Analytic study of the conditions required for longitudinal stability of dual-wing aircraft

Abstract

Recent studies of new, fuel-efficient transport aircraft have considered designs, which make use of two principal lifting surfaces to provide the required lift as well as trim and static stability. Such designs include open tandem-wings as well as closed joined and box-wings. As a group, these aircraft can be termed dual-wing designs. This study developed a new analytic model, which takes into account the downwash from the two main wings and is sensitive to three important design variables: the relative areas of each wing, the streamwise separation of the wings, and the center of gravity position. This model was used to better understand trends in the dual-wing geometry on the stability, maneuverability, and lift-to-drag ratio of the aircraft. Dual-wing aircraft have been shown to have reduced the induced drag compared to the conventional designs. In addition, further drag reductions can be realized as the horizontal tail can be removed if the dual-wings have sufficient streamwise stagger to provide the moments necessary for trim and longitudinal stability. As both wings in a dual-wing system carry a significant fraction of the total lift, trends in such designs that led to longitudinal stability can differ from those of the conventional aircraft and have not been the subject of detailed investigation. Results from the analytic model showed that the longitudinal stability required either a reduction of the fore wing area or shifting the center of gravity forward from the midpoint of both wings' aerodynamic centers. In addition, for wing configurations of approximately equal fore and aft wing areas, increasing the separation between the two wings decreased the stability of the aircraft. The source of this unusual behavior was the asymmetric distribution of downwash upstream and downstream of the wing. These relationships between dual-wing geometry and stability will provide initial guidance on the conceptual design of dual-wing aircraft and aid in the understanding of the results of more complex studies of such designs, furthering the development of future transport aircraft.

Keywords

Unconventional aircraft stability and control aerodynamics dual-wing nonplanar wing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cavallaro

Demasi

. Challenges, ideas, and innovations of joined-wing configurations: A concept from the past, an opportunity for the future. Prog Aerosp Sci 2016; 87: 1–93.

Salam

Cees

. Multi-disciplinary analysis and optimisation methodology for conceptual design of a box-wing aircraft. Aeronaut J 2016; 120: 1315–1333.

Gagnon

Zingg

. Aerodynamic optimization trade study of a box-wing aircraft configuration. J Aircraft 2015; 53: 971–981.

Andrews SA and Perez RE. Multidisciplinary analysis of a box-wing aircraft designed for a regional-jet mission. In: 16th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Dallas, TX, 2015, AIAA 2015-2793.

Andrews SA and Perez RE. Stability and control effects on the design optimization of a box-wing aircraft. In: 14th AIAA aviation technology, integration, and operations conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2014, AIAA 2014-2592.

Jemitola PO and Fielding JP. Box wing aircraft conceptual design. In: 28th international conference of the aeronautical sciences, ICAS2012-213, Brisbane, Australia, 2012.

Schiktanz D and Scholz D. The conflict of aerodynamic efficiency and static longitudinal stability of box wing aircraft. In: 3rd CEAS air & space conference, Venice, Italy, 2011, pp.910–921.

Frediani

. The Prandtl wing. In: Innovative configurations and advanced concepts for future civil transport aircraft, VKI Lecture Series, 2005.

Laitone

. Prandtl’s biplane theory applied to canard and tandem aircraft. J Aircraft 1980; 17: 233–237.

10.

Wolkovitch

. Subsonic VSTOL aircraft configurations with tandem wings. J Aircraft 1979; 16: 605–611.

11.

Crowe

. Tandem-wing aeroplanes: An examination of the characteristics of this type of wing arrangement. Aircraft Eng Aerosp Technol 1935; 7: 243–248.

12.

Hartshorn AS. Tests of the Pou-du-Ciel in the 24 ft. tunnel of the Royal Aircraft Establishment. Technical Report B. A. 1333, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, Hampshire, 1935.

13.

Prandtl L. Induced drag of multiplanes. TN-182, NACA, Washington, DC, 1924.

14.

Demasi

Montegato

Rizzo

et al.

Minimum induced drag theorems for joined wings, closed systems, and generic biwings: Applications. J Optim Theory Appl 2016; 169.

15.

Demasi

. Investigation on the conditions of minimum induced drag of closed wing systems and C-wings. J Aircraft 2007; 44: 81–99.

16.

Kroo

. Nonplanar wing concepts for increased aircraft efficiency. In: Innovative configurations and advanced concepts for future civil aircraft, VKI Lecture Series, 2005.

17.

Phillips

. Mechanics of flight, 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.

18.

Phillips

Snyder

. Modern adaptation of Prandtl’s classic lifting-line theory. J Aircraft 2000; 37: 662–670.

19.

Kroo

. Minimum induced drag of canard configurations. J Aircraft 1982; 19: 792–794.

20.

Butler

. Effect of downwash on the induced drag of canard-wing combinations. J Aircraft 1982; 19: 410–411.

21.

Demasi L, Giovanni M and Cavallaro R. Minimum induced drag theorems for multi-wing systems. San Diego, CA, 2016, AIAA 2016-0236.

22.

Andrews

Perez

Wowk

. Wing weight model for conceptual design of nonplanar configurations. Aerosp Sci Technol 2015; 43: 51–62.

23.

Dal Canto

Frediani

Ghiringhelli

et al.

The lifting system of a Prandtl plane, Part 1: Design and analysis of a light alloy structural solution. In: Buttazzo

Frediani

(eds). Variational analysis and aerospace engineering: Mathematical challenges for aerospace design, New York: Springer, 2012.

24.

Jansen

Perez

Martins

JRRA

. Aerostructural optimization of nonplanar lifting surfaces. J Aircraft 2010; 47: 1490–1503.

25.

Caja

Scholz

. Box Wing flight dynamics in the stage of conceptual aircraft design. Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 281383 2012.

26.

van Ginneken DAJ, Voskuijl M, van Tooren MJL, et al. Automated control surface design and sizing for the Prandtl plane. In: 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Orlando, FL, 2010, AIAA 2010-3060.

27.

Wolkovitch

. The joined wing: An overview. J Aircraft 1986; 23: 161–178.

28.

Wolkovitch J. Application of the joined wing to cruise missiles. ONR-CR212-266-1, US Department of the Navy, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, VA, 1980.

29.

Lange RH, Cahill JF, Bradley ES, et al. Feasibility study of the transonic biplane concept for transport aircraft application. CR-132462, NASA, Washington, DC, 1974.

30.

McGeer

Kroo

. A fundamental comparison of canard and conventional configurations. J Aircraft 1983; 20: 983–992.

31.

Roskam

. Preliminary calculation of aerodynamic, thrust and power characteristics, airplane design 2008; vol. 6, Lawrence, KS: DAR Corporation.

32.

Hoak

. USAF stability and control DATCOM. Technical Report, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, OH, USA: Wright-Patterson AFB, 1965.

33.

Abbott

von Doenhoff

. Theory of wing sections, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Dover Publications Inc., 1959.

34.

Gur O, Mason WH and Schetz JA. Full configuration drag estimation. In: 27th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, San Antonio, TX, 2009, AIAA 2009-4109.

35.

Goodrich KH, Sliwa SM and Lallman FJ. A closed-form trim solution yielding minimum trim drag for airplanes with multiple longitudinal-control effectors. TP 2907, NASA, Washington, DC, 1989.