Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T06:22:16.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A methodology for the preliminary analysis and comparison of wing-tail and canard configurations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

G. Lombardi  and
G. Mengali
G. Lombardi
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Pisa, Italy
G. Mengali
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Pisa, Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A methodology for the analysis of the performance of different aircraft configurations in the conceptual design phase is addressed. A scalar objective function, takeoff weight, is minimised by means of a numerical optimisation technique which takes into account the high number of geometrical parameters and the flight mechanics requirements involved in the problem. The study is confined to the cruise segment of the mission, and results are shown both for tail-aft and canard configurations. The above technique produces “equally” optimised configurations, thus giving a meaningful means to compare tail-aft and canard configurations.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 101 , Issue 1004 , April 1997 , pp. 169 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1997 

Access options

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

References

1. Lombardi, G. and Vicini, A. Induced drag prediction for wing-tail and canard configurations through numerical optimisation, Aeronaut J, June-July 1994, 98, (976), pp 199–206.Google Scholar
2. Laitone, E.V. Prandtl's biplane theory applied to canard and tandem aircraft, J Aircr, 1980, 17, (4), pp 233–237.Google Scholar
3. Goldstein, S.E. and Combs, C.P. Trimmed drag and maximum flight efficiency of aft tail and canard configurations, AIAA Paper 74-69,1974.Google Scholar
4. McGeer, T. and Kroo, I. A fundamental comparison of canard and conventional configurations, J Aircr, November 1983, 20, (11), pp 983–992.Google Scholar
5. Keith, M.W. and Selberg, B.P. Aerodynamic design optimization trim analysis of canard conventional configurations, J Aircr March 1984,21, (3),pp 183–192.Google Scholar
6. Buresti, G., Lombardi, G. and Polito, L. Analysis of the interaction between lifting surfaces by means of a non-linear panel method, in Boundary Integral Methods. Theory and Applications, Springer-Verlag Ed, 1991, pp 125–134.Google Scholar
7. Buresti, G., Lombardi, G. and Petagna, P. Wing pressure loads in canard configurations: A comparison between numerical results and experimental data, Aeronaut J,August/September 1992, 96, (957), pp 271–279.Google Scholar
8. ANONYMOUS USAF Stability and Control DATCOM, item 4.1.5.1.,April 1978.Google Scholar
9. ANONYMOUS USAF Stability and Control DATCOM, item 4.1.5.2.,April 1978.Google Scholar
10. ANONYMOUS USAF Stability and Control DATCOM, item 4.2.3.1-A.,April 1978.Google Scholar
11. Vanderplaats, G.N. Numerical Optimization Techniques for Engineering Design: with Applications, MacGraw-Hill series in Mechanical Engineering, 1984.Google Scholar
12. Vanderplaats, G.N. CONMIN, a Fortran program for constrained function minimization, NASA TM X-62-282, 1973.Google Scholar
13. Fletcher, R. and Reeves, C.M. Function Minimization by Conjugate Gradients, Br Comp J, 1964, 7, (2), pp 149–154.Google Scholar
14. Vanderplaats, G.N. and Moses, F. Structural optimization by methods of feasible directions, J Comp Struct, July 1973, 3, pp 739–755.Google Scholar
15. KNOWLES and MARTINEZ-VAL Conventional and unconventional configurations for ultra-high capacity aircraft, 1994, ICAS Paper 94-1.3.2, pp 656–664.Google Scholar
16. Raymer, D.P. Aircraft Design: a Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series, Washington DC, 1989.Google Scholar
17. Roskam, J. Airplane Design, Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, Ottawa, 1990, Parts VI and VII.Google Scholar
18. Torenbeek, E. Development and Application of a Comprehensive, Design-Sensitive Weight Prediction Method for Wing Structures of Transport Category Aircraft, TU Delft, Report LR-693, September 1992.Google Scholar
19. Laitone, E.V. Positive tail loads for minimum induced drag of subsonic aircraft, J Aircr, December 1978,15, pp 837–842.Google Scholar
20. Nicolai, L.M. Fundamentals of Aircraft Design, Aerospace Engineering, University of Dayton, 1975.Google Scholar
21. Lombardi, G. and Morelli, M. Pressure measurements on a forward-swept wing-canard configuration, J Aircr, March-April 1994, 31, (2), pp 469–472.Google Scholar
22. Lombardi, G. Canard tip vortex splitting in a canard-wing configuration: experimental observation, J Aircr, July/August 1995, 32, (4), pp 875–877.Google Scholar
23. Laitone, E.V. Ideal tail load for minimum aircraft drag, J Aircr, 1978,15, (3), pp 190–192.Google Scholar