missing a vertical stabilizer

[Noir]

most planes turn better when missing a vertical stabilizer in aces high...is that realistic?

[FLS]

Do you have an example of an actual difference in turn rate and do you mean half of the horizontal stabilizer?

[earl1937]

most planes turn better when missing a vertical stabilizer in aces high...is that realistic?

aircraft, in Aces High or in real life, do not turn with out a vertical stabilizer. They just go into a flat spin and crash, its really a matter of time. I think what you meant was with 1/2 of the horizontal stabilizer missing and yes, it might turn better, but 50% of your pitch control is gone.

[hitech]

most planes turn better when missing a vertical stabilizer in aces high...is that realistic?

This evaluation is incorrect. Planes would not turn better with out a V stab.

aircraft, in Aces High or in real life, do not turn with out a vertical stabilizer. They just go into a flat spin and crash, its really a matter of time. I think what you meant was with 1/2 of the horizontal stabilizer missing and yes, it might turn better, but 50% of your pitch control is gone.

This also is not necessarily true. Just because you lost a V stab, it does not mean the aircraft is not stable in the yaw axis.

The fuselage can also provide a degree of stability depending on is shape and size.

And finally , rudders and V stabs do not normally make you turn, LIFT generated by the wing is what makes you turn.

HiTech

[Torquila]

I disagree HT; pilots make planes turn: Not wings

lulz

[mthrockmor]

I've wondered why one would not be able to use roll to keep the nose pointed in a general direction. I am not a real pilot, just brilliant in cartoon but as the nose begins to yaw could you not roll the wings, pull the nose up slightly and get it back in access? This seems logical though certainly not what happens in-game. I am presuming game is correct though I'm always surprised to lose that ability when the rudder disappears.

thoughts?

Boo

[Torquila]

mthrockmor! Been dun tried that a few times in-game. Turned engine off/idle/low to reduce torque and attempt to keep some sort of stable direction by aligning horizontal/vertical. It might be possible if the plane has a high enough roll rate to counteract the change in angle-of-attack, but have never been able to properly grasp it. Like its been mentioned, you usually end up stalling out due to the extreme change that occurs from the situation.

Sounds like fun though!

Let the feast of a thousand rolling lawndarts commence!

[pervert]

He means a horizontal stabiliser 

[Noir]

erm yes I mean a horizontal stabiliser  I assumed that part was a vert stab because it stabilized the plane on the vertical axis

Whenever I loose a vert stab the plane is much more unstable, which can lead to a back flip at low speed, but before that I find the Deg/s rate in a turn much higher at certain speeds (no data )! Shouldn't the lack of an elevator reduce the turn rate instead of increasing it?

[Torquila]

I have seen this sort of behaviour before as well.

I caught a spitfire on the vertical in a 61 a year and a bit ago and took half its hor stab (dont remember which side), as I broke to the right in leisure to extend from this fresh kill I looked back to see he was then about 100 yards, perfectly honed on my 6 and in my eyes possessed by some demon with guns blazing for revenge.

I have never had such a fright in AH or any other Combat flight sim before, it was completely beyond any expectations I had concerning the ability of said planes.

I looked at the video post sortie and after almost stalling out at the top of the vertical during a frantic manoeuvre to avoid my guns, he apparently did a 360 degree turn in a manner of meters while pulling out of his jig, only to end up as I had seen when I looked back.

Should that happen?

[FLS]

erm yes I mean a horizontal stabiliser  I assumed that part was a vert stab because it stabilized the plane on the vertical axis

Whenever I loose a vert stab the plane is much more unstable, which can lead to a back flip at low speed, but before that I find the Deg/s rate in a turn much higher at certain speeds (no data )! Shouldn't the lack of an elevator reduce the turn rate instead of increasing it?

When you lose half of the elevator and keep both tailplanes you'll notice a difference in performance. This is from the unequal air deflection from the tailplane without the elevator. When you lose both the tailplane and the elevator on one side there is hardly any difference in performance because any extra roll and yaw is controlled by the ailerons and rudder. There are probably minor differences in drag but turn performance is the same because half of the elevator is sufficient to set the AOA of the wing and a turn is just lift oriented around a center point.

[dirtdart]

The things that bother me are more along the lines of multiple damages.  I think it would not be much fun to shoot a stab off someone and then expect all of the linkages and whatnot inbetween the two to cease functioning.  Same as when you cannon round a fuselage or a wing, there is a probability a control cable or pulley could be hit.  Personally I am glad they are not modeled (at least I dont think they are modeled).  The only spot on an airplane where I know the damage effects something remotely is on the 109K.  When you take a hit in the left wing root, you lose your hub gun, that is where the ammo is located. 

All that said, it is the combinations of damage, such as a picture I have long since deleted where I shot the right wing beyond the flap off and the entire right stab off, and the airplane kept flying.  I do not understand how the plane could have maintained level flight.  Or even a controlled descent for that matter. 

In the end all of my observations are irrelevant.  I am not an aero guy and my knowledge of what makes things fly is about one semester deep.  <S> HT. 

[FLS]

Wings have an elliptical lift distribution with less lift towards the ends so losing 1/3 of one wing doesn't have to mean you lost 1/6 of your lift. As long as you have enough wing and speed to create sufficient lift you can fly. If you still have flaps it may even fly slow enough to land successfully.

[dirtdart]

FLS, I can accept the loss of an outer wing not causes the plane to fall out of the sky, and I do understand the proportionality of lift as you describe.  The thing that bothered me was the level flight.  I just cant see how an airplane could maintain level flight if the left aileron is deflected enough to keep roll neutralized, and the rudder and elevator are working together to keep yaw and pitch neutralized, when the plane is missing the back right stab as well.  To me, being a different kind of engineer, it looks like a bridge missing one of the abutments, which is why it is hard to visualize.  I am open to any explanation, it really piqued my curiosity a while back and being the BBS most of the answers were a bit less pleasant than yours.  Thanks BTW. 

[FLS]

As I explained above, missing half the tailplane is better than losing half the elevator and keeping the tailplane. The aircraft in question was likely not in coordinated flight and had a very limited flight envelope. Anything other than level flight would likely have been less sustainable.

You're welcome.