Thanks for mentioning my father, John H. Griffith, who was Chief Test Pilot for NACA at the time. He liked the X-4 but knew and experienced the problems with instability. It was his experience with the Bantam that caused Chance Vought to lure him away from NACA to fly the F7U Cutlass. The Cutlass was also a tailless plane and proved to be one of the Navy's most deadly planes. A test dive in the F7U went wrong and he ended up pulling 6g for 45 seconds. He grayed out but stayed conscious until he saw a positive rate of climb. He missed the ground by 1100 feet at a speed of around 600 knots. He quit flying as a test pilot after that and worked in other areas of aviation. Many pilots he knew were getting killed at that time and he had three young children who he wanted to see graduate from school.
Mrjonblakley awsome that Your dad got to fly f7u cutlass. Widow maker. My goal is to buy an f7u cutlass demilitarizted fighter knowing it's flaws, or that jet x batmman in video. Congratulations honoring Your Father's legacy. God Bless my friend
@@bobbybrown.4257 Thank you, my father had a great career in aviation. You should save your money and buy something better than an F7U. The Bantam is not available.
My sister, who worked at a art company in Minneapolis. At the time, I had the opportunity to spend a couple of hours with Chuck Yeager, he had to sign a bunch of artwork. I was so envious, all she knew that he was an Air Force pilot, I told her he was not only that he was the first man to break the sound barrier and a general in the Air Force. She was like wow I never knew. He was quite the man.
He was class. It was firstly for the USA. Then science. Find his interviews, he was always awed and humbled that he was in the right place at the right time with the right skills to write history. His eyesight was was uncanny. As a flight leader in WW2, he would always be the first to spot the enemy and attack. His flight learned to just follow him until they saw the targets.
Whoever thought that you could make a aircraft like the de Havilland mosquito out of wood and 74,000 screws, and it would be faster than your metal aircraft and be able to outrun anything the Germans had up there except the jet fighters but they could maneuver it, the basic things that God has given us, really powerful things like a wheel and a wall and wood, if you told me I'm going going to put, a cannon and.50 caliber machine guns on a plane that's going to be faster than the me 109 and any German aircraft except the jets, and it would have a longer range I would have told you that you were crazy if you fire a cannon with a wooden airplane everything would fly apart, but they did it and they don't have one mosquito was the most amazing Ingenuity coming out of Britain
" Well, it shakes a little. Just throw these shims in 'er and I'll bet she'll straighten up and fly right." Basal wood! Where are these incredible engineers for today? I had no idea this little bird had such a glorius past. And flown by the legend Scott Crossfield no less!
Facts. It would be awesome to have more civilian "jets" like this. Preferably turbofans for economy. And, due to the bypass flow, reverse thrust is safer.
"Nobody died". Sadly, a lot of people did die in the quest for supersonic flight around this time. The X-5, the next X-plane, killed one pilot; the De Havilland Swallow, which is mentioned in the video and was a British aircraft of similar design, killed three. And don't get me started on the X-2, a rocket plane which had a horrible weakness for exploding...
People don't realize that research is just that.. RESEARCH.. Contracts come and go.. some outcomes are "successful" and some are not so to speak. BUT what is learned is NEVER forgotten and the lessons learned are added to future projects.
Totally cool aircraft ! Mr . Jack Northrop was ahead of his time ! Wow - Never seen this Little aircraft - Outstanding . Weak engines , but it was early days of jet power . Thanks -
In a way, the X-4 paved the way for the eventual success of the B-2 and B-21 bombers. It showed that a flying wing really needed something like fly-by-wire controls to keep a true flying wing reasonably stable.
The X4 looks like a direct steal of the Remarkable German KOMET developed in the last years of WW2 as a Bomber interceptor and an example probably transported to US when WW2 ended Same Profile and general Shape Any research on this by the Film Maker? Derek
As a kid with nothing but dreams of aviation, flying ... and being a dedicated CAP cadet, I saw this machine sitting on a pedastal at Maxwell Air Base, almost daily. As I recall, it was the test bed for variable pitch/swept wing tests. And not being too 'successful' or having lived out it's useful test life, it was retired and placed on that pedestal at the War College at Maxwell.
There is a good article about it on the Wikipedia. The advantages of the variable geometry wing were outweighed by its dreadful behaviour when put into a spin. This destroyed one aircraft, killing its pilot. It never reached Mach 1.
The X-4 at the Air Force Academy - does that bring back memories. A few of us at one time made an almost monthly habit of moving that thing about, even after the administration bolted it to the ground and planted trees around it so it could not be moved. A group of young, strong cadets with lots of time on their hands will always find a way to do the impossible.
I remember pushing that thing around the USAFA mall too. We also had an F-106 that managed to get in some man-powered taxiing. Before I graduated, an F-104 and F105 were added to our collection.
I believe the DH Swallow had the same divergence problems as it approached high mach numbers. Something which caused the demise of Geoffrey De Haviland.
I've always loved the Northrop corporation... They are one of the best aircraft designing companies in the WORLD! Jack would of been so proud of the B-2 and the B-21.. I believe Jack got to see the B-2 in flight before he passed away? That must have put his soul to rest...
Delta wings have different characteristics to swept wings. The trailing edge position of the delta’s control surfaces permit control of the movement of the centre of lift at supersonic speeds. Concorde also shifted fuel to move the centre of gravity.
You are an accomplished military historian, but I am disappointed in your current use of "click-bait" style titles for your videos. It detracts, I think, from the overall quality of your work. For this video, something like "The Tailess X-4 Bantam" would have been fine.
@@interstellarsurferIt's just disappointing, because of the pleasing documentary style we expect better.... The errors have always been a PITA, although the narrator has FINALLY learnt to say chassis correctly !!!
I have indeed noticed the errors and also the use of images or clips of the wrong aircraft. I let those slide. But the clickbait titles are just tacky. I like the content and subject matter here. I would just prefer that he stay professional in his presentation style.
The "dark and mysterious" tone, in respect to completely public and well known info, the mysterious music and the conspiratorial voice, are all pretty childish and unnecessary... "Split flaps are a testimony to the ingenuity of it's creators"... never mind split flaps had been around for 15 years already... the AI text sounds like a high school student desperately trying to write a term paper the night before it's due...
In 1958 McDonnell / Duglass along with Rockwell started paper work on the F-4 Phantom . The F-4 was the first computer generated design aircraft . I know My dad worked for them in St Louis Mo . He worked their until 1966 when he burned out after 15 years in engineering by paper and mind .
The Cutlass is also close to Me-163. With the arrival of current, low weight, economical turbines, an updated version of Komet could be built, just for fun.
Hate to rain on your parade but the SR-71 and the Space Shuttle were both as tailless as the X4. SR-71 could do Mach 3 as long as it had fuel, and the Space Shuttle could do Mach 25. But they were both deltas instead of swept-wing.
the do 335 only had the vertical stabilizer under the fuselage to ensure that the rear prop did not strike the ground on take off its similarity with the x-15 is simply a coincidence
The 163 was a beautiful airplane to fly. Sorry 'Merica it cracked the speed of sound CLIMBING, not in a shallow dive Chuck. Some times Wright Field never quite got it Right. This was the last days of the Golden Age of aviation. And even failures were successes because it was about the learning. Even the X5 was really a Messerschmitt rebuilt. ( The debate rages on that one) And think about Bell who made huge contributions to aviation building X planes, but made their money with helo's. Speaking of Wright Field a trip to the USAF Museum is worth your time, spend 2 days, there is that much to take in. And visit Huffman Prairie where flight control was perfected buy the Wrights.
The X4 repeated the lessons learned a few years with the DeHavilland DH108 Swallow, three of which crashed, each time killing the pilot. That did exceed Mach 1 on a single occasion, but was considered to be out of control. Perhaps more consideration should have been given to the fact that Lippisch had already moved on from "flying wing" tail-less, to the delta. He had good reason, the DH Swallow and Northrop wings all turned out to be deathtraps.
"Only the advent of computer fly-by-wire systems did semi-tailless designs find practical application..." Enter the tailless SAAB 35 Draken (Dragon) and SAAB 37 Viggen (Thunderbolt or Tufted Duck) well before the computerized fly-by-wire systems.
Engineering 2024: "Form up a committee to study the feasibility or creating a workgroup to develop a budget to research the timeline for developing..." Engineering 1951: "I found some balsa wood in my kids toy chest, slap em on and light this sucker up"
This video is under dark skies. I dont know if You knew that. But sounded like you thought this video was under dark seas or dark documents or dark anything else he has. If im wrong forgive me. Let me know what You meant click bait if you care or get chance to comment me back. Micheal sandell
I somewhat struggle to follow the idea of a lack of a "tailless supersonic aircraft". If I look at a Mirage III, accomplishing its first flight in 1956, I see a tailless aircraft flying at speeds of over Mach 2, much before the B2 took its maiden flight....
Impractical X-3 Stilletto? The plane was somewhat of a dissappointment only because the promissed engines lacked power. But it 'was' practical, cause it could take off under its own power and didn't need a mothership to get airborne.
this vid is wrong it implies that it is impossible for a tailless or plane without horizontal stabilizers is unable to go beyond mach 1 due to stability issues but that isnt the case as there are and have been many delta wing aircraft that are supersonic and are tailless or lack horizontal stabilizers such as the f102 delta dagger the f16xl the saab draken and the french mirage
@@fredburley9512you are right they are not flying wings though this vid was about planes without horizontal tail stabilizers and all of those aircraft fall into that category in reality with the advent of fly by wire technology back in the 1970 nothing is stopping the development of a flying wing that is super sonic i think that we will se one eventually because a flying wing design helps when building a stealth aircraft the biggest drawback to the design is poor yaw control so barring an alternative way to mitigate poor yaw performance like thrust vectoring i doubt it will be a fighter aircraft
I still think their is allot to ve said about countries developing modern Midget fighters. The Folland gnat is a good example as is this. Modern avionics is a pint sized fighter that can be produced in numbers would be helpful when F 35, F22 types cannot be produced nearly as quick as fighters in ww2. A tiny and cheap fighter thay is 90% as good as anything else that is only 20% the cost will surely be very useful to any air force
too bad any plane this small is very hard to control the faster u go. Would have been a great dogfighter if one can fit guns and ammo+ fuel in such a small package. 😊
bei der Übersetzung ist heftig was schiefgelaufen, manchmal etwas hastig gesprochen. Schon bei "schwanzloser Konstruktion". Inhaltlich zwar interessant, aber unfreiwillig komisch.
I quit watching after about the fifteenth time the word naca was said. That was less than 5 minutes in. Aviation historians should know the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was never called “naca” it was always pronounced letter-by-letter: N.A.C.A.
Great little plane and there are probably more we don't yet know about. I enjoy clickbait titles just so I can read the comments of whiney, bitchy people. That's the cherry on top of these great videos. Thanks !
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for mentioning my father, John H. Griffith, who was Chief Test Pilot for NACA at the time. He liked the X-4 but knew and experienced the problems with instability. It was his experience with the Bantam that caused Chance Vought to lure him away from NACA to fly the F7U Cutlass. The Cutlass was also a tailless plane and proved to be one of the Navy's most deadly planes. A test dive in the F7U went wrong and he ended up pulling 6g for 45 seconds. He grayed out but stayed conscious until he saw a positive rate of climb. He missed the ground by 1100 feet at a speed of around 600 knots. He quit flying as a test pilot after that and worked in other areas of aviation. Many pilots he knew were getting killed at that time and he had three young children who he wanted to see graduate from school.
Wow! Cool! The real right stuff. 🫡
Mrjonblakley awsome that Your dad got to fly f7u cutlass. Widow maker. My goal is to buy an f7u cutlass demilitarizted fighter knowing it's flaws, or that jet x batmman in video.
Congratulations honoring Your Father's legacy. God Bless my friend
@@bobbybrown.4257 Thank you, my father had a great career in aviation. You should save your money and buy something better than an F7U. The Bantam is not available.
My sister, who worked at a art company in Minneapolis. At the time, I had the opportunity to spend a couple of hours with Chuck Yeager, he had to sign a bunch of artwork. I was so envious, all she knew that he was an Air Force pilot, I told her he was not only that he was the first man to break the sound barrier and a general in the Air Force. She was like wow I never knew. He was quite the man.
He was class. It was firstly for the USA. Then science. Find his interviews, he was always awed and humbled that he was in the right place at the right time with the right skills to write history. His eyesight was was uncanny. As a flight leader in WW2, he would always be the first to spot the enemy and attack. His flight learned to just follow him until they saw the targets.
The X4 (tail number 6677) is displayed in the Research and Development Gallery, at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton Ohio.
Another machine I didn't know about. And the designers, flyers who made it happen.
Great vid.
Another great documentary - mostly unknown Test Aircraft. Thanks.
balsa wood, duct tape and cardboard are the holy trinity of mechanical engineering.
And homeless housing I might add.
Don't forget baling wire! ;-)
How can you forget 5 minute epoxy?
Whoever thought that you could make a aircraft like the de Havilland mosquito out of wood and 74,000 screws, and it would be faster than your metal aircraft and be able to outrun anything the Germans had up there except the jet fighters but they could maneuver it, the basic things that God has given us, really powerful things like a wheel and a wall and wood, if you told me I'm going going to put, a cannon and.50 caliber machine guns on a plane that's going to be faster than the me 109 and any German aircraft except the jets, and it would have a longer range I would have told you that you were crazy if you fire a cannon with a wooden airplane everything would fly apart, but they did it and they don't have one mosquito was the most amazing Ingenuity coming out of Britain
rickbrasche8781, don't forget a drop of WD-40 when called upon.
" Well, it shakes a little. Just throw these shims in 'er and I'll bet she'll straighten up and fly right." Basal wood! Where are these incredible engineers for today? I had no idea this little bird had such a glorius past. And flown by the legend Scott Crossfield no less!
They had an idea. It didn't quite work as hoped. They learned a lot.
And most shocking: Nobody died.
But dang! That little thing looks like fun!
Facts. It would be awesome to have more civilian "jets" like this. Preferably turbofans for economy. And, due to the bypass flow, reverse thrust is safer.
"Nobody died". Sadly, a lot of people did die in the quest for supersonic flight around this time. The X-5, the next X-plane, killed one pilot; the De Havilland Swallow, which is mentioned in the video and was a British aircraft of similar design, killed three. And don't get me started on the X-2, a rocket plane which had a horrible weakness for exploding...
@@zh84His point being that nobody died testing that particular aircraft.
Jack Northrop had championed flying wings well before WW II. X-4 was the starting point for what became the F-89.
They showed Jack the B2 before he died, made me weep.
I would think it was more likely the predecessor of the Vought F7U Cutlass. The F-89 was developed from the Lockheed P/F-80 Shooting Star.
@@billmullins6833 F-94 was developed from the F-80/T-33. F-89 was a Northrop design.
@@MrCateagle Okay. I stand corrected. But the X-4 is far more closely related to the F-7U than the F-89.
Thanks for all the vids man.👍
People don't realize that research is just that.. RESEARCH.. Contracts come and go.. some outcomes are "successful" and some are not so to speak. BUT what is learned is NEVER forgotten and the lessons learned are added to future projects.
Totally cool aircraft ! Mr . Jack Northrop was ahead of his time ! Wow - Never seen this
Little aircraft - Outstanding . Weak engines , but it was early days of jet power . Thanks -
Right. Back then, you had a choice of weak engines or no engines. Or rockets. But you don't want to fly rockets.
In a way, the X-4 paved the way for the eventual success of the B-2 and B-21 bombers. It showed that a flying wing really needed something like fly-by-wire controls to keep a true flying wing reasonably stable.
Awesome little plane.....Thanks 🇺🇸
Beautiful! Thanks!
I often wonder if things might have been different if X planes like this and the X3 had modern computer-assisted fly-by-wire control.
Sure looks a lot like the ME 163 Komet.
Good video. Thanks
The X4 looks like a direct steal of the Remarkable German KOMET developed in the last years of WW2 as a Bomber interceptor and an example probably transported to US when WW2 ended
Same Profile and general Shape
Any research on this by the Film Maker?
Derek
He actually mentioned this at the beginning. Alexander Lippisch, designer of the Me163 was credited as one of the inspirations for the design.
As a kid with nothing but dreams of aviation, flying ... and being a dedicated CAP cadet, I saw this machine sitting on a pedastal at Maxwell Air Base, almost daily. As I recall, it was the test bed for variable pitch/swept wing tests. And not being too 'successful' or having lived out it's useful test life, it was retired and placed on that pedestal at the War College at Maxwell.
Awsome video 👌
I want to know more about the swing wing X-5.
Google
There is a good article about it on the Wikipedia. The advantages of the variable geometry wing were outweighed by its dreadful behaviour when put into a spin. This destroyed one aircraft, killing its pilot. It never reached Mach 1.
It was directly derived from the Messerschmitt P1101.
It showed the limits of safe variable geometry.
The X-4 at the Air Force Academy - does that bring back memories. A few of us at one time made an almost monthly habit of moving that thing about, even after the administration bolted it to the ground and planted trees around it so it could not be moved. A group of young, strong cadets with lots of time on their hands will always find a way to do the impossible.
I remember pushing that thing around the USAFA mall too. We also had an F-106 that managed to get in some man-powered taxiing. Before I graduated, an F-104 and F105 were added to our collection.
I believe the DH Swallow had the same divergence problems as it approached high mach numbers. Something which caused the demise of Geoffrey De Haviland.
A tough little bug at least she was preserved unlike a LOT of aircraft here in the UK which were scrapped.
I've always loved the Northrop corporation... They are one of the best aircraft designing companies in the WORLD! Jack would of been so proud of the B-2 and the B-21.. I believe Jack got to see the B-2 in flight before he passed away? That must have put his soul to rest...
arn't there tailless delta wing design like the mirage 3?
I was thinking concorde, mach 2.04 and no tailplane.
Delta wings have different characteristics to swept wings.
The trailing edge position of the delta’s control surfaces permit control of the movement of the centre of lift at supersonic speeds. Concorde also shifted fuel to move the centre of gravity.
This guy also called the B-52 a Turbo-prop in a previous video, gets things wrong often.
Thanks for putting the red circle around the plane in the thumbnail. Otherwise l never would have seen it.
It’s SO CUTE!
Check out the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin fighter also!
You are an accomplished military historian, but I am disappointed in your current use of "click-bait" style titles for your videos. It detracts, I think, from the overall quality of your work. For this video, something like "The Tailess X-4 Bantam" would have been fine.
The Dark-XXX has always been clickbaity, and often full of errors. You're confusing edutainment for actual historical content.
Waahhh
@@interstellarsurferIt's just disappointing, because of the pleasing documentary style we expect better....
The errors have always been a PITA, although the narrator has FINALLY learnt to say chassis correctly !!!
I have indeed noticed the errors and also the use of images or clips of the wrong aircraft. I let those slide. But the clickbait titles are just tacky.
I like the content and subject matter here. I would just prefer that he stay professional in his presentation style.
The "dark and mysterious" tone, in respect to completely public and well known info, the mysterious music and the conspiratorial voice, are all pretty childish and unnecessary...
"Split flaps are a testimony to the ingenuity of it's creators"... never mind split flaps had been around for 15 years already... the AI text sounds like a high school student desperately trying to write a term paper the night before it's due...
In 1958 McDonnell / Duglass along with Rockwell started paper work on the F-4 Phantom . The F-4 was the first computer generated design aircraft . I know My dad worked for them in St Louis Mo . He worked their until 1966 when he burned out after 15 years in engineering by paper and mind .
My aunt and uncle were teachers at the elementary school at Edward’s and we got to meet Scott Crossfield. He signed some photos for us.
That was a cute one! 🥰
Love this post war era of X Planes
The Cutlass is also close to Me-163.
With the arrival of current, low weight, economical turbines, an updated version of Komet could be built, just for fun.
8:43 looks like they repurposed an AA mount. The kind off of a halftrack.
The production F4D Skyray had a little higher max mach speed.
Hate to rain on your parade but the SR-71 and the Space Shuttle were both as tailless as the X4. SR-71 could do Mach 3 as long as it had fuel, and the Space Shuttle could do Mach 25. But they were both deltas instead of swept-wing.
And Concorde
BRAVO!
Nice video about X4 aircraft's rocket power 🚀 launching...designed by US
Balsa wood! Model aircraft guys all over the world rejoice!
@ 1:43, "wetted area"
A maritime concept inappropriately subsumed by aerodynamicists.
The appropriate description is "parasitic drag".
interesting how the Dornier 335 inline props had a similar Arrow layout to the rocket-powered X-15
the do 335 only had the vertical stabilizer under the fuselage to ensure that the rear prop did not strike the ground on take off its similarity with the x-15 is simply a coincidence
Tailless like the Dassault Mirage or the Convair F 106?
Check out the X-36's Cockpit @ 9:39, LOL.
Pretty sure this is a photoshopped image, but there appears to be some hi-jinks goin' on w/ the Cockpit.
The 163 was a beautiful airplane to fly. Sorry 'Merica it cracked the speed of sound CLIMBING, not in a shallow dive Chuck. Some times Wright Field never quite got it Right. This was the last days of the Golden Age of aviation. And even failures were successes because it was about the learning. Even the X5 was really a Messerschmitt rebuilt. ( The debate rages on that one) And think about Bell who made huge contributions to aviation building X planes, but made their money with helo's. Speaking of Wright Field a trip to the USAF Museum is worth your time, spend 2 days, there is that much to take in. And visit Huffman Prairie where flight control was perfected buy the Wrights.
Test pilots are as the saying goes “spam in a can” if something goes wrong.But I believe these guys love the risk as much as the speed.
Did the X-4 proceed the tailless Snark cruise missile?
only reason for elimination of stabilizers is reduction in production costs but cheap or not some things have to be made
Yeah, thats totally wrong....
The Avon Sabre was smooth up to M.94 where shock wave formation caused unbalanced flight but could reach M1.1 in a full power dive.
The X4 repeated the lessons learned a few years with the DeHavilland DH108 Swallow, three of which crashed, each time killing the pilot. That did exceed Mach 1 on a single occasion, but was considered to be out of control. Perhaps more consideration should have been given to the fact that Lippisch had already moved on from "flying wing" tail-less, to the delta. He had good reason, the DH Swallow and Northrop wings all turned out to be deathtraps.
"Only the advent of computer fly-by-wire systems did semi-tailless designs find practical application..." Enter the tailless SAAB 35 Draken (Dragon) and SAAB 37 Viggen (Thunderbolt or Tufted Duck) well before the computerized fly-by-wire systems.
Engineering 2024: "Form up a committee to study the feasibility or creating a workgroup to develop a budget to research the timeline for developing..."
Engineering 1951: "I found some balsa wood in my kids toy chest, slap em on and light this sucker up"
Ironically, Crossfield was killed in a Cessna 182.
@@androtekman6131 The article I read said 182. Not worth arguing over. His death, given what he used to do, was ironic regardless.
This video is under dark skies. I dont know if You knew that. But sounded like you thought this video was under dark seas or dark documents or dark anything else he has. If im wrong forgive me. Let me know what You meant click bait if you care or get chance to comment me back. Micheal sandell
I somewhat struggle to follow the idea of a lack of a "tailless supersonic aircraft". If I look at a Mirage III, accomplishing its first flight in 1956, I see a tailless aircraft flying at speeds of over Mach 2, much before the B2 took its maiden flight....
Looks more like a dog fighting jet than a super sonic speedster.
troubleshooting without a computer that takes real talent / wonder what they would arm it with?
Impractical X-3 Stilletto? The plane was somewhat of a dissappointment only because the promissed engines lacked power.
But it 'was' practical, cause it could take off under its own power and didn't need a mothership to get airborne.
i want 1....
We have an ME 163 in ottawa war museumm
The X4 had a bubble cockpit,
I never heard NACA called NACKA before. 🤔
And the successor of NACA is still up to testing aerodynamics. the first A in NASA is aeronautics.
So supersonic flying wing is not possible? That's interesting- did they find out why exactly?
this vid is wrong it implies that it is impossible for a tailless or plane without horizontal stabilizers is unable to go beyond mach 1 due to stability issues but that isnt the case as there are and have been many delta wing aircraft that are supersonic and are tailless or lack horizontal stabilizers such as the f102 delta dagger the f16xl the saab draken and the french mirage
@@paktahn But are they flying wings? Delta wings are not flying wings I would of thought.
@@fredburley9512you are right they are not flying wings though this vid was about planes without horizontal tail stabilizers and all of those aircraft fall into that category in reality with the advent of fly by wire technology back in the 1970 nothing is stopping the development of a flying wing that is super sonic i think that we will se one eventually because a flying wing design helps when building a stealth aircraft the biggest drawback to the design is poor yaw control so barring an alternative way to mitigate poor yaw performance like thrust vectoring i doubt it will be a fighter aircraft
I still think their is allot to ve said about countries developing modern Midget fighters. The Folland gnat is a good example as is this. Modern avionics is a pint sized fighter that can be produced in numbers would be helpful when F 35, F22 types cannot be produced nearly as quick as fighters in ww2. A tiny and cheap fighter thay is 90% as good as anything else that is only 20% the cost will surely be very useful to any air force
too bad any plane this small is very hard to control the faster u go. Would have been a great dogfighter if one can fit guns and ammo+ fuel in such a small package. 😊
that's why the swingwing was proposed, unfortunate it failed. So many aircraft from that time period were cool but never came to fruition
you do know that ''dogfights'' are illegal, don't you?....
just kidding...
the smaller frame would allow for more power as well as it's lighter weight needing less to get it airborn.
Getting airborne isn't the same thing as controlled flight 🫨🤪
Please stop with the click bait titles.
Didn’t it almost change all of aviation?
bei der Übersetzung ist heftig was schiefgelaufen, manchmal etwas hastig gesprochen. Schon bei "schwanzloser Konstruktion". Inhaltlich zwar interessant, aber unfreiwillig komisch.
ME 163 with turbo jets instead liquid rocket fueled
Number 1
Are ya now?
And? Did you even watch the video?
Long live 🍻the X-4 so adorable 😘
The B-2 was never designed to fly a mach 1.....
ME 163 turbojet
Cute , would make a killing in private flying
7:36 That sounds disgusting out of context.
Please turn off the synthetic muzac so I can concentrate on your words
Just turn the volume off and put subtitles on.
Why does America turn its back on its veterans so quickly after service.
because they are democrats and they hate the military. The military would probably stop their BS domination of the US along with other patriots!
a mosquito fighter prototype ,maybe??
Interestingly, both examples of the X-4 survived. It, like the German rocket powered “Swallow” became unstable approaching transonic speeds.
Like the Komet only better.
I guess your would call this a “ breathless narration” complete with mumbled words like “speed bricks!” This must be AI on drugs!
Complimentary algorithm enhancement comment!😊
All copies of the German aircraft projects. This tinny one is the copy of the Messerschmitt 162 Comet.
I quit watching after about the fifteenth time the word naca was said. That was less than 5 minutes in. Aviation historians should know the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was never called “naca” it was always pronounced letter-by-letter: N.A.C.A.
These IDIOTIC clickbait titles are insulting to your viewers, a large number who have military training, military family or historical interests.... 😡
Great little plane and there are probably more we don't yet know about.
I enjoy clickbait titles just so I can read the comments of whiney, bitchy people. That's the cherry on top of these great videos. Thanks !
@@firebald2915 🤣
If you read the Wikipedia entry for the aircraft you'll see where the commentary actually comes from..
It r
Happy unsubscribe day!