Video

Pretty similar set up to Harrier. Who was first?

Equally as effective as F35 today. As in NOT VERY !😊

It was still a monumental achievement considering the *ENORMOUS* difficulties Hawker and Rolls-Royce experienced developing the Pegasus engine and the P.1127 Kestrel airframe around the engine. Even more so considering the technology of the Tumanski engine was less advanced than the Rolls-Royce engine.

Very informative

It did NOT fail! It never went into mass production and therefore was never used in combat.You pan the use of wood! This enabled it to avoid radar detection.Overall a biased and distorted review!

Thanks for this 👍✈️

Highly-flawed, subsonic prototype that never stood a chance at mass production...

Little remembered, France, Britain and Germany and the US were all very interested in a Vstol, fighter in the 60'S. Many variants were made to meet this need. It culminated in the Harrier. In 2024 the US Marine Corps still have several squadrons active. And the Most advanced fighter in the world, has a Vstol variant operational in the the US and Britain. That's the F35. So far a great legacy.

So... just another stolen project from Brits...

Ty for sharing

Лунь

Harrierski…..

Good little video!!! 👍👍👍

Good video man I haven’t seen this one

too bad they throw in a dash of complexity…

*Russian Millenium Falcon....*

Bro looks like it eats its enemies

Just needs a little duct tape, and some WD40….. be good as new in a jiffy…

Actually the main wings are not swept back, even slightly. The leading edge is straight and the trailing edge is swept forward. The engines are not in "a row along the length of the aircraft", they are mounted across the leading edge of what could be referred to as the canard, on this 3 surface craft. Multiple fins and rudders? Have you even looked at the photos in the video? Ahwell, you do call the Channel "Dumb Air". I can see why.

This is what a few mad designers and a couple empty cases of Vodka will getcha.

We can rebuild it. We have the tools, we have the technology. We can make this the best vieodoc on lifting bodies of all time! Just get the fucking commentary right!

It had little-to-no steering at high speeds and was useless in seas higher than 2 meters.

Learn about your subject. Factual errors such as calling the missile tubes mounted on the fuselage "engines" is a glaring error. Ditch the AI and narrate it yourself or find a voice actor. Finally, lose the clickbait titles... if there is a "New Lease on Life" for this concept, I didn't hear about it in this video. Perhaps the AI voice was so irritating that I missed it. All in all, I want that 5:43 of my life back.

was a fail like this channel

Known of this for almost 20 years now, but very interesting. However it was clearly a wasted effort for the Soviets

Bro you desperately need an editor and proof reader - "here's why" and using the word twice in the same sentence makes you sound so unintelligent.

"engines along its length"? Does this guy think the missiles are engines?

The bot went to the William Shatner school. Of. Public speaking.

click it and be

If there is going to be a youtube channel about shitty aviation decisions, you really need to go full potato about the a10 warthog, because it should be illegal to use such a stupid airplane in so much propaganda when it can only survive because it's used by developed powers against undeveloped opponents.

u should rlly use ur own voice instead of ai, it becomes so annoying

Aside from the AI voice, I enjoyed the video, good work on a little-known subject.

BAN MACHINE MADE VIDEOS

This is by far the worst AI voice of all time 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

hey Steve Austin!

Although an unmanned lifting body the "Martin X-23A PRIME" actually demonstrated a re-enty flight path by being launch on an Atlas into a suborbital track. The recovery system didn't even start to deploy until it slowed to mach 2.

Flat iron... not flateron☺

At last: an ACCURATE video! (More accurate than some of the comments!)

New tires for every flight. The long take off run at high speeds would damage the tires.

The engines killed it. But it is one of the coolest designs in existence.

_The X3 poor performance as nothing to do with the X3 itself_ . The problem was that the engine that it was designed to use, the J46, ran into many design issues and failed to deliver the thrust it was supposed to have, and the X3 had to be flown with the J34, which was not nearly powerful enough to meet the X3 performance objectives. I see videos like this that say the X3 was a failure, but the culprit was Westinghouse, and not the X3 itself. Had Westinghouse been able to get the J46 sorted out, the aircraft would have reached design speeds. Best to tell the whole story and not leave out such an important detail.

Without the X-3 Stiletto, there would have been no F-104 Starfighter (the first successful mass produced Mach 2 capable jet fighter (2,758 built). The failure of the X-3 to achieve Mach 2 was due to having the wrong engines. It should have been designed to have rocket propulsion, as jet engines of the early 1950's didn't have enough thrust for the purpose of Mach 2 flight.

Probably the coolest Russia aircraft to date.

Although this plane is marvel of engineering for its time, today thrust vectoring engines make this plane obsolete.

She’d be an instant bush success.

Centrifugal turbo prop

Great video! i just found your channel. I found the video to be very informative and well done. Thank you so much, and keep up the good work. I hope to enjoy more videos like this from you in the future.

The Russians copied the U.S. The X38 had forward swept wings in the early 80's. It was even a toy in Gi-Joe.

STARFIELD

Essentially based on the Jnkers Ju 287 and HFB 320 Hansa Jet. Forward sweep works but has never been quite compelling enough to make it attractive. It's not really a stealthy shape in that the forward swep wings will reflect into the fuselage and scatter.