Enjoy your channel. Your discussion about shock waves reminds me of my first jet trip to Europe. On the return on a B-707, I was sitting over the wing and noticed a visible air disturbance about midway back from the leading edge. This disturbance moved back and forth slightly. I showed it to a stewardess and asked her if that was a shock wave. She said she would ask the pilot. When she returned she said the pilot said no, the copilot said yes and the flight engineer said probably. I think the sunlight bouncing off the wing was becoming polarized thus making the shock wave visible.
I'm so glad I found this channel! I may not be a pilot, but I've always been interested aviation. Thanks for providing great content for us to consume.
Antonio, I am a Private Pilot and these videos are super great, I have learned so much from this Channel. I thought I knew everything and next thing I know, SURPRISE :-) Keep Learning
Petter, I started watching your videos a few months ago and have greatly enjoyed each of them. This round vs. pointy nose explanation was a really good one, and there's something I'd like to add. At supersonic speeds the nose shock can be either "attached" (coming from the tip of the nose), which is lower drag, or "detached" (forming in front of the aircraft entirely), which is higher drag. Pointy noses tend to have attached shocks and round noses tend to have detached shocks, and you can see examples if you Google "attached shock Schlieren" and "blunt body Schlieren" (Schlieren is a kind of photography that basically allows you to "see" air movement and shocks). The thing with round noses is that having a detached shock adds a further drag penalty on top of what you already mentioned, making it waaay worse than a pointy nose for flying fast. There are actually pros to having a round nose and a detached shock in some cases (like space capsules- the shock keeps some of the reentry heat away from the capsule itself, and round noses may have less sonic boom noise), but for most aircraft the drag penalty is more important.
Another great instructive video. Thank you. Also, your command of English and your diction is incredibly good, especially for a non native speaker! My favorite channel right now. Keep it up!
The nose on the 787 is also drooped slightly due to the way airplanes sit in the air when flying. If you look at the 747 in flight, you will notice it sits with the nose slightly raised due to air pushing the front up. This kind of means the plane is hitting more air than it should due to the angle. The 787 utilities this observation of sitting in the air by aligning the nose in the 'actual' direction the air is hitting the air frame, reducing drag :)
So does this mean the fuselage of any commercial airplane is always tilted upwards a little during cruise? Very interesting, never knew this. And pardon my ignorance and lack of knowledge but isn’t that something the angle of the wings could counteract or would that be dangerous because of the nose then wanting to point downwards when reducing speed (as with landings)? I love to learn about this kind of stuff! :)
Mentour Pilot and Video Crew, being a mostly expert in aviation, didn't think about the differences on NOSES. So interesting. Keep up the great work, just like your other videos.
Another excellent and informative video, new sub here. :) Would you consider doing a video about wing chord/camber shapes and dihedral/anhedral/polyhedral wings, and how these designs have changed over time? From birds to aircraft... there are so many subtle and not-so-subtle differences in wing design, but they all provide lift, optimised in different ways. I think a video about the "hows and whys" of these design differences would be fascinating for many people, I've always found it to be a very interesting part of aerodynamics (you touched on some of the same aspects in this video, the different types of drag at different airspeeds and the fact that everything in aviation is done for a reason, usually involving aerodynamics). It would also be a good chance to learn a bit of aviation history which is never a bad thing. :)
My favorite, is the nose and cockpit windows of the B757. The shape is somewhat like the A320, just in front of the windshield. The B757, is so much like a sub-sonic dart, with it's powerful engines.
There is also an icing issue. The blunter nose is less prone to icing. Cessna stuck to their blunt nose while Learjet went to a sexier sharper nose. Learjet needs a de-ice system for the radome while Cessna does not. The newer nose on the 787 has some geometric curvature control (the second derivative for the equation of the surface for you math heads) designed in. The traditional nose shape used on the older Boeing and even the newer Airbus causes a rapid change in surface direction just above the windshield on the canopy. That rapid change causes the slip steam to go supersonic just above the pilot's head when the aircraft's speed is in the transonic region and a sonic shock wave forms there. That cause a lot of wave drag and a lot of noise in the cockpit. The flight crew perceives it as wind noise. The newer 787 nose gets rid of the kink at the bottom of the windshield and allows a "softening" of that local curvature on the canopy. That lowers the slipstream speed and gets rid of the wave drag while quieting the cockpit. So the older airplane company leaped ahead with the 787 design.
I guess the reason for the shape of the aircraft older than 787 is that it is easier and cheaper to create a window without too much optical abbreviation if it is flat and not too much inclined. Now the material technology is better and it is possible to make curved windows that are acceptable both from an optical an economical point of view.
Yep, exactly. To maintain optical clarity with a glass windshield, the windshield has to be either flat or what is called a flat wrap design. Glass only likes to bend in one direction without distorting your view looking through it. So the older designs were a best compromise between a flat windshield and the aero requirements. Also, we say that glass is heavier than aluminum. So we tried to minimize the size of the glass windshield while providing the view needed by the pilots. That is the name of the game for engineering, finding the best compromise. And you know what a perfect compromise is; when no-one goes away happy.
Very good reply. As long as you're not trans-sonic, a blunter nose is actually better. That flips when you blow past Mach 1, though. Then a "pointier" nose is better. Also, as Mentour Pilot explains in his very good videos, a blunter nose has more room for the weather radar. Cheers!
@@adrianfirewalker4183: Yeah, that would be supper except transparent don't mean the light rays don't bet bent as they go through. So the view would be quiet distorted. You would then have to do something to straighten or correct the light rays so the pilot could get a good view of the world. And you know how distorted a view commercial pilots have of the world. You would have to employ Frits Zernike's polynomials to straighten out the pilot again. (A little "Big Bang show humor here. You know, a Sheldon joke that no one else gets.)
As i mentioned before, i used to work at an aircraft salvage yard, and have removed many b737 nose cones (radomes) and the weather radar dish, and the ils antennas which are all in there There really interesting aircraft to work on, the main gear bay is full of hydraulic pipes and wires, i have stood on the bridge between the main gear wheels whilst the gear has been retracted, and done loads of other neat stuff I even took all the doors off the Insides of the wing tanks, and crawled up inside the wings to as close to the tip as a person can get I have been in the avionics bay, i have sat in the cockpit listening to atc on my break, and actually ate my sandwiches in the captains seat, and drank coffee 😁 I have started and shut down apu's and engines on the b737 I have even towed a b737 around from taxi way to parking pan with a tug 😁 Another neat thing i did was, me and the crew taxied a b737 from the runway to the parking pan under its own power, when unfortunately the ferry pilots were drunk, they literally stopped the aircraft on the runway, opened the external door, lowered themselves out onto the runway, ran off, jumped over the airport perimeter fence and continued running, got into a car which was waiting close to the airport, and were driven away So, me and the crew had to jump up and grab onto the step, lift ourselves up into the aircraft with no stairs, and both engines still running, and taxi it ourselves Like i said, some neat stuff 😁
Mentour please talk about what impact a nose shape has on NOISE in the cockpit. I have heard one brand's noise level in the cockpit is LESS because a boundary layer suppresses sound. I wont spoil the answer but please cover the issue. Thanks for this video it was great.
yes, thanks so much, very clear. I would imagine that there is a speed zone where its not so clear which one is the most efficient and not just crossing the speed of sound. I also wonder if a constant diameter fuselage is actually less efficient than an varying diameter egg shape. Of course we all know which is more practical.
The wing roots affect the optimal fuselage cross sectional area in the mid section verses for and aft, I recall reading somewhere that a coke bottle shape is good for craft with wings. For submarines and subsonic projectiles an elongated egg shape with a length/width aspect of around 8:1 is optimal, but using a much more practical cylindrical center section only minimally reduces efficiency, similarly using higher length ratios also only has a minimal effect.
My tech...I have noticed the wing roots zone of the fuselage transition shape. It made me think there is actually only one continuous wing that the fuselage sits on.
Apparently the Yamato battleship had a rounded bulge at the bottom of the hull to cause the 'rumor' effect and create less drag. Nice video and thanks for the definitions on the screen.
I just wanted to say that every time I get an alert saying you posted a new video it makes my day. You're one of the RUclips channels that I can't wait to get updates from!
Its great to watch such an enthusiastic presenter that is highly considerate of his audience. Glad I found this channel. Lots of fascinating content! Good stuff!
VERY GOOD AND PROFESSIONAL EXPLANATION , NOT EXPLOATING THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE MOST OF US HAVE ON THIS TOPIC. YOUR HUMBLE AND DIDACTICAL APPROACH MAKE YOUR EXPLANATIONS EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND HAVE A GREAT RECREACIONAL AND INFORMATIV VALUE. CHEERS AND THANKS A LOT . SWED ??
Minor point: 787 radome is probably not carbon fiber, as carbon fiber is somewhat conductive, and that interferes with passing radar waves. Radome materials must be structurally sound, obviously, but electromagnetic properties are the big driver in material selection. Fiberglass is heavier, less stiff, and less strong, but it's a much better dielectric. And a piece of trivia: Despite the hype, and the fact that most of the fuselage and wing primary structure is carbon/epoxy, only about half the total structural weight of the '87 is carbon composite. There is a considerable amount of fiberglass composite and titanium, and the steal landing gear structure is, as always, quite heavy.
You are very informative in your videos Mr. Mentour pilot... All your videos are great.... The more I watch... The more I want to watch n learn. Now as ive said before im not a pilot however I love and enjoy studying Aviation and any thing to do with flight and even Space.. Your Channel is so easy to watch and understand... Just want to let you know your videos are very much appreciated... Thank you Sir.
Very informative & well-presented. This is not not a topic that I would have thought to ask about so I'm glad that someone else did. I really like the way that you're blending in the pitches about the sponsors. It doesn't distract from the main content yet still gets the sponsor's message in front of the students that you have here.
Hello Mentour! Thanks for this video. I do not know if you did any broadcasts on turbofan, turbojet, turboprop engines and their differences, but if you did not would be great to see your explanations. Thanx in advance.
I worked on Grumman's A-6A Intruder for a decade during it's Weapons development phase. I loved the A-6 design except for the nose Radome. It covered both the Search Az Sweep (upper) and the Tracking/Terrain /EL clearance radar(lower)Radars. It had a large (high) subsonic speed envelope and a 90KTapproach speed and a Mach.85 Max speed. It was a pilots A/C. as Perfectly suited for an attack Bomber as possible. I designed an attack flight profile for its Nuclear mission, High-lo-high in this case. A fun job for my initiation into military A/C. I peally enjoy your videos, they often fill in gaps of my knowledge. I wanted to become a pilot, volunteered for the USAF, but was rejected because of a medical problem, So I had my career in Weapons systems test and integration. You are more fortunate than I, you get to fly as well. And get paid for it.
I remember seeing the then-new 707 next to prop planes at the airports--that nose said "I'm so much faster..." The 727 and 737 often replaced prop planes on the short haul routes, so it was still effective advertising into the '70s. The 747 had a look all its own, of course. They didn't have computer modeling back when they got type certs for them, so all the more impressive that there was little to improve. IIRC the more upright windscreen helps visibility, so pilots can lean forward to see ground crew, and had something to do with the limited ability to make laminated glass with complex curves when the original designs were drawn. Jet fighters up to the F-14 used a piece of flat glass straight ahead of the pilot, and still broke some on bird strikes. The conformal front window panels on the 787 were supposed to be enabled by advances in glass-making and the plastic body, and make the flight deck much quieter. Isn't the Airbus quieter without the V-shaped windshield layout of early Boeing?
Another question I have, maybe for a future video is why are modern airliners coming with heavily angled-upward wings? Older airliners had pretty close to horizontal wings (looking at it from the front or back), whereas the latest Boeings and Airbuses have wings that get steadily higher as you go out further. I think the first airliner with this that I noticed was the original Boeing 777, kind of like a soaring eagle's wings.
Hi Mentour. Just some feedback for future videos: it would be cool if we could see two images side by side. I would have liked to have seen the Airbus and Boeing noses beside each other on the video, if possible. Otherwise, I love the videos as ever! I was also wondering - could the Airbus nose design be something to do with the shape of the aircraft, having a larger cockpit behind the nose?
Awesome video as always. I've fallen down the Mentour rabbit hole, getting all the questions I've always had magically answered without having to ask. As others have pointed out, your English is excellent so I thought I'd point out a tiny word distinction to help you get it even better. Oversight and overview have completely different meanings. At 5:16 I think you mean to say overview. I'll let you look them up since dictionaries will have much better definitions than I do. Thanks for these videos!
A few things to understand, first the two forces pressure on the front, and suction on the back. So all subsonic wings have a pressure side on the bottom, and a suction side on the top. Suction is the greater force being something like 60% of lift, where pressure contributes 40%. The point of maximum volume is usually around 30% aft of the nose, as a result aircraft noses are visually more rounded and tails more tapered. The tapered end reduces suction force or extensive drag from the rear of the aircraft. At the same time the greater volume of the flying body more forward is useful for storage of people cargo and fuel. Another consideration is laminar flow. Air will flow around surfaces but has trouble getting around steep curves, so its ok on the nose around the pressure side, and it will stick to a curved top and bottom, but in the end on steep curves like that up front it will want to break away from the surface, releasing itself from smooth laminar flow to go turbulent, where turbulent flow is much more draggy than laminar flow. One more way of looking at this is on the classic wing cross section. The bottom or pressure side is easy to understand, and as long as angles of attack are gentle it will have laminar flow, across the top on the suction side however, it is important to try keep the flow attached for as we have just learned the further aft the top flow can remain attached the more lift the wing provides. As a result the ulterior goal of creating useful volume of the inside of the wing can be achieved for fuel storage, if the curve of the upper surface is a progressively more gentle curve as it goes aft. Supersonic flow is so difficult to achieve all the structures like fuselage and wing need to be much thinner to keep the boundary air attached and maximise laminar flow, as a result the maximum depth of sections like wings and fuselages is further back towards 40% of the section. To maintain smooth lines the curves are necessarily gentler, and the entry of the nose and leading edge of the wing much finer. It becomes apparent that the main result is a thinner less bulbous entry, or finer thinner shaped nose and leading edge section of the wing. Hence the graceful Concorde is quite a narrow low volume cabin, but the fine curves present a much sharper front and even more fine aft. The same rules have been applied to a much thinner body necessary for high speed flight. Finally two governing rules are, circumstances of the aircraft skin tend to rely on areas so are of the square root rule, example wings are of 'x' square feet, where circumstances of force are a cube root rule such as propellers or jets offering 'x' lbs thrust.
I can't take it anymore! I am rolling on the floor laughing. I can't believe how funny this thread got tonight! Stein or keg? ...haven't seen the movie Dictator yet... But, I did read the shape question as far as cylinder vs. egg. I just threw a pencil and an egg across the living room, and must say the results were much better with the pencil! LOL.
Why does the space shuttle have a rounded nose? Do they intentionally want to increase drag when re entering the earth's atmosphere or maybe to create the "bubble" around the aircraft to reduce heat on the rest of the airframe?
They take the reentry heat on the belly in what would be like a stall position in a regular plane. After that they want to slow down anyways and the tremendous heat has already dissipated. They’re more or less like any other airplane just higher and without an engine so they glide it in.
Yes,the initial re-entry phase is done with with the nose tilted up and the belly taking the brunt, but after it levels out the nose creates a wider supersonic schockwave that encompasses the wings to prevent damage, and as shown here the increased drag from that is present only at supersonic speeds.
Well not exactly. It is the pressure wave not a "rumor" in front of the nose of subsonic craft. This wave can only travel the same speed as a sound wave (in gas). The point actually creates the first of and critical bow-wave in supersonic flight. Anything that protrudes from that cone/shock wave creates its own wave and dramatically increase drag and decreases control surface effectiveness. The shape not only helping drag but more importantly the heating the drag generates especially in the nose which has nowhere to radiate the heat. The round nose in contrast gives the most aerodynamic predictability at more angles. A pointier nose generates more dramatic changes aerodynamic forces with slighter changes in AOA. Think of a ski vs saucer sled in the snow.
Theoretically yes (though maybe not the wings. not sure how that would change lift) Main problem would be that aircraft skin is quite thin. so the dimples would be bumps inside which not only would reduce space, but weaken the structural integrity for pressurization etc.
@@Valantir dimpling the metal skin would make it stiffer and harder, wings need a little bit of flexibility. The dimples only reduce the separation of the air around the golf ball due to its geometry. The dimples are like vortex generators. They might help with lowering the stall speed but the drag from the dimples would reduce the cruise speed.
gracias sir! all your videos are very informative, and you really make it so easy to understand the concepts into understanding everything regarding planes, im not a pilot nor in school, but have always been fascinated by planes, you inspire me! thank you for all your videos!
Can you please explain the difference between main landing gear of A350 and B787? I have noticed that the front set of wheels in main landing gear of A350 fall frontwards whereas in B787 / B777 / B747 the rear set of wheels are tilted backwards.. does it have to do with tradition being followed or there is any specific logic behind it?
Nose gear extend/retract forward to allow the gear to extend using gravity and drag (gravity extension) incase of hydraulic failure.. how ever aft extend/retraction allows fuel savings while retract..
@@maxmurden3063 Believe in yourself dude, Yes it's a hard road to get to it, You get what you put in. Work hard and you will be rewarded with your dream.
@@stepheno21 Thanks a lot for the kind words. I have now applied for college to do maths, physics and computer science, which I think is the first step towards my goal. Are you a pilot?
Hi Mentour, That was a great video and a good explanation about airplane noses. I have a question. Are the nose compartments that house the radar equipment pressurized and heated to protect the radar equipment?
The Concorde's nose also had to be hydraulically lowered so that the crew could actually SEE the runway when they were landing. What also complicated matters was the heatshield that fell into place over the canopy glass (during supersonic config, with the nose up) to keep the crew cool. More weight, more complexity. Yet another maintenance issue to deal with. A plane that's not going supersonic doesn't need all that extra gear because it's not going to get as hot. Without the long point nose, they also have an easier time seeing the runway. The business of being able to see over the nose also affects the design of carrier aircraft. Carrier aircraft generally have shorter noses than their land-based counterparts because of the need to see the ship on landing approach. The infamous F-111 had a carrier version of that plane, the B-model, which had a shorter nose to allow the aircrew to see the carrier on approach. It still got cancelled before it went into production partly because of excessive weight (close to 90,000 lbs loaded), partly because of the poor carrier handling characteristics.
Looking at the noses of the 787 and A350, they're pretty similar in profile, no doubt due to developments in computational fluid dynamics and wind-tunnels. Comparing the nose of the Comet to it, i wonder if the similar look is due to a coincidence, or did the De Havilland engineers develop it based on similar thinking. If so, i'm amazed that it didn't end up being more popular between the time of the Comet and 787/A350...
At the end of the day aircraft are heavily constrained by aerodynamics. For whatever minor differences they have you'll notice almost all airliners look pretty similar. Far more so than the average car does. Meanwhile look at trains, and compare the wide variety of sizes, shapes and surface patterns on lower speed ones to the high speed trains, which still retain some individuality, but start to look a lot more alike. And Concorde looks very much like a really large fighter jet. Why? Physics. You can't escape it, only fiddle in the margins. For any given flight regime there is going to be either a single optimal design, or a small number of rather different optimal designs with differing characteristics. Pretty much every aircraft built is going to resemble this theoretical optimal design in all but the most trivial details... However the slower the aircraft the more it can deviate from these optimums because the consequences of it are less severe. The comet was probably designed with careful consideration of aerodynamics, and it's largely still the same flight regime as modern. Too bad about the window thing, or history might've looked rather different...
Renember back in the 70s when "people" were bragging about the russians copying the F-15 with the SU-27/MIG-29? the SU-27 and MIG-29 look very similar because their design bureaus shared aerodynamic data ..and the results were therefor similar.. wich were also similar to the F-15.. because in the end you should reach same or very similar solution for the same problems.. The MIG-25 for example predated the F-15 and was getting there too..
I think that there's a similar reason of aerodynamics that has made all the Le Mans prototype race cars look so much alike. In my opinion many of the modern hypercars coming out also look quite similar, like how there are looks between Aston Martin/Red Bull's ultimate model, Mercedes-Benz hypercar and many others.
KuraIthys, The "DeHavilland thing" was the result of not realizing the effects of cabin pressure on aircraft that would be flying at over 25,000 feet altitude. Propeller planes that flew at over 8,000 feet were pressurized but flew at much lower altitudes than the new jetliners. Jet airliners fly at as much as 38,000-40,000 feet where the outside air pressure
This was boss. Worth every second. Also makes alot of sense seeing that the a350 and the 787 are almost difficult to distinguish due to that nose design.
Thank you, your postings are so informative and well made. On FlightRadar24 we get Indicated Airspeed, Actual Airspeed and Ground speed, What are the differences?
As you increase altitude, the density of the air decreases. This means that there are less particles in the air at higher altitudes in the atmosphere. The speed is measured by these pitot tubes which take in the air particles in order to measure said speed. Obviously as there are less particles of air entering these tubes at higher altitude the pitot tubes take in less and therefore the IAS speed will continue to decrease. Ground speed is the actual speed covered by the aircraft over the ground. True airspeed is, of course, the actual speed of the plane through the air.
To the pilot, IAS (Indicated airspeed) is the most important, and the one used. This is because IAS is measured via the pitot tubes on the aircraft itself (and as such the reading is affected by the wind direction, speed and altitude). Of course, the wing and control surfaces are only as effective as the amount and speed of air passing over them, and the aircraft will handle differently at different Indicated Airspeeds, and these will often not match up with a Ground Speed or True Speed. So to a pilot, IAS is the "true" measure of speed, as it's what defines how the wing operates.
Hello Mentour Pilot, I really love your videos and the way you explain complicated stuff. I have one request that is can you do a video on Aerodynamic Stall and what should be done if it happens? I remember the case with air france flight 447 so it would be really nice if you can make a video on this. Thank you.
Thank you for your very scientific explanation in every topic of your videos !! Could you please teach about the main differences in the shape (as wings, engines, landing gears, windows, nose, etc) of the most important airliners? I mean 737 vs 320; 767 vs 330; 777 vs 340; 787 vs 350 and 747 vs 380
I don't know about aircraft noses, but when I was in college 40 years ago the final assignment for my intro engineering class was to build a model rocket (we used Estes) such that it reached the greatest altitude. I learned quite a bit about aerodynamics. The takeaway was that a paraboloidal shape was best, and Estes made plastic nose cones with that shape. I suspect that minor deviations make little difference.
The 717 is not an original Boeing jet. It was designed by McDonnel Douglas as the MD95. After Boeing bought out Douglas, it renamed the plane as 717 to be consistent with the jet numbering system.
If I'm not mistaken, the 707, 727 and 737 all share the same nose, cockpit windows and fuselage diameter. When seen from the side, from about the L1 door forward, they appear pretty much identical.
You are correct. And the 767 fits there too. That's how you make money in aerospace. If it works and gets certified, use it again, and again, and again.
Correct - but more correct is Douglas. McDonnel didn't really have much to do with the DC-9. Love that bird. I have 2000 hrs as a crew chief in the Navy on those.
Anyone else thought about the movie “The Dictator” and his desire for a pointy nosed missile? I love this channel he explains things with such ease.
yes i did 🤣🤣
Yuuuup
I saw the thumbnail and instantly thought of it
Reminded me of that scene in "The Dictator"
Steven Pappas just an year late.
Pointy is "Scarier" 😂
@@rolandhazuki8787 "The shape of nose has nothing to do with aerodynamics."
Omg same 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Makes "Cut throat" gesture... 😂😂
Enjoy your channel. Your discussion about shock waves reminds me of my first jet trip to Europe. On the return on a B-707, I was sitting over the wing and noticed a visible air disturbance about midway back from the leading edge. This disturbance moved back and forth slightly. I showed it to a stewardess and asked her if that was a shock wave. She said she would ask the pilot. When she returned she said the pilot said no, the copilot said yes and the flight engineer said probably. I think the sunlight bouncing off the wing was becoming polarized thus making the shock wave visible.
I'm so glad I found this channel! I may not be a pilot, but I've always been interested aviation. Thanks for providing great content for us to consume.
Antonio, I am a Private Pilot and these videos are super great, I have learned so much from this Channel. I thought I knew everything and next thing I know, SURPRISE :-) Keep Learning
Maybe you should be or maybe u should be working in aviation 🤷🏽♀️
What Antonio said
Petter, I started watching your videos a few months ago and have greatly enjoyed each of them. This round vs. pointy nose explanation was a really good one, and there's something I'd like to add. At supersonic speeds the nose shock can be either "attached" (coming from the tip of the nose), which is lower drag, or "detached" (forming in front of the aircraft entirely), which is higher drag. Pointy noses tend to have attached shocks and round noses tend to have detached shocks, and you can see examples if you Google "attached shock Schlieren" and "blunt body Schlieren" (Schlieren is a kind of photography that basically allows you to "see" air movement and shocks). The thing with round noses is that having a detached shock adds a further drag penalty on top of what you already mentioned, making it waaay worse than a pointy nose for flying fast. There are actually pros to having a round nose and a detached shock in some cases (like space capsules- the shock keeps some of the reentry heat away from the capsule itself, and round noses may have less sonic boom noise), but for most aircraft the drag penalty is more important.
It’s been three years and you only have one like, I will like your comment and I want you to know I appreciate what you said
This is an unusual concept and many may not grasp it but it is interesting to know the varying shapes are not just for style.
I think Airbus made the nose rounder is to prevent not only trademarks claim case from Boeing but also prevent design copyright case!!!😜😂😝😛🤣
Another great instructive video. Thank you. Also, your command of English and your diction is incredibly good, especially for a non native speaker! My favorite channel right now. Keep it up!
"...there's a rumour spreading..." Best description ever. I'm stealing that line to teach my students.
Very good explanation! I've gone supersonic and the vibration from what you are explaining can never be understated!
This is really one of the best in this series of aviation lectures. Fuel tanks in the wings was great as well.
That's the best explanation of the differences between sub and supersonic speeds and how it affects aerodynamics I've heard. Thankyou Petter.
"If it is not pointy, it will hit and bounce back to us. Boom."
The Dictator 😂😂
"Round is not scary, pointy is scary"
The nose on the 787 is also drooped slightly due to the way airplanes sit in the air when flying. If you look at the 747 in flight, you will notice it sits with the nose slightly raised due to air pushing the front up. This kind of means the plane is hitting more air than it should due to the angle. The 787 utilities this observation of sitting in the air by aligning the nose in the 'actual' direction the air is hitting the air frame, reducing drag :)
So does this mean the fuselage of any commercial airplane is always tilted upwards a little during cruise? Very interesting, never knew this. And pardon my ignorance and lack of knowledge but isn’t that something the angle of the wings could counteract or would that be dangerous because of the nose then wanting to point downwards when reducing speed (as with landings)? I love to learn about this kind of stuff! :)
Probably going to study the Dakota nose.
Why not tilt the wings up (angle of attack) to compensate and keep whole fuselage axis parallel to direction of flight?
Mentour Pilot and Video Crew, being a mostly expert in aviation, didn't think about the differences on NOSES. So interesting. Keep up the great work, just like your other videos.
Your format and techniques are the perfect RUclips model. Very well done videos, both technically and content-wise.
I like your use of the word "rumor"! It's the perfect way to talk about the bow wave without using jargon or math.
Another excellent and informative video, new sub here. :)
Would you consider doing a video about wing chord/camber shapes and dihedral/anhedral/polyhedral wings, and how these designs have changed over time? From birds to aircraft... there are so many subtle and not-so-subtle differences in wing design, but they all provide lift, optimised in different ways. I think a video about the "hows and whys" of these design differences would be fascinating for many people, I've always found it to be a very interesting part of aerodynamics (you touched on some of the same aspects in this video, the different types of drag at different airspeeds and the fact that everything in aviation is done for a reason, usually involving aerodynamics). It would also be a good chance to learn a bit of aviation history which is never a bad thing. :)
My favorite, is the nose and cockpit windows of the B757. The shape is somewhat like the A320, just in front of the windshield. The B757, is so much like a sub-sonic dart, with it's powerful engines.
There is also an icing issue. The blunter nose is less prone to icing. Cessna stuck to their blunt nose while Learjet went to a sexier sharper nose. Learjet needs a de-ice system for the radome while Cessna does not. The newer nose on the 787 has some geometric curvature control (the second derivative for the equation of the surface for you math heads) designed in. The traditional nose shape used on the older Boeing and even the newer Airbus causes a rapid change in surface direction just above the windshield on the canopy. That rapid change causes the slip steam to go supersonic just above the pilot's head when the aircraft's speed is in the transonic region and a sonic shock wave forms there. That cause a lot of wave drag and a lot of noise in the cockpit. The flight crew perceives it as wind noise. The newer 787 nose gets rid of the kink at the bottom of the windshield and allows a "softening" of that local curvature on the canopy. That lowers the slipstream speed and gets rid of the wave drag while quieting the cockpit. So the older airplane company leaped ahead with the 787 design.
I guess the reason for the shape of the aircraft older than 787 is that it is easier and cheaper to create a window without too much optical abbreviation if it is flat and not too much inclined. Now the material technology is better and it is possible to make curved windows that are acceptable both from an optical an economical point of view.
Yep, exactly. To maintain optical clarity with a glass windshield, the windshield has to be either flat or what is called a flat wrap design. Glass only likes to bend in one direction without distorting your view looking through it. So the older designs were a best compromise between a flat windshield and the aero requirements. Also, we say that glass is heavier than aluminum. So we tried to minimize the size of the glass windshield while providing the view needed by the pilots. That is the name of the game for engineering, finding the best compromise. And you know what a perfect compromise is; when no-one goes away happy.
Very good reply. As long as you're not trans-sonic, a blunter nose is actually better. That flips when you blow past Mach 1, though. Then a "pointier" nose is better. Also, as Mentour Pilot explains in his very good videos, a blunter nose has more room for the weather radar. Cheers!
@@skytrainii8933
Just use transparent aluminum. Best of both worlds, but expensive
@@adrianfirewalker4183: Yeah, that would be supper except transparent don't mean the light rays don't bet bent as they go through. So the view would be quiet distorted. You would then have to do something to straighten or correct the light rays so the pilot could get a good view of the world. And you know how distorted a view commercial pilots have of the world. You would have to employ Frits Zernike's polynomials to straighten out the pilot again. (A little "Big Bang show humor here. You know, a Sheldon joke that no one else gets.)
As i mentioned before, i used to work at an aircraft salvage yard, and have removed many b737 nose cones (radomes) and the weather radar dish, and the ils antennas which are all in there
There really interesting aircraft to work on, the main gear bay is full of hydraulic pipes and wires, i have stood on the bridge between the main gear wheels whilst the gear has been retracted, and done loads of other neat stuff
I even took all the doors off the Insides of the wing tanks, and crawled up inside the wings to as close to the tip as a person can get
I have been in the avionics bay, i have sat in the cockpit listening to atc on my break, and actually ate my sandwiches in the captains seat, and drank coffee 😁
I have started and shut down apu's and engines on the b737
I have even towed a b737 around from taxi way to parking pan with a tug 😁
Another neat thing i did was, me and the crew taxied a b737 from the runway to the parking pan under its own power, when unfortunately the ferry pilots were drunk, they literally stopped the aircraft on the runway, opened the external door, lowered themselves out onto the runway, ran off, jumped over the airport perimeter fence and continued running, got into a car which was waiting close to the airport, and were driven away
So, me and the crew had to jump up and grab onto the step, lift ourselves up into the aircraft with no stairs, and both engines still running, and taxi it ourselves
Like i said, some neat stuff 😁
Mentour please talk about what impact a nose shape has on NOISE in the cockpit. I have heard one brand's noise level in the cockpit is LESS because a boundary layer suppresses sound.
I wont spoil the answer but please cover the issue. Thanks for this video it was great.
This was a really enjoyable video! Both informative and well explained :) Great job!
Very interesting and well explained. You cleared up some doubts that I've had for years.
Excellent!
yes, thanks so much, very clear. I would imagine that there is a speed zone where its not so clear which one is the most efficient and not just crossing the speed of sound. I also wonder if a constant diameter fuselage is actually less efficient than an varying diameter egg shape. Of course we all know which is more practical.
The wing roots affect the optimal fuselage cross sectional area in the mid section verses for and aft, I recall reading somewhere that a coke bottle shape is good for craft with wings. For submarines and subsonic projectiles an elongated egg shape with a length/width aspect of around 8:1 is optimal, but using a much more practical cylindrical center section only minimally reduces efficiency, similarly using higher length ratios also only has a minimal effect.
My tech...I have noticed the wing roots zone of the fuselage transition shape. It made me think there is actually only one continuous wing that the fuselage sits on.
I just love your videos!! So well executed and so educational and also so fun!!!!
Thank you .
The first time I've even begun to understand the difference between subsonic and supersonic drag. Wonderful explanation.
Learning new things every Friday! Thanks Captain!
Where is the dog? I miss it.
Apparently the Yamato battleship had a rounded bulge at the bottom of the hull to cause the 'rumor' effect and create less drag. Nice video and thanks for the definitions on the screen.
This reminds me of Nadal and Aladdeen in The Dictator.
Nuclear Nadal :D
I just wanted to say that every time I get an alert saying you posted a new video it makes my day. You're one of the RUclips channels that I can't wait to get updates from!
Its great to watch such an enthusiastic presenter that is highly considerate of his audience. Glad I found this channel. Lots of fascinating content! Good stuff!
Hi! Welcome to the channel, I’m really glad you like it!
VERY GOOD AND PROFESSIONAL EXPLANATION ,
NOT EXPLOATING THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE MOST OF US HAVE ON THIS TOPIC.
YOUR HUMBLE AND DIDACTICAL APPROACH MAKE YOUR EXPLANATIONS EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND HAVE A GREAT RECREACIONAL AND INFORMATIV VALUE.
CHEERS AND THANKS A LOT .
SWED ??
I loved this video! I think this was one of the best videos that you’ve created! Keep up the great work Mentour!
Are you kidding ?
I just love the simple explanation.
Minor point: 787 radome is probably not carbon fiber, as carbon fiber is somewhat conductive, and that interferes with passing radar waves. Radome materials must be structurally sound, obviously, but electromagnetic properties are the big driver in material selection. Fiberglass is heavier, less stiff, and less strong, but it's a much better dielectric.
And a piece of trivia: Despite the hype, and the fact that most of the fuselage and wing primary structure is carbon/epoxy, only about half the total structural weight of the '87 is carbon composite. There is a considerable amount of fiberglass composite and titanium, and the steal landing gear structure is, as always, quite heavy.
The radom is made out of Aramid ,better kowen as Kevlar, due to the impact strength
You are very informative in your videos Mr. Mentour pilot... All your videos are great.... The more I watch... The more I want to watch n learn. Now as ive said before im not a pilot however I love and enjoy studying Aviation and any thing to do with flight and even Space.. Your Channel is so easy to watch and understand... Just want to let you know your videos are very much appreciated... Thank you Sir.
Great explanation mate! Deeply saddened by the incident regarding a Boeing 737 today. Fly safe Petter!
Thank you!
That was an A319
Freckles057 nop a Cubana 737 crashed in Cuba after Take Off
link me it
What?! Wow.
Very informative & well-presented. This is not not a topic that I would have thought to ask about so I'm glad that someone else did. I really like the way that you're blending in the pitches about the sponsors. It doesn't distract from the main content yet still gets the sponsor's message in front of the students that you have here.
"It's too round at the top .. it needs to be pointy"
ThAt'S wHaT sHe SaId...
You sir are a great teacher
Hi Mentour!! Could you make a video addressing T-tails and conventional tails, and wing mounted engines and fuselage mounted engines?
a great simple explanation of the sonic boom
2 videos in 2 days. Awesoome!
Great that you like it!
A new podcast and another absolutely fantastic day. Morning coffee / tea + Mentour Pilot and the day can begin.
I like the noses on the DC-9/MD-80/Boeing 717. I just think they look cute. I can't explain...
Your passion for sharing knowledge is awesome. Keep up the great work mate.!
Hello Mentour!
Thanks for this video. I do not know if you did any broadcasts on turbofan, turbojet, turboprop engines and their differences, but if you did not would be great to see your explanations. Thanx in advance.
Thanks for all your post - very enjoyable.
Thank you for sharing this wonderful nuggets of knowledge with us.
I worked on Grumman's A-6A Intruder for a decade during it's Weapons development phase. I loved the A-6 design except for the nose Radome. It covered both the Search Az Sweep (upper) and the Tracking/Terrain /EL clearance radar(lower)Radars. It had a large (high) subsonic speed envelope and a 90KTapproach speed and a Mach.85 Max speed. It was a pilots A/C. as Perfectly suited for an attack Bomber as possible. I designed an attack flight profile for its Nuclear mission, High-lo-high in this case. A fun job for my initiation into military A/C. I peally enjoy your videos, they often fill in gaps of my knowledge. I wanted to become a pilot, volunteered for the USAF, but was rejected because of a medical problem, So I had my career in Weapons systems test and integration. You are more fortunate than I, you get to fly as well. And get paid for it.
Nuclear nadal should design the pointy nose again.Point is more scary.
I remember seeing the then-new 707 next to prop planes at the airports--that nose said "I'm so much faster..." The 727 and 737 often replaced prop planes on the short haul routes, so it was still effective advertising into the '70s. The 747 had a look all its own, of course. They didn't have computer modeling back when they got type certs for them, so all the more impressive that there was little to improve. IIRC the more upright windscreen helps visibility, so pilots can lean forward to see ground crew, and had something to do with the limited ability to make laminated glass with complex curves when the original designs were drawn. Jet fighters up to the F-14 used a piece of flat glass straight ahead of the pilot, and still broke some on bird strikes. The conformal front window panels on the 787 were supposed to be enabled by advances in glass-making and the plastic body, and make the flight deck much quieter. Isn't the Airbus quieter without the V-shaped windshield layout of early Boeing?
Another question I have, maybe for a future video is why are modern airliners coming with heavily angled-upward wings? Older airliners had pretty close to horizontal wings (looking at it from the front or back), whereas the latest Boeings and Airbuses have wings that get steadily higher as you go out further. I think the first airliner with this that I noticed was the original Boeing 777, kind of like a soaring eagle's wings.
That's called "dihedral" in case you wanted to look it up.
They scraped wingtips for upward wings, which has the same function, but is more efficent
Which is why I love the Comet :) IIt was also used on the Sud Aviation Caravelle.
Hi Mentour. Just some feedback for future videos: it would be cool if we could see two images side by side. I would have liked to have seen the Airbus and Boeing noses beside each other on the video, if possible. Otherwise, I love the videos as ever!
I was also wondering - could the Airbus nose design be something to do with the shape of the aircraft, having a larger cockpit behind the nose?
Awesome video as always. I've fallen down the Mentour rabbit hole, getting all the questions I've always had magically answered without having to ask.
As others have pointed out, your English is excellent so I thought I'd point out a tiny word distinction to help you get it even better. Oversight and overview have completely different meanings. At 5:16 I think you mean to say overview. I'll let you look them up since dictionaries will have much better definitions than I do.
Thanks for these videos!
Another excellent, informative video ! Thanks for taking the trouble to make these videos.
A few things to understand, first the two forces pressure on the front, and suction on the back. So all subsonic wings have a pressure side on the bottom, and a suction side on the top. Suction is the greater force being something like 60% of lift, where pressure contributes 40%. The point of maximum volume is usually around 30% aft of the nose, as a result aircraft noses are visually more rounded and tails more tapered. The tapered end reduces suction force or extensive drag from the rear of the aircraft. At the same time the greater volume of the flying body more forward is useful for storage of people cargo and fuel.
Another consideration is laminar flow. Air will flow around surfaces but has trouble getting around steep curves, so its ok on the nose around the pressure side, and it will stick to a curved top and bottom, but in the end on steep curves like that up front it will want to break away from the surface, releasing itself from smooth laminar flow to go turbulent, where turbulent flow is much more draggy than laminar flow. One more way of looking at this is on the classic wing cross section. The bottom or pressure side is easy to understand, and as long as angles of attack are gentle it will have laminar flow, across the top on the suction side however, it is important to try keep the flow attached for as we have just learned the further aft the top flow can remain attached the more lift the wing provides. As a result the ulterior goal of creating useful volume of the inside of the wing can be achieved for fuel storage, if the curve of the upper surface is a progressively more gentle curve as it goes aft.
Supersonic flow is so difficult to achieve all the structures like fuselage and wing need to be much thinner to keep the boundary air attached and maximise laminar flow, as a result the maximum depth of sections like wings and fuselages is further back towards 40% of the section. To maintain smooth lines the curves are necessarily gentler, and the entry of the nose and leading edge of the wing much finer. It becomes apparent that the main result is a thinner less bulbous entry, or finer thinner shaped nose and leading edge section of the wing. Hence the graceful Concorde is quite a narrow low volume cabin, but the fine curves present a much sharper front and even more fine aft. The same rules have been applied to a much thinner body necessary for high speed flight.
Finally two governing rules are, circumstances of the aircraft skin tend to rely on areas so are of the square root rule, example wings are of 'x' square feet, where circumstances of force are a cube root rule such as propellers or jets offering 'x' lbs thrust.
Can you pick the nose of an aircraft though?
You can scratch the itch through the nose gear door if it gets bad. 😂
As long as you don't eat it afterwards.
I can't take it anymore! I am rolling on the floor laughing. I can't believe how funny this thread got tonight! Stein or keg? ...haven't seen the movie Dictator yet... But, I did read the shape question as far as cylinder vs. egg. I just threw a pencil and an egg across the living room, and must say the results were much better with the pencil! LOL.
Oh, & Ur haircut looks very sharp! High and tight! Nice....
No, the aircraft comes with a standard nose per type. :)
So excited to see two vlogs on two consecutive days after so long. Cheers! Keep up the good work.
Well, it’s a special occasion this time
Mentour Pilot yess! Totally loved it.
Strange use of the word “rumor” hmmmm I like it though.
Fantastic non-technical description of supersonic vs. subsonic regime.
Why does the space shuttle have a rounded nose? Do they intentionally want to increase drag when re entering the earth's atmosphere or maybe to create the "bubble" around the aircraft to reduce heat on the rest of the airframe?
P
They take the reentry heat on the belly in what would be like a stall position in a regular plane. After that they want to slow down anyways and the tremendous heat has already dissipated. They’re more or less like any other airplane just higher and without an engine so they glide it in.
Yes,the initial re-entry phase is done with with the nose tilted up and the belly taking the brunt, but after it levels out the nose creates a wider supersonic schockwave that encompasses the wings to prevent damage, and as shown here the increased drag from that is present only at supersonic speeds.
The reason is to deflect the shock wave from space shuttle's wings.
the wing could be broken at hypersonic speed, the round nose act as shield to deflect the air.
Great explanation. You make connections between aerodinamics, history, performances, industry knowledge.. Great !!!
Well not exactly. It is the pressure wave not a "rumor" in front of the nose of subsonic craft. This wave can only travel the same speed as a sound wave (in gas). The point actually creates the first of and critical bow-wave in supersonic flight. Anything that protrudes from that cone/shock wave creates its own wave and dramatically increase drag and decreases control surface effectiveness. The shape not only helping drag but more importantly the heating the drag generates especially in the nose which has nowhere to radiate the heat. The round nose in contrast gives the most aerodynamic predictability at more angles. A pointier nose generates more dramatic changes aerodynamic forces with slighter changes in AOA. Think of a ski vs saucer sled in the snow.
Superlative video ! Thx mate
So, De Havilland got it right with the Comet nose 70 years ago!
Yeah, but not so much with the passenger windows!
Just a small correction, you're giving us an overview. Oversight is when you unintentionally fail to notice something. 😊
Will an aircraft with golf ball dimples creat less air drag . Thanks for your information.
Theoretically yes (though maybe not the wings. not sure how that would change lift) Main problem would be that aircraft skin is quite thin. so the dimples would be bumps inside which not only would reduce space, but weaken the structural integrity for pressurization etc.
@@Valantir dimpling the metal skin would make it stiffer and harder, wings need a little bit of flexibility.
The dimples only reduce the separation of the air around the golf ball due to its geometry. The dimples are like vortex generators. They might help with lowering the stall speed but the drag from the dimples would reduce the cruise speed.
Very well explained. I like how you research and present things.
thank you. very interesting.
Great to hear!
gracias sir! all your videos are very informative, and you really make it so easy to understand the concepts into understanding everything regarding planes, im not a pilot nor in school, but have always been fascinated by planes, you inspire me! thank you for all your videos!
Can you please explain the difference between main landing gear of A350 and B787? I have noticed that the front set of wheels in main landing gear of A350 fall frontwards whereas in B787 / B777 / B747 the rear set of wheels are tilted backwards.. does it have to do with tradition being followed or there is any specific logic behind it?
That's actually very interesting as the 767 also has gears that tilt forward and I wonder if it has to do with tire wear
Nose gear extend/retract forward to allow the gear to extend using gravity and drag (gravity extension) incase of hydraulic failure.. how ever aft extend/retraction allows fuel savings while retract..
It’s all down to space and how the landing gear fits into the plane 🤷♂️
Captain Joe actually has a video on this.
Simple. GEAR storage space, captain Joe has a video about this
Love your channel - cheers from Nova Scotia!
Damn, this dude nose what he is on about...
Hahaha
Mentour Pilot Wow, thanks for the reply! Keep the great videos coming, I want to be an airline pilot when I am older... Idk if I will make it though
I C what U did there...
@@maxmurden3063 Believe in yourself dude, Yes it's a hard road to get to it, You get what you put in. Work hard and you will be rewarded with your dream.
@@stepheno21 Thanks a lot for the kind words. I have now applied for college to do maths, physics and computer science, which I think is the first step towards my goal. Are you a pilot?
I love the way you explained the drag difference between subsonic and supersonic motion
And then there is the 747 nose making everything more complicated :D
Started to hit like before watching your video.. trust in ur content and explanation
Hi Mentour, That was a great video and a good explanation about airplane noses. I have a question. Are the nose compartments that house the radar equipment pressurized and heated to protect the radar equipment?
rwnordmark No they aren't. The bulkhead aft of the radome is the forward limit of the pressurized area. Hope that helps.
The Concorde's nose also had to be hydraulically lowered so that the crew could actually SEE the runway when they were landing. What also complicated matters was the heatshield that fell into place over the canopy glass (during supersonic config, with the nose up) to keep the crew cool. More weight, more complexity. Yet another maintenance issue to deal with.
A plane that's not going supersonic doesn't need all that extra gear because it's not going to get as hot. Without the long point nose, they also have an easier time seeing the runway.
The business of being able to see over the nose also affects the design of carrier aircraft. Carrier aircraft generally have shorter noses than their land-based counterparts because of the need to see the ship on landing approach. The infamous F-111 had a carrier version of that plane, the B-model, which had a shorter nose to allow the aircrew to see the carrier on approach. It still got cancelled before it went into production partly because of excessive weight (close to 90,000 lbs loaded), partly because of the poor carrier handling characteristics.
Looking at the noses of the 787 and A350, they're pretty similar in profile, no doubt due to developments in computational fluid dynamics and wind-tunnels.
Comparing the nose of the Comet to it, i wonder if the similar look is due to a coincidence, or did the De Havilland engineers develop it based on similar thinking.
If so, i'm amazed that it didn't end up being more popular between the time of the Comet and 787/A350...
the comet was a very beautiful aircraft way ahead of its time
At the end of the day aircraft are heavily constrained by aerodynamics.
For whatever minor differences they have you'll notice almost all airliners look pretty similar.
Far more so than the average car does.
Meanwhile look at trains, and compare the wide variety of sizes, shapes and surface patterns on lower speed ones to the high speed trains, which still retain some individuality, but start to look a lot more alike.
And Concorde looks very much like a really large fighter jet.
Why?
Physics.
You can't escape it, only fiddle in the margins.
For any given flight regime there is going to be either a single optimal design, or a small number of rather different optimal designs with differing characteristics.
Pretty much every aircraft built is going to resemble this theoretical optimal design in all but the most trivial details...
However the slower the aircraft the more it can deviate from these optimums because the consequences of it are less severe.
The comet was probably designed with careful consideration of aerodynamics, and it's largely still the same flight regime as modern.
Too bad about the window thing, or history might've looked rather different...
Renember back in the 70s when "people" were bragging about the russians copying the F-15 with the SU-27/MIG-29?
the SU-27 and MIG-29 look very similar because their design bureaus shared aerodynamic data ..and the results were therefor similar.. wich were also similar to the F-15.. because in the end you should reach same or very similar solution for the same problems..
The MIG-25 for example predated the F-15 and was getting there too..
I think that there's a similar reason of aerodynamics that has made all the Le Mans prototype race cars look so much alike.
In my opinion many of the modern hypercars coming out also look quite similar, like how there are looks between Aston Martin/Red Bull's ultimate model, Mercedes-Benz hypercar and many others.
KuraIthys, The "DeHavilland thing" was the result of not realizing the effects of cabin pressure on aircraft that would be flying at over 25,000 feet altitude. Propeller planes that flew at over 8,000 feet were pressurized but flew at much lower altitudes than the new jetliners. Jet airliners fly at as much as 38,000-40,000 feet where the outside air pressure
Thanks for the clear explaination of how a sonic boom happens.
Excellent video Mentour! Hope you have a good weekend.
Thank you! You to!
As always, awesome video Petter!
Supreme leader, I assure you that the shape of the missile has absolutely no bearing on payload delivery.
Yeah, and the next thing you're going to tell me is that the size of the missile doesn't matter.
This was boss. Worth every second. Also makes alot of sense seeing that the a350 and the 787 are almost difficult to distinguish due to that nose design.
the racoon windows on the A350 make it stand out
Thank you, your postings are so informative and well made. On FlightRadar24 we get Indicated Airspeed, Actual Airspeed and Ground speed, What are the differences?
As you increase altitude, the density of the air decreases. This means that there are less particles in the air at higher altitudes in the atmosphere. The speed is measured by these pitot tubes which take in the air particles in order to measure said speed. Obviously as there are less particles of air entering these tubes at higher altitude the pitot tubes take in less and therefore the IAS speed will continue to decrease. Ground speed is the actual speed covered by the aircraft over the ground. True airspeed is, of course, the actual speed of the plane through the air.
Thank you but I presume therefore, the cockpit is equipped with instrumentation that gives the pilot a true picture not that we get on flightradar24?
To the pilot, IAS (Indicated airspeed) is the most important, and the one used. This is because IAS is measured via the pitot tubes on the aircraft itself (and as such the reading is affected by the wind direction, speed and altitude). Of course, the wing and control surfaces are only as effective as the amount and speed of air passing over them, and the aircraft will handle differently at different Indicated Airspeeds, and these will often not match up with a Ground Speed or True Speed. So to a pilot, IAS is the "true" measure of speed, as it's what defines how the wing operates.
Hello Mentour Pilot, I really love your videos and the way you explain complicated stuff. I have one request that is can you do a video on Aerodynamic Stall and what should be done if it happens? I remember the case with air france flight 447 so it would be really nice if you can make a video on this. Thank you.
“It needs to be pointy” The Dictator
Great video Petter
Thank you!
The nose should be pointy. - Alladeen madafakka.
Thank you for your very scientific explanation in every topic of your videos !! Could you please teach about the main differences in the shape (as wings, engines, landing gears, windows, nose, etc) of the most important airliners? I mean 737 vs 320; 767 vs 330; 777 vs 340; 787 vs 350 and 747 vs 380
Awesome video!!
I am a professional physicist and that was a great explanation!
Very interesting video :-)
I sure hope the pilots have a "positive attitude" when landing!
Just not too MUCH of one ... baseless optimism and tailstrikes are both bad things...
Yes ...a negative attitude can be cataclysmic
I don't know about aircraft noses, but when I was in college 40 years ago the final assignment for my intro engineering class was to build a model rocket (we used Estes) such that it reached the greatest altitude. I learned quite a bit about aerodynamics. The takeaway was that a paraboloidal shape was best, and Estes made plastic nose cones with that shape. I suspect that minor deviations make little difference.
747 likes... I'm sorry but I had to like the video
Data Wargaming No problem, you then get 748, which is short for 747-8i
Eirik Andreas Albretsen yey. But I'm an Airbus guy...
The 300's are long gone buddy
Very well explained. Thank you for taking your time to explain this!
Honestly. Out off all the noses. I prefer the 707 and the 717. But very interesting video Petter
Thank you!
The 717 is not an original Boeing jet. It was designed by McDonnel Douglas as the MD95. After Boeing bought out Douglas, it renamed the plane as 717 to be consistent with the jet numbering system.
If I'm not mistaken, the 707, 727 and 737 all share the same nose, cockpit windows and fuselage diameter. When seen from the side, from about the L1 door forward, they appear pretty much identical.
You are correct. And the 767 fits there too. That's how you make money in aerospace. If it works and gets certified, use it again, and again, and again.
Correct - but more correct is Douglas. McDonnel didn't really have much to do with the DC-9. Love that bird. I have 2000 hrs as a crew chief in the Navy on those.
Good info,thks.