flight with no tail feathers at all?

[Dave Krall CFII]

Can a bird fly with no tail feathers at all?

 

[Pi1otguy]

The tail feathers act as both rudder, elevator, creates additional lift while soaring and acts as an air brake. I doubt most birds could balance their CG enough to not need their tail feathers.

http://petcaretips.net/bird-feather.html

 

[etsisk]

A bat doesn't have any, does it?

 

[Tom-D]

Would a cunard design be considered to have tail feathers ?

 

[Dean]

A bat doesn't have any, does it?

A bat is not a bird.

 

[Chairboy]

Ask Alexander Lippisch.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I happened to be somewhat amazed at accidentally discovering the answer the other day around my bird feeder. By the way, a bat has a tail made of thin skin which it uses in many conventional flying capacities plus to help scoop up victims while in flight ...and no, bats aren't birds, they're tiny bears with wings and rabies.

Anyway, I took PIX and video of a mature Stellar's Jay that FLEW in to feed recently with every tail feather gone, right down to the roots, I mean NONE left. It flys around and maneuvers through the air and tree branches like nothing is strange!

 

[bsdunek]

Many years ago our Parakeet had a confrontation with our cat. Parakeet lost all his tail feathers and a little pride. First flights were a little awkward, but he soon flew very well. Guess they can. B)

 

[Pi1otguy]

Did the Parakeet check its MEL?

 

[tonycondon]

sure it can be done, just takes a highly advanced control system and computer, like what the B2 has, or a bird brain.

 

[etsisk]

A bat is not a bird.

I refer you to the subject: flight with no tail feathers at all? Just because a bat isn't a bird, it is certainly pertinent to the topic!

 

[mikea]

 

[KennyFlys]

sure it can be done, just takes a highly advanced control system and computer, like what the B2 has, or a bird brain.

I recall reading that was exactly why the first version of the "flying wing" could not fly. Adjustments were required faster than the pilots could manually enter. The computer can interpret attitude changes and make corrections faster than a pilot could even recognize what was happening.

 

[Joe B]

I recall reading that was exactly why the first version of the "flying wing" could not fly. Adjustments were required faster than the pilots could manually enter. The computer can interpret attitude changes and make corrections faster than a pilot could even recognize what was happening.

Propaganda. The flying wing flew just fine. They flew it from California to Washington DC and back. What it didn't do well was stall. If you stalled it, it'd start tumbling end-over-end. One of the test pilots discovered this phenomenon and managed to recover. Another flight crew didn't recover. They named Air Force bases after the pilot and copilot (Forbes and Edwards.) But even stall instability was manageable - there are lots of jets around today that aren't safe to stall, either. The chief problem with the early flying wing program was that the aircraft didn't meet its design objective: the A-bomb was too big for the plane to carry it. Northrup tried to sell the flying wing to the AF for other uses. The project became embroiled in procurement politics (sponsored by manufacturers of competing aircraft) and lost. But flying wings were still flying without computer-assisted anything until the Air Force killed the project.

Regards,
Joe