X-29 - The Most Unstable Fighter Jet Ever Built
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2020
- Get your free trial of MagellanTV here: try.magellantv.com/darkskies. It's an exclusive offer for our viewers: an extended, month-long trial, FREE. MagellanTV is a new kind of streaming service run by filmmakers with 2,000+ documentaries! Search for the playlist “Aviation: The Past And Future”!
Grumman’s experimental aircraft X-29, with its forward-swept wings, appeared almost as if it should be flying backward. The unusual configuration sought to test new canard control surfaces and advanced materials to improve maneuverability response at a higher angle of attack. It was flown together by NASA and the Air Force as a testbed for joint interests. While promising and positively reviewed by test pilots, the aircraft’s new technologies made it one of the most aerodynamically unstable planes in the history of aviation. An incredibly complex system was needed to continually calibrate the controls to keep the X-29 in the air. Still, the promise of the potential new technologies was so enticing that even the Russians couldn’t help themselves from trying to replicate them… - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Thanks again to MagellanTV for sponsoring Dark Skies! Click here to support our channel and take advantage of a free one-month trial: try.magellantv.com/darkskies. Learn more about the future of aviation and search for the documentary: "Do Planes Still Need Pilots?"
7:58 research is spelled reaserch. Otherwise great vid!
What about the XP-55? same concept and was built in 1943
It's not a fighter jet. All the X-planes are research aircraft.
John Doe o
@@JohnDoe-qp7og
Your knowledge is spectacular, John (Karen) Doe
Maybe next you can tell me what a jo-bolt, cherrymax, or dzuts is.
...after would wicki it
G.I.Joe still use them in their fight against Cobra.
The Conquest X-30. I had two.
Is that a tenere 700 pretty dank
@@pinkpanther8932 that's the 1200 pig
@@astormofwrenches5555 I still have mine,
toadady gay
I've been to the USAF Museum, and the most striking thing about this plane is just how _tiny_ it is.
The F5 (which what the X29's airframe was based on in parts) is also crazy tiny. It looked small to me and I was like 9 when I saw it. it's dwarfed by the F4
@@DFX2KX I was out at Whiteman back when I was younger, and the T-38s were just the same. Isn't that related to the F-5?
@@andie_pants yes the F-5 and T-38 are both derived from Northrop's N-156 program. The biggest difference between T-38 and F-5 are the wings and how they join the fuselage.
@@oliverwange8264 I imagine I'd have a fun time picking your brain over a beer or two or three or four. You sound like you've got some good stories to tell.
When I visited the National Air and Space Museum in D.C. back in 2010, there was also a swept forward wing jet there. Was there another aircraft tested?
This is the perfect voice for selling some new, really, really strong coffee.
Or introducing the Twilight Zone.
It’s just waaaaay to fast. Can’t listen to it without getting nervous.
Was about to comment that. Dude speaks way too fast and also doesn't have a 5/5 pronunciation :/
is perfect for studying english, like listening exercise... 😂
and a valium
My grandmother worked for Grumman. She sent us the press packet for this plane before the press even got it. It's been my favorite plane ever since.
Not the most relevant thing, but the X-29 is an absolutely gorgeous aircraft.
I agree they get points on style it looks great.
+1
So is the F5. And the F20 is one of the great missed opportunities in military aviation.
Gorgeousness is always relevant. 😀
@@KarlBunker Well, some say "if it looks right, it is right". As a pessimist, I'm not sure about this. I think "if it looks wrong, it is wrong", is a safer way to go.
@David Vance Israeli Kfir or the SAAB Viggen?
"Hey Frank, we have a big problem... the guys put the wings on the prototype backwards, and all the VIP's are going to be here in 20 minutes to view it."
"Ahhh, F it, let's just tell them this is how we designed it."
xD
The X-29 is trying ok! She had a rough development cycle and is seeking professional help.
Yet nobody thinks about the Su 47
Its one of my favorite aircraft designs!! And also that nasa paint scheme is amazing! I do wish the US will try something new with that design, also i believe it looks better than the S-47
@@michaelgarcia6919 who knows, maybe US's 6th gen fighter will use that configuration
Andres Tamaronis, yeah man it would be amazing to see fighter with that design also the Yf-23 is better than the raptor, fight me!
@@michaelgarcia6919 I don't need to, we all know f-22 is better because it was chosen
I believe this kind of design was “abandoned” because of the priorities shifting from maneuverability to stealth.
Canards and similar surfaces are not good for a plane RCS (radar cross section)
There are other aircraft that would be impossible to fly without computers, the f-117 for example
@Adam Lannerd Did you mean the YB-49, Northrop's Flying wing bomber.
The problem with reliance on stealth is that once they find a way to defeat it, and they will, the aircraft such as the F-35 is vulnerable. The British Royal Air Force flew Typhoons against F-35s in visual range and the Typhoon won every dogfight.
@@bigblue6917 Getting into visual range is considered a failure by modern engagement practices already. What you say about stealth is true about anything. This is why you change to keep ahead. Also, the F-35 is meant to be a somewhat low cost, exportable stealth strike fighter. The F-22 has no such shortcomings.
For another example, simply removing the pilot would allow any plane to be vastly more maneuverable that any existing manned aircraft.
Lastly, the F-35 is primarily a strike aircraft, not an air-superiority fighter, and was designed to defeat the defenses of the US' and Allies' adversaries, not typhoons.
Desrtfox71 I understand what you’re saying but that’s not exactly true. Some of the engagements are not very clear. Let me give you a real example that happened in Iraq I believe.
AWACS detected 2 mig-29s approaching 2 f-15s. On notice the f-15s turned in the direction of the migs which in turn turned in the opposite direction appearing to be running away.
The f15s gave chase.
A few minutes in they realized they were in an ambush with another mig-29 (or 2) appearing in their flank.
Now at this point is where your argument gets tricky. The American pilots need to make a decision. Do we bug out and get the f away from here OR do we kick their buts? They decided to fight and they won...within visual range. I’m afraid 2 f-35s could be forced to make a different decision but I’m not sure. I’m actually a pilot but I admit there’s just not enough information to make a fair judgment on the aircraft. That’s another conversation all together
You can check for yourself everything I just told you. There’s actual footage of the dogfight on CZcams. With all the American comms.
@@richardpatton2502 Yes, engagement rules differ. Nevertheless, a straight up merge in an F-35 is a failure. Typically the way this would be done is that the F-35s would approach into visual range for identification, if engagement rule required it, in such a way as to do so from behind and without being seen by the adversary. Then, once identification is made, any number of assets could be brought to bear. In any case though, the F-35 is primarily a strike platform, not primarily designed for air superiority.
1984 Gruman: Let's use triple-redundant computers & sensors for a 1-person jet
2016 Boeing: Let's use a backup computer [that never gets used] for a passenger get and offer 30 mins of training
Better technology doesn’t mean the engineers are still as careful and considerate, unfortunately
And the X29 has an ejection seat as well... xD
@@buzzyinurface Don't blame the engineers. Boeing Engineers kept bringing up issues about the safety/reliability of the 737 Max... It was marketing executives that decided to ignore/hide these issues and downplay the extra training needed, because they were worried that airlines wouldn't buy the plane if they would need to spend money and time on pilot training.
Yeah that's what happens when you have a monopoly and Boeing is a fat stupid monopoly that doesn't need to work hard at all.😠
@@hammerofdavey Sorry to say, I have "been there." Management attitude descends to "it is the crew's responsibility to take care of that."
I remember the news coverage of the program... I was absolutely mesmerized by the design. It still holds a high place on my list of all-time favorite aircraft.
It is something of a wonder. Worthy of any aviation bucket list.
If you put that on ×0.75 his talking speed will become normal and he will Sound a bit drunk. Win-win
My dad worked on this project, when I was a kid. As I recall, he was delighted to be working on something so cutting edge.
This shows the versatility of the F-5 and Su-27 airframes.
The irony is the Su-27 was so good that after all the experimentations its ultimate version was visually identical to the original version. Northrop's F-5 concept was probably the most intense stroke of genius since the Wright bros.
I believe I remember reading an article about these aircraft and the use of a dual engine indicator even though they only had one engine. They used that because it was handy. After several flights the indicator that monitored the engine stopped functioning. They then switched to the indicator for the second engine and placed black electrical tape over the non-functional side.
The F5A had two engines.
I believe it. Whatever works.
I swear, this guy could read from a phonebook and it'd still sound creepy as hell.
He sounds more scared and nervous than creepy.
Is it a real person or a computer generated voice? He needs to slow down a bit instead of sounding like a speed freak after six cups of coffee.
@@dx1450 he’s a real person but god he speaks so fast i bet eminem would be scared
@@dx1450 He records at regular speed, then speeds it up at 1.25x post-production. Listen to the video at 0.75x speed to listen to his actual voice.
I was a member of the team for United Technologies / Hamilton Test Systems that designed the control surfaces of the X-29 in the mid 80's. The unique feature of the controls was its instability when the computer controls were turned off. It was practically impossible to control the aircraft without the computer controls, which oddly made it much more difficult to hit during a dog fight with enemy jets. When presented with an adversary that the pilot could not evade, it was only necessary to switch off the control computers and the jet would begin tumbling wildly, making it un-strikeable. While this was certainly not the preferred mode of flight, it was handy at times when it was crucial to evade a missile or chasing jet. The same measure also made the jet unacceptable if the computer went off without pilot selection, in which case it became uncontrolable, as it had the glide characteristics of a brick.
The truth is that high maneuverability is always associated with instability. By definition, inherent stability requires a negative feedback loop, which makes the airframe less sensitive to control inputs.
I came here to say this, but you put it much more eloquently than I could have.
In short, the plane was purposefully designed to be unstable because that makes it so much more maneuverable.
@@4ntig3n dead right , I had a shot of a rally car twitchy & unstable but if you told it what to do it would comply instantly
You want neutral stability in fighters, not instability. You don’t want to oppose aerodynamic response either moving toward or moving away from equilibrium, and in a sense instability is worse because you have reduced alpha capability since you have to leave margin before control saturation
cromwell2007 explain to me where I’m wrong
J2B and then accelerations toward equilibrium are slower, there’s no free lunch. Then there’s the tighter aoa limits to avoid departure, and actuators struggle to keep up.
If you read the nasa report on lessons learned you will find out that the X-29 was not as maneuverable as the classic F-18, an aircraft designed for stability because of manual reversionary controls
In general, in the industry, us flight control engineers use a variety of techniques techniques that have some element of “remove plant dynamics” (see: dynamic inversion), and the less of this you have to do, the better. Thus, neutral stability is preferred
The X-29 is still the most awe inspiring aircraft Ive ever seen. It’s wrong in all the right ways.
The SR-22 is the most as inspiring plane.
Lux Vegas - I love the SR-22’s insanity especially on how they start the engines. But the paint job is to monotone
The germans experimented with forward swept wing jet aircraft during WW2. They swept the wings back again.. But it flew with no computer control.
Patrick Horvath - I’m aware of the Junkers JU-287. It was UGLY!
@@fixedguitar47
True. So was the stealth fighter..
Me262 gorgeous plane, and the XB-70 still looks futuristic today
One of the most elegant jets ever, love that design. Turns in so sharp, what a cool machine.
Would be better now with better computers
Elegant? Well horses for courses I guess.
Fighters are supposed to be inherently unstable. That's why they're so maneuverable
It sounds kind of like the difference between top heavy sport bikes and bottom heavy cruisers. Sport bikes are not nearly as stable as cruisers, but loads more maneuverable. I'm sure aerodynamic stability is a completely different concept, but the ideas seem similar to me.
Yeah but if it is too much, it will lead to more reliability and maintenance issues with pilots getting fatigued more easily during flights, which can effect the fighing capability.
A fighter aircraft is not usually “unstable”, just not inherently stable. For instance a Cessna would correct itself and fly in a relatively straight and even path if you let go of the stick, even if you were pitching up or down. A standard fighter would continue to go in the direction it was pointed in, and won’t self correct without computer software. In that it is “unstable” because it doesn’t return to a stable position. However, the X29’s pitch was so unstable that if you would pull back on the stick and let go, it would just keep going further and further back, even with the canards straight, because the center of gravity is in front of the main lifting body.
@@KingOfTheKindle, you are correct.
The Cessna would be positively stable, returning to a somewhat stable attitude when you let go of controls.
A neutrally stable aircraft simply continues its flight in the yaw, pitch & roll you were at when you let go of controls.
A negatively stable aircraft like this & the F-117A will just... let go when you let go, perform unpredictably & randomly.
It's just so gorgeous! And can you imagine the modern version of this beauty we could build, shaping it's surfaces with intuitive AI and evolutionary algorithms? And modern sensors and processor controlling it? Just... wow.
Su-47
@@rancidcrawfish I dont think 1997 counts as modern.
I had a micromachine version of this as a kid. I always loved how cool it looked. But it just never made sense to me that it could fly with wings like that. Lol it was the best fighter I owned right after my f14 tomcat.
Grumman proposed a forward-swept F-16 "but that idea was shot down in flames."
That is a rather intense way to describe a decision but you never gave an explanation. Was it a bad proposal? Was the Pentagon being protective of the F-16?
Grumman was direct competition for MCD
The f16balready had a variant built with a complete delta wing molded with the body too but that may have been after this talon x 29 x series. Edit: not f16b. Just f16 airframe. That boy's a typo.
I remember seeing a concept of that in this old book I had.
Here's a more scientifically video about it:
czcams.com/video/RN6vGxyMcVU/video.html
In summary, it's impractical to be used as practical form for new fighters.
He probably got it from someone else. I remember when I did reports in elementary school I would essentially copy from what I read and change the wording and sentence structure to make it different.
This plane perfectly sums up the 80's...love it.
I grew up watching the X29 fly over my house. Excellent video thumbs up stay awesome and have a great day.
Did you live near Edwards? I lived in Rosamond for years and got to see so many cool aircraft
@@levondaneful yes. Edwards AFB was an awesome base to grow up on second only to Beale AFB when the SR71 was
Hot. Have a great day.
Yo i Wish i lived next to military base
I live close to tinker
Awesome as a kid I got to see the X-29 over Albuquerque/Kirtland when it stopped to refuel on its way to Oshkosh in '91. Still the highlight of my plane watching lol.
I remember flying this plane in Ace Combat 5!
5 and Zero still reign supreme
In Lethal Skies II, it was one of the best in the game.
I have a photo of me in front of the X29 on static display in Florida in the late 80’s and with the same airframe on display at Wright Patterson in 2018. It was a sight to behold for my ten year old eyes. Speaking of unstable airframes, there was an F-117 on display at that same air show in St. Augustine. Visitors weren’t allowed to see the rear of the airframe that day. Such beautiful pieces of engineering.
Wpafb and the USAF museum ore awesome. Dayton native here.
"...but this idea was shot down in flames." I love your occasional straight-faced winks.
Do you now, Buster
@@jeezymclovin2215 Yes. Yes I do.
I loved this episode!
I’d love to see an episode on the X-31, too!
My dad was the project manager for this aircraft and I sat in it. Wild. He told me about its development and testing.
So much said here is a bit off. I say this as someone that had hands on first hand knowledge of the plane and watched it being built and tested. The X-29 was not a fighter. It was never intended to be a fighter or a production airplane. It was simply a concept test bed. The actual aircraft was mostly the front half of an F-5 mated to the back end of an F-16. The main fuselage wasn’t built from the ground up. The main innovations being tested were the wings, the improved materials, the improved fly by wire, and an examination of deliberately seeking out instability. In this plane instability was not a flaw, it was the design goal. Instability = agility. The “if the computers fail it will rip apart” fly by wire wasn’t anything new by this point. The F-16 had been in service for years. Which is a similar true digitally controlled fly by wire that makes 40 corrections/second. Essentially the X-29 was an extension of the F-16 and research into how much further they could take fly by wire and digital controls. There were similar related pilot programs in development at the same time involving the use of canards on F16’s and F-14 Tomcats. That gave them crazy agile dogfighting capabilities. The Grumman test pilots that I knew described the X-29 as ne of the most fun planes to fly they had ever encountered.
And to correct one odd impression left by this video. The X-29 was oddly enough a civilian contract, not Military. It had nowhere near the security requirements of the other planes then currently out at Calverton. That summer we had a ton of EW planes around the facility. EA-6B’s. Tomcats being upgraded. F-111’s being converted to EF-111’s. Hawkeye’s, etc. even a bunch of A-6’s getting their final makeovers. They were all classified high security projects. The X-29’s were not. That’s why there are so many pictures of the plane. They were used almost daily for photo ops.
That’s the thing. There wasn’t much in the way of New Technology in them. They were mostly Frankensteins of already in production and in service existing parts and tech, repurposed to test out a new concept. I think even the three flight controllers were taken from another plane. Probably an F-16. The main thing was software improvements. Everyone looks at the forward swept wings. Which were part of the experiment. But I believe the bigger more important part was the improved fly by wire flight controllers. In them the X-29 led directly to the F35. By mastering the instability of the forward swept wings and canards they figured out that the ability to dynamically control and tune the flight surfaces in tiny fractions of a second via computer control they could fine tune a planes maneuverability on the fly, regardless of wing shape. Thus they could get the X-29’s insane agility with a more stealth friendly wing. (Or in the case of the F-117, they could get something absurdly shaped airborne at all.)
He repeatedly says it was a test bed and not a production fighter.
@@towermoss Okay, lets start with a few other wrong bits in it then. "It involved the collaboration between NASA, The Air Force and DARPA", uh huh. No, not really. Well maybe eventually? But the Plane was built and flown on Grumman's dime. It's Development was "Corporate Secrets" not "State Secrets". It lacked the intense security clearances needed for pretty much every other aircraft on the grounds at Calverton. It was a tech demonstrator and Marketing Tool. NASA was involved at some point. Mostly as an experimental platform once it started flying.
@@towermosshe also said it was meant to be the ultimate fighter. There is a lot of hyperbole in these videos.
Great info, thank you!
I always wondered what happened to the 'forward swept wing' idea. In the 1980's it was talked about as if all new fighter plane wings would soon be forward swept as they were claimed to be superior all round. Then it all went quiet - a bit like 48 volt based systems for auto electrics.
*"Research" not "R e a s e r c h"
Probably fat-fingered it...
R.E.S.E.A.R.C.H.
Okay teacher
He should've done his reaserch
Look out all you key board junkies, the grammar police are watching for violators! Next, they'll require a mask while texting!
Great videos. Always interesting and extremely informative. Nicely done and thanks.
Great work, one of the best docs I have seen.
Great video. A TON of new technologies came out of the development of the X-29. The F-22 would not fly today without the X-29.
1:58 "oh wait I forgot to turn off the stove"
Great information. Thanks to Magellan for sponsoring it.
Greatly enjoyed the footage, top quality. Definitely recommend
I remember the X-29 up at Edward's AFB.
In your last video (The America bomber) I mentioned Flugkapitän Hans Pancherz. I remember a lengthy conversation with him about forward swept wing. The Germans experimented with that during the war with some success. Hans Pancherz was not a believer in this technology to my disappointment....
On the bending and torsion of the wing, I congratulate you of presenting this very well. Not many understand the anisotropic carbon fiber laminate used in the wings, with up 122 layer. From my Mechanical Engineering standpoint the answer lies in the stiffness matrix where all quadrants contain some elements not being zero. I often explain this case to our students. The case with the X-29 immediately gets the students attention.....
If I remember correctly about the angle of attack, the X-29 could fly at much higher angle of attack than the engineers had calculated. This might be due to that CFD at the time was not even near what is possible today, including what you call a coupled analysis.
Would it be easier today to design this wing thanks to the massive leap it computing power since the early 1980s?
And would today's composites make it even better in performance?
@@LadyAnuB Today it would be possible to do this on your decent home computer. You still need a MS ME or PhD to do it, that is the big problem. I work with Ansys Inc that in various programs has all you need, they are quite expensive. There are of course competitors.
There are slight improvements in the various carbon fiber materials today, but maybe not as big as you would imagine.
@@rudolfabelin383 So the computations can easily be done today. Computer flight testing would be in order as well.
I'm not thinking carbon fiber only here. Other composites as well just to see what is capable of being done and tested.
@@LadyAnuB You can find a lot of documentation online for the wings of the X-29. From the back of my memory it's 122 layers of carbonfiber in an anisotropic layup. That has to do with the stiffness matrix, a 6x6 matrix that defines properties of bending and torsion. The key with the X-29 is the coupling between bending and torsion.
i am happy that the planes are still around and not scrapped for parts as you hear in other places. The development of these did provide technology that is still used in avionics today!
And another video! Keep em coming 🔥
I was a Grumman intern at this time and My father helped work on the spin chute. I was able to see it up close.
Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War
Ace combat 5: unsung war. mission white noice enemy ace daredevil
At the last mission in the canyon ,and you anti surface equiped ... and it's gone
they should've asked Gründer Industries for help (again)
*Buddi*
Ace combat 2
had the great benefit of seeing these fly when i lived at edwards in the 80s. so very cool.
That plane just looks so agile and quick in the air. Beautiful.
I had a coworker "I'm a machinist" and he had a metal laser cut out of an X-29. I asked him about it, and he was contacted to work for this project and did alot of the machining work on it.
This is one of my favorite planes next to the SR-71. So fucking cool.
As always, you do a Quality Presentation. Thank you.
Quality?
Fly-by-wire took a step forward, forward-swept was validated and tons of data was produced. All in all a good day's work.
@John De Jesus - Except that fly-by-wire was already a proven concept by the early 1970s, a decade earlier than the X-29, and was designed into the intentionally inherently unstable 1970s era F-16. Still, it's sad the radical but promising X-29 design was abandoned.
I met one of the developers of the flight control system software. Incredible work, humbling to consider the quality assurance discipline that they achieved on this project.
Back when I was in the third grade me and a friend were looking through a binder of “Aircraft of the World” pamphlets. When we saw the X-29, we laughed.
amazing video...thanku
I used to be into aeromodeling and I made a few smaller paper airplanes of the X-29 and eventually built a much larger one similar to the 1:32 or 1:24 scales in the static model kits range. It's body was made with alluminum cans and the wing and canards were made of reinforced paper complete with an internal skeletal structure. I remember it was a bit heavy (about 2 pounds) - yet it still flew surprisingly stable (without) computers or any engine. The average range for it thrown directly into the wind, was about 106- 109 foot distances. I also made a smaller (1:48) scale version made of all paper, plastic and cardboard materials and it flew a little bit further averaging straight horizontal flights around 110 to 114 feet and about 1 to 2 feet off the ground. It was a sight to see and flew extremely fast !
Even if the plane were unstable and flawed on its own, what was salvaged from this design could prove invaluable today.
Every mistake teaches a lesson.
The F-117 "Stealth" Fighter is so INCREDIBLY unstable that it requires a constantly operating Computer just to keep it in the air!
If the computer fails, the pilots only option was to eject! AND FAST!
The Wobbly Goblin
You should consider the F-117 stealth "fighter" instead. It's stealth capability is widely known and proven. But it was never a fighter aircraft, despite it's designation. It is no more a fighter than the F-111.
They gave it the fighter designation to help fighter pilots egos after what fighter pilots wants to fly a plane with a bomber designation.
Another great video, thanks
I can Imagine the X-29 Almost instantaneously reversing and going the opposite direction. A new era for jet fighters.
Instability = Maneuverability... xD
The video would be a lot better if the voice track wasn't sped up. Does the producer think everyone has ADD these days??
It isn't sped up. That's actually how he talks. I know how you feel, sometimes i gotta rewind lol
It’s pretty good when you set the playback speed to 0.75
I’m not a native speaker but pretty competent. He speaks really really fast but is easier to understand than others due to his neutral accent. Maybe it is because people here in spain talk way faster than anywhere else and i’m just used to it tho
I find nothing wrong with his voice, I like it.
Au contraire, the voice is so fast so that people who want to watch the video faster can‘t, due to the narrator becoming unintelligible.
Thus longer viewing times and more ads.
7:58 I think this title card needed a bit more research.
True
Im so glad that im not the only one
Amazing work!
This thing looks GORGEOUS
It was a technology demonstrater and never meant to be a fighter
Michael Jackson said he was a lover, not a fighter.
- Not; "be a fighter". . . But; "be a flyer!"
- Oops, its airborne! Now what?
The X aircraft (without an additional letter like XF or XB) are indeed experimental, but if the USAF is involved, you can be pretty sure that they're not there for purely scientific reasons.
Noooo really
I've always thought that forward swept wings were delightfully counterintuitive
It depenes what fills up the intuitive part of your brain.
I refer you, sir, to Thunderbird Two i1.wp.com/nick-stevens.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/thunderbird-2-ortho-setx.jpg
It was a massive cargo craft so they weren't necessary, but it had them and in 1965 too.
I would guess it would be more efficient at lower speeds but it's surprising they broke the sound barrier with this design.
I was always curious about this design, based on my knowledge it does not appear in nature , what did I miss about this design? 4 brains to operate it?
I live about 3 miles from the Grumman test facility in calverton ny ( Long Island ) from 1968!to present I started at Grumman in 1984 and worked there to 1989 right before Northrop took over I have a some original promo stickers from the x-29 I was there when one of them was shipped out to California. There was always very cool and interesting things going on at the test facility my job took me all over the facility so I got to see a lot my dad and uncle both retired from Grumman. 35years
I was just a lad in nursery school but I remember my friend's father was an engineer on the x-29. Their house in New Hyde Park had all sorts of models and pictures on the wall of jets including the x-29. This and the F-104 are my favorites. Hope you enjoy the Jones Beach Air Show this weekend!
I remember seeing Technology videos about this plane, but never heard much more about it... Thanks for the video!
7:59 REASERCH?
The X-29 is a gorgeous looking plane, I always liked it due to its forward swept wings. That SU47 is a beautiful plane. There is just something about Russian jets that I really like.
Can’t believe how big this channel has gotten in only a few months (I mean I can believe it because it’s awesome)
As a born and raised Long Islander (home of Grumman) and one who had several family members who were employed by them at the time. This makes me smile..Loved this plane form day 1
I heard you got some really tasty Ice Tea over there as well
@@e.c.listening326 and some spectacular beaches.
Hate to tell you this though. You are wrong about the aircraft they used as a base. It was actually an F-20 Tigershark, which was more powerful single engine version of the F-5.
Dutch roll is backwards on the swept wings and canards not being with the vertical stabilizer, its just wrong.
From an Aircraft mechanic.
The F-20 was originally designated "F-5G".
@@9Apilot the F- 20 is a single engine and the F-5 is twin engine! Similarly design
Joker, Chuck Yeager said the Tigershark was a better a/c than the F-16 & a helluva lot cheaper to build. He lost out.
@@billcallahan9303 i don't know how the F-16 has twice the thrust.
The more unstable the aircraft is the more maneuverable it is. It was designed that way. A Cessna 172 Skyhawks is vey stable but not the most maneuverable airplane I’ve ever flown.
Motorcycles as well.
Jim Kimpton Excellent point. The best racing motorcycles are extremely hard to control but man they can take a corner like nothing else.
I knew you were a man of understanding Mr. Davis. I went from a Yamaha Virago 920(a cruiser) to a ysmaha FZR 600. Moving from a hammer to a scalpel! Cornering was...telepathic. Fly well sir.
This jet was on my wall as a kid. It looks futuristic EVEN NOW in 2020! How crazy is that. I mean not for a 80's creation... or kinda sorta. No it looks straight up futuristic even now at this very moment. Its always been a novel concept. I wish it was more a success to see it in action more. Id bet our avionics and computers now could make this work. Those wings being swept in a forward attack position would have to make for just amazing turn in.
I had one of these as a "ring raider" toy plane, was absolutely fascinating
USAF : We need an arse backwards plane.
NASA : We can build it.
Grumman built it.
hi T...
'
american company can makeing many more better X-29 airplanes...
both single jetmotor and twin jetmotors
*NASA: We can test it.
Grumman: We can build it.
8:00 *research
The X-29 was simply a test bed that was never intended to be a service aircraft, hence why it carried the designation of "X", instead of the "XF" it would have carried if it had been intended for production. And why it was cobbled together from existing Airframes and components. It was designed to test a design concept as well as new materials and computer controls. The project met every test offered up and proved itself to be a credible design. In the end the project simply concluded; it was not cancelled. But the one thing it did reveal was the forward swept wing while incredibly maneuverable, increased the airframes radar signature by an order of magnitude making it easy to spot.
Great video,Great music.
“Rafale” is pronounced with a silent e.
@Violinist 1 Rafale is pronounced ruff ale actually just saying.
Yeah if we're gonna stay true o french, it's silent
Yeahhe called it Ra fa le lmaoooo
I thought it's pronounced the same as raphael.
@@michaelmckinnon1591 no the 2 "a" are pronounced like in father
SU-47: HOLD MY VODKA
Propaganda. They only built a demo
@@esotericyetti327 ,,,,, You are right but it flies very well. czcams.com/video/kRUzUQo2jGg/video.html
czcams.com/video/16YbQsvseEc/video.html
@@milutintesla4804 so did the x-29, on a case only basis. It wasn't practical and neither is the Su-47. Had they had modern computing power back then, they may have even brought them to production.
@@esotericyetti327 ,,, With the SU47, everything is fine except for the strength of the wing at high stresses. This happens at high speed and a sudden change of direction.
@@milutintesla4804 which was the whole point, to make them more maneuverable at high speed.
"This idea was shot down in flames.." Well played sir!
Absolutely my favorite aircraft ever.
P.S. The fundamental issue is the box structure that we use to make contemporary aircraft wings: when you twist that box structure the tip will go up if it is swept forward wing. That in turn makes the wing susceptible to flutter. You can demonstrate the twisting effect on box structures to yourself using any cardboard box. One might also note that the supercritical wing required for supersonic flight is thin, so harder to make strong.
X-29 : [The most unstable Fighter Jet.]
F-35 : Don't mind if i agree... 👌
The F-35 exist because the military actually wanted her at her best unlike X-29
@@randomuser5443 And at $135 mill, exceedingly expensive 😬
I remember back when it was 3 years in and everyone was saying failure lol this is military money kiddos sit back and let them work the bugs out behind closed doors 10 years from now you’ll be playing it in dcs and talking about how it’s the best there is
Pretty much every fighter designed after 1975 is unstable and cannot be flown without computer assistance - the increased manoeuvrability is the pay off.
The next generation of fighters are unmanned - you have one manned fighter and two or three unmanned slaved wingmen that manoeuvre with the manned fighter.
“Reaserch flights” 😜
I’ve flown an RC model of the X-29. It was hard to get the CG proper. The model was not unstable and had no onboard stabilization, because it had fixed canards at a 10 degree AOA. I will say that it glided really well.
I have always been a huge fan of the X-29, not only for it's incredible, sleek, and amazing geometric beauty, but also the very instability it harnessed. This really was meant to be a testbed aircraft, not a fighter. The X-29 was graceful, compact and utilized cutting edge technology in construction, aerodynamics, and computing to overcome the issues it faced. It was a huge success and paved the way for many of the technologies currently in use in almost every modern Western fighter aircraft today. It still has the best paintjob in relation to design of any aircraft I've ever seen. This is what planes SHOULD look like, no matter the final design.
7:58, You misspelled "Reasearch". I remember having a toy of this plane and always thought it was neat, but never knew anything beyond the looks of it.
Research. So did you.
@@moose2577 I spelt it how it was in the video. I figured any rational person would know how to fix it...
@@JoeyBaby47 _"I spelt it how it was in the video"_
It's still wrong to intentionally misspell a word, to point out that it was misspelled. So Chris was right.
I’ve seen this before, not flying of course
I saw the X-29 fly multiple times in the 1980's at Moffat Field Air Show.
As I remember at least from the early Grumman flight tests, the most impressive thing was seeing how quicklu it took off. The forward swept wings gave it a very short take off distance
I flew it several times I think... Janes ATF.
@@Shadow__133 Same here... fun thing is that I just did that yesterday and today I'm getting X-29 documentaries in my YT recommendations. Well, it's Google after all...
I had the privilege of seeing one on static display in person at the Grumman employee open house at their Stuart Florida facility in 1984.
This is such a good channel
Bro thinks it’s a race when he reads his script lmaooo
Yes airplanes still need pilots. The pilot is the first person on the scene of a crash. Keeps the industry safe.
Pilot always beats emergency services to the crash scene by at least 30 minutes
One of my first Micro Machines, it confused me. Thanks for explaining :)
What strange shape and not ordinary shapes especially in wings directing too nice video with clearly explaining
Conclusion: The research put into and from this plane was priceless, The plane itself is worthless tho.
Is this some kind of fast speaking contest, where it's also part of the game to skip as much vocals and consonants as possible?
What are you even talking about? If you're unable to understand the narrator, your own comprehension skills might be in question.
Yeah, hes one of my favorite narrators
Drink a red bull and try to keep up
@@jytheiowaguy1897 Then i'll fly by myself and won't need those videos 🤣🤣
I can understand him, but he's a really bad narrator. He sounds like he's in a rush to get somewhere. As though he's constantly our of breath and has to get the words out as fast as possible.
It would be much better if he took his time to speak the words slowly and clearly, rather than doing a rush-job like this.
i remember making a version of this on earlier microsoft flight sim in the 90s. without a fly by wire system i have to say this is the most challenging plane i ever flew on the sim. nearly impossible and confidence shattering. now i have a derivative of this thing made in simple planes with proper ai and thrust vectoring. that onei made was the best handling plane i am proud of making. (though i spend hundreds of hours testung and crashing to achieve perfection)
My grandfather worked for Grumman and worked on the X-29 as well as the challenger space shuttle and the space shuttle discovery.