My dad worked on the preliminary design for this aircraft, but I was too young to remember anything but how mad he was that something of his got changed after it passed from his drawing board.

The general shape of the nose and canopy reminds me a little of the design used in the British Harrier proto's and early models, only wider to accommodate 2-man, side-by-side crew.

I never thought I'd see such historical film recordings. The machine flies very stable in the hover flight, considering that everything was still controlled mechanically via push rods and Bowden cables, without computer control. a true engineer and pilot achievement. Thanks for this very interesting historical video.

This is a very interesting historic video from an engineering design point of view and also strategy at the time, and it is good to see it being published. Vertical take off aircraft are interesting craft from the control point of view as they are not really positional control systems, but velocity controlled system and the pilot must learn through giving an accelerating signals to be integrated to a velocity which will then be integrated to a position, As all this takes time, there is quite a long delay between what the pilot desires and what position the plane achieves. Any pilot would be better prepared if he first learnt about, Position, Velocity, Acceleration and Integral Control systems before he ventures in taking off in such a plane as other wise a lot of oscillations may occur due to the overall control loop having a large delay, which may lead to instability. Using the control jets at the nose and back and on the wing tips, it is not a case of positioning them for a long time, but to simply give enough acceleration signals to accelerate or decelerate the plane in any given direction. It should be pulsed control rather than long periods of joystick movement. This acceleration control would be more difficult to learn as it is not instinctive as positional control systems and the delays involved can be fatal. In another film I noted how one of these planes went unstable on landing and I do feel that the pilot was not conversant with giving the right acceleration control at the right time and allowing for the delays involved, the whole craft oscillated and unfortunately damaged its undercarriage. This craft use an ingenious system to increase about 2000 pounds of thrust through bleeding secondary air into those down facing nozzles in the fuselage, which is a good idea as it also serves to cool things down. I do not think I would have liked to be the man who designed those by-pass valves to redirect the main engine exhaust to the lift nozzles as the heat they would need to withstand means some good design, working with good materials and control and cooling systems. Thank you for uploading this video as technically speaking it adds to the hew of colours aircraft engineers use to meet the same VTOL problem using such different designs to achieve it. Thank you once again.

@Astroprisoner2

7 жыл бұрын

Carmel Pule' You're welcome! Most happy to share, your comment is a perfect example of why I put these items online.

Fascinating, I'm amazed to never went into production.

@nealrcn

4 жыл бұрын

The British made a better one

@badmonkey2222

3 жыл бұрын

It crashed and killed the pilot in the first public test flight that's probably why.

Of course , when this was happening, the P1127 (Kestrel) had already flown , (1960)

I Can't find my Rewind button!! The very last frame in this vid brought back memories of the "be kind, rewind" days. But what an amazing aircraft that I must look up to find out why they are not flying in numbers today. So many good ideas in the past that designers of today are only copying with computers while standing on the shoulders of giants.

This vid was fascinating. I have a love for all VTOL craft. This one seemed to work very well. I'm surprised it didn't evolve over time. There's many ways to achieve VTOL. One odd one tried using a blown wing. Eventually the harrier & F 23 made it work with very different systems. I didn't hear of the hummingbird killing any test pilots. That's a promising aspect for sure. The incredible Harrier killed many experienced pilots. And time will tell how the F 23 performs. Russia & China both are testing modern VTOL designs. So who knows the pros & cons of each of these. A deep comparison between each of them would be fascinating. Especially a Harrier vs a F 23 Lightning ll. These old experimental craft films are Truely golden. I'm surprised how few views & comments this one has got in 2 years. I enjoyed this very much. You tube must have been sitting on it.

@anonymousperson2110

4 жыл бұрын

It crashed twice, but I think the pilots bailed out safely. Still, the idea of augmenting the jet stream with cold air is a really good idea, it helps cool and oxygenate the exhaust so exhaust ingestion isn't a big deal anymore, unlike the harrier.

@bradbrown8759

4 жыл бұрын

@@anonymousperson2110 thanks for sharing that. Interesting. I suppose the fan contraption on the F 23 is a great way to divert jet exhaust. To infinity! And beyond!

@anonymousperson2110

4 жыл бұрын

@@bradbrown8759 *F-35. The liftfan isn't to divert exhaust, it's to provide a second column of cool air to provide more force, balance the jet and keep the hot, de-oxygenated air away from the inlet. Basically, the F-35 has a swivel nozzle at the back of the jet that can swivel to vector the thrust downwards, but if there's only an upwards force on the tail of the jet, it'll tip over, so the liftfan, in the middle-foward part of the fuselage, is connected by a driveshaft to the F135 engine to balance out that tipping (and provide additional force). The cold air from the liftfan also forms a barrier to prevent the hot exhaust from being re-ingested into the engine.

@bradbrown8759

4 жыл бұрын

@@anonymousperson2110 Roger. I'm fully aware of that. Its an effective forward lift, while also preventing that swiveling blowtorch in back from smokeing the intake. I watched that NOVA on the Joint strike fighter competition between Boing & Lockheed Martin. L.M. really dished it up. Boing's "Yawning hippo" not so much. There carbon fiber wing alone was so big, that it was virtually unmanufacturable due to the inclusion of voids or delamination. Even the name Lightning ll is cool as a nod to Kelly Johnson's wicked P 38 Lockheed lightening. Both are among my favorite planes.

@anonymousperson2110

4 жыл бұрын

@@bradbrown8759 Aah yes, Boeing's happy plane. It lost the competition and got gutted and put in a museum, but at least it's still smiling. Learn from the happy plane :)

neat! thanks for sharing.

@Astroprisoner2

7 жыл бұрын

You're welcome! Glad you enjoyed it!

Was a beautiful aircraft, it's a shame never went into production, probably because in the first public showing and flight the plane crashed and the pilot was killed.

An aircraft I've only seen pictures of and very little in the way of text. Thank you for putting it up. It's of the same era as the Hawker Kestrel. I think I know which is the more elegant solution - that is one complex transition from jet-bourne flight to wing-bourne flight. I wonder how they would have developed it to give it the same STO capability that the Kestrel and later Harriers were built with.

@Astroprisoner2

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed the video, I'm happy to share (and it's a terrible waste to let them just deteriorate on a tape, unseen). Good questions about this as compared to Kestrel, I think there were a number of teams trying to solve the problem...and not all the concepts turned out to be practical.

@emperormiester

6 жыл бұрын

this hummingbird seems like a very inefficient design

@Astroprisoner2

6 жыл бұрын

It does indeed. That's probably a large part of the reason why there were only two built.

PLEASE REWIND....

@jaromeunrooski6963

4 жыл бұрын

BE KIND...

США - оце країна, з найбільшою кількістю реалізованих проектів Л В З П !!! .......