The Secret Race To Build A Nuclear Powered Plane
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2021
- www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com - Fantastic site!
www.foundandexplained.com - my site!
BUSINESS INQUIRES: Jared@foundandexplained.com
Our deep dive into nuclear bombers actually starts on the other side of the iron curtin, as the USSR was the only country in the world to build a true nuclear powered aircraft.
Or did they?
On the 1st of december, 1958, aviation week ran an article talking about how there were rumors of a new soviet nuclear powered bomber jet, that had done several tests across the bloc. Its mission was to provide an early dectection system as well as hold nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
But the thing is, this wasn't real. It turns out that it was just a prototype conventional bomber, the M-50 bounder. It was considered a failure and only the prototype saw any flying... on normal petrol chemicals.
But this scare fueled several different avenes of research in the United states, including resuming funding of nuclear power engines form the 1940s.
To begin, they would need a protoype. The US would build a nuclear reachtor inside of Convair B-36 as a protoype, called the NB-36. This is what it would be like.
The original crew and avionics cabin was replaced by a massive lead- and rubber-lined 11 ton crew section for a pilot, copilot, flight engineer and two nuclear engineers. Even the small windows had 25-30 centimetres (10-12 in) thick lead glass The aircraft was fitted with a 1-megawatt air-cooled reactor, with a weight of 35,000 pounds (16,000 kg).
The plan was to develop a production model of this bomber, looking like the B-60 but nuclear powered - dubbed the Convair X-6 Crusador.
The nuclear powered B-36 aircraft could record 215 hours of flights, with 89 having an operation reactor. It tested the sheilding for the cockpit, finding it adequate for protection for the flight crew. But it never actually use the nuclear reactor to power the engines.
The WS-125 was an American super long-range strategic bomber project during the cold War to develop a nuclear-powered aircraft, which was scheduled to be designated the B-72.
Our first concept actually begins from our good old friend northrop - who envisioned a special version of his flying wing to be nuclear powered.
Other contenders included Pratt & Whitney with Lockheed in competitive engine/airframe development to address the requirement. It was a radical depature from other aircraft, and had supersonic in mind.
These concepts were scrapped around the same time as the X-6, but interestingly, Two General Electric J87 turbofan engines were successfully powered to nearly full thrust using two shielded reactors.
But this wasn't all, there were several other desings outside of this speciic program to develop a nuclear program - and boy some of them were wacky!
The US navy was also interested in a nuclear bomber aircraft, and thought that it's Martin 331 would be a good cadinate for nuclear engine conversion. This plane deserves its own video, but imagine a nuclear version would be something else. It would also have its own special boats to service the reactor at sea.
Speaking of sea planes, there was also a desing from Curtiss-Wright of a atomic seaplane with retractable skis, as seen here.
There was also a plan to make the XC-99 a nuclear aircraft. It would mean that the six engines would be removed from the aircraft, and replaced with two nuclear powered engines. This would have been a radical improvement to the design, but as we know the xc-99 was never picked up so its nuclear powered derivatie never happened.
This whole time, the USSR were not sitting idley by. The soviets had made some progress themselves with a physical creation, attaching a nuclear reactor into a tupoluv 95, but it never flew on its own nuclear power. The engineers were ready to build the never version, called the Tu-119, and then eventually the Tu-135, wbut the experienmental project was cancelled.
We know now all about their grand plans had the experiment gone ahead. First was the project dubbed the M-60, that would do away with the flaws of the M-50 - such as not being nuclear powered.
But all of these projects, from both USA and Russia, ended up coming to a halt. Why?
Well for the military, the primary use case of a nuclear engine was in a bomber aircraft, to allow it to fly constantly and not be discoverable - as part of a nuclear derrence fleet. Butby the mid-1960s, nuclear submarines had filled that role, had several advantages and could launch missiles reaching deep inland - beating the technology of planes.
Because no large aircraft were being built with nuclear engines, the technology had little access to civil markets. Plus with the inherent risks with nuclear engines back then, civil airlines were very reluctant to use the technology in their own fleets. Imagine if a plane had a leak and iiradiatied most of the mid-west - yikes.
Thus all we have today... is this video.
Come chat to me, and suggest ideas, in the discord: discord.gg/WXb565P9nQ
Congratulations on 100k subs, I’m so proud of you
Soviet bomber yessssss
Can't wait for more. Btw, is it "North-rup" or "North-rope"? I've always said the former and I thought that's what you were using in your last video (on the XB-35). Here it sounds much more like "North-rope".
Fun fact : That plane in the thumbnail is the banner of Mustard.
Facts and its a really nice banner
@@thefrunze.198 A Myasishchev M-50 Bounder.
Found and explained to mustard: Hippity hoppity your banner is now my property.
wrong, the tumbnail of mustard is the american concorde, Look closely
@@cftelttbdriverlife6225 no! It is the M-50 Bounder!
As a resident of the Midwest I would definitely be "irritated" by a nuclear plane disaster :P
I also find being irradiated irritating.
I have a feeling the narrator and the scrip writer are not the same person.
""It never flew with nuclear engine power", Testing the shielding"- seems to be a theme here
The plastic kit model you showed was made by Aurora and was based on that magazine article. It is so rare now that they sell for about $300 for a complete, unbuilt one with the original box and instruction sheet.
The funny thing is that with the recent advances in Small Modular Reactor (SMR) designs, nuclear powered planes are more feasible and viable today. The most recent thought for a nuclear powered aircraft was to make the Northrop Global Hawk nuclear powered so it could provide continuous surveillance capabilities.
Nuclear powered SCRAM jet engine and delta design can powered laser weapons. It will be an interceptor or a bomber carrying hypersonic stand-off weapons. Or be used on a new hypersonic liner London to new York in 30mins or less.
It's a cool idea, but most people are too scared of flying nuclear reactors. Most people I've spoken to about it consider it too dangerous to risk
My favorite nuclear aircraft is the CL-1201
the CL-1201 makes me irrationally angry but I like it.
Yeah the CL-1201 and 1203 are my favorites too
It was soooo big. They should make it
@@clonetrooper3982 that's like 90% of why they didnt. The other 10% would be the dangers of having a nuclear reactor in the air. That being said, fusion is significantly safer (less radioactive waste, if containment breaks the reaction stops and cools down), so if they can crack fusion just imagine what they could build!
@@kingkea3451 I was thinking what if the CL-1201 is fit it with a tokamak fusion reactor like ITER instead of a nuclear fission reactor
Could you do a video about the XB-70 valkyrie? There was also another aircraft that was purpose in Russia that could land on water, ice/snow and land to give it unlimited range since it literally could land anywhere. If need be it could land on the water and get its pay load from submarine loading it from the top. Anyway just a random fact to express
You mean the one designed by an italian engineer.
@@das81 Bartini Beriev VVA-14
YOU DO KNOW WE HAVE SATELITES SOY IN THE SKY WAKE UP NUMRODS
@@das81 Mustard did that video.
NEXT = do a video on the Nuclear-Powered railroad locomotive. Yes, they actually were planning on building a locomotive with a nuclear reactor inside of it. Then they realized it was better to keep the reactor stationary, use it to generate electricity, and then pump electricity down the tracks so the electric locomotive could run off of that.
Fun fact: The 2 pieces of equipment the size of small buildings in the lower left corner of the screen at 4:58 are actually two prototype reactors for the plane. Anyone can go get within 5 feet of the reactors if they want. When I saw them in person at the Idaho National Lab, it was pretty obvious why the project was scrapped!
yes spotted those. amazing what our brains can think up under the threat of (or pursuit of) war huh!?
Those engines are just 15 miles as the crow flies from where my butt sits as I write this. I visit them serval times a year.
@@elgordo151 that was also true of me when I wrote that comment earlier. NRF-er here. If this channel did an episode of submarimes that are lost to history, I would be even more into the channel than I already am!
5:29: two for burning, six for turning...four for nuclear fallout across the lands(?)
Two burning, six turning, four glowing.
What a great video,like always,keep up the good work and have a great day ahead
I truly respect your dedication.. in just a few days you came up with a video without the loss in quality..👍
Hey, that was a great Q&A! You crushed it, I’m stoked you got the 100K! I didn’t get to see the whole thing, but Freddie Mercury once lost his voice from some huge all night fight and he was set to preform on SNL the next day and it was a big deal. He was able to recover it just in time with hot water with lemon and honey. I could not imagine answering that many questions continuously haha
"was an american super long range strategic-" *strike group to strike strategically at long range*
eyy 11 Max0r watchers
Seem like quality content and just plain awesome, thanks for all the researching.
Glad you enjoy it!
Nick sure loves covering nuclear powered planes XD. (This is not an insult, it’s just something I noticed)
Honestly I find that stuff fascinating, it’s very atompunk
@@tariqahmad1371 True
I really enjoy your work. keep it up brother. My mind has been seriously opened to some awesome ideas out there.
Thank you sir
Followed Aerospace Projects review for years these videos are great!
scott is a wonderful figure in aviation
Ooh. Wow. Soviet Stuff. Please do bring out more videos like these , cause there's more than what meets the eye.
I love these videos from *Mustard and Explained* 😂 I subbed =)
And thanks for posting content 🙂
I love the concept at 6:42! Also the nuclear Valkrie concept art looked like foreshadowing of its fatal crash
Great content pal. I am myself a pilot. I am well impressed of all your videos and streams. I never chat with you because sometimes I am in the air, and watching your streams while crusing. I am retiring at the end of October this year. I am getting too old. I see you got discord I will join soon.
Much appreciated! would love to hear some stories from you if you have them
@@FoundAndExplained Sure pal. We can organised something :)
100k subs! Congrats!
Thank you!!
I love that period where whatever the question was the answer NUCLEAR!!!!
Nuclear powered aircraft looks really promising back then, yet here we are, with barely any of them flying 😔 (well at least we still have nuclear sub and nuclear aircraft carrier)
The development hit a brick wall, and that was radiation shielding. Just too heavy to be practical in an airframe
What would be needed would be miniaturized fusion generators for in atmosphere flight to be feasible with nuclear power. In space, nuclear power is the only viable choice for large colony ships.
@@4G12 Fusion reactors are not radiation-free. The "bioshield" around the ITER tokamak is hundreds of tons.
@@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts Not really, radiation shielding was adequate for the existing prototypes, but the projects were abandoned because of the quicker development of effective long range ICBMs removing the need for strategic loitering bombers.
@@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts I'll just say one word: drones. Nuclear-powered drones. (That's three words.)(Shh, you!)
Sir,
Ang Ganda Po.
Nakakatuwa aliw manuod..
Good video, but some important details you missed: The Convair X-6 (based on the B-36) was never meant to be an operational nuclear bomber. It was only another test aircraft. The culmination of the project was the Convair WS-125, wich was meant to be the production aircraft, but you did not even mentioned It in the video.
Every interesting episode 👍
Would it be more feasible now, with fission reactor concepts starting to be tested, to power a propulsion system that drives fan-type electric aircraft engines??
So how does a nuclear aircraft engine work?
How does it generate power / thrust?
In the end it is power to weight ratio,
The engine is much more interesting than the a/c that you build around them.
No realistic engine, no aircraft.
My favorite is the hafnium-reactor based project spotlit in the Popular Mechanics magazine with a Global-Hawk-esque commuter
Now I'm curious, considering recent advances in electric engine design and VSMR's (Very Small Nuclear Reactors), how would this idea fare now? Would it be feasible with a light VSMR providing 50MWe and powering 5 separate electric jet engines? That is 10MWe per engine, which is a lot (Tesla engines use about 18kWh). Just wondering...
Sounds like a supersonic vtol to me..
Nope, absolutely impossible. *Snickers in black money*
Maybe a nuclear plane is possible given that it could be powered by thorium instead of uranium, that would be a clean fast plane
10 MW is about 7000 HP; a Hercules has 4 engines each of about 5000 HP.
Wow! I'm on board. Scott Lothar rules!
This video contains a lot of ragged mis-information. The producer needs to look further into the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments HTRE I/II and HTRE III. The Direct Induction GE designed engines were mentioned but the fact that HTRE III was small enough and powerful enough to be installed in an aircraft and take it aloft was ignored. In fact, the next step in the evolution of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) project was to do just that, install HTRE III or a descendant technology into an aircraft and fly it. The advent of in-flight re-fueling coupled with the inherent harebrained insanity of flying nuclear powered warplanes over land was what killed the ANP project before it even got off the ground.
And BTW, the GE engines that were modified to power the HTRE experiments were J-47s, not whatever it was that you called them, and only HTRE III could power both J-47s at the same time. HTRE I/II could only power one of its two engines per test of the system.
Interesting. Wasn't the HTRE program discontinued because of the lack of adequate shielding? I think the tech worked, but the risk of radioactive contamination was too great. Or am I incorrect? If you have a link, I'd appreciate it.
@@jessfrankel5212 the shielding issue was resolved through the NB-36H program so that was not really a factor in the cancellation of the ANP project. More a factor was that the engines that were ready to go poured out massive amounts of radiation when ambient air was passed directly over the exposed reactor core. That and the risks of massive contamination should the nuclear powered aircraft crash rendering a large area around the crash site uninhabitable for a long time. That and the cost of bringing the technology to fruition.
media.defense.gov/2014/Oct/14/2001329848/-1/-1/0/AFD-141014-032.pdf
@@elgordo151 Thanks for the info and the link.
Can you do a video on the Soviet Ayaks plane?
Will you be able to make a video on the HAL Tejas?
Bro I just subbed and refreshed apperantly I am your 101,000th sub (or close)
Animations are incredible in this video
I think main hurdle is to build a lightweight nuclear reactor without radiation problem for aeroplane.
Great story, so interesting. I have visited the site that those engines are at. Near the town of Arco Idaho.
Best thing about these planes is that no one would dare shoot them down.
6:55 Did the designer of this plane eventually go to work for Gerry Anderson on "Thunderbirds", I wonder? Because this looks very reminiscent of the "Fireflash" passenger airliner with the "cockpit high on the tail" concept...
What was the aviation video game you showed during you live stream?
I want to see an hour-long version of this where you actually go in-depth about every aircraft you say is 'for another video'
many planes have APU engines (auxiliar power units) on the back for providing electricity for the plane, I wonder if at least that could be done with nuclear (maybe an radiothermic generator like the one on Voyager)
Would love a video on the Russian T4 Sotka
That’s one version I never thought of, a simple steam turbine propellor version, it doesn’t have to be supersonic jet.
Where do you get the water from? I can’t see how a heat source alone could provide thrust. A Stirling type engine is the one thing that comes to mind but they aren’t very powerful
@@singularity844
Sorry, I don’t understand your comment.
The Northrop flying wing showed a very standard dual loop system with steam turbines driving the propellers.
Exactly the same system and layout as nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers or most power stations, closed loop steam turbines on the secondary circuit.
@@singularity844 You carry the water aboard and condense it again with standard radiators.
@@singularity844 Eat a cloud every now and then?
im excited
Dad was a USAF test pilot. He was involved in the nuclear reactor carrying B-47 project. The reactor itself was very heavy due to the shielding within its housing. The plane was retrofitted with shielding separating the crew from the reactor area. This proved inadequate. The picture you show of the B-47 with smoke coming out if the sides shows the rocket assist necessary to launch that plane into the sky. The Jayto rocket packs had to be changed after each take off.
Ultimately, the size of the reactor left little room for the payload. And the massive weight made the plane eat fuel very quickly. These factors probably were enough to kill the program over 65 years ago.
Now it may be possible to try again using new technologies. I am absolutely sure that there has been ongoing contemplation of the concept ever since.
Couldn't find anything about Martin 331... While you were showing P6M SeaMaster
I thought that it was the *power to weight ratio* that killed the nuclear aircraft.
Research showed the planes would be overweight and under powered.
The Russian plane that did fly irradiated the crew. They all died within 15 years.
7:08 you can forget trying to taxi like that.
The city where I live, Sandusky, Ohio, was the home of a NACA/NASA nuclear test reactor that was involved in nuclear air and space propulsion programs in the 50s and 60s. It was torn down in the early 2000s.
You still have not shown us the citations for your nuclear tug video. I can't find it anywhere.
Wonder what size plane could be run by a reactor generating electricity to power electric motors turning propellers? I mean what would be the smallest practical size? I guess it comes down to the size and weight of the reactor system and what power it produces.
The detachable cockpit plane is genius
Now that hypersonic missiles are demonstrated, bombers are obsolete (like battleships were obsolete in WW2). Nuclear powered turbines were tested for the YB-49, but the project was cancelled due to aluminum structure not resistant to twist across the wing leading to Captain Edwards crashing at Muroc dry lake. Static test of the B-2 airframe broke the test structure with titanium/composite hybrid strength not expected.
What about the nuclear powered Zeppelin drone carrier with anti-missile laser cannon? Those would be nice!
The CL-1201-1 was the whole reason I got into aviation
Going to do something on the USAF's idea of a "Deep Space Nuclear Deterrent Force" someday? (aka Orion-powered deep space bomber ships :) )
A shoot down or crash could be disastrous!
i cant access the aerospace projects site
That plane in the thumbnail is one scary looking beast
6:37 Horten and Blohm & Voss called, they want their ideas back
If we ever get nuclear fusion to work, then we might also see a revival of nuclear powered planes/vehicles. Imagine a Cargo Airship with a fusion reactor that can fly forever!
I don't see how a fusion reactor could become more compact than a fission reactor.
@@zolikoff Stellarators seem to be a possible solution for this. They are much more compact than the classic Tokamak design.
czcams.com/video/qKTePWmHRQw/video.html
@@vgames1543 I know of them but they still don't seem anywhere near as compact as a fission reactor can be. We've already put reactors as small as a briefcase in orbit. With all the superconducting magnets, cooling and insulation required, magnetic confinement fusion won't be going into such compact applications. Inertial confinement who knows.
@@zolikoff I understand the concerns, but you have to keep in mind that fission reactors are already a relatively proven concept, while fusion reactors are not. We have not even got a useful fusion process in a regular fusion reactor yet, so we cannot really say where this technology might be going.
Uni Soviet: *we do a little trolling*
Could the concept work with thorium based reactors?
the american project was to use a throium reactor. to advance the technology the scientsts took money from wherever. there are many videos about it
Would these be electric planes? How would the reactors power the engines if not an electric motor?
Not to mention the possibility of a reactor explosion in the event of a crash!!!
Almost as good as Mustard, maybe Ketchup?
The only reason why nuclear powered planes were never built was because they were all fission powered, and as we’ve seen from nuclear fission accidents do happen. Technology has come a long way sense the fission days. Hopefully once nuclear fusion is finally introduced we can start seeing concepts of nuclear powered planes returning to the drawing board, only this time they will all be fusion powered rather than fission powered.
I can see a nuclear powered propeller driven air plane, but a nuclear powered jet? very unlikely.
Direct-air jet nuclear power was abandoned when they found couldn’t stop it from polluting the air with fission products. The more popular designs for using liquid cycle to power turbines for props or jets never solved the problem of getting enough heat transfer - how to quickly radiate enough heat into a turbine that will match the heat and expansion of burning fossil fuel.
re there any nuclear powered plaines that just use the electricity generated by the powererplant?
The prospect that actual nuclear reactors might have been flown has the slightly bizarre effect of making me grateful for solid fueled ICBMs. I'd much rather have them sitting in the ground inert than flying around above my head.
Project Pluto they even built the reactor engines
I believe the A-12 used an average jet fuel before they developed JP7 from my understanding.
Please add CC (closed captioning) to this video, thank you.
Also Saunders-Roe Princess supposed to be nuclear test, before they scraped it
It did not take to the sky. The Americans thought that it might be achievable and since the Soviets had proven that it was not safe to underestimate their technological capabilities, the Americans began research into atomic power for both manned bombers and cruise missiles. No aircraft, American or Soviet, ever flew under atomic power as it was very quickly proven to be totally impractical, particularly with a manned vehicle and doubly so with the advent of SAMs.
Am I the only one who thinks the nose of the "Nuclear" Soviet bomber looks like the sr 71 nose?
There was another concept plane that wasn't built., and maybe it's for the best. There was a model kit made by Hawk. It was called the Beta 1 nuclear bomber. Here's an interesting fact..... when they were actually considering building a nuke powered bomber, they were going to have veteran pilots who already had kids to man the planes!
I am sure that I recall that they made the bear nuclear flew it with an open cycle motor and poor shielding using only old pilots most of which died.
I remember seeing a pic of this soviet plane in a 1961 issue of Newsweek.
Part of a series taken at the red Tushino air show with many new models,
one derivative of the Mig-21 touted as Mach 2.3 capable NATO-coded ''Flipper'',
a giant fighter NATO-coded ''Blinder'' with giant Hugues-Falcon-like a-a missiles,
said for long-range interception of American bombers,
and a supersonic bomber NATO-coded ''Beauty''.
The giant 4-engine bomber was presented as supersonic & a match to the US B-58.
At the time it was erroneously attributed to Sukhoi & NATO-coded ''Bounder''.
It was just after the building of the Berlin Wall, & the sovs wanted to show their muscle.
Today we know that inside the Western military, those really-in-the-know played along,
(like Donald-Duck's nephews who made as if they believed DD to be truly invisible when he told them so)
making as if they are in awed ecstasy before the reds' military marvels
(Robert Gates CIA director was perhaps the best of Sun-Tzu' American disciples)
fooling the sov leaders about their being fooled themselves by the West appearing to be fooled,
& also the sov peoples themselves on believing they are world-supremo in military power.
In a totalitarian regime, the rulers never dare to expose the tiniest chink in their armor & must hide it under lies.
One Reader's Digest 1973 article gave much solace to adipose-Leonid : ''Is the Soviet Air Force Now Number One ?''
Lol you say 2.5 but the spec sheet says 2.2 one of those things is not like the other
small mention: Soviets aren't only russians so you can't interchange them, russians were 50% of the total population in soviet union
Why this vid is demonetized? Like mustard's vids. The contain is great
We're waiting for all these almost free energy productions for housing and office building and city infrastructure
Dang looks like I’m still 10 months behind in our timeline lol
Perfect ! One hit and it goes up into a mushroom !😂😂😂😂
Russians had nuclear powered test plane. It did some flights on its nuclear power. But it was dirty design with very little safety or regards for enviroment. Very simplyfied and crude reactor that heated air to make jet propulsion. And that air was coming out very radioactive so it was only a testsplane with no perspective for any real use.
I want that nuclear space shuttle from the tv show ‘for all mankind’ to become a reality!
Imagine that, a nuclear-powered bomber that endangered the world just by flying through clean air and leaving a trail of "dirty air."
The flying crowbar.
A super Sonic aircraft
This really doesn't seem *that* bad of an idea now with current tech. We know it's possible to build microreactors with much better shielding. We have far more efficient electric motors. We've been flying solar power planes that stay in the air for a very long time now. Drones can stay up for very long-duration missions.
Why not put a drone carrier or autonomous ship flying in the air forever with a nuclear reactor?
*"Irritating"* much of the Midwest?
I think you mean _irradiating_ the Midwest.
Sovs’ wet dream ‘bout the B-58
the russians did fly the tupolev with the reactor working. after the cold war someone from the usa asked about nuclear powered planes. yes they said. but also that the test pilots were all dead within 2 years. shielding was less to save weight.
This is nonsense. The Soviets flew a test plane with a nuclear reactor onboard, but the project was scraped for two reasons: the reactor and shielding was too heavy, leaving the plane with a very small payload for bombs, and since ICBMs were already entering active service, the nuclear powered plane was deemed unnecessary.
All test crew members were OK. These same reactors were then used in icebreaker and submarines, and are still in use today. There are even plans to use these small reactors as stationary energy sources in remote areas, the project is being developed in Russia right now by Rosatom.
Why aren't there more channels like this!?
Mustard