My dad's book, Soviet Air Force Fighters PT.1, by William Green and Gordon Swanborough, has a picture of the IS-4 in it. It was supposed to use a Klimov M-120 inline engine, but that engine was not prototyped; a Mikulin AM-37 was substituted, and in the summer of 1941 it DID fly. But neither the test results nor the aircraft's fate is known, thanks to the upheaval of the German invasion.
The main issue with the design, if I remember correctly, was the probability of the mechanism being damaged in combat ensuring the loss of the aircraft or it having to be landed wheels up. That and the extra weight, cost and complexity of manufacture really did the design in. The idea of a variable geometry was sound, but perhaps a few decades before it's time.
As Sir Sidney Camm said (of Great Britain's TSR-2) "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics." It looks like the driving force behind this beastie was the latter.
This really is a great idea, however I think its main fault is that it came too late. By the time it was first flown in 1940, monoplanes had already taken over the direction of the field. If this was flown in 1935, when the Hawker Hurricane, Curtiss Hawk series, and Bf 109 were in their infancy, it may have made a compelling argument. Early models of the contemporary WWII fighters in 1935 could only muster speeds in the range of 300-330 mph. If the IS-1 could approach 300 mph, then this would be competitive in 1935. The real question I have is climb and stall performance. Certainly, the aircraft would have enjoyed some increased flight performance in these areas due to increased lift of a second wing, but with huge scallops in the underside of the upper wing, how much extra lift did the aircraft actually produce? In straight-tapered wings, like the one fitted to both the IS aircraft, most lift is actually generated in the centermost sections of the wings. Ruining the shape of the airfoil near the center would not be a trivial reduction in the lift of the upper wing when the lower wing is deployed. This begs the question: could the IS aircraft climb faster or fly slower than its contemporary monowing competition? Too bad the data is so scarce and unreliable. This would truly be an intriguing concept if it worked.
The scallops in the bottom of the upper wing, if properly shaped, might actually increase the lift the upper wing produced at low speed, with an insane increase in drag. This concept would have done well on aircraft carriers up until about 1940, carrying a fairly good load off of a short flight deck or off a slow carrier. As soon as the A6M and F4F enter service, it's over though. The feature might have been useful for carrier based strike aircraft into 1941, but would have expired by mid year.
One thing that's noticeable from the photos (see 1:35 and 2:08 ) is that some of them show the IS-1 with a two-bladed propeller and a less pointed spinner. An assembly which looks like it came straight off an I-16. Most likely that was the initial fit when they were rushing to try to get it flying for Stalin's parade, and making maximum use of existing components. While the rest of the photos show the three-bladed prop and a more streamlined spinner. Probably what the design team had intended all along. Also, it kind of surprised me that (unlike the later IS series of heavy tanks), sharing Stalin's initials seems to have been a complete coincidence with these planes.
The landing gear retraction and wing folding seem to be carried out by the same mechanism, which looks like a worm gear and sliding linkage. That was going to make both processes slow, not someting that would aid an interceptor trying to climb quickly. Also, if that mechanism jams in the middle of the wing fold cycle it's going to ensure some very interesting aerodynamic behavior and control issues
This Would be an interesting concept for a drone. The wing could have its own motors, batteries, GPS and detach after takeoff and land itself in a controlled way.
It’s easier to change the geometry of one wing. It gets a similar, though less drastic, result with much less penalties, and so that’s the design method that has been used.
Interesting. A navalised Bf 109, developed for the Graf Zeppelin's airwing, also would have had telescoping wings. Even with that I reckon it would still have been a bitch to manage on a carrier.
The pilot is saying, "I want all the advantages of a biplane AND a monoplane in a single aircraft" and the managers, designers, and politicians are all saying, "This is a great idea, we'll make a plane that's both at the same time!" ...all while the janitor in the hall walks away quietly chuckling to himself, "Jack of all trades, master of none..."
Now this one I knew about. My thoughts when I first came across it was that before being folded the wigs did add extra lift. Whereas once folded away the wing had just become dead weight.
Lift has nothing to with climb rate. Climb rate is determined by weight, drag and engine power. Hence 2 of the best climbing WW2 planes are the Bf109 and J2M, both possessing powerful engines and small wings. If anything bi planes climb worse due to extra weight from the wings.
I have always thought the X-WING from star wars would be possible with fly by wire, " not sure about AOA stuff and how well it would actually work." But I had never seen anything like this and it made me think of the idea.
there were ideas for x wings. but those would not be on x axis but on y axis. not sure if there is any practical thing about it... maybe for slower drones dont know...
Then came the “Swing Wing” and all was forgiven. Almost... 😎 Well done! Thank you! I’m a commercially licensed pilot and a former USAF museum civilian volunteer... Your channel is amazing!
thanks for posting now I know Im not completely mad, I know I had heard of this plane before but could not remember the name or country that had build it
So much of that lower wing is rendered useless by the incorporation of the landing gear, the whole inboard leading edge is missing in most of these images. Fantastic idea though, I bet Vought could have made an interesting bird along these lines of thought.
Well, this plane turned out to be a dead end, but the idea of a wing that changes configuration is good. The F-111, the F-14 and the B-1 come immediately to mind.
I was just thinking the same thing. Much the same benefits AND disadvantages too - Better performance across a wide speed range, increased weight and complexity.
I would be scared to pull that wing folding lever….Im not sure if you do Tank Engines but the V2 Diesel in the T-34 and the KV … was the best of WW2 but the designer was shot in Stalin’s Purges
It would seem that turning the wing-arrangement upside-down, and having the upper-wing retract into the lower would produce a better design. Given that high-wing monoplanes aren’t the best configuration for a fighter, and all.
Kinda like early thinking that leads to later jet age sweep wing fighter aircraft. I remember seeing a test aircraft from the 1920's or 1930's were the wings had telescopic wings. or did I see it on this channel?
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I just did quick Google and found that telescopic wing plane that I remember it was called Makhonine Mak 10 it was a France plane built by Russian inventor. There a news reel footage that some put on RUclips ruclips.net/video/2GeYBHbLzgw/видео.html P.S. the Inventor looks like Bela Lugosi
This is an interesting period in aircraft development that passed rapidly as the power and speed of airplanes advanced. Obviously the monoplane configuration is proven to provide more speed, but the blanket statement that it provides less lift and slower climb can be misleading. A given fuselage can receive an equivalent amount of lift from two wings of shorter span or one wing of longer span. The lower drag for equivalent lift is why the monoplane configuration is superior for almost any airplane unless the wingspan must be restricted for other considerations.
MAN, Taxing, takeoff (never mind landing it) of this aircraft would have been a nightmare with the cockpit and the main wing location, guess that why the looked at making it a tri
Polymorphism will come of age as we develop suitable metamaterials. Concorde showed that shape changing aircraft do get actual benefits. But relying purely on mechanical systems is inefficient, except for the simplest options, like ailerons and rudders.
Ed I've come to the conclusion that Sherlock Holmes had nothing on you. The Soviet I S "transformer" aircraft program I knew very little about great job!!
More great stuff Ed, I am worried there are loads more aircraft I've never yet heard of. If Stalin said he liked it then the sycophants wouldn't dare not to put it into production. Great technical prowess but, nonetheless, not the right plane for the time
Effectively they should've foreshadowed weight's problems, and we can add the overcomplexity of the whole thing. These things would've voided any (hypothetical) design's benefits.
Maybe they selected the original conformed to the Policarpov i153 so they could do a direct comparison - after all, if the new design gave a large increase in performance then there were all these existing airframes which may be altered to the polymorphic design faster and cheaper than starting out from scratch. Personally I wonder how if this design thinking could have improved British aircraft flying off our tiny (convoy) escort carriers -they might have had to develop a fold-down upper wing to maintain usable hard points on the bottom wing.
IF what you want is a very high performance wing with minimal drag and yet access to surprisingly slow landing speeds look no further than the delta wing ..... And if you want a degree of stability take a leaf out of Eurofighter Typhoon's book and stuff a canard on the front. Donwsides? Well, if you loose power it has lousy glide characteristics and in some configurations it can become horribly unstable. But fast? Hell yes.
I wonder why they didn't make the upper wing lower, instead of having the lower wing raise? I imagine the visibility was pretty awful the way it was designed. And it would be easier to lower the wing simply because of gravity. Also, you could make the lower wing stronger if it was fixed, which would be a more reliable platform for the landing gear. Plus, if the wing mechanism failed, you should still able to land safely assuming the landing gear still works. Even if it didn't, I'd still imagine this way would still be better. And finally, with the upper wing lowered, it would more closely resemble a modern monoplane. Which I'm sure has some advantage, otherwise it wouldn't be standard.
When it's a biplane, the lower wing folding leaves the upper wing larger than the lower wing, which is common among biplanes. Having a recess in the top of the lower wing would completely destroy it's lifting qualities and do very interesting things to the aircrafts controls as the upper wing retracts. The recess in the bottom of the upper wing, if shaped properly, makes it an undercamber airfoil, which is very good for generating lift a low speeds, while adding enormous amounts of drag. Visibility isn't any worse than the Biplane it was based on, which wasn't good to begin with. The biggest problem isn't as much the wings location, but rather that the pilot sits so far aft, with a very wide fuselage in the way.
@@SgtBeltfed I imagined the recess being in the top wing, with it being dropped over the lower wing. The recess has to be there regardless, so the additional drag has to be accepted for this concept to work. And once the wings were together, wouldn't that become a non-issue? As for the visibility, yeah it's a bit of an awkward design. A bit strange they choose to model to whole fuselage in a similar manner. I understand why - it's mentioned in the video. But still strange. It still seems from looking at the pictures and not actually being in the plane.. that a lower wing might help. It reminds me of the Yugoslav fighter I believe I also saw on this channel. It was a monoplane, but the wing was in a similar position, and caused visibility issues. But idk, I'm not an engineer and the people making this plane were alot smarter than me. Lol.
@@154Kilroy Having the upper wing wrap over the top of the lower wing would put control surfaces on the moving parts of the upper wing, which would entail even more troubles, especially as they have to function while the wing is folding and unfolding. I doubt the lower wing on the original had any control surfaces at all, and it was just a lifting surface. This is similar to many normal biplanes as well, where they only have ailerons on one set of wings for simplicity sake.
Yes Ed. You've done it again ! No idea at all ! Although that comment could be aimed at the nitikin ! Aircraft designers certainly had very imaginative ideas in this period that's for sure ! Oh well , l'd better go and polymorph my rusty old bag of nails into an "e"type ! 🤣🤣🤣 Thanks Ed.
It's really quite odd that no one picked up on the Wright Flyer in all of Europe and *"wing warping"* to add to that a canard wing forward of the pilot as a control surface (bi-plane/box wing even.) Anyhow the US Navy sure loved the idea as the Wright Flyer was the inspiration for building US Aircraft Carriers in the first instance ($cw Curtis-Wright still in business and going strong very much so right now today.) Anyhow just as important to a still revolutionary design for flight was the holistic system of the "launch system" which was also fitted upon US Aircraft Carrier ... plus twin pusher motors no less! Instead indeed all of the Western Powers went *"ALL OUT"* with hydraulics and wheels which had cataclysmic results for all their respective economies in World War 2 given the inefficiencies, incredible expense, time consumption and ultimately waste that resulted from all of this extraordinary effort. One interest application of the Wright Flyer in modern application would be the UH-1 "Huey" Iroquois Helicopter which used skids and not tires...a very wise choice given how flammable tires are and can be just in regular use. One interesting approach in perhaps a nod to the Wright Flyer was the massive Nazi German Transport Plane "Gigant" which was a straight up glider...easily the largest glider not only ever made but also used in combat. Obviously the Anglo-Americans made prodigious use of "glider support" on or about 1944-1945 as well though obviously not on this scale. Of course the Germans had no dedicated Airframe to tow said glider which was absolutely not the case for the Anglo-Americans in World War 2.
The Gigant was powered by six Gnome-Rhone radials and was BASED on a glider. And the Germans built the Heinkel He-111Z "Zwilling" to tow the glider variant.
I think this plane was just not that viable, especially since the Polikarpov I-153 proved to be a reasonable fighter and could easily be produced off the same line producing the I-15.
Well i think it was interesting design, but too complex for war economy needs. Soviet union had hard time with aluminium supply as it was and making heavy planes made from plywood even more heavier wasn't the best idea. After the war jet era made any radial close to obsolete.
You're like Mark Felton, for airplanes. I love it.
Kinda sounds like him too
except that unlike Felton, Ed actually researches and provides sources for his data
@@awwgordy was going to comment this, haha
My dad's book, Soviet Air Force Fighters PT.1, by William Green and Gordon Swanborough, has a picture of the IS-4 in it. It was supposed to use a Klimov M-120 inline engine, but that engine was not prototyped; a Mikulin AM-37 was substituted, and in the summer of 1941 it DID fly. But neither the test results nor the aircraft's fate is known, thanks to the upheaval of the German invasion.
Looks like Transformers were active much earlier than we thought. ;-)
Absolutely spot on.
I had a book called Russian X-planes that covered this. After your last video I was hoping for this one! Well done!
The main issue with the design, if I remember correctly, was the probability of the mechanism being damaged in combat ensuring the loss of the aircraft or it having to be landed wheels up. That and the extra weight, cost and complexity of manufacture really did the design in. The idea of a variable geometry was sound, but perhaps a few decades before it's time.
As Sir Sidney Camm said (of Great Britain's TSR-2) "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics." It looks like the driving force behind this beastie was the latter.
The irony is politics tends to kill good aircraft. If my suspicions are right, then politics made this one happen!
Very cool. I'm glad to see more of these rare types.
Bravo! Never thought anyone would cover one of my favorite 'What If' planes. Keep up the excellent work!
This really is a great idea, however I think its main fault is that it came too late. By the time it was first flown in 1940, monoplanes had already taken over the direction of the field. If this was flown in 1935, when the Hawker Hurricane, Curtiss Hawk series, and Bf 109 were in their infancy, it may have made a compelling argument. Early models of the contemporary WWII fighters in 1935 could only muster speeds in the range of 300-330 mph. If the IS-1 could approach 300 mph, then this would be competitive in 1935.
The real question I have is climb and stall performance. Certainly, the aircraft would have enjoyed some increased flight performance in these areas due to increased lift of a second wing, but with huge scallops in the underside of the upper wing, how much extra lift did the aircraft actually produce? In straight-tapered wings, like the one fitted to both the IS aircraft, most lift is actually generated in the centermost sections of the wings. Ruining the shape of the airfoil near the center would not be a trivial reduction in the lift of the upper wing when the lower wing is deployed. This begs the question: could the IS aircraft climb faster or fly slower than its contemporary monowing competition?
Too bad the data is so scarce and unreliable. This would truly be an intriguing concept if it worked.
The scallops in the bottom of the upper wing, if properly shaped, might actually increase the lift the upper wing produced at low speed, with an insane increase in drag.
This concept would have done well on aircraft carriers up until about 1940, carrying a fairly good load off of a short flight deck or off a slow carrier. As soon as the A6M and F4F enter service, it's over though. The feature might have been useful for carrier based strike aircraft into 1941, but would have expired by mid year.
Most soviet fighters where biplanes and where slow at the beginning of ww2
It is a joy to hear good material without distracting background music, thanks, ^oo^
This channel is a treasure trove of fascinating information about lesser known aircraft.
Glad you enjoy it :)
One thing that's noticeable from the photos (see 1:35 and 2:08 ) is that some of them show the IS-1 with a two-bladed propeller and a less pointed spinner. An assembly which looks like it came straight off an I-16. Most likely that was the initial fit when they were rushing to try to get it flying for Stalin's parade, and making maximum use of existing components. While the rest of the photos show the three-bladed prop and a more streamlined spinner. Probably what the design team had intended all along.
Also, it kind of surprised me that (unlike the later IS series of heavy tanks), sharing Stalin's initials seems to have been a complete coincidence with these planes.
You scared me with the transformers sound effect!
In an alternate steampunk universe, the day operation Barbarossa began, Stalin shouted: "Release the polymorphic fighters!"
Jokes aside, great video!
The landing gear retraction and wing folding seem to be carried out by the same mechanism, which looks like a worm gear and sliding linkage. That was going to make both processes slow, not someting that would aid an interceptor trying to climb quickly. Also, if that mechanism jams in the middle of the wing fold cycle it's going to ensure some very interesting aerodynamic behavior and control issues
Didn't know about this one, congrats !!!!
This
Would be an interesting concept for a drone. The wing could have its own motors, batteries, GPS and detach after takeoff and land itself in a controlled way.
Very Gerry Anderson
Maybe someday a video about the Borokov-Florov I-207?
I assume the transformer noise was not edited and is actually what it sounds like when you put the extra wings up.
It’s easier to change the geometry of one wing. It gets a similar, though less drastic, result with much less penalties, and so that’s the design method that has been used.
Ha ha ha that Transformer sound! Bravo!
Fold-down lower wing to get off the ground with a heavy bomb load. Could always build a two-engine heavy fighter / bomber for that.
Polymorphic fighters
Damn that's as close as our timeline gets to a transforming fighter
As always, your research is commendable.
Very spiffy! Thanks
Very interesting. A Russian also designed an airplane with telescopic wings. (Just a hint.)
Interesting. A navalised Bf 109, developed for the Graf Zeppelin's airwing, also would have had telescoping wings. Even with that I reckon it would still have been a bitch to manage on a carrier.
Another great video! 👍
Static centre of gravity, variable centre of lift = ballistic trim wheel time! . . . first flight must have been fun - "I'm busy!" : )
Excellent Video
Awesome video as always, thanks!
The pilot is saying, "I want all the advantages of a biplane AND a monoplane in a single aircraft" and the managers, designers, and politicians are all saying, "This is a great idea, we'll make a plane that's both at the same time!" ...all while the janitor in the hall walks away quietly chuckling to himself, "Jack of all trades, master of none..."
I've seen the aircraft before but never had the mechanisms explained. Thanks.
Now this one I knew about. My thoughts when I first came across it was that before being folded the wigs did add extra lift. Whereas once folded away the wing had just become dead weight.
you could king of say the same about folding rear wheels, with higher speeds weight generally becomes less of a problem where as drag gets worse
Kinda cool idea anyway - on to swept & Delta Wings .... pusher props & canards - Bolshies ...
very interesting as always, thanks.
I actually did find an artist rendering as well as "blueprint drawings" of the proposed IS4......pretty sleek looking.
Thanks
Lift has nothing to with climb rate. Climb rate is determined by weight, drag and engine power. Hence 2 of the best climbing WW2 planes are the Bf109 and J2M, both possessing powerful engines and small wings. If anything bi planes climb worse due to extra weight from the wings.
I have always thought the X-WING from star wars would be possible with fly by wire, " not sure about AOA stuff and how well it would actually work." But I had never seen anything like this and it made me think of the idea.
there were ideas for x wings. but those would not be on x axis but on y axis. not sure if there is any practical thing about it... maybe for slower drones dont know...
keep the nose light, engines and fuel to the rear, and use flying wing aerodynamic design and it should be possible.
I don't think the Soviet system would've produced reliable test results. People would be more likely to report the results their leaders wanted.
The transformer sound miiiiight be a bit too loud haha
Yeah, the sound always goes weird when I upload.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters It added character.
Agreed. I actually thought my computer speaker just had a seizure and died.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters its never loud enough. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Then came the “Swing Wing” and all was forgiven. Almost... 😎 Well done! Thank you! I’m a commercially licensed pilot and a former USAF museum civilian volunteer... Your channel is amazing!
Thank you, really glad you enjoy my content :)
Ed Nash's Military Matters Thank you so much for your response! It means a lot to me like an autograph!!!
thanks for posting now I know Im not completely mad, I know I had heard of this plane before but could not remember the name or country that had build it
Wow! What did they think of next??
This design reminds me of the Hall Bulldog/Cicada with a fold up sesquiplane.
Some fighters was suffered for small rudder in ground handling, and many pilot killed. Extension which dropped down after takeoff maybe is answer?
Definitely a design from a pilot and not a maintainer. That's a lot of complex engineering in there.
So much of that lower wing is rendered useless by the incorporation of the landing gear, the whole inboard leading edge is missing in most of these images. Fantastic idea though, I bet Vought could have made an interesting bird along these lines of thought.
Well, this plane turned out to be a dead end, but the idea of a wing that changes configuration is good. The F-111, the F-14 and the B-1 come immediately to mind.
it does have pretty wide landing gear. but how much better can it be compared to better flaps and slats and some other stuff you can add on wing.
Interesting.. this was the precursor to the modern swing wing military aircraft… f111, f14, su24, tu160, etc.
Or to the X Wing fighter from Star Wars.
OP, totally agreed. How about taking it in a totally different direction and the V22?
@@AtomicBabel Point, I like the Osprey, too…probably should have included it.
I was just thinking the same thing. Much the same benefits AND disadvantages too - Better performance across a wide speed range, increased weight and complexity.
ME-P1101 was first
I would be scared to pull that wing folding lever….Im not sure if you do Tank Engines but the V2 Diesel in the T-34 and the KV … was the best of WW2 but the designer was shot in Stalin’s Purges
Cool Post ! Thanks ! Post something on the Russian installing ram jets on their biplane fighters in the 1930's .
It would seem that turning the wing-arrangement upside-down, and having the upper-wing retract into the lower would produce a better design.
Given that high-wing monoplanes aren’t the best configuration for a fighter, and all.
That is a neat design
Kinda like early thinking that leads to later jet age sweep wing fighter aircraft. I remember seeing a test aircraft from the 1920's or 1930's were the wings had telescopic wings. or did I see it on this channel?
Not got around to those yet.
Early delta's though:
ruclips.net/video/T9egienxNe4/видео.html
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I just did quick Google and found that telescopic wing plane that I remember it was called Makhonine Mak 10 it was a France plane built by Russian inventor. There a news reel footage that some put on RUclips ruclips.net/video/2GeYBHbLzgw/видео.html
P.S. the Inventor looks like Bela Lugosi
This is an interesting period in aircraft development that passed rapidly as the power and speed of airplanes advanced. Obviously the monoplane configuration is proven to provide more speed, but the blanket statement that it provides less lift and slower climb can be misleading. A given fuselage can receive an equivalent amount of lift from two wings of shorter span or one wing of longer span. The lower drag for equivalent lift is why the monoplane configuration is superior for almost any airplane unless the wingspan must be restricted for other considerations.
Flying artwork. Looks similar to the GBs
MAN, Taxing, takeoff (never mind landing it) of this aircraft would have been a nightmare with the cockpit and the main wing location, guess that why the looked at making it a tri
Polymorphism will come of age as we develop suitable metamaterials. Concorde showed that shape changing aircraft do get actual benefits. But relying purely on mechanical systems is inefficient, except for the simplest options, like ailerons and rudders.
L00ks both like a "wing~Ding" & a "shin~dig"...
Upon seeing that Hurricane again at the start of the video, I imagined the top wing being able somehow to merge with the lower!
Are there any chances for you to make video on pzl p.7/11/24 series? Or you find them too successful due to their wide spread use by many nations?
Oh no! I certainly want to yhem at some point. Plus the p.50, if I can find enough material.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I would be willing to translate some material from polish to English for you, so better save my e-mail for that day.
Making wartime planes abserdly more complicated is generally contraindicated.
It is a clever design.👍🙂👍
So little information on such a remarkable ahead-of-it's-time plane!
Big risk of damaging the folding mechanism by forces on the undercarriage during heavy takeoffs and landings.
I hoped you would bring a video about this, thanks!
Ed I've come to the conclusion that Sherlock Holmes had nothing on you.
The Soviet I S "transformer" aircraft program I knew very little about great job!!
More great stuff Ed, I am worried there are loads more aircraft I've never yet heard of. If Stalin said he liked it then the sycophants wouldn't dare not to put it into production. Great technical prowess but, nonetheless, not the right plane for the time
Oooo...suspect I've got a few more odd ones for you yet :)
Its a biplane ! Its a monoplane ! ... its whatever keeps me out of the gulag !
Effectively they should've foreshadowed weight's problems, and we can add the overcomplexity of the whole thing. These things would've voided any (hypothetical) design's benefits.
Maybe they selected the original conformed to the Policarpov i153 so they could do a direct comparison - after all, if the new design gave a large increase in performance then there were all these existing airframes which may be altered to the polymorphic design faster and cheaper than starting out from scratch.
Personally I wonder how if this design thinking could have improved British aircraft flying off our tiny (convoy) escort carriers -they might have had to develop a fold-down upper wing to maintain usable hard points on the bottom wing.
IF what you want is a very high performance wing with minimal drag and yet access to surprisingly slow landing speeds look no further than the delta wing ..... And if you want a degree of stability take a leaf out of Eurofighter Typhoon's book and stuff a canard on the front.
Donwsides? Well, if you loose power it has lousy glide characteristics and in some configurations it can become horribly unstable.
But fast? Hell yes.
Oh yes indeed!:
ruclips.net/video/T9egienxNe4/видео.html
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Hell you were already there !
Cheers Ed - *another* top video.
part biplane, part monoplane, all badasski!
Polymorphic = "it's a transformer"... Hence Ed including the sound effect of a transformer transforming in the video.
How would you like to be the test pilot that had to pull that lever for the first time in flight? And wonder what was going to happen?
I wonder why they didn't make the upper wing lower, instead of having the lower wing raise? I imagine the visibility was pretty awful the way it was designed. And it would be easier to lower the wing simply because of gravity. Also, you could make the lower wing stronger if it was fixed, which would be a more reliable platform for the landing gear. Plus, if the wing mechanism failed, you should still able to land safely assuming the landing gear still works. Even if it didn't, I'd still imagine this way would still be better. And finally, with the upper wing lowered, it would more closely resemble a modern monoplane. Which I'm sure has some advantage, otherwise it wouldn't be standard.
When it's a biplane, the lower wing folding leaves the upper wing larger than the lower wing, which is common among biplanes. Having a recess in the top of the lower wing would completely destroy it's lifting qualities and do very interesting things to the aircrafts controls as the upper wing retracts.
The recess in the bottom of the upper wing, if shaped properly, makes it an undercamber airfoil, which is very good for generating lift a low speeds, while adding enormous amounts of drag.
Visibility isn't any worse than the Biplane it was based on, which wasn't good to begin with. The biggest problem isn't as much the wings location, but rather that the pilot sits so far aft, with a very wide fuselage in the way.
@@SgtBeltfed I imagined the recess being in the top wing, with it being dropped over the lower wing. The recess has to be there regardless, so the additional drag has to be accepted for this concept to work. And once the wings were together, wouldn't that become a non-issue? As for the visibility, yeah it's a bit of an awkward design. A bit strange they choose to model to whole fuselage in a similar manner. I understand why - it's mentioned in the video. But still strange. It still seems from looking at the pictures and not actually being in the plane.. that a lower wing might help. It reminds me of the Yugoslav fighter I believe I also saw on this channel. It was a monoplane, but the wing was in a similar position, and caused visibility issues. But idk, I'm not an engineer and the people making this plane were alot smarter than me. Lol.
@@154Kilroy Having the upper wing wrap over the top of the lower wing would put control surfaces on the moving parts of the upper wing, which would entail even more troubles, especially as they have to function while the wing is folding and unfolding. I doubt the lower wing on the original had any control surfaces at all, and it was just a lifting surface. This is similar to many normal biplanes as well, where they only have ailerons on one set of wings for simplicity sake.
The idea, were it developed, might have made a good aircraft carrier plane.
Yes Ed. You've done it again ! No idea at all ! Although that comment could be aimed at the nitikin ! Aircraft designers certainly had very imaginative ideas in this period that's for sure ! Oh well , l'd better go and polymorph my rusty old bag of nails into an "e"type ! 🤣🤣🤣 Thanks Ed.
Got here faster than a jet slip-wing biplane!
I think it would have been better for the top wing to lower to the bottom wing
A real "X-Wing." This is very interesting . . . .
Pilot visibility must have been atrocious.
fme that transformer sound is like epic loud haha
How could the pilot see where he was going?
How much could the pilot see?
nailed it
It looks like it had realy bad visibility
Again, interesting.
How come the older I get the cartoons I watched as a kid seem less outlandish?
Clever stuff
I'm so glad you gave us a video on the real life x-wing.
That type would fit right in to a fictional univese
The greatest weakness of the design is the limited view from the cockpit.
View would be about like that of an I-153
I lost it when i heard the Transformers sound 😁
It's really quite odd that no one picked up on the Wright Flyer in all of Europe and *"wing warping"* to add to that a canard wing forward of the pilot as a control surface (bi-plane/box wing even.)
Anyhow the US Navy sure loved the idea as the Wright Flyer was the inspiration for building US Aircraft Carriers in the first instance ($cw Curtis-Wright still in business and going strong very much so right now today.)
Anyhow just as important to a still revolutionary design for flight was the holistic system of the "launch system" which was also fitted upon US Aircraft Carrier ... plus twin pusher motors no less! Instead indeed all of the Western Powers went *"ALL OUT"* with hydraulics and wheels which had cataclysmic results for all their respective economies in World War 2 given the inefficiencies, incredible expense, time consumption and ultimately waste that resulted from all of this extraordinary effort.
One interest application of the Wright Flyer in modern application would be the UH-1 "Huey" Iroquois Helicopter which used skids and not tires...a very wise choice given how flammable tires are and can be just in regular use.
One interesting approach in perhaps a nod to the Wright Flyer was the massive Nazi German Transport Plane "Gigant" which was a straight up glider...easily the largest glider not only ever made but also used in combat.
Obviously the Anglo-Americans made prodigious use of "glider support" on or about 1944-1945 as well though obviously not on this scale.
Of course the Germans had no dedicated Airframe to tow said glider which was absolutely not the case for the Anglo-Americans in World War 2.
The Gigant was powered by six Gnome-Rhone radials and was BASED on a glider. And the Germans built the Heinkel He-111Z "Zwilling" to tow the glider variant.
I think this plane was just not that viable, especially since the Polikarpov I-153 proved to be a reasonable fighter and could easily be produced off the same line producing the I-15.
Interesting 🧐.
Well i think it was interesting design, but too complex for war economy needs. Soviet union had hard time with aluminium supply as it was and making heavy planes made from plywood even more heavier wasn't the best idea. After the war jet era made any radial close to obsolete.
This plane looks like the Polikarpov planes.