Plane can't fly without Vertical Stab

[mtnman]

I have flown after losing a vertical stab and successfully continued to fight.

Try that with the same plane, after losing the horizontal stab 

[mechanic]

I wonder about the "naturally stable" part in a context of birds though.  I don't think they're inherently stable, I think they're masters at stabilizing themselves.  I generally equate "very stable" with "less maneuverable", and vice versa.  In that context, I'd be inclined to believe birds are so unstable that I would doubt that even computers would be able to "fly" one.  We don't have aircraft that can hold a candle to a bird's maneuverability.

Forgive me going back into this one but you do raise a very good point there. The question as to birds being either naturaly very stable or naturaly very unstable but experts at stability control. It's a tough one, but in the same vien as my original post, I don't know how accurate it is to compare the "very stable-less maneuverable" principle we know to be true with our rigid aircraft on living creautres.
 
Water is much like air to travel through in theory. Many fish are very maneuverable but all fish are natural stable. It does not matter if they have direct control of that stability or if it is just a lucky evolutionary break. Fish are naturaly stable in the water.
 I think in the same way, birds are naturaly stable in the air. The fact that their natural instincts are all it takes to learn to fly and control their stability suggests that they are indeed stable in the air, naturaly. They are natural aircraft developed for countless years, they have mastered the art of "very stable-Very maneuverable" and bypass our principle.
Humans are naturaly stable on two feet once they learn to walk. Sure we could argue that we are just masters of balance, but it comes naturaly to us. We don't have to think about the fluid in our ears to balance.

When it then applies to non-living objects such as our aircraft, any stability we modify on an aircraft must be thought about in advance and then put into practice. Proving the machine to be only an imitation of natural stability that required more than instinct to acomplish.

It is a very difficult question to answer though, so I am just enjoying the discussion here is all.

[mtnman]

Forgive me going back into this one but you do raise a very good point there. The question as to birds being either naturaly very stable or naturaly very unstable but experts at stability control. It's a tough one, but in the same vien as my original post, I don't know how accurate it is to compare the "very stable-less maneuverable" principle we know to be true with our rigid aircraft on living creautres.
 
Water is much like air to travel through in theory. Many fish are very maneuverable but all fish are natural stable. It does not matter if they have direct control of that stability or if it is just a lucky evolutionary break. Fish are naturaly stable in the water.
 I think in the same way, birds are naturaly stable in the air. The fact that their natural instincts are all it takes to learn to fly and control their stability suggests that they are indeed stable in the air, naturaly. They are natural aircraft developed for countless years, they have mastered the art of "very stable-Very maneuverable" and bypass our principle.
Humans are naturaly stable on two feet once they learn to walk. Sure we could argue that we are just masters of balance, but it comes naturaly to us. We don't have to think about the fluid in our ears to balance.

When it then applies to non-living objects such as our aircraft, any stability we modify on an aircraft must be thought about in advance and then put into practice. Proving the machine to be only an imitation of natural stability that required more than instinct to acomplish.

It is a very difficult question to answer though, so I am just enjoying the discussion here is all.

Very good points!

I completely agree with the idea that a bird (or fish) is "naturally stable" in the sense that it doesn't even have to think about it to do it.

What I meant, but failed to convey earlier is that I think they have an inherently stable "design", that if replicated by humans is far to unstable to control.  Even if the "design" isn't too much, the conformation that a bird takes (with ease) in flight is way beyond us.  Look at how a goose lands, for example.  It comes in with (while gliding) a bunch of "negative" dihedral.  If we tried that we'd flip right over onto our backs.

[VonMessa]

Very good points!

I completely agree with the idea that a bird (or fish) is "naturally stable" in the sense that it doesn't even have to think about it to do it.

What I meant, but failed to convey earlier is that I think they have an inherently stable "design", that if replicated by humans is far to unstable to control.  Even if the "design" isn't too much, the conformation that a bird takes (with ease) in flight is way beyond us.  Look at how a goose lands, for example.  It comes in with (while gliding) a bunch of "negative" dihedral.  If we tried that we'd flip right over onto our backs.

Exactly.  But....   what else is going on with the goose that is different with regard to how it lands that keeps it from flipping on its back?

 

EDIT:  I like this discussion  

[Shuffler]

Umm ok I'll call it...... The 38 has 2 vertical stabs..... 

[mechanic]

So then, all we need is another 65 million years of practice and we might be as good at flying as geese 

[Rash]

Exactly.  But....   what else is going on with the goose that is different with regard to how it lands that keeps it from flipping on its back?

 

EDIT:  I like this discussion  

We had a Perot when I was youngster.  I once cut his flight feathers on both wings and took him outside.  He could still fly, but he really had to work at flying.  Birds can adjust their tail feathers and shape of their wings so fast he kind of got away.  All in all, not a good idea on my part. 

After the feathers grew out, I just cut the feathers on one wing.  He couldn't fly at all.  He tried to twist and all kinds of stuff, but he couldn't adjust.

[BulletVI]

We have to remember that all fighter aircraft arnt built to be 100% stable. They are built to be as unstable as much as a human pilot with technology can control the fighter. Remember if a fighter is built to be stable in flight so that the pilot can just take his hands of the controls and the plane fly straight and level without the need for triming and any other technology depending on the period. A P51 for example could take around 40 seconds to roll 360 degree's. and in combat thats not on is it.

Now birds are a perfect example as ever since Leanardo dreamed of flight birds where used as an example of how man can fly oneday. A Birds stability acctually comes from its movement of its wings. Yes its true a birds wing doesnt flap up and down it moves forward and back aswell as upand down both in sequence. The best example is if you take a row boat and row as you row the oars go up an down forwards and back. Now to keep the boat in a straight line yuo have to have both oars moving in sequence together as if you dont you shall find yourself drifting left or right.

Now the vertical Stabalizer of a plan does two jobs it stops the plane from swaying side to side. And it stops it from Spining arond and around from the torque of the engine and prop. Aswell as the main wings and tailplane wings helping to counter act this force.

Now im sure someone is will to pick faults in my post but i welcome all extra knowlage  

[Shuffler]

The horizontal stab is just an upside down smaller wing.