Timeline for How do "fundamentally unstable" aircraft deal with the risk of computer failure?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 14, 2018 at 20:10 | comment | added | Vikki | @Adrian: Or you can move the aircraft's center of mass to a different location at supersonic speeds (for instance, by moving fuel around, like the Concorde did), which lets you avoid having a large trim-drag penalty at supersonic speeds but still have an inherently stable aircraft at subsonic speeds. | |
| Feb 22, 2015 at 18:02 | comment | added | Rhino Driver | Most modern fighter aircraft are not mechanically linked. A massive failure in all computer systems (probably as a result of battle damage) would leave the pilot no choice but to eject. | |
| Feb 21, 2014 at 12:25 | comment | added | DeltaLima♦ | Using FBW you can make an naturally unstable design fly like a very stable aircraft, but the opposite is not true. You can modify a Typhoon to act like a Cessna Citation, the Citation is never going to roll and pitch like a Typhoon. +1 For decoupling FBW from fundamental stability though. You can fly unstable aircraft without FBW and stable aircraft are often produced with FBW. | |
| Feb 20, 2014 at 8:31 | comment | added | Adrian | Sorry but we seem to be talking about subtly different aspects hence the differences. I've edited the response to try and be clearer about what I meant in the context of the question. The original question isn't clear and specific so it's difficult to get the level of detail correct. Whilst I agree that on a conventional aircraft there is the link between manoeuvrability and stability once you stick in a full authority FBW system you can effectively tailor the system to your requirements. It's entirely possible to make an unstable aircraft unresponsive, or less manoeuvrable. | |
| Feb 20, 2014 at 8:13 | history | edited | Adrian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2014 at 1:29 | comment | added | Philippe Leybaert | I was just questioning your general statement that aircraft instability has nothing to do with maneuverability, which is not true. In general, the more maneuverable an aircraft is, the less stable it is. By definition | |
| Feb 20, 2014 at 0:27 | comment | added | Adrian | Yes - aerodynamic instability is used to reduce the trim induced drag supersonically. As you go supersonic the the aerodynamic centre moves aft. If you start from a stable design subsonically this requires large angles to trim in the supersonic region and a performance penalty. If you are unstable subsonically then in the supersonic region you don't need the same flap angle to trim hence better performance. There is an argument that an unstable design is detrimental to manoeuvrability. All the pilot wants is to point the nose and unstable design is harder to stop in the right place. | |
| Feb 19, 2014 at 23:43 | comment | added | Philippe Leybaert | "aircraft instability has nothing to do with manoeuvrability" Really?? | |
| Feb 19, 2014 at 23:12 | history | answered | Adrian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |