I think a big reason the X-3 was such a big 'disappointment' to many was its looks. I mean, look at the X-3; of all the x-planes, the X-3 looks the most futuristic. It looks like some Mach 4 hypersonic jet out of a science fiction movie. Even today we cannot help but be impressed with the look of the plane. But when the world found out that in level flight the plane was not much faster than an F-86, the disappointment in the plane is perhaps understandable. The plane just looks like it should have flown much faster than it actually did. But to me, the X-3 was the coolest looking x-plane ever built.
Sure, but you'll notice that it did not incorporate the key to >mach1 supersonic flight, the area rule, or waist configuration. So the rear portion at the wing is creating tremendous drag at speed. They probably didnt know this at the time, I dont have my references handy for the timeline.
Thanks Mike for showing that these "failures" were actually ahead of their time in terms of overall design. Truly innovative conceptual thinking that was hampered by a lack of progress in various systems developments. "You boys know what makes this bird go up? FUNDING makes this bird go up."
Great video! Right to your point, experimental aircraft are to learn from and take design attributes that did work to other projects. Biggest win from the X3? One very beautiful aircraft. I can’t wait for a model reissue in the time ahead.
The P-51 Mustang only became awesome after it was fitted with the Merlin engine. A great powerplant on its own does not make a good aircraft, but any great aircraft design fails if the powerplant cannot live up to its specified expectations.
Remember that the P-51 that was powered with the Allison V-1710 engine had better performance at low altitude than the Merlin/Packard. They were two different engines conceived for different use that said the mechanically driven supercharger of the Allison V-1710 was not developed as well as the Merlin/Packard and was committed to the (USAAC) preference for turbochargers early in the V-1710's development program for the P-38. Both engines were very good but the Merlin had much better performance at high altitude...
I have just finished the German card scale model of the Douglas X-3. It is printed by a company called GELI and it is a very accurate 1/33 scale model. I have always being intrigued by the fantastic pointed fuselage of the Stiletto. What a beautiful airplane.
I remember the Cutlass. Had the model. Loved it in every way. So, as something that caught the imagination of a young boy, it can only be called an astounding success!
Well done Mike. The Stiletto was so exotic and futuristic looking and, as you pointed out, was a harbinger of things to come shortly after its inception. Too bad the powerplants were a flop. I like the way you incorporated other X planes into the story. Enjoy these videos very much.
Hi Mike, at 1:40 is that a B-25 in the background and to the right? Maybe the X-3 didn't meet expectations but is sure was a great model kit, along with the F-104 witch is still my favorite fighter jet. The image at 9:50 would make a great model kit. Thanks Mike for a gem of a watch, again your knowledge and narration are spot on.......
Many thanks, and yes, that's a B-25 on the East ramp at Republic's Farmingdale plant. Air Force pilots and engineers routinely flew into that field in C-47s, C-119s, and B-25s.
The X-3 was my favorite airplane when I was a kid and even today I think it is sexy. I can't help but think the X-3 influenced the development of the F-104.
Cutlass was underpowered but a fun plane to fly when everything worked according to what I've read. The X-3 looks like one of those land speed record cars.
Hiya - suggest do some wider reading - you may locate flight tests, carrier operator reports, fatal reports etc 😊....BANNED from carrier ops. Killed a number (yes, that was common for the era, but the engineering design flaws. ..gobsmacking) Even if built, should NEVER have been targeted as a carrier aircraft. Naval pilots one time nearly mutinied, ships grounded till removed to land operation.
Great video. Always thought the X3 was one of the neatest looking aircraft ever built. So much so that the first plastic model kit I built with my son was... You guessed it, the X3. He thought it was neat to. God bless and thanks again for all you do.👍👍
The picture of the X-3 "weight and balance" shows it being lifted on to the scales to perform weight and balance! Nothing old fashion about it. Obvious there were no jacking hard points on the wing.
Thanks Mike, great video. The engine builders couldn't keep up with the airframers in those days. Often these new whiz-bang engines would only deliver 60% of the specified thrust, leaving the airframers holding the bag.
Really great video. I was always fascinated by all of the x planes as a kid in the 1960s. I think the B19 is a great example of the problem with inadequate power plants going all the way back to the 1930s . So many engines just didnt work out. Some very interesting stuff in world war 2. The X3 was futuristic and looked like it could fly in outer space. I had a Lindbergh model of the the X3. It Still looks futuristic!
Wow, the X-3 looks fast sitting still. I never new it used the J-34. If only…. And double wow, the photo at 8:00 - the automobiles in the background!! It’s like the X-3 came from the future!
2nd airframe. One was built - and became the sole X3 test vehicle. However, a second airframe was constructed - will have to check designer's story I have for fate of 2nd hull ✈ **we all 💕💕 yr presentations - I KNOW how long they take to assemble ⌚🎬🎥🎬 - and we all look forward to your next one !!!
It's all reminds me of when I was little, I'm 64 years now. We used to go see my uncle Bill at whatever bases he was stationed at like Randolph field and I forget the name of the base it wasn't Waco Texas. Anyway he would always give me big color photographs of aircraft then and I will take them home and put them on my bedroom wall. The vault tilt wing aircraft you showed was one of them, it was painted in white bare aluminum and experimental Orange. Thanks for making me think of that. When my uncle finally retired he was the most senior enlisted man in the Air Force, I think he had 37 years if I remember correctly.
Believe it or not , I made a model of this aircraft . When news of it was first made public . This was before plastic kits were ever thought of . We used to carve them out of wood .
"Worst Aircraft" books are a guilty pleasure, yet agree 100% with you that most experimental aircraft should not be on these lists. Also, any airplane design should get a free-pass for using Westinghouse. Imagine a Cutlass with the promised engines in 1950!
It’s one of those things where the name has to grab attention, and is kind of cheezy and cheap (if not insulting) compared to the impact of the subject matter. But if you can get past that and use it as a springboard to dive into an interesting plane and its place in the history of aviation development…
Really great video there. Many thanks. The stiletto sure did look cool even if it didn't make the numbers they wanted. Post war U. S. airframes were absolutely outstanding in general and the adoption of the all flying tail plane was a big step forward for going transonic. Great to see those photographs. Thanks.)
I always looked at the X-10 and wondered if it wouldn't have made a great manned fighter . Scaled up, canard,twin Vertical stab etc . Ahead of it's time
You mentioned "advanced design" has been a goal of aircraft manufacturers. I'd rather lean towards a comment Elon Musk made once... "Follow function ignore design." I think anti-gravitic and magnetics advancement should be closer to the top of the list of goals. I'm 72...waiting long time for advancement there. Thanks for sharing, Mike.
Hi ! True of course, but "back then...back when" ..1940's, there was not only no aviation dictionary entry "area rule", there was no concept - not even on the horizon, not even in any designer's fervent imagination ✈
@@christopherbatty3837 true. But XF-92 didn’t have it and YF-102 (early) didn’t have it, and both underperformed. Convair worked out the formula and applied area rule to the later YF-102, and voila! Using the old Nazi German research, they wouldn’t have known because the Germans didn’t know. I wonder if in the present, we don’t just overpower planes to go supersonic. We have thrust enough to break Mach 1 in a vertical climb. 🤷♂️ Fun stuff for discussion!
I remember building one from a plastic kit as a kid (back in the 1950's). I thought it was the most cool and wicked airplane ever. Of course, many years later when I bought a book "50 Worst Aircraft" I was sad to see it in there. Later in life, I had a career in engineering and understood that failures can actually be successes and steps along the way. (You just don't want to repeat the same failure - move forward to new failures.)
This was a good one. To me they were ALL successful because they did what they were designed to do. They flew. Just think if we had modern or more updated engines back then. These planes(well maybe not the Republic)would've become legends(the X-3 IS in my book, slap a pair of J-79s in her and stand back). The Republic would've just made everyone deaf faster.
I've always wondered if the F7U would have been better with better engines and fly by wire. Way too many planes might have been far better just for the lack of better engines. Best case in point the F102 vs the F106.
Super, Mike! I guess any aircraft would be a flop with an under powered power plant. If the airframe cannot make the outlined references or the pilot doesn't have the option to power out of certain configurations, it would be considered flawed. The reason the X-3 isn't a failure is because some aspects of it exist in future aircraft designs, but also Douglas (and Lockheed, Convair, Republic, etc.) were moving so quickly onto the next designs at that time in history. Nobody had time to sit around with a pouty face!
Thanks Mike...a lot of things were learned from the X-3. How to make airplane parts with titanium, and they learned about inertia coupling. After workin 33 ye as rs on the B-2 i have learned that the Northrop flying wings were indeed ahead of there time. And i am not sure i could have cut them up when they mudered that program.
I totally agree, Mike. Failure to meet their design goals did not mean that the design was a failure, just that the engines were failures. Take the frame of a Cutlass but with better engines, and you would have had a winner, but short-sighted officials couldn't seem to see the field for the wheat, as we used to say. They never allowed the aircraft to be upgraded, instead, relying on other , newer, but maybe not better, aircraft to "do the job". Again, I agree 100% with this outlook. I had a beautiful model of a Cutlass when I was a kid. It was a great looking fighter. Then the Navy brought in all of these "old-looking" fighters to replace them, the Cougars, Tigers, and Phantoms. All of them might have flown at the end of WWII, whereas the Cutlass was from the future, though couldn't get out of its own way. So sad.
A lot of meat in that 14 minutes. Great video. The X-3 shape has a lot of similarities to the F-104. Was this just because of aerodynamics forcing form to follow function or did Lockheed “borrow” some of the design elements?
The X3 was an astonishing achievement. Consider this: when Trippe cast about for takers to build his trans - Pacific ship, his favoured designer - builder refused to tender, stating it was "...impossible, two jumps ahead! ". No one disagreed with the technological leap & manufacturing similar leap - but Glenn Martin achieved the non-achievable in his handsome M130 for PAA. Great as THAT was...what was accepted by Douglas in 1940's was true Buck Rogers dreaming....sustained M2 in an era when NOTHING was known about M1. As an oft told story of the era, the "promised powerplants" became protracted broken promises of broken promises...or, not at all promises. And even with the woeful thrust it was landed with, it made important contributions (note the plural) to advance aerodynamics, explore roll-yaw couple, demonstrate practicality of construction in difficult alloys, validate wing design, develop the first hjgh-speed tyres, develop evolutionary on - board test equipment, draw attention for the absolute necessity to reduce frontal cross-section. 1st stabilator ??? Can someone verify ? Primary test pilot, Bridgeman made the best honest assessments - not so kind/truthful were some subsequent pilots, betraying brand loyalty. To name a few ! ✈ All with HB pencil, slide rule, brain, "can do" attitude. And while they were designing this research vehicle which had to conduct a whole flight, ground-to-ground, NACA were still doodling a Mach One bullet to be air - launched. Bravo to Douglas management for bravery award 🏆...but then, look at the repeated support they brought to the earlier singular genius, Jack Northrop. ✈
Langley engineer Richard T. Whitcomb was awarded the 1954 Collier Trophy for his development of the "area rule, " an innovation that revolutionized the design of virtually every transonic and supersonic aircraft ever built. in a nutshell, the X'3s biggest problem.
Great video. Couple of things. First, can you imagine being an average person driving your car down what probably would have been Sierra Highway and seeing the X-3 coming the other way on its trailer as it headed for Edwards? Wow. Second, while the X-3 never achieved its speed goal, it made a significant contribution in its demonstration of the dangers of roll-inertia coupling, which highly stressed its airframe. The original NACA reports about these tests are available online at archive.org. ...tiny tail surfaces, no stability augmentation. It makes you wonder what might have happened if the X-3 had reach anything close to Mach 2. The entire primary flight control system from the Flight Operating Instructions is described in about a half a page of information.
Thanks Mike, one of your better ones. If nothing else the X-3 was one of coolest-looking X-planes ever made. In my "awaiting construction" kits is a reissue of the old Lindbergh kit of a X-3 in 1/48 scale.
I loved the X-3 as a kid. Failure? Yes, but a good learning experience. It did not complete it's intended mission. A shame the desired engines were not available to go faster, but I shudder to think what would have happened if it did get them and attempted supersonic speeds. The reason?: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia_coupling QUOTE: "The roll coupling study of the X-3 Stiletto (first flown in 1952) was extremely short but produced valuable data. Abrupt aileron rolls were conducted at Mach 0.92 and 1.05 and produced "disturbing" motions and excessive accelerations and loads." The too-small tail would have given quite a ride, possibly to in-flight break up. The F-100 suffered likewise until they enlarged the vertical fin.
The X-3 is hands down the most beautiful, futuristic plane I have ever seen. If any of you love airplanes and haven't been, you owe it to yourself to make a trip to Dayton to see the USAF Museum. If you like to read the displays give yourself 2 days to enjoy the Museum. And, if you like baseball, the Dayton Dragons are always a blast to go see. If all you can get is "grass" seats in the outfield, take a blanket and enjoy the game. The sun will be in your eyes for bit, but since the games start at 7 the sun is usually behind buildings before too long!
Yes, I visited the X-3 at Dayton. Thought it was very cool that you could stand next to the jet and look right into the cockpit. I was amazed to see its large steering wheel with the classic Douglas globe logo in the center!
I come looking for info about this X-3 Mike, wondering about the new X-59 and I am sure that some of the data from this contributed to that. Yeah I agree, just because they may have not been all that was hoped didn't mean super valuable data wasn't had and used in some way. Back in those days they didn't have cgi modeling, they just had to build it, try it, refine it. So many amazing planes over the years lost in fights or had bad reputations because they were built with an engine in mind and the engine needing way more time than was given often failing. A few still made it through, like the BF 109 as an example. Thanks for this great video!
I would regard the Stiletto as anything but a failure,when you look at the era in which it was developed,the late 40s to early 50s,just 5 to 6 years after the end of WW2,it was an incredible achievement.
Where do I place my pre-order reservation for a copy of "Wow! What the Heck Were They Thinking?" You can start with the work we did together on the Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster. Yes, the X-3 may have failed to reach Mach 2, but I'm pretty sure it was the first airplane that really highlighted the problem of inertial coupling - pitching up when you try to roll. This became a real problem when the wings got short and all of the mass was in the fuselage. I see that as the X-3's greatest contribution.
I wish you'd covered the F7U Cutlass a bit more. My Uncle Tommy (Career in Naval Aviation) used to call it "The Ensign Eliminator" and "The Gutless Cutlass"...
I hate those "worst aircraft" books. They always draw on what seem like biased and flawed conclusions. Sometimes bundling up a decent design along with bad ones because it came out at the wrong time.
The Concorde stole the nose cone from the X-3 …. And every cockpit is now air conditioned…. Window tint is now standard in most cars …Packed inside the fuselage are systems and engines that hopefully , will have a development life of their own … so the hidden virtues of a design that overall doesn’t work often prove even more important than what does …. And today’s failure often is tomorrow’s success … the X-1’s all moving tail being an example how just one system can make or break an aircraft … Thanks fir another great episode …!
In the late fifties I was standing on the beach at Hermosa or Redondo watching the PBY Catalina in orange and white (Coast Guard) fly up and down the coast. It was standing still compared to the jets and it flew impossibly slow. One grownup said "that's the ugliest airplane I've ever seen" and I said nothing. It is a very beautiful bird.
The Stiletto was designed to investigate the thermodynamics of flights at about 2000 mph. But due to underpowered engines it never reached that design speed.
I agree with your take on the value of "failed" attempts except probably not in the case of the X-3. It was designed for high-speed research, and had features that were intended to be exposed to high speeds. But was anything new learned at M1? Roll-coupling maybe... looks like it could have had the worse case ever unless short wings dampens it (the F-104 didn't seem to suffer, I think).
Actually, I like the Design of the early Cutlass (with the low Canopy)! Looked very futuristic back in the days! Too bad, their jet engines were not reliable and powerful enough... Too me, the golden age of aviation was the 40's and 50's! Soo many different types of Aircrafts and Designs!😎👍
Surely, the important point of designs that don't live up to expectations is that the lessons learned help create the next success, or sometimes explain previous 'failures'. The X-3 helped the understanding of control coupling which aided the success of later high speed planes.
Correct me if i´m wrong, Mike, but I have this idea that the Stiletto programme was a great success in that lots of valuable aerodynamic information was gleaned through it, a scientific treasure which was dutifully distributed (for free) by the US Government among the various aircraft manufactures. As usual, the state foots the big bills, only for the privates to pick up the big gains!
Hello what was the difference Between the XF-84H Thunderscreech and the Xf-88 voodoo prop? Did Both these Prototypes have similar problems and Flight characteristics? Thankyou
Forgive me if this comment is somewhere else in this thread. One of the biggest contributions of the X-3 program was the learning how to form and machine titanium.
Lousy available engines led to 8 engines on the B-52 instead of 4 engines. Lousy available engines led to 6 engines on the B-47 instead of 4 engines. Boeing and the USAF drove the engine manufacturers nuts with thier performance demands.
Wasn't the X-3 research used to design the wings for the F-104? I've heard or read this somewhere. The X-3 still looks better than the 104, though! When I visit the USAF museum, I spend a while just soaking in the style of the X-3... it is still so sexy! Any idea why the cockpit windows are shaped like they are? Looks great, but I can't imagine that there is a functional reason for that shape.
Interesting question Steve, thanks, and standing next to the X-3 with those sinister dark-green tinted windows right at eye level may offer a clue. Forward visibility was limited by the rather high instrument panel and glare shield, while visibility to the side and downward was augmented by the teardrop shape of the main windows. Not having a proper (and openable) X-Plane canopy also created the need for strong cockpit structure, yet with ample outward visibility.
@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 It would be interesting to hear from the designers why they made various decisions. Certainly, there many designs that reduced drag by keeping the cockpit low and impacting forward visibility. I suppose when you have a chase plane, seeing over the nose and finding the runway is less of a priority?.. as long as the radio works. I have to admit, as an engineer, I'm always wondering about how certain design details came to be.
@@SkyhawkSteve Good point, and several X-Planes started flying with streamlined flush cockpits (Bell X-1, Douglas Skyrocket), with both being modified with "military" clear canopies and windshields (X-1A Series), or a V-shaped X-15 type windshield configuration (Skystreak, Skyrocket, Bell X-1E). Chase planes always helped, though!
Thank you for that Mike. There is not so many things that I detest : The Worst, the ugly, the fail, ... All these words applied to mens attempts to find their way. Maybe by personns themself a "little bit failed" ... Their only work is to criticise, to choose some hard words to be able to kept the public attention. And likeyou, I'm very often passionated by these orignality in research. We can't forget the fact that they've had imagined, build and test all these machines "by hand"... And mind so ! Today, our computers made a large part of the work. Our knowledge accumulated by the hard work of these pioners are integrated to our projetcs. They have had to find the way.To open the way. Respect. Not sure my english will be perfect, but it's my plaisure to tell you my "two cents"... Hello from France
Airframe design has always outdistanced engine development with the result of many brilliant aircraft fell short simply because of the technical difficulty of jet engine development. In my opinion, the J-57 was the first successful design breakthrough but sadly too late for the early jet designs.
Whats the possibility of douglas working with boeing on the quiet bird and if so would the douglas quiet attack aircraft have used that data to built off or was the daft we see today a flushed out design
