Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Aerospace Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paerosci

Aircraft directional stability and vertical tail design: A review of

semi-empirical methods
Danilo Ciliberti *, Pierluigi Della Vecchia, Fabrizio Nicolosi, Agostino De Marco
University of Naples “Federico II”, Via Claudio 21, 80125, Naples, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Aircraft directional stability and control are related to vertical tail design. The safety, performance, and flight
Aircraft aerodynamic design qualities of an aircraft also depend on a correct empennage sizing. Specifically, the vertical tail is responsible for
CFD the aircraft yaw stability and control. If these characteristics are not well balanced, the entire aircraft design may
Directional stability fail. Stability and control are often evaluated, especially in the preliminary design phase, with semi-empirical
Vertical tail sizing methods, which are based on the results of experimental investigations performed in the past decades, and oc-
casionally 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 represen-
tative 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.

1. Introduction
The empennages in traditional aircraft configurations (Fig. 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 tail-
planes 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 accel-
erations 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 longitu-
dinal 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

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: danilo.cilberti@unina.it (D. Ciliberti), pierluigi.dellavecchia@unina.it (P. Della Vecchia), fabrizio.nicolosi@unina.it (F. Nicolosi), agostino.demarco@unina.it (A. De
Marco).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2017.11.001
Received 23 August 2017; Accepted 3 November 2017
Available online 23 November 2017
0376-0421/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Nomenclature to sideslip
CNβh horizontal tail yawing moment coefficient derivative due
to sideslip
Acronyms CNβv vertical tail yawing moment coefficient derivative due
AGILE Aircraft 3rd Generation MDO for Innovative Collaboration to sideslip
of Heterogeneous Teams of Experts CNβw wing yawing moment coefficient derivative due to sideslip
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics CYβ airplane sideforce coefficient derivative due to sideslip
CNC Computer Numerical Control Df fuselage max diameter
DES Detached Eddy Simulation KFv coefficient to account for fuselage interference on
DII Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale vertical tail
DNS Direct Navier-Stokes KHf coefficient to account for horizontal tail interference
ESDU Engineering Science Data Unit on fuselage
F fuselage KHv coefficient to account for horizontal tail interference on
FV fuselage – vertical tail combination vertical tail
H horizontal tail KVf coefficient to account for vertical tail interference
LES Large Eddy Simulation on fuselage
m.a.c. mean aerodynamic chord KWf coefficient to account for wing interference on fuselage
MDO Multidisciplinary Design Optimization KWv coefficient to account for wing interference on vertical tail
NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Lf fuselage length
OAD Overall Aircraft Design Ln fuselage nose length
RANS Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Lt fuselage tail-cone length
SCoPE Sistema Cooperativo Per Elaborazioni scientifiche S wing planform area
multidisciplinari Sr rudder planform area
USAF DATCOM Sfront fuselage frontal area
United States Air Force Data Compendium Sh horizontal tailplane area
V vertical tail Sv vertical tailplane area
W wing VsTO take-off stall speed
WFV wing – fuselage – vertical tail combination V∞ asymptotic velocity
WFVH wing – fuselage – vertical tail – horizontal tail combination b wing span
Notation bv vertical tailplane span
A wing aspect ratio bv1 vertical tailplane span extended to the fuselage centerline
Ah horizontal tailplane aspect ratio cr rudder m.a.c.
Av vertical tailplane aspect ratio df fuselage equivalent diameter
Aveff vertical tailplane effective aspect ratio dfv fuselage height at vertical tail aerodynamic center
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi lv vertical tail directional moment arm
B compressibility parameter 1  M 2
Ch hinge moment coefficient rf fuselage max radius
CL airplane rolling moment coefficient y+ dimensionless wall distance
CLαv vertical tail lift curve slope zftc height of the fuselage tail-cone
CL β airplane rolling moment coefficient derivative due zh position of the horizontal tail on the vertical tail
to sideslip zw wing position in fuselage
CN airplane yawing moment coefficient α angle of attack
CNf fuselage yawing moment coefficient β angle of sideslip
CNv vertical tail yawing moment coefficient λ taper ratio
CNβ airplane yawing moment coefficient derivative due Δ difference
to sideslip Λ sweep angle
CNβf fuselage yawing moment coefficient derivative due

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 (Fig. 2)
or maximum cross-wind capability (Fig. 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 aero-
dynamic coefficients with the main flight variables, and, in particular, the
vertical fin design influences all derivatives with respect to the angle of
sideslip β. 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 is-
sues (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 (Fig. 4) or volume coefficient. These are ensured
by a sufficiently high value of the derivative


Sv lv
CNβv ¼ f CLαv ; (1)
S b

141
D. Ciliberti et al.
Fig. 1. Aircraft empennage components.
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
Fig. 2. Airborne one engine inoperative condition.
Source: Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 3.0.
142
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
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
M h ¼ ρV 2 Ch Sr cr (2)
2
which depends on rudder planform area Sr, mean aerodynamic chord cr,
dynamic pressure 12 ρV 2 , and hinge moment coefficient Ch. This is
important for the sizing of control surface actuators and pedal con-
trol 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 an-
alyses, 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 disci-
plines and specialists distributed in several groups. New aircraft Multi-
disciplinary 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) Euro-
pean 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 nu-
merical 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 and a comparison with other, well-
established methods is shown in Section 8. Conclusions are drawn in
Section 9.
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Fig. 3. Cross-wind landing.

Source: Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 3.0.

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 con-
figurations were tested: rectangular, elliptical and swept wings; sym-
metrical 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 Fig. 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
Fig. 4. Definition of vertical tail planform.
problem of directional stability and control [11,12], while later tests
aimed to improve stability and maneuverability of high speed combat
2. Early wind tunnel tests
airplanes [13].
The aerodynamic interference of the wing-fuselage system on the
From the ‘30s to the ‘50s in the USA, the NACA provided useful results
vertical tail has been investigated by Bamber and House [12] in 1939.
about the directional stability on isolated vertical tailplanes, partial and
The general trend of their results revealed an increase in the sideforce

Fig. 5. Aircraft models investigated by NACA in 1939 and 1950. Reproduced from Report 730 [12] (left) and Report 1049 [13] (right).

143
D. Ciliberti et al.
Fig. 6. Effects of wing position on vertical tail yawing moment coefficient derivative
provided by DATCOM and ESDU.
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 CL βv 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
Fig. 7. Effects of horizontal tail position on vertical tail yawing moment coefficient de-
rivative provided by DATCOM and ESDU.
144
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
Fig. 8. Rudder equilibrium angle versus sideslip angle for two vertical tailplanes.
aerodynamic center (shortly: tail span per body depth), for various
tail-fuselage combinations. The vertical tail effective aspect ratio in-
creases 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 exper-
imental data is such that best fitting lines between theory and experi-
ments 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
Fig. 9. Minimum control speed as function of engine yawing moment and vertical tail
planform area.
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Fig. 10. Computational time versus CPUs number for RANS simulations.

planforms. Results of their work have shown that the effect of the hori- Table 1
zontal tail is advantageous to directional stability, at low angles of attack, Geometric data of the aircraft simulated with CFD.

if it is positioned upward and rearward on the vertical tail (T-tail Parameter Symbol Values
configuration) or if it is located on the fuselage. At high angles of attack, Wing aspect ratio A 6 to 14, step 2
flow separation and wing downwash can highly affect the directional Wing position zw/rf 1, 0, 1
stability, although positive effects can be obtained by moving the hori- Horizontal tail position zh/bv1 0, 0.38, 0.62, 0.82, 1.0
zontal tail forward and upward. The vertical tail effective aspect ratio 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

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, ac-
cording 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

Fig. 12. Vertical tail planform families.

Fig. 11. Layout of the aircraft model for the numerical analyses.

145
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Table 2
Vertical tail planform data. See Fig. 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 26.6
0
13.7
, 16.9
, 22.1
,
sweep 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

< 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
Fig. 14. Effects of Reynolds number on sideforce aerodynamic coefficient.
span bv, whereas planform is of secondary importance [2].

3. Semi-empirical methods

Results of NACA wind tunnel tests previously described were orga-
nized 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 con-
ceptual 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 fi-
delity 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 Fig. 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 pro-
posed 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

Fig. 15. Typical aircraft components contributions to yawing moment coefficient.

Fig. 13. Volume mesh around the aircraft model.

146
D. Ciliberti et al.
Fig. 16. Effect of the fuselage on the vertical tail: acceleration of the flow at the root of the
vertical tail.
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 (Fig. 6) and of horizontal tail position (Fig. 7)
has shown that the predicted values of vertical tail contribution to
Fig. 17. Effect of the wing position on the vertical tail.
147
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
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. Fig. 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. Fig. 7 shows
that the two methods disagree on the most significant empennage con-
figurations, 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
weaker directional perturbations. For this reason, they suggested an
expression of the desirable aircraft directional stability as a fraction of the
span loading
rffiffiffiffiffi
W
CNβ ¼ 0:0005 (3)
b2
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 ver-
tical 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. Fig. 8 shows the required rudder deflections
to fly with given sideslip angles, for two identical regional turboprop
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Fig. 18. Effect of the horizontal tail on the vertical tail: the end-plate effect.

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

Fig. 19. Isolated vertical tail lift curve slope versus aspect ratio. Planform set of Fig. 12a,
M ¼ 0, Λv ¼ 26.6
.

Fig. 21. Effect of fuselage slenderness ratio, non-dimensioned on max fuselage diameter df
Fig. 20. Fuselage reference system. and frontal area Sfront. Each marker represents a CFD analysis.

148
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Fig. 24. Definition of vertical tail span over fuselage diameter bv/dfv.

Fig. 22. Effect of fuselage nose slenderness ratio, non-dimensioned on max fuselage
diameter df and frontal area Sfront. Each marker represents a CFD analysis.

(Fig. 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.
Fig. 25. Definition of fuselage tail-cone shape zftc/dfv.

4. Numerical methods

The use of Computational Fluid Dynamics for industrial aircraft

Fig. 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. Fig. 26. Aerodynamic interference factor KFv. Effect of the fuselage on the vertical tail.
The markers are results of CFD analyses.

149
D. Ciliberti et al.
Fig. 27. Aerodynamic interference factor KVf. Effect of the vertical tail on the fuselage.
The markers are results of CFD analyses.
design started in the ’60s as a support to wind tunnel or flight experi-
ments, 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 tradi-
tionally the primary tool to provide aerodynamic inputs for simulation
databases, yet some issues can lead to serious errors in the predicted
Fig. 28. Wing position reference system.
Fig. 29. Aerodynamic interference factor KWv. Effect of the wing on the vertical tail. The markers are results of CFD analyses.
150
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
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 manip-
ulated 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 distribu-
tions 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. Vis-
cosity is responsible of momentum loss in boundary layer because of skin-
friction and pressure drag, increasing boundary layer thickness,
D. Ciliberti et al.
Fig. 30. Aerodynamic interference factor KWf. Effect of the wing on the fuselage. The markers are results of CFD analyses.
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 es-
timate 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 ge-
ometry, 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 dif-
ferential 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 neglec-
ted 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
Fig. 31. Horizontal tail position reference system.
151
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
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 pre-
dictions. Since 1985 the increased computational power and the devel-
opment 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 sim-
ple 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 pre-
dictions 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 nu-
merical 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 investi-
gated for hundreds of configurations with STAR-CCMþ [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
D. Ciliberti et al.
Fig. 32. Aerodynamic interference factor KHv. Effect of the horizontal tail on the vertical tail. The markers are results of CFD analyses.
simulate many configurations in a reasonably short amount of time.
Fig. 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 nu-
merical 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-CCMþ 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
152
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
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 configura-
tions [33,42,43], provided that a properly refined mesh is chosen and the
level of refinement is determined on the basis of a grid conver-
gence study.
5.1. The aircraft model and sampling plan
The aircraft investigated is the modular model shown in Fig. 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
D. Ciliberti et al.
Fig. 33. Aerodynamic interference factor KHf. Effect of the horizontal tail on the fuselage. The markers are results of CFD analyses.
summarized in Table 1. The horizontal stabilizer is straight and unta-
pered, with a fixed aspect ratio (Ah ¼ 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 fam-
ilies 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
(Fig. 12a). The choice of the second set follows the same principles of the
previous one, except that the fin planforms are unswept and untapered
(Fig. 12b). The third set is made up of planforms with a constant taper
ratio, but different areas and aspect ratios (Fig. 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 simula-
tions for each configuration is reported in Table 3. More than 200
153
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
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 direc-
tional 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
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Fig. 34. Aircraft model main dimensions. Units in mm.

Fig. 35. Aircraft model exploded view.

154
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Table 4 5.3. Effect of the Reynolds number

Dimensions of the fuselage components of the aircraft model. Items ID are shown in Fig. 35.

ID Description Length (m) Width (m) The effects of the Reynolds number on the stability derivatives is
2 Fuselage nose 0.293 0.222 negligible at low sideslip angles, as shown in Fig. 14. Test cases for
3, 21, 22 Fuselage tail-cone 0.733 0.222 several models in different conditions of Reynolds and Mach numbers
4 Fuselage cabin 0.978 0.222 have been presented in Ref. [19]. All the numerical analyses, whose re-
sults have been organized in the metamodel introduced in Section 6,
have been performed at angle of attack α ¼ 0
and angle of sideslip
Table 5
Dimensions of the lifting surfaces of the aircraft model. Items ID are shown in Fig. 35. β ¼ 5
, with a Reynolds number based on the wing mean aerodynamic
chord Re  1000000, which is close to the value attainable in low-speed
ID Description A λ S (m2) croot (m) ctip (m) b (m)
wind tunnels.
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
5.4. Aerodynamic interference
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 A typical aircraft yawing moment coefficient breakdown is shown in
Fig. 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

Fig. 36. Fuselage central body.
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 Fig. 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 yþ  1 on the model surface. This is neces-
sary to correctly capture the viscous effects with the Spalart-Allmaras
turbulence model [40].
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 Fig. 16.
The maximum 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 Ref. [9], x5.3.1.1) 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% and
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.

Fig. 37. Vertical tail planforms.

155
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Fig. 38. Fuselage tail-cones.

Fig. 41. Loads path with the vertical tail load cell.
Fig. 39. Fuselage tail-cone detail.

incidence of the vertical tail because of the generation of a vortex system

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
from the wing-body in sideslip (see Ref. [9], x5.3.1.1). 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.
Fig. 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 inter-
ference 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 (Fig. 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
(Fig. 17b). For both configurations, the aerodynamic force

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
Fig. 40. Vertical tail assembly with load cell.

156
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Fig. 42. Wind tunnel diagram.

Table 7 in the pressure loading of the latter. This effect is more significant if the
Wind tunnel main characteristics. horizontal panel is mounted where the vertical tail exhibits an appre-
Test section dimensions 2.0 m  1.4 m ciable gradient, i.e. at a relatively high or low position, as shown in
Maximum wind speed 50 m/s Fig. 18. Test data (see Ref. [9], x5.3.1.1) highlight the greater effective-
Turbulence level 0.10%
ness of horizontal panels in these positions and the relative ineffective-
Maximum power 150 kW
ness of a horizontal panel at the midspan position on the vertical tail
(cruciform empennage). At subsonic speeds, the aircraft fuselage and
(pressure þ shear) and pressure coefficient distribution at the vertical tail horizontal tail affect the flow on the vertical tail in such a way as to in-
mean aerodynamic chord section are also shown. The low wing config- crease the effectiveness of the vertical tail. This phenomenon, known as
uration has a higher peak of pressure coefficient, although the difference the end-plate effect, is represented in DATCOM [9] by an effective change
with the high wing configuration is small. The increase (low wing) or in vertical tail aspect ratio required to give the same lift effectiveness as
decrease (high wing) of vertical tail effectiveness due to the wing the actual planform in the presence of the other airplane components.
mounting position in fuselage is around 10%. The magnitude of this effect depends also from vertical tail aspect ratio,
wing position, and fuselage after-body shape. The increase of vertical tail
5.4.3. Effect of the horizontal tail effectiveness in sideslip may be up to 45% for a T-tail configuration,
The presence of a horizontal panel near a vertical tail causes a change whereas the fuselage unstable contribution may be reduced up to 10% for

Fig. 43. The aircraft model in the test section.

Fig. 44. Wind tunnel model reference system.

157
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Fig. 45. Relative position of moments reference points. Units in mm.

a body-mounted horizontal tail. Cruciform empennage configurations 6.1. Isolated vertical tail and fuselage
slightly decrease the effectiveness of vertical tail in sideslip.
The lift curve slope CLαv of the isolated vertical tailplane is a function
6. A modern semi-empirical method for the evaluation of aircraft of its planform (Fig. 4), airfoil shape, and Mach number. It can be pre-
directional stability dicted by the Helmbold-Diederich [44,45] formula for vertical tail, also
illustrated in Fig. 19 at M ¼ 0
By combining the geometries presented in the previous sections, a
metamodel has been generated from the results of the numerical ana- 2πAv
CLαv ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  (7)
lyses. The aircraft yawing moment coefficient derivative due to sideslip B2 A2v tan2 Λ
2þ κ2
1 þ B2v;c=2 þ 4
can be calculated as the sum of the contributions of vertical tail, fuselage,
wing, and horizontal tail
where Av p isffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
the vertical
ffi tail aspect ratio, B is the compressibility
CNβ ¼ CNβv þ CNβf þ CNβw þ CNβh (4) 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
where each term includes the aerodynamic interference, which will be is the vertical tail sweep angle at half chord.
calculated in the following. For a regional turboprop airplane, with a The yawing moment coefficient derivative CNβf of the isolated fuse-
straight tapered wing, the vertical tailplane and the fuselage give the lage may be evaluated as described in Ref. [38].
main contributions, defined as follows  S
front df
CNisolated
β
¼ CNβf þ ΔCNβf þ ΔCNβf (8)
lv Sv f slend nose tail S b
CNβv ¼ KFv KWv KHv CLαv (5)
b S
where the reference system of the isolated fuselage is shown in Fig. 20;
CNf slend is the yawing moment coefficient as function of fuselage slen-
CNβf ¼ KVf KWf KHf CNisolated (6)
β f derness ratio Lf/Df (see Fig. 21); ΔCNf nose is the yawing moment
The vertical tail contribution is stable (and usually reported with correction factor due to the nose slenderness ratio Ln/Df (see Fig. 22);
positive sign), whereas the fuselage contribution is unstable. The lift ΔCNf tail is the yawing moment correction factor due to the tail-cone
curve slope of the isolated vertical tailplane CLαv and the yawing moment slenderness ratio Lt/Df (see Fig. 23). These data are referred to the
coefficient derivative due to sideslip of the isolated fuselage CNβf are fuselage frontal area Sfront and cabin equivalent diameter df, which are
corrected by the interference factors K(∙), which are ratios of aero- related as follows
dynamic coefficients between two configurations differing for only one
df2
component. For instance, the effect of the fuselage on the vertical tail Sfront ¼ π (9)
contribution to directional stability is given by the ratio CNβv (FV)/CNβv 4
(V), where F stands for fuselage and V stands for vertical tailplane. The In the case of a cabin with circular cross-section one has df ¼ Df.
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 6.2. Fuselage - vertical tail interference factors KFv and KVf
fuselage – vertical tail combination. Similarly, for the horizontal tailplane
(H) the effect is measured by the ratio CNβv (WFVH)/CNβv (WFV). In this The interference factor KFv is defined as the ratio between the yawing
way, the global effect of the aerodynamic interference can be obtained by moment coefficient of the fuselage - vertical tail combination to the
multiplying these factors. Each interference factor K(∙) is defined such yawing moment coefficient of the isolated vertical tailplane
that K(∙) > 1 means that the aerodynamic interference increases the value
of the derivative CNβ, while K(∙) < 1 reduces it.

158
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Fig. 47. Wing positions in fuselage.

parameterized with fuselage tail-cone shape, defined in Fig. 25. The ef-
fect of the fuselage on the vertical tailplane in sideslip is represented in
Fig. 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 rep-
resented in Fig. 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

CNβf ðFVÞ
KVf ¼ (11)
CNβf ðFÞ

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
Fig. 46. The three fuselage groups.
vertical tailplane and fuselage is always beneficial for both: the vertical
tailplane increases its effectiveness in sideslip by 10%–20%, whereas the
fuselage directional instability is reduced by the same amount. Both
contribute to increase the yawing moment coefficient derivative CNβ of
CNβv ðFVÞ the airplane from 15% to 30%.
KFv ¼ (10)
CNβv ðVÞ
6.3. Wing interference factors KWv and KWf
where the geometric parameter governing this factor is the ratio of the
vertical tail span bv to fuselage height dfv at vertical tail mean aero- The wing interference factors KWv and KWf represent the effects of
dynamic chord, representing the relative size between the vertical sta- wing sidewash on the vertical tailplane and fuselage, respectively
bilizer and the fuselage section, see Fig. 24. Data points have been defined as

159
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

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 Fig. 28, whereas that describing the fuselage
tail-cone shape has been reported in Fig. 25.
The effect KWv of the aerodynamic interference of the wing on the
vertical tail is reported in Fig. 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 ¼ 1 and 1 respectively. The typical effect of larger wing
aspect ratios is to reduce both the positive and negative perturbations of
the wing, with the exception of the configurations with low-wing (zw/
rf ¼ 1) and fuselage tail-cones with zftc/rf ¼ 0.5 to 1, where the KWv
factor is greater for high aspect ratio wings. This is probably due to the
longer distance between wing wake and wingtip vortices from the ver-
tical tail surface.
The charts representing the interference effect of the wing on the
fuselage KWf are shown in Fig. 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

CNβv ðWFVHÞ
KHv ¼ (14)
CNβv ðWFVÞ

CNβf ðWFVHÞ
KHf ¼ (15)
CNβf ðWFVÞ

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 al-
ways 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 Fig. 31, whereas that describing the fuselage tail-cone shape has
been reported in Fig. 25.
Results of the aerodynamic interference on the vertical tail are re-
ported in Fig. 32. The horizontal tailplane may increase or decrease the
Fig. 48. Vertical tails in fuselage. 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
CNβv ðWFVÞ aspect ratio, wing position, and fuselage tail-cone shape. The lower is the
KWv ¼ (12) vertical tail aspect ratio, the stronger is the interference effect. The body-
CNβv ðFVÞ
mounted horizontal tail also exhibits an increase of vertical tail effec-
tiveness in sideslip, although less strong than the T-tail configuration and
CNβf ðWFVÞ with a reduced influence of vertical tail aspect ratio. In this case the
KWf ¼ (13)
CNβf ðFVÞ 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
These effects are functions of the vertical wing location on the fuse- (extended to the body-mounted tail position), the aerodynamic inter-
lage zw/rf, fuselage tail-cone shape zftc/rf (i.e. wing - vertical tailplane ference effect is usually unfavorable, with a directional stability reduc-
relative position), and wing aspect ratio A. A previous investigation [19] tion up to 8%. For this reason, cruciform tailplane configurations should

160
D. Ciliberti et al.
Fig. 49. Horizontal tail positions.
be avoided, if not required by other constraints.
Results of the aerodynamic interference on the fuselage are reported
in Fig. 33. The fuselage directional instability is usually reduced in the
body-mounted horizontal tail configuration by 4%–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 lon-
gitudinal position and its size with respect to the vertical tail size are
accounted for.
161
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
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 re-
quirements, 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 co-
efficients) for many configurations. Therefore, the time to switch among
configurations must be as short as possible. Moreover, to assess the ef-
fects of aerodynamic interference on the vertical tail, a solution allowing
D. Ciliberti et al.
Fig. 50. Two complete aircraft configurations.
the direct measure of the aerodynamic force on the empennage has
been provided.
The model main dimensions are reported in Fig. 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 ¼ 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 Fig. 35. The dimensions of the main components are
reported in Tables 4 and 5. Some details about these components are
given in the following.
The fuselage central body (Fig. 36) is the component to which all the
other main parts are linked. It provides housing for the wind tunnel
Fig. 51. Comparison of numerical and experimental data on the isolated vertical tail with
Av ¼ 1.5. Re ¼ 470000, α ¼ 0
.
162
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
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 tur-
bopropeller transport airplane. The wing has a straight untapered plan-
form 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 Fig. 37, are provided. The
Fig. 52. Comparison of numerical and experimental data on the isolated fuselage with
zftc/rf ¼ 1.0. Re ¼ 470000, α ¼ 0
.
D. Ciliberti et al.
Fig. 53. Comparison of numerical and experimental data on the body – vertical tail
combination. Re ¼ 470000, α ¼ 0
.
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 Fig. 38, are provided to investi-
gate the effects of the wing-body wake on the empennage. To get
experimental data about the vertical tail in various aircraft configura-
tions, 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 Fig. 39. It provides enough volume
Fig. 54. Non-linear effects on the yawing moment coefficient of the body – vertical tail
combination in the wind tunnel at Re ¼ 470000 and α ¼ 0
.
163
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
Fig. 55. Non-linear effects on the vertical tail yawing moment coefficient of the body –
vertical tail combination in the wind tunnel at Re ¼ 470000 and α ¼ 0
.
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
Fig. 56. Non-linear effects on the fuselage yawing moment coefficient of the body –
vertical tail combination in the wind tunnel at Re ¼ 470000 and α ¼ 0
.
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Fig. 57. Comparison of numerical and experimental data on the wing – body – vertical tail
Fig. 58. Comparison of numerical and experimental data on complete aircraft configu-
combination. Re ¼ 470000, α ¼ 0
.
ration. Re ¼ 470000, α ¼ 0
.

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 complete model weighs 50 kg, with a center of gravity close to the wing
body, to measure the aerodynamic forces acting on the vertical tail in leading edge.
each aircraft configuration. For this reason, an empty space, few milli-
meters thick, between the vertical tail root section and the fuselage has
7.2. The wind tunnel facility
been provided. The empennage assembly is shown in Fig. 40 and a
description of the load path is reported in Fig. 41. The idea is to get
The experimental tests campaign has been performed in the main
aerodynamic data from both the vertical tail (through the load cell) and
subsonic wind tunnel facility of the Department of Industrial Engineering
the entire aircraft (through the wind tunnel balance) at the same time, to
(DII). This is a subsonic, closed-circuit tunnel shown in Fig. 42, with a
evaluate the aerodynamic interference following the approach of the
tempered rectangular cross section. The main wind-tunnel characteristics
metamodel described in Section 6.
are summarized in Table 7. The main components of the closed-circuit
The aircraft model has been mainly realized by computer numerical
tunnel are described in detail in Ref. [47].
control (CNC) milling. The non-metal parts are made from a high density
The measurement instrumentation consists of an internal strain gage
machinable polyurethane slab named PROLAB 65, which properties are
balance for the measurement of aerodynamic forces and moments, a
described in Table 6. The total milled surface is about 3.90 m2. The
Venturi system to measure the dynamic pressure, a potentiometer to

164
D. Ciliberti et al.
Fig. 59. The effect of the fuselage on the vertical tail. Comparison between the curves
derived from numerical analyses and the experimental data.
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
Fig. 60. The effect of the horizontal tail on the vertical tail. Comparison between the curves derived from numerical analyses and the experimental data.
165
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
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 2.0 mV/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 dy-
namic 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 þ25
. 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 mea-
surement of the static temperature to determine the true test section
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Table 8
Comparison of semi-empirical methods with wind tunnel data for zftc/rf ¼ 1.0 (high tail-cone).

Configuration WT DATCOM ESDU Method

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

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 Fig. 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 condi-
tions, 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 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 transi-
tion, the assessment of the uncertainty, as well as further details on the
CAD model are available in Ref. [46].

166
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Table 9
Comparison of semi-empirical methods with wind tunnel data for zftc/rf ¼ 0.5 (mid tail-cone).

Configuration WT DATCOM ESDU Method

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

7.4. Wind tunnel results
The reference system adopted, shown in Fig. 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 perpendic-
ular 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 posi-
tive, 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;
CL β < 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 Fig. 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 incremen-
tal ratio
Cx ðβ1 Þ  Cx ðβ2 Þ
Cxβ ¼
β 1  β2
between β ¼ 6
and þ6
(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 Figs. 46–49.
Comparisons between numerical and wind tunnel tests are here pre-
sented for two configurations with the high after-body, the vertical tail
planform with Av ¼ 1.5, high and low wing, and T-tail horizontal stabi-
lizer, shown in Fig. 50. Results for the isolated components (vertical tail
and fuselage) are reported in Figs. 51 and 52, where the significant dif-
ference between numerical and experimental data at high sideslip angles
is worthy of further investigations.
Fig. 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 around a cylinder, where the maximum local
velocity occurs at the top of 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 re-
(16)
sults reported from Figs. 54–56 show that, as the sideslip angle increases

167
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Table 10
Comparison of semi-empirical methods with wind tunnel data for zftc/rf ¼ 0 (low tail-cone).

Configuration WT DATCOM ESDU Method

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

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 direc-
tional stability unaffected by the presence of the vertical stabilizer [9],
these wind tunnel tests have shown the true repartition of the aero-
dynamic 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 combi-
nation 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 Fig. 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 interfer-
ence 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 Fig. 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 novel method of Section 6 has also been verified with wind
tunnel data. Some comparison between the curves of the proposed
method and the data points extracted from several wind tunnel tests are
presented here. Fig. 59 shows that the effect of the fuselage on the ver-
tical tail is captured with acceptable approximation. The difference be-
tween results at zftc/rf ¼ 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 aero-
dynamic 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 pre-
vent cross-flow at the intersection, yet complete sealing of the assembly
could not be achieved. The effect of the horizontal tail is shown in Fig. 60
for several possible configurations. This is well predicted numerically,
especially for the high-winged, high tail-cone configuration, which rep-
resents 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.

168
D. Ciliberti et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172

Fig. 61. Relative error of semi-empirical methods with respect to wind tunnel data for high tail-cone configurations.

Fig. 62. Relative error of semi-empirical methods with respect to wind tunnel data for mid tail-cone configurations.

169
D. Ciliberti et al.
Fig. 63. Relative error of semi-empirical methods with respect to wind tunnel data for low tail-cone configurations.
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 re-
sponses. 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 Tables 8–10,
assuming wind tunnel results as reference, with the following
nomenclature:
 Aircraft components IDs are separated by underscores _
 Body is indicated by two letters (Fig. 46)
○ BH - body high zftc/rf ¼ 1.0
○ BM - body mid zftc/rf ¼ 0.5
○ BL - body low zftc/rf ¼ 0
 Wing is indicated by two letters (Fig. 47)
○ WH - wing high zw/rf ¼ 1
○ WM - wing mid zw/rf ¼ 0
170
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
○ WL - wing low zw/rf ¼ 1
 Vertical tail is indicated by a letter and two digits (Fig. 48)
○ V10 - Av ¼ 1.0
○ V15 - Av ¼ 1.5
○ V20 - Av ¼ 2.0
 Horizontal tail is indicated by a letter and a digit (Fig. 49)
○ H1 – body-mounted tailplane zh/bv1 ¼ 0
○ H2 – low cruciform tailplane zh/bv1 ¼ 0.38
○ H3 – cruciform tailplane zh/bv1 ¼ 0.62
○ H4 – high cruciform tailplane zh/bv1 ¼ 0.82
○ H5 – T-tail configuration zh/bv1 ¼ 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,
Figs. 61–63 show the relative error with respect to the wind tunnel data,
highlighting that the alternative method performs better than the clas-
sical 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 configu-
rations, because it has been developed from high fidelity analyses.
D. Ciliberti et al.
9. Conclusion
The authors have reviewed the main semi-empirical methods avail-
able in literature for the evaluation of aircraft directional stability and
assessed their applicability in aircraft design with computational aero-
dynamics examples. This review has highlighted the limits of the avail-
able 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 simula-
tions 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 meth-
odology 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.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2017.11.001.
References
[1] C.D. Perkins, R.E. Hage, Airplane Performance Stability and Control, Wiley, New
York, 1949, ISBN 9780471680468.
[2] E. Obert, Aerodynamic Design of Transport Aircraft, Ios Press, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2009, ISBN 9781586039707.
[3] E. Torenbeek, Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, Delft University Press, Delft,
1982, ISBN 9024727243.
[4] D.P. Raymer, in: Aircraft Design: a Conceptual Approach. AIAA Education Series,
fifth ed., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 2012,
ISBN 9781600869112.
[5] S. Gudmundsson, 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] R.D. Finck, USAF Stability and Control DATCOM. AFWAL-TR-83–3048, McDonnell
Douglas Corporation, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1978.
[10] E.N. Jacobs, K.E. Ward, 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] R.O. House, A.R. Wallace, 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] R.J. Bamber, R.O. House, 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.
171
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
[13] M.J. Queijo, W.D. Wolhart, 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] J.D. Brewer, J.H. Lichtenstein, 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] H.R. Pass, Analysis of Wind-tunnel Data on Directional Stability and Control,
Technical Note 775, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1940.
[16] H.E. Murray, 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] R.W. Gilbey, 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] J. Weber, A.C. Hawk, Theoretical Load Distributions on Fin-body-tailplane
Arrangements in a Side-wind, Reports and memoranda no. 2992, Ministry of
Supply, London, UK, 1954.
[19] F. Nicolosi, P. Della Vecchia, D. Ciliberti, An investigation on vertical tailplane
contribution to aircraft sideforce, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 28 (1) (2013) 401–416.
[20] F. Nicolosi, P. Della Vecchia, D. Ciliberti, S. Corcione, V. Cusati, A comprehensive
review of vertical tail design, Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol. 89 (Issue 4) (2017).
[21] J.B. Vos, A. Rizzi, D. Darracq, E.H. Hirschel, Navier-Stokes solvers in European
aircraft design, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 38 (8) (2002) 601–697.
[22] R.M. Hall, et al., Computational Methods for Stability and Control (COMSAC): the
Time Has Come, Tech. rep. 6121, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 2005.
[23] L.L. Erickson, 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] H. Dutt, S. Rajeswari, Wing-body interference using a hybrid panel method, Acta
Mech. 106 (3–4) (1994) 111–126.
[26] F.T. Johnson, E.N. Tinoco, N.J. Yu, Thirty years of development and application of
CFD at Boeing commercial airplanes, Seattle, Comput. Fluids 34 (10) (2005)
1115–1151.
[27] J.S. Shang, Three decades of accomplishments in computational fluid dynamics,
Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 40 (3) (2004) 173–197.
[28] K. Fujii, Progress and future prospects of CFD in aerospace – wind tunnel and
beyond, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 41 (6) (2005) 455–470.
[29] F. Nicolosi, S. Corcione, P. Della Vecchia, Commuter aircraft aerodynamic design:
wind-tunnel tests and CFD analysis, in: ICAS 2014 Proceedings, International
Council of the Aeronautical Sciences. Optimage Ltd., 2014.
[30] F. Nicolosi, P. Della Vecchia, S. Corcione, Design and aerodynamic analysis of a
twin-engine commuter aircraft, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 40 (2015) 1–16.
[31] F. Nicolosi, S. Corcione, P. Della Vecchia, Commuter aircraft aerodynamic
characteristics through wind tunnel tests, Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol. 88 (4)
(2016) 523–534.
[32] P. Della Vecchia, F. Nicolosi, Aerodynamic guidelines in the design and
optimization of new regional turboprop aircraft, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 38 (2014)
88–104.
[33] P. Della Vecchia, D. Ciliberti, 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] D. Ciliberti, F. Nicolosi, P. Della Vecchia, A new approach in aircraft vertical
tailplane design, in: 22th AIDAA Conference, Associazione Italiana di Aeronautica e
Astronautica, Naples (Italy), 2013.
[36] F. Nicolosi, P. Della Vecchia, D. Ciliberti, 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] F. Nicolosi, P. Della Vecchia, D. Ciliberti, V. Cusati, Fuselage aerodynamic
prediction methods, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 55 (2016) 332–343.
[39] F. Nicolosi, P. Della Vecchia, D. Ciliberti, Aerodynamic interference issues in
aircraft directional control, J. Aerosp. Eng. 28 (1) (2015) 1–7.
[40] STAR-CCMþ version 11.06 User Guide. Siemens.
[41] Spalart PR, Allmaras SR. A one equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows.
AIAA Journal 94.
[42] C.L. Rumsey, et al., Summary of the first AIAA CFD high-lift prediction workshop,
J. Aircr. 48 (6) (2011) 2068–2079.
[43] A.P. Antunes, R.G. da Silva, J.F.L. Azevedo, 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] F.A. Diederich, Plan-form Parameter for Correlating Certain Aerodynamic
Characteristics of Swept Wings, Technical Note 2335, National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics, 1951.
D. Ciliberti et al.
[45] P.D. Chappell, R.W. Gilbey, Lift-curve Slope and Aerodynamic Centre Position of
Wings in Inviscid Subsonic Flow, Item 70011, Engineering Science Data Unit, 1970.
[46] D. Ciliberti, An Improved Preliminary Design Methodology for Aircraft Directional
Stability Prediction and Vertical Tailplane Sizing, PhD Thesis, YouCanPrint, 2016,
ISBN 9788892608825.
[47] S. Corcione, Design Guidelines, Experimental Investigation and Numerical Analysis
of a New Twin Engine Commuter Aircraft, PhD thesis, 3D Tech, 2015, ISBN
889838212X.
172
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 95 (2017) 140–172
[48] J.B. Barlow, W.H. Rae, A. Pope, in: Low-speed Wind Tunnel Testing, third ed.,
Wiley, New York, 1999, ISBN 0471557749.
[49] F. Nicolosi, A. De Marco, L. Attanasio, P. Della Vecchia, Development of a Java-
based framework for aircraft preliminary design and optimization, J. Aerosp. Inf.
Syst. 13 (6) (2016) 234–242.