Plane can't fly without Vertical Stab

[mtnman]

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). 

[mechanic]

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?

[Spikes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q49X2P94djU
163 ditching with no stab.

[mtnman]

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.

[nrshida]

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!

[Knite]

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.

[TW9]

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.

[Shuffler]

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.

[mechanic]

"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.

[Shuffler]

I've never worked so hard explaining that we are both on the same page with someone I agreed with in my life.

[rvflyer]

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.

[Shuffler]

Well bottom line in this whole thread is that I have lost a stab many times and was able to fly home.

[mtnman]

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.

[mtnman]

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).

[Shuffler]

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.