My son asked me this question last year when he was 6, I told him it was because delta wings are inherently unstable at convenient angles of attack in subsonic flight so we couldn’t use them until we had computers fast enough to replace direct control with fly by wire. Then he asked me about flight stability and what subsonic meant…. 3 months later we were standing on USS Midway in San Diego harbor so I could show him in person. The entire time in between involved me brushing up on fluid dynamics and having video calls with an uncle who worked on the Saturn 5 when he was a young engineer. Moral of the story: teach your kids, but be wary of the rabbit hole you may be going down.
According to a Dassault engineer, the position of the canards near the wing root of the Rafale are only intended to control the vortex above the wing while the canards of the Eurofighter, further forward, are mainly there to increase the maneuverability of the aircraft by generating a controllable lift force at the front of the aircraft. Same design, different purpose.
Hey millennium can you ask OTIS, how did the Russian Su-27 hit the MQ-9 reaper in the propeller and not break itself in the process? You think it hit it with the very expensive radar of thr nose? Say hi to otis!
The wings of the JAS-39 "Echo" are completely different from the JAS-39 "Charlie" in design, profile and construction. I can't say if this is because they are now made of composite material or also because of the additional tanks, but the Gripen-E has a much robust fuselage body than the Gripen-C... On the internet there are AKAER drawings that clearly show the structural difference in size, design and material engineering.
it alwsow have antenna for data-link and warfear built in to the body of the wings. in the new video Saab relesed you can see the patern of the antena on the wings etc
Isn’t the Gripen E/F to the original Gripen A/B/C/D like how the Super Hornet is to the original Hornet, as in they’re both completely different aircraft despite sharing the same name with their original counterparts.
One rather important plane missed in this video is the J 35 Draken that was also around at the same time as those early delta wings, but wasn't just a delta, but what is now called double delta as it got two different angles on the delta wing. This was rather ahead of it's time and shared many of the advantages of the canard delta wing configuration. There was a NASA study where they took an F-16 turned it easily modified and tested lots of different wing configurations, even strange ones like forward swept wings. The two they found were the most efficient was the canard delta and the double delta ones that had similar performance data. One rather interesting thing about this is that it's quite possible we will get a return of this configuration as while canard delta have stealth issues so are the double delta naturally stealthy and well suited for internal stores as well.
@@peceed Only if you ignore that the inlets are not delta shaped but boxes in addition to not being wings. J-35 intakes are really small so are part of the leading edge of the wings. That is not a requirement for the double delta as the NASA variant used the regular F-16 intakes. The key part is the two angles in the double delta are optimised for different speeds making it more flexible then a regular delta wing.
@@znail4675 Difference is not that big. And I wrote about similarities that are apparent, not the differences. Anyway this shape is extremely popular among all stealth constructions, and the main reason is the high aerodynamic efficiency of this shape. Everyone tries something different and always micro-f-22 emerges after aerodynamic refinements.
Ah the Delta wing videos, easily the video that convinced me this was a channel to follow. The best on RUclips on easily explained and comprehensive aeronautics.
Great video on my second favourite aircraft topic, late cold war/early modern delta-canards. Very interesting as usual, although I still want a bit more about the reasoning between close-coupled canard(Rafale) Vs long-coupled(Euro fighter)
I think we are a similar age. I was born in 1969. I got into aircraft from Jane's ATF and Jane's Fighter Anthology video game. And flight simulators. Love your content.
I have lots of questions and contentions with what is in this video... Yes, a number of if not all the characteristics of a delta wing are true but... - Are not leading wing extensions an essential part of nearly all wingplans nowadays? It's my impression that it's an essential part along with other extendable wing parts like flaps, trailing slats and spoilers that modify the overall size, shape and even airfoil to what is considered optimal for the given speed and this is all implemented not only in miltary but also commercial aircraft. It was impression this is the true reason why swing wings no longer exist as the better way to modify the wingplan and airfoil radically through numerous smaller changes in flight rather than major hinged pieces being moved. Incidentally, this is also what I consider the possibly fatal flaw of the 737-MAX design, which introduces a new way to rely on fly-by-wire using sensory inputs during low and slow speeds rather than changing the wingplan and airfoil. The idea might have had value if implemented correctly but Boeing's hubris to cut costs on sensor systems made the 737-MAX unreliable and suffered disasters. - A big missing piece pf this video is covering why modern delta canards aren't seen in probably in most popular fighter jet of the last 40 years... The F-16. Yes, it was designed just prior to the universal designs of delta canards. But, it should also be recognized that General Dynamics built F-16 delta testbeds and although there have been plenty of speculation and discussion in the real world, General Dynamics never changed over to any kind of delta configuration. It seems that the fly-by-wire that's touted in this video to solve so many delta canard problems also makes the F-16 possible to fly at all. It's said that the delta wing indisputably would enable the F-16 to carry a vastly heavier load but obviously the decision was made that the drawbacks exceeded the benefits of the original stubby wing design the F-16 still has today. Something is better about the F-16 without a delta wing than with it. - This video is probably very wrong about the supposed incompatibility between a delta wing and stealth. If you look at both the F-22 and F-35 wingplans, they're both the uniquely American preference for a modified delta "diamond" design. The only difference between the diamond and pure delta designs are the trailing edges. There is almost certainly some difference in the airfoil, too. It should be noted also that the canards probably exist more for maneuverability and lift only in extreme attitudes than in ordinary flight when you compare to American designs without canards. American designs instead implement enlarged tail surfaces to provide sufficient control, especially the super sized V shaped tail surfaces of the F-22. Compare the American designs with for instance the Chinese J-20 and you'll notice how tiny the tail surfaces are for the Chinese aircraft by comparison.
The Mirage III was also based on the Fairey Delta 2 and the testing done at Cazaux Air Base ( 47 test flights with Dassault engineers participating in the trials ) . Dassault was able to see the future and was able to incorporate and confirm his ideas that led to the Mirage family of Delta aircraft.
Was not "based" on the Fairey, only compared, was a little bit inspired on the F102 delta dagger: you forgott that the delta wing was studied sinze long time in France (sinze the mid 30's)
Can you do a video on trapezoidal wings? I've always seen them as a kind of fusion between deltas and reverse sweep wings but I'm not sure if they give the benefits of both worlds; the F22 and F35 seem to use them so maybe it's the best option when stealth is involved?
This guy talks about aeronautical engineering like I understand it. I listen intently like I understand it. I think that means I'm smart. Yes.....I absolutely am. 🤗
As a Delta fan, my compliments M7*! I do have a question based on the realities of early delta wing fighters. Delta fighters could out turn most of their adversaries. But, the fly in the ointment was in a sustained turn, where the delta would begin to lose lift within the first full circle. I know this is true, but perhaps you could expound on the reasons. TIA
The lift theory based on bernoulli principle is one of the misunderstandings of aerodynamic theory. Even as this is taught in universities today. There is no reason why particles passing on the top of the wing profile must reach the back edge of the wing at the same time as particles moving below the wing. This has also not been demonstrated to occur. What the wing does is, that it directs the airflow downwards. As postulated in Newton III, the counterforce caused by the air then causes lift.
Does the SR-71A Blackbird function as a deltawing even though it was the first attempt at stealth (32:00)? Do the engines interrupt the vortex creation (5:44)? Does the SR-71A fuselage have lerx (33:44) properties?
Excellent explanation. It would be nice if you could explain what makes a thinner wing heavier by design than a thick wing, if I understood correctly that part of your video. Maybe some time in another video. Thanks again for your fantastic work on this channel.
28:30 I don’t know if this is similar but I’ve seen the F-35’s trailing edge flaps elevate upward even when pitching up. Is is to generate more lift or perhaps is it to decrease the load the wing is bearing?
You should make a video on the MiG-29, maybe more specifically about how a twin engine Fighter could cost such a low amount as to be a competitor to the F-16.
1:27 lmao I never thought of this when I watched the original video but that's like my mom. I'll be explaining how the delta is different than some other design and my mom will just be like, "okay, they still all look the same to me."
The Canard on the Rafale did in addition improve to airflow over the main wings at high angles of attack, it's not so the case on some other delta winged fighters...
In a close coupled configuration, a canard might serve the same purpose as leading wing extensions to improve the laminar flow and decrease flow separation at high angles of attack but the question might be... Why not just implement leading wing extensions which would probably be more aerodynamically efficient with less drag?
PS.: Oh, now I see, you already did: Could RUSSIA USE this NOW? - Why Berkut and X-29 are a dead end. - RUclips ruclips.net/video/5SBspEnsgUc/видео.html
FBW is a MUST for a fully-moving canard fighter-jet due to the inherent instability of this geometry. Only since about 1980 in the West, such capabilities started being developed. Radar-Stealth contradicts canards. Pure-Delta is only for very-high landing-approach speeds, thus NOT for carriers or frontal runways. Also not for Close Air Support (CAS) missions e.g. A-10, Su-25. Not even with Delta-Canard. Delta = hugh drag due to long wing-root chord, thus shorter mission-radius/persistence.
Probably, a stupid question, because I'm writing it before I watched the video, cause I'm not sure about the delta wing.. Yet. Because I'm sure I will be after your video. But isn't the F-22, the F-35, the Su-57 also kind of an delta wing design? Looking on the blueprints from above the wings are 90% a perfect triangle isn't it?
Canards have fundamental advantages. I don’t know why Airbus or Boeing never designed a commercial passenger jet with a good sized canard. Less drag, less wing loading for lower landing speeds, direct control of how fast the nose rotates down at touchdown, possibly better handling to compensate for a lost engine. Imagine the backward force on the landing gear strut caused by the nose wheel having to spin up from 0 rpm to landing speeds in the length of a runway skid mark. This backward force on the landing strut creates a huge instantaneous structural load in a sideways direction. And when the nose is dropping twice as fast, then the nose wheel must rotate up to landing speed in half the skid mark distance, thus doubling the instantaneous lateral force on the nose wheel strut.
canard are close useless on a commercial aircraft because they are naturaly stable (CG forward the CL) and doest need agility, modern fighter aircrafts need to be very agile, and are UNSTABLE (CG backward the Center of Lift)and are impossible to fly without fly by wire...
ok but F-15's, 16's, 18's, 22's, 35's also generate those lifting root vortices. So do Mig-29's and Su-27's. Why do we not call them delta wing? It seems to me the term is somewhere between nebulous and meaningless.
You forgot to mention that the cold war was fought in the air over the Baltic sea by the Swedish air force in the J-35 draken delta wing M2+ supercruise g Fighter, which was STOL, could use common car roads and do the cobra maneuver since 1960. Sweden had more than half of Europes border to Soviet union. The pilots reported it continued to accelerate, even while gaining altitudes, well beyond M2. But the engine was damaged by too high speed, so the limit could not be tested. AJ-35 Viggen had fixed canards with a flap from 1971, as the first delta canard fighter. I even miss the possibility of all moving canard delta configuration to change the aerodynamic center and the possibility of fly by wire to place the engine far back for better airodynamics.
Draken did not go supersonic without afterburner in level flight, and it made the "Short parade" manoeuvre and not the "Cobra". Sweden at the time had no border with the Soviet Union, though the line of conflict in case of war would be about the sae as the distance between Ystad and Milano in Italy. If the engine gets damaged by the speed, the limit has been exceeded, don't you think? But yes, the Swedish aircraft were mostly ignored in the historical section of the video.
@@johanmetreus1268 False! Draken did go supersonic in level flight without the use of after burner. "Kort parad" was the Swedish name för the maneuver that later was called cobra. Sweden had sea border with the Warszaw pact , but not so long. Strategic and tactical, the border was along the entire Swedish east coast. The Finish border to Soviet union was supposed to be defended by Sweden and Finland. But the fightings happened over the Baltic sea.
@@atlet1 "Draken did go supersonic in level flight without the use of after burner." Need to ask you for a source on this as neither Gunnar Lindquist or Ulf Frieberg mention it. "Sweden had sea border with the Warszaw pact" Simple look at the map says there was no border, as there's international water around Sweden except with Denmark, Norway and Finland.
@@johanmetreus1268 there are more border than what can be seen on usuayl maps. I don't remember any documents on Draken super cruise, but it's well known by every knowable person, including pilots.
@@atlet1 "there are more border than what can be seen on usuayl maps." No, there is not. Either there is territory or territorial waters separated by a border, or there isn't. "well known by every knowable person, " Do look up the names I mentioned above, and tell me someone more knowledgeable.
Canards always felt like a crutch to me. I'm sure this has a lot to do with my interest in military aircraft really taking off around the same time as stealth was taking off. I think lifting body designs will be the path of the future.
No the airfoil doesn't make the air above the wing move faster than the air below. Just the opposite. The shape of the wing obstructs the flow over the top of the wing creating a low pressure on the upper part of the wing compared to underneath.
The exact mechanisms are still highly debated, but the airfoil model makes the upper side significantly longer than than the straight underside. Now consider a body of air, where it gets separated by the wing at point A and then have to travel to point B behind the wing where it reunites. While the lower airstream travels in a straight line from A to B (or rather, the wing travels through the body of air from B to A, cleaving the body of air but let's assume it's the air moving), the upper stream has to travel the curved upper surface. The longer distance needed to be travelled in the same time means the upper stream must move faster, and the gas pressure of all gasses decreases with the increase of velocity. If you look at the English Wikipedia article about Bernoulli's principle, the thinner part in the venturi meter, where the air must move a lot faster in order to let through the same volume, gives a lot lower pressure compared to the thicker part of the venturi tube.
@@johanmetreus1268 that is the reality. The wing is moving through the air. In a wind tunnel those principles apply. But on a flying aircraft though the effect is similar the mechanics are different. The air is traveling up and down more than front to back it also at least on swept wing aircraft moves sideways along the wing. In either case the lift is produced by a pressure difference between upper and lower surfaces. Moving air having less pressure makes sense because the molecules are traveling in the direction precludes kinetic energy transfer in any direction except the direction of motion. For air that's stationary the pressure is uniform in all directions because the motion of the molecules is random. For a wing moving instead of the air the wing shape imparts a velocity to the perpendicular to the direction of motion sort of. You can think of it as traveling faster across the upper surface but the time required for two molecules starting side by side to go from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge when one goes over and the other goes under is unlikely to be the same.
@@stephenfowler4115 My understanding is that your thoughts are only partially valid. By and large because the wing is traveling forwards through the fluid/air, the majority of forces are in that direction. The lateral forces you describe happen but at a far less degree than the main forces. how much this happens is also related to the sweep of the wing so for example a wing that is not swept at all experiences minimal lateral flow and if even swept forward would experience lateral flows in the direction opposite that of a normally swept wing. In nearly all airfoils though, the upper surface will be a longer distance over the underside which will force flow to be faster over the top surface, causing a low pressure "suction" lift. But some airfoils don't rely on this principle but might rely instead on an angle of attack that produces a Newtonian positive "push" on the underside of the airfoil.
@@tonysu8860 Air moving through wind tunnel has it's own momentum. It's behavior has to be different than relatively stationary air that has a wing moving through it. Air at the leading edges of the wing is being compressed while air behind the max thickness of the wing is expanding. The lift vector moves aft with increasing speed of the aircraft. While wind tunnel results are similar to what happens in flight they aren't exactly the same because the the mechanisms that produce them are different.
@@leneanderthalien the air leak is necessary for delta wing to create lift, especially at high angle of attacks. Concorde's ogival delta wings allowed the vortex caused by this leak to adhere to the upper surface of the wing at low speeds.
I am liking your content more an more. But I do think it is hard as your monotone voice makes it difficult to consume. This is not something correctable I know. The attention to detail can make my attention wonder. But otherwise enjoyable in small doses.
who cares about delta J35 jumpet to dubbel delta in 1955 first airplane to do the Kort Parad (cobra mauver) and had a mechanichal computer data link system.
I hope you stay away from huge New York steaks, my mother got to marry a Boeing engineer for a year before he passed, left her a million. I only met him once and he had the same cut I did. She told me he was the only guy she ever loved, she would have died too if not for the heart break $.
My son asked me this question last year when he was 6, I told him it was because delta wings are inherently unstable at convenient angles of attack in subsonic flight so we couldn’t use them until we had computers fast enough to replace direct control with fly by wire. Then he asked me about flight stability and what subsonic meant…. 3 months later we were standing on USS Midway in San Diego harbor so I could show him in person. The entire time in between involved me brushing up on fluid dynamics and having video calls with an uncle who worked on the Saturn 5 when he was a young engineer.
Moral of the story: teach your kids, but be wary of the rabbit hole you may be going down.
Great job, Dad.
I forgot how much I loved tracing paper. Used so effectively in these videos.
According to a Dassault engineer, the position of the canards near the wing root of the Rafale are only intended to control the vortex above the wing while the canards of the Eurofighter, further forward, are mainly there to increase the maneuverability of the aircraft by generating a controllable lift force at the front of the aircraft. Same design, different purpose.
for the algorithm.
FOR THE ALGORITHM!!!!!
@@Mountain-Man-3000 Slava Algorithmi!
For Al Gore’s rhythm
Hail the Algorithm!
🤣
Consistently the most educational, thorough, and well-explained videos. Thank you.
Hey millennium can you ask OTIS, how did the Russian Su-27 hit the MQ-9 reaper in the propeller and not break itself in the process?
You think it hit it with the very expensive radar of thr nose?
Say hi to otis!
I wish I could elaborate, but you said it all.
The wings of the JAS-39 "Echo" are completely different from the JAS-39 "Charlie" in design, profile and construction.
I can't say if this is because they are now made of composite material or also because of the additional tanks, but the Gripen-E has a much robust fuselage body than the Gripen-C... On the internet there are AKAER drawings that clearly show the structural difference in size, design and material engineering.
Gripen E have wider spanwith and more internal fuel. This is why the body is wider and bulkier.
@@atlet1
Let's not forget the repositioned main landing gear, which has been moved from the fuselage in the Charlie to the wings in the Echo.
it alwsow have antenna for data-link and warfear built in to the body of the wings. in the new video Saab relesed you can see the patern of the antena on the wings etc
Isn’t the Gripen E/F to the original Gripen A/B/C/D like how the Super Hornet is to the original Hornet, as in they’re both completely different aircraft despite sharing the same name with their original counterparts.
One rather important plane missed in this video is the J 35 Draken that was also around at the same time as those early delta wings, but wasn't just a delta, but what is now called double delta as it got two different angles on the delta wing. This was rather ahead of it's time and shared many of the advantages of the canard delta wing configuration. There was a NASA study where they took an F-16 turned it easily modified and tested lots of different wing configurations, even strange ones like forward swept wings. The two they found were the most efficient was the canard delta and the double delta ones that had similar performance data.
One rather interesting thing about this is that it's quite possible we will get a return of this configuration as while canard delta have stealth issues so are the double delta naturally stealthy and well suited for internal stores as well.
F-22/F-35 look like double delta, if you consider inlets as part of the wing.
Yes, Saab often was ahead of its time. The first application of a double delta (in a mild form) seems to have been the Henschel P 135.
@@peceed Only if you ignore that the inlets are not delta shaped but boxes in addition to not being wings. J-35 intakes are really small so are part of the leading edge of the wings. That is not a requirement for the double delta as the NASA variant used the regular F-16 intakes. The key part is the two angles in the double delta are optimised for different speeds making it more flexible then a regular delta wing.
@@znail4675 Difference is not that big. And I wrote about similarities that are apparent, not the differences. Anyway this shape is extremely popular among all stealth constructions, and the main reason is the high aerodynamic efficiency of this shape. Everyone tries something different and always micro-f-22 emerges after aerodynamic refinements.
Wow! I really enjoyed this format with narrated drawings! Another improvement to an already excellent channel! 👍👍👍👏👏👏
Ah the Delta wing videos, easily the video that convinced me this was a channel to follow. The best on RUclips on easily explained and comprehensive aeronautics.
We here on millennium 7* comment for the algorithm.
Most underrated military tech channel on RUclips.
Great video, more interesting and useful to enquiring minds than 99% of "creative" content
Very comprehensive, nice summary. Loved it.
Great video on my second favourite aircraft topic, late cold war/early modern delta-canards.
Very interesting as usual, although I still want a bit more about the reasoning between close-coupled canard(Rafale) Vs long-coupled(Euro fighter)
That intro story about Your dad is why I smashed the like button! I have very similar stories
Great analysis, answered many of my questions.
Hey another video... :) Im just happy to see you looking healthy again
Take care and keep well
I think we are a similar age. I was born in 1969. I got into aircraft from Jane's ATF and Jane's Fighter Anthology video game. And flight simulators. Love your content.
Fascinating video. Thank you!
The intro could be a villain’s beginning story 😂
I concur, another algorithm-
kicker!😊
Great video.
I have lots of questions and contentions with what is in this video...
Yes, a number of if not all the characteristics of a delta wing are true but...
- Are not leading wing extensions an essential part of nearly all wingplans nowadays? It's my impression that it's an essential part along with other extendable wing parts like flaps, trailing slats and spoilers that modify the overall size, shape and even airfoil to what is considered optimal for the given speed and this is all implemented not only in miltary but also commercial aircraft. It was impression this is the true reason why swing wings no longer exist as the better way to modify the wingplan and airfoil radically through numerous smaller changes in flight rather than major hinged pieces being moved. Incidentally, this is also what I consider the possibly fatal flaw of the 737-MAX design, which introduces a new way to rely on fly-by-wire using sensory inputs during low and slow speeds rather than changing the wingplan and airfoil. The idea might have had value if implemented correctly but Boeing's hubris to cut costs on sensor systems made the 737-MAX unreliable and suffered disasters.
- A big missing piece pf this video is covering why modern delta canards aren't seen in probably in most popular fighter jet of the last 40 years... The F-16. Yes, it was designed just prior to the universal designs of delta canards. But, it should also be recognized that General Dynamics built F-16 delta testbeds and although there have been plenty of speculation and discussion in the real world, General Dynamics never changed over to any kind of delta configuration. It seems that the fly-by-wire that's touted in this video to solve so many delta canard problems also makes the F-16 possible to fly at all. It's said that the delta wing indisputably would enable the F-16 to carry a vastly heavier load but obviously the decision was made that the drawbacks exceeded the benefits of the original stubby wing design the F-16 still has today. Something is better about the F-16 without a delta wing than with it.
- This video is probably very wrong about the supposed incompatibility between a delta wing and stealth. If you look at both the F-22 and F-35 wingplans, they're both the uniquely American preference for a modified delta "diamond" design. The only difference between the diamond and pure delta designs are the trailing edges. There is almost certainly some difference in the airfoil, too. It should be noted also that the canards probably exist more for maneuverability and lift only in extreme attitudes than in ordinary flight when you compare to American designs without canards. American designs instead implement enlarged tail surfaces to provide sufficient control, especially the super sized V shaped tail surfaces of the F-22. Compare the American designs with for instance the Chinese J-20 and you'll notice how tiny the tail surfaces are for the Chinese aircraft by comparison.
The Mirage III was also based on the Fairey Delta 2 and the testing done at Cazaux Air Base ( 47 test flights with Dassault engineers participating in the trials ) . Dassault was able to see the future and was able to incorporate and confirm his ideas that led to the Mirage family of Delta aircraft.
Was not "based" on the Fairey, only compared, was a little bit inspired on the F102 delta dagger: you forgott that the delta wing was studied sinze long time in France (sinze the mid 30's)
Saab Viggen: if one delta wing is good, double delta wings are better!
Double delta would be the 35 Draken, 37 Viggen brought the canards :)
Please cover the Gripen / Rafale / Eurofighter / J10 / LCA mkI and MkII. Thank you soo much !
The Eurofighter is ongoing, everything else has been covered already with plenty of detail.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Yep agreed.. lots of in detail videios already about those types ! And thank you soo much for all that !!
@@TooliusTech Jepp, a comparison of the various canards would definitely be appreciated :)
Still sad Canada didn't choose Gripen.
Thank you, Sir!
Can you do a video on trapezoidal wings? I've always seen them as a kind of fusion between deltas and reverse sweep wings but I'm not sure if they give the benefits of both worlds; the F22 and F35 seem to use them so maybe it's the best option when stealth is involved?
Delta canards configurations are really awesome
I think you should make your aircraft prints available for us to download and colour in ;-)
This guy talks about aeronautical engineering like I understand it. I listen intently like I understand it. I think that means I'm smart. Yes.....I absolutely am. 🤗
👍👍 worth repeating and refreshing ..
Thanks a lot 😊
Great thank you on this amazing video.
As a Delta fan, my compliments M7*!
I do have a question based on the realities of early delta wing fighters. Delta fighters could out turn most of their adversaries. But, the fly in the ointment was in a sustained turn, where the delta would begin to lose lift within the first full circle.
I know this is true, but perhaps you could expound on the reasons.
TIA
As always very interesting.
excelent info.
The lift theory based on bernoulli principle is one of the misunderstandings of aerodynamic theory. Even as this is taught in universities today. There is no reason why particles passing on the top of the wing profile must reach the back edge of the wing at the same time as particles moving below the wing. This has also not been demonstrated to occur. What the wing does is, that it directs the airflow downwards. As postulated in Newton III, the counterforce caused by the air then causes lift.
Wouldn't such a downflow be clearly visible in windtunnel tests?
@@johanmetreus1268 You can see that in smoke tests. You can see a good explanation in the video by Lesics "How do Wings generate LIFT?"
Everything they tell you is a lie. They told us air gets less dense as it moves faster over the top.
THEN... why do have have wind under helicopters?
Amazing video
Does the SR-71A Blackbird function as a deltawing even though it was the first attempt at stealth (32:00)?
Do the engines interrupt the vortex creation (5:44)?
Does the SR-71A fuselage have lerx (33:44) properties?
Excellent explanation. It would be nice if you could explain what makes a thinner wing heavier by design than a thick wing, if I understood correctly that part of your video. Maybe some time in another video. Thanks again for your fantastic work on this channel.
Noted
28:30 I don’t know if this is similar but I’ve seen the F-35’s trailing edge flaps elevate upward even when pitching up. Is is to generate more lift or perhaps is it to decrease the load the wing is bearing?
To pich up with a long wing, it helps to have the flaps up. The aerodynamics center is moved forward this way.
I miss the big reason for Canards. The low speed during landing and take-off. Short landing and take-off runways. A great tactical advantage.
You should make a video on the MiG-29, maybe more specifically about how a twin engine Fighter could cost such a low amount as to be a competitor to the F-16.
Hey! Remember what people said? Yes! The j20 is not invisible . . you finally said that！As one would expect.
The F-35 is not, the F-22 is not etc etc etc
He said this I think one year ago already.
I have no idea as it is only going to end up as crispy Duck !!
1:27 lmao I never thought of this when I watched the original video but that's like my mom. I'll be explaining how the delta is different than some other design and my mom will just be like, "okay, they still all look the same to me."
I would appreciate it if you could cover exotic expiremental aircraft like the thunderscreech etc...
The Canard on the Rafale did in addition improve to airflow over the main wings at high angles of attack, it's not so the case on some other delta winged fighters...
In a close coupled configuration, a canard might serve the same purpose as leading wing extensions to improve the laminar flow and decrease flow separation at high angles of attack but the question might be... Why not just implement leading wing extensions which would probably be more aerodynamically efficient with less drag?
Guess the IAI Lavi was the closest we came to seeing a delta-canard esque F-16.
F-16XL, no canards though
J10?
Great stuff. Can you plz mention the x-29 in some future video? It's a so interesting plane and I would love to her more about it 🙂
PS.: Oh, now I see, you already did:
Could RUSSIA USE this NOW? - Why Berkut and X-29 are a dead end. - RUclips
ruclips.net/video/5SBspEnsgUc/видео.html
what about the glide ratio ex f-106 no canard vs delta cannard also reflexed airfoil with a slot in leading edge for vortex formation.
sweeping the wings forward and canardand YF23 blackwidow Vshaped diagonal V cleave tail
I’m not sure but I think I’ve read that the Saab Viggen canard control surfaces was only used as landing flaps and not for combat manouvers?
True. It is a long story...
Canards are on on dated 4.5 gen aircraft fighters like Eurofighter, Rafael, for yesterday's war but not on future 5th 6th gen aircraft!
Mirage 2000 my beloved
Audio is super quiet on this
Can you give your opinion on FA-50
FBW is a MUST for a fully-moving canard fighter-jet due to the inherent instability of this geometry.
Only since about 1980 in the West, such capabilities started being developed.
Radar-Stealth contradicts canards.
Pure-Delta is only for very-high landing-approach speeds, thus NOT for carriers or frontal runways.
Also not for Close Air Support (CAS) missions e.g. A-10, Su-25. Not even with Delta-Canard.
Delta = hugh drag due to long wing-root chord, thus shorter mission-radius/persistence.
Salúd! Stay in Health & get better
Probably, a stupid question, because I'm writing it before I watched the video, cause I'm not sure about the delta wing.. Yet. Because I'm sure I will be after your video.
But isn't the F-22, the F-35, the Su-57 also kind of an delta wing design? Looking on the blueprints from above the wings are 90% a perfect triangle isn't it?
Canards have fundamental advantages. I don’t know why Airbus or Boeing never designed a commercial passenger jet with a good sized canard. Less drag, less wing loading for lower landing speeds, direct control of how fast the nose rotates down at touchdown, possibly better handling to compensate for a lost engine.
Imagine the backward force on the landing gear strut caused by the nose wheel having to spin up from 0 rpm to landing speeds in the length of a runway skid mark. This backward force on the landing strut creates a huge instantaneous structural load in a sideways direction. And when the nose is dropping twice as fast, then the nose wheel must rotate up to landing speed in half the skid mark distance, thus doubling the instantaneous lateral force on the nose wheel strut.
canard are close useless on a commercial aircraft because they are naturaly stable (CG forward the CL) and doest need agility, modern fighter aircrafts need to be very agile, and are UNSTABLE (CG backward the Center of Lift)and are impossible to fly without fly by wire...
ok but F-15's, 16's, 18's, 22's, 35's also generate those lifting root vortices. So do Mig-29's and Su-27's. Why do we not call them delta wing? It seems to me the term is somewhere between nebulous and meaningless.
Thanks for the info. Cheers.
Can we talk about the Mig 1.41?
Liked and shared.
You forgot to mention that the cold war was fought in the air over the Baltic sea by the Swedish air force in the J-35 draken delta wing M2+ supercruise g Fighter, which was STOL, could use common car roads and do the cobra maneuver since 1960. Sweden had more than half of Europes border to Soviet union. The pilots reported it continued to accelerate, even while gaining altitudes, well beyond M2. But the engine was damaged by too high speed, so the limit could not be tested.
AJ-35 Viggen had fixed canards with a flap from 1971, as the first delta canard fighter.
I even miss the possibility of all moving canard delta configuration to change the aerodynamic center and the possibility of fly by wire to place the engine far back for better airodynamics.
Draken did not go supersonic without afterburner in level flight, and it made the "Short parade" manoeuvre and not the "Cobra". Sweden at the time had no border with the Soviet Union, though the line of conflict in case of war would be about the sae as the distance between Ystad and Milano in Italy.
If the engine gets damaged by the speed, the limit has been exceeded, don't you think?
But yes, the Swedish aircraft were mostly ignored in the historical section of the video.
@@johanmetreus1268 False! Draken did go supersonic in level flight without the use of after burner. "Kort parad" was the Swedish name för the maneuver that later was called cobra. Sweden had sea border with the Warszaw pact , but not so long. Strategic and tactical, the border was along the entire Swedish east coast. The Finish border to Soviet union was supposed to be defended by Sweden and Finland. But the fightings happened over the Baltic sea.
@@atlet1 "Draken did go supersonic in level flight without the use of after burner."
Need to ask you for a source on this as neither Gunnar Lindquist or Ulf Frieberg
mention it.
"Sweden had sea border with the Warszaw pact"
Simple look at the map says there was no border, as there's international water around Sweden except with Denmark, Norway and Finland.
@@johanmetreus1268 there are more border than what can be seen on usuayl maps. I don't remember any documents on Draken super cruise, but it's well known by every knowable person, including pilots.
@@atlet1 "there are more border than what can be seen on usuayl maps."
No, there is not. Either there is territory or territorial waters separated by a border, or there isn't.
"well known by every knowable person, "
Do look up the names I mentioned above, and tell me someone more knowledgeable.
Canards always felt like a crutch to me. I'm sure this has a lot to do with my interest in military aircraft really taking off around the same time as stealth was taking off. I think lifting body designs will be the path of the future.
No the airfoil doesn't make the air above the wing move faster than the air below. Just the opposite. The shape of the wing obstructs the flow over the top of the wing creating a low pressure on the upper part of the wing compared to underneath.
The exact mechanisms are still highly debated, but the airfoil model makes the upper side significantly longer than than the straight underside. Now consider a body of air, where it gets separated by the wing at point A and then have to travel to point B behind the wing where it reunites.
While the lower airstream travels in a straight line from A to B (or rather, the wing travels through the body of air from B to A, cleaving the body of air but let's assume it's the air moving), the upper stream has to travel the curved upper surface. The longer distance needed to be travelled in the same time means the upper stream must move faster, and the gas pressure of all gasses decreases with the increase of velocity. If you look at the English Wikipedia article about Bernoulli's principle, the thinner part in the venturi meter, where the air must move a lot faster in order to let through the same volume, gives a lot lower pressure compared to the thicker part of the venturi tube.
@@johanmetreus1268 that is the reality. The wing is moving through the air. In a wind tunnel those principles apply. But on a flying aircraft though the effect is similar the mechanics are different. The air is traveling up and down more than front to back it also at least on swept wing aircraft moves sideways along the wing. In either case the lift is produced by a pressure difference between upper and lower surfaces. Moving air having less pressure makes sense because the molecules are traveling in the direction precludes kinetic energy transfer in any direction except the direction of motion. For air that's stationary the pressure is uniform in all directions because the motion of the molecules is random. For a wing moving instead of the air the wing shape imparts a velocity to the perpendicular to the direction of motion sort of. You can think of it as traveling faster across the upper surface but the time required for two molecules starting side by side to go from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge when one goes over and the other goes under is unlikely to be the same.
@@stephenfowler4115 My understanding is that your thoughts are only partially valid. By and large because the wing is traveling forwards through the fluid/air, the majority of forces are in that direction. The lateral forces you describe happen but at a far less degree than the main forces. how much this happens is also related to the sweep of the wing so for example a wing that is not swept at all experiences minimal lateral flow and if even swept forward would experience lateral flows in the direction opposite that of a normally swept wing. In nearly all airfoils though, the upper surface will be a longer distance over the underside which will force flow to be faster over the top surface, causing a low pressure "suction" lift. But some airfoils don't rely on this principle but might rely instead on an angle of attack that produces a Newtonian positive "push" on the underside of the airfoil.
@@tonysu8860 Air moving through wind tunnel has it's own momentum. It's behavior has to be different than relatively stationary air that has a wing moving through it. Air at the leading edges of the wing is being compressed while air behind the max thickness of the wing is expanding. The lift vector moves aft with increasing speed of the aircraft. While wind tunnel results are similar to what happens in flight they aren't exactly the same because the the mechanisms that produce them are different.
You're not going to talk about the new photo of the B-21
Delta wings are the most important for a fighter jet. That's why F14 exists.
Scuola Superiore Aerospaziale Generale Broglio 1985 ❤️
Makes even me understand 😅
Delta wings are so inefficient that they leak air from the bottom surface of the wing to the top surface. This flaw that makes them more efficient.
@Otten Star the leak turns into a vortex which makes it possible to have a continuous airflow at high angle of attack.
see by Dassault (or on the Concorde) what they make to improve the Delta wing design and avoid air leak even at high angle of attack...
@@leneanderthalien the air leak is necessary for delta wing to create lift, especially at high angle of attacks. Concorde's ogival delta wings allowed the vortex caused by this leak to adhere to the upper surface of the wing at low speeds.
Alpha canards only! 😁
It remember some people had citicized canards used in the Chinese aircraft. So what now?
Volume is to low.
I got lost at computer controlled artificial stability.
I really hate the word "foreplanes". Its a tricky one to get right.
first comment
Are you sure?
The origin of the delta wing in Germany???
Roland Payen is rolling in his grave...
Bernouli is overrated.
Super Video
There's one little (well, quite huge tbh) interesting plane of similar configuration
MiG-1.44
JIC ;)
f
So basically everyone is coping from the Chinese? 🤯
I am liking your content more an more. But I do think it is hard as your monotone voice makes it difficult to consume. This is not something correctable I know. The attention to detail can make my attention wonder. But otherwise enjoyable in small doses.
who cares about delta J35 jumpet to dubbel delta in 1955 first airplane to do the Kort Parad (cobra mauver) and had a mechanichal computer data link system.
sorry but the video is way too quiet, id like to watch it but i can not understand you over the sound of my -bad decisions- tinitus.
Sorry!
Enabling the Auto-captions helps a bit, though there are some hilarious errors in that.
I hope you stay away from huge New York steaks, my mother got to marry a Boeing engineer for a year before he passed, left her a million. I only met him once and he had the same cut I did. She told me he was the only guy she ever loved, she would have died too if not for the heart break $.
Are u working at NASA, boeing or just an internet freak?
I am that fighter jet kid ,too 🤣🤣🤣 from 3 years old 🤣
17:30 Because of the Chinese copy