Could This Change Air Travel Forever?
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 01. 2024
- Get Nebula for just $2.50 a month here: go.nebula.tv/mustard
Watch 'The Largest Aircraft Never Built - The Lockheed CL-1201' here: nebula.tv/videos/mustard-the-...
Patreon: / mustardchannel
Mustard Merchandise: mustardchannel.com/
Facebook: / mustard-109952378202335
Twitter: / mustardvideos
Website: www.mustardchannel.com/
Bilateral symmetry is an unspoken assumption in aircraft design. Anything in nature that flies, from the smallest insect to the largest bird, possesses symmetry. But birds don't fly supersonic.
In the 1950’s Robert Thomas Jones, a brilliant NASA engineer, began developing a radical new wing arrangement called an oblique wing (also referred to as a skewed wing). The wing design was characterized by a wing that could pivot into a unique angled configuration in relation to the aircraft’s fuselage. The design offered several advantages over more conventional swept wings. An oblique wing’s ability to pivot into a straight wing made it ideal for low speed flight (improving efficiency and take-off/landing performance), but at transonic and supersonic speeds, the angled orientation minimized both wave and induced drag, leading to improved overall aerodynamic efficiency. With lower drag at higher speeds, oblique wing aircraft would require less thrust to maintain a given speed, resulting in reduced fuel consumption and operating costs. Compared to other variable geometry wings, oblique wings would also be lighter, less complex and have fewer drawbacks like a shifting center of lift.
Jones proved his theories through wind tunnel tests and with small scale remote control models. Promising results prompted NASA to undertake more intensive research during the 1970s. The first major step was the propeller-driven Oblique Wing Remotely Piloted Research Aircraft (OWRPRA) which first took flight in 1976. At the same time, aviation leaders Boeing and Lockheed were invited to study oblique wings to assess their benefits to commercial air travel. In 1979 the NASA Ames-Dryden-1 (AD-1), a subsonic, human piloted oblique wing aircraft began rigorous flight testing.
NASA’s research efforts validated many of Jones’s theories, and the oblique wing demonstrated promise in real world flight. There were plans to follow the subsonic AD-1 program with a supersonic testing program using a modified U.S Navy F-8 fighter, but the program was cancelled early on in development. Budget constraints and shifting priorities have largely stalled intensive oblique wing research programs since the early 1990s. There are still widespread reservations about the flying qualities of highly asymmetrical aircraft. Flight control at extreme wing pivots is unfavorable and requires automated systems to augment flight control. Using modern flight control technologies and advanced materials, many of these drawbacks could be overcome. Oblique wings are still considered a viable concept for large transports and many are convinced that they will eventually be adopted. The advantages are simply too great to ignore.
Key Research: “Thinking Obliquely: Robert T. Jones, the Oblique Wing, NASA’s AD-1 Demonstrator” by Bruce I. Larrimer (2019): www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploa...
An excellent summary of the history and milestones of the oblique wing program! I was fortunate to be working at Ames Industrial Corp when the AD-1 was being built. Burt Rutan did the detail design, Ames did the fabricating. Funny side-story: the government contracting guy thought he was releasing funding for an UNMANNED model aircraft due to the low cost of the contract.....he was not of course. A colleague, Ron S., who has sadly passed on, was the primary fabricator with a group of us supporting manpower requirements as needed. I participated in some of the larger structure layups for the wing and fuselage as well as in the load testing of the wing before final aircraft assembly. Good times. The aircraft was constructed in our Ames facility in Bohemia, NY and we towed the finished AD-1 (using my pickup as a tug) about 1 mile to the nearby McArthur Airport where a National Guard C-130 was waiting to whisk the AD-1 off to NASA Ames in California (no "Ames" relation) for final inspection and flight testing. During construction two designated NASA pilots would fly from NASA Ames to McArthur and visit our facility for custom cockpit "fitments". One NASA pilot, Tom McMurtry, was an especially tall dude so we had to make sure he could fit and function in the tiny cockpit. The aircraft now resides in the Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos CA. If you remove the fuselage cover just forward of the wing pivot you'll find the signatures of the team who designed, built, and flew the AD-1, my signature is among them. I have some pictures from that project in my collection including a signed pic from Tom McMurtry. Great story here Mustard!
Thank you for sharing :)
Badass my man
As interesting as the video 😂💯
Thank you for sharing, it's pretty inspirational! However, given so many years have passed and lot of big players have come in to the market, do you think Jones ideas have been further developed/tested for the commercial usage?
Dude this is the kind of stuff I want to do in life! Such a badass story to tell someone!
as an engineer that commonly gets into situations where the design requires an "ugly" or asymmetric feature, i absolutely love this whole oblique wing concept
It put me off for a second, but it only looks cooler the longer I look at it. Especially the sleek designs
this is engineering not art school,
p.s athstetic can help sell and such, but there are quite a small range of products that applies to. Most of the time however hard performace and cost come first. Anything that is athsetic about something as engeered as a passenger jet is either conincidental or done seperatley after other desige contrainsts have been meet. I don't know why so many people seems upset at the thought that engeering isn't art, because it's not. if you upset at being told your engeering project have no artistic value, then you probobley weren't an engeer to begin with, or putting disproportionate focous on a very limited part of your work.
I don't understand why any competent engineer would sacrifice performance, cost, or reliability for aesthetics.
@@rubiconnn because looks help sell. Just talk to apple
I doubt you're an engineer 😂
obviously the main problem is that it doesn't look as cool/pointy, and being pointy is very important for jets and rockets and stuff
7 million subs?!?!!?!?1
Thanks Peter griffin
You must have seen “The Dictator” recently. Hilarious movie.
@@michaelbraun6255 lmao
At least there's one person who gets it.
It's really wonderful to come across people who freely share valuable information online. You never know what kind of knowledge you might stumble upon that could have a lasting impact on your life.
Don't procrastinate when it comes to saving and investing. Don't wait for the perfect timing; start now because the current moment is the best time to invest.
What specific type of investment are you referring to? I'm aware that making money through investing is not as straightforward as it may appear.
Cryptocurrency trading appears to be quite lucrative. Despite the constantly changing nature of Bitcoin, it's evident that the cryptocurrency community is here to stay. John Joseph, you're doing an excellent job.
I apologize for interrupting, but I have been searching for assistance with this type of trading as my work consumes most of my time, leaving me with limited opportunities to focus on trading. How can I get to know him?
INSTAGRAM
Ya know, I love these videos, but damn is it always depressing learning what we could've had.
What is stopping you from having it? Don't answer that, I don't want you pulling me down that hole with you.
At least it is mostly due to a lack of funding for testing rather than a major flaw. Hopefully the idea gets explored in the future
@@ATBatmanMALS31probably a couple million dollars needed to manufacture a testbed
@@DanielDos2 Milliobs?
Change that M to a B.
@@HirokaAkitaBilliobs?
As an aerospace engineer, I think the stability and control issues are easy to overcome with modern computers and algorithms. However, I would be significantly worried about the structural stability of the wing, particularly aeroelastic flutter. This was a particularly big problem on the X-29 and ultimately led to its cancelation. Additionally, it could be difficult (and heavy) to build a sufficiently strong rotating pivot to support the forces generated by the wing. Would be interesting to hear others thoughts on this issue
& the flying wing?
As an aerospace engineer as well this is one of my concerns. All of the flights were tested subsonic. The extreme forces that are exerted on an aircraft in transonic, and supersonic fight are insane.
I'm very concerned about flutter and how the different angles of attack are going to be effecting the structure. In a Delta wing you have a symmetrical stable structure which is much less complicated. You're talking about nonlinear unsymmetrical loads. That sounds like an utter-nightmare. Everything I remember doing in college was ALWAYS ALWAYS try and make symmetrical loading if you can.
I had to brush up a little bit, but apparently most of the surface area on delta wings is for subsonic flight (I didn't remember or know this). I knew supersonic they were mostly just flying with thrust.
Another aspect is the efficiency losses associated with the coupling effects. It's why V-Tails have never gained popularity. Had to pull out my textbook "The V-tail is intended to reduce wetted area. However, extensive NACA research has concluded that to obtain satisfactory stability and control, the V surface must be up-sized to about the same total as would be required for separate h and v surfaces." Aka it all comes out in the wash and that's just a V-Tail.
You will then have to make sure the wing is inside the mach waves for mach 1.5-2.
The wing actuation on the F-14 was a nightmare. There is a reason we haven't developed another variable-sweep wing aircraft. The last one made by ANYONE was the USSR in 1981. I think that dataset alone should explain why we don't use them. It's just not worth the hassle to move the wings that much. Just burn your fuel subsonic and deal with it compared to the extremely complex structure.
This isn't even addressing the sheer amount of extra fuel you have to burn just to go supersonic speeds. Roughly .2-4 subsonic to .7 for 1.5 vs .4 for 2. You generally want to be going at least Mach 2. However, then you're talking about extreme forces and heats exerted on all parts of the aircraft. So you're talking about a more expensive bird and maintenance and inspection costs through the roof.
My last and final statement destroys it all. WHY and WHO is this for exactly? There is ZERO market for a commercial supersonic jet. With the invention of the internet and video conference this has almost eliminated the need for faster flight times. There only market might be the super-niche businessman, but at that point just make 10 seater private yet. There was one recently, but it failed lol.
So with all of these obstacles I still don't understand why people keep talking about super sonic commercial flight. It's like fusion. It's one of those engineering things people love to dream about, but will never come true. I wish someone would just create the ultimate video debunking us ever getting a commercial supersonic jet already. It's a limitations of physics, materials, and cost. Until we find a new energy source, unobtainium there is no market this will work in.
Maybe I should start a channel. I've been legitimately considering it because I'm so tired of talking about this topic. I feel like I address the question of supersonic commercial flight at least once a month on the internet, and nothing has changed in 30 years. If twitter didn't randomly ban my account because I linked a Linus Techtip video I would reach out to Thunderfoot.
couldn't they just pivot the stabilisers as well
It's interesting to hear thoughts of an expert. It seems to me that the aim of this video even isn't realism, but to paint an unrealistically dreamy picture of something in the past that was never realised (probably for good reasons, which the video doesn't explain properly). In other words, this video is above all entertainment. The most important part for an entertaining story to work is tension, tension between good and bad, beautiful and ugly, cruelty and the revenge, and in the case of this video, what is and what could have been. People love consuming content based on that concept, and this video certainly provides, giving people a good dose of that "what if" feeling.
I think the pivot is not an issue for strength as the wing is one piece rather than cantilevered from the fuselage. Once at a sleek angle, extra locking pins could be deployed so the pivot has extra help with strength. These could be a few feet away and benefit from the lever arm thst gives.
However, I bet the handling is asymmetric, and therefore not fun or predictable to fly, even with complex helpful flight computers. It'd handle differently left to right. The addition of roll when pitching and vice versa must be quite a challenge, and annoying.
It looks hideous and just plain wrong. Aircraft deserve to be symmetrical!
Asymmetrical paper airplanes are pain to look at, but man they’re so fun to make
I've made hundreds, and it is indeed very fun!
Such high quality in this video, love the renders you've made.
Typically, mustard talks positively about theoretical designs before demonstrating how they weren’t nearly as good as they seemed. This is the first one where it seems like there actually weren’t many downsides that couldn’t easily be solved with modern tech.
Yeah, the plane wanting to roll over on it's back when trying to pull up, or pitching up/down when trying to roll, all this at supersonic speed, is really not a downside.
If you need a computer just to keep the thing level, you have a major problem.
Aside from the destruction of the plane, death of the passengers, just the act of deflecting control surfaces to counter act those uncontrolled rotation cause drag, slowing down the plane, wasting fuel, reducing range.
We tolerate that in fighter jets that require extreme maneuverability, but we don't accept it in transports.
Tbh, this video feels like the section with the problems was just kinda missing. If the oblique wing was really such an amazing idea, then it shouldve been taken up by military or civil aviation. I usually like this channel, but this video seems a bit lazy, like theres something missing.
It just doesnt make sense. Theres a ton of money put in RnD for aircraft, theres constantly studies into supersonic planes, electric planes, new types of drones, etc. Both in civil and military aviation. I dont buy that nobody wants to experiment with obliques wings, if they were really that good.
@@pogo1140 his video about flying wings has a similar outcome, with newer computers making the flying wing viable in ways it wasn’t when it was first theorized. That’s kinda the point of improving technologies, is that it makes things previously impossible, possible.
@@pogo1140What the fuck are you talking about? The fly by wire system for this thing looks like it can be handled by a fucking arduino.
Heck it doesn't even require a computer, a simple system of gears attached to the stick could do it
you can give this project to a first year aerospace engineer as an end-of-semester assignment and I bet half the class can produce something workable
I wish I were joking but this seriously look like a non-issue.
what i think is more likely is that no serious design studies have been funded or taken, and any that have may have not made it into the public domain. @@termitreter6545
I’m sure this idea could find a great use for drones and cruise missiles, because they wouldn’t be so challenged in terms of structural design and often require folding/pivoting wings. And off course small and cheap unmanned crafts would allow to take much greater risks in terms of design.
They don’t seem great for maneuvering tho, would love to see it tested nevertheless.
I would not like the thought of flying in something that needs a computer to fly. The pivot-point also seems like a weak point.
@@FLPhotoCatcher Looool, something that needs a computer to flight ....like all the commercial aircraft on the planet?
@@flaviosalatino8192 No, pilots can fly many commercial aircraft without the computer(s) working. I would not want to fly on the ones that can't fly without a working computer.
Most modern airliners are fly-by-wire and at the very minimum, like "direct law" in an Airbus, there is still a computer in between the stick and the control surfaces. It just doesn't modify the input at that point@@FLPhotoCatcher
This was actually an Estes model rocket back in the 70's. Send it up as a rocket with the wings folded parallel with the rocket body with a B sized motor installed, at the end of the burn stage the reverse thrust that usually pushes out the parachute would instead trigger the wings to fold outward and the rocket would then glide back safely to the ground like a glider for another round. Este rockets were a very popular hobby for kids and adults back then. Thus, why I knew about this back when I was in fourth grade.
I had a version that turned into a helicopter! It had a heavy nosecone to force it to tip over, which was supposed to only pop up and release the blades, but inevitably ended up shelling the ground with the heavy nosecone in the process.
They never said why they discontinued it but I can probably guess
We put a few together intentionally to come down like a lawn dart. Go to a large grass field and send one up like that. It would come down so fast it would whistle. Of course we all had to keep an eye on it so we could avoid it coming down. Amazing to see how fast those come down like that. In soft turf, they'd stick into the soft dirt a few inches. We'd do this with relatively smaller rockets, ones that require A sized engines. Just so we could keep an eye on it coming down. Out of sight and you wouldn't know where it was coming down.@@tsm688
Love the motion graphics of this! So well done!😊
It might have been 116 days since the last Mustard video, but it's worth it every time.
How many future engineers will credit his work that got them into the field...
WHO ASKED + MY CONTENT IS WAY BETTER!
At least one
0
@@PWRGEUTTPSHOTS FIREDDDD!!!! I WILL CHECK OUT YOUR WORK
@@RobertCraft-re5sf That makes you a clown then.
The wait for Mustard videos is long but still worth it.
Omg these bots bruh
@UTTPOFFICERCUBANTROONJAK ok no you are not better and no to the rights
@@PWRGEUTTPshut up
I think these bots have some coding issues…
Not really, it’s just that we haven’t seen a lot of long form content in a while because of CZcams shorts… 💀
I remember building an Estes model rocket based on this concept back in the early-mid 70's. It was called the Scissor Wing Transport. It launched with the wing stowed and when the recovery charge separated the booster, it released the wing which pivoted into position (via orthodontic rubber bands) and the fuselage came down as a glider. Coolest rocket I ever built.
OOHHH That's a cool idea!
I miss Estes model rockets so much! So many great memories out in that farm field😢
Came here to say this. Cool concept but on its first flight when the wing moved into position it snapped off and the thing crashed to the ground a couple miles away. Never found it. I had high hopes for that one. I didn't really wonder about why I never saw them in real life.
I look so forward to every one of these videos. Your production value and modeling is absolutely insane. Second-to-none.
Me before the video: "This looks pretty silly"
Me now: "Sideways wings are the future of air travel, I'm gonna take over Boeing"
Boeing's merger with McDonnell-Douglas and its consequences have been a disaster for human flight.
@@Moonstone-Reduxagreed
You’d run Boeing better than its current management
At 10:56 the plane looks like it's doing a superman flight it looks cool!
Don't you think they've already killed enough people of late?
possible issues with this design:
-airplanes usually store fuel in the wings, to do that here you'd need some kind of rotating fuel coupler normal planes don't need
-instead of a nice sturdy structural wing root, it depends on the rotational mechanism bearing all the wing load which means it's going to be heavy, expensive, and space-consuming, a problem it shares with conventional swing wings
-unless you're burning fuel totally uniformly across all the wing tanks the CoG is going to move fore/aft as you burn fuel and possibly also when you change the sweep angle, which is a possible stability issue
-it can't use typical wingtip aerodynamic devices
it DOES have the economic advantage that it would use less gate space by folding its wing out of the way during parking, which actually could make it compelling as a commercial aircraft vs. other options like the 777X they're designing with folding wingtips to squeeze in a few extra feet of wingspan.
Before anyone comments, I checked and yes, fighter jets do have fuel tanks in their wings.
This isn't just a historic thing; THe F-35 has wing fuel jets.
Though I'm sure the issues here could be dealt with with more testing.
Testing that hasn't happened for a while.
@@edwinhuang9244even historically fighters in WW2 would try their best to centralize their fuel tanks because the main body was mostly empty, wings are vunerable to guns, centralizing wieght helped roll performance.
With how fuel hungry jets are and the distance we need fighter to fly, no space goes unused.
Also it's pretty aerodynamically unstable
Commercial aircrafts fly numerous times a day for weeks / months. Putting the stress to a rotating bearing instead of two, fixed rooted wings doesn't seems smart.
@@Serlock4869 It's not like we can't build reliable high load bearing bearings, it's that it's gonna be heavy.
Looks how superman flys
Amazing illustrations.. Im just in love with the graphics and designs used in this video!
For those curious, you can see the AD-1 in person at the Hiller Air Museum is San Carlos, CA, easily reached from SF if you find yourself in the bay!
Shit I wish I knew about this before moving to LA :/
yea I had to move out too, I miss it ;3; @@user-dp3ic7rh5f
Love hiller, so many cool planes and helicopters
I stayed in a hotel in San Carlos one night when looked out the window of the hotel and saw a sign that I initially thought said, "Hitler Air Museum". For a second there I thought I was experiencing a Twilight Zone moment.
Back in the 70s or 80s I built an Estes model rocket kit that had a rotating wing. It launched with the wing parallel to the fuselage, and then when the engine burned out, instead of popping a parachute, the wing swung out so it could glide back down. It did work!
The video's thumbnail reminded me of that exact model rocket which I also built, and was the reason I clicked on the video. :)
I built a bunch of Estes rockets in middle school in the mid 90s. They had some cool designs. I remember one that didn’t have a parachute, but had three rotors that unfolded and spun like a helicopter to slowly lower it. Also one that when the ‘chute popped, it took a picture of the ground with 110 film. Good memories.
@@djhaloeighthah, I lusted over that picture-taking rocket, but never got it.
Toughest kit I made. On the last flight (naturally) the pivot failed to fully extend and it hit too hard. But on a windless day it would glide perfectly. The instructions are online! www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/estes/est1265.pdf
Same here. It was in the 70s. Nothing new in this design - didn't change air travel 50 years ago, won't change it now.
Great content. love the feel of the video. love the graphics and the pace! Keep it coming. :D
These are really great and informative videos, and it's great that you're highlighting concepts and aircraft not known by most people. Personally, I'd really like to know how you make these videos as I love your style and the models you use.
A lot of copycats out there, but Mustard is still the Best. Just flat-out stunning images, and raw takes on engineering marvels. Best channel for aerospace history and engineering on CZcams and Nebula.
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You really
Hahahahahshahshahhahaahhahaahaha
totally agree on that. I always watch it straight.
There is one channel who also likes to explain a prototype of a vehicle, the CZcams name is Found and Explained
im not complaining. gives us something else to do while we wait for mustard to post once in a blue moon
@@feuby8480yep
There are two ways the universe reminds me I'm a dad - seeing my beautiful 2-year-old, and getting obscenely excited about a new history of aviation video from Mustard.
@@PWRGEUTTP you're a middle aged man making videos called "calling your missing father at 3am" im not sure about your reliability 💀💀💀
@@PWRGEUTTP You're content has zero value at all and is clearly terrible in video quality as well, unacceptable on a platform like this in this day and age.
Please report and remove the very deranged person PWREGEUTTP commenting weird stuff.
11:12 that 737 thrust reverser is so cool
The editing and montage of this video is mindboggling
I'm so glad I ran into this video. RT was my professor and I remember spending a bit of time at his home in the Los Altos foothills overlooking NASA Ames Research Center where he used to work. I remember making and flying oblique wing gliders that demonstrated the inherent stability of the design. When I asked him about the cost and complexity of the control system, he pulled out an HP 12C hand-held battery powered calculator. He said one of those had sufficient memory and speed to control it throughout the flight regime and if you needed redundancy, he said you could just buy a half a dozen of them and string them together! Although he was one of the most important, if not the most important aerodynamic theorists in supersonic flight (inventor of delta, swept back, and oblique wing configurations), he had no formal degrees. He told me he started as a mechanic working with a wing walking outfit and took night lessons with the German aerodynamicist Max M. Munk. Back then, there were no aeronautics and astronautics engineering degrees to earn. He worked as an elevator boy at the Boeing headquarters in Washington, because couldn't get a job as an engineer. So he'd listen in on conversations between the engineers in the elevator to hear the problems they could not solve. RT would then go home and solve them himself. Later when he saw the engineers, he'd say something like, "have you tried this for a solution". They were shocked that an elevator boy could be right so many times and they later learned what a great mind he had and brought him into the technical organization and the rest is history. His close friend told me that also because he didn't have a degree, Congress would have to make to special allowances to give him pay raises! I think he would have enjoyed your beautifully produced video. Nice job!
Good Will Hunting
exactly!@@mooneymakes359
This was so cool to read
Well this is the most awesome comment I’ve ever read on CZcams
@@noonedude101yea, and it's for the same reason the movie/book 'catch me if you can' was the greatest biography ever told, because it's a lie
I can't help but also think a naval oblique wing fighter might also have advantages on carriers in storage. If the wing were capable of swinging fully in line with the body, you might be able to fit 3 aircraft in the space of 2 folding wing aircraft. I can't help but feel like they just look strange and alien.
That’s just a cherry on top
You are right, I was thinking the same thing. Slower takeoffs and landings, better fuel economy when loitering AND narrower storage...
Dang, like a bunch of flying folding knives. I'd love to see that
not just there, but also the stands and taxiways at airports.
something big aircraft do have to consider for what airports they can operate at.
@@ARockRaider ooohhh, good point, then we wouldn't need super jumbos because of limited airport gates.
Such high quality in this video, love the renders you've made.. Such high quality in this video, love the renders you've made..
I didn't know your channel. It's brilliant!
Congrats, you've got a new subscriber!
There were two designs with oblique wings that came out of Germany during World War Two. These were the Blohm und Voss P.202 and Messerschmitt P.1101/XVIII-108. Despite never being put into operation, It appears that once again German designers were even further ahead than we thought.
exactly! a lot to do with all the fuss that happened between america and the soviets.
Its crazy they also had a prototype flying wing that had an excellent radar cross-section. They where sloving issues before anybody else even knew they existed
what is it with the WW2-era germans and their hatred for jews so violent and want for lebensraum so strong that they single-handedly leapfrog literal decades in science and technology innovation and design. weird as hell.
@@iamsick5204 I believe the Germans also had the best wind tunnels in the world in WW2. At one location was one that could be used to test full-scale models up to Mach 4 and a hypersonic wind tunnel for testing up to Mach 10 was discovered under construction by Allied troops. The Germans were so far ahead of the Allies that the Americans had these wind tunnels disassembled and moved to the US Navy Labs in Maryland along with German scientists to work on it. The first of these went into US service in 1948 ( I think) and was still in use for calibration purposes until sometime in the late 1990s!
We were extremely fortunate that there was so much interdepartmental secrecy, backstabbing, favouritism and higher level blinkered stupidity in the German system. Had they put their heads together to produce advanced weaponry, they’d likely have had ~ for example ~ hundreds of operational jets in time to rip huge chunks out of the USAAF day-bombing campaign almost before it got started.
@@davidpope3943a Mach 10 wind tunnel?
wat
2:38 Mig-23, Mig-27, F-111, F-14, B1, Tornado, Su-17, Su-20, Su-22, Su-24, Tu-160. Not a huge amount but more than just a sample size in all fairness
and the TU-160 is back in production.
Well to be fair the Mig 23 and Mig 27 are the same frame rebuilt electronics wise
And the SU 17 SU 20 and SU 22 are all variants of the same base design
After that the number drops down to 7
These videos get cooler and cooler every time. Just thought I’d ask could you possibly at some point in the future do a video on the English Electric Lightning
2:20 that footage is so cool! Never seen the Tornado sweep its swings mid flight from that angle
This needs to make a comeback. I'm tired of sitting in a plane for 12+ hours.
How much do you pay for a 12 hour flight? If it was 10 hours instead would you pay 50x that? How about 20x if it was popular?
Look ape, it can pull more weight and has 50% more speed and fuel efficiency. If the damn thing fly's it uses less fuel, less working personal hours, therfore less food , and ultimatly also less risk by being airborne, we could go on.@@siraff4461
Do you still work with your legs in 2024? Hire someone that would sit in a plane 12 hours for you.
Hallo !!
The need for supersonic jets is highly debatable , due mainly to high costs and noise-generation .
.
HOWEVER , if examined seriously , this is actually a viable design . Oblique-wings are of course , unstable at high speeds . This means that the transition must be accomplished at lower speeds and altitudes , and then the forward-wing locked securely into the axial position .
Obviously , after this the plane can accelerate to cruising-speed , while relying on it's low-drag lifting-body planform to provide the necessary lift for supersonic flight . 😎
@@Haplo-sanfeels like a disability to sell remotely. It's about presence. Sure, kids today have no problem with this but so much richness of experience is lost.
100 phones calls or a 10 minute meet, hmmm.
It's sad that Jones never got to see his concept fully tested, it was so close, but those in charge pulled the plug. Would love to see this taken all the way, especially with all the new technology to aid in stability.
yeah but it would probably be impractical. It would require constant babysitting by multiple systems. If any of those systems went wrong the pilot would have to deal with a plane wobbling back and forth until they could land. Also the amount of time and money it would take to get a even somewhat practical model would probably far outweigh the benefits.
It was not his concept. He copied from German design.
@@DoctorAids
It wouldn't be wobbly constantly, only when the wing needs to sweep: below 400mph, full extension could often be used
@@DoctorAidsYoure saying like we didn't let others freaks of the air (the osprey) into full use despite it barly funtioning effectivly on a good day.
Unless u wanna go conspiratorial and say that they pretended to stop testing it to stop other countries copying them
I mean these designs at 5:14 10:24 look and act like that rotating oval UFO from that footage that the Navy confirmed
But that’s just an idea I’ve put only minutes of thought into, fun tho
These models are excellent. Great job mustard and his crew.
Thank you for sharing this wonderful video! It was fascinating, thought provoking, and very well done! I'm now excited to know of Nebula, as well. I'll be checking it out now! 👏🏻
Sitting in an airport watching your high quality videos is actually a great experience, thank you! Such a great production.
Shut up.
Congratulations 👏 you have selected to try the test flight of oblique plane.
-Insurance is not included-
I always enjoy these videos, it's interesting to learn about the backstory and history of planes I know and don't know of. Thanks for putting in so much effort for these amazing videos!
I love your content in expanding the knowledge of historic technology to the public to easily understand and further education. I will be subscribing to Nebula to watch all the rest of your videos as I have watched everything you put on CZcams.
God, I always forget how fantastic these videos are until I stumble across one after a while.
Your channel helped me to decide that I wanted to be an engineer, now I'm a miserable, sleepless engineering student and its all your fault (but damn your videos inspire me each and every time to keep going, no matter how hard it is, an engineer is what I want to be ;)
Stay with it, my brother-in-law is a long time aerospace engineer. You guys are a special breed. I never had the math skills :)
@@Splattervision-qh1sd sadly no aerospace in my country, gonna be mechanical.
@@Aluminio_siete_tres_sieteAlso a very valuable skill, sometimes paid more than engineer
@@Aluminio_siete_tres_siete A lot of it is the same stuff. I hope you have a great career.
@Aluminio_siete_tres_siete
I would rethink - If You are miserable as a Student, it might not change later on the Job....
There are also huge problems with this variable geometry.
- The rotor constitue a single point of failure.
- You can't have fuel tanks in the wing.
- Motors must be attached to the fuselage, which means more noise/vibrations for the passenger, and worse efficiency due to disturbances in airflow.
It could be really good for a tube launched cruise missile.
You could say the same thing about helicopters
@@Woodman-Spare-that-treethe difference being helicopters don't go at supersonic speeds
Shhh, don't tell them this "new" unique thing won't work as greatly as they want it to. They'll throw a fit if they can't say they think the unique thing is good for everything under the sun, therefore them thinking so also makes them unique and owed internet points.
@@TheMiipmiip but not you, you are actually special and unique and nothing like the others
I'm sure the issues here could be dealt with with more testing.
But testing with the oblique wing that hasn't happened for a while.
And these are major issues, so it'll take a lot of testing.
Another excellent video Mustard!
That's what I was thinking, with the aileron offset it would make the plane pitch and yaw awkwardly, plus that pivot point in the middle would have to be insanely strong on a commercial aircraft carrying 200-300+ people.
I always thought this Wing configuration would make perfect sense on the outside of rocket boosters like the ones on the SLS or space shuttle in order to find them back to the ground and land them like a plane
"you know... Now that you mentioned it...."
-Everyday Astronaut interviewing Elon musk
Like this rocket? they have the asymmetrical wing
czcams.com/video/lihq94ugNuU/video.htmlsi=_HFTUxU2ujLizTrg
That seems similar to what was designed for the Energia 2 upgrades that were planned in the soviet union if the Energia-Buran project kept going? Though I think they were looking at folding wing, rather than asymmetric
The bottleneck for most air travel is the airport. We typically spend a lot more time getting to, at, and getting from airports than we spend actually flying.
Yes. Tons of waiting on ground rather than actually flying.
Great channel. 🏴💛
Thats a bottleneck for you not for the airline. It doesnt matter to them if you are waiting at the airport, some other guy is on a plane already.
How have I not heard of Mustard until now? Instant subscriber here.
I love symmetrical/ordered asymmetry like this.
From Samus to the Millennium Falcon, it's so cool seeing stuff pulling that off
I think that it's design principle called Form Follows Function. It instictively feels right.
I remember earing Adam Savage, who worked on the Star Wars movies, refer to it.
Shut up.
There was too much interference drag in the first oblique wing models, leading Jones to come up with his best solution -- the oblique flying wing you mention only at the end of your video. I was Bob Jones' hangar mate in Palo Alto after he retired from NASA. Bob flew a two-control Ercoupe, which he had designed for Fred WeIck of NACA in the 1930s, while I flew a homebuilt. Over turkey legs at Harry's Hofbrau, I heard all about the oblique wing and its advantages, which have been generally underplayed. It's even better than you know
Sick
Sure you were 😂
@@heroinmom153 go back in your basement, or start achieving something yourself
@@lothar654 LMAO @ you 🤡😂🤣
Simp, I'm a software engineer. You're just some broke dope on the internet, wishing you had an ounce of success lol
@@lothar654 But keep simping harder for internet liars lolol
Simp boi
Keep up the incredible work!
The news reporter is someone I remember explaining mechanics in an old game I adore. That was pleasant to find.
The oblique wing concept is great if wings were rigid and laminar airflow was the norm. A major characteristic of forward sweeping control surfaces in practice is tip flutter increases as speed increases. Eventually, the wing or canard folds toward the fuselage. With respect to scissor-wings, uneven amounts of energy would be directed to the pivot point. On a related research path, the Soviets/Russian experimented with the Su-47 and the US had the X-29. With respect to the X-29, the wingtip issues could not be overcome.
the point with the laminar flow has some dots adressed by other research on wings like on the dreamliner, maybe someone with the guts and funding can do a theoretical / prototype of a oblique wing with an active turbulent flow limiter to see how it can help to increase performance and give focus on other challenges of the wing
Absolutely understand and agree. I'm not an engineer, but I modeled virtually and actual scale model, one day in 2001, I found something very weird : wings aren't solid straight surfaces, they bend/flex/twist. Furthermore, all those alterations occurs different from tip to root, the way it happens depend on the shape of the wing, speed, mass/mass distribution, attitude and control surfaces inputs of the vehicle, and the air density and state.
Through my journey in trying to reflect all those in model design (flight simulation), I've foud out about fluttering, pressure wave, drag, wing profiles, wing structures, computer managed damping and control (A380 for eg.), flight speed ranges and their respective concerns, etc.
The tilting wing only resolves a few concerns, still, there are a lot to address, way beyond just "flying okay", and will certainly bring a whole bunch of new huge challenges each time we increase mass, size, performances. The purpose will still and remain transporting something or people somewhere, while economically viable in the civilian world, and strategically relevant in the military one.
The whole point of the rotating slew-wing, is for a simpler structure. It utilizes a straight wingspar and high aspect ratio for weight and simplicity. And slews it for transonic drag reduction.
Nice graphics. I appreciate the history and time and effort you placed into making this video. Keep them coming!
I genuinely didn't know that an Oblique Wing would generate less of a sonic boom.
😮Genuinely? But this is basic knowledge! Everyone knows that oblique wings generate practically no sonic boom whatsoever. I believe this was taught in pre-school.
@@oksemon what kind pre-school was that? We didn't learn physic in pre-school
How tf didnt u know that? Literally the first words out of my mouth were “an oblique wing generates less of a sonic boom”.
Dude, its more famous than "Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell". In fact, that saying only became a thing as a result of plagiarising the far more commonly known adagé, "An oblique wing is the powerhouse of supersonic flight"
@@oksemon you think aerospace engineering is taught in preschool?
The graphics of the "barrier" in red and the sonic boom after the test aircraft went faster was so nice to watch and hear it gave me goosebump. Thank you unknown videographer that was a good job👍
There are other considerations... Maintenance, and the fact that underwing engines are more efficient than body mounted engines (they can be bigger, but also creates a high pressure zone under the wing). Storing fuel in the wings but pumping it to body mounted engines becomes much more complicated, especially given the swing mechanism, probably you have to give up on wing mounted fuel tanks, sacrificing cargo space in the body.
Wing shape has a lot of follow on effects that need to be considered to ensure that the tradeoffs are worth it. By the time those are considered, I suspect that any benefits largely disappear, leaving you with higher maintenance and complexity (and therefore lower safety margins).
Yep, engine mounting is also what i thought of - where do you put the engines on an oblique wing aircraft? As you said, fuselage-mounted engines are less efficient, are harder maintain since they're higher up, require fuel to be pumped to them from the wings, and create more noise and vibration in the cabin.
Additionally, wing-mounted engines are used as counterbalances for the lift forces on the wing. When an aircraft is flying, the entire aircraft's weight is resting on the wing roots as the wings provide lift. Logically, mounting the engines to the wings themselves instead of the fuselage then means that the wing root doesn't have to carry the weight of the engines anymore, since the weight of the engines rests directly on the wings themselves. This means that the wing root can be lighter, and more efficient.
Mounting the engines to the fuselage will mean that all these efficiency gains are lost.
Great video. Loved every second of it. I am gonna get Nebula just because of this video.
Engineer fantasy land. Aircraft mechanic here that understands chaos theory. Shit will ice up, something will fail, and you will become the worlds fastest lawn dart.
Maybe, but maybe we can design an electronic control system to do the same thing.. We'll need to see how such a system will vary with velocity with rotation and for different air conditions. Then we can conclude if the system will be chaotic enough.
Quadcopters too would be chaotic without a proper electronic control system.
@@jyothishkumar3098 If it needs electronic controls to fly then it would be unacceptable for civilian use. (They have to be stable in case of a fly by wire failure)
The oblique wing might also double as a form of dazzle camouflage, because the wings are at an angle, which would suggest a different heading/ speed, than what they are in actual fact.
while also needing a smaller hangar... meaning you can be more discreet
@@lalubkoalso ideal for aircraft carriers, where as many jets are crammed into a small area as possible.
in what world are we still using visuals to identify aircraft and its speed and heading?
@@XxZeldaxXXxLinkxX lmao this guys not living in 1923 like the rest of us. Come on in, xister, the waters warm.
Bro really never heard of RADAR
These videos are so incredibly well made.
Couldn't agree more! It took me by surprise with its brilliance.
I think this is the classic example of theoretically possible but almost impossible in practice. Like you said in the video, the Concord is the best case of why modern aviation doesnt work well with "unique" designs. We've flown the same type of plane for almost 70 years. The amount of R&D time and money they would need to invest to develop would certainly bankrupt all major airplanes manufactures(Boeing, Airbus)
Boeing is bankrupting just by building airplanes
Boeing is doing just fine bankrupting themselves with the MAX series aircraft, thank you very much.
@@mariussmuts3153 Boeing is going to be fine. Airbus also had issues with their planes, most famous one where the landing gear sometimes would turn side ways when deployed for landing. Would this hurt them financially? Absolutely. And probably delay the deploy of their new 777X MAX even further. But they are not going anywhere. This duopoly doesnt seem to be disrupted anytime soon.
@@mariussmuts3153 the us gov is doing even better bankrupting boeing with the airforce ones lol
Few major advancements in aviation have been made by airplane manufacturers in private ventures.
Most groundbreaking research was either done directly by the government (NASA and others), or through military projects with manufacturers.
Atm, there simply isn't a competition that would drive manufacturers to innovate in such ways.
Because supersonic travel would limited to ocean-crossing routes anyway, thus there's hardly a profit margin in there.
Whether anyone might innovate in that direction if supersonic flight were permitted everywhere is anyones guess.
But so long as overland flights have to be subsonic, a lack of innovation in this sector is a certainty.
There are always subtle challenges about these types of new designs that are often hard to predict. Variable geometry wings are a great example, because the theory is great, but it's really difficult in practice. Ground effect vehicles are another such example, where the theory is sound, and it promises much increased efficiency, but then doing it in reality is much more difficult. I put these oblique wings in the same category, where 'what could have been' is almost certainly a lot better than 'what would have happened'.
What in the world is this ediitng and 3d graphics, just mind blowing, and clear precise
My whole aircraft performance and dynamics class went through my head watching this video.
Great video, it would be nice if you get into more detail what makes oblique wing so efficient.
I'm no engineer, but I would imagine it is because of its smaller cross-sectional area in the direction of flight. Imagine standing in front of the plane; as the oblique wing rotates, you can see less of the plane. This means lower air resistance at supersonic speeds.
Real engineering has another great video on the AD-1 that perhaps you would be interested in
Starting at transonic (M0.8) and then up into supersonic speeds, as the airflow over the aircraft becomes supersonic, you are affected by a new type of drag, wave drag.
To manage this wave drag you have to prevent large spikes in the frontal cross section of the aircraft; the cross section of the aircraft must change slowly, this is the so called 'area rule'.
Traditional subsonic aircraft with their long, thin, straight wings have a large spike in the cross sectional area at the wings, this causes very large wave drag and effectively prevents them from going supersonic.
in order to reduce the wave drag of the wings, you have to reduce the abrupt increase in cross sectional area. you can do this in two ways: make the wings shorter/fatter effectively spreading the area of the wing forwards and back (F-104 is a good example), and/or sweep the wings so that they gradually add and remove area (like the F-100); delta wings or trapezoidal wings are effectively a mix of both.
The oblique wing is able to sweep it's self by pivoting, however it has a few potential advantages over traditional swing wing aircraft that can also change their sweep angle.
Firstly as explained in the video the mechanism for sweep has the potential to be lighter since it recieves simpler loads.
secondly traditional swing wings send both halves of the wing backwards, this shifts the center of lift backwards which adds adittional trim drag as the elevators have to pitch down and remove lift to maintain level flight, the oblique wing does not shift the COL backwards when it sweeps so no additional trim drag.
Thirdly, as traditional variable geometry wings send both half of the wing backwards, they put the cross sectional area of both of the wings backwards resulting in higher wave drag; the oblique wing sends one half forwards and one half back resulting in better area ruling over all and therefore potentially lower wave drag.
@@TheAmazingchickens Very good explanation. I'd add that rearward-swept wings can be positioned to ride the cone of the shockwave from a forward point such as the canopy, while a forward-swept wing cannot. Everything about a modern aircraft is built around its intended crusing speed, takeoff and landing speeds and distances, etc. Economically it makes little sense to design a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none aircraft.
Oblique wing works the same way as a swept wing, namely by making the cross sectional area of the plane change more gradually. This is important for reducing wave drag at transonic and supersonic speed.
Unfortunately swept wings also tend to produce less lift at low speeds compared to straight wings. So when designing a transonic or supersonic plane the aircraft engineer has to choose a compromise between a reasonable takeoff/landing speed and mitigation of wave drag. Swing wings address this problem by allowing sweep to be varied in the air. But they add a lot of weight and complexity. The oblique wing hopes to give the same benefit without such severe penalties.
I remember that concept from the "Usborne book of the future" I had as a kid in the late 70's/80's. It's too bad that aesthetics and symmetry is so hardwired into humans.
As a non-engineer I think the problem with the oblique wing is the fact it is really hard to include the wing in overarching features a fixed wing allows.
For the military that would be weapon hardpoints and additional fuel cells under the wings, or extended fuelspace for commercial flight.
If the features you gain are not worth the features you lose .. then it's not worth it.
Great video! Thanks guys!
It’s a good day when mustard posts
DIDNT ASK + MY ANIMATIONS ARE WAY BETTER THAN MUSTARD
Didn't ask. My content is far superior and has more value than anything this youtuber has ever produced so get over it
Didn't ask. My content is far superior and has more value than anything this youtuber has ever produced so get over it
Bro these bots 🤖
Wtf
I am currently studying aerospace engineering and i think i know why my professor never talked about this:
1: When the wings pivots the resulting torque also changes direction --> that's what causes the need for control inputs, as now that torque is no longer in line with the axis of the fueselage.
2: You still have a pivot mechanism trough which ALL of the lift needs to go and that thing needs to hold all the Gs a aircratf has to pull and is not allowed to fail/only with a chance of 10^-9.... yeah that mechanism would be hell to design. especially for the milltiary as you need to pull your Gs.
3: The wings are elyptical... which is an absolute horror to manufacture as you not only change the profile but even the depth of your profile now. and todays wings are also everything but simple
4: As said in the video it is not a really prooven design. and like many many other ideas like flying wing and canard it would need an immense certification process... who is gonna pay for that?
5: what about the engines? If we put them at the aft we will soon get the problem because todays engines get higher and higher BPR (by pass ratios). Those huge engines probably wont fit at the aft. But if we put them under the wing we need more pivots again... and all the fuel lines need to bend too....
6: ohhh and lets not forget that we might manage to make a good aerodynamic Design at subsonic and super sonic but what about the engine? For Super sonic we want low bypass and a Super sonic intake. For sub sonic high BPR is good for fuel efficency.... and another intake....
in conclusion this certainly is intresting. but like many non conventional designs who promsie better L/Ds etc it will be icnredibly difficult to do from an construction perspective
also: the sonic booms and stuff aint even tested yet. i seriously wonder how they show when the wing is pivoted. so i am rather sure i will be another concept we might use at one point in the future.
YOUR AEROSPACE ENGINEERING EDUCATION JUST DESTROYED YOUR ACTUAL ABILITY TO CREATE ANY NEW PLANES. ' ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL '.😑😒
@@rexxbailey2764 why? Because i can see the Problems? Because i already know the higher ups probably wont Cover the cost and risk.
You shouldnt forget: engineers want to build the New and amazong stuff. But the guys in the money Departement need to remind us that we need to stay profitable
@rexxbailey2764 LOL are you kidding? He is absolutely right, just watch the video and you will find the problems addressed as well. The amount of torque it will experience at high angles, + maneuvering will require significant EFBW inputs. Add that to military use cases, where the payload mounts are on the wings, the CoM will shift radically when payloads are asymmetrically released. Its a problem even in swing wings but they still pivot 15-30 degrees usually, so the shift in CoM is not that great. Here it will be drastic. It will be extremely complicated to fly especially in military applications and that's where the major use of a supersonic plane. A fully oblique civilian aircraft might work, but it'll still have enough challenges.
Im trying to think the amount of people involved in the creation of this video and I cannot figure it out! It's a master piece of info, design, audio, editing and passion to do it. Many thanks
You just made me subscribe to Nebula. You are worth it. Top content. Keep it up.
That pure oblique wing looks so cool. Imagine seeing a wonky wing with jet engines flying over you.
I'm not sure what the technical term is for this but the way you display information in your video is really pleasing to me
The final design is so dope.
What an incredibly well produced video
Have been long waiting your high quality videos!! Thanks for making these beautiful yet informative videos! A real deep thanks!!🙏🏻
WHO SAID MUSTARD IS THE BEST BECAUSE MY CONTENT IS WAY BETTER
(not a bot just wanna add another spam comment here 💀)
Aircraft weren't always semicircle before this funky number, granted not as interesting as this one, but one wing was sometimes designed longer than the other to prevent torque reaction from the propeller. And the Germans made some unhinged asymmetrical aircraft for visibility as I understand it. Good video as always and well woth the wait!!
A lot of propeller driven aircraft also have their tails turned slightly to one side for the same reason.
Great info brother
I remember when I was younger I was reading something related to planes. I think it was in the excellent french magazine Mach1 and, if I'm not mistaken, it was about the flying wing. One of the comment in the conclusion was that in that era (the same as yours), there was a lot of exprimentations. Most of them were dead end but...the knowledge in aviation improved a lot nevertheless. Many devices or caracteristics in today planes come form that.
Thank you for this video. Video quality is exceptional, I dare say, Netflix-esque. Thanks for the cinematography and the narrative, how you tell the story. I've always heard about Nebula but having seen this video (first time on this channel), I now think that that 2.50 is a worthy spend. Thanks Mustard, you have earned a subscription. Amazing bro!
you guys put so much effort and detail into your videos it's incredible
I've been recommended this every day, you win algorithm I'll finally watch it
The oblique wing looks one step away from being a 'flying saucer'. Pretty cool
A giant wing that has to rotate while in midair? What could go wrong?!!?!? Hey those Ospreys certainly don't fall out of the ai----OH SHI
The Osprey has been important and aside from that recent accident, the Osprey these days has a better safety record than at the start.
That being said, it's understandable why the oblique wing has remained with experimental and concept designs.
Helicopters have successfully operated with wings attached to a central bolt for decades. That being said, that bolt being a single point of failure on a passenger aircraft is unthinkable, and would never get approved by the FAA (unless you're Boeing with MCAS)
In an oblique setup, the forward-swept wing has an advantage of less induced drag, but the rearward-swept wing does not. That's a built-in imbalance. Another imbalance is that the forward-swept wing has an exponentially larger twisting force at the wingtip the faster it goes. The forward-swept wing must be reinforced more than the rearward-swept wing, so there will be a weight imbalance along with a drag imbalance. The ideal oblique wing is elliptical. Manufacturing a curved shape is more expensive and time-consuming than a straight edge. Considering that the top and bottom of a wing is curved as well, an elliptical wing has an economic disadvantage. Also, an aircraft designed for supersonic flight must be more narrow than one designed to never enter the transonic regime. There just isn't enough time saving in the air (versus the frequent delays on the ground) to make a supersonic narrow-body jet worth the extra cost versus a subsonic narrow-body.
Oh yes, almost forgot. When an aircraft isn't inherently stable, when it requires computer control, as with the 60-degree oblique sweep, how does the pilot remain in control when the wing computer suddenly dies at top speed?
The computer reliability issue is readily addressed using multiple redundancy, the traditional approach is 3 computers that 'vote' on their output.
@@nerd1000ify I've heard that. Still there are failures that kill all the electronics.
@floycewhite6991 it would be normal to have multiple redundant electrical supplies as well, on an airliner there are 4: main engine generators, APU, batteries and a ram air turbine.
A power surge of some sort could fry electronics, but they are typically protected by circuit breakers (which account for a lot of the switches in a typical cockpit). Multi engine aircraft can run independent circuits from each generator, so you can run redundant critical systems on totally different circuits so a power surge cannot affect both.
It's worth noting that many inherently stable aircraft would also be unflyable in the event of a total power failure. The control surfaces are generally actuated by hydraulics which rely on pumps to operate. Even in cases where there is a physical cable or pushrod connection between the controls and the control surfaces, on larger aircraft the control forces would be too large for the pilot to manage without power assistance. It's common to have multiple redundant hydraulic systems as well, e.g. each engine drives an independent pump and hydraulic circuit that is responsible for half of the actuators on each control surface.
@@nerd1000ify Yes I worked in the industry when I was young. Thanks for the reminders though. The bigger the plane, the more complex, and the more overbuilt it must be for safety's sake.
Really appreciate the 4k quality
This design is cool af !! 7:11 looks like súper man flying punching 1 arm forward 🔥
Fascinating! I would like to note that nature is not always symmetrical, for instance flatfish are highly asymmetrical. Also, geese typically fly in an asymmetrical v-shape formation.
He was pointing out that anything that flies is symmetrical.
That's amazing but a formation of geese are not a single flying object unless they do this to affect the airflow over the entire formation.
@@R1GGLER That's still a misleading point to make because everything that walks is also symmetrical, as it everything that burrows. There are only a handful of fish that aren't symmetrical. Symmetry is far far simpler from an evolutionary development point of view than asymmetry.
Im sorry but you said planes with variabile geometry wings are nit in use anymore,but as far as I know the tornado is still in use with some countries , so is the sukhoi-22
Hello, Mustard! Your videos are fantastic! How do you create landscape for aerial shots? Thank you in advance
A 3 hour trip to Europe from NY would truly be revolutionary if we could do it on a large scale.
I remember seeing these "scissors-wing" planes on the cover of a Popular mechanics or Popular Science magazine in my youth in the early Seventies ... great to see them again! They were supposed to revolutionize air travel then but sort of disappeared from view - like hypercritical fuselages in the late Seventies/early Eighties...
Brought back memories, I used to look through those too as a youth in the 70’s, good times.
Wow! Besides the script and story being so interesting, loved the quality of the 3D Animations, a beautiful mix between Retro and Hyper Realistic. And everything, music, voice over and video, smoothly edited. Congrats to the Mustard Team.
7:05 comin in hot with that fantastic synthwave!