Slow delta wings?

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by deskpilot, Jul 21, 2009.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jan 10, 2015 #141

    deskpilot

    deskpilot

    deskpilot

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    185
    Location:
    Morphett Vale, South Australia. Just south of Adel
    Well, Heellooo Lynne. Welcome to my thread. Yours is the first in 3 years and caused me to re-read the whole thing. I still like my design but have moved on to more conventional designs. That being said, I'm also working with Hugh Lorimer with his Sgian Dubh tailless design. Not sure if it should be referred to as a flying Wing or flying Plank.

    photo shop.jpg Hugh ran into legal and health problems so this design hasn't flown yet. It is complete and ready to go though. If all comes to fruition, I think we could have a very easy to build single seater with retracts, so hopefully fast enough to keep pretend fighter pilots happy.
     
  2. Jan 10, 2015 #142

    plncraze

    plncraze

    plncraze

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,619
    Likes Received:
    345
    The Dean Delt-Air as he subject of a lot of articles in Sport Aviation. If only it had not flipped all the way over....
     
  3. Jan 10, 2015 #143

    Xanadrone

    Xanadrone

    Xanadrone

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Bucharest Romania
  4. Jan 10, 2015 #144

    Norman

    Norman

    Norman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    919
    Location:
    Grand Junction, Colorado
    The problem is not that the high thrust line produces a huge moment but that the control system does not have enough authority to overcome that moment. A tailless delta relies entirely on airfoil pitching moment for pitch control. The thrust line doesn't have to be very high to produce a significant moment. The weight on the main gear of a tricycle also produces a nose down moment and compression of the nose gear shock absorber by the thrust moment decreases the wing incidence. All of these moments stack up to hold the plane on the ground while the power is on then when the pilot cuts power at least half of that disappears. If the plane was above takeoff speed it may well rotate by itself and then lift the weight off the main gear eliminating the rest of the negative moment. Now the plane wants to rotate even more and will probably stall if the pilot doesn't immediately push the nose down which he probably won't because all this has happened very fast. This phenomenon has been disused here before so I'll just link back instead of try to rewrite it at 3:30 am
    http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/f...ifting-body-kits-not-dyke-delta.html#post8023

    Aircraft Data N6379T, 1961 Dean Herbert Franklin Jr DELT-AIR 250 C/N 001

    I would be very interested to hear any new input as I'm sure everybody else would. This is a very important problem that has killed several people
     
    DangerZone, danmoser and Xanadrone like this.
  5. Jan 10, 2015 #145

    Mike W

    Mike W

    Mike W

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    133
    Location:
    Doncaster Yorkshire UK
    I experienced exactly the same problem as Norman mentions with one of my plans built MW6's. During the take off run on grass, the aircraft would not rotate and take off. Eventually when the throttle was closed to abort the flight, it rotated and lifted off, but obviously in a more sedate fashion than the Dean Delta. Then on re applying power, the aircraft would grudgingly climb away.

    The only difference between this aircraft and all the others was the shape of the nacelle. See picture. The drawings show some guidelines for constructing the nacelle but the shape is left more to the builder, so that he can add a bit of his own character into the aircraft. The builder of this aircraft built a slab sided nacelle with a flat floor and a flat downward sloping top which obviously acting as a canard fore plane adding to the list of other nose down moments, such as the high thrust line and wheel drag in the grass The tailplane couple was just not powerful enough to lift the nose until the couple due to thrust was removed. On lift off the wheel drag couple was eliminated allowing the thrust component to be restored while leaving enough elevator control to manoeuvre the aircraft.

    TEDS MW6 001.jpg
     
  6. Jan 10, 2015 #146

    delta

    delta

    delta

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,943
    Likes Received:
    196
    Location:
    Brookside Utah
    I believe I read from before that he had set his ground angle of attack to 8*. It doesn't look like that much to me. This pic represents 8*.
    Do I see leading edge slats and did they have a part in this tragedy?
    I guess you could say anything less than supersonic is slow.
    I'll bet his wing loading was pretty high.
     

    Attached Files:

    • ppb4.jpg
      ppb4.jpg
      File size:
      19.6 KB
      Views:
      241
    danmoser likes this.
  7. Jan 11, 2015 #147

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    98
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    I'm not sure whether I agree with that part:"Now the plane wants to rotate even more and will probably stall if the pilot doesn't immediately push the nose down which he probably won't because all this has happened very fast."

    With a properly adjusted CG, there is no tendency for the plane to pitch up further after lift-off. Any pilot with any experience would immediately release back pressure once the aircraft had lifted off.

    Regarding delta wings, I can only speak from RC experience. Due to reasons you list, the C.G. range is smaller than that of a regular aircraft. I had a favourite delta plane called a "Lancet" which I flew for many years. It was extremely fast and flew like on rails, yet could also be flown extremely slowly. However, on its first flight, I almost crashed it because I had not added enough weight to the nose. The plane oscillated violently up and down, and I just barely managed to land it in one piece. I am telling this to suggest that the Deans Delt-Air also may have been tail heavy. The main landing gear looks quite far back and quite long, which would have delayed take-off to a relatively high speed, like you stated. Once airborne, any tail heaviness would have lead to the same pitch behaviour my model had experienced. Cutting power would definitely worsen this effect. I doubt the pilot passed out as described by his nephew, he just might have had not enough control authority to prevent pitch up. If he cut power at that moment, he would have simply fallen back to mother earth and crashed either in a nose high or sudden nose low attitude, depending how much control authority he still had. However, with a properly adjusted CG, there should not have been a major issue, simply a delayed take-off. I haven't read any of the related articles, so don't know if this has been discussed.

    I do know that a delta wing with the right wing loading and the CG in the right spot is as docile an airplane as one can get, while at the same it has a very wide speed envelope and is extremely manoeuvrable. It seems virtually impossible to cause a spin (unless tail heavy), at least I have never managed to do so, in both pusher and puller designs. Also, a simple symmetric airfoil works very well. However, asymmetric airfoils with up reflex of the trailing edge will improve gliding angle, but adversely effect aerobatic performance. I don't think that a delta wing design requires the complicated mathematical analysis suggested by some here, unless one wants to optimise it in some way.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2015
  8. Jan 11, 2015 #148

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    98
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    Something for the eye. Most of what I have read and seen on videos is that this was an airplane that flew/flies very well. Landing looks quite docile, although it would have weighed more with the rocket engine. With today's small jet engines and a motor glider style landing gear, this would be an awesome aircraft to have...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
    billyvray likes this.
  9. Jan 11, 2015 #149

    erkki67

    erkki67

    erkki67

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    178
    Location:
    Romont / Fribourg / Switzerland
    image.jpg image.jpg
     
    Kingfisher likes this.
  10. Jan 19, 2015 #150

    Norman

    Norman

    Norman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    919
    Location:
    Grand Junction, Colorado
    The rocket motor has to be replaced with ballast to maintain the correct CG but most of the weight of the fuel tanks and plumbing could have been saved.

    Then it wouldn't be a replica
     
  11. Jan 19, 2015 #151

    Norman

    Norman

    Norman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    919
    Location:
    Grand Junction, Colorado
    You seem to have missed the context around that sentence. The weight of the airplane ahead of the main gear produces a nose down moment. As the wing takes the weight off of the gear that moment disappears and the plane rotates. This happens after power is cut but before liftoff. This is a short period of time and and if the pilot didn't anticipate it before reducing power the plane will probably stall before control input becomes effective.
     
  12. Jan 20, 2015 #152

    JamesG

    JamesG

    JamesG

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    754
    Location:
    Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
    What Norm said. Either the plane will sink onto its gear and all will be fine or it will remain rotated for a while (that awkward long flare), either way the aircraft does not have the energy to really get into trouble, baring crosswinds.
     
  13. Jan 20, 2015 #153

    Norman

    Norman

    Norman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    919
    Location:
    Grand Junction, Colorado
    Depends on how fast it was going when the power was cut. If you had barely reached flying speed then it should just be a little hop but if the pilot got frustrated and kept accelerating until the go/no go point he might well have enough momentum to pull up into a dynamic stall that could lift the plane to 30 or 40 feet and drop it on its rear end. Atlantica seems to have done something like this after a bounce during a high speed taxi run in gusty conditions and Witold Kasper also had one of his planes destroy itself this way although he claimed it jumped 300ft straight up. A few years ago I watched the build log of the model shown in the attached picture. I warned the builder about the pitching moment from the pylon mounted prop but before changing it he had to try it out.
    Complete 011.jpg
     
  14. Jan 21, 2015 #154

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    98
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    The problem of involuntary take-off should only be an issue if the thrust line is high with respect to the centre of gravity. In the Delt-Air 250 the thrust line does appear to go through the CG, or close to it. Although the long landing gear will create a large moment pushing the nose down, none of the moments will change when power is cut, and the thrust itself does not generate any significant moment around the C.G., assuming L0 is indeed small (see attached pic, left half, for illustration).
    However, the right half of my drawing of a high thrust line aircraft agrees with your assessment for potential lift-off. Of course, a flying wing with a high thrust line, like the model you posted the picture of, would be especially bad, since moment arm l4 is short. So the primary problem for an involuntary lift-off as you describe it would be a high thrust line, which I don't see in the Delt Air. thur530marks 6.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2015
  15. Jun 5, 2015 #155

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    98
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    Just read this again, wondered why nobody responded. Tried to use less words and more arrows, maybe they have the same effect?:depressed Still think primary problem is high thrustline...maybe in combination with trimming for take-off, since much more up trim would be needed for high thrust line which could pitch up the plane if thrust is removed.
     
  16. Jun 5, 2015 #156

    Himat

    Himat

    Himat

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    650
    Location:
    Norway
    Some may not respond because they did read the post at the time or get around to write a response.

    Anyway, I think you are mostly correct. I would have worded it different, the pitch up/down with power changes are caused by a large offset between the thrust and the drag vector. The whereabouts of the CG really does not matter, the culprit is that the thrust vector have a moment arm around the point the drag vector originates when it do not apply any moment on the airframe.

    One secondary effect I have not seen discussed is if a high mounted propeller if mounted over the wing modify the flow pattern in such a way that the wing's moment change with applied thrust.
     
  17. Jun 6, 2015 #157

    Norman

    Norman

    Norman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    919
    Location:
    Grand Junction, Colorado
    Inertia doesn't matter? Try pushing a ball with a lever attached to the periphery. dumbell_on-a_skateboard.png Even airplanes with long tails feel some pith tendency during acceleration if the thrust line does not pass through the CG but the horizontal stabilizer compensates quickly enough that it's not a problem. This thread has been about tailless aircraft which do not have such high levels of static stability.
     
  18. Jun 6, 2015 #158

    jedi

    jedi

    jedi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,781
    Likes Received:
    403
    Location:
    Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
    New to this thread but the subject appears to be important. With regard to the serious problem of excessive pitch up on take off there are many examples of fatal accidents due to this on aircraft without high thrust lines.
    Without going into all the details I will try to name a few.
    Dean delta Flint Michigan
    Mark Stull (sp?)
    two Kasper wings
    UAL DC 8 Detroit
    These demonstrate issues other than the hi thrust lines. Excessive nose up at the trim is an example.
     
    oneturboneeded likes this.
  19. Jun 6, 2015 #159

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    98
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    The location of the C.G. definitely matters, there I agree with Norman. If you cut power, all that keeps the plane moving is its inertia force, which acts at the C.G. Where I don't agree is that the moments generated by the drag forces, including the landing gear, do not suddenly get "halved", they gradually get lower as the plane decelerates. The drag vector may, however, suddenly move up in a high thrust line plane, like I drew it, if the prop acts as an airbrake when power is reduced. This would then cause a pitch up moment caused by the inertia force still acting on the C.G., since it is below the prop. This would not happen if the prop centre line is going through the C.G. I have experienced flying an RC plane with a pylon mounted engine, and the up-trim needed to keep that high thrust line air plane flying level under power (F tail x L4 balancing F thrust x L0 in my sketch) certainly resulted in noticeable pitch up when power was reduced. Since the plane was also nose heavy, it simply dropped the nose back down after loosing speed. In a tail heavy plane, this would be a different story and could well result in a stall and crash, unless the pilot deliberately pushed the nose down against the trim.

    Your second point regarding the air flow, I'm not sure about. I do think one can angle the high thrust line so it "points" to the C.G, so to speak. If the engine is in front, the prop should then point up, if it is rear mounted it should point down. If your pylon is on the C.G, you are out of luck, as the prop would have to point straight up or down. But it can blow on the tail, which then creates a speed dependent compensation. I just saw this was discussed here:
    http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/general-auto-conversion-discussion/4520-thrust-line.html
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2015
  20. Jun 6, 2015 #160

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    98
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    This hits it on the head. Even if moving at steady speed, just overcoming drag from wheels, your picture applies. To keep ball from rolling you could also apply the thrust load to the lever, but add a horizontal lever with a vertical downforce. What would that system represent ;)?
    ball skate board.JPG
     

Share This Page



arrow_white