10 of the Highest Altitudes Ever Reached by an Aircraft (World Record)

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 31 тра 2024
  • FLIGHT ALTITUDES RECORD
    Video Description: The pursuit of flight altitude records has long captivated the imaginations of aviators and engineers alike. These records represent the pinnacle of aerospace achievement, pushing the boundaries of human and technological capabilities. Fixed-wing aircraft have soared to breathtaking heights, breaking through the Earth's atmosphere to reach altitudes that were once considered unattainable. In this exploration, we delve into the remarkable history of flight altitude records attained by these soaring machines, showcasing the courage, innovation, and dedication that have propelled humanity to ever-greater heights in the skies.
    -------------------------------
    Credits:-
    sketchfab.com/3d-models/lockh...
    www.turbosquid.com/zh_cn/3d-m...
    3dexport.com/3dmodel-mcdonnel...
    sketchfab.com/3d-models/f-104...
    sketchfab.com/3d-models/mig-2...
    free3d.com/3d-model/mikoyan-g...
    www.turbosquid.com/pt_br/3d-m...
    ------------------------------------------
    FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
    * Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
    The Buzz does not own the rights to these videos and pictures. They have, in accordance with fair use, been repurposed with the intent of educating and inspiring others. However, if any content owners would like their images removed, please contact us by email at-thebuzz938@gmail.com.
  • Розваги

КОМЕНТАРІ • 344

  • @bricefleckenstein9666
    @bricefleckenstein9666 8 місяців тому +133

    Note that the SR-71 flew straight and level for it's altitude record (which IS noted in the video) - the OTHER entries were all "peak height" on zoom climbs, and some COULD NOT take off from the ground on their own (like the X-15 or Space Ship One).

    • @antarashnia84
      @antarashnia84 8 місяців тому +9

      She literally says in the video that the SR-71 was the only one to be able to maintain the altitude.

    • @bricefleckenstein9666
      @bricefleckenstein9666 8 місяців тому +11

      @@antarashnia84 "(which IS noted in the video)"
      Did you somehow MISS that part of my comment?

    • @einundsiebenziger5488
      @einundsiebenziger5488 8 місяців тому +4

      ... its* altitude record (it's = it is)

    • @antarashnia84
      @antarashnia84 8 місяців тому +2

      @@bricefleckenstein9666 umm nice edit it wasn't there when I made my comment. nice try though haha

    • @thebrightstar3634
      @thebrightstar3634 8 місяців тому +7

      Yeah 3 I understand that's if we taking about sustain speed sustain altitudes sr 71 blackbird is the king of all of them

  • @bucheronix
    @bucheronix 7 місяців тому +10

    This one is worth mentioning:
    13 December 1960: Commander Leroy Anthony Heath and Lieutenant Henry L. (“Larry”) Monroe, set a Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) World Record for Altitude¹ with an early production North American A3J-1 Vigilante supersonic attack bomber. A 1,000-kilogram payload was carried in the bomber’s tubular weapons bay.
    Over Edwards Air Force Base, in the high desert of southern California, the Vigilante accelerated to approximately 1,400 miles per hour (2,253 kilometers per hour), then pulled up into a steep climb. The Vigilante zoom-climbed in a nearly ballistic trajectory and reached an altitude of 27,874 meters (91,450 feet).

  • @iamironman494
    @iamironman494 8 місяців тому +48

    The F-15 Streak Eagle on Feb. 1, 1975 in setting the last of the eight records, it reached an altitude of 98,425 feet just 3 minutes, 27.8 seconds from brake release at takeoff and "coasted" to nearly 103,000 feet.

    • @BasedF-15Pilot
      @BasedF-15Pilot 8 місяців тому +18

      Came here to say this. I think this channel is Chinese though, I've found the information they provide inaccurate in other videos as well.

    • @aqk
      @aqk 7 місяців тому

      @@BasedF-15Pilot Ah, So! We thank you for interesting observation! You win our monthly BIG RICE BOWL full of many delicious mystery meats!
      Shhh... don't tell President Putin! He will be jealous!

    • @GEO-PAN
      @GEO-PAN 7 місяців тому +2

      I was thinking exactly about that aircraft, but to be fair, Streak Eagle was designed to break the time records from 0 to x height, and not the absolute height.

    • @nightsidechild.
      @nightsidechild. 7 місяців тому +1

      yep, and after that Ostapenko on MIG-25 made the same altitude in just 3 min and 9 seconds on Mar. 17, 1975

  • @Frankie5Angels150
    @Frankie5Angels150 7 місяців тому +26

    SR-71: Denver Center, Aspen 11 requests Flight Level 850.
    Center: Aspen 11, if you can reach Flight Level 850, you can have Flight Level 850! (Chuckles)
    SR-71: Roger Denver, Aspen 11 beginning descent to Flight Level 850…

  • @oxcart4172
    @oxcart4172 7 місяців тому +20

    The SR-71 that broke the sustained altitude record was 61-7962 now on display at Duxford, England

    • @leafbone1
      @leafbone1 7 місяців тому +4

      Was wondering why it looked a bit smug when I visited😅

  • @Frankie5Angels150
    @Frankie5Angels150 7 місяців тому +21

    It’s adorable that they think the SR-71 only flies as high as they say in this video!

    • @rcstl8815
      @rcstl8815 7 місяців тому +2

      Adorable and naive. Same for the stats for all the planes. I think some were fluffed and some down played. Like how fast are our Aircraft Carriers, really?

    • @bowez9
      @bowez9 7 місяців тому +2

      ​@@rcstl8815given the distance and time the people I've talked to it comes out to about 50 mph.

    • @fredjones7705
      @fredjones7705 7 місяців тому

      @@bowez9 You'd be burning through a lot of neutrons at that speed. ua-cam.com/video/WUAL1RBIBtI/v-deo.html

  • @robertarnold9815
    @robertarnold9815 8 місяців тому +104

    Given all the caveats for these "top ten" you could easily say the Space Shuttle is the highest flying aircraft at ~600km.

    • @bricefleckenstein9666
      @bricefleckenstein9666 8 місяців тому +3

      You could also make a case under the same caveats for the Voyager or Pioneer probes - at MILLIONS of km (I forget which is the farthest from the Earth at this point).
      Not as good a case though, but the Shuttle was designed to land as an aircraft.

    • @red94mr28
      @red94mr28 8 місяців тому +12

      Yeah, I agree with you. I'm only impressed by the SR-71 since it wasn't a special one-off, purpose built to acquire the FAI altitude record. The SR-71 took off from a runway, achieved and maintained the altitude and then landed on a runway.

    • @bricefleckenstein9666
      @bricefleckenstein9666 8 місяців тому +4

      @@red94mr28 Technically, the X-15 was not a one-off (there were 3 of them built and flown during it's test program).
      It and SpaceShipOne were also not built specifically for altitude records.
      X-15 was designed and built to experiment with hypersonic speed testing, SpaceShipOne was built as a prototype "proof of concept" for what eventually developed as SpaceShipTwo for "just into space" tourism.

    • @OMG1961
      @OMG1961 8 місяців тому +2

      Correct and that is my issue with this top 10.

    • @red94mr28
      @red94mr28 8 місяців тому +4

      @@bricefleckenstein9666 Yup, I know the history and purpose of both. Scaled Composites' SpaceShipOne was a one-off since only one was built. Both the X-15 and SpaceShipOne were carried aloft by a larger mothership and released at an altitude above 8 miles so they didn't takeoff from a runway under their own power. So, the Space Shuttle(s) should be included in the list if the X-15 and SpaceShipOne are in the list.

  • @chrislong3938
    @chrislong3938 8 місяців тому +30

    The X-1, X-15, and SpaceShipOne were all air-launched and if you're going to count these rockets, the Space Shuttle whips them all...

    • @bricefleckenstein9666
      @bricefleckenstein9666 8 місяців тому

      Space Shuttle was ground launched.

    • @chrislong3938
      @chrislong3938 8 місяців тому +2

      @@bricefleckenstein9666 By that logic, so were all the others...

    • @bricefleckenstein9666
      @bricefleckenstein9666 8 місяців тому +1

      @@chrislong3938 NOT true.
      The Space Shuttle had a pair of solid-fuel booster rockets that strapped on to it's big external fuel tank for the ground take off - it was NOT ferried into the air like the X-15 or Space Ship One were.
      Look up the X-15 and it's commonly-used B-52 carrier planes (there were 2 used), or look up The White Knight for Space Ship One.

    • @chrislong3938
      @chrislong3938 8 місяців тому +3

      @@bricefleckenstein9666 Considering that the Shuttle provided one-third of the thrust for the first stage makes it even more impressive then!

    • @k.h.1587
      @k.h.1587 7 місяців тому

      ​@@chrislong3938I don't know for sure, but I think the SRBs were more than 2/3 of the launch thrust

  • @billballbuster7186
    @billballbuster7186 8 місяців тому +18

    The SR-71Aand F104C were a production aircraft, all the others were specially modified prototypes and in service would never attain these altitudes, or rocket planes which are really manned missiles.

    • @torgothegrey3567
      @torgothegrey3567 8 місяців тому +3

      Minor nitpick: The MiG-25 was also a production aircraft, though the plane used was modified for record breaking purposes.

    • @sirmalus5153
      @sirmalus5153 7 місяців тому

      The only aircraft that was able to go to over 91,000ft plus in standard 'service' trim, was the English Electric Lightning in RAF service. That particular aircraft was flown by the squadron's commander at the time and was in very good 'serviced' trim i.e. like all the other planes should have been as standard. It is now a gate guardian.

    • @dukeford8893
      @dukeford8893 7 місяців тому

      @@sirmalus5153 Somebody always shows up to claim some obscure and unverifiable "record" for their favorite flying guppy.

    • @TheGranicd
      @TheGranicd 6 місяців тому

      @@sirmalus5153 No. Indians flew higher with their MiG-25.

  • @sirmalus5153
    @sirmalus5153 7 місяців тому +9

    Seeing as this video is mostly full of 'zoom' climbs and not sustained flight only, why isn't the English Electric Lightning mentioned, when at least one of them went to just over 91,000ft. It was the same aircraft (and only aircraft ever) to catch Concorde in level flight and accelerate past it, as an excerise when a lot of other NATO aircraft (fighters) tried to catch Concorde over europe.

  • @danphariss133
    @danphariss133 8 місяців тому +19

    The SR-71 routinely cruised at 80000+ ft on missions and I don’t think we, the general public really knows how fast it was since in out running SAMs the throttle was sometimes left full forward for longer than usual.

    • @maximilliancunningham6091
      @maximilliancunningham6091 7 місяців тому +4

      The A12 flew higher and a little faster, it was lighter.

    • @rapid13
      @rapid13 7 місяців тому +1

      @@maximilliancunningham6091 Source?

    • @BagoPorkRinds
      @BagoPorkRinds 7 місяців тому +4

      Fmr SR-71 pilot Major Brian Shul can attest that the SR-71 flew over mach 3.5 while outrunning Libyan SAMs over Libya in April 1986 at 80,000+ ft. There was also another event over Syria-Israel flying just as fast.

    • @drtidrow
      @drtidrow 5 місяців тому +1

      @@rapid13 Doubt we'll ever get an official source, but most aviation experts agree that the A-12, being a single-seat predecessor to the SR-71, was lighter than the SR-71. As such, it was higher-flying and slightly faster, but only by a percent or two - they, along with the YF-12, were variants of the same basic design and used the same engines.

    • @rapid13
      @rapid13 5 місяців тому

      @@drtidrow Experts agreeing doesn’t mean much without data. I found a lot of claims, but no sources. I do see that the A12 was lighter and shorter, but can’t find any data on actual performance differences.

  • @zabaleta66
    @zabaleta66 7 місяців тому +18

    One day the real figures for the SR-71 will be released!

    • @Fister_of_Muppets
      @Fister_of_Muppets 7 місяців тому +4

      Agreed, the top ceiling of the SR71 is still classified, but anecdotal stories from a couple pilots claim it went well over 100,000 feet more than once.

    • @TheGranicd
      @TheGranicd 6 місяців тому +3

      Cope is strong. If they could have taken record from MiG-25 they would.

  • @dallasyap3064
    @dallasyap3064 7 місяців тому +18

    Shouldn't mix jet-powered and rocket-powered engine aircraft together. The X-2, X-15 and SpaceShipOne are all rocket powered planes, thus they would be able to fly at higher altitudes (in fact to space). They shouldn't be put in the same category as jet powered aircraft like the SR-71. And I think the F-15 Streak Eagle (modified, had everything strip except for flying) managed to exceed 100k feet and did it in a short time should be added to the list.

  • @andgate2000
    @andgate2000 8 місяців тому +13

    Theres a difference between level flight..and going straight up until your engine flames out.

  • @heretolevitateme
    @heretolevitateme 7 місяців тому +1

    The dog squeaking the squeaky toy in the background of this voiceover is hilarious.

  • @lemonfish1890
    @lemonfish1890 8 місяців тому +6

    Just for reference. James Lovell and Crew. April 15, 1970. 1.313 * 10^9 ft. or 400 million meters.

    • @leechjim8023
      @leechjim8023 7 місяців тому +3

      That was and is the record distance from Earth for humans.

  • @YouTube_user3333
    @YouTube_user3333 8 місяців тому +41

    If you compared them fairly, the SR-71 in a zoom climb would’ve gone into orbit 🤣

    • @ivananderson5041
      @ivananderson5041 8 місяців тому +4

      No it didn't have escape volacity to get into orbit that 18k miles per hour it could only go 3k at best and it got close to melting at that temperature

    • @YouTube_user3333
      @YouTube_user3333 7 місяців тому +11

      @@ivananderson5041 I knew I’d get a dumb person who can’t see it’s sarcasm. I’m saying it would fly higher than all those other jet engined aircraft because of its speed. SR71 in a zoom climb would be higher, no doubt about it.

    • @momcilopucar8749
      @momcilopucar8749 7 місяців тому

      ​ @@UA-cam_user3333👈 you definitely need reprogramming big time.. read this then you'll be fine?!...👉Video host isn't up to date about air to air missiles technology. All those jets video Host is talking are already Obsolete. Now is Hypersonic what counts. Russian has unmuched air to air BVR hypersonic missiles R37M range 400km. Moreover, this missile is Only Hypersonic in this category. There's a bud news again for Western air forces Russian had deployed February 2023 new air to air GREMLIN Hypersonic missiles mind blowing range 👉 Look well and don't get heart attack 👉👉..1500km for air, ground and Sea targets. All su-30 to Su-57 + Mig-31 & 35 are presently armed with those two missiles. Those two Hypersonic missiles had rendered whole Western Airforce Obsolete. Moreover, Su-34 and Mig-31 are armed with missiles mentioned + Kinzhal one stage Hypersonic missile range 2000km carrier killer. Yet new deployed Zircon range 2000km and Zemyevik Hypersonic missile Range 👉👉...look well...👉5000km. Those two unstoppable Hypersonic missiles are for ground and Sea targets. All Russian subs and warships are armed with Zircon and ZMEYEVIK including Smallest Corvette who carry 8 of those missiles. With Zircon and ZMEYEVIK Russian Rendered whole Western NAVIES obsolete. This information You'll NEVER see in Any Pro-Western Military website like this on you watch now. If you've arrived reading up to this point and use your head instead Western lies and Propaganda you'll see WHO is most powerful country on this planet. Only Putin is Toooo soft unlike Stalin who would punish US long ago without Even TALKING. TALKING doesn't do the job. It's time that Russian use theirs full military potential and punish US and NATO without talking.👌👍

    • @k.h.1587
      @k.h.1587 7 місяців тому +5

      Not sure the 71 could have handled the stress of a zoom climb, it wasn't designed for pulling Gs. I could be wrong

    • @104thDIVTimberwolf
      @104thDIVTimberwolf 7 місяців тому

      Um...
      No.

  • @trevorgale1176
    @trevorgale1176 7 місяців тому +4

    I would not include rocket powered craft on this list, jet aircraft have different challengers such as control surfaces in such thin atmosphere. As i see it, the flight by Fedotov is number 1.

  • @PiDsPagePrototypes
    @PiDsPagePrototypes 8 місяців тому +7

    Shouldn't there be an English Electric Lightning on this list?

    • @3Tool1
      @3Tool1 8 місяців тому +4

      Yes there should.

    • @dukeford8893
      @dukeford8893 7 місяців тому

      Name one (1) legitimate, verified record of any sort set by the Lightning.

    • @PiDsPagePrototypes
      @PiDsPagePrototypes 7 місяців тому +3

      @@dukeford8893 You're welcome to use google like an adult for yourself, start with the mission to perform an intercept on a U-2, then look at the Lightning's zoom climb test flights, where it was high enough to be more ballistic then flying.

    • @dukeford8893
      @dukeford8893 4 місяці тому

      @@PiDsPagePrototypes Those aren't records. They aren't particularly notable or worth mentioning, either, unless you're from the UK and have nothing else to hang your hat on.

  • @Lady_hypoxia
    @Lady_hypoxia 8 місяців тому +1

    I love this video thank you so much lots of love to you ❤❤❤❤

  • @Milkman3572000
    @Milkman3572000 7 місяців тому +8

    Actual SR-71 specs might still be classified. The CIA version is faster. A-12 I think it was called.

    • @nicksanta
      @nicksanta 7 місяців тому +1

      Hello! The A designation stands for Attack aircraft. The YA-12 (SR-71) was, on paper, to be outfitted with nuclear rockets. Regards!

    • @drtidrow
      @drtidrow 5 місяців тому +2

      @@nicksanta You're thinking of the YF-12 - the A-12 was built for the CIA, so didn't necessarily follow Air Force naming conventions.

  • @EneriGiilaan
    @EneriGiilaan 8 місяців тому +12

    Honorary mention:
    Perlan glider has thus far achieved 22,646 m or 74,298 ft *level* flight. Theoretically - on the right conditions - it could surpass SR-71 level flight record.

    • @markharris5707
      @markharris5707 7 місяців тому

      The sr-71 can go over 90000 feet easily , and faster than mock 3.2 . I don’t know what this chick is talking about.

    • @EneriGiilaan
      @EneriGiilaan 7 місяців тому

      @@markharris5707 I guess she was talking about the sustained altitude on a level flight vs. the maximum attained altitude on a (semi)ballistics flight trajectory.

  • @colt10mmsecurity68
    @colt10mmsecurity68 7 місяців тому +3

    I don’t consider a rocket engine powered vehicle as a true “airplane” that climbed to altitude with jet engines. That’s like comparing a rifle to a crossbow or a handsaw to a gas powered chainsaw. Two different classes of aircraft here. So the F-104 Starfighter jet AIRPLANE is the clear altitude winner in American inventory/history.

  • @chitownlivingston7007
    @chitownlivingston7007 6 місяців тому +1

    The ceiling for the SR-71 Blackbird is still classified. They do acknowledge 90,000 ft +

  • @dedurocortorum365
    @dedurocortorum365 8 місяців тому +3

    The X-15 wasn't taking off by itself.

  • @user-df5zm4dk1c
    @user-df5zm4dk1c 7 місяців тому +3

    It takes a guy with balls and skills to hit these heights, but the crucial team of engineers, manufacturing technicians, ground crew, etc don’t get a mention. The truth is that any of these pilots would have accomplished nothing without a machine worth millions of somebody else’s money, and a massive echelon of support.

  • @Spanishfutbol2010
    @Spanishfutbol2010 5 місяців тому +1

    That Soviet pilot that flew the SU-9 looks like Vince McMahon

  • @jackalopewright5343
    @jackalopewright5343 7 місяців тому +2

    I guess we’re only counting piloted aircraft here. The solar powered Helios made it to 96,863 feet in level flight. No carrier aircraft or rocket zoom climb required.

  • @i-love-space390
    @i-love-space390 7 місяців тому +3

    Unofficially, the original CIA single-seat version of the SR-71, called the A-12 could fly even higher and faster than the SR-71. I think the A-12 was capable of sustained flight close to 90,000 feet or more.

  • @peterdebrie
    @peterdebrie 7 місяців тому +2

    Remember the Starfighter, big engine and a pair of small wings.

    • @andrewdogman1
      @andrewdogman1 7 місяців тому

      Killed more Lufftewafe pilots than the RAF

  • @karac833
    @karac833 7 місяців тому +2

    Is the Narrator a person or a machine??

  • @michahcc
    @michahcc 8 днів тому

    "those are rookie numbers"
    -Michael collins

  • @MrSteve280
    @MrSteve280 3 місяці тому

    As several have noted, The SR-71s maximum ceiling is classified. The most commonly practical assessment published was the 1972 dispatch of F4s by Israel to intercept an SR-71. The official US version of the story was that the F4s were unable to climb to the 80K-85K feet claimed height of the SR-71. The Israeli story was that the SR-71 climbed further out of range before the F4s disengaged as they were approaching Syria (some say Jordan) airspace. The unnamed pilot of the SR-71 stated in an interview made in the 1980s that he climbed past 100K feet in sustained level flight as this was the "standard practice" for evading interception and the SA-2/S-75 defense systems found in most hostile countries at the time. There are too many "sources" to count that claim the SR-71s ceiling is at least 100K feet, and some pilots say 125K feet. Such claims are moot anyway as the SR-71 has probably the most sophisticate countermeasures to jam/prevent AA missile lock from any interceptor and would easily outrange any SA missile launch. That said, an interesting bit of trivia is that the Swedish JA-67 Viggen is the only aircraft to achieve missile lock on the SR71, albeit these were not hostile actions and the SR-71 did not perform any evasive maneuvering. It is also the only known aircraft to escort damaged SR-71 to safe space. Got to love those Swedes.

  • @thewatcher5271
    @thewatcher5271 7 місяців тому +2

    Highest Altitudes Reached But You're Comparing Rockets With Jets & In Some Cases, Jets With Rocket Assist As Well As Air Launched Versus Normal Takeoff. Then There's Combat Aircraft Alongside Experimental But It Was Interesting. Thank You.

  • @rotorheadv8
    @rotorheadv8 2 місяці тому

    This record should have two categories. One for ground launched and one for air launched.

  • @gregreichert1103
    @gregreichert1103 7 місяців тому +2

    The X15 is a Rocket, not an Air Breathing aircraft.

  • @stephenallen4374
    @stephenallen4374 8 місяців тому +5

    SR71 official height it actually got up to 92, 300 feet

  • @438wildcats
    @438wildcats 8 місяців тому +16

    A Royal Canadian Air Force Starfighter reached 103,395 feet in 1967...

    • @Roarmeister2
      @Roarmeister2 8 місяців тому +1

      Correction:
      Canadair Limited produced single-seater CF-104s for the RCAF and F-104Gs for NATO countries as part of a U.S. assistance program.
      Flown by Wing Commander Robert A. White when he set a Canadian altitude record of 30,513 metres (100,110 feet) on December 14, 1967.

    • @Frankie5Angels150
      @Frankie5Angels150 7 місяців тому +2

      @@Roarmeister2
      Correction to your correction: Putting “C” in front of a U.S. aircraft’s designation and assembling it under license does not make it a Canadian aircraft! 😆😂🤣

    • @Roarmeister2
      @Roarmeister2 7 місяців тому +1

      @@Frankie5Angels150 I never said or implied that it did; so your nonsense stands corrected.
      However, the CF-104s did have some significant changes from the US built model and sold to other countries. Although basically similar to the F-104G, the CF-104 was optimized for the nuclear strike/reconnaissance role, fitted with R-24A NASARR equipment dedicated to the air-to-ground mode only as well as having provision for a ventral reconnaissance pod equipped with four Vinten cameras. Other differences included retaining the removable refuelling probe, initial deletion of the fuselage-mounted 20 mm (.79 in) M61A1 cannon (replaced by an additional fuel cell) and the main undercarriage members being fitted with longer-stroke liquid springs and larger tires. (Wikipedia)

    • @jacksnyder7318
      @jacksnyder7318 7 місяців тому +1

      ​@@Roarmeister2
      Designation C = Cargo, F = Fighter. The closest would be AC or Attack Cargo like the US AC-130, at least in the US.
      Maybe Canada uses different designations.

    • @Roarmeister2
      @Roarmeister2 7 місяців тому +2

      @@jacksnyder7318 CF in this case stands for Canadian Fighter. The CF-5 (Freedom Fighter), CF-104 (Starfighter), CF-101(Voodoo) and CF-18s (Hornet) are examples of this designation.
      CH = helicopter, CP = patrolling aircraft, CC = cargo, CU = unmanned vehicle, CT = trainer.
      This is compliance with NATO designations for aircraft. Other countries do the same thing.

  • @Happiones
    @Happiones 7 місяців тому +2

    Had a giggle when I saw the SR71 at the bottom. Fact, it's max speed and altitude are still classified. When they were still operational every time something else broke the speed or altitude record the next time the SR71 was out and about they casually regained it.
    P.S. I thought the Mig 25 needed a pilot to get it airborne as well as land it.🙃

    • @TheGranicd
      @TheGranicd 6 місяців тому

      If they could get the record they would.

    • @Silver_Prussian
      @Silver_Prussian 5 місяців тому

      They arent classified, its limitations are openly stated

  • @svenmorgenstern9506
    @svenmorgenstern9506 8 місяців тому +11

    Tesla Roadster: 180 million miles & counting... 😂

    • @k.h.1587
      @k.h.1587 7 місяців тому

      With the aid of falcon heavy

  • @hitewb7413
    @hitewb7413 7 місяців тому +1

    Hey Wizards! They are talking about AIRCRAFT not SPACECRAFT. See how it says "Aircraft" in the title.

  • @erwinschmidt7265
    @erwinschmidt7265 7 місяців тому +1

    Still like F4 Phantom w/"Film Atlas Rocket footage while taking off" assignment. NASA had clue Atlas "Oil-Canning" & due to launch Astronauts. As test, Phantom rushed taking-off Atlas, pulled beside it, filmed it Oil Canning away, & NASA effected defect repairs BEFORE launching anyone!! Wasn't that lucky!!! Learned later they had used "Hot Gas" in 1 use engines, but still impressive!

  • @daveciocchi851
    @daveciocchi851 4 місяці тому

    A production standard B-58A Hustler with a USAF crew made a zoom climb to 85,360' some time in the 1960s.

  • @redblinddog
    @redblinddog 8 місяців тому +5

    Normal cruise of the airbreathing SR-71 was 76,000+ Ft. and some have independently verified that flights from US Western States AF bases the SR-71/A-12 were tracked at Altitudes in the 103,000 FT to 106,000 ft at speeds in the 3000+mph range flying across Canada heading for Russia with landings in Guam or in the Indian Ocean at Diego Garcia UK/US Air base. Then turned around and return back to the US via Russian/Chinese Airspace. At those altitudes the engines required those speed in order to get enough air to operate. In short slower speed would starve the engines of enough air to keep operating. Based on some interviews with former SR-71/A-12 pilots the records captured by the Aircraft are not the top end of the Aircrafts performance and NASA is not talking because they were the last operator of the aircraft design. I am surprised that Boeing and Airbus have not utilized the PW-78 engine for Supersonic Airliners which should be coming off the drawing boards in the next few years. Th PW-78 is a dual engine, turbo jet and Ram Jet design. Extremely fuel efficient in the Ram Jet mode at speeds about Mach 2+ and in the 40,000+Ft altitudes. The faster the better the milage.

    • @Lozzie74
      @Lozzie74 7 місяців тому +1

      3000mph is highly dubious

  • @AishaShaw-cl6wc
    @AishaShaw-cl6wc 3 місяці тому

    When I was growing up our neighbor was Flying the X-15.

  • @nicksanta
    @nicksanta 7 місяців тому +6

    Hello! What has been documented is...nice. I would point out that U.S. astronauts have a particular medal. I have noticed that some SR-71 pilots have this same medal, as well as some F-15 pilots. Does this mean they have been LEO? Regards!

    • @Jimbo-in-Thailand
      @Jimbo-in-Thailand 7 місяців тому +2

      @nicksanta - Not necessarily, I believe anyone who zooms up to 50 miles/80km altitude is considered to have gone into space. Hmmm... wondering how an F-15 pilot qualifies as I don't think the Eagle/Strike Eagle could zoom climb up to 264,000 feet to meet the into-space threshold.

    • @nicksanta
      @nicksanta 7 місяців тому +3

      @@Jimbo-in-Thailand Hello! After I made my statement. I found a discussion on the X-15. It turns out the medal was awarded if a pilot made a flight above 50 miles (264,000 ft., or 80467 meters).. Regards!

    • @nicksanta
      @nicksanta 7 місяців тому +1

      @@Jimbo-in-Thailand Hello! Guess I'm not typing right! That's X-15. Regards

  • @Nighthawke70
    @Nighthawke70 8 місяців тому +2

    One major issue with this top ten. There is a well-defined line between air-breathing aircraft, and rocket-powered air vehicles. Mixing X-15 with the Sr-71 should never happen. Both of them have their own domain, period. This one gets a thumbs down vote.

  • @stevejh69
    @stevejh69 8 місяців тому +1

    Starts in Feet which is the ICAO recognized measurement for altitude, then switches into meters.
    Get it right!

  • @petercabanillas244
    @petercabanillas244 8 місяців тому +4

    Yer AI has a stuttering problem

  • @PaulyDDownunder
    @PaulyDDownunder 2 місяці тому +1

    Didn’t the SR-71 leave England and fly so fast that when it landed in the United States it arrived before the time that it left England? In local time.
    Meaning that it left England at 7:00am local time (or UK Time) but landed in the America at 6:10am local time (USA Time).

  • @anthonymcgoldrick7330
    @anthonymcgoldrick7330 2 місяці тому

    Were is the English Electric Lightning ? A lightning that flew at its optimum climb angle could reach 36,000 ft in less than 3 minutes and had an official ceiling altitude of around 60,000 ft. However, there were reports that a Lightning F.3 had reached an altitude of 88,000 ft by ballistic climb.

  • @beejay7665
    @beejay7665 7 місяців тому +1

    I bet some of these could’ve gone even faster if they’d brought their gear up!

  • @TeddyBelcher4kultrawide
    @TeddyBelcher4kultrawide 8 місяців тому +3

    This is not classified this is for eyes only

  • @michaelreifenstein2114
    @michaelreifenstein2114 8 місяців тому +5

    id like to know what the SR-71 could have done in a zoom climb.

    • @Thurgosh_OG
      @Thurgosh_OG 8 місяців тому +2

      Space - The Final Frontier.......

    • @thebrightstar3634
      @thebrightstar3634 7 місяців тому

      Yeah bro, yes my man

    • @k.h.1587
      @k.h.1587 7 місяців тому +1

      Broke apart perhaps?

    • @104thDIVTimberwolf
      @104thDIVTimberwolf 7 місяців тому +1

      It would disintegrate. Habu always flew on the bleeding edge of what the airframe could survive and at least 2 were lost by simply exceeding that last 1%.

    • @samsignorelli
      @samsignorelli 7 місяців тому +2

      @@104thDIVTimberwolf Was gonna say much the same....a plane that takes three states to make a 180 degree turn at cruising speed canNOT take the stresses of a zoom climb. It wasn't designed for that.

  • @ExodentalCADAcademyofNorth
    @ExodentalCADAcademyofNorth 7 місяців тому

    05:17 that's a Czech Republic flag. (Czechoslavkia also same one).

  • @safetyd6965
    @safetyd6965 7 місяців тому

    10:45 All I really needed to see in this video.

  • @paladin0654
    @paladin0654 4 місяці тому

    The SR-71's record is not in the same category: the rest of the jets zoom climbed.

  • @jeff3638
    @jeff3638 7 місяців тому

    Those were in envelopes with no mercy.

  • @BrightBlueJim
    @BrightBlueJim 7 місяців тому

    Apples, oranges, avocados, and blackberries.

  • @bestamerica
    @bestamerica 7 місяців тому

    '
    great honor and salute to americans air forces servcies were so wonderful in the fasttery airplanes in high sky

  • @xxxYYZxxx
    @xxxYYZxxx 7 місяців тому +2

    It must require tremendous skills to pull back on the control stick AND hit full throttle at the same time. 😑

  • @robertspence831
    @robertspence831 7 місяців тому

    Pretty good, better than I expected. Hard to listen to, though...

  • @44hawk28
    @44hawk28 7 місяців тому +2

    First of all, the SR-71 regularly cruised at higher than the altitude that you state. Secondly absolute altitude is completely different then flying along horizontally!
    What make 21 attaining 113000 feet would be laughable, it does not have the speed or the engine capability to achieve such a feat. Speed it would have had to have attained to get anywhere close to that number not attainable with its basic shape!

  • @MrRoninGT
    @MrRoninGT 8 місяців тому +5

    Conclusion: among combat aircraft, the USSR/Russia has the first place in terms of flight altitude.

    • @tommiturmiola3682
      @tommiturmiola3682 8 місяців тому +4

      In practice: Who cares?

    • @MrRoninGT
      @MrRoninGT 8 місяців тому +2

      @@tommiturmiola3682 Well, it’s not you who cares about this, otherwise you wouldn’t ask.

    • @tommiturmiola3682
      @tommiturmiola3682 8 місяців тому +1

      @@MrRoninGT Yes. I would like to know what difference does that zoom climb ability make as modern missiles can still get any of those planes. For what i recon is that F-15 isn't on that list because it didn't need to demonstrate ability to climb fast to intercept high flying bombers.

    • @protorhinocerator142
      @protorhinocerator142 8 місяців тому

      @@tommiturmiola3682 Correct.
      At one time, altitude records were a thing. Now it's old news. There's no real advantage to flying so high.

    • @MrRoninGT
      @MrRoninGT 8 місяців тому +1

      @@tommiturmiola3682 I don't care about the F-15. I'm talking about facts.

  • @alderwolf7687
    @alderwolf7687 8 місяців тому +9

    It's a shame this is only from the unclassified data publicly availably and much of it is very suspect. I know for a fact, for example, the SR-71 can cruse comfortably at level flight much higher than 85,000 feet. Pilot's tend to like to talk and brag to the ground crew when they returned from their missions and I was all ears.

    • @Lozzie74
      @Lozzie74 7 місяців тому +2

      Pilots tend to like to talk, too.

    • @TheGranicd
      @TheGranicd 6 місяців тому

      Because "Тrust me bro" dont count.

  • @drtidrow
    @drtidrow 5 місяців тому

    If SpaceShipOne is on the list, why not the Space Shuttle then? It could go to a much higher altitude than any of these, yet still land on a runway.

  • @eriknewman5288
    @eriknewman5288 8 місяців тому +10

    Three SR71 flew surveillance missions. They wouldn't report anything. I'm certain they flew higher and faster than reported.... being that they were faster and more capable of achieving speed and altitude than any of these airframes which were inferior.

    • @Keldor314
      @Keldor314 7 місяців тому +2

      And they were tracked by civilian air traffic control any time they were in the general vicinity of an airport. If they ever did fly more than slightly faster and higher than the publicly available numbers, it's not something they would have been able to hide.
      That said, there is one big caveat. The limits of high performance jet engines tend to be dictated by heat - that is, push them any harder and the insides begin to soften and melt from the high temperatures. However, there's a big difference between running your engines cool enough that the ground service crew won't get angry at their condition after you land and pushing things up to 11 because maybe someone just fired a missile at you and it's an emergency.

    • @eriknewman5288
      @eriknewman5288 7 місяців тому +1

      @Keldor314 I'm sure especially back then the SR71 was able to fly places and not get tracked. Look at the X15. It goes Mach 6.7 and doesn't melt and that is early 60s yeah. America has shit that it doesn't tell us about.

    • @drtidrow
      @drtidrow 5 місяців тому

      @@eriknewman5288 IIRC, that was a one-off flight - it had to be coated in a special ablative coating to survive, but even with that coating parts of did melt, mainly around the tail where they had added a prototype scramjet housing. The shock waves coming off it hit the ventral vertical stabilizer in such a way that it caused localized melting.

  • @tinderbox218
    @tinderbox218 7 місяців тому +1

    Whats with the crummy audio editing

  • @taemien9219
    @taemien9219 7 місяців тому +1

    I don't like how some of these are basically rockets that cannot take off on their own or fly normally in atmosphere like aircraft ought to be able to do.

  • @user-lt4gz4gt2k
    @user-lt4gz4gt2k 3 місяці тому

    @6:01 Mig with US markings.

  • @Norfolkyakker
    @Norfolkyakker 8 місяців тому +2

    wow that accent, which state?

  • @user-mw3jj6pn6i
    @user-mw3jj6pn6i 3 місяці тому

    That's not a sky
    That's freaking space

  • @thomassicard3733
    @thomassicard3733 7 місяців тому

    SPACESHIPONE.
    Sounds like a great SF series. Anyone??? Anyone??????

  • @antoninuspius1747
    @antoninuspius1747 8 місяців тому +2

    Love the content but can't stand the computer voice. Too many mispronunciations.

  • @lewiskemp5893
    @lewiskemp5893 7 місяців тому +1

    Im just here for the planes

  • @tatters2072
    @tatters2072 7 місяців тому

    This video missed the 88,000' reached by an RAF Lightning on an interception of a USAF U2 during a NATO exercise. What makes this significant is that it is not a specialized, modified aircraft in pursuit of a record, rather it is has been made by a regular squadron aircraft, flown by a duty pilot, during an exercise. In other words we can assume that any RAF Lightning could make such an interception if required. That alone make it more significant than any other aircraft listed here.
    When the USAF broke the Lightning climb record, they used a highly modified F15 that was tethered to the runway to ensure maximum acceleration. The RAF Lightning that previously held the record, was set by a regular squadron aircraft that was fuelled up and made a standard take off.
    Context is everything.

    • @dukeford8893
      @dukeford8893 7 місяців тому

      I've never understood the significance of this "event". USAF Starfighters out of Homestead AFB were "intercepting" USAF U2's in the 1960's. Furthermore, the Lightning never set any official records for anything. Chasing down the Concorde (for example) is a stunt, not a "record"

    • @dukeford8893
      @dukeford8893 4 місяці тому

      Here's some context: Regular USAF squadron Starfighters with duty pilots were going over 100,000 feet since the late 1950's. The Lightning never set any "records", either. Engaging in one-off, unsanctioned events get you a "participation trophy", but that's it.

  • @mattaddison4177
    @mattaddison4177 6 місяців тому

    So basically, the SR71 and MiG-25 are fighting it out between them. The rest don't really matter.

  • @stevekorchak6478
    @stevekorchak6478 7 місяців тому

    There are official published performance specs and there are top secret performance specs.
    You can bet the top secret specs are better.

  • @sbukosky
    @sbukosky 7 місяців тому +1

    Once we start using rocket engines, I lose interest. I think the challenge requires utilizing atmospheric oxygen as the oxidizer.

  • @mcpig3240
    @mcpig3240 7 місяців тому

    Actual SR-71 max altitude and speed are classified. Press events are not max capabilities.

  • @gregedwards1087
    @gregedwards1087 7 місяців тому

    Air breathing aircraft or rockets with wings, there must be a distinction as rockets will continue to function and produce thrust long after the atmosphere cannot support the functioning of jet engined aircraft.

  • @zeeeman8744
    @zeeeman8744 7 місяців тому

    Jeez I feel bad I only got up to a little above 70k

  • @LTVoyager
    @LTVoyager 7 місяців тому

    And some actually believe the SR-71 is in 10th place. 😂😂😂

  • @OMG1961
    @OMG1961 8 місяців тому +1

    The rocket powered planes should not have made this list. If so where are the big boys....the manned rockets sent to space and to the moon? You should discount all rocket powered planes.

  • @dangertrebor
    @dangertrebor 7 місяців тому +1

    Under these criteria, the shuttle would be in the list as #1. Spaceshipone does not take off from the ground under its own power.

  • @danielbarnes7559
    @danielbarnes7559 3 місяці тому

    I wonder what former space shuttle pilots might have to say about this😅😅😅

    • @jgold2813
      @jgold2813 2 місяці тому +1

      NOT a airplane !

  • @camaycama7479
    @camaycama7479 6 місяців тому

    Billions and billions of dollards from the DoD and we end of with a 2004 dude that basl it off, crazy!

  • @michaelhband
    @michaelhband 8 місяців тому

    👍👍👍❤❤❤✈✈✈

  • @jesselannigan2300
    @jesselannigan2300 7 місяців тому +1

    Yeah but the Millennium Falcon can make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs....

  • @dantodd5558
    @dantodd5558 7 місяців тому

    What about the avro arrow

  • @Tiagomottadmello
    @Tiagomottadmello 8 місяців тому

    👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

  • @TR6Telos
    @TR6Telos 7 місяців тому

    Aircraft max level sustained flight is held by the 30+ year old Aurora.

  • @user-kl2wj2sr7v
    @user-kl2wj2sr7v 2 місяці тому

    How do you forget the King Chuck Yeager x 1 or 15 first man to break sound barrier Glamouras Glemmis

    • @jgold2813
      @jgold2813 2 місяці тому +1

      Highest Altitudes NOT speed read the BIG print

  • @derektaylor6389
    @derektaylor6389 3 місяці тому

    bac lighting was not mentioned why not

  • @chrish2666
    @chrish2666 7 місяців тому

    You left out the F-15 Streak Eagle in the early 1970’s but included the Soviets MiG 25 3X. Makes this list bogus. Wish I could have the time back I wasted watching it.

    • @knightofthenine3121
      @knightofthenine3121 5 місяців тому

      The F-15 was literally propaganda by the USAF.
      Mainly because said feat was never replicated again, while Mig-25's does that on a regular basis.

  • @Jan_Miklas
    @Jan_Miklas 7 місяців тому

    MiG-25 is the beast 😳

  • @re-nz3sk
    @re-nz3sk 7 місяців тому

    having seen the movie Firefox with Clint Eastwood, I know the truth

  • @johngustafson9566
    @johngustafson9566 7 місяців тому

    What about the helicopter on Mars?

  • @tombergam9266
    @tombergam9266 7 місяців тому

    CIA A-12 is not mention. More capable than SR-71.

  • @TheGranicd
    @TheGranicd 6 місяців тому

    Top ones are rocket ships more then airplanes.