
Wondering what these funny looking airplanes are all about?
Pickerel
My Pickerel model airplane design started out as a flying wing. I quickly realized that I would never be able to make that work, unless I compromised on my design goals. Not willing to compromise, I explored alternative wing configurations.
My research with a spreadsheet and a series of half-size prototypes showed me that some sort of tandem wing configuration could work very well to meet my design goals. For strength, I wanted a configuration where the two wings supported each other.
Over the years many airplane configurations with two wings that touch each other have been tried. Some names that have been used to describe them are box wing, diamond wing, rhomboidal wing, and joined wing. I settled on what are commonly called joined wings because of their good looks and good performance.
Joined Wings
Many variations on the joined wing concept have been invented over the years. I will describe here what I consider to be the most common configurations.
A joined wing airplane has a front wing with a sweep angle of zero to sixty degrees. It also has a rear wing with a negative sweep of from zero to sixty degrees. The tips of the rear wing end somewhere along the span of the front wing. Obviously, both wings cannot have a sweep angle of zero at the same time.
The two wings could be located vertically at the same level. More commonly, the root of the rear wing is mounted higher than the front one.
History
Joined wings were originally proposed as a design configuration in 1986 by Julian Wolkovitch. He wrote about them and was granted a patent. For many years the patent kept other researchers away. In the meantime, Mr. Wolkovitch was unable to capitalize on his invention.
After the patent expired interest in the design started growing. The interest in these airplane shapes has exploded in the last ten years. However, no commercial full-size airplanes have been put into production using them.
While doing the research for this article, I was very surprised to learn that there have been very few joined wing model airplanes built. Given their advantages, this must be due to the lack of awareness. Hopefully this article can help change that.
Advantages
Joined wing airplanes have slightly lower induced drag than conventional airplanes of comparable size. Avoiding induced drag is most important when flying at low speeds. I would not get too excited about this benefit. The advantage is only about 5%, and it could easily be slightly worse than a conventional airplane if it is not designed just right.
Because you now have four wing halves, you have twice as many places where to put control surfaces. Using programmable mixes, these can be used to design a highly maneuverable airplane. If you are into extreme 3D, this offers tantalizing possibilities.
The primary advantage of joined wing airplanes is lower structural weight. In fact, a joined wing airplane could be up to 30% lighter than a comparable single wing airplane. Given how important weight reduction is to airplane design, this is an eye-popping advantage. Under similar flight conditions, the tip of the single wing configuration can deflect three times as much.
Better Climb Performance
Having a lower flying weight and a lower induced drag is an interesting combination. We normally use full power when taking off and climbing. Both of these factors improve the length of the take off run and the climbing performance. An interesting option is the possibility of using a smaller power plant for the same performance as a conventional design.
Challenges
A lot of the research work in recent years has gone into learning how to analyze these airplanes. The interactions between aerodynamics and structures are complex. So far it has been mostly large corporations with big research budgets that have tackled the design. Fortunately, with the massive amounts of computing power available to researchers today, much progress has been made in a short amount of time.
I was expecting to run into some problems with stalls, but the problems have simply not materialized. All of my prototypes have had very pleasant and controlled stalls. No tip stalls and the front wing has always stalled first. Given the very clean configurations, airspeed is regained very quickly once the nose drops. There is very little loss of altitude during the stall recovery.
Coplanar Wings
The configuration that I am using in my Pickerel model airplane design is a coplanar joined wing. Neither wing has dihedral and they both lie on the same vertical plane.
I am not the first person to explore this configuration. For years NASA funded a research project that favored a coplanar joined wing design. This was called the SensorCraft UAV concept vehicle. Both McDonnell Douglas and Boeing developed designs. Below is the link to a patent granted to McDonnell Douglas. Boeing called their design the “fluid wing”.
My main motivation for using this wing arrangement was simplicity. Also, without a vertical offset between the wings, there is no compressive buckling force on the rear wing.
Lessons Learned
I have included a link below for the most useful recent research paper I was able to find. They extensively tested many different joined wing configurations and gave specific design recommendations. The primary result table is reproduced at the right.
I would not blindly apply their results to a model airplane. But some guidance is far better than no guidance at all. Their results are also not intended to be point solutions. There are a wide range of configurations similar to their recommendations that work well, too.
They concluded that you generally have two choices. Either put a large vertical distance between the wings and use thin airfoils, or use a low vertical offset between the wings and thick airfoil sections. Of course, thin and thick are relative terms. They used 10% and 20%, respectively.
They also concluded that the joint should be in the 50-75% range of the wing span of the front wing. Other studies have shown that 70% is about optimal.
Finally, flutter is more likely as the sweep angles of the wings increase and as the joint moves forward towards the root of the front wing.
Conclusion
I have been very impressed with the performance of the joined wings in the Pickerel prototypes. I definitely plan to explore them further in future designs. I hope you give them a try, too.
McDonnell Douglas Coplanar Joined Wing Patent (PDF)
Joined Wing Research Paper (10MB PDF)









Actually…..I did model that. I built a wind tunnel model of the Boeing version several years ago. It wasn’t easy aligning all the wing panels!
Oh! Do you have more information to share?
There is a photo of it on my website….www.foleymfgco.com. Everything on the site is pretty much dated. I do mostly UAV work now.
Okay. Nice work.
I have a hard time to understand the 30% weight advantage. in the planes I have data on the weight of the wing is 15-35% of the total empty weight, and I anticipate that the weight gain would be mainly on the spar. it is true that a recent study has shown that there are cases where a plane with wing struts can be slightly more efficient as the drag generated by the struts is compensated by the weight gain.
on the aerodynamic side, with joined wings I would argue that the reduction of the pressure drag is likely to be at least offset by the increase of the friction drag as the total wet area increases significantly.
that being said flying an exotic configuration is always fun!
Why do you say that the wetted area increases? The flight load is shared between the two tandem wings. The computer models indicate that the wetted area goes down.
A lot of the joined wing research has focused on glider-like airplanes. The weight of their wings is proportionately higher than in most other airplanes. That is probably why the potential weight advantage is so high. It is hard to explain in a few words, but the two wings support each other structurally very effectively.
A challenge I had in Pickerel was keeping a reasonable chord size. The joined wing computer models say that the chords should decrease to 60-65% of the chord size of a single wing. Given the overall size limitations of my design, that is why Pickerel looks “fat”.
the way I see it ( not guaranteed to be correct of course ):
the wetted area should increase because the actual lift of a wing with a sweep angle is lower than a straight wing ,with the geometric correcting factor being more or less proportional to the aspect ratio and the aspect ratio being smaller for a swept wing as for a given area the wingspan is smaller (the drag is also worse for speed < 0.7 mach) so to have the same lift with the 2 swept joined wings you need a larger combined wing area hence the additional wetted area or you have to have a higher Cl which will also give you a higher friction drag
I understand the way the joined wing are structurally efficient as for example in your application the back wing acts as a very good strut. but I do not see how it would have an impact on anything else than the spar. on the negative side because the wing has a big sweep the torsion problem is worse than in a straight wing so you need a stronger spar. but even if you consider that that problem do not exist I do not understand how the reduction in weight of the wing spar can be 30% of the total empty weight…
so the trade off is the speed should not be too low ( so high wing load to have a high max l/d speed so pressure drag is a significant in the total drag at flight speed), the sweep angle should not be too big to minimize the negative impact on lift and on the torsion problem( trade off with the pitch stability has the wings will be closer ) and both wing have to generate lift so that it is like a tandem configuration with a reduction in pressure drag
cheers
In a way, you are confirming the main drawback of joined wing airplanes. They are hard to understand and to reason about. A naive implementation will not realize the full benefits.
The maximum lift on a wing with sweep is lower because the thickness is effectively decreased. A good design would compensate for the effect. Similarly, aspect ratio effects can also be compensated for. At the same time, the Reynolds number is also effectively increased. It is not correct to conclude that the lift from a swept wing has to be less than that from an unswept wing.
On an airplane with very long wings, like a very high performance glider, the center section has to be able to withstand massive loads. Like you say, the rear wing acts like a strut. This dramatically decreases the need for strength in the wing root. There is also a dramatically lower need for torsional stiffness in both wings.
On a joined wing airplane the induced drag is less and the span efficiency can be better. These help offset the interference drag at the wing joint.
hi Carlos The video clip you posted is of some of my early JW models. It,s OK
Since that time , new models fly better, with different variations, aero improvements and tricky fine-tuning.
As of June , I have build 95 HLGliders and 8 RC models.
Joined wing R&D is complex and a very long project …. many , many intrinsec details .
Here is just a few – issues
Any, if not ALL joined wing planforms fly ! but it takes carefull weight distribution , proper wing twist(s) fore and aft , which depends on the sweep/dihedral/anhedral used on both wings.
With JW geometries, very thin airfoils are possible, which could be very good for low Rey Num aircraft like models and / or Human power Aircraft , which happen to use very long wing spans and therefor could benefit from self-supporting joined-wings.
I plan a full size glider ( about 12 mts span ) and weight issues are a big deal, that may be solve with this configurations, however my main concern is a airworthy , safe, fully manueverable, mild stall , and perhaps with a decent 18 to 1 L/D high speed glide.
much more R&D is needed
If you wish to publish more info, let me know
Alex from Quito Ecuador
Yes, I have seen pictures showing many of your joined wing model airplanes. I did not have your email address, so I was not able to contact you directly about them.
We definitely need to communicate more about your fascinating research.
(Si me quiere escribir en español, tambien puede.)
perhaps this link goes thru
….funky JW video
http://youtu.be/unIaOPG2Ks4
Thanks for sharing!