What are some drawbacks to having a wingtip propeller on an aircraft?












7












$begingroup$


I was reading about aircraft concepts that involved wingtip propeller design and was wondering what the drawbacks of such a technology would be. I could not access the full paper but came across this: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/3.44076



For me, one of my concerns is that if the propeller fails, feathering would be very difficult on the wingtip prop. I am also trying to decide on optimal placement for aircraft propellers in general. Would the drawbacks from having a wingtip propeller outweigh the benefits in high-lift generation and drag reduction?










share|improve this question







New contributor




DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    "if the propeller fails, feathering would be very difficult on the wingtip prop" Why, and how does the feathering mechanism differ based on the spanwise mounting location? This does not compute for me.
    $endgroup$
    – AEhere
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Loosely related: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/13382/2407
    $endgroup$
    – RoboKaren
    10 hours ago
















7












$begingroup$


I was reading about aircraft concepts that involved wingtip propeller design and was wondering what the drawbacks of such a technology would be. I could not access the full paper but came across this: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/3.44076



For me, one of my concerns is that if the propeller fails, feathering would be very difficult on the wingtip prop. I am also trying to decide on optimal placement for aircraft propellers in general. Would the drawbacks from having a wingtip propeller outweigh the benefits in high-lift generation and drag reduction?










share|improve this question







New contributor




DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    "if the propeller fails, feathering would be very difficult on the wingtip prop" Why, and how does the feathering mechanism differ based on the spanwise mounting location? This does not compute for me.
    $endgroup$
    – AEhere
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Loosely related: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/13382/2407
    $endgroup$
    – RoboKaren
    10 hours ago














7












7








7





$begingroup$


I was reading about aircraft concepts that involved wingtip propeller design and was wondering what the drawbacks of such a technology would be. I could not access the full paper but came across this: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/3.44076



For me, one of my concerns is that if the propeller fails, feathering would be very difficult on the wingtip prop. I am also trying to decide on optimal placement for aircraft propellers in general. Would the drawbacks from having a wingtip propeller outweigh the benefits in high-lift generation and drag reduction?










share|improve this question







New contributor




DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I was reading about aircraft concepts that involved wingtip propeller design and was wondering what the drawbacks of such a technology would be. I could not access the full paper but came across this: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/3.44076



For me, one of my concerns is that if the propeller fails, feathering would be very difficult on the wingtip prop. I am also trying to decide on optimal placement for aircraft propellers in general. Would the drawbacks from having a wingtip propeller outweigh the benefits in high-lift generation and drag reduction?







aircraft-design propeller wing-tip-vortex






share|improve this question







New contributor




DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 15 hours ago









DumbAeronauticsGuyDumbAeronauticsGuy

362




362




New contributor




DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    "if the propeller fails, feathering would be very difficult on the wingtip prop" Why, and how does the feathering mechanism differ based on the spanwise mounting location? This does not compute for me.
    $endgroup$
    – AEhere
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Loosely related: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/13382/2407
    $endgroup$
    – RoboKaren
    10 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    "if the propeller fails, feathering would be very difficult on the wingtip prop" Why, and how does the feathering mechanism differ based on the spanwise mounting location? This does not compute for me.
    $endgroup$
    – AEhere
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Loosely related: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/13382/2407
    $endgroup$
    – RoboKaren
    10 hours ago
















$begingroup$
"if the propeller fails, feathering would be very difficult on the wingtip prop" Why, and how does the feathering mechanism differ based on the spanwise mounting location? This does not compute for me.
$endgroup$
– AEhere
14 hours ago




$begingroup$
"if the propeller fails, feathering would be very difficult on the wingtip prop" Why, and how does the feathering mechanism differ based on the spanwise mounting location? This does not compute for me.
$endgroup$
– AEhere
14 hours ago












$begingroup$
Loosely related: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/13382/2407
$endgroup$
– RoboKaren
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
Loosely related: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/13382/2407
$endgroup$
– RoboKaren
10 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

Feathering isn't really an issue, if you can feather a prop on an engine further inboard you can do it on the tip too. There are 3 major drawbacks that come to mind:




  1. The wing structure has to be stronger: engines are heavy, the further out they are the beefier the structure has to be to hold them. Stronger wings mean more weight and possibly a thicker cross section. Neither are good traits in a wing

  2. Decreased roll rate: the farther the engines are the greater the moment arm and the slower your roll rate will be. Think about skaters spinning around, the farther their arms from their body the slower they spin. The same principle is at work here, so you need bigger ailerons to give you maneuverability, so more weight, cost and complexity

  3. Safety in a single engine failure scenario: engines on the wingtips will cause more yaw in a single engine failure than engines further in board, so you'll need a bigger rudder to counteract it. A bigger rudder means more weight and cost, and there are also limits - eventually you will get to the point you can't counteract the force effectively and an engine failure will cause a loss of control. Yaw onset will be faster as well, giving a pilot less time to react, and there's nothing you can do about that; a bigger rudder doesn't help with reaction time. Mechanical cross-connections could be used to share power across the wing in the case of a single engine failure, like the V-22 Osprey, Chinook helicopter, however these increase weight, cost and complexity. Also, these systems aren't perfect, a single engine failure is still a possibility






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The Flying Flapjack series of experimental aircraft had the engines buried in the wing, at roughly similar locations to a conventional twin. They also used a shaft cross-connect with overrun clutches (much later adopted for the test series leading up to the Osprey tilt-rotor) so that either engine failing would allow normal operation on the remaining engine with balanced thrust.
    $endgroup$
    – Zeiss Ikon
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not saying it can't be done @ZeissIkon, just that there are design considerations. I am familiar with cross connects, failure of cross-connects in the Osprey and its predecessor. has led to at least one fatal crash.
    $endgroup$
    – GdD
    11 hours ago



















3












$begingroup$

Moving the thrust (and additional weight) to the wingtips creates more drawbacks than benefits.



Yaw - because of the increased moment of inertia (compared to having the engines be closer to the fuselage - the center line of the mass), it would be harder to initiate yaw changes as well as harder to stop or reverse them. Left/right thrust differentials could be used, and that would certainly increase yaw change rate, but then you have to consider the time cost of changing the force of each engine quickly. And it becomes a very serious problem if you have a failure on one side, leaving you with only one wingtip generating all of the thrust. Depending on the geometry of the aircraft and the size of the vertical stabilizer, it might not even be possible to counter the yaw force generated by the one engine producing enough thrust to keep the aircraft flying.



Roll - Similar to the yaw problem, the roll rate would be reduced the further the weights were moved away from the center line.



The V-22 Osprey is an example of this design. The wings are kept short to minimize the increase to moment of inertia, but the operational requirements of the vehicle (VTOL) required it to have large propellers (rotors), so the wings had to be long enough to keep the prop tips from hitting the fuselage.



Additionally, vibration and external (turbulence) effects on the wing structures would have to be considered. Even in normal operating conditions, the wings would be subject to increased vibrations that could create structure failures in some complex compound wave situations. Aircraft designers already deal with this and model these scenarios, but the complexity increases (I suspect exponentially) as the vibrational force is moved further toward the wingtip.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    Another non-flying attribute that having a wingtip-mounted propeller can drive is landing gear length. Since there are minimum clearance distances for propeller tip to ground during taxiing, and the wings may sag or dip during a turn while taxiing, you may end up having to change your gear length (which can cause other issues in turn).






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      0












      $begingroup$

      Wrapup of smaller things:



      This could affect the minimum runway width required. Wings will pass over grass okay, but props/engines could risk blowing dirt/dust/plants about and inhaling them causing FOD. Any obstruction beside the runway could have consequences.



      Slight increase in fire risk from any sparks from the engine because the spark might drop into shelter rather than dropping onto the hard tarmac of the runway.



      Increased risk to first responders in the event of an incident/accident because the moving parts may force crash tenders to stand back a bit further slowing the quench time of fire.



      Engines over grass/soft ground could make landings and take offs slightly quieter as a benefit. I'm unsure if the passengers would find it quieter or louder.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "528"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });






        DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60019%2fwhat-are-some-drawbacks-to-having-a-wingtip-propeller-on-an-aircraft%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        9












        $begingroup$

        Feathering isn't really an issue, if you can feather a prop on an engine further inboard you can do it on the tip too. There are 3 major drawbacks that come to mind:




        1. The wing structure has to be stronger: engines are heavy, the further out they are the beefier the structure has to be to hold them. Stronger wings mean more weight and possibly a thicker cross section. Neither are good traits in a wing

        2. Decreased roll rate: the farther the engines are the greater the moment arm and the slower your roll rate will be. Think about skaters spinning around, the farther their arms from their body the slower they spin. The same principle is at work here, so you need bigger ailerons to give you maneuverability, so more weight, cost and complexity

        3. Safety in a single engine failure scenario: engines on the wingtips will cause more yaw in a single engine failure than engines further in board, so you'll need a bigger rudder to counteract it. A bigger rudder means more weight and cost, and there are also limits - eventually you will get to the point you can't counteract the force effectively and an engine failure will cause a loss of control. Yaw onset will be faster as well, giving a pilot less time to react, and there's nothing you can do about that; a bigger rudder doesn't help with reaction time. Mechanical cross-connections could be used to share power across the wing in the case of a single engine failure, like the V-22 Osprey, Chinook helicopter, however these increase weight, cost and complexity. Also, these systems aren't perfect, a single engine failure is still a possibility






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          The Flying Flapjack series of experimental aircraft had the engines buried in the wing, at roughly similar locations to a conventional twin. They also used a shaft cross-connect with overrun clutches (much later adopted for the test series leading up to the Osprey tilt-rotor) so that either engine failing would allow normal operation on the remaining engine with balanced thrust.
          $endgroup$
          – Zeiss Ikon
          11 hours ago










        • $begingroup$
          I'm not saying it can't be done @ZeissIkon, just that there are design considerations. I am familiar with cross connects, failure of cross-connects in the Osprey and its predecessor. has led to at least one fatal crash.
          $endgroup$
          – GdD
          11 hours ago
















        9












        $begingroup$

        Feathering isn't really an issue, if you can feather a prop on an engine further inboard you can do it on the tip too. There are 3 major drawbacks that come to mind:




        1. The wing structure has to be stronger: engines are heavy, the further out they are the beefier the structure has to be to hold them. Stronger wings mean more weight and possibly a thicker cross section. Neither are good traits in a wing

        2. Decreased roll rate: the farther the engines are the greater the moment arm and the slower your roll rate will be. Think about skaters spinning around, the farther their arms from their body the slower they spin. The same principle is at work here, so you need bigger ailerons to give you maneuverability, so more weight, cost and complexity

        3. Safety in a single engine failure scenario: engines on the wingtips will cause more yaw in a single engine failure than engines further in board, so you'll need a bigger rudder to counteract it. A bigger rudder means more weight and cost, and there are also limits - eventually you will get to the point you can't counteract the force effectively and an engine failure will cause a loss of control. Yaw onset will be faster as well, giving a pilot less time to react, and there's nothing you can do about that; a bigger rudder doesn't help with reaction time. Mechanical cross-connections could be used to share power across the wing in the case of a single engine failure, like the V-22 Osprey, Chinook helicopter, however these increase weight, cost and complexity. Also, these systems aren't perfect, a single engine failure is still a possibility






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          The Flying Flapjack series of experimental aircraft had the engines buried in the wing, at roughly similar locations to a conventional twin. They also used a shaft cross-connect with overrun clutches (much later adopted for the test series leading up to the Osprey tilt-rotor) so that either engine failing would allow normal operation on the remaining engine with balanced thrust.
          $endgroup$
          – Zeiss Ikon
          11 hours ago










        • $begingroup$
          I'm not saying it can't be done @ZeissIkon, just that there are design considerations. I am familiar with cross connects, failure of cross-connects in the Osprey and its predecessor. has led to at least one fatal crash.
          $endgroup$
          – GdD
          11 hours ago














        9












        9








        9





        $begingroup$

        Feathering isn't really an issue, if you can feather a prop on an engine further inboard you can do it on the tip too. There are 3 major drawbacks that come to mind:




        1. The wing structure has to be stronger: engines are heavy, the further out they are the beefier the structure has to be to hold them. Stronger wings mean more weight and possibly a thicker cross section. Neither are good traits in a wing

        2. Decreased roll rate: the farther the engines are the greater the moment arm and the slower your roll rate will be. Think about skaters spinning around, the farther their arms from their body the slower they spin. The same principle is at work here, so you need bigger ailerons to give you maneuverability, so more weight, cost and complexity

        3. Safety in a single engine failure scenario: engines on the wingtips will cause more yaw in a single engine failure than engines further in board, so you'll need a bigger rudder to counteract it. A bigger rudder means more weight and cost, and there are also limits - eventually you will get to the point you can't counteract the force effectively and an engine failure will cause a loss of control. Yaw onset will be faster as well, giving a pilot less time to react, and there's nothing you can do about that; a bigger rudder doesn't help with reaction time. Mechanical cross-connections could be used to share power across the wing in the case of a single engine failure, like the V-22 Osprey, Chinook helicopter, however these increase weight, cost and complexity. Also, these systems aren't perfect, a single engine failure is still a possibility






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Feathering isn't really an issue, if you can feather a prop on an engine further inboard you can do it on the tip too. There are 3 major drawbacks that come to mind:




        1. The wing structure has to be stronger: engines are heavy, the further out they are the beefier the structure has to be to hold them. Stronger wings mean more weight and possibly a thicker cross section. Neither are good traits in a wing

        2. Decreased roll rate: the farther the engines are the greater the moment arm and the slower your roll rate will be. Think about skaters spinning around, the farther their arms from their body the slower they spin. The same principle is at work here, so you need bigger ailerons to give you maneuverability, so more weight, cost and complexity

        3. Safety in a single engine failure scenario: engines on the wingtips will cause more yaw in a single engine failure than engines further in board, so you'll need a bigger rudder to counteract it. A bigger rudder means more weight and cost, and there are also limits - eventually you will get to the point you can't counteract the force effectively and an engine failure will cause a loss of control. Yaw onset will be faster as well, giving a pilot less time to react, and there's nothing you can do about that; a bigger rudder doesn't help with reaction time. Mechanical cross-connections could be used to share power across the wing in the case of a single engine failure, like the V-22 Osprey, Chinook helicopter, however these increase weight, cost and complexity. Also, these systems aren't perfect, a single engine failure is still a possibility







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 11 hours ago

























        answered 14 hours ago









        GdDGdD

        31.6k382130




        31.6k382130












        • $begingroup$
          The Flying Flapjack series of experimental aircraft had the engines buried in the wing, at roughly similar locations to a conventional twin. They also used a shaft cross-connect with overrun clutches (much later adopted for the test series leading up to the Osprey tilt-rotor) so that either engine failing would allow normal operation on the remaining engine with balanced thrust.
          $endgroup$
          – Zeiss Ikon
          11 hours ago










        • $begingroup$
          I'm not saying it can't be done @ZeissIkon, just that there are design considerations. I am familiar with cross connects, failure of cross-connects in the Osprey and its predecessor. has led to at least one fatal crash.
          $endgroup$
          – GdD
          11 hours ago


















        • $begingroup$
          The Flying Flapjack series of experimental aircraft had the engines buried in the wing, at roughly similar locations to a conventional twin. They also used a shaft cross-connect with overrun clutches (much later adopted for the test series leading up to the Osprey tilt-rotor) so that either engine failing would allow normal operation on the remaining engine with balanced thrust.
          $endgroup$
          – Zeiss Ikon
          11 hours ago










        • $begingroup$
          I'm not saying it can't be done @ZeissIkon, just that there are design considerations. I am familiar with cross connects, failure of cross-connects in the Osprey and its predecessor. has led to at least one fatal crash.
          $endgroup$
          – GdD
          11 hours ago
















        $begingroup$
        The Flying Flapjack series of experimental aircraft had the engines buried in the wing, at roughly similar locations to a conventional twin. They also used a shaft cross-connect with overrun clutches (much later adopted for the test series leading up to the Osprey tilt-rotor) so that either engine failing would allow normal operation on the remaining engine with balanced thrust.
        $endgroup$
        – Zeiss Ikon
        11 hours ago




        $begingroup$
        The Flying Flapjack series of experimental aircraft had the engines buried in the wing, at roughly similar locations to a conventional twin. They also used a shaft cross-connect with overrun clutches (much later adopted for the test series leading up to the Osprey tilt-rotor) so that either engine failing would allow normal operation on the remaining engine with balanced thrust.
        $endgroup$
        – Zeiss Ikon
        11 hours ago












        $begingroup$
        I'm not saying it can't be done @ZeissIkon, just that there are design considerations. I am familiar with cross connects, failure of cross-connects in the Osprey and its predecessor. has led to at least one fatal crash.
        $endgroup$
        – GdD
        11 hours ago




        $begingroup$
        I'm not saying it can't be done @ZeissIkon, just that there are design considerations. I am familiar with cross connects, failure of cross-connects in the Osprey and its predecessor. has led to at least one fatal crash.
        $endgroup$
        – GdD
        11 hours ago











        3












        $begingroup$

        Moving the thrust (and additional weight) to the wingtips creates more drawbacks than benefits.



        Yaw - because of the increased moment of inertia (compared to having the engines be closer to the fuselage - the center line of the mass), it would be harder to initiate yaw changes as well as harder to stop or reverse them. Left/right thrust differentials could be used, and that would certainly increase yaw change rate, but then you have to consider the time cost of changing the force of each engine quickly. And it becomes a very serious problem if you have a failure on one side, leaving you with only one wingtip generating all of the thrust. Depending on the geometry of the aircraft and the size of the vertical stabilizer, it might not even be possible to counter the yaw force generated by the one engine producing enough thrust to keep the aircraft flying.



        Roll - Similar to the yaw problem, the roll rate would be reduced the further the weights were moved away from the center line.



        The V-22 Osprey is an example of this design. The wings are kept short to minimize the increase to moment of inertia, but the operational requirements of the vehicle (VTOL) required it to have large propellers (rotors), so the wings had to be long enough to keep the prop tips from hitting the fuselage.



        Additionally, vibration and external (turbulence) effects on the wing structures would have to be considered. Even in normal operating conditions, the wings would be subject to increased vibrations that could create structure failures in some complex compound wave situations. Aircraft designers already deal with this and model these scenarios, but the complexity increases (I suspect exponentially) as the vibrational force is moved further toward the wingtip.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$


















          3












          $begingroup$

          Moving the thrust (and additional weight) to the wingtips creates more drawbacks than benefits.



          Yaw - because of the increased moment of inertia (compared to having the engines be closer to the fuselage - the center line of the mass), it would be harder to initiate yaw changes as well as harder to stop or reverse them. Left/right thrust differentials could be used, and that would certainly increase yaw change rate, but then you have to consider the time cost of changing the force of each engine quickly. And it becomes a very serious problem if you have a failure on one side, leaving you with only one wingtip generating all of the thrust. Depending on the geometry of the aircraft and the size of the vertical stabilizer, it might not even be possible to counter the yaw force generated by the one engine producing enough thrust to keep the aircraft flying.



          Roll - Similar to the yaw problem, the roll rate would be reduced the further the weights were moved away from the center line.



          The V-22 Osprey is an example of this design. The wings are kept short to minimize the increase to moment of inertia, but the operational requirements of the vehicle (VTOL) required it to have large propellers (rotors), so the wings had to be long enough to keep the prop tips from hitting the fuselage.



          Additionally, vibration and external (turbulence) effects on the wing structures would have to be considered. Even in normal operating conditions, the wings would be subject to increased vibrations that could create structure failures in some complex compound wave situations. Aircraft designers already deal with this and model these scenarios, but the complexity increases (I suspect exponentially) as the vibrational force is moved further toward the wingtip.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$
















            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            Moving the thrust (and additional weight) to the wingtips creates more drawbacks than benefits.



            Yaw - because of the increased moment of inertia (compared to having the engines be closer to the fuselage - the center line of the mass), it would be harder to initiate yaw changes as well as harder to stop or reverse them. Left/right thrust differentials could be used, and that would certainly increase yaw change rate, but then you have to consider the time cost of changing the force of each engine quickly. And it becomes a very serious problem if you have a failure on one side, leaving you with only one wingtip generating all of the thrust. Depending on the geometry of the aircraft and the size of the vertical stabilizer, it might not even be possible to counter the yaw force generated by the one engine producing enough thrust to keep the aircraft flying.



            Roll - Similar to the yaw problem, the roll rate would be reduced the further the weights were moved away from the center line.



            The V-22 Osprey is an example of this design. The wings are kept short to minimize the increase to moment of inertia, but the operational requirements of the vehicle (VTOL) required it to have large propellers (rotors), so the wings had to be long enough to keep the prop tips from hitting the fuselage.



            Additionally, vibration and external (turbulence) effects on the wing structures would have to be considered. Even in normal operating conditions, the wings would be subject to increased vibrations that could create structure failures in some complex compound wave situations. Aircraft designers already deal with this and model these scenarios, but the complexity increases (I suspect exponentially) as the vibrational force is moved further toward the wingtip.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Moving the thrust (and additional weight) to the wingtips creates more drawbacks than benefits.



            Yaw - because of the increased moment of inertia (compared to having the engines be closer to the fuselage - the center line of the mass), it would be harder to initiate yaw changes as well as harder to stop or reverse them. Left/right thrust differentials could be used, and that would certainly increase yaw change rate, but then you have to consider the time cost of changing the force of each engine quickly. And it becomes a very serious problem if you have a failure on one side, leaving you with only one wingtip generating all of the thrust. Depending on the geometry of the aircraft and the size of the vertical stabilizer, it might not even be possible to counter the yaw force generated by the one engine producing enough thrust to keep the aircraft flying.



            Roll - Similar to the yaw problem, the roll rate would be reduced the further the weights were moved away from the center line.



            The V-22 Osprey is an example of this design. The wings are kept short to minimize the increase to moment of inertia, but the operational requirements of the vehicle (VTOL) required it to have large propellers (rotors), so the wings had to be long enough to keep the prop tips from hitting the fuselage.



            Additionally, vibration and external (turbulence) effects on the wing structures would have to be considered. Even in normal operating conditions, the wings would be subject to increased vibrations that could create structure failures in some complex compound wave situations. Aircraft designers already deal with this and model these scenarios, but the complexity increases (I suspect exponentially) as the vibrational force is moved further toward the wingtip.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 13 hours ago









            Michael TeterMichael Teter

            912




            912























                1












                $begingroup$

                Another non-flying attribute that having a wingtip-mounted propeller can drive is landing gear length. Since there are minimum clearance distances for propeller tip to ground during taxiing, and the wings may sag or dip during a turn while taxiing, you may end up having to change your gear length (which can cause other issues in turn).






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  Another non-flying attribute that having a wingtip-mounted propeller can drive is landing gear length. Since there are minimum clearance distances for propeller tip to ground during taxiing, and the wings may sag or dip during a turn while taxiing, you may end up having to change your gear length (which can cause other issues in turn).






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$
















                    1












                    1








                    1





                    $begingroup$

                    Another non-flying attribute that having a wingtip-mounted propeller can drive is landing gear length. Since there are minimum clearance distances for propeller tip to ground during taxiing, and the wings may sag or dip during a turn while taxiing, you may end up having to change your gear length (which can cause other issues in turn).






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    Another non-flying attribute that having a wingtip-mounted propeller can drive is landing gear length. Since there are minimum clearance distances for propeller tip to ground during taxiing, and the wings may sag or dip during a turn while taxiing, you may end up having to change your gear length (which can cause other issues in turn).







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 8 hours ago









                    costromcostrom

                    2061413




                    2061413























                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        Wrapup of smaller things:



                        This could affect the minimum runway width required. Wings will pass over grass okay, but props/engines could risk blowing dirt/dust/plants about and inhaling them causing FOD. Any obstruction beside the runway could have consequences.



                        Slight increase in fire risk from any sparks from the engine because the spark might drop into shelter rather than dropping onto the hard tarmac of the runway.



                        Increased risk to first responders in the event of an incident/accident because the moving parts may force crash tenders to stand back a bit further slowing the quench time of fire.



                        Engines over grass/soft ground could make landings and take offs slightly quieter as a benefit. I'm unsure if the passengers would find it quieter or louder.






                        share|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$


















                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          Wrapup of smaller things:



                          This could affect the minimum runway width required. Wings will pass over grass okay, but props/engines could risk blowing dirt/dust/plants about and inhaling them causing FOD. Any obstruction beside the runway could have consequences.



                          Slight increase in fire risk from any sparks from the engine because the spark might drop into shelter rather than dropping onto the hard tarmac of the runway.



                          Increased risk to first responders in the event of an incident/accident because the moving parts may force crash tenders to stand back a bit further slowing the quench time of fire.



                          Engines over grass/soft ground could make landings and take offs slightly quieter as a benefit. I'm unsure if the passengers would find it quieter or louder.






                          share|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$
















                            0












                            0








                            0





                            $begingroup$

                            Wrapup of smaller things:



                            This could affect the minimum runway width required. Wings will pass over grass okay, but props/engines could risk blowing dirt/dust/plants about and inhaling them causing FOD. Any obstruction beside the runway could have consequences.



                            Slight increase in fire risk from any sparks from the engine because the spark might drop into shelter rather than dropping onto the hard tarmac of the runway.



                            Increased risk to first responders in the event of an incident/accident because the moving parts may force crash tenders to stand back a bit further slowing the quench time of fire.



                            Engines over grass/soft ground could make landings and take offs slightly quieter as a benefit. I'm unsure if the passengers would find it quieter or louder.






                            share|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            Wrapup of smaller things:



                            This could affect the minimum runway width required. Wings will pass over grass okay, but props/engines could risk blowing dirt/dust/plants about and inhaling them causing FOD. Any obstruction beside the runway could have consequences.



                            Slight increase in fire risk from any sparks from the engine because the spark might drop into shelter rather than dropping onto the hard tarmac of the runway.



                            Increased risk to first responders in the event of an incident/accident because the moving parts may force crash tenders to stand back a bit further slowing the quench time of fire.



                            Engines over grass/soft ground could make landings and take offs slightly quieter as a benefit. I'm unsure if the passengers would find it quieter or louder.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 4 hours ago









                            CriggieCriggie

                            596415




                            596415






















                                DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                draft saved

                                draft discarded


















                                DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                DumbAeronauticsGuy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60019%2fwhat-are-some-drawbacks-to-having-a-wingtip-propeller-on-an-aircraft%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Magento 2 controller redirect on button click in phtml file

                                Polycentropodidae