X-56- The Future of Flight- Part 1: Active Controls

[@Digephil]

An excellent video, the host does a good job presenting the material in a simple, understandable way without sounding patronizing. Very well done!

[@tecwzrd]

Complexity when flying is something we should strive to reduce not increase. Rigidity reduces the need for complex flight systems which in turn make the aircraft safer. If the Active Controls fail, then there is a greater chance for the plane to come apart at high speed which leaves little room for error for the pilot to gain control again without crashing. While the goal of reducing weight is great for reducing fuel costs, it's not calculating the added risks involved IMO.

[@softdorothy]

Sure. But for an unmanned aircraft, why not? Future aircraft are likely to be increasingly unmanned (drones, airborne antennas, cargo).

[@tecwzrd]

softdorothy true, for unmanned aircraft it makes sense. Seemed like the video kept referring to passenger aircraft though.

[@scheimong]

The same argument can be made with the introduction of any new technology to improve any existing system - it adds complexity and is therefore a potential failure point and safety hazard. However this is not a valid reason for opposing the development of said technology. If anything it's a good reason to keep experimenting and improving. To give an extreme example, if the engine in your car keeps exploding, you improve the engine design, not go back to using horses.

[@paulmakinson1965]

We already have fly by wire on unstable aircraft. Software error would be catastrophic so that is why triple redundancy is used. Evolution tends to go towards higher complexity, this is true for life as well as technology. Reliability and complexity are not always mutually exclusive.

[@LhuanDula]

@@scheimong The potential problem here is the lack of failsafe mode if the system actually fails (or at least they did not talked about it in the video). As the wing is the main most critical component of the aircraft, you're looking at a instant accident if the system fails and catastrophic flutter occurs. (As opposed to engines (you can glide); flight controls (there is generally three main systems). In the case of wing, one solution could be to have multiple wings such that you can ensure the loss of one without impending the flight of the aircraft. However, that's a difficult thing to do because of the imbalance in lift forces that a missing wing will provide.

[@eliasgallegos3058]

It's exciting to know we still are innovating in aviation!

[@Steeyuv]

Wonderful to have a video about advanced technology, and the first thing we see of the engineers is a group of them unrolling a paper chart...

[@cagdaskan]

that "technical drawing" opening at 0:31 made me cry xD

[@cagdaskan]

@@craigcorson3036 No it's a technical drawing. I was so f*king high when I watch this :)

[@craigcorson3036]

@@cagdaskan Heh-heh-heh. Lucky you!

[@grendelum]

I look forward to future episodes... I want to know if it _can_ actively dampen flutter !!!

[@olliea6052]

orion khan Yes! And over a longer period too. This must be ultra reliable or there could arise a situation where the aircraft is in the air with an airflow that is too fast for the wing

[@grendelum]

Oliver Ayres - it’s a stupidly complex problem... you’re dealing with not only the resonant nodes of the wing with the air streaming over from the plane’s thrust but *_also_* any sudden shifts in the wind...

[@pugmanick]

Loving the GITS avatar!

[@grendelum]

pugmanick - uh oh, you’re seeing the Laughing Man logo? Your eyes have been hacked...

[@cornishcactus]

Stupid question. why not just make the leading and trailing edges resist loads differently so when the wing is forced up the leading edge bends less inducing a negative AoA which forces it back down again. If forced down it gives a positive AoA to bring it back up With tuning of the structures resistance you can dampen out flutter automatically.

[@vanibh93]

Do you mean like an active LE and TE actuators to actively monitor loads and initiate opposite motion?

[@TristanMorrow]

Ouch! Flutter Hertz!

[@vanibh93]

Good one

[@PalimpsestProd]

ok thumbs up but you're terrible.

[@astasna]

The black and green graphic of the plane flying was pretty sweet guys, how did you make it ? The whole video is nice but that simple one was on point.

[@MAKELEKAM]

Very impressive project, lighter structure are more easily affected by resonant phenomenon. Active control can change the natural frequency of the system, but may increase the consumption of the energy for prohibiting the vibrations. May be adding some mechanical feedback system can achieve the same goal.

[@peachtrees27]

Excellent video thank you! Love the BWB's you guys are working with / developing. Can't wait to see a homebuilt one at Oshkosh some day...

[@crobnz]

So by putting adjustable surfaces on the trailing edge of a wing, you're able to control the wings attitude. Amazing work NASA. Just spectacular. I'm going to go follow SpaceX now.

[@THELANKANCOMRADE]

chrissysadmin SLS

[@cabdolla]

chrissysadmin you completely missed the point of the video....

[@crobnz]

cabdolla way to explain the missed point. Right up there with these trailing edge control surfaces. They’ll have variable throttle next, you’ll see. #OldTech #30YearsLate

[@cabdolla]

Name one airplane that controls wing flutter modes using control surfaces. Flutter causes lots of complications, like control surface reversal. You really have no clue what you're talking about bashing NASA.

[@crobnz]

There's a list of variable-sweep wing aircraft dating back to 1969 that have been able to alter the state of their wings to manipulate flight envelopes and as such avoiding flutter (along with other flight aspects). Most knowen among them are probably the Grumman F-14 Tomcat and Sukhoi Su-24. Then there are aircraft with adaptive compliant wing systems, basically a variable-camber trailing edge. The Boeing X-53 for example used a system derived from this as are the F/A-18 Hornet. There's the oblique/slewed wing on the AD-1 (1979). Likely one of the building blocks for what NASA is (still) working on now. But it doesn't really count, right? What else, variable-incidence wings like on the RF-8A Crusader. Quadruplanes started using one or more variable-incidence wings in like 1919. The Parker variable wing was designed in 1920. Variable-camber wings, some of which had telescopic segments that could be forced out, increasing the thickness, chord and shape of the affected portion of the wing. Some used a retractable bridge that connected two separate high aspect ratio wings, manipulating them into being single low aspect ratio wings. On the other end of the scale you have parafoils and a great many RC models with flight stabalisation systems. Either way having moving bits on the trailing edge of a wing is nothing new. There have been a number of other far more interesting developments and experiments (by NASA and others) than this. And that's the point I was making.

[@Valiant_Savage]

This is why we need to research, make, test, and apply new types of materials to aircraft.

[@youtube.youtube.01]

What makes the challenge of minimizing resonance and oscillations so difficult is - that system managing it becomes a payload robber and you are left with an unfeasible airplane to operate.

[@paulmakinson1965]

Flutter reduction is already accomplished on the A380 using software. Due to an error in the calculation of resonance of the wing, sensors and software were the most economical solution compared to a new and heavier wing design.

[@Sethgolas]

That's cool! Do you have an article where I can read more about that?

[@astasna]

The Skunk Works logo means that a miracle is on the way :D

[@delmusingle2338]

I think changing the resonate frequency of the component parts would be the resolution rather than just trying to prevent oscillation by stiffening. How about an active skin such as piezoelectric surfaces? Vibration can produce energy which is drained on passive elements or electrical energy can be applied to change micro shake in opposition as active components. Even possible to use as both sensor and transducer as energy is in opposition. Think video transmission of many 'carriers' on the same cable.

[@KnightsWithoutATable]

Movable, passive dampening weights that shift the passive resonance frequency of the wing would be more reliable. Making them active with vibration of the weights could also be added. I could also see the control surfaces being used to mitigate some of the effects. Piezoelectric materials would not do well in avaition applications because of the thermal cycling they would be exposed to. You can easily see 120+F on the ground and then -20F while at altitude. If the technology was applied to supersonic aircraft, there is the issue of skin heating from friction creating high temperatures on the skin of the plane.

[@delmusingle2338]

@@KnightsWithoutATable ,,,,,, good points

[@michaelferrer5318]

. l j

[@michaelferrer5318]

K

[@enduroman2834]

Can't wait for part two! Very interesting stuff.

[@Post_grad]

That skunk works logo means that it is going to be awesome . Great job guys 👍

[@undisturbednaturalworldd3102]

Fine video, but very weak soundtrack. But dont hesitate please release more videos. Thanks from denmark.

[@yelectric1893]

Aerostructural design!

[@amanieux]

do birds do that ? or do they fly so slowly that they dont need to ?

[@DigitalArtisan77]

Airliners had flutter control decades ago. A lot were de-activated, not sure why, maybe stress on aluminium wings.

[@scarakus]

It needs 'Muscle Wire', that can be programmed to compensate for the flutter, by inverting the oscillations.

[@Hebdomad7]

I don't think software is an ideal solution (see Boeing). Any mechanical problem should have a reliable mechanical solution. Variable geometry wings or wings that have variable harmonic states that automatically and change mechanically with air speed would be much more preferable to a software solution that moves the control surfaces.

[@itstheeconomy2101]

As if mechanical components are in any way more reliable than software.

[@southernbear736]

@@itstheeconomy2101 I mean the entire US Nuclear strategic command system relies on the fact that mechanical components are safer and more reliable than software. The B-2 Spirit falls out of the sky if it has a computer failure, at least with most aircraft you have hydraulics and mechanical systems to get them to the ground safely. The reason we use software is because its much lighter, can store more info and can be much faster. But it is by no means more reliable.

[@billferner6741]

@@itstheeconomy2101 might be not, but you can SEE possible problems without any computer.

[@PhilipKaskela]

@@southernbear736 hydroponics? What? Hydraulics, perhaps? Agree with your overall point, but hope it's a typo cause the comment currently doesn't make sense

[@StrikeNoir105E]

@@southernbear736 "The reason we use software is because its much lighter, can store more info and can be much faster. But it is by no means more reliable." It's not like mechanical systems are any more "reliable", in fact they have higher failure points because they're the ones that take the brunt of physical forces exerted upon them on a regular basis. They're the ones that experience flutter, erosion, wear and tear, deformation, pressure, etc. Mechanical components are also as prone to operator error as software, like how a maintenance crewman using the wrong type of screw (whose difference was only a couple of millimeters) nearly killed a pilot because the windshield blew out and sucked the poor pilot out the window. Or how latches failing on cargo bay doors have caused air crashes in the past. Mechanical failures and operator errors have accounted for more air crashes in the century that humans have used powered flight than software errors ever have. Software may require electricity, but it's not like the rest of the plane wouldn't work without electricity either (try controlling something like a 747 with pure mechanical controls: you'd create a far worse airplane for it), and programmed properly software experiences less failure states than mechanical solutions. Also, you mention the B-2 falling out of the sky if it experiences computer failure, yet in the decades the B-2 has flown only 1 has crashed due to such, and that was due to a miscalibration of related computer systems, which can be put under the category of human error.

[@SkitPete]

Can u not install a Torsion diff with a counterbalancing rotating rod on the other end- when the wing starts fluttering, the diff is engaged which activates the counter-rotating mass? alternatively, hydraulic actuators that can either balance the forces by absorbing the motion, like an active bike-steering damper- and then maybe stick a pump on the other end of the tube so the oil, magnetic hydraulic oil, can be used to do other things, like pump smoke out the toilt on the long flights...

[@JacobDavidCCunningham]

What a sleek bird, those winglets too

[@mururoa7024]

So, essentially, with this system when your electronics go down, not only do you have that problem but on top of it you'll also immediately have structural damage risk? No thanks!

[@OnKeyboards]

Correct, but do you know what's FBW is?

[@mururoa7024]

@@OnKeyboards Yes and a lot of pilots don't like it for the same reasons, unless they have redundant generators. The problem of losing structural integrity is not on the same scale as losing input on the control surfaces for a whole minute though.

[@ididafewthings]

Most modern fighter planes are built inherently unstable and would also crash without a controller stabilizing them. In the case of this plane, if the controller failed, one could simply deccelerate. As far as I understand the active damping is used to allow for fast flight without the need for strong structural construction.

[@ididafewthings]

Ah another example would be the „yaw damper“. This is essentially a flutter damper and if it failed at high enough speed that would probably also result in a crash if the pilot doesn’t decelerate fast enough. My point is: there are many controllers on board of our modern planes that we have to rely on. But they are ideally implemented with backup systems etc to make them secure anyways

[@mururoa7024]

@@ididafewthings Sure. He could also just eject. However, fighters don't have 300 passengers on board.

[@edwardhendersen5643]

Is it possible to send a vibration canceling frequincy through the airframe to counter flutter,? I think Nikolai Tesla did a lot of work in this field, just asking.

[@craigcorson3036]

I should work for you guys. I was thinking to myself, "Why don't they just use control surfaces to counteract the flutter", just before the guy says "We're going to use active control surfaces to counteract the flutter".

[@vanibh93]

Is Skunk Works working on this?

[@MrHannatas]

What about long piezo elements hooked up to some batteries, they should passively consume the vibrations and turn them into electricity.

[@Wingman4l7]

Efficiency losses would likely make the added weight and components cost not worth it.

[@EricHallahan]

Yay, Controls!

[@ozzyg82]

Can’t they just put a counterweights, like tuned mass dampers, inside the wing body?

[@tradestone100]

ozzyg82 they use a more clever solution, a non completely elastic wing. But as the video says, it makes the wing less efficient

[@LZE.]

Weight and aircraft don't mix. No respectable aircraft designer would intentionally add dead weight.

[@jaikumar848]

L Z designers usually avoid dead weights ..tuned mass damper has 'dead weight ' .. if that mass of damper contains 'useful weight '..will they rethink ...? like batteries, luggage ,backup fuel, electronics of aircraft etc. ..

[@ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns]

"The traditional solution to these aeroelastic issues has been primarily to stiffen the airframe structure" history.nasa.gov/monograph39/mon39_b.pdf But as you can read, this adds weight to the system and aerospace vehicles and weight equates to higher fuel burn and/or decreased endurance. The plan for future aircraft development is to decrease the thickness the airfoils thus lowering weight, increasing efficiency, increase in speed. The thicker the airfoils the higher the drag and that becomes an issue when approaching the transonic regime. So, adding mass isn't going to solve it. Control and material development is key.

[@kksmith244]

What if they built a hollow wing spar filled with shear thickening fluid? The fluid could be mixed so that the wing remains flexible until enough pressure/vibration causes it to stiffen and not be destroyed by flutter.

[@michelegasparri1344]

Kyle Smith But is always the same problem, you’re adding weight. What they are trying to do (only my opinion based on what I could see in this short video) is using servos that activate the “active” part of the wing. Effectively they’re producing an alternating force distributed on the wing that is always in opposition to the flutter movement. This also is going to have limitations with the accuracy of the servos, response speed and vibration on the electronic and robotic system. Excuse me if my answer is not very clear but I’m not an expert nor a native English speaker.

[@dannon2010]

There is something inheriently problematic in overcomplexity. The Shuttle is a perfect example. 2 lost vehicles, and 14 dead. Soyuz in the same time period? YOU do the math. Id dare you to even glance at the economic comparisons...

[@pillarshipempireemployee0142]

I believe the shuttle deaths also had to do with less abort systems, today's craft have much better.

[@adamhale6672]

I don't believe that the two shuttles which crashed were necessarily due to over complexity though. Challenger was due to an actually very simple system in improper conditions and Columbia was due to external damage to a system which was very complex in number but not in application.

[@craigcorson3036]

Neither shuttle was lost due to flaws in the shuttle itself. They were lost due to failures in very simple systems.

[@dylanmcdonald7128]

Here’s a simple solution! Just make it so that it flys so fast it doesn’t need wing’s at all. No wing’s = no flutter.

[@astasna]

it's beautiful at take off ! .

[@coasterkev06]

Wasn't active control of flutter implemented on the 747?

[@sneigeow]

Yes, see Special Conditions: Boeing Model 747-8/-8F Airplanes, Interaction of Systems and Structures

[@farmers2630]

Lifting body planes are the future. Maybe...

[@MHMEDMINE]

Translate fluttering to frequencies than to mécanique to correct the fluttering !? Sounds doable 🤔

[@Alientraveler003]

A system such as this .. I'd want it to assist after the human can't keep up . Thank you

[@Flashblade]

The A-12 went Mach 3.5 in 1962. I thought these issues had been long resolved?

[@jorge227able1]

Justin DeMatteo I believe the research is for commercial aircraft maybe.

[@lazarus2691]

It did so while being extremely rigid and heavy for it's size, and was anything but fuel efficient.

[@renaissanceman5847]

your active controls will never be able to compensate by moving the control surfaces fast enough... these frequencies are in the order of 30Hz or more depending on wing rigidity (the more rigid the higher the freq). Therefore any control such as servos will not be able to move fast enough to act upon a compressible fluid environment that has a delay component associated with it. Your best bet is to focus on passive controls and avoid complexity in a system... complexity adds to cost and reduces service life.

[@TheNiters]

I am guessing that the active control systems will not be trying to counteract each flex of the flutter, but rather detect flutter before it happens and change the parameters of the airflow over the wings to avoid the flutter happening in the first place.

[@brynat0]

I know this has probably already been thought of but what about harmonic balancers and or anti vibration cervos that vibrate at an opposite frequency eliminating the vibration? Kind of like the stab bar on a twin blade helicopter. Another question would be, what about using bleed air thru a notch in the leading edge, like the Notar system, to not only stabilize the air but also create more lift?

[@ben3989]

Bryan Wating I’m thinking that to avoid multiple equipment systems, the anti flutter control surface is also the regular flight control. Sort of a two fer one.

[@brynat0]

Ben Davis I can inderstand that. Just thinking outside the box and thinking of more efficient means. Any flight control movement can cause unwanted control inputs. Just thinking a passive system, such as bleed air introduced at the leading edge of the wing, would also be able to help the wing be more fluid within the airstream. Which could also mean better fuel economy and better lift and anti lift.

[@TristanMorrow]

Bryan Watling -I do believe you're on the right track! 5:40 ...other ways to deal with it for an integrated solution in the future.

[@johannesschuster256]

Do not use a linear wing design ?!. Every even geometrical structure makes harmonic vibration possible. That is the reason why Horten choose the Manta - silhouette. Einstein was a good musician, so the engineers should learn to learn from instruments by implication. Take every harmonic order in a corner- step in the wings depth and transport it to the next disharmonic counterpart in the following section - if by the profile and or the respective force of induced cyclic vibration. NEVER use a straight shape or a parallel !

[@Excludos]

All types of wing design have been tested, including manta style and ufo style. While they do fly, and have some positives, the negatives far outweigh them. The most pressing problem is that they have poor flight characteristics, making them impossible for a pilot to operate. Linear wings are by far the easier to fly. Software could fix this issue in the future by controlling the plane for the pilot (current gen military fighters does this), but that is going to drive the cost up drastically.

[@johannesschuster256]

@@Excludos I have flown quite a lot designs in modell prototyps (Wings) never using a computed aid. None of the early german fighter wings had to apply complex stearing drives. With means such as boundary layer ventilation or fences you can minimize these effects. And if you design the wing that way, that the vibration causes a torque by the resulting force to deform the wing in the opposite effect to that vibe, it is also possible. I can show you what i mean with organ pipes. I can design it so as no freq can ever cause a resonance. Or tune the structure by different harmonic length of the interiors and it will also counteract that problem. Messerschmitt was a better designer with his cigarettpacks. Why ? because he felt the design without the mental aid of a computer. To draft a working wing, you need phantasy not a team or a kind of dependence. By the way: With some inertial servo controll related to the freq of the vibe itself, you can neutralize the problem by phase shift applied to the flaps as well (random function, counterfunction even - odd movement). And the surface: Microvortex, Cavitation modelling for defining the elasticity of the layer. Multi hinge and multi pivot steering can deform the wing also in aberatio to the vibration. flap phaseshifting can be done with the most simple transistor circuit never ever being able to fail. And in case of emergency the Pilot just has to open the upper ventilation or a vortex flap and all the relations and equations of the vibration are void. Easy and simple as the russians do.

[@kellyjackson7889]

omg you guys are gonna try to control flutter? Wow!

[@craigcorson3036]

Wow? No, that's older phonographs. To my knowledge, aircraft do not suffer 'wow'.

[@NuniqueNewNork]

what you do is you make a multi-layer material sandwich with really good diisocyanates-crosslinking agents in the aerogel. With the right application of epoxies, and carbon fibers, and a 3d printed aluminum titanium nickel copper magnesium alloy....

[@garionporter5961]

Cover them with "golf-ball" skin. ;)

[@Shadowlogic420]

Nasa- tries to solve the problem of vibration in wings me- making a comment on a youtube video just trying to make enough money to survive. I really should get my priorities in order.

[@ausintune9014]

nice RC plane

[@markgadsby5568]

X-56... how the world is degenerating... not exactly the X-15 is it!

[@phpn99]

Bravo to NASA engineers. Now as you'd expect, here comes the KZbin chatter of armchair aviation "experts" explaining "why don't you just blah blah"; along with the "waste of my tax dollars" anti-federal crowd.

[@tewrgh]

I honestly believe that in parts of America today, people have been mating with vegetables.

[@ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns]

Mating with tomatoes or potatoes? The outcomes are different.

[@templarjay]

Changing the purpose of a purpose built aircraft doesn't work. Another aircraft needs to be purpose built for high speed flight, which doesn't have flutter issues. The low speed aircraft built for low speeds is supposed to fly slow and so it doesn't need to worry about flutter. You'll get the benefits of the slow flying aircraft when flying it slow, not fast.

[@SystemBD]

Does the paint job at the front of the aircraft serve a real purpose or its is just for aesthetics? Because I can see a lot of fiducial markers that are surely used by artificial vision algorithms... but that aggressive "face" might have been engineered to scare birds and avoid collisions (and to give conspiracy theorist something to talk about :-P ).

[@karlt8233]

Thats what happens when the engineers leave at 5pm on Friday and the weekend crew missed a family BBQ because they could not get the day off. :)

[@johnfalkenstine8377]

Very cool. Too bad this video is now over a year old.

[@KnightsWithoutATable]

I wonder if this would help with the experience of turbulence.

[@davldbigman6034]

Inertial dampeners. What the hell it worked in Star Wars, Lambda class shuttle has them so it must be true. Yup.

[@hotliner2872]

Active damping is not a great idea... if you want a robust system make it inherently safe. It is not a bad idea, but given the potential savings over the number of humans on commercial flights, my money is on better "anything else". Better engines. Better streamlining (a blended wing with a stiff wing? I would bet that is 60+% of the potential savings, and then add to that some form of turbulent flow drive... why bother going flexy?). So. Big flexy wings. Great on sailplanes. Really great. That is what they are for. They are not for going 500+ Knots. Even with "perfect compensation for known conditions", the wind/weather/speed will find a mode your models did not predict. More than once. Guaranteed. Bummer. To save 10 lbs of Kero out of 100s of thousands of pounds. Sure, it is a great idea! But the wrong application, too much missing info (turbulence around hills on final? storm cells?), too many moving parts to safely fly ("Passengers I am sorry but we will be landing in Kansas as we have lost our wing control and can not make it to Hong Kong at 600 knots"), and too many passengers at risk. Considering the small potential benefit. Instead, how about... for example... adaptive wing stiffness? As a passenger, all I ask is make it bulletproof. If your zipping through the air with a lot of passengers over a wide speed envelope (and 95% of that at a predictable high speed), this is not so appealing to me.

[@juliuscaesar7795]

Here we have another NASA engineer guys

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

Concordia open class sailplane, no tax dollars spent.

[@electrolinks]

Vocal Fry. Uh

[@chintanaahir3844]

But we can resolve it using weight man wtf common guys ........

[@garrykennedy5484]

That is dooooooomed for failure!

[@nickbreen287]

So, let me summarize. You have built a wing ultra thin so as to re-introduce flutter, then set about removing the flutter again..... Maybe if you developed the X-48 fully you would not need long thin wings at all?

[@cabdolla]

Nick Breen wrong. They built a light weight wing to cancel flutter and be more efficient. Did you even try to pay attention?

[@tewrgh]

Your intellectual brilliance has once against exposed the incompetence and corruption of the so called elites.

[@nickbreen287]

Meanwhile private industry is landing rockets, my point is that there is more pressing matters to work on, bigger problems to solve. This is a stretch as it is not a major issue.

[@tewrgh]

What have you been working on recently professor?

[@cabdolla]

What a nonsensical statement. NASA gave spaceX money ($1.6 US BILLION) to keep going. NASA does not BUILD anything - NASA has ALWAYS contracted out the design of systems like the Space Shuttle and Rockets. NASA does fundamental research and provides it free of charge to the aviation community. NASA aircraft are modified versions of existing aircraft. F-5/F-18/B747/MQ-9 Predator/Global Hawk/ etc/ etc/ etc. Where in Florida did Spacex launch from? Oh thats right off a NASA facility.

[@СлаваСталину-т3х]

Hey, let's build aircraft that are unfit to fly, and solve the issues with software! Where has that gone wrong before?

[@joemeyer6876]

Wow, MCAS the whole damn airplane. What could possibly go wrong?

[@Patrickpw291]

You should go and read up on the things you're talking about so you don't embarrass yourself any further. MCAS had nothing to do with the poorly trained pilots who allowed those planes to crash.

[@w8stral]

Nothing wrong with MCAS.... other than the idiot fools only used a SINGLE sensor. To do FBW you MUST have 3 sensors minimum and 4 is standard where one sensor is allowed to fail into a known failed state.

[@evopwrmods]

Make everything MORE Complicated ! Truly thinking out of the box would be to go into a whole different direction. Rather than taking the airframe/wings of old and making it more complicated. Design a totally new airframe/wings that would avoid flutter from the get go. If you dress up a pig and take him to town, hes still a pig......

[@มดแดง-ฃ3ข]

ถ้าคิดอยู่ในกรอบเดิมๆทำทั้งปีทั้งชาติก็ไม่ยกตัวรอให้เหนือพื้นดินแน่นอน

[@MattiXX]

hehe

[@818GCA]

A $20 rc flight stabilizer from hobbyking does the same thing :D

[@TristanMorrow]

H.Ayvaz ↑ ...and this is why I'm glad you didn't design anything.

[@rafaelleitedasilva6766]

AiAiAiAiAi cavalo preto

[@lazerone8845]

Pretty cool not my taste

[@jetranger47]

Why the "green" horseshit at the beginning?

[@johnnyllooddte3415]

Ahahaha

[@kingalbert455]

Stop playing with Plains......... Ask the right question and get the right answers

[@TwisterKidMedia]

planes you fucking idiot

[@ronrush11]

Keep it secret!!!!!

[@bestamerica]

' hi R... yeaa that right NASA must keep secret and not need to show this video

[@benthurber5363]

So... you want to use this technology to fly at speeds where, if the system fails, your wings will be torn off before you even realize what's happened and can slow to safer speeds... 'kay. I will keep tabs on this technology so I know what planes I should 'never' set foot on. Who approved this nonsense? I mean, seriously. The viable projects that 'aren't' getting funding, and this joke is moving forward? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You want to know how else you can go faster without running into flutter? Go 'higher'.

[@photosphotos]

The earth is flat and stationary ✅