The First Ever VTOL Jet - Ryan X-13 Vertijet | Aircraft History#5
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2024
- The X-13 was a curious aircraft that came into being at a time where aircraft design was going through a rapid evolution in the first decade of the true jet era. Even though it never became a full production aircraft, the X-13 is not to be deemed a failure. It never had any serious accidents or crashes, it performed admirably in tests, and it helped pave the way for future VTOL aircraft development in the future.
The X-13 was able to take off vertically, transition into conventional horizontal flight, and then transition back to vertical control for a vertical attitude landing.
Video Sources:
www.archive.org
www.calisphere.org (University of California)
****
Producing these videos is a hobby of mine. I have a passion for history, and personally own a large collection of books, journals and other texts, and endeavor to do as much research as possible. However if there are any mistakes, please don't hesitate to reach out and correct anything :)
![An Engine With A Bomber Attached To It | Avro 549 Aldershot [Aircraft Overview #75]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/s1dt6LsV80U/mqdefault.jpg)
![An Engine With A Bomber Attached To It | Avro 549 Aldershot [Aircraft Overview #75]](/img/tr.png)
![Italy’s Bizarre Flying Barrel | The Stipa Caproni [Aircraft Overview #55]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X3K0QPfmznY/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Bomber That Inspired A Generation Of Giant Aircraft | Tupolev ANT-4 [Aircraft Overview #26]](/img/1.gif)
A flight test program without a scratch or dent to the airframe during the entire program, that’s pretty darn impressive.
G'day,
Yeah, it's good that nobody got hurt and that they didn't crash it..., but Jetfighters which take off vertically is a Project which turns out to be not worth doing.
Such is life,
Have a good one.....
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
@@WarblesOnALot Still, the the Hawker Harrier had a long service both in Britain and in the US Army!
@@Hiznogood
G'day,
Yes, in a way, they did ; but not in the role they were designed for.
The Brit's flew Harriers off Carriers, as Air Superiority Point-Defence Combat Air Patrol Fighters..., not as Ground Attack based beside the Army and camping in a Forest sleeping in a Tent.
Then after Somalia's Blackhawk Down the Yanks set up a Test Rig to hold every Aircraft they operate, rigidly on a Pylon in front of a Grid of 16 Turboprop Engines..., where they start the Specimen, run the Engine at Operating Flight Power, apply the appropriate Airspeed, and then shoot it with various Weapons while filming from all angles using High Speed Cameras..., to see what Weapon does how much damage to what...; and then they re-engineered the Vulnerable bits, so that Rifles could not down a Blackhawk again, kinda thing.
And the Harrier can be shot down in flames with a Semi-Automatic .22 Pistol, if one hides under the Flight-path and hits a low slow Harrier wallowing in to land Vertically, impacting the Aluminium Hydraulic Brake Lines on the rear Main Undercarraige Leg..., a hit on which sprays high-pressure Hydraulic Fluid (Hydrocarbon) into the Red-Hot Efflux of the rear Nozzles of that double-bifurcated Fan-Jet.
And then the Hydraulic Fluid atomises into a BLEVE Fireball, to reward any Infiltrator who can hit a Car-Tyre sized Target at 50 yards, with a Magazine-Dump.
Which is WHY the USMC never ever deployed their Harriers ANYWHERE that Guerillas or Commandos might perhaps maybe possibly sneak up and lurk, waiting, outside the Downwind boundary of ANY Forward Operating Base.
And, being V/STOL or STOVL capaple prevents being Supersonic..., so therefore thus and because ; despite appearances, the Harrier was actually mostly a Dud.
After GWHB had had his little Iraqi Excoursion, Air and Space Smithsonian magazine ran a feature article on the Testing Facility, in which I read of how easy a bit of Meat a Harrier actually turned out to be.
Such is life,
Have a good one.....
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
@@Hiznogood enter the f35
@@Hiznogood Marines, but yeah. Still technically in service with the Marines. It also served in plenty of other nations.
This is like Dark Skies, only without the factual errors, mismatched footage, and the plagiarism from Wikipedia.
And the hokey History Channel style narration...
@@Regolith86 Thank you. That voice makes me grind my teeth.
SOMEBODY. GETS. IT. omg
@@Setebos And he talks soo fast, like he's a kindergartener who just discovered the magic of his mom's candy stash for Halloween.
HOLY MACKEREL!!! I legit thought you were being dramatic about the plagiarization, but sure enough, I went to his Yak-3 video and the script was word for word identical to the Wikipedia page. I can't believe this sh*t stain of a human is actually straight up reading a wiki page and making money off of it by pretending it's his own. Like wow.
The balls on the guys sitting on top of those early mockups. Just perched on an experimental jet engine without so much as a cockpit, seeing how well it hovers.
Unless this aircraft was equipped with an ejection seat that allowed for *zero airspeed/zero altitude ejection,* I _presume_ there was no contingency for a pilot ejection in case of engine flameout in a very low altitude hover.
You need to see the earlier experiments with a 2”square platform fed by two huge diesel compressors and you had to fly this hoverboard by moving your feet.
It is fascinating that both aircraft survived testing and are still available.
Pretty amazing seeing so many people standing around so closely, or even sitting on these prototypes during tests.
There were no 0-0 (zero airspeed - zero altitude) ejection seats in those days, and any safe ejection needed a good bit of speed and altitude. I think it took more courage than usual to strap into this little plane. But, unusual as it was, it turned out to be a reliable airplane with, apprently, no more than the usual drama associated with a new design. Good design and a reliable engine...
Indeed. The first zero zero seat was not demonstrated until 1961 by the Martin-Baker company. Its pretty clear that anything major close to the ground would have been very difficult for the pilot to survive... Amazing cold blooded courage shown.
The first X-13 is on display at the San Diego Air and Space Museum annex at Gillespie Field in El Cajon,Calif.
My former FIL was Chief of Flight on this program.
When I was a kid in the early 60's, I saw one of the X-13s on display at the Arizona State Fair in Phoenix.
An example that you can design an aircraft to do just about anything you want, as long as it doesn't have to do it well.
This channel is going to blow up like drachinifel.
I take that as a compliment of the highest order ❤
@@RexsHangar You must now find the airplane equivalents to the stories of the IRN Kamchatka and to French Pre-dreadnoughts.
...just kidding.
@@SephirothRyu Airplane equivalents to French Pre-dreadnoughts would be French bombers of the 1930s.
@@RexsHangar your voice, jokes and research (with visuals) are all on par with Drachinifel, really good!
That landing trailer solution is awesome
Boss: You are gonna sit on top of the engine and control it.
Me: Uh what
Boss: yeah just straddle the side and don’t get sucked into the air intake.
The rotating chair was a great idea, don't really understand why they didn't have a more glazed nose, and a further rotating chair. Maybe the test pilots were just too damn good and it wasn't worth the effort. Incredible airplane
Vertical Takeoff, yes. Vertical landing, not so easy.;)
I would love to see videos on the entire USAF X Plane program. There are some truly fascinating and important experimental aircraft in the program that radically changed aviation and space exploration.
I think the Bacher-349 could be considered the first VTOL aircraft, except it lands vertically by parachute. And it's only vertical launch killed the pilot. Apart from that... 😁
Yep, that was my first thought as well. The "Natter" was propably the first VTOL - but a total disaster. And flew only 1 time.
Also was a rocket. This video is entitled the world's first jet vtol. There was also the convair pogo turbo prop which flew a year before this but also not a jet.
The first VTOL airCRAFT would have to be the first hot air baloon.
Whereas the first POWERED VTOL aircraft were the first helicopters.
The Natter on the other hand could only launch vertically with booster rockets. Which other aircraft like the Starfighter did later on as well, without being classified as VTOL.
The first legit VTOL airplane (i.e. taking of vertically unter the power of its own engine) would have had to be the Pogo.
such good content from you :D❤
Thanks, as usual an outstanding presentation
Oh hey, I built this in KSP once because the runway was too bumpy
There's one in San Diego at Montgomery field. In what's a sorry of extension of the Balboa air and space museum
This is extremely interesting. For the engineering-oriented folks out there, how come it is so stable in a hover? I'd thing it'd be the same as a drone, inherently unstable and in need of processing power to constantly fine tune its control surfaces and maintain its stability
This channel joins my subscriber series, along with Paper Skies and Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles :)
Many people care for and watch your mighty and powerful subscriber series
Great video. Thanks.
The creation and use of a practical fleet carrier that is also a submarine would be single greatest game changer in warfare since the advent of the atomic bomb. Just imagine, entire carrier task groups that can pop up off of a target nation's coastline without any prior warning that the US Navy is about to knock on their door. Entire amphibious invasions could be assembled, trained up, equipped, and deployed without anyone knowing what target beach is about to be hit or when that blow will be coming until moments before the festivities begin when 2 or 3 submerged carriers (I'm assuming it will take several sub-carriers to equal the capabilities of one modern super carrier) suddenly surface and seize air superiority over the intend invasion target's shoreline. The deterrent factor alone would compel potential foes to invest enormous sums of money trying to replicate or counter this new technology.
Woe betide the first country that gets on our shit list once we've deployed the girst half-dozen or so of these craft. Between this and massive drone launching platforms that will launch dozens of craft to AI support each human controlled aircraft in combat (not to mention the exact same force multiplier concept but underwater as well), the day when large numbers of inexpensive weapon systems utilized in human wave attacks somehow overcoming the technologically superior but numerically inferior force on the field will become a distant memory.
this would make a great series of all military vtols
Cute little airplane, I wouldn't have had a very long service life it had actually been bought being so slow, non-afterburning and so tiny it couldn't be well armed.. Conceptually though it has some uses that would be a nice alternative to a Helicopter if the technology had been able to be perfected.
It crossed my mind that catching it in a net might have just been a lot easier way for it to land.
It would make a really adorable basis for a desk toy though.
It's do darn cute you want to paint it like a mouse and call it nibbles of something like that.
it's like the Long haired hamster of Airplanes.
Hmmm... Real History that a person may or may not believe. Thanks for Sharing
About the idea of VTOL's being able to be used on smaller aircraft carriers. While this is true, (see the smaller "Helicopter" carriers like the USS America which can also use the Lockheed Martin F-35B VTOL jet fighter by the way), I don't this the US Navy would have reduced the size of their carriers. The larger ones could simply carry more aircraft than before. This, I think, would have appealed more than smaller carriers with less aircraft. Plus, they would still need to land cargo and transport aircraft just as before as well, so they couldn't be made TOO small.
It's a somewhat complex question. In theory more small carriers might be more flexible and survivable. Larger carriers have normally brought all weather operation and and the ability to fly bigger planes. It's not clear that a large vtol carrier would solve the problems of either. I suspect if you are making a carrier large enough to fly conventional aircraft than you might as well do that.
Remember, this was a time when using nukes against ships was considered good idea 0:46. Having multiple smaller carriers spread out at large area made more sense than one or two monsters that can be killed with single nuke.
err, i was wondering where elon musk got the idea to use a tower to catch and land a vehicle.
Oh what a shame, the only reason why we dont have literal vertical takeoff and landing jets is because someone cut the funding
Just imagine how wars would be with squardrons of jets flying straight up before going horizontally
Because... who needs an airforce base when you can take off from your back yard space.
“Just imagine how wars would be…”
Still horrible?
"The only reason" is that "someone cut the funding"?
How about the fact that it was repeatedly proven, by all prototypes of this nature (and there were several types), that it was completely impractical and downright dangerous for a pilot to try to land a plane backwards with just a little mirror or 2 to see where he was going?
@@mikearmstrong8483 I did not consider that though now that I think about it they could easily be damaged by enemy fire and not be able to take off safely
@@JTA1961 I can't remember where I saw it, but when the British were deployed in Germany in the 1970s they did some tests and found that they could store the harriers in hidden locations such as in some woods and then roll it out onto a nearby road and take off vertically. Not ideal because it had to have a reduced payload but I still think its cool that it could be done
Wait, is that a man sitting on top of the demonstration model at timestamp 3:33?
Great video as always...
@Rex's Hangar >>> Speaking of the *Ryan* company, could you please do a video on their *XV-8 Rogallo Wing* aircraft?
It worked as a technology demonstrator. Just not practical as an in service aircraft.
No mention of the Shorts SC1
Starting at about 03:27 in this video: I am watching this on the smallish screen of my smartphone. Is that a MAN {sitting} on the nose of that test rig??!!
Thank you
keep in mind, this was in 1955!
Why didn't they add a windshield to the floor?
I just wanna say that I was here before u blew into the hundreds of thousands
Well now you brought this craft up I think it's only fair to cover the true first VTOL plane and most successful one in history the harrier
In what way is the X-13 not a true VTOL plane?
The only thing the Harrier can claim to be the first in is thrust vectoring.
In every other respect, it is no more a VTOL than the tailsitters were, if anything, less so (considering that the Harrier can't lift off vertically at max takeoff weight).
Scary...veeeryyyy scary.....🎉😮😅😮
Not quite as good as the Hawker Harrier was it?
I'm surprised both X-13s survived.
I know its not a jet but the convair pogo tried this concept a year earlier but with a turbo prop. .
Without the landing setup though, they just tried landing tail first on the ground. Which was far more hazardous than this.
If ever there was a type of aircraft suited to prone positioned pilot …….
Ryan, the company that seems to have had the impression that forward visibility for pilots is over rated. NYP to X-13.
The British-designed "Harrier" was the 'purest' VTOL 'plane, not having to carry the dead weight of separate 'lift engines'.
What separate "lift engines" does this plane has in your eyes?
WTF? Please define what a “purest” VTOL plane actually is? And what other engines are you seeing in this plane? You must be a Brit to make such a stupid comment.
@@mopar_dude9227 you'd have to be a yank to create such a stupid aircraft, the fact that this was seriously entertained as a possibility is laughable
@Mopar_ Dude he doesn't actually say this plane has other engines. I think he means compared to other types that entered service. Ie the yak38 and the F35. . .
And of course, the Harrier actually went into production AND fought in combat, so yes much purer than this interesting but dead-end R&D project.
They did well with what they had, but totally design--blind to the concept that Hawker turned into the Kestrel and then the Harrier!!!
Though it's worth considering that this concept, namely turning the landing platform by 90° and make the plane hover on it's tail would, if generally applied, offer far more possibilities than the variable thrust concept.
In theory, any plane with a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than one can pull this stunt off. Which would include many many modern air superiority fighters. And it can be done without the complicated engineering of the Rolls-Royce Pegasus.
I mean, if the Royal Navy had stuck to full-scale airplane carriers, the Harrier would probably have remained a rather obscure aircraft as well, because it never served in the role it was designed for; An air battle without airfields.
Very disingenuous to classify as the "first" since it only ever got as far as testing, never went into production.
The X-1 was a pure test aircraft, and yet it's still correctly called the first supersonic plane.
The title never says "production aircraft", there is nothing disingenuous about it.
@@rockyblacksmith It's not the Harrier, that's why so many people here are upset that the X-13 was the first VTOL jet plane.
Hate how he pronounces “A-CRAHFT” Accents are irritating 😠
You should be able to get over it, because he is simply pronouncing it in British Queen's English. Now, if he had any speech impediments or quirks, I would be annoyed as well, but luckily, I haven't heard a single word from him sounding weird or unusual. So far... lol
@@Wolf-Spirit_Alpha-Sigma which is the Queens English?? There are so many British accents and so different. There are what 6 or 7 London accents alone. Which one does the queen use???
@@skooter2767k The so called 'received pronunciation', a.k.a. the Queen's/King's English or informally: the BBC (tv network) pronunciation. It has most in common with the dialects of South East Midlands, namely London, Oxford and Cambridge. I was taught that "accent" and grammar at school, as a second language - which I ditched in favor of the more streamlined and intuitive (in my view) 'General American' English. But you're correct that there is a gazillion English accents, or rather styles of pronunciation, all over the world.
@@Wolf-Spirit_Alpha-Sigma He's Aussie dude, but the way the higher educated have their accents.
@@Terraceview Sure...