Stabilizers

[Sidewinder]

in airplanes, what are verical and horizontal stabilizers for? is it only for changing direction with elevators and a rudder, or can they do something that the wings can't?

[YT2095]

what do you mean by "Stabilisers"?

 

if it`s the passive parts of the plane that don`t move (tail fins) and leading edge on the wings, it gives a resistance for the controls to play against basicly.

the ailerons, rudder, elevators, only play a part in Roll and Yaw, specificaly rudder for yaw and ailerons for roll, elevators for pitch and roll.

 

the stabilisers work during all this to a greater or lesser extent depending on the pitch and yaw.

 

they`re also handy to mount the controls on too

[Sidewinder]

is the tail essential for flight? if you were to remove the tail fins from an airplane, it wouldn't be able to change direction, but would it still be able to stay in the air?

[YT2095]

it would if the engines were powerfull enough (Rockets do it all the time), but it would certainly lack manouverability, and Yaw would be out of the question.

[Ophiolite]

Without the tail surely yaw would be all to possible, but unpredictable and uncontrollable? Which is why we call them stabilisers.

[YT2095]

not in a controlable/usable way though, and in flight it would need greater engine power to compensate for instability

 

although it most deffinately would fish tail at take off.

[Skye]

They also increase the drag at the rear of the plane which makes it point forward in an airflow. Like attaching a tail to a kite.

[Ophiolite]

Wasn't it this business of control surfaces that was the real breakthough the Wright brothers made? Other experimenters could have got heavier than air machines of the ground, but with absolutely no control. They figured out the principals that remain in use today.

[Sidewinder]

it would if the engines were powerfull enough (Rockets do it all the time), but it would certainly lack manouverability, and Yaw would be out of the question.

what about a slow airplane, let's say a regular single-engine cessna. if the tail fins fall off during flight, is it still able to keep flying? in that matter, if I were to remove the feathers in the back of an arrow, it wouldn't fly straight, so the same thing would happen to an airplane right?

[YT2095]

wow, I wouldn`t wanna be on that sucker when that happened!

 

a VERY good pilot would be able to land it, it wouldn`t be impossible and the conditions would have to right.

but steering would have to be done using the brake flaps only (not easy!).

I`m not even sure if single prop cessnas HAVE brake flaps either!

 

I have to ask, What are you thinking about trying?

[RICHARDBATTY]

You could still steer by banking or leaning the plane sideways and then pulling the nose up but you would lose altitude every time you did it. If there was a cross wind you could not steer into the wind slightly to keep your heading and landing in a cross wind would be a nightmare.

[Sidewinder]

I have to ask' date=' What are you thinking about trying?[/quote']

 

Ha! guess i gave the wrong impression. not really planing anything that crazy yet. this is just out of curiosity, mostly cuz i was watching some footage of the b-2 stealth bomber. that's an airplane that doesn't really have a tail, so how can it fly so well?

[Skye]

The tail isn't necessary as such. Look at paper planes, or hang gliders. But it greatly increases the stability of the plane, so the pilot doesnt have respond to all the little changes in the airflow around aircraft. Without the tail, flying wings like the B2 need to respond to more of the little changes, otherwise things get rapidly out of hand. In order to rapidly respond to the little changes, computers monitor the flight and automatically change the control surfaces to keep the plane stable.

[YT2095]

yaw can be effected by contoling the engine power on each side too, just not much use on a single prop type

[RICHARDBATTY]

The stealth bomber has a v tail which is just a mix of horizontal/vertical. Its not mounted any distance from the lift wings. This makes it rediculously unstable as it always wants to roll forwards or backwards. Its so unstable that its actualy unflyable by pilot alone and has an advanced computer system that keeps it level. When the pilot inputs control the computer just allows the plane instability in the direction the pilot chooses. A lot of modern fighters use this principle as it makes them very manuverable. The plane would pull off some realy stupid manuvers on its own without the computer keeping it steady.

[Mokele]

Richard, I think he means the B2, the big flat triangular one.

[Rasori]

Indeed, two different stealth bombers here. Though one of them isn't a bomber.

There's the B-2 (Bomber-B) without the tail. It's a flying wing

Then there's the F/A-117a (I want to say Nighthalk, but I don't think it's right) which has the V tail. F/A means Fighter/Attack

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, Night Hawk.

 

Anyways, if you were to just take the tail off of any normal airplane, it would crash. In planes designed with a tail, the horizontal surfaces hold a role in balancing the plane. Most planes would tip straight forwards, so the elevator actually gives negative lift to keep it from nosing over (the weight of the engine does it) and thus crashing.

The F-16 is remarkable in that the elevator has to provide positive lift rather than negative, giving it remarkable agility.

[RICHARDBATTY]

Richard, I think he means the B2, the big flat triangular one.

Yes thats the one I was on about. It has a double rudder aranged in a v shape. The ailerons on the lift wings are also elevators.

[Rasori]

That's the thing, Richard. The B-2 has no tail stabilizers. It is a wing, and only a wing.

 

B-2 (what we're talking about)

 

F-117a Night Hawk (what you're talking about- note the V tail stabilizers)

 

EDIT- stupid anti-theft devices... It was just a link...

[RICHARDBATTY]

That's the thing' date=' Richard. The B-2 has no tail stabilizers. It is a wing, and only a wing.

 

B-2 (what we're talking about)

 

F-117a Night Hawk (what you're talking about- note the V tail stabilizers)

 

EDIT- stupid anti-theft devices... It was just a link...

lol Sorry yes I got the wrong one. This one might use thrust vectering.

[Sidewinder]

why not add a tail to the B2? wouldn't it fly better?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The computers can handle it pretty well as it is.

 

Besides, that's more weight and more radar-reflecting surfaces.

[Rasori]

Also, the design of the B-2 makes a tail entirely unneccesary. Because it's a wing and the engines and systems are basically centered, it is extremely stable. I've heard testimony that it's impossible to stall- which makes sense, because the forces would re-level the wing before it made the plane stop moving. Turning could be a bit of a problem, but it's workable, and thanks to its stealth it doesn't need to turn fast

 

And Cap'n is also right.