Stab change

[5PointOh]

Better get the anti troll spray out...

[Krupinski]

I've noticed this alot too, planes become more agile with a missing stabilizer.

[Twizzty]

Yep, same here.

Lose an elevator and your done, lose half the h stab(with the elevator on it) and your more maneuverable...that's interesting. 

Maybe I'm the only one...oh well. 

[AirFlyer]

Noticed my A6M5b becomes a fair bit more instable when I push it to the edge with one H-Stab, not saying thats a bug it kinda makes sense to me. I hadn't noticed an increase in turning ability though.

[JimmyC]

Simulation?

er good stimulation fo sho

[dkff49]

question here

Originally when the stabilizer would come off the aircraft would pitch up. With that is it possible that with half the stabilizer tore off it would turn a little better since you have to pull on the elevators to get it to turn after your roll?

[hitech]

With a H stab missing the plane is less stable. Less stability creates the ability for a more rapid AOA changes. Turn performance would decrease , or possibly remain the same.

With 1 elevator destroyed your turn performance will decrease, it the corrisponding stab is then destroyed your turn performance will go back up. We thought this was a bug until we brought it up in our force vector displayer and saw that what is happening is with 1 side  elevator gone and the stab remaining, the stab is fighting the other elevator so you can not generate the AOA you need. Once that stab is removed, the AOA you can generate is restored.

HiTech

[2bighorn]

Does that applies at very low speed as well? One stab with one elevator shouldn't be as effective as intact plane at very low speeds.

[dirtdart]

to those that jacked this thread for the sim no sim crap... BAH. 

From a sim standpoint and an engineering one, the surfaces are designed to carry X load.  Certainly they were not designed to carry the full load individually.  My point is I thin under heavy maneuvering they would break off.  Shot the stab of a 109 and then watch him dive from 10k straight down to the field and land.  Seems gamey to me and just an observation. 

[AirFlyer]

to those that jacked this thread for the sim no sim crap... BAH. 

From a sim standpoint and an engineering one, the surfaces are designed to carry X load.  Certainly they were not designed to carry the full load individually.  My point is I thin under heavy maneuvering they would break off.  Shot the stab of a 109 and then watch him dive from 10k straight down to the field and land.  Seems gamey to me and just an observation. 

I have to agree in a sense, but you also have to think of overhead built in. In many cases parts are built to sustain forces much larger then they will probably ever see, just for the sake of being safe then sorry. At least, that'd be my guess.

[FLS]

to those that jacked this thread for the sim no sim crap... BAH. 

From a sim standpoint and an engineering one, the surfaces are designed to carry X load.  Certainly they were not designed to carry the full load individually.  My point is I thin under heavy maneuvering they would break off.  Shot the stab of a 109 and then watch him dive from 10k straight down to the field and land.  Seems gamey to me and just an observation. 

What "load" do you think they are the carrying?

[Mace2004]

Interesting results HiTech but I'd think there's much more to it than that.  AFAIK, most, if not all, WWII aircraft had a continuous spar.  Remove half the stab and the loads on the remaining side would not only double (for the same turn) but the nature of the load at the stab/fuselage juncture would be completely different.  Since there is no counterbalancing lift on one side the pure vertical load would become pure torque, something the stab attachement would not be designed for.  Also, you'd lose half of your control power and I'd guess that your stick-force-per-G would shoot up since you'd have to deflect the remaining elevator more to generate the same pitching moment.  I can't see a fighter being able to pull the same turn with half a tail plane or to do it without losing the remaining part.

[FLS]

How would the force double?  You have half the elevator creating half the force of the full elevator for the same deflection. Wouldn't full deflection create the same force per side as it did before the damage? Any torque added would be to the airframe not the stab.

[Mace2004]

How would the force double?  You have half the elevator creating half the force of the full elevator for the same deflection. Wouldn't full deflection create the same force per side as it did before the damage? Any torque added would be to the airframe not the stab.

It would double on the remaining half stab. For the same turn rate the same total downforce would be required but with only half as much surface.  I also doubt that in most scenarios there would be sufficient control deflection on the half elevator to generate the required force but that's only my opinion. I have no way to model it.   As for the torque you're right that it would be transmitted to the fuselage but it has to be transferred there through the stabilizer/fuselage connection. That is not the type of load it's designed for.

[FLS]

Sorry, I should have asked how would the max load double. Since the force applied by the elevator is presumably already within the strength limit of the stabilizer I don't see how it would be a problem. I'm assuming the damage to one side isn't affecting the strength of the other side since we're just discussing loads. The only way to get the same turn rate with half a stab would be if half the elevator created enough down force. I don't see how half an elevator could produce double the force of the full elevator unless the full elevator was at less than full deflection to begin with. It seems to me that since the max load is self limited by the elevator the problem would be getting the same turn rate.

Since the load is the same, either up or down, on the stabilizer, the fact that more torque is going to the airframe shouldn't make any difference at the stabilizer attachment point.