Stabilator vs. Elevator

SkyChaser

SkyChaser

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
2,003
Display Name
Display name:
SkyChaser
I didn't want to derail the thread, but I saw over on the Cardinal picture thread someone saying "you can't fly a plane with a stabilator like a plane with an elevator", and that got me wondering - what is different about how a plane flies with one vs. the other? I've flown both, but I didn't know enough of what I was doing to feel or see any differences.
 
My limited experience in Cardinals says you can’t fly a Cardinal stabilator like a Cherokee stabilator.
 
I flew a Cardinal for many hours and never noticed an appreciable difference when landing at any speed.

I'm pretty sure only no-talent hamfisters whined about it.

Nyah.
 
Cardinals without the slot on the leading edge of the stabilator can stall the stabilator in the flare and drop the nose, but that's not common to all airplanes with stabilators. Lots of low-wing Pipers have stabilators and fly pretty normally.

Nauga,
and his hinge moment
 
I fly a low-wing Piper with a stabilator, and I can guarantee you it doesn't stall and drop the nose during flare flying normal landings. :)
 
I've owned, flown and instructed in both stabilator and elevator types. To me in general the stabilators seem more sensitive and require more pitch trim adjustment in cruise. Not bad, just different.

Former Cessna aerodynamicist and test pilot Bill Thompson wrote about the Cardinal's development:

"The next decision was to place the wing extremely far aft on the fuselage to give better pilot visibility in turning flight. This, of course, produced a nose-heavy condition, further aggravating the large pitch-down forces caused by the long-span wing flaps. To obtain the tremendous elevator power needed for a tail-low touchdown at a forward center of gravity position of only 5% of mean aerodynamic chord (MAC), we were forced to use an all-movable (stabilator) horizontal tail. For comparison, the C-172 forward C.G. limit was a more typical 15.5% MAC."​

SkyChaser said:
I fly a low-wing Piper with a stabilator, and I can guarantee you it doesn't stall and drop the nose during flare flying normal landings. :)
Click to expand...
Looking at the all the aerodynamic gimmickry (slots, fences, fillets) on the stabilator of a T-tail Arrow makes me think Piper engineers had a heckuva time getting that thing to fly right.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
...Looking at the all the aerodynamic gimmickry (slots, fences, fillets) on the stabilator of a T-tail Arrow makes me think Piper engineers had a heckuva time getting that thing to fly right.
Click to expand...

Didn't they come to their senses in short order about those T-tails?
It was sort of the aviation equivalent of tailfins on cars, 25 years later. Another marketing idea, taken to excess, and subsequently abandoned.
 
Rgbeard said:
hey, now!

some of us actually like ‘em!
Click to expand...

Given enough time most start to acquire that unique retro cachet. The remaining Piper T-tails probably turn heads on the ramp a lot more than their more numerous and boring looking conventional tail cousins, just like '57 Bel Airs, '59 Cadillacs and Roadmasters. Even the monstrosity '59 Chevrolet Impala looks suitably retro chic today, although I have to believe that was the automotive "jumping the shark" moment that finally turned the tide on tailfins at the time.
 
GRG55 said:
The remaining Piper T-tails probably turn heads on the ramp a lot more than their more numerous and boring looking conventional tail cousins, just like '57 Bel Airs, '59 Cadillacs and Roadmasters.
Click to expand...
Interesting story about the demise of the T-tail PA-32, and it even tangentially involves Rusty's airplane.

A year or so ago, Rusty posted a photo of his 1978 Turbo Lance II N20817, coincidentally parked next to a 1980 Turbo Saratoga N20816 on the ramp at El Monte CA. So why would a newer airplane have a registration one number below Rusty's? It turns out that N20816 was indeed the '78 Turbo Lance II built just ahead of Rusty's. But N20816 was pulled off the line and modified into the prototype of what was supposed to be the 1980 Turbo Lance III, with tapered wings and a wider-span T-tail stabilator.

I recently heard from a guy who was in Marketing at Piper at that time, and he revealed what happened:

"I and my family have a number of hours flying that particular airplane - N20816. Below is a pic of when it was a T-tail (PA32RT-301T)... was going to be the Lance III. When Engineering gave me the charts/specs/data and I did a wt & balance, I called corporate and that afternoon the program was killed - could not get more than 5 people in the aircraft without going out of CG. I believe that was a Thursday and by Monday it was ready to fly as a low tail."


​
Thus N20816 became the very first Turbo Saratoga SP. About 35 Lance IIIs were already under construction, and they were hastily reworked into Saratogas.
 
SkyChaser said:
I didn't want to derail the thread, but I saw over on the Cardinal picture thread someone saying "you can't fly a plane with a stabilator like a plane with an elevator", and that got me wondering - what is different about how a plane flies with one vs. the other? I've flown both, but I didn't know enough of what I was doing to feel or see any differences.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it is as simple as elevator vs stabilator. What airplane the stabilator/elevator is on probably has a lot more to do with it than the ‘pitch thang’ itself. My only comparison is a C177/B to a C150/C172/C182/C210. The stabilator Cardinal seemed easier to ‘lock in’ to holding altitude. All the others it seemed I was constantly ‘tweaking’ the trim.
 
Pilawt said:
Looking at the all the aerodynamic gimmickry (slots, fences, fillets) on the stabilator of a T-tail Arrow makes me think Piper engineers had a heckuva time getting that thing to fly right.
Click to expand...

Sorry...................dreaded thread drift here. But do you remember the very first Aero Commander Jet ad? You probably have it in your pile!!

I can't find it. But it read "No slits, slats, slots, or vortex generators." And then showed the beautiful clean wing. (Just like the below ad)

Of course, all that changed when they were forced to sell to Israel Aircraft Industries. Nobody liked to fly that airplane!!



Hold the presses!!!!..............I did find it.


https://www.ebay.com/itm/ROCKWELL-S...SLOTS-VORTEX-GENERATORS-1967-AD-/352955290457
 
Last edited:
SkyChaser said:
I fly a low-wing Piper with a stabilator, and I can guarantee you it doesn't stall and drop the nose during flare flying normal landings. :)
Click to expand...
I fly a low-wing Piper with a stabilator, and I can guarantee you it doesn't stall and drop the nose during flare flying abnormal/crappy landings. :)
 
The RV-12 has a stabilator, which I believe was done to minimize weight. The wing will stall long before the stab does.
 
I have flown a couple of types with stabilators, including a Cardinal RG. They mostly all handle OK and are just like airplanes with elevators. The PA-28 and 250 Comanche are also just fine. I got my Instrument rating in a Beachcraft A23 Musketeer. At the time, Stabilators were rare. No sweat.

One thing, however. The"Mouse" was prone to what is called "wheelbarrowing." I guess it was caused by a fwd CG with only the front seats occupied. The Stabiliator was powerful and had lots of authority even in the landing flair. The low wing still had lots of lift in ground effect. More so when full flaps were deployed. Pilots after touchdown, would apply some nose down pitch to "pin" the nose wheel on the ground. The powerful Stabilator would lift the mains off the ground. When watching other pilots land and pin the nose wheel, you could see about six or eight inches of daylight under the mains. They usually turned out OK. But if you landed with flaps down and got on the brakes, it would flat spot both tires. The type had manual flaps and could be retracted after touchdown, as fast as a switchblade. Then you got on the brakes. Or you just used a lot of RW. What the heck! you're a taxpayer.

It had a steerable nose wheel like lots of planes. If a pilot landed in a gusty crosswind, pinned the nose wheel, and used rudder to maintain heading, the nose wheel would take charge and run him off the RW. MLG being off the ground, and CG being separated by feet (instead of inches like a tail dragger) from the only wheel still on the ground, it would turn into a classic ground loop around the nose wheel.

FAA issued AC 90-34 in Feb, 1968 dealing with this. It was cancelled couple of years ago. I downloaded it and still have it. Beach turned the smaller 23-19 Sport into an acrobatic airplane and the stabilator was an asset.
 
Like others above I’ve found the stabilator sensitivity or ineffectiveness at slow speed or whatever other “bad behavior” it might have,to be more of an aircraft specific thing, usually caused by other problems.

Nose heavy design, stabilator not in prop-flow (t-tail Seminole), etc.

The stabilator on the Seminole is absolutely worthless below a certain airspeed for example. Then it’ll make the nose claw for the sky. Many call that “overly sensitive” but really it’s a result of it sitting on top of the T-tail completely out of any engine power effects. It’s just doing what airfoils do.

The Cardinals do tend to lose a touch of elevator authority when slow. Never found it to be extreme. But then again the 182 is supposedly “nose heavy” with a standard elevator too, and I’ve never found that to be a problem at correct airspeeds either.

Some Piper stabilators that aren’t up on a T-tail fly really nice. Very precise in cruise. Again some call that “too sensitive”. Trimmed, and not messing with it by hand, I call it precise. It’ll fly exactly where you trim it.

I can’t think of any bad habits the Mooney I used to fly had, moving its whole butt around. LOL.

Totally depends on the design and trade offs the designer was going for.
 
Rgbeard said:
hey, now!

some of us actually like ‘em!
Click to expand...
Advantage of a T-tail: no retrimming needed after power changes (with a low tail, your trimmed airspeed in a single will decrease when you add power and increase when you reduce power).

Disadvantage of a T-tail: does not become more effective with application of power (e.g. takeoff, stall recovery, keeping nose up in the flare).

As always in aviation, you have to give up one thing to gain another — there's no perfect design. T-tail pilots just choose a different trade-off.
 
I switched from a 56 172 to a 74 Cardinal RG.

In my case the stabilator is way more effective than the elevator on my 172 was, especially at slow speeds. I used to have to pull pretty hard on the 172 for the flare. Pull that hard on the RG and it will stand on its tail.

My transition instructor told me he thought that was the leading cause of the wheelbarrow reputation on the 68 Cardinal fixed gear issue.

My Cardinal is a fingertip plane.
 
Maxnr said:
Beach turned the smaller 23-19 Sport into an acrobatic airplane and the stabilator was an asset.
Click to expand...
What I thought was strange is the Beedh 23's have a weight in the tail. 10 to 20 pounds depending on model. My B19 is a bit nose heavy, retracting flaps after landing is SOP for effective braking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top