29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference AIAA 2011-3005

27 - 30 June 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii

A Method to Predict Deep Stall

Willem A.J. Anemaat1, Balaji Kaushik2 and Ken Po3

Design, Analysis and Research Corporation, Lawrence, KS 66049

T-tail configurations are notorious for deep stall (pitch-up) behavior at high angles of
attack. The turbulent wake of the wing blanks the horizontal tail and reverses the pitching
moment curve from stable to unstable with increasing angle of attack. The elevator can be
rendered ineffective to get out of this condition. This is called deep stall.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

The high angle of attack pitching moment behavior of a conventional airplane depends
on the behavior of the wing-fuselage and on that of the horizontal tail. The massive flow
separation at high angles of attack can affect the flow over the horizontal tail. With this the
effectiveness of the tail for stability and control purposes can reverse or vanish all together.

Currently no detailed methods exist for predicting deep stall during preliminary design.
This can lead to under sizing or incorrectly positioning the horizontal tail. Often wind
tunnel testing is used to discover the problems and to come up with a satisfactory solution.
This paper describes the initial investigation into the deep stall problem and how to predict
it. A method is developed to estimate whether the horizontal tail will be affected. Methods
will be described and compared to wind tunnel data.

Nomenclature
bh = horizontal tail span
bw = wing span
CL = airplane lift coefficient
CLh = horizontal tail lift coefficient

C Lwf = wing-fuselage lift coefficient

Cm = airplane pitching moment coefficient

Cm0 = wing-fuselage contribution to the zero angle of attack pitching moment coefficient
wf
crh = horizontal tail root chord
crw = wing root chord
cth = horizontal tail tip chord
ctw = wing tip chord

cw = wing local chord at the horizontal tail tip plane

cw = wing mean geometric chord

1
President, Design, Analysis and Research Corporation, Lawrence, KS 66049, AIAA Associate Fellow.
2
Senior Aerospace Engineer, Design, Analysis and Research Corporation, Lawrence, KS 66049, AIAA Member.
3
Senior Aerospace Engineer, Design, Analysis and Research Corporation, Lawrence, KS 66049, AIAA Member.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
 ih = horizontal tail incidence
iw = wing incidence
lh = distance between the quarter chord points on the wing mean geometric chord and horizontal tail
mean geometric chord in the X-direction
Sh = horizontal tail area
Sw = wing area
Vhg = geometric volume coefficient of the horizontal tail

xach = X-location of the horizontal tail aerodynamic center in terms of the wing mean geometric chord

xacwf = X-location of the wing-fuselage aerodynamic center in terms of the wing mean geometric chord
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

X apexh = X-coordinate of the horizontal tail apex

X apexw = X-coordinate of the wing apex
xcg = X-location of the airplane center of gravity in terms of the wing mean geometric chord
Xc / 4h = X-location of the quarter chord point of the horizontal tail mean geometric chord
X c / 4w = X-location of the quarter chord point of the wing mean geometric chord
Z apexh = Z-coordinate of the horizontal tail apex
Z apexw = Z-coordinate of the wing apex
Zc / 4 h = Z-location of the quarter chord point of the horizontal tail mean geometric chord
Z c / 4w = Z-location of the quarter chord point of the wing mean geometric chord

zh = distance between the quarter chord points on the wing mean geometric chord and horizontal tail
mean geometric chord in the Z-direction
= airplane angle of attack
gh = horizontal tail geometric twist angle
gw = wing geometric twist angle

w = local wing geometric twist angle at the horizontal tail tip plane
LEw LEh = wing leading edge to horizontal tail leading edge angle at horizontal tail root
r
LEw LEh = wing leading edge to horizontal tail leading edge angle at horizontal tail tip
t
LEwTEh = wing leading edge to horizontal tail trailing edge angle at horizontal tail root
r
LEwTEh = wing leading edge to horizontal tail trailing edge angle at horizontal tail tip
t
TEwTEh = wing trailing edge to horizontal tail trailing edge angle at horizontal tail root
r
TEwTEh = wing trailing edge to horizontal tail trailing edge angle at horizontal tail tip
t
TEw LEh = wing trailing edge to horizontal tail leading edge angle at horizontal tail root
r
TEw LEh = wing trailing edge to horizontal tail leading edge angle at horizontal tail tip
t

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 h = horizontal tail dihedral angle
w = wing dihedral angle
h = horizontal tail dynamic pressure ratio
LEh = horizontal tail leading edge sweep angle
LEw = wing leading edge sweep angle

I. Introduction

T he purpose of this paper is to discuss the possibility of using an empirical method to predict potential deep stall
in T-tail aircraft during the conceptual and preliminary design phase. Figure 1 shows a typical T-tail airplane.
Deep stall has been traditionally investigated in wind tunnel tests following the conceptual and preliminary design
process. Wind tunnel programs are time consuming and expensive. Early prediction of deep stall can save
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

significant time and lower cost.

Figure 1. Typical T-Tail Airplane

The results discussed in this paper are based on several wind tunnel tests conducted by DARcorporation and on test
reports from NASA (Ref. 1-10).

II. Deep Stall

T-tail configurations with aft fuselage mounted nacelles are prone to pitch-up behavior at high angles of attack.
The turbulent wake of the wing blanks the horizontal tail and reverses the pitching moment curve from stable to
unstable with increasing angle of attack. The elevator can be rendered ineffective to get out of this condition. This is
called deep stall.
The high angle of attack pitching moment behavior of a conventional airplane depends on the behavior of the
wing-fuselage and on that of the horizontal tail. The massive flow separation at high angles of attack can affect the
flow over the horizontal tail. With this the effectiveness of the tail for stability and control purposes can reverse or
vanish all together.
Airplanes with T-tail configurations with the wing relatively situated aft on the fuselage usually have the
horizontal tail in the region marked as D in Figure 2.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 2. Typical Horizontal Tail Location on T-Tail Aircraft

The deep stall trim point which may occur in such configurations is as shown in Figure 3 (Ref. 11). When the
airplane is parked in that flight condition recovery is possible only with sufficient longitudinal control power and
even then after considerable loss of altitude.

Figure 3. Pitch Break Behavior of T-Tail Aircraft

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 III. Wind Tunnel Models
Two separate wind tunnel tests are conducted. Two dimensionless parameters are used as reference in the
various models tested. These parameters are defined as follows:

lh X c / 4 h X c / 4 w (1)

zh Z c / 4 h Z c / 4 w (2)

lh is the X-distance between the quarter chord points on the mean geometric chord between the horizontal tail
and the wing. zh is the Z-distance between the quarter chord points on the mean geometric chord between the
horizontal tail and the wing. The model geometries used in the tests are discussed in the following sections.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

A. First Wind Tunnel Test

In the first test, five different models are tested in a subsonic wind tunnel. The major difference in the models of
the first test are the area and sweep of the horizontal tail. The model definition for the first wind tunnel test is as
shown in Table 1.

Table 1. First Wind Tunnel Test Model Definition

# lh zh
cw cw
Model 1-1 2.93 2.09
Model 1-2 2.98 2.09
Model 1-3 2.99 2.09
Model 1-4 3.23 2.09
Model 1-5 3.77 2.09

lh
Figure 4 through Figure 8 show the planforms of the models with and horizontal tail volume coefficient for
cw
the first test.

l
Figure 4. Horizontal Tail Planform Model 1-1: h =2.93, Vh = 0.81
cw g

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 l
Figure 5. Horizontal Tail Planform Model 1-2: h =2.98, Vh = 1.01
cw g
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

l
Figure 6. Horizontal Tail Planform Model 1-3: h =2.99, Vh = 1.14
cw g

l
Figure 7. Horizontal Tail Planform Model 1-4: h =3.23, Vh = 0.90
cw g

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 l
Figure 8. Horizontal Tail Planform Model 1-5: h =3.77, Vh = 1.09
cw g
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

B. Second Wind Tunnel Test

In the second test, three different models are tested in a subsonic wind tunnel. The major difference in the
lh z
models of the second test are in and h . The model definition for the second wind tunnel test is as shown in
cw cw
Table 2.

Table 2. Second Wind Tunnel Test Model Definition

# lh zh Vhg
cw cw
Model 2-1 3.62 1.61 0.73
Model 2-2 4.05 2.33 0.86
Model 2-3 4.26 2.69 0.82

Figure 9 shows the side view of the horizontal tails for the second wind tunnel test.

Figure 9. Second Wind Tunnel Test Horizontal Tail Locations

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 IV. Discussion of Wind Tunnel Results
Figure 10 shows the general arrangement of the wing and horizontal tail in isometric view. The region blanketed
by the wing is shown by the blue box.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 10. General Component Arrangement (Isometric View)

Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the nomenclature of the deep stall region definition angles, which correlated wing
geometry and horizontal tail geometry.

Figure 11. Wing-Tail Geometric Region Definition Nomenclature

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 12. Wing-Tail Geometric Region Definition Nomenclature (Contd.)

Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the schematic of Model 1-1 from the first wind tunnel test.

Figure 13. Schematic of Model 1-1

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 14. Schematic of Model 1-1 (Contd.)

It is seen from Figure 12 and Figure 13 that the wing-tail region is from an angle of attack of 26.8 deg to 48.8
deg for Model 1-1.
Figure 15 shows the variation of the pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack for Model 1-1 with flaps in
the landing configuration. The wing-tail region is marked by the two vertical red lines corresponding to 26.8 deg
and 48.8 deg respectively.

Figure 15. Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Model 1-1

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the schematic of Model 1-2.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 16. Schematic of Model 1-2

Figure 17. Schematic of Model 1-2 (Contd.)

It is seen from Figure 16 and Figure 17 that the wing-tail region is from an angle of attack of 26.0 deg to 48.8
deg for Model 2.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 18 shows the variation of the pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack for Model 1-2 with flaps in
the landing configuration. The wing-tail region is marked by the two vertical red lines corresponding to 26.0 deg
and 48.8 deg respectively.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 18. Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Model 1-2

Figure 19 and Figure 20 show the schematic of Model 1-3.

Figure 19. Schematic of Model 1-3

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 20. Schematic of Model 1-3 (Contd.)

It is seen from Figure 19 and Figure 20 that the wing-tail region is from an angle of attack of 26.0 deg to 48.8
deg for Model 3.
Figure 21 shows the variation of the pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack for Model 1-3 with flaps in
the landing configuration. The wing-tail region is marked by the two vertical red lines corresponding to 26.0 deg
and 48.8 deg respectively.

Figure 21. Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Model 1-3

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 22 and Figure 23 show the schematic of Model 1-4.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 22. Schematic of Model 1-4

Figure 23. Schematic of Model 1-4 (Contd.)

It is seen from Figure 22 and Figure 23 that the wing-tail region is from an angle of attack of 25.2 deg to 44.5
deg for Model 4.
Figure 24 shows the variation of the pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack for Model 1-4 with flaps in
the landing configuration. The wing-tail region is marked by the two vertical red lines corresponding to 25.2 deg
and 44.5 deg respectively.

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 24. Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Model 1-4

Figure 25 and Figure 26 show the schematic of Model 1-5.

Figure 25. Schematic of Model 1-5

15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 26. Schematic of Model 1-5 (Contd.)

It is seen from Figure 25 and Figure 26 that the wing-tail region is from an angle of attack of 24.7 deg to 42.1
deg for Model 1-5.
Figure 27 shows the variation of the pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack for Model 1-5 with flaps in
the landing configuration. The wing-tail region is marked by the two vertical red lines corresponding to 24.7 deg
and 42.1 deg respectively.

Figure 27. Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Model 1-5

16
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 28 shows the variation of the pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack for Model 1-6 with
varying elevator deflections. Model 1-6 is Model 1-5 with the addition of ventral fins and with flaps in the landing
configuration. The wing-tail region is marked by the two vertical red lines corresponding to 24.7 deg and 42.1 deg
respectively.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 28. Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Different Elevator
Deflections

It is seen from Figure 28 that positive elevator deflections alleviate the deep stall phenomenon.

Table 3 shows the summary of the angles from the wing leading and trailing for the models of the first wind
tunnel test.

Table 3. Summary of Geometric Flow Separation Angles from the First Wind Tunnel Test
Model LEw LEh TEwTEh LEw LEh TEwTEh LEwTEh TEw LEh LEwTEh TEw LEh
# r r t t r r t t
[deg] [deg] [deg] [deg] [deg] [deg] [deg] [deg]
Model 1-1 33.2 37.2 32.0 37.8 26.8 48.8 28.6 43.3
Model 1-2 33.2 35.7 32.0 36.2 26.0 48.8 27.6 43.3
Model 1-3 33.2 35.7 31.8 36.3 26.0 48.8 28.0 42.4
Model 1-4 30.9 34.4 29.8 34.8 25.2 44.5 26.8 39.6
Model 1-5 29.6 33.5 24.2 27.2 24.7 42.1 21.9 30.7

Figure 29 and Figure 30 show the schematic of Model 2-1 from the second wind tunnel test.

17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 29. Schematic of Model 2-1

Figure 30. Schematic of Model 2-1 (Contd.)

It is seen from Figure 29 and Figure 30 that the wing-tail region is from an angle of attack of 19.1 deg to
31.9 deg for Model 2-1.
Figure 31 shows the variation of the pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack for Model 2-1 with no flap
deflection. The wing-tail region is marked by the two vertical red lines corresponding to 19.1 deg and 31.9 deg
respectively.

18
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 31. Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Model 2-1

Figure 32 and Figure 33 show the schematic of Model 2-2 from the second wind tunnel test.

Figure 32. Schematic of Model 2-2

19
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 33. Schematic of Model 2-2 (Contd.)

It is seen from Figure 32 and Figure 33 that the wing-tail region is from an angle of attack of 27.5 deg to
39.9 deg for Model 2-2.
Figure 34 shows the variation of the pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack for Model 2-2 with no flap
deflection. The wing-tail region is marked by the two vertical red lines corresponding to 27.5 deg and 39.9 deg
respectively.

Figure 34. Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Model 2-2

20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 35 and Figure 36 show the schematic of Model 2-3 from the second wind tunnel test.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 35. Schematic of Model 2-3

Figure 36. Schematic of Model 2-3 (Contd.)

It is seen from Figure 35 and Figure 36 that the wing-tail region is from an angle of attack of 25.0 deg to
37.8 deg for Model 2-3.
Figure 37 shows the variation of the pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack for Model 2-3 with no flap
deflection. The wing-tail region is marked by the two vertical red lines corresponding to 25.0 deg and 37.8 deg
respectively.

21
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 37. Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Model 2-3

From the above tests it is obvious that the wing-tail angles as defined in Figures 11 and 12 are good indicators of
the deep stall regions in the pitching moment versus angle of attack curve. The 8 angles are called the deep-stall
geometry angles.

V. Method to Predict Deep Stall

The eight angles defining the deep stall are calculated mathematically as shown below:
At the horizontal tail root, the four deep stall geometry defining angles are calculated as shown in Equations 3-6.

Z apexh Z apexw
tan LEw LEh (3)
r X apexh X apexw

Z apexh crh sin ih Z apexw

tan LEwTEh (4)
r X apexh crh cos ih X apexw

Z apexh Z apexw crw sin iw

tan TEw LEh (5)
r X apexh X apexw crw cos iw

Z apexh crh sin ih Z apexw crw sin iw

tan TEwTEh (6)
r X apexh crh cos ih X apexw crw cos iw

At the horizontal tail tip, the four deep stall geometry defining angles (see Figures 11 and 12) are calculated as
shown in Equations 7-10.

22
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 b b
Z apexh h tan h Z apexw h tan w
tan LEw LEh 2 2 (7)
t bh bh
X apexh tan LEh X apexw tan LEw
2 2

b
Z apexh h tan h cth sin
2
ih gh Zapexw b2h tan w
tan LEwTEh (8)
t b
X apexh h tan LEh cth cos
2
ih gh X apexw b2h tan LEw
b b
Z apexh h tan h Z apexw h tan w cw sin iw w
2 2
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

tan TEw LEh (9)

b b
X apexh h tan LEh X apexw h tan LEw cw cos iw w
t
2 2

b
Z apexh h tan h cth sin
2
ih gh Zapexw b2h tan w cw sin iw w
tan TEwTEh
t bh
X apexh tan LEh cth cos
2
ih gh X apexw b2h tan LEw cw cos iw w
(10)
Where:
b

cw crw h crw ctw for a straight tapered wing
bw

bh
w g for linear twist
bw w

The apex locations of the wing and the horizontal tail are as shown in Figure 38.

Figure 38. Wing and Horizontal Tail Apex Definition

23
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The nature of the variation C Lwf versus and CLh versus is established using traditional methods from
Ref. 12-13. The typical variation of C L and C L with angle of attack is as shown in Figure 39.
wf h
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Figure 39. Variation of the Lift Coefficient with Angle of Attack

The horizontal tail lift coeffcient plotted is already corrected for area in Figure 39. It does not include any wing
stall effects, but is purely based on a lifting surface in the downwash of a wing.

The pitching moment coefficient is calculated using equation 3.

Cm Cm0
wf S

CLwf xcg xacwf CLhh h xach xcg
Sw
(11)

The variation of pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack from equation (11) is as shown in Figure 40.
These curves are theoretical and do not account for deep stall. So no effects of flow separation are included. This
chart shows where a local maximum in pitching moment occurs post wing stall. The chart indicates the range of
angles of attack over which the deep stall phenomenon would occur.

The minimum and maximum angle from the eight angles describing the relationship between the horizontal tail
and the wing geometry from equations (3) through (10) are marked on the pitching moment plot (Figure 40).

The deep stall region center is defined as that part of the Cm curve that shows a local maximum for Cm at
a positive angle of attack beyond the wing stall angle of attack.

24
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

Deep Stall Region

Figure 40. Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of Attack

If any of the eight deep stall defining geometric angles are located in the deep stall region marked on the airplane
Cm Vs plot, the airplane is susceptible to deep stall. If the deep stall region is completely enclosed by the
geometric angle lines, the airplane will not be controllable.

VI. Application using Wind Tunnel Data

The stall prediction equation as shown in Equation (11) is compared with wind tunnel data. Figure 41 shows the
comparison between the stall prediction method and the wind tunnel data.

Figure 41. Comparison between Stall Prediction Method and Wind Tunnel Data
25
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 It is seen from Figure 40 that even though Equation (11) does not include the flow separation effects, the deep
stall region can still be predicted with reasonable accuracy for preliminary design. The red vertical lines are the
minimum and maximum angles as predicted with equations (3) through (10).

VII. Conclusion
Based on the wind tunnel results and the prediction method shown, it can be said that if any of the eight
geometric angles describing the relationship between the horizontal tail and wing location in the deep stall region on
the airplane Cm plot, the airplane will be susceptible to deep stall behavior. If the region is completely
enclosed by the leading and trailing edge angle lines, the airplane will not be controllable.

References
1
Shevell, R.S., Schaufele, R.D., Aerodynamic Design Features of the DC-9, AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 3, No. 6,
Nov-Dec, 1966, pp. 515-523.
2
Maurice, D.W., and Cooper, G.E., Simulator Studies of the Deep Stall, Conference on Aircraft Operating Problems,
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-3005

SP-83, Chapter 12, NASA, 1965.

3
Taylor, R.T., and Ray, E.J., Deep-Stall Aerodynamic Characteristics of T-Tail Aircraft, Conference on Aircraft Operating
Problems, SP-83, Chapter 13, NASA, 1965.
4
Thomas, H.H.B.M., A Study of the Longitudinal Behaviour of an Aircraft at Near-Stall and Post-Stall Conditions,
AGARD Conference Proceedings, CP-17, 1966.
5
Taylor, R.T., and Ray, E.J., A Systematic Study of the Factors Contributing to Post-Stall Longitudinal Stability of T-Tail
Transport Configurations, AIAA/RAeS/JSASS Aircraft Design and Technology Meeting, AIAA-65-737, Los Angeles, 1965.
6
Aoyagi, K., and Tolhurst, Jr., W, Large-Scale Wind Tunnel Tests of a Subsonic Transport with Aft Engine Nacelles and
High Tail, NASA TN D-3797, 1967.
7
Ray, E., and Taylor, R.T., Effect of Configuration Variables on the Subsonic Longitudinal Stability Characteristics of a
High-Tail Transport Configuration, NASA TM X-1165, 1965.
8
Power, B.G., A Parametric Study of Factors Influencing the Deep-Stall Pitch-Up Characteristics of T-Tail Transport
Aircraft, NASA TN D-3370, 1966.
9
Spreeman, K.P., Design Guide for Pitch-Up Evaluation and Investigation at High Subsonic Speeds of Possible Limitations
due to Wing-Aspect-Ratio Variations, NASA TM X-26, 1961.
10
Callaghan, J.T., Donelson, J.E., and Morelli, J.P., The Effects on Cruise Drag of Installing Refan-Engine Nacelles on the
McDonnell Douglas DC-9, NASA CR-121219, 1973.
11
Roskam, J., Airplane Design: Part III, Layout Design of Cockpit, Fuselage, Wing and Empennage: Cutaways and Inboard
Profiles, DARcorporation, Lawrence, KS, 2002.
12
Roskam, J., Airplane Design: Part VI, Preliminary Calculation of Aerodynamic, Thrust and Power Characteristics,
DARcorporation, Lawrence, KS, 2008.
13
Roskam, J., Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls: Part I, DARcorporation, Lawrence, KS, 2007.

26
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics