Welcome to my RU-vid channel, where we explore the fascinating world of failed aircraft. From early prototypes to advanced designs that never made it past the drawing board, we delve into the history of aviation and showcase some of the most interesting and innovative aircraft that ultimately failed to live up to their potential.
Whether you are an aviation enthusiast, history buff, or just curious about the world of failed aircraft, our channel offers a unique and engaging perspective on some of the most fascinating stories in aviation history. Join us as we uncover the untold stories of some of the most intriguing aircraft that never got off the ground.
Actually the main wings are not swept back, even slightly. The leading edge is straight and the trailing edge is swept forward. The engines are not in "a row along the length of the aircraft", they are mounted across the leading edge of what could be referred to as the canard, on this 3 surface craft. Multiple fins and rudders? Have you even looked at the photos in the video? Ahwell, you do call the Channel "Dumb Air". I can see why.
We can rebuild it. We have the tools, we have the technology. We can make this the best vieodoc on lifting bodies of all time! Just get the fucking commentary right!
Learn about your subject. Factual errors such as calling the missile tubes mounted on the fuselage "engines" is a glaring error. Ditch the AI and narrate it yourself or find a voice actor. Finally, lose the clickbait titles... if there is a "New Lease on Life" for this concept, I didn't hear about it in this video. Perhaps the AI voice was so irritating that I missed it. All in all, I want that 5:43 of my life back.
If there is going to be a youtube channel about shitty aviation decisions, you really need to go full potato about the a10 warthog, because it should be illegal to use such a stupid airplane in so much propaganda when it can only survive because it's used by developed powers against undeveloped opponents.
Although an unmanned lifting body the "Martin X-23A PRIME" actually demonstrated a re-enty flight path by being launch on an Atlas into a suborbital track. The recovery system didn't even start to deploy until it slowed to mach 2.
_The X3 poor performance as nothing to do with the X3 itself_ . The problem was that the engine that it was designed to use, the J46, ran into many design issues and failed to deliver the thrust it was supposed to have, and the X3 had to be flown with the J34, which was not nearly powerful enough to meet the X3 performance objectives. I see videos like this that say the X3 was a failure, but the culprit was Westinghouse, and not the X3 itself. Had Westinghouse been able to get the J46 sorted out, the aircraft would have reached design speeds. Best to tell the whole story and not leave out such an important detail.
Without the X-3 Stiletto, there would have been no F-104 Starfighter (the first successful mass produced Mach 2 capable jet fighter (2,758 built). The failure of the X-3 to achieve Mach 2 was due to having the wrong engines. It should have been designed to have rocket propulsion, as jet engines of the early 1950's didn't have enough thrust for the purpose of Mach 2 flight.
Great video! i just found your channel. I found the video to be very informative and well done. Thank you so much, and keep up the good work. I hope to enjoy more videos like this from you in the future.
Essentially based on the Jnkers Ju 287 and HFB 320 Hansa Jet. Forward sweep works but has never been quite compelling enough to make it attractive. It's not really a stealthy shape in that the forward swep wings will reflect into the fuselage and scatter.
There was already a design worked out: the He-162 was made smaller than the plan to fly on a different engine, and for a shorter-ranged role. It speeded things up enormously, like that other plane in 100 days, the Mustang. The North American A-36 Apache was already being modified due to the British buying numbers of them and wanting a better engine ( why Packard was readying to make the Rolls-Royce Merlin ), and this project was what was changed into the P-51.
Not vertical take off - in fact not designed to really take off at all. It was an ekranoplan, designed to skim the surface of water using ground effect.
The 1964 crash was caused by connecting up a gyroscope to the autopilot backwards. Like the Harrier, the entire flight and transition was to be handled by a flyby wire auto pilot system.
The VJ101C was also a breakthrough in fly by wire and managed the transition automatically. It was more a test bed. VJ101D and VJ101E addressed issues found in the VJ101C.
