"We need a supersonic VTOL fighter" "What if we make engine pods that each have two turbojets and tilt 100°" "Where do the engine pods go?" "The wingtips" "Take my job" "LET'S ADD FOUR MORE ENGINES" "TAKE THE COMPANY"
Makes you wonder just how many unbuilt and lesser known aircraft concepts/prototypes are out there with many reasons as to why they never got past the drawing board or even the prototype/testing phase.
And also how many of them would've ended upsuccessful- to one degree or other - how how many could've changed the face of history, maybe even helped usher in something like _The Jetsons_ cartoon in reality. Or maybe that's just me.
A whole bunch of them simply came down to lack of computers. Aerospace startups have some amazing designs. One of my favorites is a new decoupled electric impeller jet engine. Mostly because I've been wanting to see one for the last decade.
As a war thunder player, the most interesting one is a biplane called the I-195. There's likely little info and in turn content to talk about, plus it was likely a lot less impressive IRL than in the game, but it has some crazy power and combination of weaponry with crazy high speeds promised(for a biplane at least)
As a kid in the early 70s, the Vietnam-era USAF jungle camo scheme was always fun to replicate using Testor paints, back in my aircraft modeling days. Sorry, nostalgia washed over me for a moment while watching the video, hence my pointless post. Carry on.
9:27 The 1st jet aircraft by Bell was the YP-59 Airacomet, not the Bell P-63 KingCobra...which is a piston engined fighter. The P-59 Airacomet's 1st flight was on October 1st, 1942. The P-63 KingCobra's 1st flight was on December 7th, 1942. So they were both in production/testing during World War Two.
There’s a video of an actual swivel jet that was an experimental prototype and the biggest problem they had was that every time it took off vertically the jet would melt the runway!
@@clavinchhangte7071 Even if the jet itself isn't an issue, it CAUSING issues elsewhere either directly or indirectly can be an issue in and of itself, there are many examples of perfectly capable aircraft who's negative effects on infrastructure, people, or anything else adjacent were enough to get them canceled.
I feel like a lot of the problems with these mid-20th century designs were that they were just too complex for their own good. Like the way engineers of these designs, when they wanted to add new features, added whole new systems for that feature instead of finding a way to utilize existing systems. People think that more advanced equals more complicated but if you look at actual modern equivalents that actually work, it's easy to see that keeping it as simple as possible works best (e.g. The Harrier which uses one big engine going to four rotating vents and the F-35B which uses one engine with a rotating nozzle and a lift fan attached via a driveshaft)
@@carlosandleon I disagree. Firstly you have the issue that the more mechanically moving parts means the greater chance of something going wrong. Having 8 engines where you could only have 1 means that's 8 times the chance of engine failure. 8 times the fuel consumption and 8 times the cost to produce one aircraft instead of the 8 single engine aircraft you could build. Then there is the issue of the dead weight that neither the D-188 or the F-35-B have solved where the harrier solved first time off. The harrier uses swivel vectoring nozzles to direct the thrust of the engine. This means that the engine uses the same propulsion system to fly vertically as well as horizontally. Where as the D-188 and F-35-B use additional propulsion systems to produce the vertical lift. These additional engines only serve to get the aircraft off the ground but as soon as the aircraft transitions over to horizontal flight those additional engines are not doing anything and are just additional weight making the aircraft heavier at no additional benefit during standard forward flight..
Why SUPERSONIC VTOL in Germany in cold war would not have been needed : Know the tale of rabbit and hedgehog ? Rabbit and Hedgehog made a race. Hedgy placed his hedgehog friends all along the track, and every time rabbit came in sight, running on high speed, one of Hedgys friends came out of his hideout along the track and called : Im already here ! This is why we prefered british subsonic Harriers in this role for our defence strategy in these days, and we had formidable FLAK and FLAR. For supersonic needs we already had the F 104 and F4, and of course we relied on our allies.Bit later we also had our Tornados. P.S.: As an ex Bundeswehr soldier I had insights. The VJ 101 was a waste of money and everyone knew it, couse we knew that we would pay loads of cash for something that we did not need. But these Days have long gone. Im old now and the world has changed so much.
Just imagine the effect of those downward pointing engines of the flightdeck of a carrier. The heat they would of created. As if carrier flightdecks were not dangerous enough.
The NF-104 was NOT a VTOL aircraft. It was modified version of the F-104 with a rocket engine attached to the tail so it could fly higher, not take off vertically.
There was the option of installing ZELL, or the Zero-Length Launch system, a big rocket that basically launched the F-104 like a missile in something similar to a vertical take off
This feels like the super heavy VTOL/gunship in Evangelion, but this one can go hypersonic. Now I know where they got their inspiration from. Actually it would be nice to include examples of fictional work that featured the real life design, or designs with similar concept.
Very interesting video. I love the look of these early V-Jets, they really went all out for the supersonic fighter that needs no runway. As soon as you see eight engines you know it never got into service, and if it got into a fight losing a pod engine would be hard to recover from. The Harrier did its job but couldnt crack the sound barrier, the yak-141 was so close to being the first supersonic vtol in service. The best solution seems to be one big engine with vectored thrust for vtol and control like the F35 uses. I understand the lift fan must be dead weight but perhaps in future a vtol engine could rotate the fan 90 degrees and use it for bypass air? The swivelling pods on this 188 remind me a little of the UNSC Pelican engine pods.
Two minor corrections: First, the NF-104 was not a VTOL. It was capable of near vertical flight with a way higher than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio thanks to its rocket engine, necessary to test flying in the upper atmosphere. It was essentially a precursor to the X-15... However... It was not actually capable of landing or taking off vertically... Which makes it not a VTOL, since that is what VTOL literally stands for (vertical takeoff and landing). Second... I think you had a bit of a freudian slip when you said the P-63 was the last "jet fighter" Bell had built... The P-63 is a prop, powered by an internal combustion engine. No jet engine involved. I think people often conflate jet engines and fighter aircraft, resulting in "jet fighter" being used to describe WW2 props when it doesnt make sense. Also, interestingly... Bell actully did make a "jet" fighter before this project, newer than the P-63. The Bell P-59 was America's first jet aircraft period. It was going to be a fighter. However, the P-80 often gets the fame for being America's first jet fighter. This is because the P-59s performance was poor, with a lower top speed than the best P-51s in service (a prop plane). Thus, while the P-80 and the later T-33 saw extensive service, the US military cut their order of P-59s. Only 66 were built, they were never used in combat, and only served as trainer aircraft. But... This is actually a produced Bell "jet fighter" that was made after the P-63... Ok, I guess if you want to be technical about it, the P-59 predated the P-63 by a little bit. The P-59 first flew in October 1942... The P-63 first flew in December 1942... However I think this is being a lil nitpicky, the P-63 was heavily based on the older P-39 and didnt represent any MAJOR jumps in technology like the P-59 did.
Yeah, aircraft like this one were highly unlikely to ever be accepted into the US military inventory, as the advertised flexibility of the aircraft would never have been fully realized. The design features like wingtip-mounted engine pods which translate from horizontal to vertical flight add complexity, weight, and maintenance issues, making them impossible to service and deploy from austere forward operational positions. If you're gonna be deploying from a standard operational base with a runway, you might as well fly aircraft with standard designs, affording superior capabilities and better weapon's load-out capacity.
why would rotating engine poids be bad for stealth? just make sure they are fixed to the wing flat at a 90 degree intersect and thhen change the shape of the pods themselves
Concepts and prototype like those would fit in a Sci-Fi movie setting, especially in Anime. Which, ironically enough, weren't picked up by artists as it's a potential gold mine I mean why bother designing a new stuff for your movie/series (depending on the theme/setting) when defense companies essentially already did that for you?
Sad. Tthis one could have been good for the USNavy. I would have just looked for a way to omit those two lift engines. As a stealth aircraft, the hull design would be REALLY different. The F22 and F35 have or will have stealth fuel pods so the engine pods on a Stealth D-188 would be very similar. Technology moves on and more it does the more oddballs that could have been like the D-188 are more possible. Still, all those engines just eat fuel like a sumo at the buffet.
No mention of the Hawker Harrier??!! They effectively filled the bill in many combat engagements. They have been put to good use by the U.S. Marines and the Brits, in various formats, for many years. It seems like maybe Hawker picked up the puffer stabilizing feature from the Bell project.
@@Spaatz77 The RR Merlin and Griffon engines _The Jet Engine_ Jaguar Concorde Canberra TSR2 Buccaneer All of the Westland helicopters, of which one still has the world wide record (Lynx going 250mph) It's a shame that a lot of our extraordinary aircraft that were never built is so long, mach 3 bombers, Mach 4 spy plane, we built an orbital disposable rocket system that was very good and reliable. The British Space Industry is vast but almost company unknown All down to money in the end, unfortunately... 😓
@@MostlyPennyCat The Merlin and Jet Engine!! God, how could I have forgotten!! Of course, giving the Whittle to the Ruskies knocks off a few points. Jaguar and TSR...lovely aircraft. Too bad the later got shelved. The Sea Fury....so good.
it's amazing to think that us Brits actually did it way better and with only one Rolls Royce Jet Turbine using thrust vectoring via nozzles..... sure it never went supersonic but the Harrier never really needed it. which explains why the first chance the Americans got, they brought the design off us then renaming it to the GR1
@@MostlyPennyCat US called it the GR1 we in the UK called it the AV8A as I said "the Americans brought the design of us (as in us the UK not us as in US) and then renaming it to the GR1" ok I stand corrected just rechecked the info i had and my apologies... you are correct, UK called it GR1 but the US called it the AV8A etc.... I mean credit where it's due the plane looks cool, but not very practical when all those engines are gonna add to weight, reductions in flight time etc... style was good though but tbf the Harrier was much more cool 🙂
The VTOL Jet then was a surefire disaster for the same reason the AV-8B was far less field deployable than promised... FOD. Foreign Object Debris. Jet fighters need clean air into the intakes, but a VTOL jet, be it the AV-8b "Harrier" or the D-188, generates a LOT of FOD on fireup, and that FOD tends to circle back to the intakes. Which leaves Naval uses... for which helicopters are preferred. Sure, any USN Destroyer or light cruiser can field and support 2 AV-8B's... but it gets a lot more mission capability from supporting 1 SH-60 Sea Hawk... and a mission specific capability to take on a second Sea Hawk. Before the Sea Hawk, there was the SH-3 Sea King. (Technically, the USMC maintains one squadron operating a few SH-3's (VH-3D models now, per USNI) - in presidential livery, for use as Marine-1, Marine-2, and their backups. VHX-1 has the honor of operating the current presidential helos.) And the SH-60 can be outfitted as a helicopter gunship with lots of AG and AA munitions... so the only role is high cover, and that's easily handled by navalized 4th gen fighters off CVLs and CVAs www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2012/january/historic-aircraft-king-sea
Russians: "HAHA, we put VTOL Aircraft into service before YOU. We are SUPERIOR" Americans: *Smirks knowing why they didn´t press a VTOL into service* For context, the russian Yak-38 was a failure. Costing alot to build and maintaine, will being dangerous to fly. Which led to teh Soviet Union not even be able to outfit there Aircraft Carriers with a full set of them and losing many Aircraft and Pilots will operating them.
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/af0phKxitX8/mqdefault.jpg)
Click here to Help the channel, and get Opera Web Browser! :opr.as/Opera-browser-foundandexplained
Could you please cover the VJ-101 aircraft?
"We need a supersonic VTOL fighter"
"What if we make engine pods that each have two turbojets and tilt 100°"
"Where do the engine pods go?"
"The wingtips"
"Take my job"
"LET'S ADD FOUR MORE ENGINES"
"TAKE THE COMPANY"
Best comment award goes to you 😅
@@EvanNyameyeTachie-Menson Thanks :)
best comment ever
When I read "eight engines" I already knew exactly why it was never built lmfao
Flight time: between 0 and 5 minutes
Maintenance time, unknown they're still going.
@@MostlyPennyCat This deserves to be a pinned comment lmao
Yep i guessed it was the up time which made the jet a forgotten piece of legacy
The B52 in the corner 🥲
Bell is onto something ❌
bell is on something ✅
Makes you wonder just how many unbuilt and lesser known aircraft concepts/prototypes are out there with many reasons as to why they never got past the drawing board or even the prototype/testing phase.
And also how many of them would've ended upsuccessful- to one degree or other - how how many could've changed the face of history, maybe even helped usher in something like _The Jetsons_ cartoon in reality. Or maybe that's just me.
A whole bunch of them simply came down to lack of computers.
Aerospace startups have some amazing designs. One of my favorites is a new decoupled electric impeller jet engine.
Mostly because I've been wanting to see one for the last decade.
As a war thunder player, the most interesting one is a biplane called the I-195. There's likely little info and in turn content to talk about, plus it was likely a lot less impressive IRL than in the game, but it has some crazy power and combination of weaponry with crazy high speeds promised(for a biplane at least)
it would be cool if somebody modelled some of them for flight simulator or that combat simulator game.... dgs? i can't rrecalll the name
@@matthewfurlani8647 DCS?
As a kid in the early 70s, the Vietnam-era USAF jungle camo scheme was always fun to replicate using Testor paints, back in my aircraft modeling days. Sorry, nostalgia washed over me for a moment while watching the video, hence my pointless post. Carry on.
6:37 little editing error
i saw that too lol
he does use Opera it seems, i installed it too x) Aria is awesome btw
That plane would have been a nightmare for support teams to maintain….8 engines is a horror show..😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
9:27 The 1st jet aircraft by Bell was the YP-59 Airacomet, not the Bell P-63 KingCobra...which is a piston engined fighter.
The P-59 Airacomet's 1st flight was on October 1st, 1942. The P-63 KingCobra's 1st flight was on December 7th, 1942.
So they were both in production/testing during World War Two.
It’s always a good day when Found & Explained uploads.
This is NOT the farming season.
@@CheesyYVIOI’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Farming season?
@@adastra7939 Farming for comments
@@CheesyYVIO I just wanted to show my appreciation towards this channel.
There’s a video of an actual swivel jet that was an experimental prototype and the biggest problem they had was that every time it took off vertically the jet would melt the runway!
So basically there was no problem with the jet itself
@@clavinchhangte7071
Even if the jet itself isn't an issue, it CAUSING issues elsewhere either directly or indirectly can be an issue in and of itself, there are many examples of perfectly capable aircraft who's negative effects on infrastructure, people, or anything else adjacent were enough to get them canceled.
I guess u could make it take off from ground so it doesnt melt infraestructure or throw water at the strip to prevent it from melting
Why not use the same material from a baffle from a carrier
@@randomvideosfromdiscord5572 probably to costly to make an entire runway out of it.
Make a video on the concept for that rolling train of wheels-only fuel tanks seen on the left at 5:56
8 engines? That puppy drinks some fuel.
even before the sponsor part i was thinking, funny 8 engines, a lot of weapons, what went missing, oh the fuel tank....
Thank you for the continuous installments of top-tier content. You guys and Yarnhub are next level
I feel like a lot of the problems with these mid-20th century designs were that they were just too complex for their own good. Like the way engineers of these designs, when they wanted to add new features, added whole new systems for that feature instead of finding a way to utilize existing systems. People think that more advanced equals more complicated but if you look at actual modern equivalents that actually work, it's easy to see that keeping it as simple as possible works best (e.g. The Harrier which uses one big engine going to four rotating vents and the F-35B which uses one engine with a rotating nozzle and a lift fan attached via a driveshaft)
The modern ones are actually more complex. It’s actually simpler to add engines than integrate complicated ducts and swivels.
@@carlosandleon I disagree. Firstly you have the issue that the more mechanically moving parts means the greater chance of something going wrong. Having 8 engines where you could only have 1 means that's 8 times the chance of engine failure. 8 times the fuel consumption and 8 times the cost to produce one aircraft instead of the 8 single engine aircraft you could build.
Then there is the issue of the dead weight that neither the D-188 or the F-35-B have solved where the harrier solved first time off. The harrier uses swivel vectoring nozzles to direct the thrust of the engine. This means that the engine uses the same propulsion system to fly vertically as well as horizontally. Where as the D-188 and F-35-B use additional propulsion systems to produce the vertical lift. These additional engines only serve to get the aircraft off the ground but as soon as the aircraft transitions over to horizontal flight those additional engines are not doing anything and are just additional weight making the aircraft heavier at no additional benefit during standard forward flight..
"one large engine"
That's such truth, the harrier is an engine with wings and a pilot nailed on 😂
The Osprey would look nice with those pods.
Why SUPERSONIC VTOL in Germany in cold war would not have been needed : Know the tale of rabbit and hedgehog ? Rabbit and Hedgehog made a race. Hedgy placed his hedgehog friends all along the track, and every time rabbit came in sight, running on high speed, one of Hedgys friends came out of his hideout along the track and called : Im already here ! This is why we prefered british subsonic Harriers in this role for our defence strategy in these days, and we had formidable FLAK and FLAR. For supersonic needs we already had the F 104 and F4, and of course we relied on our allies.Bit later we also had our Tornados.
P.S.: As an ex Bundeswehr soldier I had insights. The VJ 101 was a waste of money and everyone knew it, couse we knew that we would pay loads of cash for something that we did not need.
But these Days have long gone. Im old now and the world has changed so much.
EWR VJ-101 lookalike.
Rather the VJ-101C is a D-188A lookalike since Bell was there first.
I was wondering if the VJ-101 had some connections to this plane due to their structural similarities and I was not disappointed
Two dedicated lift engines seems like a huge waste of of space.
Yep thats why the f35 used a lift fan unlike the yak141
@@nikolaideianov5092 Unfortunately the F-35 is also a huge waste of money.
@@rayceeya8659which variant specifically? And a waste of money to whom?
Just imagine the effect of those downward pointing engines of the flightdeck of a carrier. The heat they would of created. As if carrier flightdecks were not dangerous enough.
"How much would it cost to make part of the flight deck out of tungsten?"
Wow, the XF-109. That's just six away from the XF-103.
And now we have the F-35B stealth and can go supersonic. Crazy
The NF-104 was NOT a VTOL aircraft. It was modified version of the F-104 with a rocket engine attached to the tail so it could fly higher, not take off vertically.
There was the option of installing ZELL, or the Zero-Length Launch system, a big rocket that basically launched the F-104 like a missile in something similar to a vertical take off
I feel like this is something someone would make in space engineers
It’s amazing to see how far this channel has come in just 4 years!😊
A Orca from the Command and Conquer Tiberium series
ty
This feels like the super heavy VTOL/gunship in Evangelion, but this one can go hypersonic. Now I know where they got their inspiration from.
Actually it would be nice to include examples of fictional work that featured the real life design, or designs with similar concept.
This thing cannot go hypersonic, I doubt it could even takeoff and airborne with a full load of ammunition without going fuel empty.
Horsepower and gunpowder is all you need...
Great idea!!
The one closest thing we have tried to build to a UNSC pelican
Very interesting video. I love the look of these early V-Jets, they really went all out for the supersonic fighter that needs no runway. As soon as you see eight engines you know it never got into service, and if it got into a fight losing a pod engine would be hard to recover from.
The Harrier did its job but couldnt crack the sound barrier, the yak-141 was so close to being the first supersonic vtol in service. The best solution seems to be one big engine with vectored thrust for vtol and control like the F35 uses. I understand the lift fan must be dead weight but perhaps in future a vtol engine could rotate the fan 90 degrees and use it for bypass air?
The swivelling pods on this 188 remind me a little of the UNSC Pelican engine pods.
Center of mass... correct terminology
Two minor corrections:
First, the NF-104 was not a VTOL. It was capable of near vertical flight with a way higher than 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio thanks to its rocket engine, necessary to test flying in the upper atmosphere. It was essentially a precursor to the X-15... However... It was not actually capable of landing or taking off vertically... Which makes it not a VTOL, since that is what VTOL literally stands for (vertical takeoff and landing).
Second... I think you had a bit of a freudian slip when you said the P-63 was the last "jet fighter" Bell had built... The P-63 is a prop, powered by an internal combustion engine. No jet engine involved. I think people often conflate jet engines and fighter aircraft, resulting in "jet fighter" being used to describe WW2 props when it doesnt make sense.
Also, interestingly... Bell actully did make a "jet" fighter before this project, newer than the P-63. The Bell P-59 was America's first jet aircraft period. It was going to be a fighter. However, the P-80 often gets the fame for being America's first jet fighter. This is because the P-59s performance was poor, with a lower top speed than the best P-51s in service (a prop plane). Thus, while the P-80 and the later T-33 saw extensive service, the US military cut their order of P-59s. Only 66 were built, they were never used in combat, and only served as trainer aircraft. But... This is actually a produced Bell "jet fighter" that was made after the P-63... Ok, I guess if you want to be technical about it, the P-59 predated the P-63 by a little bit. The P-59 first flew in October 1942... The P-63 first flew in December 1942... However I think this is being a lil nitpicky, the P-63 was heavily based on the older P-39 and didnt represent any MAJOR jumps in technology like the P-59 did.
Can you make a video about b-377 Stratocruiser
Stares in crew Chief eyes “8 fucking engines on a tactical jet??!!…” BPO’s would take forever lol
If the US military really wanted VTOL/STOL capability in the 1950s, they should have just gone with a Piper Cub.
Don't you just hate when you're thrust is not powerful enough guys okay I'll see myself out
- The epitome of what the bosses want vs the actual budget / cost efficacy . 😂
'US Airforce generals watching the intro of this video':
Why don't we do that again ?!
If you showed me a picture of this plane with no context I would probably think it's a rejected vehicle from *Thunderbirds.*
🔴 Just imagine a VTOL A-10 concept 💀💀
Cobra Rattler
People trying not to comment [blank] A-10 on a RUclips video that isn't focused on the A-10
Yeah, aircraft like this one were highly unlikely to ever be accepted into the US military inventory, as the advertised flexibility of the aircraft would never have been fully realized. The design features like wingtip-mounted engine pods which translate from horizontal to vertical flight add complexity, weight, and maintenance issues, making them impossible to service and deploy from austere forward operational positions. If you're gonna be deploying from a standard operational base with a runway, you might as well fly aircraft with standard designs, affording superior capabilities and better weapon's load-out capacity.
why would rotating engine poids be bad for stealth? just make sure they are fixed to the wing flat at a 90 degree intersect and thhen change the shape of the pods themselves
dude they didn't care about stealth at the time they probably had limited knowledge about stealth even existing
Excellent video as always. How about a video on the p1154 and Balzac? Winners of the NBFR-3 programme
Impressive, very nice.
F-35 should have been a tail sitter.
We had the technology even back then.
I'm a random RUclips user, and I approve of this message.
Concepts and prototype like those would fit in a Sci-Fi movie setting, especially in Anime. Which, ironically enough, weren't picked up by artists as it's a potential gold mine
I mean why bother designing a new stuff for your movie/series (depending on the theme/setting) when defense companies essentially already did that for you?
5:55 are those wheels off-roads fuel tanks ?
Have you thought about doing a video on the XP/XF-91?
Damn it though this was going to be the German EWR VJ101 the one that actually got to prototype.
To imagine all the HUNDREDS of dollars spent in this project for nothing!
I swear this looks something thought up by Hasbro for GI Joe.
Many of the vehicles for the gijoe line were derived from actual concepts
Epic video
...in fact the VJ-101 was the first VTOL-plane ever to go supersonic...but didn't made it to series-production too...! 😞
So powerful I like it
the p63 is a propeller driven aircraft wdym 9:28
Sad. Tthis one could have been good for the USNavy. I would have just looked for a way to omit those two lift engines. As a stealth aircraft, the hull design would be REALLY different. The F22 and F35 have or will have stealth fuel pods so the engine pods on a Stealth D-188 would be very similar. Technology moves on and more it does the more oddballs that could have been like the D-188 are more possible.
Still, all those engines just eat fuel like a sumo at the buffet.
No mention of the Hawker Harrier??!! They effectively filled the bill in many combat engagements.
They have been put to good use by the U.S. Marines and the Brits, in various formats, for many years. It seems like maybe Hawker picked up the puffer stabilizing feature from the Bell project.
Honestly we just sit at the back feeling smug, it's fine
@MostlyPennyCat
Yeah, Spitfire, Mosquito, Tempest, Vulcan... You guys certainly earned it.
@@Spaatz77
☺️👈 This is our Smug Face
@@Spaatz77
The RR Merlin and Griffon engines
_The Jet Engine_
Jaguar
Concorde
Canberra
TSR2
Buccaneer
All of the Westland helicopters, of which one still has the world wide record (Lynx going 250mph)
It's a shame that a lot of our extraordinary aircraft that were never built is so long, mach 3 bombers, Mach 4 spy plane, we built an orbital disposable rocket system that was very good and reliable.
The British Space Industry is vast but almost company unknown
All down to money in the end, unfortunately... 😓
@@MostlyPennyCat
The Merlin and Jet Engine!!
God, how could I have forgotten!! Of course, giving the Whittle to the Ruskies knocks off a few points.
Jaguar and TSR...lovely aircraft. Too bad the later got shelved. The Sea Fury....so good.
A engineers worst nightmare
8 jet engine, 1 duel tank
Why is there just a clip of opera at 6:38? Did you forget to delete it in editing or something?
This could have been the grandfather for the ORCA series military aircraft. (Hint: Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun)
Can you make a video about the german EWR VJ 101 VSTOL or the Dornier Do 31?
Straight Out From BO2
And suddenly the F104 makes more sense.
Secret weapon is not a vertical engine i have seen with my own eyes those flying disks..
12:16 gaijin is dispatched to your location.
Never approved for service because it didn't have enough engines
it's amazing to think that us Brits actually did it way better and with only one Rolls Royce Jet Turbine using thrust vectoring via nozzles..... sure it never went supersonic but the Harrier never really needed it. which explains why the first chance the Americans got, they brought the design off us then renaming it to the GR1
No we called it the GR1, they called it AV8A didn't they?
And yes, our design of Massive Engine with wings and pilot nailed on was a winner.
@@MostlyPennyCat US called it the GR1 we in the UK called it the AV8A as I said "the Americans brought the design of us (as in us the UK not us as in US) and then renaming it to the GR1"
ok I stand corrected just rechecked the info i had and my apologies... you are correct, UK called it GR1 but the US called it the AV8A etc....
I mean credit where it's due the plane looks cool, but not very practical when all those engines are gonna add to weight, reductions in flight time etc... style was good though
but tbf the Harrier was much more cool 🙂
Did he just leak some information there in the middle?
The VTOL Jet then was a surefire disaster for the same reason the AV-8B was far less field deployable than promised... FOD. Foreign Object Debris. Jet fighters need clean air into the intakes, but a VTOL jet, be it the AV-8b "Harrier" or the D-188, generates a LOT of FOD on fireup, and that FOD tends to circle back to the intakes.
Which leaves Naval uses... for which helicopters are preferred.
Sure, any USN Destroyer or light cruiser can field and support 2 AV-8B's... but it gets a lot more mission capability from supporting 1 SH-60 Sea Hawk... and a mission specific capability to take on a second Sea Hawk. Before the Sea Hawk, there was the SH-3 Sea King. (Technically, the USMC maintains one squadron operating a few SH-3's (VH-3D models now, per USNI) - in presidential livery, for use as Marine-1, Marine-2, and their backups. VHX-1 has the honor of operating the current presidential helos.)
And the SH-60 can be outfitted as a helicopter gunship with lots of AG and AA munitions... so the only role is high cover, and that's easily handled by navalized 4th gen fighters off CVLs and CVAs
www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2012/january/historic-aircraft-king-sea
VJ 101 C-X2 from 10.4.1963 made in Germany
Germany: huh, VTOL on a widowmaker ? noobs
what ever bell is smoking, I want it
thar would use so much fuel it's range would be out to the airfield boundary fence.
I wonder if this is where evangelion got their vtols.
There was a VTOL Mirage BTW. THERE WAS A VTOL MIRAGE!!!!! THERE WAS A NINE ENGINE, VTOL MIRAGE!!!
(pls make video on this)
yooo im so exited
Wow!
They wasted all that time on jet engines when that fan one was the most like modern VTAL machines!😕
Fan one?
Fighter version of the v22 lol
IR AA missiles would be cryptonite to this thing.
Oh my god. Putting more engines solves all your problems?
reminds me of the hell divers vtol plane
before powerpoint you had to draw and probably build something😂😂😂
Until today is a hard target to reach
Hybrid between a tilt jet rotor aircraft?
6:37 editing error I guess
Another dead end carrying engines which were not used instead of payload.
need this in war thunder
Video on vigen 37
X-Planes...
it's too much jet engine more then 5 intalled to fuseluge ,I am no see fuel tank there .
nowadays aeronautical engineering is the least innovative branch of engineering
Big investment this industry technology advancement please sir please
Westland wevern
Russians: "HAHA, we put VTOL Aircraft into service before YOU. We are SUPERIOR"
Americans: *Smirks knowing why they didn´t press a VTOL into service*
For context, the russian Yak-38 was a failure. Costing alot to build and maintaine, will being dangerous to fly. Which led to teh Soviet Union not even be able to outfit there Aircraft Carriers with a full set of them and losing many Aircraft and Pilots will operating them.
In reality the fiat g95 Evolution of well known Fiat g91 have already similari system in early 60