Watch over 2,400 documentaries for free for 30 days AND get a free Nebula account by signing up at www.CuriosityStream.com/realengineering and using the code, "realengineering"
New streaming platform: watchnebula.com/
Vlog channel: notown.info/love/Met4qY3027v8KjpaDtDx-g
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=2825050&ty=h
Facebook:
facebook.com/realengineering1
Instagram:
instagram.com/brianjamesmcmanus
Reddit:
www.reddit.com/r/RealEngineering/
Twitter:
twitter.com/thebrianmcmanus
Discord:
discord.gg/s8BhkmN
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-engineering
Credits:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Dylan Hennessy (www.behance.net/dylanhennessy1)
Animator: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraphics.com/)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster twitter.com/forgottentowel
References:
[1] www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/dihedral-effect
[2] www.b737.org.uk/techspecsdetailed.htm
[3] www.rcscalebuilder.com/Tutorials/dihedral/dihedral.pdf
[4] www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1995/february/designing-bent-wing-bird
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Songs:
The Night Lights - Rippled Stone
Papaya Island - Dye O
Greenwich Lights - Gridded
Beyond Rivers and Dust - Alec Slayne
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung
First episode of the Logistics of D-Day series is now available on Nebula. Cheapest and best way to get access is through curiositystream.com/realengineering/. Upon signing up you will get an email with your login info for watchnebula.com
@bionku pog
Jj
How yoke works? What happened when pilots pull the yoke stick?
It's "angle of attack" not "angle of attach"
I might consider this, however seriously if I'm paying I want my private data not shared with anyone and well protected. If curiosity then makes me agree to the following terms: - to the cross-border transfer of my personal information to countries that I understand may not have the same data protection laws as my country of residence. Then my initial thoughts are, okay so I'm paying but you might still use my data for data mining? Then why the hell am I paying? Am sorry to say this but either your model is data mining and you make your stuff free (YT, FB do this), or you make it a paid subscription and you don't show me ads and don't mine my data.
Seeing the PBM sure made me happy
so...basically , the wing being angled up acts the same as a drift car that runs as much caster as possible ? to create " self steer" ...?
can you explain why concorde has low mounted wing but is anhedral?
2:47 angle of "attach" typo
5:37 even though watching on mobile, still checked for WhatsApp messages
JU-87 : don't have retractable landing gear my brain : "*GEar Up GeAr uP*"
bruh
So, very roughly speaking, wherever you mount your wings the wingtips should roughly sit at the same height as the fuselage centreline
7:33 thats airdrop if ive ever seen it
If I see correctly, the F-29 has perfectly straight wings, couldn't you add an angle to solve its stability problems?
Thank you for the PBM footage! Grandpa was a radioman in the war flying on those, and they're rare to see.
here there is an explanation of dihedral notown.info/two/video/mLiPo5yKjK5hmLc.html
Did anyone hear a meow at 5:25 ?
Idea: winglet fractal
F4U gull wing also made for perpendicular wing-fuselage intersection almost centered on the fuselage, resulting i reduced parasitic drag. Greg's Airplanes does an indepth analysis of F4U design.
The noxious bandana scientifically obtain because thing socially fill against a changeable army. vacuous, aggressive trumpet
for high winged aircraft one ( anhedral ) you said that it will be roll more due to the high angle of attack, but after a while you said it will be produce a restoring (moment) but how I will know if it will produce more roll or restoring force?
so the increased AOA on the low wing in a sideslip, is that airflow that is essentially running spanwise along the wing?? Is that spanwise flow contributing to lift? I'm so confused. I researched this all day yesterday but got as far as "the low wing has a higher angle of attack" with no further explanation
Maybe it is a conspiracy by the fuel industry to make more money?
Does anyone else only watch these when it’s the Irish guy
1:01 HOW THE HECK DOES IT JUST FLOAT TRERE?????
I did not understand a few things.2:40 the planes are rolling so how does the angle of attack changes? the angle of attack changes when the pitch is altered
No put anhedrak on low mounted inns and dihedral on high mounted wings. That’d be some weird looking planes
The same reason why your paper airplane doesn't go straight with flat wings
6:35 This was actually for a fancy aerodynamic reason. Short landing gear could have been achieved with a low wing. The reason for the gull wing lies in the fact that the corsair was designed for straight line speed, and a wing root joining perpendicular to the fuselage offers the lowest parasitic drag. THAT is why the wing is a gull wing instead of just a low wing.
Hmm...all along I thought that dihedral was to correct for "adverse yaw" when a plane rolls, which is caused by an increase in induced drag on the wing that ascends during the roll.
6:38 *an 225 excuse me
U should make hour long versions of these
Thanks! I was testing upwards and downwards but I couldn't figure out why downwings aren't stable
what would happen if i stack dihedral wings?
Can you even butter an an-225? Like which wheel would you touch down first😂
attach = applying/fastening an object to another object attack = violence.
2:48 lesser? attach?
Great explanation, learned something today.
laughs in c 5 galaxy
The F4U wing was to keep the landing gear short for the rugged service of use on an aircraft carrier while enabling use of a large enough prop to handle the power of the engine. It was NOT about aerodynamics.
The explanation is good, but the angle of attack drawing is not so clear. I would have preferred a view front view, from the "wind prospective" so that when the plane yaws you can see the difference in angle of attack (the under side of one wing would appear to be bigger)
Can you do one on sailling?
2:02 No wonder why Ryanair landings are so bad, their 737s are already unstable in the ground
you missed to talk about the effects on lift since a negative dihedral is very much a concave down shape which when in flight will force a wider pressure field underneath thus increasing lift. you can make a simple experiment when driving your car pull a hand out in the incoming air stream and while pretending your hand is a wing, concave your hand down and updwards
stuka have inverted wing to MORE B O M B
3:12 Can you explain why this aircraft has it's horizontal stabilizer mounted so high?
I heard once something being told about the plane wings being tilted upwards due to the dynamic stresses that occur where the wings attatch to the fuselage. It was something about that by pretensioning the wings to tilt upwards there would be an upward force at all times so that in situations where there is no lift the load would still pull the wings upwards instead of going through zero. if theres a lift load the forces at the wings would also go upwards. This would decrease fatigue stresses. Is there any logic behind that?
Great video. One point to mention is some aircraft break the mould, e.g. Cessna 172 has high mounted wings but they're dihedral (not dramatically so).
Hello, i have a question. What is the dihedral angle of flying wing?
"stable" I think you mean "insufficiently maneuverable."
Just if you guys are wondering if nebula is worth it, yes it is. The content is really nice and professional. And it’s without ads. It is totally worth the few euros a month
As a kid, a few paper planes made it clear that tilting the wingtips up made it super stable, while tilting down almost always caused a corkscrew dive. Thanks to you, I finally understand why!
So, low mounted-wings make the plane unstable, high-mounted wings make it stable. anhedral wings make the plane unstable, while dihedral wings make it stable. Although this probably is a coincidence to some degree, higher angled and higher mounted wings make the plane more stable, and lower angled and lower mounted wings make it unstable.
Just thought about it, if there was a plane that could change the dihedral/anhedral angle of it's wings in flight, it could be very maneuverable while also very stable. Could it?
Can someone explain why he says the pendulum effect doesn't make sense. If the center of lift is higher than the center of gravity it makes sense to me that when the aircraft is rotated the col and the cog are no longer vertically aligned and that a proton of the weight would act as a torque on the center of lift to bring it in line. What makes that incorrect?
Just a small addition to the information regarding the corsair. The corsair was originally designed as a dive bomber. In a creative move designers removed the concept of independent dive brakes in place of using the lander gear as a dive break, thus using one part to fix two problems. In doing this the gear length could not be extended without significant strengthening and added complexity.
High wing airplanes that require more maneuverability are affected by the Keel Effect so they use Anhedral wings to increase maneuverability. Case in point is the Cessna 172 which is both a high wing and Dihedraled.
So its for manuevers? Thats why the corsair have a good turning time.
Besides the mentioned reasons, wings on transport aircraft like the An-225 are shoulder mounted to keep the massive wing box away from the cargo bay and thus make it fully usable over the whole length of the fuselage. As an additional side info for the big engine clearance from the ground Military transport aircraft are often designed for take offs and landings on rough surfaces. The higher the engine clearance the less risk of sucking in any kind of dirt, sand, gravel etc.
5:04 Mig 29 Su27 Mig 21: BRUH
Can you explain the weird aerodynamics of the vought xf5u?
Another reason high mounted wings are angled down, is because for some planes (like the Antonov) the wings bend to become straight
F104
they also get bonus points for looking sexy as fuck
When you become a paper plane engineer by using a pencil to roll the high mounted wings upward so that it could reach the head of your classmate at a longer distance 😂
Great now I have do math fuck no
Why is there a vertical component? Shouldn’t the relative wind be opposite the flight path? 2:38
So how I implement this new knowledge into warthunder game ? notown.info/two/video/yrx9dqthqZuqw9U.html
3:00 High mounted wings tend to be more in use on cargo/heavy load type airplanes. Bombers, Miltiary Transports, really small/weak engine planes. One reason of course is more clearance for wing mounted engines. But especially cessna loves the high mounted wing, but loathes the wing mounted engine. But having the correcting force be closer to the fuselage on the lower wing, might help give the correction force a bit more "omph" for the same wingspan and speed.
At 6:38 it should be AN 225. You got it right earlier.
NOtownr: Creates detailed explainatiom about planes me: haha plane go brrrr
A10 fan i see
Dihedral: "I'm stabilizing in rolls!" Directional Stability: "I got bad news for you."
Me, a mechanical engineer: Because planes go up in the sky.
No mention of low-wing anhedrals like the old Tupolev passenger planes?? Hmm.
AIRcraft
loving the angle of attach
“a wide variety of variations” is a lot of variations indeed
3:13 I gotta know the link for this video, TF39s...
What's wrong with the pendulum effect? You said it's wrong, but didn't explain how wrong. I'm thinking really hard about it, and I can't see how it is wrong! Pls kindly explain.
Look up videos about the rocket pendulum effect, this is similar. Basically in a pendulum the pivot point is the pivot itself where the pendulum is mounted. But in an aircraft/rocket the craft is free floating, so the pivot point is not the wings/engines, but the center of mass.
i have also heard for the an225 that the high mounted wings gave a strong support surface to mount the russian space shuttles on that the plane was originally designed to carry. it can also be used to carry heavy external cargo this way. althought hat being said, the 747 was also able to carry the shuttle and it was a low mounted wing. so maybe a simple reinforcing of the roof structure and proper mounting points is all thats needed to carry external roof cargo.
You mean to say Hawker Siddley Harrier.
High mounted wings keep engines higher up and thus avoid FOD (important in low quality airfield which is important in military systems in particular, as the An225 was a tank mover) which was also a reason that planes aimed at servicing lesser developed airfields in the mid 20th favored rear engine mounts (like the Vickers and some soviet designs) as well as to carry the Buran on its back (the reason for the two knobs there) and the wing box was the best place to mount it to.
Isn't gull wing also called 'Polish wing' or 'Pulaski wing'?
The first plane, the Wright Flyer, had anhedral wings, because they did not fully understand the physics of aerodynamic stability. They knew enough to get off the ground.. barely. Dihedral adds stability similarly to the way slight toe-in in a properly aligned front wheels of an automobile will solve steering wander and under-steering.
I tought the high mounted wings in cargo planes were for the hight weight they need to charge
A big part of the Corsair's wing design was drag. They wanted to keep the fuselage as narrow as possible for speed so in the early variants had all the air intakes in the wings. But they also wanted to keep the landing gear short for carrier lands and higher speed dive brakes.
Hey bud, I'm really like your channel, quite helpful. Was thinking I kinda make you suggestion and petition about hot exhaust gas ingestion on STOVL video, something like *Problems with de SVTOL * OR "ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF STOVL ", man seriously who better than you to explain it, I thought Brian's got talent. So please o would appreciate if you give it a thought. Please make this community awesome. Lots of thanks.
This channel is the best i had a science presentation and i learned alot from his videos and everyone from my class liked it thank you
One thing to note is that the vertical stabilizer also contributes to dihedral effect. In a side-slip, the angle of attack induced on a vertical surface that protrudes above the center of gravity will produce a moment that counters the roll. If you consider a lot of the planes that have zero or negative dihedral, you'll see that a lot of them have relatively large vertical fins. The F-104 is a good example of this.
“greater angle of attach”
Your explanation of the Corsair is incomplete. If they had JUST needed ground clearance, they could have gone with a low wing. You say the inverted gull was not for any aerodynamic reason, but it was. The idea is that the most aerodynamic way to join a wing to the fuselage is at a right angle. That would mean a mid-fuselage wing if it were straight. THAT combined with the engine size and landing gear weight wouldn't work, but with the inverted gull, the wing could meet the fuse at a right angle while still providing ground clearance and beefy landing gear. www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1995/february/designing-bent-wing-bird
because the Corsair wouldn't look as cool.
I like the return to the old style thumbnail!
they go upwards to go up
The pendulum explanation of anhedral high-mounted wings reminds me of the pendulum rocket fallacy.
F-16 that's not low mounted wings ..
Wow ! This is complicatet but it dose make sence.. Very good documentary .
I didn't understand the roll stability of anhedral wings
I think another of the main reasons for the F4U's wing is to reduce interference drag at the wing root by having the wing mounted to the fuselage at around 90°
The F-16 was designed to be unstable in more than one axis. It is so unstable that if you lose power in the engine it will only Glide as long as it is at relatively high speed. But it will fall out of the air. You cannot land it safely without power. How much does dihedral help when you have asymmetric thrust because somebody replaced an engine under one of the Wings and didn't trim them so that the same throttle setting isn't giving you the same thrust from each engine? Asymmetric thrust will cause a plane to roll and come out of the sky relatively quickly if the flight crew is not paying attention while they're trying to fix some other issue. That has been the cause of several failures, especially in Asia where they so depend on the electronics of the aircraft. That they forget to fly the plane. The F4U Corsair issues work multiple. The desired speed of the aircraft, required a propeller of such size, ultimately requiring them to articulate the wings so that they didn't have to use to have your gear and short-circuit the overall function of the aircraft. Although the design speed was intended to be at least 400 miles per hour. It did go considerably faster than that fairly quickly in its later development.
How do parasol wings achieve roll stability?
0:48 the lighting makes the plane look like a flight sim plane with really bad graphics😂
What would happen if you designed a plane with forward swept wings with a dihedral angle? Will the plane be just slightly unstable? Can the magnitude of unstableness be controlled?
You mean HOW, not why. The why is because we want to. English please.