1950s INSANE VTOL Jet Fighter - Lockheed CL-346
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 05. 2021
- Discord: / discord
This lockheed concept jet can not only fly at Mach 2.2, but land vertically using 1950s engine technology. It would have been able to fly longer ranges, intercept enemy bombers and even deliver an atomic payload.
But it never made it off the drawing board and was considered too advanced for its time,
This is the story of the never-built, mysterious, CL-346.
One of the challenges that air forces around the globe faced during world war two, was that there needed to be an airstrip long enough to launch aircraft and close enough to enemy targets. Capturing islands was a priority, as they could hold as many aircraft as needed, or act as refueling stops from the mainland. But some places in the world there was no land to build long runways. Thus in turn the military built aircraft carriers that could at launch aircraft at sea - but there were limitations to aircraft design. the solution?
A vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft is one that can hover, take off, and land vertically. Generally speaking, VTOL aircraft capable of rolling takeoffs like normal planes, use it wherever possible, since it typically significantly increases takeoff weight, range or payload compared to pure VTOL.
There are several advantages to using VTOL. One being space for takeoffs. The US navy was particularly interested in aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing aboard platforms mounted on the afterdecks of conventional ships. These planes would also be stationed at military bases that didn't have runways, or be located on city rooftops themselves.
The military of the 1950s was very keen to exploit these advantages, coming up with a program to develop the next generation VTOL fighter.
The jet would need to vertical take off and land at 2000 feet above sea level, at exactly 90 degrees
Delivery nuclear weapons of at least 1000 pounds, visually dropping it like a bomber.
Or alternatively, load four sidewinder missiles for anti-bomber duties
Fly at least over mach 1 at sea level, and over mach 2 at 35,000 feet.
Fly to a top altitude of 60,000 feet
And capable of supersonic flight at high altitude, and subsonic slow flight under 300 feet. Obviously, considering the last two specifications this would be a given but its interesting that the air force took the time to list it.
Have a range to fly 2132 nautical miles, 3948 kilometers, and then return to base. Or be able to fly at least 3600 nautical miles, 6667 km, fully loaded with no return.
This jet, called the CL-346.
It was a high wing monoplane with a low-horizontal tail service. It would have two General Electric J79-X207 engines mounted in its wingtip nacelles. The engines would have allowed normal supersonic flight, which i'll get to in a minute, but be able to rotate to allow vertical landing.
Engineers estimated that this rotation from vertical to horizontal flight would have taken around 30 seconds, allowing for the plane to rapidly responcd to nearby threats, or critical missions. The cockpit was also designed to slop slightly downward to give it good lines of sight for landing approaches.
At sea level, the C-346 would have had a top speed of Mach 1, or 1225.04 kph, and then a very fast Mach 2.2, 2450.09 kph, at 35,000 feet. It could also exceed the goal of a high altitude performace of 60,000 by an extra 5000 feet, to a total of 65,000 or 19.8 km above sea level.
The Lockheed VTOL creation also had an impressive combat performance, able to climb as quickly at 55,000 feet per minute, or 16 kilometers, to a range of 600 nautical miles. When not in combat, the planes fuel tanks allowed it to cruise to 3600 nautical miles, or 6667 kilometers, right on the target for the study.
When on the gorund, it didn't actually move on its own power but actually had a small triangle ground handling cart to move it from the hanger to the take off pad. This was seen as a fair comprimise as technically at any point the plane could just take off anyway, so why have the weight to drive it forward.
But the engineers at Lockheed were not done yet, and would actually go on to create several more varients of this VTOL plane, in an effort to improve on their concept
So why was the CL-346 or any of its brothers or sisters, never built?
The study concluded that it would indeed be possible to build this aircraft, and the ARDC passed on its findings to the air force. Today we know that the Air Force, and Navy, were working with several other candidates to produce a vertical take off aircraft like Bell, who was working on the Bell D-188A.
VTOL fighter designs would bounce around, with the german EWR VJ 101 getting really close in the 1960s with a prototype built, then the Mirage 8 and the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 which would finally result in the Harrier Jump Jet we know today. The only modern aircraft of equivalence is the Lockheed Martin F-35, which I guess we could say can trace its roots back to its grandfather, the humble CL-346.
It's really incredible how people actually are able to preserve blueprints of such forgotten projects
He did such a good job
@@FoundAndExplained Sadly, Bill Slayton died going on 20 years ago. He had compiled a pretty *vast* collection of stuff from Lockheed and wanted to publish a book, but it never happened.
Is your name Cornish?
Today we are frequently explicitly forbidden from keeping these documents.
Idk... when I sold my house and moved, I still had blueprints from buildings I had built 25 years ago. 😬
The 50s were a cool time to be apart of aviation
A part ( two words).
In 1948, my home was Fairbanks, AK., where any company that wanted to cold weather test their product fro the military brought it to Fairbanks just after "Thanksgiving" and staid until the 50 below zero was gone sometime in the middle of March, or so. I was in the Navy, stationed at Adka, AK. about 1500 miles from Fairbanks. I came home and went to work in my Dad's bar, "The Elbow Room" cleaning peanut shells off the BIG ROUND boothe in the back of the bar where many of the test pilots hung-out. Tracy Matheson was one of the test pilots, and he asked me if I would like to see some airplanes tomorrow AM? "Sure!!!!!!!'' At 8 AM I'm at Ladd AFB hangar, my name was on the rooster & I walked in. Tracy lead me into the hangar and I was truly "startled" by what was right by the door. It was so big. Tracy said it's the new F-102. I could see under it, across the hangar & saw an F-80, but hidden be the size of the 102, could not see the XF-101 sitting just next to it. I got to sit in both of them. One had experimental controls; The stick came out of the floor, then it "Y", ed to two handles, one, the throttle on the right and the elevator control on the left, and Yaw was the hole stick. When I got back to Adak & told the guys in to "Chute Loft" they looked at me like my head was somewhere, other than on top of my bodddd. True facts; I'd like to see their faces when those two planes became AF aircraft.
It still amazes me that the the first generation of the Harrier, the Kawker Kestrel, was built and tested in the 1950s!
A lot of public R&D
The reason we're seeing a stalling in the rollout of all new disruptive technology is that we decided that tax cuts and making even more billions for billionaires was more important than human progress.
@@garyfrancis6193 that's 4 words
(joke)
This channel really reminds me of another one of my favorite channels. Mustard.
I'm pretty sure that's the... the what? not standard, more like a goal. Got the word?
I said exactly this a few videos before lol
It's a really nice channel =)
Except he uploads way more often.
I was about to make the very same comment.
I wish Lockheed had more support. They had the coolest designs
It feels like all the imagination was at Lockheed
Depend, Some are cool
Some of them are straight up Ace Combat abnomation. Like this one
Lockheed had ,has and will continue to have support believe me lmao there one of the most important defense contractors sometimes you have to take a step back and say no thats just not feasible
@@bocahdongo7769 "ace combat abnomation" lol nice
@@bocahdongo7769 those weird AF designs were the best 😂
Q&A questions
1. Why did you / your team start making videos?
2. Where do you find these forgotten concepts?
3. Would you post other content, like trip reports, spotting at airport or other aviation-related stuff?
4. How long does it take often to make one video?
One year ago! Didn't start with aviation however. And its just me making these videos with occasional help from others depening on the project.
2. Aerospace projects review has a ton, highly recommend seeing them.
3. Watch this space!
4. 50-60 hours. Roughly 2 hours for every minute hahah. More if its 3d!
@@FoundAndExplained i have an Question
Is there any patreon or any places so we can donate
EWR VJ-101 was the first thing that came to my mind. German aviation industry had some awesome prototypes back then. Let's not forget the ambitious Dornier Do-31... 😉
Also the SO.9000 Trident.
...the VJ-101 was the first supesonic VTOL-plane...!
Highly underrated project is the Bartini A-57 imo
Frank whittle invented the first working turbo jet engine and emigrated to the us after the war !!
V-22 Osprey "What it could have been".
I can see that the animation quality has increased significantly (especially the tail-sitter takeoff one), nice job Nick 👍🏽
I love the Harrier Jump Jet. Watching that thing as a brit just gave you a sense of what people in years past thought the future would be. Truly a brilliant aircraft.
As far as I can see, the CL-346-31 was only a project. The small mockup looks quite similar to the German EWR VJ 101 VTOL fighter of 1959. But contrary to the CL-346-31 it actually flew!
There are quite a few aircraft with this design the Bell D-188A/XF-109 is another.
They all suffer the same flaw too many engines taking up too much internal space and adding too much weight leaving these designs with very small payloads and very short range.
The Harrier had a single engine and even with that it's payload and range are more serviceable than good.
Just the design is stunning enough but learning about the whole history behind it make it so much better for only being a scrapped concept. I wish it made into production!
The reason it didn't "Take Off" was due to fuel lines being kinked, hydraulic lines as well, which for many years had issues in initial production of current Osprey plane copter hybrid. It took many Revisions before it was corrected ✈🐱🏍🛩🚀 👦🏻👍🏻 Thanks for sharing a detailed historical aspect of American, and Lockheed Avionics & Aerospace History
In the beginning you mention that the reason for 1950's VTOL aircraft developments was mainly the "shortage of suitable airport sites", and the need for "long enough runways". You fail to mention that after WW2 with cold war nuclear doctrines, airstrips were considered one of the first targets for a nuclear first strike, in order to prevent a retaliation strike or to prevent intercepting. Thats the main reason for these developments: the vulnerability of airstrips, not the lack thereof. That called for a more decentralized interceptor fleet scattered around the countryside in hidden locations. Check out the starfighter zero lenght launch system, that was a similar project altough utilizing an already existing aircraft.
Well done. Thank you for bringing this forgotten project back to life with those wonderful graphics. When I was young back in the early 1960s I lived on Long Island NY. As you might know Grumman and Fairchild aircraft manufacturers were located there back then. A few houses down the street from me a family from Britain moved in. Soon after that another British family moved in nearby. Later in life I wondered if their fathers had been brought over to work on VTOL aircraft as the British were the leaders in that kind of research at the time.
Maybe you should do a video on the forgotten YF 23?
Forgotten by most. Beloved by the rest.
Here we go… it’s certainly not forgotten I see people talking about it a lot…
I have missed the premier, gonna blame my phone for not vibrating of youtube notifications
Great vídeo, as always!!! Lockheed actually bought the design patents of the Yak 141 after the Soviet Union fall in the early 90' and then design the F35!!!!
They bought the test data to improve their designs with not the design itself.
@@andrewmoore7022 They bought the designs of the plane and the take off sistem, that's what I read, but I wasn't there! So...
@@andrewmoore7022 разве дизайн это главное!?
That archive of designs sounds like a great resource 👍
This reminds me of Mustard’s videos. Very well done.
It's just incredible that bill actually managed to preserve this for the future generations..respect
Incredible video man! Keep it up!
Great video. Brilliant animation. 👍
Fantastic video
"It's too advanced for its time" is another way of saying "engines of this era suck". These designs are cool but impractical. The engineers were given the impossible job of designing aircraft with extreme specifications but limited to use bad engines.
It's just simple physics. VTOL is just converting the chemical energy from fuel into the gravitational potential energy of the aircraft. You need a very efficient and lightweight engine to do that. The engines of that era simply don't have the efficiency and thrust-to-weight ratio to make practical VTOL aircraft with meaningful payload and range.
great idea, good job
*Nice video !!! It's very interesting*
There is one bit of information you missed in this video. The Yak-141 is not the first Soviet VTOL fighter to be produced (though it is the first to be designed with an afterburning turbojet engine). In fact, the Soviets had an operational VTOL to compete with the Harrier, the Yak-38.
Fun fact, though: much of the Yak-141's schematics (and allegedly even some of its designers and engineers) would migrate to the US under Lockheed Martin, and would be influential in the creation of the F-35B. We see physical evidence of this in both the central lift fan and the thrust-vectoring nozzle that are responsible for its VTOL capability.
Agreed. The F35's grandfather is the Yak 141. Lockheed Martin had paid for the design from Yak.
The F35 being a “copy” or “based on” the Yak-141, while in theory seeming plausible is in reality a myth. Many of the similarities between the 141 and F35 come down to the fact it is a VTOL aircraft, and any practical VTOL platform will follow specific design conventions. While funds were exchanged between Lockheed and Yakolev, this was done as a sort of way of “raising an olive branch” to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in hopes of strengthening international relations, and mostly not as a technology acquisition. Not to mention, the only true similarity between the F35 and Yak 141 is the nozzle at the rear. Everything else is different, including the front engines as the F35 uses a clutch driven ducted fan, and the 141 uses multiple separate Lift Jets. As an example of these same design conventions creating similar aircraft, look at almost any proposed Gen 4+++ or 5 stealth fighter, most will share many design conventions with the F35 and F22. Does this mean they are copying the designs? No. But it does mean the design convention makes enough sense to not invent a new system.
@@Persian-Immortal
Copying this reply so you are notified as well.
The F35 being a “copy” or “based on” the Yak-141, while in theory seeming plausible is in reality a myth. Many of the similarities between the 141 and F35 come down to the fact it is a VTOL aircraft, and any practical VTOL platform will follow specific design conventions. While funds were exchanged between Lockheed and Yakolev, this was done as a sort of way of “raising an olive branch” to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in hopes of strengthening international relations, and mostly not as a technology acquisition. Not to mention, the only true similarity between the F35 and Yak 141 is the nozzle at the rear. Everything else is different, including the front engines as the F35 uses a clutch driven ducted fan, and the 141 uses multiple separate Lift Jets. As an example of these same design conventions creating similar aircraft, look at almost any proposed Gen 4+++ or 5 stealth fighter, most will share many design conventions with the F35 and F22. Does this mean they are copying the designs? No. But it does mean the design convention makes enough sense to not invent a new system.
@@BrapBrapDorito thanks buddy!
@@Persian-Immortal You’re welcome. I don’t blame you for thinking that the F35 is based on the YAK. Afterall, It is still very interesting to draw similarities between the YAK 141 and more modern VTOL platforms, especially seeing how advanced the 141 was for it’s day.
wow thats really interesting. great topic btw.
Cool video I love this channel do a video on the TU 144 Please
Yes the tu 144 would be awesome or the tu-444
i did the TU-404 on the channel :)
Excellent stuff
Another Great animation I like it.
Thanks sir!
“The Russians also worked on their own version of the plane called the Yak141...”
Unless, of course, you remember the Yak38, which went into production at least 15 years before the 141’s first flight, and remained in service until the USSR collapsed in 1991.
этот прототип и делается под проекта Як141!
Pwah ! , imagine a C130 VTOL ..that would be something to see , great vid on Aircraft you never hear about .
Great video on a military what if. However, I agree that Yak-38 should have been mentioned.
This Just looks like something I wolud bulid in ksp.
Good video.
LOVE IT
My two favorite warplanes, the A10 Thunderbolt, and the Harrier Jumpjet.
I am amazed at how similar it is to the EWR VJ 101, an experimental German fighter design of the 1960s. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EWR_VJ_101
both were based loosely on the F-104
@@jwenting Both planes show a common ancestry - a sort of common DNA. It's regrettable that they were not proceeded further - who knows the advances we could have nowadays.
@@jwenting Actually, what I should have asked is, Was the second design team aware of the former's work and influenced by it, or did they decide on their own to employ the F-104 as a starting point? Does anybody know?
@@jwenting NO.The German fighter was a vertical flight fighter.f104 is the fighter have two
Rockets on both sides made it look like german fighter they are so different.f104 It was a single-engine fighter, not a vertical fighter. Their technology is very different.
The CL 295 looks like something I would've kit-bashed as a 12 year old in the 90s. I was OBSESSED with canard-delta design aesthetics and would take models of the F-15, F-16, and others and switch the position of the wings and elevators into a canard-delta layout. Like taking an F22 and hacking it into a J20. I just thought they looked SO MUCH cooler.
Very good
Point 6 was probably specified to avoid any suggestions that technically met the launch and landing requirements but otherwise couldn't hover, like launching with an expendable booster and landing under a parachute.
Me: This concept made sence actually. It was both functional and small.
[submarine carrier shows up]
Me: NANIII!?👀👀👀
Another masterpiece, mate👌
I'll be sure to visit that website when in need of inpiration.
I'm feel this new aircraft video
New idea wow
VTOL jets are going to be the future of aviation if this was built then there would have been a passenger version
VTOL jets , otherwise known as "helicopters"
sry but actually its the past since harrier is retired and x35 not worth more than yak141
dang that thing is sickkkk
Looks like the F-104 but VTOL
Awesam
At Moffitt Field near San Jose, Calif., in 1954 or '55, the "XVF-1" sat on it's tail out on the ramp in front of one of the blimp hangars. The noise of the twin opposite rotating props and the jet was astounding/painful. It only went up a few feet, up & down. I believe he TEST PILOT carried his "nads" in bowling ball bags.
I just saw the XF-92 flying, which looks mich the F-102. We had the 102's in Fairbanks at Ladd AFB in the 1950's AD, LOL
Very interesting
For sure! What did you think?
If only these type of forgotten projects actually succeeded. Imagine what kind of army we would have today.
Seriously it would be incredible
@@FoundAndExplained Incredible and impossible.
While the flying wing had to wait for Fly By Wire Controls, there is no technological fix for Impractical Jet Designs like these VTOL Aircraft.
The reasons that the Harrier Jet was eventually canned was that:
the Fuel Consumption was high,
the Range & Payload were too short because of its Fuel Consumption,
its Engines could Ingest Debris from unpaved airfields,
its Performance as a Fighter Aircraft was poor due to the VTOL design,
and the Maintenance Man Hours per Flight Hour ratio was horrible.
The VTOL Aircraft that work are Turboshaft Powered Helicopters like the V22, and even that design has major issues...
There is a reason that they only *jet* VTOL ever actually produced and deployed were single engine aircraft: it is almost impossible to even out the thrust of turbojet engines at all times, meaning that if multiple lifting engines are not on the center-line, the slightest variation in thrust from one side while hovering will flip the airplane and crash it.
It is either a single engine, or a whole lot so that variations sort of even out one another. And engine controls really required the kind of computing power that has only comparatively recently (i.e. NOT in the 1950's) been available.
Had it been made, the CL-346 would have crashed.
The Mirage 8 mentioned is the "Balzac" from Dassault, based on the Mirage III. The first and only vertical take-off fighter(?) able to reach Mach 2 ... The 60's was insane.
Dude, the design of this jet was in my mind for a year Look, it didn't even cross my mind and it was designed in the market You guys won't believe it. I've been thinking about this design for a year now That it has two prop two engines to control the plane to prevent it from spinning round and round
This might be a difficult request but could you perhaps find enough material for a show to do the Republic XF-103 Thunderwarrior interceptor/fighter?
I have the feeling that they will revisit this design to see how they might be able to improve it and make it a reality in one way or another.
Implying the U.S doesnt have all these experimental aircraft and technology perfected and hidden from the rest of the world
@@constantinethecataphract5949 I doubt it, maybe they have some of it, but not all of it.
@@murciadoxial8056 the millitary budget is too bloated to be just for the weapons that are known. It must also be for maintaining and developing secret weapons.
@@constantinethecataphract5949 Maybe, but that doesn't mean that there are eleventy billion secret weapons already developed and ready to be mass produced, it just means that there is a lot of money poured into exploring new ideas, not only that but weapons and vehicles isn't the only thing you gotta throw money at to keep your ridiculous army going.
@@murciadoxial8056
Im not sure about it. I think they have stockpiles of secret experimental weapon in underground factories or sth.
The point is the over bloated budget is used for more things even if we take into account the personel and maintenance. The numbers dont add up.
the YAK-141 did manage to go out of the design sheets indeed! it flew for a while
Bill seems like a pretty cool dude
Good video
Can you talk about the fiat g-95, a never built Italian VTOL fighter, if you want It?
"They said Was too advanced for its time and that's why they didn't build it." Dude that's littirelly an other reason to build one of these things
Royal Navy would disagree. They have built HMS Dreadnought, ship so advanced that it rendered rest of the fleet redundant, losing all numerical advantage of Great Britain.
The truth is, in some projects the ???engineers"??? are not up to the possibilities of what someone else thought-up, are they????
The F-35B looks at those 1950's era specs and goes nope can't do any of that.
Heinkel VJ 101 , Send Beautiful Greetings
5:30 "we have the Alicorn at home."
Twin J79s on a Starfire body would've been absolutely ridiculous!! I can't even imagine the performance... mach 2.2 honestly seems a little modest for this thing. I guess if you ever lost an engine while in vertical lift you'd be absolutely screwed though
Very beautiful sweet
That’s some Jonny Quest stuff right there.
Surprised the US marine Vtol thingy didn't get a mention.
The problem with nuclear assisted propulsion is that it has radioactive exhaust which is great for spacecraft, but not so good for operating near civilization which could possibly present a problem to people breathing the irradiated oxygen. The radioactive exhaust was discovered with the NB-36H using electric motors and smoke generators powered by the nuclear reactor being hauled aloft with the fuel lines being replaced by wires and connected to the aircraft's electric lines. The CL-346 sounds like a Canadair design and uses their company abbreviation for some reason.
This is as cool as the Chrysler Turbine car
The Chrysler "T" car was great, provided you didn't get within 50 feet of the back of it because it would FRY THE PAINT OFF YOUR CAR.
me: oh look an interesting video about a conceptual plane.
kerbal space: you called me?
Ha ha! Humanity is much better because of heroes in the background doing the little things, the valuable things. Bill Slayton, sir, thank you very much.
Here are contents creators were proudly preserved humanity history even just only able create such a scracth or blue print. Here was proving how far we as humans will use our imagination to makes our lives so easy by adopting technology..
Would love it if airfix or another model maker were to make a range of experimental or proposed planes
SSi,
Ang Ganda Po ng eroplano mo parang Robot..
Sllien kanalaga,he here...
Mustard has competition, best of all? No curiosity stream!
The plane was just a bit early, that's it.
The XV-15 came in 1977 and the V-22 in 1988, both use rotating turboprops.
that landing gear makes one wonders if the airplane could even start a flight upright.
You can see where Germany's EWR got the idea for it's VJ 101. The Soviet Navy did put the flawed YAK38 into service.
hey can u explain the all the micro planes that were made like the XF85 goblin btw XV4 looks like the yak38
What programs do you make you computer animations in? Do you make them yourself or do you outsource/subcontract their creation?
I do them in Blender!
This is very relevant, this is what the US army wants to turn the V-22 into.
A much faster turbo-jet that can pivot its thrust.
So Bo2
I have a problem with this. I have to ask if the pivot points where the engines connect could take the stress loads or if they would self destruct dur to structural problem? It seems to me that this would be similar to the wear that Front-Wheel-Drive vehicles put stress on their front ends as compared to Rear-Wheel-Drive vehicles that have the stress on them equalized of the whole length of the vehicle, as opposed to the fact that Front-Wheel-Drive vehicles have structural flaw that is increaased by the stress that is on the front of it only.
Do Fokker/republic D.24 please, its a really nice looking aircraft
the Secret Projects forum is also great
Will there be one for the Convair 49 AAFSS?
Looks like something from the Thunderbirds TV show.
Thunderbirds are Go!
The biggest vertical take off is energy output from jet can make seriously damage to land or anything near it.
The safer for vertical take off and landing is use a big fan for balance take off/landing with slowly turn on jet to reach energy power needed for fly.
CL-346, reminds me about Mercedes model identification!
The estes mars lander. Was it trw? Or boeing?
As a child I made drawings of airplanes like this. Funny to see it was an actual plan.
There are starship enterprise type blueprints too
That front end looks familiar.
A-12 and SR 71 precursor?
What can you tell us about anti-gravity black projects.
JSF real grand father is the Yak-141
Yak38*
0:20 hmmm... why is there AV8 strapped under that contraption ??
IF Lockheed were successful in their endeavors at the time... Maybe Our (I'm from the UK) Harrier Jump Jet wouldn't have become the iconic and useful plane that it did... 🤔🤔🤔
VTOL work in this time seems completely unnecessary since there was already a system that used a rocket to launch a fighter off of a trailer that I think was called the zero length launch system. It worked every time.
That was rarely used. RATO or Rocket assisted take off was the preferred method as it was easy to swap out and maintain and didn't really require any special equipment.
That shit is awesome
This VTOL is something out of Black Ops 2
"too advanced" = "couldn't be built as hyped"