Effect of Tail Dihedral Angle on Lateral Directional

Stability due to Sideslip Angles

Nur Amalina Musa, Shuhaimi Mansor, Airi Ali, and Mohd Hasrizam Che Man
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, 81310, Malaysia
This paper will describe the aerodynamic characteristic of complete aircraft equipped
with conventional tail and V-tail configurations. Based on lateral-directional stability, the
introduction of tail dihedral angle can significantly affect the yaw stability derivative of an
aircraft. The wind tunnel test was conducted for sideslip angle, from -25 to 25 and the
results were used to verify the CFD works. Good agreements were achieved at a lower
sideslip angle which is below 15 . Then, CFD will be used to study the flow field around
the tail region and figure out the effect on the directional stability. This study found that
during sideslip condition, conventional tail stall at a lower sideslip angle and only effective
at lower sideslip condition. This study shows that the V-tail configuration provide an
advantage at higher sideslip condition. The interactions of V-tail vertical tailplane slightly
increase rolling stability thus causes the reductions in yawing motion.

Nomenclature

b
Lf
Sw
c
bt
c
Cl
Cy
Cn
Cn
Cy
Cl
CF D
T 35

Sideslip angle
Wing span
Length of fuselage
Wing surface area
Wing mean chord
Tail span
Tail chord
Rolling moment coefficient
Side force coefficient
Yawing moment coefficient
Yawing moment due to sideslip
Side force die to sideslip
Rolling moment due to sideslip
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Conventional tail
Degree

I.

Introduction

ecently, aviation industry progressively seek for aircraft designs which not only look good but better in
R
performance. This leads to the introduction of unconventional design in order to improve aerodynamic
characteristics. One of them is tail part. The tail provides stability and control to aircrafts and it has the
ability to restore the aircraft from perturbation in pitch, yaw and roll. It is vital that the aircraft is stable
in handling the moments created from various disturbances while maintaining the body under control [1].
PHD

student, Department of Aeronautics, Automotive & Ocean Engineering and AIAA member
Professor, Department of Aeronautics, Automotive & Ocean Engineering
Research Officer, Aeronautical Laboratory
Research Officer, Aeronautical Laboratory
Associate

1 of 12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Meanwhile, aerodynamicist believes that tail surfaces add wetted area and structural weight hence they
often sized as small as possible. Although in some cases this is not optimal, the tail is generally sized based
on the required control power [2]. There are attempts to completely remove tails from aircraft in order to
reduced aerodynamic drag and weight, however, this result in poor handling qualities which affects safety.
But the development of fly by wire flight control system technology made it possible to design a tailless
aircraft like B-2 [3].
Based on that, lots of unconventional empanage have been design including v-tail configuration which
removed the vertical tail. Basically ,vertical tail provides lateral directional stability, yaw damping and
effective directional control [3]. In performance point of view, the disadvantages of vertical tail are increased
in aerodynamic drag and weight penalties [3]. While from the stability and control point of view, the
disadvantages of vertical tails is the reduction in their directional stability as the effectiveness of yaw control
contribution was reduce at the higher angle of attack. In this case, V-tail need to cater the role provides by
vertical tail [3]. The control surface for the V-tail aircraft is known as ruddervator where the combination
between rudder and elevator work to control the pitching and yawing motions of the aircraft. The first
aircraft which introduce the V-tail design was Beech Model 35 Bonanza which was first produced in 1947
but was grounded due to safety reason. At this moment, lots of unmanned aerial vehicle used V-tail as it
provides fascinating features.
Nowadays, unmanned aircraft is widely developed for aerial observation and scientific research. Various
types and unmanned aircraft configurations were developed in order to fulfill their specific operations and
mission requirements. The required flight performance of an UAV is the ability to fly for a very long
endurance. The important criteria needed to satisfy this requirement is to design UAV which have high
lift to drag ratio and low trimmed drag. Some studies have suggested that a V-tail configuration has low
trimmed drag due to the reduction in number of parts and wetted area compared to conventional tail [4].
Since less parts are required for V-tail, its help reduce the weight of aircraft [5]. Furthermore, it is also
reported that the V-tail configuration may reduce radar detection[5].Beside the advantages mentioned, there
are frequent reports that there are problems associated with stability and control of a V-tail aircraft[6]. V-tail
configuration for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) design produces cross-coupling effect between yawing and
rolling moment causing UAV lateral stability and directional control to be unsatisfactory[4]. There are many
cases of pilot complaints on the difficulties on flying the V-tail aircraft (Beech Model 35 Bonanza) using a
ruddervator control input. Several fatal accidents had been reported due to loss of ruddervator control of
the V-tail aircraft especially on lateral motions[7]. It is clear that the application of V-tail for unmanned
aircraft may cause similar issues on flying and handling qualities on lateral motions especially in dutch roll
mode [6].The problems may even be worse if the aircraft is flying under gusty conditions.

II.

Methodology

Developing an aircraft requires an accurate aerodynamic data, therefore lots of numerical studies and
experiments were conducted throughout the research. This helped to reduce potential mistake which can
affect the design process [8] and predict the performance of the aircraft itself. Computational Fluid Dynamic
(CFD) simulation offer lower cost to evaluate and optimize the design compared to wind tunnel testing but
the accuracy of the data only valid for lower condition and it is proven through this study.
In this research, wind tunnel test data was used to correlate and validate CFD results. The simulation
settings such as meshing technique and turbulence model which gives good agreements with the experiment
were retain to study the flow field around the tail area. The CFD also helped to visualize and capture the
specific aerodynamic phenomena around the tail region.
A.

Wind Tunnel Test Model

A one fifth Scale UTM-UAV model constructed using fiberglass was used in the experiment. The tail part is
changeable in order to test different tail configurations. There are three sets of V-tail with different dihedral
angle (35 , 47 and 55 ) and one conventional tail set. The dihedral angle is measured from horizontal plane
to the tail chord plane and the selection of angle were based on NACA Report [9]. The span for vertical and
horizontal stabilizer for the conventional tail were derived from 35 V-tail projection areas to the horizontal
and vertical planes, hence, the total references area would be the same[4]. This is due to the fact that, based
on isolated tail theory, in order V-tail to have the same stability parameters as the conventional tail, they

2 of 12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

must have equal areas [10]. Selection of dihedral angle starts at 35 and the value is arbitrary [11]. V-tail
with 35 dihedral angle was taken to be the baseline tail part for the projected conventional tail. The main
wing of the aircraft was equipped with 1 anhedral angle. The parameters of the model are listed in Table
1.
Table 1. Summary of Model Parameter

Parameter
Wing span,b (m)
Length of fuselage,Lf c (m)
Wing surface area,Sw (m3 )
Wing Mean chord,
c
Tail span,bt (m)
Tail chord,c

V-tail (35 )
0.791
0.51
0.067432
0.0852
0.282
0.062

V-tail (47 )
0.791
0.51
0.067432
0.0852
0.282
0.062

V-tail (55 )
0.791
0.51
0.067432
0.0852
0.282
0.062

T-tail (35 )
0.791
0.51
0.067432
0.0852
0.231
0.062

(a) V-tail with 45 dihedral angle

(b) V-tail with 55 dihedral angle

(c) Conventional tail with Projected Area from 35 dihedral angle

(d) V-tail with 35 dihedral angle (Baseline)

Figure 1. Configurations of wind tunnel test models

3 of 12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

B.

Test Set up

This research measured the aerodynamics characteristics from a wind tunnel test and the prediction of vortex
structure using computational fluid dynamic (CFD). The wind tunnel tests for V-tail configurations were
conducted at the speed 40m/s for various sideslip angles, from -25 to 25 with 5 of increment. CFD
analysis results were validated for V-tail configurations with the same conditions with the wind tunnel test.
CFD analysis were then carried out for V-tail and T-tail configurations for sideslip angle, = 0 , 5 , 10 ,
15 , 20 , 25 , 30 and 35 .
1.

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

CFD analyses for both configurations (V-tail with dihedral angle, 35 and T-tail) were performed using a
combination of structured and unstructured meshing methods. The structured meshing method produced
an initial layer with controlled size of less than 6.125 mm high over the model surface. The CFD analysis
was solved using SST turbulence model.
2.

Wind Tunnel Testing (WT)

The static wind tunnel tests were conducted in the 1.5 m 2 m 6 m closed circuit Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia Low Speed Tunnel (UTM-LST).This facility is capable to provide maximum wind speed of 80 m/s
with maximum turbulence intensity approximately 0.01 % across the test section. The model was mounted
on a single strut support while the model angle of attack was fixed to zero degree. Forces and moments
sensed by the model were measured using JR3 Six Component Balance. This sensor is capable to return
three aerodynamic forces and moments and it is placed under the test section floor. The Balance Moment
Center (BMC) is located at the center of this sensor. The sideslip angles were changed by rotating the tunnel
turn table and all data have been corrected for tares caused by model strut support.

III.

Results

All results presented here are referred to the aircraft center of gravity (CG). The forces and moments
result related to lateral stability are presented in body axis.
A.

Reynolds Sweep Test

In order to determine the suitable test speed, Reynolds sweep tests were conducted at various wind speeds
for zero angle of attack and zero yaw angles. The drag coefficient is then evaluated to find a range of wind
speeds where the drag coefficient is independent of the wind speed. The wind speed was varied from 10 m/s
to 50 m/s with 5 m/s increments. The Reynold sweep results is presented in Figure 2, from which it is found
that at 30 m/s and above the drag coefficients were almost identical. The test speed can be selected from
any wind speed fall within this range. However, it is still dependent on the sensitivity of the sensor. Since
the model is small, the force sensed by sensor will be small at the lowest speed in the range. The effect due
to any small changes in the model may not be detected if the wind speed is too low. The selection should be
made by taking this consideration into account. Hence, wind speed of 40 m/s which correspond to Reynolds
number of 0.2064106 based on wing model chord was selected to be a test speed throughout this study.

4 of 12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 2. Uncorrected coefficient of drag with variation of wind speed in Reynolds sweep test

B.

CFD Result compares with Wind Tunnel Test Data

All CFD analyses have been carefully post processed. The coefficients of side force, yawing moment and
rolling moment from numerical and experimental study were plotted for comparison and validation purposes.
Result from the numerical for side force and rolling moment show a good agreement with experimental data
for sideslip angles up to 25 while for Yawing moment, the result is matched only up to 15 . Side force
and yawing moment coefficients for conventional tail are almost identical compared to 35 V-Tail from the
sideslip angle of 0 to 15 . Table 2 shows the derivatives related to lateral stability calculated for low sideslip
angle (0 to 15 ). Compared to experimental data, numerical method is able to predict the derivative of this
model with maximum error of 6.5%. As to understand the V-tail with wing fuselage combination, additional
factors such as downwash and sidewash associated with the wing fuselage vortex must be considered [9].

Figure 3. Yawing moment coefficient against sideslip angle

5 of 12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 4. Side force coefficient against sideslip angle

Figure 5. Rolling moment against sideslip angle

Table 2. Lateral Stability Derivative for Numerical and Experimental data

Derivative(Deg1 )
C n
Cy
Cl

CFD Conventional Tail

0.0546
-0.3432
-0.1173

CFD V-Tail
0.0595
-0.3721
-0.1628

Wind Tunnel V-Tail

0.0622
-0.3496
-0.1553

V-Tail Error(%)
-4.37
6.42
4.82

As the relative strength of aircraft directional stability and dihedral effect will determine several lateraldirectional characteristics of the aircraft itself. V-tail contributes to strong directional stability as compared
to Conventional tail but at the same time V-tail also generate higher rolling moment and this will lead to
the cross-coupling problem when aircraft start to yaw. Conventional tail has a less directional stability and
it is likely to induce spiral instability which caused the roll and yaw motion to be slightly decreased due to
damping effect cause by vertical tailplane . Referring to aerodynamic principal which indicates the changes
in dihedral angle can alter the angle of attack along span wise tail section while aircraft in sideslip mode,
this leads to change in lift distribution along span wise section of the tail which altered the lateral directional
aerodynamic derivatives [12].

6 of 12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(a) Wake region at rudder for Conventional tail

configuration at sideslip angle 15

(b) Streamwise vortex generated by fuselage crossflow for V-tail configuration at sideslip angle 30

Figure 6. Non-linear response of Conventional tail and V-tail configuration

The non-linear response of Conventional tail configuration is starts at sideslip angle, 15 due to the stall
of vertical tail (rudder) as shown in Figure 6(a). On the other hand, Figure 6(b) shows the non-linear
response of V-tail configuration start at sideslip angle of 30 due to the stream wise vortex generated by the
fuselage cross flow [3].

Figure 7. Static pressure distribution at sideslip angle 15

As shown by numerical analysis, the front wing fuselage generated asymmetric downwash airflow to the
rear tail. This effect will destroy the vortex formation on the V-tail [5].
C.

Effect of Tail Dihedral Angle on Directional Stability

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) have conducted a lots of wind tunnel test as to gain
understanding in aircraft directional stability but they dealt with geometries which differ from the typical
civil aircraft. This is due to the fact that all the test were motivated by World War II where the result were
used to design new fighter aircrafts [13][14].The understanding was basically developed based on certain
geometry but yet not accurate to be applied to any typical civil aircraft. In this research, a typical civil
aircraft with different V-tail dihedral angle were used to obtain a basic understanding on aircraft directional
stability characteristics.
Considering special case during wind tunnel test, when the direction motion remains unchanged but
aircraft is yawed, hence the sideslip and yaw angle are related by relation, = -. Due to response of
sideslip motion in wind tunnel test, typically both yawing and rolling moment are created [15]. The aircraft
said to have a stable in roll if Cl < 0. Roll moments are created when the aircraft starts to sideslip and
7 of 12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

depends on the arrangement and design of vertical tail. The rolling moment produced by vertical tails
tends to bring back the aircraft to the wing level attitude. The introduction of tail dihedral angle were
also contributes to the production of side force during sideslip and created an aditional effect in directional
stability.

(a) Yawing Moment

(b) Rolling Moment

Figure 8. Experimental results of comparison between yawing and rolling moment characteristics

Figure 9. Experimental results of side force versus yaw angle

A conventional tail configuration is added in the experiment to see how V-tail will perform compared to

8 of 12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 3. Yawing and Rolling Moment Derivatives for Different

Dihedral Angle

Tail Configuration
V-tail
V-tail
V-tail
Conventional tail

Dihedral Angle (deg)

35
47
55
0

Cn
0.0016
0.0032
0.0041
0.0025

Cl
-0.0028
-0.0061
-0.0062
-0.0041

the conventional tail. However a fair comparison can only be achieved if these two tails configuration have
the same projection area. This is due to the fact that a V-tail of same span but with different dihedral angle
will produce different projection area; hence, the side force is expected to be much larger at high dihedral
angle. Since the yawing moment is a product of the side force, one can expect that higher V-Tail dihedral
angle will provide better lateral stability.
The projection area for the conventional tail used in this experiment is equivalent to the baseline configuration (35 V-tail). The gradient of yawing moment due to sideslip angle, Cn for Conventional tail is higher
than baseline configuration which indicates that V-tail is less stable directionally than conventional tail.
However, this is only true for low sideslip angle (-10 10 ). Referring to Figure 8, at sideslip angle,
= 15 , the yawing moment for V-tail aircraft still in linear region while yawing moment for conventional
tail start to flat out indicating the aircraft is going to stall. This is due to the fact that conventional tail
is always positioned in serious asymmetric downwash region created by wing fuselage, which will not create
any additional lateral forces [5][14][6][16].
The roll stability is also reduced in V-tail configuration; however, the linear region is still present in
conventional tail for higher sideslip angle. Based on Figure 9, V-tail aircraft is slightly more sensitive to the
side flow as the horizontal components of lift on the two surface combine to produces a net side force to that
opposes the sideslip motion and is proportional to the sideslip angle [4] and this will make the aircraft more
vulnerable to turbulence especially side gust at lower sideslip angle.
It can be conclude that if dihedral angle is too small; it will generate less yaw stability effect during
flight while if it is too large, it will affect the longitudinal stability but it also can make directional stability
recovery moment too excessive causing the aircraft to lose the power to control the rudder during sliding
motion. Because of this, aircraft could start to rotate and enter the tail spin condition [5].On the other hand,
too much dihedral angle can cause safety issues in Dutch roll modes especially during high speeds as in the
case of F4U Corsair and the V-tailed Beechcraft Bonanza are famous victim of this effect.
Based on NACA Report, 47 dihedral angle provide a better longitudinal and lateral stability as compared
to Conventional tail [9]. This is due to the decrease in the rate of change of effective downwash with angle
of attack due to the high tail position and the favorable effect of sidewash at the tail. V-tail must replace
horizontal stabilizer as close as possible as a reservation for static stability and control in extreme situations
in order to avoid sudden stall [10] .

9 of 12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 10. Variation of Directional Stability with Tail Dihedral Angle

Figure 11. Eigenvalues for different V-tail configuration

Neglecting the Dutch roll problem at high speeds, tail dihedral angle boosts the yawing stability of the
aircraft. Figure 10, shows that, the Cn value increased as higher dihedral angle were applied due to the
reason that higher dihedral angle provide better directional stability. This is true as the eigenvalues for all
V-tail configurations are located at the left side with negative real parts of the S-plane plot which lies in
stable region. Note that the eigenvalues for V-tail with 55 dihedral angle is located further left from the
imaginary axis compared to those with lower dihedral angles, indicating stable condition. As the dihedral
angle reduces, the eigenvalues moves towards positive side, indicating less stable conditions. These shows
that the V-tail with greater dihedral angle will have greater degree in directional stability as it eigenvalues
are moves away from unstable region as shown in S-plane plot. Higher yawing moment provides a better
stability and controllability during landing and takeoff in crosswind conditions [17]. In terms of lateral
handling qualities, the important parameters are the vertical tail surface and the dihedral angle as the
changes of these two parameters will imply positive changes to the stability derivatives Cn and Cl ; hence,
satisfy the Spiral and Dutch roll mode based on Routh conditions [18].

10 of 12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

D.

Study Tail Contribution Only

In this section, the test was made in such a way as to measure the moments contributed by the tail surface
itself.

(a) Yawing moment

(b) Rolling Moment

(c) Side force

Figure 12. Tail contributions to directional stability

11 of 12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 4. Lateral Stability Derivative for Numerical and Experimental data

Tail Configuration
V-tail
Conventional tail

Dihedral Angle, deg ( )

35
0

Shaded Area, deg( )based on Yawing

Moment Plot (Positive Region)
0.447705
0.425456

Figure 12 show that tail plays a vital role in determining the stability and performance of the aircraft. The
graph compares the two types of configurations which is wing-fuselage without tail and with the complete
aircraft configurations as to determine the tail contribution to directional stability of the aircraft. It is found
that V-tail contributes 5% to directional stability to the aircraft compared to conventional tail.

IV.

Conclusion

The static wind tunnel test focusing on effect of directional stability was used to verify the CFD simulation. The results agreed with the experiment up to 25 sideslip angle and the simulation was used to analyze
flow field around the tail area. V-tail with 35 dihedral angle was chosen as the baseline configuration. This
paper investigates the effect of different tail dihedral angles and tail type to the aerodynamics characteristics
of the same wing body fuselage. The conventional tail was constructed based on projection area of the V-tail.
Introducing dihedral angle in tail design caused the increment in rolling moment. Wind tunnel test has been
done as to eliminate the effect of interaction between wing-body fuselage and found that V-tail produce a
better directional stability.

References
1 Carrier, G. and Gebhardt, L., A Joint DLR-ONERA Contribution to CFD-based Investigations of Unconventional
Empennages for Future Civil Transport Aircraft, CEAS/KATnet Conference on Key Aerodynamic Technologies, 2005, pp.
1-8.
2 Roskam, J., Aiplane Design (Part III:Layout Design of Cockpit, Fuselage, Wing and Empennage: Cutaways and Inboard
Profile), DARCorporation, Kansas, USA, 2002, pp. 249-279.
3 Colgren, R. and Loschke, R., To Tail or Two Tails? The Effective Design and Modeling of Yaw Control Devices, AIAA
Modelling and Simulation Technologies Conferences and Exhibit, August 1997, pp. 1-13.
4 Phillips, W.F., Hansen, A.B., and Nelson, W.M., Effects of Tail Dihedral on Static Stability, Journal Aircraft, Vol. 43,
No. 6, Nov. 2006, pp. 1829-1837.
5 Zhang, G.Q., Yu, S.C.M., Chien, A. and Xu, Y., Investigation of the Tail Dihedral Effects on the Aerodynamic Characteristics for the Low Speed Aircraft, Advance Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 2013, 2013, pp. 1-12.
6 Rao, K.D., Modelling Nonlinear Features of V tail Aircraft using MNN, Transactions Aerospace and Electronic Systems,
IEEE, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1995, pp. 841-845.
7 Hoover, K., Fowler, W.T. and Stearman, R.O., Studies in Ethics, Safety, and Liability for Engineers, University of
Texas, URL: http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/general/ethics/ [Accessed 01 Apr 2013].
8 Pettersson, K., Scaling Techniques Using CFD and Wind Tunnel Measurements for use in Aircraft Design, Universitetsservice US AB, Stockholm, 2006.
9 Polhamus, R.C., and Moss, J., Wind-Tunnel Investigation of the Stability and Control Characteristics of a Complete
Model Equipped with a Vee Tail, NACA TN-1478, Washington,DC, 1947.
10 Purser, E.P. and Campbell, J.P., Experimental Verification of a Simplified Vee-Tail Theory and Analysis of Available
Data on Complete Models with Vee-Tails, NACA TR-823, Washington,DC, 1944.
11 Greenberg, H., Comparison of Vee-Type and COnventional Tail Surfaces in Combination with Fuselage and Wing in
the Variable-Density Tunnel, NACA TN-815, Washington, DC, 1941.
12 Song, L., Yang, H., Zhang, Y., Zhang, H. and Huang, J., Dihedral influence on lateraldirectional dynamic stability on
large aspect ratio tailless flying wing aircraft, Chinese Journal Aeronautic, Vol. 27, No. 5, Oct. 2014, pp. 1149-1155.
13 House, A.O., and Wallace, R., Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Effect of Interference on Lateral-Stability Characteristics
of Four NACA 23012 Wings, an Elliptical and Circular Fuselage and Vertical Fins, NACA TR-705, Washington, DC, 1941.
14 Nicolosi, F., Della Vecchia, P., and Ciliberti, D., An Investigation on Vertical Tailplane Contribution to a Aircraft
Sideforce, Aerospace Science Technology, Vol. 28, No. 1, Jul. 2013, pp. 401-416.
15 Nelson, R.C., Flight Stability and Automatic Control, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill International Editions, New York, 1998.
16 Abzug, M.J., V-Tail Stalling at Combined Angles of Attack and Sideslip, Journal Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 4, Jul 1999,
pp. 729-731.
17 Sadraey, M. and Colgren, R., A Systems Engineering Methodology for the Design of Unconventional Control Surfaces,
January 2008, pp. 1-19.
18 Teo, P., Preliminary aircraft design: lateral handling qualities, Aircraft Design, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2001, pp. 63-73.

12 of 12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics