I fully agree!

International law has failed Gaza kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bLxhi7qXmpPXZ4E.html

There are many in museums and one flying

​​@@kenclark9888I was referring specifically to the RF-100A "Slick Chick" reconnaissance variant discussed in the video. The narration indicates that after use by Taiwan the remaining five airframes were returned to the USA and broken up one having been lost in a training accident. As an aside Wikipedia says four were used by the Republic of China AF.

AFAIK, all RF-100A's went to the ROC and none remain.

Ironically, if one would have been shot down by the PRC, it would likely be on display at the Beijing Military Museum alongside the “Black Cat” U-2, or in Datangshan with the D21 drone.

Top secret was more important, I guess. But, I do agree. We have had numerous aircraft, and naval ships, like the USS Tennessee that survived the attack on Pearl Harbor, and made it all the way to Okinawa, yet she was scrapped.

Ed Nash is okay but never as in depth or knowledgeable as Gregs Planes and Automobiles or this channel. For WWII and post war piston fighters, Gregs Planes and Automobiles is the best channel on KZfaq. For 1st to 3rd generation Cold War Jet fighters, Not a Pound for Air to Ground is the best.

The channel " WWII US Bombers" also is superb as just like Greg he uses period documents.

Wow, literally my two favorites before "Not a Pound" along with "Celebrating Aviation" with Mike Machat (great vids every Monday usually). I do like Gregs Planes as noted here as well, but some of the graph work is a bit too in depth for me, but that's not a knock on his work at all. Greg also has a few really good muscle car vids.

A little known gem for post WWII stuff in this area is 10 Percent True. Interviews with participants. Especially good on Wild Weasels.

If you want a peek behind the Iron Curtain and into Warsaw Pact aviation during the Cold War, Paper Skies is an excellent channel.

Agree👍

Thanks for the comment! Really interesting details - I appreciate it!

Rb 1:24 57 reconnaissance version of the British Canberra airplane I believe here in the United States the Martin company extended the wings on the Canberra

Considering the few but REAL times that the nuclear conflict nearly happened, and the reasons it was happening, I scratch my head at the lack of understanding on the last century.

The question if RB-36s penetrated Soviet airspace remains unresolved to this date.. I believe the RB-36H Featherweight version could've overflown the USSR at altitude (55M) with impunity in the 50s before the U-2. It seems plausible as there were no SAMs then, AAA couldn't reach that high, and it was above the service ceiling of MiG-17s, the latest operational Soviet fighter then. Skeptics claim the US did want to alarm the Soviets by flying a known strategic bomber over their country, although Gen Curtis LeMay, CINCSAC, likely wouldn't be hesitant to do so.

One of my first models as a kid sometime in the later 50's.

"to see if the afterburner or the battle damage drained the tanks first"? And how to you determine which one "won" that contest? Either way the end is when the tank runs dry. The only possible metric to measure that is to calculate the total fuel that went into the engine as thrust vs the total that leaked out, and who cares about that? You want to use as much of the fuel up creating speed as possible or else you will just lose most of it. You will lose it much faster with both draining at once but at least to will get to use it, and hopefully get there faster with that speed. And it doesn't matter if you destroy your engine in the meantime, since there is no way to be landing the plane anyway. Also not sure what lessons it teaches you about fuel management, other than in the very specific case that you are loosing all your fuel out of the tank, in some very specific circumstances it may be better just to use it before you lose it. It doesn't apply in any other scenario, and in the end they just got lucky and it worked out. If the hole was slightly bigger or the range longer or they started with less fuel, they would have gone down in enemy territory anyway. Maybe a bit closer to potential rescue at least. But you have to weigh that against the risk of your afterburner igniting the leaking fuel and setting your jet on fire.

Recon flights were actually some of the most dangerous and difficult missions, and they generally got some of the best pilots to fly them. Everyone assumes they were just boring cushy jobs because you weren't actually shooting anyone down or dropping bombs, but that is absolutely not the case (although there is a wide variety in the specifics of the mission, obviously). Combat flights tended to be less experienced pilots who had a leader to follow, and plenty of other aircraft to distract the enemy, escorts and defensive armament, and were flown at pretty short ranges to make sure they all had enough fuel to get home safely. Recon flights were done alone, and often at long range, you had to navigate yourself there and back, and not use up all your fuel. You were all alone in the sky (with the one advantage that they wouldn't send major resources after a single plane, at least) and generally totally unarmed. And that also covers post strike assessment. After the bombers come though and attack, some of them getting shot down doing so, you have to fly over the target all by your lonesome, with all the defenses on alert, and take photos of the damage so they know if the strike was effective. Bomber Command flew at night because it was too dangerous in the daylight, but the post strike sorties had to be flown in the morning, alone. If it was a relatively small target you also had to fly quite low and straight to get a good shot with the cameras. The recon planes had a much higher loss rate and they relied on the skill of the pilot, they were considered an elite group. And their work was absolutely essential. But history doesn't talk about them much because they didn't directly kill many enemies, they didn't have grand air battles and dogfights. The same is true for patrol pilots and to an extent the transport crew. It actually takes an above average crew to take a plane 10 hours out over the ocean, and then fly a carefully planned search pattern. They didn't get shot at very much, but the challenge, and the danger, was still considerable and required better than average ability. Just a few years before WW2 you were still headline news for flying across the Atlantic, by 1943 they were doing this routinely. And this didn't end with the war, they were still doing post-strike assessment in Vietnam, and that involved taking your RF-4 or whatever down low over the target at high cruise speed, all alone, while they shot at you, the only target in the sky. You didn't get the AA suppression planes and escorts, unless the target absolutely made it necessary. That's why I have found subjects like that actually more interesting than the actual bombers and fighters. They all had exciting and interesting experiences, and did important things that needed to be done. It just seems less glamorous at a glance.

@@justforever96 If you think about it, air warfare started from "looking over the horizon", everything else developed from that.

Going completely unnoticed *is* kind of the ideal for a recon aircraft. The U-2 is the James Bond of spy planes. Flashy and has enough plot armor (in the form of altitude and speed) to be effective, but that doesn't mean the faceless agents doing all the missions that hardly anyone ever learns about aren't doing the bulk of the real intel work. :)

@@richmcgee434Great description. Always thought 007 could be more effective if he were less of a showman.

@@PhantomP63 To be fair, the movies really exaggerate that aspect of the character. The books are still miles away from realism, but they're quite a bit less gonzo - at least the earlier ones. Never did plough through the whole series. I suspect if it wasn't for the films Bond would be shelved in "Men's Adventure" alongside such literary prizes as Remo Williams and Mack Bolan. Fun reads if you can keep your suspension of disbelief up and ignore the more unpleasant 'isms that litter the books, but something best taken in small doses if at all.

That particular F-100, tail number 56-3141, is a QF-100D unmanned full scale target that was damaged by an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile fired from an F-15 on February 22nd, 1988 and is now on display at the Planes of Fame Museum in Chino, CA.

As always, the comments are nearly as informative as the videos. Thanks everybody.

Looks more like the Redstone man. The fins at the bottom and the taper at the top kinda push me to this conclusion. However, you could be right!

What most people do not realize is the civilian consumer old polaroid cameras were very primitive strip down versions of the technology used by the USAF (even last 2007 models). Edwin Lands primary inventions were of very high tech Military aerial reconnaissance cameras that could shoot high resolution stereoscopic 3d photos with specialized ultra large format film that most importantly could self develop in the camera system. So as soon as the pilot landed his plane the film magazines could be taken directly to reconnaissance photo interpreters without days or weeks of developing the film in the magazines that could be 10000 ft. or more of film per camera carried. Land and his team of engineers, chemist, optical designers and material specialists created a brilliant system of aerial reconnaissance cameras that was very closely guarded secret. The Land Reconnaissance Cameras were the most valuable and secret tech on the U2 piloted by Gary Powers and the fact the Land Cameras falling into Soviet hands was Eisenhower's second greatest worry with the U2 shoot down . And Lands cameras and film technology went in to the the Corona series of spy satellites launched from 1959 to 1972. The Film "buckets" kick out of the Corona Satellites were also on Land pre developed film immediately ready for photo interpretation. If you every have a chance to make to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum make sure you check out the hall on aerial reconnaissance were they have a U2 , mannequins with a U2 Dave Clark pressure suits and a very impressive pair of late 50s/60s Land U2 reconnaissance cameras. once you understand how complex and sophisticated piece of technology the Land U2 camera are, it complete amazing they were created in the pre computer design era with only slide rules and paper.

Omg is that a baloon? 😱 CHINESE BALOONS INVADING US AIRSPACE! Oh no what did we ever do to deserve this?

@@robertkalinic335 imagine a chinese carrier group near Hawaii...

​@@comentedonakeyboard Replace that with north korean and you get completely sane and normal plot for american movie.

@@robertkalinic335 good point, i'll CGI NK into my comment above.

@@comentedonakeyboard I can imagine it on the seabed. Not so much on the surface. There's not going to be another Pearl Harbor, period.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it!