Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Vertical stabilizer

A vertical stabilizer, also known as the vertical tail or fin, is a fixed aerodynamic surface located at the rear of an aircraft's fuselage that provides directional stability by counteracting yaw—the side-to-side motion of the nose—ensuring the aircraft maintains alignment with its flight path.^[1]^[2] It typically consists of a fixed vertical airfoil, often with a rudder attached as a hinged control surface at its trailing edge, which allows pilots to intentionally induce yaw for maneuvers such as turns or crosswind corrections.^[3] This component is essential for most conventional aircraft designs, as its absence can lead to instability, except in specialized configurations like flying wings.^[2] The vertical stabilizer functions by generating aerodynamic forces that restore the aircraft to its equilibrium position when disturbed by external factors such as turbulence, engine failure, or sideslip, often referred to as "weathercock" stability due to its tendency to align the nose with the relative wind.^[2] In interaction with the rudder, it enables precise control over the yaw axis, with rudder deflection creating a sideward force on the tail that pivots the aircraft's nose left or right; this control becomes more effective at higher speeds and is amplified by propeller slipstream in propeller-driven aircraft.^[3] Design variations include conventional single-fins, T-tails, V-tails, or twin-boom setups, which influence factors like weight distribution, control authority, and aerodynamic efficiency, tailored to specific aircraft types from general aviation to commercial jets.^[2] Beyond fixed-wing aircraft, vertical stabilizers appear in similar roles in helicopters, drones, and some spacecraft for rotational stability, underscoring their fundamental importance in aerospace engineering for safe and controlled flight.^[1]

History

Early Development

The early development of the vertical stabilizer traces its origins to late 19th-century glider experiments, where vertical surfaces emerged as essential for yaw control. German aviation pioneer Otto Lilienthal incorporated small vertical control surfaces, functioning as rudders, into his monoplanes and gliders during the 1890s to enable directional adjustments during flight. These surfaces, often attached at wingtips or as a central stabilizer, were actuated by the pilot's body movements via strings or rods, providing initial means to counteract yaw deviations in unpowered flight.^[4] This concept advanced with the Wright brothers' 1903 Flyer, the first successful powered aircraft, which featured twin vertical rudders at the rear to control yaw and maintain directional stability. Positioned behind the wings, these movable surfaces were linked to the pilot's hip cradle, allowing coordinated operation with wing warping for roll, thus addressing the inherent instability of early biplane designs. The rudders' placement helped mitigate adverse yaw during turns, marking a key step in integrating vertical stabilizers into controlled flight systems.^[5] During World War I, fixed vertical fins became standard in monoplane designs to enhance directional stability, particularly in fighters like the Fokker Eindecker introduced in 1915, which addressed the yaw instability common in earlier wire-braced biplanes. These fixed surfaces provided a passive weathervane effect, reducing pilot workload amid the era's high-speed combat demands. A notable contribution came from Glenn Curtiss's 1911 designs for U.S. Navy seaplanes, where vertical rudders integrated with stabilizers improved water and air handling, as detailed in his hydroaeroplane patents emphasizing rear-mounted vertical elements for steering.^[6] In the 1920s and 1930s, aviation shifted from wire-braced empennages to cantilever structures, eliminating external bracing for smoother aerodynamics and greater strength. This transition culminated in all-metal designs like the Boeing 247 airliner of 1933, whose rear vertical stabilizer formed part of a fully cantilevered tail assembly, enhancing stability and efficiency in commercial transport.^[7]

Evolution in Modern Design

Following World War II, the transition to jet propulsion necessitated significant changes in vertical stabilizer design to accommodate higher speeds and transonic flight regimes. In the 1950s, swept-back vertical fins became standard on jet aircraft to delay the formation of shock waves and reduce drag divergence during transonic acceleration. The North American F-86 Sabre, with its first flight in 1947, exemplified this shift by incorporating a swept vertical stabilizer influenced by captured German aerodynamic research, enabling effective performance against swept-wing opponents like the MiG-15.^[8]^[9] This design feature improved directional stability while minimizing compressibility effects, setting a precedent for subsequent high-subsonic jets.^[10] The push toward supersonic capabilities in the 1960s further evolved vertical stabilizer integration through area-ruled fuselage designs, which optimized cross-sectional area distribution to mitigate wave drag at Mach 1 and beyond. The Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, initially facing subsonic limitations upon its 1953 debut, underwent a major redesign incorporating the area rule—developed by NACA engineer Richard Whitcomb—to achieve sustained supersonic flight, with the vertical stabilizer resized for enhanced yaw control in these regimes.^[11]^[12] This approach not only boosted the aircraft's top speed to Mach 1.25 but also influenced tail sizing criteria in interceptor designs throughout the decade.^[12] By the 1970s and 1980s, the advent of fly-by-wire (FBW) systems revolutionized vertical stabilizer functionality by replacing mechanical linkages with electronic signaling, allowing for more precise and relaxed stability envelopes. The General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, first flown in 1974, was among the earliest operational aircraft to employ an analog fly-by-wire (FBW) system that augmented rudder authority on the vertical stabilizer, reducing weight and enabling high-agility maneuvers without traditional hydraulic backups.^[13] This integration enhanced yaw response and trim efficiency, paving the way for unstable airframe designs in fighters. Regulatory frameworks, such as those established by the FAA in the 1950s under Civil Air Regulations Part 4b, indirectly shaped these advancements by mandating minimum directional stability margins, often quantified via tail volume coefficients to ensure safe handling qualities across speed ranges.^[14] Post-2000 developments have emphasized lightweight materials and active control technologies for improved fuel efficiency and adaptability. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, entering service after its 2009 first flight, features a vertical stabilizer constructed primarily from carbon-fiber-reinforced composites. The 787's airframe utilizes composites for approximately 50% of its primary structure by weight to reduce overall weight by up to 20% compared to aluminum equivalents while maintaining structural integrity.^[15] Complementing this, modern designs incorporate adaptive surfaces, such as trimmable or actively deflected rudders on the vertical stabilizer, to provide real-time stability augmentation in variable flight conditions, as explored in recent conceptual studies for enhanced maneuverability.^[16] These innovations continue to align with evolving FAA standards under 14 CFR Part 25, which refine tail volume coefficient guidelines for static directional stability in transport aircraft.^[17]

Function

Principle of Operation

The vertical stabilizer is a fixed or semi-fixed aerodynamic surface mounted perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of an aircraft, serving as the primary component for generating side forces that provide directional stability.^[18] This surface, often located at the rear of the fuselage as part of the empennage, responds to disturbances in the angle of sideslip \beta, the angular difference between the aircraft's longitudinal axis and the relative wind direction.^[19] When the aircraft experiences sideslip, the vertical stabilizer acts like the blade of a weather vane, producing a restoring side force that aligns the nose with the airflow, thereby restoring equilibrium without pilot input.^[14] The fundamental aerodynamics of the vertical stabilizer involve the generation of a side force analogous to lift on a wing but oriented laterally. This force F_y is given by the equation

F_y = \frac{1}{2} \rho V^2 S_v C_y,

where \rho is the air density, V is the true airspeed, S_v is the planform area of the vertical stabilizer, and C_y is the side force coefficient.^[20] The coefficient C_y depends primarily on the sideslip angle \beta, typically expressed as C_y \approx C_{y\beta} \beta, where C_{y\beta} is the side force derivative with respect to sideslip, often around 0.04 to 0.06 per radian for conventional designs due to the airfoil characteristics of the stabilizer.^[21] This side force, acting through the moment arm from the aircraft's center of gravity, creates a yawing moment that opposes the sideslip.^[22] The effectiveness of the vertical stabilizer in providing this stability is influenced by geometric parameters, notably the vertical tail volume coefficient V_v, defined as

V_v = \frac{S_v l_v}{S_w b_w},

where l_v is the longitudinal distance from the aircraft's center of gravity to the aerodynamic center of the vertical tail, S_w is the wing reference area, and b_w is the wing span.^[23] Typical values of V_v range from 0.04 to 0.08 for conventional fixed-wing aircraft, ensuring sufficient yaw stiffness without excessive drag or weight.^[24] These values balance the need for positive directional stability, where the yawing moment coefficient derivative C_{n\beta} > 0. The vertical stabilizer does not operate in isolation; its interaction with the fuselage and wings contributes to the overall dihedral effect in yaw, where sideslip induces lateral forces that influence directional equilibrium. The fuselage typically generates a destabilizing side force due to its forward position relative to the center of gravity, while the wings provide a smaller stabilizing contribution through their sweep or dihedral, which alters local flow during sideslip.^[19] The vertical stabilizer dominates this interaction, amplifying the net stabilizing yaw moment to counteract these effects and maintain coordinated flight.^[20]

Yaw Stability

The vertical stabilizer ensures static directional stability by generating a positive yawing moment coefficient due to sideslip, denoted as C_{n\beta} > 0, which produces a restoring yaw moment proportional to the sideslip angle \beta. This stability arises from the side force on the vertical tail, acting aft of the aircraft's center of gravity, which counters deviations from the flight path. The primary contribution from the vertical tail is approximated by the formula C_{n\beta} \approx V_v a_v, where V_v = \frac{S_v l_v}{S b} is the vertical tail volume coefficient (S_v: tail area, l_v: moment arm from center of gravity to tail aerodynamic center, S: wing area, b: wing span) and a_v is the vertical tail lift curve slope (typically around 4-6 per radian for symmetric airfoils).^[25] For most conventional aircraft, a minimum C_{n\beta} > 0.1 per radian is required to provide adequate static stability margins against disturbances like turbulence or engine failure. Dynamic directional stability is enhanced by the vertical stabilizer's provision of yaw damping, characterized by the negative derivative C_{n_r}, which opposes yaw rates and attenuates oscillatory modes such as Dutch roll. The vertical tail generates this damping through a side force induced by the yaw rate r, creating a moment that resists rotation; its contribution is approximately C_{n_r} \approx -2 V_v a_v \eta_v, where \eta_v is the tail dynamic pressure ratio (often near 1.0).^[26] Typical values for C_{n_r} range from -0.3 to -1.5 per radian, with the vertical tail accounting for the majority in conventional designs, ensuring the Dutch roll damping ratio exceeds 0.15 for acceptable handling qualities.^[27] Insufficient damping from a damaged or undersized vertical tail can lead to persistent oscillations, degrading pilot control. The center of gravity position influences directional stability requirements, with a forward shift increasing the need for vertical tail sizing to maintain positive margins, as it alters the neutral point—the theoretical center of gravity location where C_{n\beta} = 0—typically forward of the actual center of gravity. This shift reduces the relative stabilizing effect of the tail moment arm unless compensated by larger V_v, ensuring C_{n\beta} remains above critical thresholds.^[28] In extreme cases, such as vertical fin or rudder failure, loss of this stabilizing contribution can result in uncontrollable yaw, as analyzed in the 1994 USAir Flight 427 accident, where a rudder system malfunction effectively neutralized directional control, leading to a fatal stall.^[29] Additionally, the vertical stabilizer prevents spiral mode divergence—a non-oscillatory instability where roll and yaw couple to tighten a descending turn—by providing sufficient C_{n\beta} to counteract dihedral-induced roll tendencies. Adequate directional stability from the tail promotes a converging spiral mode or neutral response, avoiding divergence that could exceed structural limits without pilot intervention.^[14]

Yaw Control and Trim

The vertical stabilizer, in conjunction with the rudder, provides the primary means for pilots to exert active control over an aircraft's yaw axis, enabling deliberate directional changes during maneuvers such as turns or crosswind corrections. Rudder deflection generates an asymmetric aerodynamic force on the vertical tail by altering the camber or angle of attack of the rudder surface, which in turn produces a yawing moment about the aircraft's center of gravity. This control power is quantified by the yawing moment coefficient derivative C_{n\delta r}, which represents the change in yaw moment per unit rudder deflection. For conventional fixed-wing aircraft, typical values of C_{n\delta r} range from -0.09 to -0.12 per radian of rudder deflection, providing sufficient authority for coordinated flight while ensuring responsiveness without excessive sensitivity.^[30]^[31] To maintain steady flight without continuous pilot input, trim mechanisms are integrated into the rudder system, allowing the aircraft to achieve a hands-off condition where control forces are balanced. Common approaches include trim tabs, which are small auxiliary surfaces on the rudder's trailing edge that deflect to create a counteracting moment, and servo tabs, which assist in moving the main rudder surface while also serving a trim function by reducing stick forces to zero. In smaller general aviation aircraft, ground-adjustable tabs on the rudder are often used to preset trim for nominal cruise conditions, compensating for inherent yaw biases like those from propeller torque. These systems ensure that once trimmed, the aircraft holds its yaw attitude with minimal pilot workload, enhancing safety and efficiency during extended flight phases.^[3] During banked turns initiated by aileron deflection, adverse yaw arises from differential drag on the wings, necessitating rudder input to maintain coordination and prevent sideslip. The required rudder deflection \delta_r to counteract this can be approximated as

\delta_r \approx \frac{C_{l\delta a} \times \text{[adverse yaw](/page/Adverse_yaw) factor}}{C_{n\delta r}}

, where C_{l\delta a} is the roll moment coefficient due to aileron deflection (typically 0.08-0.15 per radian), and the adverse yaw factor (often C_{n\delta a}/C_{l\delta a}, with C_{n\delta a} around -0.06 to -0.10 per radian) quantifies the yawing tendency per unit roll control. This coordination ensures the turn remains balanced, with the rudder providing just enough opposite deflection to align the aircraft's longitudinal axis with the flight path.^[31] In multi-engine aircraft, engine-out scenarios introduce significant asymmetric thrust, requiring rudder authority to counteract the resulting yaw toward the failed engine. For twin-engine configurations, a single-engine failure at low speeds may demand 5-10° of rudder deflection to maintain directional control and zero sideslip, often combined with a slight bank (up to 5°) toward the operating engine to reduce the sideslip angle and optimize climb performance. This compensation is critical during takeoff or climb, where failure of the critical engine (usually the left in clockwise-rotating propeller setups) exacerbates the yaw due to its longer moment arm, but adequate vertical stabilizer sizing ensures the rudder can handle the loads without exceeding structural limits.^[32] Rudder authority is also essential for recovering from spins, where autorotation—a self-sustaining corkscrew descent caused by stalled wings and unbalanced aerodynamic forces—must be arrested. Standard recovery procedures emphasize full rudder deflection opposite the rotation direction to generate a counter-yawing moment that stops the autorotation, followed by neutralizing ailerons, reducing power, and lowering the nose to break the stall. In most certified aircraft, the vertical stabilizer and rudder are designed to provide sufficient authority for recovery within one to two turns, typically losing 400-600 feet of altitude, underscoring the importance of robust yaw control for spin resistance and safe reversionary flight.^[33]

Roll-Yaw Coupling

Roll-yaw coupling refers to the interdependent dynamic interactions between an aircraft's roll and yaw motions, where actions or disturbances in one axis influence the other, often mediated by the vertical stabilizer's stabilizing forces. A primary manifestation occurs during aileron-induced rolls, where the downward deflection of the aileron on one wing increases both lift and induced drag, creating a yawing moment opposite to the intended roll direction, known as adverse yaw. The vertical stabilizer counters this through its weathercock stability, generating a proverse yaw moment via rudder input or inherent directional stability to align the aircraft with the relative wind and maintain coordinated flight.^[14]^[34] The vertical fin further amplifies roll-yaw coupling through its contribution to the dihedral effect during sideslip conditions. A yaw rate induces sideslip, which generates a sideforce on the vertical fin due to its offset above the center of gravity; this sideforce produces a rolling moment that tends to increase the bank angle, modeled approximately as the roll moment derivative L_r = \frac{V_v l_v a_v \cos \alpha}{b_w}, where V_v is the vertical tail volume coefficient, l_v the fin moment arm, a_v the fin lift curve slope, \alpha the angle of attack, and b_w the wing span. This positive L_r (roll due to yaw rate) enhances the aircraft's effective dihedral, promoting roll stability but potentially exacerbating spiral modes if not balanced. In the Dutch roll mode, a coupled yaw-roll oscillation arises from this interdependence, characterized by a natural frequency \omega_d \approx \sqrt{\frac{[g](/page/Gravity)}{b_w} \left( \frac{C_{l\beta}}{C_{n\beta}} \right)}, where g is gravity, C_{l\beta} the roll due to sideslip derivative, and C_{n\beta} the yaw due to sideslip derivative primarily from the vertical tail. The vertical tail increases C_{n\beta}, raising the frequency for quicker oscillations while enhancing damping through its yaw damping derivative N_r, reducing the mode's time to decay and preventing pilot-induced oscillations.^[35]^[36] In V-tail configurations, where combined horizontal and vertical surfaces replace conventional tails, roll-yaw coupling is often exacerbated due to the angled surfaces producing cross-coupled moments; yaw inputs generate unintended rolling moments from the inclined stabilizers, and vice versa, potentially leading to pitch-yaw-roll interactions that complicate stability across all axes. For instance, the ventral vertical fin on the X-15, located below the center of gravity, introduced adverse dihedral effects at high angles of attack due to its position, amplifying roll divergence until mitigated by design changes such as the "betadot" technique.^[37] Modern fly-by-wire systems address these couplings through yaw dampers, which sense sideslip rate (\dot{\beta}) and apply differential rudder or thrust vectoring to actively suppress Dutch roll and adverse yaw, ensuring coordinated flight without constant pilot intervention; this is particularly critical in high-speed or swept-wing aircraft where inherent damping is low.^[38]

Supersonic and High-Speed Behavior

In supersonic flight regimes, vertical stabilizers experience significant aerodynamic changes due to compressibility effects, particularly the formation of shock waves on the fin surfaces above Mach 0.8. These shock waves arise as local airflow over the airfoil reaches sonic speeds, leading to a sudden increase in drag and a reduction in control effectiveness, often manifesting as boundary layer separation on the rudder or fin trailing edges. For typical airfoils used in supersonic designs, the critical Mach number (M_crit), defined as the freestream Mach number at which the maximum local Mach number reaches 1.0, is approximately 0.9, beyond which wave drag rises sharply and yaw authority diminishes if not mitigated by design features like sweep or thickness reduction.^[39]^[40]^[19] To counteract transonic drag penalties, area ruling is employed to smooth the aircraft's cross-sectional area distribution, minimizing shock wave interference around the fuselage-tail junction; this approach was pivotal in the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter (first flight 1954), where fuselage waisting near the vertical stabilizer reduced peak transonic drag by optimizing the overall equivalent body of revolution. Complementing this, vertical fins in high-speed aircraft incorporate sweep angles greater than 45° to delay shock formation by reducing the component of freestream velocity normal to the leading edge, thereby maintaining directional stability through the transonic regime (Mach 0.8–1.2). Such optimizations ensure the stabilizer's contribution to yaw control remains effective despite the adverse pressure gradients induced by oblique shocks.^[41]^[42]^[43] At high altitudes, where dynamic pressure is low due to rarified air (e.g., below 0.1 atm at 25 km), vertical stabilizers must be oversized to generate sufficient yaw moments for stability and control; the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird exemplifies this with its relatively large twin vertical stabilizers, enabling precise maneuvering at operational ceilings exceeding 25 km despite reduced air density. Aeroelastic risks, such as divergence—where aerodynamic moments cause structural twisting to amplify uncontrollably—or flutter, a self-sustaining oscillation from coupled aerodynamic and inertial forces, become pronounced at these speeds and altitudes, potentially leading to catastrophic failure if the flutter speed is approached. These are mitigated through mass balancing of the fin and rudder, which shifts the center of gravity forward to prevent torsional instability.^[44]^[45] In hypersonic regimes, as encountered during re-entry, vertical stabilizers on vehicles like the Space Shuttle Orbiter (operational from 1981) provide critical yaw control at speeds exceeding Mach 25, where plasma sheaths and extreme heating dominate. The stabilizer's surfaces are protected by high-temperature reusable thermal protection tiles, capable of withstanding peak re-entry temperatures up to 1,650°C without ablation, ensuring structural integrity while the split rudders deploy for aerodynamic steering through the plasma environment.^[46]^[47]^[48]

Stall Characteristics

The aerodynamic stall of a vertical stabilizer occurs when the angle of sideslip exceeds a critical value, typically in the range of 15° to 20°, resulting in flow separation over the surface and a sudden drop in the directional stability derivative C_{n\beta}, which leads to a loss of yaw stability and potential directional control issues.^[49]^[50] This stall is primarily driven by subsonic or transonic flow conditions where the effective angle of attack on the fin becomes excessive during maneuvers like engine-out scenarios or crosswind landings, causing the side force generated by the stabilizer to diminish abruptly.^[51] Flow separation during vertical tail stall often begins at the tip due to lower local pressure and higher effective loading there, particularly in tapered designs, producing an asymmetric side force that induces an unwanted rolling moment on the aircraft.^[52] This tip-first separation pattern exacerbates roll-yaw coupling, as seen in deep stall conditions where wake from the fuselage or wings blankets the tail, further promoting separation; for instance, during the 1963 BAC One-Eleven prototype test flight near Chicklade, England, the aircraft entered a deep stall at high angles of attack, leading to ineffective tail surfaces and an unrecoverable descent that highlighted the risks of such flow disruptions.^[53]^[54] At angles of sideslip approaching stall, the vertical stabilizer experiences aerodynamic buffet and vibration from unsteady separated flow, which can impose cyclic loads on the structure and reduce pilot control authority.^[55] Designers quantify the stall margin as the normalized difference between the stall sideslip angle and the maximum operational sideslip, often expressed as \frac{\beta_{\text{stall}} - \beta_{\text{max}}}{\beta_{\text{max}}}, to ensure a safety buffer during critical flight phases like takeoff with an inoperative engine.^[51] To mitigate stall tendencies, vertical stabilizers incorporate geometric features such as twist or washout along the span to delay tip separation by reducing the local angle of attack at the outer sections, similar to wing design practices.^[56] Additional strategies include vortex generators on the surface to energize the boundary layer and suppress early separation, increasing side force by up to 11% with minimal drag penalty, or leading-edge extensions that generate stabilizing vortices, as utilized in the F/A-18 Hornet where wing-fuselage leading-edge extensions produce vortical flow that enhances tail effectiveness at high angles of attack.^[51]^[57] Recovery from a vertical stabilizer stall, often coupled with spin or yaw departure, involves applying opposite rudder to reverse the yaw and break the stalled flow pattern, combined with opposite aileron deflection to counteract the induced rolling moment and restore coordinated flight.^[58] This technique disrupts the yaw-spin coupling by reducing sideslip and reattaching flow over the fin, allowing directional control to return once the angle of sideslip falls below the critical value.

Design Considerations

Structural Loads and Sizing

The sizing of a vertical stabilizer begins with aerodynamic stability requirements, ensuring the directional stability derivative C_{n\beta} exceeds a minimum threshold, typically greater than 0.05 per radian, to provide adequate yaw stability while balancing structural weight penalties.^[59] This criterion drives the minimum tail area, often determined through the vertical tail volume coefficient V_v = \frac{S_v l_v}{S b}, where S_v is the vertical tail area, l_v the tail moment arm, S the wing area, and b the wing span; values of V_v around 0.08 to 0.10 are common for transport aircraft.^[60] Typical vertical stabilizer areas range from 8% to 12% of the wing area for general aviation and light transport designs, though this varies by aircraft type, with jet transports often 10-20% and larger military types up to 35%.^[60] Key load cases for the vertical stabilizer include aerodynamic gusts, engine torque, and landing impacts, as specified in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 25. Gust loads are evaluated for both discrete and continuous turbulence, with the aircraft assumed to encounter symmetrical vertical and lateral gusts in level flight; design gust velocities range from 56 ft/sec equivalent airspeed (EAS) at sea level to lower values at altitude, requiring dynamic analysis to determine limit loads on the empennage. Approximations for preliminary sizing often use 1.5g vertical gusts and 0.5g sideslip conditions to envelope critical responses.^[61] Engine torque loads per FAR 25.361 consider unbalanced thrust from multi-engine failures, inducing yawing moments that the stabilizer must counteract, while landing impact loads under FAR 25.561 account for hard landings with vertical accelerations up to 3g, transmitted through the fuselage to the tail structure. Stress analysis focuses on bending, shear, and torsion from these loads, with the primary bending moment calculated as M = F_y \cdot l_v, where F_y is the side force at the tail aerodynamic center and l_v the lever arm from the center of gravity.^[62] Structures are designed to ultimate loads, applying a safety factor of 1.5 to limit loads, ensuring the spar and skin withstand maximum stresses without yield or buckling. Finite element modeling is employed for detailed spar sizing and load distribution, simulating cantilever attachment at the fuselage root to verify stress concentrations and deformation under combined gust and torque scenarios.^[63] Fatigue considerations address cyclic loading from flutter and resonance, with aeroelastic stability required per FAR 25.629 to prevent dynamic instabilities up to 1.15 times the maximum design speed. Flutter analysis involves modal coupling of bending and torsion modes, using methods like p-k or k-ω to ensure damping remains positive; resonance avoidance employs frequency analysis, analogous to Campbell diagrams, to separate tail natural frequencies from excitation sources like engine orders or buffet.^[64] This ensures long-term durability under repeated gust and maneuver cycles, with damage tolerance assessments for crack propagation in critical spars. Optimization involves trade-offs between stability gains and penalties, as larger vertical stabilizers enhance C_{n\beta} but increase parasitic drag; an approximate 10% area increase typically raises the zero-lift drag coefficient \Delta C_D by 0.005, impacting fuel efficiency.^[50] Weight also rises nonlinearly with area due to structural reinforcement, necessitating multidisciplinary design to minimize total aircraft drag while meeting stability margins.^[65]

Materials and Construction

Vertical stabilizers in early aircraft, particularly during World War II, were predominantly constructed using aluminum alloys such as 7075-T6, valued for their high strength-to-weight ratio and machinability in structural applications.^[66] This alloy features a density of approximately 2.81 g/cm³ and a yield strength of 503 MPa, enabling robust performance under aerodynamic loads while keeping overall aircraft weight manageable.^[67] These metallic constructions relied on riveted or bolted assemblies to form the primary framework, providing durability in high-stress environments typical of military aviation.^[68] In modern designs, carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP) have become the dominant material for vertical stabilizers since the 1980s, offering superior stiffness and fatigue resistance compared to metals.^[52] The Airbus A350, entering service in 2015, exemplifies this shift, with its vertical stabilizer incorporating CFRP composites that constitute over 50% of the aircraft's structure, achieving weight reductions of 20-30% relative to aluminum equivalents through optimized layup and resin systems.^[69] Autoclave curing is the standard process for these composites, involving elevated temperature and pressure to consolidate fiber layers and eliminate voids, ensuring structural integrity for primary load-bearing components.^[70] Construction techniques for vertical stabilizers vary by material: metallic versions employ skin-stringer configurations, where thin aluminum sheets are stiffened by longitudinal stringers and transverse frames to distribute loads and prevent buckling.^[71] For composites, co-curing integrates the skin and stiffeners in a single curing cycle, minimizing fasteners and weight while enhancing bond strength.^[72] Honeycomb cores, often made from aramid or aluminum, are commonly sandwiched between CFRP facesheets in these panels, providing high compressive strength and shear resistance to buckling under torsional forces.^[73] To mitigate lightning strike risks inherent to non-conductive composites, expanded copper mesh is embedded within the outer CFRP layers of vertical stabilizers, creating a conductive path to divert high currents and prevent delamination or erosion.^[74] This approach aligns with FAA guidelines in Advisory Circular 20-53, which emphasize zone-based protection strategies for aircraft structures to ensure safe dissipation of electrical energy.^[75] Maintenance of composite vertical stabilizers presents challenges, particularly in detecting delamination caused by impacts or fatigue, which can compromise structural integrity without visible surface cues.^[76] Ultrasonic testing is the primary non-destructive method employed, using high-frequency sound waves to identify voids or separations between layers, with phased-array techniques enabling precise mapping in complex geometries like the stabilizer's leading edge.^[77] Regular inspections are critical, as undetected delaminations can propagate under cyclic loading, necessitating advanced C-scan imaging for quantitative assessment during scheduled overhauls.^[78]

Integration with Fuselage and Rudder

The vertical stabilizer is typically integrated with the fuselage through a cantilever mounting system, where root ribs of the stabilizer are attached to fuselage bulkheads using bolted or riveted interfaces, such as C-channel structures secured with high-strength bolts to handle shear and torsional loads. This design ensures structural integrity while allowing for load transfer from the tail to the main airframe, with interface brackets experiencing stresses up to 30,800 psi under maximum conditions. For all-moving vertical stabilizers, pivot hinges are incorporated at the root to enable rotation, often supported by spherical bearings to accommodate angular deflections without excessive wear.^[63]^[79] The rudder is integrated as a movable control surface on the trailing portion of the vertical stabilizer, typically hinged at approximately 70-80% of the stabilizer's chord to optimize aerodynamic effectiveness and structural balance, with the rudder itself comprising 25-35% of the total chord length in general aviation and transport aircraft. Hinges are usually located at multiple points along the span, such as the root, mid-span, and tip, using piano-style or offset designs to minimize gaps and aerodynamic interference. Actuation is provided by hydraulic or electro-hydraulic servos connected via pushrods or cables to the cockpit pedals, with backlash strictly limited to less than 0.5° to prevent flutter and ensure precise yaw control, as required by military and certification standards.^[80]^[63]^[81] Fairings and fillets at the stabilizer-fuselage junction are essential to mitigate interference drag caused by flow disruption at the intersection, smoothing airflow transitions and reducing local drag coefficients by 5-10% through optimized shaping that minimizes vortex formation. These aerodynamic features, often contoured with composite or metallic panels, enhance overall tail efficiency without significantly increasing weight. Vibration isolation is addressed through integrated dampers, such as viscoelastic mounts or tuned mass absorbers at the attachment points, to attenuate transmission of fuselage vibrational modes—typically in the 10-50 Hz range—to the tail structure, thereby protecting control surfaces from fatigue and maintaining aeroelastic stability.^[82] In large commercial aircraft, the vertical stabilizer and rudder form a modular assembly unit that is fabricated separately and shipped for final integration, facilitating efficient manufacturing and quality control; for instance, the Boeing 777's fin-rudder module is produced at a dedicated facility and bolted onto the fuselage during final assembly, a practice introduced with the model's 1995 entry into service. This approach allows for parallel production lines and easier maintenance access at the interfaces.^[83]

Configurations

Conventional Fixed Fin

The conventional fixed fin, also known as a fixed vertical stabilizer, is the most common configuration for providing directional stability in general aviation and commercial airliners, featuring a single, immovable surface mounted at the rear of the fuselage with a separate rudder for yaw control.^[50] Its geometry typically employs a symmetrical airfoil section, such as the NACA 0009, which offers a maximum thickness of 9% at 30% chord and zero camber to ensure balanced aerodynamic performance in both positive and negative sideslip conditions without inducing unwanted lift biases.^[84] The leading edge sweep angle ranges from 0° to 35°, with lower values (under 20°) preferred for low-speed aircraft to maximize lift curve slope and stability derivatives, while moderate sweeps up to 35° accommodate higher-speed operations without excessive compressibility effects.^[85] The fin height, measured from the fuselage centerline to the tip, generally constitutes 10-20% of the overall fuselage length, ensuring sufficient moment arm for yaw damping while maintaining a compact profile; for instance, in the Cessna 172, the fin height of approximately 1.57 m represents about 19% of its 8.28 m fuselage length.^[86]^[87] This design excels in simplicity and low manufacturing cost due to its straightforward structure, which relies on passive aerodynamic stability without complex actuation systems, making it ideal for reliable operation in routine flight regimes.^[50] It provides inherent yaw stability through the weathercock effect, where the fin aligns the aircraft with the relative wind, contributing to the directional stability derivative C_{n\beta} primarily via its volume coefficient V_v = \frac{S_v l_v}{S_w \bar{c}_w}, typically sized to meet minimum control speed requirements.^[50] The Cessna 172, introduced in 1956, exemplifies this configuration's effectiveness in light general aviation, where the fixed fin ensures stable handling during cruise and low-speed maneuvers without additional complexity.^[88] However, the fixed size of the fin imposes limitations on control authority, particularly in strong crosswinds during takeoff and landing, as the immovable surface cannot adjust to varying aerodynamic demands, potentially requiring higher rudder deflections or pilot inputs for compensation.^[50] To mitigate such issues in certain applications, extensions like dorsal fins can be added; the de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter, certified in 1965, incorporates a dorsal fin forward of the main vertical stabilizer to enhance low-speed directional effectiveness and reduce sideslip excursions during STOL operations.^[89] Manufacturing of conventional fixed fins typically involves semi-monocoque construction, where aluminum alloy sheets form the skin, riveted to internal spars and ribs for structural integrity under aerodynamic and inertial loads.^[63] The primary spar, often a extruded or built-up aluminum beam, carries the majority of bending moments, while multiple ribs maintain the airfoil shape, with the skin riveted using solid or blind fasteners in a flush pattern to minimize drag; this method, as seen in general aviation designs, balances weight, strength, and ease of assembly using standard tooling.^[90]

All-Moving Tail

The all-moving tail, also referred to as an all-moving vertical fin, is a vertical stabilizer configuration in which the entire surface pivots as a single unit around a spanwise axis to provide both directional stability and yaw control, eliminating the need for a separate rudder. This design integrates stability and control functions into one movable surface, actuated hydraulically or electrically for precise adjustments. It is particularly suited to high-performance aircraft where rapid response and efficiency are critical.^[91] In typical implementations, the pivot axis is positioned at approximately 20-30% of the chord length from the leading edge, aligning with the aerodynamic center to minimize hinge moments and optimize control effectiveness across subsonic and transonic regimes. For instance, the North American A-5 Vigilante, which achieved its first flight in 1958, employed a one-piece all-moving vertical tail that folded for carrier storage while delivering combined stability and yaw authority. Similarly, the British Aircraft Corporation TSR-2 prototype, first flown in 1964, featured an all-moving vertical slab as part of its fully movable empennage, enhancing maneuverability at supersonic speeds.^[92]^[93] This configuration offers several benefits, including reduced structural weight—potentially 10-15% lighter than a fixed fin with a separate rudder due to fewer hinges, actuators, and internal reinforcements—and superior control power at high speeds, where the full surface area contributes to yaw moments without the limitations of trailing-edge deflection. Anti-balance tabs are often incorporated on the trailing edge to adjust trim and counteract aerodynamic imbalances, similar to those used in horizontal stabilators. These advantages stem from the simplified mechanics and increased leverage, making the design more responsive in dynamic flight conditions.^[94]^[95] However, all-moving tails present aeroelastic challenges, such as torsional divergence, where aerodynamic loads twist the surface around its pivot, potentially leading to instability or failure if not properly managed. These issues arise from the large moment arm aft of the pivot and are mitigated through rigid pivot attachments, high torsional stiffness materials, and careful mass balancing to ensure flutter-free operation across the flight envelope. Experimental wind-tunnel tests have demonstrated that varying torsional stiffness significantly impacts aeroelastic performance, underscoring the need for robust structural design.^[91]^[96] Historically, all-moving vertical tails gained adoption in post-World War II fighter and strike aircraft as aerodynamic demands increased with jet propulsion, with early examples appearing in the 1950s amid the transition to supersonic flight. The design's evolution reflected broader trends toward integrated control surfaces for weight efficiency and performance. In modern applications, all-moving vertical tails are prevalent in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and guided missiles, where simplicity, reduced parts count, and lightweight construction enhance reliability and payload capacity without compromising control.^[28]^[94]

Multiple Fins

Multiple vertical stabilizers, often referred to as twin or multi-fin configurations, are employed in aircraft design to enhance directional stability, provide redundancy, and address specific aerodynamic or operational needs such as propeller clearance or stealth requirements. These setups typically involve two vertical surfaces mounted symmetrically, either on the ends of the horizontal stabilizer or on fuselage booms extending rearward. For instance, the Lockheed P-38 Lightning (introduced in 1939) featured twin vertical stabilizers connected by a central horizontal tail surface, a design that allowed for effective yaw control while accommodating the aircraft's twin-engine layout and large propellers. Similarly, the North American OV-10 Bronco (first flown in 1965) utilized twin booms with vertical stabilizers at their aft ends, reminiscent of the P-38, to support its observation and close air support role in rugged environments.^[97]^[98] The advantages of twin vertical stabilizers include improved directional stability, particularly during asymmetric thrust conditions like single-engine operation, and enhanced spin resistance, as demonstrated in the Grumman F-14 Tomcat's design. This configuration also offers redundancy, allowing the aircraft to maintain control if one stabilizer is damaged, thereby increasing survivability in combat scenarios. Additionally, the spaced-out placement helps avoid interference from propeller wash or engine exhaust, reducing wake effects on the tail surfaces. However, these benefits come with challenges, such as increased structural weight, higher interference drag between the fins and horizontal surfaces, and greater design complexity compared to a single fin.^[99]^[100]^[101] A variant of the multiple-fin approach is the V-tail, or butterfly tail, where two converging surfaces are mounted at an angle, typically around 45 degrees to the horizontal, to serve dual roles in both yaw and pitch control through combined ruddervators. The Beechcraft Bonanza (introduced in 1947) popularized this configuration, aiming to reduce overall drag by eliminating the separate horizontal stabilizer. While it combines vertical and horizontal stabilization functions efficiently in theory, the V-tail introduces risks of pitch-yaw coupling and increased susceptibility to Dutch roll oscillations, necessitating more complex control systems.^[3] In modern applications, particularly stealth fighters, twin vertical stabilizers are often canted outward to deflect radar waves away from the aircraft's underside and reduce infrared signatures from exhaust. The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor (operational since 1997) exemplifies this with its inward-canted twin fins, which contribute to low observability while maintaining high maneuverability and stability at supersonic speeds.^[102]

Folding and Retractable Designs

Folding designs for vertical stabilizers typically involve hinges at the root, allowing the fin to pivot sideways or forward to reduce the aircraft's overall dimensions for storage or transport. In carrier-based aircraft, such as the North American A-5 Vigilante introduced in the 1960s, the vertical stabilizer folds hydraulically to the side, enabling clearance under the hangars on aircraft carriers where height is limited to approximately 20 feet.^[103] This mechanism, common in larger naval planes, uses hydraulic actuators to fold the stabilizer over 90 degrees in seconds, facilitating efficient deck operations and maintenance access. Similarly, the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress features a manually operated folding vertical fin, cranked by a team using a jack screw system to lay the 2,600-pound structure over 90 degrees, primarily to fit within standard hangar doors limited to 18 feet in height.^[104] Retractable vertical stabilizers, often employing telescoping or rotating mechanisms, are prevalent in missiles and some unmanned systems to minimize profile during launch or storage. The AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), operational since 1982, incorporates folded tail surfaces—including vertical stabilizers—that deploy automatically after release from the host aircraft, such as the B-52, to enable stable subsonic flight over 1,500 nautical miles.^[105] This design allows multiple missiles to be compactly stored on rotary launchers within the bomber's bomb bay, optimizing payload capacity without compromising aerodynamic performance post-deployment. These designs offer key benefits, including substantial space savings for storage and transport; for instance, the B-52's folding fin reduces overall height by more than 10 feet, allowing access to otherwise inaccessible facilities.^[104] In stealth applications, retractable or folding stabilizers can significantly lower radar cross-section (RCS) by aligning the surfaces flush with the fuselage during low-observability missions, as explored in conceptual combat aircraft where folded tails integrate into wing structures to minimize vertical protrusions.^[106] However, drawbacks include added structural weight from hinges, actuators, and reinforcements—typically 250–500 kg in mid-sized fighters, representing a 1–3% increase in empty weight—and potential reliability concerns with moving parts, such as actuator failures under high loads or in adverse conditions, complicating certification and maintenance.^[106] Early experimental platforms, like the Hiller YH-32 Hornet helicopter from the 1950s, incorporated collapsible tail fins that hinged inward for compact transport, demonstrating the concept's roots in versatile vertical lift vehicles.

Applications

In Aviation

In fixed-wing aircraft, the vertical stabilizer is essential for providing directional stability by damping yaw oscillations and maintaining the aircraft's heading in response to disturbances such as crosswinds or asymmetric thrust. It works in conjunction with the rudder to enable controlled yaw maneuvers, ensuring safe flight operations in conventional configurations. For example, the Eurofighter Typhoon, a canard delta-wing fighter with its first flight in 1994, incorporates a single tall vertical stabilizer to achieve this stability while supporting high maneuverability demands. Although some advanced designs like flying wings minimize or eliminate dedicated vertical surfaces, relying instead on winglets or split control surfaces, the vertical stabilizer remains a standard feature for most fixed-wing aircraft to meet stability criteria.^[1]^[107] In rotary-wing aircraft, such as helicopters, the vertical stabilizer mounted on the tail boom supplements the primary anti-torque system—typically a tail rotor—by generating aerodynamic forces that counteract main rotor torque, particularly during forward flight when airflow over the fin increases its effectiveness. This design enhances directional control and stability at higher speeds, reducing the workload on the tail rotor. The Bell 206 JetRanger, certified in 1967, exemplifies this setup, where the vertical fin provides partial anti-torque relief in cruise, allowing for more efficient operation. In the event of tail rotor failure, the vertical stabilizer can offer limited sustained flight capability by balancing torque through sideslip.^[108]^[109] Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) often feature miniaturized vertical stabilizers optimized for endurance and stealth, with configurations like V-tails combining vertical and horizontal functions to reduce weight and radar signature. The Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk, which achieved its first flight in 1998, employs a V-tail design to provide yaw stability during long-duration high-altitude missions, supporting precise navigation without pilot input. These adaptations highlight the vertical stabilizer's role in enabling autonomous operations across diverse flight profiles.^[87] The vertical stabilizer contributes to overall aircraft drag, typically a small but notable portion of the total parasitic drag due to its surface area and interference with the fuselage, yet it is indispensable for performance and safety. Under EASA Certification Specifications CS-25, particularly sections 25.143 and 25.177, the vertical stabilizer must ensure adequate directional stability and controllability across all flight conditions, including engine failure scenarios, to achieve airworthiness certification for large aeroplanes. A notable failure occurred in the 1985 Japan Airlines Flight 123 accident, where improper repair of the rear pressure bulkhead led to explosive decompression and separation of the vertical stabilizer, resulting in loss of control and the deadliest single-aircraft aviation disaster.^[110]^[111]

In Automobiles

In the 1950s, American automobiles prominently featured rear vertical fins as a design element intended to enhance high-speed stability, particularly on models like the 1959 Cadillac, where the towering fins were claimed to provide aerodynamic yaw control at speeds over 100 mph (161 km/h). These fins drew inspiration from the twin-tail design of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning fighter aircraft and were promoted by General Motors stylists as functional aids for straight-line tracking and crosswind resistance, though later analyses revealed their primary role was stylistic rather than substantially effective.^[112]^[113] Modern automotive vertical stabilizers often manifest as active rear spoilers that dynamically adjust to improve stability and generate downforce for yaw correction during cornering or high-speed travel. For instance, the 2013 Porsche 911 GT3 (991 generation) employs an adjustable rear wing that deploys progressively, reaching its performance position above 150 km/h (93 mph) to counter lift and enhance directional control, contributing up to 50 kg of downforce at top speeds. This active system balances aerodynamic efficiency with performance, retracting at lower speeds to minimize drag. While these features boost stability, they introduce a drag trade-off, typically increasing overall aerodynamic resistance by 2-5% according to wind tunnel evaluations, yet yielding measurable improvements in straight-line handling as quantified in SAE aerodynamic testing protocols like coastdown and yaw stability assessments. In electric vehicles, the 2021 Tesla Model S Plaid features a rear wing that complements the vehicle's low-drag profile by providing downforce and enhancing high-speed stability, optimizing range and performance. Regulatory constraints further shape these designs, with Euro NCAP pedestrian safety protocols limiting protrusions like rear fins or spoilers to reduce injury risk in low-speed impacts, emphasizing rounded edges and minimal extension to maintain high vulnerable road user scores.

In Missiles and Other Vehicles

In guided missiles, vertical stabilizers often take the form of cruciform fins arranged in a cross-shaped configuration to provide directional and roll stability during high-speed flight. These fins, typically three or four fixed surfaces, generate aerodynamic forces that counteract yaw and spin, enabling precise targeting without active control in some designs. For instance, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, introduced in 1956, employs cruciform tail fins with rolleron assemblies—small vanes on the trailing edges that spin with the airflow to induce gyroscopic roll stabilization, preventing unwanted rotation.^[114]^[115] In rockets and launch vehicles, vertical stabilizers are commonly implemented as deployable grid fins for atmospheric reentry control. These lattice-like structures, made of high-temperature materials like titanium, adjust the center of pressure to manage pitch, yaw, and roll forces during descent. The SpaceX Falcon 9, operational since 2010, uses four hypersonic grid fins mounted at the base of the first stage interstage; they deploy post-separation to steer the booster back to a landing site by modulating aerodynamic lift in the X-configuration.^[116]^[117] Vertical stabilizers in marine vehicles, such as hydrofoils on racing catamarans, enhance directional stability by minimizing yaw deviations at high speeds. These underwater foil appendages generate lateral forces similar to airfoils, lifting the hulls while maintaining course alignment against waves and wind. Since the 1990s, hydrofoil-equipped catamarans like those in America's Cup races have incorporated dihedral or T-shaped foils to improve hydrodynamic stability, reducing drag and enabling speeds over 50 knots with controlled straight-line tracking.^[118]^[119] In ground vehicles, particularly armored military platforms, vertical fins or stabilizer elements mitigate wind-induced yaw at highway speeds or during cross-country movement. These features, often integrated into turret designs, provide passive aerodynamic resistance to side gusts, ensuring stable aiming and traversal.^[120] For spacecraft operating in atmospheric reentry, vertical stabilizers serve as aerodynamic control surfaces to augment reaction control systems for yaw damping. Twin or short vertical fins generate restoring moments in dense air layers, facilitating precise glide paths without excessive thruster use. The Boeing X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, first launched in 2010, features two short vertical stabilizers at the rear—configured as ruddervators for combined yaw and pitch authority—enabling stable uncrewed landing after orbital missions.^[121]^[122]

References

[1]
Airplane Parts and Function | Glenn Research Center - NASA
Oct 4, 2022 · The vertical stabilizer keeps the nose of the plane from swinging from side to side, which is called yaw. The horizontal stabilizer prevents an ...
[2]
Anatomy of Aircraft & Spacecraft – Introduction to Aerospace Flight ...
The vertical stabilizer (B) gives the airplane directional (yaw) stability. ... definition of the axes about which the airplane moves. Four forces act on ...
[3]
[PDF] Chapter 6: Flight Controls - Federal Aviation Administration
Like all control surfaces at lower airspeeds, the vertical stabilizer/rudder becomes less effective and magnifies the control problems associated with adverse ...
[4]
[PDF] Flight Controls of Otto Lilienthal's Experimental Monoplane from 1895
1 also shows small vertical control surfaces attached at the outer ends of the wings, which rotate around short, upright posts resembling small sails. A string ...Missing: 1890s | Show results with:1890s
[5]
Wright Airplanes
As in their earlier gliders, it had a variable-camber twin canard in front to control pitch and a twin rudder in back to control yaw. Roll was controlled by ...Missing: vertical | Show results with:vertical
[6]
[PDF] Airplane Stability and Control - Assets - Cambridge University Press
Not only that, but, like many other World War I airplanes, the Camel's vertical tail was too small. Any stall automatically became a snap roll spin entry ...
[7]
NIHF Inductee Glenn Curtiss Invented Hydroaeroplane
In 1911, Curtiss designed a seaplane for the Navy, adding retractable landing gear to his design. By the start of World War I, Curtiss was the largest ...Missing: vertical stabilizer
[8]
Boeing's Metal Monoplanes - Centennial of Flight
The Model 247, developed in 1933, was an all-metal, twin-engine airplane and the first modern passenger airliner. Boeing's Metal Monoplanes of the 1930s. By the ...
[9]
North American F-86 Sabre - The Aviation History Online Museum
May 18, 1999 · However, utilizing data gleaned from Luftwaffe experiments, the wings and the horizontal and vertical stabilizers of the Sabre were swept back ...
[10]
F-86 Sabre - GlobalSecurity.org
Feb 12, 2015 · The Sabre represented many firsts in technology and design. Swept-wing configuration has become a standard for jet-powered aircraft. The ...
[11]
Wing Sweep - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
High-speed flight is the most common reason for using wing sweep. The sweep increases the critical Mach number, Mcrit, delaying the onset of drag divergence, ...
[12]
CONVAIR F-102A "Delta Dagger" - Nuke
Convair redesigned the airplane on the basis of the area-rule principle developed by NACA Langley's Richard Whitcomb to give it supersonic performance. The ...
[13]
Area Rule: The Design Evolution Convair F-102 Delta Dagger
Jan 26, 2024 · In this speed range, shock waves form around the aircraft, significantly amplifying drag and buffeting (vibration) experienced by the aircraft ...
[14]
How the F-16 Became the World's First Fly-By-Wire Combat Aircraft
The YF-16 was one of the first planes in the world have an all fly-by-wire control system. ... (The F-16 was eventually upgraded to a digital system in the late ...Missing: integration | Show results with:integration
[15]
Aircraft Stability & Control – Introduction to Aerospace Flight Vehicles
Directional or spiral divergence can result from an undersized vertical fin with insufficient area to give adequate “damped” directional stability. This ...Missing: World | Show results with:World
[16]
Boeing 787 Update | CompositesWorld
May 1, 2007 · Boeing 787 Update. Approaching rollout and first flight, the 787 relies on innovations in composite materials and processes to hit its targets.
[17]
Design and Analysis of the Effect of Trimmable Vertical Stabilizers ...
Mar 29, 2025 · The vertical stabilizer, a critical component of an aircraft, ensures stability during flight by correcting yawing motion.
[18]
[PDF] AC No: 23-17C - Advisory Circular - Federal Aviation Administration
Nov 17, 2011 · AC 23-17C is an equipment guide for certification of Part 23 airplanes and airships, showing compliance with 14 CFR part 23, and applies to ...Missing: 1950s | Show results with:1950s
[19]
Aircraft Yaw Motion - NASA Glenn Research Center
On all aircraft, the vertical stabilizer and rudder create a symmetric airfoil. This produces no side force when the rudder is aligned with the stabilizer ...Missing: principle | Show results with:principle
[20]
[PDF] Chapter 5: Aerodynamics of Flight - Federal Aviation Administration
The contribution of the wing to static directional stability is usually small. ... When the point is reached that the wing and tail contributions balance, then ...
[21]
[PDF] Lateral stability derivatives - Aerostudents
This sideslip angle causes a horizontal force Y on the aircraft. The most important contributors to this horizontal force are the fuselage and the vertical ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[22]
[PDF] Lateral Stability - METU | Aerospace Engineering
The sideslip angle is the angle that the relative airflow forms with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. • The resulting side forces are produced mainly ...
[23]
[PDF] 6. Aerodynamic Moments - Robert F. Stengel
Side force coefficient variation due to rudder deflection. Yawing moment coefficient variation due to rudder deflection. 48. CYδ R. ( )ref =S ! ∂CY. ∂δR.<|control11|><|separator|>
[24]
[PDF] Lab 8 Notes – Basic Aircraft Design Rules
Apr 6, 2006 · An aircraft's horizontal tail size and position, and the CG ... effectiveness is the vertical tail volume coefficient: Sv ℓv. Vv ...
[25]
[PDF] Empennage sizing with the tail volume ... - HAW Hamburg
– Findings: Typical tail volume coefficients are between 0.5 and 1.0 for the horizontal tail and between 0.03 and 0.08 for the vertical tail depending on ...
[26]
[PDF] Spacecraft and Aircraft Dynamics - Lecture 7 - Matthew M. Peet
Directional Stability. • CNβ > 0 means stability. • Most aircraft need a tail - CNβ,wf < 0. • How to size a tail so that CNβ > 0. • The effect of rudder on ...
[27]
[PDF] Flight Stability and Automatic Control - Iowa State University
Increasing the yaw damping, that is, Cnr becomes more negative, will result in better Dutch roll damping. Unfortunately, this is not easy to achieve simply ...
[28]
[PDF] NASA TN D-7721 TO DETERMINE THE LOW-SPEED YAWING ...
It is interesting to note that the contribution of the vertical tail to Cnr appears to correlate with the trends shown by the tail contribution to Cn shown in ...
[29]
Design Process: Vertical Tail Functions–Yaw Stability and Damping
May 13, 2022 · The first function of the vertical tail is to stabilize the airplane about the yaw axis and help keep the nose pointed into the oncoming airstream.Missing: Cnr | Show results with:Cnr
[30]
[PDF] NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Sep 8, 1994 · Abstract: This report explains the accident involving USAir flight 427, a Boeing. 737-300, which entered an uncontrolled descent and impacted ...
[31]
[PDF] Dynamic Stability
Yaw damping is thus seen to contribute to positive ζ and be stabilizing, and weathercock stability. Nv augments this effect. Since both Np and Lp usually are ...
[32]
[PDF] Dynamical Equations for Flight Vehicles
The side force coefficient can then be expressed as. Cy ... both, the vertical tail side force acting through the moment arm ℓv and the destabilizing yawing.Missing: stabilizer | Show results with:stabilizer
[33]
[PDF] Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3C) - Chapter 13
After an engine failure, asymmetrical thrust also creates control issues for the pilot. Attention to both these factors is crucial to safe OEI flight. Terms and ...
[34]
[PDF] AC 61-67C Stall and Spin Awareness Training
Sep 20, 2007 · In most aircraft, spin recovery techniques consist of retarding power (if in a powered aircraft), applying opposite rudder to slow the ...
[35]
[PDF] Roll and Yaw Moments and Stability
2) To counter adverse yaw. When turning to the right, the left aileron is down, and the right aileron is up. This alignment causes the left wing to have more ...Missing: stabilizer | Show results with:stabilizer
[36]
https://aircraftflightmechanics.com/StaticStability/CrossCouplings.html
[37]
Cross-couplings - Aircraft Flight Mechanics by Harry Smith, PhD
Aerodynamics Yaw/Roll Coupling#. There is a strong coupling between yaw and roll in fixed-wing aircraft due to aerodynamic effects. First, the effect of yaw ...
[38]
[PDF] Coupling Dynamics in Aircraft - NASA Technical Reports Server
Inertial roll coupling is a resonant divergence in pitch or yaw when roll rate equals the lower of the pitch or yaw natural frequencies. Control coupling is a ...
[39]
What Is a Dutch Roll, and Is It Dangerous? - Pilot Institute
Nov 11, 2024 · A Dutch roll is an aircraft movement combining yaw and roll, common in swept-wing airplanes. Learn why it happens and how pilots manage it.
[40]
[PDF] chapter 6 supersonic aerodynamics - DTIC
supersonic flow patterns of Figure 6.45. Trailing edge control surfaces can be affected adversely by the shock waves formed in flight above the critical Mach.
[41]
Critical Mach Number | SKYbrary Aviation Safety
In aircraft not designed to fly at the Critical Mach number, shock waves in the flow over the wing and tailplane can be sufficient to stall the wing, make ...
[42]
[PDF] Lockheed's Mach 2 Fighter for the USAF - 916 Starfighter
Lockheed were well aware of the N.A.C.A. area rule, but transonic interference drag was never a problem with the 104. Area rule is less applicable to "wholly ...
[43]
[PDF] INTRODUCtiON TO THE AERODYNAMICS OF FLIGHT
(1) the vertical stabilizer. (fin) and rudder which provide directional stability in yaw, and (2) the horizontal stabilizer and elevator which provide.
[44]
[PDF] 7. Transonic Aerodynamics of Airfoils and Wings
Mar 10, 2006 · This is the critical Mach number. As the freestream. Mach number ... Pressure distribution change with increasing Mach number, NACA 0012 airfoil, ...
[45]
[PDF] The SR-71 Test Bed Aircraft: A Facility for High-Speed Flight Research
The minimum pressure inside the canoe was approximately. 4 lbf/in 2 atmosphere with a pressure differential of 3.3 lbf/in 2at an altitude of 70,000 ft. The ...Missing: stabilizer | Show results with:stabilizer
[46]
[PDF] Mass Balancing of Aircraft Control Surfaces - Raptor Scientific
Flutter is related to the torsional and vertical stiffness of the object, and the shape of the airfoil. 1.2 Divergence is the condition most feared by pilots.
[47]
[PDF] Aeroelastic Analysis of Aircraft with Control Surfaces Using CFD
with aileron rotation flutter they found that by mass balancing the control surfaces, flutter could be completely eliminated [16]. This was an important ...
[48]
tps - NASA
Tiles were used for the entire underside of the vehicle and for most of the fuselage sides and vertical stabilizer. Black tiles could protect up to 2,300 °F ...
[49]
[PDF] Ablative heat shield design for space shuttle
Ablator heat shield configuration optimization studies were conducted for the. Orbiter. Ablator and. RSI trajectories for design studies were shaped to take.Missing: stabilizer | Show results with:stabilizer
[50]
Re-Entry Aircraft
The aircraft is said to be hypersonic. Typical low earth orbit re-entry speeds are near 17,500 mph and the Mach number M is nearly twenty five, M < 25. The ...Missing: vertical stabilizer ablative
[51]
Experimental Study on the Effects of Sideslip and Rudder Deflection ...
Ensure sufficient dynamic stability. Prevent vertical tail stall at high sideslip angles resulting from rudder-induced oscillations or sudden engine failure. ...
[52]
[PDF] A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF VERTICAL TAIL DESIGN
The vertical tail provides directional equilibrium, stability, and control. Its sizing is determined by minimum control speed and crosswind landing conditions.
[53]
[PDF] Active Flow Control on Vertical Tail Models
Jul 16, 2019 · Flow separation over the rudder may occur as the increasing adverse pressure gradient further thickens the boundary layer over the stabilizer.
[54]
Vertical Stabilizers - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Vertical stabilizers are part of an airplane's empennage, providing stability and control, and are designed similarly to the wing. They provide directional ...
[55]
Loss of control Accident BAC One-Eleven 200AB G-ASHG, Tuesday ...
Date: Tuesday 22 October 1963. Time: 10:40. Type: Silhouette image of generic BA11 model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different
[56]
How did the BAC One-Eleven help pave safer air travel? - Key Aero
Oct 27, 2023 · The incidence increased to approximately 50° as the aircraft was locked into a deep stall, which rendered the elevators useless. A weakness in ...
[57]
[PDF] Some Buffet Response Characteristics of a Twin-Vertical-Tail ...
A rigid, 1/6-size, full-span model of an F-18 airplane was fitted with flexible vertical tails of two different levels of stiffness.
[58]
[PDF] a design summary - of stall characteristics
A method of wing design using lifting line theory described in. NACA Reports 865 and 1090 has been computerized and used to study the parameters.
[59]
[PDF] active vertical tail buffeting alleviation on an f/a-18
As shown in figure 1, for aircraft of this type at high angles of attack, vortices emanating from wing/fuselage leading edge extensions (LEX) burst, immersing ...
[60]
[PDF] Advisory Circular - Federal Aviation Administration
Jan 27, 1988 · Methods for estimating the rolling moment added to the vertical stabilizer by the horizontal stabilizer of T and + empennage configurations are ...
[61]
[PDF] A design analysis of vertical stabilisers for Blended Wing Body aircraft
Feb 1, 2017 · Lehmkeuler reported a Cnβ value of 0.0365 rad−1 [16] which is lower than the recom- mended value of 0.05 rad−1 [17]. However, increasing tail ...Missing: stabilizer | Show results with:stabilizer
[62]
None
Summary of each segment:
[63]
[PDF] AC 25.341-1 - Dynamic Gust Loads - Federal Aviation Administration
Dec 12, 2014 · 4.1. This AC addresses both discrete gust and continuous turbulence (or continuous gust) requirements of part 25. It provides some of the ...Missing: stabilizer | Show results with:stabilizer
[64]
[PDF] Stress Analysis of the Vertical Tail Root Fitting Bracket and ... - ijirset
Loads received by the VT will get transferred to fuselage at the root. It is almost like a cantilever action, which induces maximum bending moment at the root.
[65]
[PDF] Aircraft Empennage Structural Detail Design 421S9303B2R2 19 Apt ...
Bending in the vertical stabilizer is carried principally by the front spar. ... A multi-cell analysis was used to size this portion of the horizontal stabilizer.
[66]
ANALISIS FLUTTER STRUKTUR V-TAIL PESAWAT - IOP Science
Passenger aircraft must be safe from aeroelastic failures, that is, safe against divergence, control reversal, and flutter such as stated in FAR 25. 33 / FAR ...
[67]
Active aeroelastic design of a vertical tail for a fighter aircraft
Sep 8, 2000 · In a first step, the structure for the vertical tail of a fighter aircraft is designed for static strength and buckling stability by means of a ...
[68]
7075 and Alclad 7075High-Strength Structural Alloy | Handbooks
Alloy 7075 and other high strength 7xxx alloys were introduced toward the end of the Second World War for aircraft structural parts and other highly stressed ...Missing: WWII | Show results with:WWII
[69]
Aluminum 7075-T6 - ASM Material Data Sheet - MatWeb
Aluminum 7075-T6; 7075-T651 ; Hardness, Vickers, 175, 175 ; Ultimate Tensile Strength, 572 MPa, 83000 psi ; Tensile Yield Strength, 503 MPa, 73000 psi ; Elongation ...Missing: WWII | Show results with:WWII
[70]
[PDF] Chapter 2: Aerospace Materials Characteristics
Nov 2, 2020 · Wright brothers used aluminum alloys in their aircraft to make them lighter (compared to steel) so that they can become airborne more readily.
[71]
Composites: Airbus continues to shape the future
Aug 1, 2017 · For example, most of the A350 XWB's wing is comprised of the lightweight carbon composites, including its upper and lower covers. Measuring 32 ...Missing: aluminum alloys
[72]
The A350 XWB – Advanced Materials and Design - AZoM
Nov 26, 2012 · The use of titanium along with composites reduces the need for corrosion maintenance in the aircraft by 60%. Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic ...
[73]
[PDF] in Fuselage Structures of Large Transports
Honeycomb Skin and I Section Stringer Configurations for Concept 5 ............. 26. Frame Configuration in I-Stiffened Honeycomb Skin Design. Concept 5 ...
[74]
US7861969B2 - Shaped composite stringers and methods of making
When the plies 110 are consolidated to the aircraft skin panel 150 by pressure and co-curing of plies 110 and skin panel 150, the stringer 300 formed ( FIG. 6 ) ...
[75]
Review of composite sandwich structure in aeronautic applications
“The characteristic feature of the sandwich construction is the use of a multilayer skin consisting of one or more high-strength outer layers (faces) and one or ...
[76]
Lightning Performance of Copper-Mesh Clad Composite Panels
Copper mesh provides some protection against lightning, but is damaged under heavy current. The panel is damaged under 200kA, but not under 100kA.
[77]
[PDF] AC 20-53C - Advisory Circular
Sep 24, 2018 · 1.1. This advisory circular (AC) provides applicants with guidance for obtaining Federal. Aviation Administration (FAA) approval of compliance ...Missing: copper mesh
[78]
Successes and challenges in non-destructive testing of aircraft ...
This paper will review the state of the art in the field and point to highlight the success and challenges that different NDT methods are faced.
[79]
Ultrasonic Inspection of Aerospace Composites Explained
Learn more about ultrasonic inspection, the various methods used, how they work, and their role in detecting flaws in aerospace composites.Missing: maintenance | Show results with:maintenance
[80]
(PDF) Successes and challenges in non-destructive testing of ...
This paper will review the state of the art in the field and point to highlight the success and challenges that different NDT methods are faced.
[81]
Aircraft vertical fin-fuselage structural integration system
In this manner, vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer loads are necessarily initially transferred or transmitted to the aft body structure and then secondarily ...
[82]
How does rudder size influence its ability to produce lateral lift?
Nov 30, 2017 · For GA aircraft and gliders, a relative chord of 25 - 35% has been found to give the best combination.What are the pros/cons of all-moving rudder?Is the elevator chord included in the calculation of the volume ratio?More results from aviation.stackexchange.comMissing: fraction | Show results with:fraction
[83]
Flutter Prediction on a Combat Aircraft Involving Backlash on Control ...
Aug 9, 2025 · Military requirements state that aircraft must be free of flutter up to 115 percent of the design limit speed and that the backlash in ...
[84]
[PDF] Aircraft Drag Prediction and Reduction - DTIC
Methods for predicting and reducing the drag of external stores, of nacelles, of fuselage protuberances, and of fuselage afterbodies are then presented.
[85]
Boeing's Innovative Aircraft Changed Aviation and Manufacturing ...
Apr 20, 2016 · Boeing built a 432,000-squarefoot plant in Frederickson, WA, to build vertical tail fins and horizontal stabilizers. The state-of-the-art plant ...
[86]
NACA-0009 9.0% smoothed (n0009sm-il) - Airfoil Tools
Details, Dat file, Parser ; (n0009sm-il) NACA-0009 9.0% smoothed. NACA 0009 airfoil (smoothed) Max thickness 9% at 30.9% chord. Max camber 0% at 0% chord. Source ...Missing: conventional fixed vertical stabilizer aircraft design geometry sweep
[87]
[PDF] EMPENNAGE DESIGN - ResearchGate
Structurally, the empennage consists of the entire tail assembly, including the vertical stabilizer, horizontal stabilizers, rudder, elevators, and the rear ...<|separator|>
[88]
Cessna 172 Skyhawk Aircraft Dimensions & Drawings
Apr 8, 2020 · The Cessna 172 Skyhawk (1958) has an overall length of 27'2” (8.28 m), width of 36' (11 m), and height of 8'11” (2.72 m).
[89]
Aircraft Horizontal and Vertical Tail Design - AeroToolbox
A typical aspect ratio for a vertical tail is in the range of 1.3 to 2.0 (here the aspect ratio is based on the span from root-to-tip as the span from tip-to- ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[90]
The Evolution of the Cessna 172 - FLYING Magazine
Feb 23, 2022 · Another distinguishing feature that sets the early 172 apart from the 170 is the straight, finlike vertical stabilizer. The 1956 version of ...
[91]
[PDF] Empennage Statistics and Sizing Methods for Dorsal Fins
Apr 15, 2013 · analysis finally could be used to size an aircraft dorsal fin, provided vertical tail parameters for that aircraft are known. Sizing methods ...
[92]
[PDF] SECTION 6: VERTICAL STABILIZER - Van's Aircraft
Oct 2, 2020 · Rivet the spar flanges of the bottom ribs to the spars using the rivets called out on Page 6-5, Figure 1. With the exception of the ...
[93]
Experimental Investigation of an All-Movable Vertical Tail Model | Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials and Co-located Conferences
**Summary of All-Moving Vertical Tail Design (https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2003-1413):**
[94]
North American A-5/RA-5 Vigilante - AirVectors
Oct 1, 2025 · RA-5Cs were used to observe enemy troop concentrations and movements; obtain pre-strike information on a target and post-strike evaluations on ...
[95]
BAC TSR.2 Profile - Air Power Australia
The aircraft employed an unconventional tail, with all three surfaces built as fully movable slabs, and no fences on the wings or ventral stabilisers used.
[96]
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADP010485.pdf
[97]
All-moving Tails - Kitplanes Magazine
An all-moving tail is a tail surface that can be pivoted for control, providing higher control effectiveness than a conventional tail.Missing: stabilizer | Show results with:stabilizer
[98]
[PDF] Active Aeroelastic Aircraft and Its Impact on Structure and Flight ...
redistribution of stiffness caused torsional divergence under flight loads ... Figure 13: Concept of an all-movable Active Vertical Tail. 6.2. Active ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[99]
[PDF] Beyond Tube-and-Wing - NASA
Lightning, joined the vertical fins together, with a portion of the horizontal tail ... Lockheed P-38 Lightning, 20. Lockheed XR6O-1 Constitution, 10, 11, 12.
[100]
[PDF] The OV-10 - Marine Corps Association
The twin boom design of the. OV-10A was reminiscent of the P-38. Lightning, with a large fuselage section hanging from the main wing between the booms. The ...
[101]
[PDF] AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
The development and major design features of the F-14 Tomcat are discussed The aircraft has twin vertical tails to give good single engine stability and ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[102]
[PDF] MANX Close Air Support Aircraft Preliminary Design
Twin engines and twin vertical tails provide the necessary survivability qualities required for the high threat environment the the plane will encounter. 2.
[103]
[PDF] Study of an Advanced Transport Airplane Design Concept Known as ...
stabilizer with twin tip-mounted vertical fins. Figure 17 presents a side ... the disadvantages (which seemingly outweight the advantages) are: complexity, weight.
[104]
December 1st is an historic day for “stealth” fighters
Dec 1, 2011 · With regard to the inward-canted vertical tail section, initial beliefs that the inward-canted tails would help shield the hot exhaust from ...<|separator|>
[105]
North American A-5 Vigilante - Aeroflight
Mar 7, 2010 · The wingtips folded up to allow the aircraft to be housed in an aircraft carrier hangar. The single, vertical tail structure also folded for ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[106]
Here's an important but rarely noted Feature of all B-52 ...
The rare photos in this post show an important but rarely noted feature of all B-52 Stratofortress Strategic Bombers was the folding vertical fin.
[107]
Air-Launched Cruise Missile (AGM-86)
The AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, or ALCM, and AGM-86C/D conventional air-launched cruise missile, or CALCM, were developed to increase the effectiveness ...Missing: retractable vertical
[108]
Conceptual Design and Analysis of a Combat Aircraft with Folding ...
Jun 9, 2023 · only feature a folding fin, but also an all-movable vertical tail. ... all-moving vertical tail that can swivel through approximately +/ ...
[109]
New Kit Will Allow MQ-9 Reaper To Fly From Navy Flattops
May 10, 2022 · “Our wing set folds up so that MQ-9B STOL could park on the deck, or in the hangar bay, just like any other naval aircraft. When it's time to ...Missing: stabilizer | Show results with:stabilizer
[110]
Eurofighter Typhoon - Aircraft Recognition Guide
Europe's jointly developed fourth generation fighter has a canard-delta wing configuration with a single, tall vertical stabiliser.
[111]
[PDF] Helicopter Vertical Stabilizer Design Considerations. - DTIC
UH-1 vertical stabilizer leading edge sweep angle which is. 42 degrees. Table I presents some vertical stabilizer airfoil section data. References 1 and 4 ...
[112]
[PDF] Bell 206B-1 Directional Control in Low Airspeed Flight. - DTIC
balance main rotor torque. In practice, T will vary with changing aerodynamic forces on the fuselage and vertical fin an 3wi th main rotor torque. 3 ...
[113]
[PDF] Performance Enhancement of a Vertical Tail Model with Sweeping ...
Thus an increase in rudder efficiency can reduce the drag and weight of a prospective airplane. The vertical tail is a good proving ground for nascent high ...
[114]
Boeing 747-SR100 - Federal Aviation Administration
Sep 3, 2025 · JAL 123 experienced an explosive decompression, caused by a rupture of the airplane's aft pressure bulkhead.
[115]
1948: How the Cadillac Tailfin Was Born - Mac's Motor City Garage
Oct 8, 2024 · The tailfin has a long and complicated history in the automotive world, either as an aerodynamic stabilizer or simply as an aeronautical ...
[116]
The tale of Cadillac's game-changing tailfins - Hagerty Media
Apr 23, 2019 · Fins began in the 1920s when Austrian engineer Paul Jaray began aggressively promoting aerodynamic features for cars.
[117]
AIM-9 Sidewinder > Air Force > Fact Sheet Display - AF.mil
The AIM-9 has a cylindrical body with a roll-stabilizing rear wing/rolleron assembly. Also, it has detachable, double-delta control surfaces behind the nose ...
[118]
[PDF] MISSILE AERODYNAMICS - Johns Hopkins APL
This article describes the role of the aerodynamicist as a member of a missile development team, the preliminary design tools available to him, ...
[119]
Falcon 9 - SpaceX
Falcon 9 is equipped with four hypersonic grid fins positioned at the base of the interstage. They orient the rocket during reentry by moving the center of ...
[120]
Grid Fin, Rocket, Launch Vehicle, Falcon 9
Located near the top of the rocket's first stage, grid fins are deployed during reentry. They help control lift during reentry, thereby guiding the booster ...
[121]
Experimental optimization of hydrodynamic performance of ...
Aug 7, 2025 · This research deals with determination of a suitable hydrofoil section to reduce drag and increase stability of a catamaran vessel using ...
[122]
Dynamic Stability Analysis of a Hydrofoiling Sailing Boat using CFD
Mar 22, 2021 · This paper describes the study of the dynamic stability of a hydrofoiling sailing boat called the “Goodall Design Foiling Viper”.Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
[123]
Can you explain how Abrams' stabilizer works? - Quora
Feb 2, 2025 · Can you explain how a turret works in a military vehicle, such as an armored car or tank? How does it turn and move up and down?Why does the US Army's APFSDS projectile for the M1 Abrams main ...Why is the armor so thin on top of the turret on the US Army's M1 ...More results from www.quora.com
[124]
X-Planes at Armstrong - NASA
X-37 Advanced Technology Demonstrator. The X-37 program began with NASA ... vertical fin, centered between the tip fins, to improve control characteristics.
[125]
Space Shuttle Jr. - Smithsonian Magazine
Unlike the shuttle, with its one vertical stabilizer, the X-37 has two short diagonal ones, called ruddervators—surfaces that combine the functions of rudders ...Missing: reaction fins