Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Jets Without Leading-edge Devices  
User currently offlinehappy-flier From Canada, joined Dec 1999, 299 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3683 times:

You'd think that any machine with fewer parts to maintain should also be cheaper to own. However, medium to large passenger jets without leading-edge flaps (of any design) are exceedingly rare.

Smaller jets, like the Fokker 100 or BAE-146 seem to manage just fine without leading-edge devices, though their degree of wing sweep appears to be less than that of, say, a 767.

Any chance that the deletion of leading-edge devices and their replacement with a longer or less-swept-back wing might be reintroduced into modern jet design as a means of reducing overall maintenance costs ... or are the maintenance / parts-replacement costs associated with the devices not so high as to warrant their deletion?


May the wind be always at your back . . . except during takeoff & landing.
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4383 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3663 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting happy-flier (Thread starter):
medium to large passenger jets without leading-edge flaps (of any design) are exceedingly rare.

Until the sixties, quite a few airliners weren't equipped with leading edge devices The DC-8, the TU 134, the Caravelle.
Some modern jets seem not to need them, like the Canadair CRJs 100 and 200, but not the 700 series, a much longer and heavier aircraft... And that's the main reason for leading-edge devices : increase the lift coefficient of a given wing, hence reducing approach and takeoff speeds.
For reasons of cruise drag, we are forced to keep a certain amount of wing sweep ( note that it's been drastically reduced since the first generation of jetliners ) and we need to optimize the low speed qualities of that wing : hence the slats.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21422 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 1):
Some modern jets seem not to need them, like the Canadair CRJs 100 and 200

The CRJs don't necessarily need them, but they really should have had them. Bombardier figured that out when they built the 700, which has better field performance despite being large and heavier, in large part due to having leading edge devices.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24643 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3556 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 1):
Quoting happy-flier (Thread starter):
medium to large passenger jets without leading-edge flaps (of any design) are exceedingly rare.

Until the sixties, quite a few airliners weren't equipped with leading edge devices The DC-8, the TU 134, the Caravelle.
Some modern jets seem not to need them, like the Canadair CRJs 100 and 200, but not the 700 series, a much longer and heavier aircraft.

Don't the DC-8's wing slots (not slats) count as leading edge devices? There are quite a few threads on the DC-8 slots. They weren't on the original DC-8-11 but were added to the -12 and all subsequent DC-8 models and were retrofitted to the early production -11s. Discussed in this thread with links to a couple of photos of the upper wing surface showng the slots in the closed position. I recall many DC-8 flights and seeing them open and close.
"Slots" On The DC-8 (by MASB747 May 17 2003 in Tech Ops)

Photo here showing the slot intakes in the open position on the bottom of the wing, just inboard of both engines.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marlo Plate - Iberian Spotters



User currently offlinekcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3790 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3551 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 1):
Some modern jets seem not to need them, like the Canadair CRJs 100 and 200
Quoting Mir (Reply 2):
The CRJs don't necessarily need them, but they really should have had them. Bombardier figured that out when they built the 700, which has better field performance despite being large and heavier, in large part due to having leading edge devices.

The CR1/2 don't have them...but I think it's universally agreed that they do need them lol. I imagine they'd even make it a more fuel efficient jet.


User currently offlineamccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3516 times:

Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 4):
I imagine they'd even make it a more fuel efficient jet.

I don't think they would make the airplane any more efficient unless the addition of leading edge devices also changed the shape of the airfoil when not deployed. But I'd imagine Bombardier designed the CRJ100/200 wing to be nearly as efficient as possible, particularly in the cruise phase of flight.



What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21422 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3486 times:

Quoting amccann (Reply 5):
But I'd imagine Bombardier designed the CRJ100/200 wing to be nearly as efficient as possible, particularly in the cruise phase of flight.

They designed that wing for the Challenger 600. It does fine for a plane of that size, but for the larger CRJ, it's not very good at generating lift as low speed, thus the relatively poor takeoff and landing performance.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinehappy-flier From Canada, joined Dec 1999, 299 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3430 times:

Also, aren't many of the CRJ100/200s operating without reverse thrust capability? I find that a bit odd, considering, as many have pointed out, that they don't have the leading-edge devices - which would suggest that their landing speeds are relatively higher.

Another jet I forgot to mention which is ancient but still relevant: the Comet. It had no leaing edge devices at all, though it did have pretty large trailing edge flaps. But its wing sweep was rather slight - so maybe it somehow managed to have okay field performance, all things considered. Just guessing...

[Edited 2012-04-21 21:47:41]


May the wind be always at your back . . . except during takeoff & landing.
User currently offlinekcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3790 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3397 times:

Quoting happy-flier (Reply 7):
Also, aren't many of the CRJ100/200s operating without reverse thrust capability? I find that a bit odd, considering, as many have pointed out, that they don't have the leading-edge devices - which would suggest that their landing speeds are relatively higher.

never heard of that one. That's true of some ERJ 135/145.

Quoting amccann (Reply 5):
I don't think they would make the airplane any more efficient unless the addition of leading edge devices also changed the shape of the airfoil when not deployed. But I'd imagine Bombardier designed the CRJ100/200 wing to be nearly as efficient as possible, particularly in the cruise phase of flight.

I'm thinking from a takeoff perspective. Using my airport as an example. They've got 6800ft. to gun it to make 145 or so. With a leading edge they're probably looking at VR speeds in the 130's, meaning they could further derate thrust and still get airborne.

You're probably right about cruise.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4313 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3317 times:

Another aspect of not having slats is, historically jets not equipped with them have been shown to be more prone to crashes because of icing contamination.


Those slats produce a huge amount of lift, making for, perhaps a more forgiving airfoil.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5959 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Quoting happy-flier (Reply 7):
Also, aren't many of the CRJ100/200s operating without reverse thrust capability? I find that a bit odd, considering, as many have pointed out, that they don't have the leading-edge devices - which would suggest that their landing speeds are relatively higher.

None have TR's locked permanantly that I know of. As for landing speeds, the CRJ-900 is the same landing category, and it has slats (In essence, it's a CRJ-700 wing, with a bigger fuselage, thus more weight.)



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3216 times:

Quoting happy-flier (Reply 7):
Another jet I forgot to mention which is ancient but still relevant: the Comet. It had no leaing edge devices at all, though it did have pretty large trailing edge flaps. But its wing sweep was rather slight - so maybe it somehow managed to have okay field performance, all things considered. Just guessing...

The early Comet had a near symmetrical aerofoil and so was prone to over-rotation on takeoff. Adding LE devices would have helped that by increasing the stall AOA, but de Haviland reprofiled the wing leading edge instead to reduce the problem.

Unlike TE flaps, LE slats don't increase lift at a given AOA, they allow increased AOA before a stall occurs, and therefore increased maximum lift. If an aircraft can't rotate on the ground to an AOA where stall might occur adding slats will mainly increase drag.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinejetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1636 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3108 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Some smaller bizjets like the Falcon 20 and the North American Saberliner had leading edge flaps.

Interestingly on the Sabreliner, there was no pilot’s control over deployment because there was no way to deploy them mechanically, they were only attached by rollers to the LE flap brackets and it was the airload on the wings that determined when they extended and retracted.

While I never flew the Sabreliner, I worked on them and I remember it was fairly easy to push them up the LE flap to the stowed position on the ground and then they would just roll back down when you let go of the LE flap.

These non controllable LE flaps was also used on the F-100 Super Sabre Jet, it has been said that the Sabreliner used the wing design of a F-100 Super Sabre Jet, and the tail section of an F-86 Sabre Jet, with a pressurized cabin and rear mounted engines.

JetStar


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9697 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3030 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
Those slats produce a huge amount of lift, making for, perhaps a more forgiving airfoil.

Not to be picky, but slats don't exactly produce huge amounts of lift by themselves, like flaps do. They instead allow the wing to operate to higher angles-of-attack without stalling, which will give you more lift.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2741 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3022 times:

Quoting kcrwflyer (Reply 8):

I'm thinking from a takeoff perspective. Using my airport as an example. They've got 6800ft. to gun it to make 145 or so. With a leading edge they're probably looking at VR speeds in the 130's, meaning they could further derate thrust and still get airborne.

Flaps 20 VR on the CRJ-200 is around the mid 130kt range at heavier weights. 145 kt would really only be seen as VR using flaps 8 takeoff performance, which is used most often at high density altitude airports with longer runways like DEN, ABQ, COS, SLC etc...

Even without leading edge devices the CRJ-200 does just fine the vast majority of the time from an obstacle clearance standpoint. Our limiting weight is almost always Maximum Landing Weight.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4383 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2957 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jetstar (Reply 12):
they were only attached by rollers to the LE flap brackets and it was the airload on the wings that determined when they extended and retracted.

That technology wasn't really new : the Fieseler Storch had it.
The most interesting installation of the automatic slats was on the MS Rallye, in all probability the safest light aircraft ever :
its high-lift devices comprise a Fowler flap (!!!) and these slats; In it, I started my aerobatics lessons and I still remember the fantastic sense of safety I felt.
Here are some spectacular pics of that little plane :
the MS Rallye



Contrail designer
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4313 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

Lovely Aircraft Pihero,


Looks like a lot of fun.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1505 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2887 times:

Quoting jetstar (Reply 12):
While I never flew the Sabreliner, I worked on them and I remember it was fairly easy to push them up the LE flap to the stowed position on the ground and then they would just roll back down when you let go of the LE flap.

I flew a 40 and 60. Those slats took some serious abuse at low speeds. They extended below 170kts, but in the 160-180 range they could slam back and forth between extended / retracted wildly.

Part of the exterior walk around is pushing them into the retracted position and making sure they fall back into extended.

The Citation X has some small LE slats. They don't look like much but judging by the emergency checklist, they're worth 10 kts of Vref.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2735 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 15):
That technology wasn't really new : the Fieseler Storch had it.

It goes back even further than that. Handley-Page patented the automatic LE slat in 1919.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4383 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 18):
Handley-Page patented the automatic LE slat in 1919.

Didn't know that. More info and pics, please !

I only knew that ther most famous aircraft equipped with auto-slats was the Me 109, in many ways the most advanced fighter of its time.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2491 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 19):
Didn't know that. More info and pics, please !

Here you go:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...nology/High_Lift_Devices/Tech6.htm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 19):
I only knew that ther most famous aircraft equipped with auto-slats was the Me 109, in many ways the most advanced fighter of its time.

I think the Bf109 was probably the most significant user of the technology at the time, both in terms of numbers built and tactical advantage. A 109 pilot always had clear warning he was at or near stall so could pull g with confidence. It turned the otherwise heavily loaded 109 into a great dogfighter. I suspect Messershmitt had to pay H-P a licence fee to use the technology.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4383 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2448 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks !

Although the Spitfire was the sexiest fighter of WWII, in many ways I think the 109 was the most advanced and it's difficult to believe that these tiny wings would keep the plane aloft, let alone make it a good dogfighter, so good tha I read somewhere that in 1943 the relative score vs the Spit was some 5 to 1.

Back to our subject, on the 320, no slat means landing config 3 and add 25 kts to the Vref. (just think of the increased landing distance !)

[Edited 2012-04-25 12:32:33]


Contrail designer
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3473 posts, RR: 67
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2251 times:

You can add the DC-9-10 to the list of jet airliners with no leading edge device. (Big fences don't count)


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Jets Without Leading-edge Devices
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
United Leading Edge Devices posted Wed Sep 13 2006 19:18:18 by IAHFLYR
Leading Edge Slats Doubling As Spoilers? posted Wed Oct 12 2011 02:37:39 by faro
B747 Leading Edge During Landing posted Sat Jul 16 2011 14:23:04 by SASMD82
Tail Leading Edge Piant Or Unpaint? posted Mon Apr 12 2010 14:17:33 by 777way
DC-8 Wing Leading Edge & Profile posted Thu Jun 18 2009 20:34:52 by Happy-flier
Unidentified Object On A380 Leading Edge posted Mon Jun 8 2009 17:49:32 by Bzwebner
Teflon Leading Edge Slats For De-Icing? posted Sun May 24 2009 06:14:34 by Faro
Leading-Edge Sweep Angle Question posted Mon Aug 20 2007 20:56:35 by Blackbird
DC-8: 4%-Chord Leading-Edge Extension posted Mon Jun 25 2007 05:30:00 by Blackbird
DC-8 Leading-edge Slots? posted Sat Sep 17 2005 23:23:58 by Timz

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format