Author Topic: Why Longitudinal Stability is Bad  (Read 595 times)

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Why Longitudinal Stability is Bad
« on: August 29, 2003, 03:20:59 PM »
Edit:  Buncha half baked stuff deleted.  LOL
« Last Edit: August 29, 2003, 07:20:56 PM by funkedup »

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Why Stability is Bad
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2003, 04:02:37 PM »
Also, planes with high stability margins also have greater pitch trim requirements.

Offline TimRas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 560
Re: Why Longitudinal Stability is Bad
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2003, 04:28:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by funkedup
Greater stability margins mean less tail lift or even negative tail lift in level flight.  


Most aircraft have their CG aft of the aerodynamic centre where the lift acts and therefore have a basically upwards tail load for balance. Any wing camber adds a download and the total may be up or down, but its direction does not influence stability. This depends where the neutral point is, controlled by the size of the tail, which does not affect the tail load. So if you want a large tail upload, instability is unnecessary.

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Why Stability is Bad
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2003, 07:10:22 PM »
EDIT:  Ahh crap you're right, I screwed up LOL.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2003, 07:20:28 PM by funkedup »

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Why Stability is Bad
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2003, 07:50:34 PM »
Quote
This depends where the neutral point is, controlled by the size of the tail, which does not affect the tail load.

That's what got me.  I looked at all my examples again and they were all SM = 0!!!  Too many tard flakes for breakfast.  :D