Severe Turbo Lag...suggestions???

[Rotary Junkie]

200+?!? Ahem. 320+.

It's not for stability, anyways. It's to keep the danged thing on the ground.

 

[KiwiBoy]

200+?!? Ahem. 320+.

It's not for stability, anyways. It's to keep the danged thing on the ground.

Isn't that the same idea?

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Not quite. Planes are stable, aren't they?

 

[Greycap]

It depends. The old ones with physical control linkages were pretty stable as they had to be able to fly themselves to a point, though some fighters - for example the Polikarpov I-16 - were impossible to fly "hands off" due to the instability. On the other hand, those ones were also the most manoeuvrable ones. Most fighter designs were compromises between stability and manoueuvrability, with just enough stability to prevent falling off the sky.

The modern planes can be designed with fly-by-wire in mind, with the computer continuously keeping the plane in check to prevent side slipping, which would inevitably lead to a spin after a while. The McDonnell Douglas F-15 is a very good example of this, it has a very small side profile exposing it to slipping. It would be a nearly impossible aircraft to fly without fly-by-wire.

Here ends the lesson in "aerodynamics for everyone", hope you learned something.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Thank you, Warbird Freak!