Can a Plane Fly With Offset wings?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 окт 2024
- My swing wing has offset wings and so does my flying car, and you guys were wondering if that had an effect in flight. So in this video I do some mythbusting and craft a DIY RC airplane with super offset wings using the Flite Test Tiny Trainer as a base.
My online store:
shop.eternalpr...
The Eternal Progression Discord
/ discord
Go Get Yourself An Insta 360 Go 3 Cam :)
www.insta360.c...
Or the Insta 360 X3 Cam :)
www.insta360.c...
Im Working On Putting Together A Playlist That Includes All The Songs In My Videos. Here It Is.
• Playlist
My Thingivers For All CAD Models
www.thingivers...
My Instagram:
@eternal_progression 
Развлечения
To any one wondering how it would fly in ground effect or if it can turn right, this video will answer all your questions!!👇
ruclips.net/video/zrH0QlKYqac/видео.htmlsi=wn-rPbHM1OY1Grdm
I also made a Patreon! Here it is and thx for checking it out!
patreon.com/EternalProgression?Link&
Now make the indian peace sign airplane, not swastika cus swastika is titlted
You should consider adding 2 additional wings, the same type but one going up and the other down, would be even more stylish
@@aquilschutte i'd like to see a flying swstika just to prove that it can fly.
other people pointed it out but your flying car proly still did fail cause of the wings because of ground effect and while i wouldnt be able to say what was causing it since i wasnt the pilot so i dont know if it just is reacting a bit harshly cause its such a small plane and so can turn much easier but when it was closer to the ground, the right side kept lookiing like it was lifting and like you had to correct the roll yourself which ignoring the ground effect increases lift if i remember right, exponentially as it gets closer to the ground, that would be the point that while yes it *can* fly like that, that still SEVERLY hurts its flight capabilities and DOES cause a roll that just gets greater the closer to the ground you are and more specifically, the closer the lower wing gest to the ground first.
Wait! Make an X wing craft, same plane but if you are looking at it from the tail, make a copy and rotate it 90 degrees.
Cool experiment! A free body diagram will show that regardless of wing height offset on either side, the wings create the same rolling moment on each side which cancels each other out when in steady level flight. Now sideslip effects, especially with that big vertical mast, might be a different story.... I'm curious if you could 'feel' any significant differences in yaw or restoring roll in sustained left vs. right banks?
Awesome explanation, now I have a legit engineer to confirm the results of my experiment!! Haha. The mast was definitely a problem at first, mostly because it was blocking airflow. But after cutting holes in it I really didn’t notice any effect. Which was surprising since it is almost in front of the CG and the back rudder really isn’t that big. There are really only two effects I could think of. Ground effect since one is closer, and it now has four wing tips to create drag. Other than that it was flying on rails.
Exception, in ground effect.
@@brucepearson6322 real life sized plane would be a nightmare to land then.
Try it again with different offsets from the vertical center of gravity. If one wing is significantly farther from the center of gravity I would expert roll problems. For example if you move the lower wing to be in line with the fuselage fuselage. I would expect the upper wing lift to create a moment about the center of the body that wouldn't be cancelled by the other wing
the real issue to flight would be a center of gravity vs center of mass. beyond that if an A10 warthog can fly on one wing, then your offset wings should work surprizingly well.
As someone currently studying engineering, this is so cool, because whilst this works on paper, seeing it fly is amazing. I would guess that your dad might have been right for the flying car though, as taking off from the floor introduces ground effect, which would actually have meant that the wing closer to the ground generated more lift.
That’s what I was thinking
i play low tier war thunder so much i figured this out flying biplanes. saw it and thought, oh that shit better not try and turn right.
if that right wing was on the same lvl as the body of the airplane than maybe but not to much
He does bring up ground effect at the end of the video.
if he had it trimmed up before taking off it would have worked ... even ground effects wont be that much of a problem .. as the wings are a much larger surface than the car body itself ...
How does it feel to know that Peter Sripol used your channel for inspiration and information? That's high honors, bro.
Honestly amazing. Been watching Peter since I made this YT account and seeing myself on his channel is crazyyyyy. His pun jet was the inspiration for my swing wing, and then my swing wing was the inspiration for his video😂. So cool.
i am watching you because of him but i like your energy more :P @@eternalprogression
Str8 up!
@@eternalprogressionThat's awesome bro 👍🏻
Never heard of him.
Rule of thumb for pilots apparently is that 1/2 wingspan or less of height causes noticable ground effect, so it would definitely apply to offset wings during landing/takeoff. It probably contributes to the difficultly with rolling when taking off with the flying car, even if it doesn't matter once it's in flight.
The center of balance could also be an issue on the ground I think.
The relationship you have with your dad is beautiful. He sounds extremely impressed and proud of you
Came for the crazy plane, stayed for the scenery. Can't believe that thing not only flew but, flew well. And, what a beautiful place you live in. It's just gorgeous! So nice seeing the interaction with your dad too, you're so lucky to be able to spend such precious moments together. I lost my dad when l was 17 - he's been gone 47 years, and l still miss him.
I’m sorry for your loss I couldn’t imagine not having my father in my life I hope you found male role models to help you through your darker days I wish you the best
@@RobertNowagarski Thank you Robert. Those are kind words. Not so much luck with the role models but, as an adult l have had some decent men in my life, at least compared to many l hear about. 😊
I feel ya. I lost my dad when I was 13, and now I'm twice that.
@@TailsThewolfcat That's hard, hard. I hope you're ok. I'm now older than my father was, and THAT birthday's a whole new level of weird.
Here's a suggestion based on your folding wing plane. Birds don't use their tails as elevators. They actually use them more for longitudinal control. The way birds control pitch is to move their wings forewards and backwards displacing the center of gravity from the center of lift. They move their wings a bit forewards which moves their CG to behind their center of lift which causes them to pitch up. Likewise they move their wings a bit back which produces a pitch down. I doubt it would take a lot of range of motion to give you pitch control. You could always have elevons as backup. But I think you should be able to pull this off.
Wow, I didn't know that about birds. Now I want to see if this works on a plane.
@@nymalous3428it should, center of mass applies to all matter not just birds
Don't they make like a scoop with their wings when diving
Some of the first gliders were controlled solely by shifting pilot weight!
I assume you mean birds use their tails for longitudinal _stability._ Because an elevator is a _control_ surface lol
“I’m an actual engineer!”
No - you’re *better* - you’re a scientist! (from one scientist to another) You thought through what you knew, you made a testable hypothesis, and you did a great experiment to test that hypothesis. THAT is a scientist! Twice, actually - you also hypothesized that the flat column would interfere with airflow, and you tested that as well… and were right yet again! Very nice work indeed, and I’m sure your father couldn’t be happier to be proved wrong. You will go far :)
This is just wholesome. If I were your dad I'd be very proud and be having so much fun with these builds. Love this sort of tangible old fashioned fun.
As an Aerospace Engineer, the flight dynamics makes sense, so it’s not surprising that it works with minimal roll, but it’s cool to see the proof! Not something I’ve ever thought about because of the structural integrity of a single wing mounted above or below the fuselage.
I still think it's not stable. In level flight it won't be very noticeble, but banking must distort it's flight charisteristics. Certainly because of the distance from the wings to the hull being uneven (the upper wing being much further away from the hull than the lower wing). It might even have been an accidental advantage having the upper wing further from the hull than the lower wing. My aerodynamics-math isn't good enough to calculate it, but to do this test objectively, the 'tower' should have equal arm lenghts up and down. Also, as the whole 'contraption' was built without any tools to check the angles, the wings could have different angles of attack and dihedral/anhedral. In small RC airplanes this makes a world of difference.
As high wing airplanes have different characteristics than low wing airplanes, one high and one low wing must have consequences for stability when banking and pitching.
By many definitions, you ARE an actual engineer. Absolutely well done - this is how we find stuff out. Thank you. Subscribed!
There are no trains in this video. 😡
@@Avram42 So in your world, engineers are only people drive train's? Might want to check with Webster's.
Reminds me of Mark Rober's stuff. Not quite as crazy, but definitely worth the "engineer" nod.
@@desertrat7634 think that was mostly a lighthearted joke bud
where i live you need to be part of a group to be an engineer. If you did you school but are not a member of the group, you cant say you are an engineer but a bachelor in mechanical in engineering.
Its a way to protect the profession and the public.
Dad's are awesome - so are kids.... Congrats on proving your Dad wrong. Dad, congrats on raising someone who can prove you wrong and being audibly happy when they did.
You don't understaaaand how lucky you are to have been born when you were: In the late 70s and early 80s when I was 6-9 years old, I would take the electric motors out of various toys, and rig them up with oodles of batteries and fantasize about being able to get something airborne. There just wasn't the battery energy density available back then, to do it. If I were your age today, I'd be doing this too! I laughed and grinned like crazy through the test flights. Thanks, man. Happy trails.
Oh man I actually think about this often. Before I knew much about the hobby and was too young to order stuff on Amazon I would tear anything electronic apart. I turned an air hockey table into a hover craft, made popsicle stick crossbows, modified Walmart rc’s to drive across water. And ya nowadays with foam board, programable controllers, FPV, and lipo batteries you can literally do anything. and And infinitely more so with 3d printing. I vividly remember discovering flight test, and realizing that you can actually buy electronics purposefully Designed to be used in DIY contraptions. Christmas list was immediately written😂. It’s an incredible time to be a creative person with everything we have. Thx for the comment man.
@@eternalprogressionThis was the response I was hoping for. Todays luxuries get taken for granted by the younger generations. It’s actually sad that you are one of the few that are humble and appreciative and not because you want to make MORE money on a channel. Please stay that way! Some of us still love to see that it still exists.
Having working AAs for an RC car was better than junk food.
I hope this kid realizes how blessed he is to have a father that freed and enabled this love of exploration and engineering. Frickin 10/10 video
Coming from someone who knows very very little about aerodynamics and planes, This is a damn cool plane. And big ups on taking the initiative of doing the experiments to get your proven results.
I'm really excited to see this, but I can already tell you that being so close to the ground, the "lower" wing is "longer" technically, due to the ground effect. It doesn't take much distance to make this effect negligible but it will be really obvious close to the ground for launching.
Wish I head read yours before I commented mine.
Right you are. It can fly. But when landing and taking off you are in for some unpleasantness.
Be a good bonus in hot conditions when the air is thin for take off
Very cool experiment!
Funny seeing you here
The man, the legend!
offset wing shaped slug testing
Aber bitte nicht runterholen.
send it to Evan and see what mad science he comes up with
Down low one wing will get greater ground effect than the other. It won't matter as much on this small scale though.
Or if positioning of the wings induces differential parasitic drag, again, not significant at that scale.
Yeah, I'm sure this probably does create some oddball edge cases like with ground effect and some things like different vortex effects coming from each wing causing some quirks.
That being said, if you had a good reason to use some degree of offset in a real aircraft, it probably wouldn't make any difference in practice. Mostly, I'm thinking that need would boil down to structural reasons.
Actually, thinking on it more, I do see an issue that would be a little less of an edge case.
This particular quirk has to do with wing speed during pitching the nose. If you're pitching upwards, the lower wing is moving faster through the air than the upper wing. If you're pitching downwards, it reverses and the upper wing is moving faster than the lower wing. This will cause some roll while pulling/pushing the elevator.
In the exact configuration used here, this would mean a tendency to want to roll left while pitching up and a tendency to want to roll right while pitching down.
In a high AOA stall, the top wing would stall first.
Of course, this can mostly be compensated for via additional control inputs.
You saved me from typing that 😊
That was my first thought, when I saw the 'flying car' start from this low altitude. If that was the case, it:
- should vanish with more distance from the ground
- compensation would need to adjust for that distance
If this wasn't the case, it would be possible to adjust by statically trimming regardless of altitude above the ground.
So as a person who’s daily job is to work on aircraft. Your father is partially correct at the start, the left lower wing had more lift than the right due to ground effect. Although once it had gotten up into the air the offset wings shouldn’t have been too much of an issue assuming the wing area is the same and they are over or just ever so slightly behind the center of gravity. As a quote from an engineer I know. We can make a box fly and have lift with enough speed and power.
"We can make a box fly and have lift with enough speed and power."
At a certain point you call such a thing a "missile", though.
@@johanneshass1614 Or a Kerbal.
@@johanneshass1614 if it flies it flies
I've got quite a bit of experience with aviation and aviation accessories. First off, Excellent experiment!! I love to see someone actually trying it out, instead of letting opinions rule the day. Even if it failed, you learn something. More things even. Second, and practically, it looks to me that you're getting equal lift from both wings, but your handling has some weight and balance/moment of force issues. Gravity is goin to want to make it a right angled "N", so your "Straight and level will have a left turn bias. Maybe try different wing lengths to compensate. Longer on top since the force acts on the furthest away, and you want to bring the left side up. Or go stubby on the right side, but lack of lift is usually a bad thing for aerobatics. Great vid, dude!
I studied aeronautical engineering. Something that jumped out at me is the lower wing essentially has a vertical winglet on the upper airfoil surface at the root formed by the “mast” that will likely help reduce vortices. They would be normally be called wingtip vortices, but these are at the wing root. So… Roottip vortices…..? The upper wing won’t have as much benefit. The effect is probably not terribly noticeable at this scale, but you could run a vertical fin longitudinally on top of the vertical mast to help equalize the effect.
My thoughts on the wing root also. I did three decades of what this kid did. My whole teenage RC budget revolved around pilfering the walk-of-shame trash cans at Fun Flys, then building on the spot something crazy enough that people would either wager it would not fly or donate stuff to the cause. It is so refreshing to see this.
What if you had bottom mounted wings? Then you could have both wings with reduced “roottip” vortices…
@@66tbird1Dang, that just gave me an idea... Bet that's an easy way to score some free servos and motors 👀
@@xenontesla122You mean one wing on each side of the fuselage at the base taking out the need for a central pillar and making the plane more aerodynamic? You know, you might be on to something there🤔
A winglet at the root has zero benefit, since there is not lateral component of airspeed at the center of the wing. The benefit of these devices increases as you get near the tip.
This is a great demonstration! It feels like the sort of thing an applied aerospace professor would keep around to prove a point
See how the tips of the wings end up on the same plan. That is your balancing of lift. Put anything inside and it gets tossed around like a ragdoll on take-off which is why we don't build airplanes like that. But a little physics on airplanes could have answered your question, but your method is 100000000x cooler! Awesome video too!
So wholesome. This dude is great. He also has an amazing dad. The support dad has for his kid's passion is just..... hard to find words... It is a role model for what parents should be for their child.
Keep exploring your creative freedoms. Keep that fire alive.
One well designed experiment is worth more than 1000 expert opinions
wise words
but the experiment is bad designed because it does not take the ground effect into account which propably was the problem of the flying car
"expert" opinions.
@@moritztweber No, it wasn'tm Or, not the only problem, anyway.
It's not a well designed experiment. He just got lucky. *This time,* he just happened to put the two wings close enough to the same distance from the fuselage that the rotational forces each created roughly offset each other. Close enough that the plane's controls could compensate for the difference. Because he isn''t understanding the forces involved, though, he's just as likely to do something boneheaded, again, next time. A well-designed experiment would help him gain understanding, not just allow him to luck into a working model.
This is the first vertically asymmetric airplane I’ve ever seen. Never doubted for a second!
Planes don't generally have vertical symmetry to begin with. Normal planes have left/right symmetry (more or less), which this plane doesn't.
roll symmetry
The offset wings effect will cancel each other out but if the plane is in a roll and side slipping the resultant skin friction will create a moment on the aircraft. Low wings vs high wings with a restoring roll on high wings. Overall great way to test the effect of the offset.
One of the cool things about Flite Test planes is that they make it really easy to experiment around with weird designs just to see what you can get away with. You can really learn a lot! By the way, I saw your swing-wing at Flite Fest and did a double take. Cool stuff!
When I saw the thumbnail, my gut reaction was that it would roll like crazy. Then I stopped to think and realised that the moment arm of the lift does not change with the vertical wing offset. Just goes to show you can't trust your gut on some things. Kudos for doing the experiment.
my grandma on my dad's side would be proud of you, she worked as aerospace engineer or something like that,
seeing this would put a smile on her face as it did mine.
this is one of the most wholesome rc videos i have seen in a long time! fantastic work!
Excellent video! As experts in ground effect we can confirm to obvious observation that the lower wing would create more lift and less drag close to the ground. With a shifting aerodynamic center it would destabilise the craft in pitch as well. What we noticed though is that the craft wants to fly in a particular roll angle. Probably because of different values of induced drag as commented by others earlier because of different 'root vortices' etc. Great work and keep um coming!
I admit I was skeptical, amazing results! They say it’s not how gracefully the bear waltzes, it’s the fact that it waltzes at all!
Its not about the offset in general, its about the distance of each wing to the center of rotation. If both wings apply equal lift, but one has more leverage (by being further away from the center of rotation), it will cause rotation in flight.
This, the RC car build was different because one wing was further from the center of mass than the other. This one works because they're both the same distance, even though one is above and the other is below
I was also thinking this, but surprisingly, this actually shakes out in the maths.
Yes, the roll torque from a force further from the center of rotation is higher, because of leverage. However, the further offset a wing is, the more angled the lift force is compared to the center of gravity, meaning less of that force adds to the torque. And it turns out that these two effects exactly cancel out.
@@CalebTerryRED one wing was also closer to the ground, generating a bit of ground effect. because its so counter intuitive, if you draw all the forces, there is no reason why it shouldn't fly. the only noticeable effect should be some hydrodynamics fuckery with the rest of the frame.
I don't think the center of rotation matters at all. The plane in the video has wings at different distances from the fuselage. I would think the center of rotation is variable and automatically becomes the center of the offset distance of the wings.
@@TruthHurts2u the centre of rotation would be the centre of mass. This is trivially relevant in the horizontal case, as having a wing on only one side is unstable.
Great job! It works as expected.
There are two reasons why it is not practical.
1. If there is a difference in the air pressure on the wings can cause the plane to roll. This makes it harder to operate. But in this case is very small.
2. The offset wing design creates more drag making it less fuel efficient and the speed is lower.
Love it, one thing with the swing wing/offset wing designs is that it can create a bias to roll in a certain direction if the 2 wings aren't offset the same distance from the center body perfectly. this shouldn't effect any forward or vertical capabilities (thrust + lift), but depending on how different the distance from the offset wings are from the CG, a roll and yaw bias will be introduced as the wing further from the CG will essentially have more control authority with the roll/yaw due to its moment of inertia.
(the swing wing design should roll faster in the direction of the lower wing, the test plane [which is awesome btw] looks to have the left wing higher from the CG than the lower wing in the video, so it should have more control over the roll of the craft).
would be good fun to slowly bring one of the wings closer to the main body and see how that effects the flight profile.
"this shouldn't effect any forward or vertical capabilities (thrust + lift)" It will, depending on how much the controlling surfaces are already engaged compensating for the problem you described.
Making this comment before watching the whole video. But my guess why the flying car had an issue on takeoff might be a difference in Ground effect between the wings.
Before I even watch, I can already tell that the ground effect will cause a tendency to roll as the lower wing has more ground effect than the larger wing at low altitude. This can be felt if you try to buzz the ground or do a landing attempt, or if you make a much larger model with more wingspan.
I LOVE TO SEE the sense of free and open curiosity driving this expereiment... Bravo
I already have a practical use for the plane. Game spotting or air traffic road monitoring. Great side views
Kid if you keep uploading like this, you are blowing up.. in a good way. Wonderful stuff! Also gotta say I was skeptical the offset wing would be stable but I stand corrected.
This blew my mind. I for sure thought it would have some weird roll characteristics. This was such a cool video.
I always wondered if an wing offset would fly. Thank you for proving it. I will have to build one for my own experiments. Thank you again. That is good stuff.
Real nice mythbusting! Simple and unequivocal.
I wonder if the main factor isn't that the torque each wing puts on the body should compensate the other. This could be tested by keeping the same body, wing, and "offset beam", but 'sliding' the attachment point of the body up and down the pillar.
To rule out static torque and get more vertical lift out of the wings, counterweights making each wing balanced across the offset beam could also help.
This channel is a joy!
I can't get past how awesome your yard is.
From one engineer to another: well done! 👏
That was a great video and I just love the idea of actually trying something so audacious. And then finding out that it actually works great. Remember, a professor of aeronautics once proved that a Bumble Bee can't possibly fly. Only problem is, it not only can fly, it flies incredibly well. Keep making your videos...I love your positivity.
This is one of the most remarkable things I've seen on YT. Myth busters make me smile. 🙂
This video is important and the world doesn't know. The best part is the ending!!! The Dad and son are bonding!!! Great Video My Guy!!! He should sell this!!! I think it would be fun and provide a mind blowing effect!!!
This is the first video of yours I've seen, and it was a great little experiment. I would never have believed it would work either. Very cool.
Cool plane and that yard is beautiful!
One time me and a friend were bored and started making paper airplanes. One of the paper airplanes we make is really great because it could be thrown across the football field. We ended up fully cutting off one of the wings, and it flew better than before.
You are well on your way to being an engineer. Well done! Keep questioning IF you can do things and keep trying your ideas. This is impressive.
you're lucky your dad encourages in such a positive manner, appreciate him like mad cause he wont always be there
The way the wings generate lift does not change from when you have 2 wings on one level. The only thing I can see is that the lower wing can be less stable then the upper wing as the center of mass differs between the 2 wings. awesome little project! awesome to see you bust this myth!!!
The lift is the same but they create a moment around the cog. Could offset by making the lower wing slightly longer
I love the music " A short Hike" is a great video game!
Duuude fr it’s one of my favorite games!
Huge improvement, show the good and bad and let the video fly!!!!! Thanks for the content!
This is one of the most fun and wholesome videos I've seen in a while
"I'm an actual engineer. No I'm not"
YES YOU ARE. You designed something and tested it. Don't let impostor syndrome get in your head. You might be engineering on a smaller scale but you are designing testing and iterating on those designs. AWESOME job. I wish i had these skills at your age. Glad your father is helping you learn too.
Edit: Definitely subbed too.
It's more of a legal thing. Even when I graduate next semester with my bachelor's in mechanical engineering I can't say I'm a professional engineer yet because I have not finished the rules for my state. The title engineer is somewhat protected the same way the title medical doctor is protected. To prevent scams and what not.
That was fun. I liked your dad's enjoyment of being proved wrong. Good attitude and altitude. Fly on you crazy dreamer, fly on. 😎
In my first semester of engineering school we made Tiny Trainers (my group’s had janky electronics so we had to use another group’s, I still have the video lol), so this is really cool to see, even cooler is how your setup flew much better than ours! Good work!
I love how happy this makes you! Keep the joy, mate!
Lovely flying field and epic Frankenbuild!
I believe the problem only occurs in ground effect heights. Dope experiment :D
It feels weird, but yep! The primary reasons we don’t do this are structural and aerodynamic.
1) can’t have a structural spar across both wings to prevent them from bending/tearing off when loaded
2) excess drag induced by the vertical offset structure
3) more induced drag due to finite wing effects
Otherwise, on a small plane like this, it’s practically identical.
Landing gear.
@@john-paulgies4313offset landing gear + landing autopilot?
@@john-paulgies4313 depends where you put it
Ground effect should be different though, so maybe it will be way different on takeoff and landing.
@@Krmpfpks definitely. Unbalanced aerodynamics close to the ground, who wouldn’t want that!
I was just listing aspects affecting the majority of actual flight time
Yes you are an engineer buddy… you have that inquisitive mindset and clearly your imagination is right up there…. Great to see young people like you using your talent. Trust me buddy, you might not yet realise it, but all of your experiences come back and help you find solutions later in life. Experience is more important than qualifications mate. Doing a great job
The titles of “professional Engineer” and “medical doctor” have one thing in common. If you lie about being one, you go to jail.
Absolutely exquisite taste for the Sonic Unleashed music!
Love the video, truly awesome to watch that little thing fly :)
Now, the next question.. how far can the wings be offset!? 😬
More importantly, can it fly with "offset" vertical stabilizers? Perhaps only with the power of German engineering, if you catch where this is going...
The only real limits here would be structural rigidity, weight of the structure, and the drag that this structure induces.
yes
@@Ithirahadevil man!
Hi Dave knop! good question 😂🤔
That is so amazing. Wow! Talk about thinking out of the box👍
Fellow Aerospace Engineer. This works well because your center of mass is equidistant from the center of mass (or at least within an inch or so on either direction). If you had mounted one wing normally and the other wing up high, I have a strong feeling your results would have differed. This is a simple statics problem many undergrads are given in physics and entry level engineering courses. If its a simple FBD with one lever in line with the center of rotation and the other lever mounted up 8" or so with both creating a force straight up, the higher up wing loses some of its torque since the force is no longer perpendicular to the point of rotation. If you offset the wings like you did both up and down here, that loss is then negated by the other wing also losing some of its torque on the center of rotation. That is why I believe you found success with this model where as elevating only a single wing would have led to instability.
Naturally you would need to add a little bit of ballast along the bottom of the fuselage to bring the CG back down to its normal spot with a wing being mounted so high.
Edit: I went and built the FBD. Something interesting as you elevate one of the wings is the center of force for the elevated wing gets further from the center of rotation as well. In theory this would create more torque than the lower wing up until a certain point where it would quickly decrease. I kind of want to run something in matlab now to see where the theoretical balance points are and how it changes as you continue raising it. :)
Yes, all the forces are still in the correct directions with offset wings. Nice job
Never seen your videos before. but you got my approval. This is great. Liked and Subscribed!
Good job.
And yes, you are an engineer. :D
This is a relevant and useful research topic in an era where people are trying to make drones as compact and efficient as possible for everything from medicine delivery to weapon systems. This could easily be expanded into a PHD thesis project. When something does eventually come of it, I hope you are given credit as a pioneer.
Better yet, I hope you keep pushing this field of research yourself and stay at the forefront of it.
Always worth putting people's assumptions in place with an actual physical test
Nicely done :P
Cool demonstration. Works exactly like it should, the forces on each of the wings are basically the same. Clearly it's not the optimal arrangement for a number of reasons, but that shouldn't stop you from flying it. If you put a strong enough motor and prop on a brick you can probably get controlled flight.
That looks so funky, I love it
I am a Mechanical Engineer, I did some quick force diagrams on the back of an envelope: If you offset both wings in opposite directions an equal amount then the plane will be fine, this is what you built. If you offset them by different amounts then you will get a torque and the plane will want to twist.
Also those are aileron rolls not barrel rolls. (the Star Fox 64 videogame is the main source of these getting confused)
Very cool vid. Definitely had to check this one out and impressed with how well it flew. Good job!
Bro's out here building funky Starfield ships for real
Thinking outside the box, I’m very impressed. Good job.
I just completely stumbled on this. Wow good for you, and I really enjoyed how you and your dad interacted and how encouraging his attitude was. You guys seem to have an amazing relationship. Keep it up!
this not only awesome but it is amazing
Awesome to see this crazy idea work. A mad scientist of aviation. Congratulations.
I love seeing non-traditional designs like this that force people to really think about the physics involved. I actually LOL'ed when your dad made some comment about one wing creating more lift than the other just because of their position. Great video and love watching the process.
My building experience pretty much boils down to KSP, and it's aerodynamics model isn't perfect, but I've made some pretty hilarious designs. On the other hand I recreated some real planes and those fly pretty well, so the physics model and the design of these planes work.
My intuition was that if one wing was close to the center of mass and one was far away from it, the far away one might have more leverage with the same lift.
@@atomic_wait there are even planes with different length wings to counter the propellor-induced roll.
@@HappyBeezerStudios A valid assumption, but no. Engine torque upon the airframe isn't constant and can vary dependent upon RPM, airspeed, and air density. The pilot usually compensates at the controls for this.
@@anonymousplanetfambly4598 guess I must've imagined the Ansaldo SVA, Blohm & Voss BV 141 and NASA AD-1
makes total sense to me! the reason a plane tips one way or the other isn't to do with changing the position of the wings, but changing the amount of lift on one side or the other. Making it aysmetric should not really change that, as long as the center of balance remains.
the feeling telling your father "i told you so!! " must be crazy fun
Well done man, well done.
I would say that the big difference between the two is that on this one, the forces cancel out since the lever that each wing is attached on opposite sides of the fuselage, so they cancel each other out, meanwhile your other design was a high wing, but the upper wing had more leverage on the fuselage, but it should be minimal enough that it's just a trim issue. Glad to see you did mention ground effect though.
That was awesome. Cool science, flight fam!
I had to watch. This is just so insane. I truly had doubts, but you proved it… obviously your future direction is engineering…totally amazing. GREAT JOB. :))
There is something to be said for someone who does more than just argue their point, they prove it. Well done.
Super important to make sure incidence angles are exactly parallel. Also aileron adjustment is going to be able to make up for any variance. You’ve proved that it flies well enough but not that there’s zero roll effect or asymmetrically varied behaviors (cross-winds, turn preference, tip stalling etc.
hey it would be sweet to see a canard version where the front pair is opposite heights as rear!
Moron
why should it roll if both wings are experiencing the same lift effect and are at the same distance from fuselage?
The only thing that should be affect as i think is the moment of inertia thats why it take him less effort to turn left than to turn right
@@ainekgonzalez2193 yes but things don’t always perform as expected in the real world
This is awesome! Keep the weird ideas coming!
You're an absolute artist.
That’s engineering buddy. Good job. Good experimentation too.
you made it look so easy to put that together
that could be an alien spaceship... lol
we've got a glimpse of the ''flying boat'' though... that thing is awesome... on grass, on water and on air... and it made perfect ''dives''...
Ok. I like that you're fearless in your creations! So I have a suggestion for something to try. Why? Because I've never seen it done in RC: a triebflugel. And I'm not trying to get you to figure out how to mount wingtip rockets. But you could mount wingtip propeller motors and mount its battery, receiver, and servo to the wing itself on a different channel than the tail surfaces channel. I feel like it could be done. Hardest parts in my opinion are 1) how to mount the spin wing so it doesn't interfere with roll, 2) How to mount items inside spin wing and balance it, and finally 3) figuring out how much control authority to give the tail plane (by basically scaling it and/or its control surfaces). Anyone could expect slight to moderate changes in scale and proportion since the original never even got to the test phase. But still, to build anything even close would be amazing.
Ooo I just looked that thing up. That would be crazy 😂 could definitely do it tho with a little 3d printing🤔
@@eternalprogression I'm glad you like the idea!