1939

As always, great stuff guys!

Seems to me, based on the "empirical evidence" posted, that "if it looks right, it probably is!".

Sure, that's hardly solid engineering, but sure seems to be that way over the long term......

Cheers,
Ian
PS - Conversely, if it looks like ****, it probably is!

 

Helpful when shotup or Flak goes through it.

 

Reading through "old stuff" I recalled watching the fin on a B-17G from the radio compartment's gun position and you could see some slight "hunting" or yaw even in fairly stabile air. The B-24 was constantly sashaying back and forth and the horizontal tail bounced around all the time. An engine-out situation required a lot of rudder and from what I was told it sometimes took two legs on the rudder pedal.Rudder trim tabs were woefully small.

 

Bob- That is why my father ended up in fighters. At 5'5" and 120 lbs, he was not big enough for engine out on the heavies or even large twins. So they put him in a P-47 instead.

 

That's a good one, Terry. They turn around and put him in the biggest fighter in the inventory

 

The B-32 started with a twin tail like the B-24, and then a copy of the B-29 tail. But the B-32 had a shorter fuselage (and moment arm), so the tail was heightened, much as was later done by Boeing on the B-50, but the taller fins were of different shape.

The B-36 was also going to have a twin tail but that was changed before the first aircraft was built. Its vertical simply looked like a larger version of the B-29's.

 

Saw many B-36's as a kid in Albuquerque... huge vertical tail.

Wondering, is it total area of the vertical that makes it effective?

So would two (or 3 like the Connie) of the same area as the one be the same, more or less effective especially in an engine-out?

 

During my 20 minutes in the left seat of a -17 I found it would roll into a turn very nicely. Getting the thing to return to straight a level was a different story. Required rudder pressure was huge. Asked the pilot about trim and his response was 'there isn't any'. Can't imagine what it was like to fly home for a couple hrs with an engine out.

 

Fuselage blanking can be an issue at high AoA, but that was not really an issue with those kinds of aircraft. Big concern is structural because it is a lot easier to attach one large vertical stabilizer to the fuselage than two on the horizontal stabilizer. Flight controls are more complicated, too, more an issue back then than now.

Most modern fighters (not the F-16) have two vertical stabilizers, but attached to the fairly wide fuselage and canted to get them out of the aerodynamic shadow of the fuselage. Earlier single tail aircraft often had strakes on the bottom of the aircraft to provide yaw stability at high AoA. When one of those departed, it was often a yaw slice in one direction or the other, often quite violent.

 

So I'm guessing, but certainly don't claim to know, the twin tails on the Lancaster were done to aid 'stability'?

To me anyway, almost as pretty as the Spitfire. 'If it looks right it probably is' again..... But I'd love to understand the engineering theories behind such a design.

Cheers,
Ian
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Also meant to note; building plastic model kits of the thing was a lot of fun, *apart* from getting those vertical tail pieces to sit 'right'.... The horizontal tail to fin joint was terribly thin and they'd want to 'slip' and look terrible!

Cheers,
Ian

 

Rafael being an exception

I suspect some of this is due to changes in control laws for the tail surfaces, wherein both horizontal and vertical surfaces are all operating together to maximize performance. I imagine if a pilot just needs yaw he can get it by using only rudder, but rudder probably not required for general maneuvering (sort of like an Ercoupe, but not quite).

 

single tail, single engine, single pilot...the ultimate definition of a fighter airplane.

Rafale is a real snake of a plane too...even though it has two motors. The Rafale designers really did their homework and hit it out of the park with that one.

 

But it's *French*!

How is that even possible? The only military equipment they've ever used is the white flag!

(Again, J/K Nero! )

Cheers,
Ian

 

On a military airplane there could be several reasons for ten tails. Gun seep clearance, ruder control surfaces in the prop wash (effectiveness), increased control. Designer's choice.

 

Yeah, understood. I was thinking such a layout would be very beneficial to the tail gunner too.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Yeah, but Rafale really is one of the best fighters in the world and from an ergonomic point of view, it and the Viper have yet to be matched by any other fighter...

And the french have some very, very good "pilotes de chasse". I've had my @$$ handed to me by a Rafale on more than one occasion.

 

Rafale is definitely an outstanding 4th generation fighter. The French have had outstanding fighters all the way back to WW-1, Nieuports and SPADs, and WW-II, Dewoitine and Morane-Saulnier which they did not get much of a chance to highlight because the Germans bypassed the Maginot Line. The French have always had interesting and innovative technical solutions that were a bit out of the ordinary, but worked.

Note the Rafale is the aircraft now being sold to the Middle East, and not the Eurofighter Typhoon, which also has a single vertical stabilizer. The old problem with delta wings, flying speed-brakes at high AoA, has been overcome with thrust.

 

I meant to type tail gun SWEEP. If you look at the Lancaster it has a top aft turret and certainly a single fin would have cut the field of fire. The B-17 didn't have a top aft facing turret but a forward located full sweep turret, a tail turret, two side guns, and a ball turret that could face aft also. I also made a mistake to call Consolidated (B-24) by the name Convair. Convair didn't happen until after the war, I think. Hmm, I realize that there is a lot of old stuff stacked up in my noggin and sometimes I can withdraw the wrong card. Still enjoy this forum!

 

A Medal of Honor winner, Robert Morgan i believe, flew a B-17 back with the dead or dying pilot with a death grip on the column and I believe an engine out. He is not the same Morgan of Memphis Belle fame but he was a big strong guy that I met during the 50th Anniversary celebration of the B-17 in 1985. Re your comment on flying the B-17, I got right seat time in the 247 and found that it was also a "rudder airplane" . Ailerons were slow and you had to lead rudder when going into a turn and when coming out of one. The DC-3 is much better but the rudder is still important to get a wing up. I think that from flying some of the old airplanes, Waco's, Travelair's, that they all were rudder airplanes and for the most part, the ailerons were terrible.

 

The Medal of Honor winner to whom I referred was JOHN C. MORGAN. He passed away in 1991

 

Bob- Convair came from Consildated, Vultee, and air. Eventually absorbed by General Dynamics whose aircraft unit was absorbed by L-M, all of which you already knew. Lots of great names absorbed and disappeared in the late 20th Century. Boeing's old McDonnell-Douglas unit in St Louis may disappear soon with F-15 and F/A-18 orders winding down and the B-21 and JSF losses. Name has already disappeared.

Last years of the F-111, L-M was even crowing about Giant Voice bombing competition wins when they had absolutely nothing to do with the F-111 except buying the company that built them.

 

Understood. I also suspect you meant "two tails" and not ten!

And I know we all enjoy your contributions.

Cheers,
Ian
PS - For reasons that need not concern us here, I've just managed to return to your book. Continues to be fascinating reading.

 

Sorry guys, no offense intended; We Brit's can't resist a "subtle" dig at the French given the slightest opportunity. [And they of course return the favor! ]

As for the Eurofighter, is anyone outside the RAF I guess lumbered with it? I'm *way* out of touch, but vaguely recall it was heralded as the bees-knees when it first appeared? And weren't the French also involved in its development?

Cheers,
Ian

 

According to a "family tree" posted on a wall at work, Consolidated merged with Vultee in 1943 but the Convair name was unofficial until the company was acquired by General Dynamics in 1954, when it became the Convair Division. GD continued to use the Convair name for another decade but dropped common usage of the name (though the Convair Division continued to operate under that name) with the advent of the F-111.