All of this has taken place in my lifetime. Interesting to look back and see where we 'thought' we would be by now. Same with looking at films from the 40's when people thought we'd be driving nuclear-powered cars and having nuclear toasters and flying cars.
I think we underestimate what they are working on. Things will stay classified for a while. Hell, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the plane in top gun is real, or in development.
@@chrisbraswell8864 I think the x-29 was made from an f-5 and the x-29 from an f-18, at least partially. I'm sure there were other aircraft's systems and parts.
DARPA and the US Navy should have made at least 2 more X-29 aircraft for carrier qualifications and Air Combat maneuvering.... none of these areas where the forward swept wing would have had a clear advantage were never even attempted. All the money spent on the A-12 and the modified F-18 was wasted due to inept executive management.... What else is new !! The forward swept wing designed worked BETTER than the theoretical predictions.
Harrison Storms, didnt know he was re chief engineer in North American when Gus Grissom died in that firein the apollo program. Storms was fired after that and never worked in aerospace again.
To set the record straight. Stormy was not fired. He was reassigned as the general manager of the Los Angeles division. So while he was removed from his Apollo job, he did continue to work in the aerospace industry.
In retrospect, the X-30 was FAR too ambitious for the time schedule they were planning. They had to make multiple breakthoughs in materials that wouldn't melt and the engines. Both of those goals haven't been achieved yet. They had the basic shape of the craft locked down over 30 years ago but even today they STILL haven't nailed down the engines yet! Especially not if they're going to fly a manned version of this plane.
You STILL don't understand the problem... They laid out the basic theory BUT they're not telling you all the problems associated with the technologies. It's a LOT more complicated than they make it sound. It's not just an aerodynamics issue -- there's chemistry and some very harsh physics involved. You can't get around the heat issue no matter how nice they make these vehicles sound. The other thing is they are STILL too mechanically complicated to be practical. There is a reason why we HAVEN'T abandoned using staged rockets to get people and payloads into orbit! These hypersonic engines are NOT practical for manned vehicles yet. We're still in the infancy of development for them. We're still using rocket motors because they're reliable and we KNOW how those work. They have STILL not made the material sciences breakthroughs to make sustained hypersonic vehicles practical -- that's for both the spaceframe AND the propulsion system. Do you understand that the X-15 flew for mere minutes on end? They virtually burned the second X-15 TO A CRISP in the highest speed flight attempt on that plane. Sixty years later, they STILL can't build anything like the Pan Am spaceliner in 2001: A Space Odyssey and that's with all the money thrown at the problem on and off over the years. The technical problems are a lot harder than they anticipated. They have found out some very disturbing things about the reality of high speed flight, let alone going into space long-term. They STILL can't operate hypersonic craft for ANYTHING LIKE HOURS on end. They can't build a safe, reusable manned vehicle with anything short of what ET's might be offering! The closest thing to an operational manned ramjet was the SR-71's engine(s) but that was still a variation on the turbojet. Ramjets themselves don't operate well below supersonic speeds. The scramjet is not practical yet for a manned plane and has only been flown on 1/4 scale or less test planes. Yes, a prototype scramjet was tested on the X-15 but it DIDN'T POWER the X-15. The X-15 still used the XLR-99 rocket engine to get up to speed and the flight basically emulated a hypersonic wind tunnel for the scramjet. That was the SAME X-15 (#2) that was nearly destroyed in its ultimate speed attempt. Those X-43 vehicles flew for mere minutes and were destroyed at the end of their missions. They HAD to best test-flown because there's no wind tunnel in the world that can operate at hypersonic speeds and supercomputers can only model so much. The most powerful wind tunnels max out at around Mach 5 and that's only for seconds at a time. What they've been talking about FOR DECADES is an engine that's basically variable cycle, multiple engine modes. It sounds simple but getting it to work well is a different story! It's a complicated system whether they try to do this all with one system, or have multiple engine types operating through the same exhaust nozzles. Did you notice they HAD to use a rocket to get the X-43 up to supersonic speed BEFORE they could fire its scramjet motors? What they want to do with a manned vehicle is take off from the ground like a conventional jetliner and THEN transition to supersonic and finally hypersonic speed -- all with the same engine! They haven't figured how to do that yet which is they did 1/10 scale (or smaller) model tests, WHY they used a rocket to boost the test model to supersonic speed. There is no engine that's efficient at all speeds and altitudes. These guys make the problem sound easier to solve than it is. If it were that easy, the Shuttle would not have been built and operated like a staged rocket as it was!
AvengerII your just stating your opinions on the matter.lfact isnhypersonicbhas been around for 30 years...turning at such high speeds in a manned vehicle would take half the earth ti nake with out losing concious... maned flight is done with Can you see it ! Future is unmanned flight you tard bag Manned flight is for space where this is no atmosphere... Manned flight hahahahahaa your stilk living in the 60s?
AvengerII these missiles were designed in the 60s the plan was to even have thwm fly around as long as they could rekeasing nuclear radioactive exhaust...not onoy do they have them they have nuclear powered flight.... your livin in the past..they released this video in 1996 i think..so they were showing you OLD technology... dont bensuch a fook to think thats all they had in the black budget
The J-10 is NOT related to the Lavi, it's 2 generations more advanced. The Lavi was a poor man's F-16A-- not as advanced as the F-16, but it was getting there when the Yanks and Israel made deal for Israel to accept the redirected F-16A originally meant for Iran before the fall of the Shah. Up until that point, a restriction was in place.
@@Booyaka9000 Quite literally the Israelis sold the Lavi to the Chinese souring relations with the US. It is pretty much a pound of pound reverse engineering effort of the Lavi and the Lavi likely taking lots of inspiration from the F-16A and X-31 design concepts.
Do you agree when your data forced to suck by ads about 5 secs and very intens, dont you? You and I, among million of youtube viewers, are victims? Those are a legal or a crime action? What do you say?
I get it the x29 is for testing new technology but... Maybe for a drone or something non military. Simply not stealthy, single engine, and not enough room for a good radar.
All of this has taken place in my lifetime. Interesting to look back and see where we 'thought' we would be by now. Same with looking at films from the 40's when people thought we'd be driving nuclear-powered cars and having nuclear toasters and flying cars.
I think we underestimate what they are working on. Things will stay classified for a while. Hell, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the plane in top gun is real, or in development.
I would love to see what an X-29 with the thrust vectoring of the X-31 would be capable of.
It would probably rip the wing off. Do you think both of those aircraft were made from left over F-20- Tigershark parts?
@@chrisbraswell8864 I think the x-29 was made from an f-5 and the x-29 from an f-18, at least partially. I'm sure there were other aircraft's systems and parts.
You can try to build it and test it yourself in a PC game called flyout. You're welcome :)
0:33 🤣 Seems like they probably could have cut this out
Why did you choose to use the F-14 for your application of variable sweep when the F-111 did it first? Seems biased to me.
This type of info is what makes me chuckle a lil when we hear we are soooooo far behind with hypersonic missiles. Ok, ours are probably manned folks.
Funny how after all that work on testing lifting bodies, they ended up using wings on the Shuttle anyway.
7:20 Lol he missed 7 when counting down
You keep posting awesome content Phil. I'm going to have to quit my job to keep up.
You're Welcome. I should have a few more Aviation and other videos gradually uploaded to my account in the future.
Pretty amazing this thing flew considering the computer tech then
DARPA and the US Navy should have made at least 2 more X-29 aircraft for carrier qualifications and Air Combat maneuvering.... none of these areas where the forward swept wing would have had a clear advantage were never even attempted. All the money spent on the A-12 and the modified F-18 was wasted due to inept executive management.... What else is new !! The forward swept wing designed worked BETTER than the theoretical predictions.
just follow Pak Fa, Rusian enginier made before SU-57 ...
@@krisnawangsa5030 you do realize that the Pak-Fa _is_ the Su-57 right?
@@hypeninja4786 sorry i mean SU-47 Berkut 😂😁🤣
I may be wrong but naval aircraft cant have forward canards because they will get snagged on the barrier & could pose a greater hazard to the pilot
@@RedEchoOne that's why Russian jet always build longer body 😅
could the X-29 beat f22 raptor
Harrison Storms, didnt know he was re chief engineer in North American when Gus Grissom died in that firein the apollo program. Storms was fired after that and never worked in aerospace again.
To set the record straight. Stormy was not fired. He was reassigned as the general manager of the Los Angeles division. So while he was removed from his Apollo job, he did continue to work in the aerospace industry.
You seem to have all the good shit Phil, got me subscribed.
In retrospect, the X-30 was FAR too ambitious for the time schedule they were planning. They had to make multiple breakthoughs in materials that wouldn't melt and the engines. Both of those goals haven't been achieved yet. They had the basic shape of the craft locked down over 30 years ago but even today they STILL haven't nailed down the engines yet! Especially not if they're going to fly a manned version of this plane.
AvengerII they habe scram jets and ram jets
You STILL don't understand the problem... They laid out the basic theory BUT they're not telling you all the problems associated with the technologies. It's a LOT more complicated than they make it sound. It's not just an aerodynamics issue -- there's chemistry and some very harsh physics involved. You can't get around the heat issue no matter how nice they make these vehicles sound. The other thing is they are STILL too mechanically complicated to be practical. There is a reason why we HAVEN'T abandoned using staged rockets to get people and payloads into orbit!
These hypersonic engines are NOT practical for manned vehicles yet. We're still in the infancy of development for them. We're still using rocket motors because they're reliable and we KNOW how those work.
They have STILL not made the material sciences breakthroughs to make sustained hypersonic vehicles practical -- that's for both the spaceframe AND the propulsion system.
Do you understand that the X-15 flew for mere minutes on end? They virtually burned the second X-15 TO A CRISP in the highest speed flight attempt on that plane. Sixty years later, they STILL can't build anything like the Pan Am spaceliner in 2001: A Space Odyssey and that's with all the money thrown at the problem on and off over the years. The technical problems are a lot harder than they anticipated. They have found out some very disturbing things about the reality of high speed flight, let alone going into space long-term.
They STILL can't operate hypersonic craft for ANYTHING LIKE HOURS on end. They can't build a safe, reusable manned vehicle with anything short of what ET's might be offering!
The closest thing to an operational manned ramjet was the SR-71's engine(s) but that was still a variation on the turbojet.
Ramjets themselves don't operate well below supersonic speeds.
The scramjet is not practical yet for a manned plane and has only been flown on 1/4 scale or less test planes. Yes, a prototype scramjet was tested on the X-15 but it DIDN'T POWER the X-15. The X-15 still used the XLR-99 rocket engine to get up to speed and the flight basically emulated a hypersonic wind tunnel for the scramjet. That was the SAME X-15 (#2) that was nearly destroyed in its ultimate speed attempt. Those X-43 vehicles flew for mere minutes and were destroyed at the end of their missions. They HAD to best test-flown because there's no wind tunnel in the world that can operate at hypersonic speeds and supercomputers can only model so much. The most powerful wind tunnels max out at around Mach 5 and that's only for seconds at a time.
What they've been talking about FOR DECADES is an engine that's basically variable cycle, multiple engine modes. It sounds simple but getting it to work well is a different story! It's a complicated system whether they try to do this all with one system, or have multiple engine types operating through the same exhaust nozzles. Did you notice they HAD to use a rocket to get the X-43 up to supersonic speed BEFORE they could fire its scramjet motors? What they want to do with a manned vehicle is take off from the ground like a conventional jetliner and THEN transition to supersonic and finally hypersonic speed -- all with the same engine! They haven't figured how to do that yet which is they did 1/10 scale (or smaller) model tests, WHY they used a rocket to boost the test model to supersonic speed.
There is no engine that's efficient at all speeds and altitudes. These guys make the problem sound easier to solve than it is. If it were that easy, the Shuttle would not have been built and operated like a staged rocket as it was!
AvengerII thats the information known to you... the vehicles discuess are decades decades old you fool
AvengerII your just stating your opinions on the matter.lfact isnhypersonicbhas been around for 30 years...turning at such high speeds in a manned vehicle would take half the earth ti nake with out losing concious... maned flight is done with
Can you see it ! Future is unmanned flight you tard bag
Manned flight is for space where this is no atmosphere...
Manned flight hahahahahaa your stilk living in the 60s?
AvengerII these missiles were designed in the 60s the plan was to even have thwm fly around as long as they could rekeasing nuclear radioactive exhaust...not onoy do they have them they have nuclear powered flight.... your livin in the past..they released this video in 1996 i think..so they were showing you OLD technology... dont bensuch a fook to think thats all they had in the black budget
what 6 what happened to 7
The X-31 design is similar to the Israeli Lavi tech demonstrator and the Chinese J-10 fighter
Well, J 10 is a derivative of Lavi soll to China
death to Israel
The J-10 is NOT related to the Lavi, it's 2 generations more advanced. The Lavi was a poor man's F-16A-- not as advanced as the F-16, but it was getting there when the Yanks and Israel made deal for Israel to accept the redirected F-16A originally meant for Iran before the fall of the Shah. Up until that point, a restriction was in place.
@@Booyaka9000 Quite literally the Israelis sold the Lavi to the Chinese souring relations with the US. It is pretty much a pound of pound reverse engineering effort of the Lavi and the Lavi likely taking lots of inspiration from the F-16A and X-31 design concepts.
Do you agree when your data forced to suck by ads about 5 secs and very intens, dont you?
You and I, among million of youtube viewers, are victims? Those are a legal or a crime action?
What do you say?
I get it the x29 is for testing new technology but... Maybe for a drone or something non military. Simply not stealthy, single engine, and not enough room for a good radar.
ROFL, doesn't sound like you get it.
46:54 genital dynamics
дженерал дайнэмикс
🤣😂🤣😂
This video is nothing but constant propoganda adds. Dont waste your time. It starts out with adds and propoganda.
Look like every other documentary I've seen in my 30 year career in aviation. Sorry to bust your bubble dude.
wonder where the f-16 came from. also the su swept wing ... bye. THAT WAS SHIT FROM THE 70S,