VERTICAL STABILIZER DESIGN - A Photo Essay Showing a Variety of Tailfins Throughout History

[@JM-nt5fm]

I'm an aero engineer. Tail design is one of the areas of truly terrible design choices made by even very experienced designer. The idea of "tail volume" -- area and moment arm -- you've covered pretty well here. The main concept is enough control authority to be statically and dynamically stable and also meet control needs and certain emergency situations. The reality is this: The vertical stabilizer and horizontal stabilizer interact with each other. The interaction in normal flight is generally a pretty easily understood concept. Where the interaction is not very well understood by most designers is in conditions that are not ideal. Speeds beyond Vne, during a spin, imbalanced stalls, high power no airspeed all cause truly different flow conditions over the stabilizers. The reality is a cruciform design is generally the best compromise of strength and ability to stabilize spins quickly as well deal with other off design scenarios. T - tails have tremendously spin recovery but structurally are costly. Conventional tails with low mounted horizontal stabilizers shadow the vertical stabilizer during a flat spin. They are strong but cause all kinds of recovery issues. The higher you mount the horizontal, as a rule, the better the spin recovery and for given strength the heavier the tail. You can move the horizontal tail forward to shadow the vertical stabilizer less during spin. You can add vertical stabilizers to the bottom of the fuselage to assist as well....many, many modern designs have this band-aid because of poorly designed tails. V - tails don't stabilize as well as standard vertical and horizontal. The reason for this is the tail when in a yaw fugoid will "slide" up and down. There's a cross couple of yaw to pitch that cannot be eliminated. Understanding of tail design comes from lots of time in a wind tunnel studying things generally you are not budgeted to do. Money is generally not given for safety improvements, it's typically earmarked for efficiency improvements. And generally in good tail design most companies don't recognize that the addition of strakes on the bottom of a fuselage will be more costly in efficiency than a well designed tail. The reason why cruciform tails are not used by airliners is the need for spin recovery is seen as trivial compared to the need for efficiency. Hope that helps someone out there with understanding a bit more about tails...

[@mikepj67]

Thanks

[@alantoon5708]

Great explanation in layman's terms...

[@magoid]

I have a question, if you don't mind answering. You mention moving the horizontal tail forward to improve spin recovering (like in the A6M). But what is the intention behind moving the vertical tail forward? It was done in the F4U and several supersonic jets, even with dual tails (F-18 and Su-27).

[@Primus54]

Your excellent explanation reminded me of a question about the B-2 Spirit. How does this tailless flying wing handle spins?

[@TheJustinJ]

@@Primus54 you don't spin it. If you do, split-flap airbrake ailerons, if that doesn't work punch out.

[@kevinbaird9763]

One more, the Republic F-105 had to be enlarged as well, and IMHO the most beautiful tail ever on an aircraft.......and I think the red, white and blue livery on the YF-16 was at least fifty percent of the reason that they won the contract! Another fine video Mike.

[@Mishn0]

The YF's livery got me to buy the model kit back around 1975.

[@Primus54]

I recognized the Vigilante tail instantly! Of course, that might be because as a young boy I lived under the right downwind for John Glenn International’s (formerly Port Columbus) runway 28L while North American was building and constantly testing it. 😉 It was a gorgeous and very large Navy intermediate nuclear bomber that transitioned into a reconnaissance role. My uncle worked for N.A. at the time and I got to see it statically displayed a couple of times. It was so sleek it looked like it was flying supersonic just sitting on the ramp. This was before overland supersonic flights were outlawed and Columbus got treated a few times to Vigilante sonic booms. Great memories of my childhood. Excellent video, BTW! 👍👍👍

[@gregmiller7123]

I wondered how you were going to make something as basic as a vertical stabilizer interesting but you sure did! Interesting collection of aircraft and designs. I am also reminded of the 747 Shuttle aircraft with the outboard verticals to make it stable. Look forward to many more videos!!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment thanks Greg, and we'll be covering the outboard fins on NASA's 747 SCA in the next video (with an appropriate shout-out). Neat story about that as well.

[@stay_at_home_astronaut]

Mike, the dimension is called "tail volume". It is the sum of the area of the horizontal surfaces multiplied by the area of the vertical surfaces. In aerodynamics there is a well defined range of ratios between the volume of the fuselage and the volume of the tail. When aircraft like the F-100 came out, it turned out that the DENSITY of the fuselage was an important factor to consider, too.

[@paulgush]

Sort of. Tail volume is area of the tail times distance to the center of gravity. Area times length equals volume. A bigger tail gives you more tail authority, but so does a longer moment arm, like a longer wrench handle. That's why volume is a useful measure

[@stay_at_home_astronaut]

@@paulgush , "tail volume" is still the cubic area of the sum of the tail surfaces. (I was a Bonanza owner, so the terminology is important to us. ;-) ) "Tail authority" would be the product of tail volume and the moment, true enough. It is always easier to make the rudder taller, make the horizontal surfaces wider or rivet on a ventral fin to get more authority (and, hopefully, stability) than it is to lengthen the fuselage! Yet, (almost) every time we see that, you can know that it is an aerodynamic 'oops!' on the part of the engineers.

[@paulgush]

@@stay_at_home_astronaut A vee-tail Bonanza would be a tricky one. I suspect you'd take the projected planform tail area times distance to CG for horizontal tailplane volume, and side view projected area to calculate vertical fin volume. If you still have it, you may want to refer back to your POH. The only way to turn area into a volume is to multiply it by a length. (I'm an aeronautical engineer, so terminology and unit balance are important to me :-). That said, I agree, we engineers don't always get things right first try, therefore ventral fins, etc. Happy flying!

[@stay_at_home_astronaut]

@@paulgush Ha! Now that I think about it, you could calculate the 'tail-volume' of a Bonanza (if it doesn't have a V-tail, it is not really a Bonanza!) by using the span times the chord of the surfaces as the radius and length of a cylinder's. volume. Then use the "V-angle" over 360 to calculate the fraction of the volume of the cylinder from step one. I had a Beryl D'Shannon 'skeg-keel' installed on the bottom of the tail-cone on my aircraft. I flew with it removed and decided that it really didn't do anything to damp out the "Bonanza-Boogie". (Short cycle coupled roll and yaw oscillations during cruise flight.) I did reinstall it because it soaked up my occasional over-rotation/flare. (and it made a cool trail of sparks on a concrete runway, at night.) The thinking is (and is possibly wrong) that it is more the shape of the Bonanza's tail cone interacting with the spiral flow from the propeller, rather than the V-tail that causes the Bonanza-Boogie. This seems to be true, because straight-tailed "Bonanzas" (Beech 33 and 36 models) wag their wings while cruising, too.

[@mjw1955]

When Lockheed started developing the Connie, they were told by the airlines that whatever Lockheed came up with was going to fit in their existing hangars. Lockheed decided that in order to have the necessary size, they figured out that the amount of tail fin surface needed was "X" number square feet, so they divided it three ways. And on the first day of ground school for new Connie pilots, they were told that "it took a real man to handle three pieces of tail.:

[@maxsmodels]

Wonderful video Mike. I knew that tail was the Vigi 😊

[@scottfw7169]

That aircraft is almost so slick it hurts to look at. First 1/144 scale model airplane I ever built was a Vigilante by Entex.

[@jb6027]

A most interesting idea for a video! On the F-100, the shorter vertical tail was present only on the very early F-100A models. Those F-100A models with short tails were removed from service and retrofitted with the taller tail before being sent back to the fleet. Fun Fact: When Boeing 707s were being retired, the USAF bought them for their taller vertical tails and installed them on KC-135s, which were built with the shorter tails of the early 707s.

[@raynus1160]

Welcome back Mike - for anyoneone who's interested, the illustration of the Wright Flying Machine @ 1:06 denotes the wing warping limits for bank/roll authority, as their designs were 'sans aileron'.

[@stevenhoman2253]

I love to see the Lockheed Super Constellation flying in Qantas livery, from the start-up of each engine, through the engine warm up and then the take-off run. A glorious craft.

[@viksaini]

Great video Mike. We need a follow up covering planes with ventral fins...F-105, 707, F-14, F-16, etc. Thank you!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Love it! The perfect follow-up video - thanks Vik!

[@glennweaver3014]

A somewhat obscure subject made interesting by spot-on narration and plenty of very nice photos and illustrations. My favorite would have to be the the triple-tailed design of the Lockheed Constellation. Thank you Mike for producing another winner.

[@Guevorkyan]

Mike, you may not have been an engineer or a test pilot during that wonderful era, but you certainly sound like all of them. There's an unmistaken aura following those amazing professionals, and you have the same aura around you. Thanks for telling all these stories.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@teenagerinsac]

Mike, I used to own a set of Kodachrome sides which date from 1964 at Pease AFB during the Open House they had. The KC-135 which was there that day was an original A version with the unpowered rudder and shorter vertical stab. This jet was from Griffiss AFB and came to Pease that day with a B-52G also from Griffiss. Pease at that time had the B-47E and KC-97G still in service, so a pair of tanker and bomber representing the soon to come more up to date equipment to Pease in only a few years to follow.

[@alandaters8547]

Interesting video! I was glad to see that you included the shortening of the B-52 vertical stabilizer. When re-engining was being studied, one obvious choice was to switch to 4 larger engines. One reason against that was that with the smaller vertical surface it would not be able to handle the yaw caused by an engine failure if it was 1 out of 4 vs 1 out of 8 engines. As for those early flying wings, pusher propellors have a yaw stabilizing effect somewhat like a vertical fin. When they went to jets they needed to replace that effect with actual vertical stabilizers.

[@SPak-rt2gb]

Most of the Grumman cats received taller tails later on and the F-107 also had an all moving tail. Great video as always.

[@gzk6nk]

A major consideration on multi-engined aircraft is containing the yaw on failure of an engine, especially an outboard engine. The 707 in particular had terrible (dangerous) very high VMCA (minimal control speed airborne) in early guises and the British refused to certify it until the fin was enlarged and the ventral fin added. Even then it was a bit of a handful if an engine failed on take off. Another factor is length of the rear fuselage (between the wing and tail) The longer this is, the bigger the 'lever arm' and the more effective the tail surfaces. This is why the stretch DC8 did not need a larger fin.

[@hertzair1186]

Love it when you use Revell box art for examples!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks, and wait 'til you see the one in Part 2 "Ventral Fins" coming tomorrow!

[@cturdo]

Interesting design for the Lockheed Jetstar having the vertical stabilizer pivot for trim.

[@stay_at_home_astronaut]

My dad's 1946 T-craft had the same thing. (Lots of planes, have that kind of set up.)

[@tacitdionysus3220]

Great clip. Have always wondered how much influence tail design had upon the 'look' of consumer products of the same era; such as the shape of refrigerators in the fifties and the changing size and shape of tail fins over generations of automobiles.

[@aramboodakian9554]

If not already stated Robert Serling is the brother of the famous Rod Serling of Twilight Zone. Robert helped his brother Rod to write accurate dialog on the TZ episode “The Odyssey of Flight 33” That involves a Boeing 707 returning to the US from Europe. At the time of the writing the Jet Airliner was a relatively new thing to the general public. Robert had developed his own stellar reputation as an expert aircraft writer. I read one of his books many years ago and was impressed by how well written including the scope and detail discussing the evolution of aircraft safety through accident investigation.

[@zodszoo]

Super cool!! Always nice to appreciate the different assets of aerospace science!

[@johnplaninac9980]

Another great video and the photos are amazing. Great stuff.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks John!

[@meatballwanger]

This is the best thing I ever saw.

[@bosoerjadi2838]

Vertical stabilizers are so distinctive. My favorite shape is the Boeing 707 Intercontentintal's. The curvature in the leading edge ending in the forward pointing antenna housing. It is so elegant. It almost commands you to draw it and take photos of it. Just like the double S shape in the Super Constellation's fuselage. In this epsiode about vertical stabilizers I missed the gorgeous lines of the DC-10, for that matter any of the tri-engine jets.

[@scottfw7169]

Boeing 727 was my favorite of the trijets, partly because of being able to fly on a few in childhood years but mostly because it has nice lines.

[@tench745]

Someone may have mentioned it already, but the rudder/v-stab on the Vigilante is known as a "full flying rudder." The Fokker DR1 (and many other early aircraft) also had a full flying rudder.

[@scotpens]

Correct. "Ruddervators" are moveable surfaces that function as both rudders and elevators, as on the V-tail Beech Bonanza.

[@johnh2410]

Great video! I wish you would have included the YF-12A Blackbird (a precursor to the SR-71). It had a 3rd retractable vertical tail under the aft fuselage. It was folded up against the lower surface of the wing during take-off and landing to provide ground clearance on rotation. Once aloft, it pivoted down into place giving the airplane a very beautiful - and unique - profile.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

We'll be covering that very feature of the YF-12 in our follow-up video on Ventral Fins posting Monday morning. Thanks for watching!

[@jimmbbo]

Great video, Mike! One factor driving larger vertical fin size with higher HP or thrust is the ability to have enough rudder travel to control the airplane in yaw when one or more engines quit on one side.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for the info!

[@smile768]

Great video. Over the pond here. If you ever get the chance to see an old VC 10 airliner, then the size of the T tail will make you look twice. It's just immense! The added structural mass required on that tail fin must be considerable to hold on to the gigantic horizontal stabilizer.

[@FlyNAA]

Scott Crossfield, aka Mr. X-15, wrote about being involved in its design. And he pushed to have a very big tail on it with overestimated requirements. He noted how in the early fighters and X-planes of the era, most of them had dangerous stability issues addressed by enlarging the tails in later versions; but there was not one where they decided it had too much tail. And with all the unknowns and huge envelope leaps of the X-15, that was one factor that was a good idea to eliminate. And so they did.

[@colvinator1611]

Very interesting ! The guys with the side rules were clever, the test pilots were heroes.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Agreed!

[@cameronplatts9630]

Excellent presentation Mike. Thanks

[@johnh2410]

The YF-22 prototypes had very large vertical tails which were greatly reduced for the production design. The YF-22’s main landing gear retracted forward which forced the engine inlets to extend far forward against the fuselage. At high angles of attack, the inlets would blanket the base of the vertical tails so they had to be large enough to see clean air at the tip. The production F-22’s main gear was changed to retract outboard which enabled the inlets to be placed more aft. This led to less blanketing of the tail which enabled it to be reduced in size.

[@mjw1955]

When Chuck Yeager first flew the F-100, he said that "It''s a damn sorry formation airplace". The other pilots said "Formation? What formation? We just flew it all over the sky!"

[@jimpern]

Most of the fighters built since the 1970s required twin tails; when they didn't, the result could be in an outlandishly large single tail, as on the Panavia Tornado. The original YF-22 had two outlandishly large tails, but flight-testing revealed that they didn't need to be that large, and on the production F-22, they're more reasonably sized. (I have learned that even those are larger than they really needed to be.) The use of digital flight controls has apparently diminished the need for large verticals; on the Sukhoi Su-57 they look to be too small, but evidently the plane flies fine.

[@pavelavietor1]

hello i have the opportunity to visit the NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AIR FORCE DAYTON OHIO , and my favorite aircraft was the X 3 , beautiful. Thanks so much for sharing this with us, saludos

[@stanleybest8833]

The biggest tail change was the Cessna 150 E to F. It made no aerodynamic improvements, but boosted sales through the roof.

[@alantoon5708]

It was all for looks.

[@martinpennock9430]

Well, another wonderful and informative presentation! I knew of some of these design enhancements, but not all. Some beautiful aircraft! IMHO the Connie was one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built! Love the channel and each and every post! God bless you and yours always Mr Machat and thanks again for everything you do! Take care always Sir!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks Martin!

[@martinpennock9430]

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 You are most welcome Sir!

[@bobwilson758]

Great video ! Thank you buddy - Enjoyed It all .

[@HootOwl513]

Hey Mike. Great show. Since we're on the subject of multiple tails -- I was looking up the Curtiss CW-20 and the text said the prototype XC-46 had twin tails originally.. No pictures are to be seen. But I think it could have looked cool if it were anything like the B-25. Originally the Curtiss Condor III, the ship was renamed Curtiss Commando during wartime -- and reconfigured as the militarized C-46 [USAAC] and R5C for the Navy and Marines. Had success climbing with payloads over the Himalayas after the Burma Road was cut of by proponents of the Greater East Asian Economic Co-Prosperity Sphere. Flak bait in the ETO. But they never added self-sealing tanks to the Commando. It retained its airliner style high perfrormance big block fuel system. That was its tactical glass jaw. I talked at length with the docent at the Commemorative Air Force's museum at Camarillo CA. while touring inside China Doll. Fascinating aircraft.

[@SoloRenegade]

tail sizing is also about lever arm. See late model P-40 that extended the tail to increase stability.

[@GRAHAMAUS]

Other than being very narrowly focussed on only US designs, this was interesting. It is salient to compare the tail fins of the Comet airliner and the Boeing 707, both pioneering airliners. The Comet's fin is incredibly small in comparison, but notice that in the event of an asymmetric engine failure, it needs far less rudder authority than the 707. This translates to savings in weight and structural strength in that area, both vital when engine power was marginal to say the least. People criticise the Comet for its engine placement, but in fact it was a very smart choice for the time. It's also worth noting that carrier-borne aircraft have a tail fin height constraint, informing some designs like the F4 Phantom (the extreme anhedral stabilizers act as a partial inverted V-tail), and Grumman Hawkeye, etc.

[@ThomasSielaff]

Thank you Mike. Interesting!

[@danielkennedy1524]

Excellent education! Outstanding!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Many thanks!

[@johngregory4801]

When you said that the Douglas DC-4e was the first airliner with a triple tail, I had to research it because the Boeing 314 Clipper had triple rudders. An odd fact that I didn't know until today... Both had their first flight on June 7th, 1938.

[@danieliglesias1669]

Hi…new subscriber here. Really enjoyed your work so far. Great videos. Thanks. 🤔🇨🇺🇺🇸

[@RANDassociatesinc]

Great job! Great topic! Thank you!!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@Sacto1654]

Interestingly, the first YF-100A prototype had the _taller_ tail. It was the switch to the smaller tail that the F-100 starting experiencing serious stability problems, one that was only fixed whey they applied the YF-100A prototype tail design back.

[@paulgush]

Another interesting one: the 747-SP. Since the fuselage was shortened, the tail had to be made bigger to maintain the same effectiveness. The area and length of the level both count

[@chuck9987]

Great video! Thanks.

[@Phaser1x]

I learn so much with every video. Thank you for the great content and knowledge. (I guessed Vigilante)

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@f38stingray]

One thing I liked about the XB-35/YB-49 rudders was the control system. The pedals weren't linked like other rudder pedals, instead pressing one pedal just opened the clamshell on that side of the plane. They also could be used as speedbrakes simply by pressing both pedals. Cool how it's intuitive both mechanically and ergonomically.

[@CraigLYoung]

Thanks for sharing 👍

[@ejharrop1416]

Thoroughly enjoyable start to finish. Fascinating it is to see the design subtleties of such a simple shape. I think I should refer to you as Dr. Mike Phd in aircraft. Thank you and take care .

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@joeljenkins7092]

Very nice overview. Always discover something new with your videos. A hundred years ago, when I began glue-bombing mismatched parts together to create new models, I always felt the ideal machine had a minimum of two tail fins; four, or more, if it were truly futuristic.

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

lol

[@alexandrec9372]

mais um excelente vídeo

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Many thanks!

[@FreeFlightDigest]

Great information!

[@pavelavietor1]

hello you are a genius you presentation impress me. thanks so much for promoting aviation and aviators . saludos

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@SoloRenegade]

you should have covered WW2 planes that went from birdcage to bubble canopies. they would add dorsal fins to offset the loss of aft fuselage surface area. See P-51 B/C vs D models for an example.

[@rbrtjbarber]

The KC-135 Stratotanker received the same tailfeather treatment as its 707 sibling. Also, when the 707 airliners were retired and put in desert storage, many of their tails - horizontal as well as vertical - were harvested for replacement parts for the tankers.

[@scottfw7169]

Any participants who write a book should title it "Tales of Tails".

[@stevenhoman2253]

Hiya, the eventual B17, B29 and even the B36 all seemed to have used the same aerodynamic design. And I have also noted the striking similarity between the 707 and NA F86 tails as well. As time passed and jet powered military craft became faster, so many of them had changes needed to their vertical stabs. The F100, B52, English Electric lightning. Also appeared to have either the tops snipped or the edge extension increased. Earlier times, when computer modelling was simply not possible for fluid dynamics. As a kid, I remember reading a book which said that computers will never be able to help to model aircraft. How things have changed.

[@Mishn0]

You can add the B-32 to that common tail design. The form of the rudder hinge area is even the same as the B-29's.

[@Sarah-JaneR32]

very informative Mike thanks, enjoyed this, learnt a lot

[@Airsally]

Yep I enjoyed that vid very much. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and expertise......I think no tails are cool and I'm betting we will see more planes with no tails in the future.

[@andreperrault5393]

Mike, great video. Some additional thoughts. The Vigi single vertical tail folded for hangaring. The F-14 added ventral fins to add vertical surface area. The F-15, F-16, and F-18 did not change their vertical fins, but changed the shape of their horizontal stabilizers, with the F-15 and F-18 changing their wing planforms. A different video, maybe? The E-2 had 4 vertical stabilizers with dihedral that, with the rear fuselage, would unbelievably shake on engine run-up for ship-board launch. The tail horizontal stab’s had 0 dihedral (flat horizontal) in redesign into the C-2 Greyhound COD. The WF-1/E-1 (Stoof with a roof) bifurcated the single S-2 Tracker tail into a vertical tail with 2 outer vertical Stan’s to accommodate the “roof” housing the AEW radar. The AD/A-1 Skyraider added small vertical stab’s for AEW models and enlarged the single tail for the later multi-place, extended canopy versions. The B-17 went from the small Boeing tail to the sweeping big tail with the tail gunner under it at the rear of the fuselage in later versions. All of these were brought to mind by your excellent video. Please keep up the enthusiastic and necessary preservation of aviation history, art, and modeling.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Great point on the F-15, F-16, and F-18 horizontals, thanks!

[@yetiatlarge555]

Great episode I like the pun tall tail ironically I had just mentioned the exact phrase tall tail in a recent video I did I did at Papago military museum I've always wondered about the wake turbulence and the control authority of the Connie I was fortunate enough to see my carthur's constellation the Baton in Arizona before it went to Chino

[@billmasquelier9208]

Don't know if anyone has commented yet but your picture that you describe as an F104 A thru C is actually a later model. The A thru C rudder ends in a vertical line, no slant at all. Bill Masquelier, former crew chief F104D at Edwards.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

The aircraft you are referring to is a Lockheed F-104A, S/N 56-737 assigned to the Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, California, and has a vertical trailing edge on the rudder. (U.S. Air Force photo). Slanted trailing edge rudder on an F-104G is shown in following photo. Thanks for watching.

[@S_M_360]

Great one, Mike!

[@pavelavietor1]

hello thanks so much for promoting art and humanity advancements . saludos

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@ronjon7942]

Nice work

[@michaelnaven213]

Great video!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks!

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

how did i miss this

[@mateostaplez7497]

Thanks!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for supporting the channel - very greatly appreciated!

[@cabanford]

I believe the B 52 tail was shortened after an incident where the vertical stabilizer was ripped off due to turbulence. Shortened it offered less leverage, which in effect, made it stronger.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Yes, that is correct, thanks.

[@cabanford]

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 My dad was a B52 navigator during Vietnam. I went the other way and became a professional tandem paragliding pilot 🙂

[@paulbervid1610]

Great video

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Many thanks!

[@michaeldeaktor8190]

Great Video as expected. What about the DC3's new tail on the Super DC3?

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Good catch!

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

De Havilland has a signature tail, Mosquito vis-à-vis Chipmunk

[@beefgoat80]

I always loved the look of the Bonanza when I was a kid. Being a kid, and not understanding money and such, I would ask my dad why he never just bought one. His Champ was so normal and boring. Oh, and instead of buying something like the Bonanza, my father bought a Pitts. Very likely the more fun airplane between the two. 😂

[@stevenhoman2253]

OK, you got me again, the DC4 E, with triple tail. Well I'll be.

[@dmflynn962]

Thank you for the interesting video. I hope you make another that covers other nations, and some more in the WWII era. I would like to know more about why Douglas and North American went for square tails (A-20, A-26, P-51), but Boeing, Supermarine, Consolidated, etc went for rounded ones. And how did Mitsubishi come up with a triangular one (with a rounded tip)? I have often wondered why the tails on the P-39 and P-40 were so similar (maybe it was a Buffalo, NY thing), and yet were subtly different. The video was great; I am sending it to my brother the pilot.

[@scottfw7169]

Part of it is related to construction and to drag, part of it to designer preferences and experience, part of it to corporate look. The taper of the elliptical rounded ones has to taper toward the tip in both chord and thickness to keep drag down. Somewhat less machining involved to build straighter and then cut end flat. Those same effects even apply to little bitty balsa wood model rocket fins.

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

Hi Mike. Wings/Airpower subscriber here.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Many thanks!

[@SolarWebsite]

The Vulcan bomber tail is interesting. It looks to me like there are lots of opportunities for aerodynamic shadowing by that humongous delta wing, especially at high alpha. The tail also evolved during the life of the plane.

[@SoloRenegade]

Also look at civilian seaplanes. they add fins to the tail to counter the added surface area of the floats.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Great point thanks, and we'll be covering that in Part 2 coming tomorrow. Love the Lake Renegade!

[@vapsa56]

The B-52's tail got smaller in it later models. The G and H models had a tail 2.4 meters shorter than the A thru F models.

[@mansurazeez2229]

The Panavia Tornado has a tall tail too!

[@TheJustinJ]

12:13 the earlier B-52s had issues losing their tails in severe turbulence. I highly doubt the official narrative that the area wasn't needed (that the airplane was "too stable"). Im 97% convinced that they reduced its size to reduce its bending moment. Because beefing up the structure to adequately eliminate tails flying off was probably not possible due to weight&balance. Reducing the tail size reduced weight and drag but also bending moment and improves strength dramatically. They might have determined that "it had too much tail" after that one landed with almost all of its vertical stabilizer missing, flying through mountain wave/rotor is not for the faint of heart.

[@dougsguitarlounge7927]

I was thinking the XB-70 may have the biggest X plane tails. But I could be wrong.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Great point, and I should have clarified "in proportion to the fuselage." X-15 was largest, and XB-70 one of the smallest, yet with perhaps the biggest fin size of any X-Plane. Thanks for watching!

[@Mishn0]

The Valkyrie wasn't in the X plane series, it was in the bomber series. The biggest X-plane tail had to be the X-6 which was the nuclear reactor carrying version of the B-36, and proportionately to fuselage size, I'd say the Ryan X-13 Vertijet may be the winner.

[@scottfw7169]

@@Mishn0 NASA may have a differing opinion on whether XB-70 ever counts as an X-plane, "Feb 28, 2014 NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: XB-70 Valkyrie ... At the same time, a joint agreement was signed between NASA and the Air Force to use the second XB-70A prototype for high-speed research flights in support of the SST program, selected due to its better aerodynamics, inlet controls, and a much superior instrument package, compared to the first aircraft. The NASA research flights were to begin in mid-June, once the North American Aviation Phase I tests of the vehicle's airworthiness were completed. NASA research pilot Joe Walker was selected as the project pilot. The flights were to evaluate the aircraft on typical SST flight profiles, and to study the problems of sonic booms on overland flights. ... National Aeronautics and Space Administration Page Last Updated: Aug 7, 2017 NASA Official: Brian Dunbar Editor: Yvonne Gibbs"

[@scottfw7169]

@@Mishn0 And NASA actually call it an experimental aircraft here, "Feb 8, 2016 North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie North American manufactured two airframes. They flew a total of 129 flights between 1964-1969. The joint program among North American Rockwell, the Air Force, and NASA featured the world's largest experimental aircraft with a delta wing and hinged wing tips that could be folded down to a 65° angle to improve stability at the aircraft's supersonic speeds of up to Mach 3, a speed at which the Valkyrie was designed to ride its own shock wave. The program used the Valkyrie to conduct fundamental flight research at high speeds for use in designing future supersonic aircraft, both military and civilian. The aircraft produced a significant quantity of information on supersonic flight at up to Mach 3 speeds in areas such as noise (including sonic booms), potential flight corridors, validation of wind-tunnel data, flight control, operational problems, and clear-air turbulence. Last Updated: Aug 6, 2017 Editor: Monroe Conner National Aeronautics and Space Administration Page Last Updated: Aug 6, 2017 NASA Official: Brian Dunbar"

[@scottfw7169]

@@Mishn0 Thirdly and finally, NASA list XB-70 as an "X Plane" here, while recognizing it was originally a bomber prototype. But if NASA call it one of their X-Planes, then it is a NASA X-Plane, "X-Planes Flown at Armstrong Experimental aircraft, or X-planes, are built for a wide range of research purposes - technology or concept demonstrators, unmanned test missiles, and even as prototypes. Here is an overview of X-planes flown at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center. ... XB-70 Valkyrie The XB-70 Valkyrie seemed to be a perfect testbed for supersonic transport (SST) research. It was the same size as the projected SST designs, and used similar structural materials, such as brazed stainless-steel honeycomb and titanium. Thus, the XB-70A's role changed from a manned bomber prototype to one of the most remarkable research aircraft ever flown. Early flights provided data on several issues facing SST designers, including aircraft noise, operational problems, control system design, comparison of wind tunnel predictions with actual flight data, and high-altitude, clear-air turbulence. (Back to Top) ... National Aeronautics and Space Administration Page Last Updated: Jul 22, 2021 Page Editor: Laura Newton NASA Official: Brian Dunbar"

[@Wannes_]

Grumman F4F-8 aka FM-2 Wildcat had a taller tail as well And speaking of Wildcats, when Westland went from Lynx to Wildcat, they also added extra tail feathers

[@mortdk]

Also when the Boeing 747 had the fuselage shortened to make the 747SP - the tail had to be enlarged.

[@JMChladek]

I'm a little surprised you didn't flash up an image of the "tailless" B-52H that continued flying after it lost its tail. I once owned a plane with a tail redesign. I had a 1975 Grumman AA5 Traveler which was the last year of that model before it became the Cheetah. The Traveler tail was slightly smaller than the Cheetah and Grumman put a stub ventral fin underneath the empenage. So it looked like a prop version of the 707 tail. Incidentally, I understand Tex Johnston pushed through the ventral fin mod on the 707 after a handful of early major crashes which Tex determined were due to insufficient vertical stabilizer area. He got pushback from the engineering team on it, but succeeded in getting the fix approved. He retired from Boeing not long after that though as he said Boeing had gotten too corporate and run by lawyers as opposed to the days when he began working for them.

[@stay_at_home_astronaut]

I had an AA5 and a AG5. The Cheetah and Tiger had MUCH more tail volume than the Traveler. The increased size of the tail-feathers made spin recovery much more, ahhhhh, positive, than the Traveler's characteristics. (Yes, I know that the aircraft is placarded against spins.)

[@sorgfaeltig]

At time 9:15 you refer to the fin area below the aft fuselage as giving more yaw authority at higher angle of attack. But the main reason to add this lower vertical area was the certification requirement of the UK airworthines authorities that demanded to have a device that prevented over-rotation on takeoff to prevent ground stall conditions. The requirement was a consequence of several ground-stall accidents in the eartly Comet 1 aircraft. This was for the 707-400 series which were Rolls-Royce Conway powered for BOAC. Boeing realized that this added area had other sinde benefits and kept it for all subsequent models of the 707 series.

[@Mishn0]

Plus, it was a "ventral fin", not a "dorsal fin".

[@sorgfaeltig]

@@Mishn0 Yes, you are right, it was a ventral fin.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

@@Mishn0 Yes, caught that after the video posted (still dealing with post-COVID brain fog). Thanks for watching.

[@paintnamer6403]

And then there were the car designers that went crazy with tail fins.

[@jetsons101]

Mike, at 8:57, was the pic taken in the UK? - - - the car at the lower left looks like a early 60's Hillman. Another great watch with lots of info and images. Yes, it was one "Tall Tail" "sorry"

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Good catch! That photo was actually taken at New York's Idlewild Airport (now JFK) in October 1958 - the Hillman was a Pan Am ramp service vehicle. Thanks for watching!

[@jetsons101]

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 Did you or your dad take the picture?

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

@@jetsons101 My Father took that photo from the observation deck of the International Arrivals Building on Saturday, October 4, 1958 using a Graflex bellows camera.

[@jetsons101]

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 Still kinda funny that Pan Am used a Hillman for a service vehicle.

[@CrackedCandy]

The 737 needed a hump much like the F16 to give it more area. It was included after the test bed showed it needed more area

[@aaindtharivalan8720]

In my opinion the Grumman F7F tigercat has the most beautiful tail. Tall and curvy.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

@Celebrating Aviation with Mike Machat >>> 👍👍

[@EffequalsMA]

Another....the Mig 21 has a small and big tail version. The small tail ones were real unforgiving hot rods, apparently.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

We cover that very point in Part 2 coming tomorrow!

[@micodyerski1621]

you should have mentioned the original B17 tail as to the later, longer tail.

[@taylorc2542]

Didn't mention the Panavia Tornado, the king of all fins.

[@jetsons101]

Hi, Mike here. Ever heard of the Lockheed CL-1201 ?????

[@AwestrikeFearofGods]

12:46 Horizontal Stabilizer + Elevator = Stabilator Rudder + Elevator = Ruddervator Vertical Stabilizer + Rudder = Stabiludder or Rudderizer I prefer "rudderizer".

[@kevinferrin5695]

There could have been a lot to say about the vertical stabilizers on the SR-71 and the F-4.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Check out Part 2 coming tomorrow!