476 PA RT 2 Inviscid, Incompressible Flow

5.6 APPLIED AERODYNAMICS: THE DELTA WING

In Part 3 of this book, we will see that supersonic flow is dramatically different
from subsonic flow in virtually all respects—the mathematics and physics of
these two flow regimes are totally different. Such differences impact the design
philosophy of aircraft for supersonic flight in comparison to aircraft for subsonic
flight. In particular, supersonic airplanes usually have highly swept wings (the
reasons for this are discussed in Part 3). A special case of swept wings is those
aircraft with a triangular planform—called delta wings. A comparison of the
planform of a conventional swept wing was shown in Figure 5.32. Two classic
examples of aircraft with delta wings are the Convair F-102A, the first operational
jet airplane in the United States to be designed with a delta wing, shown in
Figure 5.39a, and the space shuttle, basically a hypersonic airplane, shown in
Figure 5.39b. In reality, the planform of the space shuttle is more correctly denoted
as a double-delta shape. Indeed, there are several variants of the basic delta wing
used on modern aircraft; these are shown in Figure 5.40. Delta wings are used on
many different types of high-speed airplanes around the world; hence, the delta
planform is an important aerodynamic configuration.
Question: Since delta-winged aircraft are high-speed vehicles, why are we
discussing this topic in the present chapter, which deals with the low-speed, in-
compressible flow over finite wings? The obvious answer is that all high-speed
aircraft fly at low speeds for takeoff and landing; moreover, in most cases, these
aircraft spend the vast majority of their flight time at subsonic speeds, using
their supersonic capability for short “supersonic dashes,” depending on their
mission. Several exceptions are, of course, the Concorde supersonic transport
which cruised at supersonic speeds across oceans, and the space shuttle, which
is hypersonic for most of its reentry into the earth’s atmosphere. However, a vast
majority of delta-winged aircraft spend a great deal of their flight time at subsonic
speeds. For this reason, the low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of delta wings
are of great importance; this is accentuated by the rather different and unique
aerodynamic aspects associated with such delta wings. Therefore, the low-speed
aerodynamics of delta wings has been a subject of much serious study over the
past years, going back as far as the early work on delta wings by Alexander
Lippisch in Germany during the 1930s. This is the answer to our question posed
above—in the context of our discussion on finite wings, we must give the delta
wing some special attention.
The subsonic flow pattern over the top of a delta wing at angle of attack
is sketched in Figure 5.41. The dominant aspect of this flow are the two vortex
patterns that occur in the vicinity of the highly swept leading edges. These vortex
patterns are created by the following mechanism. The pressure on the bottom
surface of the wing at the angle of attack is higher than the pressure on the top
surface. Thus, the flow on the bottom surface in the vicinity of the leading edge
tries to curl around the leading edge from the bottom to the top. If the leading
edge is sharp, the flow will separate along its entire length. (We have already
mentioned several times that when low-speed, subsonic flow passes over a sharp
 C H A PTER 5 Incompressible Flow over Finite Wings 477

(a)

Figure 5.39 Some delta-winged vehicles. (a) The Convair F-102A. (NASA).

convex corner, inviscid flow theory predicts an infinite velocity at the corner, and
that nature copes with this situation by having the flow separate at the corner.
The leading edge of a delta wing is such a case.) This separated flow curls into a
primary vortex which exists above the wing just inboard of each leading edge, as
478 PA RT 2 Inviscid, Incompressible Flow

(b)

Figure 5.39 (continued) Some delta-winged vehicles.

(b) The space shuttle. (NASA).
 C H A PTER 5 Incompressible Flow over Finite Wings 479

Figure 5.40 Four versions of a delta-wing planform.

(From Loftin, Lawrence K., Jr.: Quest for Performance:
The Evolution of Modern Aircraft, NASA SP-468, 1985).

Figure 5.41 Schematic of the subsonic flow field over the top of a delta wing at angle of attack.
(Adapted from John Stollery, Cranfield Institute of Technology, England).
480 PA RT 2 Inviscid, Incompressible Flow

Figure 5.42 Leading-edge vortices over the top surface of a delta wing at angle of attack.
The vortices are made visible by dye streaks in water flow. (© National Physical
Laboratory/Crown Copyright/Science Source).

sketched in Figure 5.41. The stream surface which has separated at the leading
edge (the primary separation line S1 in Figure 5.41) loops above the wing and then
reattaches along the primary attachment line (line A1 in Figure 5.41). The primary
vortex is contained within this loop. A secondary vortex is formed underneath the
primary vortex, with its own separation line, denoted by S2 in Figure 5.41, and
its own reattachment line A2 . Notice that the surface streamlines flow away from
the attachment lines A1 and A2 on both sides of these lines, whereas the surface
streamlines tend to flow toward the separation lines S1 and S2 and then simply lift
off the surface along these lines. Inboard of the leading-edge vortices, the surface
streamlines are attached, and flow downstream virtually is undisturbed along a
series of straight-line rays emanating from the vertex of the triangular shape. A
graphic illustration of the leading-edge vortices is shown in both Figures 5.42 and
5.43. In Figure 5.42, we see a highly swept delta wing mounted in a water tunnel.
Filaments of colored dye are introduced at two locations along each leading
edge. This photograph, taken from an angle looking down on the top of the wing,
clearly shows the entrainment of the colored dye in the vortices. Figure 5.43 is
a photograph of the vortex pattern in the crossflow plane (the crossflow plane is
shown in Figure 5.41). From the photographs in Figures 5.42 and 5.43, we clearly
see that the leading-edge vortex is real and is positioned above and somewhat
inboard of the leading edge itself.
The leading-edge vortices are strong and stable. Being a source of high energy,
relatively high-vorticity flow, the local static pressure in the vicinity of the vortices
is small. Hence, the surface pressure on the top surface of the delta wing is reduced
 C H A PTER 5 Incompressible Flow over Finite Wings 481

Figure 5.43 The flow field in the crossflow plane above a delta wing at angle of attack,
showing the two primary leading-edge vortices. The vortices are made visible by small air
bubbles in water. (© ONERA The French Aerospace Lab).

Figure 5.44 Schematic of the spanwise pressure coefficient

distribution across a delta wing. (Data Courtesy of John Stollery,
Cranfield Institute of Technology, England).

near the leading edge and is higher and reasonably constant over the middle of
the wing. The qualitative variation of the pressure coefficient in the spanwise
direction (the y direction as shown in Figure 5.41) is sketched in Figure 5.44.
The spanwise variation of pressure over the bottom surface is essentially constant
and higher than the freestream pressure (a positive C p ). Over the top surface,
482 PA RT 2 Inviscid, Incompressible Flow

Figure 5.45 Variation of lift coefficient for a flat delta wing with angle of
attack. (Data Courtesy of John Stollery, Cranfield Institute of Technology,
England).

the spanwise variation in the midsection of the wing is essentially constant and
lower than the freestream pressure (a negative C p ). However, near the leading
edges the static pressure drops considerably (the values of C p become more
negative). The leading-edge vortices are literally creating a strong “suction” on the
top surface near the leading edges. In Figure 5.44, vertical arrows are shown to
indicate further the effect on the spanwise lift distribution; the upward direction
of these arrows as well as their relative length show the local contribution of each
section of the wing to the normal force distribution. The suction effect of the
leading-edge vortices is clearly shown by these arrows.
The suction effect of the leading-edge vortices enhances the lift; for this
reason, the lift coefficient curve for a delta wing exhibits an increase in C L for
values of α at which conventional wing planforms would be stalled. A typical
variation of C L with α for a 60◦ delta wing is shown in Figure 5.45. Note the
following characteristics:
1. The lift slope is small, on the order of 0.05/degree.
2. However, the lift continues to increase to large values of α; in Figure 5.45,
the stalling angle of attack is on the order of 35◦ . The net result is a
reasonable value of C L ,max , on the order of 1.3.
 C H A PTER 5 Incompressible Flow over Finite Wings 483

Figure 5.46 The effect of leading-edge shape on the lift-to-drag

ratio for a delta wing of aspect ratio 2.31. The two solid curves
apply to a sharp leading edge, and the dashed curve applies to a
rounded leading edge. LEVF denotes a wing with a leading-edge
vortex flap. (Data Courtesy of John Stollery, Cranfield Institute of
Technology, England).

The next time you have an opportunity to watch a delta-winged airplane take
off or land, say, for example, the televised landing of the space shuttle, note the
large angle of attack of the vehicle. Moreover, you will understand why the angle
of attack is large—because the lift slope is small, and hence the angle of attack
must be large enough to generate the high values of C L required for low-speed
flight.
The suction effect of the leading-edge vortices, in acting to increase the nor-
mal force, consequently, increases the drag at the same time it increases the lift.
Hence, the aerodynamic effect of these vortices is not necessarily advantageous.
In fact, the lift-to-drag ratio L/D for a delta planform is not so high as conven-
tional wings. The typical variation of L/D with C L for a delta wing is shown in
Figure 5.46, the results for the sharp leading edge, 60◦ delta wing are given by the
lower curve. Note that the maximum value of L/D for this case is about 9.3—not
a particularly exciting value for a low-speed aircraft.
484 PA RT 2 Inviscid, Incompressible Flow

There are two other phenomena that are reflected by the data in Figure 5.46.
The first is the effect of greatly rounding the leading edges of the delta wing.
In our previous discussions, we have treated the case of a sharp leading edge;
such sharp edges cause the flow to separate at the leading edge, forming the
leading-edge vortices. On the other hand, if the leading-edge radius is large,
the flow separation will be minimized, or possibly will not occur. In turn, the
drag penalty discussed above will not be present, and hence the L/D ratio will
increase. The dashed curve in Figure 5.46 is the case for a 60◦ delta wing with well-
rounded leading edges. Note that (L/D)max for this case is about 16.5, almost
a factor of 2 higher than the sharp leading-edge case. However, keep in mind
that these are results for subsonic speeds. There is a major design compromise
reflected in these results. At the beginning of this section, we mentioned that
the delta-wing planform with sharp leading edges is advantageous for supersonic
flight—its highly swept shape in combination with sharp leading edges has a low
supersonic drag. However, at supersonic speeds this advantage will be negated
if the leading edges are rounded to any great extent. We will find in our study
of supersonic flow in Part 3 that a blunt-nosed body creates very large values
of wave drag. Therefore, leading edges with large radii are not appropriate for
supersonic aircraft; indeed, it is desirable to have as sharp a leading edge as is
practically possible for supersonic airplanes. A singular exception is the design of
the space shuttle. The leading-edge radius of the space shuttle is large; this is due
to three features that combine to make such blunt leading edges advantageous
for the shuttle. First, the shuttle must slow down early during reentry into the
earth’s atmosphere to avoid massive aerodynamic heating (aspects of aerodynamic
heating are discussed in Part 4). Therefore, in order to obtain this deceleration,
a high drag is desirable for the space shuttle; indeed, the maximum L/D ratio
of the space shuttle during reentry is about 2. A large leading-edge radius, with
its attendant high drag, is therefore advantageous. Second, as we will see in
Part 4, the rate of aerodynamic heating to the leading edge itself—a region of
high heating—is inversely proportional to the square root of the leading-edge
radius. Hence, the larger the radius, the smaller will be the heating rate to the
leading edge. Third, as already explained above, a highly rounded leading edge
is certainly advantageous to the shuttle’s subsonic aerodynamic characteristics.
Hence, a well-rounded leading edge is an important design feature for the space
shuttle on all accounts. However, we must be reminded that this is not the case for
more conventional supersonic aircraft, which demand very sharp leading edges.
For these aircraft, a delta wing with a sharp leading edge has relatively poor
subsonic performance.
This leads to the second of the phenomena reflected in Figure 5.46. The middle
curve in Figure 5.46 is labeled LEVF, which denotes the case for a leading-edge
vortex flap. This pertains to a mechanical configuration where the leading edges
can be deflected downward through a variable angle, analogous to the deflection of
a conventional trailing-edge flap. The spanwise pressure-coefficient distribution
for this case is sketched in Figure 5.47; note that the direction of the suction due
 C H A PTER 5 Incompressible Flow over Finite Wings 485

Figure 5.47 A schematic of the spanwise pressure coefficient

distribution over the top of a delta wing as modified by leading-edge
vortex flaps. (Data Courtesy of John Stollery, Cranfield Institute of
Technology, England).

to the leading-edge vortice is now modified in comparison to the case with no

leading-edge flap shown earlier in Figure 5.44. Also, returning to Figure 5.41,
you can visualize what the wing geometry would look like with the leading edge
drooped down; a front view of the downward deflected flap would actually show
some projected frontal area. Since the pressure is low over this frontal area, the
net drag can decrease. This phenomenon is illustrated by the middle curve in
Figure 5.46, which shows a generally higher L/D for the leading-edge vortex
flap in comparison to the case with no flap (the flat delta wing).
Finally, we note something drastic that occurs in the flow over the top surface
of a delta wing when it is at a high enough angle of attack. The primary vortices
shown in Figures 5.41 and 5.42 begin to fall apart somewhere along the length
of the vortex; this is called vortex breakdown, illustrated in Figure 5.48. Com-
pare this photograph with that shown in Figure 5.42 for well-behaved vortices at
lower angle of attack. In Figure 5.48 the two leading-edge vortices show vortex
breakdown at a location about two-thirds along their length over the top of the
wing. This photograph is particularly interesting because it shows two types of
vortex breakdown. The vortex at the top of the photograph exhibits a spiral-type
of vortex breakdown, where the breakdown occurs progressively along the core
and causes the core to twist in various directions. The vortex at the bottom of
the photograph exhibits a bubble-type of vortex breakdown, where the vortex
suddenly bursts, forming a large bubble of chaotic flow. The spiral type of vortex
breakdown is more common. When vortex breakdown occurs, the lift and pitch-
ing moment of the delta wing decrease, the flow becomes unsteady, and buffeting
of the wing occurs.
486 PA RT 2 Inviscid, Incompressible Flow

Figure 5.48 Vortex breakdown over a delta wing. (© Science Source).

The progressive development of vortex breakdown is shown by the com-

putational fluid dynamic (CFD) results in Figure 5.49 for a delta wing with a
60-degree sweep angle. At α = 5◦ (Figure 5.49a), the vortex core is well-
behaved. At α = 15◦ (Figure 5.49b), vortex breakdown is starting. At α = 40◦
(Figure 5.49c), the flow over the top of the delta wing is completely separated,
and the wing is stalled. The results in Figure 5.49 are interesting for another rea-
son as well. In a footnote to Section 4.4 we noted that inviscid flow calculations
sometimes predict the location and nature of flow separation. Here we see another
such case. The vortex breakdown and separated flow shown in Figure 5.49 are
calculated from a CFD solution of the Euler equations (i.e., an inviscid flow cal-
culation). It appears that friction does not play a critical role in vortex formation
and breakdown.
(For more information on vortex bursting over delta wings, see the recent
survey by I. Gursul, “Recent Developments in Delta Wing Aerodynamics,” The
Aeronautical Journal, vol. 108, number 1087, September 2004, pp. 437–452.)
In summary, the delta wing is a common planform for supersonic aircraft. In
this section, we have examined the low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of such
wings and have found that these characteristics are in some ways quite different
from a conventional planform.
 C H A PTER 5 Incompressible Flow over Finite Wings 487

Vortex Core

(a)

Vortex Breakdown

(b)

Wing Stall

(c)

Figure 5.49 Vortex behavior and breakdown progression with

increasing angles of attack of (a) 5◦ , (b) 15◦ , (c) 40◦ . (Source:
R. E. Gordnier and M. R. Visbal, “Computation of the
Aeroelastic Response of a Flexible Delta Wing at High
Angles-of-Attack,” AIAA Paper 2003-1728, 2003).