Talk:Stabilator

message: This article mentions the flying tailplane but does mention the slab tailplane, which is different, I beleive. If I were more sure of the distinction I would add it. Can someone here please help? 165.91.64.181 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: slab tailplane

message: I saw a parked Boeing 747 with its two horizontal stabilizers at markedly different angles of attack, and subsequently asked a retired airline pilot now involved in pilot training about this. He explained that: 
"The Boeing 747 use both tailerons and ailerons to provide roll control, as otherwise the roll response is too slow; before ailerons alone could start to roll the fuselage, the wing tips would have to flex a long way."
So far I have found no citations on the internet to confirm this statement. Relevant Boeing training material or other documents should confirm this. Does this apply to other large aircraft? If so which? Can anyone help? GilesW (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boeing 747 tailerons 

message: The use of the phrase "all flying" is confusing (eg "All flying tailplanes were used from early times ..."), and in the literature seems to be interchangable with "all-flying". IMHO the use of "all flying" should be limited, and replaced with "all-flying" in most cases. Opinions? Chalky (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "All flying" or "all-flying"?

message: Show me your citation for this statement --Stodieck (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think one is needed. We know that a canard foreplane can act as a stabilizer, we know that a stabilizer can also act as an elevator, the refore a canard foreplane can act as a stabilator. Rather, you need a reference to support the idea that the normal rules of language do not apply. Or, if you think that in spite of your PoV being outvoted, an all-flying canard is different and can never act as a stabiliser, then you will need to reference that. Until then, you need to stop your destructive edits of other contributors' material. Just for starters, googling "all flying canard" collects 5,910 hits. Go to it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

text: IF you wish to challenge the point, you can add a Citation Needed tag or similar - see here for more options. But don't summarily delete other editors' work. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A stabilator can also be mounted in front of the main [[wing]] 

message: Google search : Stabilator : 144 000 occurences - all-moving tail : 73 600 000 occurences</br>
All-moving tail  : in Abzug - Larrabee Airplane stability and control</br> 
Fully-movable tail : in Hoerner Fluid Dynamic Lift Plxdesi2 (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: All-moving tail

message: "Stabilator" misfunction is given as the cause of a prototype Blackhawk crash in 1978 but helicopter stabilators do not seem to be addressed in the article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helicopters and stabilators 

message: "Most modern airliners adjust the tailplane angle of incidence to trim during flight as fuel is burned and the center of gravity moves."
: Maybe the tailplane adjustment main cause is not the CoG movement but the important pitch moment variation caused by wing camber modification (flaps) and by power setting (engines thrust lower than drag > positive pitch moment).  
"These adjustments are handled by adjustable incidence horizontal stabilizers. However, such adjustable stabilizers are not the same as stabilators; a stabilator is controlled by the pilot's control yoke (or stick), when an adjustable stabilizer is controlled by the trim system."
:Do that means a stabilator is a flight control system and an adjustable stabilizer is a trim system ?
:If "modern airliners" means computer controlled aircraft, I don't know the difference between adjustable stabilizer and stabilator. The pilot give an input order (up or down), then the computer moves the rear part (elevator) of the stabilator and, at the same time, automatically adjust the incidence of the front part in order to reduce the elevator deflection relative to the front part (to keep max travel and reduce drag). I have to check this point. Plxdesi2 (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Airbus "auto trim" function  or "No requirement to change pitch trim for changes in airspeed, configuration, or bank up to 33 degrees." .  Plxdesi2 (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding has always been that an adjustable stabilizer has a conventional elevator hinged to the back of it. The pitch control system acts on the elevator only, while the trim system acts on the whole tailplane (i.e. directly on the forward stabilizer section and hence indirectly on the elevator also). But as you are by now aware, I am not always right! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be the case with the 1928 "American Moth". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: American Moth, Me 109 and Piper-Cub (if I remember corrrectly) had a conventional tail, the pitch trim acting on the forward section, forming with the elevators an adjustable stabiliser, ok. Coming back to all-moving tail, modern airliners, do you mean that  "adjustable stabilizer controlled by the trim system" applies to computer controlled aircraft ?  Plxdesi2 (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The grammar of the sentence makes no such limitation, and I don't think any was intended. As a discipline, modern systems engineering treats the pilot as part of the system, just as much as any mechanical component. Whether the adjustment is manual or computer-controlled, it is still a trim system. I assume that is the meaning here also. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

text: In the context of an all-moving surface, I wonder if there is also a difference between a stabilator with added movable trim tab, and a truly monolithic stabilator surface which also adjusts for trim. I have not thought through the naming implications, but as I don't recall ever seeing a stabilator trim tab, it may not matter anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Airliners

message: I see no mention here or elsewhere an Wikipedia about one-piece vertical stabs/rudders/tails/tailfeathers. These were used extensively in early aviation and somewhat today. Also a full-flying/all-moving tail gives me an image of an entire tail assemblage pivoting in front of the tail such as an early Demoiselle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flight Risk (talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: All-Moving, Full-Flying, Vertical Stabilizer/Tail