The secret about biplanes | The reason why they don't fly anymore
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2024
- Biplanes look cool, but they have a story, they still exist today, and they are a curious flying piece of machinery. In this video I'll be showing a basic explanation and a short story about these airplanes.
✅ The best video about aviation • Military Aviation Hist...
Watch this video in Spanish here • El secreto de los bipl...
Want to learn to make these animations?
motiondesign.school/?rfsn=312...
Subscribe:
goo.gl/zKQ706
Instagram
/ joyplanes
List of equipment I use
Cameras
Sony a6300 amzn.to/2SrtciJ
Canon T5i amzn.to/2SrtciJ
Gopro amzn.to/2ECcDwW
Osmo pocket amzn.to/2IDO8mR
Sound
Zoom H1 amzn.to/2SzhOBy
Zoom H5 (clearer sound) amzn.to/2EAG6Hk
Microphone OLM-10 amzn.to/2EmLcFM
Lighting
LED amzn.to/2tHk5AA
LED ring amzn.to/2SrJvMo
Accessories
Tripod 1 amzn.to/2Svufhm
Tripod 2 amzn.to/2SrtUfT
#JoyplanesRC #HobbyRC - Навчання та стиль
![The Largest Biplane Ever Flown | Caproni Ca.90 [Aircraft Overview #23]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aVnxQCa4ieM/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent video! As an aerobatic pilot and former biplane owner, I mildly object to your statement that biplanes are inefficient. Efficient compared to what mission for the plane? In Aerobatics, the high drag is helpful when you need to slow down quickly for an upcoming maneuver, and with the top wing set up to stall at a different rate from the bottom wing, it is much easier to control the break, as when performing a spin or a snap (flick) roll. Having said that, for the vast majority of flying purposes, you are indeed correct.
Thanks!
Respect for owning and Aerobatics flying bi-planes. I've had aerobatic flights in monoplanes like the Slingsby Firefly T-67 and the Extra 300LT but my favourite aerobatic flights have been in de Havilland Tiger Moth and ON Stearman bi-planes! Yes I've stood on the top wing of a Stearman 3 times now as can be seen on my UA-cam channel and the pilot gave me hammerhead turns, loops and barrel rolls! So I love Stearman's and Tiger Moth's!
Biplanes are used in some personal seaplane designs. They allow for a smaller wing span which allows the plane to negotiate busy marinas.
I used to own and compete in Pitts Special S2B and I'm laughing at the ignorance on display here.
@@PaleBlueDotCitizen He opened a can of worms when he brought up the Wright Brothers not being the first to fly. The Wright Brothers never claimed to be the first to fly. In fact stating in 1900 they obtained all of the Smithsonian literature regarding heavier than air flight. Up until the Wright brothers, nobody had ben able to achieve controlled flight. Everyone prior to the Wright Brothers could fly in a straight line and did OK until a tree or building got into the the way. What the Wright Brothers did was demonstrate a controlled turn. They did that by using wing warping. And that is a fact.
"Biplanes Have Deficiencies" - Sopwith : "Yes, That's Why I Built A Triplane"
Or Fokker.
@@rodshop5897 How about a Fokker triplane with a computerized fly by wire system?
@@rodshop5897 I mentioned the Sopwith, because that was the first of the two.
RodShop what did you call him!?
@@MrChiangching Sounds cool! You got one to share?
One industry in which biplanes are still common: crop dusting. The ability to fly at low speed is a big advantage here, as you're attempting to hit targets on the ground with high precision from a very low altitude.
I just crop dusted my wife. She’s throwing things at me right now lol
Can't forget stunt flying.
Don't specially equipped helicopters fit such job better?
@@petergorelov418 No! Helicopters are much more expensive in use (fuel consumption) and maintenance.
Do pilots still train on biplanes? My grandpa did, how about now
They have excellent stall characteristics because of their lift to weight ratio, which is why they're still the best for tight aerial maneuvers at low speeds. With more powerful engines plus a hundred years of structural improvements, we've got some killer performing biplanes now. Granted they're normally air show/hobbyist builds, they've still got a place in the aviation world.
The new planes are monsters, they've come so far
I think they're still used as crop duster exactly for the low speed characteristics,
Long range weaponry and the much higher engine speeds really killed them
None of the top stunt flyers use biplanes anymore. Edge 540's and MX2's basically rule nowadays. My aerobatic instructor flies the airshow circuit in the de Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk, made famous by Art Scholl. And then, there is Svetlana Kapanina, who became world champion flying the Sukhoi Su-26M.
@@anonymike8280 yeah Air Tractor made a few biplanes, and old Stearmans are sometimes used for crop dusting.
Friend of mine while flying one of these old things called a tower to request a ground speed estimate because the head wind was getting bad. They said they didn’t have his ground speed but the car’s below are passing him. He set it down and took a break.
I've flown four seat piston engine planes backwards and in a hover before. Go out in some good wind, set up some slow flight, and look outside to see the ground still below you or moving ahead of your plane. It's a good lesson in airspeed v. groundspeed!
I used to hire an instructor and a Citabria for aerial photography. He’d take me up, turn into a, say, 20 MPH headwind and we’d hover, just as the Wright brothers did a few miles North 76 years before. Much cheaper, and fun, than a helicopter. To take photographs, having removed the doors before takeoff, I’d lean far out hanging onto the strut with one hand and the camera with the other.
You can find some footage on UA-cam where Air Force trainees do their most basic solo flight training in Super Cubs at some airport in Denver. For whatever reason they got caught in bad weather and are flying static or backwards over the runway they were taxiing on. (I think they were told to stay put on the ground, but it's either fly the thing or ground loop from the wind. So it ends up being a bit hairy and entertaining to watch, but a good call on the part of the pilots.)
Most biplanes of the world war we're capable of speed in excess of 100 mph. If the windspeed was high enough to slow him down that much he shouldn't have been flying.
@@Aviator27J Cool. I once won a skydiving accuracy competition by flying my friend's enormous parachute backwards (ground speed) to set up for the landing. I scored 0.00 cm! All of the small and fast 5 and 7 cell parachutes overshot by about 10 metres!
_...they don't fly anymore_
*[Laughs in Antonov An-2]*
Yeah
*_[Laughing in An-2 intensifies]_*
Stopped production in 2001 -
@@dnomyarnostaw *[Laughs in An-2-100]*
I still see them flying on special events every now and then...
The thing is about the extra lift means you can have shorter wings, Shorter wings means better roll which means getting into a turns faster, using your elevators( bigger surface area)instead of your rudder in dog fights .
Only issue with this being aircraft now travel at mach 3 and can put a missile down your chimney from 50 miles out loooooooool
Probably a key factor as to why biplanes dont dogfight anymore
Signed: Captain obvious :P
@@Cryogenius333 LOL I wasn't explaining why we dont see then in combat any more but why we see them as aerobatic aircraft to day , basically why their still made although there are a lot of excellent monoplane airobats (now a days) PS last biplane to go out of service was in 1973 also Adolf Busemann proposed the supersonic biplane, having a quite narrow gap (space between wings) in which expansion waves and shock waves would interact to reduce drag (the “shape drag” due to the thickness of the airfoil sections). A biplane having one much smaller wing (usually the lower).So mac3 biplane possible LOL! But not likely .
I'm not sure if this is what you meant or not, but rudders are not used to generate rate of turn in an aircraft, no matter how many wings. For the most part, they're just to keep your plane flying straight into the airstream to avoid slipping... Or sometimes to create slipping intentionally to increase drag or to keep your nose straight while landing in a crosswind. Trying to turn an aircraft with just the rudder is not only terribly inefficient since you're presenting the broader side of your plane to the airstream, but can also be quite dangerous as it could pull you into a spin especially at slow speeds.
@@DE-nm9jx Nope i was trying to say roll 90 degrees (which is why sorter wing good. )and pull back on the stick , its like pulling up horizontally (giving a tighter turn ) .
@@Foxbat320 ok, I was just confused about the "instead of the rudder" part. And though I would believe that biplanes have an extremely fast rate of roll, other monowing planes do as well, like the Japanese 'Zero' (I don't know how they compare though). I think the aircrafts weight is probably the biggest factor since having longer wings means that your ailerons also have a longer moment arm from the center axis. And it is true that biplanes have an extremely tight turn radius, but that is because of the high lift that they can generate at slow speeds... After all, it's the horizontal component of lift from your wings that generates the turn, and slower speeds means tighter radius.
I have a beautiful book from the 1920s that declares single or double wings have not yet been decided.
@@notgiven3114
The Wonder Book of Aircraft.
Ward, Lock & Co. Limited
London and Melbourne
Eighth Edition
The front cover has a monoplane with,G-ABPI on the side. If you google it you can find an image and more details.
I have a book from the 1930s that said it was yet to be proven which would be the better technology for intercontinental travel, aeroplanes or airships. It was written before the Hindenburg and R101 disasters....
@Alfred Wedmore Bismark was probably raging and smashing his keyboard as a bunch of fucking biplanes meme on him
Sure, they're inefficient for some applications but great in others. Many years ago I was driving my 1930 Ford Model A to the Street Rod Nationals in Memphis, TN. Cruising up beside me was a PT-17 Stearman crop duster that was landing on a dirt strip parallel to the highway. The pilot looked at me as I watched him; two vintage machines from the same era moving at the same speed, about 70 mph. (The model A had a modern V-8 in it.) It was a very cool experience to see the vintage Stearman land right beside me from my vintage street rod. Doesn't have much of anything to do with the video but you made me think of that great experience.
woah that’s awesome
You mean a straight 4?
@@AreeyaKKC from the sounds of it, he did an engine swap (which is pretty common to do)
An old guy told me about riding his motorcycle down a beautiful country road, and just as he crested a hill two biplanes passed him overhead and flew down the road in front of him. I always remembered that story I heard from the mid 80s.
Most sucessful plane for sinking axis shipping was the swordfish bi-plane no other plane sank as much or did as much
Biplanes aren't common today because their structure increases drag...
Biplanes used two wings because they provided extra rigidity in their design given the materials they had to work with.
Yes, the narrator isn't too good on facts.
Possibly their knowledge of structures wasn't as good as it is now either.
Yes, that's what he said
@@evaluateanalysis7974 I think he was pretty clear
they also had lower stall speeds, which was helpful with the comparatively weak engines of the era. also meant you could land and take off in a smaller space.
This is the real reason. A single wing requires a lot of internal structure, which is heavy. The heavier the plane, the more power you need to make it fly. Remember that the Wright brothers were using an experimental aluminum engine that only made about 10 hp. Additionally, drag is a function of speed squared, so the drag of the biplane rigging wasn't an issue until the planes needed to sped up significantly.
War planes in WWI topped out at about 100 knots. By the time WWII ended, planes like the P51 were pushing almost 400 knots, and the Me 262 pushed well past that speed.
Essentially, This is the same reason why modern Cessnas have wing struts, but bigger planes don't. The wing struts allow them to keep the weight down, which allows a smaller engine. All that adds up to a less expensive plane, but also one that doesn't go as fast.
I love that you mention bi-planes being held as relics of the past while showing a Pitts Special at an airshow.....
You can build yourself a Ford model A, but that doesn't exactly make it a modern vehicle.
@@Majima_Nowhere I think you totally missed the point.
The Pitts Special was designed in 1944.....
@@chris1451 Yes, but modern ones have every advantage of modern tech.
@@Majima_Nowhere biplanes are still used as military transport planes.
Fun fact - the Wright brothers had a business building bicycles. Their racing model was called "The Flyer". They named their successful aircraft after their bicycle.
Their bicycle shop and home still exist, they were moved to the Ford Museum outside of Detroit.
I think the word "successful" was over used, it was launched from a catapult, it never performed a turn, it disintegrated when it "landed" on the third attempted flight, each time it "landed" the engine was set at full power. That's NOT powered flight, that's simply a powered uncontrolled landing. ie a crash after a catapult launch
@@kingofthejungle3833 Not a catapult - rails laid on the ground (it didn't have wheels and the ground was rough) and they had to land under power because they were flying downwind. The first two were wrecked in crash landings but by the following year version 3 was able to fly in circles and figure 8s and land upwind
@@Nastyswimmer yes, the following year in version 3. Yet the accolade goes to them for version 2, which only capable of straight line flight. Controlled, sustained flight is taking off under the vehicle's own power, flying over a reasonable distance, to a predetermined destination, with at least one (deliberate) directional change.
Straight line flight for about a minute, can hardly be described as controlled, or sustained.
@@kingofthejungle3833 2 flew for up to five minutes and in circles too.
At the moment you might be thinking that the effort for only a few thousand people is too much, but I love your videos. Soon UA-cam will put you in a recommended list somewhere and then your channel will take off as long as you maintain the amazing videos you are already doing! Trust me, you are one of the examples of how people don't upload garbage to UA-cam and make millions of views. The quality on UA-cam takes a bit to be noticed but it pays off! Thanks again for allowing us to see such well made videos. 👍
Thank you so much for your support!
...AGREE
Welp with 550K views this guy wasn't lying
I am a UA-cam addict. I think I know a small portion of what it took for you to put this video up. Very nicely done and very much appreciated. Keep it up and good luck to your channel.
Awesome! Thank you!
Living by an airfield that does acrobatic displays, I have to admit I see biplanes weekly, so they’re certainly still flying near me haha
Two of the best days in my long life were an aerobatic flight in a Stearman, and a lesson in a WACO.
Tail dragging, stick & rudder, radial engined biplanes are my favs.
If I was given a choice of what plane I wanted. I’d pick a biplane every time. Style and beauty
I have fantasies about Pitts and Christian Eagles.
There awesome but any plane ever built it be hard to ignore a MIG 21 or f14
@@masjuggalo i can 🤮. Never liked jets. The shooting star was ok. But I’m a prop guy.
a jet only starts to shine at speeds greater than 600 km/h
@@ataarono and a biplane shines sitting still. But to each there own
In the RC world bipes are gorgeous planes and LOTS of fun to fly. Due to the relatively short wingspan they are usually more responsive than two-wing planes. So the snaps are snappier, the roll-rates faster, and the tumbles quicker and longer lasting. And they just LOOK cool! The biggest downside to rc bipes is they take longer to set up and break down, which is why most rc guys don't fly them (though rc manufacturers are now producing bipes that are designed to be easier \ quicker to assemble at the field). But, to me, the extra set-up time is well worth it (though only bring a bipe to the field when I know I'll be there all day). I love my bipes!
Me too :)
"The reason why they don't fly anymore"....
AN-2: " How you doin' "?
For a while, triplanes weren't too bad either. While the Fokker one was more famous because of the Red Baron, the Sopwith Triplane was actually superior to it from what I've read. The problem is when warplanes got faster, the "tripes" became a lot less effective (because they were slower moving).
@@thunderbird1921 I saw a video of a plane with 4 or 5 (I forgot) wings trying to take off. It had so much lift on the front, it was barely moving at takeoff speed before it tightly flipped 180° and crashed
Very interesting! I've wondered before about the pros and cons of biplanes, now I know. Thank you, and great job on the animations!
I have been thinking recently about the firefighters using old surplus, repurposed aircraft which have deteriorated, resulting in several fatal crashes. In a couple of cases the wings literally broke off from corrosion of the spars. The response to this more recently is to upgrade to old jet airliners like the DC-10 to carry water and fire retardant but obviously for the purposes of firefighting they are not ideal. Their biggest advantage is large capacity. This led me to imagine a special built aircraft for this purpose, which requires heavy lifting, great structural integrity and maneuverability. Why not take advantage of these properties of the biplane configuration, where strength and maneuverability are its advantage? A modern, large modern air tanker of biplane configuration seems ideal to me. The disadvantage of high drag is not a big issue because slow flying is another feature desired for firefighting.Power it with turboprops, which do better than jets low and slow, and the economy will be even better.
So, something like a modern and perhaps slightly larger take on the Antonov AN-2?
It's better to stick with a cantilever monoplane and simply add more wing area, preferably with a higher aspect ratio and a thicker airfoil, with slats and big flaps for when you need to be slow. Turning a monoplane into a biplane doesn't get twice the lift because you add twice the wing, you might get 60-80% more, and in some cases, the added drag will net you a reduction in useful lift because now you can't fly as fast to develop the lift you once did. Firebombers need that speed not only for the extra lift incurred, but because the airfield they're loading from is often a considerable ferry from the fire itself. If you can go 200mph to a fire that's 60 miles away, compared to 100mph, you can drop more retardant even if you don't carry as much. You can load and refuel your plane quickly, you can drop retardant even faster, but that ferry time is the biggest limiting factor on how much good you can do. That's why amphibious firebombers can make a big impact in areas where there are lakes to use nearby, and why helicopters sometimes suck the water out of some random person's pool in their backyard. In some cases it's easier to control a fire when you're able to make a lot of smaller repeated drops than it is to make a few gigantic drops a day. As much as I love them, even a biplane purpose built for this would severely underperform compared to what we have available right now.
The ability to water land to refill seems to me to be the single best feature of fire fighting planes. Cut transit time, and loading time; thus killing the fire faster. Building a new aircraft from WWII designs with modern materials would be wise!
@@tobysmith3668 It is a great feature, but it does come at a cost of ferry speed and efficiency. An 802 Fireboss might cruise at 140mph, whereas the cleaner ag version cruises at 200+mph. Speed affects operational radius, and amphibious aircraft aren't the fastest things in the world. As for WWII aircraft, they're simply outdated and were never intended to be firebombers...they just happened to be cheap and readily available with a large enough payload to be effective. Modern designs take into account all of the aerodynamic principles learned post WWII and applied them to purpose built firebombing aircraft, such as the CL-415. We've learned that you don't need laminar flow on your wings like the venerated A-26 has when your operational envelope doesn't approach the point where it's beneficial, it only causes issues with slow speed handling where firebombers spend a lot of their time. The 415 is a modern $30M aircraft, and when you start talking about even larger aircraft, that number goes up significantly...not to mention they become less useful as fewer and fewer lakes are big enough to practically use. The 415 needs nearly a mile long run for a full load, but it can make two or three passes on smaller lakes and reservoirs. Double or triple the payload and you need to do this 2-3x as much and/or your number of usable water sources become smaller, so larger aircraft like the Martin Mars become less and less useful for fire suppression, except in cases where they have huge lakes right next to the fire, those massive things can just about take the whole lake with them. Having a huge aircraft slowly orbiting a pond taking tons of little sips ends up being less efficient than a converted airliner ferrying at 4x the speed from a nearby airport. As for size, the 802 Fireboss is half the plane of a 415 and they're extremely popular in firefighting, both because of cost and because they're more versatile in areas with smaller bodies of water. Seems like everything aviation related sounds simple on the surface and complicated as hell once you really get down to it, there's just no easy answer.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper I agree as long as you have the tarmac. What they did with carriers, was that they could build half a dozen jeep carriers for the cost of one fleet carrier. They were small, and half the speed, but it doubled the number of planes on site. If you made the old goony birds, with turboprops, you could make a flock of smaller units for the same cash. They could land anywhere, or scoop lakes and ponds that are local. With the ability to use runways and water, you can pick the closest source; and mitigate the speed difference (which would be higher with the new engines); and have more planning options for the man in charge.
They have my respect, I have seen the job; and don't want it!
👍🤠💙🤕🙏
I have heard that the percentage of lift is less than double but more that 20%. I think with modern biplanes it is more like 40%.
I was also searching for data on this value. Some sources cite this 20% from Wikipedia, but there you cannot find it. Instead, wiki reports a lift coefficient reduction of merely 10 to 15 percent.
Its an unexplained number- i think it is the extra takeoff weight capacity of the converted monoplane tests.
There aren't many directly comparable examples. I'd say by many measures it'd be 20% but if in that 20% is takeoff lift or not enough there's a big difference.
It depends on the distances (gap and stagger) between the wings. Higer the distances, the more each wing 'see' undisturbed air and act more as an independent wing. It they could be made a wingspan appart, it would be close to 100%
I love your use of graphics, blue prints, 3d models… excellent! Kudos! Great explanation as as well.
Great video. Nicely done and well explained. Even with none practical, and lack of efficiency, these planes are so beautiful, and definitely a must have in the RC world. Thank you for sharing, and keep these great videos coming.
Hey, long time viewer here. I gotta say this is the most interesting content you've put out so far
Thanks so much!
This is the second video I watch. No doubt; this is the kind of material that should be abundant not only in UA-cam but everywhere in the web. Excellent material. The previous one I watched was "aerodynamics of biplanes" outstanding work!
Read the books "Birdmen" and "Structures, Or Why Things Don't Fall Down" if you want to learn more about the history of aviation development and the technical engineering details of airplane design respectively.
Thank you for your post. liked and subscribed. While in Jr. High School I joined the Civil Air Patrol and we were taught much of what you have presented. I always enjoyed watching bi-planes at air shows.
Nice little video mate. Especially love the summation at the end - they do look cool!
The AN-2 is a biplane that is still massively useful as it's rugged, has a high capacity, short, low speed takeoff, and us nearly impossible to stall. The manual dictates that, in the case of a low/no visibility engine out, the pilot pulls back the stick all the way, and the plane will land itself with "roughly the decent rate of a parachute". I know it's an edge case, but I still love my cranky old planes, abd ain't no monoplane gonna do that.
You confused me for a moment, as it seemed to me that a parachute goes down excessively fast, though even in a plane I'd have to admit that it is incomparably better than a full-blown crash.
Then it occurred to me that you meant the rate of *descent* , be it decent or obscenely fast.
It's just a typo, on which I wouldn't normally comment. I make too many of them myself. But in the present case it can be slightly misleading.
Anyway, thanks for your very interesting comment. The AN-2 must be a remarkable flying machine.
@@peterjansen7929 it is indeed a remarkable plane, probably my favorite in the civilian sector. It has the longest production run of any aircraft, 1947-2001 (though it looks like China may still be making a version of it). And it's ruggedness is somewhat legendary. The UA-cam channel Skyships (Skyships Eng if you don't speak Russian.) Has a nice video on it, but if you're an aviation geek like me, I cannot strongly enough recommend that you look into the plain and research it yourself. It is one of the most fun planes to know about
@@aprilkoyyen7720 Thank you for this additional information.
I will have to look at it in English, as my Russian is just a little above rudimentary.
I took a gliding course in 1976 (in an ASK13), but didn't have enough money to take it up afterwards, so my interest in aviation isn't hands-on and thus not as great as it would otherwise have been. Still, I will look at this remarkable achievement Антоновы in more detail!
@@aprilkoyyen7720 Update: I just looked at the video you recommended. Yes - it is a fabulous plane! 4 minutes and 35 seconds into it, the top speed is given as 160 knots or 260km/h. But 160 knots are more like 295km/h, so the maximum speed is unclear.
Still - the *minimum* speed is much more remarkable. One doesn't use a wonderful vintage plane like that to go as fast as possible.
decent rate??
Biplanes require less wingspan which reduces inertial moment of rotation around the long axis. They have very high roll rates, especially if they have ailerons on both wings. This is great for aerobatics.
It makes them more vulnerable to engine torque, and isn't necessarily true- long wings have greater leverage and more effective ailerons. The roll rate would depend on the surface area of the wing proportional to its length. A really narrow wing might roll much faster.
The engine torque is a big deal, they can often be very slow rolling one way and fast the other, which is a mixed blessing in acrobatics. There are a lot of pros and cons and lots of different designs, cross sections, wing profiles, wing shapes, wing tip shapes, etc etc.
For example a short span but wide based triangular wing can be extremely quick to roll, an advantage of delta wings. They are incredibly fuel inefficient vs long narrow wings however which can also climb much higher. U2 for example.
My favorite biplane is the AN-2, Annie's are still flying commercial routes in Eastern Europe and in the Stans. North Korea uses them as transports. Wonderful solid old planes. I went sky diving from an AN-2 a couple of years ago when visiting Kiev. Great plane
I suppose the Shvetsov engine demands a lot of maintenance(?)
@@66Flux I wouldn't know.
the most understandable explanation i found about the suvject so far, keep up the good work
Good video! I agree with most of the content here. There's one key thing missing. At the time they made biplanes, they hadn't fully understood that pressure distribution along the chord for various airfoils and wings was mostly near the leading edge and resulted in a center of pressure/lift approximately at the quarter chord. They used to make wing structures with symmetrical spars as if it were a bridge! The problem with that was that wings would not just simply bend under load, they would bend AND twist simultaneously (the leading edge of the wing would bend more than the trailing edge). It was so bad that sometimes an aileron action would actually produce the opposite of the pilot's intent (this killed a few WWI German pilots). For example a down aileron intended to produce more lift would twist the chord pitching down and reducing the angle of attack of the airfoil producing less lift (and the opposite would happen on the other wing). Later, when aerodynamics became more advanced, they figured that the structure of the wing can bend all its wants as long as it remains neutral in twist. That was a big eureka moment and they applied this key piece of knowledge to the structural design of the wings by placing one extra strong main spar at the quarter chord of the wing and additional lighter, smaller, weaker spars elsewhere. This is still the case in the aeroelastic design of modern airplanes today. This is basically what killed the biplane. Had they looked at the structure of a bird's wing with the bones near the leading edge, or even the structure of certain feathers with the vane closer to its leading edge, they could have figured it out sooner. The final nail in the coffin of biplanes was stressed skin that became the quasi-norm in WWII aircraft. When they figured out how to make the skin of the aircraft "work" and contribute better to the structural strength of the whole airframe, there really was no going back to biplanes.
HUH. Cool!
I'll add to this that the opposite effect observed became the way to operate control surfaces still in use today on many aircraft- you control a small tab the opposite way and it forces the free moving control surface, say rudder or elevators the opposite way, as a sort of wind power steering. Without that error and observation we might not have gotten it.
@@mandowarrior123 You are correct that trim tabs move in the opposite direction of the deflection, but there is a subtle difference in design and in intent. Ailerons and trim tabs are mounted on hinges, so it is expected for the surface in question to rotate along the hinge axis per pilot command. In other words, the surface rotates as intended by design: it is a feature, not a bug. Wings are mounted rigidly, therefore if the wing does twist as a result of the aileron deflection, it is an unintended consequence that results from poor structural rigidity in torsion: it is a bug, not a feature. Wing bending (without twisting) on the other hand is part of the aeroelastic design intent. Back in the mid 1990s when I was a student in aerospace engineering, one of my professors illustrated all this with the WW1 story of the Fokker D8. This website has a cool summary of what happened with the wings of the D8 and the lessons learned: aerospaceengineeringblog.com/the-mystery-of-wing-twisting
Aweasome edits! Many thanks from Brazil!!
Great video, short, and to the point. Good job! I'd love to see a video on how you make a video such as this. Definitely earned my subscription.
I used to see a lot of biplane crop dusters around here, but in the last 25 years or so I don't think I've seen any..
They're still in uses in quite a number of farms. However most farms aren't so large as for a farmer to need a plane and current irrigation systems are a lot better and cheaper than what they used to be.
Thank you for posting so much fresh content. Despite these 'hard numbers' analysis & engineer
That was really interesting and informative. Thanks!
Thank you for watching.
Very nice explanation. This is something that I have been meaning to look up and I came across your video. Great video!
Good discussion and a nice example of why any design is a trade-off between various factors.
You just got yourself another subscriber pal! I am doing some research on how to convert my Hobbyzone AeroScout (now with 70mm EDF instead of 5" pusher prop) into a bi-plane and your video was the most informative of all the videos I've watched. So, unlike those other videos, YOU my friend picked up a SUB for your efforts! Kudos! Best regards, Dave
Apretiate it.
Very good. and with more range than i expected. But only a small portion of the video was on why biplanes aren't used much today (i.e, increased drag).
Thoughtful and well done!
nice work! informative, concise, and great visuals
I love biplanes and have built a lot of RC ones - Sopwith Pup, SE5a, Ultimate, Tiger Moth, Gypsy Moth etc. They just look a bit different and they appeal to my interest in the so called Golden Age of the 1920/30s. I like the period because it reflects a time when there was a lot of transport variety of all kinds as designers were seeking answers.
Interesting video, thanks
I love the Tiger Moth! I've had an aerobatic flight in one which can be seen on my channel along with my wingwalking antics on top of Stearman's bi-planes!
Yeah tell that to the Pitts s2c and WACO YMF-5. Two of my favorites!
Thank you, this was a very informative and well structured video!
Nice video. Lots of new information I didn't know about planes
Another disadvantage, it seems to me, is that a biplane has four wingtips, and therefore they generate four wingtip vortices. Wingtip vortices are supposed to cause drag and reduce lift as the high pressure air under the wing escapes from under the wing moving out toward the wingtips. This is the reason that long "high aspect ratio" wings (like those on sailplanes) are supposed to be more efficient. Of course strutless monoplanes with long wings, as you note, need very strong continuous spars which generally increase weight and may require thicker airfoils to house the stronger spar. The "N" struts and flying wires on a biplane make their wing structures very strong without requiring heavy continuous wing spars or thick wings.
1:36 the parts between the struts are quite long. You need a strong spar there. I love the N structure in cranes and probably with a lot of Ns a biplane makes more sense. The four wing tips are smaller than on a monoplane with rectangular planform. The N is the evil source of drag. The N is the good and the bad. And for torsional rigidity you need it in front and back.
No, more wingtips does not create more wingtip vortices, this is a fallacy (see wing-grid, creating less vortices for more wingtips). They are called 'wingtip vortices' as they are stronger at the wingtip, not because they are created by the wingtips. Actually all aerodynamic lifting systems are creating vortices, e.g. an helicopter rotor in translational lift, or closed wing systems. An intuitive explanation: air needs to be pushed down to create lift, and this air moving downwards interact with unperturbed, stationary air and create vortices. A longer wingspan move a larger mass of air, so for the same lift, the larger air mass needs to be accelerated less, and that creates les vortices, and less overall energy lost in the wake. To understand this better lookup Trefftz plane theory. The biplane deficiency is as was mentioned before, more drag - not only from struts and wires, but also from the 2 times larger 'wetted' surface of the 2 wings.
@@aliptera What creates wingtip vortices? Wingtips. Biplanes have four. A monoplane may have the same (or greater) wetted wing surface as a biplane, depending on its design. A modern sailplane has far more wing area than a Pitts biplane for example, but is also significantly more efficient aerodynamically.
I love that the model displayed was a Sopwith Camel, my favourite 😍
Thank you for this vid. As a non-flyer, I understood rather clearly the concepts you described. You did a good job of explaining things!
Glad you actually go around to showing a Pitt Special . The Official " Most Manoeuvrable " Plane ever built .
Loved the visuals
Always lived in rural areas in the NW US, pretty common to see biplanes out crop dusting, very cool to see.
Nice work, well researched.
New subscriber!
Thank you for a great video. You put into words what I had half thought about.
Super Petrel is a great take on a modern looking biplane IMO
thank you for share 👍📌
This is a great video. Excellent information and accompanying graphics.👍👍👍👍👍👍
Thank you for posting this video. I learned something.
You didn’t mention that up to the end of WW1 airfoils were very thin, a monoplane with such thin airfoils also required external bracing wires top and bottom so drag wise there was no advantage. So the biplane design was amongst other things a way to make wings with such thin profiles able to withstand higher stresses.
Hi! You are absolutely right in saying that it wasn’t mentioned but if you look at the graphics from 4:24 to 4:33 the animation shows exactly what you describe with the wires on both sides of each wing! 😃
One comment on your animation and drawings - seen from the front, facing the aircraft, propellers always turn counterclockwise. You have drawn them backwards... I'm a subscriber and like the way you present your work. You're my new go-to aircraft guy!
Thanks! And you're right.
There are two exceptions to this rule. First, a lot of english engines rotate in the opposite direction and thus use a different propellor. And second, an aircraft in the “pusher” configuration using a conventional engine would also use a reversed propellor. Just to clarify terms, if you stand where the prop blast hits you (behind a conventional aircraft) and the top of the propellor turns to the right it is called a right-hand propellor. If the top moves to the left it is a left-hand propellor.
Some of the Russian radials including the engine in the Sukhoi SU-26 turn clockwise.
I think all Russian WWII aircraft propellers turn clockwise. Not sure whether that remained the norm after WWII, I assume yes. Same goes with their helicopters I think. When seen from above, Russian helicopter rotors turn counterclockwise while US helicopters turn clockwise.
@@spebsqsa11 Just to restart an OLD argument Isn`t it only a Propeller when used on pusher aircraft. on tractor types the term Airscrew is more accurate. (This argument has been going on since at least the 1920`s.)
The video was very well done and interesting. I subscribed and will watch more and probably make a donation. Thanks for sharing.
That was instructive. Thanks for posting.
That's why most of my giant scale models are bi-planes. They are able to get in and out of very short fields and perform their aerobatics in a much tighter space if you wish and at a slower speed. I have built and flown all types of giant scale models and much prefer my bi-planes, oh and tri-planes. They also look pretty cool both on the ground and in the air.
Not so sure about biplanes, but I do know that ... a third wing is a weird thing!
Good summation of the history. Great graphics.
Great video.
I would love it if you gave sesquiplanes a mention. They got around some of the issues of true biplanes.
14bis first flight was 23 OCT 1906. The Wright Flyer was the first successful heavier-than-air powered aircraft. It was designed and built by the Wright brothers. They flew it four times on December 17, 1903, near Kill Devil Hills.
dud, u corrected urself, flew it 4 times on december 17, 1903 near kill devil hills.
As someone who lived in Brazil and love the people there, they do need to get over the Santos vs Wrights thing. Santos didn't beat the Wrights to heavier than air powered flight. However, he still was a great aviation pioneer. What he did in France with his lighter than air stuff was still history worthy. And the 14bis was still a great early design considering the limited engine and materials tech they had.
Let the Wrights have their day in the sun. They earned it. Most of the previous works from Lilianthol' and others were found incorrect and the brothers had to do their own wind tunnel testing to get more accurate formulas and numbers to engineer from.
Is Brazil still having the Street Sex Parades this year? Of have all those streets been flooded out?
@@talmagecleverly7718 Santos-Dumonts most impressive contribution was the Demoiselle IMHO. A lot more practical than the contemporary Wright designs.
1 Could The Flyer fly without CATAPULT, STRONG WINDS AND A HILL??? 2 When did the Wrights fly their FIRST PUBLIC RECORDED FLIGHT???? 3 WHY YOU WILL NEVER EVER SEE THE FLYER REPLICA FLYING??????
,
Not powered, not controlled, not sustained!!! Only in 1908 the Wright brothers flew their powered glider in public >>>with a catapult1908
Nice explain and presentations, thank you for sharing
Great video well made and very interesting topic 👍👍
Great description, thank you
Surprised that you didn't talk about the most ubiquitous and successful biplane ever in existence, still used today for a lot of branches: Antonov AN2
I was accually wondering about this yesterday
oblivionbomb3465 -terraria and minecraft actually*
haha
Thank you, I wondered why the biplane concept became obsolete. The weapons of the time were of relatively short range and engines were also weaker so I suppose the maneuverability at slower speeds while maintaining lift was the optimal configuration.
Thank you sir such types of videos uploaded many many thanks by my side ... I want to you plz more videos upload more
Thank you.
Both the Waco YMF-5D and the Great Lakes 2T-1A-2 are still in production today. You can buy brand new ones off the production line.
Nice work!
My one and only airplane ride was in biplane at an airshow. Feeling the prop-wash and the G-force in a turn was thrilling !
Two wings like God intended airplanes to have.
Best biplane of them all: Pt-17 Stearman
For me it's Beechcraft Staggerwing
I absolutely 100 percent agree with you there! The reason why I agree is because I've had 3 wingwalking rides on two different Stearman's as can be seen on my UA-cam channel. They are quality planes that were built to last. There is nothing like the thrill of standing atop a Stearman at up to 2,000ft with the view looking down at that propeller and being subjected to hammerheads, loops and barrel rolls! It's an epic thrill ride! The best thing I've ever done for sure!
I dispute that! I would say it is the Beech-D17S Staggerwing. One of the fastest biplanes ever commercially produced, one of the only biplanes with retractable landing gear, and you can still buy one today, even if you have to wait for it to be built after you order one (or do it yourself, if you're capable and have a big enough workshop).
Thank yo for this video keep up your production, enjoy your days my friend.
I knew there was something funny and familiar about your accent so I took a look at your website, and of course, your native language is Spanish. 😅
I love your video. I'm not a model or RC planes fan AT ALL, but learning about something is always welcome in my book. Thanks for the information.
Surely one factor is the difficulty of making a wing wide enough to give enough lift. In carriers early planes needed to be compact.
Great video, thanks! Was surprised to learn that biplanes only have 20% more lift than the equivalent monoplane
I think that's the main point that should have been discussed and explained. I want to know why only 20%? Is that adjusted for the increased drag? Tell us more!
I was also surprised and cannot find a source for this value. It should definitely be more.
Great video!!
Very nice video you did good. I was interested in what you had to say, thanks for sharing.
Hi, could you kindly explain where you took the 20% lift increase figure from?
Increased wing area
@@worldoftancraft Oh thanks, I could never have figured that out. I was asking where 20% comes from as I've read many papers where the figure can get up to 70% if the wings are kept at least 1.5 chord lengths apart
@@Iboxx apologies. I think that is mediocre-average of most bi-planes of theirs Era. With all of their "typical" quirks.
And then the Wright brothers studied all their work found out all the tables are wrong it had to start from scratch with her own wind tunnel
The truly irony of the Wright Brothers’ plane was that aviators wanted to rebuild the original flying machine and have a pilot from today fly it for the 100th Anniversary of Flight in December of 2003. Then after construction of the machine they abandoned the flight because by all calculations it could not be flown!
@@mattduska4113 Yes and no. Indeed it could not fly for the celebration. Yes it could have flown in 1903. The thing is, the conditions for the Wright Brothers first flight were as they say "one in a million perfect". Thats probably exaggeration, but the dec 17 1903 had some unique qualities. It was exceptionally cold, and the air was exceptionally dense with high pressure at same time. That meant more lift AND more horsepower from engine. They couldnt have flown the Flyer on any other day. This is also not a post-fact unproven hypothesis. In 1903 the meteorological records were already collected daily, and a lot survived to our time. We actually KNOW the weather on the day.
Does it mean they just "lucked out"? Sort of, but remember that they improved on the design fast enough, that half a year later it could fly in circles regardless of conditions. So the weather probably just helped them move the successful flight few weeks earlier than it would happen otherwise.
@@mattduska4113 pilots today probably couldn't because its method of control is totally different than what we use, you're basically asking them to put their life on the line and toss out hundreds of hours of training and muscle memory. the wright flyer was more of a proof of principle instead of a perfect plane. it just showed that with proper control, power and aerodynamic lift you can create a working aircraft
The Flyer was completely UNSTABLE, OVERWEIGHT, UNBALANCED, one side was heavier than other, UNDERPOWER, UNCONTROLABLE..... IT CAN'T FLY!!!!!! THAT'S WHY YOU WILL NEVER SEE A REPLICA FLYING EVEN TODAY!!!!!
,
*NASA REPORT >>>>"Wright Flyer", A look at handling qualities of canard configurations, Nasa , p. 8, TM 88354, ...the Flyer was highly unstable... The lateral/directional stability and control of the Flyer were marginal."
1 Could The Flyer fly without CATAPULT, STRONG WINDS AND A HILL??? 2 When did the Wrights fly their FIRST PUBLIC RECORDED FLIGHT???? Which reliable institutions, journalists, government.... were there to certificate Wright Brothers flights??????? 3 WHY YOU WILL NEVER EVER SEE THE FLYER REPLICA FLYING??????
;
The Flyer was completely UNSTABLE, OVERWEIGHT, UNBALANCED, one side was heavier than other, UNDERPOWER, UNCONTROLABLE..... IT CAN'T FLY!!!!!! THAT'S WHY YOU WILL NEVER SEE A REPLICA FLYING EVEN TODAY!!!!!
.
Only in 1908 the Wright brothers flew their powered glider in public >>>with a catapult1908
Very interesting video . And very informative thanks for making this video on this topic...😀🙂
Thank you very much for the interesting information!
Bi planes are amazing when it comes to aerobatics, especially when flying 3d which is flying in a post stalled condition that is achieved by a power to weight ratio that can sustain flight in a hover such as a helicopter does. This is when the added control surfaces make a short coupled wing very aggressive hence being able to fly in a post stalled condition and still have very capable aileron authority making them great for low speed stunts/aerobatics known as 3d! ✌️😎👍
But also, weren't early fighters prone to stalling to which you couldn't often escape.
Your a true pro. Great informational. I am a PVT pilot for 30 years with a lot of aviation knowledge. BUT I totally enjoyed the video and did learn
That was cool and well done video, thanks for posting!
Thanks for watching
I think there may be a viable market for a biplane to make short field takeoffs and landings in tight areas where longer winged monoplanes couldn't fit into.
For airplanes that are meant for transportation, it's really all about the monoplane. If you look at STOL competitions, people are using monoplanes that (in the world record at least) land AND take off in less than 25 feet. On a more practical level you've got the likes of Piper Cub, Dehavilland DHC-6, and DHC-7 which are all different sizes of aircraft that are used where takeoff and landing space is very limited but have been flown millions of miles for transportation purposes.
The manoeuvrability is startling even at their lower speeds. It would be interesting if you could compare the triplane with the biplane in a future wonderful video as this one was - thanks for your efforts it's a joy to subscribe to your channel \(^v^)/! 🥇🏆
Look for Mikael Carlson's Fokker DR-1 (Triplane) videos on UA-cam if you want to see what that airplane was REALLY capable of. Most Fokker Triplane replicas you see are flown pretty conservatively and I don't blame the builders one bit. Mikael gives his an amazing workout. You'll see what a dangerous weapon that airplane really was.
Thank you for the nice informative documentation 👍👌
Keep up the good work!