How about a delta wing group build?

[jenshb]

Or could it be expanded to "Tailless" and thereby include al aircraft with no tailplane? Flying wings and the Cutlass for example?

Jens

[Dave Williams]

Or could it be expanded to "Tailless" and thereby include al aircraft with no tailplane? Flying wings and the Cutlass for example?

Jens

Well, then it wouldn't be just a delta GB. You'd get things like the Me163, which certainly wasn't a delta aircraft.

[Supertom]

Sheeesh you guys

OK, fine, deltas with no horizontal stabilizers, but we can include canard aircraft. How's that?

[jenshb]

Well, then it wouldn't be just a delta GB. You'd get things like the Me163, which certainly wasn't a delta aircraft.

Very true...then it would have to be a Tailless GB, not a Delta GB...

Jens

[jenshb]

Sheeesh you guys

OK, fine, deltas with no horizontal stabilizers, but we can include canard aircraft. How's that?

But doesn't the canard have the same *function* as a horizontal stabiliser?

Jens

[pollie]

This thread is starting to become very complicated

[Dave Williams]

This thread is starting to become very complicated

That's similar to what I've seen before. A person proposes something with a clear idea in his or her mind about what they want to do. In this case, delta wing aircraft like the Hustler, F-102, F-106, Mirage, etc. Pretty clear. Then it gets complicated when people say what about this or that, mostly because they want to build this or that, and it starts getting off track from what the OP originally intended. And then arguments start and feelings may get hurt.

I'm running into the same things with my recon GB. Sometimes I think it's easier to run a GB limited to a single subject like an F-4 or a very specific era like Japanese Aircraft 1939 - 1945, that it is to run a build that's not aircraft or era specific. Personally, I think it's more interesting to have the non-specific builds because of the variety of subjects that you can get, but the openness can sometimes make for conflicts.

[jenshb]

I agree it should be kept simple, to avoid conflicts so why not just say "Tailless deltas" - that would exclude aircraft like the Rafale and Eurofighter, and Kfir, however, there's still a lot to choose from that would please most people. However, there is still a logical disontinuity by allowing a Mirage IIIs as delivered, but not a modernised one with foreplanes. Maybe the distinction can be set whether the canards are movable (and thereby contribute directly to the control of the aircraft) or fixed and serve as "aerodynamic aids" like strakes?

Jens

Edited February 5, 2008 by jenshb

[pollie]

To me, a delta wing is in the shape of a triangle. So I don´t consider the wing of an F-16 to be a delta. The fact that an aircraft with a delta wing might have another horizontal control surface on the aft or fwd fuselage is not that relevant IMHO.

The list of aircraft earlier in this thread is a nice selection, if you ask me.

We shouldn´t make this too complicated guys. Especially given the fact I´m dying to start on some MiG-21s.....

[jenshb]

To me, a delta wing is in the shape of a triangle. So I don´t consider the wing of an F-16 to be a delta. The fact that an aircraft with a delta wing might have another horizontal control surface on the aft or fwd fuselage is not that relevant IMHO.

So that means an A-4 doesn't have a triangular wing either? Or the Avro Vulcan? I agree that the F-16 doesn't immediately come across as a typical "delta wing", but if you look at the shape of the wing, it is shaped more like a flattened triangle than a sweptback wing.

Jens

[Dave Williams]

Fine, then maybe we should say that the delta wingtip has to come to a point. No cropped wingtips for missile rails or ECM pods.

[jenshb]

Fine, then maybe we should say that the delta wingtip has to come to a point. No cropped wingtips for missile rails or ECM pods.

That matches my perception of a classic delta (and of course the shape of the greek letter that provided the name:)). However, the Vulcan has a considerable tip chord, and the Avro Arrow or the MiG-21s don't come to a point either, even if they have no missile rails or pods on the wingtips. Yet, they are all considered to be delta wings. Is there a hard definition of a Delta wing - e.g. limits of aspect ratio? Or could the scope be defined by aircraft listed in the Wikipedia definition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_wing

Jens

Edited February 5, 2008 by jenshb

[phantom]

I suggest just the one triangle when viewed from above. Otherwise you can get into Skyhawks, Phantoms even Tomcats if you wanted.

Avro Arrow yes

Skyhawk no

Delta dagger yes

Phantom no

Skyray yes

Tomcat no.

For all the *no* entries there are other group builds all ready happening or about to start.

[jenshb]

I suggest just the one triangle when viewed from above. Otherwise you can get into Skyhawks, Phantoms even Tomcats if you wanted.

The Phantom has a swept back wing, not a delta (the fact that the tailplanes may resemble a delta doesn't make it a delta wing), and the F-14 isn't a proper delta in swept back mode in that the wings and tailplanes are not in line. The F-111 would have been a better example, but that is not classified as a delta wing either.

BTW, why should the fact that there is a current group build for a particular aircraft disqualify an aircraft from taking part? The point is to get people to build models, and start new projects, right? You can't enter a project that has already been completed?

How about going with the description of the aircraft in question? If the aircraft is described as having a delta wing in literature like Jane's all the World's Aircraft and similar reference books, then it will be acceptable? If in doubt, then go by the general consensus whether it is a delta wing or not. A bit fluid I know, but if you want to find an exact definition of a delta wing, you risk creating boundaries that go against people's perception of what a delta wing is.

Jens

Edited February 5, 2008 by jenshb

[Supertom]

Okay, we're spilitting hairs now, and it's not taking us anywhere. I want to BUILD models with delta wings, not DEBATE about the definition of one. It's bloody ridiculous.

This build will have DELTA WING aircraft, including CANARD DELTAS. The RULE OF THUMB is that the planform, when viewed from above resembles a TRIANGLE.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE: Delta wings with CROPPED WINGTIPS FOR MISSILE RAILS. MIG-21s, because the wings are deltas. GLOSTER JAVELINS, because the basic planform is a delta.

NO F-16S. That's because there's already an F-16 build going on, and NO CROPPED DELTAS EITHER.

I'm sorry to go off like that, but this thread was started because I wanted to get a group of people together to have fun building themed aircraft, not debate about the nuances of what constitutes a delta wing. What started as something that I was enthusiastic about, and wanted to share my enthusiasm with, has made me annoyed and left a sour taste in my mouth.

Edited February 5, 2008 by Supertom

[janman]

That sounds reasonable, Supertom.

Those rules enable a much more wider selection of possible aircrafts to choose from. Also, if we start splitting hairs, important birds like EF Typhoon and MiG-21 would be lost that sure could help this GB to attain much more publicity.

Be it "officially" delta or not, for most of the non-aviation expert laymans - me included - the Fishbed has always been a delta. Tailed for sure, but the wings are delta shaped.

[jhe56]

OK -- appears that the list I posted earlier, with the exception of the F7U, looks good.

[Najk]

Well spoken, Supertom! I totally agree with you, the point is to get people to build more, right?!

So why argue so much, what's the point? Guys, concentrate your energy on building those lovely Deltas instead!

I'm in for a Draken or two, perhaps a Viggen too.

[svaz]

The Elevon Group Build? :)

[jenshb]

Okay, we're spilitting hairs now, and it's not taking us anywhere. I want to BUILD models with delta wings, not DEBATE about the definition of one. It's bloody ridiculous.

This build will have DELTA WING aircraft, including CANARD DELTAS. The RULE OF THUMB is that the planform, when viewed from above resembles a TRIANGLE.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE: Delta wings with CROPPED WINGTIPS FOR MISSILE RAILS. MIG-21s, because the wings are deltas. GLOSTER JAVELINS, because the basic planform is a delta.

NO F-16S. That's because there's already an F-16 build going on, and NO CROPPED DELTAS EITHER.

So that means no Rafales or no Gripens either as they have missile rails on their wingtips... Not sure what you mean with "cropped deltas" - can you give any examples? And the main difference between the F-16 and the Javelin in this context is the fact that the F-16 has launchers on the wingtips (though it can fly without them), and the Javelin has a large radius to the leading edge - their basic wing planforms are fairly similar in terms of leading and trailing edge sweep angles.

Now then, there's no reason to burst a blood vessel - noone as far as I can see are arguing. Discussing, yes, but it has all been kept quite civil. What this discussion has shown is that it is very hard to *define* what a delta wing is without disqualifying aircraft commonly seen as "delta winged" if one is trying to be too specific. For this reason, I proposed (see my previous mail) that eligible candidates be judged on descriptions and general consensus, rather than sweep angles, missile launchers or not, canards, tailplanes or whatever. With so many aircraft to choose from, there should be no reason to build an F-16, but if someone wants to build a model of an aircraft and it fits a set of criteria applied to other candidates that have got the green light, why not include it in the interests of cameraderie and encouraging that person to build - and in turn get more people to join?

For me, I wil probably need to build a Mirage for next year, so I'm not trying to bend the rules to my advantage, but I think group builds should allow people to be creative within a set of rules and thereby make people ask questions, seek knowledge and seeing the world is in shades of grey rather than black and white.

Jens

Edited February 5, 2008 by jenshb

[Mark M.]

If I may make a related comment?

This isn't specific to this thread, but it relates.

There are probably a million different kits in the world, with different media, and different production dates, ranging from early '60s to late '00s.

There are SO many bloody possibilities to the question "What do I want to build" that to have a group build with no guidelines is patently absurd.

The guideline of a GB is simply to narrow the focus. Narrow it down from 1,000,000 options to maybe just 100 options. Or less. If there is so much variety that there's no focus, there's no point in calling it a GB. Might as well call it "build whatever you want and post pictures" -- oh, wait, that's what ARC is all about!

A GB by definition and by nature has a narrow enough focus to limit the options available. To folks who want tons of variety inside a single GB I say (and please, take no offense) participate in more than one, or don't participate, because we're already doing what you want every day on the ARC forums.

I, personally, think it's a minor point whether you choose tail-less deltas, allow canards, or allow mig-21s or not, as long as whoever's making the rules MAKES THE RULES (as opposed to having no rules at all).

If it cuts folks out, they won't be offended! They'll just catch the next GB! Do you folks know how many are running at this very second? How many more are yet to start this year alone? There's no want for choice!

Supertom: You've got the right idea: See your mental vision, and outline it. Nobody need get upset, just pick a focus and then describe said focus. Ya don't have to please everybody, just be specific as to what you want.

[jenshb]

I agree with you Mark, and Tom, I can certainly see where you want to go with the delta wing group build. Group builds are a bit like modelling to themes - as is often seen on club displays here in the UK. You want to make a theme wide enough to enable a lot of modellers to take part, but you want to make it specific enough so that it doesn't become meaningless. That said, I think the criteria must either be so specific that one can draw a sharp line in the sand, or one must be flexible enough to acommodate subjects that originally didn't spring to mind. Although it's not the end of the world - I have never participated in a group build before I belatedly joined the F-16 GB - I think that people who want to join ought to get proper feedback as to the reasons why if their proposed entry is not eligible, otherwise the GB gives the impression of being clique-ey. I saw some on the Reconnaissance GB forum, and I am sure similar questions will crop up on a Delta Wing forum - as Dave pointed out. If someone wants to build an F-16 and can argue his/her case by comparing the outline of the F-16 wing to the Gripen (both straight trailing edges, cropped tips and missile launchers, but with different LE sweep), and the general similarity between the Javelin and the F-16, then being told that there was already a GB for F-16s, so it can't play is absurd. That's like having a swing wing GB, and being told a Tomcat can'd play because it's too popular. However, noone is going to claim that a Spitfire, Super Sabre or Cutlass has a delta wing (and personally, I'd say the F-16 is more delta-shaped than the Skyray), and people will see that such cases clearly fall outside the scope of the GB. Some subjects do have fairly clear-cut criteria - like the Tiger Meet GB. It's either tiger stripes or not. As we have seen here, it is difficult to be specific as to what defines a delta wing the way most people see it. When it is difficult to be as clear cut, then being flexible with the entries will create a better mood among the people seeking to enter and more entries. Which is surely the ultimate goal?

Jens

[Benner]

I may be in with a Mirage 2000 from Op. Daguet

[jhe56]

I'll be in for a 1/48 Mirage IIICJ

[tomcatter727]

nevermind

Edited February 6, 2008 by tomcatter727