Why a T- Tail?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dockjock,
A T-tail should free up a little space up the back since there's no need to put a tailplane mainspar through the cabin.
As to noise, I think the use of a T-tail in itself won't make much difference - maybe a little because the fin will act to insulate any tail noise from the fuselage - but frankly trivial. More significantly, T-tails often go with rear engines, which are significantly quieter in the cabin (compare, say, cabin noise in a VC-10 and 707).
G
A T-tail should free up a little space up the back since there's no need to put a tailplane mainspar through the cabin.
As to noise, I think the use of a T-tail in itself won't make much difference - maybe a little because the fin will act to insulate any tail noise from the fuselage - but frankly trivial. More significantly, T-tails often go with rear engines, which are significantly quieter in the cabin (compare, say, cabin noise in a VC-10 and 707).
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Because an aircraft has rear mounted engines, or even an tailengine (like the 727) is does not nesecerly need T-tail, just look at the L1011 Tristar. In each case, you get some bennefits, but must pay at another counter, so to say. Example, you get more rudder for less weight useing fuselage mounted stabilators, but you pay at the drag counter. Useing T-tail give better flow bennefits, but you pay at the stall "counter" Most T-tail aeroplanes have shorter fuselage from wings to stabilator, proberbly because the extra weight of the engines only allows a certan length. If designed with fuselage mounted stabilators, you run into flow problem, because the stabilators are to close to the wash from the wings. So putting them higher solves that problem.
One is not better than the other, it just depends a lot on how the aeroplane is designed.
[This message has been edited by Roger Turbojet (edited 30 December 2000).]
One is not better than the other, it just depends a lot on how the aeroplane is designed.
[This message has been edited by Roger Turbojet (edited 30 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Air conditioned.
The Trident sufferred a superstall loss during development. The BEA GARPI incident at Staines was as you say caused by the stall prevention system being over-ridden. It didn't recover three times from a stall. It three times went into stall prevention mode which would have saved the plane if only they'd have let the computers do the flying. Once the system was dumped it immediately went into a stall. Just the one was enough.
In this style of plane if you stall you are dead. You can't recover. Well maybe from 50000 feet if you are lucky.
Reverser deployed
A parachute on your body is not much use but I think they normally put one on the tail to pull it back up once it has gone into a stall - for development only of course.
The Trident sufferred a superstall loss during development. The BEA GARPI incident at Staines was as you say caused by the stall prevention system being over-ridden. It didn't recover three times from a stall. It three times went into stall prevention mode which would have saved the plane if only they'd have let the computers do the flying. Once the system was dumped it immediately went into a stall. Just the one was enough.
In this style of plane if you stall you are dead. You can't recover. Well maybe from 50000 feet if you are lucky.
Reverser deployed
A parachute on your body is not much use but I think they normally put one on the tail to pull it back up once it has gone into a stall - for development only of course.
Guest
Posts: n/a
What's actually significant is the combination of the relative heights of the mainplane and tailplane, the distance between the two, and the downwash angle from the mainplane.
The design team SHOULD ensure that mainplane wash effects over the tailplane are ALWAYS minimal.
G
The design team SHOULD ensure that mainplane wash effects over the tailplane are ALWAYS minimal.
G
