Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Vertical Stabiliser Design

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Vertical Stabiliser Design

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 4th June 2013 | 06:41
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane
Vertical Stabiliser Design

Have been trying to establish the reasons designers opted for single vertical stabilisers on aircraft such as the Boeing B17, whereas other designs notably Avro Lancaster and B24 Liberator had twin fin arrangements.

It seems to be the case that both configurations provided stability around the horizontal plane needed for accurate bombing results as well as general handling. Would it be the case that a twin fin design was able to absorb more battle damage ie, one fin damaged, the other remaining functional?

I'd look forward to any information on the subject.

dghob
dghob is offline  
Reply
Old 4th June 2013 | 07:54
  #2 (permalink)  
Community Builder
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 189
From: Dorset UK
I've always thought that the British love of the twin tail was due to the height of the hangars and what would fit in them.
dixi188 is offline  
Reply
Old 4th June 2013 | 09:31
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
Whether it's true or not, I haven't got a clue.... But I was always told the configuration was dependant on the hangars they were stored in. Just like dixi says.
KriVa is offline  
Reply
Old 4th June 2013 | 11:55
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
From: TinselTown
Tails more directly in prop slipstream?
Lumps is offline  
Reply
Old 4th June 2013 | 21:17
  #5 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 6
From: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Probably a combination of the things mentioned: A possible desire to reduce the overall height, improve fin/rudder effectiveness by using prop slipstream, redundancy, and maybe improve space for a tail gunner.

Drawbacks would probably include more complicated control runs and two structures to be included in non-firing areas for waist & dorsal guns.
Tinstaafl is offline  
Reply
Old 4th June 2013 | 23:31
  #6 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,824
Likes: 110
From: Virginia
The Lockheed Electra (and a number of civilian aircraft) had double fins, so the reasons can't be exclusively military.
Chu Chu is offline  
Reply
Old 5th June 2013 | 00:34
  #7 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,358
Likes: 3
From: NEW YORK
Afaik, in the Lockheed case, twin tails were a fallback to address inadequate fin area.
There are some claims that the military liked twin tails because it gave a clear view behind the aircraft, so hostiles had no place to hide. The B25 might be an example of that, no tail gun but an upper turret that could fire straight back. However, I've not seen any designer memoirs that mention that.
etudiant is offline  
Reply
Old 5th June 2013 | 01:12
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
From: earth
DRAG, the bottom line.
grounded27 is offline  
Reply
Old 5th June 2013 | 01:16
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 2
From: Sale, Australia
On the money etudiant. The to be famous Kelly Johnson did the majority of the wind tunnel work on the Lockheed 10. It initially had a single fin and proved to be inadequate, so he suggested twin fins. What drove that decision rather than just making the single fin larger I've not seen recorded. The Beech 18 in some conversions has had its twin fins removed and replaced with a single.

Edited to add a very good insight into the 1941 thinking behind twin V single tail

1941 | 1585 | Flight Archive

Last edited by Brian Abraham; 5th June 2013 at 03:51.
Brian Abraham is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.