Why Do Backwards Wings Exist?

Sign up to Nebula here: go.nebula.tv/realengineering
Links to everything I do:
beacons.ai/brianmcmanus
Credits:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Stephanie Sammann
Animator: Mike Ridolfi
Sound: Graham Haerther
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster
References:
[1] hugojunkers.bplaced.net/junkers-ef131.html
[2] www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-008-DFRC.html apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a124715.pdf
[3] www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/ConfigAeroTransonics.pdf
[4] bit.ly/2Y17MM2
[5] apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/271130.pdf
[6] www.srmuniv.ac.in/sites/default/files/downloads/class5-2012.pdf
[7] www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-081-DFRC.html
[8] repository.lib.ncsu.edu/bitstream/handle/1840.16/2141/etd.pdf?sequence=1
kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppiQgpxrib6tgZI
[9] page 18 www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Sweeping_Forward.pdf
[10] kzbin.info/www/bejne/goDQp6WhaLGDfcU
[11] apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a124715.pdf
[12] www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88172main_H-1574.pdf
[13] page 24 www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Sweeping_Forward.pdf
[14] www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/120266main_FS-008-DFRC.pdf
[15] Page 124 www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Sweeping_Forward.pdf
kzbin.info/www/bejne/goDQp6WhaLGDfcU
[16] Page 127 www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Sweeping_Forward.pdf
[17] Page 208 www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Sweeping_Forward.pdf
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Songs:
tomic Numbers 1 - August Wilhelmsson
Codec Sabotage - Marten Moses
Computer Wiz - Marten Moses
Calmly - Dye O
Cobwebs In The Sky - They Dream By Day
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ken Coltan, Andrew McCorkell, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Devin Rathbun, Thomas Barth, Paulo Toyosi Toda Nishimura

[@RorySinn]

KZbin: Why backwards wings? Me at 3:53am: I must find out immediately

[@rickyzoroza]

03:11am for me, a day later

[@joansolis9687]

1:32

[@RorySinn]

@@rickyzoroza I had a job to shoot at 9am the next day, what's wrong with my brain

[@10dimensionalentity26]

4 am for me

[@BRANDON-uo3wl]

i dont need sleep, i need answers

[@derekdrake8706]

Most importantly: They look really cool..

[@sigor815]

True

[@ashtonmitch9969]

I thought most importantly would be a safe flight but I could be wrong

[@derekdrake8706]

@@ashtonmitch9969 Very wrong. It has to look cool so it sells.

[@ashtonmitch9969]

@@derekdrake8706 I don't think that's true at all lol

[@NHAFFFF]

How does that look cool?

[@DarkRijin]

this video made me realize how much i liked planes as a pre-teen...something i had forgotten about as an adult. so thanks for that!

[@TheCivildecay]

same

[@stupid_tree7158]

I used to love trains lol

[@FallenCitys]

Stupid_Tree I'd always be excited when I saw railroad tracks

[@da_pawz]

I feel you. This video made me rem back to those days lol

[@glenrothwell6608]

Go watch Wendover Productions

[@gracecalis5421]

Ace Combat Devs: **watches video** Also Ace Combat Devs: _I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that_

[@RezRector]

Based Ace Combat poster

[@SephirothRyu]

Nah, they definitely remembered it (or something like it anyway). Their approach to a number of their original aircraft seems to be hybridizing a backward and forward swept wings. See the Morgan and FALKEN. Their wings are about half-back, half forward (whereas the X-29 and su-49 seem to be like 80% forward, with really only a small lead-in to the wing being swept back).

[@lemeow7883]

@@SephirothRyu SU-47*

[@SephirothRyu]

@@lemeow7883 gah.

[@nrgbladex7670]

Also ace combat has the X-02 with backward swept wings that can fold in at faster airspeeds

[@deusexaethera]

Fun fact: The X-29 didn't just have 3 redundant flight computers, they were also each programmed by a different team so they would have different software bugs. The idea is, at any given moment, at least 2 of the 3 computers would agree on how to adjust the control surfaces, and the disagreeing computer would be voted-down until the next set of attitude measurements came in from the sensors. This is standard practice in military avionics nowadays.

[@toranamunter]

And civil FBW architecture.

[@ukaszraczkowski6260]

Do basically, it had the MAGI on board.

[@djquestionthis]

Provides great redundancy, this is the same reason I have three girlfriends, if the third one doesn't agree with the first two........same process............ eliminated....😂. **disclaimer**. This practice may be dangerous!!

[@dsmyify]

@Matthew Savage ~ yeah, I know who you're talking about.

[@faustin289]

@@djquestionthis Damn cool! I wish I could do the same.

[@chancepaladin]

I love how like 10% of how a wing works was explained in the 4th grade, and then you never hear about it again until youtube comes out.

[@RenaxTM91]

I had a pretty good understanding of how a wing works, but learned a little by this vid anyways...

[@dashiellgillingham4579]

@Matt B Not aeronautical ones.

[@dashiellgillingham4579]

@Dave Pawson Your ignorance is as incredible as it is revealing.

[@pete1972]

@Dave Pawson Yeah, no that ain't it

[@ElBach1y]

@Dave Pawson shut up

[@StopMoshin]

I used to think some of Starscream's alt modes that had reverse wings were just nonsense sci-fi designs but now thinking about it a sentient plane that could control every flight surface like a limb actually makes sense

[@Caldoric]

to be fair, a lot of the time, his robot mode _also_ has the wings in a forward (upward?) -swept position, regardless of how the alt-mode has them, though the control surfaces do end up on what would be the new "leading edge" when he uses them in bot mode.

[@Caldoric]

same for most of the seekers, too.

[@mage3690]

@@Caldoric leading edge control surfaces are a criminally under-studied part of aircraft design. Basically, modern planes have slats, canards, and tailerons, and that's it. I wonder why that is? Leading-edge control surfaces would easily solve (or at least postpone, which is often good enough) the stall issue that deeply swept wings have. Seems like it would be useful, I wonder if it changes the lift characteristics of the wing in unpredictable ways?

[@pwnmeisterage]

@@mage3690 The video answered your question. Forward-swept wing/canard designs do offer specific advantages in specific flight circumstances. But not enough to be worth trading away existing advantages, not worth the greatly increased costs and complexities to construct.

[@iansteelmatheson]

lol I'm sure the creators of transformers were thinking that much into it and not just "it looks cool and it'll sell toys"

[@mastacheifa1182]

Came here to learn about backwards wings. Instead learned how to make better forwards wings on KSP.

[@TheGuyThatsNotFunny]

Same, and they just made the KSP 2 trailer.

[@TheVideoGuardian]

@@TheGuyThatsNotFunny Here's hoping KSP2 aero is good as good as FAR was, because the rest of the features look literally EPIC.

[@zxcbvnm90]

I finally understand why the friggin canards in KSP have their aileron controls "backwards"....

[@g.zoltan]

How? AS I know, this vide shouldn't have teached anything like that. In KSP aerodynamics aren't properly modelled, that includes supersonic flight. Having swept wings won't improve supersonic aerodynamics in KSP. The forward sweep's main advantage, the stall charactersitics are also irrelevant in KSP. You won't improve pitch stability with a carbon fibre wing boksz either. Not to mention how KSP renders aerodynamic stability a non factor by having a flawless guidance system. You can learn aerodynamic stability in KSP if you turn SAS off, but having planes that are stable with SAS off is not really a huge advantage that could justify crippling your plane's efficiency for it.

[@naumen6508]

@@g.zoltan *yes but it looks cool so they will do it nonetheless.

[@johnjohnson201]

Me looking at title and thumbnail: “So the planes can go backwards, duh”

[@lass1234]

u dun haz teh brain twoday

[@jacobdavis6056]

Big brain time

[@AViewCado69420]

I can donate some brain cells, you need any bro?

[@khyleolamit5689]

U dun goofed up

[@orukuroch.3355]

My Face When r/woosh

[@kcpilot21]

The X-29 no matter how short lived, was a beautiful aircraft.

[@MongooseTacticool]

Looks like they used an F-20 Tigershark prototype fuselage.

[@dustin628]

I agree. So was the Russian built one.

[@MasterYoda420]

It looks facinating

[@jackryan5817]

My dad was on the design team for it, said the design was cool but it was wayy too dangerous to fly

[@dylannix4289]

Personally prefer the Berkut over the X-29, it just looks so much more agressive

[@wanderingaceminecraftandmo8034]

Me: Also me: I don't need sleep, I need answers!

[@slow330xi3]

Wandering Ace Minecraft and More copy and paste much?

[@NA-ij6pc]

Shut up copy

[@michaelbanks1000]

That was me at 5 am... After not sleeping 20 hrs

[@scubasteve6463]

*Engineers at Boeing* "Ummm...because it looks cool?" NASA ".......WE'LL TAKE A THOUSAND!"

[@wanderingaceminecraftandmo8034]

You mean... *I'LL TAKE YOUR ENTIRE STOCK!!*

[@n1njaF4c3palm]

Is "a thousand" a reference by any chance?

[@ivanov1276]

@@n1njaF4c3palm It's a reference to the number 1000, which comes after 999.

[@otavioa7544]

@@ivanov1276 logic

[@jehefar28yearsago97]

@@otavioa7544 *Lojik*

[@ihavetowait90daystochangem67]

Germany at the time must’ve used the research_all command in console

[@theofficialdeathmark2202]

research_on_icon_click

[@idyllsend6481]

Feels like they designed everything XD Unfortunate Israel hunted most of them post the war as they sided with Arabs, those captured by the West were free to resume their research.

[@MykolaSternenkoDroneBoyHoleMan]

@@idyllsend6481 nope, plenty of mazo scientists got it easy both in US and USSR.

[@roadrunner6224]

@@idyllsend6481 the ones with actually valuable information found work in the West or East, unfortunately not enough of the really crazy ones like Mengele got what they deserved.

[@savagetuner2404]

Idyllsend as they should have.

[@pooindaloo6049]

I guess it's about time to fire up kerbal space program again.

[@MarioMoralesNeo]

I was thinking the same thing. Glad I wasn't alone. lol

[@DarkDrai]

@@MarioMoralesNeo Nope.

[@TyrInAsgard]

EvE Online

[@DarkDrai]

@@TyrInAsgard Nope.

[@benstandard4196]

I just played kerbal space program

[@miss_bec]

I personally find the X-29 to look kinda goofy, but the Su-47 is my all-time favourite fighter jet even if its exists more so in research papers and blueprints than it does the sky. Forward swept wings have always been so fascinating to me, thank you for clearly and concisely explaining how they work.

[@puckstopper25]

I find those two planes a really interesting contrast between US and USSR design philosophy, but man, the Su-47 is incredible.

[@alzingafagan7501]

Props to the Russians are in order for the marvel that is the Su-47

[@dmac7128]

The X-29 was noteworthy in the way that was designed from an existing airframe to minimize costs. The fuselage is basically an F-5 Freedom Fighter with the engine from a F-18 Hornet.

[@smallerfreeze]

So no $10,000 usd hammers were ordered for the project?

[@mnxs]

And, iirc, the flight computers were reprogrammed and repurposed from the F-16.

[@CraigLandsberg-lk1ep]

Yes I nice little combo with such a light airframe and a powerful single eng, must have bin a potent little thing!😅

[@Bingo2501]

Cause it looks cool? Duh!

[@mrpicky1868]

word for word what i was going to wright lol

[@LocPH.]

@@mrpicky1868 yeah see a pun intended

[@savagetuner2404]

El Duderino AKSHUALLY

[@GraveUypo]

yep, just about what i scrolled down to type.

[@LocPH.]

@Proud Apostate swept back are coolest

[@seljukturk8627]

you say "aerodynamic instability", I hear "Involuntary hypermobility"

[@Guitarded]

r/iamverysmart

[@Tesskr95]

You're quite right. In fact, many modern fighter jets are intentionally aerodynamically unstable (though probably not to the degree of the x-29) because an unstable design is far more maneuverable than a stable design.

[@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681]

Yeah, the "involuntary" is the part that is the problem there.

[@yaboikungpowfuckfinger7697]

I see you’re a man of culture as well

[@seljukturk8627]

@@Guitarded r/woooosh

[@TheYear-dm9op]

As someone who is building planes in Kerbal Space Program, there where a few things to learn here that explain certain things. Good stuff!

[@AdobadoFantastico]

Am I the only one who thinks "Hitler's Miracle Machines" sounds way too fun and wholesome as a title for that documentary he plugged at the end? lol

[@TheMechanicalHermit]

Nothing intrinsically evil about engineering. Nazi Germany allowed amazing engineers to create machines and concepts that kickstarted much of our own technology, even long after the war.

[@shorewall]

Mr. Hitler's Fantabulous Magical Mystery Camps. ;D

[@flex8098]

@@shorewall good joke lad i am going to laugh :)

[@Tron-Jockey]

Amazing how the Nazis built upon the work of Jewish engineers, scientists and other academics (like Josef Ganz). Two months after Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor, the German government issued the Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums-the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. The law ordered that those in government positions of Jewish heritage be immediately dismissed. Thousands of people lost their jobs as teachers, judges, police officers-and academics at the country’s top universities. Many of these intellectuals would flee to the UK, the US, and dozens of other countries to protect their livelihoods and their lives. The Nazi regime pushed out leading researchers such as Albert Einstein, Hans Krebs, and WW1 hero Fritz Haber. Germany kept and built upon the incredible work accomplished by these geniuses but either enslaved or drove the originators out. The extraordinary intellectual exodus would have tremendous implications for not only Germany but also the countries that took them in as refugees.

[@dan-gheorghe2277]

Actually the engineers got drunk, put the wings backwards then decided to go with it.

[@AleronWolf]

In Soviet Union....

[@leinnnn]

In america we build our plane’s wings forward **IN MOTHER RUSSIA NO MATTER HOW DRUNK OR PROFESSIONAL WE ARE, WE PUT THE WINGS DESIRED BY OUR HEART!**

[@SephirothRyu]

The best part is, America actually did one of the most applicable things to this meme. Everyone else: We build plane first then put on gun! In NON-Soviet America, we make gun. Plane is built AROUND gun! BRRRRRT! (yes, I speak of the A-10, because yes this is basically an almost literal summary of its design process)

[@Richi_Boi]

Its not aerodynamic instability, its supermanuverability!

[@knarflarsson9611]

Rash B blin or both. HmmmmmmmmmmmmMMmmMm

[@magic_pink_horse]

Su-47 Represent.

[@pencilclamp4824]

Control sensitivity set to 100%

[@jefflee4527]

Your not wrong actually

[@joeshmoe7967]

There is some truth there. Fighter jets are way less stable than passenger planes and it is part of what makes them so maneuverable. Compare dihedral to anhedral. Stable harder to steer vs less stable but higher maneuverability.

[@revmatch2648]

Awesome video! I have piece of information Id like to add about the P-38. The hydraulics on the P-38 had enough advantage to be able to overcome any aerodynamic stiffening, so that was not the issue. The airflow separation that came from main wing by exceeding the max mach number caused the tails control surface to be caught in a "vacuum". With the hydraulic boosted controls the pilot would have been capable of full elevator deflection, but he lack of air flow over the control surface would make it too ineffective to change the pitch of the aircraft. The only time the P-38 could reach these speeds was when it entered a dive, so if this mach number was reached in the dive to cause the shock wave to form, then there would be almost nothing the pilot could do to regain control as he would be stuck in the dive, unable to pull up with the now useless elevator. From colder (higher) dives the speed of sound is slower, so most of the time get out of the high altitude dive would be that the higher temperatures at lower altitudes would raise the mach number enough to get them out of trans-sonic speeds and regain elevator authority. You can actually find experimental P-38 with an up curved tail boom to try and keep the elevator clear of the "vacuum area", but it proved to be too weak of a structure. The Germans, with there hydraulically advanced aircraft, would eventually figure this out and used this knowledge to be able to escape by diving, knowing the P-38 would not be able to follow them in the dive. Where as the Japanese Zeros did not have hydraulic assistance, so they too were unable to enter a high speed dive, but for the reason of aerodynamic stiffening, so the P-38 dominated the sky where the enemy fighters had no way out.

[@ThatchyWalnut]

What was the planes the Germans was using in those dogfights?

[@paulrussell1207]

Thunderbird 2 is a classic example of this, pretty impressive given the huge fuselage and vehicles on board!

[@JustABaptistApoligist]

Ah a fellow thunderbirds fan, Thunderbird 2 is my personal favorite of all the craft as well

[@TotallyDapper]

It’s just the best Thunderbird. It’s a rocket-powered supersonic Flying Boxcar, what’s not to love?

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

Its everybody’s favourite Thunderbird. Even if the takeoff sequence from Tracy Island doesn’t make any sense.

[@RedDawn430]

Also, it could levitate/hover

[@Dragon-Slay3r]

Yeah at the expense of my testicles for the ball cover thanks guys I really like my teachers just for me to learn they like to make themselves look stupid

[@gfries4906]

7:34 no one gonna talk about how it looked like that airliner just went vertical?

[@wellsjn1]

It did

[@aspct.]

It was probably a test flight thus the unusual maneuvers.

[@MOTO809]

That was a Boeing 787 Dreamliner during practice for the 2015 Paris air show. I don't quite remember if it was still in testing at that point, but the maneuver was to demonstrate the power and agility of the new airliner.

[@CJFrasher]

It was a trick of the camera angle and zoom. Awesome aerial photography

[@rajaspydey]

It was test flight.

[@swonardian342]

The superior wing design in Kerbal Space Program

[@mikicerise6250]

Because stock aerodynamics doesn't take wing sweep into account. ;)

[@alanwatts8239]

It's not a simulator, it's just a physics based game

[@yyangf]

So we have tried forward wings, backward wings, straight wings, double wings, triple wings... what left to try? Honey BBQ?

[@latinpassion]

4 wings, box wings, no wings, all wings

[@SephirothRyu]

We could try forward wingLETS on a backwards wing, right? Or did we already do that?

[@SephirothRyu]

Could also try some weird merging of wing and tail such that the vertical fins are at the merged wing and tail tips I guess, connecting the two in what looks from the front like its just a big loop (merge point must of course be sufficiently behind the center of mass to be able to use them as rudders)? You know, to not have those pesky wing or tailtip vortices or something, since there wouldn't BE a tip.

[@MrAsh1100]

@@latinpassion Ah, a pilot of culture. Tell me, what are borders?

[@rockyblacksmith]

@@latinpassion Those aren't left, they all HAVE been tried.

[@hinowisaybye]

Could you do a dissection of the F-15, and what has made it such a long lasting design?

[@pizzacat9442]

*Real Engineering:* Uploads plane video *Wendover Productions would like to know your location*

[@halonothing1]

Not everybody uses a computer or mobile device to watch KZbin. They don't make NoScript or Brave Browser for WebOS.

[@jimbo42521]

@Thomas TRY STOOL SOFTENER...

[@mewtwo.150]

More like: 100% control sensitivity

[@anandsuralkar2947]

Lol

[@anandsuralkar2947]

Also add 100ms response delay so that it becomes impossible to control

[@OrgBrent]

For a pc: max sensitivity In game Max DPI mouse

[@paulmoffat9306]

I have flown several gliders that had mildly swept forward wings. That was done for a very practical reason, as those gliders were all 2 seat trainers, and the rear seat was at the CG position of the lift of the wings. That made the weight of the person in that seat, non-contributory to the trim of the glider (only affected the total weight), and the front pilot was the only one that affected the weight and balance.

[@bsadewitz]

I don't know how no one else has liked this comment, it made the concept a lot clearer to me.

[@mnxs]

Huh, interesting! I had thought that it was for visibility reasons for the second pilot, and that might be part of it, but your explanation makes more sense.

[@mhoeltken]

There are some forward swept aircraft in production. (I flew three of them: Ka2b, Ka7 and ASK-13.) Also, the HFB320 Hands Jet had forward sewpt wings, mainly to place the spar carry-through behind the cabin and pressure vessel. On a side note about canard wings: You don't want them to deliver lift essentially, because they suck at it. For efficient lift you want high aspect ratios and a good elliptical lift distribution. Canards can't deliver that and are usually highly stressed when contributing to the lift of the aircraft. But they can be designed inherently stable, as the Rutan-Designs and Derivatives show (VariEZ, LongEZ, SpeedCanard, Cozy, Velocity, Starship). Best efficiency is reached in classic configuration though, with a tailplane delivering as low force as possible. This is why practically all high performance gliders are of classic design with a small tailplane on a (more or less) long boom.

[@LarsAgerbk]

4:05 when you think ww2 german engineering could't possibly impress you more than it already has, in comes the Variable-sweep wing.

[@jannegrey593]

And Poland in 1932 with PWS Z-17. Although it was not build just like many other aircraft, mostly because of lack of money.

[@weasle2904]

@TheSatanicTicTac hahaha

[@deleted-cg9of]

@TheSatanicTicTac hans: oh mein god

[@egggamingyt9272]

@@deleted-cg9of ?

[@hassanlabyad4082]

@TheSatanicTicTac Litteraly every tank soviet german or american had transmisdion problems except the m4 sherman The sherman was all about reliability

[@Ked_gaming]

Could you make a video about bush planes and how they can stall at such low speed ? This would be awesome

[@VIctorAbicalil]

Light weight, big wing.

[@BrandonKent136]

@@VIctorAbicalil no

[@BrandonKent136]

Stall occurs at an angle of attack where you get flow separation from the wings top surface, an adverse pressure gradient, and therefore flow reversal, and loss of lift. This happens at a critical angle of attack, where you get a sharp drop off in lift. low reynolds number flow (laminar flow) has a low amount of energy compared to faster moving turbulent flow. So, when moving slower, the critical angle of attack is a lower angle.

[@Make-Asylums-Great-Again]

Why are people attempting to answer a question he never asked the audience. Ked wants a video from OP.

[@Ked_gaming]

Thank you all for likes i hope he sees this :) Would be awesome

[@SniperSnake50BMG]

first saw the x29 in Ace Combat 2 and I love the design!

[@Breakdown360DC]

Can't stop watching these videos, so informative and well edited. Great content mate, keep it up!

[@patrikcath1025]

It's a shame that the X-29 project was cancelled, it looks awesome.

[@cringyhuman3210]

Tho I think it’s ugly

[@Tigershark_3082]

The X-29 was built using the rear section of a General Dynamics F-16A, and the front/nose of a Northrop F-5E Tiger II.

[@flightmaster999]

@@Tigershark_3082 So it was basically an F-20 Tigershark? 😉

[@Attaxalotl]

It wasn't really cancelled so much as it was completed. They found out everything they needed to about Forward-Swept Wings.

[@Attaxalotl]

@Tyler Braden It's called the Su-47 as of 2002; and yeah it's sexy

[@mbe102]

The F-14 Tomcat is a great example of both proponents in action. But even when fully extended, the wings have a slight sweep.

[@johnarnold893]

S Art....FAR was nothing even close to this plane.

[@oldtimefarmboy617]

@@johnarnold893 The F-14 Tomcat did not have forward swept wings but it did have movable wings. Like what was explained during the video, wings that are perpendicular to the fuselage give you great lift and maneuverability during slower speeds and swept back wings were safer during high speeds. The F-14 Tomcat had the ability to move its wings perpendicular to the fuselage during take off and landing and lower speeds and then could progressively move them into a sweptback position as speed increased enabling it to safely travel at supersonic speeds to get to the desired location quickly and then slow down and get better performance if it needed to loiter for a while and get better aerodynamics if it needed to target slower aircraft or ground targets.

[@dannyn6558]

@@oldtimefarmboy617 it was the F14E Super Tomcat that had adjustable wings that moves further and further back, as it goes supersonic. It's also can be stored stored in the hanger of an aircraft carrier with its wings all the way back.

[@weirddudes5543]

@@dannyn6558 okay now that’s just a stupid statement. There was never any F-14Es, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s a typo of the F-14D. But even then thinking only a single variant of a plane having such a complex and expensive feature as swing wings is stupid, since the amount of changes would’ve justified just making a new design altogether. The F-14 tomcat’s biggest selling point was the variable sweep wing, the plane was designed to use swing wings, thinking it wasn’t just flies in the face of the entire point of the plane.

[@dannyn6558]

@Weird Dudes it was, i meant a F-14D Super Tomcat. The Super Tomcat, in my earlier comment should be the big indicator of what i meant.

[@JamesSmith-sy6pz]

Why backwards wings: Because they look fuckin awesome

[@blazer6248]

I remember the 1st time I saw this plane with backwards swept wings in the thumbnail. My grandparents bought me a subscription to this thing called "Wheels & Wings" where they sent you a binder and different sheets about different planes and automobiles, tanks, etc... This plane was one of the planes they covered.

[@ice_teem8987]

Why do backwards wings exist? Can't let em know your next move

[@heretohear8662]

For parallel Parking.

[@heretohear8662]

@Sir Wojak IV Yes, It's a "special" needs plane.

[@superluig164]

I can imagine that on the X29, agility was also improved, since as soon as you start rolling, the inherent instability causes the plane to want to keep rolling, rather than to want to stop.

[@sirpwnsalotiii781]

There may already be a bunch of comments on this, but I have to mention that Bernouli's principle (the equation you displayed) is only applicable when the air is flowing along a streamline. Because the wing is in open air, the air is not forced to flow from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wing. Testing shows the air over the top of the wing actually meets at a point a ways behind the trailing edge of the wing while the air below meets more or less at the trailing edge, thus not on a streamline. (air is also compressible and viscus but these are not as important at low speeds)

[@Attaxalotl]

As someone who greatly enjoys the Sukhoi Su-47, I am very happy that he mentioned it.

[@davidnguyen3469]

Great video as usual. My only nitpick would be the screeching sfx for the text labels.

[@IvorMektin1701]

I'm old, can barely hear it. Enjoy piccolos while you're young.

[@freundlichermensch7540]

oh boy i thought, i love how much effort he put in to generate it :D But okay Headphone users might suffer more.

[@whoeveriam0iam14222]

didn't notice it at first but now that I've read this comment it's very obvious and annoying

[@0record0]

I found it annoying too, were high frequency and kind of painful to listen to just like nails on a chalk board

[@ionymous6733]

i only scrolled to the comments to confirm others must be irritated too. I think it was supposed to be like a squeaking hinge sound as the text swings in. But it's like nails on a chalkboard, distracting and totally clashes with the engineering theme. I'm also wearing cheap earbuds.

[@montana5204]

I'm quite ashamed of myself for watching the whole video without understanding anything....

[@nuddin99]

Real Engineering videos are fairly easy to understand imo. Engineering explained videos seem like a lot harder to grasp.

[@robhoard9114]

Bacause of the poorly done explainations. it's not You.

[@SupraSav]

The thirst for knowledge is there.. better than watching jackass or eating tide pods.

[@edwinpoopy]

keep learning, u will know more and more. at least u r here

[@DonaldSeymourjr]

@@robhoard9114 true.

[@mohnazaidi4666]

I mean the SU-47 IS unstable, BUT! It's also extremely maneuverable (which, in a air combat, could be useful vs. missiles when countermeasures are depleted).

[@aviator2252]

instability is maneuverablility if it dosnt kill you if it does its unstable

[@wim0104]

the F-16 is also unstable. The A/B generation was kept stable by Commodore 64 chips.

[@machupikachu1085]

@@wim0104 Seriously? That is AWESOME!

[@benpurcell4935]

The P-61 Blackwidow also a World War 2 design features a way to turn that’s on a lot of modern jets called spoilerons which at higher speeds allow it to turn. It also features ailerons to provide roll control at lower speeds.

[@Dethred1]

Maybe not the most ideal design on terms of functionality, but wow is it a sexy aircraft.

[@sethb3090]

I mean, stability and maneuverability are different requirements. If you make an unstable plane, it'll be able to maneuver like crazy.

[@Riceball01]

@john hansberry That's the principle behind all modern fighter aircraft since (I believe) the F-16.They're all designed to be inherently unstable and unflyable without the aid of a flight computer/computers making it flyable. The F-117 was another example of inherent instability and was nicknamed the Wobbly Goblin because of it.

[@sethb3090]

I mean, I guess it's kind of obvious if you think about it. A plane that doesn't want to go straight will probably be be better at not going straight than a plane that does want to go straight.

[@fontcaicoya5686]

I live in an RV, and the 'squeaking chalk' sound you use for illustrations in the video had me convinced my foundation was shifting or the wind was throwing the antenna outside for a spin. Hahaha. Much love, I've often wondered about this as an aviation-enthused child when I first saw the X-29 in a book. Thank you for answering a very old question of mine.

[@Marqan]

Now I can't unhear it...

[@NGC1433]

@V. V I'd exchange your business and condo for a 2005 Grand Voyager I live in now. It's all I have now. I'd even borrow somewhere else to pay for my ticket to OC...

[@adamjohnson4821]

Learned about this plane in Janes ATF Advanced Tactical Fighter. A truly wonderful game. The maneuverability of this plane was second only too my favourite the x-31. It had full 360° vector thrust abilities. God that game was good. I miss good flight sims.

[@RedDrake110]

Does this mean no real life X-02 or the ADF-01? *NOOOOOOOOOO*

[@xDanilor]

:( reality is often disappointing

[@acewyvern3489]

The ADFX-01 could be possible theoretically

[@avery1647]

The X-02 is possible. It has hybrid forward and backward swept wings, the wings can also fold inwards meaning that you can fold the wings in cruise flight and unfold it in dogfight or turnfight

[@RedDrake110]

@@avery1647 I can see 3 obvious problems with a real life X-02.. 1) Bcoz of the inward sweep wing mechanism, the wings could have the same flaws like the F-14.(wings could be tricky to maintain) 2) It will be quite a bit bigger than most fighters.(even if it is fast as fuck boi) 3) Internal weapon bays could mean limited flight range. 4) WAY TOO Expensive to develop IRL(kinda hard to justify the existence of it.)

[@avery1647]

@@RedDrake110 well I mean its supposed to be a revolutionary next gen aircraft so it has to be more complicated, expensive and bigger to carry stuff like the railgun

[@lsd-rickb-1728]

No one, literally no one... KZbin Algrorethim: *why are wings back wards?!?!?* Me at 1 AM: idk

[@eggfacing]

Now you know why.

[@lsd-rickb-1728]

@@eggfacing yup but still, we're not going to war with Russia, China or India anytime soon

[@macdaddy5796]

5:01 am 🤦‍♂️

[@AngryHateMusic]

@@macdaddy5796 Yeah not like anyone in America gives a shit about Lybia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Uganda, Somalia, Pakistan and not to mention Serbia, Sudan... all of which you have paid to go to war with in your lifetime. Hey! WTF is IRAN doing in the middle of all your US Bases? static.businessinsider.com/image/4ee6562eecad04150d00003f-750.jpg

[@moose7145]

Same

[@xnagytibor]

Do you accept machine oil as a donation?

[@benm5913]

I bet Clickspring does.

[@kennethfharkin]

Growing up on Long Island where Grumman was and this was built I actively followed its development. I was in HS from 84 - 88 and it was engineers from Grumman who spoke to us about working as aerospace engineers, which is the degree I achieved in 1992. Sadly by then the Cold War had ended and Grumman was completely imploding as a result. Still, during those years from 84 - 88 I followed everything I could about the X-29 and my mom's house still has the X-29 sticker on my old bedroom door. As the video accurately points out, the real take away's from the program turned out not to be the use of forward swept wings but the advancements in computer controlled/enhanced flight and advances in composite materials, both of which are major aspects of new military and larger commercial aviation.

[@jolmeaki]

I saw this jet fly over my house in the 80's surrounded by 4 other jets. I was about 5 or 6yo. My 4 brothers and I stopped playing and looked up. My oldest brother was jumping with excitement. This was on Long Island, NY.

[@lupita3689]

“One that broke ALL aircraft design convention,....... However, this aircraft was not the first of its kind.”

[@joeshmoe7967]

Well the first was outside convention, so his one was just joining that club....the first wouldn't have redefined 'conventional' of that time period

[@rahowherox1177]

@@joeshmoe7967 yes, if I build a forward swept wing plane tomorrow, it too will be breaking said convention...

[@belacickekl7579]

I take exception to that second sentence, because drawing something crazy and getting it to fly successfully are two very different things

[@joeshmoe7967]

@@rahowherox1177 I wonder if the distant future will have swept as conventional. Problem is if the flight computers fail you die. I like cables, carburators and skill. Not a huge fan of some of the push towards Ai. With these planes sometimes learning what doesn't work can be useful

[@halonothing1]

Just because a few unusual designs exist doesn't make it conventional.

[@ziploxian8516]

Already watched a video on this.... there's so many. EDIT: Your video has so much more information, I can't imagine how much research you do before a video. Nice job.

[@fhozza1105]

ziploxian Nice profile pic!

[@dimitrijepesic2607]

I love this channel, informative, well edited, very soothing and enjoyable to watch, intense physics lectures brought in a very good and easy ways. Thnx

[@aibpresto]

1:09 that break off is so nice

[@killer121l]

Been asking this question since playing Ace combat and get attracted by the SU 47

[@puppable]

Ace Combat looooooved their forward swept wings. ... and then so did I

[@finkamain1621]

@@joshshields2152 I played Ace Combat 11 on my Xbox Scarlet my friend brought me from the future from Area 51

[@fingmoron]

@@finkamain1621 sheeeit I've just been smoking DMT with my alien buddy Phil don't tell the US govt tho 👽

[@mansoorkarim836]

I played ace combat infinity on ps3. It was epic. Absolutely loved it and it really got me into planes. I'm on a pc now. Anyone know of any ace combat games on pc?

[@NatanelYaHu]

@@mansoorkarim836 yes there is one.

[@justicewarrior9187]

It greatly improves turn radius and pulls ridiculous G's!!

[@NGC1433]

Everything pulls ridiculous G's since Jesus walked the water. G's been limited by bloodbags for ages.

[@batt3ryac1d]

@@NGC1433 shame we arent kerbals. In ksp I made a plane that turns on a dime at mach 3 lmao it'd be like a blender in real life.

[@npne1253]

@@batt3ryac1d lol

[@fishytails6639]

@@batt3ryac1d same lol

[@chippysteve4524]

Clear explanations supported by top-knotch graphics and serious amounts of research.Spot on.Thanks dude!.

[@MrRoundel]

Last year I snapped an image of a hummingbird tail up, with its beak in a flower. When I checked the images, I noticed that while the hummingbird was facing down, the leading edge of its wings were facing up. I had to look at it a few times to be sure. Apparently hummingbirds can rotate their wings 180 degrees, and this showed it well. Amazing.

[@ChaosShadow00x]

huh, in KSP, I tend to reverse the wings on air craft that I want to make more agile. It's always been a hazardously delicate balance, but understanding why now is pretty cool!

[@FreedomTalkMedia]

It's not that the bernoulli effect isn't real -- it's just not the primary source of lift that people were taught it was for many years. The primary source if lift is wings pushing air down like giant ceiling fan blades. If that weren't true, airplanes could not fly upside down, where not only do the wings have to provide enough lift to lift the weight of the plane but also enough to overcome the bernoulli effect that is actually pulling the plane down.

[@BuffMyRadius]

Also, if my memory of my college physics class serves correctly, the Bernoulli effect only applies to air in an enclosed tube, as in a carburetor.

[@trevorbylsma123]

Correct, lift is primarily Newtonian. The wing forces air down, and in turn, the wing is forced up... Newton's third law. Many modern wings are "laminar flow airfoils." These wings have a symmetrical shape on the top and bottom. Therefore almost none of the lift is generated due to Bernoulli's principle, instead, it is simply Newtonian, generating lift by forcing air downwards. Which is why, like you said, aircraft can fly inverted.

[@HuntingTarg]

I will point out in all this that using airfoil surfaces to direct air upward or downward is drag-intensive, where the bernoulli effect is not. Also, the Bernoulli principle is best illustrated in a tube, but applies to any fixed cross-section where fluid is flowing unidirectionally, i.e. not exhibiting turbulence or vortices - that makes things nightmarishly more complicated.

[@anglerandy5736]

Daniel Bernoulli or his sick stealing father

[@kellyjackson7889]

@creditcrew 'debris'

[@bobkonradi1027]

Reading the story of the plane pictured, it was built with reverse wings so as to make it as unstable as possible and then test out computers in the plane that could possibly overcome the innate instability. It was built for the testing of computer controls. The plane is at the USAF Museum in Dayton, Ohio, and is featured in some of their books about the planes in the museum. The man / men who actually flew the plane had to have a triple set of cajones, but it apparently did its job, because it is still in one piece and not amongst a pile of scrap aluminum.

[@SiegmundXD7]

I was curious about this, the SU-47 is one of my favorite planes in Ace Combat

[@scottthewaterwarrior]

The X-29 is actually one of mine, along with the Mig-21, I like how nimble and hard to hit the smaller planes feel.

[@RedDrake110]

Love the Su-47, but the X-02 is too unique to not admire

[@GingaNinja35-official]

Burkuts?, erusea dosent have many of those.

[@benselectionforcasting4172]

F4 gang?!

[@somehecucunt3194]

@@GingaNinja35-official i get the refrence

[@TheBlobik]

"The Germans experimented with the idea in late stages of WWII" - Instant +50 to the credibility of the idea. Its amazing how many modern things are just WWII ideas reinvented / redesigned / refined.

[@russhicksart]

Forward swept wings typically have highly non-elliptical lift distributions (cCl) resulting in much higher induced drag, not lower as your video suggests (6:48). The sectional Cl's at the wing tips are lower which typically produces better stall characteristics but with a normal taper ratio (

[@j.r.cruzaguirre2734]

This is a fantastic video, and I appreciate you putting it out there. I had the popular mechanics issue about the X-29 when I was a kid. The design absolutely fascinated me but obviously it ran into a lot of problems and practical use. Thank you for your work!

[@hellfire08]

I saw the X29 in the air and space museum as a child. The forward swept wings captivated me and it’s been one of my favorite planes ever since.

[@VraccasVII]

the squeaking sound effects whenever a new line of text shows up is quite annoying. Could be much better with a different sound effect that doesn't hurt ears as much

[@marcolu5395]

@Alex 2017 Me neither

[@GranVlog]

@Alex 2017 10:06

[@matthias587]

does it hurt?

[@IRPepper17]

I could also hear it and my dog didn’t like it either.

[@mireille.bouquet]

@Alex 2017 4:35

[@GrungiestCar]

Loved the vid. Do you think you'll ever do a video on delta wings? Those have always fascinated the hell out of me, particularly how they use vortex lift at low speeds to generate lift.

[@fb1179]

Liked and subscribed because you actually credited all the music in the description. Thank you!

[@dippitydoinit]

I wonder if this design would be worth revisiting with modern technology. It's a very cool looking plane for sure.

[@calvingreene90]

The problem with the wingtips stalling first is the sabre dance. Tail heavy is unstable with or without a canard, nose heavy is stable. You can make convention swept wing planes tail heavy and they became unflyable without a computer system updating the control surfaces many times a second; it is why F-16s are fly by wire.

[@thepurpleufo]

I'll start working on my reverse-swept-wing fighter jet tomorrow.

[@disquette8958]

The amount of effort in this video, goodness gracious... well done, Real Engineering, well done.

[@nastykhan7746]

The real answer is: "because it looks more badass".

[@oslego]

This was very engaging! I enjoyed every clip and explanation, and I learned a few new things. Thank you for working on this!

[@deusexaethera]

Forward-swept wings exist because they grant +10 to Badassitude.

[@Kimdino1]

The Westland Lysander also had swept forward wings, and before WW2. This was done for very different reasons but it did give the aircraft more manouevrability than it might otherwise have had, enough to make this army observation aircraft suitable to be drafted in as a fighter.

[@FBW96]

Dude. Great channel. Lots of clear information presented well. Really gets me thinking!

[@duchi882]

*Engineers:* If it works, it works

[@valdonchev7296]

On the contrary; if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features. - Scott Adams

[@reverse7116]

The squeaking noise was driving me insane. Good Video!

[@plasmaburndeath]

So bad I had to down vote just for that, sadly so he knows how much that squeaking sound hurt my ears.. and annoyed me enough to recommend people do same so he has a vote on how bad video was so he doesn't do this crap in future. My 6 year old son with autisn almost burst into tears when that noise came on video

[@gabrielfraser2109]

@@plasmaburndeath Are you serious?

[@stanislavkostarnov2157]

this is how I learn my computer has no high pitch audio generation capability...

[@kaare1992]

Yan Fett the accent is annoying too sadly

[@ShaneH]

I'll admit. This is probably the hardest to understand KZbin video I've watched, and there's nothing wrong with the presentation.

[@smallerfreeze]

Just think, if 1st world education systems werent so flawed... you would have understood this and many other things long ago

[@SCARSAC]

absolute great programing thank you , you just got a new subscriber

[@45obiwan]

Now you're in my country and, may I say, well done! I'm definitely sending this out to all my students.

[@joshair8163]

Brought to you by Wendover Productions

[@ao1645]

Another great video, plus congrats on 3-million!!! Also, your accent keeps getting better by the day :-)

[@nellayema2455]

Question for the engineers out there: During the design of the forward swept wing, did the engineers already know about the need for the twist stiffness (Kt in the diagram@8:02), or did they have to discover it through observation and/or analyzing crash data and failed wings? Not having an engineering education, I'm not sure if or how they could have even know it was an issue.

[@epikbrony5437]

I play a game called TerraTech and before even knowing these planes existed, I made my own and now I'm surprised at how accurate the game was because controlling the plane was like trying to control melted butter. Another weird thing is I called my plane the X-Fighter.

[@palious13]

The big reason for swept forward planes was it gave G. I. Joe the Conquest to battle the SR-71 inspired Cobra Night Raven.

[@olencone4005]

Yooooo Joe!! :P I'm glad someone else was thinking that while watching this haha!

[@arielalexandroarnaldo2238]

​@@olencone4005 DCS should do a GI Joe and Transformers homage mod with custom skins such as Wild Bill's XH-1 Dragonfly, the F-14 Skystriker, and the X-29 Conquest

[@robwebnoid5763]

Here in early 2023. As a teen in the 1980's, I had a yearly subscription to Science Digest magazine back then, starting around 1980-81. Forward-swept plane technology was one of those memorable articles in the magazine, so I've known about it since the early 1980's, but haven't read about it since. I was really into airplanes & jets back then, I even have several plastic scale models that I put together in those days, such as the F4 Phantom, F104 Starfighter & MiG Foxbat. And I also drew some new jet designs, heh. I do remember in the forward-swept article(s) that one of its other primary potential advantages, that was not mentioned here, was being able to turn faster, especially during dogfights. But alas, just as was shown here in the video, the technology did not last long because of the problems. I knew back then as a kid that forward-swept just was not a simple enough type of flying that was more of a problem than a saving grace. Aft-swept is more common sense physics-wise because the tips of the wings are "behind" the plane or behind the root of the wings at the body & creates sort of an aft drag. It is similar to how we put feathers at the back end of an arrow. It's also why we do not see birds with forward swept wings (except when it flaps forward), although it's more complicated than that. Oh, & I still do have all my Science Digest magazines from the 1980's (~1981-86), most of them still in very good condition. But I might have to sell them eventually. I don't even think there are scans of it online either, which is odd, but understandable, since it is a very old paper-only publication.

[@barelyasurvivor1257]

Ty for a fascinating explanation of Forward swept wings,and why they exist

[@rhetta9826]

I think maybe the term should be 'forward-swept wings'. Traditional wings are already swept backwards.

[@NirateGoel]

It is... However it's in the title to trick the gen public into clicking on the video who'd call thek Backwards wings given they're backwards compared to standard wing designs.

[@CrescentGuard]

I enjoy that he just casually throws in footage of a captured Zero in US markings. You know, because he can.

[@GlassDeviant]

7:37 "we need to build an adequately strong and stiff wing" at the precise moment that the jetliner is using sheer engine power, not aerodynamic lift, to gain altitude.

[@DaddyM7MD]

Fuck youre ginus

[@MrTravelman]

First video I watch from you, super interesting. Subscribed