Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by Onex93, Apr 3, 2017.
This photo was just taken.
To me it didn't look any worse than many other planes.
There are some nice pics on this Dutch site: https://www.aironline.nl/weblog/2018/08/12/de-deltas-van-
At first glance the visibility in the flare or while taxiing does not seem worse than many other taildraggers. The swept leading edge does seem to keep the wing out of the forward view to some degree. Here’s a Delta 2 and an RV-6:
The pilot's eye are only ~24" above the LE of the wing.
...this kid couldn't see the lines in the parking lot at 100 yards
...this gal can't see the speedometer
...this guy couldn't see Texas if he was above pattern altitude
I'm not 'haten' on the Verhees, I think they're pretty cool airplanes. I'm just saying it's a geometrical fact that the downward visibility is pretty bad.
Sorry, Fritz, but I am going to have to disagree here. Draw your lines over the engine cowling and the angles are much the same. On the sides, you don’t seem to be taking into account the wing sweep that frees up much of the field of view compared to a straight-wing ship. Note the RV-6 wingtips well forward of the pilot’s eyes and the Delta 2 wingtips well aft.
The pilot sitting so far behind the LE, coupled with the very low eye height above the wing and the very wide cord says it all. If the blatantly obvious reality doesn't speak for itself, there's nothing more I can add. I'll resign from the discussion :gig:
When you are in the flare with the nose up on the horizon you can't see the runway ahead of you. And forget about seeing anything trying to land on top of you! Or turning from base to final, you have to "guess" where the runway is.
whaaaaa?????? Short of a Fiesler Storch or a Piper Cub, the 172 is probably one of the best examples of a "good downward visibility" airplane I can think of.
From the pilots seat in a 172 you can see well inside the left main wheel, you can see the runway about 5' from the center line. When your landing a 172 your 7:00 to 11:00 view is pretty much unobstructed down to almost directly under the airplane! When your sightseeing in a 172, with a touch of aileron, you can see the ground on the other side of the airplane! I'd wager the 172 is just about the most popular flying sightseeing platform ever made.
We had a Dyke Delta on the field for a few years. The pilot (Larry LeBeau) said that when he turned final he couldn't see the runway at all. He based the landing on a point halfway between the snack bar on his right and the wind sock on his left and just hoped he was over the runway. If he didn't hear the wheels squeak by the time the snack bar left his peripheral vision he'd shovel in the coal and try again.
"life is too short to argue the painfully obvious" ...I'll re-enter retirement on this discussion
I’ve had a couple of landing on paved runways so narrow that I could not see the runway once aligned with it. Good grass on the sides was reassuring, but those pesky runway lights ...
It's not for the Cub pilot. Downward is bad to look straight down, but in the air it's not going to be bad unless you are doing straight down photography. In the air you look out and I bet the across the span vision is above average. You see the landing gear is set so the plane is just about impossible to nose over. It's a trigear not conventional. Nose gear is where nose gears usually go. Mains just happen to be small and at wing tips. I bet it is pretty easy to land once use to it. It looks like landing an airliner. You fly an angle of attack, I bet with AOA instrument, and a speed, and I bet it hits the spot perfect. Takeoffs simple too; trigear that takes off when the airspeed is right.
That blue two-seater is prettier than Verhees single-seater!
Please post a link to the British LAA magazine article.
All those HBAers who have been saying that they want a two-seater delta (Dyke, Rohr, etc.) now need to “nut up or shut up!”
Me? I am scrambling to find a spare $40,000.00 Canadian for the kit!
With luck, Verner’s Delta 2 will prove popular enough that they need a North American distributor.
Fritz would you turn up your nose at the chance to own or fly the Corsair because the visibility on landing is poor?
I mean, it's not like 21 year old kids managed to land them on tiny little boats or anything.
Deltas are very sensitive to angle of attack when landing or taking-off.
If the pilot allows angle of attack to get too steep, he can fall into a drag bucket that even after-burners will not extract him. The simple answer is setting landing gear angle at the same angle as final approach and initial climb-out. That vastly simplifies pilot work-load. Once the delta is trimmed to the correct angle, just adjust throttle and keep it on the centreline.
Dyke Delta undercarriage is set a similar angle. One Dyke pilot reported that he just advances throttle to take-off power and allows the plane to fly itself off the runway.
Deltas will never be STOL airplanes, so forget about “hanging on the prop” for short landings.
Let me preface this post with some smiley faces so everyone will take it in the spirit that's it's intended:
I understand angle of attack on high A/R wings and landing gear design, ...and what does a 2,800 hp WW-2 fighter have do with a "Sunday flyer, homebuilt"?
Facts are facts. The downward visibility from this airplane is pretty bad.
I think it's a cool airplane, it'd be a fun build and it'd be fun to fly. When I first saw this thread I went to the website and did my own head scratching. If I built one I'd paint it yellow and put a black and white checkerboard stripe on the right wing and I'd have a ball flying it ...but the downward visibility would still suck. No amount of infatuation with the design (and I have have my fair share of infatuation with the design), ...or a completely un-related WW-2 fighter, will change the facts. ...the downward visibility from this thing is going to be pretty bad.
I'm not saying "don't build one", in fact I'm looking forward to the OP's build log. I'm just saying the downward visibility from this thing is going to be pretty bad. What part of what I'm saying is hard to understand?
I don't know how else to say it: regardless of landing gear design V. AoA and WW-2 fighter cockpit visibility. ...you won't have good downward visibility from a Verhees Delta.
We now return you to the OP's discussion on his efforts to build a Verhees Delta... :gig:
STOL capability of a delta?
That is just a question of power to weight ratio. The Convair XFY “Pogo” was literally designed to prop hang.
The definition of adequate power is that there is no “wrong” side of the drag curve.onder:
The single seat does have sight windows on the underside of each wing that do help visibility. If I ever update my build log I'll try to show a cockpit view.
My comment was poking fun at the principle of one small part of this discussion, which was that if something is cool enough, or fun enough, or strange enough, you have to deal with whatever shortcomings or problems that come with it.
Not enough roll rate to have "balanced" controls? We just had to deal with it in order to have 40-1 L/D and fly 600 miels on solar and wind power in sailplanes.
Not enough fuel economy to have 2000 mile range? They just had to live with it in order to have Mach 2 interceptor capability in the F-104.
Not enough forward visibility to see the boat deck on landing? They just had to deal with it in order to have a 400 mph fighter that could tear up the Zero.
So the principle of my comment was that if you want whatever the advantages of the Verhees Delta are, it will come with some downside, just like the Corsair and every other airplane in the world.
I really like to have good visibility on landing, and the Verhees Delta might not be cool/fast/strange enough to give that up.
Anybody heard any thing the 2 place Delta? Kit or plans?
Separate names with a comma.