Lots of things cross my mind when I start putting pen to paper on a new fuselage. Mostly, it is about needs to go inside, and then how to build it. Over the last few generations of this design, it has become clear that slow-speed, heavy lift (payload/fuselage <0.7) We start to see several key principles begin to precipitate. Today we will focus on the differences in aircraft balance schemes.
Aesthetically, I am not a vertical tail man. They are functional and in many designs they are necessary. My career began in the low-observability sphere. So a large perpendicular plate nailed to the end of your vehicle who is trying to hide invites bigger radar returns. In most of my training and experience, we get away from this with large sweep angle wings and oblique surfaces. Sometimes, these choices do impact performance. If you are working against sines of the angle, you will always have more surface area to get the same net effect.
Balancing the vertical surface weight and the total surface area is always a game. If you look through
Jane's for modern high performance, low-observable aircraft, you will see a common theme of split tails. Two tails, let a designer get a net effect and still not have a large single vertical surface. Ok, yeah it weighs more sometimes this is necessary and even suggested.
These principles are not necessarily limited to high-performance aircraft. Just trying to keep the sail-area down on the aircraft is important. Otherwise it is blown all over the sky like a potato chip in a hurricane. If you are trying to make a vehicle that can stay on station it is easy to fly a slow constant angular speed turn with a bit of roll angle, rather than balancing a lot of rudder input and trying to fight the wind the whole time and flying search patterns. Sweep angle also lets designers move the center of pressure around for the wing alowing for different internal position management of work payloads.
Many designs on which I have worked use low angle wing tips instead of a vertical tail. Highy-swept low speed wings get most of their roll control from the wing sweep and large ailerons or spoilerons are goos at helping with pitch contro. One interesting solution is coined a "duckeron". I cannot vouch for the scientific nature of the name. A "
duckeron" or even a "quackeron" is a surface that consists of a pair of tip-mounted surfaces at the far end of each aieron. These surfaces open and increase the drag on the wing tip. This is a bit counter intuitive, unike spoilers which run along the span of the wing these are actuay on the trailing edge of the wing and allow for effective yaw control. Sweep helps increase the distance between the wing tip and the aircraft center of gravity. This is the moment arm distance used to calculate the force applied to yaw the aircraft.
It is a pretty clever idea and allows for reduced cross-section yaw control. On rc models and small UAVs the duckeron is a simple single-servo-per-side solution. Rather than only connecting a single surface to the servo arm, you use a pair of rods. As the arm swings pushing the rods away from the hing line opening the surfaces equally. However if there is a clearance issue, the ratio of the opening rates can be changed via a cam or simply varying the lengths of the rods. A shorter rod needs more arm sweep to move the surface through a given range. The air disruption over the wing would make the use of a spoiler less effective. There could be several reasons to use spoilers and ducks at the same time for different flight control cases.
You do have to take into account that the drag at the tip may be an unplanned load on your wing spar. One other kind of side-benefit of using ducks is that they act as airbrakes during landing, even as a counter-balancing yaw force during approach. As a counter-balance on approach you would pay a much steeper drag penalty than a rudder, but they woud be able to apply a much larger yaw force.
