altitude, terrain-following flight profiles guided by Terrain Contour Matching () radar. In low-observable variants such as the Block IV, these fins support subsonic speeds around Mach 0.74 while minimizing radar cross-section through composite materials and folded storage, allowing reliable navigation at altitudes as low as 30 meters for precision strikes over 1,000 nautical miles. The tail configuration ensures control during pop-up maneuvers for , enhancing performance in contested environments with reduced signatures from efficient propulsion. Projectile adaptations in rockets, such as those for the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) introduced in the , combine spin-stabilization with tail fin add-ons in guided variants like the GMLRS for enhanced accuracy. These fins, often folding for pod storage and deploying via pyrotechnic or spring mechanisms post-launch, work alongside GPS/INS guidance to correct trajectory, achieving under 10 meters at ranges up to 70 kilometers. In tail-controlled configurations like the TC-GMLRS, the setup enables near-vertical impacts and maneuverability against moving targets, extending effective range while maintaining supersonic speeds during the terminal phase.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Key Benefits

The cruciform tail provides significant advantages in avoiding interference from exhaust and wake effects. By mounting the horizontal stabilizers at mid-height on the vertical fin, the design positions these surfaces clear of jet plumes, propeller wash, or wing wakes, thereby minimizing thermal stress and erosion damage to the control surfaces, as exemplified in the B-1B bomber configuration. This placement also ensures the lower portions of the rudders remain exposed to relatively undisturbed airflow, enhancing operational reliability in high-thrust environments. Another key benefit is the enhanced control effectiveness, particularly in yaw response. The arrangement delivers the greatest yaw-control authority among tail configurations, with unobstructed airflow to the vertical surfaces yielding substantial improvements in effectiveness—up to double the rolling-moment compared to three-fin setups in wind-tunnel tests at supersonic speeds and varying angles of attack. The design's compact integration further supports its use in space-constrained applications, such as blended-wing body aircraft and missiles. It facilitates efficient structural sectionalization for manufacturing and testing while imposing a lower weight penalty than T-tail configurations, through simplified load paths and material efficiency. Finally, the cruciform tail's versatility stems from its symmetric, 360-degree fin placement, which provides omnidirectional control authority ideal for spinning projectiles. This symmetry stabilizes against phenomena like roll lock-in and catastrophic yaw, ensuring consistent pitch, yaw, and roll response in axisymmetric or rotating flight regimes common to guided missiles.

Principal Drawbacks

The cruciform tail configuration introduces several notable limitations, primarily related to weight and aerodynamic performance trade-offs. One key drawback is the potential for increased overall or weight, as the intersecting surfaces contribute to higher gross weights compared to simpler tail designs. For instance, early conceptual designs for the SR-71 Blackbird incorporated cruciform tails but were rejected in favor of other configurations due to excessive weight penalties that impacted performance objectives. Aerodynamic interference between the horizontal and vertical surfaces represents another significant limitation, particularly at high angles of attack. In designs, wing-body-tail interactions in arrangements lead to nonlinearities in and control effectiveness, where afterbody vortices and leeward-side low-density regions reduce stability derivatives and induce unwanted rolling moments during yaw maneuvers. This interference can effectively "blank" portions of the vertical , diminishing yaw authority in critical flight attitudes. Furthermore, the cruciform tail exhibits pronounced nonlinear characteristics attributable to wing wake impingement on the tail surfaces, which can exacerbate risks and complicate longitudinal control during off-nominal conditions. At elevated angles of attack, these flow fields also generate considerable positive yawing moments, further challenging and control authority.

Comparisons to Other Designs

Versus Conventional Tail

The conventional tail, also known as the low-tail configuration, features a horizontal stabilizer mounted low on the near the base of the vertical fin, providing a straightforward layout for stability and control in most . In contrast, the cruciform tail arranges the horizontal stabilizer at mid-height on the vertical fin, forming a cross-like structure that elevates the horizontal surfaces above the fuselage centerline. This layout difference allows the cruciform design to position control surfaces away from fuselage-induced airflow disruptions while maintaining a compact profile. Performance trade-offs between the two designs vary by application. The conventional tail is simpler to manufacture and lighter in weight, making it ideal for subsonic where structural efficiency and low risk are prioritized, as it avoids the added complexity of elevated mounting. However, in jet-powered aircraft, the cruciform tail offers superior exhaust clearance by keeping the horizontal stabilizer out of the jet wake, reducing aerodynamic interference and improving control effectiveness at high speeds; for instance, tests on supersonic configurations showed cruciform tails providing the greatest pitch-control authority at Mach numbers from 1.90 to 2.86 compared to other tail arrangements. without the end-plate efficiency gains of higher-mounted alternatives. Use cases highlight these differences distinctly. Conventional tails dominate in general aviation and propeller-driven aircraft, such as the , where simplicity and stability in low-speed regimes suffice without the need for wake avoidance. tails, however, are favored in high-performance military jets requiring jet exhaust clearance and enhanced maneuverability, exemplified by the , whose mid-mounted horizontal surfaces minimized interference from its rear engine for better high-altitude performance during the era. In missiles and projectiles, cruciform configurations provide symmetric stability and control across multiple axes, enabling effective skid-to-turn maneuvers in tactical guided missiles, unlike the more directional conventional setups that may limit omnidirectional response. Efficiency metrics further underscore the trade-offs. tails can reduce interference drag in jet applications by positioning surfaces outside propulsive wakes, though quantitative gains depend on specific conditions and are not universally superior. Overall, the choice hinges on mission demands, with conventional designs excelling in efficiency for subsonic civil roles and providing balanced performance in dynamic, high-speed environments.

Versus T-Tail Configurations

The cruciform tail configuration mounts the horizontal stabilizers at the midpoint of the vertical fin, creating a cross-like appearance when viewed from the front or rear, whereas the positions the horizontal stabilizers atop the vertical fin, forming a T shape. This mid-height placement in the cruciform design serves as a structural and aerodynamic compromise between low-mounted conventional tails and high-mounted . Aerodynamically, the T-tail's elevated position exposes the horizontal stabilizers to cleaner airflow outside the wing's downwash and propeller slipstream, enhancing pitch control effectiveness, but it increases susceptibility to deep stall at high angles of attack where the wing's separated wake can blanket the tail, reducing elevator authority and leading to pitch-up instability. In contrast, the cruciform tail's midway mounting avoids full immersion in the wing wake during stall, mitigating deep stall risks while still positioning the surfaces away from jet exhaust or propeller wash, though it may experience some interference from fuselage vortices. This placement also lacks the end-plate effect of the T-tail, where the horizontal surface enhances vertical fin efficiency, potentially requiring a slightly larger vertical stabilizer for equivalent yaw control. T-tail configurations are commonly applied in rear-engine jet airliners, such as the , where the elevated horizontal stabilizer allows engines to be mounted closer to the without interference, improving overall and providing space for thrust reversers. Cruciform tails, however, find greater use in like the MiG-15, offering balanced low-speed handling and control authority by centering the stabilizers for symmetric response across pitch and yaw axes. In missiles and projectiles, the cruciform design provides inherent balance and omnidirectional stability, enabling effective tail-control deflection for maneuvering without the added complexity of asymmetric wakes from high-mounted surfaces. Trade-offs between the designs highlight distinct priorities: the facilitates better propeller clearance in climb attitudes for some piston-engine and accommodates rear-fuselage engines in jets, but it imposes higher structural loads on the vertical fin due to the cantilevered horizontal surfaces, necessitating reinforced, heavier . The cruciform tail, being lighter overall and requiring less reinforcement, offers a more balanced load distribution suitable for high-maneuverability applications like missiles, though it may demand marginally larger surfaces for equivalent control effectiveness compared to the T-tail's optimized .

References

  1. https://aerotoolbox.com/design-aircraft-tail/
  2. https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Aerospace_Engineering/Fundamentals_of_Aerospace_Engineering_%28Arnedo%29/02%253A_Generalities/2.02%253A_Parts_of_the_aircraft/2.2.03%253A_Empennage
  3. https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/HOOU/AircraftDesign_9_EmpennageGeneralDesign.pdf
  4. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/33206/why-does-the-mig-15-have-a-cruciform-tail
  5. https://aircraft.fandom.com/wiki/Cruciform_tail
  6. https://simpleflying.com/which-aircraft-designs-feature-cruciform-tails/
  7. https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/airplane-parts-function/
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/vertical-stabilizers
  9. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/caravelle.htm
  10. https://www.aircraftrecognitionguide.com/fairchild-merlin-metroliner
  11. https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V13-N01/13-01-Eaton.pdf
  12. https://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Sidewinder-94.html
  13. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19900008226/downloads/19900008226.pdf
  14. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19830009235/downloads/19830009235.pdf
  15. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA078611.pdf
  16. https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V04-N03/04-03-Cronvich.pdf
  17. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_0006_WERRELL_EVOLUTION_CRUISE_MISSILE.pdf
  18. https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-109.html
  19. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930087843/downloads/19930087843.pdf
  20. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930083980/downloads/19930083980.pdf
  21. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20030067941/downloads/20030067941.pdf
  22. https://webpage-a360a5.gitlab.io/pdf/10-TailSizing.pdf
  23. https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/Aero/AERO_PUB_INCAS_TailVolume_Vol13No3_2021.pdf
  24. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19740021178/downloads/19740021178.pdf
  25. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19770022140/downloads/19770022140.pdf
  26. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20050160470/downloads/20050160470.pdf
  27. https://www.globalair.com/aircraft-for-sale/specifications?specid=529
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221491472100146X
  29. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA176553.pdf
  30. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/
  31. https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/pac-3-mse
  32. https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/mlrs.html
  33. https://www.mobilityengineeringtech.com/component/content/article/32777-tail-controlled-rocket-demonstrates-near-vertical-impact-at-extended-range
  34. https://www.gopalancolleges.com/gcem/course-material/ae/2018-scheme-7th-sem/18AE81-fvd/module-II.pdf
  35. https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Aerospace_Engineering/Fundamentals_of_Aerospace_Engineering_(Arnedo)/02:_Generalities/2.02:_Parts_of_the_aircraft/2.2.03:_Empennage
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/tailplane
  37. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090007797/downloads/20090007797.pdf
  38. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADP001949.pdf
  39. https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V04-N03/04-03-Cronvich.pdf
  40. https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2019/08/5-unique-characteristics-of-t-tail-airplanes/
  41. http://aero.us.es/adesign/Slides/Extra/Stability/Design_Tail/Chapter%206.%20Tail%20Design.pdf
  42. https://simpleflying.com/why-boeing-build-727-3-engines/
  43. https://www.gopalancolleges.com/gcem/course-material/ae/basics-of-rockets-missiles/module-3.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.