Delta Wing: Why Not? - why Rafale/Gripen/Eurofighter are delta and F-16/18/22/35/Su27/Mig29 are not 

As far as my recollection allows, the F-5E was one of the first aircraft to employ LERX

What about the yf-23 wings?

I second this. I always wondered why the body of fighter jets from north america were squishing out more and more as the years went on. Now I know why 😂🤣 maybe in 30 years they'll changed enough to be delta wings

S They did keep a little delta wing!

Cringe-worthy nonsense. Google what those terms mean before using them. Biased fanboys* are the problem. *Muh F-22.*

If you want to see what an F-16 with a delta wing looks like, just look at a bog standard F-16. Despite what some may say, it is a delta wing -- a clipped delta, but a delta nevertheless -- with a tail making it a tailed delta. This isn't something new ... the MiG-21 is also a tailed delta and if you look closely, its tips are clipped as well. The difference between the F-16 and the F-16XL is simply that the latter is a tailess delta.

@@lewiscole5193 Exactly what I was going to say. Both the F-15 and F-16 and delta wings, with cropped wing tips. The F-18 doesn't quite qualify, because the leading edge is no angled enough. The F-22 is basically a cropped delta, but with angled trailing edges.

@@lewiscole5193 A clipped delta wing? Are you kidding me? I can make just as strong an argument as saying it is a straight tapered wing with a root extension. The F16 is a compound blend of two shapes. A smooth blend would make it an ogee delta like the F16XL. A sharper one like the F16 is a compound delta or a cranked arrow. The cropped delta are Typhoon or Rafale.

@@watcher63034 > A clipped delta wing? Are you kidding me? No. Are you trolling me? > I can make just as strong an argument as > saying it is a straight tapered wing with > a root extension. What defines a delta wing planform is that it looks like the Greek letter delta, which is to say a triangle. If you extend the the line of the leading edge of F-16's main wing to meet the line of the trailing edge, what most people can easily see is a triangle that resembles delta. Many people, perhaps even most people, think that a delta wing planform must have a low aspect ratio in order for the wing to be called a delta (say around 3 or less as this is what you see on aircraft that are intended to fly supersonically), but there is no "formal" requirement that I know of that says that this must be the case. If you know of such a requirement from some aerodynamics authority (which obviously isn't you), let's hear it. As for straight tapered wings, say like that on the F-18, yes, if extend the leading edge line to meet the trailing edge line, you do end up with a triangle, and so I supposed it could be called a delta, but at some point, just about everyone in sight (except for the mathematicians among us) would say that it doesn't looks like the Greek letter delta and so wouldn't call it a delta (even though it is a triangle) but rather a "straight" wing with a leading edge taper. > F16 is a compound blend of two shapes. The F-16's main wing is a clipped delta attached to a blended flange (or if you prefer, a chine) with a blended leading edge extensions on which its designer, Harry Hillaker, originally planned to put twin rudders (vertical stabilizers). The twin rudders went away and were replace with a single larger rudder. Although the flange/chine does provide lift (as does a cylindrical fuselage in general), it helps if you ignore it when you squint your eyes to come up with a wing planform categorization. > A smooth blend would make it an ogee delta like the F16XL. You're entitled to your opinion, but I think that many/most people would say that a ogee delta would look like the Concorde. The F-16XL is what's often times referred to as a "cranked" delta or maybe even a "double delta" (the latter being what I've heard the Saab 35 Draken being called). "Cranked" is often times concatenated with "arrow" to come up with "cranked arrow" because the line of the trailing edge isn't straight, but in either case, a "cranked" delta and a "cranked arrow" (delta) are generally considered to be deltas. > A sharper one like the F16 is a compound > delta or a cranked arrow. Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think that the F-16XL planform would be considered a cranked arrow (delta) or maybe a clipped compound delta. > The cropped delta are Typhoon or Rafale. Both are obviously clipped (or if you prefer, cropped) deltas. But, unfortunately for you, neither aircraft makes what I said false. Other than as a pathetic attempt to boost your image among your even more ignorant friends, your self righteous indignation doesn't seem worth my time to bother with any further.

It looks like a Tejas

Thanks, nothing esoteric, though. I just try to explain why things are like they are. Enjoy!

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Maybe I choose the wrong word, "going into greater detail" would have been better, like LERX, I would have never heard that on the History or Discovery channel. Keep up the great work

Agreed

They really aren't. While there are some similarities, canards primarily act as lifting bodies and control surfaces just like wings and tails, LERX may produce some lift, but their main purpose is to delay stall at high angles of attack. That's why an F-18 can (mostly) pull off a cobra maneuver even without thrust vectoring

They aren't canards. They just do some of the same things. Basically a pair of properly designed canards will act as LERXs, but LERXs cannot act as canards. Then you have planes like the Viggen, where it's more confused. They don't control pitch like modern canards, but they are a separate set of surfaces. But they are designed to increase lift at low speeds, not to act as LERXs.

I think one of the most important parts is missing in the video(My 2. Point). Hybrid Delta Wings have to positve effects: 1. The LERX is increasing the maximum AoA of the Mainwing -> more Lift ->Lower Landing Speed/Higher G's etc. To create a vortex over a wing you need usually a sweep angle about 50+ degrees. These type of delta wings usually have really bad low speed characteristics -> high Landing Speed. Therefore an usual wing with sweep under 45° sweep is added to improve low speed characteristics(efficiency, ..). 2. This part is unfortunately missing: High Speed effect of the LERX: While high swept wings usually have a small increase in Lift with alpha (but can manage high alpha), the effect of LERX on Lift and therefore Aerodynamic Center is small. But in Highspeed Supersonic flight their effect on Aerodynamic Center shouldnt be neglected. In supersonic flight the AC is going back (~from 25% back to 50%) but because the effect of LERX on lift is increasing in the supersonic regime (everything with an Aspect Ratio < 1.5 has an high CL_alpha in supersonic and increasing effect ) this wandering of the AC is becoming smaller and therefore the trim drag too. Trimming in supersonic flight is very expensive, most stealth fighter are trying to avoid any surface deflections in supersonic flights for stealth and are using their thrust vectoring instead. These hybrid wings are just combining the high speed and low speed advantages. You can see this combination also in the ogival Delta of the concorde. Better and more detailed explenations can be found in some aircraft design books (Raymer p. 839 as an example ) ^^

Ok after investigating this channel for a minute YES this is exactly what I’m looking for. But please, if you have any other suggestions please holler 🤟🏼

I agree. This channel is really good. You might want to check out Greg’s Automobiles and Airplanes videos if you are interested in WW2 aircraft.

I agree. This channel is really good. You might want to check out Greg’s Automobiles and Airplanes videos if you are interested in WW2 aircraft.

That's what I was thinking. The delta has a lot of advantages, so for clean sheet designs in the 80s and 90s, they made a ton of sense. However, even in the modern era, the Euro deltas are not wildly outcompeted 1970s U.S. and Russian designs in terms of sales. They seem to fill a niche for countries that feel they 1. Absolutely must have the most capable light or medium weight fighter, and 2. Cost is not a factor, and 3. stealth is not an option. India buying Rafales is a prime example of this. For many other countries: - If you have the money and access to them, you buy F-35s. - If you need a cheap fighter that can use western sensors and weapons, you buy F-16s. - If you need a heavy fighter with lots of range and payload, you buy F-15s. - If you need a cheap fighter with lots of range and can afford somewhat older technology, or you don't have access to western markets, you buy Flankers. - If you need electronic warfare, you buy Growlers, and maybe you buy F-18E/Fs even though you don't really like them, because it simplifies your supply chain.

The F-22 has a delta wing.

@@nickkorkodylas5005 f-35 uses technologies from yakovlev vtol jet

@@GM-xk1nw well Lockheed did buy it, it is a partnership afterall

@mingoucz jcz that's not how it works though

@mingoucz jcz There's a difference between seeing how things work and literally ripping off stuff. Sure, there are important guidelines to follow if you want to lower your RCS, and it is obvious why those would be common to any fighter that tried to be at least a little bit stealthy, but look at an F-35 and its Chinese counterpart and tell me it's not a copy. Of all the configurations and wing ahapes, etc that they could have chosen... Not a coincidence.

@@nickkorkodylas5005 lol...way too many wrong info here. J6=MIG19 not Q5; J11 is a licensed production; combine the design of two aircraft is not as easy as you think...I guess you dont understand aerodynamics and aircraft design at all

Interesting considerations. I am very interested in the Su-57 but reliable information is scarce, so far.

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Information is of course always scarce. I tend to rely on a holistic approach. In the end al that stuff touches again because the laws of aerodynamics can be reinterpreted but the physics behind it do not change. Thus there must be a reasoning behind those "hidden"' Su-57 canards. I suspect to retain the tri-plane layouts advantages while still improving stealth. The intruiging aspect is how this solution wil influence the trailing behaviour of such semi-canards. How will it affect the flow into the engiens for instance but even more: There will be no cross main wing leading edge "vectoring" of airflow (Sorry if I sometimes have to revert to creative descriptions. I am not fully versed in the established "dialect"). In that respect Russian approach can also seem counterproductive to certain fashions. When those extra foreplanes appeared many people will also have shaken their heads in disbelief (What about stealth? What about extra drag?). It has however been proven they where spot on. Not much turns like a gigantic SU-27 series plane. And imagine what the fashion might have been right now if more money had been available for the S-37 Berkut. Talking about fighters "not Looking right". Talking about an interesting subject as well: Did you already cover FSW in a video? I'll check but if not this is a hint! :-)

@@nickkorkodylas5005 Thank you. I confess I wasn't aware that Su-27s had a true FBW system. I thought it was more akin to the F-18's ECAS.

Its all generational upgrades. I believe legacy Hornets only had ECAS. Super Hornets have true FBW. Im sure Flankers slowly are integrating it into even stable designs. The F-15EX will have FBW options. Most importantly being that its trim will change automatically with nose direction and AOA. Keeping the pilots hands free more often.

The F-22 is a delta wing fighter,and it's considered to be the best fighter jet ever made.

Tejas. It's so old a rehashed mirage with poor engine a radar that doesn't work, not wanted by the navy obsolete before it's even introduced. It's only been accepted because it's made in India

@@garyhewitt489 well the engine gef404 also powers heavier aircrafts like the gripen, fa 18 hornet etc. So its more than enough for the lca. The mark 2 will be fitted with the newer gef414. And for the radar, the EL/M-2052 AESA radar is a temporary fit until the indigenous uttam aesa radar is ready for production. And the navy now wants it after they upgraded the jet to their specifications.

@@himankan I know , I'm just trying to trigger some Indian nationalists lol. On a serious note, why didn't the navy use the rafale ? The Grippen would have suited as a cheap light easy to maintain option too. So much of a modern jet is available off the shelf, engines avionics weapons radars, it's just a case of picking what you want and sticking it on an airframe, the tech for the airframes isn't really much above what an F1 team does these days, provided your not trying to be cutting edge and are prepared to "borrow" some tech. If you look at the Grippen it's just a clever amalgamation of modern off the shelf bits, it's a very clever and practical way to do it, and by continuosly updating and refining it,it stays current. It is a bit like Lego or flatpak after all.

@@garyhewitt489 India is trying to reduce reliance based on past experiences where they don't get adequate servicing or sanctioned off. They are trying to shift the focus to the upcoming indigenous mark 2 variant but that would need time. Rafale is still on the cards. There's another reason, the rafales are a bit costly and you may also get an f35 if you pay a bit more.

@@himankan I just did a quick wiki of the IAF. What a strange mishmash of aircraft. I see the SU30 , but with the mig21bis gone, the Jaguars must be getting short on hours, the mirages going I would say they're desperate for a low cost attack or mrole aircraft. The French and Russians don't really have anything off the shelf that would suit, and the home produced stuff takes too long to get in service. An export licence built hornet would fit the bill in about 2030 I reckon. I should phone the Lockheed sales department they would probably go for it.

Also, delta wings produce more drag at higher angles of attack, which makes them unattractive for subsonic aircraft.

If I had to guess, the engines were still a too low in thrust.

Yes it is. Bismarck on Military Aviation History has covered the story already in an excellent manner and with a better perspective than I have ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n7NuNDlJBBI.html

It could be,but I suppose it was verified in the wind tunnel that they don't

@@Millennium7HistoryTech yes they must have. But I supose it reduces their effect to some level. Maybe not a key function that you need to have 100% effekt from

But not canard.

Sorry about that

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WmLW0bi5iuM.html

@@nickkorkodylas5005 Composite is for weight reduction moron.

Wrong. Delta wings are actually very good at turning. Did you not pay any attention? Even without the foreplanes, the delta shape serves as LERXs, keeping the flow over the wing at high AOAs, meaning they can turn very sharply. They just have a lot of drag at high AOA, so they are not as good at SUSTAINED turning as some other types. THey bleed speed in turns, a lot. But they can turn very sharply. They also tend to have more area than conventional wings of the same size, so they can do this at high altitudes. The main problem with tailless deltas is that they have high landing speeds because you cannot use flaps. If they were only good for high speeds, they wouldn't have used delta wings on the F-15 and F-16, would they? Both planes use a delta wing, a cropped, tailed delta. The MiG-21 uses a straight tailed delta. It out-turned all US fighters in Vietnam. The F-106 was an extremely good dogfighter at high altitude. They adopted canards to reduce landing speeds, and then someone though "hey, we can use these to control pitch as well, since they work by ADDING lift instead of subtracting it, like a tailless delta or conventional tailed jet".

@@MrJuanmarin99 What does that have to do with what he said?

@@justforever96 The one I responded deleted his message. He was calling European stupid (with worse words) for using composite to decrease the radar signature and then putting a titanium canard that reflects the radar. When the point of the composite was weigh reduction.

@Jun Don bingo

Actually, it is the other way around. The F-22 needs trust vector control to be somewhat maneuverable. The technology was developed in the german-american project X-31 but was not considered worth the complexity for the Eurofighter. I would consider the eurocanards to be more maneuverable than F-15,-16 and -18. Still they have low observability because of detail optimization(like the S-duct) and special coatings. But that's ok the strengths of the american jets lay in different areas

@@goldfischbaron5254 Different criteria of maneuverability. The F-22 combines the thrust-to-weight ratio of a F-15 plus the supermaneuverability. Late Cold War Western fighters tend to optimize energy, while Soviet fighters tend to optimize post-stall manueverability. F-16, F-15, and French fighters (Mirage & Rafale) focused on energy, SU-27, SU-35, and F/A-18 focused on post-stall and high angle of attack, the MiG-29 and F-22 optimized both.

Yes, it is a very sophisticated aerodynamic solution. In this case they are used to better control the airflow over the lifting body and to enhance the handling.

@@silviosarunic3234 Sefe zrak se dijeli po gustoci tlaka iznad i ispod 5 km visine od zemlje!?Brzi zrak se krece iznad aviona (nadtlak) za 8-10 km/h u odnosu na tlak ispod aviona (podtlak) ili seljaci napisano delta,kandar avioni imaju vece manevarske sposobnosti iznad 5km visine dok avioni poput F15,16,18 ili SU 27-37 ili MIG 29-35 imaju bolje sposobnosti ispod 5 km visine!?

@@silviosarunic3234 Ono sto admin prica je testiranje u aerotunelu gdje se ispituju krila!?Danasnji bespilotni dronovi su trebali biti stealth koji cine dron novom udarnom snagom jer ne postoji gubitak ljudske zrtve pilota u kriznim situacijama!?Problem aviona sa kandar konstrukcijom je taj sto ljudi misle da delta krilo ne moze biti sa stealth osobinama!?A svi znamo da krila presvlace u tvrdu PVC plastiku da se smanji radarski odraz!?Admin bi zelio da US vojska pokrene projekat F16XL sa presvucenim PVC preko delta krila!?

You are probably right, I don't disagree.

Yes they made one the f16 xl but never been produce

In this video, I was just trying to explain why some contemporary fighters are delta canard and others are not. The Viggen was not mentioned, being a relatively old machine, but this is no detriment to the Viggen in any way.

Lerx is a small delta wing hihihi

Look up Tolkachev (Billon Dollar Spy), and Constant Peg. The US and the Soviet Union either stole designs from each other or made design changes to counter each other's aircraft. One of the main reasons the Israeli F15/F16s beat the Russian aircraft. I am more of an electronics guy, not an aerodynamics guy like you, so I can say that the US knew everything about Soviet radar, communications, ECM, etc., plus they had electronics superiority. This is why the US can wipe out Soviet aircraft. And that is the primary reason that India uses a lot of Israeli avionics in Russian aircraft.

What's your point? The f-16 and f-18 are far better examples of blended wings, not to mention the MiG-29, which is basically all a wing with engine nacells and control surfaces attached to it, and all of these were discussed in the video. The f-15 was able to remain flyable not because of the wing, but mainly because of the wide fuselage providing lift.

correct

The pilots?

its a junk mama

@@alimohsin697 I know you are idiot please don't display it

@@alimohsin697 bhak gawar kahi ka

Sorry to hear that. It is a bit of a mystery: it is annoying for some while others like it. I believe that some sound reproduction chains have problems with it while others reproduce it correctly.