View Single Post
Old 08-23-2013, 10:48 AM   #11 (permalink)
skyking
Master EcoModder
 
skyking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tacoma WA
Posts: 1,399

Woody - '96 Dodge Ram 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 23.82 mpg (US)

Avion and Woody - '96 Dodge/Avion Ram 2500/5th wheel combo
90 day: 15.1 mpg (US)

TD eye eye eye - '03 Volkswagen Beetle GLS
90 day: 49.05 mpg (US)

Mule - '07 Dodge Ram 3500 ST
Thanks: 743
Thanked 528 Times in 344 Posts
I love those performance projections from an RC or computer modeling. So phony
with fixed wing aircraft, you get pitch stability 3 ways:
1: Downforce from a conventional tail. This by far is the most stable arrangement through the whole speed range.
2: A second lifting surface out front, a canard. This is the most efficient. It is also prone to really nasty behavior. Deep stalls you cannot recover from, annoying pitching action from simple rain, etc.
3: computer generated stability via fly by wire. Very nice for high maneuverability, very pricy, and deadly when it fails.

Here is a classic example of positive pitch stability. During my CFI training, we were out spinning the cessna 150. My instructor showed me a neat trick. Trim the aircraft for 65 MPH, then pull it up to stall. hammer a rudder and get it into a nice spin. Close the throttle.
Let go of all the controls!
It will nose down and recover from the spin immediately. Then it continues pointed down as the airspeed builds. It will then pitch up due to the trim being set for 65 MPH, and not exceed the yellow arc in the recovery. Still no pilot input whatsoever. Maximum airspeed was about 115 MPH.
Of course, you have to capture the plane as it pitches through level flight or it will go up and stall again

__________________




2007 Dodge Ram 3500 SRW 4x4 with 6MT
2003 TDI Beetle
2002 TDI Beetle

currently parked - 1996 Dodge 2500 Cummins Turbodiesel
Custom cab, auto, 3.55 gears
  Reply With Quote