Know Your Plane #3 | NF-104: Rocket-Equipped Starfighter 

Woohoo! My favourite fictional plane! -(Bcz it was made by Belka)-

ACF this is a great fictional figther. I love it and....Senta a púa.

CFA-44 = YF-30 ADFX-01 = YF-19

i'm very disappointed that you decided to do the same plane twice.. you should have included the variant in the other video.

a mod isn't a whole new airframe, it's close enough to share 90% similarity, and it even still carries the 104 name, i don't see your point.

What do you mean "on loan"? It's STILL with NASA! When they retired that F-15 from test duties, it was parked in the mini-museum lot at the Armstrong Research Center at Edwards AFB. It's right by the #1 X-29, an F-104N (a modded G-model), and an SR-71. A B-52 used for the X-15 program is parked not far away, too.

Hybrid rocket/jet propulsion was frequently proposed with early jet engines since they had terrible acceleration, but jets improved and none of the hybrids amounted to much.

Maybe not the NF-104, but maybe we can mod/customize the F-104 there to fit in a rocket booster

Thomas Bögel i kinda think that if they could i think if the space force went through id think they would use the NF-104 as a space patrol craft

That's not what the NF104 program was for. It was to train planned Air force Astronaut pilots for the X20 dyna soar project. Specifically the re entry portion of the proposed flight profile for that spacecraft. The x20 was the Airforce plan for military space operations (satellite launches, and servicing, real time manned orbital recon, etc) it was a small spaceplane to be launched atop a Titan II ICBM booster (basically a manned mini shuttle about a decade before the NASA space shuttle even hit the drawing board) one of the coolest space vehicle concepts that never was - get into orbit on a booster, glide back to Edwards or Vandenburg AFB in california. Small, inexpensive, fairly simple. And re usable. It would've been cool. - think primitive x37 but with two men in it... See, USAF didn't want to be involved in NASA - they saw it as a civilian agency (it was) and its goals were more oriented towards research and exploration (it was) They wanted their own manned space program to do the buisness in space the Airforce had been made responsable for (recon, classified miliitary satalite launches, etc) - they wanted the X20. Well, congress thought otherwise and ganked the Airforce's funding (and gave it to NASA) with the caveat that the Airforce gets some amount of priority from NASA's infrastructure and personnel for certain types of classified space activity, and that they would be given the opportunity to help design the next generation of orbital vehicle to address Airforce requirements (which is how the airforce ended up demanding so much out of the shuttle design) basically, in the long run - NASA/Congress shot themselves in the foot by ganking the X20 funding - the airforce demanded that the latest vehicle provide the cross range capability they lost with the X20 program cancellation, while requiring that larger long duration recon satellites be developed... which required a large payload bay - since they wouldn't have the capability of sending an x20 (basically one of its jobs would have been real time orbital recon - photos on the ground anywhere on the globe in about 6 hours - think SR71 only faster, nigh on invulnerable to intercept) and because the thing was to be so fast to get into orbit, get pics and recover - the russians would have zero idea when one was overhead taking pics. Whereas a long duration unmanned satellite - you could set your watch by when it would be overhead and plan accordingly (That was the idea, anyway) THAT was what NF104 was for - planning for the reentry manuvers for the X20.

The rocket engine is mounted at an angle so it's line of thrust goes through the aircraft center of gravity. This eliminates any pitching moment that otherwise would be introduced if the engine was mounted "straight". Hope this helps...

@@nisadelbyclausen5331 Thanks !

It is documented that “ As the aircraft passed through 70,000 feet, ground control informed Yeager that he had less than the desired angle of climb” www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/sky-high-3270307/ so it is definitely not just aircraft fault

So the official Air Force version of the accident is wrong and you are right .I think not.

Stop trolling

@@ronaldtartaglia4459 I wasn't trolling! Did you check it at 1:34? You have Yellow, red and blue letters!!

No....