Tailless Aircraft Risks/Penalties Compared with Those of Tailled Aircraft

Technology Prioritization: Selected Technology Set

• Increased structural weight

  • Vertical tails are more weight efficient across most of flight envelope
  • Use of most efficient innovative controls will mitigate weight impacts

• Increased hydraulic power requirements over conventional aircraft

  • Primarily attributable to increased rate requirements
  • Note: weight efficiency data include actuator weights

• Increased FCS complexity

  • Mitigated by Integrated/Adaptive FCS technologies

• Wing camber design may be comprimised when using all moving wingtip controls

  • Applies to wings having fixed camber design
  • SSD controls do not carry camber penalty, but not as good as AMT at high AOA

Previous slide

Next slide

Back to first slide

View graphic version

This chart addresses risks and penalties of tailless aircraft when compared to conventional tailed aircraft. Penalties of choosing a tailless configuration include:

• Increased structural weight - A vertical tail and rudder are still the most weight efficient directional control and stabilization device for most of the flight envelope (see previous slide).

• Increased hydraulic power requirements - Primarily this increase is caused by increased actuator rate requirements of the innovative effectors.

• Increased FCS complexity. A tailless design incorporating innovative controls drives the configuration to include the integrated/adaptive flight control algorithms to mitigate the complexity involved with using traditional control design philosophies.

• Integration of innovative controls may compromise wing camber design on some configurations. This depends on planform and mission, and applies to wings having no leading-edge flaps. Note that the spoiler-slot-deflector controls do not carry this penalty.