Learn how Concorde's ogival delta wing cut Mach 2 wave drag, produced vortex lift for landing, and used elevons instead of flaps or a tailplane.
Concorde's thin, ogival delta wing combined extreme sweep for low wave drag at Mach 2 with vortex lift for take-off and landing. Its curved leading edge generated stable vortices at high angles of attack, while trailing-edge elevons controlled pitch and roll because Concorde had neither a separate tailplane nor conventional landing flaps.
What shape was Concorde's delta wing?
In real-world aviation, Concorde's wing was not a simple straight-edged triangle. It was a slender ogival delta: the leading edge curved continuously from the highly swept inner section towards the wingtip, producing the distinctive ogee shape seen from above.
The planform, camber and twist were carefully matched. The broad root provided structural strength, lift area and space for fuel, while the thin outer shape displaced less air at supersonic speed. This was a fixed wing, not a variable-sweep design.
How did the wing work at Mach 2 and at landing speed?
The same wing used different aerodynamic mechanisms across Concorde's unusually wide speed range.
| Flight condition | What the wing did | Main trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| Take-off and approach | High angle of attack created strong leading-edge vortices and extra suction over the upper surface. | Considerable induced drag and a nose-high attitude. |
| Transonic acceleration | The thin, swept shape controlled the growth of shock waves as the pressure distribution moved aft. | Rapidly changing drag and trim requirements. |
| Supersonic cruise | Extreme sweep reduced the airflow component normal to the leading edge, while the thin section limited wave drag. | Less efficient low-speed behaviour than a conventional airliner wing. |
During take-off and landing, airflow separated in a controlled way at the swept leading edges and rolled into vortices above the wing. Their low-pressure cores added lift and delayed widespread flow separation. Concorde could therefore operate without slats or conventional landing flaps, although it still required a high angle of attack and comparatively high approach speed.
At Mach 2, the priorities changed. Sweep and a very thin section reduced the strength of shock waves and the resulting wave drag; the wing's carefully shaped camber distributed lift without requiring large control deflections. Our explanation of Mach number, compressibility and shock-wave effects provides the background to why this mattered.
How was Concorde controlled without a tailplane?
Six hydraulically powered elevons along the trailing edge combined the jobs of elevators and ailerons. Moving together, they controlled pitch; moving differentially, they controlled roll. The vertical fin and rudder handled yaw.
This arrangement avoided the weight and drag of a separate horizontal tail, but it made trim management critical. Our guide to combined control surfaces on tailless aircraft explains the elevon principle in more detail.
As Concorde accelerated through the transonic region, its centre of aerodynamic lift moved aft. Fuel was pumped rearwards to move the centre of gravity with it, then forwards again for subsonic flight and landing. Using fuel for balance reduced the amount of elevon deflection needed and therefore avoided unnecessary trim drag.
Why did Concorde land with its nose so high?
Concorde needed a pronounced nose-up attitude because its delta wing produced the required low-speed lift through angle of attack and vortices rather than large deployed flaps. That attitude restricted the pilots' view of the runway.
The movable nose and visor solved the visibility problem; they did not transform the wing into a different low-speed configuration. The separate account of Concorde's droop-nose mechanism and operating positions covers that system.
What is commonly misunderstood about the delta wing?
- Vortex lift did not make Concorde stall-proof. At excessive angles of attack, the vortices could break down and lift would deteriorate while drag rose sharply.
- The elevons were not ordinary landing flaps. Their primary purpose was pitch and roll control; Concorde had no conventional flap schedule.
- The wing was not equally efficient at every speed. It was exceptional at sustained supersonic cruise, but its low-speed drag and high approach attitude were accepted compromises.
- The drooping nose did not create the vortex lift. The wing's shape and angle of attack did that; the lowered nose mainly restored forward visibility.
What should a Concorde flight model reproduce?
A convincing simulation should show a high-angle-of-attack approach, rapidly increasing low-speed drag, elevon-based pitch and roll control, no conventional flap deployment and a meaningful change in balance as fuel moves. A common modelling error is to give Concorde the easy low-speed handling and ordinary trim behaviour of a subsonic airliner. An FSX Concorde model with custom aerodynamics and fuel-balance logic provides a practical way to examine those design features in a simulator.