What design considerations go into the decision between conventional tails and T-tails? Functionally the horizontal stabilizer/stabilator are the same in both cases, providing negative lift, the elevator control and a method for pitch trim. What are the differences though?
As far as I am aware the T-tails I have flown have T-tails for avoiding propwash (PA-44) or aft engine placement (EMB-145). Are there other reasons for having a T-tail? What are the aerodynamic consequences a pilot needs to be aware of with a T-tail (e.g. avoiding hard de-rotation on touchdown, issues at high AOA, etc)?
There's a lot to this, and I'm no aircraft engineer, so if there are any other answers, I'll happily delete this. Anyway, from what I've been told:
The T-tail sticks the elevators out of the disturbed air of the wings, prop, and (usually most of) the fuselage which gives you better elevator authority, and makes a tail stall less likely.
It has some drawbacks though, by putting the elevators directly in the (turbulent) separated flow from the wings during a stall can put you in a (more or less) unrecoverable deep stall.
(Picture from the linked Wikipedia article)
The considerations in the roe's answer are entirely correct but there might be other factors to take into account.
First, it is true that using conventional tail leads to the fact that the airflow over the tail might be disturbed by the main wing and/or the engines and/or the fuselage. However, the downwash induced by the main wing on the flow is taken into account (for the cruise conditions) in the design of the tail in order to reduce some negative aspects of the interaction between the main wing and the tail.
Another major difference between these two configurations concerns the stability. As I already explained in this answer, the tail is used to create some lift that is required to fulfil the trim relations. Regarding the "vertical" force equilibrium equation, there is no real difference between the two configurations but there is a big one for the moment equilibrium.
Assuming that you have the same amount of lift generated by the both configurations (this is relevant due to the "vertical" force equilibrium), a quick sketch will convince you that both the angle and the lever arm are different. The conclusion of this study cannot be drawn without a specific example but I hope it is clear for you that stability is really impacted by the choice of the tail.
From a structural point of view, when flying transonic (or even supersonic) it is not good to have a T-tail configuration because it usually induces flutter on the tail.
Finally, at a lower level but still a difference, using a T-tail increases the wake (compared to a conventional configuration, where the tail is almost in the wake of the main wings and the fuselage) behind your aircraft and thus the drag you need to overcome is larger.
There is more to a T-tail than that:
A T-tail produces a strong nose-down pitching moment in sideslip.
If it were not for the flutter and pitch-down, T-tails would be more widespread ...
What design considerations go into the decision between conventional tails and T-tails? Functionally the horizontal stabilizer/stabilator are the same in both cases, providing negative lift, the elevator control and a method for pitch trim. What are the differences though? As far as I am aware the T-tails I have flown have T-tails for avoiding propwash (PA-44) or aft engine placement (EMB-145). Are there other reasons for having a T-tail? What are the aerodynamic consequences a pilot needs to be aware of with a T-tail (e.g. avoiding hard de-rotation on touchdown, issues at high AOA
How is the ATR 42/72 empennage considered? Is it a T-Tail or a cruciform tail? From the image the elevators are placed quite high on the tail that they can be considered as a T-Tail but is it so? Looking at the tail of a 727 the elevators are placed at the top of the tail but just leaving the space for the mechanism to move them, whereas on the ATR they are placed in a slightly lower position..." but it would be interesting to know, as previously mentioned, if there are specifics about this definition making it clear for everyone from a technical point of view. (briefly, when does a T-Tail become
The MD-900 is a helicopter which seems to be quite popular with law enforcement agencies. As you can see, instead of an anti-torque tail rotor, a fan exhaust is directed out slots in the tail boom. I was wondering if this works in regards to auto rotation, should the aircraft lose its engines.
loaded "widgets" that have ability to be programmed to "jump" at once.) Questions: Can flight dynamics be affected due to the jump at ANY phase of the flight? What % of the typical (cargo/passanger) plane weight is the actual cargo (excluding fuel)? Does the location of the "jumping" cargo matter? Tail vs. Cockpit What happens if all pax/cargo suddenly jumped to tail or cockpit section...As a thought experiment, imagine a plane with minimal fuel/appliances on board with hundreds of heavy passengers that make up say 10% of the weight of the plane. Now imagine that they have a way
I was looking through my ADSB Virtual Radar outputs couple days ago and saw a weird re-route for one of the aircraft that looked out of place. Can one of the pilots/ATC guys pitch in to help me understand what may have caused this A/C to do this? Is this "normal"? I would expect if this was a wake turbulence from A/C ahead they would have just asked the rerouting A/C to just slow down? Tail #: N39463
I'm a student pursuing a US Private Pilot License, and recently scheduled my checkride. I've been training in a 1981 Piper Warrior (PA-28-161), but if its annual goes sour I may have to take my club's 1980 Piper Archer (PA-28-181). I have well over §61.109's 40 hours in the Warrior alone, and only ~10 hours in the Archer. I have a separate club checkout and CFI solo endorsement for each... plane was fine, and I can't find any Part 61 regulations that are specific to experience in one make/model aside from adding an experimental aircraft as part §61.63(h)(1), which is what I assume
This question is somewhat related to this other one. I listened to this exchange between a helicopter and Newark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHNvXPbZ7WI The helicopter wants to land at Newark. The controller tells the helicopter to remain clear of the Class B. I'm aware that the controllers must give clearance to operate in certain classes of airspace, and the helicopter wasn't granted clearance to do so. Why was the helicopter denied (as far as can be deduced)? What should the pilot have done differently, either to get clearance to land at Newark or to anticipate not being able to?
at 10,000 feet in VMC on an IFR flight plan while in class E airspace. I'm pretty sure many pilots will be on autopilot without taking too much notice of what's happening outside but according to the regulations the pilot is still responsible for seeing and avoiding other VFR traffic. Are there any accident statistics on this? I have read hundreds of accident reports over the last few years and I...In class D and E airspace, there is no separation between IFR and VFR traffic. However, most airspace in the United States below 18,500 feet MSL is class E airspace, which is exactly where non
I was looking through my virtual radar logs one of the days and found this "glitchy" ADS-B behavior. I am almost 100% sure that this is not due to my antenna or setup since two independent different radars confirmed this weird behavior from FlightRadar24. Also A/C before and after this one did not exhibit this behavior. Does anybody have any thoughts as to what may be happening??? Why... of occurrence is approximately: 3/16/2014 6:09pm CST I have also verified FlightAware is ALSO showing the same weird glitch. See below "yellow" highlighted airplane: Same A/C from FlightRadar24
I'm pretty sure that there are no aircraft equipped with a brake on its nose wheel, however two of my colleagues think there might have been. Are there? Aircraft with retractable gear of course have devices to stop the wheels from spinning when retracted, but I'm asking about brakes used to stop or slow down the aircraft. Please don't consider aircraft with a tail wheel, gliders, experimental aircraft, or aircraft used for flight testing (certified aircraft only).