Please forgive my average animation skills, I am still learning :) F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
The hangar looks fine if you are using blender, I'd recommend using Cycles to render so it gets raytraced with shadows and all and looking into how to set up the camera like a real one, that's something people often forget, can make things look a lot more "realistic" like it was actually filmed.
Around 1980 I happened to have a chat with a gentleman, who was building an RC-model of the M.39, and had phoned George Miles about details, including C.G. The C.G. had Miles said, and after a lengthy pause, the C.G, no, I have no idea where the C.G. was, or where it should have been. But he was very helpful with other details.
I think the quickie was a later design of his, too. But now I wonder about his influences in the design of many of his early planes. The Vari-EZE (his second plans-built) really looks a lot like the miles planes, not to mention the Ascender.
@@RichardBetel His first was the Vari-Ezy, inspired by the SAAB Viggen fighter. For a long while Rutan argued that canards were best, and now he thinks otherwise. The noisiest aircraft around is the Italian looker Piaggio Avanti, the beyond doubt noisiest propeller aircraft in use. And that is natural with some air accelerated by the powerful propellers to over the speed of sound, like when you bang with a hammer on an anvil. You want to have propellers out of the turbulence, like on the later designs of Miles, and you want a conventional tail for manouvering, but a canard that takes care of trim-changes is excellent, and that is how the Avanti is designed, and the SAAB Viggen only missed the conventional tail!
I wonder how they solved stability problems (which were main fault of XP-55 and all similar planes). Normal airplane's center of mass is situated within tight limits of wing lift force and then far behind tail pushes down to balance weight and lift. When nose goes down, tail gets even more downforce, if nose goes up, tail can get some lift - in both cases returning plane back to straight flight automatically. But tandem wings are exactly what they are called - wings, they both have to produce lift. XP-55 front stabilizer in fact also should be considered wing. And plane can't balance itself this way, any change in pitch suddenly results in more force pushing in the same way. Pilot can keep plane straight with constant corrections, but that is extremely exhausting and will make it impossible to fly without good visual points of reference. Modern planes use that scheme for various benefits, but they have electronic systems that keep correcting flight without pilot even noticing. But in 40s those systems would be impossible to make.
I'm so glad you did this because the only channels that had info on these kinds of aircraft before now were those A.I. generated 'dark' aviation channels with their many strange bits of misinformation.
@@Bearthedancingman tbh Rex did had a decent job of putting a small history of these obscure but sometimes unique aicraft even if it is a prototype and i think his take on XNLB-1 is semi-accurate
Some of these "lost" tech are making a come back. Modern combat drones are utilizing tandem wings and even VTOL interceptor concepts like with the XFY-1 Pogo and Triebflugel.
Neat, I've never even heard of these prototypes and that's exactly the sort of thing I appreciate about yours and similar channels. Bringing attention to something obscure and interesting.
The Miles company designed and started the build of a jet powered aircraft that would take off, break the sound barrier and land on its own retractable undercarriage. Under lend-lease the drawings and information were sent across the Atlantic. A similar looking aircraft the Bell X1 appeared but with a rocket motor that went on to break the sound barrier. Meanwhile back in the uk the Miles aircraft was cancelled but a scale model was taken up by a Mosquito dropped, it flew, broke the sound barrier and flew off into the vastness of the Atlantic.
I've always liked these designs, a great example of unconventional but perfectly logical thinking. I'll definitely be looking forward to the longer video, I bet I'll learn a lot from it.
This pair of aircraft were never 'tandem wing' which explains why the CG location was misunderstood. These are relatively straightforward canard aircraft where valuable lessons were learned. Among which the rigging of the CG, the placement of a canard higher than the mainplane, and the use of flaps. The CG if improperly rigged forward as in an emulated tandem, makes the aircraft too responsive to the canard, and with the mainplane in the wake of the canard the flying qualities would be difficult to understand. Once the CG was moved aft, the aircraft behave more normally and more predictably. Even better as on M-39 when the canard was moved below the mainplane, the downwash would no longer interfere with the wing by creating a flow with a negative airstream angle, and all those negative effects would evaporate. Neither of these aircraft would be suitable for carrier operations however, as canards usually demonstrate very poor short field performance unless very light, which warplanes are not known to do.
Yes, this method of determining if an aircraft looks 'right' is really interesting, and almost seems to unfailingly work... I wonder why, because it seems so arbitrary that beautiful planes should fly well and yet its a rule of thumb I haven't seen broken to this day
Fluid dynamics is a law that applies to many animals, maybe we intuitively can see a design that looks “natural,” and therefore has a higher probability of function?
Thank you Rex for talking about one of my favourite weird aircraft of the war! I never knew there were further versions of the Libellula from the M39 onwards so I'm very much looking forward to that video. :)
Design looks way similar to Japan's Shinden high performance push prop fighter prototype but with both wings attached at the ventral section of the fuselage.
Thank you for this video. And how about making one for the Miles Messenger? Produced to meet an Army requirement for an air observation post. Then the MAP threw all their toys out of the pram because Miles hadn't gone through them. So the Army weren't allowed to have it! However the type was used later by the RAF who bought 21. A total of 93 were produced 1942-48, including exports to 9 countries. It had huge rear-wing flaps which gave it the very low stall speed of 25mph! (cf Fieseler Storch stalling speed 31mph.) The engine was a Gypsy Major. Lord Tedder and Monty each had one.
No mention is made of the fuel economy benefits of such 'canard' wing designs. In a 'conventional' aircraft the main wing generates lift while the rear wing generates down force. This reduces the aircraft's lifting capacity and wastes fuel. When all wings are lifting surfaces the range is improved significantly. This was one of the strategic benefits of the Northrop flying wing designs. A big plus with the canard as exploited by Burt Rutan is that by designing the forward wing to stall first the main wing cannot stall (at least in theory) making safer flight possible.
Perhaps the Miles M 35/39 was inspired by the twin-engined Focke-Wulf F 19 "Ente" of which two were built in 1927 and 1930. Tragically Georg Wulf died in an accident with the first prototype after 14 test flights...
G'day, This may class as Nitpicking (?), but because Tandem-Wing Designs have "traditionally" had 2 pairs of Wings, front and back, with both pairs being of EQUAL Area, Span, and Chord...; whereas "Canard" is officially French for "Duck", but because Ducks have long necks they appear to have their Wings very close to their Tails - so therefore ,"Canard" ALSO means, colloquially, in French..., "Totally Backwards" or " Going Backwards"... And then Aeroplanes "standardised" on Dedigns featuring mainly Tractor Airscrews with Mainplanes at "the Front" set at a Positive Angle of (Rigger's) Incidenc and the Horizontal Stabilisor mounted at the end of a trailing Fuselage/Tail/Boom Structure..., set at a NEGATIVE (Rigger's) Angle of Incidence ; so that the resulting "Decollage" caused a Stable Dynamic Instability which may be fine-tuned such that the Wing/Stabilisor fly stable, at a selected Airspeed. The Mainplane of a "Conventional" Aeroplane thus lifts 100% of the Weight of the Airframe. The Front and Rear Wing-Pairs of a TANDEM-Wing Aeroplane each carry FIFTY PERCENT of the weight of the Aeroplane. Then, the idea of a "Canard" Aeroplane was hatched, with the proponents claiming that by placing the Horizontal Stabilisor at the Front of the Fuselage, set at a HIGHER (Positive) Rigger's Angle of Incidence than that of the Mainplane...: then because the Stabilisor (Canard {Front}) Aerofoil is flying at a +ve Angle of Attack then it generates Lift - thus unloading the Mainplanes of 10% to 20% of the Weight-carrying burden, and therefore permitting the Mainplanes to be proportionially smaller, lighter ; and any time the Aeroplane approaches a Stall then the Front Aerofoil - with it's higher A.O.A., stalls First, thus lowering the nose. So, the difference betwixt a Tandem Wing Aeroplane and a Canard Design is that the Tandem Wing Designs have the Front and Rear Wings both lifting an equal amount of Aircraft Weight whereas a Canard has somewhere around 30%, down to 10%, of the total Weight being carried by the Front Wing. So, all Dragonfly Fantasies aside, the Miles Libuella was a CANARD design, owing to it's Rear (Main) Wing having about twice the Area of the Front Airfoil, so 70% of the Weight was being lofted by the Mainplane. Maybe Miles was suffering Lepidopterra-Envy, as a result of Geoffery deHavilland's successes with Cirrus, Gypsy, Tiger, Puss, Fox and Hornet-Moths...; so he squinted until his Duck resembled a Dragonfly, and called it "Libuella"...? Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
I wish someone would experiment with this design with CAD. There is something there that I wish had been researched. Imagine a prop plane with the speed of a Grumman Bearcat and the maneuverability much better than a Mitsubishi zero
There simply was no easy and general fix for cooling a pusher prop for the performance required in the 1930s-40s. Jet engines enabled the general configuration to work but before that any pusher design always had overheating issues
The engineers at Saab solved the cooling problem in their J21 pusher aircraft by designing a fan system driven by the engine and only engaged when the landing gear was extended
Canard jets use small front wings that deliver control forces but only minimal lift. When the front wing stalls it reduces the main wing angle of attack making a full stall difficult to achieve. The Miles had a large front wing so maybe that’s why stability was poor - basically a stall drops the front end too much.
Please do a video on the Handley page bomber I can't find much in the way of video on this very influential World War I bomber so it would be nice if you did a nice 20 minute long video like you did with the Vickers Vinny bomber which was a really nice well done video something on that level about the Handley page bomber
With my limited knowledge of wing airflow, I have to wonder if it would have done better had the forward wing been on the bottom and the rear wing on the top. That front wing would have been dumping its downward airflow directly onto the rear wing's upper airflow. ...Oh, looks like that happened with the bomber prototype. And indeed it sounds like it did a LOT better.
![The U.S Bomber That Became A Luxury Cruiser | Douglas B-23 Dragon [Aircraft Overview #71]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zOEFSJekMY4/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT]"ทนายตั้ม" แฉยับ! ความลับสวรรค์ ใครคือ "บิ๊กเทวดา" ของบอสพอล l คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l 15 ต.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ru9fpSaUwdA/mqdefault.jpg)
Please forgive my average animation skills, I am still learning :)
F.A.Q Section
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
What about the old speed record racing planes of the 1920s and early 30s? Love what you do!
The hangar looks fine if you are using blender, I'd recommend using Cycles to render so it gets raytraced with shadows and all and looking into how to set up the camera like a real one, that's something people often forget, can make things look a lot more "realistic" like it was actually filmed.
Thanks for a dragonfly. (Thats mi iconic flycraft)
They look great, Mustard vibes. Grade A content as usual!
this airplane doesn't have 4 wings.
if a Tandem Wing = it has 2 wings
if a Forward Canard = it has 1 wing
As the Aussies say it was a 4 wing banger that hopped like a Joey
I just love the term "lithobraking"
Around 1980 I happened to have a chat with a gentleman, who was building an RC-model of the M.39, and had phoned George Miles about details, including C.G. The C.G. had Miles said, and after a lengthy pause, the C.G, no, I have no idea where the C.G. was, or where it should have been. But he was very helpful with other details.
Thank you and, Merry Christmas.
Ah, Miles aircraft! Always a treat!
Excellent.
When your test pilot says no, listen.
AMAZINGNES!!! Love unconventional and new thinking crafts. Cant wait for more!
An early Christmas present! Thanks!
Woww! Animation! This channel is getting better and better!
Great models
Thanks for the great content
Thank you!
Oh I am excited for the deep dive.
Nice work m8!
I cant wait for the deep dive ^^
Man, I wish these aircraft’s received more attention
Thanks
Merry Christmas everyone!
I love Miles Aircraft 😍😍😍
I love that word lithobraking makes; me chuckle every time. lol
Thanks, I would have never known of these special aircraft, except seeing your video. I will definitely watch the follow up video you mentioned.
+9:59 my mind sees that and thinks how little effort it would take to Star warsify that.
That Lysander with a turret was pure twisted genius, I'll have what they were smoking.
M.39 is very cool looking.
'Litho-braking' that is a classic
Oh Miles.. would you like the wings in the front or back? YES.
Excellent again, Thanks Rex ...
Hi dude - great to see my planes being used in your video - you did them proud. Looking forward to future projects....Mark
I'm looking forward to featuring more of your amazing models in the future!! :D :D :D
Burt Rutans design of the Quickie is among the more modern tandem winged planes that I know of. Fun to learn of even earlier design prototypes.
And the tractor propeller solved a lot of issues, but the landing gear was a probelm which Cozy avoided!
I think the quickie was a later design of his, too. But now I wonder about his influences in the design of many of his early planes. The Vari-EZE (his second plans-built) really looks a lot like the miles planes, not to mention the Ascender.
The Westland Lysander Delanne tandem wing variant deserves a mention too.
@@RichardBetel His first was the Vari-Ezy, inspired by the SAAB Viggen fighter. For a long while Rutan argued that canards were best, and now he thinks otherwise. The noisiest aircraft around is the Italian looker Piaggio Avanti, the beyond doubt noisiest propeller aircraft in use. And that is natural with some air accelerated by the powerful propellers to over the speed of sound, like when you bang with a hammer on an anvil.
You want to have propellers out of the turbulence, like on the later designs of Miles, and you want a conventional tail for manouvering, but a canard that takes care of trim-changes is excellent, and that is how the Avanti is designed, and the SAAB Viggen only missed the conventional tail!
@@ErikssonTord_2 Rutan's first design was the Vari Viggen, not the VariEze.
8:31 that's not ventral, though.
Rex has a 3D budget! Yeeees!
Litho-braking superb word, made my day and will be used at every available opportunity on flight failures, thank you!
"If at first you don't succeed, try again. Then quit. No sense making a damned fool of yourself."
W.C. Fields
Good design.
Wow, I saw that Lysander inspiration instantly! Such a strange shape!
only ever seen old black an white pics of these grand dad had ,good to see some footage of em thanks
nice
Neato
Hi Rex.
Talking of Miles air craft. Will you ever run a video on the M.52 super sonic plane?
Miles was a very cool company,
they look very cool
Nice work! 😎👏🏻
I wonder how they solved stability problems (which were main fault of XP-55 and all similar planes). Normal airplane's center of mass is situated within tight limits of wing lift force and then far behind tail pushes down to balance weight and lift. When nose goes down, tail gets even more downforce, if nose goes up, tail can get some lift - in both cases returning plane back to straight flight automatically. But tandem wings are exactly what they are called - wings, they both have to produce lift. XP-55 front stabilizer in fact also should be considered wing. And plane can't balance itself this way, any change in pitch suddenly results in more force pushing in the same way. Pilot can keep plane straight with constant corrections, but that is extremely exhausting and will make it impossible to fly without good visual points of reference. Modern planes use that scheme for various benefits, but they have electronic systems that keep correcting flight without pilot even noticing. But in 40s those systems would be impossible to make.
Tandem wings are real cool
I'm so glad you did this because the only channels that had info on these kinds of aircraft before now were those A.I. generated 'dark' aviation channels with their many strange bits of misinformation.
Yeah, I seem to need to block another one of those every other week.
I noticed that , wtf
wait Dark skies has misinfo?
@@Justin_0241 sometimes. Yeah. Check the comments for corrections.
@@Bearthedancingman tbh Rex did had a decent job of putting a small history of these obscure but sometimes unique aicraft even if it is a prototype and i think his take on XNLB-1 is semi-accurate
Great video, thanks Rex!
... oh I love these. Weird aircraft like this are just so much fun to explore!
With a tandem wing, it sounds like both are producing lift. Is that more efficient than a traditional tail pushing down?
The 39 is a darn sexy plane.
Fascinating!
Some of these "lost" tech are making a come back. Modern combat drones are utilizing tandem wings and even VTOL interceptor concepts like with the XFY-1 Pogo and Triebflugel.
Neat, I've never even heard of these prototypes and that's exactly the sort of thing I appreciate about yours and similar channels. Bringing attention to something obscure and interesting.
I heard of the second one but never in this much detail
And ideas for the war thunder team!
The Miles company designed and started the build of a jet powered aircraft that would take off, break the sound barrier and land on its own retractable undercarriage. Under lend-lease the drawings and information were sent across the Atlantic. A similar looking aircraft the Bell X1 appeared but with a rocket motor that went on to break the sound barrier.
Meanwhile back in the uk the Miles aircraft was cancelled but a scale model was taken up by a Mosquito dropped, it flew, broke the sound barrier and flew off into the vastness of the Atlantic.
@@JohnSmith-bx8zb The Miles M.52 never existed, it is pure British fiction
@@WilhelmKarsten it did exist in drawing and prototype form. Moreover a test model was flown, once again a sour yank tries to mislead the reader.
reminds me of the long-ez that rutan designed years later
I've always liked these designs, a great example of unconventional but perfectly logical thinking. I'll definitely be looking forward to the longer video, I bet I'll learn a lot from it.
Lots of good ideas in the design, but with the Mosquito already in production & the Canberra nearly set to go it had no place.
Sort of reminds me of the Piaggio p.180 Avanti, though instead of large wing style canards its got smaller ones, but also has a T tail.
"Preference for Litho-braking..." 😂🤣 That was pretty good.
Rex you may be intrested to know that this wing layout is found in the modern Lilium Pegasus and its flying tech demo aircraft
Thanks. I’ve been waiting over twenty years for a decent video of these two aircraft.👍
Thanks for this . . . I could see the influence of miles on aircraft in hayao miyazaki / studio ghibli anime / manga .
These appear as if they could have been the inspiration for some of the aircraft designs that Gerry Anderson et al came up with for "Thunderbirds"
Remind me of crimson skies
Merry Christmas Rex! Have a good one.
Love me some weird planes~
That Falcon is sexy and ahead of it's time.
This pair of aircraft were never 'tandem wing' which explains why the CG location was misunderstood. These are relatively straightforward canard aircraft where valuable lessons were learned.
Among which the rigging of the CG, the placement of a canard higher than the mainplane, and the use of flaps.
The CG if improperly rigged forward as in an emulated tandem, makes the aircraft too responsive to the canard, and with the mainplane in the wake of the canard the flying qualities would be difficult to understand. Once the CG was moved aft, the aircraft behave more normally and more predictably. Even better as on M-39 when the canard was moved below the mainplane, the downwash would no longer interfere with the wing by creating a flow with a negative airstream angle, and all those negative effects would evaporate.
Neither of these aircraft would be suitable for carrier operations however, as canards usually demonstrate very poor short field performance unless very light, which warplanes are not known to do.
Good comment, thanks.
These feel like advanced Wright Flyers.
I’ve heard it said of aircraft design, “if it looks right, it probably is right.” The M39-B really looks “right.”
Yes, this method of determining if an aircraft looks 'right' is really interesting, and almost seems to unfailingly work... I wonder why, because it seems so arbitrary that beautiful planes should fly well and yet its a rule of thumb I haven't seen broken to this day
Fluid dynamics is a law that applies to many animals, maybe we intuitively can see a design that looks “natural,” and therefore has a higher probability of function?
The heavily modified Westland Lysander with duel wings and rear turret was only a one off prototype no more were built
Thought the Lysander and a Lancaster had crashed and some bloke called Earwig botched it up in his garage.
Remove the roundels, and this could be an example of napkinwaffe. Which does say something about the unusuality of the design.
My favorite weird plane is the InterWar Bell YFM1 Aircuda, which is a rarer American pusher plane.
Thank you Rex for talking about one of my favourite weird aircraft of the war! I never knew there were further versions of the Libellula from the M39 onwards so I'm very much looking forward to that video. :)
It was not 'a weird aircraft of the War' - it was just built 'during' WWII.
Design looks way similar to Japan's Shinden high performance push prop fighter prototype but with both wings attached at the ventral section of the fuselage.
You make me want to play KSP again…
Thank you for this video. And how about making one for the Miles Messenger?
Produced to meet an Army requirement for an air observation post. Then the MAP threw all their toys out of the pram because Miles hadn't gone through them. So the Army weren't allowed to have it! However the type was used later by the RAF who bought 21. A total of 93 were produced 1942-48, including exports to 9 countries. It had huge rear-wing flaps which gave it the very low stall speed of 25mph! (cf Fieseler Storch stalling speed 31mph.) The engine was a Gypsy Major. Lord Tedder and Monty each had one.
You just need to look at Burt Rutan's aircraft to see that Miles were onto something.
If it was that good, it would be the norm, not one offs.
i hope Rex should cover a failed airliner from the 50's
This design would've been perfect for CAS. It's not a coincidence how much it resembles the A-10 Warthog.
When does a wing stop being a wing and start being a Canard?
if the elevators are on it
I'm reminded of the Beechcraft Starship, and wonder if there was a connection
The problem with the design at 3:40 is that for example debris picked up by the wheel will damage the propiler blade.
Super compact carrier borne aircraft sounds like a shrewd plan. Pity it wasn't looked into when it was a fresh idea
WO! Count me in on the not knowin thing! And the Lyssie too! Be nice if one of the Miles had wound up at 'Shuttleworths' Thanks m8 another goodie!
No mention is made of the fuel economy benefits of such 'canard' wing designs. In a 'conventional' aircraft the main wing generates lift while the rear wing generates down force. This reduces the aircraft's lifting capacity and wastes fuel. When all wings are lifting surfaces the range is improved significantly. This was one of the strategic benefits of the Northrop flying wing designs. A big plus with the canard as exploited by Burt Rutan is that by designing the forward wing to stall first the main wing cannot stall (at least in theory) making safer flight possible.
Perhaps the Miles M 35/39 was inspired by the twin-engined Focke-Wulf F 19 "Ente" of which two were built in 1927 and 1930. Tragically Georg Wulf died in an accident with the first prototype after 14 test flights...
New to me 👍
HUH, I've never heard of these before. would be a fun project to remake them in X-plane to get a sense of what flying one was like.
G'day,
This may class as Nitpicking (?), but because Tandem-Wing Designs have "traditionally" had 2 pairs of Wings, front and back, with both pairs being of EQUAL Area, Span, and Chord...; whereas "Canard" is officially French for "Duck", but because Ducks have long necks they appear to have their Wings very close to their Tails - so therefore ,"Canard" ALSO means, colloquially, in French..., "Totally Backwards" or " Going Backwards"...
And then Aeroplanes "standardised" on Dedigns featuring mainly Tractor Airscrews with Mainplanes at "the Front" set at a Positive Angle of (Rigger's) Incidenc and the Horizontal Stabilisor mounted at the end of a trailing Fuselage/Tail/Boom Structure..., set at a NEGATIVE (Rigger's) Angle of Incidence ; so that the resulting "Decollage" caused a Stable Dynamic Instability which may be fine-tuned such that the Wing/Stabilisor fly stable, at a selected Airspeed.
The Mainplane of a "Conventional" Aeroplane thus lifts 100% of the Weight of the Airframe.
The Front and Rear Wing-Pairs of a TANDEM-Wing Aeroplane each carry FIFTY PERCENT of the weight of the Aeroplane.
Then, the idea of a "Canard" Aeroplane was hatched, with the proponents claiming that by placing the Horizontal Stabilisor at the Front of the Fuselage, set at a HIGHER (Positive) Rigger's Angle of Incidence than that of the Mainplane...: then because the Stabilisor (Canard {Front}) Aerofoil is flying at a +ve Angle of Attack then it generates Lift - thus unloading the Mainplanes of 10% to 20% of the Weight-carrying burden, and therefore permitting the Mainplanes to be proportionially smaller, lighter ; and any time the Aeroplane approaches a Stall then the Front Aerofoil - with it's higher A.O.A., stalls First, thus lowering the nose.
So, the difference betwixt a Tandem Wing Aeroplane and a Canard Design is that the Tandem Wing Designs have the Front and Rear Wings both lifting an equal amount of Aircraft Weight whereas a Canard has somewhere around 30%, down to 10%, of the total Weight being carried by the Front Wing.
So, all Dragonfly Fantasies aside, the Miles Libuella was a CANARD design, owing to it's Rear (Main) Wing having about twice the Area of the Front Airfoil, so 70% of the Weight was being lofted by the Mainplane.
Maybe Miles was suffering Lepidopterra-Envy, as a result of Geoffery deHavilland's successes with Cirrus, Gypsy, Tiger, Puss, Fox and Hornet-Moths...; so he squinted until his Duck resembled a Dragonfly, and called it "Libuella"...?
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
looks like the M35 was the inspiration for the American Ascender and the Japanese Shinden
I wish someone would experiment with this design with CAD. There is something there that I wish had been researched. Imagine a prop plane with the speed of a Grumman Bearcat and the maneuverability much better than a Mitsubishi zero
I'm sure Bert Rutan will approve of this video... 😉
I want to know more about that heavily-modified Lysander(?) mentioned near the start!
There simply was no easy and general fix for cooling a pusher prop for the performance required in the 1930s-40s. Jet engines enabled the general configuration to work but before that any pusher design always had overheating issues
The engineers at Saab solved the cooling problem in their J21 pusher aircraft by designing a fan system driven by the engine and only engaged when the landing gear was extended
Looks like something that came from bang good
T/s 2:40 The designs look very like Bert Rutan's canard wing designs
Canard jets use small front wings that deliver control forces but only minimal lift. When the front wing stalls it reduces the main wing angle of attack making a full stall difficult to achieve. The Miles had a large front wing so maybe that’s why stability was poor - basically a stall drops the front end too much.
Please do a video on the Handley page bomber I can't find much in the way of video on this very influential World War I bomber so it would be nice if you did a nice 20 minute long video like you did with the Vickers Vinny bomber which was a really nice well done video something on that level about the Handley page bomber
With my limited knowledge of wing airflow, I have to wonder if it would have done better had the forward wing been on the bottom and the rear wing on the top. That front wing would have been dumping its downward airflow directly onto the rear wing's upper airflow.
...Oh, looks like that happened with the bomber prototype. And indeed it sounds like it did a LOT better.
Thank You.
Another what might have been... possibly could have been an amazing jet fighter.
Yes, love long videos