Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Vinkman on November 01, 2010, 08:55:24 AM
-
It seems to me that the flight model in AH prevents any control of a plane with a vertical stabilizer. This seems artificial to me, but I don't fly a real plane, and am not an aeronautics engineer. there are many pilots on here, and it would seem a few aero engineers and I was wondering if anyone had any experience with flight after the loss of a rudder and verical stablizer? It seems to me that rolling the plane and using elevator control could be used to control the plane, albiet in a very crude way, to at least maintain a heading, and possibly land.
Has anyone accomplished a landing after the loss of a vertical Stabilizer in AH?
Anyone else think it should be possible?
:salute Vinkman
-
It is possible more than 50% of the time.
Edit: I ought to elaborate though, your use of the word 'land' might be misleading. You certainly can't head back to the airfield of your choice. I mean it is possible to control your attitude and get down safely with a nice gentle ditch. Depends on your definition of landing, but if you could walk away safely...
-
I would think that without a vert stab you would be like a leaf in the wind.
-
It is possible more than 50% of the time.
Edit: I ought to elaborate though, your use of the word 'land' might be misleading. You certainly can't head back to the airfield of your choice. I mean it is possible to control your attitude and get down safely with a nice gentle ditch. Depends on your definition of landing, but if you could walk away safely...
I'd take a nice gentile ditch. Haven't been able to make the plane do anything, lose pitch and roll control which seems wrong to me. So you make it down half the time?
-
Flew a Mossie about 45 miles and landed gear down on the runway after losing my vertical stabilizer in a collision with a Spitfire Mk VIII. Just can't let yourself bank very much. It also got squirrly as my speed dropped for landing.
-
The vertical stab is there for a reason, namely that flying becomes next to impossible without one. Having said that, the 109E does fly pretty good without one.
-
The vertical stab is there for a reason, namely that flying becomes next to impossible without one. Having said that, the 109E does fly pretty good without one.
Hmm. OK maybe it's just me then. I'll keep practicing. :D
-
I'd say a lot more than half the time. Since I usually lose my stab to an act of supreme lameness, such as a HO or a lateral shot when fighting someone else, I mostly try to deny the the kill in those cases. It's become a sort of hobby of mine. Will look later and see if I have any on film.
Like Karnak eludes to you have no control over your yaw, the trick is to keep your nose pointed slightly below the horizon (mostly) and stay fast enough for a flair at the end. Don't be alarmed by your airspeed indicator, you are often going sideways or even slightly backwards here and there.
Strange topic. Filth described the analogy very well.
-
Will look later and see if I have any on film.
Here is a film. You talking about like this one? :)
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/la7_landed_no_stab_0603.ahf
-
I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to land a taildragger in a cross-wind without a vert stab.
-
I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to land a taildragger in a cross-wind without a vert stab.
:noid
-
Not really a landing but I certainly felt in control as I ditched, v-stabless from 4k, avoiding a few potshots on the way.
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/4MfOTCkq-c0sCCk8Z335i_61tAkxikl3kwGnBJX9ghVMztsmgn7oOLX7SNWdfha3r4UkXrs4RJQdnjd2Rx0y/Films/4k%20ditch.ahf
-
Yup, there you go. 5.2 for artistic merit Batty.
-
A mossie once was able to shoot me and tear me up with no vertical stab, I shot it off and he continued to fly unharmed for 1-2 minutes.
-
5.2 for artistic merit.
wooohoo! :D
-
I would think that without a vert stab you would be like a leaf in the wind.
I'm a leaf in the wind... watch me soar!
(Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation!)
-
This should help clear up a few questions you have about flying without a vertical stab.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWeLJHaXd8M (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.
-
Several planes had to have enlarged stabs after initial test flights.
Both the P-51 and P-47 had to have an additional section added in front of the stab when they changed to the bubble canopy. The reason was the raised section behind the cockpit was done away with for better vision. When they lost the so called raizer back it affected the lateral stability. This was fixed by adding the section in front of the stabs.
It can be seen in this photo in front of the stabilizer.....
(http://www.kbvp.com/sites/default/files/images/P-51%20Mustang%20Lady%20Jo.preview.jpg)
If conditions were perfect one might get lucky and get the plane down. It is highly unlikely as any breeze or airpocket would upset the plane.
-
Not an engineer, and most of the aeronautical/FM discussions around here go right over my head but if I remember right one the biggest problems with developing a "flying-wing" style aircraft, despite several attempts over the years was that they were all deemed to be too unstable. Ultimately this was solved with current avionics and fly by wire controls in the B2.
-
I have never landed any single vert stab ride in AH with the vert stab removed. It is usually just a matter of between 5 and 15 seconds before the plane yaws out of control and augers.
I remember the Airbus A300 passenger jet (American Airlines #587) that lost its vert stab soon after take off and crashed with the loss of 260 souls on board and 5 lost on the ground.
It is easy for me to imagine that airplanes which lose the entire vert stab in flight are doomed 100% of the time.
-
:lol where is that Film of Spikes landing a 163 without a stab? I have done it many times Vinkman it is a harsh way of landing but if you are lucky you get the ditch :salute
-
This should help clear up a few questions you have about flying without a vertical stab.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWeLJHaXd8M (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.
The CG point is one I hadn't thought of. I wonder how far forward it shifts on some of these planes. As for the airliner, heavy winds were clearly a contributor, but aslo it is sadly clear the pilots did not know what had happened right up to the end. I wonder if they had known they had no rudder or stab if they might have been able to take a course of action that might have helped. that was a very sad circumstance. My heart when out ot them.
also thanks for the reply Swoops :salute
-
I remember I collided with with an aircraft on Spit14, lost the V-stab. I cut my throttle to avoid the torque of messing everything up, my left wingtip became my nose and I used ailerons as elevators and elevators and ailerons. It was at about 4000ft AGL and I managed to bring it down safe, broke the main landing gear, prop, and left wingtip as it absorbed a lot of impact.
Unfortunately I don't have it recorded but I do have the pics of the wreckage I took after I got down, I'll see if I can find them.
However most of the time I lost my vertical stabilizer I did not survive.
-
Lost a stab on a mossie a few months back. Flew two sectors back to base with no problems. Turns were a bit un- coordinated is all. Other than that, it flew great. Think I filmed it.
-
I can't fly a a09k4 with the vert-stab missing. It slides all over the place and is virtually uncontrollable.
-
Several planes had to have enlarged stabs after initial test flights.
Both the P-51 and P-47 had to have an additional section added in front of the stab when they changed to the bubble canopy. The reason was the raised section behind the cockpit was done away with for better vision. When they lost the so called raizer back it affected the lateral stability. This was fixed by adding the section in front of the stabs.
It can be seen in this photo in front of the stabilizer.....
If conditions were perfect one might get lucky and get the plane down. It is highly unlikely as any breeze or airpocket would upset the plane.
I find that the Pony's have the worst directional stability of any plane in the game. That helps and hurts in different situations. Severely hurts when you lose your vert. stabilizer, which seemingly is the only thing on the damned plane keeping it from flying like a Frisbee.
Some planes do it better than others, I've noticed... Which makes sense. I'm sure having more than one engine would be helpful in a rudder-lacking situation.
EDIT:
I take that back. The Camel has the worst directional stability in the game.
I also think it happens to be the most fun to fly...
Who knew flying sideways could be done so easily? :airplane:
-
Can only spin down and crash if you lose the vert stab in an F4U.
-
Vinkman, Perhaps your time would be better spent practicing how NOT to get your Vertical Stabilizer shot off to begin with. In combat, your fighter/bomber/whatever without a stab is pretty much toast unless you are incredibly lucky.
Tee
-
Lost a stab on a mossie a few months back. Flew two sectors back to base with no problems. Turns were a bit un- coordinated is all. Other than that, it flew great. Think I filmed it.
The vertical stab? Surely you mean a horizontal stab?
Speaking from experience I have never managed to control a mossy with no vert stab, but I would love to see the film if ya did it!
-
Not an engineer, and most of the aeronautical/FM discussions around here go right over my head but if I remember right one the biggest problems with developing a "flying-wing" style aircraft, despite several attempts over the years was that they were all deemed to be too unstable. Ultimately this was solved with current avionics and fly by wire controls in the B2.
Funny how birds do not have one though, isn't it?
:noid
-
Funny how birds do not have one though, isn't it?
:noid
They accomplish the same thing by twisting their "horizontal stab."
The B2 bomber's computer does something similar, but by using the ailerons for everything.
-
One time I lost a vertical stab while flying my trusty B25. It was quite easy for me to RTB so yeah I would say a plane can still fly with "a" vertical stab missing. :D
-
They accomplish the same thing by twisting their "horizontal stab."
The B2 bomber's computer does something similar, but by using the ailerons for everything.
Yeah, it's integral, and awesome! :aok
-
I'll add a successful mossie landing after 2 sector flight with tailfin shot off :D
was really surprised by how flyable it was, obviously you dont want to take the p*** but for normal flight it was fine if a bit yawy. one thing to note is that not all of it gets shot off - theres still about a foots worth of fin sticking up which must help a bit.
-
I can't speak for the real world because I've never been in an aircraft with a missing vertical stabiliser yet, and I hope to never do so either!
In AH however it is just a question of technique. Once you are upright, you can control your pitch as normal. You need to pitch down slightly, about ten degrees will do nicely. The aircraft may want to slew around when you do this. Let's say the aircraft starts to yaw to the left, presenting the right wingtip to the airflow. If you don't correct this it will flip over (rolling inverted to the left). If you roll slightly to the right, the aircraft tends to slew back into line, presumably because the wings present a larger surface area to the airflow than the horizontal surfaces. Then you must correct your pitch again etc. You just continue this cycle until you are near the ground / water. You will feel like the leaf that Filth describes. At the right moment you can flair out. At this point don't fuss too much to point the right way, it's your rate of descent which matters for a nice soft belly flop. Gear is optional but usually breaks off unless you're lined up just right (I sometimes think this buffers the impact though).
I hope I've described the inputs correctly because it's the first time I've thought about what you do, I really just fly by the seat of my pants. Once you get a feel for that kind of oscillating flightpath with the ailerons and elevators alone it should come naturally. Throttle work can also help to control your attitude. The point is to not give up, and don't panic even if you lose it completely, you can often pull it back. Be patient and look for those opportunities to reestablish the nose-low attitude. The prop will pull you along. Do what you can to try and get it down safely. Give it a try, it's a lot of fun.
-
I can't speak for the real world because I've never been in an aircraft with a missing vertical stabiliser yet, and I hope to never do so either!
In AH however it is just a question of technique. Once you are upright, you can control your pitch as normal. You need to pitch down slightly, about ten degrees will do nicely. The aircraft may want to slew around when you do this. Let's say the aircraft starts to yaw to the left, presenting the right wingtip to the airflow. If you don't correct this it will flip over (rolling inverted to the left). If you roll slightly to the right, the aircraft tends to slew back into line, presumably because the wings present a larger surface area to the airflow than the horizontal surfaces. Then you must correct your pitch again etc. You just continue this cycle until you are near the ground / water. You will feel like the leaf that Filth describes. At the right moment you can flair out. At this point don't fuss too much to point the right way, it's your rate of descent which matters for a nice soft belly flop. Gear is optional but usually breaks off unless you're lined up just right (I sometimes think this buffers the impact though).
I hope I've described the inputs correctly because it's the first time I've thought about what you do, I really just fly by the seat of my pants. Once you get a feel for that kind of oscillating flightpath with the ailerons and elevators alone it should come naturally. Throttle work can also help to control your attitude. The point is to not give up, and don't panic even if you lose it completely, you can often pull it back. Be patient and look for those opportunities to reestablish the nose-low attitude. The prop will pull you along. Do what you can to try and get it down safely. Give it a try, it's a lot of fun.
This effect is probably due to the adverse yaw created by using the ailerons.
-
Here's a short film from today showing the technique I described. Unfortunately one of the gentlemen I was flying against was disinclined to let me leave the field (not maxous, he's a good friend of mine), so I was unable to demonstrate the all important artistic flare out. I had control at the start of the film but had to make some harsh manoeuvres to evade the P-39 attack. After this I regain control before having to evade again before my wing just fell right off. You can see the oscillating technique in the middle.
film14.ahf (http://www.4shared.com/file/G0oDhx5R/film14.html)
-
Actually you were on your way to the crash site.
-
Actually you were on your way to the crash site.
:rofl
-
The vertical stab? Surely you mean a horizontal stab?
Speaking from experience I have never managed to control a mossy with no vert stab, but I would love to see the film if ya did it!
naw, vertical stab.
-
Ah doubters, lol. OK, Will try to get a better movie today, including the touchdown. I'm confident I can lose my vertical stabiliser again if I try really hard. :banana:
-
It is possible more than 50% of the time.
Edit: I ought to elaborate though, your use of the word 'land' might be misleading. You certainly can't head back to the airfield of your choice. I mean it is possible to control your attitude and get down safely with a nice gentle ditch. Depends on your definition of landing, but if you could walk away safely...
I'll 2nd that, I've had my vertical stab knocked off my hurricane before from around 3k in the air. I wasn't able to rtb, but guiding her down to the ground for the ditch is definitely possible, throttle work and torque however become a major factor in maintaining control, as the engine will pull the nose left without the stab to maintain direction.
-
naw, vertical stab.
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. :cry
-
Jetman.com uses his hands for vert stab and rudder, the only man to truly fly, using a small wing with 4 small turbines strapped tp his back, pretty wild stuff! The only plane I've been able to ditch w/o stab is Ki84
-
It is actually quite strange that from peoples observations it seems that planes that have high aspect fuselage sideways, i.e. are quite flat, are also unstable (109, P51) but Mossie which is really a cylinder is stable without a vertical stab. ;)
I'd think that the fuselage should provide a stabilizing force by its shape which should work at least in high and moderate speeds quite effectively, but obviously in slow speed the other forces become more dominant and may lead to abrupt loss of control. Forces such as engine torque and the pressure on wings which is more destabilizing on long wings which also have more leverage and thus also need more stabilizing force as in e.g Ta152H. Basically that would mean that when you lose your vertical stab you should immediately ease back the throttle, but no to idle, to minimize the torque effect of propeller on directional stability.
-C+
-
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. :cry
teaching bat to fly the mossie ... did I wake up in some weird parallel universe? :headscratch:
-
Funny how birds do not have one though, isn't it?
:noid
They do in a way..... their tails twist and can be vertical, horizontal, or a mix of both.
-
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.
-
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.........
-
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...
-
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"
-
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?
-
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........
-
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...
-
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.
-
I'd love to combine this thread with the one about flying without a vertical stabiliser.
-
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.:)
-
This should help clear up a few questions you have about flying without a vertical stab.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWeLJHaXd8M (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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
Gliders need vertical stabilizers too, so the engine isn't the only reason for the vertical stab.
The swimming analogy is pretty good though. The dynamics of water and air are similar enough to draw a good correlation. It also brings to mind many marine mammals which are able to "fly" through the water without any semblance of a vertical stabilizer (seals, etc) or that have something that looks similar, but is positioned much further forward (porpoises, etc).
-
A living flying creature and 1940 era fighter aircraft are two completely different kettle of fish, imo
A vert stab isnt a requirement for flight so long as the thing flying is verticaly stable. WWII fighter planes were often not vertically stable without a 'vertical stab'. It is only called a vertical stab because we had to think of a name for the big vertical fin we put on the back of aircraft. So the proposition that a bird has no 'vert stab' is ambigous in itself. Our aircraft for the most part fail to be stable completely untill we have modified a bird's grace with hard surfaces to replicate nature.
If the vessle in flight is inherantly stable naturaly, such as a bird, only minimal control is needed to maintain vertical stabalisation. Bird do stabalise themself verticaly, of course, much easier than any WWII aircraft.
Surely we cannot even compare the two?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q49X2P94djU
163 ditching with no stab.
-
Surely we cannot even compare the two?
My point exactly.
A living flying creature and 1940 era fighter aircraft are two completely different kettle of fish, imo
A vert stab isnt a requirement for flight so long as the thing flying is verticaly stable. WWII fighter planes were often not vertically stable without a 'vertical stab'. It is only called a vertical stab because we had to think of a name for the big vertical fin we put on the back of aircraft. So the proposition that a bird has no 'vert stab' is ambigous in itself. Our aircraft for the most part fail to be stable completely untill we have modified a bird's grace with hard surfaces to replicate nature.
If the vessle in flight is inherantly stable naturaly, such as a bird, only minimal control is needed to maintain vertical stabalisation. Bird do stabalise themself verticaly, of course, much easier than any WWII aircraft.
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.
-
What Batty and Bagrat said. Mankind's ventures into flight are extremely crude by comparison to nature. Of all the birds that fly near where I live I consider the Seaguls to be the most interesting, graceful and skilled. You can even see pieces of ACM sometimes and good energy management, although again that's a rather pathetic human interpretation of what they are actually doing. Perk nature!
-
The other piece about nature too is, they aren't flying (or swimming) with fixed wings and tails... their wings, fins, tails, are all completely flexible, and can handle stabalizing vertically through those shifts in weight and angles. Because our methods of flight are based upon ridgid control planes, we need a different methodology of controlling 3 axis motion, therefore, stabalizers.
-
before the last damage update loss of the stab meant you were dead. there was no RTB'ing. With the last update your only losing half of it (at times) which allows you to keep some stability and oddly full rudder control. Which i find strange considering the rudder is attached to the stab. i cant see how the rudder wouldnt be, if anything, flapping in the wind if still attached to a broken stab. Its kind of like losing half your wing but still maintaining aileron function.
-
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.
All I said was he can and will tilt his tail....... he does it for control. If he did not do it then he'd probably be the first one to the crash site. :)
-
"All I said was he can and will tilt his tail....... he does it for control."
That is how I interpreted your initial comment also, Shuff.
-
I've never worked so hard explaining that we are both on the same page with someone I agreed with in my life. :D
-
before the last damage update loss of the stab meant you were dead. there was no RTB'ing. With the last update your only losing half of it (at times) which allows you to keep some stability and oddly full rudder control. Which i find strange considering the rudder is attached to the stab. i cant see how the rudder wouldnt be, if anything, flapping in the wind if still attached to a broken stab. Its kind of like losing half your wing but still maintaining aileron function.
Talking two different stabs here.
-
Well bottom line in this whole thread is that I have lost a stab many times and was able to fly home.
-
All I said was he can and will tilt his tail....... he does it for control. If he did not do it then he'd probably be the first one to the crash site. :)
Ok, I can go with that. Maybe I mistook your original meaning.
Did you see the part where I mentioned a bird with a tail can fly just fine if the tail is removed? They don't need the tail for flight, even if they normally have one. They don't even need any time or "practice" to get good at flying without it. A bird is hindered much more by the loss of a single (or even a part of one, for that matter) primary, than by the loss of it's entire tail.
The tail is useful in flight I'm sure, but is probably used as much or more for balance. Especially while perching or feeding. In flight, it's especially useful for braking, and is often used opposite of what you'd expect (if you thought it was used anything like the equivalent of a horizontal stab).
It's actually not as flexible as you might think, especially for the fastest birds, due to their fused vertebrae. It has a whole lot of ability to go "down", not as much ability to go "up". An exception would be birds that raise their tails for display (turkeys, peanoodles), but then, they don't raise them for flight...
It's worth noting too, that some of the most "flighted", fastest, and agile birds have comparatively-small or practically no tail at all (swifts, shearwater, albatross), while the birds with the largest tails are much more ground-oriented (pheasants, turkeys, peanoodles) and prefer to hide or run from danger than to fly from it.
-
Well bottom line in this whole thread is that I have lost a stab many times and was able to fly home.
With the loss of a horizontal stab I have too, but never with the loss of a vertical stab (unless I had a spare one).
-
With the loss of a horizontal stab I have too, but never with the loss of a vertical stab (unless I had a spare one).
I have flown after losing a vertical stab and successfully continued to fight. :D
-
I have flown after losing a vertical stab and successfully continued to fight. :D
Try that with the same plane, after losing the horizontal stab :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
:D
EDIT: I like this discussion :aok
-
Umm ok I'll call it...... The 38 has 2 vertical stabs..... :P
-
So then, all we need is another 65 million years of practice and we might be as good at flying as geese :rock
-
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?
:D
EDIT: I like this discussion :aok
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.
-
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 :) :salute
-
The horizontal stab is just an upside down smaller wing. :D