When Kelly Johnson retired in 1992 he was asked when does a technology cease to be top secret. He responded "When someone else invents it, we still have top secret technology from WW2".
@@jackbuff_I The fan design was similar to the Yak 141 (which apparently Yakovlev had some sort of early coperation deal around 1992 - 1994) as well as using the one off VAAC FBW Harrier prototype (which lessons BAe integrated into the F35B)
@@rubbernuke1234 Yak-141 didn't have a lift fan, it used multiple small jet engines and likely borrowed some ideas from the Convair Model 200 concept. P&W developed the rotating jet nozzle design for the Convair and used that as the basis for the F135 engine in the F-35.
In 100 years they’ll say the same about current gen; actual humans in the cockpit without even downloaded brain backups, actual explosions in the engine rather than safe ion propulsion, not even a simple force field! If the enemy gets a hit, that could easily be it for you!!!
Cmca and Rapid Dragon represent a significant force multiplier when leveraged with stealth aircraft and target sharing systems. Keeping your missile launch systems hypermobile on aircraft far out of AA range represents a significant option for certain emerging threats who have significant anti- naval missile systems. Naval missile boats are much more expensive to build and much more vulnerable to reprisals.
I remember being really excited by the possibilities of the Dyna-Soar back in the day (yeah, I'm a Boomer). Interestingly, it was only looking back at info about the program after starting college (late 1970s) that I learned about its use as a bomber, rather than a "research vehicle" and "new pathway to space."
The kingfish is my favorite plane off the list. I think the Kingfish could be what we need in this generation as far as stealth, speed, and fuel efficiency and still hold alot of weapons. Hopefully, we see something close to the kingfish in the ngad program.
At hypersonic speeds you aren't turning very tight, even at 9G. And also, no known aircraft can SUSTAIN such a turn indefinitely, simply due to lack of thrust. The Kingfish would be a good strike aircraft, being able to stay high up enough and stealthy enough that the enemy radars wouldn't get enough of a return to get a true targeting solution, not with the typical antenna size of a SAM battery. Yes, even with those fancy AESA antennas, they're still restricted to the laws of how radio waves propagate thru space. The smaller the target's radar cross section is, the larger of an antenna you need to detect it, given that you stay within the same band of frequencies. The target might have other frequencies that it's a lot easier to detect on, maybe even with an ability to track, but only high frequency radars can provide the resolution to be able to get a target solution good enough for a weapons lock, and that's why sometimes "even if they detect you they can't shoot at you". Virtually all long-range AA missiles use high frequency radar for their on-board guidance, especially if they have a terminal active radar guidance phase of flight (in that case it's because the lower the frequency of the radio signals being used, the bigger the antenna has to be, which is again, part of the laws of physics and not amenable to being changed by wishful thinking).
@@44R0Ndin A subsonic stealth bomber or an F-35 would still be a better strike aircraft than Kingfish because you could deploy it faster, the logistics are much simpler, it would be far cheaper to operate and could hide from detection so the enemy would have no warning and wouldn't necessarily know what had even happened at first.
@@trolleriffic I was more going into the details of WHY things are able to be stealthy, and the basics of it boil down to "The SAM battery's targeting radar can't have an antenna array a mile wide or it won't be able to turn to track targets that are moving at a speed that would require the entire array to turn quickly". It's a physics problem, not a technical problem. If they COULD make the radar arrays big enough, stealth would be useless. Basically, the size of the radar array determines the size of the "pupil" of the "eye" that's "seeing" the target (but in radio waves, not light, therefore the quotes). Same physics laws apply regardless of if you're using radio waves or photons, because either way it's still electromagnetic radiation. So just like with optics, the radar array will have a limit to even it's IDEAL performance, given a specified frequency of operation and a specified size of the radar array. This is due to diffraction, which causes even perfectly focused, perfectly collimated, and perfectly coherent laser beams to spread out over distance. Actually for lasers trying to find the distance to the moon, the way they spread out over distance is helpful, because it means that even a "near miss" by the laser turns into a "hit" on one of the retro-reflector arrays that was placed there by the Apollo program. That special mirror array is designed to bounce the light directly back where it came from, hence the term "retroreflector" (retro = back, reflector = mirror, tho retroreflectors can be made for other segments of the electromagnetic spectrum, for instance navigation buoys in a shipping channel almost always have retro-reflectors which are set up to reflect in the bands used by most naval navigation radars, these can be made extremely durable because they're extremely simple, just put 3 sheets of metal together so that each sheet is at right angles (perpendicular) to BOTH of the other two sheets, which creates 8 "cube corner" retro-reflectors that work well at radar frequencies because the metal conducts electricity well enough (doesn't even have to be copper, normal steel works great)).
If you think that's similar-looking, you should get a look at the Sierra Nevada Corporation's commercial resupply services ISS resupply craft (that they might put crew on in the future). It's pretty much just a dyna-soar, but using design lessons taken from the Shuttle program (that's why the nose of it is so blunt vs the dyna-soar's very pointy nose, turns out reentry heating of the nose-cone is proportional to how sharp the point of the nosecone is, because that forces the shockwave to be closer to the heat shield, and most of the heat is from compression heating (aka ideal gas law at work) not just "drag" aka air friction).
This NEVER gets old . Thanks again, Alex. I had heard speculative commentary about nuclear powered aircraft but never saw it explained and I could not envision how it would work. Thanks for clearing that up as well.
Not integrating vectored thrust & forward swept wing research into the super hornet would be my choice, but agree with all your choices especially the A12.
Well that's not so much a "different aircraft" as it is "what if the aircraft we know ended up differently", so not quite the subject for this video. However, that would indeed be an interesting subject for a FUTURE video!
@@44R0Ndin Fair though by the time the design was modified moving the wing root back adding forward canards internal weapons bays. Possible changes such as switching to a smaller Xtail to complement 3d vectored nozzles, & reduction in length by moving the engines apart/in. One major change often opens the way to many minor ones.
A little correction, Jimmy Carter canceled the B-1 as studies showed that swarms of AGM 86s would be more effective at penetrating Soviet defenses. Also a little program called Have Blue showed stealth aircraft were worked, hence the start of the Advanced Technology Bomber program that led to the B-2.
Hi Alex, could you please look into the possibility/feasibility of creating a video about stealth coatings, what affects its effectiveness, how fast it wears out and if there are any health risks attached to it or not ?
I would love to see a video on flight simulator technology for training in the military. DCS has gotten really popular and I’ve always wondered how close it is to real training simulators.
@NateGiebel the Army doesn't really utilize Warthunder officially but tons of people like Tankers, and Scouts like myself play it. For me I get to relive earlier times in my career on a Bradley and for others it's a fairly accurate tool to learn enemy vehicle silhouettes.
Fascinating stuff Alex! And I don't know if anyone has commented on this before, but you are the King of A-roll & B-roll footage. Many CZcamsrs just toss a few vaguely relevant still shots on screen and lean on the Ken Burns effect. Yours is almost always actual video footage, always engaging, and always relevant. Great job!
I love this trend of making videos about things that almost didn't happen. Many things may have almost been something, but didn't. So this makes for a long playlist of topics about events that would've been important if they happened as imagined in the script
Future program suggestions... More videos like this one!!! X-plane videos are so short. Too short. And the photo quality in the experimental aviation, is the best. This video is excellent. Except too short!😂
It looks like the Quiet Bird influenced the LRASM, definitely has the same body shape! Great to see how projects from the past can influence designs today, Great video Alex, thank you!!
I would be interested in more accurate information about the stealth capabilities (or lack thereof) of the HO 229. Can that be compared with the YB-49? I can always hope that creates exists..
All you have to do is watch Lockheed skunk works HO229 build and test on the stick. They showed that although stealthier than a P-51 or a Spitfire, it was still very visible on radar.
It was Northrup Grumman not Lockheed and it was featured in that documentary he mentioned. The mockup itself is in the San Diego Air & Space Musuem and the original is in the Udvar Hazy Center in Chantilly, VA.
17:55 That would have been an interesting weapons platform. The only downside it would have encountered (had it entered service) is the time required to cycle through all the rotary launchers. From full load to empty would have taken well over an hour.
Fair go Alex, what about Germany? Best fighter of WWI, first production built helicopter, first jet to fly, first jet fighter, first jet bomber, first rocket fighter, first cruise missile, first ballistic rocket. You could have mentioned the X-20s inspiration by name, the Sänger. Hail Sandbox!
You bring up QB. I have several pics of her on the walls in my computer room. Years ago, when I sent my brother pics (he's an engineer) he said they were fake. I just smile.
I think you left out a few aircraft that should be on the list. For example. The XB-70, YB-35, YB=49, The XF-103, XF-108 and XF-109 for example.. Of course you could add in the B-15 and B-19 if you want to go way back.
Would love to see that video about the misleading stealth documentary with blurs on the copyrighted material. And loved this video ty for all your hard work creating these amazing videos
From what I've heard from folks who were at GD-Fort Worrh at the time, the A-12 suffered from an equal division of responsibility with no one empowered to make final definite decisions.
I would love to see a vid from you on the HO 229 I think you said. Your one of my fav go to for mil aviation. The bacon infused cat toy did a vid about hearing a ho & I for one would love to get both your takes on it! Good job Alex it’s always great to get a drop from sandbox.
The nuclear turbine engine is such a batshit insane approach to nuclear power. It makes sense, but I was expecting that the nuclear would have been operating the "six turning" via large electric motors. I really hope we see lifting body aircraft enter service one day. I think it's got possibilities to truly innovate aviation, but perhaps it's day is far away yet.
Same, regarding the electric motors. Was surprising to hear it was not even remotely close to that! 😅 A shame, since those blended internal nacelles were beautiful!
Modern jets are lifting bodies (or at least make extensive use of body lift). The reason Fat Amy is so fat and appears to have such a high wing loading is because of the huge amount of lift produced by the F-35's fuselage.
Hi Alex. Your videos are a "sight for a sore eye", so to speak. Please, do the video about the natzis stealth plane. I am keen on history, and want to know as much as possible. from a Finn in Diaspora
Outstanding and insightful episode, my friend. Thoroughly enjoyed this video. May you and your family enjoy a safe and blessed Independence Day! 🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸
One would hope the L301 documentation would be in the hands of all those working on current projects. We can learn so much from history - "There's nothing new under the sun"; we just have to be looking for it. Thanks for a great summary Alex.
Just finished reading Ben Rich’s book “Stealth”. A fantastic read on the early years at Lockheed regarding stealth. But what I found interesting was the ramjet powered M-21 which road on top of a modified A-12. Mr. Rich was saying the M-21 had the lowest RCS of any plane. About the size of an eagle eye. Was not really successful program as this was before computers. But really enjoyed this video.
One of the three X-15s was refitted with the control system of the X-20 Dyna-Soar. This advanced control combined the aerodynamic controls with the reaction controls automatically so the pilot simply operated “stick and rudder” inside or outside the atmosphere.
Some good points here particularly around why some of these technologies aren't used. Remember a documentary on some of the advanced design put out a long while back talking about this and they said most people forget that with the advent of sophisticated computers and electronics along with vector thrusting much of the capablitities of advanced designs and air frames can be built into much simpler and older school airframes but that are much simpler to operate and cheaper to build and easier to fly.
Another great video as always. Can you try to find info on the ufo's that were popping up at the Sametime as the Chinese balloons we shot down. I heard we took out a couple of the other ufo's but never heard what they were or really anything about them. It's like they made a full media blackout on them
I've seen the NB-36 crusader at the boneyard in tucson, it's incredible to behold. Nothing says airpower like that airframe. It's one of the scariest concepts of aircraft come to life.
Growing up near Cape Canaveral you can see a lot about the 1950s and 60s development of spacecraft like DYNA-Soar at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Museum and the Sands Space History Center near Port Canaveral, Florida.
When Kelly Johnson retired in 1992 he was asked when does a technology cease to be top secret. He responded "When someone else invents it, we still have top secret technology from WW2".
The "ten or thirty years ahead" comment is accurate. I was working on the Lift Fan system for what would become the F35B in 1989.
So it was not purchased from the Russians?
And that tech is maybe closer to the Harrier, no?
@@jackbuff_I The fan design was similar to the Yak 141 (which apparently Yakovlev had some sort of early coperation deal around 1992 - 1994) as well as using the one off VAAC FBW Harrier prototype (which lessons BAe integrated into the F35B)
@@rubbernuke1234 Ah thanks dude
@@rubbernuke1234 Yak-141 didn't have a lift fan, it used multiple small jet engines and likely borrowed some ideas from the Convair Model 200 concept. P&W developed the rotating jet nozzle design for the Convair and used that as the basis for the F135 engine in the F-35.
As a retired Airman, learning the US was the 1st to put a machine gun on an aircraft, made me laugh. 😁👍
and, incorrect. first, was machine gun on German zeppelins
@PhotonFlightTeam incorrect? I'm talking about aircraft, and you're talking about airships. Apples and oranges, my dude.
@@jeremyortiz2927a craft. they traverses the AIR.. come on guy.. get it together.
@@o-wolf😂
@@o-wolf I'd play goofy before I go to war in a zeppelin. Tactical ain't always practical.
Imagine being a test pilot for these prototypes
Would be a dream job!
Those early aviators were both brave and a little crazy. Wood, string, a clunky engine, and propeller right behind the seat.
In 100 years they’ll say the same about current gen; actual humans in the cockpit without even downloaded brain backups, actual explosions in the engine rather than safe ion propulsion, not even a simple force field! If the enemy gets a hit, that could easily be it for you!!!
Could you imagine what "could be" if there was a limitless budget and engineers were given no rules creativity?
And it would certainly answer our 'was the best option taken?' eg the yf23 v Raptor question.
Titan sub coughing loudly
Dyna-Soar along with project ISINGLASS has always been my favorite "what if" aircraft.
It was the Miles M52 for me...
Cmca and Rapid Dragon represent a significant force multiplier when leveraged with stealth aircraft and target sharing systems. Keeping your missile launch systems hypermobile on aircraft far out of AA range represents a significant option for certain emerging threats who have significant anti- naval missile systems. Naval missile boats are much more expensive to build and much more vulnerable to reprisals.
That's all fine and dandy until you start getting your airliners and cargo aircraft shot down. Then it's an international incident.
Probably the least vulnerable surface ships when it comes to incoming missiles tho.
I remember being really excited by the possibilities of the Dyna-Soar back in the day (yeah, I'm a Boomer). Interestingly, it was only looking back at info about the program after starting college (late 1970s) that I learned about its use as a bomber, rather than a "research vehicle" and "new pathway to space."
There you are... we've been trying to contact you concerning your vehicle extended warranty.
6 turning and 4 burning. The Peacemaker was a beast!
The kingfish is my favorite plane off the list. I think the Kingfish could be what we need in this generation as far as stealth, speed, and fuel efficiency and still hold alot of weapons. Hopefully, we see something close to the kingfish in the ngad program.
At hypersonic speeds you aren't turning very tight, even at 9G. And also, no known aircraft can SUSTAIN such a turn indefinitely, simply due to lack of thrust.
The Kingfish would be a good strike aircraft, being able to stay high up enough and stealthy enough that the enemy radars wouldn't get enough of a return to get a true targeting solution, not with the typical antenna size of a SAM battery. Yes, even with those fancy AESA antennas, they're still restricted to the laws of how radio waves propagate thru space. The smaller the target's radar cross section is, the larger of an antenna you need to detect it, given that you stay within the same band of frequencies. The target might have other frequencies that it's a lot easier to detect on, maybe even with an ability to track, but only high frequency radars can provide the resolution to be able to get a target solution good enough for a weapons lock, and that's why sometimes "even if they detect you they can't shoot at you". Virtually all long-range AA missiles use high frequency radar for their on-board guidance, especially if they have a terminal active radar guidance phase of flight (in that case it's because the lower the frequency of the radio signals being used, the bigger the antenna has to be, which is again, part of the laws of physics and not amenable to being changed by wishful thinking).
I was really hoping that wishful thinking was the proper fix... 😔
Stealth is obsolete
@@44R0Ndin A subsonic stealth bomber or an F-35 would still be a better strike aircraft than Kingfish because you could deploy it faster, the logistics are much simpler, it would be far cheaper to operate and could hide from detection so the enemy would have no warning and wouldn't necessarily know what had even happened at first.
@@trolleriffic I was more going into the details of WHY things are able to be stealthy, and the basics of it boil down to "The SAM battery's targeting radar can't have an antenna array a mile wide or it won't be able to turn to track targets that are moving at a speed that would require the entire array to turn quickly". It's a physics problem, not a technical problem. If they COULD make the radar arrays big enough, stealth would be useless.
Basically, the size of the radar array determines the size of the "pupil" of the "eye" that's "seeing" the target (but in radio waves, not light, therefore the quotes). Same physics laws apply regardless of if you're using radio waves or photons, because either way it's still electromagnetic radiation.
So just like with optics, the radar array will have a limit to even it's IDEAL performance, given a specified frequency of operation and a specified size of the radar array. This is due to diffraction, which causes even perfectly focused, perfectly collimated, and perfectly coherent laser beams to spread out over distance. Actually for lasers trying to find the distance to the moon, the way they spread out over distance is helpful, because it means that even a "near miss" by the laser turns into a "hit" on one of the retro-reflector arrays that was placed there by the Apollo program. That special mirror array is designed to bounce the light directly back where it came from, hence the term "retroreflector" (retro = back, reflector = mirror, tho retroreflectors can be made for other segments of the electromagnetic spectrum, for instance navigation buoys in a shipping channel almost always have retro-reflectors which are set up to reflect in the bands used by most naval navigation radars, these can be made extremely durable because they're extremely simple, just put 3 sheets of metal together so that each sheet is at right angles (perpendicular) to BOTH of the other two sheets, which creates 8 "cube corner" retro-reflectors that work well at radar frequencies because the metal conducts electricity well enough (doesn't even have to be copper, normal steel works great)).
You guys also noticed that DYNO-SOAR and Virgin Galactic's spacecraft are VERY similar in design?
If you think that's similar-looking, you should get a look at the Sierra Nevada Corporation's commercial resupply services ISS resupply craft (that they might put crew on in the future).
It's pretty much just a dyna-soar, but using design lessons taken from the Shuttle program (that's why the nose of it is so blunt vs the dyna-soar's very pointy nose, turns out reentry heating of the nose-cone is proportional to how sharp the point of the nosecone is, because that forces the shockwave to be closer to the heat shield, and most of the heat is from compression heating (aka ideal gas law at work) not just "drag" aka air friction).
Blame it on the same tyrant that makes so many cars look alike: the wind tunnel.
I have enjoyed, without commenting, many of your videos. I appreciate your work. Thank you to you and your team.
This NEVER gets old . Thanks again, Alex. I had heard speculative commentary about nuclear powered aircraft but never saw it explained and I could not envision how it would work. Thanks for clearing that up as well.
Not integrating vectored thrust & forward swept wing research into the super hornet would be my choice, but agree with all your choices especially the A12.
Well that's not so much a "different aircraft" as it is "what if the aircraft we know ended up differently", so not quite the subject for this video.
However, that would indeed be an interesting subject for a FUTURE video!
@@44R0Ndin Fair though by the time the design was modified moving the wing root back adding forward canards internal weapons bays. Possible changes such as switching to a smaller Xtail to complement 3d vectored nozzles, & reduction in length by moving the engines apart/in. One major change often opens the way to many minor ones.
A little correction, Jimmy Carter canceled the B-1 as studies showed that swarms of AGM 86s would be more effective at penetrating Soviet defenses. Also a little program called Have Blue showed stealth aircraft were worked, hence the start of the Advanced Technology Bomber program that led to the B-2.
Hi Alex, could you please look into the possibility/feasibility of creating a video about stealth coatings, what affects its effectiveness, how fast it wears out and if there are any health risks attached to it or not ?
Thank you for this. It’s not only interesting and informative, your delivery makes it easy to understand and entertaining….
I would love to see a video on flight simulator technology for training in the military. DCS has gotten really popular and I’ve always wondered how close it is to real training simulators.
💯
There’s a Popular Mechanics article from the pandemic times about the US Army using WarThunder for some sort of training.
@NateGiebel the Army doesn't really utilize Warthunder officially but tons of people like Tankers, and Scouts like myself play it. For me I get to relive earlier times in my career on a Bradley and for others it's a fairly accurate tool to learn enemy vehicle silhouettes.
Bravo Alex! One of your best!
Fascinating stuff Alex! And I don't know if anyone has commented on this before, but you are the King of A-roll & B-roll footage. Many CZcamsrs just toss a few vaguely relevant still shots on screen and lean on the Ken Burns effect. Yours is almost always actual video footage, always engaging, and always relevant. Great job!
Yes! It's actually hard to find good info with relevant imagery.
I love this trend of making videos about things that almost didn't happen. Many things may have almost been something, but didn't. So this makes for a long playlist of topics about events that would've been important if they happened as imagined in the script
Thanks Alex.... 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸😎👊
Fantastic video as always thanks man!
It's channels like this that confirm why cable TV isn't worth it. These videos are great.
Excellent Videos Alex !!!!
Love these Alex!
Great stuff as always!
Great video Alex! 👍
Awesome content as always Alex.
Excellent episode!
Alex, Best content ever!
Loved the detailed look back at Air RnD...
Fantastic :)
Great piece Alex
Excellent video!
Excellent content keep em coming
Thank you, Alex.
Future program suggestions...
More videos like this one!!!
X-plane videos are so short. Too short. And the photo quality in the experimental aviation, is the best.
This video is excellent.
Except too short!😂
It looks like the Quiet Bird influenced the LRASM, definitely has the same body shape! Great to see how projects from the past can influence designs today, Great video Alex, thank you!!
Thanks for entering my Top 10 aerospace documentaries. Very nice summary!
another great video, thank ya . . .
Comment for the algorithm…
Up vote and reply for engagement.
We gotta support Alex and other journalists who cover military news.
For the algorithm.
Yes
For the greater good
Well done with the research
Reminds of that one time I almost changed the world, but decided to stay in bed instead.
Enjoyed your video .
Very cogent, as always!
I would have added Comanche and YF-23. Also, if you want to look at other nations, Avro Arrow and TSR2.
I would be interested in more accurate information about the stealth capabilities (or lack thereof) of the HO 229. Can that be compared with the YB-49? I can always hope that creates exists..
All you have to do is watch Lockheed skunk works HO229 build and test on the stick. They showed that although stealthier than a P-51 or a Spitfire, it was still very visible on radar.
It was Northrup Grumman not Lockheed and it was featured in that documentary he mentioned. The mockup itself is in the San Diego Air & Space Musuem and the original is in the Udvar Hazy Center in Chantilly, VA.
Quality content as usual 👌
17:55 That would have been an interesting weapons platform. The only downside it would have encountered (had it entered service) is the time required to cycle through all the rotary launchers. From full load to empty would have taken well over an hour.
Again another Brilliant Video 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
As always, quality content.
Fair go Alex, what about Germany? Best fighter of WWI, first production built helicopter, first jet to fly, first jet fighter, first jet bomber, first rocket fighter, first cruise missile, first ballistic rocket. You could have mentioned the X-20s inspiration by name, the Sänger. Hail Sandbox!
Amazing episode
Thanks (again) Alex for interesting reporting with a cerebral twist.
Good work
You bring up QB. I have several pics of her on the walls in my computer room. Years ago, when I sent my brother pics (he's an engineer) he said they were fake. I just smile.
Another great video! Another great job. It goes to law!
the 299 video essay was brilliant. didn't agree with everything, but brilliant non the less.
Fascinating topic as always. Lots of alternate history possibilities in this one.
I think you left out a few aircraft that should be on the list. For example. The XB-70, YB-35, YB=49, The XF-103, XF-108 and XF-109 for example.. Of course you could add in the B-15 and B-19 if you want to go way back.
Excellent synopsis
That Boeing stealth fighter in the 60s. Man, that is cool
Would love to see that video about the misleading stealth documentary with blurs on the copyrighted material. And loved this video ty for all your hard work creating these amazing videos
Right On
Great video, and I share the sentiment. Could you do a video on John Boyd and his theories sometime? I haven't found a reliable one
The kingfish is my favorite drawing board design omg
It was 100 years ago that Americans achieved the first air refuel.
From what I've heard from folks who were at GD-Fort Worrh at the time, the A-12 suffered from an equal division of responsibility with no one empowered to make final definite decisions.
09:50 please upload that video about the horten myths again Alex
Really well done. Even Jarheads like you.
I would love to see a vid from you on the HO 229 I think you said. Your one of my fav go to for mil aviation. The bacon infused cat toy did a vid about hearing a ho & I for one would love to get both your takes on it! Good job Alex it’s always great to get a drop from sandbox.
Alex, please do bring back your Horton Brothers piece. It's one of the first things I saw from your channel and I'd like to see it again.
Loved the X-20 DynaSoar as a kid
The nuclear turbine engine is such a batshit insane approach to nuclear power. It makes sense, but I was expecting that the nuclear would have been operating the "six turning" via large electric motors.
I really hope we see lifting body aircraft enter service one day. I think it's got possibilities to truly innovate aviation, but perhaps it's day is far away yet.
Same, regarding the electric motors. Was surprising to hear it was not even remotely close to that! 😅
A shame, since those blended internal nacelles were beautiful!
Modern jets are lifting bodies (or at least make extensive use of body lift). The reason Fat Amy is so fat and appears to have such a high wing loading is because of the huge amount of lift produced by the F-35's fuselage.
Thank you for the college course!
Hi Alex.
Your videos are a "sight for a sore eye", so to speak.
Please, do the video about the natzis stealth plane. I am keen on history, and want to know as much as possible.
from a Finn in Diaspora
Please post that video about the Horton aircraft - I always want to learn more about it!
Outstanding and insightful episode, my friend. Thoroughly enjoyed this video.
May you and your family enjoy a safe and blessed Independence Day!
🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸
One would hope the L301 documentation would be in the hands of all those working on current projects. We can learn so much from history - "There's nothing new under the sun"; we just have to be looking for it. Thanks for a great summary Alex.
Just finished reading Ben Rich’s book “Stealth”. A fantastic read on the early years at Lockheed regarding stealth. But what I found interesting was the ramjet powered M-21 which road on top of a modified A-12. Mr. Rich was saying the M-21 had the lowest RCS of any plane. About the size of an eagle eye. Was not really successful program as this was before computers. But really enjoyed this video.
Personally, I'd like to see that piece about the Horten plane! Even with blurred out stuff. Please upload it again!!!
P1: "Nuclear Hubris" lol
Cool vid!
Yes man post the old video love to see it.
Thanks Alex....
ln memory of Steve Shoemaker of the Blue Angels who passed away in 2022.....
The Navy gave up a flying Dorito chip for a Fat Amy. Great decision making and critical thinking skills.
Thank you for the excellent video.
Yes, I would like to see a video with regards to the Horton and the hoax documentary.
One of the three X-15s was refitted with the control system of the X-20 Dyna-Soar. This advanced control combined the aerodynamic controls with the reaction controls automatically so the pilot simply operated “stick and rudder” inside or outside the atmosphere.
Do you think you could cover the MBB Lampyridae? I'm not sure if there's enough stuff about it for full video though
Good job, bud. You're a great storyteller.
Yes please repost the Horten!!!
That Convair Kingfish was very interesting...
Alex please repost the Horton video. I'd watched it, loved it, and wondered where it went.
WoW cant believe i missed this video. ❤
I have an old 1960 encyclopedia that shows the X-20. So I've been aware of it, as a small child, since 1964.
Some good points here particularly around why some of these technologies aren't used. Remember a documentary on some of the advanced design put out a long while back talking about this and they said most people forget that with the advent of sophisticated computers and electronics along with vector thrusting much of the capablitities of advanced designs and air frames can be built into much simpler and older school airframes but that are much simpler to operate and cheaper to build and easier to fly.
Another great video as always. Can you try to find info on the ufo's that were popping up at the Sametime as the Chinese balloons we shot down. I heard we took out a couple of the other ufo's but never heard what they were or really anything about them. It's like they made a full media blackout on them
I had no idea about most of these - a maze zing.
I've seen the NB-36 crusader at the boneyard in tucson, it's incredible to behold. Nothing says airpower like that airframe. It's one of the scariest concepts of aircraft come to life.
American engineers, and some ex-German ones, in the 50’s and 60’s were absolutely incredible.
Growing up near Cape Canaveral you can see a lot about the 1950s and 60s development of spacecraft like DYNA-Soar at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Museum and the Sands Space History Center near Port Canaveral, Florida.