Equally as effective as F35 today. As in NOT VERY !😊
@Sacto165414 күн бұрын
It was still a monumental achievement considering the *ENORMOUS* difficulties Hawker and Rolls-Royce experienced developing the Pegasus engine and the P.1127 Kestrel airframe around the engine. Even more so considering the technology of the Tumanski engine was less advanced than the Rolls-Royce engine.
@rehanansari358117 күн бұрын
Very informative
@keithlangford876417 күн бұрын
It did NOT fail! It never went into mass production and therefore was never used in combat.You pan the use of wood! This enabled it to avoid radar detection.Overall a biased and distorted review!
@allgood676017 күн бұрын
Thanks for this 👍✈️
@charlestaylor25317 күн бұрын
Highly-flawed, subsonic prototype that never stood a chance at mass production...
@Sacto16545 күн бұрын
It was more a technology demonstrator than anything else. The fact it actually worked had to surprise a lot of Western observers considering the many issues Rolls-Royce had to overcome to get the Pegasus engine to work with the P.1127 Kestrel prototype.
@raywhitehead73018 күн бұрын
Little remembered, France, Britain and Germany and the US were all very interested in a Vstol, fighter in the 60'S. Many variants were made to meet this need. It culminated in the Harrier. In 2024 the US Marine Corps still have several squadrons active. And the Most advanced fighter in the world, has a Vstol variant operational in the the US and Britain. That's the F35. So far a great legacy.
@sjoormen118 күн бұрын
So... just another stolen project from Brits...
@rose41519 күн бұрын
Ty for sharing
@user-0115419 күн бұрын
Лунь
@bergkongs19 күн бұрын
Harrierski…..
@towgod798519 күн бұрын
LMAO! Well said.
@isokabooks375811 күн бұрын
Not to mention F35sky
@maxsothcott44848 күн бұрын
The first failure in a series of three failures! Yak 36, yak 38 and yak 141! Soviet era expensive disasters!
@RaySmith166220 күн бұрын
Good little video!!! 👍👍👍
@HONDO504Ай бұрын
Good video man I haven’t seen this one
@MH-fb5krАй бұрын
too bad they throw in a dash of complexity…
@ImnotyourdoormatАй бұрын
*Russian Millenium Falcon....*
@djamilamema8772Ай бұрын
Bro looks like it eats its enemies
@tobberfutooagain26282 ай бұрын
Just needs a little duct tape, and some WD40….. be good as new in a jiffy…
@tedsmith61372 ай бұрын
Actually the main wings are not swept back, even slightly. The leading edge is straight and the trailing edge is swept forward. The engines are not in "a row along the length of the aircraft", they are mounted across the leading edge of what could be referred to as the canard, on this 3 surface craft. Multiple fins and rudders? Have you even looked at the photos in the video? Ahwell, you do call the Channel "Dumb Air". I can see why.
@ScoutSniper31242 ай бұрын
This is what a few mad designers and a couple empty cases of Vodka will getcha.
@steveread40213 ай бұрын
We can rebuild it. We have the tools, we have the technology. We can make this the best vieodoc on lifting bodies of all time! Just get the fucking commentary right!
@RSF-DiscoveryTime3 ай бұрын
It had little-to-no steering at high speeds and was useless in seas higher than 2 meters.
@grumpyoldretiredcop83823 ай бұрын
Learn about your subject. Factual errors such as calling the missile tubes mounted on the fuselage "engines" is a glaring error. Ditch the AI and narrate it yourself or find a voice actor. Finally, lose the clickbait titles... if there is a "New Lease on Life" for this concept, I didn't hear about it in this video. Perhaps the AI voice was so irritating that I missed it. All in all, I want that 5:43 of my life back.
@margarita84423 ай бұрын
was a fail like this channel
@CIS1013 ай бұрын
Known of this for almost 20 years now, but very interesting. However it was clearly a wasted effort for the Soviets
@boredcollegestudent3 ай бұрын
Bro you desperately need an editor and proof reader - "here's why" and using the word twice in the same sentence makes you sound so unintelligent.
@Tconcept3 ай бұрын
"engines along its length"? Does this guy think the missiles are engines?
@hagestad3 ай бұрын
almost all of it is false. "landing in rough seas" -really? It would be almost exactly like hitting brick wall. Its simple physics
@obsidianjane44133 ай бұрын
The bot went to the William Shatner school. Of. Public speaking.
@dakchang633 ай бұрын
😅
@williamfowler6163 ай бұрын
click it and be
@Choscura3 ай бұрын
If there is going to be a youtube channel about shitty aviation decisions, you really need to go full potato about the a10 warthog, because it should be illegal to use such a stupid airplane in so much propaganda when it can only survive because it's used by developed powers against undeveloped opponents.
@junahsong1303 ай бұрын
Its reall on you tbh if you fall for that shit
@marttimattila95613 ай бұрын
You speak F-35s. right.
@unequalmender35503 ай бұрын
u should rlly use ur own voice instead of ai, it becomes so annoying
@daemonite063 ай бұрын
Bot voice sucks, not going to follow
@robert-trading-as-Bob693 ай бұрын
Aside from the AI voice, I enjoyed the video, good work on a little-known subject.
@Idahoser113 ай бұрын
BAN MACHINE MADE VIDEOS
@Vladimirthetiny3 ай бұрын
This is by far the worst AI voice of all time 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@Sandra-dt4ec3 ай бұрын
hey Steve Austin!
@robertarnold98153 ай бұрын
Although an unmanned lifting body the "Martin X-23A PRIME" actually demonstrated a re-enty flight path by being launch on an Atlas into a suborbital track. The recovery system didn't even start to deploy until it slowed to mach 2.
@myplane1503 ай бұрын
Flat iron... not flateron☺
@sedalia93563 ай бұрын
I was perplexed the first time he said that😂
@craigwall95363 ай бұрын
At last: an ACCURATE video! (More accurate than some of the comments!)
@jim58704 ай бұрын
New tires for every flight. The long take off run at high speeds would damage the tires.
@SSmith-fm9kg4 ай бұрын
The engines killed it. But it is one of the coolest designs in existence.
@shenmisheshou70024 ай бұрын
_The X3 poor performance as nothing to do with the X3 itself_ . The problem was that the engine that it was designed to use, the J46, ran into many design issues and failed to deliver the thrust it was supposed to have, and the X3 had to be flown with the J34, which was not nearly powerful enough to meet the X3 performance objectives. I see videos like this that say the X3 was a failure, but the culprit was Westinghouse, and not the X3 itself. Had Westinghouse been able to get the J46 sorted out, the aircraft would have reached design speeds. Best to tell the whole story and not leave out such an important detail.
@ThatGamerPilot4 ай бұрын
Aint no way the company that makes my tv makes jet engines
@shenmisheshou70024 ай бұрын
@@ThatGamerPilot Don't google it you don't want to know the truth.
@timonsolus4 ай бұрын
Without the X-3 Stiletto, there would have been no F-104 Starfighter (the first successful mass produced Mach 2 capable jet fighter (2,758 built). The failure of the X-3 to achieve Mach 2 was due to having the wrong engines. It should have been designed to have rocket propulsion, as jet engines of the early 1950's didn't have enough thrust for the purpose of Mach 2 flight.
@timulm12214 ай бұрын
Probably the coolest Russia aircraft to date.
@factsnotfeelings32474 ай бұрын
Although this plane is marvel of engineering for its time, today thrust vectoring engines make this plane obsolete.
@householdemail13054 ай бұрын
She’d be an instant bush success.
@householdemail13054 ай бұрын
Centrifugal turbo prop
@DarkSygil6664 ай бұрын
Great video! i just found your channel. I found the video to be very informative and well done. Thank you so much, and keep up the good work. I hope to enjoy more videos like this from you in the future.
@Markbell734 ай бұрын
The Russians copied the U.S. The X38 had forward swept wings in the early 80's. It was even a toy in Gi-Joe.