As a kid living in Ardmore, OK I remember going out to the Air Force Base north of town. There were several F-89’s stationed there. Really got a kick being able to walk around them when the base had a public event.
Worked with a Colonel, that as a Captain, attacked and blew apart a small iceberg in his F-89. Only afterward, he he realize that he now had to fly through the debris. Luckily, no flame outs.
My dad when he was an apprentice at the Illinois Institute of Technology studying to be a Tool and Die maker worked on reverse engineering some of the captured German auto cannons which ended up as the M39 auto cannons used on the F100 and F5 Freedom fighters. He also worked on the boosted rocket gun system proposed for the F-89 2 were to be mounted low in the nose with the ammo feed feeding from opposite wings with empty tubes going into opposite wing storage to keep weight balanced. During test firings in the Indiana Dunes it shot groups at 100 meters under 1 mil. The Mighty Mouse rockets won the contract. The Boosted rockets were 57mm based on the towed 57mm antitank guns used in WW II. I saw several examples of the launch tubes and projectiles while in training in the early seventies. Aluminum launch tube with internal rifling small boost charge of powder in the rear. The tubes were locked into the rotating cage to align with barrel to fire. The boosted rockets had splines to align with the rifling. Sometime in the 1980's the idea was looked at again in a much simpler form in 40mm by DARPA and deemed not cost effective.
The F111 could match or exceed the speed of any Soviet Bomber and carried one of the best radars. It could also carry a enormous weight of weapons and some versions were equipped with special radar for air defense and interception.
As a former F-111 WSO in the early 80s, I can confirm the F-111s speed (especially at low level, where it was surpassed only by the MiG 23 Flogger, and only barely). But apart from the F-111F being fitted with AIM9 missiles (at least briefly) in the mid 1980s (but only for self defence), to my knowledge, the F-111 was never used for air defence and interception.
@@matthewnewnham-runner-writer It was meant by Defence Secretary McNamara to be a jack-of-all-trades for both the Air Force and Navy, initially called the TFX, rather like the much later JSF (the F-35). However, it ended up as a low-level bomber and electronic warfare platform for the Air Force, and later as a much-loved bomber in the Australian Air Force.
Yes,@@eb-pe8xg 48th TFW (as it was known in those days, and also, the 48th "Statue of Liberty" TFW, as it is home to one of only 3 or 4 Statues of Liberty)
Back in the late 1950s, our local television channel would start their midnight signoff with a video of an F-89 firing off multiple rockets from its wing pods while the National Anthem played in the background... then switch to that Fifties era television test pattern before the screen went blank.
All the guys who stood under that nuke lived to old age. Their dosage was minimal. The biggest danger was eye damage if they looked at it when it went off, which they were warned not to do. The scientists were not stupid.
My dad flew those in the late '50s out of Iceland. I actually have some 8 mm movie recordings he made from those days. He later flew the f-106 from about 1959-63.
Cool! So did you grow up in Iceland? You would definitely win the “My dad is cooler than your dad!” battle on the playground! But maybe not at your school if everyone’s dad was an aviator…😂
@@brucefelger4015 Who would have thought that area of effect weapons designed to saturate a bomber formation would have a hard time shooting down a tiny WW2 fighter? I'm shocked they even scrambled for that... didn't the USAF have a Sabre or Thunderjet in the area?!?
It's first and only true interceptor mission and it failed miserably....208 FFAR's fired and all they did was start some fires, blow up a truck and damage homes, the F6F Hellcat ran out of fuel and crashed. I was visiting my uncle who worked at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale and watched the incident unfold
@@control_the_pet_population Oxnard Air Force Base was the ADC base for Southern California, they had Scorpions armed and on alert status around the clock, it was the closest AF base to NAS Point Mugu. No Sabers or Thunderjets where stationed there at the time. Norton AFB (San Bernardino) was a logistics depot and Heavy Lift base, George AFB (Victorville) was a training base, and March AFB (Riverside) was a SAC base....that left Oxnard AFB
Back in the late fifties, my father-in-law flew these out of base in Alaska. He was the RO/WO and sat behind the pilot. He recalls practicing with dummy Genie missiles, releasing them then performing a high G maneuver to get out of the blast zone. He only saw the real Genie missile in a secured hanger, he's was glad we didn't have to use it.
...I know this aircraft from a Revell model kit I built ca 1957 or 58. I really wanted a Renwal HAWK missile battery kit, but which was gone when I walked into that stationery store in Fort Lee, NJ...it was the typbix art of the era that caught my eye...
Imo the F-111 would have made a very good interceptor for Soviet bombers entering USA airspace. 1) two crewman one to operate a very large radar 2) lots of bombay space to carry long range missiles 3)variable wings for extended loiter time and interception 4) look down shoot down omg range radar system
@@briancooper2112 Spoken by someone who has obviously never laid hands on a F-111. While not a dogfighter in the true sense of the genre, the F-111 was an extremely capable and fast aircraft with a very long range and/or loiter time.
@williamhudson4938 as long as the tf30 engines performed. Also F111 in the beginning the F111 had a horrible safety record that was corrected. Did you work or fly the F111?
@williamhudson4938 since I have a vision impairment for 40 that led to blindness I would of loved to be a pilot. I was born at k.i. Sawyer and remember fb111 there. Then SAC got rid of the fb111. F111 was a great bomber. How could a F111 shotdown a flight of BEARS with its limited payload ie sidewinders? No sparrows?
My dad worked at Northrop in 1956-57 and on Sunday drives, would take us past the Northrop facility in Hawthorn. I’ve seen these on the flight line. Jack Northrop idea of the flying wing finally was developed.
Cool! I worked for Northrop’s Electro-Mechanical Division in Anaheim from early 85 to end of 89. Also worked at their Defense Systems Division in Rolling Meadows Illinois in the late 60’s. It was still called Hallicrafters Electronics at that time, but it had mostly classified or secret labs and design rooms with coded locks on doors. One particular large work area was called the “Northrop Room”. I recall having to go through a security clearance process that took about 30 days before I could enter their space. Didn’t truly understand the connection, I was barely 19, until I was working in Anaheim and learned about how Hallicrafters became Northrop’s Defense Sys. Div😊. Any way, the F-89 was my favorite plane during the last half of the 50’s. Still love it today.
I like the sound, it works good for high background noise situations and I don't have to look at the imagery to follow. You get the like and subscribe.
A very interesting and informative video but what is with the lady in the white overcoat and black handbag wandering alone around the jet on the tarmac? It presents a rather incongruous scene at a military airbase.
I don't find any record that this airplane was originally designed with side-by-side seating (which is not sleek) for the crew as the video claims. Then it gives no explanation as to why this was changed to tandem seating. All I can find is a wiki implication that the radar operator was a originally even further from the pilot, and a change was requested: "The inspectors believed that the radar operator needed to be moved forward, closer to the pilot, with both crewmen under a single canopy,"
I'd love to see a comparison of this aircraft and the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck. They were very, very similar in size, performance, configuration, armament and intended mission. In particular, I'd love to know wht the U.S. would not deploy the F-89 to NATO bases, leaving NATO entirely dependant on the CF-100 as it's only all-weather interceptor for nearly a decade.
Of the straight wing jets, this is my favorite. I've only seen them a few times way back when but right off I liked it very much. Also had a great sound. From any angle, it looks cool and potent. Thanks for posting an important piece of history.
The Veteran' Memorial at the Jefferson County Fair grounds in Smithfield Ohio has an F-89 on display. I have always wondered where the guns were and the wing tips are made as fuel tanks so there was no rocket pods. It never dawned on me that it was a nuclear capable plane. Very interesting video! I have a photo of it but I can't find q way to post it here.
4:30 The F-89 did Not have a "side-by-side seating arrangement" like the future F-111 did. It had the pilot up front, and the radar operator directly behind him.
The reason was the 847 produced Tupolov-4s, built by the Soviet Union, a copy of the B-29s, 4 of which were diverted to the Soviet Union during the bombing of Japan.
The McDonnell F-88 Voodoo and the Lockheed F-90 were built to a different requirement, that of a single pilot penetrating escort fighter. That requirement was later cancelled.
@@DonMeaker - The Voodoo was the F-101. My very first model airplane kit was the Voodoo. 1/72 scale. It cost 29 cents or so. This was circa 1961. My father was a Navy Senior Chief, ATCS. He was disappointed I didn't pick out a navy aircraft like the F4H Phantom II.
@@scootergeorge7089 Technically there were two Voodoos. The first was the XF-88, which didn't enter production. The same basic design was reworked and enlarged to accept larger engines and more fuel, this would become the F-101 that entered service.
@@DonMeaker The F-90 is one of the most beautiful jets ever built. Too bad it was fatally underpowered, and no full examples exist today, other than the hulk of one used as a nuke test target.
The Montana ANG had them and called them the Lead Sled. The recurring pilot error was too light of a landing where the tires would skid and rip apart if you didn't slam the plane down hard to get the wheels to spin as the plane was so heavy the breaks were made very stiff.
An F-89C on an active air intercept disappeared over Lake Superior in 1953. A diving group claimed to have located it on the bottom in 2005 but the story quickly vanished.
Another comment was the amount of radiation from a Genie was around using a microwave oven. Maybe, but what about any of those damaged or destroyed Soviet bombers spewing radiation from the effect of using a Genie.
Nothing, probably. It was only 1.7 kiloton, 1/10 that of Nagasaki. Air bursts create a brief pulse of radiation that attenuates rapidly with distance (inverse square law.) There is no fallout, especially none that high up. The fission daughter nuclei products get diluted and are mostly decayed to non-radioactive lead before they eventually reach the ground.
I saw an interview with one of them a few years ago here on RUclips, he said that he had no effects from it and the others he was in contact with didn't either. Evidently it was kind of a publicity stunt. That's the same warhead as was used on the "Davy Crockett" recoiless rifle system in Europe during the Cold War.
@@1armijo there wasn't any legit risk... it was a tiny warhead exploding miles overhead. You'd be exposed to more radiation standing in front of your microwave waiting for your Pizza Rolls to finish.
A B52 could pull away from it. The designers didn't trust swept wings, which were still too poorly understood, so even with more powerful engines it hit a speed wall. Not a bad design, but not "powerful" or effective.
@@gort8203 Yeah, I kind of got that. Once they worked the kinks out the Scorpion was a reliable flier, but aeronautic progress was so fast in that era it was obsolete before the prototype first flew.
@@charleshotchkiss1813 You are right about the rapid obsolescence in that era, which is what makes it so interesting. But we also have to remember that the bomber the F-89 would have faced in 1950 was the TU-4. The faster TU-95 did not even enter service until like 1956. The F-89 could still catch that one, and the F-102 was entering service.
The Scorpion was neither blisteringly fast or well regarded during its service life. It was prone to accidents with many being lost in non combat situations. It was never the backbone of the US nuclear deterrent and never carried nuclear weapons other than dummy bombs as it was considered not stable enough to reliably carry live weapons.
I think you might be confused. The Scorpion was an interceptor designed to shoot down bombers. It was not a bomber, was never part of the "nuclear deterrent" and never carried bombs. Interceptors would not be carrying live nuclear weapons on routine training missions over friendly territory (which is the only place they ever operated.) In a crisis, the Genies would be loaded from their secure bunkers onto the planes ready to go if an attack was detected.
@@robertcombs55 It had perfectly acceptable performance compared to other straight wing designs of the late 40s. Also, you need to use the right tool for the right job. It was a bomber interceptor designed to attack mass formations of large aircraft.... it wasn't likely to encounter a Hellcat over the Canadian Yukon
@@control_the_pet_population Well, it's true the "Mickey Mouse" rockets (as the RCAF called them -- CF-100s were armed with them as well) gave disappointing performance. The fins didn't snap open to guide the rockets until after they had cleared their container, so they were prone to wobble in that crucial first fraction of a second, and then the fins would keep them going whichever way they had started. They were intended for a head-on attack at high closing speeds, then break away to try to avoid getting shot by the bomber's tail guns if you missed. A bomber head-on is probably even harder to hit than a drone F6F attacked from the beam, as I recall they did at Palmdale. They had trouble computing the lead, which you don't have to do in head-on attack, just cope with the rapidly changing range for ballistic drop. IIRC, an F-89 did shoot down a plane towing a target once, when the radar locked onto the plane instead of the target and fired 104 rockets at it. At least one hit. Planes like the F-89 and CF-100 were very much stop-gap efforts to cope with the flabbergasted realization that the Soviets had intercontinental bombers. Even the early guided missiles like Falcon were not very good.
The synthesized speech is annoying with its unnatural cadence and stress. " . . . grounding of all F-89 ee-ess" for "F-89E's" and the needless reporting of engine thrust as "pounds force" which we don't say in natural speech. /End grumpiness.
As a kid living in Ardmore, OK I remember going out to the Air Force Base north of town. There were several F-89’s stationed there. Really got a kick being able to walk around them when the base had a public event.
Worked with a Colonel, that as a Captain, attacked and blew apart a small iceberg in his F-89. Only afterward, he he realize that he now had to fly through the debris. Luckily, no flame outs.
My dad when he was an apprentice at the Illinois Institute of Technology studying to be a Tool and Die maker worked on reverse engineering some of the captured German auto cannons which ended up as the M39 auto cannons used on the F100 and F5 Freedom fighters.
He also worked on the boosted rocket gun system proposed for the F-89 2 were to be mounted low in the nose with the ammo feed feeding from opposite wings with empty tubes going into opposite wing storage to keep weight balanced. During test firings in the Indiana Dunes it shot groups at 100 meters under 1 mil. The Mighty Mouse rockets won the contract.
The Boosted rockets were 57mm based on the towed 57mm antitank guns used in WW II. I saw several examples of the launch tubes and projectiles while in training in the early seventies. Aluminum launch tube with internal rifling small boost charge of powder in the rear. The tubes were locked into the rotating cage to align with barrel to fire. The boosted rockets had splines to align with the rifling. Sometime in the 1980's the idea was looked at again in a much simpler form in 40mm by DARPA and deemed not cost effective.
Together the USAF F-89 and RCAF CF-100 kept North America safe during a pivotable time.
The F111 could match or exceed the speed of any Soviet Bomber and carried one of the best radars. It could also carry a enormous weight of weapons and some versions were equipped with special radar for air defense and interception.
As a former F-111 WSO in the early 80s, I can confirm the F-111s speed (especially at low level, where it was surpassed only by the MiG 23 Flogger, and only barely). But apart from the F-111F being fitted with AIM9 missiles (at least briefly) in the mid 1980s (but only for self defence), to my knowledge, the F-111 was never used for air defence and interception.
@@matthewnewnham-runner-writer It was meant by Defence Secretary McNamara to be a jack-of-all-trades for both the Air Force and Navy, initially called the TFX, rather like the much later JSF (the F-35). However, it ended up as a low-level bomber and electronic warfare platform for the Air Force, and later as a much-loved bomber in the Australian Air Force.
I know that story well,@@awuma - since I flew the F-111 in the early 80s.
@@matthewnewnham-runner-writer 48th FW?
Yes,@@eb-pe8xg 48th TFW (as it was known in those days, and also, the 48th "Statue of Liberty" TFW, as it is home to one of only 3 or 4 Statues of Liberty)
Back in the late 1950s, our local television channel would start their midnight signoff with a video of an F-89 firing off multiple rockets from its wing pods while the National Anthem played in the background... then switch to that Fifties era television test pattern before the screen went blank.
Back in those early days of cold war, we didn't know, what we didn't know about nukes. Fun times.
All the guys who stood under that nuke lived to old age. Their dosage was minimal. The biggest danger was eye damage if they looked at it when it went off, which they were warned not to do. The scientists were not stupid.
My dad flew those in the late '50s out of Iceland. I actually have some 8 mm movie recordings he made from those days. He later flew the f-106 from about 1959-63.
Cool! So did you grow up in Iceland? You would definitely win the “My dad is cooler than your dad!” battle on the playground! But maybe not at your school if everyone’s dad was an aviator…😂
You should try to get the 8mm film to digital so it can be preserved.
@@ghandimauler I have it on VHS....I bought an adapter to convert VHS to digital. I have a lot of his old videos to convert.
4:34 Side by side seating arrangement? I don't think so. Clearly a tandem.
The Battle of Palmdale comes to mind.
@@brucefelger4015 Who would have thought that area of effect weapons designed to saturate a bomber formation would have a hard time shooting down a tiny WW2 fighter?
I'm shocked they even scrambled for that... didn't the USAF have a Sabre or Thunderjet in the area?!?
It's first and only true interceptor mission and it failed miserably....208 FFAR's fired and all they did was start some fires, blow up a truck and damage homes, the F6F Hellcat ran out of fuel and crashed. I was visiting my uncle who worked at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale and watched the incident unfold
@@control_the_pet_population Oxnard Air Force Base was the ADC base for Southern California, they had Scorpions armed and on alert status around the clock, it was the closest AF base to NAS Point Mugu. No Sabers or Thunderjets where stationed there at the time. Norton AFB (San Bernardino) was a logistics depot and Heavy Lift base, George AFB (Victorville) was a training base, and March AFB (Riverside) was a SAC base....that left Oxnard AFB
Back in the late fifties, my father-in-law flew these out of base in Alaska. He was the RO/WO and sat behind the pilot. He recalls practicing with dummy Genie missiles, releasing them then performing a high G maneuver to get out of the blast zone. He only saw the real Genie missile in a secured hanger, he's was glad we didn't have to use it.
My uncle was the same - back seat RO
@@justadreamin1004 Was he stationed in Alaska? I wonder if they knew each other, he was Lt. Luther Bush.
@@lancetastet6718 He has since passed maybe 10 years ago. Never heard him mention Alaska.
Great Presentation. I designed my own radio controlled F89 Scorpion.
My favorite jet of that era.
Well Done Sir.
...I know this aircraft from a Revell model kit I built ca 1957 or 58.
I really wanted a Renwal HAWK missile battery kit, but which was gone when I walked into that stationery store in Fort Lee, NJ...it was the typbix art of the era that caught my eye...
Music playing during narration. Grrrrrr!
Agreed!
Agreed
"a side-by-side seating arrangement"?
I know, I caught that too. It's called Tandem seating.
No, it's called bad writing and editing.
I heard that Too WTF ?
Ahh, so this plane flies sideways then?
@@MartinLovasz-r7r Almost any plane can fly sideways if you're brave enough.
Imo the F-111 would have made a very good interceptor for Soviet bombers entering USA airspace. 1) two crewman one to operate a very large radar 2) lots of bombay space to carry long range missiles 3)variable wings for extended loiter time and interception 4) look down shoot down omg range radar system
@brealistic3542 bomber not a fighter or interceptor
@@briancooper2112 Spoken by someone who has obviously never laid hands on a F-111. While not a dogfighter in the true sense of the genre, the F-111 was an extremely capable and fast aircraft with a very long range and/or loiter time.
@williamhudson4938 as long as the tf30 engines performed. Also F111 in the beginning the F111 had a horrible safety record that was corrected. Did you work or fly the F111?
@@williamhudson4938 pilot or wso?
@williamhudson4938 since I have a vision impairment for 40 that led to blindness I would of loved to be a pilot. I was born at k.i. Sawyer and remember fb111 there. Then SAC got rid of the fb111. F111 was a great bomber. How could a F111 shotdown a flight of BEARS with its limited payload ie sidewinders? No sparrows?
Ah yes the F-89 being famous for "The Battle Of Palmdale" incident. Look it up.
Great video!
There's one on display in the park in the town I was born in. Nampa Idaho
My dad worked at Northrop in 1956-57 and on Sunday drives, would take us past the Northrop facility in Hawthorn. I’ve seen these on the flight line. Jack Northrop idea of the flying wing finally was developed.
Cool! I worked for Northrop’s Electro-Mechanical Division in Anaheim from early 85 to end of 89. Also worked at their Defense Systems Division in Rolling Meadows Illinois in the late 60’s. It was still called Hallicrafters Electronics at that time, but it had mostly classified or secret labs and design rooms with coded locks on doors. One particular large work area was called the “Northrop Room”. I recall having to go through a security clearance process that took about 30 days before I could enter their space. Didn’t truly understand the connection, I was barely 19, until I was working in Anaheim and learned about how Hallicrafters became Northrop’s Defense Sys. Div😊. Any way, the F-89 was my favorite plane during the last half of the 50’s. Still love it today.
Had a model of this when I was a kid....one of my favorites.
I like the sound, it works good for high background noise situations and I don't have to look at the imagery to follow.
You get the like and subscribe.
I grew up near Wright Patterson and I remember as a kid, seeing F-89's flying around.
Great Video, except when numbers are mentioned, the BOT is exposed. There ARE people who are capable of narration, and are lots better to listen to.
Far too many videos like that these days.
A very interesting and informative video but what is with the lady in the white overcoat and black handbag wandering alone around the jet on the tarmac? It presents a rather incongruous scene at a military airbase.
I noticed that right off too. Strange juxtaposition.
That's Natasha. Boris was nearby, keeping a lookout for Moose and Squirrel.
@@UncleDansVintageVinyl Outstanding sir! 😂
I was wondering if it was from a movie or something, like Strategic Air Command with James Stewart?
She was the enigmatic "Babushka Lady" of 11/22/63 Dallas TX fame, just without her babushka. 😏
I don't find any record that this airplane was originally designed with side-by-side seating (which is not sleek) for the crew as the video claims. Then it gives no explanation as to why this was changed to tandem seating. All I can find is a wiki implication that the radar operator was a originally even further from the pilot, and a change was requested: "The inspectors believed that the radar operator needed to be moved forward, closer to the pilot, with both crewmen under a single canopy,"
The bot reading the copy obviously has no idea what it is talking about and can't see the video in front of its electronic face.
I'd love to see a comparison of this aircraft and the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck. They were very, very similar in size, performance, configuration, armament and intended mission. In particular, I'd love to know wht the U.S. would not deploy the F-89 to NATO bases, leaving NATO entirely dependant on the CF-100 as it's only all-weather interceptor for nearly a decade.
hilarious that the one time they shot rockets at another plane, all missed and caused huge damage on the ground.
Looked good on paper.
Of the straight wing jets, this is my favorite. I've only seen them a few times way back when but right off I liked it very much. Also had a great sound. From any angle, it looks cool and potent. Thanks for posting an important piece of history.
The Veteran' Memorial at the Jefferson County Fair grounds in Smithfield Ohio has an F-89 on display. I have always wondered where the guns were and the wing tips are made as fuel tanks so there was no rocket pods. It never dawned on me that it was a nuclear capable plane. Very interesting video! I have a photo of it but I can't find q way to post it here.
4:30 The F-89 did Not have a "side-by-side seating arrangement" like the future F-111 did. It had the pilot up front, and the radar operator directly behind him.
Never understood the reasons for this plane’s existence much less longevity. So many other planes could do the job so much better.
The reason was the 847 produced Tupolov-4s, built by the Soviet Union, a copy of the B-29s, 4 of which were diverted to the Soviet Union during the bombing of Japan.
Yeah, I was waiting to see how the F89 was used in the Korean War, but i assume it was too slow for that...
I remember seeing these in 1955-56, when they were assigned to the FIS at Thule AB, Greenland. Impressive taking off at noon in pitch-black darkness.
A 4:30 in the vid it describes the F-89 as having a side by side seating arrangement which it never had... It was always a tandem seating...
WOW! For it's time? Since WWII American aviation technology has always been, and still is, state-of-the-art.
Other than the Curtiss Wright XF-87, a 4 engine night fighter, what other aircraft did the F-89 beat out?
Douglas Skynight was the 3rd fighter evaluated.
The McDonnell F-88 Voodoo and the Lockheed F-90 were built to a different requirement, that of a single pilot penetrating escort fighter. That requirement was later cancelled.
@@DonMeaker - The Voodoo was the F-101. My very first model airplane kit was the Voodoo. 1/72 scale. It cost 29 cents or so. This was circa 1961. My father was a Navy Senior Chief, ATCS. He was disappointed I didn't pick out a navy aircraft like the F4H Phantom II.
@@scootergeorge7089 Technically there were two Voodoos. The first was the XF-88, which didn't enter production. The same basic design was reworked and enlarged to accept larger engines and more fuel, this would become the F-101 that entered service.
@@DonMeaker The F-90 is one of the most beautiful jets ever built. Too bad it was fatally underpowered, and no full examples exist today, other than the hulk of one used as a nuke test target.
My favorite plane, thanks for the video😊
The Montana ANG had them and called them the Lead Sled. The recurring pilot error was too light of a landing where the tires would skid and rip apart if you didn't slam the plane down hard to get the wheels to spin as the plane was so heavy the breaks were made very stiff.
Fascinating...Thank you 👍👍👍
I wonder how the F-89 compared with the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck? Same mission, somewhat similar design, in service for 30 years.
An F-89C on an active air intercept disappeared over Lake Superior in 1953. A diving group claimed to have located it on the bottom in 2005 but the story quickly vanished.
Not going to say it was aliens, but...👽🛸
The idea of shooting a nuclear armed rocket into a formation of nuclear armed bombers seems insane.
Another comment was the amount of radiation from a Genie was around using a microwave oven. Maybe, but what about any of those damaged or destroyed Soviet bombers spewing radiation from the effect of using a Genie.
My dad flew them with the 64th FIS Elmendorf AFB,AK.
Side by side seating?? Would that be front side and back side???
LMAO
No way I would step foot in that.
Lobbing nukes around like rocks , jeez its a wonder we aren`t mutants ! Oh wait what ?
What happened to those five guys that stood underneath the atomic blast of the Genie rocket?
Nothing, probably. It was only 1.7 kiloton, 1/10 that of Nagasaki. Air bursts create a brief pulse of radiation that attenuates rapidly with distance (inverse square law.) There is no fallout, especially none that high up. The fission daughter nuclei products get diluted and are mostly decayed to non-radioactive lead before they eventually reach the ground.
That is not a side by side cockpit configuration it's a tandem
Referred-to, I have heard, as the "Gravel Gobbler" . . .
Mind you don't FOD any birds w/ that duck wandering 'round the flightline
The 5 volunteers died of cancer shorty after their exposure to the blast.
That did not happen.
Do some research.
Not side by side cockpit
Poor guys were volunteered, got cancer, extreme pain, then death. What did their families get?
I saw an interview with one of them a few years ago here on RUclips, he said that he had no effects from it and the others he was in contact with didn't either. Evidently it was kind of a publicity stunt. That's the same warhead as was used on the "Davy Crockett" recoiless rifle system in Europe during the Cold War.
@@1armijo there wasn't any legit risk... it was a tiny warhead exploding miles overhead. You'd be exposed to more radiation standing in front of your microwave waiting for your Pizza Rolls to finish.
You are thinking of a different test, on the ground IIRC.
"from the edge of space"?
F 94 STARFIRE PLEASE C MODEL.. IT FLIES UNDER THE TU 95 BOMBER AND FIRES LIKE 40 ROCKETS UP AT IT
Population 5? Six counting the photographer
The narration of this video appears to be word-for-word from Wikipedia’s article. Lol.
"reach blistering speeds"?
A B52 could pull away from it. The designers didn't trust swept wings, which were still too poorly understood, so even with more powerful engines it hit a speed wall. Not a bad design, but not "powerful" or effective.
This channel is known for its inaccurate hyperbole.
@@gort8203 Yeah, I kind of got that. Once they worked the kinks out the Scorpion was a reliable flier, but aeronautic progress was so fast in that era it was obsolete before the prototype first flew.
@@charleshotchkiss1813 You are right about the rapid obsolescence in that era, which is what makes it so interesting. But we also have to remember that the bomber the F-89 would have faced in 1950 was the TU-4. The faster TU-95 did not even enter service until like 1956. The F-89 could still catch that one, and the F-102 was entering service.
24 Sep 2024 - The annoying and unnecessary background "music" was a useless imposition on the accurate narration.
It appears to be a copy of the "Clunk" the Avro CF100.
I've seen both CF100s and F-89s at Malmstrom AFB, MT. The aircraft at first glance appear similar, but they were actually quite different.
F-89 1948, AVRO CF-100 1952. Similar but not a copy
8:59: Pregnant woman from the nearby town scouring the base looking for the flyboy father of her baby?
Is it my imagination, or did he not even mention the Battle of Palmdale? (Grab yourself a drink and look it up. Warning: Very Funny)
The Scorpion was neither blisteringly fast or well regarded during its service life. It was prone to accidents with many being lost in non combat situations. It was never the backbone of the US nuclear deterrent and never carried nuclear weapons other than dummy bombs as it was considered not stable enough to reliably carry live weapons.
I think you might be confused. The Scorpion was an interceptor designed to shoot down bombers. It was not a bomber, was never part of the "nuclear deterrent" and never carried bombs. Interceptors would not be carrying live nuclear weapons on routine training missions over friendly territory (which is the only place they ever operated.) In a crisis, the Genies would be loaded from their secure bunkers onto the planes ready to go if an attack was detected.
Oscar Meyer airplane 😂
The Black Widow was a dog, the F-89 was a dog and the F-102 was a dog. Finally, the F-106 was not a dog!
You are wrong.
P61 was ww2 technology.
F106 ejection seat ruined pilots back. The seat was junk
All of the above aircraft were cutting edge technology for their time.
@@mtacoustic1 exactly!
Blistering speed? 630 mph....This plane couldnt intercept ANYTHING...It failed miserably and could NOT shoot down a WW2 Hellcat...
@@robertcombs55 It had perfectly acceptable performance compared to other straight wing designs of the late 40s.
Also, you need to use the right tool for the right job. It was a bomber interceptor designed to attack mass formations of large aircraft.... it wasn't likely to encounter a Hellcat over the Canadian Yukon
@@control_the_pet_population Well, it's true the "Mickey Mouse" rockets (as the RCAF called them -- CF-100s were armed with them as well) gave disappointing performance. The fins didn't snap open to guide the rockets until after they had cleared their container, so they were prone to wobble in that crucial first fraction of a second, and then the fins would keep them going whichever way they had started. They were intended for a head-on attack at high closing speeds, then break away to try to avoid getting shot by the bomber's tail guns if you missed. A bomber head-on is probably even harder to hit than a drone F6F attacked from the beam, as I recall they did at Palmdale. They had trouble computing the lead, which you don't have to do in head-on attack, just cope with the rapidly changing range for ballistic drop. IIRC, an F-89 did shoot down a plane towing a target once, when the radar locked onto the plane instead of the target and fired 104 rockets at it. At least one hit.
Planes like the F-89 and CF-100 were very much stop-gap efforts to cope with the flabbergasted realization that the Soviets had intercontinental bombers. Even the early guided missiles like Falcon were not very good.
The synthesized speech is annoying with its unnatural cadence and stress. " . . . grounding of all F-89 ee-ess" for "F-89E's" and the needless reporting of engine thrust as "pounds force" which we don't say in natural speech. /End grumpiness.
Not Army air force,U S Air Force
It was the Army Air Force until Sept 1947
F-89 A A A A A A A A A... not F-89ahhhhs
MUTUAL paranoia??? Russia has ALWAYS been belligerent and conniving
TAKE THIS DOWN AND GET A HUMAN WHO CAN SPEAK ENGLISH TO NARRATE IT.
No accent ✅
Clearly spoken✅
Speed of speech ✅
It’s definitely one of the better bots 😂
4:40 side by side seating ?.