Plane can't fly without Vertical Stab

[RTHolmes]

well between you and holmes someone better teach me the trick, I can't have people knowing things I dont know about the AH mossie! That is the only plane i thought I had fully mastered. 

teaching bat to fly the mossie ... did I wake up in some weird parallel universe?

[Shuffler]

Funny how birds do not have one though, isn't it?

 

They do in a way..... their tails twist and can be vertical, horizontal, or a mix of both.

[mtnman]

Birds don't use their tails as vertical stabilizers.  They don't need to.

To compare bird flight to aircraft flight is like comparing an Olympic athlete to the robot from the old TV show "Lost in Space".

Birds exist in a "different world" than humans when it comes to flight.  They're able to feel changes in the air and wind (rather than guess, or look for gauges or environmental "tells"), adjust body shape, adjust wing and tail shape, adjust CoG, and even receive and process information through their brains much faster than a human can.  They'll even use their feet and legs to aid in directional control.  Toss in the fact that they can see much better, much "faster", and even see ultraviolet light.  And of course natural "image stabilization", and even a massively higher tolerance to G-forces (falcons pull an easy 25 G's at the bottom of stoops, possibly even up to 35 G's).  Keep in mind, while a human pilot is blacking out around 10G's, the bird is still actively pursuing prey, and has to reach out and grab it!  Even their adrenal system and breathing is evolved for flight.

Birds of Prey (specifically falcons) are generally the "model" we humans try to duplicate when it comes to military fighters in particular.  We even name our planes after them.  In doing so, we're trying to copy the raptor that is likely the highest-evolved, with the best vision of any animal on the planet, and powers of flight that are so far beyond our best machines that it's really an impossible goal.  We can do some pretty impressive (to us, anyway) things with our machines, but we can't compete with nature.

[Shuffler]

Birds don't use their tails as vertical stabilizers.  They don't need to.

To compare bird flight to aircraft flight is like comparing an Olympic athlete to the robot from the old TV show "Lost in Space".

Birds exist in a "different world" than humans when it comes to flight.  They're able to feel changes in the air and wind (rather than guess, or look for gauges or environmental "tells"), adjust body shape, adjust wing and tail shape, adjust CoG, and even receive and process information through their brains much faster than a human can.  They'll even use their feet and legs to aid in directional control.  Toss in the fact that they can see much better, much "faster", and even see ultraviolet light.  And of course natural "image stabilization", and even a massively higher tolerance to G-forces (falcons pull an easy 25 G's at the bottom of stoops, possibly even up to 35 G's).  Keep in mind, while a human pilot is blacking out around 10G's, the bird is still actively pursuing prey, and has to reach out and grab it!  Even their adrenal system and breathing is evolved for flight.

Birds of Prey (specifically falcons) are generally the "model" we humans try to duplicate when it comes to military fighters in particular.  We even name our planes after them.  In doing so, we're trying to copy the raptor that is likely the highest-evolved, with the best vision of any animal on the planet, and powers of flight that are so far beyond our best machines that it's really an impossible goal.  We can do some pretty impressive (to us, anyway) things with our machines, but we can't compete with nature.

So we agree.........

[mtnman]

So we agree.........

I'm not so sure that we do. 

For example, your earlier post says they can twist their tails to be vertical.  It appears you're arguing that birds use their tail as a vertical stabilizer? 

I've never seen my birds come even remotely close to doing that, even in extreme maneuvering.  I've never seen video or still photos of that either.  And, I'd argue that they don't need to use their tail that way, anyway.

The yaw stabilization in birds is accomplished without the tail, or at least without the tail dictating yaw stability.  As evidence of that statement, I've seen birds with tails "removed" that were still completely able to fly and maneuver.  In birds, the tail is one of many factors that aid in stability.  Whereas in aircraft, the tail does much more than aid stability; it allows stability.

As an analogy, I'd look at a human and say that he/she uses his/her arms to aid in balance.  The arms can even be an important factor in balance, at times.  But, in removing the person's arms, do you remove their ability to balance?  Nope...  Much the same for removing the birds tail.

But, it's not the same when it comes to removing an airplanes tail (or even just a part of it).  The tail of a bird isn't (and doesn't need to be) used like an airplanes tail.  So comparing bird flight to airplane flight is already shown to have some serious flaws.  I think if we looked at propulsion as well, we'd go right over the edge...

[Shuffler]

Your post said..... "Birds exist in a "different world" than humans when it comes to flight.  They're able to feel changes in the air and wind (rather than guess, or look for gauges or environmental "tells"), adjust body shape, adjust wing and tail shape"


Yup just as I said.... "They do in a way..... their tails twist and can be vertical, horizontal, or a mix of both"

[mtnman]

I think you're reeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaallllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllly stretching...

In the context of vertical stabilizers...  the birds ability to tilt it's tail doesn't apply.  But, if it did, why would airplanes even need vertical stabilizers?  Why not just twist the tail?

[Shuffler]

I think you're reeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaallllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllly stretching...

In the context of vertical stabilizers...  the birds ability to tilt it's tail doesn't apply.  But, if it did, why would airplanes even need vertical stabilizers?  Why not just twist the tail?

Why not...... oh probably no one has attempted it.

We tried flight at first by mimicking the flapping wings. That was before it was noted how birds glide and the shape of their wings as they glide. Since they adjusted aircraft to have non-flapping wings then why add a more complicated tail........

[mtnman]

Why not...... oh probably no one has attempted it.

We tried flight at first by mimicking the flapping wings.

We attempted to mimic it, but were unable to even come close.  Bird flapping is far to complex for us to mimic at least with current technology.  If we could, it would launch us into all sorts of control issues.

That was before it was noted how birds glide and the shape of their wings as they glide.

Are you saying that in all the time man existed without aircraft, he never noted how birds glide, or the shape of their wings?  Seriously?  It was only noticed after people spent a ton of time and resources playing around with flapping wings???  Were folks seriously daft back then?

Since they adjusted aircraft to have non-flapping wings then why add a more complicated tail........

They didn't "adjust" aircraft to have non-flapping wings; they abandoned the flapping wing concept because they were unable to make it work.  As far as a complicated tail goes, I'm not so sure an airplanes tail is less complicated than a bird tail...

[Shuffler]

We attempted to mimic it, but were unable to even come close.  Bird flapping is far to complex for us to mimic at least with current technology.  If we could, it would launch us into all sorts of control issues.

Are you saying that in all the time man existed without aircraft, he never noted how birds glide, or the shape of their wings?  Seriously?  It was only noticed after people spent a ton of time and resources playing around with flapping wings???  Were folks seriously daft back then?

They didn't "adjust" aircraft to have non-flapping wings; they abandoned the flapping wing concept because they were unable to make it work.  As far as a complicated tail goes, I'm not so sure an airplanes tail is less complicated than a bird tail...

So you agree again.... very well.

[McDeath]

I'd love to combine this thread with the one about flying without a vertical stabiliser.

[BulletVI]

It all depends on howmutch is left of the vertical stabaliser.

And wartime history has proved thiswith the B17 many of them came back to base with over half of their vertical stabalizer shot of by flack or fighter's.
And in some rare ocasions Mossquito's and most twin engine fighters could fly for around 10-30 miles with no stabalizer. it only took the pilot slight touches on the throttles to counter the swaying movment. but garenteed no return to base maybe a safe ditch in the Channel.

[beddog]

This should help clear up a few questions you have about flying without a vertical stab.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWeLJHaXd8M

As a pilot in the airline industry I have had many experiences to review many incidents and accidents that have resulted in the loss of
a flight control surface. Size of the surface, its position, and its overall function in the control of the aircraft are factors contributing
to surviving such an event.  While loss of the rudder itself will present a control problem a pilot can more positively affect this outcome by
selecting a runway that is more aligned with the wind component.  In Aces High II wind usually never represents any challenge since
it is always set to 0 unless your in an special events arena.  There is a slight change in the center of gravity (CG) of the aircraft so in
extreme cases with an unusually disproportionate rudder on an aircraft with a small CG envelope the aircraft may run out of cg limits.  This
condition would be highly aggravated with the loss of the entire stabilizer since a much more proportionate chunk of the aircraft had
been lost.  Before you would even need to worry about the "CG" effects of a lost vertical stabilizer, you would need to consider its name
"stabilizer" as that is its primary function.  Keeping the fuselage of the aircraft aligned with the on coming relative wind in order to maintain
longitudinal stability.  I suppose this could be circumvented if the aircraft you happen to be flying had a fuselage itself that had enough flat
plate area represented in a side profile to keep the aircraft aligned with the relative wind, but due to the considerations of keeping aircraft "aerodynamically efficient," this seems a most improbable application of design.  The only other way to control a contraption without the use of
a vertical stabilizer would have to come with the use of "split-flap" type ailerons or a combination of "spoilerons" located at the tips of the wings
as used by the B-2 bomber by varying the amount of drag at the tips of the wings a flight computer can keep this aircraft in stable, coordinated flight.  One other method that could be considered would also be the use of "vectored thrust" to keep an aircraft longitudinally stable, a concept,
definitely nowhere to be found in AH II...strike that...unless you happen to be flying a "CLAW."

So after all this explanation my reply to your question would be, no it is not probable that you should be able to land after losing
your vertical stabilizer in AHII.

I agree..  Just look at the 737s that went down just due to a loss of effectiveness of the vertical stab and rudder from using too slow of an approach speed.  They changed vso speed (minimum speed stuff out) on that plane and fixed the problem.  737s now fly at a noticeably higher speed (even from the ground you can see it) on approach nowadays.

[mtnman]

So you agree again.... very well.

While I agree that a bird can tilt it's tail, it would be erroneous to infer (as your initial statement seems to do, in answer to VonMessa) that it would do so to compensate for the lack of a vertical stabilizer.  

I disagree with the context of your statement.

The rest of your posts are even less accurate.  Almost like you have no clue.

[bagrat]

I'd imagine birds are to sky as we swim in water, they manipulate there entire body to get the desired effect. Also birds are not propelled by engines so they don't have to deal with any of the left turn tendencies which an airplane has to counteract with the vert stab. So the only thing that would effect a birds direction is the wind, which a bird will deal with by "crabbing" into the wind. IMO