American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

092407
1
An Investigation into the Aerodynamic Efficiency of Tailless
Aircraft
Aliya Valiyff
1
and Maziar Arjomandi
2
The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005
From the perspective of aerodynamics, tailless aircraft are defended by many as
potentially the most efficient aircraft configuration. The supporting argument being that the
reduced surface area resulting from the tailless configuration directly results in reductions
in drag. However, the efficiency of such configuration is realized through the utilization of
active control systems. Without active control, the expected aerodynamic efficiency gains are
partially or wholly negated by design compromises required to provide stability and control.
The magnitude of washout required to stabilize such aircraft are usually quiet high, in the
order of 8 to 10 degrees depending on the wing loading, airfoil type and control
requirements of the aircraft. This high magnitude of wash out required dictates the lift
distribution, such that only limited locations on the wing are flown at the design lift
coefficient, thus increasing the associated induced drag. This paper discusses the efficiency
of tailless configuration without active control and through the presentation of a case study
undertaken with the use of both theoretical and empirical methods available proposes an all
moving wing tip configuration as the design configuration of choice when considering tailless
aircraft.
Nomenclature
A = aspect ratio
S = wing planform area
b = wing span
c = chord length
C
D0
= zero angle of attack drag coefficient
C
Dinduced
= induced drag coefficient of main wing
C
L
= main wing lift coefficient
C
l
= airfoil sectional lift coefficient
C
l
= lift curve slope
CM = main wing moment coefficient (quarter chord)
Cm = aerofoil section moment coefficient (quarter chord)
D = drag force
= angle of attack of main wing
= climb angle
= geometric twist of the wing
= taper ratio of the wing
SM = aircraft static margin

1/4
= quarter chord sweep

1/2
= mid chord sweep
X
np
= position of neutral point
X
cg
= position of centre of gravity
E = Jones edge velocity factor
e = Oswald efficiency factor
q = dynamic pressure
1
Undergraduate Student, School of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, AIAA Student Member.
2
Lecturer, School of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, AIAA Member.
47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition
5 - 8 January 2009, Orlando, Florida
AIAA 2009-1436
Copyright 2009 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
092407
2
CG = centre of gravity
X
1
= distance between CG and wing aerodynamic centre
X
2
= distance between CG and tail aerodynamic centre
Y
1
= wing mean aerodynamic chord position
Y
2
= horizontal tail mean aerodynamic chord position
I. Introduction
or the last century, there have been countless patents, projects and concepts regarding tailless aircraft, ranging
from multi-wing aircraft to flying planks, from the early works of Horten to Northrops YB49 advanced
bomber
1
. Since then, following the significant growth in military aviation and the associated technology in the areas
of propulsion, material sciences and control systems, there has been a resurgence of interest in tailless aircraft with
proposals of one hundred seat delta wing
2
to blended wing body passenger aircraft from industries such as Boeing
3-8
.
In their design, tailless aircraft present interesting challenges. The exclusion of a horizontal stabilizer is the main
feature of tailless aircraft distinguishing it from the other classes of aircraft. With tailless aircraft the pitch control
surfaces are located on the main wing. With a significant portion of an aircrafts flight envelope under steady flight
conditions such as cruise, climb or glide, the principle of static equilibrium is thus important in the assessment of
aircraft stability. Static stability is concerned with the initial response of the aircraft to a disturbance and thereby
only aerodynamic loads and the associated moments are considered. Due to the symmetry of aircraft along its
centre-line, longitudinal stability is treated independently of roll or yaw, as small changes in angle of attack do not
influence the directional or lateral components of stability.
Static margin is a concept used in the assessment of longitudinal stability, and is defined to be the distance
between the neutral point and centre of gravity (CG) position. A positive static margin corresponds to a negative
(positive) pitching moment if the angle of attack increases (decreases), hence aircraft tends to return to its original
state. Static Margin is expressed by
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
X X =

cg np SM
(1)
In an aircraft of conventional configuration, longitudinal stability is achieved through the horizontal tail plane. In
such an aircraft, the aerodynamic centre of the wing with a symmetric or positively cambered airfoil is ahead of the
aircraft centre of gravity hence wing produces a pitch up moment about the CG. This is then trimmed by the
presence of the horizontal tail, via the lift produced at the tail plane acting through the corresponding moment arm,
which moves the aerodynamic centre behind the CG.
In a tailless aircraft, however, due to the lack of a horizontal tail plane, longitudinal stability is achieved through
the use of an aerofoil with reflex camber for low aspect ratio wings while for high aspect ratio planforms the
combined effects of sweep and twist are implemented. The use of twist alters the lift distribution along the span of
the wing, such that the inner sections of the wing produce more lift than the tip section. By using sweep, a lever arm
corresponding to the lift generated at the tip section of the wing is generated. This lever arm combined with the
corresponding lift force means that the tip section can create enough moment to counteract the moment from the
root section of the wing. In this manner the combined effects are enough to trim the aircraft in longitudinal motion.
Tailless aircraft are most often linked to high aerodynamic efficiency and almost always are considered to be
more efficient than conventional configuration aircraft. This belief is evident specially in many of the earlier works
conducted into tailless aircraft
9,10
. Furthermore, the studies presented on BWB design, also suggest the superior
aerodynamic efficiency of tailless configuration over conventional aircraft
3
.
In this manner, it seems where the efficiency of tailless aircraft is considered, mostly the reductions in aircraft
parasitic drag due to the lack of a horizontal tail is noted. However, compared to a conventionally configured aircraft
a heavily twisted wing requires a larger wing area for a similar wing loading hence the wing parasitic drag increases.
The magnitude of twist utilized for stability purposes in turn reduces the effective lifting area. A properly twisted
wing has favorable effect on reduction of the induced drag; however, in the case of a tailless aircraft with large twist,
part of the wing near the tip produces negative lift with the mixed effect on induced drag in different flight
configuration.
This paper investigates the efficiency of tailless aircraft and their efficiency comparing to the other existing
configurations in particular, conventional configuration. For a given set of design requirements, the case study
utilizes both theoretical as well as empirical methods
11-13
available to estimate the required twist and its effect on
drag. In addition, the limitations of the empirical methods will be discussed. Finally, through a case study, the use of
F
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
092407
3
all moving wing tips will be proposed, as a favorable configuration when considering tailless aircraft without the
utilization of any active control system.
II. Case Study
The case study presented below is an excerpt from a design project conducted at the University of Adelaide into
tailless fuel cell powered remotely piloted vehicles. The aim of this project was to develop a platform utilizing a
hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell as its chief power source. The intention was for the platform to be suitably designed for
adaptation into civil surveillance applications and, as such, was to be designed, developed and manufactured using
existing techniques and readily available materials and components. The project consisted of the design and
manufacture of the airframe and control systems together with the introduction and integration of the fuel cell power
source. The current fuel cells available on the market are still heavier and with less power output than their electric
and piston engine counterparts. Thus, the design required high wing loading to meet the specific power
requirements. The combination of tailless configuration and high wing loading in addition to the problem of
longitudinal stability of the vehicle required the implementation of innovative approaches. The high wing loading
nature of the design, posed a challenge in determining the twist required to stabilize the aircraft which could be
successfully implemented without degrading its performance. At first available empirical methods were utilized to
estimate the required twist, however, it was realized that these methods were limited in their applications thus an
approach from first principles was employed to determine the twist required. The methodology presents the
theoretical approach used and compares the result to that obtained form the empirical approaches. The aircraft
configuration and its technical specifications are presented in figure 1 and table 1
.
Figure 1. The remotely piloted aircraft designed and built at the University of Adelaide
with the tailless configuration and all-moving wing tips
Takeoff Weight 10 kg
Cruise Speed 70 kph
Endurance 1 hr
Wing Loading 14.23 kg/m
2
Total Wing Area 0.843 m
2
Span 2.9 m
Aspect Ratio 8
Airfoil MH78
Table 1. The technical specification of the tailless remotely piloted aircraft
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
092407
4
III. Methodology
Assume a wing with linear distribution of twist, in order to estimate the incidence angles of the root and tip
sections, the wing tips were approximated partially as horizontal stabilizers, displaced back from the centre of
gravity through the use of wing sweep. The outboard wing sections generate a downward lift and thus providing a
mechanism to stabilize the aircraft. Figure 2 demonstrates the aerodynamic forces acting at the root and tip sections.
During steady level flight the combined lift from the wings must be equal to the weight of the aircraft. By
placing the aerodynamic centre of the wing at 25% of the MAC, and assuming a trapezoidal planform area
approximation, the following set of relationships between the parameters were established. Each portion of the wing
(1 - root section) and (2 - tip section)) were treated to be separate wings with associated taper and aspect ratios.

( ) ( )
2 1 1 4 / 1
1 2
2 1
tan Y + Y A =
=
=
b C
C X X
W L L
(2)
After establishing the above relationships between the parameters, moments around the cg position were
estimated. By taking X
1
as a percentage of the MAC and equating the moments about the cg, the required lifts were
obtained.
( )
2 , 1 , 2 2 1 1 ,
2
0 ,
0
cos 2
cos
wing wing cg m
m wing m
M M X L X L M
A
A
C C
+ + + = =
|
|
.
|

\
|
A +
A
=
(3)
The required twist was then estimated by determining the angle of attack of the wing root and tip sections. The
angles of attack of the wing sections were estimated by dividing the respective lift coefficients by their respective
lift curve slopes.
Figure 2. Graphical Representation of Wing
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
092407
5
o
|
o
o
| |
t
|
Lw
L
Lw
C
C
A k A
C =
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
A
+
= .
2
) (cos
1 2
2 1
2
2 2
(4)
The result of the above theoretical method was compared to empirical methods consisting of the Panknin twist
distribution and the two methods presented in the references 11 and 12 provided. The Panknin twist distribution was
based on Helmut Schenks
13
research. The Panknin formula presented a relationship between static margin and the
required twist using sweep angle, zero lift angles and moment due to aerofoil profile, as detailed in the equations
below. The equation only considers wing moment and lift, and claimed to provide an accurate model for sweep
angles of up to and including 30 degrees
13
. This formula has been used by model aircraft designers over the last two
decades
13
.
( )
( )
( )
) (
1
1
2 3
4
1
5 4 . 1
0 0
1 2
2
2
1
43 . 1
, 2 , 1
Ltip Lroot total geo
L tip m root m
total
K K
K
A e
SM C C K C K
c c c c


c
=
=
+ +
+ +
=
A
+
=
(5)
Another approach presented by Torenbeek
12
estimates the overall static margin, while taking into account both
the fuselage and wing contributions. The method is limited to constant aerofoil section wings, with linear twist
distribution and sweep angles less than 30 degrees. A summary of the approach has been outlined below.
Torenbeeks method separates the moment contributions from the wing body into individual contributions based on
the angle of attack dependency of the terms.
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
4 / 1
0
tan
4
5 . 2
1 8 . 1
A
|
|
.
|

\
|
= A
A + =
|
|
.
|

\
|
= A
A + =
|
.
|

\
|
X X
+ =

A
E
C
c
c
G C
C C C
C
C
c S
l h b
l
b
fC
fC C C
c
C C C
l t
g
mac
mac basic mac wing mac
l
L
f f f
f
f
mac
mac wing mac wb mac
np
cg
wb L wb mac wb m
o
o
c
c
c
t
(6)
While the third method analyzed, accounted for the twist and sweep effects in the wing pitching moment
11
. The
wing pitching moment is derived by adjusting the airfoil pitching moment for a given wing geometry through the
use of aspect ratio and sweep angle. Raymer
11
states that the effects of twist on the overall wing pitching moment
can be approximated to be -0.01 multiplied by the twist angle in degrees.
( ) c 01 . 0
cos 2
cos
2
0

|
|
.
|

\
|
A +
A
=
A
A
C C
airfoil
m wing mac
(7)
With the exception of the Panknin twist distribution, for the empirical methods described above, the required
twist was estimated by solving the above equations for trim. Given the aircraft profile outlined as per case study the
three empirical methods outlined were used to estimate the required twist to achieve a given static margin. In this
case, the analysis was limited to contributions from the wing as the magnitudes of the moment contributions from
the propeller and the fuselage were negligible in comparison. Table 2 summarizes the magnitude of washout
required estimated from the three empirical and the theoretical approaches presented.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
092407
6
Method Twist Required for SM=6% Twist Required for SM=10%
Reference 13 -0.15
o
-3
o
Reference 12 0
o
-2.85
o
Reference 11 -0.55
o
-3.6
o
Theoretical Approach -6
o
-8.5
o
Table 2. Comparison of Washout
As can be seen the results vary between the three empirical methods, however, this variation is minor in
comparison to the theoretical approach. The magnitude of the twists obtained from the empirical methods translates
into an upward lift being generated across the wing. In this case there is no stabilizing mechanism as moments about
the CG do not equate. The results obtained from the empirical methods do not provide an accurate representation of
the dynamics of the model. It is hypothesized that the empirical methods are sensitive to wing loading and aspect
ratio. Aircraft which have utilized the above approaches normally have wing loadings of approximately 7 kg/sqm.
Furthermore, Panknins formulation was specific to model aircraft with low wing loading (Panknins flying wing
which was designed based on the above distribution has the wing loading of only 3.3kg/sqm13) and for a specific
airfoil.
A sensitivity analysis of the static margin derived from the three methods to sweep angle was conducted and
results compared. Figure 3 shows the variation in static margin with sweep angle for the three empirical approaches
previously discussed for the aircraft profile per the case study with washout of -2 degrees.
Although the values obtained for the static margin using the empirical twist approaches were limited, the general
trends exhibited between the static margin and taper ratio, sweep and twist angles were as expected for the twist
approximations given by Panknin
12
and Torenbeek
13
. The analysis of longitudinal stability via Raymer
11
resulted in
static margins within the vicinity of the results obtained from the Panknin distribution for sweep angles of 20-25
degrees. However, the approximation of twist distribution obtained from Raymer
11
, did not demonstrate this trend.
With increasing sweep angle a decrease in static margin was observed, which shows the limited application of this
method.
IV. Discussion
In this case, as the design parameters were outside the range recommended by the empirical methods described
above, the result of the theoretical approach was used. Having obtained the twist angle required for longitudinal
stability, the incidence angles for the root and tip sections were estimated for a range of tip to wing section area
ratios, as shown in figure 4.
Figure 3 Comparison of Empirical Methods
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
092407
7
The combination of high wing loading and low power loading nature of the design required an airfoil with high
lifting capacity with neutral or positive moment coefficient for stability. The reflex airfoils available could not
provide the lift required and thus a slightly cambered airfoil with positive moment coefficient was used. Due to the
steep lift curve slope of the aerofoil (MH78), the angle of attack of the root section of the wing was in the order of
six degrees. By extending the analysis for a wide range of area ratios (wing tip and root section) and sweep angle,
the optimum area ratio and sweep angle resulting in the minimum angle of attack of the wing root and tip sections,
were derived. This resulted in the required twist of approximately six degrees and therefore an incidence angle of 12
degrees for the wing root. Given the aerofoil stall angle of 20 degrees, this incidence angle was deemed too high.
The high incidence angle would have further increased the overall drag of the vehicle. For a well designed airfoil,
the drag at the design lift coefficient is approximately equivalent to skin friction drag. Thus aircraft are designed to
achieve at cruise a coefficient of lift in the vicinity of the design lift coefficient. With the optimum lift coefficient of
the MH78 airfoil at 0.694 corresponding to an angle of attack of 6 degrees, the additional twist of 6 degrees linearly
distributed meant that only one wing section of the aircraft was at the optimum angle of attack.
As a result of the increased drag associated with linear distribution of twist, the use of an all moving wing tip
was proposed, where the wing tip rotates to produce the required moment to trim the aircraft outside level flight
conditions. There have been several British tailless aircraft on which the all-moving elevator has been realized.
Examples of these include the experimental aircraft Sherpa, and the Granger Archaeopetrix
1
. Further analysis was
undertaken to determine the degree of rotation required by the wingtips in order to trim the vehicle during takeoff. It
was determined that the wingtips needed to rotate 6 degrees clockwise, bringing the aerofoil to a final angle of
attack of 12 degrees. However, since the MH78 aerofoil is cambered with some reflex, its performance at negative
angles of attack was greatly limited, with stall angle of attack of 12 degrees. Thus the aerofoil was inverted at the
wing tips to attain the same performance exhibited at positive angles of attack.
Figure 4. Incidence Angle - Cruise (St=6%)
Figure 5 Aircraft during Flight
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
092407
8
The associated drag of a vehicle consists of parasitic and induced drags. At subsonic speeds the parasitic drag in
turn is dominated to a large extent by skin friction drag and to a lesser degree by pressure drag
11
. This parasitic drag
contribution is approximated through the product of the equivalent skin friction coefficient which accounts for the
effects of skin and separation drag and the ratio of wetted surface area to the wing reference area. Most often, when
the efficiency of tailless aircraft are discussed and compared to aircraft of differing configurations, the reductions in
the wetted surface area of tailless aircraft are immediately noted and directly linked to superior performance and
aerodynamic efficiency. It is claimed that the lift over drag ratio of flying wings is 20-25% larger than for jet
transport aircraft.
3
However, the quoted percentage increases in lift to drag ratios are only feasible through the use of active control.
As illustrated above, without the use of active control, the magnitudes of washout required to stabilize the aircraft
could overcome any reductions observed in the vehicles wetted surface area. One aspect which is often overlooked
when considering the aerodynamic performance of tailless aircraft is the affect of twist on induced drag. For
instance, the early Horten flying wings exhibited losses of and up to 40% in induced drag
1
.
The optimum lift distribution which results in the minimum induced drag is the elliptical lift distribution. With
tailless aircraft, in order to minimize the induced drag, the lift distribution is optimized through the appropriate
selection of twist and wing planform. However, the lift distribution cannot be optimized through twist at multiple lift
coefficients. Optimization of the lift distribution at the design lift coefficient means that at other coefficients of lift
the performance of the vehicle is reduced. Thus, magnitudes of twist above 5 degrees are not recommended
11
.
However, without the use of any active control, achievement of reasonable stability margins is reliant on the
utilization of large magnitudes of twist.
The use of all moving wing tips meant that with the exception of the wing tips, the wing during cruise is at the
desired design lift coefficient corresponding to the highest lift to drag ratio. The increase in drag is localized to the
small wing tips only and thus the overall associated drag of the vehicle would be smaller than that observed for the
distribution of linear twist. In addition, in tailless aircraft due to the configurations sensitivity to changes in the
operating environment such as gust, the elevons are not in neutral position for most of the flight. Thus, with the
conventional control surfaces the leading edges of the elevons do not sit flush with the leading edge of the wing,
acquiring extra drag.
Although, similar behavior is observed in conventional aircraft, due to the presence of the horizontal stabilizer
the aircraft is less sensitive and the aileron and elevator control surfaces are separate, thus the associated drag is
small in comparison. Nickel and Wolfhart
1
attribute two factors for this loss; the airfoil bend in the wing section and
the end gaps, the laminar boundary behind the bend due to the presence of the bend becomes turbulent. With the all
moving tips, the end gap is minimized and any bending of the airfoil is eliminated, eliminating with it the
accompanying losses.
As discussed above, it can be seen that the aerodynamic efficiency of a tailless aircraft without active control
system could be comparable with the aerodynamic efficiency of a conventional configuration due to the requirement
of large twist angle for longitudinal balance. Its also suggested that the use of all moving tip could be considered an
alternative option with similar or better aerodynamic efficiency than a highly twisted wing due to more efficient
distribution of the airfoil angle of attack along the wing span. For better understanding of the behavior of all moving
wing tips, however, further theoretical and experimental investigations are required.
V. Conclusion
The aerodynamic efficiency of tailless aircraft is often claimed to be high in comparison to the conventional
configuration. This belief is usually based upon the supposition that the reduced wetted surface area provided by the
tailless configurations directly leads to reductions in drag. However, without the use of active control system, the
large magnitudes of twist required to stabilize the aircraft means that most of the wing section is operated at lift
coefficient values above or below the desired lift coefficient, negating the affects of the above mentioned benefits.
Thus, in applications where the use of active control systems is not viable the use of all moving wing tips can
optimize the lift distribution and may lead to increased efficiency. Wind tunnel experiments of this configuration
and those which utilize linear twist distribution are required to quantify the differences in the performances of the
two configurations. This would provide the means to verify the theoretically predicted performance values.
Furthermore, the application of currently available empirical methods is limited in their estimation of the twist angle
for longitudinal stability and dont seem to encompass high aspect ratio and high wing loading designs.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
092407
9
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support received from the School of Mechanical
Engineering, the University of Adelaide and the Sir Ross and Sir Keith Smith Fund for the University of Adelaide
Fuel Cell UAV project as well as the individual group members of the project team Christopher French, Craig
Collins, Elizabeth Pham and Rebecca Baylis.
Disclaimer
Research undertaken for this report has been assisted with a grant from the Smith Fund (www.smithfund.org.au).
The support is acknowledges and greatly appreciated. The Smith Fund by providing for this project does not verify
the accuracy of any findings or any representation contained in it. Any reliance in any written report or information
provided to you should be based solely on your own assessment and conclusions.The Smith Fund does not accept
any responsibility or liability from any persons, company or entity that may have relied on any written report or
representations contained in this report if that person, company or entity suffers any loss (financial or otherwise) as a
result.
References
1
Nickel Karl, Wohlfahrt Michael, Tailless Aircraft in theory and practice, Butterworth Heinemann, 1994.
2
Stinton, D., The anatomy of the aeroplane, 2
nd
Edition. Oxford, UK, Blackwell, 1998.
3
Liebeck, R. H. Design of the Blended Wing Body Subsonic, Transport. Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41 (2004), p. 10-25.
4
Mialon, B., Fol, T. and Bonnaud, C., Aerodynamic Optimization of Subsonic Flying Wing Configurations, 20
th
AIAA
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, St. Louis (MO), USA, AIAA Paper 2002-2931, 2002.
5
Liebeck, R. H., Page, M. A., Rawdon, B. K. Blended--Wing-Body Subsonic Commercial Transport. 36
th
Aerospace
Science Meeting & Exhibit, Reno (NV), USA, AIAA Paper 98-0438, 1998.
6
Cook, M. V., Castro, H. V. The longitudinal flying qualities of a Blended-Wing-Body civil transport aircraft. Aeronautical
Journal, Vol. 108 (2004).
7
Qin, N., Vavalle, A., LeMoigne, A., Laban,M., Hackett, K., Weinerfelt, P. Aerodynamic considerations of blended wing
body aircraft. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 40 (2004), p. 321343.
8
Martinez-Val, R., Flying Wings. A new paradigm for civil aviation?, Acta Polytechnica Vol. 47 No. 1/2007
9
Lee, G. H., Case for tailless aircraft, Royal Aeronautical Society Journal, Vol.50, No431, Nov 1946.
10
Weyl, A. R., Stability of tailless aeroplanes, Aircraft Engineering, Vol.17, No193-194, Mar-April 1945.
11
Raymer. D., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA),
Virginia, 2006
12
Torenbeek, E. Synthesis of subsonic airplane design : an introduction to the preliminary design of subsonic general
aviation and transport aircraft, with emphasis on layout, aerodynamic design, propulsion and performance Delft University
Press, Boston, 1976.
13
Twist distribution for swept wings, part 5, Soaring Digest, Vol.20, No10, Oct 2003.
14
Roskam, J., Airplane Design Volume VI, Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, Kansas,1985.