My Dad worked on the development of the YC-14. Just as the program was being cancelled, I was able to go with him and watch a test flight. Fully loaded, that thing didn't "take off" like a normal aircraft.... it LEAPED into the air after an incredibly short takeoff roll. Landing looked like a controlled crash. Compared to all the other aircraft I had seen (many), it just looked unreal. Videos don't give the same impact.
My dad was the chief aerodynamics/advisor on the YC-14. He took me to the hanger to see it. He got bawled out by a security geek for letting me in there. He was told that he could stay, but I had to leave as the 15 yo criminal that I was.
This is probably a concept they should revisit. Every war over the past 24 years has shown the need for aircraft that can land on short, unprepared fields.
If nothing else it would be great for civilian airlift into remote locations. There's some airlines in Canada and Africa still running the old 737-100 and 200s with their rough field landing capability.
@Yaivenov Have it be strong to handle rough weather and it could a true lifesaver in multiple regions of the earth, coming in during the tail end of a typhoon or hurricane to begin evacuation or deliver supplies could save hundreds, if not tens of thousands of lives
The other advantage of the high forward engine mounting, is that the engines were above and in front of the grit, grime, and FOD thrown up when landing on an unimproved landing strips.
@@Yaivenov i would have to think that it is possible. but they might end up in a situation where the result is too compromised to be effective and it would have been better to just make 2 planes. for instance, i think stol capabilities would be largely useless on the water, as i don't think that stol is a priority for seaplanes given that their takeoff runs are already pretty long anyways. or you might have to reinforce the belly of the plane so much that the fuel and payload amounts are lessened.
@@toodlepop STOL would probably help with sea planes, as it is really hard for them to get over a certain speed (60-80kts? can I get a fact checker?) and to "unstick" from the water surface. The other major aspect that would lend itself to the task, and why I initially thought of this, is the high and forward mounted engines which would put the intakes above and ahead of sea spray being kicked up. A bit reminiscent of the Ekranoplan's engine position. Only better. And on an actual plane. P.S.: Many water bodies are bookended with steep hills/mountains. The YC-14's incredible climb rate of 6k feet/min would be another point in its favor for the task, allowing it access to some waters that are otherwise inaccessible to all except bush planes.
My dad worked for Boeing. He was in tooling inspection and inspected tools used to build the plane. I used to have pictures and brochures on the YC-14.
i'd say the company sure seems like it could use some new Tool inspectors, seems like there's a lotta Tools in places they shouldn't be at that company these days.... (by Tools, i mean the people chasing profit above all else, and getting people killed. those tools. )
@@jlo7770 Your comments are cringe because you clearly don't realize that modern companies are zombie husks all controlled by the same investors today...which is in stark contrast to the past.
i think my previous reply may have been deleted. i was calling the heads of Boeing tools. because they pursue profit over quality and safety, and got people killed with shoddily engineered planes. DOUBLE explaining the joke i guess.
I was a US Army soldier 1973-1997. The mid to late 1970s were difficult times in the Military. Budgets were slashed. I remember in 1975 at Fort Lewis, Washington and again in 1976 at South Korea we planned field training exercises, loaded up our convoy of trucks, pull out of the motor pool, then the Commander would lead us around the block back into the motor pool. There was no budget for diesel. We set up our tents in the motor pool and pretended we were in the forest. We ate expired Vietnam War era C rations, which was fun because some still had cigarettes. In the 1980s they pulled out expired Korean War K rations. They were very light to carry in our ruck sacks.
@larryfromwisconsin9970 U.S. Marine 1968 - 1991, here. I remember those days very well. We had few mops to use for cleaning the barracks. Our mops were so sad-looking having lost most of their strings during their many months of use; couldn't do much with them. Requests for replacements went unheeded until, one fine day, we received one, just one, much needed, new Navy cotton deck mop. It was like a gift from heaven; the clouds parted, the sunlight shown through, and, I believe I heard, a short, multi-voiced aria. That was until some barracks jerks clowning around with it broke the handle in two. We hadn't had it a day and it was broken. Wanted to string them up by their heels. Mended, it performed its tasks but, it wasn't as 'purty' as it originally was. Don't mention toilet paper. If you had a normal poo, you got two squares. If it was serious, you got five. Now that was a joke, folks. Toilet paper wasn't issued by the square; self-rationing was understood by every Marine because once gone, we weren't getting any more until the next issuance. Budgets were extremely tight.
Ya, the 75 and on got shitty on land also. Joined in 83 at least it beat 1.75$ @12 hrs a week. The Navy (Persian Gulf area) had plenty of $$ and supplies. Flew in 2 civilians to fix our crane, showed up 4 days later with a pump and parts to make it work.Then I done a Destroyer that was Flag ship in NATO.
I was a fresh out of Purdue's school of Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering in 1977. This was the airplane I wanted to work on. I got my wish in the fall of 1977 as I became a flight controls engineer on this project. I was involved in quite a bit of wind tunnel work before the project was put on life support around the end of '77. As I recall, there was hope that the Shah of Iran - purportedly very interested in the aircraft - would purchase some and keep the project going. The Shah started to have other things to worry about and that purchase never occured. While an amazing airplane, it was going to be very complicated. Imagine an engine out scenario on an aircraft that developes significant lift from the interaction of the engine and the the flaps. Yes, that's right, flying with an engine out was going to require a split flap configuration. Due to the low speed flight capabilities, most of the major control surfaces were double jointed to maintain control of the aircraft. This airplane's unique design also caused some interesting problems in the wind tunnel. Due to the engine's thrust being used to create lift, the model needed to be pressurized and that pressurized air was hosed out of the model's simulated engines. The guys that put the models together in the wind tunnel had a much better union that we engineers had. They were not allowed inside the wind tunnel when the model was pressurized. Just prior to buttoning up the wind tunnel for the test run, the model would be pressurized and a test engineer would go inside, garbed in protective gear like the main character in "The Hurt Locker", and inspect the model to make sure everything was still secure post pressurization. One of the problems that needed to be solved was a specification that involved a paratrooper's deployed parachute getting caught in the exit door and the trooper hanging out behind the airplane in flight. I remember watching a film of an early wind tunnel test that had a wooden simulated paratrooper hanging out of the model's door towards the rear of the model. The turbulence of the aft body was so bad (probably had something to do with missing the drag predictions as mentioned in this video) that the model paratrooper was repeatedly slapping against the aft body so hard it was chipping paint off the airplane model. HA! Man this was a long time ago.
My first thought when the system was described in the video was that an engine failure on takeoff would end badly on a short improved runway. That is very cool you got to work on the project!
The real reason it was cancelled is simple, President Carter (from Georgia) and home to Lockheed and the home of C130's, C141's and C5's. Factoid: did you know during flight tests the YF-14 exceeded mach 1.0.
I saw this aircraft at the Pima Air Museum back in the mid-90's. I had no idea what it was, and thought it was a hydroplane (flying boat, whatever) at first because of the engine placement. Such a cool design. The YC-14 flew so the C-17 could soar.
The Russian bE-200 of near same design was first built in Irkusk in 1996 and made it's first flight in 1998. Same above wing engines went on a seaplane they use in fire fighting (though they seem to always drop from a higher altitude and don't get down on the deck to bust the fire.)
@@LilSebastian_ Boeing or / McDonnell Douglas. Has been killing the commercial side of Boeing for 30 years. The should have stuck to building Military planes.
@@hillbilly4christ638 would be a site to see there is a military transport plane that does have rockets that assists in take offs. The C-130 uses JATO or jet assisted take off. There is video of such use only at air shows or special need.
As a kid in England I had a pack of Top Trumps that had the YC-14 as one of the cards. I fell in love with the look of the plane but knew nothing else about it (pre-internet). I was blown away when I visited Pima Air and Space Museum in Arizona a couple of years ago and saw one of only 2 built parked in the maintenance sheds over the fence. I knew immediately what it was, from memories of my card deck 35 years earlier. I just stood and stared at that thing for 20 minutes. It took me right back to my childhood.
The only one of these birds, that I have been able to see personally, is currently mothballed at the Pima air and space museum in Arizona. Half, the unassuming, friendly, elder, gentleman bagging groceries at the Safeway in Awhatukee where I lived, was one of the test pilots on the project and the last pilot to fly it to the boneyard.
@@richardreynolds6398 makes me wonder if maybe Delta sucked it up and it went black. Touch down to a full stop in 380 '. WOW. Padded restraints or air bags..🤔
Always love the content posted. There's always information that I haven't ever heard or even haven't heard in the way presented. Makes for something that's always new. Keep going!
Antonov An-72: 5 tonne payload, and a 620 metre max weight take-off distance, off completely unprepared surfaces including sand, grass, and the traditional "dirt airstrip".
Nobody will land pricy jet on unprepared raw land. Ukraine lately tested an-148 to land on grass near Odessa and after sucess concluded it is not needed option.
Back in 2010, I was billeted in the FOB Salerno RSOI barracks, which were right next to the runway. I was hanging out in the hooch and heard this loud eerie howl coming from the airfield. I ran out to catch an AN-74 rolling out on the runway. Those engines had a sound I'd never heard before and that thing was a shape I'd only seen in pictures. What a wild sight. One thing I noticed with the Soviet era birds design is noise abatement wasn't even in the designer's minds.
When the F-111s used to visit RAF Bentwaters they would knock down and burn the pine trees behind the spot they would park them on when they fired them up and the pilots would give them a little throttle to taxi out.
YC-14 Would be a hell of a Fire Plane... even the Original YC-15 (Before the C-17 changes) the small 4 engine plane would be on the level of a RJ85 but with a larger tank close to the level of a C-130 if not more... Both prototyles could be made as normal aircraft today and would have good uses. the YC-14 would crush the C-130 everywhere.. the way the KC390 is starting to take off around the world
@@johnhagemeyer8578 Its engines are very high up. FOD is a very small probability with engines so high up. On an F-16 with the scoop underneath it is very susceptible to FOD!
@@toddmarshall7573 I don't know. Alls I know is that when we were doing EROS in Selah Creek proving grounds in the early 1970 I was blasted with rocks and dirt and grime when running up to the newly landed 130's to pop chains removing straps, to empty the back if that aircraft and get it airborne. Those are huge holes up top that wing that the c130's don't have plus two more more motors it does have. A bit more redundancy I think.
@@andrewday3206The high engine position had two functional aspects: Reduced susceptibility to FOD and with “Upper Surface Blowing” giving additional lift performance to the wing giving it astounding runway performance. Only two engines? The reliability of current designs for overseas flights passes most flight safety tests.
In short, what the USAF really needed was a replacement for the rapidly aging C-141 fleet. Even the C-141B rebuild program only just extended the life of the C-141 at most 20 years, and by the late 1990's that plane was reaching the end of their service lives. That's why the USAF now flies 222 C-17A's, and also built a major update to the C-130, the C-130J, to replace the older C-130E and H models as tactical transports.
The airlift required to support both DESERT SHEILD/STORM & PROVIDE COMFORT absolutely blew the “hours of flight” parameters that were used to estimate how many “years” the C-141 planes were supposed have, out of the water. Shuttling back and forth from the United States to Saudi Arabia ate thru the hours on the entire fleet of Air Force transport planes. Planes that would normally fly 100-150 hrs per month were essentially flying nonstop from August to June. Some planes that landed in incerlik AFB, only shut down long enough to disgorge the troops, pallets and rolling stock; they only refueled enough to get to Germany and left within an hour or two. The only time it was longer was if there was a crew rest issue. I know that the bulk of the aircraft that I dealt with, as the Arrival Airfield Control Group Officer, had relief crew already onboard, especially, the C-5’s. There was one 24 hour period when we had 18 C-5’s and 30 C-141’s, plus C9’s, KC-135’s & KC-10’s in cargo mode landing with every pallet space filled. So, that 12 month period absolutely destroyed the hrs/airframe computations.
The star lifter was a poor design, hampered by its pencil. Thin fuselage could very often be maxed out before being grossed out. Having said that it was one of the best aircraft the Air force ever had.
Thank you for bringing this bird to life! I have seen images of the YC-14 from Pima and am very interested in Boeing aircraft but didn't know this information! Your work is amazing as always! Your sources of images and video are impressive, especially for a scrubbed program during the Vietnam War. I hope Boeing can get things back in order and not be the butt of every aerospace manufacturing joke.
They could have replaced or at least augmented the C-130 with C-14 and then developed the C-17 from there to replace the aging C-141. What a lost opportunity like the USAF not buying or modifying the F-16 with the F-16XL.
The C-17 did replace the C-141. The YC-14 was not needed to replace the C-130. The F-16XL was not needed to replace the F-16, which continues to be built in improved versions. Don't believe all the hype you see on UA-cam about experimental aircraft, because there is always a good reason they didn't become production aircraft.
@@gort8203 The F-16XL was faster, more maneuverable, carried much more armaments and super cruised around Mach 1.6 in the 1980s. It was actually entered in the competition against the F-15E Strike Eagle. The F-15E won ONLY because it had two engines. As with anything in government procurement, a lot deals with politics. You can bet Lockheed won the lobbying war with Boeing in congress and the Air Force opted to put the new technology into the C-141 replacement instead. The same thing happened with the YF-23. Northrop already had the B-2 contract and giving the ATF contract to Northrop as well would have been seen as too lopsided, so Lockheed Martin got the contract even though many saw the F-23 as actually the better fighter overall.
@@richardlangdon712 I see you have the usual misinformation from UA-cam. The XL was an experimental airplane meant to investigate whether super cruise was practical in a fighter. The idea was that the cranked arrow wing would have a better supersonic L/D ratio, meaning less drag above the mach. Top speed was not the point, super cruise was, and the airplane failed to deliver the expected performance. I didn’t even achieve marginal super cruise until it was given to NASA for further research after it lost the EFT competition, and they installed a more powerful engine. It was entered into the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition because it was lying around, not because it had been designed to that requirement. It certainly would not have super cruised loaded down with bombs. The F-15E won the ETF contract not just because it had two engines. It won for multiple reasons such as lower cost and less risky development because the F-15 was already a proven strike jet, and the F-16XL was actually substantially different than the original F-16 and would have required a lot more development. The F-1XL had a better instantaneous turn but inferior sustained turn rate, so it did not have superior maneuverability. The wing of the original F-16 had been chosen over a delta planform because of that superior maneuverability.
@@richardlangdon712 "You can bet Lockheed won the lobbying war with Boeing in congress and the Air Force opted to put the new technology into the C-141 replacement instead." The C-17 was a McDonnel Douglas product, not Lockheed or Boeing.
@@richardlangdon712 The XL was an experimental airplane meant to investigate whether super cruise was practical in a fighter. The idea was that the cranked arrow wing would have a better supersonic L/D ratio, meaning less drag above the mach. Top speed was not the point, super cruise was, and the airplane failed to deliver the expected performance. I didn’t even achieve marginal super cruise until it was given to NASA for further research after it lost the EFT competition, and they installed a more powerful engine. It was entered into the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition because it was lying around, not because it had been designed to that requirement. It certainly would not have super cruised loaded down with bombs. The F-15E won the ETF contract not just because it had two engines. It won for multiple reasons such as lower cost and less risky development because the F-15 was already a proven strike jet, and the F-16XL was actually substantially different than the original F-16 and would have required a lot more development. The F-1XL had a better instantaneous turn but inferior sustained turn rate, so it did not have superior maneuverability. The wing of the original F-16 had been chosen over a delta planform because of that superior maneuverability.
Not really but close, This was a STOL aircraft, or Short Take off or Landing, The Bus was a VTOL aircraft or Vertical Take off or Landing. SHIELD was a great show, I don't get why Marvel Studios hates it so much and have been so iffy about its canonicity. It did not always line of with MCU canon, especially in later seasons, but dose for the most part and it quite good. Sorry for the Rant, just whish we had more Marvel shows like that.
The problem starts with one engine failure. The tail is oversized but much lift coming from the engine exhaust coanda effect is lost on the wing side where the engine fail, that is why the more classic C-15 which became C-17 both with four engines was preferred. The Starfighter F104 used blown flaps to increase take off and landing lift of its tiny thin wings. This required a minimum of 60% engine power to land safely as part of the jet engine compressed air was diverted to the opened flaps at low speed and it was nearly impossible to bring it down fast enough not to stall and without any power .
@@smgdfcmfah Yes and as the first Mach two interceptor it was technically ahead of its time and because of high wing loading , was use in Germany extensively a very low altitude to be below East German and Russian radars coverage. this was a dangerous usage for pilot safety with very little time to react and was qualified as widow maker..attrition was in the one per 16000 hours range , quite high. Then, We also invented the twin tail F14 15 18 35, Migs Su etc…for safe upwards ejection at high speed..twin engines fighters are also more resilient in combat condition..that a fact..VN…etc…
@@philgooddr.7850 Who's "we"? You named aircraft from Grumman, McDonald Douglas, Lockheed Martin, Mikoyan-Gurevich and Sukhoi! The Eagle is my favorite modern aircraft (it's almost as old as I am and has ruled the skies for most of my life!), but like I said, I have a soft spot for the F-104.
@@smgdfcmfah if many fighter have two vertical tail, this design was widly adopted for rigidity and weight AND to enable a save ejection in between the two tails..the rafale ejects at an angle. to the left, to pass the tail at high speed..BUT with The T tail of the Starfighter impossible, this forced Kelly Johnson to figure an ejection from below, rather unsafe and at low leverage, one of many reasons F104 was dangerous…
I learned about this plane from a famous Collectible card game in Argentina in the late 70s (the game was called Tope & Quartet) and at first I assumed that the photograph was wrong since the engines were on the wrong side of the wing. Later my father (an air force aircraft mechanic) explained the coanda effect to me. Greetings from Patagonia
this is what would go on to have been needed in the iran hostage situation in 1979. this would have landed in the football stadium in Tehran with LITTLE modification and taken back off
My father flew C-130s before & during the Vietnam War. He also trained pilots on what they could do with it. It could be taken off & landed in a lot less than you specify.
Given that a C-130 could land on a carrier this would have been a great heavy lift resupply aircraft for the Navy assuming it’s wings weren’t longer than at C-130 given that the C-130s starboard wing cleared the sail by ten feet.
A C-14 would have been able to land on a CV but that was dumb idea. The entire flight deck had to be cleared of aircraft before the C-130(or C-14) could land or takeoff. If one aircraft couldn't either be spotted below or get airborne and the C-130 or C-14couldn't land.
I saw the title show up in my feed, and I was like "man, I wondering if they're talking about the Hercules?" Why? Because I've recently worked on a remote/sub-arctic mine that has an airstrip that has flights coming in around the clock. The airstrip can support as much as a 737, but the majority of the Cargo comes in on the Hercules...And I'm still blown away by how little runway space they require compared to all the other planes that come in. It's like I'm watching magic. It's like they take off and land in not even a third of the runway. Incredibly impressive planes. I doubt the project I'm on would be feasible if they didn't exist.
The YC-14 was a superb aircraft. I was a flight test engineer with Boeing and I recall one flight where the Boeing chase/photography plane was an F-86F and it was unable to keep up with us on a turning climb. I believe the cancellation of the program was due more to a political decision and if the YC-14 had been being offered by MD it would have gone into production. I now live in Tucson, Az. and after almost 50 years still get to visit the old bird at the Pima Air Museum.
I worked for Boeing at Renton Field, in Avionics incoming inspection and test in the late 1970's, in a small building on the west side of the runway. I saw one of the YC-14s land and later take off. It was truly amazing how quickly she stopped after touching down!! A beautiful aircraft!
This is the Boeing of my father and Uncle’s generation-- the greatest generation. Easy to make great things with great people. People make the difference.
I remember my dad working with the Boeing test team during the late 70's When I say I remember, I remember my dad being stationed at Edwards for almost a year.
Das Dezimalsystem und richtige Angaben würde den Podcast erheblich aufwerten!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That blazer being 2wd is an awesome find. Do not be temped to make it 4wd. One of the coolest looking vehicles from my early 20's was a mildly lowered 2wd blazer that would cruise around with the Top off. It was the coolest looking rig. Kind of a hottub looking red 4 seater with that short wheelbase. What a kind man to give it to Demri.
I saw this and the Yc15 at Raf Mildenhall where they flew practising for the Farnborough air show, the Yc 14 was truly amazing, it would reverse down the runway turn round and fly off in the opposite direction.
This would be a great aircraft of parachute operations. The prop and jet blast from standard aircraft makes your exit violent but a high mounted engine could make for a smooth exit and less tangled parachute lines.
The STOL Dehavilland Buffalo was a similar, smaller aircraft. I saw a Buffalo land and takeoff in a strip that must have been about a football field in length during an extreme demonstration exercise. My mother was one of its designers and they made for the US military a prototype jet powered version which ducted air over the wings and had even better performance.
@charlesblithfield6182; if you have any 'hard' info on a DHC "Jet Buffalo", i would love to see it! DHC and Canadair have almost always been screwed over by USA politicians and brass-hats.
NASA subsequently rebuilt a Buffalo into the Quiet Short-haul Research Aircraft, which had a custom wing with four (not just two) jets mounted above it. This increased lift even further than the YC-14 had, and produced an aircraft that could fly at only 50 knots, take off in less than 700 feet (a third of the YC-14's minimum takeoff run) and take off and land from an aircraft carrier deck, without assistance, despite carrying tons of cargo. That never went anywhere either.
@@zh84 The KC-130 used during the Navy testing on the Forestall did some of it's testing without JATO, even at full loads - and never needed assistance to land. Not "could have done" (possible, the Buffalo had impressive performance) but DID.
I worked near Moffet Field and the NASA facilit. I watched the NASA prototype fly over our building. At the landing speed of 90 knots, you expected it to park in the air. Watched that and the V-22 prototypes fly. This was in the late 70s .
From a maintenance standpoint those engines would be an absolute bitch to work on. Doing an engine change would be a major undertaking. That could be one of the reasons why only the Russians have a model of that type of plane still in existence. The Americans seem to be incapable of doing difficult things like they used to.
If only that aircraft was an option to land and take off from the soccer stadium in downtown Tehran! What a missed opportunity in all the years in between.
Great episode! I feel like I’ve seen almost everything on aircraft development on You Tube and leave it to Dark Skies to throw something out there I haven’t seen before! Thanks for the great content!
I used to live in Tucson and would be able to see both of them, the one in the boneyard daily on the way to school. I also worked on the E-3 and found a photo of an E-3 and this plane in a hangar together. I later worked with C-17s, so this was a good video to fill in "the mystery plane"!
What could’ve been. I can’t think of a better logistics tool for the Marine Corps. One thing that’s certain they’d still be using it today if they’d built them.
Never heard of YC-14 but now I wish it had been developed and put into service either for us or sold as commercial air transport for less developed countries. Much thanks for making this video.
I wonder how it would perform in an engine out situation. I suspect that the plane would roll hard toward the dead engine. Might be part of the reason they rejected it.
I saw the McDonnell Douglas YC-15 (the YC-14 competitor) at the 1976 Farnborough air show. Astonishing display with an unbelievably short take off roll, and it seemed to just leap into the air.
Somebodies Brother-in-law or relation of the higher ranking folks was heavily invested in C-130 stock there for it was BURRIED or better yet sent down the memory hole lost forever.
500 miles is just too short for what becomes effectively an extraction plane, imo. But dirt capable and STOL is still necessary, imo, and the design is worth considering. Thanks for the video.
This plane could have had a major role in rescuing the hostages from Iran. There are other vids that show the attempts to modify a transport with rockets to shorten takeoff and landing for that effort.
There are players out in the world that play silly games nobody will ever know or understand, pieces on the board are moved and removed when they say so and unfortunately humanity is one of those pieces. Someday soon this will all end. A thousand years of peace ❤
Pima air and space is a couple of miles from Davis Mothan AFB, come visit Tucson, AZ and check them out. I would suggest not coming between the end of May and the end of September. Unless you want to know what 115 degrees feels like
I saw that aircraft in storage and parked on Celebrity Row in the boneyard while stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB in the mid-80s. It was unique in appearance with those large high engines.
One of my Uncles worked on this aircraft. He never did understand why it wasn't picked up by the armed forces. It was way ahead of it's time. Personally I think it was the Air Force's aversion to anything that wasn't an air superiority aircraft. They've always hated air lift command and ground support command. You wouldn't believe how many times the AF has tried to kill the A-10 Warthog.
I remember the YC-14 and the YC-15 at Pope AB during part of their fly off evaluations, they were both amazing aircraft. The AF didn't go with either, but the YC-15 ended up getting upscaled to become the C-17, and the Russians stole the secrets for and built their YC-14 clone the AN-72 so it still flies sort of.
That over-wing engine design just looks good in my eyes. I don’t know why, it just looks “normal” or how it’s supposed to be. Always has. Same with the HondaJet.
Growing up in the South Seattle region of the Kent Valley, in the 60's and 70's, every trip on the I-5 or 99 by Boeing Fielld was like an mini airshow!
I remember seeing the YC-14 and YC-15 both fly at the Mildenhall Air Show in the late 70's. The YC-14 blew the other away in every aspect. The YC-15 had one outboard engine way oversized for some reason. I suspect Lockheed saw that the YC-14 was blowing theirs out of the water in performance and payload. So why did the YC-15 get the contract? Greed and graft.
My Dad worked on the development of the YC-14. Just as the program was being cancelled, I was able to go with him and watch a test flight. Fully loaded, that thing didn't "take off" like a normal aircraft.... it LEAPED into the air after an incredibly short takeoff roll. Landing looked like a controlled crash. Compared to all the other aircraft I had seen (many), it just looked unreal. Videos don't give the same impact.
How many whistle-blowers did he have killed?
some of those stol planes look more like they're being pulled into the sky by cables. like in theater when they lift someone off the ground.
Leaped is right!
My dad was the chief aerodynamics/advisor on the YC-14. He took me to the hanger to see it. He got bawled out by a security geek for letting me in there. He was told that he could stay, but I had to leave as the 15 yo criminal that I was.
@@stevewallace1117 I wonder where in Government this moron guy ended up after the military.
This is probably a concept they should revisit. Every war over the past 24 years has shown the need for aircraft that can land on short, unprepared fields.
so true i was thinking the same thing
If nothing else it would be great for civilian airlift into remote locations. There's some airlines in Canada and Africa still running the old 737-100 and 200s with their rough field landing capability.
The USAF doesn't care about anything but fighter jets. The Navy will come up with this before the USAF does....oh wait. They did.
@Yaivenov
Have it be strong to handle rough weather and it could a true lifesaver in multiple regions of the earth, coming in during the tail end of a typhoon or hurricane to begin evacuation or deliver supplies could save hundreds, if not tens of thousands of lives
12:40. I assume that is what was meant with this comment..
The other advantage of the high forward engine mounting, is that the engines were above and in front of the grit, grime, and FOD thrown up when landing on an unimproved landing strips.
Then and even today, there isn’t a turbo fan made that can touch a turbo prop for efficiency.
Oh man true! Keep the spinny pats out of the crap.
Remember when Boeing was considered the Pinnacle of aviation design and manufacture
Now they're just a Clinton knock off
Yeah now they just leave astronauts in space & blow the doors off whistleblowers.
They were until they got in bed with McDonald Douglas
yes but now they have The LGHDTV people working there ...
@@briankerr4512 and it's going so well! I am after all who need doors on planes anyway...
Design sounds perfect for fire fighting.
Or Davis Mountain parking lot attendant.
Indeed, they should use the concept to make a large fire fighting drone. Perfect for regional fire fighting.
Can they make it amphibious? Skimming a lake is the fastest way to reload a water bomber.
@@Yaivenov i would have to think that it is possible. but they might end up in a situation where the result is too compromised to be effective and it would have been better to just make 2 planes. for instance, i think stol capabilities would be largely useless on the water, as i don't think that stol is a priority for seaplanes given that their takeoff runs are already pretty long anyways. or you might have to reinforce the belly of the plane so much that the fuel and payload amounts are lessened.
@@toodlepop STOL would probably help with sea planes, as it is really hard for them to get over a certain speed (60-80kts? can I get a fact checker?) and to "unstick" from the water surface. The other major aspect that would lend itself to the task, and why I initially thought of this, is the high and forward mounted engines which would put the intakes above and ahead of sea spray being kicked up. A bit reminiscent of the Ekranoplan's engine position. Only better. And on an actual plane.
P.S.: Many water bodies are bookended with steep hills/mountains. The YC-14's incredible climb rate of 6k feet/min would be another point in its favor for the task, allowing it access to some waters that are otherwise inaccessible to all except bush planes.
I'm a huge aviation buff, and this is the first time I have ever heard of this plane. Excellent video Dark Skies!!
Really?
I read about it a couple of years ago. A couple of weeks ago I stumbled across the one at Davis on Google Earth, following opening a new tab in Chrome
Same here
Same!
If you hear of her for the first time, you are anything but an aviation buff.
My dad worked for Boeing. He was in tooling inspection and inspected tools used to build the plane. I used to have pictures and brochures on the YC-14.
Toolmakers are forever the unsung heroes of the manufacturing industry...👍💪👌
i'd say the company sure seems like it could use some new Tool inspectors, seems like there's a lotta Tools in places they shouldn't be at that company these days....
(by Tools, i mean the people chasing profit above all else, and getting people killed. those tools. )
I hope he wasn't in charge of any doors? Did he have to "put in work" to murder whistle-blowers too or?
@@jlo7770 Your comments are cringe because you clearly don't realize that modern companies are zombie husks all controlled by the same investors today...which is in stark contrast to the past.
i think my previous reply may have been deleted. i was calling the heads of Boeing tools. because they pursue profit over quality and safety, and got people killed with shoddily engineered planes.
DOUBLE explaining the joke i guess.
I retired my C-130 to the bone yard back in the mid 90's and while there visited the Pima air museum where they had one of the YC-14's on display.
I saw one at the Airport in Arizona not to far off the run way in the 90’s.
I was a US Army soldier 1973-1997. The mid to late 1970s were difficult times in the Military. Budgets were slashed. I remember in 1975 at Fort Lewis, Washington and again in 1976 at South Korea we planned field training exercises, loaded up our convoy of trucks, pull out of the motor pool, then the Commander would lead us around the block back into the motor pool. There was no budget for diesel. We set up our tents in the motor pool and pretended we were in the forest. We ate expired Vietnam War era C rations, which was fun because some still had cigarettes. In the 1980s they pulled out expired Korean War K rations. They were very light to carry in our ruck sacks.
Probably better than MREs?
@@andrewemery4272MREs are far superior. Some are even really good (beef stew, roast beef, manicotti, beef stroganoff is tasty just really mushy)
@larryfromwisconsin9970 U.S. Marine 1968 - 1991, here. I remember those days very well. We had few mops to use for cleaning the barracks. Our mops were so sad-looking having lost most of their strings during their many months of use; couldn't do much with them. Requests for replacements went unheeded until, one fine day, we received one, just one, much needed, new Navy cotton deck mop. It was like a gift from heaven; the clouds parted, the sunlight shown through, and, I believe I heard, a short, multi-voiced aria. That was until some barracks jerks clowning around with it broke the handle in two. We hadn't had it a day and it was broken. Wanted to string them up by their heels. Mended, it performed its tasks but, it wasn't as 'purty' as it originally was.
Don't mention toilet paper. If you had a normal poo, you got two squares. If it was serious, you got five. Now that was a joke, folks. Toilet paper wasn't issued by the square; self-rationing was understood by every Marine because once gone, we weren't getting any more until the next issuance. Budgets were extremely tight.
Ya, the 75 and on got shitty on land also. Joined in 83 at least it beat 1.75$ @12 hrs a week. The Navy (Persian Gulf area) had plenty of $$ and supplies. Flew in 2 civilians to fix our crane, showed up 4 days later with a pump and parts to make it work.Then I done a Destroyer that was Flag ship in NATO.
@@GeorgiaDawgAthensdoes the Corps still give half the money back, if they ever really did give it back.
I was a fresh out of Purdue's school of Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering in 1977. This was the airplane I wanted to work on. I got my wish in the fall of 1977 as I became a flight controls engineer on this project. I was involved in quite a bit of wind tunnel work before the project was put on life support around the end of '77. As I recall, there was hope that the Shah of Iran - purportedly very interested in the aircraft - would purchase some and keep the project going. The Shah started to have other things to worry about and that purchase never occured.
While an amazing airplane, it was going to be very complicated. Imagine an engine out scenario on an aircraft that developes significant lift from the interaction of the engine and the the flaps. Yes, that's right, flying with an engine out was going to require a split flap configuration. Due to the low speed flight capabilities, most of the major control surfaces were double jointed to maintain control of the aircraft.
This airplane's unique design also caused some interesting problems in the wind tunnel. Due to the engine's thrust being used to create lift, the model needed to be pressurized and that pressurized air was hosed out of the model's simulated engines. The guys that put the models together in the wind tunnel had a much better union that we engineers had. They were not allowed inside the wind tunnel when the model was pressurized. Just prior to buttoning up the wind tunnel for the test run, the model would be pressurized and a test engineer would go inside, garbed in protective gear like the main character in "The Hurt Locker", and inspect the model to make sure everything was still secure post pressurization.
One of the problems that needed to be solved was a specification that involved a paratrooper's deployed parachute getting caught in the exit door and the trooper hanging out behind the airplane in flight. I remember watching a film of an early wind tunnel test that had a wooden simulated paratrooper hanging out of the model's door towards the rear of the model. The turbulence of the aft body was so bad (probably had something to do with missing the drag predictions as mentioned in this video) that the model paratrooper was repeatedly slapping against the aft body so hard it was chipping paint off the airplane model. HA!
Man this was a long time ago.
My first thought when the system was described in the video was that an engine failure on takeoff would end badly on a short improved runway. That is very cool you got to work on the project!
The real reason it was cancelled is simple, President Carter (from Georgia) and home to Lockheed and the home of C130's, C141's and C5's. Factoid: did you know during flight tests the YF-14 exceeded mach 1.0.
I saw this aircraft at the Pima Air Museum back in the mid-90's. I had no idea what it was, and thought it was a hydroplane (flying boat, whatever) at first because of the engine placement. Such a cool design.
The YC-14 flew so the C-17 could soar.
The Russian bE-200 of near same design was first built in Irkusk in 1996 and made it's first flight in 1998. Same above wing engines went on a seaplane they use in fire fighting (though they seem to always drop from a higher altitude and don't get down on the deck to bust the fire.)
Back when Boeing were world leaders in aviation. A long time ago now.
now they're kinda just "well, we don't want to get our planes from europe, china, or russia. not yet."
Boeing still is. Today has been overrun with cancel culture which wants to reduce everything to a binary conclusion.
before the dei
Boeing was never a leader in aviation.
@@LilSebastian_ Boeing or / McDonnell Douglas. Has been killing the commercial side of Boeing for 30 years. The should have stuck to building Military planes.
800 feet for takeoff and 371 feet (400 ish feet) for landing that is insane. 😱😱😱
Sounds like carrier landings with a little more wiggle room
Seems like it would have been tailor made for the Iranian hostage rescued operation
Imagine if it had rockets.
@@hillbilly4christ638 would be a site to see there is a military transport plane that does have rockets that assists in take offs. The C-130 uses JATO or jet assisted take off. There is video of such use only at air shows or special need.
then there was the Short Skyvan and the Sherpa
And yet, the incredible C-130 Hercules is still in-service and still doing amazing things. Careful what you say about her. She's a sweetheart.
And still in production.
As a kid in England I had a pack of Top Trumps that had the YC-14 as one of the cards. I fell in love with the look of the plane but knew nothing else about it (pre-internet). I was blown away when I visited Pima Air and Space Museum in Arizona a couple of years ago and saw one of only 2 built parked in the maintenance sheds over the fence. I knew immediately what it was, from memories of my card deck 35 years earlier. I just stood and stared at that thing for 20 minutes. It took me right back to my childhood.
I had that too!
The only one of these birds, that I have been able to see personally, is currently mothballed at the Pima air and space museum in Arizona.
Half, the unassuming, friendly, elder, gentleman bagging groceries at the Safeway in Awhatukee where I lived, was one of the test pilots on the project and the last pilot to fly it to the boneyard.
I was stationed at DMAFB in the 90s and at that time it was in AMARG
Why have I never heard of this fabulous bird before now. 😮
My thought exactly - plus, it seems like a few would be handy to have around.
@@richardreynolds6398 makes me wonder if maybe Delta sucked it up and it went black.
Touch down to a full stop in 380 '. WOW. Padded restraints or air bags..🤔
You're young. That's why. Plus, unless you're an enthusiast there are a LOT of Y-designated aircraft you never heard of.
@@wolfhodgkinson6866 young?. Im 63 . And an avid enthusiast of military aircraft.
London taxi drivers whenever they get a female passenger. 🤣
Always love the content posted. There's always information that I haven't ever heard or even haven't heard in the way presented. Makes for something that's always new.
Keep going!
I always like it when they say where the remaining planes can be found.
Antonov An-72: 5 tonne payload, and a 620 metre max weight take-off distance, off completely unprepared surfaces including sand, grass, and the traditional "dirt airstrip".
It is a good airplane for own tasks, but unfortunately Ukraine cannon make airplanes without Russia.
@@FirstNameLastName-hy1pfit actually can. Look at new an-178, it build without ruzzia.
Nobody will land pricy jet on unprepared raw land. Ukraine lately tested an-148 to land on grass near Odessa and after sucess concluded it is not needed option.
@@FirstNameLastName-hy1pf it seems like you hate Ukraine and also mentally incompetent and I don't speak with mentally ill people.
@@mikesilver2283not anymore. Their factories are gone. Courtesy of Russian missile spam.
YC-14 is one of my favorite experimental designs!
I've never heard of it... amazing plane
my fav is the Short SC1
It was. Cool airplane. Unfortunately 45 years later I went blind. But I still remember it. Pima back than was an experience you don't forget. Thanks
This is the plane we need today in the South Pacific!
One of my thoughts, too. Short, island-based runways? No problem!
Back in 2010, I was billeted in the FOB Salerno RSOI barracks, which were right next to the runway. I was hanging out in the hooch and heard this loud eerie howl coming from the airfield. I ran out to catch an AN-74 rolling out on the runway. Those engines had a sound I'd never heard before and that thing was a shape I'd only seen in pictures. What a wild sight. One thing I noticed with the Soviet era birds design is noise abatement wasn't even in the designer's minds.
...kinda like a squadron of F111's taking off at full AB......bloody hell what a racket they made!!! wake the dead is an understatement!!!
When the F-111s used to visit RAF Bentwaters they would knock down and burn the pine trees behind the spot they would park them on when they fired them up and the pilots would give them a little throttle to taxi out.
YC-14 Would be a hell of a Fire Plane... even the Original YC-15 (Before the C-17 changes) the small 4 engine plane would be on the level of a RJ85 but with a larger tank close to the level of a C-130 if not more... Both prototyles could be made as normal aircraft today and would have good uses. the YC-14 would crush the C-130 everywhere.. the way the KC390 is starting to take off around the world
What happens if a rock gets into the impellers of the yc14s motors.Could it fly on one motor?
FOD is a real problem with jets.
@@johnhagemeyer8578
Its engines are very high up. FOD is a very small probability with engines so high up. On an F-16 with the scoop underneath it is very susceptible to FOD!
@@johnhagemeyer8578 Does the A10 have the same reservations?
@@toddmarshall7573 I don't know. Alls I know is that when we were doing EROS in Selah Creek proving grounds in the early 1970 I was blasted with rocks and dirt and grime when running up to the newly landed 130's to pop chains removing straps, to empty the back if that aircraft and get it airborne.
Those are huge holes up top that wing that the c130's don't have plus two more more motors it does have. A bit more redundancy I think.
@@andrewday3206The high engine position had two functional aspects: Reduced susceptibility to FOD and with “Upper Surface Blowing” giving additional lift performance to the wing giving it astounding runway performance. Only two engines? The reliability of current designs for overseas flights passes most flight safety tests.
In short, what the USAF really needed was a replacement for the rapidly aging C-141 fleet. Even the C-141B rebuild program only just extended the life of the C-141 at most 20 years, and by the late 1990's that plane was reaching the end of their service lives. That's why the USAF now flies 222 C-17A's, and also built a major update to the C-130, the C-130J, to replace the older C-130E and H models as tactical transports.
The airlift required to support both DESERT SHEILD/STORM & PROVIDE COMFORT absolutely blew the “hours of flight” parameters that were used to estimate how many “years” the C-141 planes were supposed have, out of the water. Shuttling back and forth from the United States to Saudi Arabia ate thru the hours on the entire fleet of Air Force transport planes. Planes that would normally fly 100-150 hrs per month were essentially flying nonstop from August to June. Some planes that landed in incerlik AFB, only shut down long enough to disgorge the troops, pallets and rolling stock; they only refueled enough to get to Germany and left within an hour or two. The only time it was longer was if there was a crew rest issue. I know that the bulk of the aircraft that I dealt with, as the Arrival Airfield Control Group Officer, had relief crew already onboard, especially, the C-5’s. There was one 24 hour period when we had 18 C-5’s and 30 C-141’s, plus C9’s, KC-135’s & KC-10’s in cargo mode landing with every pallet space filled. So, that 12 month period absolutely destroyed the hrs/airframe computations.
The star lifter was a poor design, hampered by its pencil. Thin fuselage could very often be maxed out before being grossed out. Having said that it was one of the best aircraft the Air force ever had.
I got to see both the YC-14 and YC-15 at an air show at RAF MIldenhall in ‘77(?). Both were very impressive in the STOL demonstration.
Thank you for bringing this bird to life! I have seen images of the YC-14 from Pima and am very interested in Boeing aircraft but didn't know this information! Your work is amazing as always! Your sources of images and video are impressive, especially for a scrubbed program during the Vietnam War. I hope Boeing can get things back in order and not be the butt of every aerospace manufacturing joke.
Imagine if this design was modernized using today's computers and fitted with the engine technology we have today.
They could have replaced or at least augmented the C-130 with C-14 and then developed the C-17 from there to replace the aging C-141. What a lost opportunity like the USAF not buying or modifying the F-16 with the F-16XL.
The C-17 did replace the C-141. The YC-14 was not needed to replace the C-130. The F-16XL was not needed to replace the F-16, which continues to be built in improved versions. Don't believe all the hype you see on UA-cam about experimental aircraft, because there is always a good reason they didn't become production aircraft.
@@gort8203 The F-16XL was faster, more maneuverable, carried much more armaments and super cruised around Mach 1.6 in the 1980s. It was actually entered in the competition against the F-15E Strike Eagle. The F-15E won ONLY because it had two engines. As with anything in government procurement, a lot deals with politics. You can bet Lockheed won the lobbying war with Boeing in congress and the Air Force opted to put the new technology into the C-141 replacement instead. The same thing happened with the YF-23. Northrop already had the B-2 contract and giving the ATF contract to Northrop as well would have been seen as too lopsided, so Lockheed Martin got the contract even though many saw the F-23 as actually the better fighter overall.
@@richardlangdon712 I see you have the usual misinformation from UA-cam. The XL was an experimental airplane meant to investigate whether super cruise was practical in a fighter. The idea was that the cranked arrow wing would have a better supersonic L/D ratio, meaning less drag above the mach. Top speed was not the point, super cruise was, and the airplane failed to deliver the expected performance. I didn’t even achieve marginal super cruise until it was given to NASA for further research after it lost the EFT competition, and they installed a more powerful engine.
It was entered into the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition because it was lying around, not because it had been designed to that requirement. It certainly would not have super cruised loaded down with bombs. The F-15E won the ETF contract not just because it had two engines. It won for multiple reasons such as lower cost and less risky development because the F-15 was already a proven strike jet, and the F-16XL was actually substantially different than the original F-16 and would have required a lot more development.
The F-1XL had a better instantaneous turn but inferior sustained turn rate, so it did not have superior maneuverability. The wing of the original F-16 had been chosen over a delta planform because of that superior maneuverability.
@@richardlangdon712 "You can bet Lockheed won the lobbying war with Boeing in congress and the Air Force opted to put the new technology into the C-141 replacement instead."
The C-17 was a McDonnel Douglas product, not Lockheed or Boeing.
@@richardlangdon712 The XL was an experimental airplane meant to investigate whether super cruise was practical in a fighter. The idea was that the cranked arrow wing would have a better supersonic L/D ratio, meaning less drag above the mach. Top speed was not the point, super cruise was, and the airplane failed to deliver the expected performance. I didn’t even achieve marginal super cruise until it was given to NASA for further research after it lost the EFT competition, and they installed a more powerful engine.
It was entered into the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition because it was lying around, not because it had been designed to that requirement. It certainly would not have super cruised loaded down with bombs. The F-15E won the ETF contract not just because it had two engines. It won for multiple reasons such as lower cost and less risky development because the F-15 was already a proven strike jet, and the F-16XL was actually substantially different than the original F-16 and would have required a lot more development.
The F-1XL had a better instantaneous turn but inferior sustained turn rate, so it did not have superior maneuverability. The wing of the original F-16 had been chosen over a delta planform because of that superior maneuverability.
I saw this plane at John Wayne, when it was still in testing.
That turbine air-brake is phenomenal physics.
So we had the "Bus" from Agents of SHIELD in 1976?
Not really but close, This was a STOL aircraft, or Short Take off or Landing, The Bus was a VTOL aircraft or Vertical Take off or Landing. SHIELD was a great show, I don't get why Marvel Studios hates it so much and have been so iffy about its canonicity. It did not always line of with MCU canon, especially in later seasons, but dose for the most part and it quite good. Sorry for the Rant, just whish we had more Marvel shows like that.
The problem starts with one engine failure. The tail is oversized but much lift coming from the engine exhaust coanda effect is lost on the wing side where the engine fail, that is why the more classic C-15 which became C-17 both with four engines was preferred. The Starfighter F104 used blown flaps to increase take off and landing lift of its tiny thin wings. This required a minimum of 60% engine power to land safely as part of the jet engine compressed air was diverted to the opened flaps at low speed and it was nearly impossible to bring it down fast enough not to stall and without any power .
You mean a lawn dart won't glide? 🤣 I know the Starfighter had its faults but MAN that was a sexy looking aircraft!
@@smgdfcmfah Yes and as the first Mach two interceptor it was technically ahead of its time and because of high wing loading , was use in Germany extensively a very low altitude to be below East German and Russian radars coverage. this was a dangerous usage for pilot safety with very little time to react and was qualified as widow maker..attrition was in the one per 16000 hours range , quite high. Then, We also invented the twin tail F14 15 18 35, Migs Su etc…for safe upwards ejection at high speed..twin engines fighters are also more resilient in combat condition..that a fact..VN…etc…
@@philgooddr.7850 Who's "we"? You named aircraft from Grumman, McDonald Douglas, Lockheed Martin, Mikoyan-Gurevich and Sukhoi! The Eagle is my favorite modern aircraft (it's almost as old as I am and has ruled the skies for most of my life!), but like I said, I have a soft spot for the F-104.
@@smgdfcmfah if many fighter have two vertical tail, this design was widly adopted for rigidity and weight AND to enable a save ejection in between the two tails..the rafale ejects at an angle. to the left, to pass the tail at high speed..BUT with The T tail of the Starfighter impossible, this forced Kelly Johnson to figure an ejection from below, rather unsafe and at low leverage, one of many reasons F104 was dangerous…
Looks like the jet engine version of the DHC-4 Caribou
oooohhhhhh love the Caribou many jumps from that one watched a test jump from the YC14 in 76 or 77 was pulling DZ Med coverage.
An early, limited version of exhaust vectoring control that worked.
We need this back
I learned about this plane from a famous Collectible card game in Argentina in the late 70s (the game was called Tope & Quartet) and at first I assumed that the photograph was wrong since the engines were on the wrong side of the wing. Later my father (an air force aircraft mechanic) explained the coanda effect to me. Greetings from Patagonia
An absolute incredible aircraft. A shame it never entered mass production
this is what would go on to have been needed in the iran hostage situation in 1979. this would have landed in the football stadium in Tehran with LITTLE modification and taken back off
Exactly
My father flew C-130s before & during the Vietnam War. He also trained pilots on what they could do with it. It could be taken off & landed in a lot less than you specify.
Correct, but a lot of runway space needed for take off and landing is affected by payload.
The "breathless" voice of the speaker gets quite annoying after a while.
I always liked everything I read or seen about the Boeing YC-14. Thank you for Your video I enjoyed it.
It is super interesting how different tasts for a plane can change "efficient design" so drastically. An amazing plane. Thank you for this content.
Given that a C-130 could land on a carrier this would have been a great heavy lift resupply aircraft for the Navy assuming it’s wings weren’t longer than at C-130 given that the C-130s starboard wing cleared the sail by ten feet.
A C-14 would have been able to land on a CV but that was dumb idea. The entire flight deck had to be cleared of aircraft before the C-130(or C-14) could land or takeoff. If one aircraft couldn't either be spotted below or get airborne and the C-130 or C-14couldn't land.
I saw the title show up in my feed, and I was like "man, I wondering if they're talking about the Hercules?"
Why? Because I've recently worked on a remote/sub-arctic mine that has an airstrip that has flights coming in around the clock. The airstrip can support as much as a 737, but the majority of the Cargo comes in on the Hercules...And I'm still blown away by how little runway space they require compared to all the other planes that come in. It's like I'm watching magic. It's like they take off and land in not even a third of the runway. Incredibly impressive planes. I doubt the project I'm on would be feasible if they didn't exist.
ah56, yf23 and this yc14 are the best aircraft never to be produced. criminal
Plus the YF-12
RAH66 Commanche was another helicopter you need to see. I got to see it do a demo flight as a kid. Still have the poster from the ad campaign.
And the P6M
The YC-14 was a superb aircraft. I was a flight test engineer with Boeing and I recall one flight where the Boeing chase/photography plane was an F-86F and it was unable to keep up with us on a turning climb. I believe the cancellation of the program was due more to a political decision and if the YC-14 had been being offered by MD it would have gone into production. I now live in Tucson, Az. and after almost 50 years still get to visit the old bird at the Pima Air Museum.
Senatorial politics and money. 😉
I worked for Boeing at Renton Field, in Avionics incoming inspection and test in the late 1970's, in a small building on the west side of the runway. I saw one of the YC-14s land and later take off. It was truly amazing how quickly she stopped after touching down!! A beautiful aircraft!
This is the Boeing of my father and Uncle’s generation-- the greatest generation. Easy to make great things with great people. People make the difference.
I remember my dad working with the Boeing test team during the late 70's When I say I remember, I remember my dad being stationed at Edwards for almost a year.
One have been handy for the Desert one mission to rescue the hostages in Tehran .
Perot did ok with choppers that night
Das Dezimalsystem und richtige Angaben würde den Podcast erheblich aufwerten!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dark Skies should do a video on the An-72 one of these days. I would love to see it happen.
That blazer being 2wd is an awesome find. Do not be temped to make it 4wd. One of the coolest looking vehicles from my early 20's was a mildly lowered 2wd blazer that would cruise around with the Top off. It was the coolest looking rig. Kind of a hottub looking red 4 seater with that short wheelbase. What a kind man to give it to Demri.
I saw this and the Yc15 at Raf Mildenhall where they flew practising for the Farnborough air show, the Yc 14 was truly amazing, it would reverse down the runway turn round and fly off in the opposite direction.
I saw them at Mildenhall too, they did what they were designed to do.
This would be a great aircraft of parachute operations. The prop and jet blast from standard aircraft makes your exit violent but a high mounted engine could make for a smooth exit and less tangled parachute lines.
The STOL Dehavilland Buffalo was a similar, smaller aircraft. I saw a Buffalo land and takeoff in a strip that must have been about a football field in length during an extreme demonstration exercise. My mother was one of its designers and they made for the US military a prototype jet powered version which ducted air over the wings and had even better performance.
@charlesblithfield6182;
if you have any 'hard' info on a DHC "Jet Buffalo", i would love to see it!
DHC and Canadair have almost always been screwed over by USA politicians and brass-hats.
NASA subsequently rebuilt a Buffalo into the Quiet Short-haul Research Aircraft, which had a custom wing with four (not just two) jets mounted above it. This increased lift even further than the YC-14 had, and produced an aircraft that could fly at only 50 knots, take off in less than 700 feet (a third of the YC-14's minimum takeoff run) and take off and land from an aircraft carrier deck, without assistance, despite carrying tons of cargo. That never went anywhere either.
It’s still parked at Moffett airfield. We taxi past the nasa ramp and see it sitting out there with the c141
@@zh84 The KC-130 used during the Navy testing on the Forestall did some of it's testing without JATO, even at full loads - and never needed assistance to land.
Not "could have done" (possible, the Buffalo had impressive performance) but DID.
I worked near Moffet Field and the NASA facilit. I watched the NASA prototype fly over our building. At the landing speed of 90 knots, you expected it to park in the air. Watched that and the V-22 prototypes fly. This was in the late 70s .
From a maintenance standpoint those engines would be an absolute bitch to work on. Doing an engine change would be a major undertaking. That could be one of the reasons why only the Russians have a model of that type of plane still in existence. The Americans seem to be incapable of doing difficult things like they used to.
No worse than the Herc.
Put GE 105 ,s on it... have to beef up engine mounts.. they are 3 million a piece but that thing would boogie
I think you would eject from bottom
If only that aircraft was an option to land and take off from the soccer stadium in downtown Tehran! What a missed opportunity in all the years in between.
Bingo! DOL
@@mistertwo6113 DOL indeed!
Great episode! I feel like I’ve seen almost everything on aircraft development on You Tube and leave it to Dark Skies to throw something out there I haven’t seen before! Thanks for the great content!
I remember seeing an article in the Boeing News about the YC-14.
I used to live in Tucson and would be able to see both of them, the one in the boneyard daily on the way to school. I also worked on the E-3 and found a photo of an E-3 and this plane in a hangar together. I later worked with C-17s, so this was a good video to fill in "the mystery plane"!
What could’ve been. I can’t think of a better logistics tool for the Marine Corps. One thing that’s certain they’d still be using it today if they’d built them.
Never heard of YC-14 but now I wish it had been developed and put into service either for us or sold as commercial air transport for less developed countries. Much thanks for making this video.
I wonder how it would perform in an engine out situation. I suspect that the plane would roll hard toward the dead engine. Might be part of the reason they rejected it.
This soundtrack is crushing it, and is turning this cargo plane into something as cool as a fighter jet
I was with you but at about 2:30 you got amnesia and started over. I kinda didnt want to watch you repeat youself.
The last video was even worse. It literally repeated itself like five times. Just worded slightly different.
I saw the McDonnell Douglas YC-15 (the YC-14 competitor) at the 1976 Farnborough air show. Astonishing display with an unbelievably short take off roll, and it seemed to just leap into the air.
love the asthetic background music here! 😃 5:43
Although as ugly as a mud fence,
what a beautiful Bird in flight.
Great video. Two thumbs up!
Somebodies Brother-in-law or relation of the higher ranking folks was heavily invested in C-130 stock there for it was BURRIED or better yet sent down the memory hole lost forever.
just lockheed doing lockheed things...
always has been, always wil be😂
500 miles is just too short for what becomes effectively an extraction plane, imo. But dirt capable and STOL is still necessary, imo, and the design is worth considering. Thanks for the video.
🎖️⭐🏆🙏❤️🩹
Thank you for sharing this
Kill the music, please
No.
At least kill the music volume by half.
I read about this aircraft but didn’t see one until 1995 flying into Arizona. I thought it as the greatest thing to see. I was so excited.
These thumbnails are getting out of hand
Not really, and the titles are alright.
I very much enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Another fine presentation of an interesting subject of which I was totally unaware. Thanks!
A redesign of this as a fire fighting aircraft would have critical importance today to fight forest fires !
This plane could have had a major role in rescuing the hostages from Iran. There are other vids that show the attempts to modify a transport with rockets to shorten takeoff and landing for that effort.
Great work on the documentary!
There are players out in the world that play silly games nobody will ever know or understand, pieces on the board are moved and removed when they say so and unfortunately humanity is one of those pieces. Someday soon this will all end. A thousand years of peace ❤
Pima air and space is a couple of miles from Davis Mothan AFB, come visit Tucson, AZ and check them out. I would suggest not coming between the end of May and the end of September. Unless you want to know what 115 degrees feels like
What a fantastic looking kite. When the C-17 first came to Farnborough, where I worked, it got nicknamed Thunderbird 6 😁
I saw that aircraft in storage and parked on Celebrity Row in the boneyard while stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB in the mid-80s. It was unique in appearance with those large high engines.
Excellent Video, thanks for your time!
This should be remade. It’s the perfect replacement for the C-130, even more then the C-390.
How this design hasn't been used commercially is crazy. Bet those in Asia and Africa would live this thing.
One of my Uncles worked on this aircraft. He never did understand why it wasn't picked up by the armed forces. It was way ahead of it's time. Personally I think it was the Air Force's aversion to anything that wasn't an air superiority aircraft. They've always hated air lift command and ground support command. You wouldn't believe how many times the AF has tried to kill the A-10 Warthog.
These were amazing planes and even more amazing brave pilots flew them. The 130 and we were tested severely at Khe Sanh.
YC-14 was inspired by the 1961 Breguet 941S
I remember the YC-14 and the YC-15 at Pope AB during part of their fly off evaluations, they were both amazing aircraft. The AF didn't go with either, but the YC-15 ended up getting upscaled to become the C-17, and the Russians stole the secrets for and built their YC-14 clone the AN-72 so it still flies sort of.
That over-wing engine design just looks good in my eyes. I don’t know why, it just looks “normal” or how it’s supposed to be. Always has. Same with the HondaJet.
Growing up in the South Seattle region of the Kent Valley, in the 60's and 70's, every trip on the I-5 or 99 by Boeing Fielld was like an mini airshow!
This voice sounds like high-speed mumbling interspersed with long pauses.
I remember seeing the YC-14 and YC-15 both fly at the Mildenhall Air Show in the late 70's. The YC-14 blew the other away in every aspect. The YC-15 had one outboard engine way oversized for some reason. I suspect Lockheed saw that the YC-14 was blowing theirs out of the water in performance and payload. So why did the YC-15 get the contract? Greed and graft.
I’ve never even heard of this plane! Amazing!
Good topic, well narrated.