@@ConnorFlynnNo1 No they are not! Just because governments tend to be crappy towards other nations as well as their own citizens does not mean that the people as a whole are bad, or that they even agree with what their own leaders do. I have Russian friends and they are just like people from other countries I have met.
Yes, please make a video on flying nuclear aircraft carrier. Maybe combining with other previous concepts such as the airship version. Thanks for a great show!
I believe the USS Akron airship was capable of carrying 3 small reconnaissance aircraft! It would deploy and retrieve them using a mechanical arm. As far as I remember it was going to be retrofitted to carry 5 aircraft, but the airship crashed before that was done.
All you people of course realize that there is no such thing as a flying nuclear aircraft carrier, right? But the airship version of a flying nuclear aircraft carrier actually sounds like a great topic for a vid. And yeah. Thanks for a great show!
That's hardly the only problem with this video. For example, Simon said something about "the missile gap" while going on to talk about the Soviet SA-2 surface to air missile (SAM). The "Missile Gap" had nothing to do with SAMs: it had to do with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). The "Missile Gap" issue had to do with which side had more ICBMs and what state of development they were in. Some intelligence assessments held that the Soviet Union had more ICBMs fitted with nuclear warheads and were growing their ICBM fleet faster than the US. Where this issue crossed paths with the XB-70 program lay in whether to put relatively short defense dollars against bombers or missiles. As for SAMs, the XB-70 would have been fast enough and flying high enough to avoid most SA-2s: the SR-71 was able to avoid everything ever shot at it. What really killed the XB-70 was the cost of maintaining a large fleet of high-tech bombers versus the cost of maintaining a smaller fleet of ICBMs. The bombers needed a lot of maintenance and the crews needed a lot of training. The ICBMs were stuck in holes in the ground and never flew anywhere. Another issue I have with this video is that NASA's research into high altitude/high speed flight wasn't covered. There was a gap between the 1966 accident and the final delivery to the Museum of the US Air Force in February 1969. According to NASA's fact sheet on this program, the XB-70 provided essential data for supersonic transport (SST) design and sonic boom research. This was critical to filling in gaps in knowledge of these questions about flight. Perhaps more interesting was the accident investigation report emerging from the 1966 crash of AV-2, and that wasn't covered at all, yet it was critical to the rapidly expanding air passenger market. It turns out that AV-2 was brought down by its own wing vortices. One of those caught the F-104 chase plane and swept the aircraft into the vertical stabilizers. Prior to that time, aircraft weren't big and fast enough to generate significant vortices, so the problem wasn't well known. But with aircraft like the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, the L-1011 and the Boeing 747, wingtip vortices were about to become a problem. So the fact that the AV-2 crash report highlighted the problem before any of the jumbo aircraft made it into the air was significant.
@@johndemeritt3460 The "missile gap" had to do with John F. Kennedy vs. Richard M. Nixon. Kennedy campaigned hard on the accusation that President Eisenhower (and by extension his Vice President Nixon) had neglected America's defenses, allowing the Soviet Union to significantly surpass the U.S. in throw-weight, range, and especially numbers of ICBMs. Kennedy and his handlers cleverly exploited the general anxiety of the Cold War amplified by the widespread panic caused by the Sputnik launch (4/10/57) to create a false narrative against Nixon. Eisenhower and Nixon knew the missile gap polemic was bullshit, but could not respond without compromising one of the most important secrets of the time: CORONA. American spy satellites coupled with nearly four years of U-2 overflights led the CIA to estimate the number of operational Soviet ICBM in 1960 to be "about a dozen". However, the so-called National Intelligence Estimate, a document co-authored by Congressional staffers and academics with no access to the most classified sources differed sharply, claiming the number was 500 or more. The NIE was leaked by Congressional Democrats to Washington Post columnist and Kennedy supporter, Joseph Alsop, who trebled the NIE number to 1,500 in his writings. Today the real number is known: 4. ruclips.net/video/f-c6CbPTadA/видео.html
kalon9999 read up on the Avro Arrow, it’s a real shame the project was cancelled, there was a lot of outspoken anger at diefenbaker the prime minister at the time who canceled the project, over making farmers a little fatter.
Don't bother. Summation: USSR: Nyet. Crew dead. USA: No, didn't accomplish anything at all. Side Note: Interesting that each country's name starts with the word "us."
So he makes the odd mistake, their are very few of his videos that don’t have pronunciation mistakes as far as I’m concerned (I’m British and have an RP style of speech) but given the amount of these he does and the volume of info he puts out, no one could learn all that pronunciation. I have a feeling that the program/web-site he uses is not exactly accurate.
@@ForgeMasterXXL Hi Rai, I'm talking about factual errors, not pronunciation. Received Pronunciation concerns accent and is used by at most 3-5% of the population and most of those are predominantly in South-East England. RP is not relevant to matters of fact. While yes, I agree with your points of volume and the inevitability of mistakes, what I refer to as "clangers" are mistakes that any basic researcher would spot, propellers on a B-52, for instance. The thing's been in service since 1954! The factual content of the programs must be held up against some standard, otherwise the content would be useless blather or at best unintentional misinformation. I don't think that is Simon's intention at all. Cheers from Canada
The really astounding thing, this aircraft was designed before the time of super computers to run complex aero dynamic equations, people with slide rules did that work.
Before the time when civilians had super computers. I don’t think that as the public we get anything good until at least 10-20 years after they have had it
I stopped by Wright Patt in 2001 on a cross country trip and my (now ex) wife insisted we see it. Glad she did, fantastic museum and holy hell is that a big plane.
Just visited Wright-Patterson last Saturday, after having planned since my kids were small, they are in college now. Anyway, one needs to visit that museum to understand how serious Americans are.
My grandpa was part of the engineering team that developed the Valkyrie's unique airfoil during his career at North American/ Rockwell in Downey, CA. This was a crazy awesome jet, nothing quite like it has been built even since.
@@ObservationofLimits Compression Lift. The XB70's wings kept folding downward the faster it flew to capture part the sonic boom created under the fuselage. This extra lift meant it was far more fuel efficient. I believe that's what Andy was referring to when he mentioned the unique airfoil that his grandfather helped design. Cheers!
@@ObservationofLimits In addition to other comments, this was also the last gasp of the US & the USSR focusing on high-altitude bombing as the primary means of asserting air superiority. By 1967, the USSR would introduce the MIG-25 & put the USA in full-on panic mode about the mystery fighter that could go higher & faster than anything the West had. Basically put the development of the next generation of fighters in the US into overdrive, changing strategic tack to asserting air superiority through dogfighting & controlling an airspace. The irony? The MIG-25 was made almost specifically for the purpose of catching & shooting down the XB-70.
Nice vdieo, but one aspect of the planes design has been totally neglected: the folding wings were not added to improve lateral stabily, that was only a side-effect, even though one most welcome. There were however two other reasons for the folding wing tips: The first one is an aerodynamic one: Whist accellerating from zero speed to mach 3, the center of lift of any aircraft moves down the centerline to the back of the aircraft. For example, Concorde had to pump fuel back and forth during accelleration respectively decelleration. Folding the wing tips down reduces the net area of the wing and therefore can be used to compensate for the aerodynamic effect of moving center of lift. The second reason however is the stroke of genius in the aircrafts design: The folding wing tips were designed to trap the aircrafts own shockwave in order to generate lift. This additional lift resulted in two benefits: 1. a higher service ceiling 2. reduced drag due to a reduced need for generating plain old aerodynamic lift, which always induces drag. Testing of the so called compression lift theory was the main reason, the aircraft was continued, after the militaries interest had dissolved.
You forgot one of the most unique features of the plane: the folding wing tips enabling what was called compression lift, so that at high speed it rode on a cushion of air that reduced drag and fuel consumption. The only other plane that was comparable was the SR-71, but this was almost as fast and had a similar ceiling, so it was in fact the highest AND fastest jet plane, ever. No. 1 was flawed in many ways and hardly ever flew above Mach 2, but no. 2 had a slightly different design and was much more stable at high speed and regularly surpassed Mach 3. Interestingly, the MIG-25 foxbat was developed to be the interceptor for this plane, and was a shockingly badly built plane that was basically a giant engine, but it was all the Soviets could do to get to the speed and height needed. The Soviets also had their own version, the Sukhoi T-4, which looked virtually the same but smaller, but it never went beyond prototype stage.
I saw this plane in person at the Air Force Museum in Ohio. The size of it is just astounding for a plane that could reach Mach 3. Compared to the SR-71 in the next hangar over it's a beast.
XB-70 is also known as the Mach 3 Paint Stripper. The paint wasn't ready for the heat generated at 2,000+ mph. Early on, they had to repaint after each flight. Greatest aircraft ever built! Nice video, with a few minor inaccuracies noted below.
I think that contest being faked. The US military has a maniacal need to name things either after badass weapons/creatures or with needlessly complicated acronyms. Theres no way they'd run the risk it didnt get called something like the Screaming Phoenix or the SSADNBWSNCV (super sonic aeronautically delivered nuclear bombing weapon system, non crashing version)
My father was an aircraft sheet metal man on the project. We had no idea the aircraft existed until it’s roll out, which as family members, we attended. I clearly recall walking up the incredibly steep stairs where one of the test pilots greeted you, and I was mighty impressed at all the gauges and switches. The first aircraft survived to carry on the test program, as the budget busting aircraft with its exotic use of titanium, flight control systems, and mighty “6 pack” engines. It is of course on display at Wright-Patterson. Interestingly, my father worked on the last conventionional mega bomber, the B-36 while in the USAF.
I've loved it ever since the first time I saw the remaining aircraft in person, but (and this takes nothing away from my Valkyrie enjoyment)... The SR-71 was the better engineering design, though even that wasn't ever implemented in its proposed interceptor or bomber variants. As a bomber it's probably good the B-70 wasn't put into wide scale production. AA missiles were getting too good by the time she'd have entered service. But... It would really have been nice if they'd built a handful instead of the 2.5 we got. At least she got to fly for NASA for a while before retiring!
@@michaelpipkin9942 I think I built that one too. Like three feet long. Built it with the drooping wingtips and the gear down... I reaaally wasn't planning ahead just then... Had to stand on blocks.
I know it’s a bit overdone, but I would recommend looking into some ancient mega projects. I’d love to hear more about the pre industrial insanity that was building large structures back in the day.
He does have a few ancient Megaprojects episodes as well. Sorry, I don’t have the links handy. But yeah, I really enjoy them as well, and look forward to seeing some more!
"Not that large?" I encourage you at some point to go down to Dayton. The last surviving Valkyrie is in the Museum of the US Air Force, along with some of the other aircraft you've mentioned. They'e even got a B-36.
There is a story, related in the book "Angle Of Attack- Harrison Storms And The Race To The Moon" that Harrison (chief designer of the XB-70) was called "The Creator" because, whenever some military type came into the place it was being built and they saw it, the initial reaction of ALL of them was "JESUS CHRIST"!
I'm gonna keep saying this everytime someone suggests a space related topic...Simon should add yet another channel to his galaxy of channels that is all about space missions, both manned and robotic. He can do past missions, current missions and even future missions and the infrastructure for them. Most of them are not big enough for a megaproject video, but he could get a lot of interesting stories.
@@chrisalfano589 I couldn't find a reference to the B-52 doing a loop but everybody in Seattle knows that in testing, Tex Johnson took the prototype 707 called the Dash-80 into a full barrel roll. Never been done before or since. That unplanned stunt sold a lot of Boeing airplanes. ruclips.net/video/AaA7kPfC5Hk/видео.html
Yup, and no propellers...which I think it what you were driving at. (The C-130 is also jet driven...but it uses turboshaft engines driving props. ) A&P Mechanic here. Cheers!
I have a feeling he might have had the B-36 in mind, which I guess technically culminated in a crazy setup of 6 props and 4 jets lol. 6 turning, 4 burning.
@@THEHYDROFYRE The original XB-52 design, selected by the Army Air Forces in 1946, was for a straight-wing, six-engine, propeller-powered heavy bomber. On Oct. 21, 1948, Boeing Chief Engineer Ed Wells and his design team were in Dayton, Ohio, when the Air Force’s chief of bomber development told them to scrap the propellers and come up with an all-jet bomber. Over the following weekend, in a Dayton hotel room, the team designed a new eight-engine jet bomber, still called the B-52
Should have included the one amazing fact that summed up just how epic this plane was: When the F104 collided with the XB70, the crew of the bomber didn't even know they had been hit - all they knew was that the control surfaces weren't responding correctly.
Great vid! The Valkyrie is one of my all-time favorite aircraft. Very forward-looking for a design of that era with some amazing engineering as well. The proposed escort fighter for the XB-70, the XF-108 Rapier was also really impressive looking and a very futuristic concept. I would have loved to have seen these cruising the skies when I was growing up during the Cold War era.
The B-36 would be a good mega projects to cover. One of the largest bombers of all time. 6 piston engines 4 jet engines. First and only US aircraft to have a nuclear reactor put inside it as you mentioned. Also tested a system for parasite fighter jets (fighters that are launched from the plane while flying).
You should mention compression lift, where the shock wave from the front of the engine pod was trapped by the folding wing tips when flying supersonic. The aircraft literally rode its own shockwave.
@@chrisbailey8810 The dynamics of this aircraft are totally astounding how air works in different velocities, it's a strange gap between low speed aircraft and hypersonic craft that are being tested by Boeing to this day. It such a great design to see.
hi Simon. I just want to say that out of all the channels you have done and been on. this is by far my favorite. the topics, the explanations and overall everything, is top quality. awesome uploads
I'd like to see a video on the nuclear aircraft. To answer Simon's question, the purpose of a nuclear powered aircraft that could remain in the air for months was that the bomber, manned by two or three crews, could take off with a load of bombs and fly a holding pattern, relatively safe from a Soviet first strike. Early in my career, I worked in a facility used for work on the experimental nuclear engine - I think the nuclear workers had all retired by then, but one or two of the old timers had worked with them. A very interesting project. But also totally insane - where would the development aircraft make its test flights? Why would anyone risk a flying nuclear reactor dropping into a populated area?
I saw the comments about Simon's pronunciation of Valkyrie and still wasn't prepared 😂 out of all the pronunciatioms this is the one that topples him 😂
@@johngoldberg8949 It wasn't just that the shielding was too heavy. The problem was that they kinda got into a vicious cycle: You put in shielding to protect the crew, the plane gets too heavy, so you run the reactor at a much higher temperature to generate more power to compensate, but now the reactor is running hotter, you need more shielding, the plane is now too heavy again, so you run the reactor hotter, ect.
The Valkyrie was IMHO the most elegant aircraft ever built. Thanks for the video. And as for nuclear-powered airplanes, yes that would be a very interesting subject for a new video.
This is meant as a compliment so please don't take it the wrong way... I have an illness which makes getting to sleep difficult and I watch these videos to help me nod off. I think the flood of information helps me to forget everything else and relax enough that I can sleep.
Richard McCaig hey stop trying to reason. People are to focused on what could have been, and end up way over exaggerating. No doubt the aero and TSR2 would have been good planes for their time, but would have already been out dated by the time the F-15 came on line
"Imagine Concorde equipped with a devastating nuclear arsenal" Simon I do not have to imagine as I have a picture that suggested that very thing. I don't know where it first appeared but the picture was drawn by a man named Arthur Gibson and in it the Concorde is carrying Blue Steel nuclear stand off missiles. Edit: B-52, that giant propeller driven airplane.... As an American and the son of a retired USAF Lt. Col. all I have to say is RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great episode - AV-3 was scrapped during construction following the loss of -2: AV-1 went on to be a high-speed test airframe for NASA for a while before retiring. The program was progressed at the same time as the A-12, which turned into the SR-71, which flew at similar heights and speeds but was "Black Funds" and considered untouchable with preferential funding. Shame - as you say, a stunning piece of engineering that just so happened to be one of the most beautiful aircraft ever constructed. The folding wingtips were also used to generate lift above Mach 1, by folding the supersonic compression wave under the wing - a true "Shockwave Rider". Would love to see one on the NERVA project, or the Avro Arrow. Keep it up, great stuff.
I have seen the lone surviving XB-70 on display at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio several times. It’s one of the most fascinating aircraft I’ve ever seen.
dan dare What? For 1956 (the original year of its design development) the RL201 looked like a friggin’ spaceship for its time and still looks like a swan to this day, whereas the TSR2 always looked quite awkward, whilst still being incredibly capable. I think you’re off your rocker.
Yes I've never heard it pronounced that way. Not just in America but in Europe either. But given the fact that Simon pronounces words that I wouldn't even try to I'm going to give him a pass on this one lol.
It's closer to the original Norse. English speakers tend towards the French pronunciation with the accent on the first syllable. It actually should have FOUR, not three syllables. val-KEER-ee-uh, or val-Koor-ee-uh if you are Danish.
@@Erkle64 that is what I heard every time . just saying - but with very uncommon linguistic slips for an 'Englishman' , and plenty of aristocratic diction - I'm leaning toward him actually being very clever and successful, but from offworld . well done you, and welcome to our current hell of greed on earth . please halp . :)
@@Erkle64 That's what I'm hearing too. I know our English pronounciation of 'Valkary' probably isn't accurate either, but 'Valkylrie' definitely isn't! Sorry Simon.
The wing tips when folded down in conjunction with the engine pack took advantage of the concept of compression lift. This helped reduce the supersonic drag and made the plane more efficient at supersonic speeds.
I've seen AV-1 at the Air Force Museum in Dayton countless times. In my opinion she is the most beautiful aircraft ever made. She gives me goosebumps from every angle.
Uh no, there is a big difference between Mach 2 and 3. The US SST project aimed to light years ahead of the Concorde and targeted mach 3 rather than the lowly mach 2 of the Concorde. Which was why the 747 was designed as a cargo plane. As the US airline industry expected mach 3 SSTs to debut in the 1970s.
Good info. My dad took 8 year old me to see her when she landed at Wright Patterson AFB, up close & personal, they even had model kits at the PX, which I had to have, wish I still had it! Being a civil servant has it's perks. Miles of camo B52s lined up and fighters in and out through the VN war, cool childhood out in the country.
Probably one of the most Futuristic and Beautiful Aircraft ever Built...Laid my hands apon the belly of AV-1 at Wright Patterson AF museum....Very large Aircraft...
Back in the day when the USAF museum was still at Wright-Patterson outside Dayton they had an XB-70 parked on a runway. Words cannot describe how huge it was when I walked it as a kid in the mid 70s. Seemed like a space ship.
I'm not it just sounds like what he's saying. Yeah Mitch that is more along what he's saying I guess I should have said it sounds like he's going to say Val Kilmer
I lived a couple of miles from the USAF Museum in Ohio, where the survivor is located. Every time I went there I would go immediately to the XB-70 to admire it. It is truly one of the most amazing and stunning planes ever made.
I grew up in Indianapolis. I got to see this extraordinary aircraft on several occasions as a child. I later took my own children to visit. I'm going to Indy in a few weeks and hope to take my grandchildren to see it as well.
@@gtv6chuck, I hope so! I work for an engineering firm now. The owner work on the BONE, Shuttle, and Space Station. We never run out of things to talk about on the countless hours of travel to clients in Montana.
This is one of the most beautiful looking aircraft, the tragic mid air collision during a formation photo opp doomed the program distroying one of the prototype aircraft
I remember my father talking about when he worked at Martin Marietta shortly after the Korean War before I was born about working on parts for the valkyrie! As far as mr. Andy bones I can relate to that being that my grandfather was part of Carrier air conditioning is cryogenic plant at the Apollo program! Grew up around this stuff. But back to the valkyrie I hold it in the same esteem I hold the SR-71 Blackbird or the a12! I actually got to crawl inside of an 8-12 and see how it was built it was absolutely incredible I can just imagine what went on the valkyrie! Thank you for the video
@@camronpeterson1945 Yes you are correct. What we can say is that the B-52 was going to be a straight-winged turboprop-powered plane. The design received swept wings making it similar to the later Tu-95 'Bear'. The USAF decided they wanted a pure jet bomber. The rest as they say is history.
Simon! Thank you for another great video. I found this one super cool. I enjoy several of your channels, especially when the theme is somewhat militaristic. There is a lot of military tech that I think makes good "megaprojects" and I hope that you continue with it!!
Can you do a video on the Rotodyne? Was a revolutionary gyrocopter that would of made a huge impact if not for the british government killing the project to save on costs, and even going to the extremes of ensuring the prototypes were destroyed.
Martin Ross There is a chance that they won’t but I see no reason for your level of pessimism. The literally had a successful SRB static fire last week.
@@willrehmus9952 they also just announced its going to cost 33% more than originally thought 😂💀 by the time its done she'll be the new JWST being completed in 2053 at 6 trillion 💀
Thank you!!! I see this at the Air Force museum in Dayton, Ohio when i go; and now I know more of the back story! Seeing it in person is really, really astonishing and kinda terrifying
Riley, Nuke powered aircraft went nowhere. In a jet engine, inlet air goes through a compressor, fuel is added and burned in the combustor. The hot gas expands through the turbine and also propels the aircraft. The Nike idea was Heat was transferred from the reactor to a heat exchanger which replaced the combustor. The problem was it could not heat the air anywhere near as hot as burning fuel. End result, for the same power, was a huge, heavy engine. The research proved it would not work rather than could!
Clarence Cloaca that’s not the point mate. We want to listen about the designs, the concepts, the “what if’s” regardless about the actual effectiveness. It’s imagination. It’s not about the feasibility, it’s about the thoughts and concepts presented.
You gotta have some imagination and accept that there were concepts that would make great videos, even if they didn’t succeed as actual designs. For instance, I’d love to see a video about Project Habakkuk (the Ice aircraft carrier; I’m sure someone of your knowledge knows of it)
Riley k Sorry, I could not shake being a Mech Engineer (retired). I worked in Gas Turbines for awhile. Analysis alone would soon prove such an idea too heavy, reasons stated. At the time, the Cold War was on, and a lot of $$ spent on white collar welfare. Would not surprise that some contractor built a proof of concept nuke Plane GT. Troll the net for the B36 bomber and will find some info on nuke power planes. There have been successful closed cycle power generation gas turbines (coal fired) running helium. Current research on closed cycled CO2 gas turbines for thorium nuclear power. Another idea kicked around is nuclear particle accelerator for deep space travel. The concept is accelerate a train of individual atoms to near light speed, the reaction propels the craft. This saves launch weight.
"If you want me to cover XYZ, let me know in the comments below" Okay listen mate...you can stop with this. If you have to ask...YES we want you to cover it! :P Great channel and episode as always
Nuclear Aircraft video, very much yes. Partially because it will end up answering a bunch of your questions, mostly because "Cold War = Cool but Crazy" is a great theme : ) BTW the main reason for not including a lot of lead shielding is because it is still an aircraft which has to have enough power-to-weight to actually get off the ground and fly, The NB-36H in which the reactor didn't actually power anything btw, was extremely heavy and took a LOT of runway to get un-stuck enough to lift off. And as you'll find out when doing the research they didn't plan on the reactor powering a bunch of electric propellers, (though arguable the most efficient system, oddly enough going in that direction got the US and UK talking about equipping the SARO Princess sea-plane with a nuclear reactor btw, the problem with electric props is the 'power-on-demand' needs which electric motors have some issues with... I digress) but by either direct cycle, (outside air flow directly through the nuclear reactor to produce thrust) or in-direct cycle (a heat exchanger is between the air-flow and the reactor) jet engine systems. Both to get the needed thrust and on-demand power and also to possibly allow supersonic flight.
Not the only one. Also they were the choosers of the slain, no impact on life or death only who amongst the dead joined the Einherjar in Valhalla. Simple things, not hard to get right...
Only if your American. You do realize Simon is English, right? They do pronounce many words differently than Americans, like con-TROV-ersy and skel-LEE-tel
There seems to be a lot of topics that would almost make for full episodes. The answer is obvious: A regular Mega-Failures episode where you touch on one or two failed projects that while ambitious, were not quite up to full Mega Projects level. Nuclear powered planes, the YF-23, the Russian Buran space shuttle... One episode a month would be nice.
A great "Mega Project" would be the USS Nautilus. The world's first nuclear submarine. Completely, 100% changed the world. Before the SSN-571 submarines had to return to the surface continuously for air for the diesel engines. Really fascinating project, especially when the ICBM's were attached. The changes this created in warfare, diplomacy and strategies cannot be overstated.
That would be a great Mega Project episode! I toured her in Groton Ct. in 1987 with my uncle who served on her last crew before she was decommissioned. Very tight quarters vs modern subs. She has an amazing history and set many records in her day.
“Like I said, the Cold War. Loads of cool shit came out of it!” Right on, Simon. You could have your 50th channel be “Cool Shit From The Cold War”. I would watch it endlessly.
Should do a video on American machinations behind the scene of BOTH the British TSR-2 and Canada's Avro Arrow. Similar looking aircraft with very different missions but both brought down by the same American behind-the-scenes politicking during roughly the same time-frame.
Thank you so much for doing this. as I said in comments in your A12 video, this was the first large plane I ever saw when I was 7 years old. Its my favorite despite its sad history.
"Let me know if you'd like me to do nuclear planes in the comments below." There should never be any doubt in your mind that we don't want videos about nuclear powered items
Thanks--you included footage of the XB-70 shedding its paint job due to high speed. It was one of the problems for the XB-70--friction ripped its paint off the airplane.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
"It's a little sad that this aircraft never got to be fully used" - Simon while talking about a bomber specifically for nukes.
Hey man Russias an enemy to all 😂
At least I'm not the only one that thinks stuff like that. Lol
@@ConnorFlynnNo1 No they are not!
Just because governments tend to be crappy towards other nations as well as their own citizens does not mean that the people as a whole are bad, or that they even agree with what their own leaders do.
I have Russian friends and they are just like people from other countries I have met.
@@jaymevosburgh3660 im aware lol me too, ive met many and they're very nice, but the government lol, ohhh the Russian government.
It's not like it would be a bad thing if humanity ceased to exist tbh
Do nuclear planes!!! Do a whole bunch of them in a mega projects. That would be really cool
i like glowing green rawwwwwwwwwwwww hulk
How about one on the star wars project?
I agree 110%
@@abk3400
um vader is that you? or is it reagan's ghost?
@Real Engineering has a great video on the General Electric nuclear powered long range bombers
Yes, please make a video on flying nuclear aircraft carrier.
Maybe combining with other previous concepts such as the airship version.
Thanks for a great show!
Shield helacarrier
I believe the USS Akron airship was capable of carrying 3 small reconnaissance aircraft! It would deploy and retrieve them using a mechanical arm.
As far as I remember it was going to be retrofitted to carry 5 aircraft, but the airship crashed before that was done.
And combine it with Project Orion
@@larsla SLAM missiles too
All you people of course realize that there is no such thing as a flying nuclear aircraft carrier, right? But the airship version of a flying nuclear aircraft carrier actually sounds like a great topic for a vid. And yeah. Thanks for a great show!
"Nuclear plane aircraft carrier sort of thing" Yes please.
Side project ?
Lookup gnal it was where they studied this in georgia
The russians actually flew their nuke powered craft a couple times.
Yes, more of that👆 please
You mean no please, you don’t want nukes flying around 24/7 just waiting to detonate
The B-52 is not a "giant propeller powered plane." You're thinking of the Convair B-36...just sayin'.
Well the B52 is still massive and has freaking 8 jet engine and SCREAMS at you at landing so still awesome 🤣
@@michagrill9432, the BUFF doesn't actually fly -- it's so loud and ugly that it scares the ground away.
That's hardly the only problem with this video. For example, Simon said something about "the missile gap" while going on to talk about the Soviet SA-2 surface to air missile (SAM). The "Missile Gap" had nothing to do with SAMs: it had to do with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). The "Missile Gap" issue had to do with which side had more ICBMs and what state of development they were in. Some intelligence assessments held that the Soviet Union had more ICBMs fitted with nuclear warheads and were growing their ICBM fleet faster than the US. Where this issue crossed paths with the XB-70 program lay in whether to put relatively short defense dollars against bombers or missiles.
As for SAMs, the XB-70 would have been fast enough and flying high enough to avoid most SA-2s: the SR-71 was able to avoid everything ever shot at it. What really killed the XB-70 was the cost of maintaining a large fleet of high-tech bombers versus the cost of maintaining a smaller fleet of ICBMs. The bombers needed a lot of maintenance and the crews needed a lot of training. The ICBMs were stuck in holes in the ground and never flew anywhere.
Another issue I have with this video is that NASA's research into high altitude/high speed flight wasn't covered. There was a gap between the 1966 accident and the final delivery to the Museum of the US Air Force in February 1969. According to NASA's fact sheet on this program, the XB-70 provided essential data for supersonic transport (SST) design and sonic boom research. This was critical to filling in gaps in knowledge of these questions about flight.
Perhaps more interesting was the accident investigation report emerging from the 1966 crash of AV-2, and that wasn't covered at all, yet it was critical to the rapidly expanding air passenger market. It turns out that AV-2 was brought down by its own wing vortices. One of those caught the F-104 chase plane and swept the aircraft into the vertical stabilizers. Prior to that time, aircraft weren't big and fast enough to generate significant vortices, so the problem wasn't well known. But with aircraft like the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, the L-1011 and the Boeing 747, wingtip vortices were about to become a problem. So the fact that the AV-2 crash report highlighted the problem before any of the jumbo aircraft made it into the air was significant.
@@johndemeritt3460 🤣🤣🤣
@@johndemeritt3460 The "missile gap" had to do with John F. Kennedy vs. Richard M. Nixon. Kennedy campaigned hard on the accusation that President Eisenhower (and by extension his Vice President Nixon) had neglected America's defenses, allowing the Soviet Union to significantly surpass the U.S. in throw-weight, range, and especially numbers of ICBMs. Kennedy and his handlers cleverly exploited the general anxiety of the Cold War amplified by the widespread panic caused by the Sputnik launch (4/10/57) to create a false narrative against Nixon. Eisenhower and Nixon knew the missile gap polemic was bullshit, but could not respond without compromising one of the most important secrets of the time: CORONA. American spy satellites coupled with nearly four years of U-2 overflights led the CIA to estimate the number of operational Soviet ICBM in 1960 to be "about a dozen". However, the so-called National Intelligence Estimate, a document co-authored by Congressional staffers and academics with no access to the most classified sources differed sharply, claiming the number was 500 or more. The NIE was leaked by Congressional Democrats to Washington Post columnist and Kennedy supporter, Joseph Alsop, who trebled the NIE number to 1,500 in his writings. Today the real number is known: 4. ruclips.net/video/f-c6CbPTadA/видео.html
How about a Megaproject video on The Tokyo Flood prevention system
Yes!
London Thames barrier too!
Yeah, I saw this request a while ago & very briefly Google/Wikied it. It looks really interesting!
If you're interested Tom Scott has made a video on that.
Up
i'm imagining the helicarrier from marvel.... but with hilarious tech problems.
Simon: "Not sure if you'd like me to do one on nuclear planes...?"
His entire RUclips viewing fanbase: "YASSSSSSSS!!!"
kalon9999 read up on the Avro Arrow, it’s a real shame the project was cancelled, there was a lot of outspoken anger at diefenbaker the prime minister at the time who canceled the project, over making farmers a little fatter.
Don't bother. Summation:
USSR: Nyet. Crew dead.
USA: No, didn't accomplish anything at all.
Side Note: Interesting that each country's name starts with the word "us."
So he makes the odd mistake, their are very few of his videos that don’t have pronunciation mistakes as far as I’m concerned (I’m British and have an RP style of speech) but given the amount of these he does and the volume of info he puts out, no one could learn all that pronunciation. I have a feeling that the program/web-site he uses is not exactly accurate.
Yes the history of flying reactors is part of the history of "small" reactors with highly enriched fuel. That is definitely a MEGA watt project.
@@ForgeMasterXXL Hi Rai, I'm talking about factual errors, not pronunciation.
Received Pronunciation concerns accent and is used by at most 3-5% of the population and most of those are predominantly in South-East England.
RP is not relevant to matters of fact. While yes, I agree with your points of volume and the inevitability of mistakes, what I refer to as "clangers" are mistakes that any basic researcher would spot, propellers on a B-52, for instance. The thing's been in service since 1954!
The factual content of the programs must be held up against some standard, otherwise the content would be useless blather or at best unintentional misinformation. I don't think that is Simon's intention at all.
Cheers from Canada
The really astounding thing, this aircraft was designed before the time of super computers to run complex aero dynamic equations, people with slide rules did that work.
The math never changes, it just took lots of hours and skilled engineers.
If you think that is crazy, to develop nuclear reactors and weapons with only a slide rule is even more impressive
Most planes flying today were designed before super computers
Before the time when civilians had super computers. I don’t think that as the public we get anything good until at least 10-20 years after they have had it
@@mizzshortie907 who do you think designs the jets? It's not the military it's "civilian" engineers.
I've seen this airplane in Dayton Ohio.... you can't really imagine how BIG it is.. a bunch of regular size airplanes are parked underneath it.
I stopped by Wright Patt in 2001 on a cross country trip and my (now ex) wife insisted we see it. Glad she did, fantastic museum and holy hell is that a big plane.
Just visited Wright-Patterson last Saturday, after having planned since my kids were small, they are in college now. Anyway, one needs to visit that museum to understand how serious Americans are.
I really need to get back to the Museum - it's been almost 20 years :(
My grandpa was part of the engineering team that developed the Valkyrie's unique airfoil during his career at North American/ Rockwell in Downey, CA. This was a crazy awesome jet, nothing quite like it has been built even since.
What part is crazy / never been done since? Several Sukhoi models seem to be fairly imitative
@@ObservationofLimits I suspect Mach 3 for one.
@@ObservationofLimits Compression Lift. The XB70's wings kept folding downward the faster it flew to capture part the sonic boom created under the fuselage. This extra lift meant it was far more fuel efficient. I believe that's what Andy was referring to when he mentioned the unique airfoil that his grandfather helped design.
Cheers!
@@ObservationofLimits In addition to other comments, this was also the last gasp of the US & the USSR focusing on high-altitude bombing as the primary means of asserting air superiority. By 1967, the USSR would introduce the MIG-25 & put the USA in full-on panic mode about the mystery fighter that could go higher & faster than anything the West had. Basically put the development of the next generation of fighters in the US into overdrive, changing strategic tack to asserting air superiority through dogfighting & controlling an airspace. The irony? The MIG-25 was made almost specifically for the purpose of catching & shooting down the XB-70.
Nice vdieo, but one aspect of the planes design has been totally neglected:
the folding wings were not added to improve lateral stabily, that was only a side-effect, even though one most welcome.
There were however two other reasons for the folding wing tips:
The first one is an aerodynamic one:
Whist accellerating from zero speed to mach 3, the center of lift of any aircraft moves down the centerline to the back of the aircraft. For example, Concorde had to pump fuel back and forth during accelleration respectively decelleration. Folding the wing tips down reduces the net area of the wing and therefore can be used to compensate for the aerodynamic effect of moving center of lift.
The second reason however is the stroke of genius in the aircrafts design:
The folding wing tips were designed to trap the aircrafts own shockwave in order to generate lift.
This additional lift resulted in two benefits:
1. a higher service ceiling
2. reduced drag due to a reduced need for generating plain old aerodynamic lift, which always induces drag.
Testing of the so called compression lift theory was the main reason, the aircraft was continued, after the militaries interest had dissolved.
Let’s get a video on The Hubble Space Telescope 🔭
YES!!!
And the spy satellites that the Hubble may be based on operated by the NRO.
Great idea!
Or the James Web Deep Space Telescope
OI! SIMON!!........What this guy said.
You forgot one of the most unique features of the plane: the folding wing tips enabling what was called compression lift, so that at high speed it rode on a cushion of air that reduced drag and fuel consumption. The only other plane that was comparable was the SR-71, but this was almost as fast and had a similar ceiling, so it was in fact the highest AND fastest jet plane, ever. No. 1 was flawed in many ways and hardly ever flew above Mach 2, but no. 2 had a slightly different design and was much more stable at high speed and regularly surpassed Mach 3. Interestingly, the MIG-25 foxbat was developed to be the interceptor for this plane, and was a shockingly badly built plane that was basically a giant engine, but it was all the Soviets could do to get to the speed and height needed. The Soviets also had their own version, the Sukhoi T-4, which looked virtually the same but smaller, but it never went beyond prototype stage.
The first "Wave Rider" I know of...
@Derek Charette Tu-160
@Derek Charette Tu-22M
He mentioned the wing tips, but said they were for increased directional stability or some such bs.
@@bob_._. Yea, his second error which got him my down... I expect better research
I saw this plane in person at the Air Force Museum in Ohio. The size of it is just astounding for a plane that could reach Mach 3. Compared to the SR-71 in the next hangar over it's a beast.
XB-70 is also known as the Mach 3 Paint Stripper. The paint wasn't ready for the heat generated at 2,000+ mph. Early on, they had to repaint after each flight. Greatest aircraft ever built! Nice video, with a few minor inaccuracies noted below.
4:33 “The B-52, you know, that massive *PROPELLER* driven plane?” Uhhh...
Hype Ninja I came here to comment same. I guess Simon isn’t quite a plane buff. Makes me grateful he does any plane vids at all.
Hmm. Maybe he ment the b 36?
"The B-52, you know, the giant propeller driven plane?"
B-52: "Am I a joke to you?"
The early B52s had props. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#/media/File:GVG_B-52_Evolution_1.png
Gonna guess he was thinking of the B-29?
"A contest was held to give it a real name and..."
Nukey McPlaneface.
not Fasty McBombface?
If only.
Maybe this is why they don't hold contests anymore.
I think that contest being faked. The US military has a maniacal need to name things either after badass weapons/creatures or with needlessly complicated acronyms. Theres no way they'd run the risk it didnt get called something like the Screaming Phoenix or the SSADNBWSNCV (super sonic aeronautically delivered nuclear bombing weapon system, non crashing version)
The James Web Space Telescope would be a great video topic.
Bonus fact: The cafe at the USAF Museum in Dayton, OH is named after the Valkyrie
My father was an aircraft sheet metal man on the project. We had no idea the aircraft existed until it’s roll out, which as family members, we attended. I clearly recall walking up the incredibly steep stairs where one of the test pilots greeted you, and I was mighty impressed at all the gauges and switches. The first aircraft survived to carry on the test program, as the budget busting aircraft with its exotic use of titanium, flight control systems, and mighty “6 pack” engines. It is of course on display at Wright-Patterson. Interestingly, my father worked on the last conventionional mega bomber, the B-36 while in the USAF.
Simon, there’s only one L in Valkyrie.
“Valkylrie” lol
only one in loser as well.
@@omg_RANCORS indeed, I understand his initials are JP
The XB-70 has to be, other than for the SR71, one of the most elegant airplane every built.
It is without a doubt one of the most beautiful
I remember building the model as a kid. It was so damn big! I think it was 1/32 scale. I could be remembering wrong to be honest. But it was MASSIVE.
The British V Bombers are pretty spectacular
I've loved it ever since the first time I saw the remaining aircraft in person, but (and this takes nothing away from my Valkyrie enjoyment)... The SR-71 was the better engineering design, though even that wasn't ever implemented in its proposed interceptor or bomber variants. As a bomber it's probably good the B-70 wasn't put into wide scale production. AA missiles were getting too good by the time she'd have entered service. But... It would really have been nice if they'd built a handful instead of the 2.5 we got. At least she got to fly for NASA for a while before retiring!
@@michaelpipkin9942 I think I built that one too. Like three feet long. Built it with the drooping wingtips and the gear down... I reaaally wasn't planning ahead just then... Had to stand on blocks.
I know it’s a bit overdone, but I would recommend looking into some ancient mega projects. I’d love to hear more about the pre industrial insanity that was building large structures back in the day.
My boy with the Blaze has you covered on Geographics.
Tshepang Letanta thanks for letting me know
He does have a few ancient Megaprojects episodes as well. Sorry, I don’t have the links handy. But yeah, I really enjoy them as well, and look forward to seeing some more!
"Not that large?" I encourage you at some point to go down to Dayton. The last surviving Valkyrie is in the Museum of the US Air Force, along with some of the other aircraft you've mentioned. They'e even got a B-36.
Saw the one in Dayton many years ago as a kid. It’s quite a large aircraft.
Love that museum!
Quite large.... 😆. Under stating it a little!
There is a story, related in the book "Angle Of Attack- Harrison Storms And The Race To The Moon" that Harrison (chief designer of the XB-70) was called "The Creator" because, whenever some military type came into the place it was being built and they saw it, the initial reaction of ALL of them was "JESUS CHRIST"!
Your first video was about the I.S.S. So how about Skylab or Mir either should be interesting.
Mir would be great! The run down mobile home of space stations
very intresting
I would love to hear more about Skylab, I’ve heard more about Mir than Skylab.
I'm gonna keep saying this everytime someone suggests a space related topic...Simon should add yet another channel to his galaxy of channels that is all about space missions, both manned and robotic. He can do past missions, current missions and even future missions and the infrastructure for them. Most of them are not big enough for a megaproject video, but he could get a lot of interesting stories.
Micah Ross I second that notion.
Just a friendly FYI, the B-52 was a jet powered plane.
Do you know that during the test flights for the B-52 they looped it..... interesting story
Still is a jet powered plane too.
@@chrisalfano589 I couldn't find a reference to the B-52 doing a loop but everybody in Seattle knows that in testing, Tex Johnson took the prototype 707 called the Dash-80 into a full barrel roll. Never been done before or since. That unplanned stunt sold a lot of Boeing airplanes. ruclips.net/video/AaA7kPfC5Hk/видео.html
Yup, and no propellers...which I think it what you were driving at. (The C-130 is also jet driven...but it uses turboshaft engines driving props. )
A&P Mechanic here.
Cheers!
Nonna UdBidness the c130 is probably the most impressive machine I’ve ever seen in person. I’ve never flown in one but would love to.
The B-52 is jet powered, not “propeller” driven.
I have a feeling he might have had the B-36 in mind, which I guess technically culminated in a crazy setup of 6 props and 4 jets lol. 6 turning, 4 burning.
correct me if im wrong but i thought the first B-52s were prop driven. maybe not but i could have sworn they were originally
@@THEHYDROFYRE there was a drawing for a turboprop b-52 but all actual flying b-52 were turbojet
@@THEHYDROFYRE The original XB-52 design, selected by the Army Air Forces in 1946, was for a straight-wing, six-engine, propeller-powered heavy bomber. On Oct. 21, 1948, Boeing Chief Engineer Ed Wells and his design team were in Dayton, Ohio, when the Air Force’s chief of bomber development told them to scrap the propellers and come up with an all-jet bomber. Over the following weekend, in a Dayton hotel room, the team designed a new eight-engine jet bomber, still called the B-52
This is what happens when you make a bunch of videos on topics you only feign intrest in
Should have included the one amazing fact that summed up just how epic this plane was: When the F104 collided with the XB70, the crew of the bomber didn't even know they had been hit - all they knew was that the control surfaces weren't responding correctly.
Great vid! The Valkyrie is one of my all-time favorite aircraft. Very forward-looking for a design of that era with some amazing engineering as well.
The proposed escort fighter for the XB-70, the XF-108 Rapier was also really impressive looking and a very futuristic concept. I would have loved to have seen these cruising the skies when I was growing up during the Cold War era.
The B-36 would be a good mega projects to cover. One of the largest bombers of all time. 6 piston engines 4 jet engines. First and only US aircraft to have a nuclear reactor put inside it as you mentioned. Also tested a system for parasite fighter jets (fighters that are launched from the plane while flying).
6 Turning, 4 burning
Simon was wrong in one respect. The reactor in the B36 never powered the aircraft itself. It was for research purposes only
Canadian Arrow was a great plane that got cut short.
You should mention compression lift, where the shock wave from the front of the engine pod was trapped by the folding wing tips when flying supersonic. The aircraft literally rode its own shockwave.
I was hoping someone would pick that up. Nice one J Long Jnr. I dont know of any other aircraft that used compression lift, does anyone?
@@chrisbailey8810 The dynamics of this aircraft are totally astounding how air works in different velocities, it's a strange gap between low speed aircraft and hypersonic craft that are being tested by Boeing to this day. It such a great design to see.
B- 36 had a atomic powered version. They only made one.
hi Simon. I just want to say that out of all the channels you have done and been on. this is by far my favorite. the topics, the explanations and overall everything, is top quality.
awesome uploads
I'd like to see a video on the nuclear aircraft.
To answer Simon's question, the purpose of a nuclear powered aircraft that could remain in the air for months was that the bomber, manned by two or three crews, could take off with a load of bombs and fly a holding pattern, relatively safe from a Soviet first strike.
Early in my career, I worked in a facility used for work on the experimental nuclear engine - I think the nuclear workers had all retired by then, but one or two of the old timers had worked with them. A very interesting project. But also totally insane - where would the development aircraft make its test flights? Why would anyone risk a flying nuclear reactor dropping into a populated area?
I saw the comments about Simon's pronunciation of Valkyrie and still wasn't prepared 😂 out of all the pronunciatioms this is the one that topples him 😂
NB-36 wasn't nuclear powered
It just carried a nuclear reactor
it still had the B-36's six turning and four burning
Correct. To test the viability of having a reactor in a plane.
The plane itself was conventionally powered. not nuclear.
@@johngoldberg8949 It wasn't just that the shielding was too heavy. The problem was that they kinda got into a vicious cycle: You put in shielding to protect the crew, the plane gets too heavy, so you run the reactor at a much higher temperature to generate more power to compensate, but now the reactor is running hotter, you need more shielding, the plane is now too heavy again, so you run the reactor hotter, ect.
Two turning, two burning, two smoking, two chocking, and two more unaccounted for
How about the CF-105 Arrow. ??
you could easily do a video on that subject.
Thanks for the excellent videos.
The Valkyrie was IMHO the most elegant aircraft ever built. Thanks for the video. And as for nuclear-powered airplanes, yes that would be a very interesting subject for a new video.
This is meant as a compliment so please don't take it the wrong way... I have an illness which makes getting to sleep difficult and I watch these videos to help me nod off. I think the flood of information helps me to forget everything else and relax enough that I can sleep.
Speaking of military aircraft, can you do the Avro Arrow, Canada’s 1950s jet fighter?
If only they build more than like 4, probably better than the 30 year old cf18's we have today :(
Good idea!!
Richard McCaig hey stop trying to reason. People are to focused on what could have been, and end up way over exaggerating. No doubt the aero and TSR2 would have been good planes for their time, but would have already been out dated by the time the F-15 came on line
3:41
*"Why you would want an aircraft to remain in the air for months at a time is another matter"*
ME: *"Wait a minute is this video pre-covid?"*
"Imagine Concorde equipped with a devastating nuclear arsenal" Simon I do not have to imagine as I have a picture that suggested that very thing. I don't know where it first appeared but the picture was drawn by a man named Arthur Gibson and in it the Concorde is carrying Blue Steel nuclear stand off missiles.
Edit: B-52, that giant propeller driven airplane.... As an American and the son of a retired USAF Lt. Col. all I have to say is RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What does ree mean?
@@ddpeak1
Means he's very angry.
@@ddpeak1 .. because the B-52 is a JET aircraft, originally having 8 engines (4 pairs).
Didn't the early B52s have props? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#/media/File:GVG_B-52_Evolution_1.png
reckon he meant the b-36 lol
Great episode - AV-3 was scrapped during construction following the loss of -2: AV-1 went on to be a high-speed test airframe for NASA for a while before retiring. The program was progressed at the same time as the A-12, which turned into the SR-71, which flew at similar heights and speeds but was "Black Funds" and considered untouchable with preferential funding. Shame - as you say, a stunning piece of engineering that just so happened to be one of the most beautiful aircraft ever constructed.
The folding wingtips were also used to generate lift above Mach 1, by folding the supersonic compression wave under the wing - a true "Shockwave Rider".
Would love to see one on the NERVA project, or the Avro Arrow. Keep it up, great stuff.
I have seen the lone surviving XB-70 on display at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio several times. It’s one of the most fascinating aircraft I’ve ever seen.
How about the Canadian Avro Arrow next? What does everyone think?
I think the Arrow looked like a dinosaur & it was a difficult but correct decision to cancel it. The UK TSR2 however was a different story :(
Yes please!!! All your Canadian fans would love that!
@@dandare2586 So ahead of its time that the Tornado's Terrain Following autopilot radar came from it.
20 years previously...
I think it would be a great idea. I thought so before and I think so still. :-)
dan dare What? For 1956 (the original year of its design development) the RL201 looked like a friggin’ spaceship for its time and still looks like a swan to this day, whereas the TSR2 always looked quite awkward, whilst still being incredibly capable. I think you’re off your rocker.
I have never heard Valkyrie pronounced like that. I am not saying it is wrong; I am just saying it is not english.
Yes I've never heard it pronounced that way. Not just in America but in Europe either. But given the fact that Simon pronounces words that I wouldn't even try to I'm going to give him a pass on this one lol.
It's closer to the original Norse. English speakers tend towards the French pronunciation with the accent on the first syllable. It actually should have FOUR, not three syllables. val-KEER-ee-uh, or val-Koor-ee-uh if you are Danish.
I could swear he's saying "valkylrie" with an extra L in there. Although, to be fair, it's probably a difficult word for a lizard man to say.
@@Erkle64 that is what I heard every time . just saying - but with very uncommon linguistic slips for an 'Englishman' , and plenty of aristocratic diction - I'm leaning toward him actually being very clever and successful, but from offworld . well done you, and welcome to our current hell of greed on earth . please halp . :)
@@Erkle64 That's what I'm hearing too. I know our English pronounciation of 'Valkary' probably isn't accurate either, but 'Valkylrie' definitely isn't! Sorry Simon.
The wing tips when folded down in conjunction with the engine pack took advantage of the concept of compression lift. This helped reduce the supersonic drag and made the plane more efficient at supersonic speeds.
YES! Compression lift! High lift, low drag at Mach 3! This concept was further developed as the "Wave Rider" concept
And yet he made no mention of it.
@@Salty_reviews And that's why I did.
I've seen AV-1 at the Air Force Museum in Dayton countless times. In my opinion she is the most beautiful aircraft ever made. She gives me goosebumps from every angle.
Do a 10 experimental planes.
That should fill 15+ minutes and easily have multiple parts. Cheers.
I ride a Honda Valkyrie motorcycle, it’s big and powerful. I’m going to get a personalized license plate that says XB-70!
How about XB-70A? It's the next generation after all.
Noice
That’s an awesome bike. I love those flat 6 monsters.
Tanner Atkinson Same here!
@@thomasmoeller3446 I'll do that for my valkyrie Rune.
You know.. I dont think I've ever heard him whistle. Suspicious.
Um, yeah! Do the nuclear planes!
Such a cool aircraft! I've had the priviledge of seeing AV-1 up close a few times. I highly recommend a trip to Dayton to see it!
Megaprojects accidentally became the best aviation documentary channel on RUclips, and I'm here for it!
Simon I’d love if you could do one on the Avro CF 105 “Arrow”
Different reasons, similar fate. I wonder how many Valkyrie engineers ended up working at NASA with the Arrow engineers?
Or what about a F22N sea raptor.
"Concorde equipped with a devastating nuclear arsonal" lol, that was pretty much my suggested title when I suggested it 2 months ago.
Uh no, there is a big difference between Mach 2 and 3. The US SST project aimed to light years ahead of the Concorde and targeted mach 3 rather than the lowly mach 2 of the Concorde. Which was why the 747 was designed as a cargo plane. As the US airline industry expected mach 3 SSTs to debut in the 1970s.
@@zeitgeistx5239 lol, chill mate, it was just a title.
The "Missile Gap" was about ICBMs, not SAMs.
That was pretty bad. : (
I thought it was about women and tight jeans.
Upper Left Coast Chelsea Fan it was, until men started wearing skinny jeans. lol
Good info. My dad took 8 year old me to see her when she landed at Wright Patterson AFB, up close & personal, they even had model kits at the PX, which I had to have, wish I still had it! Being a civil servant has it's perks. Miles of camo B52s lined up and fighters in and out through the VN war, cool childhood out in the country.
Seeing the Valkryie at Wright-Patt at the museum is amazing. It is a truly beautiful aircraft!
Simon: If you'd like me to make a video on that, let me know down below
Everyone: Do we even need to ask anymore?
1:15 B-58 Hustler: _Am I a joke to you?_
I didn't know that blue whales had a takeoff weight.
There's a douglas adams reference to be made here I'm just too lazy to do it.
When whales fly lol
Whales do "fly"(jump). Blue whales don't actually clear the water, but other large whales do. So they can be said to have a takeoff weight. 😉
African Blue Whale, maybe. . . . Not some European Blue Whale. . .
I didn’t know mammoths had a service ceiling.
Probably one of the most Futuristic and Beautiful Aircraft ever Built...Laid my hands apon the belly of AV-1 at Wright Patterson AF museum....Very large Aircraft...
Back in the day when the USAF museum was still at Wright-Patterson outside Dayton they had an XB-70 parked on a runway. Words cannot describe how huge it was when I walked it as a kid in the mid 70s. Seemed like a space ship.
Yeah, it’s still there. Inside now.
3:49 "...the Cold War, Loads of cool shit came out of it."
Exactly Simon. Exactly.
I swear when Simon says Valkyrie it sounds like he's saying Val Kilmer
I hear 'Val kil rie'.
He’s British don’t be too hard on him
Go watch the Machu Picchu video. Every time he says the name I wince.
I'm not it just sounds like what he's saying. Yeah Mitch that is more along what he's saying I guess I should have said it sounds like he's going to say Val Kilmer
I has totally given up on doing any preparation whatsoever. I think he just turns up and reads it.
I lived a couple of miles from the USAF Museum in Ohio, where the survivor is located. Every time I went there I would go immediately to the XB-70 to admire it. It is truly one of the most amazing and stunning planes ever made.
I grew up in Indianapolis. I got to see this extraordinary aircraft on several occasions as a child. I later took my own children to visit. I'm going to Indy in a few weeks and hope to take my grandchildren to see it as well.
@@coopdeville377 If you went there when the AF Museum was only 1 building like it was when I was a kid, your mind will be blown when you go now.
@@gtv6chuck, I hope so! I work for an engineering firm now. The owner work on the BONE, Shuttle, and Space Station. We never run out of things to talk about on the countless hours of travel to clients in Montana.
This is one of the most beautiful looking aircraft, the tragic mid air collision during a formation photo opp doomed the program distroying one of the prototype aircraft
I remember my father talking about when he worked at Martin Marietta shortly after the Korean War before I was born about working on parts for the valkyrie! As far as mr. Andy bones I can relate to that being that my grandfather was part of Carrier air conditioning is cryogenic plant at the Apollo program! Grew up around this stuff. But back to the valkyrie I hold it in the same esteem I hold the SR-71 Blackbird or the a12! I actually got to crawl inside of an 8-12 and see how it was built it was absolutely incredible I can just imagine what went on the valkyrie! Thank you for the video
“The B-52, that giant propeller driver aircraft.” Uh, what? Simon come on.
Maybe he meant the B-36 Peacemaker?
The XB-52 was the precursor to the B-52 and it used large turboprop engines
Gabe Curtis Uh, no, the XB-52 used the same engines. The only noticeable difference was the tandem cockpit.
@@camronpeterson1945 Yes you are correct. What we can say is that the B-52 was going to be a straight-winged turboprop-powered plane. The design received swept wings making it similar to the later Tu-95 'Bear'. The USAF decided they wanted a pure jet bomber. The rest as they say is history.
@@MegeGabe_Personal No it did not! That was just a drawing on paper.
The Avero Arrow i would love to see something from you guys on this aircraft! ❤
The never used Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow
What do you mean?
Simon! Thank you for another great video. I found this one super cool. I enjoy several of your channels, especially when the theme is somewhat militaristic. There is a lot of military tech that I think makes good "megaprojects" and I hope that you continue with it!!
Can you do a video on the Rotodyne?
Was a revolutionary gyrocopter that would of made a huge impact if not for the british government killing the project to save on costs, and even going to the extremes of ensuring the prototypes were destroyed.
You open up with "I as always am your host" and I just expect "I as always am your boy with the blaze"
1
What about a video about the new NASA project to get to the moon again.
How about not because it is vaporware. NASA is no more going to the moon than SLS will launch.
Martin Ross There is a chance that they won’t but I see no reason for your level of pessimism. The literally had a successful SRB static fire last week.
@@willrehmus9952 they also just announced its going to cost 33% more than originally thought 😂💀 by the time its done she'll be the new JWST being completed in 2053 at 6 trillion 💀
@@Dr.RichardBanks Yeah fair, although 33% cost overrun is actually fairly decent. Most large programs have over 50% overrun.
@@willrehmus9952 its not done yet. We haven't even had a text flight. Those numbers will skyrocket.
"Giant nuclear plane/aircraft carrier thing?"
Sure, why not?
Yea, I want this one xD
Yes, please do more episodes on stunning projects that failed. They often are more interesting than the successes.
Thank you!!! I see this at the Air Force museum in Dayton, Ohio when i go; and now I know more of the back story! Seeing it in person is really, really astonishing and kinda terrifying
Do the Canadian Arrow Project
You mean the Avro Canada CF-105 "Arrow" (also known as just "THe Avro Arrow")?
Seconded.
@@BackYardScience2000
3rd
How they got around not having a good enough wind tunnel was interesting.
They fired a model out of a canon.
@@nekomasteryoutube3232 yep. I could not remember the full name. But you guys seem to know what I was talking about.
Yes
i would love to see nuclear powered aircraft please :)
TR-3B
Riley, Nuke powered aircraft went nowhere. In a jet engine, inlet air goes through a compressor, fuel is added and burned in the combustor. The hot gas expands through the turbine and also propels the aircraft.
The Nike idea was Heat was transferred from the reactor to a heat exchanger which replaced the combustor. The problem was it could not heat the air anywhere near as hot as burning fuel. End result, for the same power, was a huge, heavy engine. The research proved it would not work rather than could!
Clarence Cloaca that’s not the point mate. We want to listen about the designs, the concepts, the “what if’s” regardless about the actual effectiveness. It’s imagination. It’s not about the feasibility, it’s about the thoughts and concepts presented.
You gotta have some imagination and accept that there were concepts that would make great videos, even if they didn’t succeed as actual designs. For instance, I’d love to see a video about Project Habakkuk (the Ice aircraft carrier; I’m sure someone of your knowledge knows of it)
Riley k Sorry, I could not shake being a Mech Engineer (retired).
I worked in Gas Turbines for awhile. Analysis alone would soon prove such an idea too heavy, reasons stated. At the time, the Cold War was on, and a lot of $$ spent on white collar welfare. Would not surprise that some contractor built a proof of concept nuke Plane GT. Troll the net for the B36 bomber and will find some info on nuke power planes.
There have been successful closed cycle power generation gas turbines (coal fired) running helium. Current research on closed cycled CO2 gas turbines for thorium nuclear power.
Another idea kicked around is nuclear particle accelerator for deep space travel. The concept is accelerate a train of individual atoms to near light speed, the reaction propels the craft. This saves launch weight.
"If you want me to cover XYZ, let me know in the comments below" Okay listen mate...you can stop with this. If you have to ask...YES we want you to cover it! :P Great channel and episode as always
Nuclear Aircraft video, very much yes. Partially because it will end up answering a bunch of your questions, mostly because "Cold War = Cool but Crazy" is a great theme : ) BTW the main reason for not including a lot of lead shielding is because it is still an aircraft which has to have enough power-to-weight to actually get off the ground and fly, The NB-36H in which the reactor didn't actually power anything btw, was extremely heavy and took a LOT of runway to get un-stuck enough to lift off. And as you'll find out when doing the research they didn't plan on the reactor powering a bunch of electric propellers, (though arguable the most efficient system, oddly enough going in that direction got the US and UK talking about equipping the SARO Princess sea-plane with a nuclear reactor btw, the problem with electric props is the 'power-on-demand' needs which electric motors have some issues with... I digress) but by either direct cycle, (outside air flow directly through the nuclear reactor to produce thrust) or in-direct cycle (a heat exchanger is between the air-flow and the reactor) jet engine systems. Both to get the needed thrust and on-demand power and also to possibly allow supersonic flight.
I love the camp fire sound effect over the bomb test footage.
Damn, I never knew the B-52 was a "giant, propeller driven plane."
Maybe he was thinking of the b29-b50 superfortress or the b54 ultrafortress
@@ulvschmidt7174 yeah, but facts are facts and it needs to be correct, he also said "not that large!?!
Me, cringing every time he says "Val-KILL-ree". It's "VAL-ki-ree".
Not the only one. Also they were the choosers of the slain, no impact on life or death only who amongst the dead joined the Einherjar in Valhalla. Simple things, not hard to get right...
let's not mention that he thought a B52 was a propeller driven plane, everyone just forget that happened.
ikr, there's a whole Asia song on it too
Only if your American. You do realize Simon is English, right? They do pronounce many words differently than Americans, like con-TROV-ersy and skel-LEE-tel
@@misterflibble6601 Nope, im English, he's pronouncing it wrong...... Tomaytoe, tomaaaatoe. :) Great doc btw.
"B52, that giant propeller aircraft" wait did i hear that correct? 😅 but seriously, please do the nuke planes! 👍
There seems to be a lot of topics that would almost make for full episodes. The answer is obvious: A regular Mega-Failures episode where you touch on one or two failed projects that while ambitious, were not quite up to full Mega Projects level. Nuclear powered planes, the YF-23, the Russian Buran space shuttle... One episode a month would be nice.
I'll be honest....i used to hate your channel but now it's grown on me and now I like it quite alot.
A great "Mega Project" would be the USS Nautilus. The world's first nuclear submarine. Completely, 100% changed the world. Before the SSN-571 submarines had to return to the surface continuously for air for the diesel engines. Really fascinating project, especially when the ICBM's were attached. The changes this created in warfare, diplomacy and strategies cannot be overstated.
That would be a great Mega Project episode! I toured her in Groton Ct. in 1987 with my uncle who served on her last crew before she was decommissioned. Very tight quarters vs modern subs. She has an amazing history and set many records in her day.
“Like I said, the Cold War. Loads of cool shit came out of it!” Right on, Simon. You could have your 50th channel be “Cool Shit From The Cold War”. I would watch it endlessly.
Speaking of advanced delta wing airplanes...*hint (Avro Arrow) hint*
Should do a show on just Deltas, Avro, F-102/106 Delta Dart etc
LegoTux That could be great!
Should do a video on American machinations behind the scene of BOTH the British TSR-2 and Canada's Avro Arrow. Similar looking aircraft with very different missions but both brought down by the same American behind-the-scenes politicking during roughly the same time-frame.
An Arrow video would be awesome!!!! Maybe also detail where all the engineers went after it was cancelled....
Yes Simon would love to see a video on Nuclear Planes developments and failures 👌
Thank you so much for doing this. as I said in comments in your A12 video, this was the first large plane I ever saw when I was 7 years old. Its my favorite despite its sad history.
"Meanwhile, in the Soviet Union" would be a good name for a history program
"Let me know if you'd like me to do nuclear planes in the comments below."
There should never be any doubt in your mind that we don't want videos about nuclear powered items
B-52.was not.a propelled powered aircraft, I know !. I worked on one or two in my time.
Thanks--you included footage of the XB-70 shedding its paint job due to high speed. It was one of the problems for the XB-70--friction ripped its paint off the airplane.
I've found this channel a few days ago and already watched all the videos. Amazing content, I'm hooked!