Danger said:
I couldn't help noticing that you proclaimed that none of us were qualified to contribute to Rainmanaero's question about initial pitch control reversal in a delta-wing aircraft. I can assure you that you were speaking for yourself only. Comments like that shouldn't be made unless you know who it is that you're commenting about.
Well, after reading his post the answers in that thread looked to me to be more akin to a RC model airplane forum that I visit sometimes where I see people give answers that show they don't really know what they are talking about.
I'm sorry, but that thread made me almost fall out of my chair.
I mean no offense,
no offense,
I love you guys...but some of these things said w/o naming names:
Since your question is in regard to whether or not anyone knows of a compensation method other than canards, I have to answer 'no'. My approach to the issue, however, would be to consider moderate thrust vectoring.
Really, are you current on controls literature?
Their general design was flight control of an aircraft without the use of control surfaces. The concept they were working on was directly changing the pressure above/below the wing through the use of pumps and pinholes in the surface of the wing. By either pumping air from or adding air to a side of the surface (I'm not sure which it was), it was my understanding they were actually able to gain control of pitch, yaw and roll.
I too have heard of this, two I have seen at work are a Sparkjet or a Pulse Plasma Thruster. But, I have NOT heard/seen/read any papers on this issue in terms of controls for delta wings to solve that specific problem asked. So it does not answer the question at hand.
The first thing that comes to mind is what they used to fix the pitch authority problem on the Bell X-1 in the transonic range; they switched from a hinged elevator to a completely moveable horizontal stabilizer. The only problem there being that the entire surface may still be effected. Is resizing or moving the horizontal stabilizer an option?
This does not even address the question properly...
The x-1 is not a delta wing, and its flying much faster.
If this was a once-or-twice-per-mission manoeuvre, I would even seriously consider detonating a concussion missile just below and in front of the plane and riding the shockwave up. Of course, that's not overly Stealthy.
Ahhh, what?
I mean, not to bust peoples asses or anything, but I would have love to have seen a response like, "hey, we had something like this at work, here is a paper we wrote, or here are some papers that address this problem we looked into and what the results were."
I mean, a lot of people gave answers, and there
not wrong, but when I read them it makes me say, "ok, so what, how does that answer his question? What conclusions are you basing these answers on, what literature are you refrencing your answers to?"
If you can't give me an answer to these questions, you don't know what your talking about, I'm sorry. This is what I mean when I say it seems like a 'pop science' forums at times, and not a 'science forum.' This is a lot of stuff that sounds right out of a magazine, with little to no substance\research\maths behind it.
Sorry guys, you all are
alot smarter than me. I am not going to pretend otherwise. I just wanted to bring this to light because when I see things like this sometimes, it makes me sad. I don't want the engineering forums turning into a model-airplane forum (where I have seen all sorts of off the wall answers given).
Granted, his question was very specific, but it felt like he was asking a question if anyone had done/knows about research in this area. The guy is really smart, so telling him thrust vectoring is a waste of his time, unless you can show
how thrust vectoring solved that problem.
***I post this with much hesistation, but I feel like I had to say it.
Again, no offense, I love you guys, thanks for your help in the past and future.
).
