No delta wings ?

News, Banter and anything else non football!!
User avatar
Noni
Posts: 2945
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:20 pm
x 762
x 166

No delta wings ?

Post by Noni » Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:25 am

I'm surprised how successful the Concorde and Vulcan were, but no more after this era!....Why?
0 x

User avatar
Gandalf
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:00 pm
x 94
x 97

Re: No delta wings ?

Post by Gandalf » Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:50 pm

Noni wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:25 am
I'm surprised how successful the Concorde and Vulcan were, but no more after this era!....Why?
In terms of military aircraft, there is. The B2 stealth bomber is a delta wing.
And there are delta wing fighter aircraft too: Typhoon (Eurofighter), Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen...


Regarding commercial aircraft there are numerous limiting factors.

Airports:
All modern airports are designed to accommodate the existing format of aircraft. And therefore all new commercial aircraft are designed to be compatible with existing airports. It's a tried and tested formula. It works well although it does limit progress.
Concorde worked. But if you were to build a supersonic aircraft now it wouldn't look like Concorde. Technology has moved on greatly since then. But whatever you do build still has to be compatible with existing airports.


Adaptability in design:
All modern aircraft are built in different versions over the span of their lifetime. This is for the differing needs of various airline companies. This can be, for example, different seating arrangements or it can also be different length fuselages based on passenger/cargo requirement and fuel/flight range requirement. And in all cases a simple tube with wings stuck on the side is the easiest format to adapt.
With Concorde for example you couldn't just extend the fuselage due to the wing design (amongst other things).


Return on investment:
Whatever you build for the commercial sector is always about maximizing profits. The cost of designing and building a supersonic aircraft would be immense. So with that in mind you would need to be able to provide a service that is currently not available and that enough people need. With Concorde you could get from London to New York in less than half the time of any other commercial aircraft - but that was about it. Flights to, say, Dubai wouldn't be much quicker because flying supersonic over land is forbidden.


But, as I mentioned earlier, technology is always moving forward. Go and check out the NASA's X-59 QueSST. It's a supersonic research aircraft that will produce no sonic boom. If that technology works as planned then eventually we will get another supersonic airliner in the skies.
1 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 4546
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'
x 570
x 821

Re: No delta wings ?

Post by Neville Bartos » Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:20 am

Isn't it to with lift>>>>speed?
There's no point having a delta wing unless you want to go fast. But fast just isn't cost efficient.
If you look at two extreme examples the U2 and the SR71, they really highlight the cost of pure speed.
The SR71 weighs 4 times as much, uses 4 times the fuel and has double the wing area, to go less than half as far at four and a half times the speed.
Which does translate: Concorde was 3 times quicker crossing the Atlantic, but cost about 10 times more.
And having visited Duxford in the summer, Concorde was built for midgets, thin midgets. Fat blokes, rich or not, must've groaned when they climbed aboard.
1 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
Taansend
Posts: 8598
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:40 pm
Location: San Diego California
x 1426
x 545
Contact:

Re: No delta wings ?

Post by Taansend » Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:27 am

I fucking loved Concorde.

It used to fly over my place each day & we'd always stop whatever we were doing to stop & stare
1 x

User avatar
Gandalf
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:00 pm
x 94
x 97

Re: No delta wings ?

Post by Gandalf » Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:33 am

Neville Bartos wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:20 am
Isn't it to with lift>>>>speed?
There's no point having a delta wing unless you want to go fast. But fast just isn't cost efficient.
If you look at two extreme examples the U2 and the SR71, they really highlight the cost of pure speed.
The SR71 weighs 4 times as much, uses 4 times the fuel and has double the wing area, to go less than half as far at four and a half times the speed.
Which does translate: Concorde was 3 times quicker crossing the Atlantic, but cost about 10 times more.
And having visited Duxford in the summer, Concorde was built for midgets, thin midgets. Fat blokes, rich or not, must've groaned when they climbed aboard.
Yes, correct in all you say there. Although it is important to separate commercial and military aircraft. Commercial aircraft need to be cost effective. Military aircraft do not.

Before we had the delta wings we had swept wings. The Messerschmidt ME-262 was the first successful example of this. (Successful in terms of concept rather than in battle, as it arrived too late during the war).

After the war both Super Powers studied this concept. The US came up with the F-86 Sabre and the Soviets produced the Mig-15. If you compare the two you see each side independently came up with a virtually identical design.
And from there it wasn't a great leap for designers to change the swept wing concept into the delta wing concept.

Regarding your comments on Concorde I have to agree. It was build for speed, certainly not for comfort! :lol:
0 x

User avatar
Gandalf
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:00 pm
x 94
x 97

Re: No delta wings ?

Post by Gandalf » Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:12 pm

Taansend wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:27 am
I fucking loved Concorde.

It used to fly over my place each day & we'd always stop whatever we were doing to stop & stare
Many years ago I used to be a dispatch rider. I was based in Hemel Hempstead and would spend most of my days riding in and out of London.
Whenever I found myself in London at the end of the working day I knew I wouldn't get anymore work. So instead of heading back up the M1 I would head west on the M4. I would park up on the Heathrow perimeter road under the flightline and wait for Concorde, which would land at 18:10.
Prior to that of course I would see many 747's and other aircraft landing. One thing you really did get a sense of was how small Concorde was when compared to 747's. But it was still an amazing sight when it was landing that low over your head.


I also have a story about Concorde to make you weep.

Years ago I used to know a woman who was a very successful business woman, and would frequently fly between London and Manchester.
But this woman had no materialistic interests at all. Big houses or big cars meant nothing to her.
She was married to a guy who was starting up his own software company, and in the early days he was struggling.
She used to have a big BMW company car. He used to drive a Fiesta.
So she would give him the BMW as it would look good for prospective clients for her husbands business.
And she would drive the Fiesta to work - much to the annoyance of her boss. But she just didn't care.

One day she was up in Manchester ready to get the flight back to London.
But earlier that day Concorde, which should have landed at Heathrow, got diverted to Manchester due to adverse weather conditions at Heathrow.
Once the weather had passed British Airways needed to get Concorde back to Heathrow, so they used it for an internal flight. And she got to go on that flight.

And her comment: "It's just a plane. They all look the same inside".

Of all the people to get the chance to fly on Concorde, even if it was and internal, non-supersonic flight, she has to be the least deserving. :cry:
1 x

User avatar
palerider
Posts: 9639
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:35 am
Location: Huish Episcopi
x 597
x 1415

Re: No delta wings ?

Post by palerider » Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:16 pm

I went to the Concorde museum thingy in Brizzle and inside the one there. Surprised how cramped it was.

Can't have been comfortable. Good job it got to New York in 55 minutes from Heathrow.
0 x
The cheque's in the post. Honestly.

User avatar
mkhammer
Posts: 5533
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 11:12 am
x 483
x 676

Re: No delta wings ?

Post by mkhammer » Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:46 pm

Concorde,beautiful thing...like you guys have said really surprisingly small...
Saw its final landing at heathrow...amazing..

Wasn't Concordeski first to fly tho...that might have been first commercial flight ,not sure.
Remembered they both had crashes..
0 x

User avatar
Taansend
Posts: 8598
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:40 pm
Location: San Diego California
x 1426
x 545
Contact:

Re: No delta wings ?

Post by Taansend » Thu Dec 26, 2019 5:37 pm

Gandalf wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:12 pm
Taansend wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:27 am
I fucking loved Concorde.

It used to fly over my place each day & we'd always stop whatever we were doing to stop & stare
I would park up on the Heathrow perimeter road under the flightline and wait for Concorde, which would land at 18:10.
I was living in Woking when I was 16/17 (84/85) & it would fly over us around 6pm. Probably on its way to land.
0 x

User avatar
Oziron
Director of Avatars
Posts: 2324
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 9:37 pm
x 392
x 296

Re: No delta wings ?

Post by Oziron » Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:17 pm

Gandalf wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:50 pm
Noni wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:25 am
I'm surprised how successful the Concorde and Vulcan were, but no more after this era!....Why?
In terms of military aircraft, there is. The B2 stealth bomber is a delta wing.
And there are delta wing fighter aircraft too: Typhoon (Eurofighter), Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen...


Regarding commercial aircraft there are numerous limiting factors.

Airports:
All modern airports are designed to accommodate the existing format of aircraft. And therefore all new commercial aircraft are designed to be compatible with existing airports. It's a tried and tested formula. It works well although it does limit progress.
Concorde worked. But if you were to build a supersonic aircraft now it wouldn't look like Concorde. Technology has moved on greatly since then. But whatever you do build still has to be compatible with existing airports.


Adaptability in design:
All modern aircraft are built in different versions over the span of their lifetime. This is for the differing needs of various airline companies. This can be, for example, different seating arrangements or it can also be different length fuselages based on passenger/cargo requirement and fuel/flight range requirement. And in all cases a simple tube with wings stuck on the side is the easiest format to adapt.
With Concorde for example you couldn't just extend the fuselage due to the wing design (amongst other things).


Return on investment:
Whatever you build for the commercial sector is always about maximizing profits. The cost of designing and building a supersonic aircraft would be immense. So with that in mind you would need to be able to provide a service that is currently not available and that enough people need. With Concorde you could get from London to New York in less than half the time of any other commercial aircraft - but that was about it. Flights to, say, Dubai wouldn't be much quicker because flying supersonic over land is forbidden.


But, as I mentioned earlier, technology is always moving forward. Go and check out the NASA's X-59 QueSST. It's a supersonic research aircraft that will produce no sonic boom. If that technology works as planned then eventually we will get another supersonic airliner in the skies.
The other overriding issue with Concorde was the massive amount of fuel it burned per passenger. No longer economically viable cos of high cost of fuel.
0 x

Post Reply

Social Media