The Most Impressive Hat Trick in Aerospace History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2023
- Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/BRAINFOOD for 10% off on your first purchase of a website/domain using the code BRAINFOOD.
This video is #sponsored by Squarespace.
Love content? Check out our other UA-cam Channels:
Higher Learning: / @higherlearningflight
Flick Facts: / @flickfacts
Fact Quikie: / @factquickie
Ancient Marvels: / @ancient-marvels
Origins: / @originsofeverything
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
→Some of our favorites: • Featured
→Subscribe for new videos every day!
ua-cam.com/users/TodayIFo...
Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/BRAINFOOD for 10% off on your first purchase of a website/domain using the code BRAINFOOD.
Video starts at 1:17
We stand on the shoulder's of giant's .
I did my aerospace thesis on an aspect of winglets and whenever I fly I enjoy looking at all the winglets on the aircraft. Every once in a while, a fellow traveler will comment, “I wonder what those things do.” One of the few times I get to show off my background 😉
‘I’ve waited my whole life for this, and you’re about to regret asking’
@@burtonporter8437 LOL!!! OMG, you are absolutely right.😂😂😂
A glider I fly is the only one of its type ever fitted with winglets. I love winglets
@@adampoultney8737 Excellent!
The area rule was discovered in late 1943 by Otto Frenzl during wind tunnel tests at Junkers in connection with the projected development of the jet bomber Junkers Ju 287. Frenzl's research findings had been widely known in German aerodynamics circles at least since a lecture by Theodor Zobel in March 1944 entitled: "Fundamental New Ways to Improve the Performance of High-Speed Aircraft" to the German Academy of Aeronautical Research. Frenzl, together with Heinrich Hertel and Werner Hempel, received a provisionally secret patent (No. 932 410) on his findings on March 21, 1944, but it was not published until 1955.
Presumably without knowledge of the German research, the area rule was discovered a second time eight years later, in 1952, by Richard T. Whitcomb of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and published in 1955. Before him, the American Wallace D. Hayes had also described the principle in his dissertation at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1947. Apart from that, the swept wing (Busemann) is already an application of the area rule. Whitcomb's Eureka moment, by the way, is due to a lecture in late 1951 by Busemann.
I had the opportunity to work for Dick Whitcomb in 1980 as a cooperative education student working at Langley at the 8 foot transonic wind tunnel. Another “co-op” and I were able to sit down with him as he explained how he had come up with the idea of area ruling by imagining an airplane pushing its way through a bundle of soda straws. There was a little bit of controversy about him taking credit for winglets when much of the work had actually been done by other engineers working for him.
Much of the work for any innovation is done by the underlings.
The parchment texture that you burn your B&W images onto (that doesn't pan with the image) constantly makes me think there's schmutz all over my monitor. :)
It's a minor complaint but I noticed he does it a lot and it doesn't make sense so I'm backing you up. Notice me Simon! Or editor whose name I don't know. You too.
I never noticed this until you pointed it out and now I hate it.
Well, that's one more thing I can't unsee 🤦🏼♀️
It really is annoying and I wish he would stop using it.
I thought I was tripping, furiously swiping my screen rotation just to realise it's THEIR effect.
Never heard the Deuce's career called "illustrious" before. It was disappointing but that was better than the "disastrous" as originally designed. The Area Rule was applied more strictly to the Deuce's successor, the F-106 Delta Dart which set (and still holds) the world speed record for a single engine turbojet aircraft.
It's faster than the F-104?
In some older texts, area rule was also known as the "coke bottle" fuselage.
MIG-166 (MIG YE-152) set a faster record about 3 1/2 years later. Also a single engine jet.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus Not over a closed course and not officially recognized by anyone -- except, of course, the Soviets.
@@nesyboi9421 Yup. The Zipper was really da*ned fast but, official speed record-wise, never topped the Six.
Hats off to this guys and those who made improvements in aviation technology
I think we should also give him credit for the fins on the 1959 Cadillac.
Fascinating design breakthroughs! Thank you, I love this channel, learning things from Simon and his writers!
Simon, I am truly grateful that your passion has gifted the world with amazing educational videos, presented with perfect energy and even excitement when you're really loving the material and learning new things. Keep going!
9:25 - good gracious! This guy speaks entire paragraphs swiftly in single breaths with superior elocution. Amazing.
Great episode, thank you. Incredibly intelligent person. He was able to adapt to new technology and data and incorporate that into his ideas. I had no idea that one man contributed so much to aircraft design.
That was a really enjoyable episode... love learning about extraordinary people
Richard Travis Whitcomb, not "Wickham."
From Wikipedia. "Richard Travis Whitcomb (February 21, 1921 - October 13, 2009) was an American aeronautical engineer who was noted for his contributions to the science of aerodynamics."
It's mind boggling that the plane "knows about" frontal area way out on the wing, and that the guy could imagine that
Hi!
I read a biography of Ben Rich, the "next genius" of Skunk Works.
But, what I would suggest, is to make a video about, is his "Master", Kelly Johansen!
The man, who could see the air! He is the true hero behind/founder, of the Skunk Works, with the famous
SR 71, "Under his Belt".
All glory to this genius man. So, if possible, make a video of him.
from a Finn in Diaspora
Was that biography,"Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed," by Ben Rich? Excellent book. It's a must read for any engineer.
Bald and Bankrupt?
@@bobthecomputerguy Yes, and what a story. As You said:"A must for every engineer". Greetings from a Finn in Diaspora
Mr. Johnson also was responsible for the U-2 and SR-71 being some of his more famous planes there were others.
I would love to see a Biographic on Wickham.
Whitcomb.
Whitcomb is a fricken legend
I knew about winglets on the paper planes I made as a kid!
Love these facts❤❤❤😊😊😊
Sounds like a no nonsense, just the common sense kinda guy...I like people like him.
4:15 LOL...such a random thought!
*Some sort of European accent*
I have no idea what you're talking about but I like the cadence of your voice so I put this on in the background while I'm grooming my eyebrows.
The ideas behind winglets have turned out to be flawed when greater computing power allowed CFD analysis of airflows
Mentour Pilot and others have gone into this but a raked wingtop is more effective, as are wing fences preventing spanwise flow. The winglet turned out to be just as effective as the amount it extended the wing horizontally and you can do that (longer wings) with less mass penalty than a 3-6 foot vertical slab on the end of the wing
That's why thet're not there on newer designs. Interestingly they're retained on private jets "because the owners like them and they look cool" and on some commercial jets for advertising reasons (flying billboards)
Extending the wings isn't always that simple. If your plane needs to fit through a certain hanger door or be allowed to taxi down certain taxiways then it can't be too wide. Adding a vertical slab to the end of the wing gives you the same performance as a longer wing, without making it any wider.
This is one of the reasons it's still so prevalent on private jets. Being able to fit into small airports is much more important for them than for larger airliners.
@@MrWillNeedham "Adding a vertical slab to the end of the wing gives you the same performance as a longer wing"
Except it doesn't. That's what was discovered with better computational fluid dynamics.
Only the horizontal vector of the winglet actually makes any difference and the entire premise of stopping vortices from combining is faulty. It doesn't matter iof the winglet is 12 inches high or 6 feet high, what matters in the end is how much horizontal extension it provides
You're better off with fences on top, and pylons/vortilons underneath. The good part is that you can turn the slat tracks into full-wing pylons/vortilons so the weight penalty of altering the gemonetry of fairing canoes is worth the improvements in performance they provide by essentially stopping spanwise flow in its tracks
Mentour Pilot has done a video on this: "Think you understand Winglets? Think again!!"
"Almost everything you thought you knew about winglets is actually wrong. All the other UA-cam channels and even Wikipedia talks about how winglets are there to stop wingtip vortices, this is not correct!"
@@miscbits6399 That's a whole lot of nonsense. Winglets have repeatedly been proven to improve the lift to drag ratio when compared to the same wing without a winglet attached. If you're trying to prove NASA wrong, you'll need more evidence than "a guy on UA-cam said".
This doesn't mean winglets are always the best solution or that they are appropriate for every situation, but they do work and there are situations where they are the best compromise.
While Boeing’s raked wingtips did work, it also increased the wingspan. That’s why on the 777-9 airliner and the upcoming X-66A research plane, the wingtips fold so they will properly fit into airport parking spaces
.
@@Sacto1654 Yes, the increased wingspan is the tradeoff. The Mentour pilot video explains that.
FWIW, the original 777 had a folding wingtip option - and nobody took it
So.... one single dude came up with basically EVERYTHING relating to make a plane go zoom zoom? Damn!
I went looking for "Why do jets have swept back wings" - did not find. I was wondering if you would give the area rule due credit on that subject as well.
Area rule was designed into the Blackburn Buccaneer, strike bomber built for the Royal Navy in the 50's but later the RAF used them. It was known as 'Easy Rider' by its crews, being able to fly very very low at about 450 knts. Low as in lower than 20 feet over the sea. No defensive armament it didn't need it. At Operation Red flag in 77 at Nellis it never got 'shot down' by the new fangled F15's.
Great video
It's very strange to me that the area rule doesn't advocate local compensation. Surely such things have local nature and cannot have non local effects
Area rule was discovered in Germany in 1944. The Heinkel HE-162 was the first aircraft to utilize it
Can you do a video on the F-101 Voodoo?
so always start building aircrafts or any machine from inside. making a larger shell is also expensive
Otto Frenzl worked this out at Junkers a decade before but obviously never got to test it at transonic/supersonic speeds. Full credit to Whitman for formalising and expanding it though.
"Whitcomb"
Why would greater engine power render the use of the wasp waist design obsolete? Regardless of your engine's power, better aerodynamics mean less drag, greater speed, longer range, all desirable qualities for a combat aircraft, engine power notwithstanding.
As power increases it becomes more important to handle the shock forces on the aircraft than over all aerodynamics. Theirs a point of diminishing returns that becomes pointless to engineer to when you can carry larger payload by not bothering.
It has to do with the large amount of additional drag occurring as you break the sound barrier, which then drops back down again (albeit following compressible supersonic fluid dynamic models). Modern fighters can use brute force break thru the sound barrier where these early supersonic aircraft didn’t have enough power to break through the sound barrier, since they could only just break it with their top speed.
Mathematically speaking, there is an asymptote at Mach 1 in the drag profile. So as you approach Mach 1 your drag approaches infinity (ideally, not in reality), but then drops back down to more manageable values.
A slightly more technical explanation of the area rule would be that the cross sectional area needs to stay constant or decrease as you move down the fuselage (as seen in the picture at 5:11). I don’t fully understand all the characteristics of how shock waves are formed, but my guess would be that where ever the cross sectional area is the greatest would be where the first, or most significant shockwave would form (multiple waves do form). So if the wave forms on the wings, which was the original design, the drag coefficient and higher cross sectional area will be higher than the nose, resulting is greater drag than expected.
Most modern fights use a fully integrated wing into fuselage, so no round fuselage (think of the F15). But they probably still follow this rule to some extent or use clever math to move the shockwave to a more efficient area. Probably some where that won’t interfere with control surfaces as much so that they still can pull the maximum rated load for the aircraft.
what a legend
It's less "obsolete" than "taken into account from the very beginning of conceptual design." We don't *retrofit* area-ruling anymore, it's there from the get-go.
I think the vibration the pilot would endure would be mind numbing.
Make a video on When did borders on an empty land without resources become a thing.
Let's hear it for the avro arrow!
I can believe that Simon said the name Worcester the correct way everytime somebody tries to say the name of my hometown they butcher the name
Simon usually gets English names correct; it's everything else that he supposedly mispronounces-Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Irish, American etc. As for the other people whom you're accusing of butchering "Worcester"-no, they aren't butchering it. They're saying it exactly the way it's written. If anyone's to blame, it's whoever messed up the spelling in the first place. There's really no reason not to spell a word the way it's meant to be pronounced-unless you don't understand how alphabets work in the first place. If you want a name to be pronounced "Wooster," spell it "Wooster." Read some P.G. Wodehouse books to see how it's done.
He's British, you would expect him to have learned the names of British towns from a young age. Just don't present him with anything in French or Italian.
@@nHans "...messed up the spelling in the first place. There's really no reason not to spell a word the way it's meant to be pronounced--unless you don't understand how alphabets work in the first place."
Or if you don't understand how the English language as it is spoken and written today evolved from something you would be able neither to speak nor read without extensive study that is not offered in high school.
After all, why do we no longer pronounce the word "knight" as "knecht"?
And how do you pronounce Albany correctly? Is it All-bany or Al-bany? And is Albury pronounce All-bury, Al-bury, All-b'ry or Al-b'ry?
@@aaronleverton4221 Exactly-thank you! Assuming that Albany and Albury have a unique, proper pronunciation each-which is unlikely-if their pronunciations can't be determined from their spellings alone, then don't blame people for "mispronouncing" them!
As you yourself pointed out, languages, including English, evolve. Meanings of words change; pronunciations change; new words get added etc. In fact, the dictionaries do get updated frequently to reflect the latest use of language.
Did you know that English spellings used to change too? They were very flexible until about 400 years ago. Around that time, their evolution froze, while everything else in English continued to evolve. Why is that okay? Why are we still using spellings from 400 years ago? If we can't keep our spellings up-to-date with our pronunciations, we really shouldn't kvetch when somebody pronounces _Greenwich_ as "green witch."
He’s British. His homeland has the original Worcester.
I've read that Whitcolm was a fluent German speaker and found "his" area rule infomation in German papers that were captured at the end of the war.
If that was true, why didn’t the German planes go anywhere near that fast or follow the rule? They didn’t even have delta wings
What a wonderful nerd.
Love.
Who's the artist on the background music?
Just how does more engine power "...render the f-102 starwaskdsjajdgh obsolete."?
What was up with the Swiss Air plane?!😂
And the most impressive part? They developed all this without CFD and supercomputers... 😎
Oh and btw: even modern engineers learn new stuff about aerodynamics. Like f.e. how to make propellers quiter - they learned that it is all about vortex shedding at the tips and how they interact with this turbulent air. Ever wondered why some planes and helicopters are that loud? Simple: the propellers & rotorblades are "chopping" into turbulent air. The most extreme examples of that are the Antonov An-22, Tupolev Tu-95 and Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech. ✌️
Thunderscreech sounds like an excellent band name. ⚡🎸
Such a fan of this channel!
modern fighters still comply with area rule, they just aren't as obvious about how they do it.
I would've bet the farm that Daven wrote that one. Never guessed Giles. Hey Daven, give that boy a mushroom, will ya, ya Lizard Overlord. Allegedly. Cheers
The winglet appeared on paper airplanes in the 1960s
1:18 to skip ad, for you impatient ADHD viewers out there (or if you are already a Square space customer)
Is there a world where "WTF" doesn't exist?
Can we not catch these vortices and use them to turn a generator or something?
There have been numerous studies on that subject.
What is a 52 kilonewton thrust engine? I think you mean 11,690 pounds of thrust engine, we are talking about an American aircraft and we do not use kilonewtons for anything. 52 thousand newtons like fig newtons? The engine spits out 52 thousand fig newtons? Is that per hour or does it burn fig newtons as fuel?
Wait, *WAIT.* You pay for alcohol on airline flights? What Mickey Mouse-ass airline do you fly on??? 😳
If you’re not in first class, most non-luxury airlines (non-Qatari and non-Emirati) make you pay for alcoholic drinks.
No mention of the B-1 Lancer, which is basically a fighter jet wasp body design oversized to bomber specifications....
Now winglets are has been's. The new Boeing 787 wing tip sweeps back and works better.
Ad reads go at the end, Simon's editor.
This isn't really an issue these days, engines have become powerful enough that it doesn't matter, and the reduction in volume is a waste that could be used for more fuel, which is why it's not really used any more.
Huh? I'm just another ignorant youtube commentator but that sounds weird. I'm not even sure what you mean. What's not used anymore? The area rule, the flat wing design, or winglets? I'm guessing the area rule. I understand the area rule is for supersonic or transonic flight so in most cases it doesn't matter anyway. For supersonic flight why wouldn't it matter? More powerful engines? Engineers are very serious about optimizing designs so that doesn't make sense. There could be a tradeoff for more fuel for example, but mostly planes are limited more by weight than volume. I probably got a little too serious questioning your offhanded remark but I have been diagnosed with OCD so I have an excuse.
@@ericmollison2760 The benefits these days of the area rule are not as critical as they used to be, mainly because of the progress in engine technology.
I studied aeronautical engineering at uni, and it is still taught, but it is also taught that there are other trade offs when you use it, one of them is internal volume is decreased, which could otherwise be used for more fuel.
A good example of a modern airplane that ignores the area rule would be the Typhoon, just look at the fuselage, it does not narrow as the wing span increases as you look from the front to the back, it actually gets larger.
Winglets (second year project :))are also being moved away from now, eg the Dreamliner, with swept tips that curve upward.
Technology moves on.
Part of the reason for this is something you alluded to....the speed that aircraft tend to spend most of their time in. With fighters, after the area rule was discovered, it was found that most fighters tend to spend most of their time subsonic, with bursts of supersonic speed, and that most dogfights tend to be somewhere around 400-500 knots, so optimising for much higher speeds didn't make much sense.
The conclusion of that was that it was better to optimise them to carry more fuel, rather than optimise them for a flight regime that they maybe spend 5% of their time in.
Infact since the 1970's the design speed of fighters has come down, since the general conclusion was that top speed was not as useful, and if you compare fighters being built in the 1980's and onwards to before that, they didn't increase in speed, and have infact tended to be slower, a good example is the F/A-18 hornet, it can't even do Mach 2.
@@LeoH3L1 That actually makes sense. I remember playing air combat simulator games as a kid and always used afterburners because why not if you have the fuel, but in real life you probably wouldn't do that. I know they were intended for emergency use only when you need to evade missiles or something. And I guess the existence of afterburners is a good example of why you might want more fuel and not need to worry so much about supersonic aerodynamics. I suspected you didn't know what you were talking about and didn't think you were an actual engineer. Thanks for replying.
@@ericmollison2760 No problem, aviation is a littany of trade offs, and another related one comes to mind with the most recent fighters, internal volume also has other uses other than fuel.... weapons bays.
NACA is spelled out as N-A-C-A and not pronounced as a word.
No it’s not at least not in the modern age. It’s like NASA. Simon pronounced it correctly.
@@will3346 - You should check your sources.
@@xuser48 my source is that I work in the fucking industry. Yes it was once pronounced as a acronym but now saying it as one word is more common. Doubly so when referring to the airfoils they developed. The only people who get upset over this are pedants.
TT
4:25 you got to look at the whole thing? Doh! More a case of the maths nuts being dense than this guy being a genius IMO..Still "charge" away
An entire video about the Area Rule, and yet zero mention of the B-58 Hustler? Wtf? Simon, you're awesome. But seriously, who writes this crap? The B-58 was the epitome of the Area Rule, and the quintessential "wasp waist" aircraft!
And as another comment mentions, calling the deuce's career illustrious is...not that realistic, in part because of rapid advancements in tech, a weapons/targeting computer that was pretty narrow in focus and immature, and in part because the 102B (the IMO gorgeous looking F106) superseded it. The Hustler, the Six and the Thud are prime examples of area rule, heck the F105 was only able to be as fast as it was because they got the area rule info at the right time.
I don't really watch this family of channel's videos that much anymore, but I'm such a huge fan of the F-106 that I had to click.
Video starts at 1:17
1/137
Richard Johnson.
Is there a better porn actor name?
I think not.
Jack Hammer
You don’t pronounce NACA like you do NASA. You say the initials like you say FBI not fibi ( which could be cool tbh )
That might be correct....but, if so, someone needs to explain that to everyone in the automotive world who's ever verbally referred to a certain shape of duct on the surface of a street or race car as a "NACK-uh" duct (phonetic).
Simon, dude... love your videos on all 300 of your channels, but I have to admit your pronunciations drive me nuts! Get your writer to add pronunciations to your script. Please 😊
Just a couple of lucky guesses. 😂
Altitude in meters? In America we do not use meters, we use feet and we do not know why you strange people across the pond use substandard units of measurement so get it right and use the proper units when talking about American aircraft, you can use meters and kilonewtons when you talk about British aircraft.
George Clooney is gay?
Too much too fast
Could you talk any faster?
Wow, I can’t believe you actually made it through a whole video without inserting homosexuality into it🤣 Actually, I guess I was wrong? You did talk about drag😂
first
Can not be "first" when Today I Found Out has their comment posted several hours before your BULLSHIT comment in 12th BELL END.