Convair Delta Wing Test
Page 1 of 10 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 247

Thread: Convair Delta Wing Test

  1. #1

    Convair Delta Wing Test

    Someone besides Convair, who got the contract on this one, had to do it I guess. The XF-92A.

    000Rick00 and I are working on this one. Never did a jet before so this is interesting but the design is simple so progress is fast.

    The XF-92A should look great in the sim, and of course be faster than radial twins I typically do. :-)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails ms-2017-oct-22-005.jpg   ms-2017-oct-22-006.jpg   ms-2017-oct-22-007.jpg   ms-2017-oct-22-008.jpg   ms-2017-oct-22-011.jpg  
    Milton Shupe
    FS9 Modeler Hack

    Video Tutorials - Gmax for Beginners My Uploads on SOH

  2. #2
    Well I guess the cat is out of the bag! A lot of hard work by Milton over this last week. Really nice looking piece of job!

    Elected to do the J-33-A-29 powered version. Thought afterburner might be worth it!
    Commercial AS/MEL & Instrument
    Certified Airplane Nut

  3. #3
    Members + MrZippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Sam Clam's Disco, Calif.
    Age
    68
    Posts
    190
    Ah, the forerunner of the F-106 Delta Dart, and B-58 Hustler (Vindicator, for the movie buffs). Looks like something to fly very fast and land like a Wobblin' Gobblin
    Charlie the balldude (Bald Dude) guy! Why do you think I wear a hat?

  4. #4
    One plane closer to having a full complement of Convair deltas! Just need an XFY-1 Pogo! (But I would't complain about a nicer Sea Dart than the one that's out!) Can't wait to see the view out of that heavily framed canopy!

  5. #5
    Making the flight dynamics is going to be interesting.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjoern View Post
    Making the flight dynamics is going to be interesting.
    LOL Yes, we already have a sense of that. Although I'll get a basic set done for testing the model, I'll leave the real fun to someone else. :-)
    Milton Shupe
    FS9 Modeler Hack

    Video Tutorials - Gmax for Beginners My Uploads on SOH

  7. #7
    The main thing with deltas is limited control power since they can't be trimmed out at higher alpha (Unless you throw a tail on it; see the MiG-21 and the F-16), high induced drag at high alpha due to the vortex shed off of the apex (Think fore-runner of strakes) but structurally efficient (due to the low aspect ratio; big root chord with high taper ratio, small span), low drag at high speed due to the high L.E. sweep. Oh, and they look cool.

    Another weird characteristic of deltas is you have to be steady on alpha and power during approach, because you can develop a sort of PIO due to being off-speed and off alpha. You see, if you get a little too slow or have too high of a decent rate most people want to pull back on the stick to create higher alpha and more lift. In a delta you will get a brief increase in lift, but then the higher drag of being at higher alpha kicks in and you also have less lift because you have more negative camber in the airfoil (elevons deflected further t.e. up) and the aircraft will sink even more. Conversely, if you are too nose up and push forward on the stick, you will reduce drag and it will want to "balloon/float" up initially due to lower drag and since the elevons now have less t.e. up and the camber develops more lift. The test pilot of the Arrow talked about that in one of my books on the Arrow program. If you aren't on alpha and at the correct power/speed for approach, just add power and go around and try again.

    Also, I have a very good article on the history of the XF-92 which mentions where various parts of the plane were taken from, such as the landing gear, etc., if you guys are interested. Just PM me.

    Thanks for modeling this, it's another plane I can cross of of my FS bucket list.

  8. #8
    There's some reports from Chuck Yeager that he was able to fly in stable condition 67mph at 30 degrees AoA. I've read in some articles that he landed at this speed which is completely false. He would have struck the exhaust pipe on the runway first. But, she was not liked by many pilots. However should be noted that Chuck Yeager loved the XF-92. At least from what I've read. He was reported as saying after the first flight that if they put the engine performance of the sabre into the handling of this jet he could shoot down anything.

    He was also reported to have told the next set of pilots to fly her that in order to takeoff you simply kept her straight ahead and then when ready fort lift off breathe on the control stick and she'll lift off! It was too sensitive with short moment arm and 3000 PSI hydraulic control system boost pumps. Ironically those were installed after the cinvair pilots initially complained about mushy controls if I remember right. Maybe I've got that backward though! Lol.
    Commercial AS/MEL & Instrument
    Certified Airplane Nut

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sundog View Post
    The main thing with deltas is limited control power since they can't be trimmed out at higher alpha (Unless you throw a tail on it; see the MiG-21 and the F-16), high induced drag at high alpha due to the vortex shed off of the apex (Think fore-runner of strakes) but structurally efficient (due to the low aspect ratio; big root chord with high taper ratio, small span), low drag at high speed due to the high L.E. sweep. Oh, and they look cool.

    Another weird characteristic of deltas is you have to be steady on alpha and power during approach, because you can develop a sort of PIO due to being off-speed and off alpha. You see, if you get a little too slow or have too high of a decent rate most people want to pull back on the stick to create higher alpha and more lift. In a delta you will get a brief increase in lift, but then the higher drag of being at higher alpha kicks in and you also have less lift because you have more negative camber in the airfoil (elevons deflected further t.e. up) and the aircraft will sink even more. Conversely, if you are too nose up and push forward on the stick, you will reduce drag and it will want to "balloon/float" up initially due to lower drag and since the elevons now have less t.e. up and the camber develops more lift. The test pilot of the Arrow talked about that in one of my books on the Arrow program. If you aren't on alpha and at the correct power/speed for approach, just add power and go around and try again.

    Also, I have a very good article on the history of the XF-92 which mentions where various parts of the plane were taken from, such as the landing gear, etc., if you guys are interested. Just PM me.

    Thanks for modeling this, it's another plane I can cross of of my FS bucket list.
    Very interesting Sir. That's why the FM is out of my hands. ;-)

    We do have limited data and specs on this one so anything you share will be greatly appreciated.
    Milton Shupe
    FS9 Modeler Hack

    Video Tutorials - Gmax for Beginners My Uploads on SOH

  10. #10
    Good to see you progressing with this Rick, and glad to see Milton in it too.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimus View Post
    Good to see you progressing with this Rick, and glad to see Milton in it too.

    Ha! Thanks Dimus. But it's the other way around! Milton is progressing with this and I'm in it...LOL. Milton is the man on this!
    Commercial AS/MEL & Instrument
    Certified Airplane Nut

  12. #12
    Here's what it was like without CFD....I created this animated gif using the some figures from one of the reports I have.


    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B43c_mD9H1xXalhmZVdwVDVkdktiUE9fSmcxY1ZPNFAtTTBr/view?usp=sharing


    Commercial AS/MEL & Instrument
    Certified Airplane Nut

  13. #13
    Bjoern, would love to have your expertise on this project with an idea I have....kind of a simpler version of your MIT gauge...if your interested let me know. it would be all you, since I'm a zero time coder. No worries if not.
    Commercial AS/MEL & Instrument
    Certified Airplane Nut

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by 000rick000 View Post
    Bjoern, would love to have your expertise on this project with an idea I have....kind of a simpler version of your MIT gauge...if your interested let me know. it would be all you, since I'm a zero time coder. No worries if not.
    Honored you're thinking of me, but I'll have to decline since I don't even have time to get even my primary stuff done.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjoern View Post
    Honored you're thinking of me, but I'll have to decline since I don't even have time to get even my primary stuff done.
    Oh No! Ok! No worries man, I totally understand. Thanks for the quick reply.
    Commercial AS/MEL & Instrument
    Certified Airplane Nut

  16. #16
    Sundog, that article was great. Dispelled some rumors regarding it's handling and performance and who flew it, and when. Also shed light on the 3 phases of testing. Interesting side note, CONVAIR actually designed and built an inlet air diffuser spike, they just never got to flight test it before Scott Crossfield ground looped the aircraft and ended the program. Amazing! Imagine if they had been able to gather that data.
    Commercial AS/MEL & Instrument
    Certified Airplane Nut

  17. #17
    Thank you both for this. It will make a wonderful, and much needed addition to FSX and P3D. I'm looking forward to flying it.
    I also wish someone would make the Convair Kingfish. It was the competitor to the YF-12 in the CIA's 1959 call for a replacement to the Lockheed U-2.
    It was built, it competed, and it lost to the YF-12, but unlike the YF-23 which also lost to Lockheed, its story doesn't end there. Even before the actual competition, the Kingfish, became a classified project, which is to be expected considering the sensitive nature of the material. What doesn't make sense is, its still classified over fifty years later. What we do know is that Kingfish was the progeny of the fish: a small parasite plane capable of hyper-sonic speeds and a ninety thousand foot ceiling. It was Convair's first proposal in the competition, but was found too expensive to maintain so the Kingfish was created. Fish, also used a lot of ceramics to reduce its radar cross section. It was beyond cutting edge. However, it relied on a super hustler to get it up to a speed where the engines would ignite. The Kingfish used the same engines as the YF-12, and lost fair and square to Lockheed as it was slower and couldn't fly as high. Maybe it was just forgotten by history like the Carmel Ca. Law prohibiting the sale of Ice Cream which Clint Eastwood repealed, or maybe there was something else, but either way, the Kingfish remains an enigma and one of the most ground breaking and innovative aircraft ever to be designed..

  18. #18

  19. #19
    So it was the fish that carried over into the hyper-sonic era and not kingfish. Interesting. Well, thats perhaps a conversation for another thread. Kingfish is dead, long live the fish. It's also interesting to see how Kingfish was based on the delta dagger ( but ended up being a tiny bit more like the F-117 ). I dont know what all that misdirection and misinformation was at the end of part four there, but it stinks to high heaven of American propoganda.. Time will maybe tell.. Thank you Rick ..

  20. #20
    Contours....nice lines.


    Commercial AS/MEL & Instrument
    Certified Airplane Nut

  21. #21
    That, would also be amazing to fly..

    Ya Knooowwwww. If someone were ever to find the time in their schedules to build the model, I bet i still have at least one more FDE in me I could do..

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by warchild View Post
    So it was the fish that carried over into the hyper-sonic era and not kingfish. Interesting. Well, thats perhaps a conversation for another thread. Kingfish is dead, long live the fish. It's also interesting to see how Kingfish was based on the delta dagger ( but ended up being a tiny bit more like the F-117 ). I dont know what all that misdirection and misinformation was at the end of part four there, but it stinks to high heaven of American propoganda.. Time will maybe tell.. Thank you Rick ..
    The Fish predated the Kingfish. There were many different design studies of the Fish. It was designed to be launched from the belly of a B-58. Some of them had launch boosters. Then when Oxcart came along, they scaled it up so it didn't need to be launched from another aircraft and reworked it to meet the requirements and it became the Kingfish.

    In fact, the Kingfish beat the A-12 in the first review, because of it's stealth. The CIA demanded stealth, but Kelly Johnson didn't want to use any stealth because he thought very high speed was enough of a refuge. The Skunk Works original submission (A-11?) was designed for Mach 4. But when Kelly heard they were losing to Convair, he relented and added stealth and the A-12 was born. There are reports that they were evenly matched, but the A-12 had slightly better range. But I think the Kingfish was designed for Mach 3, whereas the A-12 was based off of a Mach 4 design and in testing the A-12 hit around M=3.72 and the SR-71 about M=3.68. But they were limited operationally to a max of M=3.5. Anything over that destroyed the powerplants, but IIRC, during the first mission over Hanoi they were allowed to push it just past M=3.5 due to our concern over all of the SAM sites circling the city.

  23. #23
    Senior Administrator PRB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    MO (KSUS)
    Age
    55
    Posts
    8,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Sundog View Post
    The main thing with deltas is limited control power since they can't be trimmed out at higher alpha (Unless you throw a tail on it; see the MiG-21 and the F-16), high induced drag at high alpha due to the vortex shed off of the apex (Think fore-runner of strakes) but structurally efficient (due to the low aspect ratio; big root chord with high taper ratio, small span), low drag at high speed due to the high L.E. sweep. Oh, and they look cool.

    Another weird characteristic of deltas is you have to be steady on alpha and power during approach, because you can develop a sort of PIO due to being off-speed and off alpha. You see, if you get a little too slow or have too high of a decent rate most people want to pull back on the stick to create higher alpha and more lift. In a delta you will get a brief increase in lift, but then the higher drag of being at higher alpha kicks in and you also have less lift because you have more negative camber in the airfoil (elevons deflected further t.e. up) and the aircraft will sink even more. Conversely, if you are too nose up and push forward on the stick, you will reduce drag and it will want to "balloon/float" up initially due to lower drag and since the elevons now have less t.e. up and the camber develops more lift. The test pilot of the Arrow talked about that in one of my books on the Arrow program. If you aren't on alpha and at the correct power/speed for approach, just add power and go around and try again.

    Also, I have a very good article on the history of the XF-92 which mentions where various parts of the plane were taken from, such as the landing gear, etc., if you guys are interested. Just PM me.

    Thanks for modeling this, it's another plane I can cross of of my FS bucket list.
    Very interesting Sundog. But I have a question. When I got to fly the C-17 simulator, the instructor made a "big deal" out of the fact that the C-17 lands "on the back side", meaning on the back side of the power curve, a high AOA (low speed) region where forward and aft stick movement affects speed (AOA) and power controls glide slope (altitude). It's the same place on the power curve where navy jets approach the carrier, which is why they fly approaches the same way. Since all these delta-wing jets land at high AOA, might they "simply" be operating "behind" the power curve on approach, like C-17s and F/A-18s? I do wish FSX (etc.) modeled this interesting behavior better!
    - Paul

    Win7 x64 | GIGABYTE X79-UP4 | Intel Core i7-3820 Quad-Core 3.60 GHz | 16GB DDR3/1600MHz Quad Channel Memory | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB 16X PCIe 3.0

  24. #24
    The back side of the power curve is normal. It's just a different philosophy to flying. Where power controls altitude and pitch controls airspeed. You're operating in slow flight regime.
    Commercial AS/MEL & Instrument
    Certified Airplane Nut

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    Since all these delta-wing jets land at high AOA, might they "simply" be operating "behind" the power curve on approach, like C-17s and F/A-18s? I do wish FSX (etc.) modeled this interesting behavior better!
    Try Restauravia's Mirage III series. Since pilots of the real thing were involved in development, it handles pretty damn convincingly using only what's offered by FSXA.

Members who have read this thread: 552

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •