forget aeronautical engineers, even high school students (Indian high school is the equivalent to 2 years of US college) look at him like he is an architect. BUILD AN ELEVATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! then you'll be able to pull up
I mean, I'm not an aerospace engineer, but from what I've read in the pilot's handbook of aeronautical knowledge, you kind of want some rear elevators to control the whole pitch thing. Putting the center of lift on the center of mass works, kind of, but that could potentially be what is making it unstable. Ailerons are meant more for roll than pitch control. You're pretty much getting all of your pitch control from your engine.
I am an aerospace engineer and I can clearly say that you are right. One of the biggest problems about oblique wings is the pitching moment hence it may need a huge horizontal tail with huge control surfaces. However, it seems the KSP2 aerodynamic models are not very complicated. The effect of sweep, compressibility (supersonic flow) and spanwise flow may not be considered for this game. I guess the aerodynamic center and center of gravity are the only parameters that affect the aircraft dynamics in this game.
@@RealCivilEngineerGamingyou’ve got some different moment arms going on there between your straight wing, swept wing, and oblique wing designs. Source: back of my shampoo bottle
He also totally missed the point of the oblique wing: it's not faster than swept wing aircraft, it makes it possible to land on short runways, have long low speed loiter time, AND go super sonic.
He is becoming into an Architect!!! Joke aside we have to be fair his specialty is something else not aeronautics. That has another course dedicated to it. Plus he seems to be having fun. Also nice profile picture.
And no canards either, considering he moved the wings. And when you have two sets of lifting surfaces, you can move them back and forth until CoL sits at the right point. In some cases I go so far, I have back stabilizers and canards.
Fun Fact: The F-14 actually has sweeping wings, so for low speeds and maneuvers it wings can be swept front so that it is perpendicular, but for supersonic speeds, it can be swept back to be faster. One of the few planes to have changeable angle (sweeping) on its wings.
there's actually been a decent few variable-geometry wings like that, the MiG-23 Flogger, F-111 Aardvark, and Panavia Tornado are a few examples of this
The reason the wings were asymmetrical on that plane designed by NASA was because they wanted to test a simpler way of achieving swept wing designs: Having only one moving part which itself is even less complex as opposed to the regular design that sweeps two wings The asymmetry is only a side-effect of trying to sweep both wings with only one moving part: As one wing sweeps back the other obviously needs to sweep forward
You should probably add horizontal elevators at the tail and use them to control the pitch instead of the ones built into the wings. It would be way more stable that way. And maybe make the rudder bigger, it looked a bit small compared to the rest of the plane.
i don't understand why he leaves the elevators on the back often off, is he intentionally making Architect planes or what? that is also i think why his SAS system freaks out because it's missing some crucial control surfaces.
@@joyl7842 You don't need to be an engineer to know why the elevators on the back are there for a reason and why every single plane has them. This plane even without the oblique wing is a pure Architect design
if the oblique wing is meant to reduce losses to drag at supersonic speed, you're going to have a significant loss due to drag from constant adjusting maneuvers which will negate any gains. it's tricky to use a flight stick for KSP 2 but it can be done, but if that's not on the agenda, holding left Alt and using the controls can set the trim of the craft, i.e. the sort of default point it goes back to when you let go. This can give you more fine control over the orientation and allow for level flight. or you can use caps lock to engage fine control mode so the maneuvers aren't as drastic and you have less drag from making them.
The problem is the wing positioning, you needed a shorter wing at a narrower angle. If you look at the oblique asym wing in the video, it's far closer to the body than yours. I'd bring it much closer say 10 degrees of center line for both wings. I suspect, if you did that, and decreased the wing span by about 20% you'd hit 1500 m/s in game.
I was thinking the oblique wing had a "Superman" feel to it, and I'm amused that RCE was thinking the same thing. The engine falling off at the end!😂 I'm reminded of the movie Serenity, at the end, when a piece of the hull pops off as it's taking off, and Mal goes "What was that?"🤣
If I recall, the whole point was that it was a rotating wing. So it's straight out to either side for liftoff making it easy to takeoff, then once at speed it rotates the wing to the strange asymmetric position so that it's less surface area than a standard straight-out wing design, closer to what you'd expect from a swept wing. Idea was a single motor handling the whole mechanism with minimal stress, verses 2 very strong motors handling each wing sweep individually. The forces pushing on each wing would roughly be the same, so rotating the wing would only need a cheap weaker motor Edit: 17:23 literally this, yes
3rd year Aerospace engineer here. The main issue with the oblique wing is that it causes a rolling moment. When testing the NASA AD1, the pilot recounted that when the wing was pivoted he constantly had to roll right to prevent the plane from rolling left. One solution might be a biplane sort of design with two wings, one on top and one on bottom, each pivoting in opposite directions(so that when looked from above the wings would form an X). In theory, this might provide all the benefits of the oblique wing while eliminating the rolling moment
I was taught a bit about planes a while back. I learned that the bigger wings don’t control pitch, they control the roll. The pitch is done by tinier wings called elevators or something. Either on the back or front. The yaw is controlled by the tail wing. I make my planes in KSP 2 like this now and they are so much more stable and have a higher tendency to get in the air.
I would like to point one thing out. You spoke about the challenge of having the straight wing low speed design, and then taking them back to the angled back high speed design as you get to speed (that backward angle is known as sweep by the way). To counter your point about the challenges of this, I'll point you to aircraft like the Tornado and F14 Tomcat (there are others, but I wont bore you). This is exactly what they do, and they do it pretty successfully.
While the swept wing design worked as intended, the extra weight of the swing wing mechanism is what makes those aircraft poor at turning engagements with other aircraft.
@@chequeseis9479 Oh, sure, I'm not suggesting it's a perfect, one size fits all solution, but RCE seemed to suggest that the shifting of the center of pressure as the wing sweeps made the idea unworkable. It's far from that. I will also point out, your basic premise isn't really accurate. Flown well, the F14 was capable of achieving a notably smaller turn radius than the F16...... the viper isn't exactly a slouch when it comes to turning fights. The variable geometry is what lets her do that, can sweep the wings forward, and get plenty of lift at lower speeds, allowing her to achieve a tighter radius despite having (slightly) worse turn rate in degrees per second than the Viper.
@@Streaky100001 The best turn radius of the F-14, wings extended, which isn't much better than wings swept weirdly, occurs in a regime that is well above the Ps=0 curve; meaning it can point its nose once by depleting all of its energy, it's best sustained turn radius (Ps=0) is worse than the viper even though it's alpha limited. My premise is accurate because as long as that brief minimum turn radius does not prove lethal for the majority of modern fighter aircraft, it will never be able to regain energy fast enough before going defensive because it's so heavy.
6:54 To solve your issues, you could decide to have that Whiplash on the back, with 2 Panthers on the wings. At takeoff, activate the Whiplash. This should give you the thrust to overcome the high aerodynamic drag. Once you are well above the sound barrier, switch off the Whiplash and switch on the Panthers. With the improved aerodynamic flow, lower thrust should suffice.
the whole point of the oblique wing is efficiency not speed, you can have the wing straight at take off and low speed to give more lift and control, then above supersonic you rotate the wing to increase efficiency
I think you missed a few points from the documentary (assuming it's the same one I watched): *They spoke about compensation for the oblique wing *Also the oblique wing won't help take off when it's in the oblique position, it's advantage is that you take off with the wings at 90 degrees, then when the plane wants to go faster you change the wing configuration to oblique... *Also the oblique wing should have the same speed and performance (or similar) as the angled wings, not better... BUT better than 90 degree wings (at high speed)... Keep up the good work!
at 4:51 its hard to pull up cause the CoL is way too behind from the CoG so the aircraft is really nose-havy causing it to dive down. Usually you would want the CoL just behind the CoG for easier take off and easier pitch control!🤩 sick video tho
The idea with the oblique wing was that it could be a normal wing at lower speed, but when it broke the sound barrier it could rotate its wings to be more areodynamic
By the way, the issues you were having weren’t the issues normal oblique wings have, and you might find out what those are if you make a stable plane. It shouldn’t corkscrew because both wings are producing lift at the same time, the front isn’t producing more than the back. It’s not your wings that are the issue, it’s the control surfaces which need to be moved to conventional elevators and a proper rudder
The point is that it flies symmetrically to do sub sonic and then asymmetrically to do supersonic. The video didn’t claim that it would be faster than a delta wing,just more efficient.
Matt, with all due love and respect, go watch a 10m video on the basics of aerodynamics. Horizontal stabilizers and elevators are generally NOT optional for stability. Move your control surfaces away from the center of mass. Put your rear landing gear behind the center of lift. Maybe try this again after you get a few of the fundamental problems with your plane corrected.
I think the point of the oblique wing was the fact that it can pivot easily and provide good performance in both sub and super sonic speeds whereas swept or straight wings only perform well in one of those areas
As an aircraft mechanic who’s studied aerospace engineering… you may have forgotten the horizontal stabs on the tail to control pitch lol “Pull up! Pull up!” -you Yeah… you’ll find that quite difficult lol Though I suppose the eurofighter and other delta wings don’t have horizontal stabilizers, but they do have canards in the front for quick maneuvering
So the point of the oblique wing was that it could rotate to get the best of straight wing at subsonic and swept at supersonic. So could theoretically be commercially more viable as a supersonic people carrier than Concorde which was horrible subsonic
Yea....not so sure about that "commercially viable" bit though. In 96 a round trip from New York to London was around 8000$ (13000$ or so today). You can do what you like with the wings, that kind of price tag for a trip is completely inaccessible for anybody but the ultra-wealthy.
I am in a aviation class and Civil Air Patrol so I'm learning about that stuff because I want to be a engineer when I grow up, matt did miss a couple of things that could have made the test for all planes better like the horizon stabilizer but due to the knowledge I do know it wouldn't been better but I might do some testing just in case I've actually have my own wing design which is a mixture of both wings for supersonic and low speed so they are good but I won't say the best because I've made a full custom plane and it works too
Real Mechanical Engineer here. While this isn't my field of study, subsonic and supersonic flow behave very differently. I imagine the concept is similar to how a subsonic nozzle becomes a diffuser when the airflow goes supersonic. This would mean that the oblique wing will not work until supersonic speeds are achieved.
From me watching the video, what the video was arguing was that an A cemeterial wing would work just as a jet wing would. once at that mock 1 and above. The idea of the oblique wing was to have a simpler design for jets. because the aerodynamics dosent care if the plane is cemeterial. it only cares whether which wing produces enough upwards thrust. So, the wing would stay flat for takeoff and landing when going under the speed of sound, but after you reach the speed of sound you would turn the wing so that it would be A cemeterial, the reason for this idea to my knowledge was that with the Airforce. We have made wings that hinge for takeoff, landing and supersonic speeds. but they were prone to breaking, because they were so complex. And the maintenance was astronomical. I remember talking with an aerospace engineer about shuttles and the wing design and they said that that type of wing design wouldn’t work because the wings being at a 90 degree angle then turning 40 degrees, they basically said that it would break under the force of escape velocity. But she said that the oblique wing would be promising if they could get funding for it. I think we would use an oblique wing for shuttles because takeoff would be fine with the wing flat, once at mock one you would turn the wing oblique. Then at escape velocity you should be fine. Though I am no aerospace engineer, I’ve only talked with some. I may be wrong I am no professional or expert in this field. I just watched a video and talked with some people, I know nothing.
2:24 That wobbling moment there is called PIO (Pilot-induced Oscillation) which is basically the SAS trying to correct itself but by doing so would overshoot, and would enter a feedback loop until it fixes itself eventually (or crash). To fix it, at least in KSP: lower your Authority Limit, and maybe read more about aeronautics.
You did confirm oblique wing handled takeoff astronomically better than the symetrical triangle though. While still performing near identical to the supersonic wings. Which was the whole point of the video, that they are better at BOTH speeds, subsonic and supersonic. Whereas symetrical you must compromise one or the other.
In the original video the wings were on the top so that the air can flow from one wing over to the other and i think that might be a key feature to the design.
When I made my first really fast plane, Also the plane that made it into Orbit. I painted it Red. Really bright red. Now, I am not sure if it was the small refinements to the air frame, or the decisions made on the engines and intake, or the fact that it was all red. But that aircraft exceeded 2200 m/s. Maybe if your plane was red it would have gone faster. Also maybe kicking on the afterburner on that Panther could have helped before you changed back to the Ramjet engine.
as usual for ksp videos, here's another list of nerd things to take into consideration for this design: - to get your center of mass and center of lift aligned in swept wing design, try to keep the front fuel tanks empty - use dedicated tail control surfaces (elevators and rudder) instead of relying on the wing control surfaces
I think it’s more about high speed control than actually gaining speed. With flat wings the shockwaves form over the whole wing which effects control surfaces, with angled wings they form at the tips, but there’s less lift and control at lower speeds
Hi, sweept wings aren't for supersonic flights. The sweep angle is used in plane like 747 in order to delay the effect of compressibility (mach 1) and go in faster subsonic. Another reasons to use the sweep angle is to move the center of lift behind the center of mass, as shown in all-wings plane. Figther jet use Delta wings, which have a different phisic behind them (even if seems that those are similar to sweept wings), in this why they have better performance in supersonic flights
3:00 matt you complete architect, if you are in a plane, you do not ever notice the sonic boom you produce constantly and always above the speed of sound
Trim control in KSP2 is ALT+(WASDQE) to adjust the aircraft control surface trim to continue to apply control surface forces in small amounts in a continuous direction. There's a mod that makes it more visible and tweakable called Trim Controller. Most craft have some inherent instability and SAS can make it worse. Also, as fuel is consumed, the Center of Mass will change, causing increasing instability.
As others mentioned, the idea isn't to be better at one speed area or the other, it's to be as good to BOTH speed areas, thanks to the rotation. Which i don't think KSP can handle without mods.
You didn't pay attention to the documentary on the Wing... It's fist a standard wing at take off then it rotates at speed and altitude, but in the documentary, the makers of the design found that it would corkscrew unless if it had the proper instruments to compensate for it....
At least with actual aircraft there is a small, often overlooked aspect to the wings. Most commercial aircraft have the wings angled slightly up. This encourages the aircraft to default to straight and level flight. Fighter aircraft have wings that are angled slightly down to help assist in turning.
KSP2 is still adding features to catch back up to KSP1, they only recently added science. It also has a terrible frame rate compared to the first game, playable with a few things in play, but building a satellite network is difficult because the lag frames really mess with physics.
I don't know exactly which video you watched, but it was likely either underinformed on the topic or trying to oversell the concept. There are already planes with variable sweep (such as the F-14) to address the same issues as the oblique wing does, and they work wonderfully, but the oblique wing aims to simplify the mechanism and make maintenance easier. There are issues with the oblique wing though. Because one wing ends up forward-swept, it unbalances the lift and induces a constant roll, the forward-swept wing also experiences greater stresses that can bend and permanently ward the wing. Other issues with the design are that it needs a powerful motor to actually rotate the wing into place, that the action of rotating the wing causes the plane to yaw slightly, that the mechanism ends up either occupying most of the fuselage or compromising the wings' connection to the fuselage, just to name a few off the top of my head. So a ton of safety issues, all to save a few dollars on maintenance.
5:22 wow I actually did the math and .15 is super close to the correct length, it actually rounds to .16 though (for anyone wanting to check, the ingame angle measurement is the angle in degrees divided by 180
Solid work recreating the oblique wing. I think ksp probably won’t let you get an authentic version of it since it would require actually being able to move the wing mid-flight and there is a whole host of minor adjustments to the ailerons. Always a good show Matt, love your channel thanks for hours of fun
Doesn't help ksp doesn't necessarily do full fluid analysis of the wing system, or that the oblique wing is a system meant to be symetric at low speed, or that ksp doesn't calculate different Mach levels at different altitudes
It's genuinely hilarious that the absolute simplest plane he ever builds works exponentially better than literally everything he ever makes any sort of effort on :P
Wing sweep is specifically advantagous for the transonic regime, not so much for fully supersonic. Most "supersonic" aircraft like common modern fighter jets spend most of their high speed time transonic; transonic also has the highest drag coefficient so that is what gets optimized. A true mach 2 supersonic interceptor like the F-104 had straight short thin wings. Fighters that can super cruise generally still need afterburner to get through the transonic range of M0.9-1.3 then cruise without afterburner above.
So, when I saw that same video about the oblique wings i rushed to try them on Flyout (which is a game i recommend) and they do seem to work, although the point of rotation has to be behind the center of the wing for the CoL and CoM to be somewhat balanced in both modes, also, the controls get a bit wonky on full oblique mode, but its fixable, and, of course, it goes without saying you cant use any dihedral, so the roll stability has to be considered All this to say, try FLYOUT, its a really cool game
sooo...the whole concept of the oblique wing is,that you start and land with straight wings for your better maneuverability at low speeds and then tilting the wing at just one point into that asymmetrical appearence...also if the wings are symmetrical or not,air doesn't care about but flowing around your wings so that's kinda the whole point that worked in real life...I saw that documentray too
I'm afraid you misunderstood this a bit. Sweeping the wing doesn't make you faster, if you'd angle the wings of a Cessna, it wouldn't go faster, it would just handle a bit sh*t. To heavily oversimplify it: Sweeping is a trade off, you trade lift for less drag. At high speeds you don't need that much lift from your wings, because speed is part of the equation, that results in lift. If you increase the airspeed over a wing, you increase it's lift. And the same goes for drag. Same Wing with more speed means more lift, means more drag. More drag means less speed. So what can you do, if you'd know that your plane is going to be so fast, that the drag will make the engines waste all their energy on overcoming the drag? You'd make the wings smaller, the sweeping gives you some added benefits, due to the way how air behaves at supersonic or even transonic speeds (it get's all gooey and thick, makes all kinds of funky stuff), this is quiet complicated without showing it, and there are amazing videos on youtube, just check them out, if you are interested(I think real engineering has a good one? Scott Manley has some good ones). But the main point is, you don't adjust your wings to change your speed, you change the shape of the wing according to the operating speed (and altitude). And regarding the difference in speed in the beginning of the video, I think you changed the volume of the wings and they are probably full of fuel, so the second plane was lighter, or something like that. And regarding the oblique wing, it's not that they are better or something. Their sole advantage is in the hinge, yes the one thing you didn't implement.^^ But like you have, so correctly, pointed out, they change their angle, without changing the centre of lift, centre of gravity, etc. So you can gradually adjust them to the changing conditions of the flight and always have them at the most efficient(!) angle (it's all about efficiency). Think of a radio with an analogue VOL knob (hihi, knob) vs. one that you can just turn on and off. They aren't better, they are just adjustable to your needs. But the downside is, that they are utterly complicated and have lots of moving parts and all that. Which makes them more expensive and more prone to failures. Think of them like hydraulics in PB, you can make a simple bridge do all kind of different jobs, but you have to include some really complicated, expensive moving parts. There are situations, where it makes sense, but most of the time it's just not worth doing, if you can avoid it. Like I said, this is all grossly oversimplified and from memory, and I left a lot of stuff out, so if you are interested, don't just take my word on it, watch some videos on it or read it up somewhere. And also if I got something horribly wrong, please correct me, I don't want to spread misinformation or if you want to add something, feel free.
I have no words. Knowing what i know about aerodynamics and the actual plane in question, and watching this was like a train wreck i couldn't look away from.
1: The angled wing was creating too much turbulence beyond the trailing edges. That's why a full delta wing works far better than the two separate wings. Think of a Tornado, a B1, or a or F-14 Tomcat with the wings swept back. They're creating a delta wing envelope with the wing and the rear stabilization control surfaces. 2: The oblique wing setup wasn't on the the same angle. The two oblige wings have to have the leading edge transect the fuselage at the same angle. Your starboard wing was offset just enough to cause turbulence over the trailing edge that caused the aircraft to become unstable.
maybe make a video of making a plane in a circle shape, with little flat wings sticking out on the top with loads of boosters on the back on a body in the middle of the circle to make it fly over 1865 metres i think yea that could help you in the game
5:40 dear Matt, you're an absolute architect. You can't pull up not because of lack of lift - the plane is flying later on so lift is fine. It's because the center of lift is way behind the center of mass of the plane and so the plane is constantly pushed into a dive by the force of lift. Actually it is because there is so much lift the plane can't pull up.
Trust me, building big planes in KSP2 is kind of a mess: You basically have to strut every part to one another and then hope that it doesn't collapse on itself when you try to launch. I tried to build a huge transporter twice and kind of succeeded, but it was a huge mess and I had to launch like five times to get it to even stand on the runway as one piece.
I think the oblique wing was supposed to be used similar to the swing wing design? From what I understand it's one continuous overwing with an electrical motor that would rotate it, letting the wings be perpendicular to the fuselage during takeoff, then at a certain speed, I believe just before trans-sonic speeds, the wing would rotate and become oblique. The leading edge would then only create one vortex at the non-leading edge, making less aerodynamic friction with less turbulent air as the air must travel all the way down the leading edge to the tip at the tail end. I think they were supposed to create a more laminar airflow over the wing, also reducing drag and increasing the flow of non-turbulent air over the wing itself.
Anyone wondering why he didn’t use elevator on the planes he had mixes on the wings which basically means that he had both ailerons and elevator on the wings. Hope that helped:)
Matt: builds the jankiest asymmetric plane with laughably inadequate control surfaces directly on top of the centre of lift where they’ll have minimal effect. Also Matt: WhY iSn’T iT fLyInG pRoPeRlY?
Funny thing, I’ve actually tried an oblique wing, a connected wing, and a ring wing before (Xplane). The connected wing worked so well it gave the ME163 a run for its money with glide capacity. Of course I’m not sure how realistic I made the rest of the design… Here’s the thing: the oblique wing was real but it was variable geometry. It took off as a normal plane and pivoted the wing in flight to my understanding. Also you aren’t modeling it correctly in the slightest, which is weird considering KSP should have the ability.
You would only hear a sonic boom if the jet was passing you. In the original ksp you could only hear a sonic boom if you had a cinematic camera mod where you could place a camera and fly past it.
Yes elevators as well but the wing actually swiveled in the joint in the actual craft. This was from the 80s and 90s…it’s not a viral video. It’s been around for decades. Straight at low speeds and then rotated onto the oblique position. It requires a ton of computational power to keep it stable.
the reason youre corkscrewing is because you have to have the wings at an angle but the same length either side, when you made the wings the same as nasas, the left wing was massive compared to the right
Your lack of understanding in aerodynamic is scary, thank the lord that you were a civil engineer! I went back and watched some of your other KSP2 video and I’ve come to realize that you’re an architect of aerospace. Now I understand your “hatred” of the architect.
The way Matt looks at architects is the same way aeronautical engineers look at him.
As an aeronautical engineer, I can confirm this
As a space scientist it's so much worse. AE and CE share the first 2 years of the degree. Even civil engineers should know how a seesaw works lol
forget aeronautical engineers, even high school students (Indian high school is the equivalent to 2 years of US college) look at him like he is an architect. BUILD AN ELEVATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! then you'll be able to pull up
@@zyebormI only took 1 year in Mechanical engineering, yet I can make better planes than this; in KSP, of course.
@@tomyochumaerospace engineer in school here, some of his “engineering” hurts lol
I mean, I'm not an aerospace engineer, but from what I've read in the pilot's handbook of aeronautical knowledge, you kind of want some rear elevators to control the whole pitch thing. Putting the center of lift on the center of mass works, kind of, but that could potentially be what is making it unstable. Ailerons are meant more for roll than pitch control. You're pretty much getting all of your pitch control from your engine.
I am an aerospace engineer and I can clearly say that you are right. One of the biggest problems about oblique wings is the pitching moment hence it may need a huge horizontal tail with huge control surfaces. However, it seems the KSP2 aerodynamic models are not very complicated. The effect of sweep, compressibility (supersonic flow) and spanwise flow may not be considered for this game. I guess the aerodynamic center and center of gravity are the only parameters that affect the aircraft dynamics in this game.
I saw another person make a proper oblique wing in a more accurate game and it worked just fine.
They also said you want symmetrical wings too right? 😉
@@yusufbayrak1338 > I guess the aerodynamic center and center of gravity
Pretty fair assumption for rockets, it was strange to try it in KSP)
@@RealCivilEngineerGamingyou’ve got some different moment arms going on there between your straight wing, swept wing, and oblique wing designs. Source: back of my shampoo bottle
It’s not ksp not agreeing with physics it’s you not agreeing with tail control surfaces
He also totally missed the point of the oblique wing: it's not faster than swept wing aircraft, it makes it possible to land on short runways, have long low speed loiter time, AND go super sonic.
He is becoming into an Architect!!!
Joke aside we have to be fair his specialty is something else not aeronautics. That has another course dedicated to it. Plus he seems to be having fun.
Also nice profile picture.
@@patrickiamonfire965 i mean torque of a force is a concept well taught in any field of engineering
Come on Matt, stop being an aeronautical architect!
@@DrKnobz I think he watched the video, said ohh nice pictures.. closed it and had no clue what it was about :D
Matt went through the entire video with planes that don't have horizontal stabilizers on them. What an architect lol.
Bro had no tail control surfaces and wondered why he wasn’t gaining altitude outside of engine rotation and lift
"What an architect" --- now you're just rude and hurtful.
And no canards either, considering he moved the wings.
And when you have two sets of lifting surfaces, you can move them back and forth until CoL sits at the right point.
In some cases I go so far, I have back stabilizers and canards.
the alignment on that "oblique" wing is... special
special is one word for it, all in all though not an accurate test...
Wings: *placed in borderline random spots*
RCE: "I guess physics just don't allow this to be as fast."
Fun Fact: The F-14 actually has sweeping wings, so for low speeds and maneuvers it wings can be swept front so that it is perpendicular, but for supersonic speeds, it can be swept back to be faster. One of the few planes to have changeable angle (sweeping) on its wings.
Yes! Another F-14 fan :)
Yup, that was an awesome plane. Used to have a GIJoe Tomcat that was something like 2 feet long.
F-111
there's actually been a decent few variable-geometry wings like that, the MiG-23 Flogger, F-111 Aardvark, and Panavia Tornado are a few examples of this
Su-22
The reason the wings were asymmetrical on that plane designed by NASA was because they wanted to test a simpler way of achieving swept wing designs: Having only one moving part which itself is even less complex as opposed to the regular design that sweeps two wings
The asymmetry is only a side-effect of trying to sweep both wings with only one moving part: As one wing sweeps back the other obviously needs to sweep forward
You should probably add horizontal elevators at the tail and use them to control the pitch instead of the ones built into the wings. It would be way more stable that way. And maybe make the rudder bigger, it looked a bit small compared to the rest of the plane.
He should.
i don't understand why he leaves the elevators on the back often off, is he intentionally making Architect planes or what? that is also i think why his SAS system freaks out because it's missing some crucial control surfaces.
He's not a aeronautical engineer. That's why.
Would make a great soviet engineer
@@joyl7842 You don't need to be an engineer to know why the elevators on the back are there for a reason and why every single plane has them. This plane even without the oblique wing is a pure Architect design
@@benclimo461 True, but I don't think he's spent a lot of time paying attention to how planes work.
@@brigidtheirish I don't think he's spent a little time paying attention to how planes work either
The original oblique wing actually rotated in flight, so you would take off with wings symmetrical and then rotate them in flight.
yes yes exactly
17:24 he knows
KSP2 doesn't have moving parts yet AFAIK
Indeed
7:12 RCE: “It is faster when you go higher speed.” 🤔😂
Bruh. I thought he said altitude
if the oblique wing is meant to reduce losses to drag at supersonic speed, you're going to have a significant loss due to drag from constant adjusting maneuvers which will negate any gains. it's tricky to use a flight stick for KSP 2 but it can be done, but if that's not on the agenda, holding left Alt and using the controls can set the trim of the craft, i.e. the sort of default point it goes back to when you let go. This can give you more fine control over the orientation and allow for level flight. or you can use caps lock to engage fine control mode so the maneuvers aren't as drastic and you have less drag from making them.
11:10 Matt being so close to finally understanding the need for a horizontal stab while also completely avoiding it 🤦🏼♂️
The problem is the wing positioning, you needed a shorter wing at a narrower angle. If you look at the oblique asym wing in the video, it's far closer to the body than yours. I'd bring it much closer say 10 degrees of center line for both wings. I suspect, if you did that, and decreased the wing span by about 20% you'd hit 1500 m/s in game.
Who’s gonna tell Mat planes have vertical stabilisers
He’s a civil engineer I mean, there’s a reason why we real engineers despise them lol
we found out he's a water engineer, and water doesn't need vertical stablisers
I think we all have tried already..
*CANARD GANG*
@@tomarmadiyer2698 canards are pretty badass.
I was thinking the oblique wing had a "Superman" feel to it, and I'm amused that RCE was thinking the same thing.
The engine falling off at the end!😂 I'm reminded of the movie Serenity, at the end, when a piece of the hull pops off as it's taking off, and Mal goes "What was that?"🤣
If I recall, the whole point was that it was a rotating wing. So it's straight out to either side for liftoff making it easy to takeoff, then once at speed it rotates the wing to the strange asymmetric position so that it's less surface area than a standard straight-out wing design, closer to what you'd expect from a swept wing. Idea was a single motor handling the whole mechanism with minimal stress, verses 2 very strong motors handling each wing sweep individually. The forces pushing on each wing would roughly be the same, so rotating the wing would only need a cheap weaker motor
Edit: 17:23 literally this, yes
3rd year Aerospace engineer here. The main issue with the oblique wing is that it causes a rolling moment. When testing the NASA AD1, the pilot recounted that when the wing was pivoted he constantly had to roll right to prevent the plane from rolling left. One solution might be a biplane sort of design with two wings, one on top and one on bottom, each pivoting in opposite directions(so that when looked from above the wings would form an X). In theory, this might provide all the benefits of the oblique wing while eliminating the rolling moment
So you can actually trim with Alt + W/A/S/D
And one of the jet engines has an afterburning mode, oh and also different efficiencies based on altitude.
Oh yeah, this also works with Q and E so perfect for the oblique wing!
Matt builds planes as if the only knowledge he has of them came from a short conversation with a five year old who's only seen one on tv
The more videos I see of this game, the more i feel i need to by it to crush those damn architects
its got a pretty steep learning curve
@@ElectricJelly03 the best games always do
I was taught a bit about planes a while back. I learned that the bigger wings don’t control pitch, they control the roll. The pitch is done by tinier wings called elevators or something. Either on the back or front. The yaw is controlled by the tail wing. I make my planes in KSP 2 like this now and they are so much more stable and have a higher tendency to get in the air.
I would like to point one thing out. You spoke about the challenge of having the straight wing low speed design, and then taking them back to the angled back high speed design as you get to speed (that backward angle is known as sweep by the way).
To counter your point about the challenges of this, I'll point you to aircraft like the Tornado and F14 Tomcat (there are others, but I wont bore you). This is exactly what they do, and they do it pretty successfully.
While the swept wing design worked as intended, the extra weight of the swing wing mechanism is what makes those aircraft poor at turning engagements with other aircraft.
@@chequeseis9479 Oh, sure, I'm not suggesting it's a perfect, one size fits all solution, but RCE seemed to suggest that the shifting of the center of pressure as the wing sweeps made the idea unworkable. It's far from that.
I will also point out, your basic premise isn't really accurate. Flown well, the F14 was capable of achieving a notably smaller turn radius than the F16...... the viper isn't exactly a slouch when it comes to turning fights.
The variable geometry is what lets her do that, can sweep the wings forward, and get plenty of lift at lower speeds, allowing her to achieve a tighter radius despite having (slightly) worse turn rate in degrees per second than the Viper.
@@Streaky100001 The best turn radius of the F-14, wings extended, which isn't much better than wings swept weirdly, occurs in a regime that is well above the Ps=0 curve; meaning it can point its nose once by depleting all of its energy, it's best sustained turn radius (Ps=0) is worse than the viper even though it's alpha limited. My premise is accurate because as long as that brief minimum turn radius does not prove lethal for the majority of modern fighter aircraft, it will never be able to regain energy fast enough before going defensive because it's so heavy.
6:54 To solve your issues, you could decide to have that Whiplash on the back, with 2 Panthers on the wings.
At takeoff, activate the Whiplash. This should give you the thrust to overcome the high aerodynamic drag.
Once you are well above the sound barrier, switch off the Whiplash and switch on the Panthers. With the improved aerodynamic flow, lower thrust should suffice.
the whole point of the oblique wing is efficiency not speed, you can have the wing straight at take off and low speed to give more lift and control, then above supersonic you rotate the wing to increase efficiency
the point of the oblique wing is to make taking off easier with the symmetrical wings that rotate in flight to go supersonic
I think you missed a few points from the documentary (assuming it's the same one I watched):
*They spoke about compensation for the oblique wing
*Also the oblique wing won't help take off when it's in the oblique position, it's advantage is that you take off with the wings at 90 degrees, then when the plane wants to go faster you change the wing configuration to oblique...
*Also the oblique wing should have the same speed and performance (or similar) as the angled wings, not better... BUT better than 90 degree wings (at high speed)...
Keep up the good work!
at 4:51 its hard to pull up cause the CoL is way too behind from the CoG so the aircraft is really nose-havy causing it to dive down. Usually you would want the CoL just behind the CoG for easier take off and easier pitch control!🤩 sick video tho
The idea with the oblique wing was that it could be a normal wing at lower speed, but when it broke the sound barrier it could rotate its wings to be more areodynamic
By the way, the issues you were having weren’t the issues normal oblique wings have, and you might find out what those are if you make a stable plane. It shouldn’t corkscrew because both wings are producing lift at the same time, the front isn’t producing more than the back. It’s not your wings that are the issue, it’s the control surfaces which need to be moved to conventional elevators and a proper rudder
On Stability: you didn't put the horizontal stabilizers on the tail. The elevators also help with take-off. The NASA oblique test has them.
The point is that it flies symmetrically to do sub sonic and then asymmetrically to do supersonic. The video didn’t claim that it would be faster than a delta wing,just more efficient.
Matt, with all due love and respect, go watch a 10m video on the basics of aerodynamics. Horizontal stabilizers and elevators are generally NOT optional for stability. Move your control surfaces away from the center of mass. Put your rear landing gear behind the center of lift. Maybe try this again after you get a few of the fundamental problems with your plane corrected.
I think the point of the oblique wing was the fact that it can pivot easily and provide good performance in both sub and super sonic speeds whereas swept or straight wings only perform well in one of those areas
As an aircraft mechanic who’s studied aerospace engineering… you may have forgotten the horizontal stabs on the tail to control pitch lol
“Pull up! Pull up!” -you
Yeah… you’ll find that quite difficult lol
Though I suppose the eurofighter and other delta wings don’t have horizontal stabilizers, but they do have canards in the front for quick maneuvering
Matt also not realizing there is literally 0 way you could land this if it was commercially produced. NO SYMMETRICAL REAR LANDING GEAR
The video was talking how rotation of a single wing was lighter and have less fail points than two wing pivots to make a plane operate at both speeds
So the point of the oblique wing was that it could rotate to get the best of straight wing at subsonic and swept at supersonic. So could theoretically be commercially more viable as a supersonic people carrier than Concorde which was horrible subsonic
Yea....not so sure about that "commercially viable" bit though. In 96 a round trip from New York to London was around 8000$ (13000$ or so today). You can do what you like with the wings, that kind of price tag for a trip is completely inaccessible for anybody but the ultra-wealthy.
So in the video on the oblique wing commercial aircraft, it would in theory be much cheaper than Concorde
I am in a aviation class and Civil Air Patrol so I'm learning about that stuff because I want to be a engineer when I grow up, matt did miss a couple of things that could have made the test for all planes better like the horizon stabilizer but due to the knowledge I do know it wouldn't been better but I might do some testing just in case I've actually have my own wing design which is a mixture of both wings for supersonic and low speed so they are good but I won't say the best because I've made a full custom plane and it works too
Nice Wilhelm scream at the beginning 😂
Real Mechanical Engineer here. While this isn't my field of study, subsonic and supersonic flow behave very differently. I imagine the concept is similar to how a subsonic nozzle becomes a diffuser when the airflow goes supersonic. This would mean that the oblique wing will not work until supersonic speeds are achieved.
From me watching the video, what the video was arguing was that an A cemeterial wing would work just as a jet wing would. once at that mock 1 and above.
The idea of the oblique wing was to have a simpler design for jets. because the aerodynamics dosent care if the plane is cemeterial. it only cares whether which wing produces enough upwards thrust. So, the wing would stay flat for takeoff and landing when going under the speed of sound, but after you reach the speed of sound you would turn the wing so that it would be A cemeterial, the reason for this idea to my knowledge was that with the Airforce. We have made wings that hinge for takeoff, landing and supersonic speeds. but they were prone to breaking, because they were so complex. And the maintenance was astronomical. I remember talking with an aerospace engineer about shuttles and the wing design and they said that that type of wing design wouldn’t work because the wings being at a 90 degree angle then turning 40 degrees, they basically said that it would break under the force of escape velocity. But she said that the oblique wing would be promising if they could get funding for it. I think we would use an oblique wing for shuttles because takeoff would be fine with the wing flat, once at mock one you would turn the wing oblique. Then at escape velocity you should be fine. Though I am no aerospace engineer, I’ve only talked with some.
I may be wrong I am no professional or expert in this field. I just watched a video and talked with some people, I know nothing.
2:24 That wobbling moment there is called PIO (Pilot-induced Oscillation) which is basically the SAS trying to correct itself but by doing so would overshoot, and would enter a feedback loop until it fixes itself eventually (or crash).
To fix it, at least in KSP: lower your Authority Limit, and maybe read more about aeronautics.
Matt building weird contraptions in KSP is peak entertainment.
You did confirm oblique wing handled takeoff astronomically better than the symetrical triangle though. While still performing near identical to the supersonic wings. Which was the whole point of the video, that they are better at BOTH speeds, subsonic and supersonic. Whereas symetrical you must compromise one or the other.
10:30 if you would actually listen to that documentary they are saying that the design has one fatal flaw and that is the corkscrew effect
In the original video the wings were on the top so that the air can flow from one wing over to the other and i think that might be a key feature to the design.
When I made my first really fast plane, Also the plane that made it into Orbit. I painted it Red. Really bright red. Now, I am not sure if it was the small refinements to the air frame, or the decisions made on the engines and intake, or the fact that it was all red. But that aircraft exceeded 2200 m/s. Maybe if your plane was red it would have gone faster. Also maybe kicking on the afterburner on that Panther could have helped before you changed back to the Ramjet engine.
as usual for ksp videos, here's another list of nerd things to take into consideration for this design:
- to get your center of mass and center of lift aligned in swept wing design, try to keep the front fuel tanks empty
- use dedicated tail control surfaces (elevators and rudder) instead of relying on the wing control surfaces
I think it’s more about high speed control than actually gaining speed. With flat wings the shockwaves form over the whole wing which effects control surfaces, with angled wings they form at the tips, but there’s less lift and control at lower speeds
Hi, sweept wings aren't for supersonic flights. The sweep angle is used in plane like 747 in order to delay the effect of compressibility (mach 1) and go in faster subsonic.
Another reasons to use the sweep angle is to move the center of lift behind the center of mass, as shown in all-wings plane.
Figther jet use Delta wings, which have a different phisic behind them (even if seems that those are similar to sweept wings), in this why they have better performance in supersonic flights
3:00 matt you complete architect, if you are in a plane, you do not ever notice the sonic boom you produce constantly and always above the speed of sound
Trim control in KSP2 is ALT+(WASDQE) to adjust the aircraft control surface trim to continue to apply control surface forces in small amounts in a continuous direction. There's a mod that makes it more visible and tweakable called Trim Controller. Most craft have some inherent instability and SAS can make it worse. Also, as fuel is consumed, the Center of Mass will change, causing increasing instability.
As others mentioned, the idea isn't to be better at one speed area or the other, it's to be as good to BOTH speed areas, thanks to the rotation. Which i don't think KSP can handle without mods.
You didn't pay attention to the documentary on the Wing... It's fist a standard wing at take off then it rotates at speed and altitude, but in the documentary, the makers of the design found that it would corkscrew unless if it had the proper instruments to compensate for it....
At least with actual aircraft there is a small, often overlooked aspect to the wings. Most commercial aircraft have the wings angled slightly up. This encourages the aircraft to default to straight and level flight. Fighter aircraft have wings that are angled slightly down to help assist in turning.
Wait? There's Kerbal Space Program 2? I thought we only have 1.
Same bro
It’s been out for a while
it came out February last year
@@rowanreid836 thankyou for the information
KSP2 is still adding features to catch back up to KSP1, they only recently added science.
It also has a terrible frame rate compared to the first game, playable with a few things in play, but building a satellite network is difficult because the lag frames really mess with physics.
I don't know exactly which video you watched, but it was likely either underinformed on the topic or trying to oversell the concept. There are already planes with variable sweep (such as the F-14) to address the same issues as the oblique wing does, and they work wonderfully, but the oblique wing aims to simplify the mechanism and make maintenance easier. There are issues with the oblique wing though. Because one wing ends up forward-swept, it unbalances the lift and induces a constant roll, the forward-swept wing also experiences greater stresses that can bend and permanently ward the wing. Other issues with the design are that it needs a powerful motor to actually rotate the wing into place, that the action of rotating the wing causes the plane to yaw slightly, that the mechanism ends up either occupying most of the fuselage or compromising the wings' connection to the fuselage, just to name a few off the top of my head. So a ton of safety issues, all to save a few dollars on maintenance.
5:22 wow I actually did the math and .15 is super close to the correct length, it actually rounds to .16 though (for anyone wanting to check, the ingame angle measurement is the angle in degrees divided by 180
Solid work recreating the oblique wing. I think ksp probably won’t let you get an authentic version of it since it would require actually being able to move the wing mid-flight and there is a whole host of minor adjustments to the ailerons. Always a good show Matt, love your channel thanks for hours of fun
Doesn't help ksp doesn't necessarily do full fluid analysis of the wing system, or that the oblique wing is a system meant to be symetric at low speed, or that ksp doesn't calculate different Mach levels at different altitudes
It's genuinely hilarious that the absolute simplest plane he ever builds works exponentially better than literally everything he ever makes any sort of effort on :P
Wing sweep is specifically advantagous for the transonic regime, not so much for fully supersonic.
Most "supersonic" aircraft like common modern fighter jets spend most of their high speed time transonic; transonic also has the highest drag coefficient so that is what gets optimized. A true mach 2 supersonic interceptor like the F-104 had straight short thin wings. Fighters that can super cruise generally still need afterburner to get through the transonic range of M0.9-1.3 then cruise without afterburner above.
So, when I saw that same video about the oblique wings i rushed to try them on Flyout (which is a game i recommend) and they do seem to work, although the point of rotation has to be behind the center of the wing for the CoL and CoM to be somewhat balanced in both modes, also, the controls get a bit wonky on full oblique mode, but its fixable, and, of course, it goes without saying you cant use any dihedral, so the roll stability has to be considered
All this to say, try FLYOUT, its a really cool game
sooo...the whole concept of the oblique wing is,that you start and land with straight wings for your better maneuverability at low speeds and then tilting the wing at just one point into that asymmetrical appearence...also if the wings are symmetrical or not,air doesn't care about but flowing around your wings so that's kinda the whole point that worked in real life...I saw that documentray too
If you'd like to explore some more of these somewhat oddball designs, might I recommend the work of Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites.
I'm afraid you misunderstood this a bit. Sweeping the wing doesn't make you faster, if you'd angle the wings of a Cessna, it wouldn't go faster, it would just handle a bit sh*t.
To heavily oversimplify it: Sweeping is a trade off, you trade lift for less drag. At high speeds you don't need that much lift from your wings, because speed is part of the equation, that results in lift. If you increase the airspeed over a wing, you increase it's lift. And the same goes for drag. Same Wing with more speed means more lift, means more drag. More drag means less speed.
So what can you do, if you'd know that your plane is going to be so fast, that the drag will make the engines waste all their energy on overcoming the drag? You'd make the wings smaller, the sweeping gives you some added benefits, due to the way how air behaves at supersonic or even transonic speeds (it get's all gooey and thick, makes all kinds of funky stuff), this is quiet complicated without showing it, and there are amazing videos on youtube, just check them out, if you are interested(I think real engineering has a good one? Scott Manley has some good ones).
But the main point is, you don't adjust your wings to change your speed, you change the shape of the wing according to the operating speed (and altitude). And regarding the difference in speed in the beginning of the video, I think you changed the volume of the wings and they are probably full of fuel, so the second plane was lighter, or something like that.
And regarding the oblique wing, it's not that they are better or something. Their sole advantage is in the hinge, yes the one thing you didn't implement.^^ But like you have, so correctly, pointed out, they change their angle, without changing the centre of lift, centre of gravity, etc. So you can gradually adjust them to the changing conditions of the flight and always have them at the most efficient(!) angle (it's all about efficiency). Think of a radio with an analogue VOL knob (hihi, knob) vs. one that you can just turn on and off.
They aren't better, they are just adjustable to your needs.
But the downside is, that they are utterly complicated and have lots of moving parts and all that. Which makes them more expensive and more prone to failures. Think of them like hydraulics in PB, you can make a simple bridge do all kind of different jobs, but you have to include some really complicated, expensive moving parts. There are situations, where it makes sense, but most of the time it's just not worth doing, if you can avoid it.
Like I said, this is all grossly oversimplified and from memory, and I left a lot of stuff out, so if you are interested, don't just take my word on it, watch some videos on it or read it up somewhere. And also if I got something horribly wrong, please correct me, I don't want to spread misinformation or if you want to add something, feel free.
It would be kinda cool in kerbal if they added for planes some sort of autopilot where you can set altitude, heading, and airspeed.
I have no words. Knowing what i know about aerodynamics and the actual plane in question, and watching this was like a train wreck i couldn't look away from.
1: The angled wing was creating too much turbulence beyond the trailing edges. That's why a full delta wing works far better than the two separate wings. Think of a Tornado, a B1, or a or F-14 Tomcat with the wings swept back. They're creating a delta wing envelope with the wing and the rear stabilization control surfaces.
2: The oblique wing setup wasn't on the the same angle. The two oblige wings have to have the leading edge transect the fuselage at the same angle. Your starboard wing was offset just enough to cause turbulence over the trailing edge that caused the aircraft to become unstable.
maybe make a video of making a plane in a circle shape, with little flat wings sticking out on the top with loads of boosters on the back on a body in the middle of the circle to make it fly over 1865 metres i think yea that could help you in the game
Finally its back, please keep uploading on kerbal matt its hilarious 😂.
The most impressive part of this video is that Matt managed to make a working plane in KS2 in less than 3 minutes.
Good to see KSP again, Matt! I know practically nothing about planes but that was a very interesting experiment!
5:40 dear Matt, you're an absolute architect. You can't pull up not because of lack of lift - the plane is flying later on so lift is fine. It's because the center of lift is way behind the center of mass of the plane and so the plane is constantly pushed into a dive by the force of lift. Actually it is because there is so much lift the plane can't pull up.
Trust me, building big planes in KSP2 is kind of a mess: You basically have to strut every part to one another and then hope that it doesn't collapse on itself when you try to launch.
I tried to build a huge transporter twice and kind of succeeded, but it was a huge mess and I had to launch like five times to get it to even stand on the runway as one piece.
The F 14D fixes this issue by having articulated wings, it's actually pretty cool to watch X3
I think the oblique wing was supposed to be used similar to the swing wing design? From what I understand it's one continuous overwing with an electrical motor that would rotate it, letting the wings be perpendicular to the fuselage during takeoff, then at a certain speed, I believe just before trans-sonic speeds, the wing would rotate and become oblique. The leading edge would then only create one vortex at the non-leading edge, making less aerodynamic friction with less turbulent air as the air must travel all the way down the leading edge to the tip at the tail end.
I think they were supposed to create a more laminar airflow over the wing, also reducing drag and increasing the flow of non-turbulent air over the wing itself.
We are all lucky that he became a civil and not a plane engineer.
I would love to see you try this in KSP1 using the robotic parts to make the wing move mid-flight.
Anyone wondering why he didn’t use elevator on the planes he had mixes on the wings which basically means that he had both ailerons and elevator on the wings. Hope that helped:)
Matt: builds the jankiest asymmetric plane with laughably inadequate control surfaces directly on top of the centre of lift where they’ll have minimal effect.
Also Matt: WhY iSn’T iT fLyInG pRoPeRlY?
Go through the missions in ksp2 now! They're surprisingly good and fun. After the first few it really ramps up.
Matt, You should add elevators to the tail, but make them oblique also.
Our local airplane museum has one of these on display. By far one of the craziest looking planes I’ve ever seen.
Funny thing, I’ve actually tried an oblique wing, a connected wing, and a ring wing before (Xplane). The connected wing worked so well it gave the ME163 a run for its money with glide capacity. Of course I’m not sure how realistic I made the rest of the design…
Here’s the thing: the oblique wing was real but it was variable geometry. It took off as a normal plane and pivoted the wing in flight to my understanding.
Also you aren’t modeling it correctly in the slightest, which is weird considering KSP should have the ability.
You would only hear a sonic boom if the jet was passing you. In the original ksp you could only hear a sonic boom if you had a cinematic camera mod where you could place a camera and fly past it.
Yes elevators as well but the wing actually swiveled in the joint in the actual craft. This was from the 80s and 90s…it’s not a viral video. It’s been around for decades. Straight at low speeds and then rotated onto the oblique position. It requires a ton of computational power to keep it stable.
A key point of the oblique wing was that it rotates and adapts to your speed.
A single swing wing that isn't above the fuselage is going to shove all the air that's traveling down the leading edge into the fuselage I'd think.
A tailpane would seriously help and make the main oblique pitch only
in the new modern planes ive seen they have two modes sub sonics and sonic where the wing shape is designed for each mode
„it is faster when you get to higher speeds“
-Real Civil Engineer 2024
Rare footage of civil engineer building something that moves
The concept is simple. *The air doesn't care about the wing's shape. So making symmetrical wings are useless.*
I'd love to see you try to build concorde in KSP!
F-14 was a prime example of why a straight wing was good for slow, swept good for fast. But it was still pretty maneuverable at high speed.
F-111 also
the reason youre corkscrewing is because you have to have the wings at an angle but the same length either side, when you made the wings the same as nasas, the left wing was massive compared to the right
Finally!!! I've missed the KSP videos soooooo much!!! Pleeeeeeease please please please do more videos!
Your lack of understanding in aerodynamic is scary, thank the lord that you were a civil engineer!
I went back and watched some of your other KSP2 video and I’ve come to realize that you’re an architect of aerospace. Now I understand your “hatred” of the architect.