Could be wrong but I believe THIS plane "118" is at Pima Air in Tucson while "119" went to Ohio. Started out as an upgraded Super Sabre to be dubbed the Ultra Sabre, and due to the Air Force's requirement for an internal bomb bay they placed the intake on the top of the fuselage. Of course Republic won out with the F105 and the rest is history. The 107 was used for some X15 testing before being returned to North American.
What I love about this era in fighter jet development was an aircraft went from a sketch on a napkin to a fleet-ready jet in only a couple years...max. No fancy computers, only the brains of the engineers, slide rulers, and a will to crack out your product. Not to mention, they were writing the book on new technology as they worked. Today with super computers, fancy simulators, and dont forget the padding of everybody's pockets and the all important environmental studies to see if the aircraft is compatible with the Earth, it takes almost 2 decades to get a jet to the fleet. The F-107 was certainly an interesting aircraft. Sometimes the forward thinking designs never make it to production: for example the Canadian Arrow, the YF-23, and many others. Nice to see these historic videos haven't been lost to history.
@@TheCaitlinlopez I gotta call BS on that. They MAY have had calculators to assist their sliderules, But this was way before CAD/CAM. Analog computers just weren't up to this kind of task in that day.
@Dmitri Kozlowsky Very well said. The military industrial.complex, something to be wary of. President Eisenhower warned us of this. We have some awesome aircraft these days. However, are they awesome in every one of their rolls or just a jack of all trades and master of only some of the rolls? Could we do better with single roll aircraft for the same price as multi-roll? Attack and fighter rolls are two very different requirements on airframe shape and structure. Fast fighters are not as effective closer to the ground as a dedicated attack aircraft designed for that roll. Wing designs today are a compromise to be a 'happy medium' of high and low altitude requirements. I am also a supporter of more simple andess expensive aircraft for low-threat environments such as CAS missions like in Afghanistan. Maybe a Super Tucano or similar aircraft would do just fine there. Much lower operational costs, low entry point to acquire assets, saves stress on the way more expensive assets. Drones would do ok in some areas, problem is latency with the signals. Not good if you need to make sudden adjustments. AI will take much of that over in due time, I suppose. I guess it is much cheaper for countries to just agitate your enemy's people into riots like what we see today. This is modern warfare. Turn people against each other.
Love the lineage of this aircraft. FJ-1 Fury started as a jet using P-51 Mustang components. The F-86 Sabre was a redesign of the FJ-1 with swept wings. The F-100 Super Sabre was originally began as andvanced F-86 model with lengthened fuselage, substantial power increase, and increased wing sweep. The F-107 was to be based upon the F-100, but more tailored to attack. Each one of these aircraft had little in common with the plane before it, because the many design changes between first musings and first flight, but the bloodline is there.
sorry to be offtopic but does anybody know a trick to get back into an Instagram account..? I somehow lost the login password. I would appreciate any help you can offer me
@Wells Hayden thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and I'm in the hacking process now. Looks like it's gonna take a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
I seen this plane fly into STL field . This is where my dad worked out of for Rockwell . Saberliner , Mc Donald Douglas and of course North American . 1954 - 1966 .
I'm 44 and thought I knew almost everything about aviation. Somehow, I'd completely missed the F-107, so this was a total eye opener. Thank you for posting!
There are so many fantastic concepts/designs out there I've been getting a bit into some old Israeli concepts, such as the IAI Super Kfir, IAI Nammer, IAI Arye, etc
North American was on the edge in the lates 50’s, this aircraft ultimately was to unstable, But it demonstrated the side stick wrist control used in the X-15 which was so successful pushing the boundaries of flight in the coming years.
For the critics, the -107 was never expected to win the competition with Republic’s mighty Ultra Hog. It was primarily a research vehicle (researching, for instance, an advanced inlet design deliberately placed above the fuselage for specific research purposes) and was never more than a potential backup in case Republic blew the -105 design, which they sorta kinda did initially but eventually turned into an awesome machine.
@@stefanhernold345o be fair, that's because it was being used for a role it wasn't intended (as well as the USAF not having enough knowledge on countermeasures for SAMs, as well as not expecting the NVA to have such a solid air-defense network)
It was a successful design. The plane just worked well and test pilots gave it very favorable assessments. Looked a little funny, but considering the technology of the time, it was ground breaking. Wish we could have seen it go into production.
What a beautiful picture you have there, I wouldn't mind taking a ride in you sometime ;-) Ha that sounded better, in my head. You get what I mean though. I'm leaving now :-P
Great film! Another thing was the wow and flutter was reasonable on this. Most of the films I see on this subject matter are really bad but still informative. This was bar far the best sound I have heard from one of these films!
I always liked the look of the 107. First saw one at Orange County Airport in the early 60's as a kid. At that time it had no canopy, LG, engine, and most of the instruments had been scavenged.
There's just no end to the aircraft that I don't know about! And my dad was an experimental test pilot! My earliest memories are of the Mojave when he was at.Edwards.
Clearly a direct evolutionary predecessor to the US 4th generation "teen" fighters, especially the YF-16. At the time (1975) I found the YF-16 a revolutionary leap in design. Which was true when comparing it to all other contemporary operational fighter types. So many radical cutting edge novelties. But this documentary about the F-107A shows that in fact it was a natural development in US aerospace industry.
The second aircraft ended up at Orange county (now John Wayne) for fire training. As a kid, I got to crawl from the tail to that intake since the engine was gone . So I never forgot the F-107...
If your kerosene-powered laptop had access to the internet, you'd find the #3 jet was the fire trainer. The other 2 are at Pima County and Dayton. PDSA
Well put Dmitri. As for $600 hammers and toilet seats, it's the contract, not the contractor that specifies the details. Yes there is abuse, but that's because of lax oversight. "No, it's taking advantage of the American taxpayer!" No, like any individual, if the "army" doesn't pay attention they pay for it. The "army" is in control, it's theirs to relinquish.
I've always been so interested in fast jets, particularly the century class fighters, yet for some reason? I can't seem to get so excited about the modern fast jets we have today? :0l
The Century Series birds were my favorite. Loud and fast. Not a big fan of the overpriced, over-complicated plastic fighters of today. My favorite was the F-105. Worked on them for ten years.
I think it may be the colours.... pre 1990 .. lots of different camos ... post 1990 just paint it grey all grey. The Russians still have snazzy paint and camo colours
The century series was great because there was such variety in design - those engineers in the 50s were making educated guesses and testing new ideas. There was some focus on beauty (albeit not all of them looked so hot especially this 107!) Look at the design evolution of the X-3 to XF-88 to the F-101 to the F-4. Start with some crazy beautiful designs, refine for practicality, make it practical and rugged and inexpensive. I love these old birds! Real wild west of aviation in the 50s
There was one in the Air Force Museum annex when I was stationed there in the late 1980s, as well. I haven't been there in 22 years, so I don't know if it's still there or if it was sent to Pima. I don't remember how many were built, but I was always a little bit in awe of the Maneater and the balls it must have taken to fly one.
Interesting aircraft. Just doesn't look right. Rearward visibility would have been terrible and I'd love to know how the overhead intakes affected airflow in high AOA maneuvers. I've always wondered if it would have suffered from compressor stalls in low speed, high AOA maneuvers.
The F-107 is considered the best aircraft ever rejected by the U.S. Air Force. It had issues but none that weren't correctable with a second prototype.
YF23 Black widow Faster and more maneuverable than the F-22, not to mention much further along in the development stage and an even smaller radar cross section
@@zacht9447 Ah, NO... We get it that you're a fanboy BUT if you're going to talk about a jet, know some basic things about it. 1) The YF-22 was more maneuverable than the YF-23. It had thrust-vectoring and the wing design was biased towards greater maneuvering power. The YF-23's ruddervators were a feature NASA had serious qualms about. They did studies with planes with that tail design and they had issues with recovery. The YF-23 may have had reduced drag, yes, but it was also less controllable across the flight envelope than the YF-22. A conventional tail is still better for control. 2) The difference in radar cross section wasn't THAT great between the prototypes and they reduced it in the F-22. 3) The YF-23 would have been more difficult to produce. Compound curves are harder to manufacture than flatter segments. 4) Northrop was involved in a major scandal at the time of the ATF competition. The USAF had serious doubts they'd be able to deliver on the project. The company has NEVER managed a fighter program that big and the most sophisticated program Northrop had running was the B-2 which had its own problems. 5) If that wasn't enough, the YF-22 demonstration program was far more impressive than the YF-23 demo. They fired weapons from the internal weapons bay, demonstrated extreme controllability at high AoA in the YF-22, and greater overall maneuverability. The YF-23 demo was very restrained by comparison and they were much more cautious. In the last two major USAF fighter programs, ATF and JSF, the Lockheed team pulled out the stops and they flew their prototypes far more aggressively. They demonstrated greater confidence in their planes. Their competitors, by comparison, ran almost meek programs and had some serious technical issues with their designs.
Like the high tech hay bales used during one test. Also, so where out there is video of an F4 Phantom under going landing gear test. In the video they spin the wheels up to touchdown speed then drop the aircraft. It really rocks bad and forth.
I like the part where the weight is taken: “engineers using new electronic system”. Then after test: “about how much does it weigh?”. “ oh about twenty six five”. 50’s engineering at it’s finest!
NAA Chief Engineer Harrison Storms is seen at 5:24. His stellar career was later tarnished by his involement with the initial Apollo spacecraft design that resulted in a fatal accident.
I can't believe they broke Mach 1 on the first flight! No modern flight testers would dare to do that, and no general in charge of the base would sign off on it.
@@TJ-USMC - I guess the saying -"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" applies here. But then, you jar heads have a slight vision problem. (I'm just an old soldier picking on you TJ. No disrespect intended but, I love inter-service rivalries)
Love to see some photos... could you upload yours somewhere.. I hope one day families will upload there family members pictures, most the pictures we have out there are by military propaganda arms.. I just like to see real pictures
You said it so much better.... since he Was a technician, I wasn't sure how to phrase it. Personal pictures by serving men are my favourite, I think it may be due to photos a family member took at Nagasaki after the bomb dropped, he was captured in Berma survived the pow camps.. was brought to Japan spent a few months there recovering (that must have been strange in the enemy's homeland) then the Americans shipped him home to the Uk. I hope to upload them oneday, just trying to get a photo album out of my mothers house is near impossible.
NAA test pilot Joel Robert "Bob" Baker died in 2011 at age 91. He was a graduate of RPI and taught there during WW2. He was disqualified from military aviation due to defective color vision.
I saw this airplane at the Pima Museum. It’s not pleasing to the eye. Nearly all airplanes that fly well look “right”. This one doesn’t. Just my opinion. On the matter of aerospace development costs. Catherine Austin Fitts was Assistant Secretary of HUD under GHW Bush. She discovered billions of fraudulent missing money. Multiple home mortgages on the same empty lots all over the US. How does this relate to this topic? Lockheed-Martin was the biggest “customer” of HUD. By far. What does Lockheed Martin have to do with Housing and Urban development? Where did the money go? What was it used for? She didn’t last long at HUD because many people did not like her asking those questions. Catherine Austin Fitts has been in the news this past December as she assisted Dr Mark Skidmore from Michigan State U in publishing a paper documenting $21 TRILLION missing just from DOD and HUD from 1998-2015! usawatchdog.com/21-trillion-missing-u-s-government-a-criminal-enterprise-catherine-austin-fitts/ That’s a lot of money folks. ~$84,000 for every adult in America. As an engineer, I agree that this is a great video to show the amount of R&D, designing and testing anything. Especially if it leaves the surface of Earth. For $21 TRILLION, the USA better have some incredible fantastic technologies that the public doesn’t know about. If we don’t, then like Lucy, somebodies got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do. If you’re a geek like me, and you aren’t already irritated at my comment, a stack of 1 TRILLION dollar bills would ~ 67,866 miles high.
It's not $21 trillion in money that is missing. It's $21 trillion in money whose final destination and original origin is confusing and unaccounted for. If one dollar is "spent" in one area to prevent the budget decreasing next year after a program comes in under budget, but it isn't really spent, then it is very likely to be spent somewhere else on something useful to get the taxpayer's money's worth in a very sketchy fashion, and prevent future budget crises due to unexpected efficiency or savings when somebody sees an agency doesn't use its entire budget and calls for cuts. That one dollar will become $2 in unaccounted for spending. This is why the figure is so high; it isn't ACTUALLY $21 TRILLION that just up and vanished. In fact, not even $21 trillion was sent the DoD's way during the entire period in question. But yeah, it failed the audit, and maybe within a decade we can become more accountable and less sketchily get our money's worth in the budget.
All that testing, but the gear heated up during taxiing and tires and rims blew off and caught fire. It even heated up when they stopped taxiing and towed it to the runway. It ended up with burns from a main landing gear fire that damaged the wing structure so bad they retired the aircraft
Do you honestly believe any great plane that flew before the age of supercomputers DIDN'T have design flaws? Are you aware of the fact that most of the great fighters of World War II went through a half-dozen model revisions (NOT including hundreds and sometimes thousands of small engineering and manufacturing changes) before they produced the "definitive" versions of these planes? That's why they build prototypes of planes, to debug the designs and figure out what has to be improved or changed before they go into wide production. Of course, during wartime, when they're really up against it, they rush planes into service because they're desperately and sometimes that buggy design is the ONLY THING available. They also keep technically obsolete designs in service to shore up numbers because you DON'T want to have a hollow air force while waiting for the next, perfected design. Most of us have never lived through anything like World War II so we feel entitled to be arrogant and snooty about the testing and design process. It's always easy to look down on the past when you're ignorant and oblivious to reality. I see this ALL THE TIME in these postbacks for different aviation videos. Better performance does NOT equal better manufacturing design. They could produce AT LEAST 3 Hellcats for every 2 Corsairs produced during WWII because Grumman was more efficient at designing planes than Vought was and engineered their plane to take less parts to build! Lockheed had to virtually reinvent everything people take for granted with aircraft with the Blackbird series of jets. That extra Mach-and-a-half of speed rewrote the rules on what COULD be used with that plane because of both the speed and altitude it operated at. They haven't managed to beat it unless something really extraordinary has been built at Area 51. There are issues with many, many civilian transport jets they don't advertise all the time until there are accidents and half the time serious mechanical incidents happen NOT BECAUSE of poor design but because of bad maintenance practices of the airlines.
Its strange that these copies were not marked as YFs, especially being the 1st 'A' flight. --- Geez, back then, the AF was cranking out new models over many closely released ones that were not formally certified for production from four major MFG companies. Yes, I know this platform's purpose was for deeper penetration missions than the 106's (high altitude interceptor), similar to the 105's deep nuclear pod delivery. Three copies were produced, at 30+ mil a pop (1956 dollars), saw this one at the AF museum, WPAFB. It was originally to be designated F-100B. I agree, the ugliest of the century series AF fighter craft.
Was it the unconventional apearance that put the USAF off?.It's performance was phenomenal.The method of using slats for lateral control wasn't new,the P-61 used a similar system.
"How much does it weigh?" "Twenty-six five." About double the weight of an empty WW2 era P38 twin engine fighter plane. Plus, it's got almost triple the speed, four times the heavy duty (20mm) firepower, and a thirsty turbine inside gulping down fuel at twice the rate of the twin engine high performance prop fighter. Personally? As a graphic artist I think it's about the coolest plane ever. I can see a couple problems immediately, though: 1) zero rearward vision. 2) Engine intake right behind the ejecting pilot. I feel the F-100 was a mixed bag, too. I wonder what the competition come down to, ultimately.
@@WildBillCox13Did you miss the earlier comment that the USAF specified an internal bomb bay? The intake went on top because there’s no room underneath.
Hello. I had a model of this aircraft when I was a kid. The 1950s had some bizarre experiments. Considering the Russian fighters today have engine air intakes on top for takeoff/landings to prevent debris from being sucked into the engines, perhaps the xf-107 intake on top of the fuselage was "visionary"?
This was the first variable inlet design - used in many subsequent high speed aircraft. Originally it was supposed to be in a chin position like on the F-8 Crusader, but Air Force officials were concerned that location would affect the semi-submerged nuclear store in the belly, on release. The instrument package lifted into the belly would have been the nuclear store.
@@danzervos7606 They NEVER used the bomb bay in the F-105 in practice. They put another fuel tank there. In fact, half the tactical aircraft that EVER flew with compartments like this ended up using their "bomb bays" to carry extra fuel because of weapons separation issues. The A-5 Vigilante is another plane of the same era (from the same manufacturer as the F-107, in fact) that had a bomb bay used for an extra fuel tank. It didn't even last long as an attack plane and spent most of its 18 years in service as a reconnaisance aircraft!
According to what I read, That first flight did not end well. Notice in the film, that upon touch down, the drag chute did not deploy. He came in hot and broke the nose wheel strut. I hope the film maker that day learned something........bring more film.
No doubt George was sweating that canopy test. He hadn't signed his SGLI since the last test he had broke his fingers because he was so nervous about losing his head over the next test.
Interesting aircraft designed, I believe, as an interceptor. It would have made a terrible dogfighter, as the visibility would have been compromised by the big air intake. I thought I read somewhere that it could reach mach 3.
Mounting the air intake on top of the fuselage makes it less likely to ingest foreign objects and debris from the ground; a very important feature for jet powered combat aircraft.
They were trying to stretch the F100 design, it wasn't a bad effort but Republic came up with the F 105 a clean sheet of paper design that was markedly better for the fighter bomber role .
The Air Force was looking for nuclear strike aircraft, and these were an evolution of the F-100. The intake position above the cockpit severely limited visability, which was one of the factors that led this to lose to the F-105.
They were pushing boundaries and trying to innovate. You have to remember that the concept was only conceived 6 or so years after WWII, where subsonic piston engines were the norm.
Yes, the Ultra Sabre was an ugly solution to whatever was the question of that time. It does not look right at all, probably unstable in a turn too with all that side area high upfront.
That's funny because virtually all the historians and documentarians say the F-107 was one of the better planes the Air Force didn't buy. The F-105 had plenty of issues, too, and had a VERY mixed service record. It was the end of Republic as a tactical aircraft manufacturer. They did NOT make a good transition into jets and their best fighter by far was the P-47, not the F-84 (in any version) or the F-105. HALF the production run of F-105s were lost in Vietnam because of serious design flaws in the plane and bad training. It wasn't a particularly good tactical bomber contrary to the reputation people today believe it has.
At the time of the development of the Century series Fighter aircraft it appears the USAF was interested in plane that were stable in a straight line at high speed. The doctrine was Dog fighting aircraft were things of the past. Maneuverable was not needed they said.
The F-104 that many people rave about was asked to do so many things including launching a nuclear weapon (which by the way couldn't fit inside the aircraft) that it ended up with the nickname of the widow maker. The F-105 although it was a mach2 aircraft (and how many bombing runs have ever been conducted at mach2) could not turn this side of Christmas, and so was useless at dogfighting although they fitted it with a gun. My point is that some may call these "good looking" aircraft turkeys too. Just a thought.
@Etienne I was gonna say -- and it's like the F-105 was designed to be a dogfighter, too? NO, neither plane was an air superiority aircraft. They were fighter-BOMBERS with emphasis on the attack mission. They really should have been called A-25 or whatever the numeral for "attack plane" was up to that at time. Likewise, the F-111 was not fighter, either. It was a medium bomber. The F-105 had horrible maneuvering power, poor visibility, AND poor survivability against flak. They never thought the planes of that time would survive if they got hit so they designed them to have the main and emergency hydraulic lines run SIDE BY SIDE in the airframe! That ensured the planes WOULD get lost if both control lines were hit! They lost a lot of F-4s and F-105s because of that dumb decision in the design and manufacturing. When the F-14 and F-15 were designed, they made sure to locate the hydraulic as far apart as possible to increase the survivability of those planes to hits.
We used high speed motion picture cameras at The Boeing Co. on various tests. If the test didn't function properly, then zzziiiiiipppp! and another several hundred feet of motion picture film was wasted.
If you were going to be a bomber, then having the intake above the fuselage would allow for more room under the fuselage I suppose for carrying more bombs or one large thermonuclear bomb.
ALCS...so basically 'Fly By Wire'? I thought Airbus invented this in the 80's? Makes you wonder if those rumours of military aviation being 40yrs in advance of commercial are true?
ALCS was not fly by wire. And Airbus didn’t invent that technology. No one has claimed either though, so you should really examine your preconceived notions for more misunderstandings...
The F16 was designed in the early 70's with fly by wire before Airbus was even around. Airbus has never invented anything. Their just a European sponsored company that would have went out of business long ago without state money.
F-100 2.0, same big wing as the Hun. Mach 2 lost out to F-105 which was embarrassed by subsonic MiG-17 at Dragon Jaw bridge when F-100 claimed a probable with big wings. Note conformal belly tank/store compared to clean F-105 bomb bay or non-conformal belly tank. Funny over-cockpit intake also used on ill-fated Boeing F-111 losing design.
How did the F105 lose out to the Mig 17? Boeing didn't build the F111, General Dynamics did and it went into production and served very well.the intakes are on the side of a F111,not on top. The F105 was a nuclear capable bomber, the mig 17 couldn't catch it if the Thud driver turned off his engine.
@@g24thinf Rules of engagement. 105 could not attack till Mig was inside air to air missile range. Mig was smaller and turned faster and if they had an altitude advantage they also could be faster in dive. Boeing did win the comp for F-111 but each time (3X) it got rebid. Had something to do with LBJ and General Dynamics both being from Texas. McNamara wanted the Boeing plane but Secretary of the Air Force was LBJ's boy. F 105 was much more a fast bomber than a fighter.
Mark O'Cain you have no idea! This plan was a monster! It flew out of several airbases and won in dog fights against all comers! It was a political loss more than a performance loss not unlike the f20 tiger shark!
Fundamentally flawed, if the pilot did not get sliced by the air intake, he might get sucked into it on ejection.....still pilots would only eject as a last resort saving $$$. They even had difficulty getting into the cockpit on the ground!
This is a great film. And as nifty as it may be for advanced 1950s tech, this is a very ugly airplane. But, so is an A-10. What do I know. Sleeping in the mud, that's what.
What the hell were they smoking at NAA when they came up with that POS? I can't even imagine a successful bail-out from that flying coffin. And the compressor/wind noise coming from that massive air inlet duct just above and aft of the canopy must have been excruciating to the pilot. Thank gawd that thing never went into production as many pilots would have died trying to egress that damn thing in flight.
It was a design that fortunately died a quick technological death. I note that no one has attempted to repeat, or even refine this questionable design feature in subsequent aircraft.
It was a modified F 100 that was changed to F 107. The Air Force picked the F 105 over the F 107. I am sure you know how much the pilots loved that air craft. What did the call it “The Thud” for its frequent crashes?
The Mach 2 F-105 was in fact a good airplane but suffered from unfathomably stupid aerial war strategy courtesy of idiotic clueless morons LBJ and Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War. LBJ's traitorous Rolling Thunder campaign was the reason so many Thuds and F-4 Phantoms were lost (along with their aircrews). As you know, many of the aircrews that did survive were imprisoned and tortured at the Hanoi Hilton. Google Rolling Thunder and it will make your blood boil. Regarding the abortion that was the F-107, I'm actually shocked it came from the vaunted NAA. I'm guessing the same brain-cell vaporizing cancer that afflicted NAA's F-107 engineers and designers ended up at Lockheed-Martin resulting in the the F-22 and F-35 pork barrel fiascos. Belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Jimbo in Thailand, Not that I disagree with you, but with the B-58 being held out of Vietnam service it could not be justified to not use the "F"-105. I use "F" because it was an "A" model. It took something as ungainly as the A-10 to get that designation. "Fighter" in this day of stealth and range means nothing compared to the _attack_ mission: real nerve, courage. The F-35 should be A-35 IMO, boondoggle or not. Good Post JiT.
It actually did great. It was an awesome airplane. But it was competing against the F-105 Thunderchief, which proved just a little more capable and was selected instead. A lot of planes with potential didn't make it because of issues with their engine(s) made by other companies, like the defunct McDonnell F3H-1 Demon and Westinghouse's J40. Others were made to be entered in competitions and lost, never making it into production.....The XF-23 is a good example of the latter: ruclips.net/video/PYLiMYGBE2Q/видео.html
Doggeslife I continue to believe that current U.S. military aircraft performance is compromised far too much by the Air Force's fetish for the arguable benefits of Stealth design features.
The 50's was an amazing era for aircraft development, perhaps comparable to the 30's. As far as stealth, it has worked amazingly well. Literally thousands of bombing missions have been flown by stealth aircraft and only one has been lost and then it was largely due to improper tactics.
This plane can be seen at the USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio!
Could be wrong but I believe THIS plane "118" is at Pima Air in Tucson while "119" went to Ohio. Started out as an upgraded Super Sabre to be dubbed the Ultra Sabre, and due to the Air Force's requirement for an internal bomb bay they placed the intake on the top of the fuselage. Of course Republic won out with the F105 and the rest is history. The 107 was used for some X15 testing before being returned to North American.
You are correct. The F-107 in the NMUSAF is serial 119.
I love these old films. Thank you.
What I love about this era in fighter jet development was an aircraft went from a sketch on a napkin to a fleet-ready jet in only a couple years...max. No fancy computers, only the brains of the engineers, slide rulers, and a will to crack out your product. Not to mention, they were writing the book on new technology as they worked. Today with super computers, fancy simulators, and dont forget the padding of everybody's pockets and the all important environmental studies to see if the aircraft is compatible with the Earth, it takes almost 2 decades to get a jet to the fleet.
The F-107 was certainly an interesting aircraft. Sometimes the forward thinking designs never make it to production: for example the Canadian Arrow, the YF-23, and many others. Nice to see these historic videos haven't been lost to history.
ksamos . The fact is that they used analog computers
@@TheCaitlinlopez I gotta call BS on that. They MAY have had calculators to assist their sliderules, But this was way before CAD/CAM. Analog computers just weren't up to this kind of task in that day.
@Dmitri Kozlowsky Very well said. The military industrial.complex, something to be wary of. President Eisenhower warned us of this. We have some awesome aircraft these days. However, are they awesome in every one of their rolls or just a jack of all trades and master of only some of the rolls? Could we do better with single roll aircraft for the same price as multi-roll? Attack and fighter rolls are two very different requirements on airframe shape and structure. Fast fighters are not as effective closer to the ground as a dedicated attack aircraft designed for that roll. Wing designs today are a compromise to be a 'happy medium' of high and low altitude requirements. I am also a supporter of more simple andess expensive aircraft for low-threat environments such as CAS missions like in Afghanistan. Maybe a Super Tucano or similar aircraft would do just fine there. Much lower operational costs, low entry point to acquire assets, saves stress on the way more expensive assets. Drones would do ok in some areas, problem is latency with the signals. Not good if you need to make sudden adjustments. AI will take much of that over in due time, I suppose. I guess it is much cheaper for countries to just agitate your enemy's people into riots like what we see today. This is modern warfare. Turn people against each other.
@Dmitri Kozlowsky It was a fighter-bomber, not an interceptor
I saw one at the us Air Force museum in Dayton Ohio
If you ever get the chance to go there please do it is the ultimate aircraft museum
Love the lineage of this aircraft. FJ-1 Fury started as a jet using P-51 Mustang components. The F-86 Sabre was a redesign of the FJ-1 with swept wings. The F-100 Super Sabre was originally began as andvanced F-86 model with lengthened fuselage, substantial power increase, and increased wing sweep. The F-107 was to be based upon the F-100, but more tailored to attack. Each one of these aircraft had little in common with the plane before it, because the many design changes between first musings and first flight, but the bloodline is there.
sorry to be offtopic but does anybody know a trick to get back into an Instagram account..?
I somehow lost the login password. I would appreciate any help you can offer me
@Rhett Brian Instablaster ;)
@Wells Hayden thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and I'm in the hacking process now.
Looks like it's gonna take a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
@Wells Hayden It worked and I actually got access to my account again. Im so happy:D
Thank you so much you saved my account!
@Rhett Brian you are welcome :D
I seen this plane fly into STL field . This is where my dad worked out of for Rockwell . Saberliner , Mc Donald Douglas and of course North American . 1954 - 1966 .
I never thought of this before, but the Super Duper Sabre would have looked great with side-mounted air intakes.
Looked everywhere for this and the f108, they need to make a legit doc for these amazing planes..
I'm 44 and thought I knew almost everything about aviation. Somehow, I'd completely missed the F-107, so this was a total eye opener. Thank you for posting!
There are so many fantastic concepts/designs out there
I've been getting a bit into some old Israeli concepts, such as the IAI Super Kfir, IAI Nammer, IAI Arye, etc
Best film I've seen on development and testing! Thanks.
North American was on the edge in the lates 50’s, this aircraft ultimately was to unstable, But it demonstrated the side stick wrist control used in the X-15 which was so successful pushing the boundaries of flight in the coming years.
The Side Stick was reborn as the primary control on the F-16s!
For the critics, the -107 was never expected to win the competition with Republic’s mighty Ultra Hog. It was primarily a research vehicle (researching, for instance, an advanced inlet design deliberately placed above the fuselage for specific research purposes) and was never more than a potential backup in case Republic blew the -105 design, which they sorta kinda did initially but eventually turned into an awesome machine.
As a matter of fact, the 105 was indeed an awesome machine. But then again, it was the only US fighter put out of service due to high losses.
Some say it was called the Thud because that was sound it made hitting the ground.
@@stefanhernold345o be fair, that's because it was being used for a role it wasn't intended (as well as the USAF not having enough knowledge on countermeasures for SAMs, as well as not expecting the NVA to have such a solid air-defense network)
2:11 ...this fella’s got quite a set of flight ears...God bless him. Great video on a forgotten plane.
It was a successful design. The plane just worked well and test pilots gave it very favorable assessments. Looked a little funny, but considering the technology of the time, it was ground breaking. Wish we could have seen it go into production.
What a beautiful picture you have there, I wouldn't mind taking a ride in you sometime ;-)
Ha that sounded better, in my head. You get what I mean though. I'm leaving now :-P
Great film! Another thing was the wow and flutter was reasonable on this. Most of the films I see on this subject matter are really bad but still informative. This was bar far the best sound I have heard from one of these films!
WOw- must've been great to not be able to see adversaries above and a little behind. I'm sure the WWII fighter aces' input was much appreciated. /s
I always liked the look of the 107. First saw one at Orange County Airport in the early 60's as a kid. At that time it had no canopy, LG, engine, and most of the instruments had been scavenged.
Good job !! 🍺
There's just no end to the aircraft that I don't know about! And my dad was an experimental test pilot! My earliest memories are of the Mojave when he was at.Edwards.
man that P&W J75 was a monster!
Had already set a speed record in the F-106,1525 and change. Still a record for single engine.
Clearly a direct evolutionary predecessor to the US 4th generation "teen" fighters, especially the YF-16. At the time (1975) I found the YF-16 a revolutionary leap in design. Which was true when comparing it to all other contemporary operational fighter types. So many radical cutting edge novelties. But this documentary about the F-107A shows that in fact it was a natural development in US aerospace industry.
The second aircraft ended up at Orange county (now John Wayne) for fire training. As a kid, I got to crawl from the tail to that intake since the engine was gone . So I never forgot the F-107...
If your kerosene-powered laptop had access to the internet, you'd find the #3 jet was the fire trainer. The other 2 are at Pima County and Dayton. PDSA
Everyone should see this in order to help them understand why defense programs cost so much. This from a retired test engineer.
Well put Dmitri.
As for $600 hammers and toilet seats, it's the contract, not the contractor that specifies the details. Yes there is abuse, but that's because of lax oversight. "No, it's taking advantage of the American taxpayer!" No, like any individual, if the "army" doesn't pay attention they pay for it. The "army" is in control, it's theirs to relinquish.
I've always been so interested in fast jets, particularly the century class fighters, yet for some reason? I can't seem to get so excited about the modern fast jets we have today? :0l
We knew more about these birds when they came out. The new stuff has all kinds of classified stuff inside.
The Century Series birds were my favorite. Loud and fast. Not a big fan of the overpriced, over-complicated plastic fighters of today. My favorite was the F-105. Worked on them for ten years.
@@bearbon2 My first airplane. Just one year. McConnell, 71-72. Weapons.
I think it may be the colours.... pre 1990 .. lots of different camos ... post 1990 just paint it grey all grey. The Russians still have snazzy paint and camo colours
The century series was great because there was such variety in design - those engineers in the 50s were making educated guesses and testing new ideas. There was some focus on beauty (albeit not all of them looked so hot especially this 107!) Look at the design evolution of the X-3 to XF-88 to the F-101 to the F-4. Start with some crazy beautiful designs, refine for practicality, make it practical and rugged and inexpensive. I love these old birds! Real wild west of aviation in the 50s
Great video. Thanks.
What's that suitcase looking thing they slide into the side of the fuselage around the 16 minute mark right before the first flight?
This aircraft can be seen at the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson Az.
There was one in the Air Force Museum annex when I was stationed there in the late 1980s, as well. I haven't been there in 22 years, so I don't know if it's still there or if it was sent to Pima. I don't remember how many were built, but I was always a little bit in awe of the Maneater and the balls it must have taken to fly one.
Interesting aircraft. Just doesn't look right.
Rearward visibility would have been terrible and I'd love to know how the overhead intakes affected airflow in high AOA maneuvers. I've always wondered if it would have suffered from compressor stalls in low speed, high AOA maneuvers.
The F-107 is considered the best aircraft ever rejected by the U.S. Air Force. It had issues but none that weren't correctable with a second prototype.
YF23 Black widow Faster and more maneuverable than the F-22, not to mention much further along in the development stage and an even smaller radar cross section
@@zacht9447 Ah, NO...
We get it that you're a fanboy BUT if you're going to talk about a jet, know some basic things about it.
1) The YF-22 was more maneuverable than the YF-23. It had thrust-vectoring and the wing design was biased towards greater maneuvering power.
The YF-23's ruddervators were a feature NASA had serious qualms about. They did studies with planes with that tail design and they had issues with recovery. The YF-23 may have had reduced drag, yes, but it was also less controllable across the flight envelope than the YF-22. A conventional tail is still better for control.
2) The difference in radar cross section wasn't THAT great between the prototypes and they reduced it in the F-22.
3) The YF-23 would have been more difficult to produce. Compound curves are harder to manufacture than flatter segments.
4) Northrop was involved in a major scandal at the time of the ATF competition. The USAF had serious doubts they'd be able to deliver on the project. The company has NEVER managed a fighter program that big and the most sophisticated program Northrop had running was the B-2 which had its own problems.
5) If that wasn't enough, the YF-22 demonstration program was far more impressive than the YF-23 demo. They fired weapons from the internal weapons bay, demonstrated extreme controllability at high AoA in the YF-22, and greater overall maneuverability. The YF-23 demo was very restrained by comparison and they were much more cautious. In the last two major USAF fighter programs, ATF and JSF, the Lockheed team pulled out the stops and they flew their prototypes far more aggressively. They demonstrated greater confidence in their planes. Their competitors, by comparison, ran almost meek programs and had some serious technical issues with their designs.
@@zacht9447 And both lost out to a Lockheed design. Coincidence? I think not...
@@jwenting well the f107 lost out to a bribed in design so................
Who the hell is Roger that they keep talking to on the radio?
Shirley you are kidding.
@@whtpride71 stop calling me Shirley and no, I am not kidding.
Guessing, it might be: Roger Bertrand (born July 26, 1947).
@@Cyberpuppy63 kenny
Very Nice! Thank you for upload! Congratts from Brazil!!!
Like the high tech hay bales used during one test. Also, so where out there is video of an F4 Phantom under going landing gear test. In the video they spin the wheels up to touchdown speed then drop the aircraft. It really rocks bad and forth.
Thsnks👍
what was the puff of smoke after the speed increase @22:40?
probably
The afterburner kicking in.
I like the part where the weight is taken: “engineers using new electronic system”. Then after test: “about how much does it weigh?”. “ oh about twenty six five”.
50’s engineering at it’s finest!
How long you gonna be...? Was his next question lol
NAA Chief Engineer Harrison Storms is seen at 5:24. His stellar career was later tarnished by his involement with the initial Apollo spacecraft design that resulted in a fatal accident.
"Weight and balance" inspections by jacking with load cells haven't changed much.
Other than telemetry being digital, most of this is still spot on
June 14, 1956 was also the day I was born. A date that will live in infamy!
Hahaha what a legend.
I can't believe they broke Mach 1 on the first flight! No modern flight testers would dare to do that, and no general in charge of the base would sign off on it.
"Beautiful Bird - Use to see the F-107 shell at Tallman Museum (Orange County Airport) when I was a kid, now it rest at Pima Museum in Arizona"
Beautiful? Are we looking at the same piece of junk?
YUP !!!
@@TJ-USMC - I guess the saying -"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" applies here. But then, you jar heads have a slight vision problem. (I'm just an old soldier picking on you TJ. No disrespect intended but, I love inter-service rivalries)
@@flick22601 "Semper-Fi Army Dog LOL :)"
Outstanding video. Very beautiful aircraft and very fast. It is my favorite.
Awesome! Thanks for posting. :)
05:35 - just look at that collar! He must be the test pilot, and it allows him to safely glide home if anything goes wrong.
Saw this very Bird at the Pima County Air Musem.
Pilot having to eject in front of the intake...hmmm...and yes, I know about ejection seats, I worked on the F4-D during the Vietnam War.
Nobody likes a smartass :-P
It seems ejection was second thought after guessing the best they could how to make it go over Mach 2
Love to see some photos... could you upload yours somewhere.. I hope one day families will upload there family members pictures, most the pictures we have out there are by military propaganda arms.. I just like to see real pictures
@@vasili1207 pictures from serving soldiers is always great to look at
You said it so much better.... since he Was a technician, I wasn't sure how to phrase it. Personal pictures by serving men are my favourite, I think it may be due to photos a family member took at Nagasaki after the bomb dropped, he was captured in Berma survived the pow camps.. was brought to Japan spent a few months there recovering (that must have been strange in the enemy's homeland) then the Americans shipped him home to the Uk. I hope to upload them oneday, just trying to get a photo album out of my mothers house is near impossible.
NAA test pilot Joel Robert "Bob" Baker died in 2011 at age 91. He was a graduate of RPI and taught there during WW2. He was disqualified from military aviation due to defective color vision.
MrShobar : that is extremely common with the failure of the Ishihara dot test...and most can get a waiver by takin*g the light gun test.
@@hertzair1186 Correct. That's what I did years ago.
I saw this airplane at the Pima Museum. It’s not pleasing to the eye.
Nearly all airplanes that fly well look “right”. This one doesn’t. Just my opinion.
On the matter of aerospace development costs. Catherine Austin Fitts was Assistant Secretary of HUD under GHW Bush.
She discovered billions of fraudulent missing money. Multiple home mortgages on the same empty lots all over the US. How does this relate to this topic?
Lockheed-Martin was the biggest “customer” of HUD. By far. What does Lockheed Martin have to do with Housing and Urban development?
Where did the money go? What was it used for? She didn’t last long at HUD because many people did not like her asking those questions.
Catherine Austin Fitts has been in the news this past December as she assisted Dr Mark Skidmore from Michigan State U in publishing a paper documenting $21 TRILLION missing just from DOD and HUD from 1998-2015!
usawatchdog.com/21-trillion-missing-u-s-government-a-criminal-enterprise-catherine-austin-fitts/
That’s a lot of money folks. ~$84,000 for every adult in America.
As an engineer, I agree that this is a great video to show the amount of R&D, designing and testing anything. Especially if it leaves the surface of Earth.
For $21 TRILLION, the USA better have some incredible fantastic technologies that the public doesn’t know about.
If we don’t, then like Lucy, somebodies got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.
If you’re a geek like me, and you aren’t already irritated at my comment, a stack of 1 TRILLION dollar bills would ~ 67,866 miles high.
In other words it is a high dollar butt ugly hooker.
Michael Meyer
It's not $21 trillion in money that is missing. It's $21 trillion in money whose final destination and original origin is confusing and unaccounted for. If one dollar is "spent" in one area to prevent the budget decreasing next year after a program comes in under budget, but it isn't really spent, then it is very likely to be spent somewhere else on something useful to get the taxpayer's money's worth in a very sketchy fashion, and prevent future budget crises due to unexpected efficiency or savings when somebody sees an agency doesn't use its entire budget and calls for cuts.
That one dollar will become $2 in unaccounted for spending. This is why the figure is so high; it isn't ACTUALLY $21 TRILLION that just up and vanished. In fact, not even $21 trillion was sent the DoD's way during the entire period in question. But yeah, it failed the audit, and maybe within a decade we can become more accountable and less sketchily get our money's worth in the budget.
It did fly great though.
@Dan Iacobescu What difference does hypersonic make?
All that testing, but the gear heated up during taxiing and tires and rims blew off and caught fire. It even heated up when they stopped taxiing and towed it to the runway. It ended up with burns from a main landing gear fire that damaged the wing structure so bad they retired the aircraft
Do you honestly believe any great plane that flew before the age of supercomputers DIDN'T have design flaws?
Are you aware of the fact that most of the great fighters of World War II went through a half-dozen model revisions (NOT including hundreds and sometimes thousands of small engineering and manufacturing changes) before they produced the "definitive" versions of these planes?
That's why they build prototypes of planes, to debug the designs and figure out what has to be improved or changed before they go into wide production. Of course, during wartime, when they're really up against it, they rush planes into service because they're desperately and sometimes that buggy design is the ONLY THING available. They also keep technically obsolete designs in service to shore up numbers because you DON'T want to have a hollow air force while waiting for the next, perfected design. Most of us have never lived through anything like World War II so we feel entitled to be arrogant and snooty about the testing and design process. It's always easy to look down on the past when you're ignorant and oblivious to reality. I see this ALL THE TIME in these postbacks for different aviation videos.
Better performance does NOT equal better manufacturing design. They could produce AT LEAST 3 Hellcats for every 2 Corsairs produced during WWII because Grumman was more efficient at designing planes than Vought was and engineered their plane to take less parts to build!
Lockheed had to virtually reinvent everything people take for granted with aircraft with the Blackbird series of jets. That extra Mach-and-a-half of speed rewrote the rules on what COULD be used with that plane because of both the speed and altitude it operated at. They haven't managed to beat it unless something really extraordinary has been built at Area 51.
There are issues with many, many civilian transport jets they don't advertise all the time until there are accidents and half the time serious mechanical incidents happen NOT BECAUSE of poor design but because of bad maintenance practices of the airlines.
Its strange that these copies were not marked as YFs, especially being the 1st 'A' flight. --- Geez, back then, the AF was cranking out new models over many closely released ones that were not formally certified for production from four major MFG companies. Yes, I know this platform's purpose was for deeper penetration missions than the 106's (high altitude interceptor), similar to the 105's deep nuclear pod delivery. Three copies were produced, at 30+ mil a pop (1956 dollars), saw this one at the AF museum, WPAFB. It was originally to be designated F-100B. I agree, the ugliest of the century series AF fighter craft.
The older style afterburners were like a long continuous explosion of noise. Not like modern, polite, multi-stage ones.
Was it the unconventional apearance that put the USAF off?.It's performance was phenomenal.The method of using slats for lateral control wasn't new,the P-61 used a similar system.
"How much does it weigh?"
"Twenty-six five."
About double the weight of an empty WW2 era P38 twin engine fighter plane.
Plus, it's got almost triple the speed, four times the heavy duty (20mm) firepower, and a thirsty turbine inside gulping down fuel at twice the rate of the twin engine high performance prop fighter.
Personally? As a graphic artist I think it's about the coolest plane ever. I can see a couple problems immediately, though: 1) zero rearward vision. 2) Engine intake right behind the ejecting pilot. I feel the F-100 was a mixed bag, too. I wonder what the competition come down to, ultimately.
Would have been a damn fine looking aircraft if they had put the intakes on either side of the fuselage.
Or underneath.
Or that ! Would have made it look a bit like a Eurofighter !
@@WildBillCox13Did you miss the earlier comment that the USAF specified an internal bomb bay? The intake went on top because there’s no room underneath.
“F-107...the best aircraft the Air Force never bought”- Air Force general, whose name escapes me. It lost out to the F-105 Thunderchief.
Hello. I had a model of this aircraft when I was a kid. The 1950s had some bizarre experiments. Considering the Russian fighters today have engine air intakes on top for takeoff/landings to prevent debris from being sucked into the engines, perhaps the xf-107 intake on top of the fuselage was "visionary"?
This was the first variable inlet design - used in many subsequent high speed aircraft. Originally it was supposed to be in a chin position like on the F-8 Crusader, but Air Force officials were concerned that location would affect the semi-submerged nuclear store in the belly, on release. The instrument package lifted into the belly would have been the nuclear store.
@@danzervos7606 They NEVER used the bomb bay in the F-105 in practice. They put another fuel tank there.
In fact, half the tactical aircraft that EVER flew with compartments like this ended up using their "bomb bays" to carry extra fuel because of weapons separation issues.
The A-5 Vigilante is another plane of the same era (from the same manufacturer as the F-107, in fact) that had a bomb bay used for an extra fuel tank. It didn't even last long as an attack plane and spent most of its 18 years in service as a reconnaisance aircraft!
According to what I read, That first flight did not end well. Notice in the film, that upon touch down, the drag chute did not deploy. He came in hot and broke the nose wheel strut. I hope the film maker that day learned something........bring more film.
Or, he very well knew the lesson to leave the failures out of the rah rah promo film
That's one fugly airplane. It could easily be nicknamed 'toad.'
No doubt George was sweating that canopy test. He hadn't signed his SGLI since the last test he had broke his fingers because he was so nervous about losing his head over the next test.
I was in Turkey for 2 years, 1957-58, I was an A2C. I am not a pilot but to me, this jet appears odd to me.
I Don't Like the Over the Head Intake.
This would likely be 1954-1956. Dates on videos are appreciated.
That airplane was soooo cool
Interesting aircraft designed, I believe, as an interceptor. It would have made a terrible dogfighter, as the visibility would have been compromised by the big air intake. I thought I read somewhere that it could reach mach 3.
Um no, it was a fighter-bomber not an interceptor.
You're probably thinking of the XF-103 which was never built
IIRC, the Air Force selected the F-105, by Republic.
I'm so glad the government didn't by this plane. but i'm sad that they closed our unit. 87th F.I.S. (RED BULLS) Six's
Cute like a meerkat
What was the North American thinking? With the intake right above the cockpit, it was doomed from the beginning
There were planning to move the air intakes on the second prototype
Mounting the air intake on top of the fuselage makes it less likely to ingest foreign objects and debris from the ground; a very
important feature for jet powered combat aircraft.
F-106's hunchback brother....
Looks like it need 10 miles to take off
What were they thinking when they designed this aircraft.
They were trying to stretch the F100 design, it wasn't a bad effort but Republic came up with the F 105 a clean sheet of paper design that was markedly better for the fighter bomber role .
The Air Force was looking for nuclear strike aircraft, and these were an evolution of the F-100. The intake position above the cockpit severely limited visability, which was one of the factors that led this to lose to the F-105.
They were pushing boundaries and trying to innovate. You have to remember that the concept was only conceived 6 or so years after WWII, where subsonic piston engines were the norm.
Looks like 'George the Dummy' is holding a cigarette - hilarious.
Yes, the Ultra Sabre was an ugly solution to whatever was the question of that time. It does not look right at all, probably unstable in a turn too with all that side area high upfront.
That's funny because virtually all the historians and documentarians say the F-107 was one of the better planes the Air Force didn't buy.
The F-105 had plenty of issues, too, and had a VERY mixed service record. It was the end of Republic as a tactical aircraft manufacturer. They did NOT make a good transition into jets and their best fighter by far was the P-47, not the F-84 (in any version) or the F-105. HALF the production run of F-105s were lost in Vietnam because of serious design flaws in the plane and bad training. It wasn't a particularly good tactical bomber contrary to the reputation people today believe it has.
At the time of the development of the Century series Fighter aircraft it appears the USAF was interested in plane that were stable in a straight line at high speed. The doctrine was Dog fighting aircraft were things of the past. Maneuverable was not needed they said.
Jim Waldeck,
I remember this one when I was in the 5th grade and compared to the F-104 and F105 & F106, this turkey was all wrong!
The F-104 that many people rave about was asked to do so many things including launching a nuclear weapon (which by the way couldn't fit inside the aircraft) that it ended up with the nickname of the widow maker. The F-105 although it was a mach2 aircraft (and how many bombing runs have ever been conducted at mach2) could not turn this side of Christmas, and so was useless at dogfighting although they fitted it with a gun. My point is that some may call these "good looking" aircraft turkeys too. Just a thought.
Needless to say, pilot visibility to their 6:00 was sub-optimal...
@Etienne I was gonna say -- and it's like the F-105 was designed to be a dogfighter, too?
NO, neither plane was an air superiority aircraft. They were fighter-BOMBERS with emphasis on the attack mission.
They really should have been called A-25 or whatever the numeral for "attack plane" was up to that at time. Likewise, the F-111 was not fighter, either. It was a medium bomber.
The F-105 had horrible maneuvering power, poor visibility, AND poor survivability against flak. They never thought the planes of that time would survive if they got hit so they designed them to have the main and emergency hydraulic lines run SIDE BY SIDE in the airframe! That ensured the planes WOULD get lost if both control lines were hit!
They lost a lot of F-4s and F-105s because of that dumb decision in the design and manufacturing. When the F-14 and F-15 were designed, they made sure to locate the hydraulic as far apart as possible to increase the survivability of those planes to hits.
We used high speed motion picture cameras at The Boeing Co. on various tests. If the test didn't function properly, then zzziiiiiipppp! and another several hundred feet of motion picture film was wasted.
God. Ya gotta wonder...”what the hell were they thinking?”
It's widely regarded as, 1 of the best planes to not get a contract. It was meant to, supersede the f-100, but they went for the f-105 instead.
If you were going to be a bomber, then having the intake above the fuselage would allow for more room under the fuselage I suppose for carrying more bombs or one large thermonuclear bomb.
Looks like they tested everything except a hi-speed taxi and braking before flight.
ALCS...so basically 'Fly By Wire'? I thought Airbus invented this in the 80's? Makes you wonder if those rumours of military aviation being 40yrs in advance of commercial are true?
ALCS was not fly by wire. And Airbus didn’t invent that technology. No one has claimed either though, so you should really examine your preconceived notions for more misunderstandings...
The F16 was designed in the early 70's with fly by wire before Airbus was even around. Airbus has never invented anything. Their just a European sponsored company that would have went out of business long ago without state money.
I'm glad I won't be around when we go to pilotless fighters...
Obviously - they had to test every variation in design. Even the ugly duckling!
Looks like carrying timber home on the roof of the Mustang 😉
And they say the A-10 is ugly.
F-100 2.0, same big wing as the Hun. Mach 2 lost out to F-105 which was embarrassed by subsonic MiG-17 at Dragon Jaw bridge when F-100 claimed a probable with big wings. Note conformal belly tank/store compared to clean F-105 bomb bay or non-conformal belly tank. Funny over-cockpit intake also used on ill-fated Boeing F-111 losing design.
How did the F105 lose out to the Mig 17? Boeing didn't build the F111, General Dynamics did and it went into production and served very well.the intakes are on the side of a F111,not on top. The F105 was a nuclear capable bomber, the mig 17 couldn't catch it if the Thud driver turned off his engine.
@@g24thinf Rules of engagement. 105 could not attack till Mig was inside air to air missile range. Mig was smaller and turned faster and if they had an altitude advantage they also could be faster in dive. Boeing did win the comp for F-111 but each time (3X) it got rebid. Had something to do with LBJ and General Dynamics both being from Texas. McNamara wanted the Boeing plane but Secretary of the Air Force was LBJ's boy.
F 105 was much more a fast bomber than a fighter.
They made a film about an intriguing aircraft...
...and made it boring as shit! Jesus this was a waste of 25 minutes.
Rodger, I will go up in speed.
"If it looks right, it is right" This plane is just wrong.
War thunder premium in the future
Just to look at it, I was surprised they had such high hopes for it. Certainly looked ungainly. The Air intake position ruins it for me LOL.
Mark O'Cain you have no idea! This plan was a monster! It flew out of several airbases and won in dog fights against all comers! It was a political loss more than a performance loss not unlike the f20 tiger shark!
Didn’t crossfield put one of these through a hanger door? 😂😂
Test pilot era...
MR yeager said
It was an amazing time
Fundamentally flawed, if the pilot did not get sliced by the air intake, he might get sucked into it on ejection.....still pilots would only eject as a last resort saving $$$. They even had difficulty getting into the cockpit on the ground!
This is a great film. And as nifty as it may be for advanced 1950s tech, this is a very ugly airplane. But, so is an A-10. What do I know. Sleeping in the mud, that's what.
What the hell were they smoking at NAA when they came up with that POS? I can't even imagine a successful bail-out from that flying coffin. And the compressor/wind noise coming from that massive air inlet duct just above and aft of the canopy must have been excruciating to the pilot. Thank gawd that thing never went into production as many pilots would have died trying to egress that damn thing in flight.
It was a design that fortunately died a quick technological death. I note that no one has attempted to repeat, or even refine this questionable design feature in subsequent aircraft.
...actually the Air Force Brass called this the “best aircraft we never bought”
It was a modified F 100 that was changed to F 107. The Air Force picked the F 105 over the F 107. I am sure you know how much the pilots loved that air craft. What did the call it “The Thud” for its frequent crashes?
The Mach 2 F-105 was in fact a good airplane but suffered from unfathomably stupid aerial war strategy courtesy of idiotic clueless morons LBJ and Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War. LBJ's traitorous Rolling Thunder campaign was the reason so many Thuds and F-4 Phantoms were lost (along with their aircrews). As you know, many of the aircrews that did survive were imprisoned and tortured at the Hanoi Hilton. Google Rolling Thunder and it will make your blood boil.
Regarding the abortion that was the F-107, I'm actually shocked it came from the vaunted NAA. I'm guessing the same brain-cell vaporizing cancer that afflicted NAA's F-107 engineers and designers ended up at Lockheed-Martin resulting in the the F-22 and F-35 pork barrel fiascos.
Belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Jimbo in Thailand, Not that I disagree with you, but with the B-58 being held out of Vietnam service it could not be justified to not use the "F"-105. I use "F" because it was an "A" model. It took something as ungainly as the A-10 to get that designation. "Fighter" in this day of stealth and range means nothing compared to the _attack_ mission: real nerve, courage. The F-35 should be A-35 IMO, boondoggle or not. Good Post JiT.
YEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
USAF does not like ugly looking airplanes.
encinobalboa >> Indeed they don’t!
I want this plane for xmas Santa.
John Thomas Not me! I asked that fat-assed child molester for a Lockheed YF-12A!😆
Too Bad nobody though about hearing protection, mickey mouse ears (sound atenuators )
Supposedly one of the problems with this aircraft was that the dorsal inlet sucked off the canopy.
It actually did great. It was an awesome airplane. But it was competing against the F-105 Thunderchief, which proved just a little more capable and was selected instead.
A lot of planes with potential didn't make it because of issues with their engine(s) made by other companies, like the defunct McDonnell F3H-1 Demon and Westinghouse's J40. Others were made to be entered in competitions and lost, never making it into production.....The XF-23 is a good example of the latter: ruclips.net/video/PYLiMYGBE2Q/видео.html
Doggeslife I continue to believe that current U.S. military aircraft performance is compromised far too much by the Air Force's fetish for the arguable benefits of Stealth design features.
The 50's was an amazing era for aircraft development, perhaps comparable to the 30's. As far as stealth, it has worked amazingly well. Literally thousands of bombing missions have been flown by stealth aircraft and only one has been lost and then it was largely due to improper tactics.
Did it injoy it .
The 107 was TOO ugly for production !That's why NO aircraft since has had an air intake above the cockpit !
I was born in the wrong generation