4 ms·
> A little scary? Perhaps, but it’s not unprecedented. The B2 stealth bomber, for example, famously lacks a vertical stabilizer (tail fin) and so is inherentl
by oliveshell 8y ago
> A little scary?
Perhaps, but it’s not unprecedented. The B2 stealth bomber, for example, famously lacks a vertical stabilizer (tail fin) and so is inherently unstable and relies on computerized control surfaces to maintain stable flight [1].
This seems to have worked fine, although the things definitely log way fewer flight hours than an airliner. I believe several other aircraft do this as well (fighter jets and such).
Still, the idea of it would give me the willies if I were in charge of flying one.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Flight_controls https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#...
- azernik 8y agoFighters, in particular, are designed to be unstable to increase their control authority. That is, as an intended design feature they are easy to turn intentionally, which means they are also prone to turn unintentionally.
- woodrowbarlow 8y agoi don't know anything about aircraft, but i would be inclined to think that the lack of tail fin on a B2 isn't just a design flaw or technical debt from the previous model and that there were other reasons for it.
- oliveshell 8y agoYou’re right— the B2 was designed like it was in order to minimize radar cross-section at all costs. One could see, though, how a Boeing engineer could point to the B2 and fighters that rely on software for safe flight and say “See? They do it and it’s fine!” as a justification. Not that I’m saying that makes it right.
- mirimir 8y agoI've also been reminded of that. But performance / safety tradeoffs are totally different for military vs civilian aircraft. Military pilots have agreed to far greater risks than civilian pilots. And far^N greater risks than civilian passengers.