Experimental study of three-lifting surface configuration

The aerodynamic ramifications of utilizing three lifting surfaces as opposed to the conventional or canard lifting configurations have been studied on a theoretical basis by previous researchers. This paper presents an experimental investigation of various configuration modifications for an unyawed typical business jet at a Reynolds number of 1.3 million. The three surface has better lift and high-lift drag characteristics than either the canard or tail-aft configurations, but the cruise drag is more. The induced drag at cruise is highest for the canard and lowest for the tail-aft configuration. The pitching moment characteristics are somewhat between those of the canard and tail-aft configurations. A decrease in gap adversely affects the pitching moment characteristics. A smaller stagger leads to better aerodynamic and stability characteristics. A decrease in span of the forward wing gives better cruise drag and longitudinal stability characteristics, but has adverse effects on high-lift drag. A variation in the incidence angles of either or both the forward and aft wings changes the zero-lift moments of the configuration, while marginally affecting overall lift and drag. At cruise, the lift to drag ratio is highest for the conventional and lowest for the three surface. For high lift conditions, the order is reversed.

[1]  G. F. Butler,et al.  An analytical study of the induced drag of canard-wing-tail aircraft configurations with various levels of static stability , 1983, The Aeronautical Journal (1968).

[2]  T. W. Feistel,et al.  Wind-Tunnel Measurements of Wing-Canard Interference and a Comparison with Various Theories , 1981 .

[3]  John David Anderson,et al.  Introduction to Flight , 1985 .

[4]  J D Anderson.  INTRODUCTION TO FLIGHT 2ND ED , 1985 .

[5]  C Ostowari,et al.  NACA4415翼型のねじりの無い翼の縦横比を変えた場合の失速後の研究 | 文献情報 | J-GLOBAL 科学技術総合リンクセンター , 1984 .

[6]  E. Laitone,et al.  Prandtl's biplane theory applied to canard and tandem aircraft , 1980 .

[7]  J. L. Johnson,et al.  Some aerodynamic considerations for advanced aircraft configurations , 1984 .

[8]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  A General Approach to Multiple Lifting Surface Design and Analysis , 1984 .

[9]  E. Kendall,et al.  The minimum induced drag, longitudinal trim and static longitudinal stability of two-surface and three-surface airplanes , 1984 .

[10]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Minimum Induced Drag of Canard Configurations , 1982 .

[11]  E. Kendall.  The aerodynamics of three-surface airplanes , 1984 .

[12]  B. P. Selberg,et al.  Aerodynamic tradeoff study of conventional, canard, and trisurface aircraft systems , 1985 .

[13]  Eric R. Kendall,et al.  The Theoretical Minimum Induced Drag of Three-Surface Airplanes in Trim , 1985 .

[14]  William H. Rae,et al.  Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing , 1966 .