Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) are becoming increasingly popular and widely used in a variety of industries. They can be used for tasks such as agriculture, construction, delivery, surveillance, rescue operations, mapping, wildlife tracking and many more. With the advancements in technology, UAVs are becoming more autonomous and able to perform tasks with minimal human intervention, so are widely used for military and law enforcement purposes. V-tail configurations are commonly used on UAVs due to their advantages in control and stability performance, as well as their ability to reduce drag and improve overall efficiency. However, research on V-tail design and sizing is limited, particularly for Class I mini-UAVs. The objective of this paper is to identify a methodology for a V-tail sizing of a Class I Mini UAV (NATO classification), which refers to the Conceptual and Preliminary Design of the UAV. The methodology will follow the design of a V-tail from the characteristics of the conventional tail of the UAV. Once the characteristics of the conventional tail were extracted, V-tail geometric characteristics (reference area, aspect ratio, mean aerodynamic chord, tail span, dihedral angle), were computed. Therefore, the aerodynamic characteristics of the V-tail have to be extracted, first as an isolated tail, and then as an installed tail. The stability derivatives of the V-tail are then calculated. The methodology for the analytical aerodynamic characteristics and stability derivatives, is a combination of NACA Report No.823 and Marcello R. Napolitano methodologies. Paul E. Purser and John P. Campbell provide design methods for V-tail on a NACA report, which include some of the desired stability derivatives. The rest of them will be calculated with Napolitano’s method. Marcello R. Napolitano gives a methodology for conventional tail sizing; thus, the equations of its methodology have to convert for a V-tail configuration. Furthermore, the aerodynamic characteristics and stability derivatives of the designed V-tail will be verified by Low Fidelity Aerodynamics simulation (XFLR5 software), and then by High Fidelity Aerodynamics by means of CFD. The results between low fidelity analytical values and High-Fidelity Aerodynamics values indicate a relative error lower than 20%.