Why do smaller jets always seem to utilize the T tail design?

Tantalum said:
Interesting, I wonder why not? Anytime I fly commercially I always see the ailerons and spoilers pop up and down at some point during the taxi. So I kind of just assumed all planes both large and small do a control check
Click to expand...

They were doing Engine Operating Onload / Offload (ERO) procedures. It's a quick "hot load" of cargo and go. The ERO portion of the checklist is abbreviated and doesn't call for a flight control check.
 
Thanks @Velocity173 that makes more sense then and make the pieces fit a little better

So that probably means twin boom designs, like the c-119 flying boxcar, made loading rear cargo even more of a challenge
 
What about the Dassault biz jet tails? I always thought those looked badass being part way up the tail with the anhedral
 
Why do smaller jets always seem to utilize the T tail design?

Because the A through S tail designs did not work..???
 
Lockheed Jetstar had 4 engines mounted on the fuselage.
 
So did VC10 and an IL. Always thought the vc10 was a really beautiful plane
 
Small point of order: I find t-tails somewhat annoying when doing short/soft field takeoff stuff on prop driven aircraft, anyway... not really a comment about jets.

No propwash over the tail means you're waiting and waiting for airflow over the silly thing to get any elevator control out of it. The elevator control is just limp until you get some speed. And usually you just have to memorize "about where" the elevator should be placed for a proper early rotation and steeper climb for Vx. Otherwise you'll either under-rotate and be fast, or over-rotate and be pushing to keep from dying and all... LOL.

The Seminole was particularly annoying in this respect. You get used to it, but having come from my trusty ol' single engine Cessna where a blast of throttle will give you all the elevator authority you might want and then some, waiting on that t-tail in the twin is like... come on... do something... and... pop... there it goes. Haha.
 
I owned a T tail. Not a short field airplane but the control feel was really nice with the tail up in the smooth air in flight....

096fe36320daad7c5a4b360eca675f23.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I owned a T tail. Not a short field airplane but the control feel was really nice with the tail up in the smooth air in flight....
Click to expand...
There was a time when I was obsessed with the idea of owning a Lance and the t-tail did make it look sharper and more legit in my opinion (I guess I fall for the marketing) and I read that it was generally favorable in all flight regimes but takeoff where the elevator authority seemed marginal, as @denverpilot wrote.

Do you notice or feel like your Mooney's elevator response is much sharper? I know they're entirely different planes, and an entirely different kind of flying (cue Ted Striker) but am curious anyway
 
The 337 must be feel downright authoritarian with it just a couple feet behind #2
 
Tantalum said:
There was a time when I was obsessed with the idea of owning a Lance and the t-tail did make it look sharper and more legit in my opinion (I guess I fall for the marketing) and I read that it was generally favorable in all flight regimes but takeoff where the elevator authority seemed marginal, as @denverpilot wrote.

Do you notice or feel like your Mooney's elevator response is much sharper? I know they're entirely different planes, and an entirely different kind of flying (cue Ted Striker) but am curious anyway
Click to expand...

The higher speeds combined with the pushrod controls make the Mooney feel firm and very precise. It's all just sharper. It's not that the arrow was bad, it just doesn't feel as substantial. That said I actually liked the smoothness of the t tail feel. You just have to learn how it feels because it is a bit different than the other arrows.

Now the Lance - that airplane you have to watch out for loading it too far forward. If just using the front seats, put some weight in the aft baggage compartment...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
@gsengle thanks. I didn't realize Mooney was pushrod. I've never flown a plane with pushrod but our club had a Diamond before I joined and the folks raved about how good it felt with the rods
 
Tantalum said:
The 337 must be feel downright authoritarian with it just a couple feet behind #2
Click to expand...

I have a whopping five minutes of 337 time in cruise, and a few minutes later while the idiot who owned the thing went heads down, trying to figure out while the gear wouldn't come down... and then I was stupid enough to let a non-pilot sit up front on the way back and watched the gear not come down properly again... from a seat where I couldn't help the guy.

Frankly it felt about like a dump truck. Heavier by far than my 182. It'd make for a solid IMC platform, that's for sure.

Tantalum said:
... the folks raved about how good it felt with the rods
Click to expand...

IBTL!!! LOL.
 
...guess I walked into that one

Cessna RGs are plagued with gear issues huh

Back on topic.. I think most of it is initial design and intended marketing, and from there the engineers figure it out. I generally find the t-tails to be less attractive but there are some exceptions. I do like the whole Duke, Caravelle, Falcon thing where it's mounted half way up the tail itself.. but that only looks good on very specific applications, I can't picture it on something like a Cherokee
 
citizen5000 said:
The T-Tail tailplane is kept from the disturbed airflow behind the wing and fuselage, giving smoother and faster airflow over the elevators. The config gives better pitch control for jets. Responsive pitch control is crucial for aircraft flying at low speed, to allow more effective rotation on landing.

A T-tail has a better effective aspect ratio, less interaction drag, and a more efficient vertical tail. Therefore, the T-tail configuration is especially popular on gliders too.
Click to expand...
Nice work, WikiCitizen :rolleyes:
 
Tantalum said:
...guess I walked into that one

Cessna RGs are plagued with gear issues huh

Back on topic.. I think most of it is initial design and intended marketing, and from there the engineers figure it out. I generally find the t-tails to be less attractive but there are some exceptions. I do like the whole Duke, Caravelle, Falcon thing where it's mounted half way up the tail itself.. but that only looks good on very specific applications, I can't picture it on something like a Cherokee
Click to expand...

Cesssna T303 Crusader. Sexxxxxxxxy. Not the greatest twin Cessna ever built in any other way, but the cruciform tail is hawt.
 
I may have said this before, but in many citations it's all about wing-engine-tail placement. The engines in the C750 had to be placed high enough so supersonic airflow from the wing wouldn't affect the engine intake.
That's an extreme example, but you get the idea.
 
Tantalum said:
Exactly! Looks great
Click to expand...

Yeah. I love the look. Unfortunately that cruciform tail cross section was apparently very bad in ice. Big old ball of ice would form right there at the junction and disrupt airflow over both control surfaces on the tail. Fairly bad juju.
 
Isn't the Cirrus FIKI weeping wing? I thought it was a modern, at least to GA, thing
 
Tantalum said:
Isn't the Cirrus FIKI weeping wing? I thought it was a modern, at least to GA, thing
Click to expand...
It very well might be.

I flew an old Hawker many years ago with a weeping wing. It was very messy, toxic, and don't get that stuff on your skin.

Maybe it has improved??
 
Tantalum said:
Isn't the Cirrus FIKI weeping wing? I thought it was a modern, at least to GA, thing
Click to expand...

I believe the Mooney M20M was the first piston single certified FIKI with TKS but I'd have to go digging for sure. I remember the ads making a big deal of it for Mooney back then.

The system has been around a long time. All the way back into WWII but the fluid was pumped through a cloth not a laser drilled piece of metal back then.

Whether any of the TKS systems is worth the money depends on just how much ice you get into. Ha.

Various folks have opined over the years that they're great for turning around and getting yourself the hell out of there, and we perhaps many feel an unearned level of safety with a certified system, the overall weight of wicked levels of icing can still overwhelm the climb rate of a lot of singles.

But no. They're not a new thing, and as you pointed out, probably the biggest addition of aircraft with the TKS system to the low end fleet goes, it'd be Cirrus today.

There was a time frame where you'd have only seen factory ones on the Mooneys and the large Piper singles, but the company that makes them will happily sell and retrofit uncertified versions into nearly anything. I don't think Cessna ever offered the system on any of the older models, timing wasn't right, but folks did put systems on 210s.

I think the uncertified version for say, a Skylane, ran just shy of $30,000 a number of years ago.

And, of course, getting caught dispatching into known icing conditions with an uncertified version could lead to regulatory headaches if something were to go wrong.

Cirrus made a number of airplanes with the uncertified version early on. Main difference between the uncertified and certified was the size of the fluid tank. You'd run out of bug juice in the early ones too soon for the certification.
 
My thoughts, based on over 150 hours in rented T-tail Turbo Arrows years ago ... they fly just like low-tail Arrows (or Dakotas or Archers), except:

1. The book says for a normal takeoff, accelerate on the ground to 65-75 KIAS. It'll be more like 75. The stabilator, which is 13% smaller in span and area than that on a Dakota or Archer, is up high, out of the energized propwash, and is not very effective in a level attitude on the ground. Once the nose comes up, and the stabilator dips down and takes a bite of that propwash, it suddenly becomes very effective. Thus you might overcontrol in pitch a bit on takeoff until you get the hang of it. Likewise on landing, as speed bleeds off the stabilator loses effectiveness more quickly than does the low tail, and the nosewheel tends to plop down rather firmly.

2. It tends to wag its tail in turbulence, much like a short-body Bonanza.

Piper claimed -- correctly -- that the T-tail reduced trim changes with landing gear and flap operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top