T-tails pros / cons

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,415
Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
Discuss.

I like the way they look but not sure how they affect the handling.
Also seems like they would be a weak point structurally.
 
When I sell my Archer, I'm buying a lance. From my reading, they take a longer take off roll and higher speed on approach. But, they handle turbulence much better and are very smooth fliers.

Look at the commercial fleet......notice anything?
 
Unit74 said:
When I sell my Archer, I'm buying a lance. From my reading, they take a longer take off roll and higher speed on approach. But, they handle turbulence much better and are very smooth fliers.

Look at the commercial fleet......notice anything?
Click to expand...

All of the Boeings except the 717 have conventional tails. Many of the regional jets have T tails.
 
Big difference between the Archer and a Lance, like gross weight that is driving up the distance and speed required.

Better to compare two different Cherokee 6 and Lance, Saratoga.
Yes the T tail requires a bit more speed for elevator authority to rotate on takeoff. There is no prop wash over the elevator. Not so noticeable on landing as power is reduced, but still a consideration.
 
You have to plan for a longer takeoff roll.a little sensitive on low speed approachs and landings.
 
I don't own one, in fact, never flown one. One drawback from my novice perspective is the ability to really see things in pre-flight. I spend a lot of time on the tail feathers on my plane (Cherokee 140). Also did on the 172's I rented before that. There's a lot going on back there......little "flappy things" coming off during flight is probably a bad thing.....
 
It depends on the airplane. For example, the T-tail Arrows have a small tendency to blanket the airflow to the tail in certain angles of attack. Others make/models don't.
 
I was nervous transitioning to the t-tail lance when getting my HP but honestly it was no big deal at all. my instructor recommended a few extra knots on takeoff and landing from what my calculations were, which was fine with me lol. everyone talks down about the t-tails, and although I don't have a lot of experience overall, I had no problem with it at all.

one thing I noticed was on preflight. normally I really get into the tail and look at every nut, bolt, rivet, piano hinge and control connection I can see. with the high t-tail of the lance it makes that a bit more difficult. basically the best visual inspection I can do and I'll also hop on the wing and move the yoke back and forth so I can see on top of the elevators, basically looking for bird sht and whatnot.

I kinda like the lance. a bit more fuel burn than I would like but it's a good travel machine.
 
My thoughts on 159 hours in rented T-tail Turbo Arrows ...

Takeoff: The airplane has none of that "ready to fly" feeling as you accelerate. The stabilator, which is 13% smaller in span and area than that of a Warrior/Archer/low-tail Arrow, is up out of the energized propwash, so it seems ineffective. Rotate at 75 knots. Raising the nosewheel also lowers the tail (duh!), lowering the stabilator into the energized propwash, making pitch control suddenly more effective and sensitive. The uninitiated pilot can overcontrol a bit at this point, but one soon gets used to it.

Cruise: The T-Arrow IV seemed smooth in cruise, and pitch trim changes with power and/or flap setting seemed minimal, as the ads promised. All Cherokees hunt a little bit in pitch in cruise, and the T-tail seemed no different. But in turbulence, there was a lot more tail-wag in yaw, worse than my K35 Bonanza.

Landing: Approach and flare were normal. But once the mains touched that little stabilator didn't have enough authority to hold the nose up, and the nosewheel would plop down immediately.

Look at the stabilator of a T-tail Arrow. There are slots in the leading edge, vertical fences near the inboard ends, and leading edge fillets. All those aerodynamic gimmicks suggest that Piper engineers had a heckuva time getting the T-tail to fly right.

These were rented airplanes, so I never had the pleasure of washing one. The T-tail would obviously be an issue there.

The Turbo Arrow IV was not my favorite, but its turbocharged performance and relatively low rental rate made it a good deal.

Flying-1990s-03114.jpg


Flying-1990s-02052.jpg


pa-28rt-201t_1984.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Takeoff: The airplane has none of that "ready to fly" feeling as you accelerate. The stabilator, which is 13% smaller in span and area than that of a Warrior/Archer/low-tail Arrow, is up out of the energized propwash, so it seems ineffective. Rotate at 75 knots. Raising the nosewheel also lowers the tail (duh!), lowering the stabilator into the energized propwash, making pitch control suddenly more effective and sensitive. The uninitiated pilot can overcontrol a bit at this point, but one soon gets used to it.

Landing: Approach and flare were normal. But once the mains touched that little stabilator didn't have enough authority to hold the nose up, and the nosewheel would plop down immediately.
Click to expand...

Pretty much mirrors my experience with T-Tailed Pipers. Given the option, I preferred the conventional tail.

My Sky Arrow has a T-Tail, and I recall over-rotating it on my first takeoff. I've adjusted to that now. The effect is probably minimized due to the high-mounted pusher configuration. Only drawback I see is it takes more of a roll on a soft field to lift the nosewheel clear of the ground
 
Last edited:
eman1200 said:
one thing I noticed was on preflight. normally I really get into the tail and look at every nut, bolt, rivet, piano hinge and control connection I can see. with the high t-tail of the lance it makes that a bit more difficult. basically the best visual inspection I can do and I'll also hop on the wing and move the yoke back and forth so I can see on top of the elevators, basically looking for bird sht and whatnot.
Click to expand...

One nice feature on my Sky Arrow is that the position of the CG means that if you lower the tail to the ground it stays there:

15844628879_dfb65e10ac_z.jpg


At 6'1" I can get a good view of all the attachment points, hinges and linkages. Even a shorter person could get an adequate view of things back there.
 
Meh, I've flown both and fly both daily, T tail for work, my plane is a conventional tail, not much flight wise, no notable difference.

Ground ops wise, T tails sucks for ground deicing, but can be better for hangar clearance and also for jump ops.
 
Pilawt said:
My thoughts on 159 hours in rented T-tail Turbo Arrows ...


Look at the stabilator of a T-tail Arrow. There are slots in the leading edge, vertical fences near the inboard ends, and leading edge fillets. All those aerodynamic gimmicks suggest that Piper engineers had a heckuva time getting the T-tail to fly right.
Click to expand...


IIRC Piper had a serious problem with tail stalls and an inability to recover from normal wings stalls when they first came out. Putting in the slots kept the airflow attached and solved the problem (at least for the most part)
 
FastEddieB said:
One nice feature on my Sky Arrow is that the position of the CG means that if you lower the tail to the ground it stays there:



15844628879_dfb65e10ac_z.jpg




At 6'1" I can get a good view of all the attachment points, hinges and linkages. Even a shorter person could get an adequate view of things back there.
Click to expand...


I think the OP was asking about 'real' planes.





Hahahaha, I'm just kidding with ya fastEddie! Just kiddin.....
 
I guess they don't look all that bad.....:D
 

Attachments

  • tee tail.JPG
    tee tail.JPG
    23.4 KB · Views: 32
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
I like the way they look...
Click to expand...

I guess I'm just really not a fan of t-tails on any front. Don't like the way they look. Not a fan of the handling either (but granted, I have very few hours in one, less than 20).

I'm especially not a fan of the looks. So much so that I've been lobbying for a PoA logo change for years. (Personally I think the current one is fugly!)

A neighbor has a DA40 that they want me to fly for them...so standby for a revised opinion. Maybe. But likely not.
 
MAKG1 said:
All of the Boeings except the 717 have conventional tails. Many of the regional jets have T tails.
Click to expand...

You forgot the 727. Essentially it's the tail mounted (side) engines that require the tail to be moved up. There's a few other examples out there: Fokker 27's, Bac 1-11's etc.. from non Boeing manufacturers as well.
 
The biggest thing I noticed was that soft field landings were a LOT harder (read almost impossible to keep the nose up) in the T-tail Arrow I flew on my CFI checkride vs. the low tail Arrow. Apart from that it was fine. I would be keeping that in mind if I ever had an emergency in the plane.
 
FastEddieB said:
Pretty much mirrors my experience with T-Tailed Pipers. Given the option, I preferred the conventional tail.

My Sky Arrow has a T-Tail, and I recall over-rotating it on my first takeoff. I've adjusted to that now. The effect is probably minimized due to the high-mounted pusher configuration. Only drawback I see is it takes more of a roll on a soft field to lift the nosewheel clear of the ground
Click to expand...

My experience with the Arrow IV is much less but yes I have the same take on it as well.

But I have time in a DA40, which is also a T-tail, and it has none of the negatives I've experienced in the TA IV. But I suppose that's an apples an oranges comparison.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It depends on the airplane. For example, the T-tail Arrows have a small tendency to blanket the airflow to the tail in certain angles of attack. Others make/models don't.
Click to expand...
This.

The T-tail Lances have the same issue. Get below 95 kts on final (especially with just one or two people up front) and the wing will start to blank out the tail and things get squirrely.

On the flip side, I've got over a hundred hours in the Duchess with a T-tail and never noticed any issues with handling at slow speeds.


On the plus side, the T-tail does make a nice photo bird. You can remove the door of the PA32 and have a nice unobstructed view for air-air photo shoots.
 
RyanShort1 said:
The biggest thing I noticed was that soft field landings were a LOT harder (read almost impossible to keep the nose up) in the T-tail Arrow I flew on my CFI checkride vs. the low tail Arrow. Apart from that it was fine. I would be keeping that in mind if I ever had an emergency in the plane.
Click to expand...

Not sure that's a T tail thing, you can hold the nose wheel off for ever in the PC12
 
Are they weaker?

I remember as a younger person flying RC and I always liked they way they looked but they were really flimsy and the linkages were more complex.

Obviously MD-80s aren't shedding their tails in flight but. I wonder if full scale requires additional considerations on those tails.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Are they weaker?

I remember as a younger person flying RC and I always liked they way they looked but they were really flimsy and the linkages were more complex.

Obviously MD-80s aren't shedding their tails in flight but. I wonder if full scale requires additional considerations on those tails.
Click to expand...
I don't think you'd want to go doing any aerobatics in one.

For normal flight regimes, I don't think they are a problem.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Are they weaker?

I remember as a younger person flying RC and I always liked they way they looked but they were really flimsy and the linkages were more complex.

Obviously MD-80s aren't shedding their tails in flight but. I wonder if full scale requires additional considerations on those tails.
Click to expand...

You just compared RC airplane design and quality to FAA certified airplane design and quality.

I'm a little surprised even your creative mind made that stretch, are you running a fever? Get a flu shot? See a doctor soon.
 
Fearless Tower said:
.....The T-tail Lances have the same issue. Get below 95 kts on final (especially with just one or two people up front) and the wing will start to blank out the tail and things get squirrely.......
Click to expand...


Hhmmm, I seem to recall coming in at 80-85kts on short final but it's been a while, lemme go back and check my #s.
 
bnt83 said:
You just compared RC airplane design and quality to FAA certified airplane design and quality.

I'm a little surprised even your creative mind made that stretch, are you running a fever? Get a flu shot? See a doctor soon.
Click to expand...

Sort of.
RC t-tail as compared to RC "normal" tail have significant differences in structure and strength.

Wondering if the same was true when comparing "Real" t-tail to "real "normal" tail.

Not necessarily comparing the model to "real". Just extrapolating.

Am I talking my way out of this one :)
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Sort of.
RC t-tail as compared to RC "normal" tail have significant differences in structure and strength.

Wondering if the same was true when comparing "Real" t-tail to "real "normal" tail.

Not necessarily comparing the model to "real". Just extrapolating.

Am I talking my way out of this one :)
Click to expand...


I'd imagine that all depends on how it's built.

I've seen RC airplanes that pound for pound (if it could be scaled up) would kick a F16s butt.


Or this stuff
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=svRIi_cgtJE

I'd wager any full scale airplane would be ripped to pieces from this "take off" :D
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Sort of.
RC t-tail as compared to RC "normal" tail have significant differences in structure and strength.

Wondering if the same was true when comparing "Real" t-tail to "real "normal" tail.

Not necessarily comparing the model to "real". Just extrapolating.

Am I talking my way out of this one :)
Click to expand...

Dunno. Is the compressive load from the stabilator that much more than the bending load of the rudder. I have no idea how those loads are calculated much less how they are combined in order to estimate total stress.

There may be one or two aeronautical engineers laying around here somewhere that have at least a small clue on the calculations. Or maybe they just look at how the last one was built, build a new one and go fly it to see if it breaks? Ya never know with engineers...
 
Clark1961 said:
Dunno. Is the compressive load from the stabilator that much more than the bending load of the rudder. I have no idea how those loads are calculated much less how they are combined in order to estimate total stress.

There may be one or two aeronautical engineers laying around here somewhere that have at least a small clue on the calculations. Or maybe they just look at how the last one was built, build a new one and go fly it to see if it breaks? Ya never know with engineers...
Click to expand...
There are several things to consider in a T-tail design. The bending loads are the same.....but when placed at the top of the tail the vertical structure must be capable of transmitting those loads and could require additional material (stiffening).

Another factor is the placement of the lifting surface relative to the main wing....and can it be "blanketed" at any attitude?....and the angle of incidence and stall angle of the tail vs main wing.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
There are several things to consider in a T-tail design. The bending loads are the same.....but when placed at the top of the tail the vertical structure must be capable of transmitting those loads and could require additional material (stiffening).
Click to expand...

That's what I said. Why bother repeating when you had nothing to add?
 
Clark1961 said:
Dunno. Is the compressive load from the stabilator that much more than the bending load of the rudder. I have no idea how those loads are calculated much less how they are combined in order to estimate total stress.

There may be one or two aeronautical engineers laying around here somewhere that have at least a small clue on the calculations. Or maybe they just look at how the last one was built, build a new one and go fly it to see if it breaks? Ya never know with engineers...
Click to expand...

Another consideration is that at high AOA, a T-tail is in some pretty strong vortices, resulting in buffeting and fatigue. It requires additional structure or repetitive parts inspection/replacement (see: Tomahawk) to address the issue.

T-tails are great for keeping a jet's exhaust from impinging on the elevator(s), but otherwise, there are few benefits.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Correct. It's a Piper T-tail thing.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Or more precisely, a thing of airplanes not originally designed for a T-tail, but had one slapped on as an afterthought for no reason other than the Marketing Department thought it looked cool.

SixPapaCharlie said:
Obviously MD-80s aren't shedding their tails in flight but. I wonder if full scale requires additional considerations on those tails.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
:yeahthat:



Click to expand...

I was waiting for that video. It was a max landing weight type test, in which the test pilots messed up. IIRC, they hit at something like 1500 fpm, or something like that, ie. way, way, way too hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top