Analytic study of the conditions required for longitudinal stability of dual-wing aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies of new, fuel-efficient transport aircraft have considered designs, which make use of two principal lifting surfaces to provide the required lift as well as trim and static stability. Such designs include open tandem-wings as well as closed joined and box-wings. As a group, these aircraft can be termed dual-wing designs. This study developed a new analytic model, which takes into account the downwash from the two main wings and is sensitive to three important design variables: the relative areas of each wing, the streamwise separation of the wings, and the center of gravity position. This model was used to better understand trends in the dual-wing geometry on the stability, maneuverability, and lift-to-drag ratio of the aircraft. Dual-wing aircraft have been shown to have reduced the induced drag compared to the conventional designs. In addition, further drag reductions can be realized as the horizontal tail can be removed if the dual-wings have sufficient streamwise stagger to provide the moments necessary for trim and longitudinal stability. As both wings in a dual-wing system carry a significant fraction of the total lift, trends in such designs that led to longitudinal stability can differ from those of the conventional aircraft and have not been the subject of detailed investigation. Results from the analytic model showed that the longitudinal stability required either a reduction of the fore wing area or shifting the center of gravity forward from the midpoint of both wings' aerodynamic centers. In addition, for wing configurations of approximately equal fore and aft wing areas, increasing the separation between the two wings decreased the stability of the aircraft. The source of this unusual behavior was the asymmetric distribution of downwash upstream and downstream of the wing. These relationships between dual-wing geometry and stability will provide initial guidance on the conceptual design of dual-wing aircraft and aid in the understanding of the results of more complex studies of such designs, furthering the development of future transport aircraft.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".