JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Vol. 50, No. 2, MarchApril 2013

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978

Flutter and Directional Stability of Aircraft with

Wing-Tip Fins: Conflicts and Compromises
Matthew P. Snyder
European Office of Aerospace Research and Development,
Reyslip, England HA4 7HB, United Kingdom
and
Terrence A. Weisshaar
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 47907
DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978
An alternative to vertical tails, wing-tip fins, a type of winglet, provide yaw stability and control and some
operational and maintenance advantages. Winglets reduce wing-induced drag but may reduce flutter speed,
requiring wing stiffening and a structural weight penalty. Whereas the number of successful aircraft with winglets
suggests that many flutter studies have been done, few of these studies appear in the archival literature. This paper
investigates the effect of tip-fin surface geometry on flutter as well as on directional stability. The study includes the
effects of tip-fin cant angle with respect to the primary surface and fin size with respect to the wing itself. Two idealized
models, a simple four degree-of-freedom RayleighRitz model and a high-fidelity finite element model, illustrate
special features of tip-fin aeroelasticity. Results indicate that the interaction between tip fins and the wing flexibility
usually leads to reduced flutter speeds but can also create phenomena such as mode switching that actually increases
flutter speed if the fin is large enough. Classical wing-surface lift ineffectiveness due to aeroelastic interaction also
reduces directional stability.

Nomenclature
a
Cl

=
=

Cn
Cn
Cn

=
=
=

Clw

Cnv

Cna

Cnr

Cy
c
EI
GJ
Kij
L
l
Lf
lv
Li
y
m
Mij

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

wing displacement generalized coordinates

rolling moment derivative contribution due to yaw
angle
yaw-moment derivative
yaw-moment derivative contribution due to sideslip
yaw-moment derivative contribution from the
fuselage due to sideslip
yaw- moment derivative contribution from the wing
due to sideslip
yaw-moment derivative contribution from the
vertical tail due to sideslip
yaw-moment derivative contribution due to aileron
deflection
yaw-moment derivative contribution due to rudder
deflection
side-force derivative contribution due to yaw angle
chord length
bending stiffness of wing
torsional stiffness of wing
structural stiffness matrix
wing length
roll moment
fin length
moment arm for calculating yaw-moment
lift per unit span
wing mass per unit length
mass matrix

n
p
q
Qi
r
T
U
w
x; y; t
wSC
y; t
x
yw

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

y
z

i
y
a
r
waero
 Ly

y; t

x; y
i

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

yaw-moment
roll moment
dynamic pressure
aerodynamic matrix
yaw rate
kinetic energy
strain energy
surface displacement
shear center displacement
distance in chordwise direction
distance in span direction (RayleighRitz flutter
model)
side-force (directional stability section)
distance out-of-plane (z coordinate axis)
sideslip (yaw) angle
shape function
aileron deflection angle (rad)
rudder deflection angle (rad)
virtual work
nondimensional position in span direction
wing twist
wing sweep angle
wing mass per unit area
real part of eigenvalue
imaginary part of eigenvalue
system eigenvalues

I.

Presented as Paper 2012-1455 at the 53rd AIAA Structures, Structural

Dynamics and Materials Conference, Honolulu, HI, 2326 April 2012;
received 30 May 2012; revision received 10 August 2012; accepted for
publication 14 August 2012; published online 29 January 2013. This material
is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. Copies of this paper may be made for personal
or internal use, on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923;
include the code 1542-3868/13 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
*Program Manager, Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Senior
Member AIAA.

Professor Emeritus, School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 701 W.

Stadium Ave. Fellow AIAA

Introduction

HE primary purpose of this paper is to determine how the

presence of a large wing-tip fin, an oversized version of currentday winglets, affects flutter speed. A second objective is to provide
information about static aeroelastic behavior that can change the
directional stability of tip-mounted vertical surfaces. To do so, a brief
history of winglet flutter is first examined. Results are then presented
for a general configuration using a simple model and a higher-fidelity
flutter model.
Several current commercial aircraft use winglets to decrease
induced drag at cruise speeds. Because these aircraft are certified
through an extensive analysis, test, and certification process, flutter is

615

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978

616

SNYDER AND WEISSHAAR

Fig. 1 Conceptual sketch of proposed hypersonic vehicle with tipmounted fins with large cant angle.

not a problem with these aircraft. On the other hand, very little
archival literature on the effect of winglets on flutter exists.
Recent conceptual designs feature relatively large winglets, some
with a variable winglet cant angle with respect to the wing plane. In
2007, the U.S. Air Force announced the Future Responsive Access to
Space Technologies (FAST) program [1]. If successful, the program
will produce a subscale X-aircraft ground test and flight test. Two
FAST vehicle concepts were proposed. One of these concepts, shown
in Fig. 1, features a wing tip-mounted fin design feature to provide
directional control [2].
Winglet/tip-fin designs such as those shown in Fig. 2 are not new.
They provide some advantages over conventional centerline tail
designs, including easy access to engines and increased payload onload/off-load options [4]. Tip-mounted fins also provide directional
stability and control. However, design uncertainties, in particular the
possibility of reduced wing flutter speeds due to fin/rudder modal
coupling, raise serious questions. It is well known that winglet addition
may reduce flutter speed. A recent article in Aviation Week, discussed
the disappearance of the winglets shown on the original Boeing KC46A tanker: the winglets did not earn their way onto the airplane [5].
Winglet interest and design emerged from a desire to reduce
aircraft fuel consumption through increased aerodynamic efficiency.
However, this increased efficiency comes with a trade-off, reduced
flutter speed. Doggett and Farmer [6] studied this decrease in flutter
speed using a flat plate model with attached wing-tip fins. They used
both light (0.3% of wing weight) and heavy (1.5% of wing weight)
fins. Tests demonstrated that the light fin reduced the flutter dynamic
pressure by 3%, whereas the heavy fin reduced the flutter dynamic
pressure by 12%. These changes are due primarily to two effects:
1) changes in the aerodynamic loads and 2) changes in the mode
shapes and natural frequencies. Their experimental results correlated
well with analytical solutions obtained using a finite element solver.
Shollenberger et al. [7] reported on flight test results and low-speed
wind-tunnel flutter model tests of winglets on the DC-10 airplane.
Modal coupling between fin and higher-order wing modes
moderately reduced the flutter speed. As a result, ballast was added
to each wing tip to prevent the onset of flutter during testing.
Kehoe [8,9] discusses a series of flight tests for winglets developed
for the KC-135A tanker aircraft. The winglet cant angle and incidence angle were adjustable on the ground so that the effects of cant
angle on flutter speed could be studied.
Ruhlin et al. [10] and Bhatia et al. [11] investigated the effects of
adding a winglet on flutter speed. The study by Ruhlin et al. [10]
showed a 7% decrease in flutter speed, the majority of which was due
to the effect of added wing-tip mass. The study by Ruhlin et al. [10]
showed a flutter speed reduction up to 19%.
Several articles discuss winglet aerodynamic effects on performance
[1216]. Researchers at Bristol University optimized variable cant
angle winglets, called morphlets, to maximize a specific range [17,18].
The researchers identified three cant angles that improved efficiency
throughout the flight envelope. While the addition of morphlets adds
weight, reduced induced drag and increased range provide benefits.
Van Dam [19] showed that retrofitting an aircraft with winglets
significantly improves crosswind takeoff and landing capabilities.

However, winglets were shown to have a detrimental effect on lateral

stability and control because they tend to exacerbate adverse yaw
caused by aileron deflection. Changing the winglet cant angle mitigates this problem.
Roskam provided an overview and calculation method for the
determination of lateral stability and control derivatives for centerline
tail vehicles [20]. Rahman and Whidborne analyzed a blended wing
body configuration with winglet rudders intended for lateral control
[21]. Their study showed that these winglets did not provide the
necessary handling characteristics. As a result, they added centerline
vertical surfaces with rudders. Although the design features of their
tip-mounted surfaces are not fully documented, the winglets used on
their vehicle appear smaller than those proposed for the FAST
vehicle.
Bourdin et al. [22] examined aircraft control with variable cant
angle winglets. His study allowed the cant angle to change during
flight. Testing in a wind tunnel measured forces and moments due to
winglet deflection that were used to predict pitch, roll, and yaw
changes. Their work demonstrated that winglets alone could not
control flight. In particular, a level turn was only possible for a
specific turn radius.
Several airplanes have used out-of-plane configuration changes to
maintain performance over their operational envelope. These include
the MiG-105 aerospaceplane, with variable cant angle wing tips, and
the XB-70 Valkyrie, whose wingtips rotated down at supersonic
speeds. The MiG-105 wing tips were used as vertical stabilizers
during high-speed flight and extended to a horizontal, in-plane, lowdrag configuration in the subsonic regime. The outer wing panels of
the XB-70 folded downward, doubling the size of the effective
vertical tail area, providing additional directional stability that
reduces required trim, thus reducing drag [23].
While a designer sees favorable changes in system performance,
an aeroelastician sees potential problems that may reduce performance due to weight changes required to prevent flutter or static
aeroelastic effects such as surface-lifting effectiveness. These types
of aeroelastic problems were addressed during the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agencys Morphing Aircraft Structures
(MAS) program, which ran from December 2002 to June 2006. The
objective of the MAS program was the design and fabrication of
effective combinations of integrated wing skins, actuators and
mechanisms, structures, and flight controls to achieve the anticipated
diverse, conflicting vehicle mission capabilities via wing shape
change [24].
The program led to two full-scale designs, one produced by
Lockheed Martin, the other by NextGen Aeronautics. Both designs
were tested successfully in the Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT) at
NASA Langley Research Center at speeds up to Mach 0.92.
Lockheed Martins design concept, reconfigured by folding the inner
wing against the fuselage, resulting in a 22% mission radius
advantage over the best representative from a series of conventional
air vehicles [25]. To move the wing, it is unlocked, and then a series of
actuators power it into the desired configuration. However, this
action leads to large changes in bending stiffness, aerodynamic
features, and vibration modes. This resulted in a series of studies
conducted to investigate these effects on flutter of the folding wing
[2631].
One notable result from these studies is that the folding wing is
most susceptible to flutter when the hinge fold angle is close to zero,
wing fully extended. The flutter studies encompassed a range of fold
angles, and for each angle the wing was held in a locked position. As
the wing folds and hence shortens, the flutter velocity increases
rapidly before leveling off.
These few studies lead us to believe that it is important for
designers to understand and document the aeroelastic features of
variable cant angle tip-fins. The following sections describe the two
models used for our study. Results are presented to show special
features such as mode switching associated with large tip-fins. These
features have not previously been observed or documented.

Information available at http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya3.htm.

617

SNYDER AND WEISSHAAR

Fig. 2

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978

II.

Various vertical tail designs: single centerline-mounted, dual fuselage-mounted, and wing-tip vertical fins [3].

Model Development

To identify aeroelastic issues related to the addition of a tip-fin to a

wing design, one must first select the key design parameters likely to
influence the vehicle design in general and aeroelastic behavior in
particular. A listing of these parameters is given in Table 1.
There are so many design parameters that, when taken in
combination, the number of combinations of parameters that could be
considered is extremely large. The challenge is to confine the study to
those considered to be most essential in the early stages of design. In
our case, we chose those parameters and flight conditions shown in
bold; these parameters are more likely to be included in preliminary
design studies. The tip-fin size, both geometric and inertial, relative to
the wing planform is very important because it is also important to the
stability and control sizing. Wing sweep is also important.
The basic configuration chosen for this study is shown in Fig. 3; it
is a constant chord, sweptback wing with an unswept aerodynamic
surface mounted at the tip. This planform captures the essential
features of the wing/fin interaction. The baseline wing parameters
used for our study are the well-known Goland wing planform [32,33].
We chose this wing because of its extensive documentation.
Two analytical models were developed. The first and simplest
model is a RayleighRitz beam model, in which the wing and fin
structures are both idealized as uniform beams with bending and
torsional degrees of freedom. A quasi-steady aerodynamic representation for the unsteady forces and moments provides an airspeeddependent aerodynamic stiffness. This model restricts the tip-fin to be
mounted in a vertical position only.
Wing deformation includes two assumed displacement modes,
one for bending and the other for torsion. The displacement at any
point on the wing surface, w
x; y; t, is composed of upward bending
at the wing shear center, wSC , and twist about the shear center, . In
terms of the wing spanwise coordinate, y, measured outward from the
cantilevered wing root, and the chordwise coordinate, x, measured aft
from the wing elastic axis, the displacement of any point on the wing
is w1 :
w1  wwing
x; yw ; t  wSC
yw ; t x
yw ; t

(1)

The tip-fin motion is composed of two different types of motion. The

first is denoted as w2 and is due to out-of-plane fin bending and
torsion, a function of the fin spanwise coordinate, yf , and the fin
chordwise coordinate, xf .
Table 1
Geometric
Surface sizes
Element taper
Surface sweep

Parameters affecting tip-fin aeroelasticity

Structural
Hinge location

Hinge stiffness
Inertia
characteristics:
Control surface size C.G. location
Control surface
Moments of
cant angle
Inertia
Rudder size
Wing/fuselage
location

Aerodynamic
Flight in 3 speed
regimes:
Subsonic
Supersonic
Hypersonic
Accurate steady
and
unsteady loads
prediction

Actuators
Power
Size:
Weight
Volume
Number
Distribution

Fig. 3 Planform geometry and dimensions of wing-tip mounted

aeroelastic model.

w2  wf
xf ; yf ; t  wfin;SC xf f



dwwing SC
L

cos  wing
L sin yf

dy

(2)

The second contribution to tip-fin motion is an in-plane motion,

denoted as w3 , due to the wing tip upward movement. This is written
as
w3  zf 
wwing;SC
L xf tip iy 
yf tip ix

(3)

wwing;SC

L sin
y

(4)

3  tip  wing
L cos

Polynomials were chosen as assumed displacement modes for the

RayleighRitz analysis. These polynomials are exact solutions for
the bending and torsional shapes for a beam loaded by a uniform load.





1 4 1 3 1 2
y
 ;  w
wSC  a1 1
yw   a1
24
6
4
L



1 2
1  wing  a2 2
yw   a2
2





1 4 1 3 1 2
y
T T  T ; T  T
wf;SC  a3 3
yT   a3
24
6
4
LT



1 2

5
2  f  a4 4
yT   a4 T T
2
The mass, stiffness, and aerodynamic force matrices are calculated
using expressions for the wing/tip-fin kinetic energy, the wing/tip-fin
strain energy, and the virtual work done by the quasi-steady
aerodynamic forces acting on the wing and tip-fin. The result, using
Lagranges equations and assuming harmonic motion, is a fourthorder eigenvalue problem of the form
2 ml3 Mij fai g 

EI
K ij fai g Qij fai g  f0g
l

(6)

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978

618

SNYDER AND WEISSHAAR

Fig. 4 ASTROS finite element model showing the wing and the tip-fin
with its cant angle defined.
Fig. 5 Comparison of frequency merging, wing without tip-fin, wing
with tip-fin.

with
fai
tg  fai geit

(7)

The structural stiffness Ks  and aerodynamic matrices Qi  are

combined into a single matrix Kij   K ij  Qij . Equation (6) is
written as
2 Mij   K ij fai g  f0g

(8)

where
2 

ml4 2

EI

(9)

The eigenvalues, i , of Eq. (8) are functions of dynamic pressure

and are either real numbers or complex conjugates of the form
i  i  ii . Flutter is characterized by frequency merging with
the appearance of complex conjugate eigenvalues with non-zero
values of i ; divergence is signaled by a positive real eigenvalue
at zero frequency. Because of the quasi-steady nature of the
aerodynamic forces, the eigenvalues will be real at speeds below the
flutter speed.
The second model used for tip-fin flutter analysis is a finite element
model developed using the Automated Structural Optimization
System (ASTROS) code [34]. This wing model, shown in Fig. 4, uses
a single beam spar with beam elements splined to aerodynamic
panels to include a more accurate doublet lattice unsteady aerodynamic model. The wing mass is provided by a series of concentrated mass elements whose distance from the spar can be adjusted
to control the chordwise center of gravity (c.g.) position. The tip-fin
mass and stiffness parameters are identical to the wing; tip-fin length
and cant angle are parameters for this model.
The geometry and material properties for the finite element model
were identical to the RayleighRitz, wing model, but a doublet
lattice, unsteady aerodynamics model replaced the simpler quasisteady aerodynamic representation, whereas the assumed structural
deflection modes were replaced by a finite element structural model.

III.

and red lines, coalesce at a higher airspeed; this interaction is

primarily between the tip-fin bending and torsion motion modified by
wing-tip motion at the tip-fin base connection. The relative positions
of these two coalescence points change with fin length. In this case,
the flutter speed is reduced by the addition of the tip-fin.
Figure 6 shows flutter results from the two models showing how
flutter speed changes as tip-fin length increases when the tip-fin is
vertical. The results shown in Fig. 6 are also normalized to the speeds
predicted by each model for the wing without the tip-fin. The
ASTROS model always predicts higher flutter speeds than the quasisteady model.
The ASTROS model indicates that flutter speed is reduced when
even a small fin is added to the wing, whereas the quasi-steady model
shows a slight increase in flutter speed for small fins. Both models
indicate that as the fin length increases, the flutter speed is reduced to
less than half of the no-fin value. These results are consistent with the
previously cited studies in [5], [9], and [10] when the fin is very small.
Both models indicate that there are two flutter modes and indicate that
there is a flutter mode switching phenomenon near Lf L  0.5 when
the tip-fin becomes large enough to drive the flutter instability.
These results show that, when the fin length exceeds 40% of the
wing span, the flutter speed increases rapidly as tip length increases,
but then declines as the result of a mode switching phenomenon. To
explain the flutter mode switching, consider Fig. 7, in which the four
in vacuo natural frequencies are plotted as a function of tip-fin length
to wing semi-span ratio. As fin length increases, the two frequencies
dominated by wing bending and torsion approach each other. They

Flutter Results

Figure 5 shows typical flutter results from the RayleighRitz

quasi-steady model with a 90 deg cant angle tip-fin length, Lf , half
the wing semi-span, L. The set of black lines plot the real parts of the
system eigenvalues for the wing without a fin. Flutter is indicated by
the coalescence of the wing-bending and torsion modes. When the fin
is added to the wing, four eigenvalues appear and there are two
different frequency coalescence curves. One of these curves will
coalesce at a lower flutter speed, depending on the fin size relative to
the wing.
The lower set of curves, blue and green, show flutter onset driven
primarily by wing bending torsion interaction. This motion is
modified by the tip-fin. The second set of curves, the upper set of blue

Fig. 6

Flutter speed change as a function of tip-fin length increase.

619

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978

SNYDER AND WEISSHAAR

Fig. 7 Wing and fin natural frequencies decline as tip-fin length

increases.

then intersect near a point where the tip-fin length is about 45% of the
wing semi-span. This is the point where the flutter speed begins to
increase again in Fig. 6. Before this increase the flutter mode is driven
by wing bending and torsion oscillations. As the tip-fin length
increases, the wing dominated natural frequencies separate while the
tip-fin dominated in vacuo frequencies are driven closer together. As
the tip-fin becomes larger its motion begins to drive flutter, and the
flutter speed is again reduced.
The wing-bending stiffness is, in part, a function of the load factor
on the wing. A stronger structure is generally a stiffer structure.
Although both the wing-bending stiffness and the torsional stiffness
will be affected by the size of the load factor imposed on the wing, we
investigated the effects of changing only the wing bending stiffness
on flutter speed while the torsional stiffness is unchanged. Figure 8
shows plots of nondimensionalized flutter speed as a function of the
tip-fin length to wing semi-span ratio for three different bending
stiffnesses. The figure on the left is generated using the Rayleigh
Ritz model, whereas the figure on the right is generated using the
ASTROS model. In each figure, the nondimensionalization is with
respect to the wing flutter speed without a tip-fin. These flutter speeds
are different in each figure because the flutter models are different.
Both analyses show that decreased wing stiffness tends to move the
cusp associated with mode switching to the right. In addition, the
minimum flutter speed is also reduced. As before, these changes can

be traced back to the changes in spacing between the in vacuo

frequencies.
Winglets are seldom mounted vertically with respect to the wing
planform. Figure 9 plots flutter speed as a function of the tip-fin cant
angle. The ASTROS model was used for this study. In all cases, the
wing semi-span is held constant while the tip-fin length changes. The
reference flutter speed is that for a wing with no fin. At zero cant
angle, the tip-fin is merely an extension of the wing tip so that
wings with the longer fins have a larger aspect ratio. As a result, the
addition of even a small tip-fin decreases the flutter speed for the zero
degree cant angle when the tip-fin merely serves as a wing-tip
extension.
For a small fin, the flutter speed decreases with increasing cant
angle. The longer tip-fins encounter mode switching phenomena as
the fin cant angle increases. Note that for a longer tip-fin, mode
switching occurs at a smaller cant angle. After mode switching, the
flutter speed first increases but then decreases.
The two different models used to compute the likely effects of
mounting a tip-fin on a flexible wing show that there is a difference
between the flutter behavior of large tip-fins and that of small tip-fins.
The small tip-fin flutter is driven primarily by the interaction of wing
bending and torsion modes, modes whose in vacuo frequencies are
affected by the inertia features of the tip-fin. Flutter is affected to a
lesser extent by the aerodynamic forces on the tip-fin. As the size of
the fin increases, fin aerodynamics and fin flexibility play a more
prominent role in flutter. Finally, for larger fins, flutter modes are
dominated by fin dynamics and aerodynamics. Fin cant angle also
plays an important role in flutter. Very small cant angles drive the
flutter speed down until a mode-switching phenomenon introduces
fin driven flutter that increases the flutter speed.
Unlike drag reduction objectives that drive the design of winglets,
the design of tip-fins for FAST-type vehicles is driven by directional
stability requirements. These requirements may produce relatively
large fins. In this case aeroelastic lift effectiveness may become a
problem. Lift effectiveness refers to the condition in which the lifting
surface distortion reduces (or increases) the amount of lift produced
per unit angle of attack. Lift effectiveness reduction is a problem
with moderately swept surfaces. The next section explores the lift
effectiveness of tip-fin configurations. These fins are modeled using
ASTROS.

IV.

Static AeroelasticityDirectional Stability

Derivatives

The previous section discussed the effects of tip-fin size on wing

flutter. It showed that the addition of tip-fins to a clean wing can
lead to reduced flutter speeds. Flutter is a major structural design

Fig. 8 Bending stiffness influence on flutter speed, a) RayleighRitz model and b) ASTROS model.

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978

620

SNYDER AND WEISSHAAR

Fig. 9 Flutter speed vs. tip-fin cant angle for four fin lengths.

constraint. It is fair to ask then, how large the tip-fins must be for their
primary purpose of generating vehicle stability and how will static
aeroelastic effects intrude on the tip-fin design activity. No design
activity exists in a vacuum; design trade-offs appear and require
resolution. And so it is with the design of a wing with a tip-fin.
This section examines the importance of static aeroelasticity on the
effectiveness of these tip-fins when they are used to provide aircraft
directional or yaw stability. Fin size and sweep angle are the
parameters that drive the study of yaw stability.
Aircraft aerodynamic forces and moments depend on the vehicle
orientation with respect to the flight trajectory. The sideslip angle ,
the primary parameter in directional stability, describes the rotation of
the aircraft centerline with respect to the relative wind. The sideslip
angle is the directional angle of attack of the airplane. Vertical tails
and tip-mounted fins generate side-force and a yaw-moment. This
section focuses on tip-mounted fins that replace the vertical tail and
the associated directional stability derivatives; this overview does not
consider the control effects associated with a rudder.
Directional stability, also called weathercock stability, is the
tendency of an aircraft to return to its equilibrium state when
disturbed in yaw. The fuselage forward of the aircraft c.g. produces a
side-force, due to yaw, which the fuselage and vertical tail surface aft
of the c.g. must counteract. The purpose of vertical tails and tipmounted fins is to generate this restoring side-force and yawmoment, either through intentional rudder deflection or sideslip.
Sideslip angle is a yawing rotation that places the tail surface at an
angle of attack and produces a restoring moment. The size of this
yaw-moment depends on surface size, placement on the aircraft,
airspeed and altitude. Yaw-moment also depends on surface structural flexibility.
Lateral stability refers to the ability of an aircraft to return to a level
flight condition after it has been perturbed in roll. Designers build
dihedral into wings to increase lateral stability. Kermode points out
that designers cannot separate coupling effects introduced by the
vertical tail on lateral stability and directional stability [35]. Whitford
comments that designing fins only for weathercock stability would
lead to smaller vertical stabilizer sizes [36]. This section will contain
discussion and results related to the effects of aeroelasticity on several
aspects of vertical tail effectiveness.
It is standard convention to express flight vehicle aerodynamic
forces and moments in terms of nondimensional force and moment
coefficients. These force and moment coefficients have the generally
accepted nomenclature indicated in Fig. 10 ([37]). This figure shows
an aircraft with a positive sideslip or yaw angle, denoted as ,
measured positive counter-clockwise. If the aircraft is stable, sideslip
will produce a restoring moment clockwise about a vertical axis.
For flight mechanics computations, the positive direction of the
vertical z-axis is directed downward so that this is a positive moment;

the yawing moment and the yawing moment coefficient for a stable
aircraft are positive.
Standard convention defines stability and control derivatives with
respect to reference wing areas and characteristic lengths, usually a
wing span or chord length. The derivative magnitude is a linear
superposition of the contributions from vehicle components such as
the wing and tail and due to the deployment of elements such as a
rudder.
For example, the yawing moment derivative Cn measures the
ability of the configuration to remain in a stable static and dynamic
state and to provide yaw stability. This derivative is defined as
N  qSbCn

(10)

here N is the dimensional yawing moment, S is the reference wing

area, b is the wing span, and
Cn  Cn0  Cn  Cna a  Cnr r

(11)

Cn0 is the value of Cn when  a  r  0. The terms are due to

the rotation of the ailerons or rudder to produce roll during flight. The
yawing moment produced by the sideslip angle, , is a sum of
contributions from the wing, fuselage, and vertical tail(s). This term is
written as
Cn  Cnw  Cn  Cnv
f

(12)

The first term in Eq. (12) is the contribution from the wing, usually
negligible except at large angles of attack. The second term is due to
the fuselage and, for most aircraft, this contribution is negative [38]
and diminishes stability. The third term, contribution from the
vertical tail, determines yaw stability.
ASTROS provides the ability to calculate lateral and directional
stability derivatives: the yaw rate derivatives: Cyr , Clr , Cnr ; the angle
of sideslip derivatives: Cy , Cl , Cn ; the roll rate derivatives: Cyp ,
Clp , Cnp . The subscripts refer to: y  side force, l  roll moment,
n  yaw rate, r  yaw rate,  sideslip angle, and p 
roll moment.
However, of these nine derivatives, a conventional vertical tail
provides major contributions only to Cn , Cy , Cnr , Cyr [39]. The roll
derivatives, Cnr , Cyr , calculated with respect to the roll axis, describe
the effect of the tip-fin on the yaw-moment and side-force resulting
from roll, respectively. Cnr must be negative to provide stability; the
typical range of values for this derivative is between 0.1 and 0.4
[5]. Whether the vertical tail is on the fuselage or is moved to the wing
tip, these derivatives will not change because the tip-fin moments do
not change with respect to the roll axis. As a result, this overview does
not include a discussion of these derivatives.

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978

SNYDER AND WEISSHAAR

621

Fig. 10 Flight Mechanics terminology for yaw moments.

Fig. 11 Vertical tail relationship to aircraft center of gravity.

The yaw stability derivative, Cn , depends on the distance between

the aircraft c.g. and the vertical tail aerodynamic center, shown as the
distance lv in Fig. 11. Note that Eq. (10) showed yaw-moment as a
function of wing span, b. This is a standard way to present the
equation; however, when the yaw-moment is calculated, b is replaced

Fig. 12 Difference between the classical flight mechanics stability axis

system and ASTROS axis system.

by the moment arm length for each component that contributes to the
yaw-moment. Here, the moment arm for the vertical tail is shown
because this study will address the stability provided by the tail. One
way to increase this moment arm is to sweep the wing. When the
vertical stabilizer is moved from the centerline, lateral and directional
stability is maintained by adjusting fin parameters such as the area of
the fin surface, fin sweep angle and fin cant angle.
With the coordinate system shown in Fig. 10 the restoring yawmoment and associated directional stability derivative are positive
because the z-axis is directed downward. However, ASTROS uses a
different coordinate system in which the z-axis is directed upward
and the x-axis is positive aft so that the sign of the restoring moment is
negative. Figure 12 shows these differences.
If ASTROS calculations give negative Cn the air vehicle has
positive yaw stability. The side-force derivative is not affected by this
coordinate system change.
Aeroelastic deformation has an effect on stability derivatives. Lift
effectiveness is defined as the lift produced by a flexible wing, at a
fixed angle of attack, divided by the lift produced by an identical, but
rigid, wing at the same angle of attack. For this model, wing twisting
increases lift, but wing bending, when combined with wing
sweepback, decreases lift, leading to differences between rigid and
flexible wings.
A swept wing with twist and bending deformation has its local
angle of attack changed by an amount equal to cos dw
dy sin .
Here, is the twist angle, w is the upward deflection, y is the spanwise
coordinate, and is the wing sweep angle (see Fig. 3). If the wing is
unswept, bending deformation has no effect on the lift distribution;
for sweptback wings the angle of attack is reduced.
To illustrate this aeroelastic effect, consider the wing-lift
distribution shown in Fig. 13. This 35 deg sweptback wing-lift distribution is shown for both a rigid and a flexible wing. Both wings are
trimmed to the same total lift, such that the areas under the curves are
identical, although the trim angle of attack differs. The effect of
flexibility is to move the spanwise center of pressure inboard, nearer
the wing root. While this is a desirable effect for a wing (the bending

Weisshaar, T. A. AAE556Aeroelasticity Class Notes. Purdue

University, West Lafayette, 2010.

622

SNYDER AND WEISSHAAR

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978

Fig. 13 Aeroelastic effects cause wing lift re-distribution on a flexible

35 deg sweptback wing.

moment is reduced), it is not a favorable effect for a vertical tail or

horizontal stabilizer because it reduces the distance between the
surface aerodynamic center and the aircraft c.g. In addition, the angle
of attack for the flexible surface is larger so that it can generate more
lift. The surface is less lift effective than the rigid surface.
An unswept tip-mounted vertical (cant angle  90 deg) stabilizer will have increased lift effectiveness because wing twist adds lift
and bending/sweep effects are not present. Figure 14 illustrates this
for the Goland unswept wing model, for which the wing semi-span is
17 ft. This figure shows ASTROS generated results for two sideslip
derivatives, Cn , Cy , plotted against tip-fin size for a wing/tip-fin
operating at M  0.8 at two different altitudes, 15,000 feet and
30,000 feet. The blue line represents the rigid derivative while the
dashed red lines show the flexible derivatives at two different
altitudes. In this figure, increasing stability is indicated by larger
(downward) negative numbers.
The horizontal axis shows nondimensional fin length, the fin
length is divided by the original Goland wing length of 20 ft. Both the
rigid and flexible derivatives show that yaw stability increases
with increasing fin length. The effects of aeroelasticity are greater at
lower altitudes where air density is greater, leading to higher
dynamic pressures. While not shown here, increasing or decreasing
the wing length changes the relative position of the curves to one
another.
In addition to lift effectiveness concerns due to fin length, changing
the wing-and-fin-sweep angle also modifies the lift effectiveness of
the surface. Figures 1517 show the results of an investigation of
sweep effects. Figure 15 shows the effect of sweep angle on fin
effectiveness. While the analysis behind the figure considers two
cases, 1) only the fin is swept and 2) both the wing and fin are swept,

Fig. 15 compares the rigid and flexible derivatives only for the first
case. This plot shows results for two fin lengths, a small, short fin, 0.4
times the wing length, and a longer fin, 0.7 times the wing length.
Figure 15 shows plots of the side-force and yaw-moment coefficients against fin sweep angle for two fin lengths. Note that
Figs. 15a, 15c, and 15d have the same y-axis scales. The top portion
of Fig. 15 shows the rigid and flexible (15,000 ft) yaw stability
derivatives for the short fin with its length equal to 0.4 times the
Goland wing length. The rigid side-force derivative (Fig. 15a)
decreases with increasing fin sweep because fin sweep reduces the
lift-curve slope. [The value of the lift-curve slope of a rigid swept
surface decreases approximately in proportion to cos().] This
accounts for this decrease in side-force created by sideslip. The
flexible fin side-force stability derivative decreases as well, but the
plot also shows that at small sweep angles the flexible fin is more
effective, but when the fin is swept the flexible surface is less
effective. At larger sweep angles, fin bending coupling with fin sweep
decreases the effectiveness of the fin.
The yaw-moment flexible derivative shows similar behavior to the
flexible side-force derivative. However, note that the rigid stability
derivative initially decreases (more stability) but the curve contains a
local minimum at approximately 20 deg. As the fin is swept, the fin
lift-curve slope decreases while the moment arm between the fin
aerodynamic center and the fuselage center of gravity increases.
Initially, the moment arm increase is greater than the lift-curve slope
decrease, and so the fin provides more yaw stability. However,
for larger fin sweep angles, as sweep angle increases, fin bending
coupling with fin sweep decreases the effectiveness of the fin.
The rigid surface yaw derivatives for the larger, longer fin change
in a similar fashion to the shorter fin rigid yaw derivatives. However,
the crossing (the point where the flexible surface becoming less
effective than the rigid surface) occurs at a lower sweep angle. Also,
at large sweep angles, 35 to 45 deg, the smaller fins flexible sideforce derivative magnitude is greater (more negative) than the larger
fins. Depending on the sweep angle of the fin, this may become a
problem for vehicles relying on tip-fins for directional stability.
Figure 16 plots the two rigid yaw derivatives against both fin sweep
angle and fin size showing the effects of fin sweep angle on the
derivative values and illustrating the trade-off between moment arm
length and lift-curve slope decrease. This figure indicates that for
increased side-force the sweep angle of the fin should be minimized,
while for increased yaw-moment stability the fin should be swept
back slightly to increase the moment arm of the restoring moment
provided by the vertical stabilizer.
Figure 17 shows the rigid stability derivatives when both the wing
and the tip-fin are swept together, the sweep angle of each surface is
the same in every case.

Fig. 14 Comparison of the directional rigid and flexible stability derivatives.

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978

SNYDER AND WEISSHAAR

623

Fig. 15 Yaw stability derivatives, two fin lengths, a), c) side-force derivative, b), d) yaw-moment derivative.

Figure 17 shows that sweeping both surfaces further exacerbates

the trade-off between the side-force and yaw-moment derivatives.
The side-force derivative is maximized when the sweep angle is
0 deg; once again, this is due to the rotation of the wing which
reduces the lift-curve slope. On the other hand, sweeping the wing
backwards increases the yaw-moment arm and so increases the yawmoment stability derivative. The magnitudes of the rigid side-force
derivatives, when comparing the fin-sweep-only case (Fig. 16) to the
wing-and-fin-sweep case (Fig. 17), are the same. Sweeping the wing
has no effect on the side-force derivative as it is only a function of fin
size and sweep angle. On the other hand, the yaw-moment derivatives

increase by a factor proportional to the increase in moment arm

length due to sweeping the wing. Note that this larger moment arm
cancels the lift-curve slope decrease effect seen when only the fin is
swept.
Figure 18 summarizes both the results of the studies for flutter
speed and the lateral stability derivative changes with increasing fin
length with a 90 cant angle. This figure shows that, for the unswept
wing and unswept fin, as the fin length increases the yaw stability
increases (in the ASTROS coordinate system the derivative becomes
more negative as the system becomes more stable). Note that the yaw
stability curve is that for a rigid fin and that flexibility will modify this

Fig. 16 Surface plots rigid yaw stability derivatives, increasing fin length and sweep angle.

624

SNYDER AND WEISSHAAR

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978

Fig. 17 Surface plots rigid side-force and yaw-moment stability derivatives.

Fig. 18 Rigid yaw-moment directional stability derivative compared

with flutter speed.

curve, depending on the flight altitude. For the same range of tip-fin
lengths, the flutter speed initially decreases, encounters a flutter mode
switch that increases the flutter speed, and then finally declines again.
These competing and conflicting interests need to be reconciled if a
vehicle with tip-fins is developed.

V.

Conclusions

Placing fins on wing tips as a substitute for a vertical tail creates

two aeroelastic problems, one dynamic, the other static. The results
presented in this paper show that the tip-fin size, primarily the tip-fin
length, and its cant angle are important design parameters that affect
flutter speed. The reader is reminded that the boundary conditions
used for these studies preclude the effects of body freedom or
antisymmetric modes of flutter. Small fins tend to reduce flutter speed
while mode switching may allow very long fins to increase flutter
speed. Static aeroelastic effects also change vehicle directional/yaw
stability, primarily through changes in lifting surface effectiveness, a
well-known phenomenon for swept and unswept control surfaces.
These effects are also driven by tip-fin size compared to the wing size
and by wing sweep.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge P. C. Chen and the ZONA
Corporation for the use of the ASTROS code. In addition, Ned
Lindsley and Ed Pendleton of AFRL, Air Vehicles Directorate
graciously supplied helpful comments and guidance throughout this
research.

References
[1] Raymer, D. P., Doupe, C. C., Fry, T. J., Munro, B., Davis, R. R., Mallick,
K., and Weatherly, H., An Affordable Flight Demonstrator for FullyReusable Access to Space Technologies, Univ. Dayton Research Inst.,
Dayton, OH, 2007.

[2] Doupe, L. C., Sponable, J., Zweber, J., and Cohn, R., Fully Reuseable
Access to Space Technology (FAST), AFRL-PR-ED-TP-2007-108,
16 March 2007.
[3] Sadraey, M., Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach, John
Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2012, pp. 265340.
[4] Vorhees, S., Zink, P. S., Hansen, P., Skillen, M. D., Watson, T., De La
Garza, A., Penning, K. B., and Brunson, T. D., Future Responsive
Access to Space Technologies (FAST) Technology Assessment
Research (TAR) Aeroelastic Assessment of Flight Experiment
Concepts, AFRL-RB-WP-TR-2009-3064, Feb. 2009.
[5] Butler, A., KC-46A Lacks Winglets Shown in Competition, Aviation
Week and Space Technology, 7 April 2011.
[6] Dogget, R. V. Jr., and Farmer, M. G., Preliminary Study of Effects of
Winglets on Wing Flutter. NASA TM X-3433, Dec. 1979.
[7] Shollenberger, C. A., Humphreys, J. W., Heiberger, F. S., and Pearson,
R. M., Results of Winglet Development Studies for DC-10
Derivatives, NASA CR-3677, 1983.
[8] Kehoe, M. W., Winlet Flight Flutter Program. KC-135 Winglet
Program Review. NASA CP-2211, Sept. 1982, pp. 171188.
[9] Kehoe, M. W., Winlget Flight Flutter Test Program, AFFTC TR-81-4,
Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, Edwards, CA, June 1981.
[10] Ruhlin, C. L., Rauch, F. J., and Waters, C., Transonic Flutter Model
Study of a Supercritical Wing and Winglet, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 20,
No. 8, 1983, pp. 711716.
[11] Bhatia, K. G., Nagaraja, K. S., and Ruhlin, C. L., Winglet Effects on the
Flutter of a Twin-Engine Transport-Type Wing, Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 22, No. 7, 1985, pp. 587594.
doi:10.2514/3.45170
[12] Takenaka, K., Hatanaka, K., and Yamazaki, W., Multidisciplinary
Design Exploration for a Winglet, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45, No. 5,
2008, pp. 16011611.
doi:10.2514/1.33031
[13] Coiro, D. P., Nicolosi, F., and Scherillo, F., Improving Hang-Glider
Maneuverability Using Multiple Winglets: A Numerical and
Experimental Investigation, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2008,
pp. 981989.
doi:10.2514/1.33265
[14] Herrmann, U., Critical Flow Phenomena on the Winglet of Winged
Reentry Vehicles, Zeitschrift Fur Flugwissenschaften Und Weltraumforschung, Vol. 19, No. 5, 1995, pp. 309319.
[15] Pfeiffer, N. J., Numerical winglet optimization, 42nd AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2004, pp. 1960
1963.
[16] Thouault, N., Experimental Investigation of Bistable Winglets to
Enhance Wing Lift Takeoff Capability, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46,
No. 2, 2009, pp. 647655.
doi:10.2514/1.39750
[17] Ursache, N. M., Morphing Winglets for Aircraft Multi-Phase
Improvement, Collection of Technical Papers7th AIAA Aviation
Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Vol. 2, AIAA,
Belfast, Northern Ireland, 2007, pp. 12161227.
[18] Ursache, N. M., Melin, T., Isikveren, A. T., and Friswell, M. I.,
Technology Integration for Active Poly-Morphing Winglets Development, ASME Conference on Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures and
Intelligent Systems, American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME), New York, Oct. 2008.
[19] van Dam, C. P. Effect of Winglets on Performance and Handling
Qualities of General Aviation Aircraft, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 18,
No. 7, 1981, pp. 587591.
doi:10.2514/3.57531
[20] Roskam, J., Part VI: Preliminary Calculation of Aerodynamic, Thrust
and Power Characteristics, DARcorp., Lawrence, KS, 2008.
[21] Rahman, N. U., and Whidborne, J. F., A Lateral Directional Flight
Control System for the MOB Blended Wing Body Planform,

SNYDER AND WEISSHAAR

[22]

[23]
[24]
[25]

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978

[26]

[27]

[28]

International Conference on Control 2008, United Kingdom Automatic

Control Council, University of Manchester, UK, 2008.
Bourdin, P., Gatto, A., and Friswell, M. I., Aircraft Control via Variable
Cant-Angle Winglets, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2008,
pp. 414423.
doi:10.2514/1.27720
Ross, J. W., and Rogerson, D. B., XB-70 Technology Advancements,
AIAA Paper 1983-1048, 1983.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Program Authorization
Document. AIAA Paper 2004-213, Oct. 2002.
Bye, D. R., and McClure, P. D., Design of a Morphing Vehicle,
48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics,
and Materials Conference, AIAA, Honolulu, HI, 2326 April
2007.
Snyder, M. P., Sanders, B., Eastep, F. E., and Frank, G., Vibration and
Flutter Characteristics of a Folding Wing, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46,
No. 3, 2009, pp. 791799.
doi:10.2514/1.34685
Lee, D. H., and Weisshaar, T. A., Aeroelastic Studies on a Folding Wing
Configuration, 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA, Austin, TX, 28
21 April 2005.
Anderson, G. R., and Cowan, D. L., Aeroelastic Modeling, Analysis
and Testing of a Morphing Wing Structure, 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/
AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference,
AIAA, Honolulu, HI, 2326 April 2007.

625

[29] Costa, A. P., Moniz, P. A., and Suleman, A., Experimental aeroelastic
control using adaptive wing model concepts, Vol. 4332, International
Society for Optics and Photonics, 2001, pp. 3747.
[30] Matsuzaki, Y., and Torii, H. Flutter boundary prediction of an adaptive
smart wing during process of adaptation. Vol. 5764, International
Society for Optics and Photonics, 2005, pp. 203213.
[31] Webb, M. B., and Subbarao, K., On the Dynamic Aeroelastic Stability
of Morphable Wing Structures, 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA,
Newport, RI, 14 May 2006.
[32] Goland, M., Flutter of uniform cantilever wing, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Transactions Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1945, pp. A197A208.
[33] Goland, M., and Luke, Y. L., Flutter of Uniform Wing with Tip Weights,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1947, pp. A13A20.
[34] ASTROS Theoretical Manual: ZONA Technology, April 2006.
[35] Kermode, A. C., Mechanics of Flight, 10th ed., Pearson Education
Unlimited, 1996, pp. 190195.
[36] Whitford, R., Design for Air Combat, Janes Publishing Inc., New York,
1987.
[37] Talay, T. A., Introduction to the Aerodynamics of Flight, Scientific and
Technical Information Office, NASA, Washington, DC, 1975.
[38] Roskam, J., Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls,
DARcorp., Lawrence, KS, 2007.
[39] Etkin, B., Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 1982.

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by Vikram Sarbhai Space Centre LIbrary Thiruvanathapuram on November 20, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031978

1. Matthew P. Snyder, Terrence A. Weisshaar. 2014. Simultaneous Configuration Optimization of Multistate Reconfigurable
Aerostructures. Journal of Aircraft 51:3, 727-739. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]