fun fact in his 9:20 decloacking speech LBJ said the RS-71 was the SR-71 ... no one was going to correct the president so SR-71 it became. also KJ was a massive fan of the YF-12. you can see him say online "the only problem is we built the wrong one - the SR71 not the YF12". also the YF-12C is also known as "the bastard" as it never flew straight because of the issue of it being made up of 2 airframes.
Grandpa (Vic Horton) flew on the Bastard a few times. He said it never handled right, which is why they retired it after only a few years. His usual aircraft was 60-6935.
the YF-12C was actually SR-71A #971 on loan to NASA. The SR-71C #981 Trainer ,half YF-12A #934 and front an static Engineering Mock up was the Bastard.
LBJ didn't misread it. I believe the chief of staff last minute renamed it to SR-71, but they didn't correct the media documents in time, so the press assumed that the documents they were given were correct and that LBJ had misread the name.
the public in general seem to often confuse the two. they sure are different philosophies, but they both end up with "sleek plane go fast" in some form.
@@xymaryai8283 Frankly speaking, it was a much more difficult job. Spy plane goes to fly when it is ready. Interceptor stands on standby for hours, days, and week, ready to take off and fight wherever things went south, and no matter how onfortunate the moment will be. So while YF-12 seems to be a no-brainer - actual F-12B would've been a completely, utterly different beast inside.
@@neniAAinen wait yeah, didn't the SR71's fuel tanks leak fuel on the ground when they were cold, because they had heat expansion gaps that would close when it got hot? that seems like a crucial flaw for an Interceptor that a Reconnaissance aircraft doesn't have much problem with. but my point was, sure, the operational procedures are different, but to the public, if it looks fast, and seats only 2 people, its a fighter jet
@@xymaryai8283 yeah, you got the problem :-) F-12B would have been a completely different aircraft with roughly same external appearence. USAF wanted more G capability (for actual high supersonic maneuvering), it wanted 24/7 standby, and, perhaps above all else, it wanted actual series this time, not just a dozen of hand-made aircraft straight from the future.
8:58 I love how he said Lloyd Johnson when referring to Lyndon B. Johnson because I have a friend named Lloyd. I had to do a double take and think: "Wait, Lloyd was the president?" xD
@@shrimpflea That's why a Mach 3 fighter would have been a bad idea. About the only way to do it would have been ejecting them out the back end like an A-5 Vigilante and even that brings as many problems as it solves.
My grandfather, Vic Horton, flew as back seat / RSO on the YF-12As after NASA got the prototypes in 1969. 60-6935 was his plane; it's currently on display at the USAF Museum in Dayton, OH. He usually flew as a team with Fitz Fulton, but also made flights with Don Mallick, Tom McMurtry, William Dana and others. Having flown on both, he actually liked the YF-12 better than the more famous SR-71.
In the comments there seems to be some confusion. The YF12 was maneuverable for its size and weight. The high speeds the plane would operate at equated to a lot of real estate when making a turn... that simply means that a slower plane could turn in side of you and get guns on. From the accounts of the pilots that flew her she was a decent flying aircraft. The US Air Force did not like the idea of the exotic fuel the YF12 used. It was one thing to have a reconnaissance air craft use this fuel but an interceptor being used for defending the contiguous United States would cost far to much in added infrastructure. The "interceptor" had a different engine set up and was easier to operate than thorough bread SR71 - however, over all, the project was deemed impractical.
could you make a deeply detailed found and explained about the b2??? would be cool and nice to watch, been enjoying the videos and hope you dont stop my man, sick content
Your YF-12 model had some errors. The central ventral fin you show is *way* smaller than the real one, and the nose cone is depicted as a relatively small cone when it should have been a sizable ogive.
On one of my grandfather's YF-12 flights, the center folding ventral fin actually separated in-flight and landed on the slope of Mt. Whitney. Took them awhile to find it, too. If I remember right, they made overflights with F-104s and T-38s trying to locate the impact zone.
The A-12 was so top secret that at the Skunk Works the only thing separating it from the YF-12 on the production floor was a temporary moveable curtain. As the A-12 was so classified because it had "stealth features" (primarily the leading edges of the wings) this feature was not used on the YF-12 because it was an Air Force aircraft and the A-12 was a CIA plane. The Air Force never knew. Regardless of what "official" stats show, the SR-71 was *much* faster than the claimed top speed of Mach 3.whatever... And the *A-12* flew higher AND faster. *MUCH FASTER* High mach 4's. It's only two real limiting factors were fuel quantity/distance per mission and what would melt or fall off the aircraft/break (non titanium parts) at those speeds. As Kelly Johnson said, the aircraft skin tempers itself with every flight.
Aerodynamic heating would have put a hard limit on the speed of about Mach 4.2. According to Brian Shul, the SR-71 was capable of doing Mach 3.5, and although the A-12 was significantly lighter, I have significant doubts that it could do much past Mach 3.7
@@richardmillhousenixon This is absolutely true. I doubt the aircraft ever got close to mach 4, as at mach 3.3+ the leading edges were approaching the thermal breaking point of about 900 degrees F, too much more heat and the titanium is prone to heat cracking and becoming too brittle for the conditions. Unofficially, Brian Shul is the fastest pilot of the SR-71, a speed that is still classified, my guess is about mach 3.6-3.7, which is about where things start to get dicey, as he even said stuff was falling off the aircraft at the speed they were flying at. The A-12 may be lighter, but they were made out of the same materials with the same limitations.
the a-12 was not more classified than the sr71. people never in the military or aerospace industry arent capable of being experts. researching on a computer doesnt make anyone an expert in any field
@@nomercyinc6783 I never said in my comment that the A-12 was more classified than the SR-71. I said it was more classified than the YF-12, which was true. No experience in military matters are required for basic reading comprehension. Reread what I wrote.
Job well done, again. Kelly Johnson was the Einstein of aviation. My dad knew him & his protege Ben Rich well while working 4 Lockheed back then. Dad told me many unique stories about them. 1 was how a bunch of engineers couldn't figure out how 2 make the air intake cones work & correct diameter 4 the SR71. Kelly walked up looked & said 30° & retractable 4 speed. No computers then & when they did their calculations found out he was spot on. Another stroke of genius was placing engineering & production side by side on the fightline. Allowing quicker communications & understanding each other job difficulties. Also cutting out egos. Kelly was responsible 4 many aeronautical advancements in aircraft designs & materials in different manufacturers planes 2day. Some of their work R probably still classified. So was Ben also ie F117 - F22 - F35. After Kelly retired Ben took over. The only limitations they had was government budgets & politics. Because both had 4 things going 4 them, A. imagination, B. can do attitude, C. "if we don't have tooling, we'll design it, D. management left them alone & gave the cash. Both men approach the Air Force uninvited with new planes that it even didn't think were possible & showed them it can B built.
I love hearing stories about those 2 men, I recently read both of their biographies, and some of the feats they've accomplished are nothing short of amazing. It's almost unbelievable how much they changed the american aerospace industry
Slight problem. When the Blackbird was intercepted, something of a hobby for RAF Lightnings, all it could do was accelerate away. As stated in the video, the platform was not manoeuvrable and something of a sitting duck. Whilst it had Mach 3 capability, that eats fuel and so would travel at a lower cruise speed. But even going flat out it could still be intercepted, that does not take matching speeds.. When the Blackbird or U2 couldn't fly, the RAF would lend Canberra PRs.
Maneuverability was never part of the plan. The plan was to engage at 74,000-80,000 ft and fire missiles at a distance of more than 60 miles. The idea was they would have a lock before they were even seen and be out of there before the other pilot had a chance to react. How well this would have worked is another question, but the lack of maneuverability wasn't an oversight, it was a deliberate design decision.
@@mattdombrowski8435 That's what the Lightning did. With the advantage of being extremely agile. And that was designed as a rapid reaction interceptor from the ground up. And very good at that job, regularly tested with soviet probes.
@@mattdombrowski8435 yup. And those missiles were already going Mach 3 when launched, they would generally fall from 80,000 ft since whatever they were shooting at would be at slower altitude, and the missiles own engine would be accelerating it all the way. Those missiles were hitting their targets 80 miles away at Mach 6
You can't make major instantaneous maneuvers flying at top speeds. You could BARELY go for long stretches and if you did, all you could do is keep your fingers crossed that something doesn't go awry, making the crude aircraft instantly disintegrate, due to the temperatures and pressures that jet was meant to fly in. People, UA-camrs who think they know everything, think you could push the throttles of the SR-71 or the F-22 to the "red line" territories and just keep flying until you run out of fuel... and that if there's tankers capable of flying at Mach 3 to refuel them, that these things could just keep going on for hours. That's just too much comic movie watching. You put your motorcycle engine on "red line" territories and after some minutes, it'd just die on you. When you fly at Mach 3.2 or more --- "red line" territories, on internal combustion engines (regardless what "class": rocket engines that carrying one-way payloads, for example, could be pushed further than manned aircraft engines for obvious reasons) --- one tiny thing goes wrong in the thousands of parts you have in that aircraft & it'd just disintegrate into pieces (into a fireball), due to the extreme temperatures & pressure the aircraft is under. At such extremes, every thing down to the molecular levels --- from the titanium metals, to the joints, to the screws, to the plastic insulation of wires, to other fabrication parts --- start to perturb, to vibrate & to behave more & more unpredictably: that is physics...
@@kiabtoomlauj6249 if you had seen the Lightning pulling major instantaneous manoeuvrers at high speed, as I did, you would not say that. Or to watch it twitting up a Mirage or F-104 whilst stacked for the Warbirds display. Its roll rate was too fast for most pilots to cope with. Lightning refuelled from the transonic Victor. Tactical manoeuvrability was stressed, it could barrel roll and loop. That thing could go Mach 1 and fly inverted (or Mach 1 inverted as it did in a low level roll over Farnborough) but that was frowned upon, typically maxing at Mach 0.98.
Im really impressed by the quality of your researches about this craft, i was always fashinated by the "blackbird" family and i remeber when i was reseraching for recreating the YF-12 in kerbal space program (a videogame) it was really hard to find any good pics of the retractable fin, i was just able to find an old photo, so i am totally impressed by the amount of good quality footage you were able to obtain! props to you!
The main problem.. ° Too BIG fighter ° Too expensive (I mean the whole blackbird a 12 and this were made 80℅-90℅ of pure titanium.. Which is pretty expansive) ° High Maintainance ( Very high)
YF-12 was a cool concept, but there was so much prep required to get the thing (and the pilots) flying that it was totally impractical as an interceptor sitting on alert. I mean, the thing leaks fuel sitting there, has to have its hydraulic fluid preheated, it takes a 500 hp ground cart to start the motors, and the pilots have to breathe pure oxygen for a couple hours before flying.
I live in Ohio and have seen the YF-12 in person at the Air Force Museum, but never realized the subtle differences between this and the SR-71. I'll have to compare them next time I visit.
Honestly it could have server better as a bomber rather than a fighter jet. Imagine being able to transport bombs, cruise missiles and possibly hypersonic missiles travelling at mach 3 and cruising at 85,000 ft. Not even the Tu-160 would have been comparable to this thing and it would have a been a larger and faster version of the F-35, being able to conduct deep strike missions and then heading back to base probably without a scratch and if equipped with EW it would have been EVEN deadlier. I wonder how the S400 or the S500 would have dealt with it.
@@FoundAndExplained Yeah, honestly I have no idea how they haven't thought about that. The shape of the aircraft itself made it look like a bomber, atleast from my POV.
I met Jim Irwin at a prayer breakfast in Glendale many years ago. A real stand-up type man. He wrote a book "To Rule the Night" you might find interesting. He gives some insights you won't likely find in the "official" company records. Actually, Kelly only liked working with one government organization.....
I feel like if this plane was to be reproduced and modernized today it would be wonderfully effective Mach 3 certainly isn’t anything to sneeze at even today
@@larryc1616 You are comparing apples and oranges. One is a Fighter, the other is a RECONNnaissance platform. Additionally, the XB-37 can loiter over a region of interest for over a year, and collect real time data. Hence, "something better".
@@larryc1616 I think you miss the point of my comment so please allow me to rephrase.. my comment was if the SR-71 was used as a base for a new aircraft that’s made with modern technology and our current day advanced computer generation software a plane could be made that would out our current set of jets
The really cool thing is one of the variants of the YF-12 Interceptor lives here in my home state of Utah at the Hill Air Force Museum. It's actually a lot smaller than you would think it is! From what I've seen, it's about the size of modern fighters like the F-15.
As far as I understand the turning radius of the SR-71 at Mach 3 was huge. This aircraft even with its modifications probably wasn't going to be engaging in any dog fighting. Instead it would stand back and take out the Russian nuclear bombers with conventional or nuclear missiles.
Actually, the YF12 came before the SR71. As a kid in the late 50s early 60s, my parents gave me a model of the YF12 to put together. Come to find out later, the reason was because the USAF decided that there wasn't money for a spy plane but they had plenty money for advanced fighters.
Due to initial production difficulties of the Pratt & Whitney J58 turbojets, the first five examples of the Lockheed YF-12's predecessor, the A-12, were initially flown with the Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojets in 1962. These J75-powered A-12s were capable of obtaining speeds of approximately Mach 2.0. It is interesting to note that there were proposals to replace the Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojets with afterburning (or reheat in British English) versions of the more fuel-efficient Rolls-Royce Conway turbofans in J75-powered aircrafts such as the Convair F-106 Delta Dart and the Republic F-105 Thunderchief. Perhaps if the Lockheed YF-12 had been accepted into service with the United States Air Force, the YF-12 could have later been upgraded with afterburning versions of the Rolls-Royce Conway or other similar afterburning turbofans.
Actually the YF-12 was based on the A-12 jets ( A for Angel ) the CIA operated single setter precursor original Mach 3+ spy planes. The U.S. Air Force ordered the 3 YF-12s as interceptors then ordered the 32 or so SR-71s ( Strategic Reconnaissance- 71 ) which were based on the YF-12s not the other way around. I am positive on this, I watched all the documentaries and i have a book with the entire history on them.
I have actually seen the SR-71C as Hill Air Force Base is close to where I live. I have even gotten to see its cockpits open and its controls and instruments.
Love your channel. You are making historic vids man. PPL will be watching your vids when we are all dead...as long as we dont kill ourselves first as a ppl.
The launch of Sputnik killed a lot interceptors both in the US, Canada (Avro Arrow) & the UK. Basically no point when the warheads are coming in from space.
The operational, F-12B, variant, would have carried six missiles with two forward and two + two in the rear as the ASG-18 hardware was miniaturized and moved to the spine. The centerline fin was found to be unnecessary and would have been removed, though the under-nacelle ones would have likely stayed. The forward chine would have been blended into the nose, just behind the radome as the IRST could see a Mach 3 B-70 at 45nm but little else. Against the M4 Bison or M50 Bounder, the jet would have been superlative. Against the Tsotka, not so much (principally because the T-4 was itself an engineering testbed and far too small to achieve intercontinental distances).
Hey, Thanks for all the amazing content, you are my main information source for my High school oral (about aircraft's propulsion and about nuclear powered aircraft). Just a question: Will there be a partnership/sponsor stuff with War Thunder? It would be really cool (as well you could enjoy Ultra settings with your 3090). And talking about the F-14 Tomcat (6:08), it's actually under developpement on War Thunder test server, so you could do a video about it with gaijin's help. That's just a cool thing i would love to see. Anyway thanks for your content and all the cool stuff .
I would add that I have seen photos of the YF-12A which featured pylons with what appeared to resemble wingtip tanks protruding below each nacelle (featured in this video at 6,51 minutes) although I'm sure that those were more likely for aerodynamic testing.
Lockheed making airliners: fails to mcdonnel f***ing douglas Lockheed making military aircraft: Mach 3+ high altitude potentially nuclear-armed long-range fighter-interceptor
Pretty sure had they actually put the YF-12 into service, the USAF would have found ways to keep it fed and flying. Eventually those AIM-47s would have been replaced with AIM-54s, and the radar with the Tomcat's AWG-9. I can only imagine the time they could shrink computers down to size and recover the 4th missile bay.
@@ZaMus thats not how physics were, if said object is longer well attached to the thing going that speed it will lose speed quite quickly. it will retain speed but won't keep up etc it lacks the prupulsion to do so
@@NonsensicalSpudz You write: _"if said object is longer well attached to the thing going that speed it will lose speed quite quickly."_ Yes, it *would* do that if it didn't have a big rocket motor with much more thrust than the amount of drag the missile has. So, staged rockets, or rockets that discard SRBs are an example of why a purposely engineered air-to-air missile fired from a moving aircraft will start with the speed of the aircraft+missile assembly and then accelerate away (with its engine burning). It would be pointless to launch an a-a missile that had a lower thrust-to-drag ratio than the launching aircraft, unless it was a long-range-cruise-missile. What you describe is essentially a "bomb". An un-powered finned munition dropped from an aircraft, and yes those will definitely slow down after leaving the aircraft. Think of the aircraft as the "booster" or "first stage" of a multi-stage rocket. The physics is just the same, except that the original aircraft keeps flying after launch, as the missile speeds away under its own rocket (or other) power.
Every flight arrival from these high-flying Titanium faith in structure craft, had a hella of maintenance extreme that led to tagging, PER flight, Lockheed simply needled to create a *cooling cycle* system, absorbing high, thin atmosphere from the front area of wing rims and engine intakes, lather building and distribute to the nose cone, pre-cooling shower the craft like a low atmosphere flight. That also could've evolved into passenger *Orbitliner* concepts in human history.
Actually, it would an interceptor, as it's not maneuverable enough to be a fighter. The purpose of an interceptor is to go after bombers, not get into dog fights. An early interceptor was Canada's Avro Arrow.
@@Justanotherconsumer The Arrow was also killed because the threat moved to missiles. However, both the U.S. and Russia still fly large bombers. There was also some politics, including creative accounting involved.
Requesting videos on the following: -switchblade aircraft designs such as the FA-37 Talon from the ‘05 movie “Stealth” or the X-02 Wyvern from the Ace Combat franchise -Super Tomcat-21 and ASF-14 -the NATF program -early ATF proposals
@@B5HecG if the 60s boys can do that, we can do it for sure and being much more refined. But in this era, we don't need it anymore and didn't want to spend a huge chunk of money on it too.
Its coming! It takes more than a week to make my vidoes, generally 3-4 weeks haha. 3d is being made now by yours truely and I need to do the voice over on tuesday when I have free time.
Hey F&E a hearty request to you plz don't change your intro theme song ever it's so damn good.I just wait for that part eagerly whenever I watch any video and sometimes skip to listen that again and again. Don't replace it everrrrrrr..😊😊😊
With speed like that, you don't need fire missles. Just fly up tp them and tap them on the shoulder and tell them to loeave like that F-22 pilot did to that Iraqui pilot in the F-4. Tell them that you have missles in the bay but if they dont leave, you will drop the missles on their heads like bombs.
@Found and explained: (This comment is off-topic in Relation to the video) I would like to suggest a topic for a future video: A video about the plane "Coandă-1910" which is claimed to be the first jet plane in history (even if this is being doubted), along with the Italian plane "Campini-Caproni C.C.2 (a.k.a. „Campini-Caproni N.1) while both were the first planes to use a thermojet-engine for propulsion. Any evaluation hereby will be kindly appreciated
let's see let's see, how many seconds of australian man face will this one contain? This channel is definitelly suffering from what I've grown to call the "AtlasPro syndrome". EDIT: Zero to my delightful surprise!
I’d love to know more what you mean by this. The reason why we experimented with my face on camera is at the request of sponsors. Sponsors want a personality for you to connect with. Sponsors fund the animations that you see. Nothing to do with ego or anything else. You watch tv all the time with faces, no reason why my channel can’t be any different. Ironically I’m not in this video haha
@@FoundAndExplained Some channels and some kinds of content fit the Hank Green format and some don't. The main attraction of channels like yours, RealEngineering and Mustard is good narration with pleasing visuals and it really breaks the flow when you suddenly get spooked by a face bare centimeters from the camera as if you were peeking into my soul. I don't mind the 10 seconds of the ad, I already have my finger on top of the right arrow key the moment I anticipate the 100th SquareSpace/HelloFresh/younameit ad of the day, my issue is with self-insertion during regular content, specially when all the videos on the channel are virtually indistinguishable from eachother before watching them so it turns into a game of minesweeper.
Now we need a video on the XF-108 Rapier! That plane really looked futuristic, and epic, if it wasn't cancelled :/
Well, it got further developed into the carrier plane A5 Vigilante. And its weapons firing system got integrated into the YF-12... ✌️
If the mothership wasn't cancelled, XB-70 Valkyrie!
America’s CF-105.
Sensibly cancelled before they spent too much on it.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, the XF-103.
That thing was Buck Rogers Bonkers.
Agree
1:24 *ABBA starts playing*
GIMME GIMME GIMME A MAAAN AFTER MIDNIIGHT
fun fact in his 9:20 decloacking speech LBJ said the RS-71 was the SR-71 ... no one was going to correct the president so SR-71 it became. also KJ was a massive fan of the YF-12. you can see him say online "the only problem is we built the wrong one - the SR71 not the YF12". also the YF-12C is also known as "the bastard" as it never flew straight because of the issue of it being made up of 2 airframes.
Grandpa (Vic Horton) flew on the Bastard a few times. He said it never handled right, which is why they retired it after only a few years. His usual aircraft was 60-6935.
the YF-12C was actually SR-71A #971 on loan to NASA. The SR-71C #981 Trainer ,half YF-12A #934 and front an static Engineering Mock up was the Bastard.
LBJ didn't misread it. I believe the chief of staff last minute renamed it to SR-71, but they didn't correct the media documents in time, so the press assumed that the documents they were given were correct and that LBJ had misread the name.
The SR-71C was the plane that never flew straight. Half of one of the YF-12's that crashed was salvaged and used to build the only SR-71C.
LBJ definately did not misread anything, it was changed last minute by some higher up who liked the name "SR-71" better than the "RS-71"
Minor correction it was never meant to be a fighter jet it was supposed to a interceptor there’s a different but still great video as always
the public in general seem to often confuse the two. they sure are different philosophies, but they both end up with "sleek plane go fast" in some form.
@@xymaryai8283 Frankly speaking, it was a much more difficult job.
Spy plane goes to fly when it is ready.
Interceptor stands on standby for hours, days, and week, ready to take off and fight wherever things went south, and no matter how onfortunate the moment will be.
So while YF-12 seems to be a no-brainer - actual F-12B would've been a completely, utterly different beast inside.
@@neniAAinen wait yeah, didn't the SR71's fuel tanks leak fuel on the ground when they were cold, because they had heat expansion gaps that would close when it got hot? that seems like a crucial flaw for an Interceptor that a Reconnaissance aircraft doesn't have much problem with.
but my point was, sure, the operational procedures are different, but to the public, if it looks fast, and seats only 2 people, its a fighter jet
@@xymaryai8283 yeah, you got the problem :-)
F-12B would have been a completely different aircraft with roughly same external appearence.
USAF wanted more G capability (for actual high supersonic maneuvering), it wanted 24/7 standby, and, perhaps above all else, it wanted actual series this time, not just a dozen of hand-made aircraft straight from the future.
an interceptor is a "subgenre" of a fighter, for example, the f22 is an interceptor and fighter
8:58 I love how he said Lloyd Johnson when referring to Lyndon B. Johnson because I have a friend named Lloyd. I had to do a double take and think: "Wait, Lloyd was the president?" xD
Getting weapons bay doors open and a missile out, into a Mach 3 slipstream, would have been exceptionally difficult.
There is no way that would have been at Mach 3 speed. In fact very view if any fighters drop any ordinance at supersonic speeds.
@@shrimpflea That's why a Mach 3 fighter would have been a bad idea. About the only way to do it would have been ejecting them out the back end like an A-5 Vigilante and even that brings as many problems as it solves.
@@shrimpflea During the testing they launched a missile and destroyed a target drone while at mach 3.2, kelly johnson does the impossible once again
missiles close at much faster than mach 3. weve been hypersonic since the 50s
9:00 “President Lloyd Johnson”. Lyndon. LYNDON Baines Johnson. LOL
And that's where Lockheed
And that's where Lockheed...
Everytime I watch something about the YF12 or SR71 makes me sad the russians never produced something crazier lol
Mig-41, Foxbat 2?
Wait for it. They did plan too!
@@alwayscensored6871 that plane is new. The YF12 was flying in the 60s
@@FoundAndExplained any spoilers?
@@alwayscensored6871 lol, what kinda stupid are you. The Foxbat 2 is a new plane the yf-12 was 60 years old
My grandfather, Vic Horton, flew as back seat / RSO on the YF-12As after NASA got the prototypes in 1969. 60-6935 was his plane; it's currently on display at the USAF Museum in Dayton, OH. He usually flew as a team with Fitz Fulton, but also made flights with Don Mallick, Tom McMurtry, William Dana and others. Having flown on both, he actually liked the YF-12 better than the more famous SR-71.
Wow!
In the comments there seems to be some confusion. The YF12 was maneuverable for its size and weight. The high speeds the plane would operate at equated to a lot of real estate when making a turn... that simply means that a slower plane could turn in side of you and get guns on. From the accounts of the pilots that flew her she was a decent flying aircraft. The US Air Force did not like the idea of the exotic fuel the YF12 used. It was one thing to have a reconnaissance air craft use this fuel but an interceptor being used for defending the contiguous United States would cost far to much in added infrastructure. The "interceptor" had a different engine set up and was easier to operate than thorough bread SR71 - however, over all, the project was deemed impractical.
@Karma Mechanic wow that sounds suspiciously like a F-22
could you make a deeply detailed found and explained about the b2??? would be cool and nice to watch, been enjoying the videos and hope you dont stop my man, sick content
Your YF-12 model had some errors. The central ventral fin you show is *way* smaller than the real one, and the nose cone is depicted as a relatively small cone when it should have been a sizable ogive.
Yah i noticed the central fin
On one of my grandfather's YF-12 flights, the center folding ventral fin actually separated in-flight and landed on the slope of Mt. Whitney. Took them awhile to find it, too. If I remember right, they made overflights with F-104s and T-38s trying to locate the impact zone.
The A-12 was so top secret that at the Skunk Works the only thing separating it from the YF-12 on the production floor was a temporary moveable curtain.
As the A-12 was so classified because it had "stealth features" (primarily the leading edges of the wings) this feature was not used on the YF-12 because it was an Air Force aircraft and the A-12 was a CIA plane.
The Air Force never knew.
Regardless of what "official" stats show, the SR-71 was *much* faster than the claimed top speed of Mach 3.whatever...
And the *A-12* flew higher AND faster.
*MUCH FASTER*
High mach 4's.
It's only two real limiting factors were fuel quantity/distance per mission and what would melt or fall off the aircraft/break (non titanium parts) at those speeds.
As Kelly Johnson said, the aircraft skin tempers itself with every flight.
Aerodynamic heating would have put a hard limit on the speed of about Mach 4.2. According to Brian Shul, the SR-71 was capable of doing Mach 3.5, and although the A-12 was significantly lighter, I have significant doubts that it could do much past Mach 3.7
@@richardmillhousenixon This is absolutely true. I doubt the aircraft ever got close to mach 4, as at mach 3.3+ the leading edges were approaching the thermal breaking point of about 900 degrees F, too much more heat and the titanium is prone to heat cracking and becoming too brittle for the conditions. Unofficially, Brian Shul is the fastest pilot of the SR-71, a speed that is still classified, my guess is about mach 3.6-3.7, which is about where things start to get dicey, as he even said stuff was falling off the aircraft at the speed they were flying at. The A-12 may be lighter, but they were made out of the same materials with the same limitations.
the a-12 was not more classified than the sr71. people never in the military or aerospace industry arent capable of being experts. researching on a computer doesnt make anyone an expert in any field
@@nomercyinc6783
I never said in my comment that the A-12 was more classified than the SR-71. I said it was more classified than the YF-12, which was true.
No experience in military matters are required for basic reading comprehension.
Reread what I wrote.
“And thats where lockheed..”
9:01: President WHO? Lloyd Johnson? 😂
Job well done, again. Kelly Johnson was the Einstein of aviation. My dad knew him & his protege Ben Rich well while working 4 Lockheed back then. Dad told me many unique stories about them. 1 was how a bunch of engineers couldn't figure out how 2 make the air intake cones work & correct diameter 4 the SR71. Kelly walked up looked & said 30° & retractable 4 speed. No computers then & when they did their calculations found out he was spot on. Another stroke of genius was placing engineering & production side by side on the fightline. Allowing quicker communications & understanding each other job difficulties. Also cutting out egos. Kelly was responsible 4 many aeronautical advancements in aircraft designs & materials in different manufacturers planes 2day. Some of their work R probably still classified. So was Ben also ie F117 - F22 - F35. After Kelly retired Ben took over. The only limitations they had was government budgets & politics. Because both had 4 things going 4 them, A. imagination, B. can do attitude, C. "if we don't have tooling, we'll design it, D. management left them alone & gave the cash. Both men approach the Air Force uninvited with new planes that it even didn't think were possible & showed them it can B built.
I love hearing stories about those 2 men, I recently read both of their biographies, and some of the feats they've accomplished are nothing short of amazing. It's almost unbelievable how much they changed the american aerospace industry
Those little wings where added to the f-14 after a bunch of crashes
Slight problem. When the Blackbird was intercepted, something of a hobby for RAF Lightnings, all it could do was accelerate away. As stated in the video, the platform was not manoeuvrable and something of a sitting duck. Whilst it had Mach 3 capability, that eats fuel and so would travel at a lower cruise speed. But even going flat out it could still be intercepted, that does not take matching speeds..
When the Blackbird or U2 couldn't fly, the RAF would lend Canberra PRs.
Maneuverability was never part of the plan. The plan was to engage at 74,000-80,000 ft and fire missiles at a distance of more than 60 miles. The idea was they would have a lock before they were even seen and be out of there before the other pilot had a chance to react. How well this would have worked is another question, but the lack of maneuverability wasn't an oversight, it was a deliberate design decision.
@@mattdombrowski8435 That's what the Lightning did. With the advantage of being extremely agile. And that was designed as a rapid reaction interceptor from the ground up. And very good at that job, regularly tested with soviet probes.
@@mattdombrowski8435 yup. And those missiles were already going Mach 3 when launched, they would generally fall from 80,000 ft since whatever they were shooting at would be at slower altitude, and the missiles own engine would be accelerating it all the way.
Those missiles were hitting their targets 80 miles away at Mach 6
You can't make major instantaneous maneuvers flying at top speeds. You could BARELY go for long stretches and if you did, all you could do is keep your fingers crossed that something doesn't go awry, making the crude aircraft instantly disintegrate, due to the temperatures and pressures that jet was meant to fly in.
People, UA-camrs who think they know everything, think you could push the throttles of the SR-71 or the F-22 to the "red line" territories and just keep flying until you run out of fuel... and that if there's tankers capable of flying at Mach 3 to refuel them, that these things could just keep going on for hours.
That's just too much comic movie watching.
You put your motorcycle engine on "red line" territories and after some minutes, it'd just die on you.
When you fly at Mach 3.2 or more --- "red line" territories, on internal combustion engines (regardless what "class": rocket engines that carrying one-way payloads, for example, could be pushed further than manned aircraft engines for obvious reasons) --- one tiny thing goes wrong in the thousands of parts you have in that aircraft & it'd just disintegrate into pieces (into a fireball), due to the extreme temperatures & pressure the aircraft is under.
At such extremes, every thing down to the molecular levels --- from the titanium metals, to the joints, to the screws, to the plastic insulation of wires, to other fabrication parts --- start to perturb, to vibrate & to behave more & more unpredictably: that is physics...
@@kiabtoomlauj6249 if you had seen the Lightning pulling major instantaneous manoeuvrers at high speed, as I did, you would not say that. Or to watch it twitting up a Mirage or F-104 whilst stacked for the Warbirds display. Its roll rate was too fast for most pilots to cope with. Lightning refuelled from the transonic Victor. Tactical manoeuvrability was stressed, it could barrel roll and loop. That thing could go Mach 1 and fly inverted (or Mach 1 inverted as it did in a low level roll over Farnborough) but that was frowned upon, typically maxing at Mach 0.98.
This has to be the coolest looking plane ever made.
This and blackbird
YF-12: "You're weak!"
SR-71: "I'm you!"
@@AlecsNeo
I think the YF-23 was but that's just me
@@Yuki_Ika7 they are definitely both high on the list for sure
Great video with loads of Aeronautical trivia but I had to laugh at your reference to President Loyd Johnson... :-)
Im really impressed by the quality of your researches about this craft, i was always fashinated by the "blackbird" family and i remeber when i was reseraching for recreating the YF-12 in kerbal space program (a videogame) it was really hard to find any good pics of the retractable fin, i was just able to find an old photo, so i am totally impressed by the amount of good quality footage you were able to obtain! props to you!
Another fantastic video on a legendary airframe, your content keeps getting better and better!
Damn!! You’re killing it with the VFX skills! Just keeps getting better and better.
Credit should be given to Romain Hugault for the 4:50 missile launch illustration.
The main problem..
° Too BIG fighter
° Too expensive
(I mean the whole blackbird a 12 and this were made 80℅-90℅ of pure titanium.. Which is pretty expansive)
° High Maintainance ( Very high)
YF-12 was a cool concept, but there was so much prep required to get the thing (and the pilots) flying that it was totally impractical as an interceptor sitting on alert. I mean, the thing leaks fuel sitting there, has to have its hydraulic fluid preheated, it takes a 500 hp ground cart to start the motors, and the pilots have to breathe pure oxygen for a couple hours before flying.
True, hardly a QRA type.
I live in Ohio and have seen the YF-12 in person at the Air Force Museum, but never realized the subtle differences between this and the SR-71. I'll have to compare them next time I visit.
Honestly it could have server better as a bomber rather than a fighter jet. Imagine being able to transport bombs, cruise missiles and possibly hypersonic missiles travelling at mach 3 and cruising at 85,000 ft. Not even the Tu-160 would have been comparable to this thing and it would have a been a larger and faster version of the F-35, being able to conduct deep strike missions and then heading back to base probably without a scratch and if equipped with EW it would have been EVEN deadlier. I wonder how the S400 or the S500 would have dealt with it.
Agree. Very likely it could have bombed too
@@FoundAndExplained Yeah, honestly I have no idea how they haven't thought about that. The shape of the aircraft itself made it look like a bomber, atleast from my POV.
I have a book about the Lockheed Skunk Works which does mention a 'RB71' design study.
I met Jim Irwin at a prayer breakfast in Glendale many years ago. A real stand-up type man. He wrote a book "To Rule the Night" you might find interesting. He gives some insights you won't likely find in the "official" company records. Actually, Kelly only liked working with one government organization.....
If the yf-12 never got cancelled the USAF would be still the best.
Edit: wow, your edit just got even better.
That SR-71C is currently on display at the Hill Aerospace Museum north of Salt Lake City, Utah
There is also an A-12 on display in Mobile's USS Alabama battleship memorial park -- in the aircraft pavillion.
@@Duke_of_Prunes That SR-71C used to be that YF-12 that landed too hard--replaced the SR-71B that crashed
I feel like if this plane was to be reproduced and modernized today it would be wonderfully effective Mach 3 certainly isn’t anything to sneeze at even today
F-22 can do over mach 3 with stealth. Today, SR71 is obsolete- too expensive to operate and no gen 5 stealth means shot down.
Speed
@@larryc1616 You are comparing apples and oranges. One is a Fighter, the other is a RECONNnaissance platform. Additionally, the XB-37 can loiter over a region of interest for over a year, and collect real time data. Hence, "something better".
The best thing about the blackbird; its exotic titanium shell, was manufactured by Russia. Purchased by the skunkworks using fake companies.
@@larryc1616 I think you miss the point of my comment so please allow me to rephrase.. my comment was if the SR-71 was used as a base for a new aircraft that’s made with modern technology and our current day advanced computer generation software a plane could be made that would out our current set of jets
The really cool thing is one of the variants of the YF-12 Interceptor lives here in my home state of Utah at the Hill Air Force Museum. It's actually a lot smaller than you would think it is! From what I've seen, it's about the size of modern fighters like the F-15.
I bet DARPA has had some spectacular failures, many of which would be intensely guarded secrets.
Good lord that picture of the Tomcat going vertical with a full load out is awesome.
As far as I understand the turning radius of the SR-71 at Mach 3 was huge. This aircraft even with its modifications probably wasn't going to be engaging in any dog fighting. Instead it would stand back and take out the Russian nuclear bombers with conventional or nuclear missiles.
Let's goooooo 🔥🔥🔥🔥 I've been waiting for this one great work as always
Actually, the YF12 came before the SR71. As a kid in the late 50s early 60s, my parents gave me a model of the YF12 to put together. Come to find out later, the reason was because the USAF decided that there wasn't money for a spy plane but they had plenty money for advanced fighters.
Maverick would have pushed this to Mach 4
4.2 even
Maybe 5-
*YF-12 rips apart*
What did they make the radome out of?
What material is transparent to radio waves and able to get red hot without disintegrating?
9:02 mark. You misnamed President Lyndon Johnson as “Lloyd” Johnson LOL!
Probably the (second) coolest fighter jet
Who is President Lloyd Johnson?
🤣🤣
President Lyndon B Johnson, not "Lloyd Johnson".
Great video and keep it up!! What kind of software do you edit video on both visual and audio?
Due to initial production difficulties of the Pratt & Whitney J58 turbojets, the first five examples of the Lockheed YF-12's predecessor, the A-12, were initially flown with the Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojets in 1962. These J75-powered A-12s were capable of obtaining speeds of approximately Mach 2.0. It is interesting to note that there were proposals to replace the Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojets with afterburning (or reheat in British English) versions of the more fuel-efficient Rolls-Royce Conway turbofans in J75-powered aircrafts such as the Convair F-106 Delta Dart and the Republic F-105 Thunderchief. Perhaps if the Lockheed YF-12 had been accepted into service with the United States Air Force, the YF-12 could have later been upgraded with afterburning versions of the Rolls-Royce Conway or other similar afterburning turbofans.
model yf-12 based on the model of the SR-71 blackbird
Actually the YF-12 was based on the A-12 jets ( A for Angel ) the CIA operated single setter precursor original Mach 3+ spy planes. The U.S. Air Force ordered the 3 YF-12s as interceptors then ordered the 32 or so SR-71s ( Strategic Reconnaissance- 71 ) which were based on the YF-12s not the other way around. I am positive on this, I watched all the documentaries and i have a book with the entire history on them.
Actually, the mach 3 interceptor* came first. The yf-12, archangke etc came before the sr-71
President Lloyd Johnson? Lol 9:00
I have actually seen the SR-71C as Hill Air Force Base is close to where I live. I have even gotten to see its cockpits open and its controls and instruments.
9:00 - President... LLOYD Johnson?! I assume Lloyd was Lydon's stand-in for security reasons.
Point of order? The yf -12 is the a-12. Very little fifference,mostly electronics. And both of these versions were Before the SR-71.
Love your channel. You are making historic vids man. PPL will be watching your vids when we are all dead...as long as we dont kill ourselves first as a ppl.
The launch of Sputnik killed a lot interceptors both in the US, Canada (Avro Arrow) & the UK. Basically no point when the warheads are coming in from space.
Right off the bat without watching: how to open weapons bay at Mach 3 without tearing plane apart
An interceptor needing to slow down to fire is not ideal.
"- You sure do seem to know a lot about it...
- Do you even read my Christmas list?!"
SR-71 engineers be like " So we made the fastest plane, you know what would make it cooler? Missiles"
"talk about over kill" cmonn this is america we're talking about
Could you make a video about airship and how it could make a come back in the future?
You mean the nuclear powered airship?
Awesome video but i can´t let "President lloyd Johnson" slide 🤣
The operational, F-12B, variant, would have carried six missiles with two forward and two + two in the rear as the ASG-18 hardware was miniaturized and moved to the spine.
The centerline fin was found to be unnecessary and would have been removed, though the under-nacelle ones would have likely stayed.
The forward chine would have been blended into the nose, just behind the radome as the IRST could see a Mach 3 B-70 at 45nm but little else.
Against the M4 Bison or M50 Bounder, the jet would have been superlative. Against the Tsotka, not so much (principally because the T-4 was itself an engineering testbed and far too small to achieve intercontinental distances).
I got to see the Prototype in the NMUSAF it was interesting because there is only one cockpit instead of the two on the SR-71.
Hey, Thanks for all the amazing content, you are my main information source for my High school oral (about aircraft's propulsion and about nuclear powered aircraft).
Just a question: Will there be a partnership/sponsor stuff with War Thunder? It would be really cool (as well you could enjoy Ultra settings with your 3090). And talking about the F-14 Tomcat (6:08), it's actually under developpement on War Thunder test server, so you could do a video about it with gaijin's help. That's just a cool thing i would love to see. Anyway thanks for your content and all the cool stuff .
Yes I totally am doing a partnership
The, aim 54, Phoenix air to air missile was developed for these. They were used by the Tomcats being reliable.
I would add that I have seen photos of the YF-12A which featured pylons with what appeared to resemble wingtip tanks protruding below each nacelle (featured in this video at 6,51 minutes) although I'm sure that those were more likely for aerodynamic testing.
@@laurogarza4953 Those were camera pods to record the missile launches during testing.
Lockheed making airliners: fails to mcdonnel f***ing douglas
Lockheed making military aircraft: Mach 3+ high altitude potentially nuclear-armed long-range fighter-interceptor
Pretty sure had they actually put the YF-12 into service, the USAF would have found ways to keep it fed and flying. Eventually those AIM-47s would have been replaced with AIM-54s, and the radar with the Tomcat's AWG-9. I can only imagine the time they could shrink computers down to size and recover the 4th missile bay.
I remember flying this in ace combat, just zoomin' around maps on afterburner, killing Belkans and/or Belkan-funded bad guys
Could you imagine going so fast that when you launch your air to air missile, you outrun it? 😄
😄😄😄
you literally cant outrun a rocket cause when you launch it, it already has the +3M speed
@@ZaMus thats not how physics were, if said object is longer well attached to the thing going that speed it will lose speed quite quickly.
it will retain speed but won't keep up etc it lacks the prupulsion to do so
@@NonsensicalSpudz well, mb
@@NonsensicalSpudz You write: _"if said object is longer well attached to the thing going that speed it will lose speed quite quickly."_
Yes, it *would* do that if it didn't have a big rocket motor with much more thrust than the amount of drag the missile has.
So, staged rockets, or rockets that discard SRBs are an example of why a purposely engineered air-to-air missile fired from a moving aircraft will start with the speed of the aircraft+missile assembly and then accelerate away (with its engine burning). It would be pointless to launch an a-a missile that had a lower thrust-to-drag ratio than the launching aircraft, unless it was a long-range-cruise-missile.
What you describe is essentially a "bomb". An un-powered finned munition dropped from an aircraft, and yes those will definitely slow down after leaving the aircraft.
Think of the aircraft as the "booster" or "first stage" of a multi-stage rocket. The physics is just the same, except that the original aircraft keeps flying after launch, as the missile speeds away under its own rocket (or other) power.
Yes
Every flight arrival from these high-flying Titanium faith in structure craft, had a hella of maintenance extreme that led to tagging, PER flight, Lockheed simply needled to create a *cooling cycle* system, absorbing high, thin atmosphere from the front area of wing rims and engine intakes, lather building and distribute to the nose cone, pre-cooling shower the craft like a low atmosphere flight. That also could've evolved into passenger *Orbitliner* concepts in human history.
sources?
Actually, it would an interceptor, as it's not maneuverable enough to be a fighter. The purpose of an interceptor is to go after bombers, not get into dog fights. An early interceptor was Canada's Avro Arrow.
This is basically the Arrow’s competition.
The XF-108 was a more direct comparison to the CF-105, though.
Or the XF-103. That thing was ridiculous.
@@Justanotherconsumer The Arrow was also killed because the threat moved to missiles. However, both the U.S. and Russia still fly large bombers. There was also some politics, including creative accounting involved.
Requesting videos on the following:
-switchblade aircraft designs such as the FA-37 Talon from the ‘05 movie “Stealth” or the X-02 Wyvern from the Ace Combat franchise
-Super Tomcat-21 and ASF-14
-the NATF program
-early ATF proposals
Might do a super tomcat video
@@FoundAndExplained for me, I’m more interested in the switchblade concept but it’s your channel. You do you bro.
A12 sr71 are the same right
sorry about being a year late but yes they are the same with vary minor differences
i cannot beileve my personality is related to sr-71 but i feel yf-12a feels vibe to my personality as intj. thanks quotev.
how long does it take to create these animations?
Weeks :)
Just to think that in the late 50s we had something that could fly mach 3 blows my mind, we couldve been in the jetsons era years ago
Well there are alot of problems with going that fast over cities
@@kiwigaming09 im sure, we would’ve invented a quiet way of doing it, but they kept that tech secret
@@B5HecG if the 60s boys can do that, we can do it for sure and being much more refined.
But in this era, we don't need it anymore and didn't want to spend a huge chunk of money on it too.
What about the natf 23 vid we asked you to make?
Its coming! It takes more than a week to make my vidoes, generally 3-4 weeks haha. 3d is being made now by yours truely and I need to do the voice over on tuesday when I have free time.
@@FoundAndExplained lets go!!!
Hey F&E a hearty request to you plz don't change your intro theme song ever it's so damn good.I just wait for that part eagerly whenever I watch any video and sometimes skip to listen that again and again. Don't replace it everrrrrrr..😊😊😊
I'm in love with this plane! Such a beauty!😍
9:00 "President LLOYD Johnson"
9:00 Good ol' President Lloyd Johnson
Right? The amount of engagement I'm getting for that missaying is making me wonder if i should make mistakes more often
do XF-108 another time :D
Ah he is back!hi
Imagine this in war thunder
@@Attaxalotl most missiles today goes much faster than the Blackbird.
@@Attaxalotl I mean in general.
can you provide the spec of you computer?
About section
“Weapons could not be mounted on the ground exterior due to the aircrafts aerodynamic complexity.” Proceeds to completely change the whole nose.
9:01: He was President Lyndon Johnson NOT Lloyd Johnson.
A nuclear tipped air-to-air missle is WAY overkill
It's just a small warhead, a firecracker really. Different times...
The problem with flying faster than the ordinance is you must fly slower than the ordinance or run into it.
With speed like that, you don't need fire missles. Just fly up tp them and tap them on the shoulder and tell them to loeave like that F-22 pilot did to that Iraqui pilot in the F-4. Tell them that you have missles in the bay but if they dont leave, you will drop the missles on their heads like bombs.
Now you also have to make a video about the XF-108
The Presidents name was Lyndon Baines Johnson not Loyd Johnson.
@Found and explained:
(This comment is off-topic in Relation to the video)
I would like to suggest a topic for a future video:
A video about the plane "Coandă-1910" which is claimed to be the first jet plane in history (even if this is being doubted), along with the Italian plane "Campini-Caproni C.C.2 (a.k.a. „Campini-Caproni N.1) while both were the first planes to use a thermojet-engine for propulsion.
Any evaluation hereby will be kindly appreciated
let's see let's see, how many seconds of australian man face will this one contain? This channel is definitelly suffering from what I've grown to call the "AtlasPro syndrome".
EDIT: Zero to my delightful surprise!
I’d love to know more what you mean by this.
The reason why we experimented with my face on camera is at the request of sponsors. Sponsors want a personality for you to connect with. Sponsors fund the animations that you see. Nothing to do with ego or anything else. You watch tv all the time with faces, no reason why my channel can’t be any different.
Ironically I’m not in this video haha
@@FoundAndExplained i like to see your face. It is your smile.
@@FoundAndExplained Some channels and some kinds of content fit the Hank Green format and some don't. The main attraction of channels like yours, RealEngineering and Mustard is good narration with pleasing visuals and it really breaks the flow when you suddenly get spooked by a face bare centimeters from the camera as if you were peeking into my soul. I don't mind the 10 seconds of the ad, I already have my finger on top of the right arrow key the moment I anticipate the 100th SquareSpace/HelloFresh/younameit ad of the day, my issue is with self-insertion during regular content, specially when all the videos on the channel are virtually indistinguishable from eachother before watching them so it turns into a game of minesweeper.
Never heard of a US president named Lloyd Johnson before... 9:00
Found and explained can you make a video about the ac130 gunship
9:00 Lloyd?