What does flying mean?

[Jose[_1_]]

In the context of aircraft said to have a "flying tail", what does
"flying" mean? I mean, if the tail isn't flying, neither is the
airplane, right?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

> In the context of aircraft said to have a "flying tail", what does
> "flying" mean? I mean, if the tail isn't flying, neither is the
> airplane, right?
>
There are other efforts in this newsgroup to redefine what "flying" means.
;-)

However, I think your example takes its meaning from historic naval and/or
architectural usages, where one "flies" a sail or a superstructure. It
describes a method of suspension, so no motion is required of the item
being "flown".

Neil

[Jose[_1_]]

> Troll or real?

Real.

I've seen referencs to "such and such an aircraft has a flying tail". I
imagine it means "out of the slipstream", but it sound sort of dumb to
me. Is it more than marketspeak? Does "flying tail" actually mean
something?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:13:19 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Troll or real?
>
>Real.
>
>I've seen referencs to "such and such an aircraft has a flying tail". I
>imagine it means "out of the slipstream", but it sound sort of dumb to
>me. Is it more than marketspeak? Does "flying tail" actually mean
>something?
>
Wasn't it "all-flying tail"? And didn't it refer to stabilators? I
took it to mean that instead of changing the chord, as with elevators,
the angle of attack of the horizontal stabilizer changed. The
implication might have been that there was less drag, or less change
of drag, that way.

Don

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>> Troll or real?
>
>
> Real.
>
> I've seen referencs to "such and such an aircraft has a flying tail". I
> imagine it means "out of the slipstream", but it sound sort of dumb to
> me. Is it more than marketspeak? Does "flying tail" actually mean
> something?

A flying tail means it isn't a separate stabilizer and elevator. The
Cessna Cardinal has an all flying tail. I believe the Cherokees do also.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:10:05 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>In the context of aircraft said to have a "flying tail", what does
>"flying" mean? I mean, if the tail isn't flying, neither is the
>airplane, right?
>
>Jose

Is this a troll? :-)

It means there is no control surface; the entire elevator or rudder
moves to provide control, not just a portion of it, IMO.

[Jose[_1_]]

> A flying tail means it isn't a separate stabilizer and elevator. The Cessna Cardinal has an all flying tail. I believe the Cherokees do also.

Thanks. This of course rasises the question of what part of the tail is
"not flying" in a stabilizer/elevator configuration.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Danny Deger]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:10:05 GMT, Jose >
> wrote in >:
>
>>In the context of aircraft said to have a "flying tail", what does
>>"flying" mean? I mean, if the tail isn't flying, neither is the
>>airplane, right?
>>
>>Jose
>
> Is this a troll? :-)
>
> It means there is no control surface; the entire elevator or rudder
> moves to provide control, not just a portion of it, IMO.
>

I think you meant to say the "entire horizontal or vertical stabilizer
moves".

Danny Deger

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jose wrote:
> In the context of aircraft said to have a "flying tail", what does
> "flying" mean? I mean, if the tail isn't flying, neither is the
> airplane, right?

I always understood it to mean a one-piece stabilizer / elevator
assembly, like my Sundowner or many PA-28's. This is opposed to an
elevator hinged to the stabilizer.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jose wrote:
>
>
> Thanks. This of course rasises the question of what part of the tail is
> "not flying" in a stabilizer/elevator configuration.

Think of how the operation of the trim tab differs on either
configuration.

[Peter Dohm]

> >I've seen referencs to "such and such an aircraft has a flying tail". I
> >imagine it means "out of the slipstream", but it sound sort of dumb to
> >me. Is it more than marketspeak? Does "flying tail" actually mean
> >something?
> >
> Wasn't it "all-flying tail"? And didn't it refer to stabilators? I
> took it to mean that instead of changing the chord, as with elevators,
> the angle of attack of the horizontal stabilizer changed. The
> implication might have been that there was less drag, or less change
> of drag, that way.
>
I've always heard it to mean stabilator, for pitch control, so that the the
entire horizontal tail surface is "flown." This would be as
opposed/compared to a fixed stabilizer and moveable elevator, which has the
effect of variable camber.

The same can be done with the vertical tail, although the only place I have
personally seen it was a Folker Triplane replica. It flew quite well, at
the hands of a very good pilot, but what I saw indicated that I was NOT
qualified to try it. (Back then, planes flew much closer to people on the
ground, and observers could be quite close to the runway, so the required
rudder work was more visible.)

Peter

[Dudley Henriques]

The term was originally coined by North American Aviation Company to
describe the new powered stabilator on their F86E. Prior to the E model, the
Sabre had a conventional horizontal stabilizer. The E had boosted controls
all around and an artificial sensing feedback into the stick that duplicated
normal stick forces for the pilot. Very innovative, and the harbinger of
things that came after. Made it much easier to control the 86 in pitch as
the shock wave going through the transonic region passed the stabilizer. No
elevator....no hinge to trap the shock wave....very smooth transonic
transition for the 86.
Your generic ole' Cherokee 140 has a flying tail........not boosted of
course...unless somebody tries to lift the airplane by the tail while
pushing it on the ground which is usually met by the owner of the bird with
threats of bodily harm and injury :-))
Dudley Henriques


"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
> In the context of aircraft said to have a "flying tail", what does
> "flying" mean? I mean, if the tail isn't flying, neither is the airplane,
> right?
>
> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Peter Dohm wrote:
the effect of variable camber.
>
> The same can be done with the vertical tail, although the only place
> I have personally seen it was a Folker Triplane replica. It flew
> quite well, at the hands of a very good pilot, but what I saw
> indicated that I was NOT qualified to try it. (Back then, planes
> flew much closer to people on the ground, and observers could be
> quite close to the runway, so the required rudder work was more
> visible.)
>
> Peter

The 601XL I'm building has an all flying vertical tail.

www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> Troll or real?
>
>
> Real.
>
> I've seen referencs to "such and such an aircraft has a flying tail". I
> imagine it means "out of the slipstream", but it sound sort of dumb to
> me. Is it more than marketspeak? Does "flying tail" actually mean
> something?

They are also called stabilators (at least I think that is Piper's
nomenclature for the PA28 family). The entire horizontal tail moves
when youy move the controls vs. just the elevator on a traditional
horizontal tail. So, you are "flying" or controlling the entire
horizontal tail surface.

I'm not sure what the aerodynamic pros can cons are, but having flown
well over 100 hours in Pipers and much more in Cessnas, I haven't seen a
huge difference. The biggest difference I've seen in the Arrow I fly
now as that almost as soon as it touches down you lose a fair bit of
elevator authority and it tends to drop the nosewheel a little more
harshly than I prefer. None of the Cessnas I've flow had the tendency.
The nose would gradually drop with airspeed during the roll-out.


Matt

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Typically refers to one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
> In the context of aircraft said to have a "flying tail", what does
> "flying" mean? I mean, if the tail isn't flying, neither is the airplane,
> right?
>
> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> So, you are "flying" or controlling the entire horizontal tail surface.

Ok, that's my first hint at the meaning of "flying" in that context.
Controlling.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Dohm]

> > The same can be done with the vertical tail, although the only place
> > I have personally seen it was a Folker Triplane replica. It flew
> > quite well, at the hands of a very good pilot, but what I saw
> > indicated that I was NOT qualified to try it. (Back then, planes
> > flew much closer to people on the ground, and observers could be
> > quite close to the runway, so the required rudder work was more
> > visible.)
> >
>
> The 601XL I'm building has an all flying vertical tail.
>
> www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>
>
Darn! I swear I saw pictures of that--and forgot.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

> I'm not sure what the aerodynamic pros can cons are, but having flown
> well over 100 hours in Pipers and much more in Cessnas, I haven't seen a
> huge difference. The biggest difference I've seen in the Arrow I fly
> now as that almost as soon as it touches down you lose a fair bit of
> elevator authority and it tends to drop the nosewheel a little more
> harshly than I prefer. None of the Cessnas I've flow had the tendency.
> The nose would gradually drop with airspeed during the roll-out.
>
I suspect, but don't really know, that the placement of the main
undercarriage is a greater factor in the effect than the stabilator. I
vaguely recall that Piper took advantage of the greater control authority
possible with the stabilator to install a slightly smaller horizontal tail
surface on one or more models--although I thought that it was the Archer.

The PA-38 Tomahawk, which had a Tee mounted fixed stabilizer and moveable
elevator, exhibited essentially the same trait. If you held the nose off,
it would drop rather precipitously. It also had the main undercarriage
mounted farther aft than a Cessna of similar weight--presumably to prevent
tipping the aircraft on its tail when the boarding step was in use.

The high wing Cessnas faced no such consideration, and the nose wheel could
be held off much longer and dropped more slowly.

Peter

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> > I'm not sure what the aerodynamic pros can cons are, but having flown
> > well over 100 hours in Pipers and much more in Cessnas, I haven't seen a
> > huge difference. The biggest difference I've seen in the Arrow I fly
> > now as that almost as soon as it touches down you lose a fair bit of
> > elevator authority and it tends to drop the nosewheel a little more
> > harshly than I prefer. None of the Cessnas I've flow had the tendency.
> > The nose would gradually drop with airspeed during the roll-out.
> >
> I suspect, but don't really know, that the placement of the main
> undercarriage is a greater factor in the effect than the stabilator. I
> vaguely recall that Piper took advantage of the greater control authority
> possible with the stabilator to install a slightly smaller horizontal tail
> surface on one or more models--although I thought that it was the Archer.

fyi - Later cherokees (including the Archer) have a large stabilator than the
earlier cherokees.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Dohm wrote:

>>I'm not sure what the aerodynamic pros can cons are, but having flown
>>well over 100 hours in Pipers and much more in Cessnas, I haven't seen a
>> huge difference. The biggest difference I've seen in the Arrow I fly
>>now as that almost as soon as it touches down you lose a fair bit of
>>elevator authority and it tends to drop the nosewheel a little more
>>harshly than I prefer. None of the Cessnas I've flow had the tendency.
>> The nose would gradually drop with airspeed during the roll-out.
>>
>
> I suspect, but don't really know, that the placement of the main
> undercarriage is a greater factor in the effect than the stabilator. I
> vaguely recall that Piper took advantage of the greater control authority
> possible with the stabilator to install a slightly smaller horizontal tail
> surface on one or more models--although I thought that it was the Archer.
>
> The PA-38 Tomahawk, which had a Tee mounted fixed stabilizer and moveable
> elevator, exhibited essentially the same trait. If you held the nose off,
> it would drop rather precipitously. It also had the main undercarriage
> mounted farther aft than a Cessna of similar weight--presumably to prevent
> tipping the aircraft on its tail when the boarding step was in use.
>
> The high wing Cessnas faced no such consideration, and the nose wheel could
> be held off much longer and dropped more slowly.

Yes, I definitely can't say this is a flying tail feature, I just know
that making a smooth nosewheel touchdown in the Arrow requires you to
land well above stall speed. Anything within about 5 MPH of stall and
the nose comes down briskly, often enough to get a slight bounce.
Nothing dangerous, just annoying and makes it harder to impress the
passengers! :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
>
>>>I'm not sure what the aerodynamic pros can cons are, but having flown
>>>well over 100 hours in Pipers and much more in Cessnas, I haven't seen a
>>> huge difference. The biggest difference I've seen in the Arrow I fly
>>>now as that almost as soon as it touches down you lose a fair bit of
>>>elevator authority and it tends to drop the nosewheel a little more
>>>harshly than I prefer. None of the Cessnas I've flow had the tendency.
>>> The nose would gradually drop with airspeed during the roll-out.
>>>
>>
>>I suspect, but don't really know, that the placement of the main
>>undercarriage is a greater factor in the effect than the stabilator. I
>>vaguely recall that Piper took advantage of the greater control authority
>>possible with the stabilator to install a slightly smaller horizontal tail
>>surface on one or more models--although I thought that it was the Archer.
>
>
> fyi - Later cherokees (including the Archer) have a large stabilator than the
> earlier cherokees.

When does "later" start? The Arrow I fly is a 67.


Matt

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:46:10 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Bob Noel wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> fyi - Later cherokees (including the Archer) have a large stabilator than the
>> earlier cherokees.
>
>When does "later" start? The Arrow I fly is a 67.
>
The club's '73/74 Challenger, the first year with the stretched
fueslage and the year before they tapered the wing and called the bird
an archer has longer wings by a foot on each side than the 180D, and
similar inserts in the stabilator, though I'm not sure how wide they
are -- probably a foot each side as well.

The old T-hangar barely fits the Challenger, just a couple of inches
to spare, especially on the stabilator, while the '67 235 fits in
easily.

Don