Why so few delta wing aircraft?

[Derleth]

Why are there so few delta wing aircraft in the world? Why do the reasons that make them rare fail to make them nonexistent? (In other words, why are there few but not none?)

[Beware of Doug]

I heard it said that they're very maneuverable but hard to handle. (This was often cited by Republicans in 2000 to help portray Dubya as an above average pilot. He flew the F-102 Delta Dagger.)

[Whack-a-Mole]

IANAAeronauticalEngineer but this is what I found.

The disadvantages, especially marked in the older tailless delta designs, are a loss of total available lift caused by turning up the wing trailing edge or the control surfaces (as required to achieve a sufficient stability) and the high induced drag of this low-aspect ratio type of wing. This causes delta-winged aircraft to 'bleed off' energy very rapidly in turns, a disadvantage in aerial maneuver combat and dogfighting.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_wing

If you follow that link the article also lists numerous advantages of a delta wing design. All I can guess is that for most applications engineers find the delta wing's disadvantages outweigh their design goals. I am guessing it is the delta wing's higher drag while maneuvering that kills it as a choice more often than not but just a SWAG on my part. If you have a need for top end speed and care less for maneuverability it seems the delat wing is a better choice.

[Beware of Doug]

Reading that, it does seem that supersonic speed was the main raison d'être for the delta wing. Below Mach 1, it just didn't perform as well as conventional swept-wing designs.

[St_Ides]

Basically, the delta wing is useful for interceptors and bombers only. With that whole bleeding energy thing, it makes them very poor fighters. They're great for getting to and from somewhere very quickly, but that's about it.

If you take a look at the aircraft that had delta wings, you won't find a fighter among them.... Though the EF Typhoon and some SAABs have delta wings, they also have canards, so I'm hesistant to call them delta (partial-delta, perhaps. But when I think delta, I think tail-less)

[WonJohnSoup]

Yeah, I always heard the delta design was fast but not manueverable. That's why the F-14 Tomcat can sweep its wings back and turn the aircraft into a delta plane and then sweep them back out for a dogfight.

[A.R. Cane]

On the other hand: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1106145350.htm

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by WonJohnSoup

Yeah, I always heard the delta design was fast but not manueverable. That's why the F-14 Tomcat can sweep its wings back and turn the aircraft into a delta plane and then sweep them back out for a dogfight.

Er... the Tomcat's wings are always swept back except during takeoff and landing.

[John DiFool]

The now-canceled Sonic Cruiser had delta wings...

[Man that would have been a sweet aircraft to fly in...]

[Dorjän]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Er... the Tomcat's wings are always swept back except during takeoff and landing.

Not quite - The Tomcat's wings are dynamic and automatically positions itself in the best location for flight conditions. Perhaps you were thinking of the F-111, which had manually controlled sweep wings used in the manner u describe.

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

The now-canceled Sonic Cruiser had delta wings...

[Man that would have been a sweet aircraft to fly in...]

Multiplex do it as an electric model kit. It builds up to a sizeable model with an imposing presence in the air, from what I've seen in pics and video. They call it "Sonic Liner", but it's the same plane - the box artwork uses the same pics as Wikipedia has for the Sonic Cruiser article.

Not sure I'd call it a delta, though, certainly not to the extent of Concorde or the Avro Vulcan. A sweet-looking plane, though.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Dorjän

Not quite - The Tomcat's wings are dynamic and automatically positions itself in the best location for flight conditions. Perhaps you were thinking of the F-111, which had manually controlled sweep wings used in the manner u describe.

Actually, I just typed it out wrong.

I meant to say that the Tomcat's wings would always be swept back during a dogfight rather than extended, contrary to what WonJohnSoup said. I was unaware, however, that the F-14's wings position was automatically determined. I had assumed that the pilot was responsible for wing positioning.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by St_Ides

If you take a look at the aircraft that had delta wings, you won't find a fighter among them.... Though the EF Typhoon and some SAABs have delta wings, they also have canards, so I'm hesistant to call them delta (partial-delta, perhaps. But when I think delta, I think tail-less)

The Mirage I, III, and 2000 all use a delta configuration without canards. The Saab Viggen has a canard-delta wing arrangement, but the earlier Drakken has just a delta.

[WonJohnSoup]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Actually, I just typed it out wrong.

I meant to say that the Tomcat's wings would always be swept back during a dogfight rather than extended, contrary to what WonJohnSoup said. I was unaware, however, that the F-14's wings position was automatically determined. I had assumed that the pilot was responsible for wing positioning.

No, I'm pretty sure it would be swept out often if not most of the time in a tight turning dogfight. Swept out = slower but more agile, swept back = faster in a straight line but less turning ability, no? The hit on wiki for the Design History talks about using swept-out wings at combat speeds. And this video clearly shows the wing swept out for the dogfight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcUcEg2on8s


And according to most hits I'm getting on google the wings are usually automatic with the ability for the pilot to manually control if he/she wants.

[St_Ides]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The Mirage I, III, and 2000 all use a delta configuration without canards. The Saab Viggen has a canard-delta wing arrangement, but the earlier Drakken has just a delta.

All of which were orginally designed to be interceptors, not fighters. The dogfighting aspect was generally an afterthought, and all of them were originally designed to shoot down bombers... Though the Mirage 2000 was also designed with an equal mix of dogfight/intercept, so a delta wing was chosen for simplicity's sake (and Dassault also had a lot of experience with the delta on their previous Mirages)

[JRDelirious]

Also, do I recall correctly that the Tomcats had some foreplanes that extended when the main wing was full to the back?

Come to think of it, they also stopped coming up with new swing-wing designs after the 1970s (the B1 and the Russian Blackjack were put in service in the 80s but were 70s designs IIRC).

Both the proliferation of delta and the swing-wing were dictated more by the design limitations that existed at their particular time vis-a-vis materials and control systems, when addressing the speed vs. agility/ high vs. low ends of the envelope conundrum.

Even some aircraft we do not consider deltas do have quite broad-chord swept wings with a much sharper leading edge sweep vs trailing edge -- I'm thinking the Phantom or the F-15 -- and even a wing with a delta shape PLUS an actual tailplane -- see the A4 or MiG-21.

[Richard Pearse]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

Also, do I recall correctly that the Tomcats had some foreplanes that extended when the main wing was full to the back?

Those winglets are not directly tied to the wingsweep. I think they deploy when supersonic.