The "T" tail is subject to "deep stall", because as you mentioned the wings blank airflow to the horizontal stabilizer at high angles of attack. The result is a stall from which recovery is impossible. This phenomenon cost a BAC-111 prototype during flight testing. I believe for this reason, "T" tail designs stick pushers are vital, the idea is to avoid the stall in the first place. On a prop, a few have tried T-tails more for stylistic reasons. Again these have been less than well received. The propwash over the tail actually helps get it responding even before flying speed is reached. This improves control responsiveness at low airspeeds and again can make stall recovery more positive and effective. Mike Gammon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerard M Foley" <gfoley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 12:48 PM Subject: Re: Airbus question > From: "Peter Schneider" <Peter.Schneider@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:33 AM > > > > All airliners are boring these days!! The design computers always throw > > out basically the same shape and layout for who ever makes it. What ever > > happened to the 'T' tail design on airliners (not commuter jets) > > > As I understand it, it's basically undesirable from a control point of view. > It has to be used if the engines are mounted aft on the fuselage. I suspect > that the control moments would be too much affected by engine thrust if the > horizontal stabilizer were close to the engine exhaust gas stream. > > One disadvantage is that the horizontal stabilizer is blanketed by the wing > at high angles of attack. > > Gerry > http://foley.ultinet.net/~gerry/aerial/aerial.html > http://home.columbus.rr.com/gfoley > http://members.fortunecity.com/gfoley/egypt/egypt.html >