Author Topic: physics flaw in AH? (Read 2112 times)

Citabria · « **on:** August 28, 2003, 04:35:58 PM »

it would seem ah has a flaw in the cg of its airplanes, when one looses its tail its engine heavy nose goes up and its nonexistant tailpoints downward.

Citabria · « **Reply #1 on:** August 28, 2003, 04:36:44 PM »

could this also explain low speed and stall inaccuracies too?

Batz · « **Reply #2 on:** August 28, 2003, 04:37:17 PM »

This has been coverd more then a few times.

Do a search. Folks even provided pretty pictures and stuff.

Barney Fife · « **Reply #3 on:** August 28, 2003, 04:37:42 PM »

Or maybe it's because the propeller on the plane is still pulling you?

rc51 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 28, 2003, 05:10:23 PM »

The wings are still creating lift;)

humble · « **Reply #5 on:** August 28, 2003, 05:19:39 PM »

Thats actually the correct physics if I understand flight dynamics of wing loading....especially with prop turning.

funkedup · « **Reply #6 on:** August 28, 2003, 06:00:17 PM »

Citabria, CG is usually aft of the wing's center of lift. Otherwise you wouldn't need a tail. So when you lose the tail's lift, the nose goes up.

Eagler · « **Reply #7 on:** August 28, 2003, 06:10:40 PM »

cg shifts to rear as pilot deposits a hefty load in his britches

Tumor · « **Reply #8 on:** August 28, 2003, 07:19:24 PM »

CG is cheeting

RDSaustinTX · « **Reply #9 on:** August 28, 2003, 07:51:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Citabria, CG is usually aft of the wing's center of lift. Otherwise you wouldn't need a tail. So when you lose the tail's lift, the nose goes up.

That's at least partially wrong. Tails provide NO lift in a stable a-c.

Mullah:cool:

Citabria · « **Reply #10 on:** August 28, 2003, 08:12:52 PM »

but its a function of CG a tail heavy aircraft will go nose up perhaps

but a plane with no tail NO TAIL and therefor a forward cg on the remaining aircraft should fall nose down

Ozark · « **Reply #11 on:** August 28, 2003, 08:28:20 PM »

Drag from the prop perhaps?

davidpt40 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 28, 2003, 09:51:28 PM »

Quote

That's at least partially wrong. Tails provide NO lift in a stable a-c.

Quote

That tells me one thing, Mr. Hooper- That you college boys don't have the education enough to admit when your wrong.

Unless the horizontal stabilizer is just a flat piece of wood or inverted airfoil, it is going to provide some lift.

Ghosth · « **Reply #13 on:** August 28, 2003, 10:40:44 PM »

Ever heard of a "full flying tail"?

Check those Horz stabs out sometime, most of the WWII ones havea lift produceing airfoil much like the wing. ie they DO provide lift along with stablisation.

Even if they don't they provide control. Without it there is nothing to keep the wing's angle of attack stable.

No surpise it try's to go nose up.

I'd say its more PROOF that AH is correctly modeled than proof that its not.

Nice try

Ozark · « **Reply #14 on:** August 28, 2003, 10:58:35 PM »

Sorry Ghosth

The stabilizers' job is to provide stability for the aircraft, to keep it in controllable flight. The rudder and elevator is used to deflect the tail and the ability to move on the vertical and lateral axis. Lift from the horizontal stabilizer would make the aircraft unstable.

The full flying (all-moving) tail means the full movement of the horizontal stabilizer and/or vertical stabilizer.