Anyone familiar with flying a delta wing?

[es330td]

Last weekend while doing my hour of going around the pattern in
preparation to solo my airfield was visited by a Dyke Delta home built
(link to a picture of one below.) I did a little research on it and
learned that it truly is a delta wing aircraft with a single
horizontal surface (some of these have a small T-tail but this one did
not.) Seeing it made me a little curious about the mechanics of
flying it. It has a vertical stabilizer and a rudder so I assume the
plane has pedals but with only one horizontal surface the movable
parts serve as both elevators and ailerons. I'm also guessing that it
doesn't have flaps, just as the main wings on canards don't have flaps
as additional lift that far aft would result in a rapid descent.

Does anyone have any kind of experience with an aircraft like this
that can enlighten me on their flight characteristics?

http://www.pilotfriend.com/experimental/images5/10.jpg

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

es330td > wrote in news:5a4af2c5-b74c-4e6f-be32-
:

> Last weekend while doing my hour of going around the pattern in
> preparation to solo my airfield was visited by a Dyke Delta home built
> (link to a picture of one below.) I did a little research on it and
> learned that it truly is a delta wing aircraft with a single
> horizontal surface (some of these have a small T-tail but this one did
> not.) Seeing it made me a little curious about the mechanics of
> flying it. It has a vertical stabilizer and a rudder so I assume the
> plane has pedals but with only one horizontal surface the movable
> parts serve as both elevators and ailerons. I'm also guessing that it
> doesn't have flaps, just as the main wings on canards don't have flaps
> as additional lift that far aft would result in a rapid descent.
>
> Does anyone have any kind of experience with an aircraft like this
> that can enlighten me on their flight characteristics?
>


I know a bit. They fly pretty much just like an airplane. The biggest
difference is that they don't stall in the same way as a "conventional"
airplane in that in most of them the flow doesn't seperate from the top of
the wing. What happens is as the airplane slows the drag rises but so does
the lift. When the drag rises to the point that thrust is overcome they
start to decelerate and the game is over. So, given enough thrust, you can
fly them at ridiculous anges of attack and insanely low airspeeds.


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 22, 7:07*am, es330td > wrote:
> Last weekend while doing my hour of going around the pattern in
> preparation to solo my airfield was visited by a Dyke Delta home built
> (link to a picture of one below.) *I did a little research on it and
> learned that it truly is a delta wing aircraft with a single
> horizontal surface (some of these have a small T-tail but this one did
> not.) *Seeing it made me a little curious about the mechanics of
> flying it. *It has a vertical stabilizer and a rudder so I assume the
> plane has pedals but with only one horizontal surface the movable
> parts serve as both elevators and ailerons. *I'm also guessing that it
> doesn't have flaps, just as the main wings on canards don't have flaps
> as additional lift that far aft would result in a rapid descent.

I' believe MX has flown lots of delta wing aircraft. You may ask him.
-robert

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> es330td > wrote in news:5a4af2c5-b74c-4e6f-be32-
> :

> > Last weekend while doing my hour of going around the pattern in
> > preparation to solo my airfield was visited by a Dyke Delta home built
> > (link to a picture of one below.) I did a little research on it and
> > learned that it truly is a delta wing aircraft with a single
> > horizontal surface (some of these have a small T-tail but this one did
> > not.) Seeing it made me a little curious about the mechanics of
> > flying it. It has a vertical stabilizer and a rudder so I assume the
> > plane has pedals but with only one horizontal surface the movable
> > parts serve as both elevators and ailerons. I'm also guessing that it
> > doesn't have flaps, just as the main wings on canards don't have flaps
> > as additional lift that far aft would result in a rapid descent.
> >
> > Does anyone have any kind of experience with an aircraft like this
> > that can enlighten me on their flight characteristics?
> >


> I know a bit. They fly pretty much just like an airplane. The biggest
> difference is that they don't stall in the same way as a "conventional"
> airplane in that in most of them the flow doesn't seperate from the top of
> the wing. What happens is as the airplane slows the drag rises but so does
> the lift. When the drag rises to the point that thrust is overcome they
> start to decelerate and the game is over. So, given enough thrust, you can
> fly them at ridiculous anges of attack and insanely low airspeeds.

OK, so then what happens?

Do they then tend to just decend level like an Ercoupe, tend to tumble
out of the sky in a totally uncontrolled fashion, or something else?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> es330td > wrote in news:5a4af2c5-b74c-4e6f-be32-
>> :
>
>> > Last weekend while doing my hour of going around the pattern in
>> > preparation to solo my airfield was visited by a Dyke Delta home
>> > built (link to a picture of one below.) I did a little research on
>> > it and learned that it truly is a delta wing aircraft with a single
>> > horizontal surface (some of these have a small T-tail but this one
>> > did not.) Seeing it made me a little curious about the mechanics
>> > of flying it. It has a vertical stabilizer and a rudder so I
>> > assume the plane has pedals but with only one horizontal surface
>> > the movable parts serve as both elevators and ailerons. I'm also
>> > guessing that it doesn't have flaps, just as the main wings on
>> > canards don't have flaps as additional lift that far aft would
>> > result in a rapid descent.
>> >
>> > Does anyone have any kind of experience with an aircraft like this
>> > that can enlighten me on their flight characteristics?
>> >
>
>
>> I know a bit. They fly pretty much just like an airplane. The biggest
>> difference is that they don't stall in the same way as a
>> "conventional" airplane in that in most of them the flow doesn't
>> seperate from the top of the wing. What happens is as the airplane
>> slows the drag rises but so does the lift. When the drag rises to the
>> point that thrust is overcome they start to decelerate and the game
>> is over. So, given enough thrust, you can fly them at ridiculous
>> anges of attack and insanely low airspeeds.
>
> OK, so then what happens?
>
> Do they then tend to just decend level like an Ercoupe, tend to tumble
> out of the sky in a totally uncontrolled fashion, or something else?
>

Well, depending on the power, it will get to a such a nose high attitude
that you'll nearly start going backwards! But seriously, it would depend
on the design, but it would just start losing altitude slwoly and then
more quickly as AoA and dra increased. the Concorde accidnent in Paris
is a good example of how deltas work, though. the power available to
that airplane required a given speed (V2) to keep the airplnae on the
correct side of that poser curve n the event of the loss of a single
engine. Since the FE shutdown a second engine just past V1, it was
unable to accelerate to V2 in the runway available, and it was tooo late
to stop, so the captain rotated below V2, on the back side of the drag
curve. The airplane was able to fly OK, but only at the expense of a
constant airsped tradeoff for lift. he kept bleeding speed off to get it
to climb, but only by increasing AoA and drag. Eventaully the drag ws
too much and it began to sink and with all that asymetric power he lost
directional control. A conventional airplane never would have got as far
as it did. Point is, he had a large surplus of lift available even
though he took off at too low an airspeed.


I have a friend who used to fly the Avro Vulcan. He told me the airplane
would fly to very low speeds indeed and could turn in extrmely small
radii because of it's ability to fly so slowly. Roll rate was almost
fighter like and the airplane was apparently a joy to fly in every way.
They're pretty impressive to watch ( and hear) fly..


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:

> I have a friend who used to fly the Avro Vulcan. He told me the airplane
> would fly to very low speeds indeed and could turn in extrmely small
> radii because of it's ability to fly so slowly. Roll rate was almost
> fighter like and the airplane was apparently a joy to fly in every way.
> They're pretty impressive to watch ( and hear) fly..

And one has just been restored to flight recently (apologies if you already
knew this).

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>
>> I have a friend who used to fly the Avro Vulcan. He told me the
>> airplane would fly to very low speeds indeed and could turn in
>> extrmely small radii because of it's ability to fly so slowly. Roll
>> rate was almost fighter like and the airplane was apparently a joy to
>> fly in every way. They're pretty impressive to watch ( and hear)
>> fly..
>
> And one has just been restored to flight recently (apologies if you
> already knew this).
>

Yeah, I know one of the guys who helped rebuild it, in fact! Never thought
they'd actually get it going, though. What an effort.

Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:

> Yeah, I know one of the guys who helped rebuild it, in fact! Never thought
> they'd actually get it going, though. What an effort.

Indeed. Hope I get to see it fly someday.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I know one of the guys who helped rebuild it, in fact! Never
>> thought they'd actually get it going, though. What an effort.
>
> Indeed. Hope I get to see it fly someday.
>

I thought I heard something about it falling on had times after that first
flight. True or just a rumour? It'll take millions to keep that thing
going. I often wonder how just a few thousand at an airshow, paying a
tenner to get in, supports a string of thirsty Merlins and Pratts. You'd
need a very big audience to keep that thing going.

Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:

> I thought I heard something about it falling on had times after that first
> flight. True or just a rumour? It'll take millions to keep that thing
> going. I often wonder how just a few thousand at an airshow, paying a
> tenner to get in, supports a string of thirsty Merlins and Pratts. You'd
> need a very big audience to keep that thing going.

I think it's been cleared for a relatively limited number of hours of flying
or something, can't remember where I read that. As a result they're likely
to 'save' the hours for airshows and the like.

Ah, hold on, sounds like you're spot on. This article dated 18th Feb.

http://www.tvoc.co.uk/

"Avro Vulcan XH558 has run into the headwinds of the current economic
conditions. The return of the aircraft to air displays is at risk of being slowed to a
stop because potential sponsors have drawn in their purse strings and are
not making available the expected funds. With three month.s work still
needed to ready the aircraft and its crew for air displays, the lack of
funding to start this last phase is now endangering the return of the Vulcan
to the beginning of the airshow season."

What an awful shame.

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>
>> I thought I heard something about it falling on had times after that
>> first flight. True or just a rumour? It'll take millions to keep that
>> thing going. I often wonder how just a few thousand at an airshow,
>> paying a tenner to get in, supports a string of thirsty Merlins and
>> Pratts. You'd need a very big audience to keep that thing going.
>
> I think it's been cleared for a relatively limited number of hours of
> flying or something, can't remember where I read that. As a result
> they're likely to 'save' the hours for airshows and the like.
>
> Ah, hold on, sounds like you're spot on. This article dated 18th Feb.
>
> http://www.tvoc.co.uk/
>
> "Avro Vulcan XH558 has run into the headwinds of the current economic
> conditions. The return of the aircraft to air displays is at risk of
> being slowed to a stop because potential sponsors have drawn in their
> purse strings and are not making available the expected funds. With
> three month.s work still needed to ready the aircraft and its crew for
> air displays, the lack of funding to start this last phase is now
> endangering the return of the Vulcan to the beginning of the airshow
> season."
>
> What an awful shame.

Yes. They really are something to see fly. I saw one doing it's stuff in
Goose bay on a NATO exercise once and the sound of it taking off was
just incredible.



Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Yes. They really are something to see fly. I saw one doing it's stuff in
> Goose bay on a NATO exercise once and the sound of it taking off was
> just incredible.

Guess we just have to hope that the people who can afford to donate these
sort of sums are interested enough to do so.

Andy