HOME | DD

perttime In reply to Kryptid [2012-06-24 11:47:52 +0000 UTC]

I wouldn't worry about directional stability too much, with computers looking after stability through all control surfaces and probably vectoring thrust too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kryptid In reply to perttime [2012-06-25 00:20:39 +0000 UTC]

Computers can only stabilize an aircraft if the control surfaces are large enough for the computer to effectively use. Thrust vectoring can only stabilize an aircraft as long as the engines are running; what if one of the engines dies in flight?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

perttime In reply to Kryptid [2012-06-26 19:49:41 +0000 UTC]

Computers can - and do - stabilize an aircraft without the use of vertical surfaces. Take a look at Northrop Grumman B-2, latest UCAVs, etc.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kryptid In reply to perttime [2012-06-26 20:10:48 +0000 UTC]

That assumes that there are other control surfaces present to do the same job as rudders; the B-2 has split ailerons which increase drag on one side of the aircraft or the other to induce a yawing moment. Without those, all the computer power in the world would be meaningless.

I didn't see any mentioning of split ailerons in the description of this aircraft. Those also don't tend to work as well on fighter aircraft because the moment arm (and therefore control authority) is much less than on a subsonic flying wing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

perttime In reply to Kryptid [2012-06-26 20:27:57 +0000 UTC]

We'll leave it to thrust vectoring, then. If the engine quits on a single-engine figher, you are not flying home anyway. If one of the engines quits on a two-engine fighter, you'll get home, unless somebody attacks you. The thrust vectoring should have enough control authority to fly straight on one engine.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0