The Phantom TAIL is strange because...

Why jet fighter tails are designed like they are? Why there are no longer tails like the F-4 or the Jaguar? Why the F-15, the Tornado or all stealth aircraft like F-22, F-35 etc have a different design?
#Tail #F35
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Mille...
Join the Discord server / discord
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the KZbin Partner Program, Community guidelines & KZbin terms of service.

[@kilianortmann9979]

There is nothing wrong with the F-4, its a symbol for the triumph of thrust over aerodynamics.

[@justacomment1657]

It is a rather ugly looking thing..Looks like it can melt itself on full AB

[@adrianrhein5353]

Lol....that's fucking hilarious and great .

[@humanbeing9079]

5th generation fighters take thrust over aerodynamics to a whole new level.

[@AG-pm3tc]

@@humanbeing9079 yeah, but the F4 is like 50 years old. So it is outstanding in this regard.

[@humanbeing9079]

@@AG-pm3tc indeed, the F4 existed in the age of chasing speed, and the tail design is a pragmatism and complexity compromise that detracted from their set of priorities. But that's engineering, it's always a give and take.

[@magoid]

My take on the F-4 tail config is this: the USN aircraft have a limit of 16ft/5m in height. So you have basically 3 ways to deal with that. One, you fold your vertical fin (A-3 Skywarrior, A-5 Vigilante, S-3 Viking). Two, you adopt a nose up attitude to lower the tail (A-4, F-8, A-7). Three, you adopt multiple smaller vertical fins (E-2, C-2, F-14, F-18, F-35). In the F-4, McDonnel had a tradition of a vestigial fuselage tail with its designs since the FH-2 Banshee. In the F-4, they decided to not adopt neither a nose up nor a folding tail. So the only option available was to have a inverted "V" stabilator to compensate for the low vertical fin (because of the 15ft height limit). That happening, the engines where angled down so their hot exhaust didn't melt the stabilators. Even then, those still had to have thermal protection on its lower surfaces.

[@kathrynck]

All very true. Although the horizontals didn't intersect the exhaust flow in normal forward flight, they would interact with the exhaust at high angles of attack, creating a post-nozzle thrust manipulation, kind of a precursor to thrust vectoring. Thus the titanium and lack of paint on the inboard ends of the horiz-stabs. Also the whole arrangement created tail lift in normal flight, for a minimal expenditure of drag (though it did add weight). The Phantom II was surprisingly agile (for a "flying brick" ;)

[@trespire]

@@kathrynck I can't count how many times we had to replace lose Jo-bolt fastners on the hot tail panels, and on the stabalizers. Those Jobolts were in stainless, and when loose would spin in place, making it very difficult to drill. The trick was to drill perfectly center and perfectly square, using a small and sharp bit, starting around 0.8mm. Then step by step increase the drill diameter, using only sharp HSS bits would reduce the force trying to spinn the jobolt, and the right amount of Tapmatic. Some times an assistant would use a tool to jam the fastner to prevent it spinning, if it spun you had lost it ! At about 4.2 mm you could then use a drift punch to cleanly snap the head off, leaving a nice clean hole without damage. If the hole got damaged during the extraction process, you had to drill in out to the next size up then countersing the titanium panel in situe. Not easy with titanium. Only 2 or 3 in our whole shop could do a nice clean job without messing up, too patience and the right tecnique. As Phantom structural technicians, those hot panels were our bread and butter.

[@sohrabroozbahani4700]

Need more of this engineering side of things... stuff we won't find anywhere else on the Internet...😉😁👍

[@DenisPetrov1980]

Try searching for this "stuff" in books, instead.

[@sohrabroozbahani4700]

@@DenisPetrov1980 I like his presentation better 😅

[@MultiZirkon]

@@DenisPetrov1980 The problem is finding the really good books. Per now I am reading The Secret Horsepower Race, Caulum Douglas. The problem with that book is that it so heavy, I get a stiff neck from handling it.

[@jamesfisher4326]

I don't see any comment that covers the real reason for the extreme anhedral on the Phantom tail. Previous McDonnell designs had suffered a pitch up problem at high angles of attack compounded by turbulence off the wing reducing the effectiveness of the horizontal stabilizer at those high angles of attack. The F-101 was notorious for this. Angling the horizontal stabilizers down cause at least a portion of them to be below this turbulent area. This problem also occurred on some planes from other manufacturers.

[@kathrynck]

The proximity to the exhaust plumes also gave some maneuvering authority which was agnostic to external air flow. At higher angles of pitch control anyway (in normal forward flight they'd stay out of the exhaust).

[@MarchHare59]

Drag was never an issue with the F4 since it could fly at Mach II regardless, and with the normal combat load of missiles, bombs and fuel tanks hanging off the wings, whatever drag the tail added was minimal to the point of being meaningless. The horizontal stabilizers are where are where they are and bent down to prevent the pitch up problem experienced by the Phantom IIs ancestor, the F101 Voodoo which had the same tail design but with the horizontal stabilizers placed at the top of the vertical tail. The result of the F4 redesign was better stability and maneuverability.

[@kathrynck]

I wouldn't say drag is every "meaningless", but yeah, it can be overshadowed by other considerations at times.

[@trespire]

@@kathrynck Yup, launching down a runway with over 8,500 kg of external payload puts some things into perspective.

[@cannonfodder4376]

Not a topic I was expecting but an informative video nonetheless. I love your ability to take a complex topic most never think of or would consider boring and manage to teach it well to simpletons like me. Great work as always.

[@mortallychallenged1436]

I had a discussion with a friend I play War Thunder together with. The topic was about the tendency for some airplanes (prop) to go in a flat spin and why some of them have real troubles to recover. First case was the P-51, because they wanted to reduce the drag the tail wings are made comparable small what causes the controls to feels a bit squishy, like it has less grip in the air. Later the Brits did it with their Hornet MK.I (two engines ). Strong engines, tiny tail section. Problem with that plane is, if you go into a flat spin, none of the engines seem to blow sufficient air over the tail wings. So the control surfaces there have no chance to counteract a flatspin. In the Hornet MK. III the tail wings are all made longer (reach within the air flow of the engines) and the rudder is a bit elongated across the fuselage. Maybe to avoid horizontal swinging effects. I heard the F-14 Tomcat had issues with flatspin, not sure why, maybe because of the distance between the engines.

[@steelrad6363]

The F14 TF30 Engines suffered from compression stalls- they would barf basically. This would lead to flat spins as you described.

[@foilist1]

@@steelrad6363 Yeah, I read that once the F14 was in a flat spin, it was unrecoverable. Yes, you’re right about the TF30 engines. They didn’t like rapid changes of throttle so they would stall. Grumman had bought a bunch of TF30 engines for the F111 but the navy canceled the navy F111. So Grumman was stuck with those engines and to avoid “eating” the cost of those engines Grumman put them in the F14. F14’s would get with F15’s for mock combat drills. The F15 would beat the Tomcats but when the F14 got better engines in the F14D, the Eagle pilots were surprised by the improved performance of the Tomcats.

[@Robert-nz2qw]

Read title, thought “this won’t be too exciting”. Watched film glued. Excellent stuff - give us more.

[@Rainerunsinn828]

It is a pleasure to see a picture of this Phantom. It was a german F4F with the number 37+16 they have flown in Manching at the "Wtd61" the "Wehrtechnische Dienststelle 61". They used this plane for test flights and the special painting this plane has was to celebrate 50 years of Phantom. I love the phantoms.

[@jonathanbelanger6574]

What's fascinating is that it's still a great fighter

[@b.thomas8926]

Always on point, always educational. Thanks for all your hard work to put this information out. Love it!

[@b.griffin317]

Finally. A video not about stealth or F-35.

[@kathrynck]

F-4's tail (and a few other planes with similar tail geometry) had a lot of other considerations to it as well though. For example, the fuselage being above the engine thrust created an area of higher speed, higher pressure air under the tail boom, which generated "partially" thrust based lift. Also, the horizontal stabilizers were positioned in such a way that they were out of the direct exhaust flow in normal orientation, but in greater angles of adjustment, they'd interact with the thrust flow, generating a limited form of post-nozzle thrust vectoring. Lastly, the shorter vertical stabilizer was largely due to considerations for space saving inside aircraft carriers, but it also saved some drag for land based variants. Really loved this video though. These sorts are my favorite I think.

[@OneMoreDesu]

Awesome, I've been wondering about the change in tail configuration since the cold war

[@zhli4238]

A potential topic worth looking into, if you can: A large number of UAVs were spotted on carrier Shandong, which is the Soviet Keznetsov class ski jump deck design. It seems ski jump has an advantage over catapult in the form of efficiency in launching and retrieving aircrafts. Potentially, a big swarm of heavy UAVs can be launched from a carrier with the ski jump design, something catapult and human deck operations cannot do.

[@GeoCalifornian]

The F-4 Phantom is a beautiful fighter jet. /The tail is one of its signature beauties...

[@zmajew]

Be real, the ugliest fighter ever. One american pilot said that it looks like someone steped to its nose and kiked it in the ass

[@Turboy65]

All the design quirks that make the F-4 so distinctive are fixes for aerodynamic problems. They ended up with a legendary aircraft, yes, but not one that's all that aerodynamically efficient. Really very draggy. No problem, fuel was cheap and it had plenty of power to push through its own drag. But it's such an ICONIC design, one that stands out. The most recognizable fighter ever made. And the meanest looking one.

[@9HighFlyer9]

I remember reading that every odd angle, notch, fin and stabilizer was designed to negate the negative effect of another odd angle, notch, fin or stabilizer. An exercise in circular engineering.

[@philipdavis7521]

This is so clear. For the first time I know now why I feel slower on my bike when someone is on my wheel!

[@grifnizzle7197]

Thank you so much for this video. While it wasn't the focus of this video, it did shine a light on at least a couple of the questions I've always had about why the Voodoo-Phantom-Jaguar empennage were designed the way they were.

[@Spike_au]

Fantastic video and explanations! :)

[@kakavdedatakavunuk8516]

Thx for the short lesson on the aerodynamics of the tail section.

[@Ni999]

_Excellent_ video and I don't think that the god of aerodynamics will hold a grudge - so informative! This is one of your instant classics and I really appreciate it. 👍👍 I really enjoyed the optical illusion in the thumbnail, I hadn't seen that before. I didn't see the whole plane at first so my mind assumed that the tail configuration was a *⊥* and that made it look like the two lower surfaces' edges were angled backwards towards the nose. Couldn't unsee it until I realized that I was looking at that bent-wing bus! 🤣 Good one!

[@Stroopwaffe1]

I used to race motocross bikes in the UK, I got really good and when we are airborne we use the brakes to lift the back wheel and the throttle to lift the front, I raced from the age of 9 and learned how to use the gyro effect at about 11 years old. When either of the wheels stops rotating the back go up when back wheelspinsfast thefront rises.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

I never knew 😳

[@lucdelhaize4029]

Another interesting video, well presented explaining basics understandable even to those like me with limited engineering and physics knowledge.

[@williamtell1477]

Very good one my friend. Love these technical ones esp with your drawings!

[@AdmV0rl0n]

A part of the development area of the EE Lightning, was the specific low tail design after testing various types, including a high T tail. To quote Roland Beaumont - everyone went low tail after that..

[@keithcacahuete8066]

excellent and informative article well presented

[@jannegrey593]

More technical videos like this, please!

[@barreiros5077]

What about alenia Aermacci m346 ...the funiest...IMAO ?

[@wkelly3053]

Thank you for varying the content a bit and taking a break from the robot fighters.

[@MrAjfish]

This was fascinating to a non engineer as I am.

[@craigkdillon]

I had no idea i was wondering about drag. Thanks.

[@stormiewutzke4190]

As always a very interesting article

[@johnaikema1055]

thanks for that short informative video on pressure induced drag. vacume is as important as drag...neither should be ignored. one of the most perfect shapes that best reduces drag caused by pressure and vacume is a simple raindrop (yes lower velocities...but shows the importance of maintaining minimal separation thus reducing disturbed airflow which causes a huge vacuum. this difference in pressure is also had at the wing which intentionally creates a high and low pressure to create lift. the lift to weight ratio has a huge effect on drag...the better the lift to weight the more reduction one would have on drag. an airframe with good lift to weight ratio requires less pressure differential thus reducing drag. for those who say weight is not important at cruise...your wrong. weight is part of the equation in lift to weight thus is extremely important in wing design...that said a small wing on a heavy airframe normally has an effect on range of efficiency.

[@kathrynck]

Also, if you have a tail section like an F-4, you get some free lift out of the tail by playing with the pressure dynamics of the exhaust plumes. Allowing you to go with a smaller wing area, which saves drag. You also get crude thrust vectoring, and increased control leverage with the tail further from the center of gravity. The penalty is the weight & complexity of the tail structure.

[@alfabethev2.074]

Extremely interesting ! Grazie mille.

[@HaciendoCosasRaras00]

Very good video as always! Regards!

[@izdeliye-88]

"With enough thrust you can make a brick fly" haha . I love your videos,many thanks for the education and keep it going. You are the teacher i never had.

[@kathrynck]

That quote is pretty much the F-4 in a nutshell. It's a quote which has followed the F-4 around for decades. Although it somewhat belies the fact that it flies very well actually ;)

[@cooldudejga]

Such an underrated channel

[@majtom5421]

The best definition I every heard for an F-4 is "given enough power even a brick will fly"

[@kingofchebureki3448]

Hey Millennium. I'd love to see you review the aircraft from Sentou Yousei Yukikaze. And whether or not they can fly. I remember hearing that the designer of the aircraft in the show apparently tried to stick to real physics

[@rapidsqualor5367]

Another great video ! Than you so much for your hard work on our behalf. @ 10:00 in today's video ; are we seeing the Bernoulli effect in action ? In the case of the Tornado, are we seeing flow separation trump Bernoulli ?

[@txkflier]

The 23 degree anhedral on the horizontal stabilizers was to provide more stability at lower speeds and high angles of attack where the tail surfaces could be “washed out” by turbulence from the wings. Also, the anhedral provided some additional lateral stability when the overhead heights of hanger decks made increasing the height of the vertical stabilizer impossible.

[@frankrosenbloom]

Thanks!

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Thank you so much!

[@peersvensson9253]

I just saw an F-4 fly past the other week, first time in my life. In 2022 lol, didn't know they were still in service in some places

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Where were you, if I may ask? Turkey and Iran should be last two operators.

[@peersvensson9253]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech In South Korea, close to Suwon. I thought my eyes tricked me at first, but after looking it up they do indeed still operate a few F-4s.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

@@peersvensson9253 Interesting. Thank you for letting us know!

[@peersvensson9253]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech digging up this old comment thread, someone actually filmed some ROK F-4s last year kzbin.info/www/bejne/inPHqnWGgb2GeMU

[@publicmail2]

When I walk naked, I have a good idea of how drag works. As drag doubles the power needed to overcome that drag is cubed.

[@bernardputersznit64]

i have had courses in aerodynamics, but it was decades ago - chipping the rust off my brain to recover my knowledge is making me wince...

[@clydecessna737]

This was good.

[@cchu2kyt]

Legend has it that when the aerodynamic team finished the overall design, they were shocked to find out that in wind tunnel testing the F-4 had lower drag coefficient flying tail first. You can imagine what would happen to the original F-4 in a stalled flat-spin. A simple compromise without drastically changing the design resulted in wing tips bending up and tail bending down to augment spin recovery--a F-4 signature design feature.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Good point. I didn't know.

[@alexandervatter1436]

Hey Gus, have you any knowledge about such problems in the development of the Su-27? The Tail of the Prototypes did change quite a lot from the original T-10-1. I am aware of Problems with the flight control system and the overarching Problems with a curiously growing size and weight. but have never heard of anything relating to the Tail design! Thanks Alex

[@worldoftancraft]

Learn Russian Literaturian Language, find the books of knowledgeble men, read them. Or give me the names of books.

[@alexandervatter1436]

@@worldoftancraft Most stupid comment contest you won 🏆 Congratulations

[@florbfnarb7099]

I’d love to see you do an extended, in-depth analysis of the F-4 like you did the F-14 and B-58.

[@kathrynck]

ditto.

[@stevenhoman2253]

Lower strakes as on the F16 are for stability at high alpha, do they also affect the flow separation?

[@urielmanzone1772]

Affecting flow separation they provide stability at high alpha

[@scotts.2624]

The aft wedges are made of titanium skin over titanium honey comb. For some stupid reason they decided to have the JO Bolts opposite of each other top and bottom. If one popped near the thinner outboard end it was a real pain in the ass to get it out. If they were on there long enough you could smack the bottom and hear all the old stems rattle in there.

[@thaedleinad]

Me, as a KSP fighter jet designer: *take notations*

[@2fathomsdeeper]

Ever look at a starling in flight? They're built exactly like a Harrier but with no vertical stabilizer as they move their tail side to side to compensate.

[@andik.4235]

Oh, how did I miss this kind of video. No guess work about performances of an airforce, just aerodynamics.

[@chupachups6098]

Try to avoid 90° angled surfaces...too

[@4R13T3]

Sei li top come al solito😎

[@adr1uno638]

So why are the f16 lateral tanks have flat tails ?

[@modap3000]

Didn't the F/A-18 have an issue with boattail drag during its development?

[@joseveintegenario-nisu1928]

Good work! What about augmentors, jet engine working inside a duct, sending by suction, drag, a larger mass of air, at an slower speed?

[@giannicatenazzo7423]

Ti ho scoperto grazie a Parabellum. Apro il video e metto il follow in meno di un minuto. Complimenti!

[@mosca3289]

I can’t explain why it’s important I understand this.

[@erictaylor5462]

6:20 Sorry, I think you got this wrong. The roll would be caused by asymmetric lift from the wings. The bending moment would be opposite of what you depicted.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

It wasn't clear at all, I agree. I was thinking to the tailerons and I wanted to show the high inertia. in this configuration.

[@sudo11]

❤️

[@shanemartin2491]

Could you do a analysis on the tail section design of the F-104? Or even the CL 1200 Lancer (or what ever it was going to be called)?

[@erictaylor5462]

Can you talk about the Area Rule next?

[@zmajew]

How the preasure from the jet engine can ever be lower than atmospheric?

[@jpierce2l33t]

Dear God science overload!!! 🤣 Great stuff, you're a very smart dude

[@luvr381]

F-4, a gaggle of aerodynamic fixes flying in loose formation.

[@kathrynck]

hehe, mostly a fair assessment. but I prefer to think of it as an armada of aerodynamic bits of brilliance working in concert ;) the truth is in between. It'd be an extremely viable 4th gen aircraft if went on a carbon fiber diet, sprouted little cherub canards, and had access to more modern engines ;) but that wouldn't sell new planes.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@kathrynck F-4's stores carriage and strong wings allowed for impressive combat configurations, both A2A and multirole. The B/C/D/J/N/S models had a huge radome as well, which drove the design going back from there. My first airshow was T-Birds' last season in the F-4. We used to see them every week anyway at Edwards or from George AFB (F-4Gs).

[@kathrynck]

@@LRRPFco52 There's some F-4 DNA in the F-15. It's not visually obvious at all. I'm not saying one's derived from the other. But it shouldn't be surprising that many of the same engineering minds worked on both.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@kathrynck I lived through that at AFFTC when F-15 was born and still had the outer nozzle sections, original wing, the smaller speed break with less deflection, and original APG-63. F-4 has more elegant semi-conformal storage of the AIM-7s for sure, but you can see on the main panel in the cockpit how there is a lot of F-4 there, mainly for the engine gauges and primary instruments. The main departures from the F-4 man-machine interface were: * Single seat can do a better job than a 2-seat, even managing the look-down/shoot-down Fire Control Radar. * HOTAS * HUD integrated with the fire control modes so that symbology automatically shifted with each weapon system and displayed the appropriate parameters and shoot cues, time-to-target “clock" on the reticle, etc. * TEWS versus afterthought ALR receiver display bolted into the panel. The solid state electronics in the F-15 was a true departure from what we had in the F-4E, with absolute demonstrable BVR capabilities that were breathtaking and well-received by the pilots, even before PSP upgrade in the late 1970s. Mission radius was also much better in the F-15, since it uses lighter materials and better wing area + lifting body, with more efficient turbofans for cruise at altitude.

[@kathrynck]

@@LRRPFco52 But the conformal mounting came back on the FAST packs. And both have a huge emphasis on a kind of extreme version of an inboard wing hardpoint with a lot of utility, holding a lot of mass close in to the center of gravity. Granted a lot of aircraft have more robust hardpoints closer to the wing roots, but the F-4 & F-15 both share a pair of two really extreme hardpoints a few feet out on the wing. Still reaching aftwards to mount the rear horizontals further behind the center of gravity. Though the twin tail booms on the F-15 are a lot more subtle than the big extended tail on the F-4. Note the little "dog teeth" on the rear horizontal stabilizers? Remind you of anything? ;) There's definitely a "do-over" vibe going on. Even where they differ (and there's a lot of ways they differ, very dramatically), it gives the vibe that one benefits from the experience of dealing with the problems experienced in the previous design. I remember a lot of the older engineers who worked on the F-15 when they would talk about design, they referenced the F-4 a lot. "Oh we designed the wing this way because it has this & that benefit, and avoids that airflow issue we had with the phantom's wings" hehe. I can even remember an argument breaking out about the conformal AIM-7 placement. I'm convinced that when the CFT's came out (known as 'fast packs' internally), there were some F-4 engineers who finally got their way. I do kinda wish the F-15 had slightly canted vertical stabilizers though. The parallel verticals were set up so that you could have one blown completely off the plane, and you'd still have one 'neutral' vertical stabilizer. It made more sense before FBW. But it made for some wonky supersonic characteristics between the tails, and when low observables came into vogue it didn't help with that. Mostly I just think it looks a lot cooler with the tails slightly canted, hehe. There was a Super Phantom proposal, actually there were Several. There was a swing-wing model. But that was seen as kinda redundant since the phantom didn't need it to work on carriers. But it could have had some wicked speed & all-envelope handling characteristics. And an idea for an update package, which would have shed about 2000 lbs for carbon fiber parts, gained 5,000 lbs of thrust, and had a low-drag conformal centerline tank/pod. Along with assorted avionics changes, etc. Israel wanted that pretty badly. A prototype was built. it could exceed mach 1 without afterburners. That plane was a far cry from the "flying brick" reputation. But timing is everything. McD-D was not keen to actually develop it by then, because it could have created very serious competition for the F-18. There was a similar proposal with small canards added above the front wing roots. A prototype of that was also built. That would have been really incredibly agile. But probably would have sacrificed supercruise capability (for the drag of the canards). The RAF wanted a mach 3+ recon phantom which would carry a massive payload of water to keep things functional. That one was shut down by the state department who didn't want to export a fighter which was significantly faster than anything in US inventory. The phantoms were almost too successful to politely leave center stage to make room for 4th gen. And even as they left, nobody wanted to replace the F-4 wild weasels for a long time, because the F-4's were built like A-10's & F-15's in terms of battle damage resilience. And wild weasel pilots really like that. F-4 was really the first combat plane where you could blow off a wing, turn one of the engines into sheet metal confetti, and just fly home & land anyway. And it's still a pretty small number of aircraft in that club. So yeah "A gaggle of aerodynamic fixes flying in loose formation" ...but doing so quite elegantly and effectively.

[@minortoterona2947]

You saying it like HIGHER drag have benefits too

[@darkofc]

👍👍

[@markdaniellegarcia1362]

i was expecting him to talk about the reasons behind triangular shape of the phantom's tail but what i got is 14 minutes of drag lecture

[@SPak-rt2gb]

Interesting maybe you could have included how the XB-70 road it's own shockwave at supersonic speeds

[@kathrynck]

That one's pretty straightforward. The shockwaves coming from the forward part of the aircraft would hit the underside of the folded wing sections. The lift created was much like the force of a fan blade. It pushed the wingtips outward, and due to the angle, upward. More lift for less drag, compared to conventional approaches to generating lift. Although... it did require very robust wings, and very robust moving parts at a considerable distance from the fuselage. So "efficient lift, with a weight & complexity penalty". Largely not worth the trade-off, unless you plan to supercruise nearly all of the time, and at high altitude where lift generation is at a premium. The Bone, by contrast, used swing wings to have a large range of lift vs drag ratio options, allowing it to go high drag & high lift near the ground, then switch to low drag with modest lift at high speed. So it could go 'far & fast', but still be very viable for takeoff/landing, and treetop level flight in hostile airspace. Swing wings also have less overall wing area (for a given maximum lift), making them less susceptible to downdrafts. Which gets them like 20-30 ft closer to the ground with comparable safety. Add ground mapping radar, and you can hug the terrain pretty closely. Basically the B-70 would have been the superior hauler of explosive goods to anywhere you want them (and very fast). It could do the BUFF's job, but better. (then again, it probably wouldn't have the Buff's extreme longevity as an airframe) But the Bone is better for going places "somewhat quickly", and then slowing down to penetrate hostile air space at daringly low altitude, "modest" low-observable characteristics to reduce it's detection range, and with lots of ECM/ECCCM hardware.

[@ettorefassina356]

Aha! You are living in England, I spotted the electric outlets in the bed clip!

[@112313]

I remember that there is a relation with lift and drag, and that without drag, there is no lift...so, a certain amount of drag is desirable in certain direction, but not the other?

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

You are confusing a few things here, but it would require a long explanation. Let's say that there is a relationship between lift and drag coefficients and they both always exists for physical reasons.

[@janwitts2688]

Hence Boattail bullets and EE Doc Smiths teardrop hulled ships

[@shaider1982]

Hope the dogtooth on the F4 and F15 will be covered next.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

There is not much to say. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5bCpoylgNqVesk

[@shaider1982]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech ahh, ok. Tnx👍🏻

[@DANIEL-yj4rg]

wowowo

[@oporim]

6:36 ... I disagree. Wings would bend in that way if the roll was a consequence of vertical tail flap displacement or differential elevators - which would apply a torque on the fuselage, and the wings would have to follow the main body roll. Because the wings would be following the body, they would flow through air with positive angle of attac (left airplane wing - right one on the picture) and negative AoA othe other wing. Positive AoA creates higher air pressure on the bottom side of the wing and bends it upwards, negative AoA creates higher air pressure on the top side of the wing and bends it downwards. But if the roll of the aircraft is created (a consequence) by ailerons, then the wing that has aileron (or flaperon or flap) deflected downwards will have higher pressure on the bottom side, pressure on the lower side of the wing will force it upwards and will create a rolling torque on the main body of the aircraft. And the wing that has aileron deflected upwards will have higher pressure on the upper side of the wing, which will create a downward force on the wing and a rolling torque on the aircraft. So in such a case the wing moving upwards (left one of the picture) would be bent upwards, since it is creating lift, that is rolling the plane. And the wing on the right side of the picture would bend downwards, since it is creating negative lift, that helps the aircraft to roll. If the right wing would instead have spoilers, then that wing would essentially lose lift and would initially stay straight, then when it would gain increased roll-induced AoA due to rolling downwards, it would gain pressure on the lower surface of the wing, wing would bend slightly upwards and the roll of the plane would slow down. If the bending of wings was meant as a consequence of axial acceleration of engine bocks (inertia), then the above still applies. If the ailerons are the cause of aircraft rolling, then engine mass will cause the (left on picture) wing to bend down at root, but in the portition of the wing where the ailerons are (wingtip), the wing will bend upwards, because there is a force being generated there that is rolling the entire plane clockwise. Similary in high G turns, wings bend upwards, because they carry (with lift) a 9-times mass of the plane through a turn. (note: I disagree with the sketch, not with the video, video is very informative)

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

You forgot tailerons. Yes, the explanations should have been more detailed.

[@ACDroneDesignforPerformance]

Hello, really super compliments for the videos and especially for the topics you deal with. I have a channel similar to yours (smaller) intended for an Italian audience. Since this topic is very interesting, can I ask you if you have any bibliography to suggest to me to study the topic? Thank you

[@truquichan]

Feeding the algorithm...

[@ArveEriksson]

Incidentally, I hear X-Plane 12 will have a very accurate F-4 flight experience. Now to get edjammacated.

[@josephsmith3908]

It's a very fast plane

[@ewetho]

Before you think an F-4 is some brick… they re-engines one with modern engines and the dang thing will easily supercruise at like Mach 1.4… they scrapped the idea to prevent loss of modern fighter sales… the phantom was designed to be very fast maybe not quite as maneuverable…

[@shaider1982]

I think that was the Kurnass 2000 by Israel. Though upgrades are still so high, better to buy new ones

[@samblackstone3400]

It's insane how anyone figured this stuff out. Coming up with gas laws alone took hundreds of years of progress in math, imagine how much human effort went into modeling all of aerodynamics.

[@FirstDagger]

11:50 But aircraft are ships, they are just sailing through the air. 15:00 I think you forgot to add the annotation.

[@b.griffin317]

No Grippen video link.

[@shrodingerscat8940]

Can u make a video on helicopter?

[@piwright42]

Aerodynamic sins and exhaust heat.

[@stevenhoman2253]

the curious aerrdyamics of the F4 Phantom always confused me. The cathedral of the tail, and dog legged wings, with changing dihedral throughout. I wondered how well those powerful engines might have performed in a cleaner design?

[@kilianortmann9979]

The original design idea behind the Phantom was much cleaner. Starting point for McDonnell was the F3H-G "Super Demon" proposal. They enlarged it and added a second cockpit to fit the All Weather Interceptor role. During testing they found a lack of lateral stability, rather than redesigning the entire central section, to give the wing about 5° of dihedral, they added 12° only to the outer sections and added a dog-tooth to improve high AoA handling. The Tail-plane was another compromise, a high tail, like in the Demon, can get into the wake of the main wings during high AoA, leading to loss of elevator authority and eventually a deep stall. A "conventional" low mounted tail was out of the question though, because that was were the engine nozzles were supposed to go. The easiest solution was to start the elevators high, over the engines, and give them an aggressive anhedral to get them out of the main wings wake.

[@HMSNeptun]

@@kilianortmann9979 a high tail(especially a T-tail) is susceptible to a super-stall, especially if the CG is behind the centre of the aircraft. The weak lateral stability was at least partially caused by the small vertical stabilizer.

[@kathrynck]

The dog tooth, and angled wingtips also helped control airflow down the wings. Kind of like the outer section of the F-16XL's crank arrow wing, but using a tooth & a veritcal angle change, instead of an angle change viewed from the top. Saab is still fond of this wing trick, and exploits it well in their designs. The F-4 was a very nice package actually, in terms of performance. It's biggest limitation was high weight. A re-design of it to exploit 4th gen materials (mostly carbon fiber), and eliminating some of the armor (it was built like an A-10 in terms of absorbing combat damage), would have made it a very viable 4th gen aircraft. The main reason this didn't happen had to do with marketing & economics, rather than the design itself. They wanted to sell new planes ;) Though a "Super Phantom" was tossed around in several circles as a possible 4th gen.

[@kilianortmann9979]

@@kathrynck I think a redesign of the Phantom with 4th gen materials and tech would look pretty much like the F-15A. Identical A/A weapons loadout, similar performance, though a little bit better everywhere and HOTAS.

[@kathrynck]

@@kilianortmann9979 Well the F-15 is a product of the "Phantom Works". so yeah ;) But there were ideas thrown around for several different advanced versions of F-4, updating the design without radically changing it.

[@benokanruzgar8863]

Also, cooking your tail constatly with your exhaust gas (life F-4 and Jaguar did), is not the best idea in the modern battle field!

[@kathrynck]

eh... the tails were out of the exhaust flow, unless you threw the stick into a hard maneuver, then they'd dip in and give you gen-3's crude version of thrust vectoring. Also if you bank hard to evade a heat seeking missile fired from the aft, the tail hides the exhaust nozzles right around the same time that the flares start kicking out... so that has a certain helpful synergy. They're titanium, so it's all good. just don't bother painting the horizontal stabilizers.

[@bodan1196]

A close parallell to this topic is the _base bleed_ system used with artillery shells.* Look it up on Wikipedia: Base bleed *) Which I today learned is a swedish invention/development. Yay...? For a peace loving country, we are... kinda... proficient in the weapons development department. Aren't we? Hmm. 🙂

[@masterchief111116]

And i thought the video was about how the wing covers the engine heat signature🤦🏻‍♂️

[@ericr7367]

Instantly recognizable as the F4, fastest 🇺🇸 fighter ever to see combat if I'm not mistaken, it's only flaw.. NO GUN 3000+ mph or some absurd number.. just glad it's 🇺🇸 😝

[@Hypernefelos]

I think you're thinking of the MiG-25 (goes up to Mach 3). The F-4 is slower than the F-15 and the F-4E version carries an internal gun.

[@peterboy209]

😳🤔

[@captainalgar4897]

you are very wrong, regarding drag, in aerospace insdutry most of the shapes are streamed and not blunded therefore form drag is second order if the boundary layer remains attached and no wake is formed (in 2D only skin friction due to the boundary layer is the decessive factor), otherwise the total drag is null (see d'Allemberd's paradox). You also have to consider for 3D cases skin friction + induced drag due to circulation vortexs (Prandtl’s finite wing theory)

[@deth3021]

What are the chances that 6th gen deletes the tail?

[@gmcjetpilot]

6:19 As a commercial and military aerospace engineer for 30 years (and airline pilot). WTF? You relize here is lift and spoilers on the B747 the most successful commercial airliner in history in continious production since 1970 to present day B747-8. 50 yrs. Bad design? My first job out of college at Boeing I worked with a former Douglas F4 Engineer who designed the empennage.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

yes, sorry, that was a bad example that did not convey the meaning I wanted to.

[@justfly7730]

There is a spook face on the tip of the tail. The only one.

[@captainalgar4897]

regarding the nozzles also few inacuracis: jet fightes have variable nozzles thus they can equalize both pressures for having a perfect match. The probelm occurs when a part of the fluid becomes supersonic, the transition between regimes takes a lot of energy when creating the shock waves. Shock waves can be oblique or normal in the drawing you put the exhaust at the very end so the fuselage wont notice at all the shock wave, in the f4 it could happen because de nozzels are ahead of the satabilizer but you are failing to explain that, in the grippen you are also providing false information the GE-F414G engine has a bypass, because it is in fact a turbofan engine with an afterburner most of the power its been delivered by the fan, not the nozzle.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Good point on the F-4 and I am sure you will forgive the simplification.

[@captainalgar4897]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech No worries, is just that I am an aerospace engineer and very passionate about this stuff