Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
15. You description is relative and I am not sure most aeronautical engineers would agree with you.
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 12:47 PM
Sep 2012

Unstable is better used for airplanes that require an active control system like the Wobbly Goblin (F-117), aircraft that without active and continuous control inputs would diverge. Yes an L-39 is less sedate that the plodding light aircraft designs of the late 50s/early 60s, but so are most LSAs, which are rapidly becoming the dominant trainers for GA. For example, compare a Remos with 150 or 172. Those that used to whine about the "aggressive handling" of the GA Grumman line would be in shock today.

I have several dozen different aircraft in my logbooks, including the Albatross. It was not particularly unstable. Controls are light, but the aircraft does not have a strong tendency to diverge. It was a knock off of the T-38 and handles much like it in many ways.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Pilot killed in Iowa air ...»Reply #15