Reminds me of when large birds come into land, at the last second, the wing angles up to stall the air and force it down while fat legs come out to land .. yes, Pelican, I'm looking at you. :D k
I saw this aircraft when I visited the museum of the USAF and I even recall seeing it in books and on TV when I was a kid and it was still flying. We truly expected to see fleets of them. If they had stayed with it, the machine may have found a market in airlines at some point. It was potentially one of the greatest planes that never was.
I'm impressed you can remember it considering all the aircraft in that museum! :D The friend I went with pointed out several aircraft that were skunkworks items that existences were simply speculation not a couple decades ago.
One thing this design has going for it is 4 engines which basically makes the whole highly complicated wing mounted gears to power the Osprey with one engine out redundant. It is less complex and offers more safety
@@JGCR59 yeah you could have some real fun with this design but I agree the simplicity of it and the 4 engines with small props makes it a better aircraft in conventional flight and give it s smaller foot print in the hover Is it perfect heck know.. but it certainly would have been useful many many times in the last 50 years I am sure to have had it. I bet it hold up to sand better than many helicopters do too. I like this and I like the tip jet rotor VTOLS both seems cheaper simpler and to be honest more idiot proof than the Osprey & the Navy should have realised the advantage of this plane in STOL configuration too.
I have an old video of two of my mentors @ LTV doing aeroelastic (flutter) testing using an XC-142 wind tunnel model. I haven't thought about those guys in years. Thanks Ed.
Tell me this plane wouldn't have been the dominant tactical transport aircraft now. All the issues from the late 60s would have been easily resolved in 1990s. Digital flight controls, etc.
A 4-motor design looks better than a twin for this application. The smaller propellors mean the wing can be horizontal while on the ground, airflow over the wing is more even, and a failure might not result in an immediate uncontrollable roll.
The CL84 was twin engine, but had a robust cross-shaft "back up" in case of engine failure... there's no possibility of redundancy for propeller redundancy, but the same is true, and worse for helicopters... Some failure modes in a helicopter prevent autorotation. In any case, a simple variable pitch prop is much simpler than a helicopter rotor system... The CL84 should have been the "Huey", but, as usual, the USA never buys the best, only the best from the USA 😩
Tilt wing/rotor aircraft seem almost as cursed as airships. I mean the Osprey is in service but the civilian AW 609 seems to be in development hell and the Osprey has its issues too.
These videos never seem to discuss the core engineering problem with the concept. While hovering, any loss of thrust from one propeller means loss of control and a crash. This means that even if you have two engines (or four in the case of this beast) you have to combine their power with a complicated and heavy gearbox, so that both engines are driving both propellers. This is the same problem that doomed the "Flapjack" Vought XF5U (which had short flat wings that would stop generating lift without the propeller thrust blowing away the wingtip vortices, a slightly different problem than tilting wings). It's an engineering problem that can be solved (and maybe has been in the Osprey) but only at an enormous cost - in money and in lives. Sometimes the best solution to an engineering problem is to go around it rather than straight through it. But of course that would just mean making (relatively) cheap helicopters instead and living with their range limitations. A related problem is that Ospreys are so freaking expensive that no commander would risk exposing them to small-arms fire or cheap hand-launched rockets, which means they can't replace helicopters in close support anyway. They are one of the all-time boondoggles in US military history. Even though they are admittedly pretty damn cool.
The one that crashed recently seems more pilot error since the pilot ignored the chip warning indicators, but kept flying anyway. But yes, they do keep crashing
Great research photos video, always enjoy, thank you Ed Nash.. This is an awesome airplane helicopter, Like the Osprey, the "Horror" of the dust clouds these machines make?..Then, seems not a good idea, lol..
I rearly comment on youtube, but as an engineer working in a start-up developping tilt wing drones (Dufour Aerospace, check it out), I'd like to point out that tilt wing and tilt rotor, even if seemingly similar im concept, are distictively different for two reasons: 1) With a tilt wing, the whole wing and not "just" the nacelles or part of them rotate. Thus they show significantly different aerodynamic behaviour. 2) The tilt wing typically uses propellers instead of rotors, thus not offering any cyclic control making the correctly mentioned tail propeller necessary for pitch control in hover. Therefore the control scheme is as well quite different. Other then that interesting video and cery cool to see a somewhat niche topic covered that I myself happen to work atm :)
I love your channel, but whoever came up with that fake logo for LTV didn't know what they were on about. Founded by Dallas-native James Ling, LTV came about through the merger of Ling's steel interests with Vought and TEMCO - the Texas Engineering and Manufacturing Company, which was a startup in the aviation field, especially avionics, in the mid-50s. So it's not "Ling-Tempo-Vought" but Ling-TEMCO-Vought.
I think the Dornier VTOL jet transport was definately a Thunderbird rip off...😂😎🧙🏻♂️🇬🇧 The distributed thrust of 4 Engines would give it an incredible blown STOL lift.. and is a definite nod to the incredible post war French Be 941 s even the fuselage has a similar but shortened form .. and we know Boeing had one as a test aircraft .. These days it would all be managed through a fly by wire giro stabilised system with flight envelope safety mapping.. For those not in the know the Br had the most insane mechanically interlinked distributed thrust drive system of any aircraft I can think of. Loose an engine or two and you can keep driving all four props from the two remaining anywhere on the wing. 🤓😳
having never heard of Ling Temco Vought, I did a wiki-look... the owner, Jimmy Ling, seems to have been a bit of a Texas wheeler dealer, with all that entails...
Love the Gerry/Sylvia Anderson, comparative😆!!! That about sums it up. Two connections to this; same time period, and you're British. Neither of which is bad, but understandable. Today's youth has zero clue, on what the Anderson's, along with Britain's, accomplishments were. Good documentary. And the 'Osprey', is still crap. Just ask any American, Gold Star family, on what they think of it 😔……
From the army's pov it would have also fallen foul of the army-air force ruckus about the army operating large fixed wing aircraft, which was looming at the time. Goodbye Mohawk and Caribou... 😐
Canadair also built a prototype experimenting with the concept around the same time. Who knows why a small (pop. wise) country like Canada wanted to get into this biz but someone must have championed it. Like these, I believe, the tech at the time just wasn't up to it.
Comparing the XC-142 to the MV-22 Troop Capacity: 32 vs 24 Max speed: 431 mph vs 316 mph Range: 3,800 mi vs 2,230 mi Climb Rate: 6,800 ft/min vs 4,000 ft/min The only stat that the V-22 wins is cargo weight, and let's not forget that the XC-142 engines were designed and built in 1964 while the V-22 engines are from 1982. If we took modern engines and avionics and applied them to the general design of the XC-142, it would likely outclass any VTOL in existence.
XC-142 gives me the feeling it'd still be capable of a glide landing if something happened with the engines. Dunno if the wing tilt gears would be as safe.
@@erikwellerweller8623 They are called books. Paper with ink on them. Not everything is in google. Try searching stol + lateral thrust + cyclic pitch. Good luck, it’s a fascinating project.
431 mph is an incredibly fast top speed for this type of aircraft. And I don’t think there’s a traditional helicopter that’s ever gotten close to that speed besides maybe a few prototypes.
One surmises there was a lot more politics going on in the background, that brought about its demise. On paper, it seemed the answer to so many needs, and it would still outperform many of todays aircraft in its role.
It was commercially produced, it’s not a new idea of all that great. The nazi had twin pushers that dropped with the flaps to 60° down, that’s the first commercial one
There's a good example of this concept in GTA Online: The "Tula" is a small 4 engine tilt-wing hydro-plane with retractable landing-gears and optional JATOs (it even has a "cost guard" skin witch would make perfect sense for a similar plane). Technically its the mix of the XC-142 and the Kaman K-16B!
i posit that this aircraft is superior to any tilt rotor aircraft . this aircraft can land with the wing in either the vertical or the horizontal flight mode allowing this aircraft to land safely , with out striking the ground with the propeller blades . this aircraft can also land safely wile suffering from an engine or propeller loss. a tilt rotor can only land with the engine pods in the vertical because the propellers have to be so large to allow for vertical flight. a tilt rotor that suffers a rotor loss is a crashing tilt rotor , which means a total loss of the aircraft and loss of the lives on board the aircraft.
It was essentially a very interesting idea, but the arrival of the CH-47 _Chinook_ and the CH-53 _Sea Stallion_ by the middle 1960's with their heavier lift capabilities made the XC-142 kind of obsolete anyway. The idea of a tilt-rotor helicopter didn't arrive until the V-22 _Osprey_ arrived several decades later.
Military procurement has been very slow to learn the lessons of agile development - it's always all or nothing. Of course such a ground breaking aircraft is not going to be right first time round; but did helicopters meet that 1953 requirement in the following 50 years? No. Build 20 C-142s, use them carefully and selectively, then release improved B and C models over time and widen their usage. 10 years later, build a new aircraft that is fit for purpose. That way you'd have something akin to a V-22 in capability by the early to mid 70's.
XC-142 was actually kinda late to the party. NASA was already chewing on some of the problems with it because they're similar to problems they had with the XV-3 in the late 50s, and they were already working on that new aircraft which would become the XV-15 in 1977 (which is conceptually the proto-Osprey). if you iterated the XC-142 you'd be fixing problems you either already know you can't fix yet or already fixed better on the new plane, so it kinda died of neglect.
Hi Ed. Someone pointed out the Rotodyne . Unfortunately, noise intrusion killed it off . I recall a Canadian manufacturer (Bell?) had a great deal of success but the US killed it, rather like the Arrow ! The Osprey has cost trillions and many lives . Thanks Ed
we can fix that now. The rotor could be electrically driven to load the rotor for vertical lift, then unload it for much faster flight on the short stubby wings. This would see it as a 300 mph capable VTOL aircraft, with the safety of being able to fly like a helicopter, autorotate like a gyroplane, or share its lift between the rotor and the wings. The best example is the Challis Heliplane, a UAV and concept machine.
@@z_actualI have long been a fan of the Rotordyne. It would be great to see modern motor solutions to the tip jet noise problem of the original. The utility of such an aircraft was proved by the original in my view. With modern design, manufacturing and materials a 21st century version could be a huge step forward.
Modern, intelligent flight controls could easily solve 90% of this aircraft's issues 'in transit' from VTOL to "normal" flat-wing flying. The "dust-off' issue had to have been a Gomer-Pyle styled cop-out by the Corp/Navy?! It isn't like a CH-53 doesn't cause the same effect, right? But a CH-53 tops-out at 200 mph, where this (back then, Even!) could reach nearly 400 mph. So, WHY NOT revisit this? Hmm?
The H-60 with its 412 mishaps and 1001 resulting fatalities is the actual widowmaker but facts are wasted on those obtuse members of the barcalounger cabal suffering from ODS - Osprey Derangement Syndrome.
The Osprey’s blades fold by a cockpit switch followed by the wing swinging thru 90d for storage. The V22 is just complicated because the requirements are complicated. Can you imagine the swashplate/rotor hydraulics? Considering the controls they had in those days, no computers, the XV142 did remarkably well.
Still a better idea than the Osprey It's still a plane and can land with enough speed to do a conventional landing with those little props. Not so much an Osprey...
Tilt wings are great until a tailwind hits it just as it's transitioning. They're basically uncontrollable in anything other than completely calm weather, which is why later designs tilt the engine nacelles instead of the whole wing.
Is it just me or is that XC... just plain Sexy! I'm in love. Two pilots and a "loadmaster" (ironically that's the nickname my GF gave to me:). I had no idea that exsisted. Nobody tells me anything. Just saying. Thank you and cheers from So.Ca.USA 3rd House On the Left (pls call before stopping by)
