0
$\begingroup$

Any thoughts on why the delta wings are naturally more stable in pitch, so they don't require any tail surface? What's the physics behind this?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "What's the physics behind this problem?" Problem? Why is this a problem? $\endgroup$ – MichaelK Sep 28 '18 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ Never seen a Flying Plank? Rectangular wing with a vertical tail and cockpit pod. Very stable in pitch. Neither taper nor sweep. $\endgroup$ – Zeiss Ikon Sep 28 '18 at 17:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ZeissIkon whether or not Darjan has seen a Flying Plank, the issue remains as unclear as before your comment. He's asking about the physics and what makes it inherently stable, not what delta planes exhibit such characteristics. $\endgroup$ – Jihyun Sep 28 '18 at 23:39
2
$\begingroup$

This is a very good question, as it shows some of the misunderstandings regarding "tailless" aircraft. With deltas, one can consider them as blended wing/tails.

The function of a horizontal tail surface is pitch control. The back of a delta is certainly large enough to do this. So much so, that now one can design a forward canard to go with it. This plane should pass the horizontal drop test (nose must go down).

Notice that birds, wanting more straight wing lift, "unblend" a little and also have a fan tail. Delta's do not generate as much lift as a comparable straight wing.

So designers can work with what they need, particularly with desired speed range. Faster, the wings can pull in a little, as with the FB-111 swing wing.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.