For those curious - here's the full list of all *known* century series -teen aircraft: YF-110B - MiG-21F-13 YF-110B - J-7B YF-110D - MiG-21MF YF-113A - MiG-17F YF-113B - MiG-23BN YF-113C - J-5 YF-113E - MiG-23MS YF-114C - MiG-17F (again) YF-114D - MiG-17PF Other skipped numbers are Soviet types whose specific model has unfortunately been lost to record. The YF-112 for example may have been a MiG-19 or Su-22.
In my mind the F-106 ended the true century series as it represents more of an era than a numerology but that is just my humble opinion. I would have included thef-107 had it gone in to serial production. It is still of that era. I look forward to the in-studio series.
Include the F-108 Rapier Mach 3 interceptor as well, cancelled in 1959. They should of built a limited production of those for intercepting up in Alaska Greenland Iceland Scotland and Faroes islands. leave the rest to the F-106 Delta dart or they called it the " 6 ". The F-107 would of been cool for a multi role fighter bomber attacker but they would of had to replace the over head intake with a standard two side intakes for better pilot rear visibility.
The 50s was about achieving the highest air speed which culminated in the 106. They then began to realize other aspects were important for military use. Very quickly there after the high altitude guided missle became a factor and high altitude planes were largely abandoned. B 58 was transitioned into a terain follower. B 52 became expendable. Developement of ECM.
Another super presentation, Mike. So happy you included the designations of the Soviet adversary aircraft. Quick story, years ago I attended the Nellis AFB Open House and airshow, but the bus from the parking lot adjacent to the racetrack on the other side of FWY 15 got lost on the base. Eventually, the passengers disembarked in front of a gorgeous parked Mig 29! A burly sergeant came running up waving his arms yelling "No pictures ! No pictures !". You can imagined how that instantly motivated all the photographers, including me.
I knew they were flying MiGs out at Tonapah and using "century series" designations. I've never seen a picture of one. COOL! (I always thought they'd still be in Soviet liveries)
I was fortunate enough to get to participate in 3 Constant Peg events while flying the F-14 in the mid 80's. We flew out of Nellis, China Lake, and Fallon. We would launch out of those 3 bases in a section, and as we got close to Tonapah they would launch either the MiG 21 or MiG 23 and we would do a quick 1v2 intercept against it. One of the F-14s would climb to about 25,000 ft and orbit overhead the Tonapah airfield while the other F-14 would do a 1v1 against the MiG. We would then trade places and the other Tomcat would get a 1v1. Lots of fun. Both airplanes were much smaller than I would have imagined. The MiG 21 was about the size of an A-4, and the MiG 23 was the size of an F-16. The MiG 21s were actually brand new Chinese F-7s that our military bought from China. They were bare metal and were absolutely gorgeous. You definitely didn't want to get slow with the MiG 21 because he would put his flaps down and was completely controllable at 100 kts and would eat your lunch. While orbiting overhead Tonapah you could see about 50 or 60 small individual hangars and we wondered what was in them. It turned out that they housed the F-117 that was still secret at that time.
Thanks, Mike. This is a good conclusion to "The Century Series" of aircraft. I never knew those captured Soviet planes were given US fighter designations. I always learn something from your videos.
Another wonderful video on a great subject. I was born in 1955, so the Century Series was a pretty big part of growing up. Most young folks today, unless they're into history, don't know too much about the series. To be honest, most of the models I built as a kid were WWII airplanes. I loved the Century Series but for some reason only the F104 was the kit I chose to build. About a dozen times. I remember the kit came in an all chrome type finish. How cool. Anyway I am so glad you are posting more often. I enjoy your videos immensely! Can't wait for the next In Studio post! As always God bless you and yours and thanks again for all you do! Take care always sir! 🇺🇸🇺🇸👍👍
Great comment, thanks Martin! I built that very same chrome-plated Hawk F-104 kit also. Much bigger than Revell's nicely detailed, but petite, Starfighter kit.
Mr. Mike your future production of a model series is going to bring back so many good memories for me. I'm 70, and would like to think of those years as still being within the age of some innocence yet, ha ha. I'm looking forward to watching those vid's.
Thank you Mike. I enjoy watching and learning. The aircraft pictures are great and I especially like to see missiles we supported as a contract manufacturer. Stay safe and well. Cheers!
What’s amazing to me was that these aircraft were developed mostly by men who also designed aircraft like the Mustang, Corsair, P-47 and P-38 etc. The time it took to go from Biplanes to Supersonic fighters boggles the mind. I believe, in spite of many trade offs, all of these platforms were successful. I know people like to knock the F-104 calling it the widow maker. But the plant form was proven very safe when pilots were trained AND THE aircraft were utilized within the parameters of their design. If I could go back in time and fly any, I’d follow many of the pilots of that era flying the F-106, then a few tours flying F-100’s in Nam providing CAS. There are some great RU-vid videos of pilots from that era. Search Bruce Gordon (he flew F-102’s, F-106’s and F-100’s… I don’t recall if he flew anything else. Bruce flew the F-100 in Nam because the F-106 was kept for Intercepting Russian bombers out of Alaska, Main etc.
The F-119 is a blast of an assembly kit model (1986 - had one, also - said to be an all-time best seller), but not an actual plane. The trades did propagate the airframe, but as mentioned it was a media campaign that concealed the F-117 geometric low RADAR cross section. It be really interesting to know if Soviet intelligence was informed of that design - after all, they had developed the respective theory that would find it's way into the Lockheed Advanced Development Programs ('Skunk Works') - and if so, what their assessment was to not develop similar airframes until the Su-57. The F-117 should be emphasized for it's outstanding efficient and frugal development process - compared to all other futuristic procurement efforts that would fail due to astronomical budget overruns (e.g. General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II). That the fictional airframe of the F-119 is now propagated, virtually unchanged as the NGAD and F/A XX should worry as it randomly reflects design principles of the early 1960s - while e.g. the F-108 may have been the single most promising platform that would have been worth procuring as a super-sonic high altitude interceptor and low altitude strike fighter, modernized into the 21st century e.g. via a variable cycle engine... A F-13 doesn't exist due to superstition/phobia and the F-117 is not a fighter at all, but strictly a strike bomber that should have the systematical B-designation. Since designations can thus be used for purposes of military deception or distinction from foreign models (uneven F-19 skipped for F-20), it is more useful to categorize aircraft - loosely - along so called technology 'generations' and doctrinal roles. There is a clear *revolution in design* from the *supersonic flight doctrine of the 1950s-1960s* , trying to catch up to nuclear armed, jet powered bombers and to outrun guided missiles (the advances in intercontinental and submerged launched missiles undermined the Air Force strategic 'Bomber Mafia'), to *transsonic flight and super-maneuverabilty* (based on empirical statistics of aerial engagements by the 'Fighter Mafia', leading most prominently to the 'light' F-16, but also the 'advanced' F-15EX - with the US Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler production shutdown in 2027) after the heavy losses during the Vietnam War (ground based air defense and dog-fighting light jet fighters that manage to negate the preferred Beyond Visual Combat range) as well as low observability for air defense ambushes and deep strikes (F-22A interceptor - production ended in 2011 with fewer than 200 airframes, F-35A/B/C strike fighter that retained export status alongside the F-16 and F-15). Again, in the early 21st century with hypersonic flight in heavy demand across the globe (in order to overwhelm sophisticated, layered air defenses), supersonic design principles from the 1960s become relevant again (e.g. efforts to advance the SR-71), this time mitigated by advances in digitized stabilization, thrust vectoring, variable cycle engines and possibly scramjets (unmanned Boeing X-51, US Air Force Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile program) ect. - though the latter drive technologies may be a subject to similar diminishing returns as miniaturization of circuits...
Again thumbs up on a great video. As I said in my comment on part one of this series. My much beloved F-117A will always be part of the Century series for me. I can spend hours telling stories how the aircraft evolved both in avionics and mechanically over the many years I was assigned to them. We were completing TCTO's to the airframes right up until the final flight in Apr 2008. I was really such a hodgepodge of systems taken and modified from other aircraft then hand assembled that no two aircraft were identical.
It is good that we have videos like this one to discuss the diversity in designs. Moving forward with planes like the b-52 scheduled to operate for 100 years and consolidation like the f-35 and v-22 military aviation will have less variety. Probably for the best as it would mean no wars pushing the envelope and making technologies obsolete. Will be interesting to follow diversity in drone programs.
@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 Recently found your channel, really enjoy your content. Thank you for the effort in creating the great videos! May I suggest a similar series for bombers? There was a reset sometime after the xb-70 to the B-1. I would be interested to learn why the new B-2 replacement is not the B-3.
Thanks Mike for mentioning the engine power discrepency thing in the 1st vid. For you fans, the production versions of the J75 were MUCH more powerful than the J79.... 8,000 lbs more. The thrust of of the older J57 (max thrust 18,000 in F-8), was even a bit more than the J79. Gosh....a J79 in an F-105/106/107 would have been far underpowered to do what those aircraft did.. TWO J79's in the Phantom made 35,500lbs thrust...only 9,000 lbs more than the SINGLE J75 in a Thunderchief. I just wanted that to be clear. It was also known for it's incredible toughness. Also, I agree with the rest....Century series ended with the F-108.... had it been built. Afterburning turboFANS took over after this, as well as advanced solid state electronics allowing terrain following rader and all the electronic advancements in succeeding aircraft. Thanks!
Thanks for this info Gary, and I make the point in next week's video that the Northrop T-38 Talon is now the only turbojet-powered aircraft in the USAF inventory - everything else is turbofan, right?
@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 As far as I recollect Mike. It's funny you should ask as the T-38 came to mind as I texted that turboFAN line to you. And as an after thought....to me the J79 always seemed a more advanced engine than the J75. It was smaller, but had variable pitch stators in the compressor section making it less prone to compressor stall at high AOA and other flight regimes. All those mechanical linkages around the cold section were connected to flight data inputs controlling the airflow through the compressor. The J75 was just a big beast of a turbojet. The following new engines were low bypass turbofans TF33 (C-141, B-52, KC-135), I believe derived from the JT8 series of commercial engines. The TF30 w/afterburner had compressor stall issues when banging the throttle around in ACM. In the F-111 it was an issue, but fixed good enough w/inlet changes for a fighterbomber flight profile. In the early F-14A however, it was a real problem. Not a great fighter engine. It was politics intervening again as PWA had a more modern, powerfull, engine designed for that plane, but...it was canned in lew of the older TF30. (?) I don't remember that motor's designation, but my Dad has been ticked about that decision ever since. With the 30,000lb thrust GE motors, the F-14 was finally what had been invisioned. Anyway, I'm not a book worm armchair expert. What I tell folks is all from memory.I know what I know from Ist hand experience being a pilot, being around military pilots, growing up with dad at PWA, and surrounded by Cold War aircraft flying around constantly. There are many stories I could tell!! I believe the T-38 is the last pure U.S.A. turbojet still flying in 2022 that is not in private hands. (You can buy a F-5B or a T-38 on "Trade a Plane.....an old F-100 2 seater among others were for sale also. Planes were cheap....but better have DEEP pockets for the fuel!) Enjoyed the video's. Thanks.
@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 .....all of that meaning....I wouldn't tell you or your fans this info unless I was 99% sure it was accurate. So Mike, Thanks for asking, hope it helps!!!
Well, sorta. The pic released to media and in newspapers (remember those?) the next day distorted the shape, making it look like it was much shorter and did not show the facets in much detail at all. A few days later an “artist’s conception” 3 view based on this one shot showed a much less swept wing & shorter fuselage. True shape was revealed over time. Went to the air show at MacDill AFB in spring of ‘89, and among the “aircraft” on display was a roped off airplane sized section of tarmac w 3 airplane tires propped up where landing gear would be and the sign that said “Stealth Fighter.” Didn’t see one for real until after Desert Storm.
Never know the designation "21" is for IAI Kfir. I always thought it was for Lockheed assisted KAI KF 21 Boramae. F 19 with it rendering was a successfull distraction for the secrecy of F 117A. And the result is Mig 1.42/1.44 with similar design (delta canard).
Great one Mike...BUT...all these changing designations remind me of Abbot and Costello's...WHO's ON FIRST!!! I could be as confused as Lou Costello if I gave it any real thought! Thanks for a good one that I have to watch again.
@@dalecomer5951 Yep...and it was McNamara (I think, don't quote me) who before congress when asked how many missiles were needed to close the "Missile Gap" that did not exist with the Soviets, said 1000 and the heart of the arms race was off and running. Lets not even talk about McNamara and Vietnam.
Look up the original box art for Microprose's F-19 Stealth Fighter PC game for another variant on the F-19 rendering. I played that game for hours on my Commodore 64.
In my eyes the XF-108 was the last of the true century series. The F-110 was not originally a USAF plane, having been already ordered by the Navy before the Air Force took notice, so I consider more like a step-child. The F-111 I'm a bit more lenient with because it did begin as an Air Force project before McNamara ordered the Navy to take it on as well, so I see it as a late-comer to the party. The 112 onwards are all Soviet block planes plus two later black projects, so they are definitely not century series. Finally the XF-109 is in this weird state of limbo because as far as I can tell the designation was used for at least two (possibly even three or more) different airframes, of which oly one made it to production and it was renamed F-101B.
Great wrap up of the series. The designation codes are a nightmare. I guess it used to be worse with P (pursuit) designations and F (fighter). The Douglas A3 was basically the same plane as the Air Force B66. Was the F 117 designation based on the hope that it could be a "fighter"? That is one plane that should have been designated as an "A".
Great question Chuck, and I've heard from multiple sources the "F-117" designation was chosen to cloak the then-super-secret airplane in complete mystery. It sure worked!
A note on the F-101B armament: Only *two* missile types were ever carried -- the AIM-4 Falcon series, and the AIR-2A Genie unguided nuclear rocket; two of each on the revolving door/pallet. (Originally the door/pallet was designed to carry six Falcons, but was redesigned to accommodate the paired Genies.)
The century series has really never ended... The F-110, which was the f-4, then the F-111. Then came the standardization in aircraft I.D.s between Air force and navy so there was not F-112, 13, but then came the F-114... F-14 tomcat. Then came F-115... F-15, then came the F-116... F-16, then came the F-117... which should have been the F-17 but that never came to fruition later turning into the Hornet, but 117 was used when it become F-117 Stealth. Then came F-118... F/A-18, then came the F-120.... F-20 Tigershark, then came F-122... F-22 stealth, then came F-135...F-35. That is the lineage. Basically after the Standardization, the "1" was dropped.
Are you trying to trick us into thinking we've already watched a video when we haven't? The red line in the bottom of the thumbnail makes it appear as if we've already viewed a video even when the video is brand new. Because of the red line, I initially thought I had already watched this video. I'm glad I realized the video was a new one. It was a lot of fun to watch. Hopefully you abandon the red line at the bottoms of thumbnails so none of us miss new videos in the future.
I learn something from every vid you do. Thanks for the F designation on the migs. I worked with a bunch of "Red Hats" they were top notch maintenance guys. Best in the business.
That's a Douglas Aircraft Co. proposal model for a parasite fighter-carrying mothership. The Convair F-92A, Douglas F4D, and Martin Matador missiles were the payload aircraft!
That rendering of the stealth fighter. ..I'm sure we built it, along with many others. As for it clearly flying in the outer edge of our atmosphere, you better believe it.
Thanks for the question, and that is a model of the Douglas 1211 Parasite Bomber proposal at the time of the Air Force's Strategic Bomber Competition won by the Boeing B-52. The 1211 was to carry large pods for fuel and weapons, plus its own defensive fighters. Obviously way too complicated for that era, but an interesting model nonetheless.
The F-19 looks cool. Even though it never went into production Italeri made a model kit of it... Also heard it was completely fake and never actually existed. Lol
Don’t forget the YF-117D… Not many people are aware that we did use that designation for a “Black” program in the 1980’s. At one point, it was one of the most secretive programs ever to be funded by DARPA. Most everyone here will know it by it’s more commonly known program name: Tacit Blue/BSAX or “The Whale”, a ridiculously low observable platform built by Northrop to prove the efficacy of using curved surfaces as opposed to faceted ones for low observable/stealth airplanes. Much of what was learned in that program went on to be used in the B-2 and YF-23 programs and now the B-21 and RQ-180 stealth bomber and ISR platforms, among others.
@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 You are quite welcome. Thank YOU for producing such enjoyable content! As an aside, one of my most prized possessions is a photo of me (a selfie, actually) at the USAF museum in Dayton back in 2018 where Tacit Blue is now on display (right next to the YF-23 PAV-1). I had a chance and I took it - In the photo, I am “Booping” the BSAX nose. It may not sound like a big deal in writing, but when you stop to think that during period of time when that program was still DEEP black, just seeing the thing without proper clearances would have, at the very least, resulted in a visit from representatives of various 3-letter agencies. In that same span of years, possession of an actual photo of that airplane would have landed a person in a SuperMax federal prison so fast it would make your head spin. Now you can just walk up, and if the spirit moves you, you can take a goofy picture of yourself tickling its nose. If anyone reading this has a true passion for military aircraft and history, I cannot recommend a visit to the USAF museum in Ohio enough. Entry is free and if, like me, you REALLY love those old (and new) war planes, you’d better plan on taking 2-3 days to see the whole place. For me, being able to get a photo of TACIT BLUE, one of two YF-23’s (cough cough) to exist AND the XB-70 Valkyrie in one frame was a moment in time that I will never forget. Hell, I even started to cry when I walked in and realized that Boxkscar was on display. Never would have expected that kind of a response from seeing that airplane. But the most incredible part about that particular display was looking up and seeing two other grown men with tears running down their faces. One was a very elderly B-29 crewman and one was the son of a Tuskegee airman. Talk about living history! Every square foot of that museum is hallowed ground if you ask me.
@@FloridaManMatty Great comment, thanks and I've visited the USAF Museum at Wright-Pat many times over the years. Totally agree - that is hallowed ground!
The f-117 designation was purely a misdirection for counter espionage. It isn't a fighter it is ground attack and systematically should have been designated A-11
Just my standard whine...politics involved in aircraft numbering. Like submarines should--as God intended, still be named for sea life, aircraft should only have names (ala Britain), with the builder's name part of that. Lastly, as a kid, I thought the Delta Dagger was so cooool...all angles and points except a round fuselage, great to draw, and my eyes bugged out when we drove past the Convair plant on vacation. Finally, yet again I thank Mike for his stories, his voice and for taking my back to green highlands. Give me a call whenever you're near Tehachapi, Mike!
No there were no composits to speak of in the 50s. No stealth technology either other than the internal bomb bays which sank the Convair planes for future duty once interceptors were abandoned. You could throw B 58 into this group for performance and construction. 106 had Sage 2 ton tube computer and generator. No Genie rockets now. Too bad. Great on 4th of July air shows.
To me the century series ends with the 106 as that family represents a certain 50's philosophy that I'd call "high speed, low tech". Truly bonkers airplanes with far more engine power than judgment put into them, machines that could only be built in the panic of the early cold war. The F-117 just doesn't fit that description.
