642 Sentences With "empennage" | Random Sentence Generator

The engines were found lying inverted near the empennage in the burned area.

The main wreckage was about 127 feet from the impact crater along a 347⁰ true bearing (335⁰ magnetic) and consisted of the empennage/tailboom, both engines, avionics boxes, and portions of the cockpit instrument panel.

Later the airship was rebuilt, including among other things the empennage.

The conventional layout of an aircraft has wings ahead of the empennage.

In the A700, the longer front fuselage balances the rear engines and empennage.

The empennage featured a twin-tail arrangement.Airpower. March 1989. Vol. 19, no. 2, p.16.

The original wing was reused but there were empennage alterations, with a new, narrow-chord fin.

The fixed members of the empennage were fabric-covered wooden structures; the moveable portions were fabric- covered metal structures.

The fuselage is limited to a 15,000-hour life, while the wing and empennage have 20,000-hour life limits.

The fuselage does not have any wings attach to it, but is does have a vertical rudder attached to the empennage.

Most large transport aircraft use this system to store fuel in the wings, fuselage and empennage of the aircraft.Whitford 2004, p. 153.

Square empennage, round wing tips. 643 produced. ;Halifax C.VI :Halifax B.VI bombers converted into military transport aircraft. ;Halifax GR.VI :Coastal Command variant.

The DHC-2 fuselage, empennage, and cabin structure were separated from one another, and the right wing showed damage consistent with propeller impacts.

When the Korean War broke out in 1950, Rawdon Brothers Aircraft received several government contracts to supply wing panels, empennage members and pilot seats.

The empennage of a Boeing 747-200 The empennage ( or ), also known as the tail or tail assembly, is a structure at the rear of an aircraft that provides stability during flight, in a way similar to the feathers on an arrow.Crane, Dale: Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition, p. 194. Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. Aviation Publishers Co. Limited, From the Ground Up, p.

The Breguet 27 was designed in response to a 1928 request for proposals by the Armée de l'Air. Breguet submitted a large all-metal sesquiplane with an unusual fuselage that ended abruptly, aft of the two open cockpits. The empennage was mounted on a boom behind the fuselage. Construction was largely of steel tubing with non- structural aluminium alloy sheeting and fabric covering for wings and empennage.

7GCA with smaller wings, redesigned empennage, other aerodynamic refinements, deletion of rear-seat flight controls, and minor detail changes.Aircraft Specification A-759 2011, p. 10. 4 built.

Aircraft empennage designs may be classified broadly according to the fin and tailplane configurations. The overall shapes of individual tail surfaces (tailplane planforms, fin profiles) are similar to wing planforms.

The only empennage-mounted control surfaces are the single-piece rudder and two airbrakes located in the upper rear part of the fuselage, one each on either side of the fin.

Single-point pressure refueling is also provided, expediting turnarounds. De Havilland Canada builds the LJ45's wings, and Bombardier subsidiary Short Brothers of Belfast, Northern Ireland, builds the fuselage and empennage.

10 (27th revised edition) The term derives from the French language word empenner which means "to feather an arrow". Most aircraft feature an empennage incorporating vertical and horizontal stabilising surfaces which stabilise the flight dynamics of yaw and pitch, as well as housing control surfaces. In spite of effective control surfaces, many early aircraft that lacked a stabilising empennage were virtually unflyable. Even so-called "tailless aircraft" usually have a tail fin (usually a vertical stabiliser).

The X-14 was designed using existing parts from two Beechcraft aircraft: wings, ailerons, and landing gear of a Beech Bonanza and the tailcone and empennage of a Beech T-34 Mentor.

No one was injured. On 18 May 2020, GKN Aerospace announced their partnership with Eviation on the design and manufacture of the wing, empennage and electrical wiring interconnection system of subsequent Alice airframes.

Close-up bow view of the gondola in 1906 Directional stability was achieved by four fixed vanes, two vertical and two horizontal, attached at the rear of the gas-bag, and by a long vertical vane running along the main axis of the gas-bag from the centre of the elliptical frame to its rear. Horizontal motion was controlled by the movement of a balanced rudder at the rear of an empennage on a long boom, mounted below the gas-bag and aft of the gondola (see lead image). The empennage consisted of vertical and horizontal vanes arranged like the fletching of an arrow, behind which the vertical rudder was mounted. During a refit in 1907 the vertical vanes of the empennage were modified, as is shown in the accompanying illustration.

After further changes to the empennage and Townend ring, the aircraft was then highly maneuverable and was found satisfactory. The Air Force however was not interested and the plane was not built in series.

The empennage is conventional, with a braced tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage. The landing gear is a forward skid with elastic dampers and a single, fixed wheel aft of the centre of gravity.

France played a pioneering role in the fields of aviation (nacelle, empennage, fuselage, aileron, altimeter, canard, decalage, monocoque, turbine) and automobile engineering or design (chassis, piston, arbor, grille, tonneau, berline, sedan, limousine, cabriolet, coupé, convertible).

Two floats under a lower wing. Conventional braced empennage. Two 150 hp radial engines Hispano-Suiza 8E. Armament: two twin 7.7 mm Lewis machine guns and 4 bombs up to 25 kg below a lower wing.

Data from Sailplanes 1945-1965 ;Orao: Prototype. ;Orao II: Minor changes; chiefly the removal of dihedral from the tailplane. ;Orao IIC: Major modifications to ailerons, flaps, lower fuselage shape, canopy and empennage. At least 2 built.

A stabilizer can feature a fixed or adjustable structure on which any movable control surfaces are hinged, or it can itself be a fully movable surface such as a stabilator. Depending on the context, "stabilizer" may sometimes describe only the front part of the overall surface. In the conventional aircraft configuration, separate vertical (fin) and horizontal (tailplane) stabilizers form an empennage positioned at the tail of the aircraft. Other arrangements of the empennage, such as the V-tail configuration, feature stabilizers which contribute to a combination of longitudinal and directional stabilization and control.

The regulations implemented in section 25.631 specified that the entire aircraft, not just the empennage, had to be designed to withstand a bird strike, but instead of an eight-pound bird, it specified only a four-pound bird.

14 (27th revised edition) The aircraft's cockpit voice recorder, flight data recorder and emergency locator transmitter (ELT) are often located in the empennage, because the aft of the aircraft provides better protection for these in most aircraft crashes.

Wooden construction cantilever empennage, covered with plywood (stabilizers) and canvas (rudder and elevators). A pilot in an open cockpit, had a windshield. Conventional fixed landing gear, with a rear skid. Four- cylinder air-cooled inverted straight engine PZInż.

The twin-boom configuration is distinct from the twin fuselage type in having a separate, short fuselage housing the pilot and payload. It has been adopted to resolve various design problems with the conventional empennage for aircraft in different roles.

Flown December 1960. ;IS-13: Wooden fuselage, wings and empennage. Small changes to tail and a smoother fuselage underside line. Flown December 1960. ;IS-13a: Longer span, all-metal wing only long. Best gliding angle of 35:1. Flown 1965.

A short-coupled aircraft or close-coupled aircraft is an aircraft with a relatively short distance between the wing and empennage (tail assembly) or whatever is used to provide the force that is used to balance the aircraft along its longitudinal axis. Due to the short moment arm, the empennage has to produce a greater force than usual - often by being larger than for a conventional aircraft, otherwise the aircraft will be sensitive to pilot- induced oscillation. All tandem wing aircraft and many flying wings are short- coupled. Examples include the Flying Flea and the Saab Viggen.

Data from Ellison ; Crested Wren : The first of the series. Only one built, often known as the Red Wren and later registered as BGA 178. ; Willow Wren : Refined version with modified empennage and rear fuselage allowing internal elevator control wires. Deeper cockpit.

Wooden construction high-wing cantilever monoplane, conventional in layout. Fuselage rectangular in cross- section, plywood covered. Single-spar one-part wing of a trapezoid shape, covered with canvas and plywood in front. Cantilever empennage, covered with plywood (stabilizers) and canvas (rudder and elevators).

CH-92 is a fixed-wing UAV in conventional layout with V-tail and tricycle landing gear. Propulsion is provided by a propeller driven by a pusher engine mounted at the empennage. CH-92 is mainly intended for reconnaissance and surveillance missions.

CH-901 is a fixed-wing UAV in conventional layout with cylindrical fuselage and high-wing configuration. Propulsion is provided by a two-blade propeller driven by a pusher engine mounted at the end of empennage. CH-901 is designed as an UCAV.

In December, 2015 N1387V underwent a wing restoration with old fabric removed, minor repairs performed, and completed new fabric and paint. N1387V flew during the 2016 season. In October 2016 an extensive restoration of the fuselage and empennage began and is still underway.

51 and rebuilding the fuselage and empennage along similar lines to the SV.4.Jouhaud 1999, p.56 Marketed first as the SV.18M (Modification) tourer, then further modified and marketed as the SV.18MA (Modification Armée) fighter-trainer, no further production ensued.

An intermediate flying test-bed, the single Yeoman 175 was converted from CA-6 Wackett airframe C/N 257 for trials of a new all-metal empennage, and had the swept fin of later Cropmasters but retained the Warner Scarab radial engine and fabric-covered aft fuselage of the Wackett. A proposed variant with tricycle undercarriage was the YA-1B, none were built. A cut-away drawing of the YA-1B was included in a Yeoman Aviation brochure. The YA-1B design proposal also included an early version of the design for the all-metal empennage, with a more upright tail-fin than was actually produced.

Ailerons occupy about half the span; inboard, slotted flaps fill the rest. Both ailerons and flaps are fabric covered. The fuselage and empennage have a wooden structure and carbon fibre skin. The engine is 73.5 kW (98.6 hp) Rotax 912S flat-four, driving a variable pitch propeller.

Wooden construction braced empennage, covered with plywood (stabilizers) and canvas (rudder and elevators). Crew of two, sitting in tandem, with twin controls and individual windshields. Conventional fixed landing gear, with a rear wheel, or twin floats (RWD 17W). Initially, the RWD 17 was powered by a PZInż.

It was something of a throwback, featuring a pusher propeller and boom-mounted empennage in the manner of an earlier era. The arrangement was intended to allow fitting of an upwards-firing 2-pounder recoilless gun in the forward fuselage. Neither type progressed beyond the prototype stage.

Wooden construction single-engine high-wing cantilever monoplane, conventional in layout. The fuselage rectangular in cross-section, narrowing in upper part, plywood covered. Single-spar one-part trapezoid wings, covered with canvas and plywood in front. Cantilever empennage, covered with plywood (stabilizers) and canvas (rudder and elevators).

NUAA hand held miniature UAV is a miniature UAV that can be hand launched. The UAV is in conventional layout with twin tails but without any tailplanes. Externally resembles a miniature jet, the UAV is moved by a propeller driven electrical pusher engine mounted at the empennage.

The wreckage did not give any indication of an attempt to go around. The only part of the aircraft which remained partially intact was the empennage. At 17:05, Aeritalia Torre called I-ELCE, but received no response. Of the 31 people on board, none survived.

The main changes in the Technoavia SM-94 series, besides the increase in fuselage capacity, were including all-metal wings and empennage with all surfaces re-profiled to give a squarer appearance, a three-blade propeller, increased tankage and two-piece windscreen replacing the original multipane design.

In , though, another airliner census still described a Yak-46-1 version with D-727 underwing engines followed by a Yak-46-2 with D-27 aft-mounted engines in a T-tail empennage configuration. Because of engine development issues, neither of the planes would fly before the year .

The aerodynamic design of its wing and empennage, and design of the interior were performed by Gulfstream; detailed design was performed by IAI to Gulfstream's requirements. It is a Gulfstream designed aircraft under a new type certificate."Gulfstream Scores Double Win with G280, G650 Certification". AIN Online, October 2012.

These were mounted on a tapered tailplane with significant dihedral, carrying tabbed, tapered elevators. The rear fuselage extended beyond the empennage, providing a housing for the retractable talwheel. In the unarmed reconnaissance bomber first prototype FC.20, the side-by-side cockpit was placed above the wing leading edge.

The empennage was fabric covered, straight edged with angled tips; the fin and tailplane had narrower chord than the generous control surfaces and slight sweep on their leading edges. The rudder, which reached down to the bottom of the fuselage, moved within a cut-out in the elevators.

A sprung landing skid was mounted below. The empennage was conventional, with a cantilever, tapered tailplane and elevators mounted on top of the fuselage and a fin carrying a full, rounded, deep, rudder hinged behind the elevators. The fixed surfaces were ply-covered and the control surfaces fabric-covered.

The empennage is conventional, with the tailplane set at mid-fuselage; its elevators are balanced and fitted with trim tabs. The fin is straight-edged but the short, broad, balanced rudder is curved. The Aeroneer has a tailwheeel undercarriage. Its mainwheels are on parallel, forward-raked oleo strut legs.

There was a single-seat, open cockpit under the wing. The empennage was wire-braced and fabric-covered. The leading edge of the tailplane, which was mounted on top of the fuselage, was straight and swept. It carried straight-edged elevators which had rounded tips and were balanced.

S.275 :First flying in 1934, this version had a modified aerofoil and empennage, and was powered by a 515 kW (690 hp) Gnome-Rhône 9Krse; did not enter production. ;M.S.278 :Conversion of the M.S.225 equipped with a 388 kW (520 hp) Clerget 14Fcs diesel engine.Orbis 1985, p. 2555.

At least one other Hydroplum was built from plans provided by him. Soon after the Paris show Tisserand began modifying the design to make it suitable for homebuilding from commercially produced kits, deciding that it should become a two seater with glass fibre fuselage and wings, though the empennage remained wood.

The project is perceived as the follow-on development to the now-canceled Cessna Citation Columbus. Its fuselage cross-section (83.25 inch circular section) is the same as the Cessna Citation Latitude. The aircraft has a T-tail empennage and area rule fuselage contouring. The aluminum wings incorporate moderate winglets.

Wooden construction low-wing cantilever monoplane, conventional in layout, with a fixed landing gear and a closed cockpit. The fuselage was semi- monocoque, plywood-covered. Single-piece trapezoid wings with rounded tips, two-spar, plywood (in front) and canvas covered. Conventional cantilever empennage, plywood (fins) and canvas (elevators and rudder) covered.

Together with NPO Molniya, Khrunichev has also proposed a reusable URM-1 booster named Baikal. The URM-1 would be fitted with a wing, an empennage, a landing gear, a return flight engine and attitude control thrusters, to enable the rocket to return to an airfield after completing its mission.

The horizontal tail was mounted on the tailfin above the fuselage. This feature avoided empennage buffet when the dive brakes were open. The placement of the engine exhausts was unusual, being almost aft of the cockpit. It was hoped that this feature would significantly decrease drag.Francillon 1995, pp. 238–239.

Apart from its variable incidence tailplane, mounted at mid-height on the fuselage, the empennage was conventional, with a rounded fin and rudder. It had a fixed, tailwheel undercarriage with both landing legs and wheels in aircraft fairings. The SFCA Lignel 46 first flew on 13 August 1947. Two were completed.

At the rear the cantilever tailplane was mounted above the fuselage on the fin; like the ailerons the elevators were tab assisted. Fixed empennage surfaces were ply-covered and the control surfaces fabric-covered. A detachable, two-wheeled trolley was used for take-off and a sprung skid for landings.

The V-10 had a conventional empennage, with a slightly tapered tailplane mounted at mid- fuselage height and fitted with inset elevators. Its tall, nearly vertical, blunt-topped fin carried a rectangular inset rudder. These rear surfaces had wooden structures and were plywood covered. It had a simple, fixed tailskid undercarriage.

A lighter three- bladed propeller from a P-39Q-10 was mounted and the necessary changes to the empennage were made. L-39-2 incorporated these adjustments from the start. L-39-1 later went to NACA at Langley for wind tunnel testing, where much valuable data were gathered.Phillips, William Hewitt.

Control surfaces and the empennage were fabric-covered stainless steel. The Lycoming power plant was hand-cranked inertia starting, and was fitted with a Hamilton Standard constant speed propeller. At least 12 ambulance conversions were fitted with Edo 49-4000 floats (4,000-pound displacement)Merriam 2002, p. 27. for amphibious landings and takeoffs.

Wooden construction single-engine high-wing cantilever monoplane, conventional in layout. The fuselage was rectangular in cross section (triangular in upper part), plywood- covered. Two-spar wings, covered with canvas, in front with plywood, were folding rearwards, unlike other early RWDs. Cantilever empennage, covered with plywood (stabilizers) and canvas (rudder and elevators).

The wing's wooden structure was plywood covered at the leading edge and fabric covered aft. Slotted flaps were fitted. Two parallel, rectangular section tail booms, mounted at the wing centre section-outer panel junctions, carried the empennage. Like the wings, the tail surfaces had wooden structures and were plywood and fabric covered.

Retrieved: December 15, 2007. The 747SP, compared to earlier variants, had a tapering of the aft upper fuselage into the empennage, a double-hinged rudder, and longer vertical and horizontal stabilizers.Kane 2003, p. 546. Power was provided by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7(A/F/J/FW) or Rolls- Royce RB211-524 engines.

A refined version of the Sablatnig SF-1, the SF-2 featured a new empennage and was fitted with a radio transmitter.Gray & Thetford 1962, p.539Nowarra 1966, p.78 The prototype (serial 580) had a smaller tail-fin and rudder than the SF-1, but production examples added a large ventral fin.

The impact caused some parts of the ATR 72 to detach from its body. Flight 222 then flew out of the forest and into Xixi Village. The aircraft then impacted and destroyed several houses in the village. The force of the impact severely damaged the aircraft, separating the outer right wing, vertical stabilizer, and empennage.

The tapered horizontal tail, with inset elevators, was mounted on the top of the fuselage largely ahead of the fin. Construction of the empennage was similar to that of the wing. The Rafale had a fixed tailskid undercarriage. Its wheels were on vertical legs from the wings and were largely enclosed within magnesium spats.

The Baby was a single bay biplane with stagger. The wings were wooden structures with two spars and fabric covering; the upper wing had 1° of dihedral and the lower one 3°. There were ailerons on both wings, with aluminium frames and again fabric covered. The fuselage and empennage were fabric covered, welded steel structures.

1 In 1934, a version with a revised empennage, the AeMO.1, was developed as an observation machine; 41 examples of which were delivered from July onwards. Some of these were armed with a trainable .303 Vickers machine gun in the observer's cockpit, and some with twin synchronised machine guns in the forward fuselage.

Six AeMOe.1s followed, for crew training in the Observation role, which were generally similar in design but featuring a NACA cowling for the engine, and then the definitive AeMOe.2 version appeared in 1937 with a further refined empennage, 61 examples of which were built. AeMS.1 prototype Also based on the AeMOe.

The fuselage, airfoils, wings and empennage were completely new, as well as many systems, e.g. the electrical ballast management. The structure employed a large amount of the then still exotic carbon fibre. The OSTIV Award-winning safety cockpit made use of an organic shape, tall sidewalls, crumple zones and exotic aramid fibres for crash protection.

The Junior was a conventional, high-wing monoplane with two seats in tandem in an open cockpit and fixed, tailskid undercarriage. An optional enclosed canopy was also available.Aero Digest, April 1935. The wings were of wooden construction while the fuselage and empennage were built from welded steel tube, with the whole aircraft skinned in fabric.

Império SP1 is of a high-wing, constant chord pusher configuration with a twin-tail boom empennage and of carbon and glass fiber and cork composite construction. It has a wing span of 5 meters, is equipped with a 3W engine of 157cc and 17 horsepower, and has as a 20 kg sensor payload capacity.

Behind the engine the fuselage had a tapering, rectangular section. There were two open cockpits in tandem, fitted with dual controls. Both were under the wing, though there was a small cut-out in the trailing edge over the rear position. The empennage was conventional, with a slightly rounded fin and deep rectangular rudder.

The rudder is typically mounted on the trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer, part of the empennage. When the pilot pushes the left pedal, the rudder deflects left. Pushing the right pedal causes the rudder to deflect right. Deflecting the rudder right pushes the tail left and causes the nose to yaw to the right.

The Letov Š-20 was a conventional, single-bay biplane with unstaggered wings, braced by N-struts. In overall appearance, it greatly resembled contemporary SPAD fighters. The fuselage and empennage were of welded steel tube construction and covered in fabric. The wings had a tubular metal spar but were otherwise wooden, and also fabric- covered.

The fuselage and empennage have a steel alloy structure. The fin and rudder are swept and the horizontal tail placed slightly above the upper fuselage line; the fin and tailplane are wire braced together. The port elevator carries a trim tab. There is side-by-side seating for two under the wing leading edge.

Three position (0°, 10° and 40°) flaps are fitted. The square sided fuselage has a stainless steel truss structure and is fabric covered apart from the glass fibre engine cowling and cabin roof. The two upward hinged cabin doors are entirely transparent blisters for optimum visibility. The empennage is formed from steel tubes with fibreglass ribs, all fabric covered.

The upper wing was staggered forward, and connected with a lower wing by N-shaped struts and a slanted transverse strut, without wires. The empennage was of wooden construction, canvas covered. The two-man crew sat in tandem in open cockpits. The rear observer's cockpit could be fitted with a ring machine gun mounting in case of serial production.

The aircraft made an initial contact with terrain when its right wing clipped a tree. It then impacted the ground, and the force of the impact broke the airplane apart. The right wing, empennage, left wing, parts of the fuselage and two engines separated. The plane then burst into flames, engulfing the cockpit and forward fuselage.

The empennage of the CAT 15 was very similar to that of the Zögling, with a triangular tailplane mounted on the upper beam of the girder carrying rectangular elevators with a large cut-out to allow movement of the near-rectangular, deep, balanced rudder. The glider landed on a sprung skid reaching from the nose to the trailing edge.

Wooden construction low-wing cantilever monoplane, conventional in layout, with a fixed landing gear and a closed cockpit. Fuselage semi-monocoque, plywood-covered, duralumin in front engine section. Single-part trapezoid wings with rounded tips, two-spar, plywood (in front) and canvas covered, fitted with split flaps. Conventional cantilever empennage, plywood (fins) and canvas (elevators and rudder) covered.

The empennage was conventional, with a low aspect ratio tailplane and generous elevators mounted on top of the fuselage. The fin was triangular, with a rounded rudder. The 6W-3 had conventional, fixed, tailskid landing gear with wheels on a single axle held by twin V-struts to the lower fuselage longerons. Rubber cord shock absorbers were fitted.

The fuselage tapered smoothly aft to a conventional empennage with a straight-tapered tailplane mounted on top and a curved fin, both ply-covered. The control surfaces were fabric-covered; the rudder was large and rounded and the elevators were semi-elliptical and assisted with inboard Flettner tabs. The PWS-101 landed on a sprung skid.

The empennage (tail assembly) featured relatively small and well-balanced horizontal and vertical surfaces.Spenser 1987, p. 12. The design team also attempted to minimize changes in the aircraft's trim at varying speeds, thus reducing the pilot's workload. They were so successful in this regard that they found in-flight-adjustable aileron and rudder trim tabs were not necessary.

It can operate on land, water and snow-civered surfaces. Its high cantilever wings are trapezoidal in plan and can be removed for transport. Its empennage is cruciform, with the horizontal tail part-way up a triangular fin and rudder. A Rotax 912 ULS flat- four engine is mounted on a necked pylon over the wing in tractor configuration.

Its empennage was conventional, with a semi-elliptical tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage and braced from below on each side by a single strut. Its angle of incidence was ground-adjustable. It carried parallel chord elevators with a cut-out for rudder movement. The fin, small and roughly triangular, mounted a straight-edged, upright balanced rudder.

The empennage of both variants was wood-framed and fabric-covered. The horizontal tail was rectangular in plan out to rounded tips, with a tailplane mounted on the upper longeron carrying elevators with cut-outs for rudder movement. A near-rectangular fin, which stretched down to the lower longeron, carried a broad, curved and slightly pointed balanced rudder.

3M Ranger (You-Xia or Youxia, 游侠) UAV is a fixed-wing micro air vehicle (MAV) developed by Sparkie Tech. 3M Ranger is in flying wing layout with winglets. Propulsion is provided by a two-blade propeller driven pusher engine mounted at the empennage. 3M Ranger is designed to be launched by hand for rapid deployment.

The materials were also selected because they could be obtained at a typical hardware store of the day. Power is derived from the ubiquitous air- cooled Volkswagen automobile engine with modifications laid out by the designer in the plans. The fuselage is a monocoque design. The empennage consists of a single vertical tail with a hinged rudder.

The bracing was altered, the span reduced, the empennage modified and the cockpit brought forward. Named Szent György II, this aircraft first flew on 3 September 1933. The two gliders flew for another 18 months, their best recorded flight lasting 52 minutes. After that the concerns about structural strength surfaced again and the two gliders were officially grounded.

The Airone was an attempt to produce a training glider similar to the BS.8 Biancone but with a better glide ratio. It used the wings of the Biancone but had the more refined fuselage of the BS.10 Ardea. The wing bracing and the empennage was new. The wing was a wooden two spar structure, largely fabric covered.

As a result of the accident, the FAA reviewed data from other bird strike incidents and performed bird strike testing on several types of jet aircraft. The investigators concluded that most types of aircraft were inherently bird resistant, but a few types, including the type that crashed, were vulnerable in the empennage area. In 1968, the FAA proposed the addition of a rule requiring airplanes to be capable of safe flight and landing after an impact on the empennage by an bird at cruising speed. The agency received a number of comments, some suggesting that the eight-pound bird limit was insufficient, and would not have prevented the crash of United Airlines Flight 297, others suggesting that the wings of aircraft were also vulnerable, not just the tail section.

By increasing the wing chord and the leading edge droop, the wing cuff improved handling during approach and landing, while the wing-to-body fairing reduced the interference drag between the wing and the fuselage. Since the engines were new for this aircraft, a new engine pylon had to be designed. The lines of the cockpit have not changed but the fuselage was lengthened. In addition, the blend between the fuselage and the empennage was all new. While it appears as if area ruling was the intention of the blending, the blend design was really driven by attaching the original Learjet Model 35 empennage onto the larger Learjet Model 60 fuselage. The final aerodynamic improvements to the Model 60 included the creation of the distinctive "ogive" winglet trailing edge.

The MB.160 had conventional empennage, with the tailplane and elevators mounted near the top of the fuselage. Together, they were tapered and round tipped; the elevators, like the rudder, had trim tabs. The latter was straight-edged and balanced. Though it extended to the keel, it was hinged non-vertically so was far enough back to clear the elevators.

The empennage was conventional. The RL.21 had a tailwheel undercarriage with spatted main wheels on cantilever legs, mounted on the wings approximately below the ends of the wing struts. Leduc built the RL.21 over a period of six years with assistance from Sud Aviation and from the Nantes Technical School. It flew for the first time in August 1960.

Like the Ostrovia I, the Ostrovia II had a rectangular section fuselage based on four longerons and was ply covered. Its two open cockpits were in tandem and fitted with dual control. Originally the empennage was square tipped, with ply covered fin and rudder but with fabric-covered horizontal surfaces. Later these angular surfaces were revised to have rounded tips.

The Kora was a two-seat side by side motorglider, intended as a trainer. Its long span, high aspect ratio wing gave it a respectable gliding performance. The overall layout was unusual, with a central pod fuselage in front of a pusher configuration engine and with its empennage on twin tail booms. It had a powered aircraft style tricycle undercarriage.

Heavier-than-air aircraft without any kind of empennage (such as the Northrop B-2) are rare, and generally use specially shaped airfoils whose trailing edge provide pitch stability, and rearwards swept wings, often with dihedral to provide the necessary yaw stability. In some aircraft with swept wings, the airfoil section or angle of incidence may change radically towards the tip.

Cruise missiles generally consist of a guidance system, payload, and aircraft propulsion system, housed in an airframe with small wings and empennage for flight control. Payloads usually consist of a conventional warhead or a nuclear warhead. Cruise missiles tend to be propelled by jet engine, with turbofan engines in particular being preferred due to their greater efficiency at low altitude and subsonic speed.

The fuselage and empennage was built in a similar way. In the nose a Renault 6Q-03, an air-cooled, inverted six cylinder inline engine supercharged to was mounted on steel tube bearings. Behind the engine the engine the fuselage had an oval section. The cockpit was behind the wing trailing edge; though primarily a single seat aircraft a passenger could be accommodated.

The fuel tank was in the wing centre section, feeding the engine by gravity. Further aft, pilot and passenger sat side by side in the wide fuselage; tandem controls could be fitted if required. The empennage was simple in shape and action as there were no fixed surfaces, only an all-moving rudder and elevator. Both control surfaces were balanced.

Both variants had a small tailskid. The rear fuselage and empennage were the same in both variants. The horizontal tail, trapezoidal in plan, was mounted just above the fuselage on the base of the fin and on a long, shallow strake forward of it, placing the elevators ahead of the rudder. Both fin and rudder were approximately trapezoidal in profile.

Conventional empennage, covered with plywood (fins) and canvas (elevators and rudder). Two open cockpits in tandem, with individual windshields and twin controls. A safety cage of steel pipes was above the front cockpit (JD-2) or before the front cockpit (JD-2bis). It had a fixed conventional landing gear, sprung with a rubber rope, with a common axle and a rear skid.

F-15 tailhook. Most USAF tactical jet aircraft have tailhooks for emergency use. A tailhook, arresting hook, or arrester hook is a device attached to the empennage (rear) of some military fixed-wing aircraft. The hook is used to achieve rapid deceleration during routine landings aboard aircraft carrier flight decks at sea, or during emergency landings or aborted takeoffs at properly equipped airports.

The design, by Robert Nesmith, is a conventional high-wing, strut-braced monoplane with fixed tailwheel undercarriage. The pilot and a single passenger were seated side by side. The fuselage and empennage were of welded steel-tube construction, while the wings were of wood, and the whole aircraft was fabric- covered. Some later aircraft were fitted with a tricycle undercarriage.

7"The Nieuport Hydro-Aeroplane" 1913, p.430 A refined version was produced as the Nieuport VI.H with a revised empennage and other changes. This was operated by the French and British navies. A landplane version for military use was designated the Nieuport VI.M. Military Type VIs were built under licence in Italy by Nieuport-Macchi in Italy, and in Russia.

The aircraft was made of lightweight composite materials instead of the more common aluminum alloy. Another distinctive feature was the Y-shaped empennage. Two stabilizers pointed upward at an angle, similar to those on a V-tail aircraft, and a short vertical stabilizer pointed downward. However, unlike conventional V-tails, there was no pitch/yaw control mixing on the Lear Fan.

Tatra started making aircraft in 1935, building the Avro 626 Avian and Bücker Bü 131 Jungmann under licence. In 1937 the Tatra T.001 was the first aircraft designed and built by Tatra. The T.101 was a development of that aircraft, with an increased wingspan and a larger empennage than the T.001. Only one aircraft was built by Tatra, msn 01.

These were mounted with 2° of dihedral and 597 mm, almost 2 ft, of stagger. The gap between the upper and lower planes was , maintained by parallel pairs of aerofoil section struts and wire bracing. The unswept wings had a constant chord of with blunt wing tips and ailerons on both upper and lower planes. The Schoettler's empennage was also conventional.

It was first flown under its own power by Aleksander Onoszko on 13 September 1935. Over the next two days it was flown by Kazimierz Chorzewski in displays celebrating the start of the Warsaw-based 23rd Gordon-Bennett Championships. These flights revealed two significant problems: stability and engine vibration. The former was reduced by empennage modifications but the latter proved incurable.

Ingalls 1973, p. 108. The Army, willing to entertain the concept, authorized Lockheed to build two prototypes of the Model 33. The Model 33 was of ordinary light-aircraft design, with a low-mounted cantilever monoplane wing and conventional empennage; powered by a Franklin 2A4-49 engine, it was fitted with a fixed tricycle landing gear and proved to have STOL performance.

The wing weighs about , and it can carry and lift up to of fuel. It has an aspect ratio of 8.1, a wide chord of , and a sweep angle of 15 degrees at 25 percent mean aerodynamic chord. The A400M has a T-tail empennage. Its vertical stabilizer is tall, while the horizontal stabilizer spans with a sweep of 32.5 degrees.

The empennage had double tail fins. The undercarriage was a retractable tricycle gear with large-diameter wheels on the wing-mounted main gear. The planned armament consisted of guns in remotely operated turrets and in positions on the sides of the fuselage. Overall, it carried very little armour and few guns as a means of increasing fuel capacity and range.

WJ-500 is a jet powered UAV developed by CASIC intended for various missions, such as targeting, reconnaissance, target damage assessment, and simulation of cruise missiles and aircraft. WJ-500 has a cylindrical fuselage with inlet atop the empennage. Wing tip tank can be installed on the main wing. WJ-500 made its public debut in November 2014 at the 10th Zhuhai Airshow.

The IAR-35 also has a fixed, semi-recessed tailwheel and a skid under the nose. The wing tips are protected by small, sprung balance wheels. Its fuselage becomes more slender behind the wing, mounting a conventional empennage with tall, straight edged, swept vertical surfaces and a dorsal fillet. The rudder is statically balanced and has a vertical trailing edge.

At the rear the empennage was conventional, with a narrow chord, rectangular tailplane mounting broader, blunt ended, balanced, separate elevators. Its much larger, rounded vertical tail had a broad-chord fin and generous, balanced rudder which extended to the keel. Fin and tailplane were braced together with twin parallel wires on each side. The 80 R.2 had a conventional fixed, tailwheel undercarriage.

It was a minimalist, open framework design consisting of a three- wheeled chassis supporting a pilot seat and pusher engine installation, to which a rigid wing of aluminium structure and skin was attached by struts. A conventional empennage of fabric-covered aluminium construction was carried on a long boom aft of the wing, and supported with a strut to the chassis.

The empennage was conventional with metal structures and fabric covering. Its cantilever tailplane, mounted high on the fuselage, was rectangular in plan as were the elevators. The fin and balanced rudder had a triangular profile, with a vertical trailing edge. The Latécoère 14 had conventional, fixed landing gear with mainwheels on a streamlined single axle, fitted with rubber cord shock absorbers.

At the rear the empennage was fabric covered, with a tailplane without elevators and a conventional fin and rudder. Czerwiński made some dozen successful flights in the Kowel area but felt limited by the generally flat terrain there and presented his glider to ZASPL, the aviation students association of Lviv Polytechnic, who seem to have made no use of it.

These numbers are painted conspicuously on the aircraft's nose—or, on helicopters, sometimes on the aft portion of the fuselage or forward portion of the empennage. Modexes are also painted less conspicuously on other aircraft areas (i.e., fin tip, flaps, etc.). Shore- based aviation units use either two-digit or three-digit modexes, while carrier-based units always use three digits.

The Abeille had a pod and boom, all-metal fuselage. The nose was fully glazed with two side by side crew seats ahead of a cabin with a bench seat for three passengers. The engine and gearboxes were behind them. Aft, a high mounted boom carried the empennage, which on the first prototype consisted of a tall T-tail with a narrow fin.

The empennage, like the fuselage, was steel framed and fabric covered. Both fin and tailplane, the latter mounted at mid-fuselage height, had straight, swept leading edges and carried balanced control surfaces with straight, unswept rear edges and round tips. The rudder was deep, extending to the keel, and worked within an elevator cut-out. The Challenger had a fixed tailwheel undercarriage.

The O.2 was provided with dual controls, with the instruments in the front cockpit visible from the rear. Fuel tanks were also in the fuselage. The O.2's empennage was conventional. Its strut braced tailplane and separated, broad chord elevators were rectangular in plan and the vertical tail was straight-edged but tapered, with the rudder working between the elevators.

The Gyöngyös 33's six-sided fuselage was formed by a wooden frame and was plywood- covered. The pilot had an open cockpit ahead of the wing leading edge with the wing pylon immediately behind him. A rubber-sprung landing skid below him ran from the nose almost to the trailing edge. The fuselage tapered rearwards to a cantilever empennage.

This cockpit had semi-circular openings in the pylon fairing for sideways vision and was accessed via a port-side door. A short skid under the forward fuselage as fitted with rubber shock absorbers for landings. The empennage of the CW IV was conventional, with ply covered fixed surfaces and fabric covered control surfaces. A triangular fin carried a tall, rounded, balanced rudder.

The valves' operations were controlled by a "black box", a maze of valves, venturis, and pleated metal bellows. Incoming air was drawn through slits on the wing leading edge; discharged air exited below the empennage. Price received a United States patent for his work. After the prototype was working correctly, a contract was given to Garrett AiResearch in California to manufacture the components.

There were also windows in the fuselage sides for downward views. The fuselage had a wooden frame with canvas covered sides and curved magnesium sheet top and bottom. The empennage of the C.860 was conventional, with a straight-tapered, blunt-tipped horizontal tail carrying separate elevators. The tall vertical tail had a similar shape though, unlike the elevators, the rudder was balanced.

Fuel was fed from three tanks, two in the wings and one in the fuselage. The tail unit was conventional, with the tailplane just above the fuselage. The latter tapered in height rearwards, and the fin merged into it with a dorsal fillet. The empennage construction was similar to that of the wing, except that the control surfaces were fabric-covered.

Interior of a 328JET. Note the business jet configuration ;328JET: Turbofan-powered variant, formerly known as the 328-300. ;428JET: A 44-seat derivative that was under development at the time of the collapse of Fairchild-Dornier. ;Lockheed Martin X-55 Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft (ACCA): A Dornier 328J with its mid/aft fuselage and empennage replaced with advanced composite materials.

The R-XI was a mixed construction cantilever high-wing monoplane, single-engine, conventional in layout. It had a steel-framed, canvas-covered fuselage (engine part covered with duralumin) and a single- piece, plywood-covered, three-spar elliptical wing of wooden construction. The empennage was of steel construction, canvas covered. It had a conventional fixed landing gear, with a rear skid, base 2.7 m.

Photographs show them protected by two different windshield designs, one an inclined, one-piece screen and the other a inclined, two-piece swept unit strengthened by a horizontal, triangular sheet that gave better protection. This open cockpit could be quickly enclosed if necessary. Its three passengers sat on a long seat behind the crew. The Maid's empennage was angular, with a triangular fin and rectangular balanced rudder.

The aircraft was powered by a pair of General Electric YJ101-GE-100 turbofans, a development of the GE15, mounted next to each other to minimize thrust asymmetry in the event of an engine loss. For ease of maintenance, the engines are mounted in a steady-rest that allows removal from below the aircraft, without disturbing the empennage controls. Each engine drove an independent hydraulic system.

Unusually, the pilot was provided with dual engine controls, one on each side of the cockpit. Like the fuselage, the empennage was built up from welded chromium-molybdenum alloy steel and covered in fabric with the elevators being adjustable in flight from the cockpit. The biplane wings were built up around two solid spruce spars with built-up plywood ribs forming the airfoil section.Juptner, 1964, p.

Glass, A. (1977) The first prototype of the PWS-11 was flown in November 1929 at Biała Podlaska by Franciszek Rutkowski. Its handling characteristics were lacking and as a result, its empennage underwent several modifications. The second prototype of 1930, designated the PWS-11bis was much improved. The rectangular section fuselage was replaced by an oval one and an engine was fitted with a Townend ring.

The Dowty Rotol propellers had four round-tip composite blades and of ground clearance. Its empennage was enlarged for stability at higher speeds and altitudes, and its fuselage was strengthened. Pressurization was increased to to elevate its ceiling from while maintaining a cabin. The aircraft's top speed is and was faster than the Citation I on most trips while burning one-third less fuel.

It has low aspect ratio straight tapered wings with blunt, almost square tips. Ailerons are assisted by external spades. The empennage is also straight tapered, with a forward set tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage, far enough forward on the fin to require only a small cut-out for movement of the deep rudder. Both elevators have trim tabs and the rudder is horn balanced.

The view from the forward cockpit, placed around quarter-chord, was good and the instructor's view from the rear cockpit was improved with windows in the underside wing roots. The B-4's empennage was conventional, framed like the wings and fabric covered. The tailplane was mounted at mid-fuselage height; its angle of incidence could be varied in-flight for trimming. It carried split, unbalanced elevators.

In the C.19 Mk IV, the rotor was started directly from the engine via a clutch mechanism, as in all future autogyros. This allowed the elaborate biplane empennage to be replaced by a more conventional monoplane tailplane. The single central fin was low and of correspondingly deep chord, to avoid being struck by the rotor. The C.19 Mk IV had a three-bladed, cantilever rotor.

A rear- facing glazed enclosure over the wing trailing edge held the rear gunner/radio operator. A transverse metal structure within the fuselage connected it to the two pairs of wing struts. There was another metal frame aft for mounting the empennage, a braced wooden structure mounted on top of the fuselage. The tailplane had significant dihedral and carried twin oval fins and rudders.

Mk IV variant powered by Merlin X engines made by fitting Merlin X engines on last Mk IV's on production line: seven built. ;Mk V :A.W. Type 207. The main wartime production version based on the Mk IV, modified straight- edged fins, leading edge de-icing, tail fuselage aft or empennage extended by 15 in (381 mm) to improve the tail gunner's field of fire.

The airbrakes were wing mounted spoilers for losing speed. Like the wings the empennage was all-wood; the cantilever tailplane was set low on the fuselage. The Flamingo's fuselage had a welded steel tube structure, skinned forward with light alloy and aft with laminated plastic. Its two rows of seats were enclosed under a three part canopy which merged at the rear into the raised fuselage.

Only the outer panels had dihedral. The inner section had airbrakes just behind the spar. The empennage of the glider was conventional, with its tapered and round-tipped tailplane and elevator ahead of the rudder The latter was broad, balanced and rounded, mounted on a small fin. Apart from having different cross-sections, the fuselages of the two models built differed only in cockpit and undercarriage details.

Airbus A350-941 in SkyTeam special livery. SkyTeam launched a special livery in 2009, coinciding with the alliance's anniversary, with Delta Air Lines being the first airline to paint one of its aircraft with these colours. The livery consisted of an all- metallic silver fuselage and a dark blue empennage with SkyTeam's logo on it. The alliance emblem is painted on both sides of the fuselage.

The pilot was not injured. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the horizontal stabilizer, right elevator, and empennage. The cause of the landing gear failure was the rupture of a hydraulic line due to repeated contact with the aileron cable. On December 31, 2004, a single-engine Cessna 210N, N6195N, operating as Flight Express 106 (FLX106), crashed into the Florida Everglades, west of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The canopy and part of the surrounding upper fuselage was removed for access. There was a shallow landing skid under most of the pod. Take-offs were made from a four-wheeled dolly, left behind after launch. A slender, light magnesium alloy (electron metal) tube ran aft from the top of the pod, carrying the empennage, which had ply covered fixed surfaces and fabric covered control surfaces.

Van's RV-14 cutaway showing its airframe The mechanical structure of an aircraft is known as the airframe. This structure is typically considered to include the fuselage, undercarriage, empennage and wings, and exclude the propulsion system. Airframe design is a field of aerospace engineering that combines aerodynamics, materials technology and manufacturing methods with a focus on weight, strength and aerodynamic drag, as well as reliability and cost.

The wings carried no stagger and were of equal span, though the lower wing was narrower. There were horn balanced ailerons on all wings. The empennage was of biplane configuration with a balanced elevator on the upper plane and containing three balanced rudders. The square section fuselage placed the pilot's cockpit well forward of the engines and a third gunner's position in the extreme, slanted nose.

Most metal light aircraft are constructed using this process. Both monocoque and semi-monocoque are referred to as "stressed skin" structures as all or a portion of the external load (i.e. from wings and empennage, and from discrete masses such as the engine) is taken by the surface covering. In addition, all the load from internal pressurization is carried (as skin tension) by the external skin.

The U.S. Navy also decided to get into the reconnaissance drone business for a while. They ordered a batch of Model 147SCs modified for ship launch using a RATO booster. Navy Lightning Bugs were designated Model 147SK and were generally similar to the 147SC, except for the RATO bottle brace on lower rear fuselage/empennage and having a wingspan. First operational flight was in November 1969.

Last 11 aircraft converted to TB-32-5CF with deletion of all armament (openings faired over), deletion of radar bombing equipment, and deletion of long range navigation equipment, 15 built. ;TB-32-10-CF :Redesigned bombardier's entrance door, replacement of SCR-269-G Radio compass with AN/ARN-7 set, installation of engine fire extinguishers, 25 built. ;TB-32-15-CF :Empennage de-icer boots, four built.

As such, it features a revised underfloor structure, larger side-mounted doors and more windows in the main cabin area. A maximum of 36 passenger can be accommodated, without making any provision for baggage. ;CL-215T: In 1987, the CL-215T was announced, with improvements in handling brought about by design changes to the wings and empennage, and more powerful Pratt & Whitney turboprop engines.

Flight testing began at Villacoublay late in April 1929 but the first flight revealed a serious vibration problem in the rear fuselage and empennage. The Wib 210 was modified and returned to the air at the end of the next month. Its flight reports were not encouraging and vibration remained an issue when speeds greater than were reached in shallow dives. In consequence development ended.

The FF.27 was a two- seat floatplane of mixed construction which had a single NAG 6-cyl 135hp piston engine mounted in the center nacelle. The tail empennage extended out from the fuselage via twin metal booms and the FF.27 had of pair of floats mounted under the center wing section.Herris, J, 2016. Friedrichshafen Aircraft of WWI: A Centennial Perspective on Great War Airplanes.

It will employ two control surfaces per wing: flaperons for lift and control, and another lowered during vertical take offs. The main aerodynamic design of the NGCTR fuselage and empennage is derived from the AgustaWestland ERICA prototype, which has been optimised by a Consortium led by the University of Padova, who also was responsible of the design optimisation of engine intake and exhaust systems.

The Pipit's fuselage was constructed from stainless steel tubes braced with duralumin struts. The 495 hp (370 kW) Rolls-Royce F.XI watercooled V-12 was housed in a refined, streamlined aluminium cowling. Behind the cockpit the fuselage was fabric covered, as was the empennage, which had a stainless steel structure. The fin was tall and rounded, carrying a rudder which was neither aerodynamically nor dynamically balanced.

While this work was in progress, Bede continued to experiment with modifications to the empennage, eventually abandoning the V-tail for a more conventional rudder and horizontal stabilizer layout with highly swept surfaces. Further testing on N500BD showed flow interference between the horizontal surfaces and the propeller, and the stabilizer was raised six inches to correct it, placing it about midway up the rear fuselage.

Mixed construction low-wing cantilever monoplane, conventional in layout, with a fixed landing gear and a closed cockpit. Steel framed fuselage, covered with canvas on a wooden frame, aluminum in front engine section. Three-part trapezoid wings with rounded tips, of wooden construction, two-spar, plywood (in front) and canvas covered, fitted with split flaps and slats. Conventional cantilever empennage, plywood (fins) and canvas (elevators and rudder) covered.

Pratt wanted to use some truthful elements about this historical figure. For example, it is a question of glorious track record of this flying ace, officially credited with 80 air combat victories. Other elements are authentic, such as his custom of cutting empennage of the planes he shot down, to make trophies. It is also true that his aunt Frieda von Richthofen married the British novelist D. H. Lawrence.

The PWS-4 was a single-seater high-wing braced monoplane of wooden construction. The fuselage was a wooden frame, covered with plywood, apart from the engine section, which was covered with aluminium sheeting. The empennage structure was wood, with fabric covering. The rectangular wooden wings had two spars; were covered with plywood in front and fabric in the rear; and were supported with pairs of twin struts.

" Chunichi Shimbun, 2008. In addition to a level of commonality with the C-2, one proposed derivative of the P-1 is a civilian airliner, the proposed project has typically been referred to as the Kawasaki YPX. If development is pursued, the YPX would make extensive use of technology and components of the P-1, such as the wingbox, empennage, and fuselage."FARNBOROUGH 2008: Japan eyes slice of CSeries market.

The tail booms are slender and linked at the rear by the unusual inverted Vee empennage. The straight edged, fixed rear surfaces are constructed as the wing but the control surfaces are fabric covered, with spring tabs. The fs28 has a retractable tricycle undercarriage with glass fibre shock absorbers, mainwheel hydraulic brakes and a steerable nosewheel. The sole fs28, V-1, D-EAFS, made its first flight on 20 December 1972.

Its depth was greatest under the wing, where the pilot's shallow-windowed, enclosed cabin under the leading edge was accessed by a hatch in its roof. The Śląsk's fin was large and triangular and the narrow rudder broadened towards the keel. Its tailplane was mounted on top of the fuselage and braced from below with V-struts, carrying elevators with a gap for rudder movement. All empennage surfaces were fabric covered.

The empennage was similar to that of the BS.5 Ballerina, its surfaces straight tapered and square tipped. The balanced rudder was much larger in area than the fin and the horizontal tail was similarly proportioned with only enough tailplane to support the balanced elevators. it was braced just above the fuselage, with large cut outs to allow movement of the lower rudder. Only one Astore was built.

Rumpler C.III It was a development of the Rumpler C.I design incorporating many aerodynamic refinements, including wing planform, airfoil section, and horn-balanced ailerons,The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft, p.2833 revised empennage, and new rear fuselage decking with compound curves.Gray & Thetford 1962, p.522 This latter feature was later removed and replaced with a simplified structure, at which point the factory designation was changed to 6A 6.

Extensive use was made of aluminum honeycomb wing panels in the wings that bonded outer and inner aluminum skins to a honeycomb of aluminum and fiberglass. All control surfaces had tightly sealed gaps in order to reduce drag, and there were no wing flaps. In addition, the size of the empennage was redesigned so that the vertical stabilizer had nearly twice the area of that of the standard B-57B.

Ailerons provided lateral control. The empennage was supported by an open frame fuselage with longitudinal upper and lower pairs of longerons or booms, each side braced with four vertical strut pairs. At the rear, fixed and almost square horizontal tailplanes stretched between the upper and the lower pairs of booms. A pair of trapezoidal rudders were hinged on the last two verticals, assisted by another central one further forward.

The nacelle was extended forward to carry a front-mounted elevator mounted on upswept outriggers, and the empennage, consisting of a high-mounted tailplane and elevator with a pair of rudders mounted below, was carried on wire-braced wooden booms behind the wings. A pair of rectangular-section unstepped floats were mounted below the wing, supplemented by a pair of airbags mounted at the end of each lower tailboom.

As this happened, the ailerons drooped symmetrically. The slot-plus-interceptor combination was intended to prevent a stall turning into a spin and had been tested by Handley Page on a de Havilland Moth and later by Bristol on a Bulldog. Rudder and elevators were horn balanced, the latter carrying trim tabs. The wings, empennage and fuselage behind the cockpit were all fabric covered over a metal structure.

The empennage is conventional, with ply-covered fixed surfaces and fabric-covered control surfaces. The horizontal surfaces are placed close to the top of the fuselage, with the elevator hinge ahead of that for the rudder. The elevators have a cutout for rudder movement as the latter extends down to the keel. There is an in-flight-adjustable trim tab on the port elevator and a ground-adjustable one the rudder.

The empennage of the J-2 is conventional and cantilever, with the horizontal tail mounted on top of the fuselage; both fin and rudder are swept, the latter only slightly. The fixed surfaces are ply covered but control surfaces are fabric covered. The elevator has a trim tab. The fuselage of the J-2 is a three frame truss structure with a ply covered forward section and fabric covering aft.

The empennage is also straight tapered and of similar construction to the wing, though the rudder is fabric covered. There is a small dorsal fin. All rear control surfaces are horn balanced; the tailplane's incidence can be adjusted on the ground and the starboard elevator has a ground adjustable trim tab. The fuselage is a mostly fabric covered welded tube structure with wooden formers, though the upper decking is plywood.

The plywood skin continued aft, though the trailing edge and ailerons were fabric covered. Airbrakes were fitted at mid-chord on the innermost position on the outer panels, opening both above and below the wing but unusual in having a longer span lower blade. Camber changing flaps were mounted on the centre section. All of the fuselage and empennage apart from the rear control surfaces was ply skinned.

They are built from spruce and plywood around a single spar, with fabric covering, though the ailerons are plywood skinned. Aluminium Schempp-Hirth airbrakes are fitted. As with the wings, the construction methods used in the fuselage and empennage of the TN-1 are similar to those in the Tainan Mita 3 two-seater. The primary fuselage structure is formed from steel tubes, with wood stringers to shape the fabric covering.

The PWS 3 was a two-seater parasol wing braced monoplane of wooden construction. The fuselage was built around a box-section wooden boom, with a kind of superstructure of wood strips, covered with plywood in front and aircraft fabric fairing in the rear. The engine compartment was covered with duralumin sheeting. The empennage was wooden, with the fixed surfaces plywood covered and fabric on the control surfaces.

The earlier S.55 carried its empennage on a pair of open, flat, triangular girders constructed from tubes, one from each hull. The S.63 used a similar arrangement, allowing its single, unusually wide hull to be short. Its bottom had a shallow, concave V-section and a single step. Lateral stability on the water was provided by outward-leaning, V-bottomed floats mounted a little outside the centre- section.

Francillon, René J. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920: Volume I. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1988. . The Skyrocket featured wings with a 35-degree sweep and horizontal stabilizers with 40-degree sweep. The wings and empennage were fabricated from aluminum and the large fuselage was of primarily magnesium construction. The Skyrocket was powered by a Westinghouse J34-40 turbojet engine fed through side intakes in the forward fuselage.

The Extra 260 is based on the design of the Extra 230, and the two aircraft share many similarities. The Extra 260 has a welded steel tube fuselage covered in fabric with a carbon/glass hybrid composite empennage (i.e., the tail assembly, including the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, elevators, and rudder), and a bubble canopy. The monocoque wings have a Polish pine wood spar with birch plywood skins.

Its fuselage was ply-covered and hexagonal in cross section over much of its length but as it narrowed rearwards the vertical sides tapered away, leaving the cross section diamond shaped. The bottom was a box structure which mounted an ash landing skid. There was an open cockpit immediately ahead of the cabane. The glider's empennage was conventional, with a small fin carrying a broad, deep, curved, balanced rudder.

Others show it uncowled. The two crew sat in a cockpit at the wing leading edge, the wing itself raised a little above the general fuselage line on a low fairing over the cabin, which seated eight and was lit by long strips of transparencies on each side. Access was via a rear starboard side door. Like the rest of the fuselage the empennage was steel framed and fabric covered.

Following typical Fairchild construction, the fuselage and empennage were made of fabric-covered welded steel tubing while the main wings were a combination of spruce spars and stainless steel ribs, also fabric covered. The "stub" wings were of heavy steel construction. The retractable undercarriage (a first for a Canadian designed aircraft) also featured streamlined fairings when the aircraft was equipped with skis.Molson and Taylor 1982, p. 324–325.

The presidential aircraft uses the same color scheme as standard Rossiya aircraft, except for the use of the coat of arms of Russia or the Presidential Standard on the empennage instead of the standard flag of Russia. The interiors of the aircraft are inspired by Russian art. It was reported that Vladimir Putin had personally inspected the ongoing work at the Voronezh plant while he was the Prime Minister.

The trainer was flown solo from the rear seat; the pupil's forward position had deployable dual controls. The empennage was conventional, with the straight-tapered tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage and braced from below with a single strut on each side. The elevators were unbalanced. The fin was triangular and the rudder, again unbalanced and straight-edged, extended down to the keel through an elevator cut-out.

Like the wings, the empennage is wood framed and fabric covered. The monowheel undercarriage is assisted by a sprung, wooden skid reaching forwards from the wheel to the nose, and by a tail skid. Two prototype C.800s were flown during World War II, the first in April 1942. A single-seat version, the C.810 was also flown in 1942 but these two prototypes were destroyed by bombing.

Both wings carried unbalanced ailerons. The vertical tail had the characteristic DH shape, with a balanced rudder; the elevators were unbalanced. The structure throughout was wood, with fabric covering on the wings and empennage, but with de Havilland's usual thin plywood cover on the fuselage. There was a single axle undercarriage, with the main legs attached to the lower wing root and with bracing to the forward fuselage.

Strutted empennage, covered with plywood (stabilizers) and canvas (rudder and elevators). Crew of two, sitting in tandem in open cockpits, the first with a windshield. Conventional fixed landing gear, with a rear skid, the main gear with a common axle. Inline engine in front, driving two-blade tractor wooden propeller, with two round Lamblin radiators under the fuselage (in the WZ.X/IV - radial engine, with four-blade propeller and no radiators).

A twin-tailed B-25 Mitchell in flight A twin tail is a specific type of vertical stabilizer arrangement found on the empennage of some aircraft. Two vertical stabilizers—often smaller on their own than a single conventional tail would be—are mounted at the outside of the aircraft's horizontal stabilizer. This arrangement is also known as an H-tail,Schiff, Barry: Flying, page 15. Golden Press, New York, 1971.

The rear section of the fuselage began immediately behind the door and was constructed from four longerons, tapering to the tail and fabric covered. The NiD 540 had an angular empennage, with its straight- tapered tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage carrying narrow elevators. The square-topped fin had a more generous rudder hinged behind the elevators. Earlier, unbuilt designs of the NiD 540 were shown with curved tail shapes.

A pusher design with an empennage behind the propeller is structurally more complex than a similar tractor type. The increased weight and drag degrades performance compared with a similar tractor type. Modern aerodynamic knowledge and construction methods may reduce but never eliminate the difference. A remote (buried) engine requires a drive shaft and its associated bearings and supports, special devices for torsional vibration control, increasing mechanical requirements, weight and complexity.

The empennage was unusual in two ways. Both rudder and tailplane were all moving, with no fixed surfaces, and all three surfaces were interchangeable to lower the costs of spare stocks. Nineteen years later, Boulton Paul used the same cost-saving design approach with the Balliol. The elevators were mounted at the extreme end of the fuselage, the rudder with its trailing edge level with the elevators' hinge.

It has a well-proven aircraft configuration designed for a number of functions such as fish spotting, forest fire detection, farm work, missionary work, etc. It features a welded chrome alloy steel tube fuselage and aluminum sheet metal/fabric covered wings and empennage. The PL-9 Stork has a cruise speed of 104 mph with a standard Lycoming O-320/150 hp engine.Aircraft Spruce : PL-9 Stork www.

In 1948, US aircraft test pilot/aircraft designer W.J. Morrisey produced a wood- and-fabric light aircraft, the 1000C (Nifty). In 1958 he reworked that basic design, giving it an all-metal structure and increased power. The aircraft is a cantilever low-wing monoplane with plain ailerons and two-position trailing- edge flaps, conventional empennage, fixed nosewheel landing gear, and tandem seating. Dual controls are provided as standard equipment.

There were two side-by-side seats with opening side-windows, the pilot on the left and navigator on the right. A windowed starboard-side door gave access both to the cockpit and to an under- wing cabin behind the crew which could accommodate two passengers or of mail. It was lit by a large window opposite the door. Like the wing, the empennage was wood framed and ply covered.

The last of a series of three CANSA trainer designs, preceded by the C.5 and C.6, the C.4 was the only monoplane. It had a low, straight tapered wing; no flaps were fitted. The empennage was conventional, with the tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage. The elevators were split so that the unbalanced rudder, which extended to the bottom of the fuselage, could move between them.

Initially a four-cylinder inline Sergant A was used, its radiator mounted midway up the portside cabane strut. At the rear the large area empennage was conventional, with a large span, rectangular plan all-moving tail mounted on top of the fuselage. Its triangular fin carried a roughly rhomboidal rudder which reached down to the keel through an elevator cut-out. The seaplane had simple, rectangular cross- section floats.

The chords of each frame converged at the rear, where the third transverse member carried the empennage. The tailplane was confined between the fuselage frames but the elevators projected beyond, carrying balances. There were no fins but twin roughly rectangular rudders. A forward cross-axle extending beyond the fuselage frames gave the large wheels a wide track and the upward- curving lower chords acted as skids to prevent nose-overs.

In late 1917, Fokker-Flugzeugwerke built two small biplane prototypes designated V.13. These aircraft combined a set of scaled-down D.VII wings with a fuselage and empennage closely mirroring those of the earlier Dr.I.Gray and Thetford 1962, p. 103. The first prototype utilized an 82 kW (110 hp) Oberursel Ur.II rotary engine, while the second featured a 119 kW (160 hp) Siemens-Halske Sh.III bi-rotary engine.Weyl 1965, p. 262.

Air France Flight 406 was an international scheduled passenger flight originating in Brazzaville, Congo, on a route with the final destination Paris, France. Intermediate stops were Fort Lamy, Chad, and Marseille, France. The flight was flown by a Lockheed L-1649 Starliner, F-BHBM De Grasse. After taking off from Fort Lamy, and while cruising at an altitude of approximately 20,000 feet, the Starliner broke up after its empennage failed.

Its open cockpit placed the pilot in a cut-out in the trailing edge at about wing level, with a small head-rest fairing behind him. At the rear the empennage was conventional, with a straight tapered horizontal tail including split elevators placed on top of the fuselage. The fin was triangular and the rudder rounded, extending down to the keel. None of the control surfaces were aerodynamically balanced.

Speaking during the new model's development, company officials recognised that market demand for the CL-215T was marginal, and thus not enough to justify developing an all-new aircraft. Despite this, it featured numerous enhancements, including the addition of powered flight controls, air conditioning in the cockpit, as well as various upgraded electrical and avionics systems. The most notable external features of the CL-215T retrofit were the aerodynamic additions to the wings and empennage.

The empennage was conventional and simply wooden, with an all moving tailplane mounted on a broad, tall, straight edged fin just above the fuselage. The rudder, straight edged, forward swept and hinged well clear of the elevator, extended down to the keel where there was a small tail bumper. The elevator but not the rudder was balanced. As the Nixope had no wing mounted airbrakes, a diameter ribbon parachute was mounted in the tail.

Cantilever empennage, covered with plywood (stabilizers) and canvas (rudder and elevators). Conventional fixed landing gear, with a rear skid. Capacity of four in a closed cockpit: a pilot in front, a doctor behind him, and two lying on stretchers at the back. It had a 9-cylinder air-cooled Avia-built Wright Whirlwind J-5 radial engine delivering 220 hp (164 kW) nominal power and 240 hp (179 kW) take-off power.

The wings are supported by V-struts with jury struts and the empennage is cable-braced. The acceptable power range is and the standard engine used is the Rotax 503 two- stroke powerplant. The engine is mounted high above the cockpit on the front end of the aluminum tube that acts as the tailboom. The ST-4 Aztek has a typical empty weight of and a gross weight of , giving a useful load of .

Interior of an F-16B with the engine removed showing frames or formers. Here, a former is a structural member of an aircraft fuselage, of which a typical fuselage has a series from the nose to the empennage, typically perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. The primary purpose of formers is to establish the shape of the fuselage and reduce the column length of stringers to prevent instability.Michael C. Y. Niu (1988).

Canadian Associated Aircraft was a joint Canadian-United Kingdom project to build Handley Page Hampden aircraft in the late 1930s. During the build-up to the Second World War, Fairchild Aircraft Ltd. had joined together with five other aviation companies in setting up Canadian Associated Aircraft Ltd. The consortium was formed in 1938 to build the Handley Page Hampden for use in the Royal Air Force with Fairchild mainly contracted to build the Hampden's empennage.

A Rotax two-cylinder two-stroke engine is mounted, exposed, immediately behind this pod in pusher configuration. The unusual empennage is carried on a fine aluminium boom and consists of an inverted narrow rectangular tail fin and large rudder below the boom plus a swept tailplane with small tapered upright end plate fins. The elevators are full span, with electrically operated trim tabs. All rear surfaces have aluminium structures covered with polyester fabric.

The Extra 200 is based on the design of the Extra 300, and the two aircraft share many similarities. The Extra 200 has a welded steel (4130) tube fuselage covered in fiberglass and fabric with a carbon/glass hybrid composite empennage (i.e., the tail assembly, including the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, elevators, and rudder), and a bubble canopy. The monocoque wings have a carbon fiber composite spar with fiberglass skins and an integral fuel tank.

The MD-11 has a smaller empennage than the DC-10 it is based upon. The MD-11 features a two- crew cockpit that incorporates six interchangeable CRT-units and advanced Honeywell VIA 2000 computers. The cockpit design is called Advanced Common Flightdeck (ACF) and is shared with the Boeing 717. Flight deck features include an Electronic Instrument System, a dual Flight Management System, a Central Fault Display System, and Global Positioning System.

The Type L did not have a long, enclosed fuselage but instead the empennage was supported on an open girder. The Type L, unusually for Caudron, had two parallel sided, cross braced side frames. The longitudinal members were steel and the cross-members ash. The side frames began from the rear spars of both upper and lower wings and converged rearwards to meet at the tail, with upper and lower cross-members towards the rear.

An 85 kW (114 hp) Rotax 914ULS flat four engine is mounted at cabin-top height and drives a 3-bladed pusher propeller. Below it, the slender flat-sided boom carries the fibreglass empennage, which consists of a swept horizontal stabilizer with end-plate fins and a larger, central, fin and rudder. The Orion has a tricycle undercarriage with the faired mainwheels, fitted with brakes, on spring cantilever legs. The nosewheel is unfaired.

The empennage was conventional, with a braced tailplane and balanced control surfaces. The S.9/30 was flown from land and later as a seaplane. Its wheeled undercarriage was divided, the main legs meeting the forward spar under the centre section interplane struts and with forward bracing to the fuselage at the rear of the engine bay. The main wheels had low pressure tyres and were fitted with wheel brakes; there was a small tailwheel.

Founded in 1981 by a group of French and Italian aeronautical engineers as SG Aviation, the company engaged in sub-contract work including the Aermacchi MB-339 empennage and Martin-Baker ejection seat mechanical units. The company has designed and produced cold parts for engine nacelles, including inlets, fan cowls and EBU and systems-to-engine interfaces. The company has also sold over 1200 kit and complete aircraft to customers in 20 countries.

The final part, which had a sloping underside, provided an open dorsal cockpit for an observer and reached back to the tail. There were three fuel tanks, one under the pilots' cabin and two in the rear of the wings. The empennage was conventional apart from one feature. The trapezoidal fixed surfaces were built around pairs of spars and skinned with corrugated dural, with a cantilever tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage.

A mixed construction cantilever high-wing monoplane, single-engine, conventional in layout. It had a steel framed, canvas covered fuselage (engine part covered with duralumin) and a single-piece, plywood-covered, two-spar elliptical wing of wooden construction. The empennage was of steel construction, canvas covered. In a closed cabin under the wing there were two places side-by-side, with double controls, behind them was the third seat or a place for baggage.

Behind the engine there were two cockpits in tandem, one near the wing leading edge and the other just aft of the trailing edge. The empennage was unusual, as both horizontal and vertical surfaces were all-moving. Both were polygonal in plan, with the elevator mounted at mid-fuselage height and the rudder tall and narrow above it. The C 17 had a fixed, tailskid undercarriage with the mainwheels apart on a faired axle.

The empennage was also modified to a form close to that of the D.VIb, with a small, lower, and broader fin and broad chord balanced rudder. The tailplane was lowered from the top of the fuselage to its midpoint. Development of the D.VII was interrupted by problems with the Benz engine, itself still under development. Nonetheless the D.VII took part in the second D. competition (for fighter types) held in May 1918.

The hull was to be constructed as a riveted duralumin cylinder, measuring 1.4 m across and 6 mm thick. The cockpit was supposed to be flooded while submerging, after the flying instruments were lowered into a waterproof shaft. The crew was supposed to enter the aft command centre and control the submarine from there. The outer skin of the wings and the empennage was to be made of steel, the floats of duralumin.

There were two open cockpits with small windscreens, one centred at about one-third chord and the other over the trailing edge. Disengagable dual control was fitted. The fuselage tapered towards the tail, where the empennage was conventional. Its parallel chord horizontal tail with rounded tips was placed at mid-fuselage height and there was a quadrant shaped fin and curved rudder hinged at the extreme tail, sloping in below to allow elevator movement.

The fuselage was built around four longerons, with rectangular frames and covered in longitudinally ribbed duralumin. Its underside was smoothly bellied, its upper side flat. In plan its taper was delayed until aft of the cabin. Its empennage was conventional, with a straight-tapered, blunt-topped fin and unbalanced rudder, the latter cut away at its base to allow for movement of the one-piece elevator mounted on a triangular tailplane at mid-fuselage height.

In addition, the wide fuselage behind the cockpit allowed a wide stowage of materials. The pointer was placed in front of a large glazed window under the seats of the two pilots. The central engine was placed at the front of the fuselage, which ended with adjustable tail empennage. The two wheels equipped with brakes were placed on amortized carriages placed under the side engines that were fixed to the wings at the front.

Sample of the treated fabric from the Spirit of St. Louis The race to win the prize required time-saving design compromises. Donald A. Hall decided that the empennage (tail assembly) and wing control surfaces would not be altered from his original Ryan M-2 design, thus minimizing redesign time that was not available without delaying the flight. The result was less aerodynamic stability; nevertheless, the experienced Lindbergh approved the unaltered design.Cassagneres 2002, p. 44.

There was a toilet at the rear and behind it a final space containing a library and the main passenger door port-side. The Bréguet 670 was designed so that it could be adapted to carry cargo or mail instead of passengers. With a payload, its range was but reducing this to increased the range to . The empennage was conventional, with a tapered, round tipped horizontal tail mounted on top of the fuselage.

The ply upper fuselage decking was rounded, interrupted by an open cockpit at mid-chord. Its engine was a Zalewski WZ.18 , five cylinder radial engine designed and built in 1923, housed in a blunt, metal cowling with its cylinders partly exposed for cooling. A hinged mounting allowed easy access for servicing. Fuel and oil tanks were behind the engine The empennage of the W.Z.XI was conventional though large, with wooden structures and fabric covering.

Behind the wing leading edge, the upper fuselage surface is raised with a fairing. The Aristocrat's empennage is steel framed and fabric covered. Its tailplane is mounted at the top of the fuselage and the horizontal tail is straight- tapered in plan out to rounded tips. The tailplane is in-flight adjustable and braced from below with a single strut on each side, carrying balanced elevators with a cut-out for rudder movement.

Design work on the MG-1 began in October 1981. It was a low wing monoplane with spruce and plywood wings with a forward sweep of 1.5° at quarter chord mounted with 3.25° of dihedral. The ailerons were fabric covered; there were no flaps but wooden airbrakes extended above and below the wing. The cantilever, unswept empennage was similarly constructed and the low set tailplane carried elevators with a trim tab on the starboard side.

Flatfish UAV is an experimental V/STOL UAV developed by NWPU. Flatfish UAV is in mid wing configuration and conventional layout, with T-tail and tricycle landing gear. Propulsion is provided by three engines, with the larger main engine mounted in the fuselage, mainly to provide lift. There are two smaller propeller mounted at the each side of the fuselage at empennage, and these smaller engines are mainly used to provide propulsion during level flight.

Yaw increases the speed of the outboard wing whilst reducing speed of the inboard one, causing a rolling moment to the inboard side. The contribution of the fin normally supports this inward rolling effect unless offset by anhedral stabilizer above the roll axis (or dihedral below the roll axis). :::L_p Rolling moment due to roll rate. Roll creates counter rotational forces on both starboard and port wings whilst also generating such forces at the empennage.

Though the empennage changes made between the György I and II are not well documented, they had similar vertical surfaces, with a small, triangular fin and a full, rounded rudder. The tailplane of both models was mounted on top of the fuselage but differed in plan. The György I's was triangular but on the György II the leading edge was straight. Both carried strongly swept elevators, though shortened on the Gyuri II.

The Monoplane's design was started in 1908 by Charles Van Auken using plans of a Blériot XI as a guide. A Ford Model T engine with holes bored throughout to lighten the weight was used as a powerplant. The aircraft was a conventional landing gear-equipped, wire braced, mid-wing monoplane with a fabric covered cruciform empennage and warping wings for roll control. The aircraft bore a striking resemblance to the Blériot XI.

The fuselage of the Albatros was a plywood monocoque and the empennage was also wooden and fabric covered, with the tailplane set at the top of the fuselage. The occupants sat in tandem under a continuous canopy with two separately sideways opening sections. It had a fixed undercarriage with two wheels on a short axle under the fuselage and an integral nose skid. At rest, it sat on its wheels and tail.

The Week-End's rectangular cross-section fuselage had a wooden structure and was ply covered. The forward view from the cabin was through a long, one-piece transparency and the only sideways obstructions were the two pairs of vertical members that joined fuselage and wing. Cabin entry was via two large doors. The empennage of the RG.40 was conventional, with a triangular tailplane mounted at mid-fuselage carrying well separated elevators.

Two Microturbo TRS 18 engines were mounted behind the cockpit, fed from a pair of dorsal intakes immediately aft of the glazing and exhausting over the rear fuselage a little behind the wing trailing edge. This section of the fuselage and the empennage were constructed from glass-fibre sandwich. The Prometheus had a tall, straight edged fin with the narrow chord tailplane and single elevator on top in T-configuration. It landed on a retractable tricycle undercarriage.

To begin the maneuver the pilot first rolls the aircraft in the desired direction with the controls (the ailerons), and quickly but smoothly establishes a medium-banked turn. In most small aircraft (cruising speeds of 100–175 KIAS) this bank will be about 30° to 40°. This will begin a turn of the aircraft in the direction of bank. Simultaneously, full power is applied and a smooth pitch up is started with the controls (the elevators on the empennage).

The shorter span will allow operating at Colorado's Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, a popular tourist destination, the only in-production jet with the capability after the CRJ700 production ends. MITAC partner Triumph Group's structural optimization should remove 15% of the combined structural weight of the wing, aft fuselage, and empennage. Deliveries should begin in 2024. The M90 in its final configuration first flew on 18 March 2020, before joining the rest of the test fleet in Moses Lake.

The Go 242 was designed by Albert Kalkert in response to a Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) requirement for a heavy transport glider to replace the DFS 230 then in service. The requirement was for a glider capable of carrying 20 fully laden troops or the equivalent cargo. The aircraft was a high-wing monoplane with a simple square-section fuselage ending in clamshell doors used to load cargo. The empennage was mounted on twin booms linked by a tailplane.

Yakovlev UT-2M drawing ;AIR-10:precursor ;Ya-20:prototype ;UT-2:initial production variant ;UT-2 (1940 standard):improved spin characteristics. ;UT-2 (1944 standard):UT-2L ;UT-2 with MV-4:inline engine for tests. ;UT-2L:improved 1940 standard with canopy and engine cowling, fuselage similar to early Yak-18 but had fixed undercarriage. ;UT-2M:production from 1941, new wings and empennage ;UT-2MV:interim light bomber ;UT-2N (SEN):air cushion landing gear testbedV.

Retrieved: 23 July 2009. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.Kohn, Lt. Col.

This obviated the need for access doors with their hinges and latches further reducing weight and complexity. This is the opposite of what can often happen in aircraft design where a small weight increase in one area leads to a compounding increase in weight in other areas to compensate, creating a demand for more powerful, heavier engines, larger wing and empennage area, and so on in a vicious circle."Skyhawk." Air Victory Museum. Retrieved: 1 October 2012.

Structurally, the empennage consists of the entire tail assembly, including the tailfin, the tailplane and the part of the fuselage to which these are attached. On an airliner this would be all the flying and control surfaces behind the rear pressure bulkhead. The front (usually fixed) section of the tailplane is called the tailplane or horizontal stabiliser and is used to provide pitch stability. The rear section is called the elevator, and is usually hinged to the horizontal stabiliser.

When used in combination with the ailerons, the result is a banking turn, often referred to as a "coordinated turn". Some aircraft are fitted with a tail assembly that is hinged to pivot in two axes forward of the fin and stabiliser, in an arrangement referred to as a movable tail. The entire empennage is rotated vertically to actuate the horizontal stabiliser, and sideways to actuate the fin.Aviation Publishers Co. Limited, From the Ground Up, p.

The cockpit was enclosed by a single piece, side hinged, moulded perspex canopy. Rectangular airbrakes hinged outwards from the fuselage sides under the wing, each with an area of . The empennage was conventional, with a ply covered fin which was narrow at the top but faired into the boom above and below. It carried a fabric covered, rounded, unbalanced rudder, broad at its heel, as well as the straight edged tailplane placed just above the boom.

The PWS-11 was a single-seater parasol wing monoplane of wooden construction. The framed fuselage had a skin made of plywood (PWS-11) or aircraft fabric on wood strips (PWS-11bis), except for the engine compartment which was covered with duralumin sheeting. The rectangular wooden wings had two spars, which were covered with fabric and plywood and were supported by twin struts. The empennage was wooden, with the fixed surfaces plywood covered and fabric on the control surfaces.

The empennage of the Bumblebee was, like the fuselage, steel framed. Its straight edged, braced tailplane and split elevators were mounted on top of the fuselage; the fin had a curved leading edge, the rudder moving in an elevator cut-out. The undercarriage was of the fixed, conventional type, with mainwheels on a single axle, each side attached to the fuselage by a single streamlined strut. The first DJ-1 flew in 1924, with the Henderson engine.

The glazing was unusually free of frames, with just three rectangular glass panels on each side and a smaller, triangular window immediately behind the windscreen. At the rear, the glazing angled in towards the fuselage centreline, the two sides meeting at a vertical edge. A combination of the simple glazing, the canopy height and the surrounding fuselage profile produced notably good all-round vision. The empennage was conventional, with the tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage.

As of today, there are three most common configurations of twinjet aircraft. The first, common on large aircraft such as airliners, has a podded engine usually mounted beneath, or occasionally above or within, each wing. The second has one engine mounted on each side of the rear fuselage, close to its empennage, used by many business jets. In the third configuration both engines are within the fuselage, side-by-side, used by most fighters since the 1960s.

Because of the span difference, these leaned outwards at 45°, allowing them to carry ailerons on their trailing edges. In addition, it was claimed, these provided the lateral stability more usually secured with dihedral as well as producing additional lift. The fuselage and empennage of the AS-27 were conventional, with its cockpit over the lower wing. Its fixed conventional undercarriage had arched leaf spring cantilever main legs with cable bracing, together with a steerable tailwheel.

Vance Breese was primarily referred to as the test pilot, but he was also acknowledged as a contributing designer of the Executive. The empennage of the BTC-1 was almost certainly a Breese design. When compared with the configurations of the Breese-Dallas, the Vultee model V-1, and the Vultee model 51, which became the BT-13 and 15, the planforms and ratios are virtually the same. Breese engineering skills contributed to all of those designs.

The empennage was conventional with its tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage and with a rounded vertical tail. The tail surfaces were built in a similar way to the wings and the rear control surfaces, like the ailerons, were unbalanced. The mainwheels of its fixed landing gear were on a single axle with rubber shock absorbers at each end and supported by steel V-struts from the lower longerons. There was a tailskid under the fin.

The source of this transmitter sound was never determined. Investigators discovered that the aircraft suddenly entered a steep descent followed by both wings and the empennage separating from the fuselage due to high aerodynamic loads. At about 18:27 the airliner was in an 80 degree nose down attitude on a heading of 270 with a left bank. The aircraft struck trees then crashed into the ground heavily and was completely destroyed by impact forces and fire.

There was a baggage compartment behind the rear seats, accessible from inside. Photographs show that access to the cabin was through a single, port side door. The date of the first flight is not known, but by the July 1937 Prague Aero Show it had been flying long enough for the directional control problem implied by the revised empennage to have been both recognised and addressed. It is also not known when the undercarriage was altered.

At around the same time, VX279 was fitted with a variable incidence tailplane. During 1950, VX279 was significantly rebuilt, with a single jet outlet and swept empennage; it was subsequently given a separate designation, as the Hawker P.1081. VX272 was retro-fitted with the original rear fuselage of VX279 – after strengthening and installation of an arrestor hook. VX272 was also fitted with a bullet-type fairing at the tailplane-fin intersection, which improved its high-speed behaviour.

The fuselage was all-metal and fabric covered. The rear fuselage was closer in design to that of the Gamecock than the Grebe or Gorcock, and the empennage was almost identical to that of the Gamecock. The first aircraft went to RAE Farnborough in August 1926 and the second followed early in the next year. Supercharging delivered the anticipated performance enhancements, with full power and a top speed of 175 mph (280 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4,570 m).

The pilot had an open cockpit under the wing trailing edge, with one passenger next to him. Two other passengers could sit, though not stand, side by side within the fuselage forward of the pilot in a cabin lit by windows, one in the small, starboard side door, and heated by hot air from the engine. Their luggage was placed in a small compartment behind the pilot. The empennage was a steel tube structure, fabric covered.

The instructor sat in the forward seat, with the pupil behind in a cockpit wide enough to accept two sitting side-by-side if necessary. Aft, the fuselage tapered in plan to a conventional empennage. Its tailplane, with a similar plan to the wing, was mounted on top of the fuselage at an angle of incidence that could be adjusted in flight. It was braced by parallel pairs of struts from the lower longerons and carried angular elevators.

A pusher configuration engine was mounted on the rear wing spar within a central rectangular wing cut-out, with its propeller disk immediately behind the wing trailing edge. The AF-2 fitted was an Walter Vega five-cylinder radial engine, though there were plans to install other types in the power range. Its fuel tank was between the spars, immediately ahead of the gravity fed engine. The empennage was conventional, with a straight edged, blunt topped fin and rudder.

The forward one, under the wing, could either be given over to freight or contain two passenger seats. A central compartment provided four seats and the rearmost contained a toilet and had separate entry doors to the cabin and a baggage hold. The empennage was conventional with a swept, straight-edged tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage and a triangular fin. Both rudder and elevator were balanced, the latter with overhung tips like those of the ailerons.

Flying controls, wings and empennage were built up from wood with plywood high strength members, covered with fabric. The instructor and pupil sat in closed tandem cockpits covered with Plexiglass canopies. Control was via conventional ailerons, elevators, operated by rods and rudder operated by cables, with airbrakes on the wings for approach control. The undercarriage consisted of a single mainwheel fitted with a hydraulic brake, rubber sprung tail-skid, with protection skids on the wing-tips.

Wing control surfaces on the third Snark were flaperons, while the fourth aircraft had conventional ailerons and flaps. Above the propeller, and aft of the cockpit is a slender boom to the empennage comprising a T-tail with a high- mounted tailplane. The Snark's tandem layout, its small frontal area, and its low wetted area mean that the aircraft has excellent performance, being able to cruise at over 110 knots despite having an engine output of only 80 bhp.

The empennage was similar to that of the CWJ, with a fabric covered, tube-braced, triangular plan tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage. It carried fabric covered elevators which were rectangular in plan apart from a cut-out for rudder movement. Part of the fin, with a vertical leading edge, filled the space between the upper and lower longerons but there was an upward, cropped triangular, extension. The fin carried a square-topped, balanced, rudder.

Airframe diagram for an AgustaWestland AW101 helicopter Heavier-than-air types are characterised by one or more wings and a central fuselage. The fuselage typically also carries a tail or empennage for stability and control, and an undercarriage for takeoff and landing. Engines may be located on the fuselage or wings. On a fixed-wing aircraft the wings are rigidly attached to the fuselage, while on a rotorcraft the wings are attached to a rotating vertical shaft.

10 (27th revised edition) which act similarly to the feathers on an arrow. These stabilizing surfaces allow equilibrium of aerodynamic forces and to stabilise the flight dynamics of pitch and yaw. They are usually mounted on the tail section (empennage), although in the canard layout, the main aft wing replaces the canard foreplane as pitch stabilizer. Tandem wing and tailless aircraft rely on the same general rule to achieve stability, the aft surface being the stabilising one.

The fixed empennage surfaces were covered with ply and the control surfaces with fabric. Together, the tall fin and rudder had a blunted triangular profile. The AMA's low, divided-type undercarriage placed the fuselage underside close to the ground, with each wheel on a V-strut hinged on the lower fuselage longeron and a bracing strut to the upper fuselage. These struts were rigid and the AMA relied on Dunlop low-pressure tyres to absorb landing shocks.

The AB-115 is a high- wing monoplane, with strut-braced rectangular wings (NACA 23012 profile). The wings are made of metal, the fuselage and empennage members are made of fabric-covered welded steel tubes. It is a development of Aero Boero's earlier AB-95. The trainer version, the most common variant, contains two seats in tandem configuration, with the pilot-flying/student pilot in the front seat, and the instructor/pilot-not-flying seating in the rear.

Fuselage length differs through extension plugs with the longer variant having a large aft door, and both share a common wing, nose and empennage. Also involved are RT- Khimkomposit (Chemical Composites) and TsAGI (the Central Aerohydrodynamics Institute), having tested MC-21 wing boxes. Similar out of autoclave infusion methods will reduce costs of monocoque structures over a large production run. Limited ground handling is needed and low-pressure tires enable operations from unpaved soil/ or grass runways.

The DH. 81 Swallow Moth was a low-wing cantilever monoplane. This arrangement and its plywood- covered fuselage and closely cowled 80 hp (60 kW) inline Gipsy IV engine gave it a very clean aerodynamic look. The wings carried ailerons that were horn- balanced at the wingtips and the empennage was of characteristic de Havilland form, with a balanced rudder. There was separate tandem seating for two, initially open, but later enclosed with a one-piece hinged cabin top.

It had an oval section, monocoque fuselage with formers, stringers and ply skin. The Zundapp engine was neatly cowled in the nose and the enclosed cockpit was over the wing, blended into the raised fuselage behind it which tapered to a conventional, cantilever empennage. An almost triangular tailplane carried rounded elevators and the straight-edged fin carried a broad, deep, rounded rudder well clear of the elevator wash. The rudder had a small, ground-adjustable trim tab.

A disadvantage of the geodesic fuselage structure was its insufficient lengthwise stiffness: when fitted with attachment for towing cargo gliders, its structure "gave" and stretched slightly. So, while the airframe continued to be structurally sound, the forces in the long control runs of cables and push-pull rods to the empennage grew considerably, affecting controllability of the aeroplane. This is the reported reason why Wellingtons (and Warwicks for that matter) were not used as glider tugs.

The two occupants sat side by side in an open cockpit, fitted with dual control, over the wing. Its empennage was conventional, with a horizontal tail mounted on top of the fuselage and strongly straight-tapered like the wing. The elevators were inset and separate, with a gap between them to allow the movement of a deep, balanced rudder mounted on a small fin. The construction of the rear surfaces was similar to that of the wings.

The structure of the Albert A-10's empennage was wooden and similar to that of the wing. Its quadrant-shaped fin was part of the fuselage and carried a large, roughly semi-circular, unbalanced rudder. Its elliptical plan horizontal tail was mounted at mid-fuselage height with a one-piece, unbalanced elevator. It had a fixed, conventional undercarriage with its mainwheels on cranked, split axles from the centreline of the fuselage underside; the track was .

Vickers F.B.27 Vimy side view The Vickers F.B.27 Vimy is an equal-span twin-engine four-bay biplane, with balanced ailerons on both upper and lower wings. The engine nacelles were positioned mid-gap and contained the fuel tanks. It has a biplane empennage with elevators on both upper and lower surfaces and twin rudders. The main undercarriage consists of two pairs of wheels, each pair carried on a pair of tubular steel V-struts.

A 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers machine gun operated by the pilot was mounted on the decking in front of him, slightly to port. The rear cockpit was fitted with a Lewis gun on a Scarff ring. The steel fuselage stopped at the rear with an attachment for the only monocoque part of the Gurnard, the empennage-carrying tail cone. The fin and rudder leading edge was rounded, the trailing edge of the horn balanced rudder straight.

This provided both seating and lounge space. At the rear of the cabin there was a small kitchen and toilets. The pilots sat in open cockpits placed at the wing leading edge.Flight, 1929_03_28 Earlier Burnelli lifting body designs had fuselages which were rectangular in plan, with the empennage directly attached, but the CB-16's fuselage tapered and the tail unit was mounted beyond the lifting body's trailing edge on a pair of thin panels extending from its sides.

A coding scheme also helps WBS elements to be recognized in any written context and allows for mapping to the WBS Dictionary.Ashe, Kenneth, Work Breakdown Structure, Accessed 23. May 2016. A practical example of the WBS coding scheme isMIL-STD-881C, Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items, 3 October 2011 Appendix A, ¶A.3 1.0 Aircraft System :1.1 Air Vehicle ::1.1.1 Airframe :::1.1.1.1 Airframe Integration, Assembly, Test and Checkout :::1.1.1.2 Fuselage :::1.1.1.3 Wing :::1.1.1.4 Empennage :::1.1.

The lower longeron extended forward of the wing and carried a plywood nacelle with an open cockpit; the nacelle extended rearwards under the wing. Under it, a wooden landing skid was mounted on rubber shock absorbers. The empennage was conventional, with fabric-covered rectangular surfaces. Its fin extended upwards from the lower longeron to just beyond the upper one, carrying the tailplane close above; a tall, balanced rudder operated in a cut-out between balanced elevators.

Parallel pairs of airfoil section flying struts ran on each side from the lower fuselage to the wing spars at about one third span. Over the fuselage a pair of N-form cabane struts leaned inwards to meet at the wing's centre. Like the wing, the fuselage and empennage of the J 23 were wooden structures. The elliptical cross section fuselage consisted of pre-shaped, stress bearing plywood panels around a light framework of frames and stringers.

Wibault therefore produced the Wib 170 Tornade, which used the same wings, empennage, undercarriage and armament as the Wib 130 but had a more powerful Hispano-Suiza 12Jb V-12 engine which provided . The fuselage was similar in construction and appearance to that of its predecessor though slightly () longer. The fuel capacity was increased by 14%. The extra power improved the maximum speed at sea level by 13%, though the empty weight was up by 8%.

These trials ended in January 1930 and the A.10 went back to Saro's for modification. Changes included a 3 in (76 mm) shift aft of the main undercarriage to improve ground handling, a 1 ft 9 in (533 mm) fuselage extension and revised empennage. The tailplane now had a straight, rather than swept leading edge. When it went back to the A&AEE; in September most of the old faults remained and no more were ordered.

The wing structure was built from a mix of steel tubes and duralumin with a duralumin skin. The empennage was redesigned as a twin tail. The main legs of the conventional landing gear retracted aft into the engine nacelles and were given fairing to reduce drag when retracted, but the tail-wheel was fixed. The nose was extensively glazed to give the bombardier/navigator good visibility and he was armed with a ShVAK cannon with 10° of vertical travel.

The fuselage was rectangular in section and ply-covered. It was deepest under the wing to accommodate the open cockpit and tapered strongly both forward and aft, with a profile like that of a thick airfoil. The M.1's empennage was a fabric-covered cantilever structure with a conventional fin and rudder but a one-piece, flight- adjustable tailplane. The M.1 made its first and last flight on 29 August 1923, just before the Contest began.

Breguet intended to develop the 940 genre further by adding a pressurised fuselage with airline seating as the Breguet Br 942. Wings, landing gear, empennage and engines were essentially similar to the Br 941, but were to be mated to a new diameter circular section fuselage, with airline seating for 40 first/business class or up to 60 economy class passengers. After the limited success of the Br 941 and Br 941S and expected high running costs, further development was abandoned.

In 1937 performance was improved with the installation of an uprated M-11 variant, the M-11 Ye. Behind the engine the fuselage was deep and rounded below. Instructor and student were in tandem cockpits under continuous, multiframed glazing that merged into a raised rear upper fuselage. Its empennage was conventional, with elliptical, mid fuselage horizontal surfaces, the tailplane braced from the upper fuselage. The fin merged smoothly into the fuselage and carried a broad, unbalanced rudder which extended own to the keel.

The empennage was similar to those of the BS.7 and BS.8, with a strut braced triangular tailplane on a short, broad fin, the latter carrying a constant chord, unbalanced rudder about three times the height of the fin. The elevators were also unbalanced and of constant chord apart from a cut-out for rudder movement. The BS.12 Roma was similar to the Milano but a little greater in span. The first flight of the Milano was in 1932.

The fuselage was deep for its width and carried a conventional, rather square cut empennage with unbalanced control surfaces. The single-axle undercarriage was braced to the front and rear wing spars at the roots, the legs splayed out to broaden the track. A 750 cc Douglas motorcycle engine was mounted horizontally, with the cylinder heads protruding either side below the propeller boss. The Viget flew well enough at Lympne in the hands of Stan Cockerell, but failed to win prizes.

The square-section, rounded-cornered fuselage was built around these four longerons and a set of diagonally braced formers. The Aviméta's Hispano-Suiza 12Hb water-cooled V-12 engine was in a pointed nose, driving a two-blade propeller. There were two open cockpits, with the pilot forward at mid-chord and the gunner/observer behind in line with the trailing edge. Behind the cockpits the fuselage tapered rapidly in profile to a conventional empennage, with the tailplane mounted at mid-fuselage.

The gunner had an open cockpit behind the cabin, fitted with twin Lewis guns on a flexible mount. At the rear the wood-framed, fabric-covered empennage was very angular, with a broad, triangular fin and a rectangular balanced rudder, its aerodynamic balance unusually beneath the fuselage. The tailplane, which was supported from below by inverted V-struts on each side, was straight-edged, small, and could be adjusted in flight. A rectangular, notched elevator was fitted with trim tabs.

Its wings and empennage are similar to the Hawker 4000 with winglets leading to a 5.3 ft. larger wingspan. The moderately super-critical wing have a quarter-chord sweep of 26.8° for its inner section and 28.6° for the outer section. The six-passenger Latitude fuselage has been reinforced and stretched by another row of seats to accommodate eight people in double club. The manufacturer has not announced the final design weights (as of May 2016); BCA estimates a 24,000–25,000 lb.

The fuselage, apart from cockpit details and the undercarriage and empennage of the Fleetwing, Firefly and Fox II were very similar and the Fleetwing's fin and rudder evolved with the Firefly's from a slightly square topped, unbalanced arrangement to a more round topped rudder with horn balance. The Fleetwing's tailplane retained a single lower strut. There were two cockpits, one for the pilot under an upper wing cut out and a gunner's position behind. Armament was traditional: a single forward-firing synchronised .

Major work on the still top-secret project began in , and flight tests of the first scale model began in –. This first radio-controlled flown aircraft was called the L-1 model, and it had a T-tail empennage. Initially the flights took place at the Sokol Aircraft Plant, which was known for producing MiG fighter aircraft. After radio-control problems caused the scale model to crash during a flight in snowy conditions, the Nizhny Novgorod manufacturing plant banned further EKIP test flights.

On 21 February, four Typhoons of 247 Squadron covered two PR Mosquitos sent to photograph the gaol. The aircraft were met by intense as they crossed the coast, the worst yet encountered by 247 Squadron. Flight Lieutenant C. E. Brayshaw, the commander of A flight was hit and turned back with a damaged engine but parts of the empennage (tail) detached and the Typhoon dived from into the sea off Cabourg, killing him; two Typhoons were damaged and one pilot wounded.

The French began experimenting with bomber designs in 1915. The Morane-Saulnier TRK and Voisin Triplane prototypes of 1915 and 1916 were not successful. The Voisin design was unusual in having a subsidiary tail boom above the fuselage, helping to support the empennage. French triplanes had more success in the long-range maritime role. Labourdette-Halbronn produced a twin-hulled triplane torpedo bomber prototype, the H.T.1, in 1918 and two prototypes of a modified H.T.2 version in 1919.

The booms supporting the tail were steel, again fabric covered and mounted on the underside of the wing where they were at their deepest. At the forward end they merged into the fairings and mountings of the two outer engines, 300 hp (225 kW) Lorraine Algol radials. A third Algol was mounted centrally, on top of the wing and displaced longitudinally so the airscrew discs overlapped. Rearwards, the booms became more slender and carried the steel framed, fabric covered empennage.

In the late 1930s, armies were looking for a way to airlift heavy military units. There were then no cargo aircraft big enough to lift a tank, and even if such a large aircraft had been created it would have needed many special facilities. A solution which was explored during the Second World War was to tow tanks as gliders, and for this wings had to be added. Most designs were based on straight wings with extended empennage and stabilizers.

The 526 had a redesigned fuselage featuring a tandem two-seat cockpit with zero-zero ejection seats; and a new empennage with a low-mounted tailplane instead of the 525's T-tail. The prototype first flew on 20 December 1993 and was followed by a second prototype with its first flight on 2 March 1994. The CitationJet did not succeed in the competition, which was won by the turboprop Beechcraft T-6 Texan II, a variant of the Pilatus PC-9.

Elsewhere, top and bottom, the wing was fabric covered. The fuselage was an oval section, ply-covered semi-monocoque with an open cockpit ahead of the wing leading edge. It tapered aft to the empennage which was wire-braced, with fixed surfaces covered with ply and control surfaces which were largely fabric covered apart from ply tips. The CW 7's small fin carried a full, rounded, balanced rudder; its tailplane was mounted near the base of the fin and had split elevators.

There were passenger entry doors on both sides of the cabin and a separate, port-side door to the cockpit. The empennage was conventional and angular, constructed in the same way as the wing. The horizontal tail was almost rectangular in plan and was mounted on top of the fuselage, supported by inverted V-struts from below. The fin was triangular and carried a deep, rectangular rudder which ran down to the keel, operating in a small elevator cut-out.

Hovey set out to create the lightest aircraft to carry a person ever to fly, with the resulting design being a biplane, with a plywood box filled with Polyurethane foam serving as the fuselage, supporting the pilot's seat. The aircraft features a conventional fabric-covered empennage carried at the end of a short tailboom made of aluminum tube. The horizontal stabilizer is made from reinforced cardboard. Early versions used wing warping for roll control, while later models used full-span ailerons.

The empennage of a Boeing 747-200 An aircraft that is unstable tends to diverge from its intended flight path and so is difficult to fly. A very stable aircraft tends to stay on its flight path and is difficult to maneuver. Therefore, it is important for any design to achieve the desired degree of stability. Since the widespread use of digital computers, it is increasingly common for designs to be inherently unstable and rely on computerised control systems to provide artificial stability.

Not long after building the Scheldemusch prototype, de Schelde also brought out a flying boat version called the Scheldemeeuw (meeuw = gull). Wings, empennage and much of the rest of the aircraft was the same as the Scheldemusch. The fuselage was necessarily different, with the nacelle replaced with a wooden structured and plywood-skinned, single-step hull which extended rearwards almost to the tail. The longer fuselage made the attachment of the tail rather easier, three steel wires replacing the lower triplet of booms.

There are plain wood framed ailerons but no flaps. Its fuselage and empennage have a welded steel tube structure. The tail is braced and the tailplane incidence ground-adjustable; the rudder has a curved top and trailing edge and extends between the elevators down to the fuselage keel. The Special is powered by a 65 hp (48 kW) Continental A65 air-cooled flat-four piston engine driving a fixed pitch propeller and fuelled from a tank immediately aft of the engine firewall.

Despite the loss of an early example in January 1916, at least twenty M.1s were produced by S.A. Française de Constructions Aéronautiques, Ponnier's successor company to Avions Ponnier. Most of these, probably more than eighteen, were bought by the Aviation Militaire Belge which according to their ace Willy Coppens found them ineffective despite modifications which included the larger empennage and spinner removal. Like the few examples which remained in France, where no unit was equipped with them, they were rapidly discarded.

Planform view with flaps still partly extended, showing the 10.3 wing aspect ratio and 25° wing sweep The Airbus A320 family are low-wing cantilever monoplanes with a conventional empennage with a single vertical stabilizer and rudder. Its wing sweep is 25 degrees. Compared to other airliners of the same class, the A320 features a wider single-aisle cabin of outside diameter, compared to of the Boeing 737 or 757, and larger overhead bins. Its cargo hold can accommodate Unit Load Devices containers.

Instead of four rudder and elevator fins set on the airship's empennage, the Zeppelin NT uses only three identical fins; one fin being set at the top with the others offset at an angle of 120 degrees to either side of the top fin.Sträter 2012, p. 563. This arrangement not only saves weight, but as a side effect, the loss of one fin can be compensated with the remaining two. The aerodynamically balanced rudders are equipped with independent electrical actuators.

In front of them the Blackburn Cirrus four cylinder in-line, inverted engine was mounted on steel bearers, driving a wooden propeller. At the rear of the fuselage the empennage was conventional, with the tailplane mounted on the fin above the fuselage line and braced from below with a steel strut on each side. The elevators were hinged forward of the rudder, which carried a trim tab, but were shaped to allow its movement as it extended to the keel.

The de Monge 7-4 was designed and built to provide aerodynamic information on the three times larger proposed de Monge 72. Each was a twin boom monoplane with a conventional empennage but no fuselage. Instead, the wing between the booms was extended in chord and greatly thickened to provide depth for cockpits. The smaller aircraft had two engines, mounted just within the booms; the de Monge 72 was to have had a third engine on the central wing leading edge.

The certification Eagle prototype, incorporating retractable landing gear, crashed during spin testing for certification by the Federal Aviation Administration. After a redesign of the empennage, the Eagle AC-7 became the first composite airplane to receive FAA certification, in December 1969. (A number of composite sailplane designs had been certified by the FAA as early as 1967).e.g., FAA Type Certificate G12EU, Glasflugel H-301 Libelle, 31 May 1967 Windecker went on to produce six civilian Eagles in the early 1970s.

A positive sideslip angle generates empennage incidence which can cause positive or negative roll moment depending on its configuration. For any non-zero sideslip angle dihedral wings causes a rolling moment which tends to return the aircraft to the horizontal, as does back swept wings. With highly swept wings the resultant rolling moment may be excessive for all stability requirements and anhedral could be used to offset the effect of wing sweep induced rolling moment. File:Planform.png :::L_r Rolling moment due to yaw rate.

The aircraft was found 65 metres off shore in a 45 degree nose down attitude, with the forward half of the fuselage submerged in a water depth of approximately 6 metres. The flight deck was almost completely destroyed and the fuselage was firmly embedded in the sand. The empennage had separated and was found floating 100 metres to the east of the main wreckage. Both crew seats remained attached to the flight deck floor with no failure of the safety harnesses.

A FTC-2000 at Zhuhai airshow 2016 The FTC-2000 is a JJ-7/FT-7 with a new wing, a forward fuselage with side air intakes, and a glass cockpit. The engine, empennage, and mechanical controls of the JJ-7/FT-7 are retained. The FTC-2000G is a multi-role combat fighter aircraft and one of the cheapest multirole fighters on the market with the aim to replace old legacy fighters like the J-7/F-7. It has 7 hardpoints.

Babinski took it on its first flight on 26 February 1925. Once off the ground it proved responsive and easy to fly and to land, which it did at low speeds and in short distances. A series of short flights led to some empennage modifications and the fitting of a better-matched propeller enabled the Cykacz to log a total of about forty rather short flights. Its engine remained unreliable and the biplane was both underpowered in flight and of short range.

The wings consist of two solid spruce spars, built up wooden ribs, compression struts and internal bracing. The Parasol's empennage is built of wood, the tailplane being externally braced. Two five gallon fuel tanks are installed at the root end of each wing, the fuel being gravity fed. The only tools necessary to assemble one of the Parasol kits were a pair of small pliers, screwdriver, hacksaw (with plenty of blades), hammer, small hand drill, chisel, center punch, file and drill.

Further aft there was a sleeping compartment, a kitchen and a toilet. The wooden empennage was conventional, with a wire braced, constant chord tailplane mounted around one third fin height; its construction was similar to that of the wing. A photograph from mid-1934, at about the time of its first flight, shows the 110 with a trapezoidal fin, similar to that of the earlier CAMS 55. Both the vertical-edged rudder and elevators had full-span, Flettner type servo tabs.

Ordered in late 1944 as the XFJ-1 in competition with proposals from Douglas and Vought, the Fury began as a straight-wing, tricycle gear fighter with a single turbojet passing through the fuselage. The wing, empennage, and canopy strongly resembled that of the piston-engined P-51D Mustang, North American Aviation's highly successful World War II fighter, enclosing a relocated cockpit accommodation further forward in relation to the Mustang's design, to ensure good forward pilot visibility for carrier operations.

At the back were baggage spaces and toilet facilities. Passengers entered by a port-side door and luggage loaded through a door on the other side. The empennage was very similar to that of the Latécoère 28, with a nearly triangular tailplane carrying split, tabbed elevators. The fin was also triangular, with a semi-circular, unbalanced but tabbed rudder. The undercarriage units were mounted at the end of each stub-wing, giving it a wide 5.70 m (18 ft 8 in) track.

The Mooney M20 has medium aspect-ratio tapered wings with 1.5 degrees of washout and 5.5 degrees of dihedral. Later models were equipped with stall strips to improve the stall characteristics. The empennage of the Mooney M20 is easily recognizable by its unique tail fin with a vertical leading edge. (The tail fin looks as though it is "leaning forward", but it is approximately vertical in level flight, depending on trim setting.) The horizontal tailplane, which consists of fixed stabilizers and trailing elevators, has no trim tabs.

This complication was avoided by the combination of low wing loading and fixed leading-edge camber that varies with spanwise position along the wing. Airfoil thickness ratios vary from 6% at the root to 3% at the tip. The empennage is of metal and composite construction, with twin aluminium/composite material honeycomb structure vertical stabilizers with boron-composite skin, resulting in an exceptionally thin tailplane and rudders. Composite horizontal all-moving tails outboard of the vertical stabilizers move independently to provide roll control in some flight maneuvers.

This engine location also freed up space under the nose, allowing designers to use tricycle gear, thereby elevating the engine exhaust path and reducing the risk that the hot blast would damage the aircraft carrier deck.Mesko 2002, p. 5. The construction methods and aerodynamic design of the Phantom were fairly conventional for the time; the aircraft had unswept wings, a conventional empennage, and an aluminum monocoque structure with flush riveted aluminum skin. Folding wings were used to reduce the width of the aircraft in storage configuration.

The Prawn had a single step all-metal hull with conventional empennage. The fin had a rounded leading edge and was quite tall, carrying an unbalanced rudder. The tailplane was squarer and mounted just above the top of the fuselage, struts braced to the fuselage below and wire braced to the fin above. The aircraft was powered with a 65 hp (48 kW) water-cooled Ricardo-Burt engine, driving a four-bladed propeller with a diameter of only about 4 ft 6 in (1.35 m).

Designed to meet a requirement of the Turkish government for a new fighter, the K 47 was a strut-braced, low-wing monoplane of conventional design. Two open cockpits accommodated the pilot and tail-gunner, and the empennage was designed with twin vertical surfaces to maximise the rearward field of fire. The main units of the fixed, tailskid undercarriage shared part of the truss structure that braced the wings. The design was originally undertaken by Karl Plauth, but completed after his death by Hermann Pohlmann.

The Boxkite was a two- bay biplane with an elevator carried on booms in front of the wings and an empennage consisting of a pair of fixed horizontal stabilisers, the upper bearing an elevator, and a pair of rudders carried on booms behind the wing. There were no fixed vertical surfaces. Lateral control was effected by ailerons on both upper and lower wings. These were single-acting, the control cables arranged to pull them down only, relying on the airflow to return them to the neutral position.

Realising that swept wings increase longitudinal stability, the team deleted the tail (empennage) and the supporting fuselage, it thus became a swept-back flying wing with only a rudimentary forward fuselage and a fin (vertical stabilizer) at each wingtip. The estimated weight was now only 50% over the requirement; a delta shape resulted from reducing the wingspan and maintaining the wing area by filling in the space between the wingtips, which enabled the specification to be met.Gunston, W.T. "The Vulcan Story." Flight, 31 January 1958, p. 143.

The rear section of the fuselage starts at former #28a and is removable for engine maintenance. The empennage of the MiG-21 consists of a vertical stabilizer, a stabilator and a small fin on the bottom of the tail to improve yaw control. The vertical stabilizer has a sweep angle of 60° and an area of 5.32 m² (on earlier version 3.8 m²) and a rudder. The stabilator has a sweep angle of 57°, an area of 3.94 m² and a span of 2.6 m.

The C110 was planned to weigh at MTOW and have a length of , while the C130 should be long and have a MTOW. It would have 3-by-2 standard seating and 4-abreast business class, stand-up headroom, fly- by-wire and side stick controls. 20 percent of the aircraft weight would be in composite materials for the centre and rear fuselages, tail cone, empennage and wings. The first flight was planned for 2008, and its entry into service was planned for 2010.

Its curved and slightly pointed empennage was steel- framed and fabric-covered with a rudder that extended down to the keel. The tailplane's angle of incidence could be adjusted in flight. There were separate elevators, each identical to each other and to the rudder, keeping costs down. The M.N.5 had a wide track, divided undercarriage with mainwheels on cranked half-axles hinged from the fuselage underside centreline; a Vickers oleo strut from the stub wing and a radius arm formed a V-strut on each side.

The small wing provided high maneuverability with greater structural strength. The empennage consisted of two vertical fins with rudders, two conventional horizontal stabilizers, and two large elevator/trim surfaces on either side of centerline on the trailing edge of the wing planform. In January 1942, BuAer requested a proposal for two prototype aircraft of an experimental version of the V-173, known as the VS-135. The development version, the Vought XF5U-1, was a larger aircraft with all-metal construction, and was almost five times heavier.

Despite every effort to emerge from the spin, the aircraft would not respond, and it appeared that the rudder had locked. Co-pilot Sparks shut down the engines and waited for the propellers to come to a stop before bailing out. Because of the tandem seating, it was necessary for Sparks to exit the aircraft first, and in doing so he struck the empennage, breaking his legs — and in the process, freeing the rudder. Strickler decided to stay with the aircraft and attempt an emergency landing.

The duralumin N-type struts that separated the wings, and attached the upper wing to the fuselage, had a teardrop profile and were reinforced with steel bracing wires. Laced lacquered fabric covered the empennage and wings, except for the roots of the lower wings which were covered in plywood and the leading edges of the wings were skinned in duralumin for the first . Ailerons were fitted only to the upper wing. All movable control surfaces and the tail section were built with doped fabric over metal framing.

Its rectangular section fuselage was entirely wooden, with spruce longerons and thick plywood covering. The engine was a water-cooled, six cylinder Hispano-Suiza 6Pa with its fuel tanks between the wing spar of the central section, within the lower fuselage. Behind the engine was a multi-windowed cabin with two seats in tandem and fitted with dual controls; without dual control a third tandem seat could be added. The empennage was also wood- framed, with ply-covered fixed surfaces and fabric-covered control surfaces.

At the rear the empennage was conventional, with a very upright fin and deep, rounded rudder. The horizontal tail, mounted on top of the fuselage, had straight, swept leading edges and a semi-elliptical trailing edge form with separate elevators. All rear surfaces had relatively high aspect ratios, again to minimize drag. The Dongó had a fixed tailskid undercarriage, with mainwheels on half-axles hinged centrally from a transverse inverted-V strut and mounted just inside the wheels on two inverted V longitudinal struts.

In the summer of 1917 Kondor followed the lead of Fokker's Dr.I July 1917 triplane with one of their own. Known only as the Kondor Dreidekker this aircraft, first flown in October 1917, was not a success; its development programme was soon abandoned because of severe vibrational problems. Instead, Kondor used the fuselage, empennage and lower wing of the Dreidekker to produce a biplane or sesquiplane called the D 7. The common fuselage was a tube steel internal structure with plywood skin, rounded in cross-section.

The wings were duralumin two spar structures with fabric covering. The Potez VIII had a simple, flat-sided fuselage with a wooden structure and plywood skinning. There were tandem open cockpits, the forward one under the upper wing, which was mounted well above it, and the other just aft of the trailing edge, which had a rounded cut-out to assist the pilot's upward vision. The empennage was conventional, with a tailplane on the upper fuselage and a broad chord, swept-edge fin wire braced to it.

It had a wing increased in span by , a corresponding 11% increase in wing area and had washout at the wingtips which improved aileron response. The wire wing bracing of the CWJ was replaced by pairs of parallel struts and the fuselage box was strengthened. The empennage was also modified; the fin now had a triangular, rather than straight, leading edge and at some later time the top of the rudder was made almost semi-circular. Early tests showed the sought-after improvement in handling.

Fuel levels and pilots skill probably were the deciding factor in this incident. On 25 August de Prato carried out test dives at Guidonia. He then flew the aircraft back to Reggio Emilia where three more dives were made on 27, 29 and 31 August. According to De Prato's account, the tests concluded that the "shaking" began at true air speed and that they were caused by inadequate dynamic balancing of the empennage, the balance likely lost during full excursion rudder maneuvers performed during dives.

Behind the engine cowling back to the rear of the passenger compartment the fuselage was plywood-covered, with fabric covering aft. Pilot and engineer/navigator/radio operator sat side by side in an open cockpit ahead of the upper wing, with an internal door to the passenger cabin. Each passenger had a window, and there was a central passageway between the seats leading to a toilet and luggage compartment at the rear. The empennage was conventional, with the tailplane mounted on the upper fuselage longerons.

The A350 XWB airframe is made out of 53% composites: carbon fibre reinforced plastic for the outer and centre wing box (covers, stringers, spars), fuselage (skin, frame, keel beam, and rear fuselage) and the empennage (horizontal and vertical tailplanes); 19% aluminium and aluminium–lithium alloy for ribs, floor beams, and gear bays; 14% titanium for landing gears, pylons, and attachments; 6% steel; and 8% miscellaneous. The A350's competitor, the Boeing 787, is 50% composites, 20% aluminium, 15% titanium, 10% steel, and 5% other.

At the rear the empennage was conventional, with a roughly semi-circular tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage, a little ahead of a similarly shaped fin. Both fixed surfaces carried broad, unbalanced control surfaces, with the rudder, which extended to the keel, operating within an elevator cut-out. Its landing gear was of the fixed, conventional tailwheel type. Each mainwheel was mounted on a faired-in pair of V-strut pairs with a tall, inward leaning shock absorber strut from the axle to the wing root.

From about 1950 to his death in February 1981, Iosif Silimon was Romania's most prominent glider designer, his aircraft distinguished by his initials. His tandem two seat IS-12 trainer was a sailplane with a wooden wing and metal fuselage. The IS-13 a variant had a wooden fuselage of slightly changed shape, otherwise differing only in its empennage. The cantilever high wing common to both models was built around a single spar with a plywood covered torsion box ahead of it around the leading edge.

The Wichawk is a conventional design with staggered single-bay wings of equal span braced with N-struts and having fixed, tailwheel undercarriage. The pilot and a single passenger sit in side-by-side configuration in an open cockpit, but the plans make allowances for the aircraft to be built in two- or three-seat tandem configuration instead. The fuselage and empennage are of welded steel tube construction, with the wings built with wooden spars and aluminium alloy ribs, all covered in doped aircraft fabric.

By moving the centre of gravity forward the forward sweep enabled both pilots to sit ahead of the wing, allowing them better visibility. Parallel ruler configuration airbrakes were fitted just aft of the spar at about mid-span. The oval section fuselage was also wooden, with four longerons and twenty-one formers covered by thick poplar strips, tapering toward the tail. The empennage was straight tapered with fin and tailplane ply covered; the latter could be easily folded up alongside the fin for transport.

The design of the Ba.44 was developed from that of the de Havilland Dragon Rapide, for which Breda had purchased a manufacturing licence. Breda engineers believed that making some changes would better suit the aircraft to the company's manufacturing techniques, the biggest differences in the prototype Ba.44 being the design of the cockpit and empennage, and the change to locally produced Colombo S.63 engines. In production, however, these were changed back to the same de Havilland Gipsy Six engines as the Dragon Rapide.

Behind it was a second passenger compartment for ten, with a kitchen aft. At the stern the empennage was conventional, with a fin that had a swept leading edge and blunted top, carrying a rudder which reached down to the top of the fuselage. Its tailplane, with a plan similar to that of the wing, was braced from below by a pair of parallel struts on each side and was adjustable in flight. It carried elevators which were aerodynamically balanced in the same way as the ailerons.

Vertical and horizontal stabilizer units on an Airbus A380 airliner An aircraft stabilizer is an aerodynamic surface, typically including one or more movable control surfaces,Empennage - D. Stinton The design of the aeroplane, Longitudinal stability - Hoerner Fluid Dynamic Lift - Ilan Kroo, Aircraft Design. In stability considerations (tail sizing, tail area, stabiliser volume coefficient), authors always deal with the whole unit, that includes elevators. "Horizontal tail" or "tail" terms are generally used in lieu of "stabilizer". that provides longitudinal (pitch) and/or directional (yaw) stability and control.

The constant chord wings were gimbal mounted to the lower fuselage, with pairs of streamlined compression struts from about 30% span to the upper fuselage just ahead of each cockpit. The wing spars were duralumin structures, though the first of the two Mussels had spruce ribs. The wing section was the untried, thick RAF 33. The wings and empennage were fabric covered; the fin and unbalanced rudder had a shape not unlike the de Haviiland vertical tail and the horizontal tail was externally braced from below.

The CM.8 was a single- seat aircraft of conventional sailplane design and designed for aerobatics. Two prototypes were built: the CM.8/13, with a 13-metre wingspan and a conventional empennage, and the CM.8/15 with a 15-metre wingspan and a V-tail. The pleasing performance of these aircraft led to experiments with mounting a small turbojet on the dorsal fuselage, exhausting between the tail fins. The first of these flew on 14 July 1949, powered by a Turbomeca Piméné.

It crashed either at the end of this flight or in a later one. After the crash the glider was redesigned by Stanisław Prauss as the Akar II, with a rectangular section, ply-covered fuselage and a new empennage. It was entered for the Second Polish Polish Glider Contest of 1925, though it did not appear there. Though Cynk reports that the Akar II was built, another source claims that the students were blocked from using the University workshop and no rebuilding of the Akar occurred.

The instructor's cockpit was further back. The C.251s empennage was conventional, with tailplane and elevators mounted on top of the fuselage and having a planform similar to the wins, apart from a cut-out for rudder movement. The fin profile was a shallow triangle; the rudder continued its upper line to a rounded tip and straight, vertical trailing edge. The C.251 had a fixed tail wheel undercarriage and the rudder was slightly cut away below to give the tail wheel leg room for movement.

The forward part was plywood-covered and the rear fabric-covered, with a wire-braced ply and fabric-covered empennage. The fin was triangular and mounted a generous rhrombic rudder, leaving a gap below in which the elevator could work. The tailplane very small, essentially just a mounting for a large area, roughly semi-circular, balanced rudder. The Polon had a narrow-track undercarriage, its mainwheels close to the fuselage bottom and sides on a cross-axle with shock absorbers mounted within the fuselage.

W-300 is a high subsonic drone developed by HTZC. W-200 is turbojet-powered with W is the short for Pinyin Wo-pen (涡喷), abbreviation for turbojet in Chinese. W-200 has a cylindrical fuselage with swept wing, and fuselage mounted tailplane. The nosecone of W-200 is not as pointed as that of H-300, a possible indications of W-200 might have lower speed than H-300, and the inlet is located atop the fuselage at the end of the empennage.

The Military Monoplane had an unconventional design, owing to its unique mission requirement. The pilot and observer sat side by side in an open cockpit within a pod that also carried a high monoplane wing and the engine driving a pusher propeller. The pod also featured windows on each side, near the crewmembers' feet to facilitate downwards visibility when hunting balloons. A cruciform empennage was carried on an open truss of triangular cross-section, the upper longeron of which passed through the propeller hub.

High performance flexible wing hang glider. 2006 Because hang gliders are most often used for recreational flying, a premium is placed on gentle behaviour especially at the stall and natural pitch stability. The wing loading must be very low in order to allow the pilot to run fast enough to get above stall speed. Unlike a traditional aircraft with an extended fuselage and empennage for maintaining stability, hang gliders rely on the natural stability of their flexible wings to return to equilibrium in yaw and pitch.

Given that they were replacing the tail, Mooney's engineers opted to give it the "backward" profile characteristic of the M20 series. Although the M10's empennage has the same silhouette as the "big Mooneys", it does not swivel the way the M20's does; the Cadet's tail is a conventional design with fixed horizontal stabilizer, hinged elevator, and trim tabs. The two type certificates that cover all Ercoupe variants, including the Mooney M10, are currently owned by Univair Aircraft Corporation, in Aurora, Colorado, USA.

On December 19, 2005 a Chalk's Ocean Airways Grumman G-73T Turbine Mallard crashed off of Miami Beach, Florida. All 20 passengers and crew on board died in the crash, which was attributed to metal fatigue on the starboard wing resulting in separation of the wing from the fuselage. On July 1, 2018, a Tropic Ocean Airways Cessna 185 crashed on landing into the Miami Seaplane base when the aircraft nosed over into the water. The amphibious airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing lift strut, empennage, right wing aileron, rudder, and elevator.

3–4 The same fuselage, with minor detail changes, was used as on the Nieuport 17bis, which featured an improved aerodynamic form compared to the earlier Nieuports, with longitudinal stringers running from just aft of the moulded plywood cockpit sides to the tail. Internally the structure was updated, and while the 17bis had its Vickers gun offset to port, the 24 had it mounted to the starboard of the centerline. The 24 also received an entirely new rounded moulded plywood empennage incorporating a small fixed fin and a half-heart shaped rudder.Varriale, 2015, p.

The fuselage was constructed using chrome-moly steel tubing covered with doped cotton fabric and the wings and empennage were constructed of spruce and mahogany plywood box spars and plywood ribs and skins, also covered with fabric. The use of aluminum, which was in critically short supply and more urgently needed for other aircraft, was limited to the engine cowling, tail cone, framework for the ailerons, rudder and elevator and the landing gear fairings. The L-5 was powered by a six-cylinder 190 horsepower Lycoming O-435 engine.

The M.19 was developed to compete in the Sachsenflug competition for single-seat lightplanes, to requirements set down by the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt (DVL). It was Messerschmitt's first low-wing cantilever monoplane, though the fuselage and empennage were clearly related to that of the high-wing two-seat M.17 of 1925. This fuselage had five main longitudinal members, four defining the lower rectangular part and a raised, central dorsal member that made the upper cross-section triangular. These members tapered strongly together towards the tail unit, where the fuselage was very slim.

With a conventional layout that somewhat resembled a scaled-up Lockheed F-104, the XB-68 was to have been primarily of steel construction, with the crew of a pilot-radio operator and navigator-bombardier defense systems operator in a pressurized compartment, to be cooled by filtered bleed-air from the engines, and a refrigeration unit for evaporative cooling at high Mach numbers. The B-68 would have had stubby diamond-shaped wings and a raked T-tail empennage. It was intended to be operated at supersonic speeds at medium and high altitudes.

The Ca.310 was designed as a low-wing monoplane reconnaissance/bomber, being essentially a version of the semi-military Ca.309 with retractable landing gear and uprated engines. The fuselage was of welded steel tube construction with a covering of light alloy panels and fabric, while the empennage/tail unit was of wooden construction with plywood skin on its fixed portions and fabric covering on control surfaces. Above the fuselage, mounted in line with the wing trailing edges was a manually operated dorsal turret armed with a single Breda-SAFAT machine gun.

As the end of World War II approached, the U.S. Army Air Forces issued a requirement for a new target drone to replace the Radioplane OQ-2 family of drones, with higher performance to better simulate the improved capabilities of combat aircraft.Parsch 2003 The RP-18, designed by Radioplane's Reginald Denny in response,Newcome 2004, p.58. was of all-metal construction, with a high- mounted wing and conventional empennage. Power was supplied by a Righter O-45 four-cylinder horizontially-opposed engine, and launch was via catapult.

Its empennage was externally braced, with ply-covered fin and tailplane carrying fabric covered control surfaces. Its fixed landing gear, with a track of , was of the tailskid type, with mainwheels on a single axle held via rubber ring shock absorbers on V-struts from the lower longerons. The Gabriel P 6, the first Polish designed two seat trainer, was flown for the first time in late May 1924, piloted by Jan Gabriel at Bydgoszcz. It was subsequently tested by pilots from the Bydgoszcz pilot's school, who reported that it handled well.

It was ply-covered but the very generous, rounded, balanced rudder, which reached down to the keel, was fabric covered like the rest of the empennage. Its horizontal tail was ground- adjustable and tapered in plan to rounded tips, with unbalanced elevators separated by a gap to allow rudder movement. The undercarriage was conventional, with fixed mainwheels and a tailskid. The wheels were on split axles from the lower central fuselage; its landing legs, incorporating rubber disk shock absorbers, and drag struts were attached to the lower longerons.

Mayfly schematics Lillian Bland started construction of the Mayfly in the stables of her home during 1909, after making a series of tests with large-scale model gliders. The Mayfly was an equal-span biplane resembling the Farman III in general layout, with a front- mounted elevator and a rear-mounted empennage carried on booms. The full size aircraft was first flown as a glider from Carnmoney Hill early in 1910, initially unmanned.Miss Lilian E. Bland's Biplane "Mayfly" Flight, 19 February 1910 and with an undercarriage consisting of a pair of skids.

The type featured a strengthened fuselage, wing, and empennage structures; the larger vertical fin with fully powered rudder as used on the two-seat versions; fully powered brakes, a new anti-skid system, and larger tires; revised flaps for improved combat maneuvering; and a larger braking chute. Upgraded avionics included the Autonetics NASARR F15A-41B radar with air-to-air, ground-mapping, contour-mapping, and terrain-avoidance modes, as well as the Litton LN-3 inertial navigation system (the first on a production fighter).Upton 2003, pp. 32–33.Pace 1992, p. 81.

A separate, circular cockpit behind them could be fitted with a seat for a second passenger. The empennage was conventional, with near-triangular fin and tailplane, the latter mounted on top of the fuselage girder. Early photographs and drawings show both carried straight-edged control surfaces, though a later photograph shows a taller, round-topped rudder. The PL.1 had conventional, steel tube landing gear with mainwheels independently mounted on a split axle hinged from the forward vertex of the lower master-frame and with radius arms to its rear.

The Votec 252T is a side-by side seat development of MSW's earlier tandem seat Votec 322. The prototype, powered by a modified Lycoming IO-540-J3A5 flat-six engine, marries the wooden wings and empennage of the latter to a new, carbon fibre fuselage, though a carbon fibre wing is under development. All flying surfaces are straight tapered and square tipped, the wing low mounted and the tailplane located on the upper fuselage; the rudder extends down to the keel. The ailerons are balanced with external spades.

Reports that the wreckage had been found at an elevation of 11,482 feet were refuted by officials from the Iranian Red Crescent and Iranian investigators. On 20 February, two helicopters from Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Air Force sighted the wreckage of the aircraft, below the peak of the mountains south of Noqol at an elevation of approximately . Another military helicopter sighted the wreckage and pinpointed the crash site. The aircraft was completely obliterated, with large portion of the tail cone, the vertical stabilizer, the rudder and the empennage were found.

It was a pusher design, reminiscent of the Royal Aircraft Factory F.E series, for example the FE8, with a full fuselage replaced with a pod or nacelle with the cockpit and the engine behind it, the empennage supported on an open frame. The Zephyr's pilot sat under the front wing with a long but downward sloping nose ahead of him. Four booms ran rearwards from the wings, two on each side converging in the vertical plane from the inner interplane struts to the tail, with rectangular bracing to stiffen them.

The Letov Š-3, originally known as the Letov Š.B1, was the first original fighter design from Letov, the start of a line designed by Alois Šmolik. It had a wooden parasol wing and a metal-framed fuselage and empennage, and was powered by a six-cylinder water-cooled in-line BMW IIIa engine. The wing was only slightly tapered, being almost rectangular and with a cutout in the trailing edge over the cockpit to improve the pilot's field of view. Short-span ailerons were mounted far outboard.

The fuselage is almost flat sided and bottomed but with raised, rounded decking behind the single seat cockpit and canopy. A view of the fuselage during a reconstruction project The empennage is conventional, with tapered horizontal surfaces mounted near the top of the fuselage and a curved fin carrying a broad, balanced rudder. The rudder extends down to the keel, so the elevators are cut away to allow its movement. The Pinocchio has a wide track tail wheel/skid undercarriage with main wheels on vertical, cantilever legs from the wings.

The type was marketed in the U.S. by Emil Lehecka, who imported one for his participation in the US Annual National Soaring Contest in 1937. A single Rhönsperber (civilian registration NC17898) was impressed into USAAF service under the designation TG-19 (s/n 42-57165). A Rhönsperber (BGA260), flying with a Rhönbussard empennage which has a more angular horizontal tail, is still active in the U.K. as of 2018. A "perfect" Rhönsperber replica, built by Otto Grau in 1997, remained on the German civil aircraft register in 2010.

The tail incidence was automatically changed when the landing flaps were lowered, or it could be adjusted manually. This tip would be replaced by dive brakes in the event the Dornier was required to attack precision targets. The horizontal stabilizer surfaces were conventional, as part of a twin tail empennage with "endplate" vertical fin/rudder units, as on the previous production Do 17 airframes. The rudder contained a balance tab while the elevators contained an elevator balance tab and an automatic dive pull-out tab, in the event of a dive-bombing mission.

The prototype of the LS6, successor to the LS3 in the FAI 15 metre Class, made its first flight in 1983. Having entered production one year later, the LS6 had an uncommonly long production run ended by Rolladen-Schneider's entry into receivership in 2003. A total of 375 of all versions were built. A watershed design, the LS6 introduced carbon reinforced plastic as a structural material in LS-gliders, thin profiles for wings and empennage, wing extensions and other features that have been retained in all subsequent types developed by the company.

The 737 had broken into several large pieces upon impact. These were the nose and cockpit section, the cabin up to the wing attachment point, the cabin from behind the wings to the rear airstairs, and the empennage. Although actual impact speeds were low and well within survivability limits, the structural breakup of the fuselage and exposure to freezing water nonetheless proved fatal for all persons aboard the plane except those seated in the tail section. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that the accident was not survivable.

The original three-blade tilting hub rotor system was replaced by a two-blade rotor controlled with swashplate- actuated cyclic and collective pitch controls. An empennage provided the necessary stabilization about the pitch and yaw axes. For takeoff, landing, and low-speed flight, the rotor was driven by air delivered by the superchargers and burnt with fuel in blade-tip mounted pressure-jets. This zero-torque rotor drive did not require a compensating anti-torque system, though the collective pitch of the wingtip-mounted propellers was controlled by the rudder pedals to provide yaw control.

The empty weight was a serious design concern for reasons beyond mere ease of ground handling. As the scope for increasing the wing area was limited, since it originated on a single-seat design, the Akafliegers strove to achieve an empty mass as low as possible, in order to keep the wing loading of the shorter 18 meter span within reasonable limits. Some parts of the fuselage were adapted from existing production types, such as the tail boom of the LS4 and the empennage of the LS8. Considerable redesign was required, however.

The classic aerofoil section wing is unstable in flight and difficult to control. Flexible-wing types often rely on an anchor line or the weight of a pilot hanging beneath to maintain the correct attitude. Some free-flying types use an adapted aerofoil that is stable, or other ingenious mechanisms including, most recently, electronic artificial stability. But in order to achieve trim, stability and control, most fixed-wing types have an empennage comprising a fin and rudder which act horizontally and a tailplane and elevator which act vertically.

Its enclosed, tandem seat cockpit was shaped to reproduced the form of the 161's nose, though the full sized aircraft had proportionally shorter glazing. The 161 had a twin fin empennage with a N-strut braced, parallel chord tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage on a short pillar with marked dihedral. The fins were of the endplate type, with curved leading edges and roughly symmetric above and below the tailplane; on each, the rudder was split into an upper and lower part. All of these features appeared on the final, full size airliner.

The tailplane of this P-51 is shown in pink. A tailplane, also known as a horizontal stabiliser, is a small lifting surface located on the tail (empennage) behind the main lifting surfaces of a fixed-wing aircraft as well as other non-fixed-wing aircraft such as helicopters and gyroplanes. Not all fixed-wing aircraft have tailplanes. Canards, tailless and flying wing aircraft have no separate tailplane, while in V-tail aircraft the vertical stabiliser, rudder, and the tail-plane and elevator are combined to form two diagonal surfaces in a V layout.

Canards on the Saab Viggen The classic airfoil section wing is unstable in flight and difficult to control. Flexible-wing types often rely on an anchor line or the weight of a pilot hanging beneath to maintain the correct attitude. Some free-flying types use an adapted airfoil that is stable, or other ingenious mechanisms including, most recently, electronic artificial stability. To achieve stability and control, most fixed-wing types have an empennage comprising a fin and rudder which act horizontally and a tailplane and elevator which act vertically.

Its vertical tail repeated the small ventral fin of the D.VI and later Rolands and the rudder was similarly deep and rounded, but the tail surfaces of the second prototype were much enlarged and the rudder of the third horn balanced. The D.IX's conventional undercarriage was of the single axle type, mounted on V-struts to the lower fuselage and with a tailskid attached to the ventral fin. As well the ailerons and empennage revisions of the later prototypes, both were powered by the newer, Siemens-Halske Sh.IIIa rotary.

British Aerospace Jetstream 31 with cruciform tail Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck showing its cruciform design tail The cruciform tail is an aircraft empennage configuration which, when viewed from the aircraft's front or rear, looks much like a cross. The usual arrangement is to have the horizontal stabilizer intersect the vertical tail somewhere near the middle, and above the top of the fuselage. The design is often used to locate the horizontal stabilizer away from jet exhaust, propeller and wing wake, as well as to provide undisturbed airflow to the rudder.

Captain Danilov ordered First Officer Shcherbakov and the flight mechanic to look out from the window and see if they could find the Chamba River. The landing gear was extended by the crew started its initial descent. At a speed of 235 km/h, the aircraft sheared tree tops and the right wing detached from the airframe. The Yak-40 then rolled severely to the right and crashed into the bank of the Chamba River inverted, with the front portion in the water and the empennage resting on shore.

Zeppelin Company chairman Eckener, who had opposed the joint flight both because it politicized the airships and had forced the cancellation of an essential final endurance test for Hindenburg, was furious and rebuked Lehmann.Eckener 1958, pp. 150–151. Graf Zeppelin, which had been hovering above the airfield waiting for Hindenburg to join it, had to start off on the propaganda mission alone while LZ 129 returned to her hangar. There temporary repairs were quickly made to its empennage before joining up with the smaller airship several hours later.

It was a single-bay biplane with equal-span wings and I-type struts. The empennage incorporated a conventional horizontal stabilizer with no vertical stabilizer and an abbreviated all-moving rudder. The fuselage was short and deep of laminated wood construction, armed with twin synchronized Schwarzlose machine guns. During taxi trials, insufficient yaw control was reported with a tendency to "swap ends". A larger rudder was installed and the fuselage lengthened from 4.65m (15 ft 3in) to 5.85m (19 ft 2in). The Lohner 10.20 first flew on 29 December 1916 and exhibited poor stability.

The 500L is a mid wing monoplane with a single five blade propeller in a pusher configuration. The aircraft's designers have made extensive use of laminar flow shapes in its wings, fuselage, and empennage, and claim that the production aircraft will achieve a range of at a speed in excess of , with cabin volume equivalent to a medium business jet. The aircraft is expected to achieve lower carbon emissions and operating costs than existing competitors. The aircraft is powered by a single RED A03 V12 aircraft diesel engine from German company Raikhlin Aircraft Engine Developments.

At the rear the empennage was conventional, with a tailplane of the same plan as the wings, mounted on top of the fuselage. It carried broad, straight-edged elevators with a deep cut-out for movement of the tall, round-tipped rudder which was hinged from a small, triangular fin. The fixed undercarriage had mainwheels with stub-axles on short, rigid duralumin tubes from the lower fuselage, giving a track of only . The tailskid was designed to double-up as a forward hook for transport as a trailer.

The RG-5 had a ply monocoque fuselage with its single cockpit ahead of the wing, enclosed by a multipart, sideways opening canopy which reached to the nose. It landed on a fixed monowheel under mid-wing, with a skid that reached from the nose to under the leading edge, assisted by a small tail bumper. The fuselage tapered markedly from the cockpit aft to a conventional wooden framed, fabric covered empennage. Both tailplane and fin were straight edged, with the former mounted forward of the fin at shoulder position and carrying rounded elevators.

The empennage was conventional, with a triangular plan tailplane mounted near the top of the fuselage and braced on each side with a strut to the lower fuselage. Its angle of incidence could be adjusted in flight by the pilot. The elevators were narrow and rectangular apart from central cut-outs to allow operation of the trapezoidal rudder, which extended down to the keel and was mounted on a triangular fin. The Wibault 260 had fixed, conventional steel landing gear with a track of , its wheels fitted with brakes.

The S-37 was a two bay sesquiplane using parallel interplane struts and bracing wires. Based on the S-35 its construction was very similar, an all metal fuselage and main wing made of Duralumin and covered with fabric. The empennage featured a triple tail with the rudders placed in the slipstream of each engine and a center vertical stabilizer that was adjustable from a lever in the cockpit. The first S-37 was initially powered by Gnome-Rhône 9A Jupiter engines with the main fuel tanks located in the fairings behind each engine.

No. 295 Squadron undergoing a 24-hour overhaul in at RAF Holmsley South, Hampshire, 1943 A line of Halifax A Mark VII glider tugs attached to various General Aircraft Hamilcars via tow ropes of No. 298 Squadron and No. 644 Squadron, at RAF Woodbridge, Suffolk, prior to launch ;Halifax B.V :Four- engined long-range heavy-bomber, powered by four Rolls-Royce Merlin XX engines with square empennage and wingtips. Armament as B.III. 904 produced. ;Halifax B.V Series I (Special) ;Halifax A.V :Halifax B.V bombers converted into glider tugs and paratroop transport aircraft.

A Boeing 777-300ER painted in the 1994–2015 livery landing at Hong Kong International Airport. A Boeing 777-300ER in Cathay Pacific's latest livery Before November 1994, all Cathay Pacific aircraft used a "green lettuce" livery and carried the British flag on the empennage. After the handover, aircraft carry the Brand Hong Kong logo and with HONG KONG or in Chinese 香港 under or beside the Brand Hong Kong logo instead of using the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) flag. The HKSAR flag has never appeared on any aircraft.

The empennage was of the cruciform type with vertical fins carrying separate rudders, the upper one operated by the same hand-lever that controlled the wing-warping and the lower one by a rudder bar. Another hand-lever controlled the elevator. The W.Z.II was built in Zalewski's workshop at Milanówek in only three weeks in the spring of 1912 and flight testing soon began. Initially, handling was poor but this was cured by stiffening the fuselage with extra wire bracing and by small changes to the vertical tail.

Fuel and oil tanks were in the enclosed cabin, which had two side- by-side seats, with a large transparency in the wing centre section above them and accessed via a door on each side. The cabin was equipped with dual controls, radio and blind-flying instrumentation. Behind the seats there was of luggage space in which loads of up to could be accommodated. The empennage had a steel tube structure and was fabric covered, with wire bracing between the fin, the in-flight adjustable tailplane and the lower fuselage.

The Dolphin originated in 1930 as the "Sinbad," a pure flying boat without wheels. The Sinbad was intended as a luxurious flying yacht. Undaunted by the lack of demand, Douglas improved the Sinbad in 1931 so that it was amphibious, and could land on water or land. The improved aircraft was named "Dolphin", however this did not represent the end of development, as many detail improvements were made, including an increase in the length of over a foot and changes made to the empennage, engine nacelles and wings.

The next year the museum purchased a C-47 and a former waterbomber A-26. Work continued on the B-17 at the south end until 2010 when a purpose built hangar was completed and the B-17 project as well as the newly acquired aircraft were moved into it. In August 2011, the museum recovered the remains, primarily the empennage, of a B-17G wreckage from Talkeetna, Alaska for use in the restoration. In November 2018, a Grumman C-1 Trader in flying condition was donated to the museum.

Behind him was a second cockpit which could be fitted out in different ways, for example with radio or photographic equipment or for gunnery with twin Lewis guns on a flexible mount plus a synchronised Vickers machine gun, or with night-flying equipment. The empennage of the MS.152 was conventional, with its horizontal tail, almost rectangular in plan and of high aspect ratio, mounted on the upper fuselage. Its fin was quadrantal in profile and carried a tapered rudder down to the keel. The control surfaces were unbalanced.

The wings were mounted below the upper longerons and were slightly tapered. Lateral control was by wing warping. In earlier aircraft the warping and bracing wires were attached to a pair of vertical kingposts just aft of the leading edge of the wing: in later aircraft these were braced by diagonal struts leading back to the fuselage longerons. The empennage of early examples consisted of an elongated triangular vertical fin with a cutout to allow elevator travel with a rectangular rudder hinged to the trailing edge, and a similarly elongated triangular tailplane with an elevator.

Avro RJ-85 of SN Brussels Airlines (Belgium) McDonnell Douglas MD-90 Piper PA-44-180 Seminole Grob G 109 motor glider Beechcraft 1900D of the Swiss Air Force T-tail of aircraft (Tu-154) A T-tail is an empennage configuration in which the tailplane is mounted to the top of the fin. The arrangement looks like the capital letter T, hence the name. The T-tail differs from the standard configuration in which the tailplane is mounted to the fuselage at the base of the fin.

At the time the T-18 was developed these engines were inexpensive and widely available as military surplus generator motors. When converted for aircraft use they are virtually identical to the O-290D or O-290D2 aircraft engines. Other Lycoming engines can be used, including the Lycoming O-320, Lycoming O-340, Lycoming O-360 and the Lycoming IO-360. T-18 plans were available to builders from Eklund Engineering, which was also developing a laser-cut kit version and as of 2009 had aileron, flap and empennage kits.

Roll rate generates fin lift causing a yawing moment and also differentially alters the lift on the wings, thus affecting the induced drag contribution of each wing, causing a (small) yawing moment contribution. Positive roll generally causes positive N_p values unless the empennage is anhedral or fin is below the roll axis. Lateral force components resulting from dihedral or anhedral wing lift differences has little effect on N_p because the wing axis is normally closely aligned with the center of gravity. :::N_r Yawing moment due to yaw rate.

The Beechcraft Bonanza, the most common example of V-tail empennage configuration On some aircraft, horizontal and vertical stabilizers are combined in a pair of surfaces named V-tail. In this arrangement, two stabilizers (fins and rudders) are mounted at 90 - 120° to each other,F-117 Nighthawk, 90° - Fouga Magister, 105° - Beech Bonanza, 116° giving a larger horizontal projected area than vertical one as in the majority of conventional tails. The moving control surfaces are then named ruddervators.A portmanteau of rudder & elevator The V-tail thus acts both as a yaw and pitch stabilizer.

The Grumman Design 118 was a two-seat, twin-engined, rocket augmented, carrier-based all-weather supersonic fighter aircraft. It had a 45° swept wing, a "T-tail" empennage, two small folding ventral fins, and a landing gear of tricycle configuration. For ejection, the tandem crew were encapsulated and ejected downwards. It also featured a boundary layer control system to improve low speed handling. The G-118 was to be powered by two J79-GE-3 engines, with accommodations for the more powerful J79-GE-207 engines each producing 18,000 lbf of afterburning thrust.

At the rear the empennage was conventional, with a cropped triangular tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage and braced from below on each side by an inverted V-strut, allowing its incidence to be varied in flight. Its elevators were separate and balanced. The Potez 50 had an almost triangular fin and a rounded, unbalanced rudder which reached to the keel. The undercarriage was fixed with the mainwheels under aircraft fairings and on split axles centrally mounted on a transverse V-strut from the central lower fuselage.

The limousine had a conventionally laid out empennage. It had no fixed tailplane but its balanced elevator, with a slightly swept leading edge and almost semi-circular, fabric-covered rear, was hinged at the extreme tail. The fin, built integral to the fuselage, was triangular and the fabric-covered rudder was rhomboidal, leaving a space below for elevator movement. Its landing gear was conventional, with its mainwheels on steel half-axles centrally hinged within the fuselage at its deepest part and with rubber shock absorbers on the fuselage underside, giving a track of .

The two C.A.15Cs wereFlight 27 October 1932 all-metal aircraft apart from the fabric-covered wings and tail surfaces. The fuselage, cabin and empennage were the same in both versions. The tailplane was braced and the fin and rudder rather angular and flat-topped, the rudder horn- balanced. Because the Air Ministry envisaged the aircraft going to Imperial Airways after the trials, the cabins were fully fitted out for ten passengers, with two compartments containing six and four seats placed singly on either side of a central aisle.

It was a more pleasing- looking machine with a shorter fuselage, cowled engine, simplified undercarriage and heavily revised empennage. The fuselage had rounded upper decking and aluminium covering at the front. Blackburn had persisted with the Second Monoplane's Antoinette-style fin and tailplane through subsequent aircraft, but the Type D's tailplane had a much less steeply swept leading edge (though still 60°) than its predecessors and carried a divided elevator. The fin likewise was less swept though still long, and now carried a single rudder rather than the characteristic triangular pair previously used.

The whole fuselage was a smooth, oval section semi-monocoque structure with wooden frames and ply skin and the engine was in its forward part, though with its cylinders exposed for cooling. The small diameter propeller, designed by Dabrovsky, had a dished spinner that blended into the fuselage's lines. The biplane's single, open cockpit was under the upper trailing edge where there was a cut-out to increase the pilot's field of view. The Cykacz had a conventional empennage with a fin that was integral with the fuselage and ply covered.

Talon (Ying-Zhua or Yingzhua, 鹰爪) is a fixed-wing UAV in conventional layout with high wing configuration and V-tail. The UAV adopts a tricycle landing gear, but unlike most Chinese UAVs with tricycle landing gear where all wheels are installed on the fuselage, only the main wheel of Talon is installed to the fuselage, but the other two wheels are installed under the wing. Propulsion is provided by a two-blade propeller driven electrical motor in pusher configuration installed at the empennage. Payload is installed in the nose.

There was a sprung tail skid at the rear. The exact date of the DP.VII's first flight is not certain, but the prototype had been well tested by late May 1924 and there were plans to put it into quantity production. At almost the same time, Dietrich-Gobiet were developing the DP.VIIA which, despite the similar designation, was a larger-span, parasol- wing monoplane. It had a similar fuselage and empennage to the DP.VII but a much more powerful engine, a Siemens-Halske Sh 4 five-cylinder radial producing about .

They shared the same all-metal structure, mostly Duralumin covered with narrow aluminium strips applied longitudinally. The parasol wing was straight edged and of constant chord, braced to the lower fuselage with a pair of parallel struts on each side which met the wing at about mid-span. There were cabane struts over the fuselage and a trailing edge cut-out in the wing over the pilot's cockpit to enhance his visibility. The two designs shared the same flat sided fuselage and angular empennage, though the fin of the Wib 9 was noticeably broader.

A pair of parallel aluminium struts inside streamlined spruce fairings took lift and drag loads to the lower fuselage longerons. There were additional vertical struts, small ones as on the F.190 but more sturdy ones under the outboard engines. The empennage of the F.280 was also similar to that of the F.190, with a double strutted rectangular tailplane carrying separate elevators, with a rudder cut-out between them. This deep rudder, tabbed and horn balanced was likewise square edged, mounted on a very wide chord, shallow, straight edged fin.

Its one-piece, twin spar wing had a rectangular centre- section and tapered outwards and was covered overall with fabric. It was supported over the fuselage on four near-vertical steel-tube struts and braced with lift wires from the lower fuselage longerons to the spars and with landing wires from a cabane over the fuselage. Its fuselage was a simple, rectangular section, ply-covered structure with a single-seat, open cockpit under the wing leading edge. The empennage was fabric-covered and wire-braced, with a curved fin carrying a broad, curved rudder.

Soldier performing pre-flight inspections on a RQ-7B Shadow in Afghanistan, 2019 The RQ-7 Shadow 200 unmanned aircraft system is of a high-wing, constant chord pusher configuration with a twin- tailboom empennage and an inverted v-tail. The aircraft is powered by a AR741-1101 Wankel engine designed and manufactured by UAV Engines Ltd in the United Kingdom.US Army Technical Manual 9-5895-YYY-10 Shadow 200 TUAV System, 22 October 2004. Onboard electrical systems are powered by a GEC/Plessey 28 volt, direct current, 2 kW generator.

On May 8, 1970, section 25.631 "Bird strike damage" of the Code of Federal Regulations took effect. This regulation added a requirement that the empennage structure of an aircraft must be designed to assure the capability of continued safe flight and landing after an impact with an eight-pound bird during flight at the likely operational speeds. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Joint Aviation Authorities was formed to produce the Joint Aviation Requirements for certification of large aircraft in Europe. The Joint Aviation Requirements were largely based upon Section 25 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.

The cockpit, within a circular cut-out in the wing, placed the pilot high between the wing spars giving him a good forward view. There were sizeable cut-outs in the wing trailing edge to improve his rearward view downward. The empennage was conventional, the one piece elevator having a cut-out for rudder movement. The fixed, conventional undercarriage was of the divided axle type, the axle enclosed within a wooden aerofoil fairing and hinged on the central lower longeron, with its wheels and extremities on rubber sprung V-form struts to the wing roots at the upper longerons.

Theodore Honey (James Stewart), an eccentric "boffin" with the Royal Aircraft Establishment, is working on solving a difficult aviation crash problem. A widower with a 12-year-old daughter, Elspeth (Janette Scott), Honey is sent from Farnborough to investigate the crash of a Rutland Reindeer airliner in Labrador, Canada. He theorizes the accident happened because of the tailplane's structural failure, caused by metal fatigue after 1440 flight hours. To test the theory in his laboratory, a fatigue test is performed on the fin and tailplane (empennage) by vibrating it using a dynamic shaker at a very high rate in daily eight-hour cycles.

Externally, the An-124 is similar to the American Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, having a double fuselage to allow for a rear cargo door (on the lower fuselage) that can open in flight without affecting structural integrity. It is slightly shorter, with a slightly greater wingspan, and a 17% larger payload. Instead of the Galaxy's T-tail, the An-124 uses a conventional empennage, similar in design to that of the Boeing 747. The An-124's main engine is the Lotarev D-18 (238–250 kN). The aircraft uses oleo strut suspension for its 24 wheels.

The design had three engines mounted at the rear of the fuselage, one on either side and one in the fin. The empennage was a T-tail arrangement to keep the horizontal stabiliser above the central engine. The Type 200 was the first design to have this T-tail trijet configuration, which was later used successfully on several aircraft (see Boeing 727, Hawker Siddeley Trident, Tupolev Tu-154). There was speculation about several engines that might have been used on the aircraft, including the Bristol Orpheus turbojet, The Bristol Olympus, the Rolls Royce RB.140/RB.

The retractable tricycle landing gear featured dual-wheel main units. The empennage had twin fins and rudders and a vestigial central fin. The prototype was powered by four SNECMA 14R-24 radial engines.Stroud Flight 10 April 1953, p. 458. The Bréguets serving with Air France had up to 107 seats and an elevator between the two floors. The prototype was followed by three Br.761S pre-production aircraft powered by 2,020 hp (1506 kW) Pratt & Whitney R-2800-B31 radial engines. These were fitted with 12 ft 1½in (3.70 m) diameter Hamilton Standard propellers. The aircraft successfully completed their trials incident-free.

Designed by Henry Farman and built at the Farman factory in Boulogne-Billancourt north of Paris, the HF.14 was an improved version of the HF.6. The two bay sesquiplane featured unstaggered wings with conventional interplane struts and a fuselage of wood and steel construction. The large ailerons were installed only on the upper wing and were interconnected, unlike some earlier Farman designs with single acting ailerons that hung down with the aircraft at rest. Using the same triangular empennage support structure as the HF.6, the new aircraft had a more streamlined horizontal stabilizer and an oval rudder.

Germany had established Akademische Fliegergruppe at several universities after World War I. The first and lead group was established in Berlin, but one of the most prolific, up to World War II, was Akaflieg München, and design activities continued after World War II. The Akaflieg München Mü-27 is a two-seat research aircraft intended to explore the performance characteristics of slotted Fowler flaps when used on a high-performance Sailplane. The Mü-27 is a large glider. The empennage and fuselage are constructed of glassfibre re- inforced plastic with conticell foam sandwich cores throughout. The wings have aluminium alloy spars and webs.

A long, single, semi-reclining seat cockpit with a single piece canopy following the fuselage contours is placed ahead of the leading edge. Under it a rubber-sprung landing skid reaches aft to a retractable single wheel under the forward wing. The fuselage tapers rearwards to a T-tail quite different from the CPV1's conventional empennage, with a swept, straight tapered fin and rudder carrying a cantilever, tapered, one-piece all-moving horizontal tail fitted with a central anti-balance tab. The A2 first flew in 1964 and a short production run began in 1966.

At about the same time the empennage was modified with a squarer tailplane,This may have been done first, as the g/a diagram in Ord-Hume shows the new tailplane with old fin and the Douglas engine taller, less rounded fin and square tipped rudder. The leaf spring undercarriage was replaced with a lighter split axle unit carrying smaller wheels and braced with conspicuous V-struts to the wing roots. There were also modifications to the top of the fuselage, including the installation of a side hinged cockpit cover with an opening just large enough to allow the pilot's head to protrude.

The fuselage had a rectangular section apart from the rounded upper decking and held two tandem cockpits, each wide enough to seat two side by side. The forward seats were under the wing and the other, seating the pilot, below the trailing edge. As on the Medwecki HL 2 the forward seats were entered via a car-type door with a special lock that maintained the integrity of the upper longeron; the cockpit, without the obstacle of the wing, could be entered over its side. The M.N.3's empennage was conventional, with a triangular fin mounting an essentially rectangular rudder.

Each branch of the Y carried a landing skid, U-shaped in profile; alternatively, take-offs and landings could be made on the pilot's feet. The frames merged at the penultimate vertical cross member, where the empennage began. A delta-plan tailplane was mounted on the top of the frame and extended rearwards to the final cross-member, which reached above the frame and formed the rudder post. The Mlody Lotnik's fin started at the same point as the tailplane and was also triangular, though low; the rudder, a cropped rectangle in profile, extended to the bottom of the frame.

Built principally from GFRP the B12 uses monocoque construction, avoiding the use of a welded steel-tube core structure, maximising the volume available for crew accommodation and payloads such as research instrumentation. The cockpit seats two in tandem under large plexiglas canopies with the instructor seat, in the rear, set at a higher level to improve his forward view. The wings are standard 'Janus B' items built using identical construction methods. The empennage originally utilised a cruciform tail using an NACA 0009-64 aerofoil section formed with ' Rohacell'/GFRP sandwich supported by CFRP (Carbon-Fibre Re-inforced Plastic) spars.

The BS.7 was a primary glider in the Zögling tradition, with high wing and tail, the wings held above the pilot on a flat frame. Its wing and tail surfaces were very close to those of the much copied German glider. It was, though, structurally cleaner and simpler to rig, with most flying wires replaced by faired, steel V-form bracing struts and an empennage supported on a simple box beam rather than an extended central frame. The extremely simple wing of the BS.7 was built around two spars, one close to the leading edge and the other near mid-chord.

In anticipation of the United States entering World War II, Laird closed his plant in July 1941, and he become vice president of a manufacturing company in Laporte, Indiana (which later became Laporte Corp.). He brought with him all of his factory machinery, equipment, and materials. Despite starting with an untrained workforce, Laird led the company in successfully meeting rapidly expanding wartime needs for a wide range of components, including B-24 and SB2C vertical fins, complete empennage groups for Martin B-26s, wing flaps, radio cabinets, and crew bunks. After the war, Laird was concerned about business prospects for civil aviation.

The canopy is multi- framed with a rather upright windscreen; the fixed glazing extends rearwards to mid wing and the forward section, including the screen, instruments and a small surrounding portion of the fuselage, hinges to starboard for access. The narrow fin is also ply covered but the rest of the empennage is fabric over wood framing. The rudder, like the fin, is straight tapered with a rounded tip; it extends down to the keel. A straight tapered tailplane and elevators are placed on top of the fuselage, the elevators having a cut-out for rudder movement.

Construction of the ITS-8W began at the same time as that of the ITS-8. It was originally intended to be identical to it apart from the more powerful engine and its use of the longer, interchangeable, outer wing panels. The delay caused by the engine vibration problems of the ITS-8 provided an opportunity to incorporate the aerodynamic advantages provided by the revised centre section and twin-finned empennage before the first flight on 18 May 1938. Planned preparation for production of the ITS-8W in 1939 was ended by the German invasion of Poland.

Engine #3 had separated from the empennage. Passengers reported that the plane appeared to shake violently on takeoff. Witnesses on the ground claimed that one of the engines was on fire, but although the engine was badly crushed from ground impact, there was no sign of fire or heat damage. Delta officials quickly reacted to questions about the 727's operating and maintenance condition by pointing out that the original factory engines from 1973 (when the plane was initially purchased by the airline) had been replaced in the last few years by a newer model that ran more quietly and used less fuel.

Derived from the Hannover CL.II, the CL.V shared the same conventional biplane configuration and incorporated the overhanging, aerodynamically-balanced ailerons developed for the Hannover CL.III. The characteristic biplane tail used on earlier Hannover CL-class machines was dispensed with, and a conventional empennage was fitted to the prototype, although German production machines reverted to the earlier tail. Hannover CL.V with biplane tail The CL.V was first tested in July 1918, which led to an initial order from Idflieg for 20 aircraft powered by the Mercedes D.III engine for evaluation. Further orders followed for CL.Vs powered by the BMW.

American Lockheed Lightning participating in the Normandy campaign showing the D-Day invasion stripes. Spitfire PR.Mk.XIX displayed at an air show in 2008 with the black and white invasion stripes. Invasion stripes were alternating black and white bands painted on the fuselages and wings of Allied aircraft during World War II to reduce the chance that they would be attacked by friendly forces during and after the Normandy Landings. Three white and two black bands were wrapped around the rear of a fuselage just in front of the empennage (tail) and from front to back around the upper and lower wing surfaces.

For a rear observation or gunnery position to have an unobstructed field of view, placing it at the rear of a conventional tail moves it so far aft that problems arise with the centre of mass and balancing the aircraft. Getting rid of the conventional empennage allows the rear position to be located more forward, resolving the balance problem. An example is provided by the Focke-Wulf Fw 189. However the twin booms and bridging tailplane still obstruct the field of view to some extent and guns in this position are especially restricted in firing to the side.

The lower one sloped upward aft, where three diagonal struts braced the girders; wire cross-bracing stabilised the girders into a beam. At the rear the empennage was conventional, with a parallel chord tailplane mounted on top of the upper fuselage members, a one piece, straight edged elevator hinged on it. There was a single, central fin which blended into a rhombohedral rudder; its cut-away underside provided for elevator movement. The Rubis had a tube-framed, streamlined pod, containing a pair of side-by- seats in an oval, open cockpit which extended just aft of the trailing edge.

There was a transversely mounted, cylindrical fuel tank behind the engine, its upper half visible at the front of the open cockpit. Initially the Caudron catalogue described the type B as a three-seater, then as a two-seater, with the pilot always in the extreme rear of the nacelle. Photographs show the B in its earliest form with two aboard, then later, after another tank had been fitted in the gap between the nacelle and lower wing, with three. The empennage of the type B was supported on a pair of girders arranged parallel to one another in plan.

Widerøe Flight 933, also known as the Mehamn Accident (), was the crash of a de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter operated by Norwegian airline Widerøe. The Twin Otter crashed into the Barents Sea off Gamvik, Norway on 11 March 1982 at 13:27, killing all fifteen people on board. The results of the four official investigations were that the accident was caused by structural failure of the vertical stabilizerAlso called the vertical fin, the vertical stabilizer is part of the empennage or tail. The aircraft's rudder is mounted on the rear of the vertical stabilizer.

A row of Boeing 777-300s and -300ERs at alt=View of airport tarmac with terminal building and multiple airliners parked adjacent to it. In December 2014, Boeing began construction on a new composites facility in St. Louis to be completed in 2016, to build 777X parts with six autoclaves for the wing and empennage parts, starting in 2017. The 787 'surge' line at the Everett factory would be converted into a 777X early production line by the end of 2015. Boeing built a new building adjacent to the Everett factory, with a autoclave, and a robot to wind fiber for the wings.

Magni Gyro currently (2010) produces five sport autogyro models, all with similar pod and low boom, pusher engine layouts. They differ chiefly in the accommodation: both the M-16 and the newer, closely similar M-22 Voyager have open cockpits and tandem seats. An 85 kW (114 hp) Rotax 914UL flat four engine is mounted high and uncowled behind the pod, driving a 3-bladed pusher propeller. Below it the slender flat-sided boom carries the fibreglass empennage, which consists of a swept horizontal stabilizer with end-plate fins and a larger, central, fin and rudder.

The pilot was at the rear with the second seat forward; the upper fuselage ahead of the cockpit was raised, leaving the occupants less exposed. A Gnome Lambda rotary engine was mounted in the front under a semi-circular cowling intended to deflect oil spray. The empennage of the Type E was supported on a pair of girders arranged parallel to one another in plan. The upper girder members were attached to the upper wing spars at the tops of the innermost interplane struts and the lower ones ran under the lower wing, mounted on downward extensions of the inner interplane struts.

It incorporated several changes in response to the lengthy development trials. The wing leading edges had breaker strips added and there were new fillets in this edge at the root and on the outboard side of the engine cowlings. The ailerons were mass balanced and fitted with ground adjustable trim tabs, and the upper hinge gaps sealed with fabric. The most obvious external changes were to the empennage where the horizontal tail now had positive dihedral and the previously rounded vertical tail had been enlarged and given severe straight taper, assisted by a ventral fin to improve low speed handling.

The oleo-pneumatic undercarriage retracted inwards with the wheels housed in the lower fuselage faired into the lower engine cowling by small doors. The empennage is built up from wood and control surfaces are metal framed with fabric covering. In January 1939, the Armée de l'Air placed an order for 50 aircraft, to be powered by Gnome-Rhône 14N engines. Due to the unavailability of Gnome-Rhône engines and French instruments, just 17 aircraft – six F.K.58s and 11 F.K.58As – were completed at the Koolhoven works, with Dutch supplied engines and instruments – and delivered to the Armée de l'Air.

It weighs 3,250 kg when empty and can carry 1,882 kg of fuel. The aircraft is fitted with a short nose cone, rounded fuselage, conventional empennage, semi- circular air intakes, vertical tailfin, rudder, ailerons, horizontal stabilisers and fuel tanks at the square tips. The two crew, typically student and instructor, are seated in a tandem configuration under individual side- opening canopies. Both positions are provided with Martin-Baker-sourced ejection seats; the rear seat is slightly elevated to render better all-round visibility and aid in the supervision of a student pilot sitting in the front.

A conventional shoulder-wing design with conventional empennage, no component of the BJ-1 exceeds 18 ft (5.5 m) in length, in order to facilitate building and storage in a domestic garage. Construction throughout was of wood, apart from a few mouldings (like the nosecone) made of fiberglass. The BJ-1 Dyna Mite first flew in 1966. The rough building sketches from Ben Janssons prototype design from 1963, were refined by Hank Thor and the BJ-1B Duster plans were released in 1971 featuring a lighter weight, extended wingspan and a lower canopy that required the pilot to fly it semi-reclined.

Tu-154 is fed through an S-duct S-duct geometryAn S-duct (or serpentine inlet) is a type of jet engine intake duct used in several types of trijet aircraft. In this configuration, the intake is in the upper rear center of the aircraft, above or below the stabilizer, while the exhaust and engine is at the rear of the aircraft. The S-duct is located in the tail, or empennage, of the aircraft. The shape of the S-duct is distinctive and easily recognized, and was used in several aircraft, beginning in 1962 with the Hawker Siddeley Trident.

The wings are tapered with square tips and the empennage consists of a large fin and rudder with an oblong tailplane with square tips mid-set to the fuselage. Grob G 115A of the Lancashire Aero Club at Manchester (Barton) Aerodrome in 2004 showing the vertical fin of this early version The initial Grob G 115 and G 115A models had an upright fin and rudder and were mainly sold to civilian aeroplane clubs in Germany, the United Kingdom and several other countries. The aircraft is capable of basic aerobatic manoeuvres (limited to +6G and −3G).

The resulting VTOL UAV Tornado Leopard cost more than ¥ 20000, much more expensive than model airplanes. Tornado Leopard is a tail-sitter with winglets. Payload is mounted in the nose of the fuselage and propulsion is provided by a ducted fan mounted at the rearend of the empennage, and the ducted fan is actually a pair of coaxial rotors. The VTOL UAV takes-off and lands like a coaxial helicopter, and once airborne, Tornado Leopard would transition itself to level flight, where the coaxial rotors would act as contra-rotating propellers to provide thrust as a pusher engine.

Aircraft designer and aviation pioneer Alfred Verville working with Lawrence Sperry, conceived the aircraft to perform a similar role as the Curtiss HS series of flying boats, with the added ability to operate from land bases. The machine was an equal span two bay triplane with N-type interplane struts of all wood construction. Power was provided by a Liberty L-12 water cooled engine turning a four bladed fixed wooden propeller in a pusher configuration. The outrigger style empennage consisted of a single large vertical stabilizer and tailplane connected to the center main wing with two horizontal tubular spars.

LFG Roland D.XV third prototype The third prototype of the D.XV had a completely different fuselage and empennage which dispensed with the molded wooden shell of previous Roland aircraft and used a more conventional fabric over frame construction typical of the period, although it tapered to a horizontal knife edge that doubled as the hinge for the single-piece overhung elevator. It was an unequal span, single bay biplane, with constant chord unswept wings separated by N-form interplane struts. The wing cellule was also redesigned compared to the earlier D.XVs. A radiator extended out from the leading edge of the top wing.

The enlarged freight hold is mounted in three months with 8,000 new parts on the junction line. The unpressurised hold begins with the tail adapted by Spain's Aernnova and continues by building the upper fuselage with two side panels and a crown for each section, for a maximum diameter of 8.8m. Produced by Stelia Aerospace, its main freight door has 24 latches and the nose includes the cockpit while a four-seat courier section is supplied by Airbus. Its vertical stabiliser is 50% larger; it has auxiliary fins on the horizontal stabiliser and two ventral fins beneath the empennage.

The two side-by-side seats, provided with dual control, were in an enclosed cabin under the wing leading edge with glazing ahead, in the two side doors sides and above, with a panel in the wing centre section. The fuselage tapered to the rear to a tall vertical tail which had a straight edged fin and a straight edged, round topped balanced rudder which reached down to the keel. The curved edged tailplane, mounted low on the fuselage, carried unbalanced elevators cut away centrally for rudder movement. Like the rest of the aircraft the empennage was wood framed and ply covered.

The Schneider Sch-10M was an unusual aircraft in several ways. It was a twin-engine, twin-boom monoplane design built entirely from metal, both its structure and skin made from Schneider's own aluminium alloy called "Alferium". It was intended for bombing, and carried photographic and radio equipment for observation, so needed strong defensive armament; the design was influenced by the need to give its two gunners the maximum field of fire. It had a cantilever, single- piece, two-spar wing, its covering, like that of the central fuselage and empennage corrugated with a separation of about .

The front seat was under the wing but the rear one was behind the trailing edge, which had a rectangular cut-out for better upward vision. Alternatively, the seats could be arranged tightly side- by-side, though with slight stagger, which allowed single controls to be shared and eased communication. The RB.1's empennage was conventional, with a broad-chord, rectangular plan tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage and carrying elevators with a large central cut-out for rudder movement. Its triangular fin mounted a parallelogram profile rudder which reached down to the keel.

The Lockheed design office was justifiably upset, but their design engineers could only conclude that servo tabs were not the solution for loss of control in a dive. Lockheed still had to find the problem; the Army Air Forces personnel were sure it was flutter and ordered Lockheed to look more closely at the tail. In 1941 flutter was a familiar engineering problem related to a too-flexible tail, but the P-38's empennage was completely skinned in aluminum rather than fabric and was quite rigid. At no time did the P-38 suffer from true flutter.

166 since the focus of attention was indeed generally on the pilots rather than on those who were responsible for the design and constructionof the aircraft. Powered by a 50 hp V8 Antoinette engine,Opdycke (1999) p.263 it was a pusher configuration two-bay biplane with a wingspan of . A biplane elevator was carried in front of the wings on the end of a short nacelle and a boxkite-like biplane empennage of half the span of the mainplanes with three vertical surfaces each carrying a trailing-edge rudder was carried on booms behind the wings.

From the Type B of 1911 to the World War I Caudron G.3 Caudron biplanes had a common layout with tractor engines, occupants in a nacelle mounted between the wings and empennage on twin booms. The earlier Types B-D in this sequence began as equal span biplanes, then were modified into sesquiplanes. In its original form, the Type C was an equal span, wire braced two bay biplane, though the inner bay was only about half the width of the outer. The two spar fabric covered wings had the same rectangular plan apart from angled tips.

Stringers behind the cockpit formed a smooth rounded decking under the overall fabric covering. The forward fuselage, including the cockpit was aluminium clad, with a neat nose piece over the 7-cylinder, 50 hp (37 kW) Gnome rotary engine, more to protect the pilot from oil than for streamlining. Steel tubing was used in several places: the empennage was steel framed, as was the pilot's seat, and steel tubes formed the vertical undercarriage members. There were four of the latter, each pair mounting a short wooden skid with steel cross bracing and a single axle on shock absorbers carrying a pair of wheels.

Further aft the fuselage tapered to a conventional empennage. A narrow, ply-covered fin and a fabric-covered rudder, which extended down to the keel, together formed a straight-tapered, flat-topped vertical tail. The fin also mounted a straight- edged, fabric-over-ply-covered tailplane placed just above the fuselage, which carried straight-tapered, similarly skinned elevators. These were balanced by a bob weight within the fuselage and had gaps both at their roots to clear the fin and at their tips to clear rearward tailplane extensions, with a small central cut out for rudder movement.

From the high wing the fuselage tapered aft to a conventional empennage. A narrow, ply covered fin and a fabric covered rudder which extended down to the keel together formed a straight edged vertical tail with rounded heel and tip. The fin also mounted a straight edged, fabric over ply covered tailplane placed just above the fuselage, carrying straight tapered, similarly skinned elevators. These were balanced by a bob weight within the fuselage and had gaps both at their roots to clear the fin and at their tips to clear rearward tailplane extensions, with a small central cut out for rudder movement.

In order to reduce stresses on the airframe, the fuselage was strengthened and wings were "shortened" by over eight ft each, resulting in a wingspan of with the tips made square-cut and ailerons moved from the end of the wings to an inset position. While maintaining its original all-wood construction and overall fuselage and empennage dimensions, the Mk II incorporated a modified fuselage which included altering the cockpit enclosure and a "deeper" canopy. Instead of using the "lid" (where the two pilots still boarded via the hinged perspex canopy),Morrison 1999, p. 64 (illustration caption).

The NiD 580's angular empennage was conventional, with a straight-tapered tailplane and elevators mounted on top of the fuselage. The fin was triangular and carried a nearly rectangular rudder, hinged behind the elevators, above the keel. It had a fixed, conventional undercarriage with mainwheels on axles at the vertices of faired V-struts hinged on the fuselage at the ends of the wing struts. On each side, a shock-absorbing leg was mounted on the forward wing strut at a point strengthened by two short struts, one to the upper fuselage longeron and one to the rear wing strut mounting point.

Behind the engine the fuselage was flat-sided apart from rounded upper decking and was ply-covered all over. There was an open cockpit over mid-wing, with a long, sloping windscreen and two small triangular windows in the wing roots, one on each side, to give the pilot a downward view. The empennage of the W.Z.XII was conventional and the vertical surfaces were similar to those of the W.Z.XI. The fin had a kinked leading edge and the rudder was large and roughly semi-circular. The tailplane, braced to the fin, was mounted on top of the fuselage.

The Potez 23 was built by Potez in response to the C1 fighter program issued by the STAé in 1923. The C1 fighter specification called for a speed of , an armament of two forward firing machine guns, and both armored tanks and drop tanks. The structure was made of wooden spars, the fuselage was covered with screwed and glued plywood, and the wings, empennage, and tail were covered in canvas. Wing tethering is simplified and builds on the experience gained on the Potez XV. The aircraft did achieve the required performance and was not accepted for production.

SpaceShipOne at the US National Air and Space Museum An outboard tail is a type of aircraft tail or empennage which is split in two, with each half mounted on a short boom just behind and outboard of each wing tip. It comprises outboard horizontal stabilizers (OHS) and may or may not include additional boom-mounted vertical stabilizers (fins). OHS designs are sometimes described as a form of tailless aircraft. The outboard tail surfaces are positioned so that they interact constructively with the wingtip vortices to significantly reduce drag, without causing undue structural or handling difficulties.

The Ibex was designed by Hall to investigate the reduced wetted area of the pod and boom configuration, hands off spiral stability of a gull wing, and the low speed performance of wide NACA slotted flaps. It also features a V tail, of water ballast and a wingspan to comply with FAI Standard Class rules. On one of its first flights the Ibex showed significant tail flutter. Initially Hall considered replacing the tail with a conventional empennage and tailSoaring, November 1967 but ended up moving the ruddervator counterweights from the tips to the roots which eliminated the problem.

Its fuel tanks were in the wing centre-section. The tourer's cabin seated two in tandem under a long, multi-part, fully glazed canopy which ran from the leading edge to mid-chord, then blended without change in height into the upper fuselage. The cabin had two small baggage holds in the centre wing section, each providing of space. The empennage of the Kellner-Béchereau 23 was conventional, with a triangular tailplane mounted on the upper fuselage and carrying narrow, rounded elevators was wire braced to the blunted triangular fin which carried a curved and narrow unbalanced rudder.

The trailing edge carried deep chord control surfaces, two per side: the outer pair were used differentially like ailerons and the inner ones as flaps. This wing was mounted on the fuselage of a Farman F.402, retaining the empennage, undercarriage and the 110 hp (82 kW) Lorraine 5-cylinder radial engine. As on the F.402, the wing was placed on top of the cabin with two square windows in the roof for upward visibility. The control system enabled the pilot to switch between conventional (aileron, elevator, rudder) control and that provided by the trailing edge surfaces.

The C.860 was ordered by the French Air Ministry who planned to use it, piloted by André Japy, for rapid long distance communications. Powered by a Renault 6Q-03 engine, it had a range of up to when cruising at . It was also expected to set distance and altitude records in Category 1 with a Renault engine and in Category 2 with a Renault, but war intervened. Its wing and empennage were aerodynamically similar to those of the Caudron Simoun, though the single-piece wing was structurally closer to that of the record-setting Rafale racer.

Its high-aspect ratio all-metal wings were based on those of the Laister Nugget sailplane, while the slender fuselage and empennage were of Kevlar/fiberglass/Urethane foam composite construction. The aircraft took off using a tricycle trolley which would then be jettisoned, the aircraft landing on a ventral skid. Two large fuel tanks were mounted in the fuselage which, together with tip-tanks on the end of the wings, held 365 US Gallons (1,382 litres) of fuel. It was powered by a 135 hp (100 kW) PZL-Franklin air-cooled flat-six piston engine, chosen for its superior fuel economy.

Multiple strikes (from hitting a bird flock) on twin-engine jet aircraft are very serious events because they can disable multiple aircraft systems, requiring emergency action to land the aircraft, as in the January 15, 2009 forced ditching of US Airways Flight 1549. Modern jet aircraft structures must be able to withstand one collision; the empennage (tail) must withstand one bird collision. Cockpit windows on jet aircraft must be able to withstand one bird collision without yielding or spalling. At first, bird strike testing by manufacturers involved firing a bird carcass from a gas cannon and sabot system into the tested unit.

This pod ends abruptly near the wing trailing edge in a cowling over the three cylinder two stroke JPX PAL 640 engine, which delivers 28.5 kW (38 hp) to a foldable three- bladed propeller mounted in pusher configuration. The slender, constant diameter boom rear fuselage carries a straight tapered empennage of T-tail configuration with a conventional tailplane and elevator. The Lutin has a mechanically retractable monowheel undercarriage, equipped with a disk brake and assisted by small under wing, cantilever strut mounted balancing wheels at about one third span and a semi-recessed tailwheel. The Lutin 80 flew for the first time on 3 May 1983 and development continued into 1984.

Each half-wing was braced to the lower fuselage longerons by a pair of parallel steel tubes, enclosed in streamlined fairings, they met centrally on a faired pylon forward of the cockpit. The Bożena was powered by a Anzani 2A three-cylinder radial engine mounted with its cylinders exposed for cooling in a strongly tapered nose. Its rectangular section fuselage was plywood-covered, with rounded decking behind the cockpit. The empennage was also ply-covered, with a rectangular plan tailplane and elevators mounted on top of the fuselage and a cropped triangular fin carrying a deep rectangular rudder which moved in an elevator cut-out.

In biplane mode the upper wing was mounted with no stagger, braced by N-form interplane struts; there were neither dihedral or ailerons on this wing. The empennage was conventional, with a straight tapered horizontal tail set on the top of the fuselage well forward of the vertical, narrow fin which, like with the rudder were also straight edged. The fuselage was a flat sided tubular steel structure, deep at the rear but sloping down to the nose from about mid-chord. Since the pilot's open cockpit was well forward, it was lower than that of the gunner in the rear cockpit making forward fire safer.

Harrier Hawk II Air Sniper UAV is the second member of the Harrier Hawk series UAV developed by GAIC. Externally, Harrier Hawk II Air Sniper visually resembles another Chinese UAV, SAC HFT-200A Thunderbird. Harrier Hawk II Air Sniper is powered by a three- blade propeller driven by a pusher engine installed at the rear end of the empennage and has tricycle landing gear system.Harrier Hawk II Air Sniper Harrier Hawk II Air Sniper has been deployed by Chinese military to carry a small synthetic aperture radar (SAR) for radar imaging mission, and this small SAR is housed in a payload pad under the fuselage.

The engine was demounted and replaced with a long, smooth nose, deliberately designed to be easily removable so that the engine could be reinstalled if desired. The pilot sat at the wing leading edge in a cockpit within the removable nose and there was a passenger cockpit between the two wing spars at about one third chord. The fuselage was formed from four longerons, positioned by formers and wire- braced into a rectangular section, but with rounded upper and lower fairings. Its smooth fuselage and cantilever wing, together with an empennage that had no external bracing, made it aerodynamically very clean for its time.

PWS-11bis In parallel with development of a fighter aircraft, the PWS-10, the design team of Aleksander Grzędzielewski and Augustyn Bobek-Zdaniewski from the PWS factory, started work on an intermediate aircraft for training fighter pilots. Like the PWS-10, the new plane was of a parasol wing configuration, but the shape of the fuselage, wings and empennage were similar to a liaison aircraft, the PWS-5 of the same designers and powered by the same engine. In 1929, the Aviation Department of the Polish War Ministry ordered the prototypes and an airframe for static tests. The plane was initially known as PWS-11SM, for szkolno-myśliwski (fighter/trainer).

A Martin-Baker Mk.7 ejection seat from an F-104G Early Starfighters used a downward-firing ejection seat (the Stanley C-1), out of concern over the ability of an upward-firing seat to clear the "T-tail" empennage. This presented obvious problems in low-altitude escapes, and 21 USAF pilots, including test pilot Captain Iven Carl Kincheloe Jr., failed to escape from their stricken aircraft in low-level emergencies because of it. The downward-firing seat was replaced by the Lockheed C-2 upward-firing seat, which was capable of clearing the tail, but still had a minimum speed limitation of .Upton 2003, p. 35.

The aircraft can be flown open cockpit with the canopy removed. Prior to its first flight a prototype was shown at the 2012 EAA airshow. As of June 2013 the aircraft was on Transport Canada's list of accepted advanced ultralights, but has not completed US Federal Aviation Administration special light-sport aircraft approval. In July 2013 pricing was announced for kits and sub-kits, including wings, fuselage and empennage. In a break from normal industry practice the company said that it would offer those three sub-kits for a total that was the same as if they were ordered as a single kit, US$29,000.

The H.P.43 flew for the first time at Radlett on 21 June 1932. After some modifications it went to RAF Hendon in June 1933, where it was not well received by pilots from RAF Martlesham Heath who found it lacking performance and heavy on the controls. During its construction the RAF saw the H.P.43 as outmoded and set to be replaced by monoplane bomber and transport designs; surprisingly the H.P.43 took part in this transition when its fuselage and empennage were adapted to take a high monoplane wing bearing two engines and emerge as the H.P.51, the forebear of the Harrow.

In the end, Handley Page did not enter the C.28/31 competition at all and the Harrow was ordered on an ad hoc specification (B.29/35, issued June 1935) to go to production from the drawing board. In January 1935 the final report on wind tunnel tests on a 1/32 model confirmed what had been suspected from preliminary data, that with flaps down the elevator was partly blanketed, requiring the design of a revised tail for the Harrow. To test the redesign, the H.P.51's empennage was modified to the new profile, increasing the area by 70% and requiring external bracing.

The empennage of the HD.15 was like those used on earlier Emile Dupont designs, with a braced, rectangular tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage and a small, curved edged fin. Both carried balanced control surfaces, the elevator's balances projecting beyond the tailplane tips, and the low but broad chord, curved edge, deep rudder reaching down to the keel and moving within an elevator cut-out. The rather tubby fuselage of the HD.15 had tubular cross- section longerons with similar, triangularly arranged, cross bracing. The pilot's open cockpit was just behind the main wing spar, under a deep trailing edge cut-out to improve his upwards and forward vision.

I positioned the open pilot's cockpit between two Siemens-Halske Sh.I nine cylinder rotary engines, one with a two blade tractor propeller and the other driving a four blade pusher turning just aft of the lower wing trailing edge. The empennage was mounted on four longitudinal, tubular outrigger beams, braced with vertical and transverse members. There were no fixed rear surfaces; the single piece, constant chord elevator reached between the two upper beams and a pair of similarly shaped rudder went from the upper to the lower beams, hinged further aft than the elevator but with their lower ends on a hinged frame that moved with it. The DDr.

At the rear the empennage was conventional, with a broad chord fin bearing an unbalanced rudder that extended between split elevators to the keel. Initially the tailplane leading edge was curved and merged into the curved elevator tips. Forward of the wing, the fuselage tapered rapidly, mostly through the upward bend of the keel. Because the 600 cc Douglas flat twin engine used in the 1923 aircraft was geared down 2:1 via a front-mounted chain drive that put the propeller shaft at the top of the motor, it was mounted low and to the rear of the nose, with cylinders exposed for cooling.

There are some types of all-steel subcaliber slugs supported by a plastic sabot (the projectile would damage the barrel without a sabot). Examples include Russian "Tandem" wadcutter-type slug (the name is historical, as early versions consisted of two spherical steel balls) and ogive "UDAR" ("Strike") slug and French spool- like "Balle Blondeau" (Blondeau slug) and "Balle fleche Sauvestre" (Sauvestre flechette) with steel sabot inside expanding copper body and plastic rear empennage. Made of non-deforming steel, these slugs are well-suited to shooting in brush, but may produce overpenetration. They also may be used for disabling vehicles by firing in the engine compartment or for defeating hard body armor.

The PWS-6 was a successor of an earlier liaison aircraft design, the PWS-5, which was not accepted for mass production. The designers, Aleksander Grzędzielewski and Augustyn Bobek- Zdaniewski, utilized the experience they had gained on PWS-11 and PWS-12 trainers, and as a result the new plane had improved aerodynamics, an oval shaped fuselage section and rounded wingtips. The layout of wings and their bracing were similar to the PWS-5, as was the engine and fixed undercarriage, while the front of the fuselage and the empennage was similar to a final variant of the PWS-12. It was the first Polish aircraft fitted with slats.

A thin, faired structure connected the nacelle to the centre of the wing, bracing it and the engine, largely buried in the wing apart from a carefully faired air intake at mid-chord and cylinder heads exposed for cooling. The ITS-8 had a Kroeber M3 Köller flat twin engine and the ITS-8W initially used another flat-twin, the Schliha as a stop-gap, later replaced by the intended Sarolea Albatros flat- twin. The empennage was mounted on twin rectangular section spruce box girder booms which were internally wire-braced. A tapered tailplane with rounded tips was positioned on the top of the beams.

The Sopwith Triplane was a single seat fighter aircraft; it shared a considerable amount of its design features, such as its fuselage and empennage, with those of the earlier Pup. While the fuselage was structurally similar, Bruce notes that there were several areas of differences present. One example was the attachment points present for the center wings, which were carried upon the top and bottom longerons of the fuselage and in turn also attached to the center-section struts. One innovation that was present only on the Triplane was the use of single broad- chord interplane struts, which ran continuously between the lower and upper wings.

The span of the horizontal stabiliser was increased; the vertical stabiliser was made both taller and longer, to provide the required steering power while keeping the top of the vertical fin at a height comfortable for the assembly of the horizontal empennage. The cockpit, manufactured from carbon and aramid reinforced plastic, was designed to accommodate pilots up to two meters tall. Available space is sumptuous for both pilots, exceeding that of all comparable production gliders. The front seat is similar to the LS4 cockpit, and both seats have enough leg and elbow room to preclude the mutual interference too often encountered in tandem sailplanes.

The nose was redesigned with a more streamlined "stepless cockpit", having no separate windscreen panels for the pilot and co-pilot. This layout allowed cabin pressurization to be more easily implemented. This design approach had been growing in favour, subsequently appearing in various German types, notably the He 111P and -H's. All of the defensive armament was meant to be remotely controlled – in one proposal, comprising a remotely operated rear-facing dorsal turret at the rearmost end of the cockpit glazing, and two remotely operated "flank" turrets on the rearwards sides of the fuselage just forward of the empennage, otherwise each resembling the FDSL 131 units of the Me 210.

A twin-engine aircraft carrying 100–150 passengers would require propfan diameters of , and a propfan with a propeller diameter of would theoretically produce almost of thrust. These sizes achieve the desired high bypass ratios of over 30, but they are approximately twice the diameter of turbofan engines of equivalent capability. For this reason, airframers usually design the empennage with a T-tail configuration for aerodynamic purposes, and the propfans may be attached to the upper part of the rear fuselage. For the Rolls-Royce RB3011 propfan prototype, a pylon of about long would be required to connect the center of each engine to the side of the fuselage.

The Caproni Ca.1 was a light single-engine biplane featuring an uncovered rectangular truss as a fuselage, two unstaggered mainplanes of equal span, a biplane tailplane and a twin-propeller pulling configuration. The fuselage was composed of a long rectangular truss; the structure was of honeyberry wood with aluminum connections, allowing for a light and flexible construction, comparatively robust and easy to fix in case of accidents. This technique was, however, expensive and therefore it was abandoned in subsequent designs. The fuselage was connected to the wings in proximity of the nose of the aircraft, while the empennage was located at its rear end.

Like the Bernard SIMB AB 10, the AB 12 was an all-metal, single-seat, monoplane fighter with a low cantilever wing. It differed from the AB10 in having a radial engine, a more conventional undercarriage and four machine guns. The wing plans of both aircraft were similar, straight tapered with squared tips, though the AB 12 had a span greater. The empennage of both designs was also similar: the AB 12 had a tailplane with swept leading edges and separate elevators mounted on top of the fuselage and a wide chord, almost straight edged fin, though its rudder, moving between the elevators, ended on the upper fuselage line.

More or less integrally attached to the hull are the gondola, engines and sometimes the empennage (tail). The framework has the task of distributing the suspension loads of these attachments and the lifting gas loads evenly throughout the whole hull's surface and may also partially relieve stresses on the hull during manoeuvres. In early airships which relied on nets, fabric bands, or complicated systems of rope rigging to unite the lifting envelope with the other parts of the ship, semi-rigid construction was able to achieve improvements in weight, aerodynamic, and structural performance. The boundary between semi-rigid and non-rigid airships is vague.

Olympia 2 BBH/BGA834 at the Vintage Glider Rally at Camphill, 2011 Data from Ellison, 1971Ellison, pp.110-114 ;EoN Type 5 Olympia 1:Improved Olympia-Meise. Landing skid. ;EoN Type 5 Olympia 2:Fixed monowheel. ;EoN Type 5 Olympia 3: Jestisonable dolly wheels and skid. ;EoN Type 5 Olympia 4: New wing section, NACA 643618 at root, 643421 at tip ;EoN Type 5 Olympia 401: Revised 4, with new nose and square-cut empennage. shorter. ;EoN Type 5 Olympia 402: As 4, modified for 1956 World Gliding Championships with span. ;EoN Type 6 Olympia 403: 1957 development of Olympia 402, with strengthened and shortened fuselage ().

As on the Type B, it was supported above the lower wing on two more pairs of interplane struts but on the Type C the left and right pairs passed within the nacelle, rather than down its sides. A Gnome Omega rotary engine was mounted in the front under a rudimentary shield to protect the pilot from oil spray, though a Anzani 3-cylinder radial engine could also fitted. The nacelle extended aft at the wing trailing edge, with the pilot just aft of mid-chord. The empennage of the Type C was supported on a pair of girders arranged parallel to one another in plan.

The situation was only resolved when Colonel H. Franklin Gregory, director of rotor-wing projects for the Army Air Forces, flew the aircraft himself, reaching on his first flight in the aircraft. With the worst of the aircraft's problems believed to have been resolved, the XR-1 was submitted for service testing by the Army Air Forces in 1943. During the course of the Army's evaluations, the XR-1's empennage failed during structural testing, the surfaces being strengthened as a result and testing, following the repairs, resuming in 1944. Despite the modifications to the design, however, the XR-1 still proved to be deficient in control authority.

The first carriages built by the workshops were completed in 1889, but locomotives were manufactured by the Phoenix Foundry in Ballarat, the first locomotive being built in 1893. The main elements of the workshops are a central office block and clock tower, the 'East Block' for carriage and wagon works, and 'West Block' for heavy engineering and locomotive building.The Railway Heritage Centre of Victoria (Newport Workshops) Proposal December 1999 Australian Railway Historical Society Expansion followed in 1905–1915, and 1925–1930. During World War II the workshops were turned over to military production, with the rear fuselage, and empennage of Bristol Beaufort bombers being built there.

It underwent a long series of tests with the Italian military, then it was bought by the Caproni Museum and put on display at Taliedo, where it remained until 1940. The Fokker D.VIII then was stored in several museum warehouses until 1988, when the fuselage, engine and propeller were restored. , the restoration of the wing and of the empennage has not been completed yet; eventually, all the parts of the aircraft will be reassembled together. ;Gabardini G.51bis :The Gabardini G.51 was an Italian single-engine two-seater aerobatic biplane trainer; it was designed in 1925 and 10 were built, including those belonging to the G.51bis version.

The museum's example served briefly with the Italian Air Force in 1950, and was donated to the Aero Club Milano in the same year; at the end of 1950, it was sold to a private citizen who donated it to the Caproni Museum in 1972. It was restored in 1989. ;Macchi M.C.200 :The Macchi M.C.200, a single-seater monoplane fighter aircraft equipped with a radial engine, was Regia Aeronautica's most important fighter between 1940 and 1943. On display at the Gianni Caproni Museum of Aeronautics are the front part of the fuselage, the tail cone and empennage, and the Fiat A.74 RC.38 engine of a M.C.200.

The 1000 was a half-linear-scale model of the 5000, having a modified Skyship 600 gondola but a larger () envelope and an empennage resembling the "X" form planned for the 5000, rather than the cruciform one of the 600.Netherclift, pp. 105–09. Other features included fly- by-light controls, an envelope material that eliminated the need for routine hangaring and a ground-handling technique that required a comparatively small crew of eight. However, the ship, which was assembled at WAI's Weeksville facility in North Carolina, did not fly until 26 June 1991, by which time AI had collapsed and Westinghouse had taken full control of the programme.

The wing was mounted directly to the lower longeron of the fuselage, at the front of which was the Green water-cooled engine, with the radiator mounted flat behind it in the direction of travel under the upper wing, between the fuselage and upper wing. Behind this a small coaming protected the passenger, with the pilot sitting behind. The empennage was similar to that of the Roe IV, with a low-mounted D-shaped rudder behind a small rectangular fixed fin and a large triangular tailplane bearing D-shaped elevators. The undercarriage had two forward- projecting skids, each mounted with a pair of wheels on a short axle.

On January 25, 1945, Messerschmitt proposed the P.1107/I jet- powered bomber. The P.1107/I was designed using experiences from the company's earlier Me 264 jet bomber, and was to be powered by four BMW 018 or Heinkel HeS 109-011 turbojet engines mounted in twin-pods under the wings. The steel and Duralumin fuselage was to have been taken from the Me 264, while the wings were to be constructed of wood. Landing gear was to consist of two large diameter main wheels which retracted into the fuselage and twin nose wheels, and the empennage was to have a high set tailplane.

The slightly staggered wings were built around solid spruce spars, with spruce and plywood warren truss type ribs. The wings were braced with cables. The ailerons and the entire empennage were also built from chromium-molybdenum alloy steel tubing, and all controls were actuated through pushrods and bellcranks, with no cables or pulleys used. The ailerons on the prototype were conventional, however on production variants, they extended across nearly the full span on the lower wings only, and had a slot that allowed air to flow over the aileron at low airspeeds and high angles of attack, which helped ensure lateral control even after the wings had stalled.

The fuselage of the Hi 21 was largely a wooden, ply skinned monocoque but the forward part around the cockpit was steel tube framed to protect its occupants. They sat side-by side ahead of the leading edge under a multi-part glazed canopy which ended, slightly raised above the upper fuselage line, over the wing. The empennage was conventional, with a straight edged tailplane mounted on top of the fuselage and carrying straight edged, rounded tipped and balanced elevators. A small, straight edged fin at the rear of the tailplane carried a balanced, rounded rudder which reached down to the keel and worked within an elevator cut-out.

One source describes the Commuter as a single seat aircraft, another as a one or two seater. The Commuter's empennage was conventional, with straight edged, square-tipped horizontal surfaces and a straight edged rudder with a trim tab mounted on a narrow fin with a fillet to the fuselage. There was a Lycoming O-320 air-cooled flat-four engine in the nose, driving a two-blade propeller. It had a fixed conventional undercarriage with cantilever main legs mounted on the lower fuselage and a short-legged tailwheel on the sloping underside, about halfway between the edges of the root fairings and the extreme tail.

3-view drawing of the ANT-26/TB-6 While undertaking development of the Tupolev ANT-16 and ANT-20/PS-124, Tupolev began work in 1931 on an even larger bomber aircraft, powered by 12 engines and with a takeoff weight of . The resulting ANT-26 design was to have 12 Mikulin M-34FRN engines, eight on the leading edge of the wing and four in two tandem pairs above the wings. The tail empennage would have had three vertical stabilizers on the tailplane, the center vertical stabilizer taller than the others.An alternative TB-6 design featured a bomber aircraft with six Mikulin M-44 engines and a single rudder.

Diagram showing the external centerline fuel tank on the aircraft As with the earlier-designed A500 piston-engined model, the A700 featured a straight tapered wing, a central fuselage, and twin wing- mounted booms which supported aft twin rudders linked by a high horizontal stabilizer. Unlike on the A500, the A700's two engines were mounted on the sides of the fuselage, in a non-centerline thrust arrangement, eliminating one of the design advantages of the A500 configuration. In order to balance the twin rear-mounted engines properly, the forward fuselage was lengthened by 4 feet. In the A500, the front engine is balanced by the rear engine and empennage.

Moreover, the trailing edge, along with the rear bulkhead, empennage, and un-pressurised fuselage are made of CFRP. However, many delays have pushed order delivery dates back because of problems with the manufacture of these parts. Many aircraft that use CFRP have experienced delays with delivery dates due to the relatively new processes used to make CFRP components, whereas metallic structures have been studied and used on airframes for years, and the processes are relatively well understood. A recurrent problem is the monitoring of structural ageing, for which new methods are constantly investigated, due to the unusual multi-material and anisotropic nature of CFRP.

Two more Progress D-18T turbofan engines were added to the new wing roots, bringing the total to six. An increased-capacity landing gear system with 32 wheels was designed, some of which are steerable, enabling the aircraft to turn within a runway. Like its An-124 predecessor, the An-225 has nose gear designed to "kneel" so cargo can be more easily loaded and unloaded. Unlike the An-124, which has a rear cargo door and ramp, the An-225 design left these off to save weight, and the empennage design was changed from a single vertical stabilizer to a twin tail with an oversized, swept-back horizontal stabilizer.

The Cheetah also adopted a DH.53 empennage, as the Scarab did later. The fuselage, as with the Scarab, was new; a wooden wire braced structure, canvas covered was used in place of the plywood covered spruce members used in the DH.53. There was a single open cockpit at the trailing edge of the (upper) wing, which had a slight cut-out in the new centre section for visibility, and a new single axle undercarriage mounted on legs to the lower longerons with rearward bracing. Power came from a 35 hp (26 kW) Blackburne Thrush three cylinder radial, mounted in the inverted-Y orientation and driving a two-bladed propeller.

The tandem open cockpits were raised enough for the pilots to be able to see both above and below the wing. Dual controls were fitted, though the forward set could be removed for a passenger. The empennage was conventional, with balanced control surfaces; the fin was small, with a large, rounded rudder that extended to the keel and the tailplane, mounted at mid-fuselage height and braced from below with two struts on each side, was far enough forward to keep the elevators clear of the rudder. The Renard had a fixed undercarriage with two mainwheels with axles on V-struts from the central lower fuselage.

The upper wing has greater span, some sweep but no dihedral, with constant chord over much of its span but with taper on the outer panels. It is a single bay biplane with one, slender interplane strut on each side assisted by flying wires; at its centre, the upper wing is fixed to the underwing engine mounting. Enclosed single or side-by-side seating is positioned ahead of the lower wing leading edge. A slender boom from the bottom of the fuselage pod carries the empennage; all tail surfaces are straight edged and strongly tapered and have generous control areas, with ground-adjustable trim tabs on the elevators.

The Aero Club of the Royal Aircraft Establishment built two light aircraft in 1923, the Zephyr and the Hurricane, then no more until 1931.In 1926 they designed and started to build the RAE Sirocco for the Lympne trials, but it was never completed. See Jackson (1960) p.517 This, their final effort was the RAE Scarab or PB Scarab as it is sometimes known,Flight 19 February 1932 p.149 after its designers P G N Peters and C R Brewer. Even so, it was not all their own work for the wing and empennage were from a low-winged DH.53, itself a 1923 aircraft.

At the rear of the Possum the fabric-covered wooden empennage was conventional. The fin had a straight and vertical leading edge but a curved top that blended into a rounded rudder which extended downwards between separate elevators; the tailplane was mounted just above the fuselage. Underneath, unusually for the time, there was a tailwheel rather than a skid, which was steerable and fitted with an automatic brake which provided increasing resistance with increasing load, unless the pilot overrode it. The main undercarriage was less innovative, with a pair of wheels single axle- mounted on short oleo legs to the wings with rear bracing.

The empennage, which was largely composed of aluminium tubes, featured a variable incidence tailplane and a dynamically- balanced elevator. Members of the Royal Australian Air Force besides a captured CR.32 in Benghazi, Libya, 1941 The cockpit of the CR.32 normally seated only a single pilot, who was provisioned with an adjustable seat and a parachute, the latter of which being stored within the squab. Although this was considered to be fully instrumented from the era, the RA.80-1 radio set was only an optional piece of equipment. Other equipment included a fire extinguisher, gun camera, an oxygen system for the pilot; both an optical gunsight and survey camera could also be installed as optional item.

Developed by John Thorp and based on his work on Lockheed's Little Dipper lightplane project,Francillon 1982, pp. 277 the Lockheed Model 34, named "Big Dipper", was intended as a prototype for a lightplane to sell on the postwar market - Lockheed hoping to sell the aircraft at a price of $1500 \- and as a potential 'flying jeep' for the United States Army. It was a low-wing cantilever monoplane with a fixed tricycle landing gear and a conventional empennage; the cabin was enclosed, seating two in side-by-side positions. Unusually the Continental C100 piston engine was fitted in the center fuselage behind the cabin, driving a two- bladed pusher propeller mounted at the rear of the aircraft.

A model in 2010 In September 2009 Mitsubishi unveiled extensive design changes, using aluminium instead of carbon fibre composites for the aircraft's wings and wingbox; the remaining composite parts will make up 10-15% of the airframe: the empennage. The cabin height is increased by to and the fuselage height is increased to , giving a rounder cabin, wider and higher than its competition. The program was delayed six months with final design frozen in mid-2010, first flight delayed to the second quarter of 2012 and deliveries to early 2014. Maintenance intervals are 750 flight hours per A Check and 7,500 flight hours per C check. A 100-seat stretched MRJ100 was studied in March 2011.

A plywood walkway was provided at the wing root on both sides, and the wing root was faired into the fuselage with a metal fillet. The external push-pull tubes connecting the ailerons on the upper wing to the torque tube in the lower wing on the Travel Airs was dispensed with and the control lines were run inside the struts. The main fuel tank was in the fuselage ahead of the passenger compartment, while a header tank was in the center section of the top wing. The empennage was built up from welded steel tubing, with the fin being ground adjustable for trim, and the elevators could be trimmed in flight.

The first AS-37B was then heavily modified by its builder into the Knoepfli VSTOL. The wings, empennage, forward fuselage and undercarriage of the AS-37B were retained but the rear fuselage was replaced with a slim, low set, flat sided, slightly upward curved beam, allowing a new and more conventional pusher engine and propeller combination to be placed immediately behind the cabin, just above the original fuselage line. These alterations were made before the end of summer 1980 and may have included another engine change to a Renault 343. Between 1980 and 1998 the AS-37A had undergone further modifications with the installation of tractor, rather than pusher, propellers, belt driven as before.

The first Gordon England design, the G.E.1, was a two-bay equal-span tractor configuration biplane powered by a Clerget four-cylinder water-cooled engine, driving the two-bladed propeller via a chain drive giving a 2:1 speed reduction. The crew of two were accommodated side-by-side in a single cockpit, fitted with dual controls. The empennage consisted of a small triangular tailplane and elevators mounted on top of the rectangular-section fuselage and elongated triangular fins above and below the fuselage with the unbalanced rudder mounted on the trailing edge. After testing during May and June 1912 the fins were removed, and an enlarged aerodynamically balanced rudder fitted.

The Gabardini monoplane, then fitted with a 60 kW (80 hp) rotary engine and capable of carrying two passengers for 240 km (150 mi), gained attention as an effective if inelegant monoplane through a series of public appearances, flying at the beginning of a period dominated by multiplane aircraft. Fitted with a Gnôme rotary, it proved a useful single-seat advanced trainer and was produced at the Cameri works from 1914 onwards. Other variants differed chiefly in engine size, though undercarriage details also varied; there were, for example, elementary trainers with Anzani engines and single- seaters with Le Rhônes. Reported spans differ somewhat but the fuselage, empennage and wing area generally remained constant.

Its empennage was conventional with a large balanced rudder which reached down to the keel, hinged on a small fin. The in- flight adjustable, wire-braced, triangular tailplane was mounted on top of the fuselage frame, carrying balanced elevators. The MS.300 had fixed, conventional landing gear with its mainwheels independently mounted on V-struts hinged to the lower fuselage, with vertical Messier oleo strut shock absorbers. These were mounted on the forward wing strut at a point which was strengthened by two additional short struts to the fuselage. Little is recorded about the trials and careers of the MS.300 and 301 and the exact dates of first flights are not known.

The BS.8 Biancone was a higher performance version of the BS.7 primary trainer. The two designs, both high-wing monoplanes, shared a fuselage boom, empennage and wing bracing struts, but the later type had a nacelle with a conventional open cockpit and a pedestal in place of the B.7's simple boom and open girder, together with a new wing of much higher aspect ratio. The new wing was a wooden two spar structure, largely fabric-covered, like the old. The forward spar was close to the leading edge; from it forward around the edge the wing was plywood covered, forming a torque-resistant D-box; aft the covering was fabric.

The Charles Richards design and use of the Rogallo wing in the NASA Paresev project resulted in an assemblage that became the stark template for the standard Rogallo hang-glider wing that would blanket the world of the sport in the early 1970s. Beyond that, the wing is designed to bend and flex in the wind, and so provides favorable dynamics analogous to a spring suspension. Flexibility allows the wing to be less susceptible to turbulence and provides a gentler flying experience than a similarly-sized rigid-winged aircraft. The trailing edge of the wing – which is not stiffened – allows the wing to twist, and provides aerodynamic stability without the need for a tail (empennage).

The cockpit would have featured a synthetic vision system, autothrottles, optional head-up display and Collins' MultiScan weather radar with optional windshear prediction. Cessna was going to invest $780 million into the development including a new plant, major suppliers were Pratt & Whitney Canada for the engines; Rockwell Collins for the avionics; Vought Aircraft Industries for the wing; Spirit AeroSystems for the fuselage and Spirit AeroSystems Europe Ltd. for the empennage; Parker Hannifin for the powered flight control system; Goodrich Corporation for the landing gear. On 29 April 2009 Cessna announced that it was suspending the Citation Columbus program, but indicated at that time that the program might be restarted once economic conditions improved.

The straightforward construction techniques of the Do 228 were also reproduced for the 328, despite making increased use of composite materials in areas such as the rear fuselage and empennage. The 328 reportedly made greater use of composites than any of its direct competitors at launch, the use of the Kevlar-carbon fiber composites is claimed to have reduced its weight by 20%. Various materials are used across the airframe; amongst these, an aluminium alloy is used for the pressure fuselage and much of the wingbox, a titanium alloy for the tail cone, and glass fibre-reinforced plastic for the radome and leading edge of the vertical stabilizer.Moxon, Barrie and Goold 1991, pp. 38–39.

Cooling this large engine whilst minimising aerodynamic drag posed new challenges for both the Rolls- Royce and Supermarine design teams. Traditional cooling methods using honeycomb-type radiators were known to cause high drag in flight; consequently it was decided to use the surface skins of the S.6 wings and floats as heat exchangers, employing a double-skinned structure through which the coolant could circulate. Engine oil was cooled in a similar manner using channels in the fuselage and empennage skins. The S.6 was described at the time as a "flying radiator", and it had been estimated that this coolant system dissipated the equivalent of 1,000 hp (745 kW) of heat in flight.

The spars of the half-wings were connected to the fuselage by two pairs of ball and socket joints at either end of a box beam which ran across the fuselage. The cockpit placed the pilot just ahead of the wing leading edge and had a one-piece canopy. The fuselage was strengthened in this region by reinforced longerons and a double keel which also took landing gear loads from a fixed, semi- recessed monowheel, placed under the leading edge with skid ahead of it to the nose. Its rear fuselage and empennage, though an integral continuation of the forward part, was very similar to that of Zsebő's earlier MRSz Z-03 Ifjúság's rear part-fuselage.

The Fairchild Dornier 728 is a relatively conventional airliner in terms of its design, being equipped with a low-mounted wing and powered by a pair of turbofan engines that were mounted in underwing pods beneath the wings. Common to most airliners, it has a monoplane configuration and is furnished with a retractable undercarriage in a tricycle configuration. The flight control surfaces are located at the trailing edge of the wings, such as the Ailerons, and at its empennage, such as the stabilizers. The wing of the 728 was a derivative of the "Tragflügel Neuer Technologie" (TNT) (English: Wing of New Technology) wing configuration that had been originally developed by Dornier for their earlier Do 228 utility aircraft.

The Savannah is a conventionally laid-out two-seat aircraft which can be bought in ready-to-fly or kit form. It is commonly registered as a light-sport aircraft in the United States and as an ultralight in some other jurisdictions and is considered a microlight aircraft in New Zealand. It has much in common with the Zenith CH 701, though the Savannah has a different empennage; later versions have further diverged from the Zenith, particularly in the wing design. Manufacture (both ready to fly and kits) is done in the ICP premises located in Castelnuovo Don Bosco (Piedmont, Italy), where the firm moved on September 10, 2009 from the original plant in Piovà Massaia.

Southwest Airlines Flight 3472 was a regularly scheduled passenger flight operating from New Orleans International Airport in New Orleans, Louisiana to Orlando International Airport in Orlando, Florida. On August 27, 2016, the Boeing 737-7H4, with 99 passengers and five crew, 12 minutes after departure from New Orleans, was climbing through 31,000 feet and heading east over the Gulf of Mexico when the aircraft's number one CFM International CFM56-7 engine suffered an uncontained engine failure. Debris from the engine punctured the left side of the fuselage causing a loss of cabin pressure and damaged the wing and empennage. Oxygen masks were deployed to passengers while the crew initiated an emergency descent to 10,000 feet.

A double-deck structure with a rectangular cross- section, the fuselage is long and is unpressurized except within the cockpit. It is capped in front by a large swing-nose door, which allows for loading and unloading cargo through both decks, and in back by conventional tailfin and tailplane stabilizers attached directly to the fuselage, instead of the heavier T-tail empennage that is typically used by other ground effect planes. The main deck has a cabin area that is wide and long. For military purposes, the upper deck is designed to carry troops or cargo containers, while the main deck has a height of so that it can hold oversized vehicles such as tanks or helicopters.

In response to a need for replacing the Caudron C.800 training glider with a contemporary high performance trainer, Bréguet designed and built the Br 902 Cinzano prototype, with parts in common with the Br 901 and Br 904. Production aircraft would have been optimised for production and also used new manufacturing techniques, particularly for the wings, which were intended to be built using the hollow shell method; high-accuracy plywood skins laid up in jig moulds with structure added in the mould to retain the high accuracy surfaces. Construction was of welded steel tube for the fuselage with wood for wings and empennage. The fuselage was covered in fabric, with plywood for areas requiring more resilience.

The wings were further braced to the hull by a pair of struts reaching back from the nose to the centre wing leading edge. The nose also had raised decking protecting of the pilot, who sat in the front of the open cockpit with a passenger seat behind him. The empennage of the Hydro-triplane was supported on a pair of lattice girders, parallel in plan and each constructed from a horizontal member fixed to the upper wing at the top of the innermost interplane struts and a member below it which sloped upward from the lower wing to meet the upper one at the tail. Three sloping cross braces completed each girder.

Uni-Systems, LLC is a design, construction, and manufacturing firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota specializing in kinetic architecture, or movable, mechanized structures. Uni-Systems has been involved in the construction of five of the seven sports stadiums incorporating retractable roofs in North America since 1999. The company was founded in 1968 by Cyril Silberman, CEO, and began extensive work within the aerospace industryUni-Systems Company Overview including the design and installation of hangar doors, landing gear elevator platforms, empennage stands, and the firm’s patented Uni-Dock.UniDock Case Study Clients of Uni-Systems in the aerospace industry include American Airlines, SkyVenture, Boeing, Canadian Air, the United States Air Force, and El Al Israel Airlines.

The autogyro's two-blade rotor is mounted on a mast largely within a wide chord fairing, though with a significant part exposed below the rotor head. The other differences are in the empennage; the MAI-208 has a straight edged, slightly tapered tailplane and elevators with a cutout for rudder movement but the swept vertical surface of the MAI-223 was replaced by a small triangular fin carrying an almost semicircular rudder. By HeliRussia 2010 this had been reworked, with a wider chord, round topped rudder and a long fin/fillet with an almost horizontal upper edge. The first flight was originally scheduled for 2009, then revised to 2010, though it remained unannounced at HeliRussia 2010.

Despite the rapid build, the accommodation was heated, ventilated and sound- proofed; entry was via a port side door which included the rearmost window. The sound proofing was assisted by silencers on the engines. The empennage of the Bernard 60 was conventional with a rounded fin and rudder and a tailplane with a swept leading edge mounted on top of the fuselage. It had a split axle undercarriage with single mainwheels mounted on V-form struts from the lower fuselage longerons and landing loads taken by vertical struts to the wing just inboard of the engines, combined with a tailskid. The trimotor Bernard 60 was unusual in having different engines in the nose and on the wings.

The RG-4 landed on a fixed monowheel under the wing trailing edge, with a skid that reached from the nose to under mid chord, assisted by a small tailskid. It had a conventional empennage with a parallel chord tailplane and elevators, similar in plan to the wing, mounted in front of the narrow fin, held above the fuselage on a short step and braced from below with a single strut on each side. Despite its forward position the elevators still required an elevator cut-out for rudder movement. As well as carrying the broad, near triangular rudder, the fin also anchored a pair of bracing wires on each side to reduce horizontal flexing of the fuselage beam.

2-3 As a Frenchman, he was familiar with the advantages of the sesquiplane concept as it was a popular configuration in France, such as with the Breguet 26T airliner, but rare in the US. The fuselage framework, lower wing and empennage were welded chromium-molybdenum alloy steel tubes faired with wooden battens, with the lower wing integral with the fuselage structure. The upper wings were built around spruce spars, with built up ribs made from spruce and plywood. The entire airframe was covered with doped aircraft-grade fabric. To reduce control forces, projecting aerodynamic balance horns on rudder and elevators, while inset aerodynamic horns were used on the ailerons, which were fitted to the upper wing only.

Eyre, David. "KINGSFORD SMITH KS-3", The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft in Australia and New Zealand, p.143. Sunshine Books, Hornsby NSW, 1983. The Cropmaster and the CA-6 Wackett shared the same tubular steel fuselage frameThe first Cropmaster YA-1 conversions shared the wooden empennage and fabric-covered aft fuselage of the CA-6 WackettThe Yeoman 175 was a one-off test-bed to check the characteristics of the new all-metal empennageThe proposed YA-1B Cropmaster featured a tricycle undercarriage, but was never producedThe proposed Cropmaster 300 By contrast the YA-1 Cropmaster involved major modifications to the Wackett airframe. The Wackett fuselage structure of steel tube was retained but had a 23 cubic ft.

The Short S.38 was originally a Short S.27 with the manufacturer's number S.38. After an accident when hoisting this aircraft aboard the remains were returned to Shorts, where the aircraft was rebuilt with extensive modifications, the resulting design becoming known as the Short S.38 type. The rebuilt S.38 had the same basic layout as the original aircraft, being an unequal-span pusher biplane with a forward-mounted elevator and an empennage carried on wire-braced wooden booms behind the wing. It differed in having new wings of increased span, a nacelle to accommodate the two crew members seated in tandem, and modified tail surfaces, the tailplane being enlarged and twin rudders fitted.

Voisin then designed and built a glider equipped with floats for Archdeacon. This aircraft marks the first use of Hargrave cells, used both for the empennage and the wings. Voisin successfully flew it on 8 June 1905, having been towed into the air behind a motor boat on the river Seine between the Billancourt and Sèvres bridges, managing a flight of about . While working on this aircraft Voisin had been approached by Louis Blériot, who asked him to build him a similar machine, later known as the Bleriot II. This differed principally in having a smaller span lower wing, resulting in the outer 'side- curtains' between upper and lower wings being angled outwards.

From about 1937, the London-based Willoughby Delta Company was considering the construction of a flying wing airliner. The novelty of the design became apparent early in 1939: the Delta 9 was to be a tri-motor monoplane with a span of over 100 ft (30 m) with a thick and wide chord centre section, outboard of which the wing was thicker and much greater in chord, in part forming one of a pair of tail booms that carried the double finned empennage. Its trailing edge was at about 20° to the centre line, continuing forwards then turning through 70° to produce the trailing dge of the outer wing section. This was narrower in chord than the centre section.

The hero of Nevil Shute's 1948 novel No Highway is an eccentric "boffin" at Farnborough who predicts metal fatigue in Britain's new airliner, the fictional "Rutland Reindeer". The Comets failed for just this reason in 1954, although in the case of the Comet I the problem was in the metal structure around the squared windows, while the point of failure in the Reindeer aircraft was in the structure of the rear empennage/fuselage joints. A film version of the novel, No Highway in the Sky, appeared in 1951, starring James Stewart as the protagonist. Stewart prepared for the role by shadowing Fred Jones OBE, a co-founder of the RAE Accident Section.

The fuselage was largely fabric covered but the central part containing the wing support structure was plywood skinned. In some photographs the three sloping struts that connected wing and fuselage, a distorted N arrangement most easily visible on the BS.7, were faired in as on the Biancone, but others show them exposed. The new fuselage, deeper at the tail than the Biancone's tailboom, required a less tall fin to maintain the tailplane's position with respect to the rudder but otherwise the empennage was unchanged. A wooden landing skid with rubber springing, deep like the one on the BS.11 Milano and assisted by a small tail bumper served as its undercarriage.

The pilot's open cockpit, fitted with a small windscreen, was placed just ahead of mid chord between the spars. The upper fuselage line was almost flat and the little twin cylinder engine was high in the nose with its cylinder heads exposed for cooling. At the rear the empennage was conventional, though in glider fashion the straight edged fixed surfaces were small in area compared with the control surfaces. A tailplane braced from both above and below was mounted on the fin just above the fuselage; together with its balanced elevator it had a tapered, round tipped plan, with a cut-out for movement of the straight edged, though rounded, balanced rudder which extended to the keel.

The pilot's open cockpit placed him at the trailing edge of the upper wing, which had a deep cut-out to improve his upward field of view; the lower wings had smaller cut-outs for downward vision. The empennage of the de Marçay was conventional, with a triangular tailplane and semi-elliptical elevator mounted on top of the fuselage. The broad chord fin was also triangular, with a rounded rudder which went down to the keel, operating between the elevators. It had a fixed, tailskid undercarriage with its mainwheels on a single axle which was rubber sprung to a transverse cross brace between two pairs of V-struts from the lower fuselage.

Developed by Fairchild, the C-82 was intended as a heavy-lift cargo aircraft to succeed prewar civilian designs like the Curtiss C-46 Commando and Douglas C-47 Dakota using non-critical materials in its construction, primarily plywood and steel, so as not to compete with the production of combat aircraft. However, by early 1943 changes in specifications resulted in plans for an all-metal aircraft. The aircraft was designed for a number of roles, including cargo carrier, troop transport, parachute drop, medical evacuation, and glider towing. It featured a rear- loading ramp with wide doors and an empennage set 14 feet (4.3 m) off the ground that permitted trucks and trailers to back up to the doors without obstruction.

This near semi-circular channel laterally constrained the airflow produced by the propeller, even when the aircraft was at rest, producing higher flow velocities than over a conventional pusher wing. The need for wing mounted pusher engines made a pusher twin a natural configuration, and for his third channel wing design Custer chose to modify the existing Baumann Brigadier, a 5-seat mid wing pusher twin which itself did not reach production.Aerofiles :Custer Rear view taken in 2004 of the second CCW-5 showing the fixing of the pusher engine within the wing channels. The CCW-5 retained the fuselage and empennage of the Brigadier, but replaced the whole centre section with a pair of channels, starting at roots in the lower part of the fuselage.

The biplane's empennage was also similar to that of the monoplane, with its tailplane well forward of the rounded, single piece rudder and mounting a pair of semi-circular elevators. Though the biplane had a skidless conventional undercarriage, with single mainwheels strut-mounted and wire braced to the lower fuselage near the wing leading edge, the tail skid was unusually long and attached at mid-fuselage just aft of the cockpit. On the ground the aircraft had an attitude closer than usual to that attained in-flight, keeping the elevators, which when deflected reached below the fuselage bottom, well clear of the grass. Variants of the biplane appeared with a range of different rotary engines, each carefully cowled and driving a two bladed propeller.

Drawing on his experience with the Lockheed Vega, John K. Northrop designed an advanced mail/passenger transport aircraft. In addition to all-metal construction, the new Alpha benefitted from two revolutionary aerodynamic advancements: wing fillets researched at the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology, and a multicellular stressed-skin wing of Northrop's own design which was later successfully used on the Douglas DC-2 and Douglas DC-3. In addition, the Alpha was the first commercial aircraft to use rubber deicer boots on wing and empennage leading edges which, in conjunction with state-of-the-art radio navigation equipment, gave it day or night, all-weather capability. The aircraft first flew in 1930, with a total of 17 built.

A single piece, side hinged, moulded perspex canopy enclosed the single seat cockpit from the nose to the leading edge, with an additional small roof transparency aft of the leading edge. The empennage was conventional, with a straight tapered tailplane mounted on a small step above the fuselage, carrying straight edged elevators with gaps at their roots between elevator and fin and at the tips between them and rearward extension of the tailplane tips. The elevators were mass balanced by a weight within the fuselage but not aerodynamically balanced. A narrow fin with a small forward fillet rose above the tailplane to the full height of the rudder, which was broad with a rounded heel, flat tipped and also unbalanced.

G280 cabin The aircraft has several improvements, among them increased cabin length (external fuselage dimensions remain unchanged; the rear fuselage fuel tank was eliminated to add 17 inches (43 cm) of usable interior area). It has a new HTF7250G engine, new T-tail (with larger horizontal and vertical stabilizers), wing anti-ice provided by engine bleed air, cabin with four more windows and access from the cabin to the baggage compartment. It competes against the Bombardier Challenger 300 and the Cessna Citation X+. The fuselage, empennage and landing gear are manufactured by IAI, the wing by Spirit AeroSystems (now by Triumph Group), and the aircraft is assembled in Israel. It is then ferried to Dallas, Texas, for interior finishing and painting.

The latter defined the aft end of the nacelle and extended above the wing to form a flat, triangular pylon, from which a pair of landing wires ran to both spars on each side. Flying wires from a point on the lower nacelle directly beneath the tip of the pylon ran to the same positions on the wing underside. The same sloping rear member of the N-strut was used to join the nacelle to the open rear fuselage. Two pairs of V-shaped steel tube struts were attached to it at the wing trailing edge and at its foot; the first was horizontal, the other upward sloping, and their rear meeting points were used to support the fabric covered empennage.

Volunteers from the Metlakatla Volunteer Fire Department and the Ketchikan Volunteer Rescue Squad responded in rescue boats, and the crash was reported to the U.S. Coast Guard at 4:10 PM. First responders were able to hoist the aircraft partially out of the water by the empennage and extract the occupants, airplane seats, mail and packages. The crash tore away the right wing and wing strut; these components, along with the removed passenger seat, remained missing when the preliminary accident report was issued. Local volunteers subsequently towed the stricken aircraft to shore. The weather at the time of the crash was reportedly clear, with light winds and light chop, and winds from the southeast at 13-15 mph (21–24 km/h).

One or two large fins or strakes are sometimes positioned under the rear fuselage or below the empennage, to provide adequate stability at high angles of attack when the tail fin is shielded from the main airstream by the fuselage and/or the wing wake. Typical examples can be seen on the Piaggio P.180 Avanti, Learjet 60 and Beechcraft 1900D. The Grumman X-29 research aircraft had rear fuselage lateral fins or "Tail fins",In Hoerner Fluid Dynamic Lift, "Tail fins - Dorsal and others fins on fuselage" sometimes called strakes,Miller, J.; The X-Planes, 2nd Printing, Speciality Press (1985) continuous with the trailing edge of the main wing. This allowed the positioning of a rear control surface at the end of each fin.

The Anzani engine was mounted uncowled at the front, with the pilot seated under the trailing edge. The empennage of the Type D was supported on a pair of girders arranged parallel to one another in plan. The upper girder members were attached to the upper wing spars at the tops of the innermost interplane struts and the lower ones ran under the lower wing, mounted on downward extensions of the inner interplane struts. The mounting was strengthened with two diagonal struts on each side, one from the base of the forward interplane strut to the upcurved tip of the lower member and the other from the rear interplane strut to the junction of the lower member and its first vertical cross member.

The improper installation of the horizontal stabilizer led to the third accident in Lüsse, Germany, on 13 June 1999, in which two occupants were injured during an attempted takeoff when the stabilizer separated from the empennage just after liftoff. NTSB investigators became aware of another accident involving a Nimbus-4DM that occurred in Spain shortly after the Minden, Nevada, accident. According to the Comisión de Investigación de Accidentes e Incidentes de Aviación Civil, Spain's equivalent of the NTSB, the glider broke up in flight following a high-speed excursion beyond Vne. According to preliminary information supplied by the Spanish authorities, the pilot stated they were in a turn when a heavy thermal caused the glider to enter a steep descending spiral.

He and his brother flew a light aircraft (a Piper Tri-Pacer) deep into the canyon and searched near the location of the smoke. The Constellation's empennage was found, and the brothers reported their findings to authorities. The following day, the two men pinpointed the wreckage of the DC-7. Numerous helicopter missions were subsequently flown down to the crash sites to find and attempt to identify victims, as well as recover wreckage for accident analysis, a difficult and dangerous process due to the rugged terrain and unpredictable air currents.CAB Docket 320, File 1, Investigation, Paragraphs 2–3, issued 1957/04/17 Close-up of plaque honoring TWA passengers and crew, Citizens Cemetery The airlines hired the Swiss Air-RescueThe beginnings of air-rescue 1946–1959, rega.ch.

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon jet fighter parked at an airshow, with stabilators deflected downwards. A stabilator, more frequently all-moving tail or all-flying tail, is a fully movable aircraft stabilizer. It serves the usual functions of longitudinal stability, control and stick force requirements Roskam, Airplane Design, part III, Empennage layout, Longitudinal considerations otherwise performed by the separate parts of a conventional horizontal stabilizer and elevator. Apart from a higher efficiency at high Mach number,Abzug-Larrabee Airplane stability and control, All-movable controls, "All-movable tail surfaces became interesting ... when transonic wind-tunnels tests disclosed poor performance of ordinary flap-type controls." it is a useful device for changing the aircraft balance within wide limits, and for mastering the stick forces.

By the end of production, HAL had completed 89 Indian-built aircraft, 72 of which were for the Indian Air Force and 17 were delivered to national flag carrier Indian Airlines. While the HS 748 was originally intended to be marketed principally towards the civilian market, numerous examples were sold to military customers around the world. Hawker Siddeley used the design as the basis for the HS 780 Andover, a military transport aircraft developed and produced for the Royal Air Force. In terms of its design, the HS 780 was broadly similar to the 748, differing primarily by its redesigned rear fuselage and empennage, which incorporated a large rear loading ramp and a squatting main landing gear to better facilitate the loading of bulky freight items.

The Nymphale is a two-seat development of the double World Gliding Championships (WGC) winning Br 901 Mouette. It is larger all round, with a 2.72 m (8 ft 11 in) increase in span and 1.43 m (4 ft 8 in) longer, but is built of wood and fabric like the single-seater. Behind the wings the 904 and the 901 S1 - the two seater has the more angular fin and rudder of the later 801s - are very much alike in appearance, with a tapering fuselage and conventional empennage. The mid mounted wings, though straight- tapered like those of the 901, differ in having no sweep on the leading edge so that at mid-chord the wing is forward-swept.

The Grahame White Baby was a single-seat biplane pusher, of the then orthodox "Farman" layout, with a frontal elevator and a rear-mounted empennage consisting of a biplane horizontal stabilisers with single elevator mounted on the top surface and a single central rudder. As the name suggests, it was considerably smaller than most contemporary aircraft of a similar layout, having a wingspan of only . In comparison, the wingspan of a standard Bristol Boxkite was 34 ft 6 in (10.5 m). An unusual feature of the aircraft was the mounting for the 50 hp (37 kW) Gnome rotary engine, which was mounted on a pair of angled beams so that the engine was midway between the upper and lower wings.

Piaggio P.180 Avanti II empennage and delta fins (only one visible) Avanti II flight deck Clean configuration A 1980s wave of new-generation planes, developed to appeal to Fortune 500 clients, included Piaggio's Avanti and Beech Aircraft Corp.'s very similar Starship. Engineering studies for the airplane that would eventually be named Avanti began in 1979 and designs were tested in wind tunnels in Italy and the United States in 1980 and 1981, conducted by Professor Jan Roskam from the University of Kansas (using Wichita State University's wind tunnel and Boeing's transonic wind tunnel in Seattle) along with Professor Gerald Gregorek at Ohio State University (using OSU's 2D pressure wind tunnel). Piaggio's chief engineer, , filed in 1982 to patent the Avanti design.

They determined that the wreckage had fallen to the ground in three main sections. Most of the wreckage, including the fuselage, the starboard or right wing, the root of the port or left wing (including the nacelle for the No. 2 engine but not the engine itself), and the Nos. 3 and 4 engines (normally attached to the starboard wing) had fallen in an area of dense forest about northwest of the base camp. The outer port wing and the No. 1 engine had fallen to the northwest of the main wreckage; the empennage and fractured parts of the No. 2 engine (normally attached to the port wing) had fallen roughly north of the main wreckage and northeast of the port wing.

Like the IS-5, the IS-9 had a steel tube boom and a very similar empennage to that of the glider. Its ply covered fin extended both above and below the boom, carrying a fabric covered, rounded, equally deep unbalanced rudder, broad at its heel. The fin also mounted a straight edged, ply-covered tailplane placed just above the boom which carried rounded elevators, mass balanced by a bob weight inside the fuselage, with gaps at their roots to clear the fin and a small cutout for rudder movement; the elevators were fabric-covered-over-ply skins like the ailerons and had a starboard-side trim tab. The IS-9 was intended as an experimental aircraft, not for production.

The horizontal tails, mounted on top of the fuselages, were similar straight tapered surfaces but set further forward on the fillet on the IS-13, with the result that the IS-12's cut-out for rudder movement in the elevators was not needed. Both models had a trim tab on the starboard elevator and a tail bumper under the rudder Overall the S-13 was longer. Despite the different construction and the empennage alterations, the fuselage weights of the two aircraft were very similar with the IS-13 heavier by 5%, so their overall empty weights were the same to within under 2%. The IS-12 was first flown on 23 December 1960 and the IS-13 flew four days later.

The wing trailing edge is occupied by two-segmented elevons to provide pitch and roll control. The only empennage-mounted control surfaces are the Pelikan tail with single-piece rudder which includes two airbrakes located in the upper rear part of the Pelikan tail, one each on either side of the tail. The AMCA feature a highly evolved integrated control laws for flight, propulsion, braking, nose-wheel steering and fuel management and adaptive neural networks for fault detection, identification and control law reconfiguration. Flights controls of the aircraft are both highly integrated and independent of each other which includes flight controls, engine controls, brake and landing controls, and other systems this is possible due to the active controls gears systems (ACGS).

The variant's main competitor is the 777-300ER. The A340-600 was replaced by the A350-1000. The A340-600 is longer than a -300, more than longer than the Boeing 747-400 and longer than the A380, and has two emergency exit doors added over the wings. It held the record for the world's longest commercial aircraft until the first flight of the Boeing 747-8 in February 2010. The A340-600 is powered by four thrust Rolls-Royce Trent 556 turbofans and uses the Honeywell 331–600[A] APU. As with the -500, it has a four-wheel undercarriage bogie on the fuselage centre-line to cope with the increased MTOW along with the enlarged wing and rear empennage.

NTSB photo showing part of the elevator trim tab The day after the crash, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) began examining whether part of the empennage had come off before the crash. A photograph taken just before the crash showed the airplane inverted and part of the left elevator trim tab missing. On October 21, 2011, Federal crash investigators with the NTSB said that they found no readable onboard video amid the debris of the racing plane. However, they were still attempting to extract information from an onboard data memory card found among damaged aircraft components and other debris scattered over more than two acres following the crash, as well as hundreds of photos and dozens of videos provided by spectators.

Airlines and airports ensure that aircraft are properly de-iced before takeoff whenever the weather involves icing conditions. Modern airliners are designed to prevent ice buildup on wings, engines, and tails (empennage) by either routing heated air from jet engines through the leading edges of the wing, and inlets, or on slower aircraft, by use of inflatable rubber "boots" that expand to break off any accumulated ice. Airline flight plans require airline dispatch offices to monitor the progress of weather along the routes of their flights, helping the pilots to avoid the worst of inflight icing conditions. Aircraft can also be equipped with an ice detector in order to warn pilots to leave unexpected ice accumulation areas, before the situation becomes critical.

This would not be insurmountable, but definitely presented some problems in negotiations. Douglas (prior to the formation of McDonnell Douglas) had been building tail assemblies for the DC-9 at the former Avro Canada factories at the Toronto International Airport for some time. Their industrial offset program would include modernizing these plants and moving in additional work to include wings for the KC-10 and MD-11, wings, empennage and cabin floors for the MD-80, as well as side panels and pylons for the F/A-18.Mike Lombardi and Larry Merritt, "Toronto's long history of aerospace achievement", Boeing Frontiers, Vol. 04, Issue 2 (June 2005) This proposal was greatly worrying to the DITC, and they became much more active in the negotiations.

The use of a twin boom enabled the jet pipe to be kept relatively short, which avoided the power loss that would have occurred if a long pipe was used, as would have been necessary in a conventional fuselage. It also put the rudder empennage clear of interference from the exhaust. Performance was estimated at at sea level and initial climb of on 2,700 lb thrust. The Ministry of Aircraft Production (MAP) expressed doubts regarding the estimations for the aircraft's performance and weight; however, the project received permission to proceed in July 1941. The DH.99 design was soon modified to incorporate a combined wood-and-metal construction in light of recommendations from the MAP; the design was thus renumbered to DH.100 by November 1941.

Despite its name 'Flying Wing' the aircraft carried a twin-boom empennage with a single vertical fin. The two crew sat in open tandem cockpits in a central nacelle with circular cross-section, initially with a Continental A-70 in tractor configuration. The nacelle ended in a jet-engine like 'exhaust' nozzle at its rear, which actually was an intake to a boundary-layer bleed system driven by the engine which blew air through spanwise slots in the rear part of the 'Flying Wing' in an attempt to increase the wing's performance. Another unusual characteristic of the design was its “reversed tricycle landing gear” with two main wheels under the front wing and a single aft wheel under the rear-end of the nacelle.

Development of the BQ-3 began in October, 1942, under a program for the development of "aerial torpedoes", later and more commonly referred to as "assault drones", that had been instigated in March of that year. Fairchild was awarded a contract for the construction of two XBQ-3 prototypes, based largely on the AT-21 Gunner advanced gunnery trainer already in United States Army Air Forces service.Parsch 2003 The XBQ-3 was a twin-engined, low-wing aircraft, fitted with retractable tricycle landing gear and a twin-finned empennage; although the aircraft was intended to be operated by radio control with television assist, a two-seat cockpit was included in the design for testing and ferry flights.Jane's 1947, p.424.

The Monoplane was a mid-wing tractor configuration monoplane powered by a 50 hp Gnome Omega seven-cylinder rotary engine driving a two-bladed Chauvière Intégrale propeller. The fuselage was a rectangular-section wire-braced box girder, with the forward part covered in plywood and the rear part fabric covered: the rear section was left uncovered in some examples. The two-spar wings had elliptical ends and were braced by a pyramidal cabane in front of the pilot and an inverted V-strut underneath the fuselage, behind the undercarriage. Lateral control was effected by wing warping and the empennage consisted of a fixed horizontal stabiliser with tip- mounted full-chord elevators at either end and an aerodynamically balanced rudder, with no fixed vertical surface.

The BS.17 was intended to complement the earlier and successful BS.16 primary glider by providing the enhanced performance required to take new pilots to qualifications beyond the A certificate. It used the wings and central support structure of the BS.16 and shared many smaller parts and fittings, but had a new, conventional fuselage in place of the primary's platform, together with different wing struts and empennage. The BS.17's wings were, like those of the BS.16, rectangular in plan apart from clipped aileron tips. Mounted without dihedral, the two separate wings were built around a pair of spars, one close to the leading edge with plywood covering forward from it around the edge forming a torsion-resistant D-box.

The KC-135Q variant was modified to carry JP-7 fuel necessary for the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird by separating the JP-7 from the KC-135's own fuel supply (the body tanks carrying JP-7, and the wing tanks carrying JP-4 or JP-8). The tanker also had special fuel systems for moving the different fuels between different tanks. When the KC-135Q model received the CFM56 engines, it was redesignated the KC-135T model, which was capable of separating the main body tanks from the wing tanks where the KC-135 draws its engine fuel. The only external difference between a KC-135R and a KC-135T is the presence of a clear window on the underside of the empennage of the KC-135T where a remote controlled searchlight is mounted.

F-16CJ of the alt=Jet heavily armed with weapons under wings taking off. The F-16 has a cropped-delta wing incorporating wing-fuselage blending and forebody vortex-control strakes; a fixed-geometry, underslung air intake (with splitter plate) to the single turbofan jet engine; a conventional tri-plane empennage arrangement with all- moving horizontal "stabilator" tailplanes; a pair of ventral fins beneath the fuselage aft of the wing's trailing edge; and a tricycle landing gear configuration with the aft-retracting, steerable nose gear deploying a short distance behind the inlet lip. There is a boom-style aerial refueling receptacle located behind the single-piece "bubble" canopy of the cockpit. Split-flap speedbrakes are located at the aft end of the wing-body fairing, and a tailhook is mounted underneath the fuselage.

Near the end of the drop, the nose of the aircraft began to pitch up to level attitude as the descent was arrested. The nose continued to pitch up past level attitude, and at the end of the drop, the right wing began to fold upwards, followed less than one second later by the left wing. Two debris fields were found, one in length and the other in length. A post-impact fire in the first debris field consumed major portions of the wing and engine components; there was no fire in the second debris field, which included the fuselage and empennage. The aircraft, previously United States Air Force (USAF) Serial Number 56-0538, was one of the original C-130A production series and had been built and delivered to the USAF in 1957.

Patrie landing on the plain at Antony-Fresnes, 26 October 1907 During the summer of 1907, 21 further flights were undertaken between 27 June and 7 August, including one on 22 July 1907 in which the President of the Council (Prime Minister) Georges Clemenceau, and the Minister of War Georges Picquart were passengers. Although a pipe became detached, showering the Premier with hot water, he reacted nonchalantly, saying "I cannot sufficiently express my admiration for this wonderful contrivance". The Patrie was then deflated for alterations that included the addition of a 500 cubic metre (17,660 ft³) cylindrical section to the gas-bag, a change to the empennage (as mentioned above) and provision of new propellers. The Patrie was reinflated and made ready for operational duty on 15 October 1907.

Special livery sported on the inaugural A380 service (VH-OQL) In May 2014, Qantas announced that Flight 7 and Flight 8 would be operated by the Airbus A380 beginning 29 September 2014, at which point Flight 8's intermediate stop in Brisbane would be terminated. Although frequency was reduced from seven to six flights per week, the larger capacity of the A380 results in an increase in weekly capacity on the route of more than ten percent. The A380s are configured into four classes, and brings the addition of first class to the route. The first A380 aircraft to operate Flight 7/8 sported a special livery: the kangaroo painted on the aircraft's empennage (tail) wore a white cowboy hat and star- speckled blue kerchief around its neck.

During September 1998, further 728 suppliers were announced, including Honeywell for its Primus Epic integrated EFIS avionics suite with flat panel LCDs, AlliedSignal to provide the auxiliary power unit (APU) and environmental control system, Lucas Aerospace for the fly-by-wire flight control system, BFGoodrich manufactured elements such as the landing gear, wheels, tyres, brakes and fuel system, Hamilton Sundstrand for the integrated electric system, and Parker Aerospace for the hydraulic systems. Spanish aircraft manufacturer Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA (CASA) was subcontracted to manufacture the wings and empennage of the 728. The basic version of the 728, referred to as the 728-100, would have been followed around the end of 2003 by the 728-200, which would have featured an extended range capability along with a higher payload capacity.

Niespal had worked at the SZD (Experimental Sailplane Institute) in Poland, where the Mucha series was designed, and he used the 1953 SZD-12 Mucha 100 as a starting point. There were many differences between the Mucha and the Lie-Fang, partly because the latter was a two-seat aircraft and therefore longer, with a much modified nose and more strongly forward- swept wings; the Lie-Fang's fuselage was a simpler, flat sided structure compared with the Mucha's oval section monocoque and the empennage was more angular. The Lie-Fang is wood framed, with some use of the local "poton" wood and with a mixture of plywood and fabric covering. It has a high mid mounted single spar wing with a plywood covered torsion box leading edge, Behind the spar the wing is fabric covered.

Like the H.P.17 it used a D.H.9A engine, fuselage and empennage, but fitted with an entirely new wing.Flight 10 November 1921 p.732-3 The H.P.20 was a high-wing monoplane, using a thick wing with a straight leading edge but taper on the trailing edge. It was a semi- cantilever structure bolted to a small cabane on the fuselage and braced to the lower fuselage longerons with a pair of steeply rising struts on each side. The heaviness of early cantilever wing structures is shown by a comparison of the loaded weight of the H.P.20 (6,500 lb) with that of the loaded standard biplane DH.9A (4,645 lb including fuel for over 5 hours of flight and a 460 lb bomb load).Flight 1 June 1956 p.

The Standard J-1 military trainer had been built in large numbers at the end of World War I. With many surplus after the war, it was a natural choice for adaptation by several manufacturers. Ariel Service, with the experienced designer Harvey Mummert who was an early collaborator with Glenn Curtiss, produced the Mercury Standard 6W-3 by combining a completely new wing with a Standard J fuselage and empennage, modified to accommodate four passengers rather than a student and with a new and more powerful engine. The Standard 6W-3 was a single bay biplane with constant chord, straight-edged wings swept at 5° and with a more modern, thicker airfoil than most of those used during WWI. Its upper wing was flat but the lower one had 1.5° of dihedral.

The fact that the tail assembly—rear fuselage, No. 2 tail-mounted engine, and remains of the empennage—finally came to rest substantially further forward than other major sections, was probably the result of the No. 2 engine continuing to deliver thrust during the actual breakup of the aircraft. No complete cross-section of the passenger cabin remained, and both the port wing and tailplane were demolished to fragments. Incongruously, not far from the roofless fuselage center section with the inner portion of the starboard wing still attached, lay a large, undamaged and fully inflated rubber dinghy, one of a number carried on the TriStar in the event of an emergency water landing. The breakup of the fuselage had freed it from its stowage and activated its inflation mechanism.

The Louis Blériot being lifted from a barge In 2004 the last of KLM's classic Boeing 747-200's named Louis Blériot was sold to the Aviodrome for the symbolic amount of 1 euro. Though the aircraft could still fly, Lelystad Airport was too small to handle such a large aircraft so the aircraft was partially disassembled and moved over water on a barge with the wings, engines and empennage removed and stored alongside the fuselage so the aircraft could fit under bridges along the way. After the journey over water that attracted a lot of attention the aircraft was lifted from the barge at Harderwijk and the last bit of the trip took place over land. At its final location the aircraft was re-assembled and opened to the public.

To provide the sideways force to counteract the clockwise torque produced by a counterclockwise-spinning main rotor (as seen from above the main rotor), the variable-pitch fan forces low pressure air through two slots on the right side of the tailboom, causing the downwash from the main rotor to hug the tailboom, producing lift and thus a measure of antitorque proportional to the amount of airflow from the rotorwash. This is augmented by a direct jet thruster which also provides directional yaw control, with the presence of a fixed-surface empennage near the end of the tail, incorporating vertical stabilizers. Development of the NOTAR system dates back to 1975 when engineers at Hughes Helicopters began concept development work. In December 1981, Hughes flew an OH-6A fitted with NOTAR for the first time.

The 1910 Type de Course was designed by Gabriel Voisin as a racing aircraft to take part in the many competitions being held at the time. A development of his highly successful 1907 biplane, it was a two-seater two-bay pusher configuration biplane with an elevator (aircraft) mounted on the upcurved front of the nacelle and rear-mounted empennage carried on two pairs of booms carrying the tail surfaces. The first aircraft flown, built for Henri Rougier, had a single rudder above the stabiliser and a fixed fin below: some later examples differed slightly. The structure made extensive use of metal: the nacelle was constructed of circular and elliptical section nickel-steel tubing, the interplane struts were steel and the wings had steel spars and wooden ribs.

NUAA Tiltrotor UAV is a series of unmanned tiltrotor aircraft developed by NUAA. These UAVs are experimental aircraft that is intended to explore tiltrotor technologies. There are at least two types of tiltrotor developed by NUAA, both of which are very similar to a scaled down version of Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey,NUAA Tiltrotor looks like V-22 and both are in conventional layout with high wing configuration, and both have tricycle landing gear and both are twin engine UAV powered by a pair of three-blade propeller.NUAA Tiltrotor propeller landing gear The difference between the two tiltrotor designs is in the empennage, where one has only one vertical stabilizer,NUAA Tiltrotor with single tail while the other has twin tail,NUAA Tiltrotor with twin tail thus has closer resemblance to V-22 Osprey.

The first version of the Evolution, originally designed by Jaroslav Sedláĉek of the Czech company UL-Jih was marketed by WD Flugzeugleichtbau of Germany as the Dallach D.5 Evolution with series production starting in 2002. UL-Jih fabricated both this model and the earlier D.4 Fascination and claimed sole production and marketing rights to both when WD Flugzeugleichtbau ceased trading in 2005, though those rights are challenged by Swiss Light Aircraft AG who build their own versions. The Evolution is an all-composite aircraft, which uses the same cantilever wings, control surfaces and empennage as the Fascination but has a high-wing configuration, rather than the latter's low wing. The wing is of trapezoidal plan, with ailerons that have external balance trim tabs and sealed nosegaps.

The Pelikan design differs from the typical layout of flight control surfaces and empennage (incorporating ailerons on the wing, a horizontal stabilizer with elevators and a vertical stabilizer with a rudder), in that it uses only two moveable surfaces in order to achieve control of pitch, yaw and roll. When evaluated by Boeing engineers in October 1998 while designing what became the X-32, they found advantages of greater pitch control at high angles of attack and that two tail surfaces would have a lower radar signature than the four surfaces eventually adopted. However, they also found that using two larger control surfaces instead of four might actually make the aircraft heavier. The bigger hydraulic pumps and cylinders needed to operate the larger surfaces would add of weight to the design.

The propellers on the Dash-7 are constant-speed propellers which change the blade angle to push more or less air as needed. This can be used to change power while maintaining a constant (and lower) speed. Dash 7 flight deck In other respects, the new DHC-7 was essentially a larger, four-engine version of the Twin Otter: the general layout remained similar, with a high aspect ratio, high-mounted wing, and similar details of the cockpit and nose profile. Changes included the addition of cabin pressurization (requiring a switch to a fuselage with a circular cross-section), landing gear that folded forward into the inner engine nacelles, and a large T-tail intended to keep the elevator clear of the propwash during take-off (the Twin Otter's empennage was a cruciform arrangement).

Rhein-Flugzeugbau (RFB) was founded in 1956. In 1976 it acquired the assets of Sportavia-Pützer, which had been formed in 1966 to take over from Alpavia SA the production of several light aircraft types designed by René Fournier. Sportavia-Pützer produced Fournier aircraft beginning in 1966, and in 1970 Fournier initiated the design of a new four- seat cabin monoplane, the Sportsman. The first prototype Sportsman first flew on 1 March 1973, but the second prototype, which made its maiden flight on 28 April 1976, was a completely redesigned version which was created by Sportavia. This redesigned model was designated the RF-6C Sportsman when it entered production in late 1976, and was renamed RS-180 Sportsman when a new empennage design was added in early 1978, following the fatal crash of the prototype in May 1977.

Designed during World War II by K. Abe, a Japanese schoolteacher, the Mizet II flew for the first time on 9 December 1948. It has constant chord, square tipped wings mounted onto a single, central girder which runs from just ahead of the leading edge back to the empennage. The pilot sits on an unenclosed seat below the leading edge, suspended from the central girder by a vertical strut and within an open, continuous frame defined by a second vertical girder from near the trailing edge, a horizontal keel girder which carries the lower seat mountings, rudder pedals and the simple tricycle undercarriage and completed by a sloping member ahead of the pilot on which simple instruments are mounted. A 25 hp (18.6 kW) motor car engine is mounted immediately behind the pilot in pusher configuration on an extension of the seat struttage.

A short, simple, cruciform cross-section beam ran back to the empennage, appearing in elevation like a fine boom but from above seen to begin with almost the width of the wing centre section, narrowing rearwards. The tail surfaces were conventional and followed the design of some earlier Bonomi types; the vertical tail was straight tapered and straight angle tipped, with a small fin and large, balanced rudder which extended down to the keel. There was only enough fixed horizontal surface, mounted at the vertical centre of the tail beam, to act as a mounting for the balanced elevators which were shaped similarly to the rudder, though shorter and with a cut-out for rudder movement. A diagram shows a version of the Bertina II with a fuselage extending conventionally ahead of the wing, though always beneath it.

The Blériot XII was a high wing tractor configuration monoplane with a deep uncovered fuselage, with the wings mounted on the upper longerons and the pilot and passenger seated between upper and lower longerons below the trailing edge of the wing. Lateral control was effected by a pair of ailerons mounted independently of the wings on the lower longerons behind the pilot. The prototype was initially powered by an E.N.V. Type D water-cooled engine mounted on the lower longerons, driving a two-bladed propeller mounted at the same level as the wing via a chain with a reduction ratio of about 2:1. When first flown the empennage consisted of an elevator at the extreme rear of the fuselage, with a separate fixed horizontal surface mounted above and in front of it, and three small rectangular rudders above the elevator.

In May 2005, the CSeries development was evaluated at US$2.1 billion, shared with suppliers and partner governments for one-third each. The Government of Canada would invest US$262.5 million, the Government of Quebec US$87.5 million and the Government of the United Kingdom US$340 million (£180 million), repayable on a royalty basis per aircraft. The UK contribution is part of an investment partnership for the location of the development of the wings, engine nacelles and composite empennage structures at the Belfast plant, where Bombardier bought Short Brothers in 1989. The cross section of the CSeries was designed to give enhanced seating comfort for passengers, with features like broader seats and armrests for the middle passenger and larger windows at every seat to give every passenger the physical and psychological advantages of ample natural light.

Tail wheel on an Aermacchi MB-326 to minimise damage caused by tailstrike In aviation, a tailstrike or tail strike occurs when the tail or empennage of an aircraft strikes the ground or other stationary object. This can happen with a fixed-wing aircraft with tricycle undercarriage, in both takeoff where the pilot rotates the nose up too rapidly, or in landing where the pilot raises the nose too sharply during final approach, often in attempting to land too near the runway threshold. It can also happen during helicopter operations close to the ground, when the tail inadvertently strikes an obstacle. A minor tailstrike incident may not be dangerous in itself, but the aircraft may still be weakened and must be thoroughly inspected and repaired if a more disastrous accident is to be avoided later in its operating life.

Development of the Gorgon IV began in May 1945, when the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics contracted with the Glenn L. Martin Company, as part of Project Gorgon, to develop an air-to-surface missile, powered by a ramjet engine and using active radar homing for guidance. The end of World War II saw a reduction in need for such a weapon, however the contract was continued in 1946 as a propulsion test vehicle, originally designated KUM-1, then PTV-2 before finally being redesignated PTV-N-2.Parsch 2005 The PTV-N-2 was of fairly conventional design, with mildly-swept wings and a conventional empennage; roll control was through spoilerons. The Marquardt XRJ30 ramjet engine was mounted below the aft fuselage, and the vehicle was fitted with drag brakes to prevent exceeding the engine's design limits.

During trials it was decided that a greater degree of control over vertical motion was required, which would also allow the pilot to compensate for "involuntary rising or falling of the airship due to expansion or contraction of the gas, or to other causes". For this purpose a movable horizontal plane was installed above the car and near the centre of gravity, which resulted in the loss of gas and ballast being reduced to a minimum.Squier, G.O. (in Flight Magazine), p.123. Photographs showing changes to the Patrie empennage from 1906 to 1907 At a later date this single plane was replaced by two movable planes mounted either side of and above the gondola, attached to the bottom of the elliptical frame, as shown in the plan view published in the German "Jahrbuch der Luftfahrt" ("Aviation Yearbook") in 1911.

Sperry, Letter to Flying magazine, September 1950, Project 1947 (accessed 08-08-08) To avert a possible collision, Sperry banked the aircraft and changed course 45° to the right; the light appeared to stop before changing course to parallel the aircraft on the left. During this period the light very briefly passed between the aircraft and the upper part of the moon, revealing an object with a long silhouette (somewhat reminiscent of a submarine) without visible wings or empennage. In his 1950 letter, Sperry stated the blue light was on the front of the object, which was also seen by the copilot and by flight engineer R. Arnholt.Ibid. In the 1955 interview deposited in Project Blue Book archives prior to the release of Greene's film, the blue light was stated to be on the object's tail.

MD-11 wearing the new China Airlines livery at Taoyuan International Airport in 2001. As Republic of China (Taiwan)'s flag carrier, China Airlines has been affected by disputes over the political status of Republic of China (Taiwan), and under pressure from the Communist Party of China, was barred from flying into a number of countries maintaining diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China ("China"). As a result, in the mid-1990s, China Airlines subsidiary Mandarin Airlines took over some of its Sydney and Vancouver international routes. Starting from October 7, 1995, partly as a way to avoid the international controversy, China Airlines unveiled its "plum blossom" logo, replacing the national flag, which had previously appeared on the tail fins (empennage), and the aircraft livery from the red-white-blue national colors on the fuselage of its aircraft.

Like several other designs by Richard Vogt, the P 194 featured an asymmetric arrangement. The layout was broadly similar to that of the BV 141: the crew and weapons were carried in a large nacelle offset from the main fuselage structure that carried a propeller-driven engine in the nose and the empennage at the rear, joined together by a common wing. However, in the P 194, a turbojet was added low down at the rear of the crew nacelle and the thrust from this engine was intended to help balance the thrust from the propeller. A powerful cluster of guns was to be located in the nose of the nacelle, clear of the propeller, and a bombload of up to 500 kg (1,100 lb) was to be carried in an internal bomb bay in the fuselage.

The P.68 was involved in 86 accidents and incidents reported in the Aviation Safety Network wiki database, including 58 hull losses. September 11, 1983: A P.68C, N29561, performing an aerobatic display broke up in flight during an airshow in Plainview, Texas as horrified spectators watched. The NTSB report revealed that analysis of the video showed the aircraft performed a fly-by over the runway, exceeding its Vne (Velocity, never-exceed) speed by 27 knots. The pilot then executed a sharp nose-up pitch change of about 8 degrees, which spiked the aircraft's dynamic load factor to 8.3Gs and caused both wings to fail in the main spar just outside both engine nacelles then separate from the aircraft, which then began rotating, causing the rear fuselage to twist along its length between its cabin and empennage.

L-39 with swept wings, extended rear fuselage, ventral tail fin and P-39 prop Two war surplus P-63Cs were modified by Bell under Navy contract for flight testing of low- speed and stall characteristics of high-speed wing designs. The aircraft received new wings with adjustable leading edge slats, trailing edge flaps and a pronounced sweep of 35 degrees. The wings had no wheel wells; only the nose gear was retractable.Williams, W.G. "Testing The First Supersonic Aircraft: Memoirs of NACA Pilot Bob Champine". NF166, January 1992. Excerpted from Wings Magazine, February 1991 Edition. Retrieved 1 April 2009. L-39-1 first flew 23 April 1946, demonstrating a need for extra tail surface and rear fuselage length to balance the aircraft in flight—the wing repositioning reduced empennage effectiveness and moved the center of lift aft.

Two prototypes were constructed: a version with retractable tricycle landing gear, first flown on 3 January 1969, and an otherwise similar aircraft with fixed landing gear. However, SOCATA was not confident that a sufficient market for the aircraft existed, and no further production ensued. SOCATA subsequently introduced the enlarged MS.890 Rallye Commodore series with a heavier airframe and four seats; production and development of the MS.880 and MS.890 series continued in parallel, and the enlarged and strengthened empennage of the MS.890 was adapted to MS.880 variants using more powerful engines and those approved for spins. Also in the late 1960s, United States aviation entrepreneur Alexander Berger—whose Allied Aero Industries holding company owned the Franklin Engine Company and Jacobs Aircraft Engine Company—formed a new venture to market European light aircraft under the banner of the defunct Waco Aircraft Company.

The pilot's seat could actually be elevated, with the pilot's eyes above the level of the upper glazing, complete with a small pivoted windscreen panel, to get the pilot's head above the level of the top of the "glass tunnel" for a better forward view for takeoffs and landings. The rear-facing dorsal gun position, enclosed with a sliding, near-clear view canopy, and for the first time, the ventral Bodenlafette rear-facing gun position, immediately aft of the bomb bay, that replaced the draggy "dustbin" retractable emplacement became standard, having been first flown on the He 111 V23, bearing civil registration D-ACBH. One of Heinkel's rivals, Junkers, built 40 He 111Ps at Dessau. In October 1938, the Junkers Central Administration commented: > Apparent are the externally poor, less carefully designed components at > various locations, especially at the junction between the empennage and the > rear fuselage.

A 1944 drawing by Helmuth Ellgaard illustrating "ramming" Sonderkommando literally means "special command", and the Elbe is one of the main rivers in Germany. The aircraft of choice for this mission was usually a later G-version (Gustav) of the Messerschmitt Bf 109, stripped of armor and armament. The heavily stripped-down planes had one synchronized machine gun (usually a single MG 131 in the upper engine cowling) instead of up to four automatic weapons (usually including a pair of 20mm or 30mm underwing-mount autocannon) on fully equipped Bf 109G interceptors, and were only allotted 60 rounds each, a normally insufficient amount for bomber-interception missions. To accomplish their mission, Sonderkommando Elbe pilots would typically aim to ram one of three sensitive areas on the bombers: the empennage with its relatively delicate control surfaces, the engine nacelles which were connected to the highly explosive fuel system, or the cockpit itself.

The first UAV developed by Up-Tech is a twin-boom UAV that was first revealed in June 2008 at the UAV Convention/Exhibition held in Beijing at Wendushuicheng (温都水城) Hotel, which was the second UAV convention / exhibition held in China, after the first of its kind held in China back in 2006. The twin boom UAV developed by Up-Tech utilizes commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) airframe and it is in high wing configuration with twin tail. Propulsion is provided by a two-blade propeller driven pusher engine mounted at the rear end of the empennage. The land gear is rather unusual among Chinese UAVs in that it adopts a combination of landing gear systems that is rarely adopted by other Chinese UAVs: the landing gear consists of a pair of skids, with a pair of wheels on each skid.

At least one Type F had an uncowled Anzani 10-cylinder radial engine. The cockpit's forward rim was raised up, making it more enclosed and better defined; similar protection had been introduced on the Type D2 and Type E. As before, the nacelle was supported above the lower wing on two more pairs of interplane struts; these were enclosed by the nacelle, as on the Type D. The empennage of the type F was supported on a pair of girders arranged parallel to one another in plan. The upper girder members were attached to the upper wing spars at the tops of the innermost interplane struts and the lower ones ran under the lower wing, mounted on inverted W-form struts from the bottom of the inner interplane pairs. These lower members, which supported the aircraft on the ground as skids, each carried twin, rubber sprung landing wheels.

The nose region forward of the pilot was smooth and slightly rounded but merged into a corrugated, flat sided and rectangular cross-section fuselage. The central Salmson 9Ab nine cylinder radial engine was mounted on the extreme nose, completely uncowled and driving a two bladed propeller. The pilot's compartment had a shallow, framed and angled pair of plane windscreens just ahead of the wing leading edge with an internal door to the main cabin, which was lit by long, shallow side windows and accessed by a large triangular door defined by the lattice fuselage structure. Just behind the wing trailing edge there was an open dorsal gunner's position, which at some point in the Type 40's development housed a pair of machine guns on a standard rotatable mounting The detachable rear section carried the empennage, which was constructed in a similar way to the wings.

The Potez 27 was a combination of the wings of the Potez 25 with the fuselage, empennage, engine, landing gear and cabane struts of the Potez XV. The result of this marriage was an unequal span, single bay biplane with a pair of parallel, outward leaning interplane struts on each side, aided by flying wires. The lower wings were attached to the lower fuselage longerons and the upper wings supported over the fuselage on each side by a linked pair of vertical cabane struts from the upper longeron. The fuselage was flat sided, with a curved decking over most of its length, though the upper engine cowling followed around each cylinder bank of the Lorraine- Dietrich 12Db upright V-12 engine. This was water cooled, with Lamblin cylindrical radiators under the wings and between the V-struts on which the rigid axle and wheels of the tailskid undercarriage were mounted.

The engine is mounted behind the crew and passenger compartments, so fuel does not have to flow past personnel; any leak will vent behind the aircraft, and any engine fire will be directed behind the aircraft (however, this arrangement puts the empennage at greater risk—if there is one—but this is less of an issue if the fire occurs at the time of, or as a consequence of, landing). Similarly, propeller failure is less likely to directly endanger the crew. Leaks of fuel, oil or coolant from the engine stream away from the aircraft instead of becoming a risk to the pilot, other occupants, and any whole-aircraft parachute installation. In case of a crash or crash-landing, fuel and oil in the aft engine area are less likely to be a fire hazard and high-energy propeller fragments are less likely to enter the cabin area.

The empennage was conventional, with a large, upright fin and a vertical edged unbalanced rudder that went down to the keel; the cantilever tailplane and elevators were rectangular in plan, with rounded corners and a cut-out for rudder movement, and were mounted a little lower than the wings on the upper fuselage longerons. It had conventional landing gear with mainwheels on a single axle rubber sprung to V-struts from the lower fuselage, their rear members part of a transverse inverted W-form strut also joined to the central fuselage. There was a short tailskid. Some sources give the date of the Triavion's first flight as 10 August 1926; it certainly flew at the Concours d'Avions Economique which began on that date at Orly; though originally registered as a competitor it only arrived mid-week and did not take part in the contest.

Front view of the Viscount, showing how the critical surfaces of the empennage are outside of the area shielded by the propellers Before the accident, aircraft had been designed with the understanding that critical control services of the aircraft were protected from bird strikes by the wings and the propellers of the aircraft. The design of the Viscount 745D created new vulnerabilities because the tailplane was mounted higher than the top of the propeller discs, and therefore was unprotected. The higher cruising speeds of newer aircraft also increased the amount of damage that could be caused by a bird, but nearly all of the prior research on the dangers of bird strikes had been conducted in the 1930s. The only airworthiness regulation that had been in effect about bird strike safety was Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b, which required the windshield of an aircraft to be able to withstand an impact from a bird at cruising speed.

The lateral stability problems of the Badger worried its designer Frank Barnwell because a 1/10 scale model had been carefully tested in the NPL wind tunnel without any alarm. Scaling from model to full size was a problem because the Reynolds numbers reached in the atmospheric pressure wind tunnels of the time were much lower than those encountered in full-size flight. Flight tunnel tests also often involved the use of simplified aircraft models, with no attempt made to model the fuselage shape in detail. Using a spare set of Badger wings and empennage, Barnwell designed a new, single-seat flat-sided and very simple fuselage made from plywood on a wooden frame for a fifth and final Badger, the Badger X. It first flew on 13 May 1919 and was Bristol's first civil registered aircraft, initially as K110, then G-EABU, but was never able to provide the intended comparative data with tunnel models, crashing on 22 May.

The lower wings were mounted on a short spar mounted below the lower longerons and the upper wing was supported by only four struts, two inboard supporting the centre section of the wing, and one on either side connecting the mainspars of the wings near the wingtips. The mainspars of the wing panels were connected to the centre-section spar by knuckle joints, so that the wings could easily be folded back for road or rail transport. Four small vertical stabilisers were mounted below the upper wing, and a pair of supplementary control surfaces were mounted below the fuselage. These were intended for lateral control, and were operated in conjunction with wing-warping The rear-mounted empennage initially consisted of a fixed fin and rudder and a rectangular elevator, with no fixed horizontal surface, but this was soon replaced by a cruciform assembly combining rudder and elevator, connected to the fuselage by a universal joint.

On Thursday, 6 May 2010, the day of the UK's 2010 General Election, a PZL-104 Wilga, carrying the then former UKIP leader Nigel Farage crashed whilst attempting to land at Hinton-in-the-Hedges Airfield after aborting a flight over Buckingham with a UKIP banner attached to the tail. The banner became tangled in the control surfaces on the empennage which prompted the pilot to attempt an emergency landing.Nigel Farage injured in plane crash on election day BBC News 6 May 2010, accessed 19 January 2011UKIPs Farage hurt in plane crash The Guardian 6 May 2010, accessed 19 January 2011 The pilot and Farage were both injured and taken to different hospitals.UKIPs Farage hurt in plane crash, Coventry Telegraph, 6 May 2010, accessed 19 January 2011 In December 2010, the pilot, Justin Adams, was arrested as he was alleged to have threatened to kill Farage and similarly threatened the CAA investigator Martin James.

The majority of the testing of the aircraft was done at Bartow Air Base in Bartow, Fl. The prototype exhibited stability problems due to its single rudder and minimal T-tail horizontal stabilizer positioned on a boom behind the pusher propeller. The second prototype, named Umbaugh U-18, was fitted with a V-tail which also proved inadequate. The third empennage tested, also unsuccessfully, was a T-tail with two large vertical end plates on the horizontal tail plane. Sufficient stability was finally achieved by the use of two fixed vertical fins with a centrally mounted all-flying rudder, all mounted on a horizontal stabilizer. Umbaugh had by this time concluded an agreement for Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation to undertake final development and mass production of the U-18 as the “Flymobil.” Fairchild built five development gyroplanes during 1960, one of which was used to gain FAA Approved Type Certificate 1H17 in September 1961.

This caused it to break up in flight. The accident investigators believed that the empennage separated from the rest of the aircraft as a result of the detonation of a nitrocellulose explosive device. ;15 June 1961: A Boeing 707 en route from Paris to Lima caught fire while landing at Lisbon Portela de Sacavém as a result of a burst tyre. Although only three out of 109 passengers were slightly injured and most of the baggage, cargo and mail was salvaged, hundreds of chickens on their way to a farm in Central America did not survive the accident. ;27 July 1961: Air France Flight 272, a Boeing 707–328 (F-BHSA, named Chateau de Versailles) operating the polar route from Paris Orly via Hamburg and Anchorage to Tokyo Haneda veered to the left and ran off the runway at Hamburg Fuhlsbüttel, coming to rest 2,840 m from the starting point in depression containing a building site 140 m from the runway.

The M10 is similar to the Alon A2-A, and indeed a handful of "Mooney A2-As" were built in Kerrville in 1968 before changeover of Mooney's production line was completed. According to the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet, the "Model 10 is similar to Model A2-A except for new design empennage, ailerons and fuel tank vent." The most obvious difference is that the M10 replaces the iconic Ercoupe-style dual vertical stabilizer with a tail designed to allow the airplane to spin. Changes to the ailerons, along with replacement of the A2-A's tail, were motivated by Mooney's intent to market the M10 as a trainer: student pilots receiving training in a non-spinnable airplane, as the Ercoupe was, were issued FAA pilot certificates carrying the restriction that they could only fly airplanes which were "characteristically incapable of spinning"; thus the spinnable tail was necessary to turn the A2-A into a general-purpose trainer.

The DB-70 was a very large, all metal aircraft built, like all Dyle et Bacalan aircraft, largely of duralumin. As on the 1926 DB-10, the centre section of the wing of the DB-70 was extremely thick and twice the chord of the outer wings, with a chord/thickness ratio of about 25%. The layout of the two designs was different, though; the otherwise conventionally laid-out DB-10 had thick wings inboard of its two engines, whereas the DB-70 was built around its thick centre section with twin fuselages, developed from it rearwards, carrying the empennage. The centre section also mounted the three 450 kW (600 hp) Hispano- Suiza water-cooled inline engines and the pilots' cockpit and enclosed the passenger accommodation. The 9.25 m span wide (30 ft) centre section, the structural core of the DB-70, was based on four steel transverse spars, separated vertically by 2.30 m (7 ft 6 in), horizontally by 1.95 m (6 ft 5 in) and cross-braced into six frames, forming five transverse bays.

These markings were effective within a mile of the viewer, but as the numbers of groups increased from sixteen to forty, assembly difficulties increased. The USAAF decided to discontinue further camouflage painting of its aircraft in late 1943 and these began to reach Groups in February, 1944. The 2nd Bomb Division devised a system for its B-24s whereby the entire tail fin was painted in a color (each of its five combat wings was assigned a color) and a black or white band placed across the fin either vertically, horizontally, or diagonally to identify the group within that wing. The 93rd CBW of the 3rd Air Division, which operated B-24s from May to September 1944, also adopted a color system in June. Uncamouflaged 486th Bomb Group B-17G with 4th Combat Bomb Wing, 3rd Air Division color marking scheme The first color markings for B-17s appeared in July 1944 when the 1st Combat Bomb Wing (91st, 381st, and 398th Bomb Groups) painted the empennage of their airplanes bright red.

Boeing built a final assembly line in Washington at its Renton factory, home of 707, 727, and 737 production, to produce the 757. Early in the development program, Boeing, British Airways, and Rolls-Royce unsuccessfully lobbied the British aircraft industry to manufacture 757 wings. Ultimately, about half of the aircraft's components, including the wings, nose section, and empennage, were produced in-house at Boeing facilities with the remainder subcontracted to primarily U.S.-based companies. Fairchild Aircraft made the leading edge slats, Grumman supplied the flaps, and Rockwell International produced the main fuselage. Production ramp-up for the new narrow-body airliner coincided with the winding-down of the 727 program, and final assembly of the first aircraft began in January 1981. alt=Side view of aircraft in flight with extended gear, against a grassy hill backdrop The prototype 757 rolled out of the Renton factory on January 13, 1982. The aircraft, equipped with engines, completed its maiden flight one week ahead of schedule on February 19, 1982. The first flight was affected by an engine stall, following indications of low oil pressure.

In addition to bombing strategic targets, often at great loss in aircraft and crews, the 91st also made tactical strikes in support of the Allied landings in France, in the battles for Caen and Saint-Lô, during the German winter counteroffensive, and during the Allied offensive across the Rhine River. Beginning 16 March 1944, the 91st began receiving replacement B-17's that were by a change in USAAF policy no longer painted olive drab, and the bomber force became almost completely "natural metal finish" by July 1944. The 1st Combat Bomb Wing, of which the 91st was a part, adopted the use of a red empennage and wingtips in June 1944 to more easily identify its groups during assembly for missions. The 91st retained its "Triangle A" tail marking as well. The intensity of operations during this phase is reflected by the 100 B-17's lost by the 91st Bomb Group during 1944, compared to 84 in 1943, despite the diminution of the Luftwaffe during the spring and summer.

The empennage was conventional: a slender fin carried a rounded, unbalanced rudder which extended down the bottom of the fuselage, and the tapered, mid-fuselage tailplane carried separate elevators so the rudder could move between them. The undercarriage had vertical (in flying position) legs from the wings with a large (3 in or 76 mm) movement, each sloping outwards slightly to increase the track and braced inwards by struts from halfway down the legs to the wing roots. Sqn Ldr F.W.H.Lervill (another CLW director) had clear ideas on training aircraft and the Curlew was intended to place the pupil at the front to familiarise him or her with the sensation of flying alone. He also chose not to fit wheel brakes, for he thought they were likely to confuse the novice. After its first flight, the Curlew successfully completed its initial trials, which include a terminal velocity dive at 305 mph (491 km/h) and a maximum loaded weight producing a wing loading of 14 lb/sq ft (68 kg/m2).

In March 1941 the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (ministry of the air, abbreviated RLM), the ministry that during the Nazi period was responsible for the whole aviation of Germany, expressed the need to acquire a new long-range bombardment aircraft capable of carrying a war load of 5,000 kg of bombs with a range of 15,000 km. Focke-Wulf and Junkers responded to the request by starting a project for a large tactical bomber suitable to meet the specifications issued. Focke-Wulf planned the development of an all- encompassing four-engine aircraft in a trailing configuration that could be equipped with the best engines currently being developed, the BMW 803 of 3 900 PS combined with four-bladed propellers counter-rotating or Junkers Jumo 222. The long fuselage integrated the cockpit pressurized for the five (or according to other sources ten) crew members on the front, the ventral bomb compartment and an empennage bi drift chosen to improve the shooting range of the two barbette hydraulically driven backbones equipped with a pair of cannoncini automatic MG 151/20 gauge 20 mm.

A flexible wing material can increase efficiency while keeping the driving mechanism simple. In wing designs with the spar sufficiently forward of the airfoil that the aerodynamic center is aft of the elastic axis of the wing, aeroelastic deformation causes the wing to move in a manner close to its ideal efficiency (in which pitching angles lag plunging displacements by approximately 90 degrees.)"The development of an efficient ornithopter wing" DeLaurier, J.D. (1993), 152–162 (accessed May 27, 2014) Flapping wings increase drag and are not as efficient as propeller- powered aircraft. Some designs achieve increased efficiency by applying more power on the down stroke than on the upstroke, as do most birds."An Ornithopter Wing Design" DeLaurier, James D. (1994), 10–18 (accessed November 30, 2010) In order to achieve the desired flexibility and minimum weight, engineers and researchers have experimented with wings that require carbon fiber, plywood, fabric, and ribs, with a stiff, strong trailing edge."The development of an efficient ornithopter wing" DeLaurier, J.D. (1993), 152–162, (accessed May 27, 2014) Any mass located aft of the empennage reduces the wing's performance, so lightweight materials and empty space are used where possible.

Because of the large span they were three bay wings, the bays separated by three pairs of parallel, vertical interplane struts; there was no stagger. On each wing another pair of parallel masts leaned outwards from the bases of the outer interplane struts to support the overhang of the upper wing and at the wing roots two more pairs of vertical interplane struts supported both the wing centre section and, just above the lower wing, the fuselage, an arrangement also used to support the short nacelle of the Type B. Instead of the nacelle and the twin booms that supported the empennage on the Type B, the Multiplace had a rectangular section, full length fuselage with the engine in the nose, built around four longerons and fabric covered. There was a long, open cockpit for passengers and pilot, the latter sitting at the back under a little cut-out in the wing trailing edge for better upward vision. The single, roughly rectangular rudder was entirely above the fuselage and was cut away on its underside to allow the deflection of the horizontal tail's trailing edge.

It was a widebody airliner, in a similar class in terms of size, weight, and range, to the original and somewhat smaller European Airbus which was then in the early stages of development. At the time, the Three-Eleven was widely assumed to have emerged with encouragement from some British government circles and individuals that were close to Rolls-Royce, who were anxious to have a fall- back option in case the European Airbus failed. As presented in drawings, artists' impressions, models, and a partial timber mock-up, the Three-Eleven, resembled a One-Eleven which had been doubled in size. According to Wood, as proposed, the Three-Eleven was to be furnished with twin RB.211 engines, rated at 43,000 lb of thrust (later raised to 50,000 lb); these would have been mounted near the rear of the airliner, fixed to either side of the tail cone beneath a T-formation empennage. Possessing a take-off weight of 267,000 lb (which was subsequently revised upwards to 302,000 lb), the airliner could accommodate up to 245 passengers seated in an eight abreast configuration at a 34-inch pitch (or up to 300 passengers at a 30-inch pitch).

One Aviation Eclipse 550 Mockup with systems graphics The 550 was developed from the earlier Eclipse 500, enabled by Sikorsky Aircraft's investment in Eclipse Aerospace in 2010. It retains the 500's airframe and PW610F engines, but incorporates an improved avionics package, including satellite phones, autothrottles, synthetic vision and enhanced vision systems, as well as anti-skid brakes. In May 2012 the company signed a deal with Sikorsky subsidiary PZL Mielec to have the Polish company build the Eclipse 550 fuselage, empennage and wings, while final aircraft assembly will be carried out by Eclipse Aerospace at their Albuquerque, New Mexico plant. The initial price for the 550 in 2011 was US$2.695M and production was intended at that time to be 50–100 aircraft per year. The aircraft achieved an FAA production certificate in April 2012. In June 2013 the FAA approved the Eclipse 550 for a fatigue limit of 20,000 hours or 20,000 cycles with an unlimited calendar life. In August 2013 it was announced that the aircraft would incorporate autothrottles, new EFIS software, an anti-lock braking system and a high-resolution 3.25" x 4.3" standby display. In February 2014 the FAA approved autothrottles and anti-skid brakes for the 550.

One major advantage of the trijet design is that the wings can be located further aft on the fuselage, compared to twinjets and quadjets with all wing-mounted engines, allowing main cabin exit and entry doors to be more centrally located for quicker boarding and deplaning, ensuring shorter turnaround times. The rear-mounted engine and wings shift the aircraft's center of gravity rearwards, improving fuel efficiency, although this will also make the plane slightly less stable and more difficult to handle during takeoff and landing. (The McDonnell Douglas DC-9 twinjet and its derivatives, whose engines are mounted on pylons near the rear empennage, have similar advantages/disadvantages of the trijet design, such as the wings located further aft and a more rearward center of gravity.) Trijets are more efficient and cheaper than four-engine aircraft, as the engines are the most expensive part of the plane and having more engines consumes more fuel, particularly if quadjets and trijets share engines of similar power, making the trijet configuration more suited to a mid-size airliner compared to larger quadjets. However, higher purchase prices, primarily due to the difficulty and complexity of mounting the third engine through the tail, will somewhat negate this advantage.

Bomber versions of both types were proposed, and work continued on them at the insistence of Adolf Hitler long after the point when anything other than token use could have been made of them. Moves were made to revive the Me 328 again in 1944 as a piloted flying bomb based on the Me 328B, fitted with a bomb, but it was dropped in favour of the Fieseler Fi 103R (Reichenberg). Two differing revised versions - one designated as the Me 328C, to be fitted with a Jumo 004 turbojet — and another, in-house proposal that did not receive a letter suffix, used two As 014 pulsejets mounted on pylons mounted onto the rear fuselage sides — refitted with a twin tail empennage design — along with a Porsche 109-005 single-use turbojet of thrust in the same dorsal rear location as meant for its use on the V-1, allowed with the new twin-tail designMe 328 proposal for two As 014/Porsche 109-005 propulsion — but neither of these proposals came to anything. Owing to the basic idea of short-life reaction propulsion units to power it, the Me 328 project is often listed as a suicide weapon, however the aircraft was not intended as such.

The empennage is of sheet metal. The two-spar wings are of all-metal construction. The tricycle landing gear is fixed, with a steerable nosewheel. Designed for aerobatics instruction, it was certified to +6.0 and -4.0 limit maneuvering load factors, and was equipped with full inverted fuel and oil systems, permitting extended inverted flight. The Z 42 is powered by a Walter inverted six-cylinder engine rated at 134 kW (180 hp). The revised Zlín Z 42M flew in November 1972, with a revised tail taken from the Z 43, and a Constant speed propeller replacing the variable pitch propeller (where the propeller pitch is controlled by the pilot) of the original Z 42. When early Z 42s were refitted with the new propeller, they were redesignated Z 42 MU. Zlín Z-142 Development continued, with the Zlín Z 142, featuring a slightly enlarged two-seat airframe based on that of the Z 42 and the more powerful (157 kW (210 hp)) Walter (now LOM) M 337 fuel-injected inverted six-cylinder, supercharged air- cooled engine of the Z 43 replacing the unsupercharged LOM M137 engine of the Z 42. The prototype Z-142 first flew on 29 December 1978.

Side views of Ju 287 V1 (top), Ju 287 V2 w/ fuselage mounted Jumo 004s and wing mounted BMW 003s (center top), Ju 287 V2 w/ underwing triple engine packs (center bottom), and Ju 287 V3 (bottom) Data from: Junkers Ju 287: The World's First Swept-Wing Jet Aircraft ;Ju 287 V1 (cover designation Ju 288 V201): First prototype, technology demonstrator with fixed landing gear, fuselage taken from He 177A-5, tail empennage taken from Ju 188G-2, and 4 x Jumo 004B engines. ;Ju 287 V2 (cover designation Ju 288 V202): Second prototype; similar to Ju 287 V1 in overall layout, but with tail wheel removed, horizontal stabilizer lowered 12 inches (30 centimeters), and inward main undercarriage braces; originally intended to utilize 4 x BMW 003s in underwing pairs and 2 x Jumo 004Bs mounted on the sides of the fuselage, but engine configuration later changed to utilize two underwing triple pack configurations composed of 2 x Jumo 004Bs and 1 x BMW 003. Virtually complete when Ju 287 program halted in late 1944, but not flown. ;Ju 287 V3: Third prototype, intended prototype for Ju 287A-1; fuselage based on that of the Ju 288, fully glazed, pressurized cockpit accommodating three crewmembers; retractable landing gear, no provision for armament, and 6 x BMW 003 engines mounted in two triple pack configurations under the wings.