Fly by wire has nothing to do with how stable the plane is. Airbus use fly by wire as did concord but the planes are not particularly unstable.
You are confusing making an unstable plane (stealth, F22, etc.) and needing fly by wire to fly it with what fly by wire is, its just a control system designed for a particular purpose.
As do quite a lot of stable aircraft, but the one thing they usually have in common is a mechanical back up if their computers fail. Even the true fly by wire and nothing else have a back up to get them home. It's a bit like the engine management in a car. If it goes bits up, there is still the ability to get you home in the software.
Why would a stealth aircraft require fly by wire?
The purpose is to allow a computer to fly the aircraft and nothing else. Let the pilot get on with seducing the air stewardess, ready for the sleepover. ;-) Remember the Trident aircraft, the first to be cleared for take off and landing in fog? That was computer assisted flight.
It's not because of the stealth. Recent high performance jet fighters are deliberately built to be unstable because it makes them more maneuverable. It's not possible to control them with human reflexes so fly-by-wire is necessary,
The C of G can and has been adjusted by adding ballast, made from spent uranium to the front or back of an aircraft, providing that the aircraft was designed conventionally as a stable one.
Its amount of stealth does not alter its ability to fly to any extent. Stealth is built into the airframe by careful use of angles and attention to gaps between panels. The idea of stealth is to reduce the aircraft's radar profile down to the size of a small number of birds and to reduce the heat that comes from the engines. To some extent, this can be done by sucking in more air than the engine requires and bypassing it to shroud the jet exhaust plume heat. There are other ways though.
That said, there are devices that can look at the sky and tell you what flew through it earlier.
Have you looked at a stealth fighter? it is angled because it was the only way to do it with the CAD they had when it was designed. It is more like a flying brick than a plane. The stealth bomber is a much more refined design and flys much better than the fighter. The raptor is yet another step forwards.
The stealth fighters are easy to track if you have a large number of transmitters and a few well placed receivers. The angles are all computed to stop stuff being reflected back to the transmitter with the assumption the receiver is co-located. The bombers have better absorbing surfaces but you can track them by monitoring the changes in the EM field as they pass over transmitters.
Looked at one? I spent nearly 20 years on them where I worked. We had a radar building that had bay windows at the back that looked at a mobile canvas hangar. Each bay window had a radar mounted in it. Aircraft were only put in there at night when there was heavy cloud cover, so the satellite's couldn't see the ground.
It was angled due to the work of the radar people, not CAD
A brick would have been seen without a radar.
If I remember rightly, wasn't it the B1 stealth bomber coming over from the USA quite a few years ago? Friday, or Saturday?
I am not clued up on the US aircraft, but it was definitely a stealth model, to take part in a flying display in the UK?
At the time, I was taking all the overtime I could to top up my pension pot and I was working for the production side of things to see off and marshal back a Tornado F3. I got him up and running and he came back and did his fly past to announce he was back and I marshalled him back in.
He raised the canopy and I can't remember if it was the pilot, or navigator that told me that the stealth bomber was coming in, as he had seen it on his radar out in the Atlantic.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.