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