Timeline for Why are delta wings not commonly used in commercial airliners?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 26, 2015 at 4:59 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | @DrZ214: Wings don't "absorb" wind. The delta wing is less affected by the angle of attack change caused by a vertical wind speed change than a straight wing. But the real danger in microbursts at low level is the change in horizontal speed, and here both wing types will react in the same way. | |
| Jul 26, 2015 at 3:46 | comment | added | DrZ214 | "Going to a delta wing would help with gust sensitivity in low-level flight" But what about microbursts/downdrafts? Surely those broad, great surface area wings would "absorb" more downwind and thus be pushed downwards? This would be bad anywhere, let alone in low-level flight. | |
| May 20, 2014 at 12:55 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | @Federico: Yes, you only need high-lift devices at low speed, but need to carry them around for the full flight. And storing them away is non-trivial. Having a relatively thick wing helps immensely with that. The delta wing has the high-lift device built-in (high leading edge sweep + high inboard chord). A swing-wing combines both, but adds a lot of weight, reducing payload. | |
| May 20, 2014 at 12:43 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 477 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2014 at 12:34 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 477 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2014 at 12:32 | comment | added | Federico |
swept-back cantilever wing with high-lift devices is the best way to fly Mach 0.8 uhm, you mean that the devices are there, not that are used to fly at 0.8M, right?
|
|
| May 20, 2014 at 12:28 | history | answered | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |