X-29 - The Most Unstable Fighter Jet Ever Built 

Thanks again to MagellanTV for sponsoring Dark Skies! Click here to support our channel and take advantage of a free one-month trial: try.magellantv.com/darkskies. Learn more about the future of aviation and search for the documentary: "Do Planes Still Need Pilots?"

My grandmother worked for Grumman. She sent us the press packet for this plane before the press even got it. It's been my favorite plane ever since.

G.I.Joe still use them in their fight against Cobra.

I've been to the USAF Museum, and the most striking thing about this plane is just how _tiny_ it is.

This is the perfect voice for selling some new, really, really strong coffee.

Not the most relevant thing, but the X-29 is an absolutely gorgeous aircraft.

I remember the news coverage of the program... I was absolutely mesmerized by the design. It still holds a high place on my list of all-time favorite aircraft.

"Hey Frank, we have a big problem... the guys put the wings on the prototype backwards, and all the VIP's are going to be here in 20 minutes to view it." "Ahhh, F it, let's just tell them this is how we designed it."

The X-29 is trying ok! She had a rough development cycle and is seeking professional help.

My dad worked on this project, when I was a kid. As I recall, he was delighted to be working on something so cutting edge.

I believe this kind of design was “abandoned” because of the priorities shifting from maneuverability to stealth. Canards and similar surfaces are not good for a plane RCS (radar cross section) There are other aircraft that would be impossible to fly without computers, the f-117 for example

I believe I remember reading an article about these aircraft and the use of a dual engine indicator even though they only had one engine. They used that because it was handy. After several flights the indicator that monitored the engine stopped functioning. They then switched to the indicator for the second engine and placed black electrical tape over the non-functional side.

If you put that on ×0.75 his talking speed will become normal and he will Sound a bit drunk. Win-win

1984 Gruman: Let's use triple-redundant computers & sensors for a 1-person jet 2016 Boeing: Let's use a backup computer [that never gets used] for a passenger get and offer 30 mins of training

This shows the versatility of the F-5 and Su-27 airframes.

The X-29 is still the most awe inspiring aircraft Ive ever seen. It’s wrong in all the right ways.

Grumman proposed a forward-swept F-16 "but that idea was shot down in flames." That is a rather intense way to describe a decision but you never gave an explanation. Was it a bad proposal? Was the Pentagon being protective of the F-16?

One of the most elegant jets ever, love that design. Turns in so sharp, what a cool machine.

The truth is that high maneuverability is always associated with instability. By definition, inherent stability requires a negative feedback loop, which makes the airframe less sensitive to control inputs.

I had a micromachine version of this as a kid. I always loved how cool it looked. But it just never made sense to me that it could fly with wings like that. Lol it was the best fighter I owned right after my f14 tomcat.

I swear, this guy could read from a phonebook and it'd still sound creepy as hell.

It's just so gorgeous! And can you imagine the modern version of this beauty we could build, shaping it's surfaces with intuitive AI and evolutionary algorithms? And modern sensors and processor controlling it? Just... wow.

This plane perfectly sums up the 80's...love it.

I grew up watching the X29 fly over my house. Excellent video thumbs up stay awesome and have a great day.

Fighters are supposed to be inherently unstable. That's why they're so maneuverable

I have a photo of me in front of the X29 on static display in Florida in the late 80’s and with the same airframe on display at Wright Patterson in 2018. It was a sight to behold for my ten year old eyes. Speaking of unstable airframes, there was an F-117 on display at that same air show in St. Augustine. Visitors weren’t allowed to see the rear of the airframe that day. Such beautiful pieces of engineering.

I remember flying this plane in Ace Combat 5!

*"Research" not "R e a s e r c h"

I was a member of the team for United Technologies / Hamilton Test Systems that designed the control surfaces of the X-29 in the mid 80's. The unique feature of the controls was its instability when the computer controls were turned off. It was practically impossible to control the aircraft without the computer controls, which oddly made it much more difficult to hit during a dog fight with enemy jets. When presented with an adversary that the pilot could not evade, it was only necessary to switch off the control computers and the jet would begin tumbling wildly, making it un-strikeable. While this was certainly not the preferred mode of flight, it was handy at times when it was crucial to evade a missile or chasing jet. The same measure also made the jet unacceptable if the computer went off without pilot selection, in which case it became uncontrolable, as it had the glide characteristics of a brick.

i am happy that the planes are still around and not scrapped for parts as you hear in other places. The development of these did provide technology that is still used in avionics today!

I always wondered what happened to the 'forward swept wing' idea. In the 1980's it was talked about as if all new fighter plane wings would soon be forward swept as they were claimed to be superior all round. Then it all went quiet - a bit like 48 volt based systems for auto electrics.

I live about 3 miles from the Grumman test facility in calverton ny ( Long Island ) from 1968!to present I started at Grumman in 1984 and worked there to 1989 right before Northrop took over I have a some original promo stickers from the x-29 I was there when one of them was shipped out to California. There was always very cool and interesting things going on at the test facility my job took me all over the facility so I got to see a lot my dad and uncle both retired from Grumman. 35years

Great video. A TON of new technologies came out of the development of the X-29. The F-22 would not fly today without the X-29.

My dad was the project manager for this aircraft and I sat in it. Wild. He told me about its development and testing.

I loved this episode! I’d love to see an episode on the X-31, too!

As a born and raised Long Islander (home of Grumman) and one who had several family members who were employed by them at the time. This makes me smile..Loved this plane form day 1

So much said here is a bit off. I say this as someone that had hands on first hand knowledge of the plane and watched it being built and tested. The X-29 was not a fighter. It was never intended to be a fighter or a production airplane. It was simply a concept test bed. The actual aircraft was mostly the front half of an F-5 mated to the back end of an F-16. The main fuselage wasn’t built from the ground up. The main innovations being tested were the wings, the improved materials, the improved fly by wire, and an examination of deliberately seeking out instability. In this plane instability was not a flaw, it was the design goal. Instability = agility. The “if the computers fail it will rip apart” fly by wire wasn’t anything new by this point. The F-16 had been in service for years. Which is a similar true digitally controlled fly by wire that makes 40 corrections/second. Essentially the X-29 was an extension of the F-16 and research into how much further they could take fly by wire and digital controls. There were similar related pilot programs in development at the same time involving the use of canards on F16’s and F-14 Tomcats. That gave them crazy agile dogfighting capabilities. The Grumman test pilots that I knew described the X-29 as ne of the most fun planes to fly they had ever encountered. And to correct one odd impression left by this video. The X-29 was oddly enough a civilian contract, not Military. It had nowhere near the security requirements of the other planes then currently out at Calverton. That summer we had a ton of EW planes around the facility. EA-6B’s. Tomcats being upgraded. F-111’s being converted to EF-111’s. Hawkeye’s, etc. even a bunch of A-6’s getting their final makeovers. They were all classified high security projects. The X-29’s were not. That’s why there are so many pictures of the plane. They were used almost daily for photo ops. That’s the thing. There wasn’t much in the way of New Technology in them. They were mostly Frankensteins of already in production and in service existing parts and tech, repurposed to test out a new concept. I think even the three flight controllers were taken from another plane. Probably an F-16. The main thing was software improvements. Everyone looks at the forward swept wings. Which were part of the experiment. But I believe the bigger more important part was the improved fly by wire flight controllers. In them the X-29 led directly to the F35. By mastering the instability of the forward swept wings and canards they figured out that the ability to dynamically control and tune the flight surfaces in tiny fractions of a second via computer control they could fine tune a planes maneuverability on the fly, regardless of wing shape. Thus they could get the X-29’s insane agility with a more stealth friendly wing. (Or in the case of the F-117, they could get something absurdly shaped airborne at all.)

had the great benefit of seeing these fly when i lived at edwards in the 80s. so very cool.

1:58 "oh wait I forgot to turn off the stove"

"This idea was shot down in flames.." Well played sir!

Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War

I used to be into aeromodeling and I made a few smaller paper airplanes of the X-29 and eventually built a much larger one similar to the 1:32 or 1:24 scales in the static model kits range. It's body was made with alluminum cans and the wing and canards were made of reinforced paper complete with an internal skeletal structure. I remember it was a bit heavy (about 2 pounds) - yet it still flew surprisingly stable (without) computers or any engine. The average range for it thrown directly into the wind, was about 106- 109 foot distances. I also made a smaller (1:48) scale version made of all paper, plastic and cardboard materials and it flew a little bit further averaging straight horizontal flights around 110 to 114 feet and about 1 to 2 feet off the ground. It was a sight to see and flew extremely fast !

I had a coworker "I'm a machinist" and he had a metal laser cut out of an X-29. I asked him about it, and he was contacted to work for this project and did alot of the machining work on it.

I have always been a huge fan of the X-29, not only for it's incredible, sleek, and amazing geometric beauty, but also the very instability it harnessed. This really was meant to be a testbed aircraft, not a fighter. The X-29 was graceful, compact and utilized cutting edge technology in construction, aerodynamics, and computing to overcome the issues it faced. It was a huge success and paved the way for many of the technologies currently in use in almost every modern Western fighter aircraft today. It still has the best paintjob in relation to design of any aircraft I've ever seen. This is what planes SHOULD look like, no matter the final design.

This is one of my favorite planes next to the SR-71. So fucking cool.

I can Imagine the X-29 Almost instantaneously reversing and going the opposite direction. A new era for jet fighters.

I remember the X-29 up at Edward's AFB.

This jet was on my wall as a kid. It looks futuristic EVEN NOW in 2020! How crazy is that. I mean not for a 80's creation... or kinda sorta. No it looks straight up futuristic even now at this very moment. Its always been a novel concept. I wish it was more a success to see it in action more. Id bet our avionics and computers now could make this work. Those wings being swept in a forward attack position would have to make for just amazing turn in.

In your last video (The America bomber) I mentioned Flugkapitän Hans Pancherz. I remember a lengthy conversation with him about forward swept wing. The Germans experimented with that during the war with some success. Hans Pancherz was not a believer in this technology to my disappointment.... On the bending and torsion of the wing, I congratulate you of presenting this very well. Not many understand the anisotropic carbon fiber laminate used in the wings, with up 122 layer. From my Mechanical Engineering standpoint the answer lies in the stiffness matrix where all quadrants contain some elements not being zero. I often explain this case to our students. The case with the X-29 immediately gets the students attention..... If I remember correctly about the angle of attack, the X-29 could fly at much higher angle of attack than the engineers had calculated. This might be due to that CFD at the time was not even near what is possible today, including what you call a coupled analysis.

Fly-by-wire took a step forward, forward-swept was validated and tons of data was produced. All in all a good day's work.

It was a technology demonstrater and never meant to be a fighter

The X-29 was simply a test bed that was never intended to be a service aircraft, hence why it carried the designation of "X", instead of the "XF" it would have carried if it had been intended for production. And why it was cobbled together from existing Airframes and components. It was designed to test a design concept as well as new materials and computer controls. The project met every test offered up and proved itself to be a credible design. In the end the project simply concluded; it was not cancelled. But the one thing it did reveal was the forward swept wing while incredibly maneuverable, increased the airframes radar signature by an order of magnitude making it easy to spot.

Back when I was in the third grade me and a friend were looking through a binder of “Aircraft of the World” pamphlets. When we saw the X-29, we laughed.

Great information. Thanks to Magellan for sponsoring it.

Even if the plane were unstable and flawed on its own, what was salvaged from this design could prove invaluable today. Every mistake teaches a lesson.

That plane just looks so agile and quick in the air. Beautiful.

I was a Grumman intern at this time and My father helped work on the spin chute. I was able to see it up close.

I had the privilege of seeing one on static display in person at the Grumman employee open house at their Stuart Florida facility in 1984.

I met one of the developers of the flight control system software. Incredible work, humbling to consider the quality assurance discipline that they achieved on this project.

I remember seeing Technology videos about this plane, but never heard much more about it... Thanks for the video!

USAF : We need an arse backwards plane. NASA : We can build it.

Greatly enjoyed the footage, top quality. Definitely recommend

The F-117 "Stealth" Fighter is so INCREDIBLY unstable that it requires a constantly operating Computer just to keep it in the air! If the computer fails, the pilots only option was to eject! AND FAST!

A beautiful plane.

7:58 I think this title card needed a bit more research.

I’ve flown an RC model of the X-29. It was hard to get the CG proper. The model was not unstable and had no onboard stabilization, because it had fixed canards at a 10 degree AOA. I will say that it glided really well.

The video would be a lot better if the voice track wasn't sped up. Does the producer think everyone has ADD these days??

Can’t believe how big this channel has gotten in only a few months (I mean I can believe it because it’s awesome)

X-29 : [The most unstable Fighter Jet.] F-35 : Don't mind if i agree... 👌

This thing looks GORGEOUS

“Rafale” is pronounced with a silent e.

i remember making a version of this on earlier microsoft flight sim in the 90s. without a fly by wire system i have to say this is the most challenging plane i ever flew on the sim. nearly impossible and confidence shattering. now i have a derivative of this thing made in simple planes with proper ai and thrust vectoring. that onei made was the best handling plane i am proud of making. (though i spend hundreds of hours testung and crashing to achieve perfection)

I’ve seen this before, not flying of course

A Mark Felton style channel for aircraft? My life is complete

7:59 REASERCH?

The backing music and the narrator's voice for Dark Skies could make milking cows sound cool and interesting.

"...but this idea was shot down in flames." I love your occasional straight-faced winks.

I've always thought that forward swept wings were delightfully counterintuitive

"we need faster plane" "fuckin' I don't know put the wings on backwards and see what happens"

SU-47: HOLD MY VODKA

My grandfather worked for Grumman and worked on the X-29 as well as the challenger space shuttle and the space shuttle discovery.

The more unstable the aircraft is the more maneuverable it is. It was designed that way. A Cessna 172 Skyhawks is vey stable but not the most maneuverable airplane I’ve ever flown.

My gramps was Chuck Sewell the first test pilot. Also my pops made a surf fin using the wing design that worked insane

Hate to tell you this though. You are wrong about the aircraft they used as a base. It was actually an F-20 Tigershark, which was more powerful single engine version of the F-5.

Major respect goes out to those test pilots

The X-29 is a gorgeous looking plane, I always liked it due to its forward swept wings. That SU47 is a beautiful plane. There is just something about Russian jets that I really like.

I had one of these as a "ring raider" toy plane, was absolutely fascinating

Great videos. Always interesting and extremely informative. Nicely done and thanks.

Bro thinks it’s a race when he reads his script lmaooo

Absolutely my favorite aircraft ever. P.S. The fundamental issue is the box structure that we use to make contemporary aircraft wings: when you twist that box structure the tip will go up if it is swept forward wing. That in turn makes the wing susceptible to flutter. You can demonstrate the twisting effect on box structures to yourself using any cardboard box. One might also note that the supercritical wing required for supersonic flight is thin, so harder to make strong.

Soviets: Hah, mine is bigger than yours!!

One of my first Micro Machines, it confused me. Thanks for explaining :)

7:58, You misspelled "Reasearch". I remember having a toy of this plane and always thought it was neat, but never knew anything beyond the looks of it.

My father worked at DARPA during the development of this plane. I don't believe he worked on it directly but I remember we had a model of it in our house. I wasn't even 10 years old but I remember being captivated by that model. I distinctly remember him describing that plane as "insanely unstable".

8:00 *research

11:01 it's about as stealthy as a clean super hornet

Yes airplanes still need pilots. The pilot is the first person on the scene of a crash. Keeps the industry safe.

Used to work down the road from Grumman in Hicksville, Long Island. Never saw a hint of that beauty.

“Reaserch flights” 😜

As always, you do a Quality Presentation. Thank you.