Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

pelikan tail.. why no es bueno?

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • J-31 Burrito
    Senior Member

    pelikan tail.. why no es bueno?

    based on a thread here

    i noticed that many companies attempted a pelikan tail but opted against it going to a conventional 4 tail solution. so far the only problem cited is weight but it seems the advantages are high.. especially in the stealth aspect

    for example:

    McD's JAST started with a pelikan tail


    later switched to a conventional tail



    Boink started with a pelikan tail
    http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru....html#msg18031

    later switched to a conventional tail
  • Distiller
    Talent on Loan from God

    #2
    The wide-V tail is for those who don't dare to go no-tail (which no-one dares in a tactical fastmover, as of yet).
    "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

    Comment

    • Wanderlei
      Rank 5 Registered User

      #3
      Would F-23 have had to change to conventional tail as well, if it had won the competition against F-22?

      does it reduce maneuverability?

      Comment

      • Berkut
        Senior Member

        #4
        F-23 would have same tail yes.

        There is a very common conception that YF-23 was less maneuverable, but i seem to recall that Paul Metz said it was equal to YF-22, or atleast very close.

        Comment

        • Snow Monkey
          Rank 5 Registered User

          #5
          what is the stealth advantage?
          i mean, these components can be built entirely of composites, so aren't/don't need to be radar reflecting anyways.

          Comment

          • Freehand
            Rank 5 Registered User

            #6
            Tilt

            Originally posted by Snow Monkey View Post
            what is the stealth advantage?
            i mean, these components can be built entirely of composites, so aren't/don't need to be radar reflecting anyways.
            The fins would have to be canted at angle equal to others on the aircraft to be stealthy. That, along with RAM and anti-RADAR construction

            Comment

            • Sign
              Rank 5 Registered User

              #7
              Originally posted by Snow Monkey View Post
              what is the stealth advantage?
              i mean, these components can be built entirely of composites, so aren't/don't need to be radar reflecting anyways.
              two surfaces in an angle to each other is good reflector for geting the signal back the same way it came from, instead of sending it in another direction. the best for stealth is to get rid of the rudder once and for all, and all depend on TVC
              Attached Files
              Last edited by Sign; 28th December 2012, 01:11.

              Comment

              • Sundog
                Rank 5 Registered User

                #8
                A few points. One, when aircraft are being developed many tails are tested on them. I've yet to see any evidence that the McD-Northrop design switched to the four tails for the production variant, it was just one of the many variations tested.

                Two, the reason the X-32 went with the conventional tail instead of the Pelikan tail was due to the design team leader being conservative, since they knew what to expect from the four tailed design more so than the Pelikan tail design; I.e., it was less risky.

                Three, the YF-23 had a butterfly tail, not a Pelikan tail. The production version also had the butterfly tail.

                The difference between the butterfly tail and the Pelikan tail is the butterfly tail has the standard actuator at a pinion mounting into the side of the fuselage. Where as the Pelikan tail uses a trunion mount at the trailing edge portion of the fuselage where part of the control surface is also horizontal on the trailing edge behind the trunion mount. You can see this kind of mounting used on the F-35 and T-50 PAK-FA stabilators. It handles the loads better by distributing them more which should, theoretically, lead to a lower weight solution.

                Comment

                Unconfigured Ad Widget

                Collapse

                 

                Working...
                X