What is The Highest Altitude Any Fighter Jet Can Reach?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
  • What is The Highest Altitude Any Fighter Jet Can Reach?.
    SUBSCRIBE!!!

КОМЕНТАРІ • 1,2 тис.

  • @JamaalCarroll-z3k
    @JamaalCarroll-z3k Рік тому +2058

    This is actually incorrect the air contains the same amount of oxygen just at a lower pressure that the lungs can breathe

    • @gabrielsoto5677
      @gabrielsoto5677 Рік тому +326

      That is partially correct because oxygen does technically decrease because the molecules spread out and that results in oxygen content being depleted in each breath and also it would be at a higher pressure not lower.

    • @mretidk6715
      @mretidk6715 Рік тому +63

      Its less oxygen in the measured amount. If you measures the oxygen atoms in the air at sea level and measured the amount at the edge of space there would be less atoms of oxygen

    • @azab0b
      @azab0b Рік тому +29

      Lower mol/cm3 of oxygen

    • @ZEUSFRANCISCO
      @ZEUSFRANCISCO Рік тому +8

      Tell that to Minecraft Steve then

    • @abdulbasitnwz3519
      @abdulbasitnwz3519 Рік тому +2

      ​@@gabrielsoto5677 correct

  • @davidlambert6171
    @davidlambert6171 Рік тому +1336

    I was waiting for him to mention Mig25 reached 123,520 ft on August 31, 1977.

    • @bukton10
      @bukton10 Рік тому +305

      He knows only American planes...

    • @legal_alien
      @legal_alien Рік тому +145

      And he did not even answered the question but explained bunch or reasons.

    • @TheGito413
      @TheGito413 Рік тому +33

      SR-71 Blackbird is Better, way Better 💯 Mig-25 is a Great Jet Fighter as well but not as Cool 😎

    • @NickMaxwelll
      @NickMaxwelll Рік тому +107

      ​@@TheGito413 SR not fighter

    • @studentpilotlookinahh
      @studentpilotlookinahh Рік тому +83

      @@TheGito413 SR literally stands for Strategic/Serial Reconnaissance not fighter

  • @duyphan4617
    @duyphan4617 Рік тому +218

    Which is why Starscream in TF 2007 is badass. He transformed into an F22 but in mid credit scene, he flew right into space 😂.

    • @Aviation_insider
      @Aviation_insider  Рік тому +18

      lol 😆

    • @duyphan4617
      @duyphan4617 Рік тому +11

      @@Aviation_insider I mean his tech spec goes like this: 8 4 10 7 9 5 8 8
      (Strength Intelligence Speed Endurance Rank Courage Fireblast Skill).
      So yeah. His speed is 10 🤯😹😹😹

    • @Marshall1q.
      @Marshall1q. Рік тому +6

      @@duyphan4617 Starscream was just cool in general, especially the name

    • @lastmanstanding-xp3ub
      @lastmanstanding-xp3ub Рік тому +4

      Starscream was one of my favorite, if not my number one favorite characters in Transformers. I used to love those movies as a kid and I still do, my favorite movie is Transformers 2 but the 1st and 3rd one are good too, even the 4th one is not bad but after that not so much lol.

    • @duyphan4617
      @duyphan4617 Рік тому

      @@lastmanstanding-xp3ub agree 👌🏻

  • @scottclark155
    @scottclark155 Рік тому +228

    Pilots have o2 in a bottle. The engines and lift decide how high

    • @johnafsoc8929
      @johnafsoc8929 Рік тому +3

      Exactly. This little component known as, density altitude.

    • @goldgod-bk1pt
      @goldgod-bk1pt Рік тому

      Like the russian bi or german me 263 they need no oxygen asfar is i know

    • @scottclark155
      @scottclark155 Рік тому +2

      @@goldgod-bk1pt depends on altitude

    • @rustyshaklferd1897
      @rustyshaklferd1897 Рік тому

      No. Pressure suits are required to keep bodily fluids from boiling if decompression occurs. Oxygen bottles won’t prevent that.

    • @harveymanfrantinsingin7373
      @harveymanfrantinsingin7373 Рік тому +3

      @@rustyshaklferd1897Lolol… are you referring to a G-suit? That’s NOT what they’re used for. Stop believing movies.

  • @robt3305
    @robt3305 Рік тому +86

    On Dec. 6, 1959 an F4 Phantom during testing flew at 98,557 ft.

    • @bryonslatten3147
      @bryonslatten3147 Рік тому +3

      USAF Major Robert W. Smith, flying F-104A 56-0756, set an unofficial world altitude record of 118,860 ft (36,230 m) on 15 November 1963, and on 6 December 1963 he flew the same aircraft to another unofficial altitude record of 120,800 ft (36,800 m).

    • @thomasodetinape4180
      @thomasodetinape4180 Рік тому +4

      Phantoms for Ever.

    • @Stardust_the_F-104C
      @Stardust_the_F-104C Рік тому

      ​@@bryonslatten3147a official one is a F-104C reaching around 103 to 104k feet

    • @hdcvospringer
      @hdcvospringer Рік тому

      I was an F-4 simulator tech and often took it to +50k. Stick inputs were incredibly delayed. I can go hard left and slowly would would begin to roll left. While rolling, move the stick hard right, I could count seconds before any roll to the right. I was told by many the math models for the simulator were very accurate. The IPs, many Vietnam pilots, for the 1st German Air Force said the sum was pretty accurate in replication. It would also be very prone to flat spin at this altitude. Many times I it didn’t recover (with a nose down engine air-restart) until about 15k AGL. This was not using drag chute deployment as is prescribed to recover.

    • @Stardust_the_F-104C
      @Stardust_the_F-104C Рік тому

      @hdcvospringer so Have you done F-104 Sims? I'm curious not gonna do my character here but that is interesting that the phantom were know to have poor flight characteristics, but what about the F-104 starfighters. My only simular experience is from war thunder simulator modes, so your imput about the phantom interesting as I hadn't know that.

  • @DRNITROCHRIS1
    @DRNITROCHRIS1 Рік тому +160

    F-15 "streak eagle" went up over 100,000 feet in 3 min, 27.8 sec!

    • @Narcis26101991
      @Narcis26101991 Рік тому

      You mean the F15 STOL…

    • @anubis20049999
      @anubis20049999 Рік тому +2

      Strike Eagle is badass

    • @deang5622
      @deang5622 Рік тому +8

      If I remember correctly it is was 98,425 feet, so almost 100,000 ft.

    • @jimtan8472
      @jimtan8472 Рік тому +15

      MiG-29: welcome to the club comrade

    • @stretch2263
      @stretch2263 Рік тому +2

      ​@@deang5622it reached nearly 103k on 1 attempt

  • @michaelflaherty1358
    @michaelflaherty1358 Рік тому +16

    BAE Lightening once reached an altitude of 88'000 feet, it had a climb rate 20'000 ft a minute. Bear in mind this plane first flew in 1957 just 12 years after the end of WW2. Incredible piece of British aeronautical engineering.

    • @IDontWantAHandle101
      @IDontWantAHandle101 Рік тому +1

      Was waiting for some to mention that.
      Also the only fighter to successfully intercept a U2 😮

    • @michaelflaherty1358
      @michaelflaherty1358 Рік тому +1

      @@IDontWantAHandle101 correct.

    • @bryonslatten3147
      @bryonslatten3147 Рік тому +2

      USAF Major Robert W. Smith, flying F-104A 56-0756, set an unofficial world altitude record of 118,860 ft (36,230 m) on 15 November 1963, and on 6 December 1963 he flew the same aircraft to another unofficial altitude record of 120,800 ft (36,800 m).

    • @willielongbotham7156
      @willielongbotham7156 Рік тому +1

      It was on the drawing board long before that, while spitfires were still in service! A quantum leap.

    • @alexdarcydestsimon3767
      @alexdarcydestsimon3767 Рік тому

      ​@@IDontWantAHandle101
      You are wrong.
      The U2 and SR71 were chased by Mirage III above France.
      The U2 pilote saw something blinking and honking on his left but not for long as the Mirage III was way faster.
      The SR71 chase was less of a success though.

  • @Zoso55
    @Zoso55 Рік тому +132

    SR-71: “I don’t have such weaknesses.”

    • @Slungus_bunny69
      @Slungus_bunny69 Рік тому +23

      The MiG-25 that got to 123,000 Feet in 1977:

    • @Evil-Never-Dies
      @Evil-Never-Dies Рік тому +8

      @@Slungus_bunny69it still didn’t shoot an SR-71 down.

    • @notthedeadweight
      @notthedeadweight Рік тому +6

      ​@@Slungus_bunny69F-4 phantom reaching 118,860 ft in 1963:

    • @alexx3940
      @alexx3940 Рік тому +5

      ​@@Evil-Never-Diesdidn't really get the opportunity

    • @Evil-Never-Dies
      @Evil-Never-Dies Рік тому

      @@alexx3940 exactly

  • @The.Drunk-Koala
    @The.Drunk-Koala Рік тому +44

    Asks us a question, then he never answers it for us.

  • @cfopharma6595
    @cfopharma6595 Рік тому +57

    One and only Reason: The Jet engine looses it's power due the lack of oxygen.

    • @elpoiken
      @elpoiken Рік тому

      Wouldnt the human body be inflated when the airpressure goes to zero?

    • @tomaszwota1465
      @tomaszwota1465 Рік тому +3

      ​@@elpoiken 1. you're in a g-suit, it's already squeezing you.
      2. you breath, so you don't hold your breath from sea level to 130,000 feet...

  • @lbh2776
    @lbh2776 Рік тому +32

    JET AIRCRAFT
    The highest current world absolute general aviation altitude record for air breathing jet-propelled aircraft is 37,650 metres (123,520 ft) set by Aleksandr Vasilyevich Fedotov in a Mikoyan-Gurevich E-266M (MiG-25M) on August 31, 1977.

    • @OscarZheng50
      @OscarZheng50 Рік тому +1

      well thats for air breathing jet propelled aircraft, not specifically fighter jets

    • @drapdv
      @drapdv Рік тому +5

      @@OscarZheng50 what fighter jet isn’t air breathing?

    • @OscarZheng50
      @OscarZheng50 Рік тому +1

      @@drapdv all fighter jets are air breathing, hence the name "jet" :/ and I meant the guy means the record for the general aviation world. A fighter jet is a jet but a jet doesn't have to be a fighter jet, if that makes it easier

    • @drapdv
      @drapdv Рік тому +1

      @@OscarZheng50 ahh, see, he said, “current world absolute general aviation altitude record for air breathing jet-propelled aircraft,” and you said, “well thats for air breathing jet propelled aircraft, not specifically fighter jets.”
      I was confused, because he didn’t say it was specifically for fighter jets. Making a non-point looked fun, so I did it, too 👍🏻😘

    • @bryonslatten3147
      @bryonslatten3147 Рік тому

      @@drapdv the Germans had a little rocket powered fighter.

  • @preacherF-15
    @preacherF-15 Рік тому +3

    I took the F-15,C to 82,000 ft, and the record for the plane is about 105,000 feet. These are zoom climbs however, and do require partial or full pressure suits.

  • @CharlesHuse
    @CharlesHuse Рік тому +14

    Also, the less oxygen at higher altitude can create a flameout in the engines.

    • @15Hours_ago
      @15Hours_ago Рік тому

      Less oxygen molecules but it still contains the same amount of oxygen at all altitudes buddy

    • @Chiungalla79
      @Chiungalla79 Рік тому +3

      @@15Hours_ago
      What an incredible stupid comment.
      Less oxygen molecules but contains the same amount of oxygen? No!
      Less molecules of oxygen is the same as less oxygen. Period.

    • @213BRANDONP
      @213BRANDONP Рік тому +1

      ​@@15Hours_agowait what? I truly hope you was drunk when you wrote that.

    • @15Hours_ago
      @15Hours_ago Рік тому +1

      @@213BRANDONP I’m pasting this straight from google (The percentage of oxygen in the air is same at sea level as it is at high altitudes, which is around 21%. However, at high altitudes the pressure is lower and air is more spread out. This leads to less oxygen availability for the body in each breathe.) look it up I hope you were drunk when you wrote that.

  • @Matas226
    @Matas226 Рік тому +6

    F4 Phantom built in the late 50's made it to 98,000.

    • @karlchilders5420
      @karlchilders5420 Рік тому

      The phantom had unique issues the primary one being their engines would likely either flame out or light on fire at those altitudes. Also, with the pilots not having pressure suits, any problems and the pilot would be dead in short order.

  • @zimbolimbo2408
    @zimbolimbo2408 Рік тому

    Some of the best clips i've seen. Thankyou

  • @luckyjamesa.valencia7095
    @luckyjamesa.valencia7095 Рік тому +1

    Thanks for answering the question.

  • @grumpy3543
    @grumpy3543 Рік тому +10

    You forgot about the air breathing engines.

    • @nerdyali4154
      @nerdyali4154 Рік тому

      Jet engines are compression engines so they aren't limited by air density. The engine blades can spin faster at altitude.

  • @captainmisan259
    @captainmisan259 7 місяців тому

    Among all the American jets in the video, the flanker stands out. Such a marvel in aircraft. Flanker fans like

  • @Daft_Dhwelk
    @Daft_Dhwelk Рік тому +1

    Alveolar gas equation is a formula used to approximate the partial pressure of oxygen in the alveolus (PAO2).
    PAO2= (PB−PH2O)FiO2−(PaCO2÷R)
    where
    PB is the barometric pressure,
    PH2O is the water vapor pressure (usually 47mmHg for moist air but in our case 0, as the pilot would have to breathe dry O2),
    FiO2 = fractional concentration of oxygen inspired by the pilot. The max FiO2 is 1 but no one can breathe 100% oxygen, it would give the pilot a bad headache. For practical purpose, lets say the pilot breathes an FiO2 of 0.6.
    PaCO2 is the exhaled CO2 ~ 40 - 45 mmHg in healthy adults.
    R is the gas exchange ratio (0.8 for mixed diet consumers)
    PB = 82 mmHg at 50000 ft (from 760 mmHg at sea level)
    Solving the equation
    PAO2= (82-0)x 0.6 - (45÷0.8)
    = (82x 0.6)- 56
    = 49.2 -56
    = -6.8
    PAO2 cannot be -6.8, the pilot would be dead.
    So the only thing we can change in this equation is increasing the barometric pressure (PB), which is done by pressuring the O2 supplied and giving dry oxygen, so that the PH2O is near 0.
    The higher alveolar oxygen makes it easier for O2 to latch on to the hemoglobin in the RBC's.
    In reality, as the aircraft scales height, the barometric pressure keeps dropping, making it harder and harder for the pilot to breathe.... Thats why a pilots pulmonary fitness is of utmost importance.

  • @AndrewLofft
    @AndrewLofft Рік тому

    I could watch these beautiful works of art dance in the sky all day long and never get bored.

  • @NightxEdits
    @NightxEdits 21 день тому

    The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is an American carrier-capable supersonic, twin-engine, two-seat, twin-tail, all-weather-capable variable-sweep wing fighter aircraft. The Tomcat was developed for the United States Navy's Naval Fighter Experimental (VFX) program after the collapse of the General Dynamics-Grumman F-111B project. A large and well-equipped fighter, the F-14 was the first of the American Teen Series fighters, which were designed incorporating air combat experience against MiG fighters during the Vietnam War.
    The F-14 first flew on 21 December 1970 and made its first deployment in 1974 with the U.S. Navy aboard USS Enterprise (CVN-65), replacing the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. The F-14 served as the U.S. Navy's primary maritime air superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor, and tactical aerial reconnaissance platform into the 2000s. The Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) pod system was added in the 1990s and the Tomcat began performing precision ground-attack missions.[1] The Tomcat was retired by U.S. Navy on 22 September 2006, supplanted by the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Several retired F-14s have been put on display across the US.
    Having been exported to Pahlavi Iran under the Western-aligned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1976, F-14s were used as land-based interceptors by the Imperial Iranian Air Force. Following the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force used them during the Iran-Iraq War. Iran claimed their F-14s shot down at least 160 Iraqi aircraft during the war (only 55 of these confirmed, according to historian Tom Cooper),[2] while 16 Tomcats were lost, including seven losses to accidents.[2][3] As of 2024, the F-14 remains in service with Iran's air force, though in low numbers of combat-ready aircraft due to a lack of spare parts.
    Development
    Background
    The F-111B was designed to fulfill the carrier-based interceptor role, but had weight and performance problems, and was not suited to the types of aerial combat that were predominant over Vietnam.
    Beginning in the late 1950s, the U.S. Navy sought a long-range, high-endurance interceptor to defend its carrier battle groups against long-range anti-ship missiles launched from the jet bombers and submarines of the Soviet Union. They outlined the idea of a Fleet Air Defense (FAD) aircraft with a more powerful radar and longer range missiles than the F-4 Phantom II to intercept both enemy bombers and missiles at very long range.[4] Studies into this concept led to the Douglas F6D Missileer project of 1959, but this large subsonic aircraft would have limited ability to evade supersonic fighters or defend itself once it fired its missiles, and the project was cancelled in December 1961.[5]
    The Navy still sought long-range defensive aircraft, but with higher performance than the Missileer. The Navy was directed to participate in the Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) program with the U.S. Air Force (USAF) by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who favored versatile aircraft that could be shared by both services, reducing procurement and development costs. To this end, he had already directed the USAF to buy the F-4 Phantom II-which was developed for the Navy and could serve both as a fighter-bomber and an interceptor aircraft-instead of buying more F-105 Thunderchief and F-106 Delta Dart aircraft to fill each respective role.[6]
    The TFX had adequate speed, range and payload for the FAD role, but was designed primarily as a fighter-bomber and interdictor that lacked the maneuverability and overall performance that the Navy expected. The Navy strenuously opposed the TFX as it feared compromises necessary for the Air Force's need for a low-level attack aircraft would adversely impact the aircraft's performance as a fighter. Their concerns were overridden, and the project went ahead as the F-111B. Lacking recent experience in naval fighters, the F-111's main contractor, General Dynamics, partnered with Grumman to provide the experience needed to develop a naval version. Weight and performance issues plagued the program, and with the F-111B in distress, Grumman began studying improvements and alternatives. In 1966, the Navy awarded Grumman a contract to begin studying advanced fighter designs. Grumman narrowed down these designs to its 303 design.[7]
    The name "Tomcat" was partially chosen to pay tribute to Admiral Thomas F. Connolly, as the nickname "Tom's Cat" had already been widely used within the program during development to reflect Connolly's involvement, and now the moniker was adapted into an official name in line with the Grumman tradition of giving its fighter aircraft feline names. Changing it to Tomcat associated the aircraft with the previous Grumman aircraft Wildcat, Hellcat, Tigercat, and Bearcat propeller fighters along with the Panther, Cougar, and Tiger jet fighters. Other names considered were Alley Cat (considered inappropriate due to sexual connotations) and Seacat.[8][9]
    VFX
    Through this same period, experience in Vietnam against the more agile MiG fighters demonstrated that the Phantom lacked the maneuverability needed to win in any engagement. This led to the VFAX program to study new fighter aircraft that would either replace or supplant the Phantom in the fighter and ground-attack roles while the TFX worked the long-range interception role.[10] Grumman continued work on its 303 design and offered it to the Navy in 1967, which led to fighter studies by the Navy. The company continued to refine the design into 1968.[7]
    Around this time, Vice Admiral Thomas F. Connolly, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare, flew the developmental F-111A variant on a flight and discovered that it had difficulty going supersonic and had poor carrier landing characteristics. He later testified before Congress about his concerns against the official Navy position and, in May 1968, Congress stopped funding for the F-111B, allowing the Navy to pursue an answer tailored to its requirements.[11]
    Free to choose their solution to the FAD requirement, VFAX ended in favor of a new design that would combine the two roles. In July 1968, the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) issued a request for proposals (RFP) for the Naval Fighter Experimental (VFX) program. VFX called for a tandem two-seat, twin-engine air-to-air fighter with a maximum speed of Mach 2.2.[12] It would also have a built-in 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon and a secondary close air support role.[13] The VFX's air-to-air missiles would be either six AIM-54 Phoenix or a combination of six AIM-7 Sparrow and four AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. Bids were received from General Dynamics, Grumman, Ling-Temco-Vought, McDonnell Douglas, and North American Rockwell;[14] four bids incorporated variable-geometry wings.[13][N 1]
    Full-scale development
    Grumman's VFX entry was designed around the TF30 engine, AWG-9 radar and AIM-54 missile intended for the F-111B; this eventually became the F-14A.
    McDonnell Douglas and Grumman were selected as finalists in December 1968. Grumman's 303E design was selected for the contract award in January 1969.[15] The design reused the TF30 engines from the F-111B, though the Navy planned on replacing them with the Pratt & Whitney F401-400 engines under development for the Navy, along with the related Pratt & Whitney F100 for the USAF.[16] Though lighter than the F-111B, it was still the largest and heaviest U.S. fighter to fly from an aircraft carrier, a consequence of the requirement to carry the large AWG-9 radar and AIM-54 Phoenix missiles (from the F-111B) and an internal fuel load of 16,000 lb (7,300 kg). The design service life was 6,000 flight hours, although this was later extended to 7,200 hours.[17]
    Upon winning the contract for the F-14, Grumman greatly expanded its Calverton, Long Island, New York facility for evaluating the aircraft. Much of the testing, including the first of many compressor stalls and multiple ejections, took place over Long Island Sound. To save time and avoid cancellation by the new presidential administration, the Navy skipped the prototype phase and jumped directly to full-scale development; the Air Force took a similar approach with its McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle.[18] The F-14 first flew on 21 December 1970, just 22 months after Grumman was awarded the contract. The fighter reached initial operational capability (IOC) in 1973. The United States Marine Corps was initially interested in the F-14 as an F-4 Phantom II replacement, going so far as to send officers to Fighter Squadron One Twenty-Four (VF-124) to train as instructors. The Marine Corps pulled out of any procurement when the development of the stores' management system for ground attack munitions was not pursued. An air-to-ground capability was not developed until the 1990s.[18]
    Firing trials involved launches against simulated targets of various types, from cruise missiles to high-flying bombers. AIM-54 Phoenix missile testing from the F-14 began in April 1972. The longest single Phoenix launch was successful against a target at a range of 110 nmi (200 km) in April 1973. Another unusual test was made on 22 November 1973, when six missiles were fired within 38 seconds at Mach 0.78 and 24,800 ft (7,600 m); four scored direct hits, one broke the lock and missed, and one was declared "no test" after the radar signature augmentation in the target drone (which increased the apparent radar signature of the tiny drone to the size of a MiG-21) failed, causing the missile to break track. This gave a tested success rate of 80% since effectively only 5 missiles were tested. This was the most expensive single test of air-to-air missiles ever performed at that time.

  • @jamesfrost7465
    @jamesfrost7465 Рік тому +5

    WTF???? How about less oxygen for the F-ing engines to burn.

  • @larsnef8777
    @larsnef8777 Рік тому +1

    I NOW THIS !!!😂😂😂 BUT OTHER PEOPLE NOTHINK !!! GOOD MAKE FOR BEGINNERS !!! 😉😉😉

  • @alfredcadena3596
    @alfredcadena3596 Рік тому

    Facts‼️ Well Spoken 💥👍💥

  • @robertphillips6296
    @robertphillips6296 Рік тому +4

    Also Jet Engines need Oxygen for combustion of the Fuel for thrust.

  • @johnbuckner2200
    @johnbuckner2200 Рік тому +1

    Have you ever heard of the bens, that’s why SR71 pilots wear space suits, and the less dense air is like trying to make a watercraft fly in the air above the water. Not dense enough to support it. In that rarefied air is the realm of the hypersonic aircraft, where the compression of the air molecules is enough to create lift, and combustion better than at lower altitudes. The problem is that as the speed increases it creates heat trama and structural compression of the airframe beyond safe limits for piloted aircraft. That is why the SR71 is revolutionary, they created a hypersonic aircraft with slide rules and drafting paper!!! Simplified explanation but that is what it is.

  • @jedisdad2265
    @jedisdad2265 Рік тому +2

    A bigger issue is the engines can not produce enough power at altitude due to the combustion being oxygen starved.

  • @Reallyitsnotavailable
    @Reallyitsnotavailable Рік тому +4

    Actually it's the engine compression of air. It's too thin

  • @robertvanderlinden2813
    @robertvanderlinden2813 Рік тому +2

    Bro forgot that the engines need enough Air to keep working💀💀💀

  • @domination1985
    @domination1985 Рік тому +3

    The f15 has shot down a satellite

    • @BobbyB1776
      @BobbyB1776 Рік тому

      So a plane that May climb to 100000ft shot down a sat that is orbiting from 250miles to 3000 miles above earth? Traveling from 7000 to 17000 miles per hour. Which is faster than any known missile even as of now. In other words bs and propaganda at best. I’m sure the gov said it so it must be true right.

  • @nocalsteve
    @nocalsteve Рік тому

    Military aircraft have Liquid Oxygen Systems (LOX) and pressurized cockpits so that pilots have plenty of breathable air at high altitudes. The main thing that affects an aircraft’s service ceiling or absolute ceiling is the lower ambient air pressure causing engines to develop less power/thrust as they ascend.

  • @atillaozturk7075
    @atillaozturk7075 Рік тому +3

    Astronauts take over from there on😁👍

  • @jcmount1305
    @jcmount1305 Рік тому +1

    Crew oxygen is independent of outside air.
    Engine efficiency and lift are the limiting factor.

  • @abiidooabdo4220
    @abiidooabdo4220 Рік тому +10

    The mig 25 can reach 37 000 m

  • @LBCB94025
    @LBCB94025 Рік тому +1

    also don't forget about "coffin corner"
    which is a certain point in altitude where your speed has to just be increasing constantly to be able to even make it in that environment;
    but if you have something like a scramjet engine or an engine that's actually meant to go that fast;
    it won't be a problem;
    but flying something like the U2 which really has to be kind of high and it still kind of slow is has only a very narrow window of margin where the speed will either be so fast it will destroy the aircraft or too little speed will make the aircraft fall out of the sky!!!!
    so only certain jets can get to Or above 70,000'ft.!!

  • @o.v.freeman-ge2nc
    @o.v.freeman-ge2nc Рік тому

    It's real good that you'll put shorts out without having a clue in the world

  • @greggallego3111
    @greggallego3111 Рік тому +4

    Beside for defensive maneuver against incoming missile they go low close to the ground.

  • @Republican_Extremest
    @Republican_Extremest Рік тому

    Some Russian MiGs fly up to 100,000ft. Watched a video of this exact thing. They launch from a base in Siberia on a runway made of ice. There's video of it on UA-cam. They offer civilian flights, in which they have to test and pass physicals.. it was a good watch.

  • @Depressed_Ferrari_Fan_16
    @Depressed_Ferrari_Fan_16 Рік тому

    "It's over Anakin, i have the high ground!"
    -some random pilot that reached a higher altitude

  • @bryonslatten3147
    @bryonslatten3147 Рік тому

    USAF Major Robert W. Smith, flying F-104A 56-0756, set an unofficial world altitude record of 118,860 ft (36,230 m) on 15 November 1963, and on 6 December 1963 he flew the same aircraft to another unofficial altitude record of 120,800 ft (36,800 m).

  • @kbrich-nn8od
    @kbrich-nn8od Рік тому

    Never was a problem for Blackbird SR-71'/!!!

  • @roberthayes1996
    @roberthayes1996 Рік тому

    It’s usually limited by the engine as it provides for the environmental systems among others. Also the air is too thin for the wing and control surfaces to be effective. It is possible to zoom climb above max alt but will not have any aileron nor elevator control and then you don’t want the engine giving up as well.

  • @salmanazam9444
    @salmanazam9444 Рік тому +1

    I think the records are also different in case of zoom climbs and sustained flights on a certain high altitude.
    The engines also need dense enough oxygen not to flame out, so you would need onboard oxygen for combusting fuel up there as well. That is another reason.

  • @sixtofigueroa499
    @sixtofigueroa499 Рік тому

    Pilots usually can wear pressure suits and have breathing oxygen for such conditions, and someone already mentioned, it’s not a lack of oxygen, it’s a lack of pressure that makes it impossible to get oxygen into the lungs.

  • @kamimaza
    @kamimaza Рік тому

    Ultimately, it's not the lack of oxygen or lift, since any jet could be pressurized or make a parabolic flight, but rather that in insufficient air density the aircraft would become uncontrollable and potentially unrecoverable.

  • @davidwearmouth851
    @davidwearmouth851 Рік тому

    The English Electric Lightning was recorded as reaching 88,000 feet, and had to stop the climb because the pilot wasn't wearing a 'g' suit. This happened in 1984. Recorded fact.

  • @porscheguy09
    @porscheguy09 Рік тому +1

    Yeah I think it has more to do with the lack of oxygen at higher altitude which the engines need to operate. This is the main reason rockets don’t use traditional combustion engines that rely on the oxygen in the air to function properly.

    • @TheRealBaDaBingDK
      @TheRealBaDaBingDK Рік тому

      A rocket engine also needs oxygen to function.
      But the oxygen is simply just mixed into the fuel.

  • @papabear3488
    @papabear3488 Рік тому

    Thats why the guys that flew the SR71 were always wearing space suits

  • @jecaryouscalhoun3734
    @jecaryouscalhoun3734 Рік тому +1

    The lack of oxygen is okay because the pilot is going sonic Speed so he gets the oxygen level he or her needs

  • @bilalhijjawi8860
    @bilalhijjawi8860 Рік тому

    They can't get lift beyond max altitudes due to air density issues, but if they switch to rocket fuel they can continue to ascend (but fighter jets don't use rocket fuel). Pilots in fighter jets use liquid oxygen tanks or LOX, not bleed air from engines at high altitudes, so they can still breathe and perform.

  • @damiandelapp5490
    @damiandelapp5490 Рік тому

    During WW2 there were propeller driven aircraft that were amazing for altitude

  • @grrad76
    @grrad76 Рік тому +1

    Like they landed on moon 60 years ago but today in 2023 they can't find a jet goes too high

  • @draco1803
    @draco1803 Рік тому

    You can fly at high altitudes as long as you are going fast enough for enough airflow for the engines
    Its one reason why scramjet technology works more efficiently at super high altitudes

  • @mukulsolanki3300
    @mukulsolanki3300 11 місяців тому

    The Mig25 Foxbat was one of the few aircrafts across the globe that could reach 90000ft.

  • @jakelakota3010
    @jakelakota3010 Рік тому

    And here comes the SR-71 - hold my beer. I know it isn't a fighter

  • @mikesmith-wk7vy
    @mikesmith-wk7vy Рік тому

    An f16 pilot in an interview said he never would go above 60,000 because bailing out becomes more dangerous after that

  • @-db4rf
    @-db4rf Рік тому +1

    The foxbat went into mofo space what a badass..!! 💪🏾💪🏾

  • @jonp9654
    @jonp9654 Рік тому +1

    The title should be " the maximum altitude fighter jet PILOT can reach"

  • @selcuk32adana
    @selcuk32adana Рік тому +1

    russian pilot: hold my vodka

  • @Fox3media
    @Fox3media 16 днів тому

    Amazing

  • @Anonymous8317
    @Anonymous8317 Рік тому +1

    They can go higher. The highest they “possibly” can go is probably classified.

  • @cjroberts7022
    @cjroberts7022 8 місяців тому

    Pilot has onboard o2 and vest for lungs
    Flight systems would track and adjust ratio for fuel air hydrogen etc

  • @Griffin_7410
    @Griffin_7410 Рік тому +2

    Nf-104 is a modified f-104 that al most reached space as it had an extra solid rocket motor that propelled it when the engine died

    • @azurlaneayanami7447
      @azurlaneayanami7447 Рік тому

      The engine dont died they runned out of oxygen intake mean they cant burn fuel so they engine shut down if the jet goes down and enought oxygen goes in the engine the pilot can restart the engine

    • @Griffin_7410
      @Griffin_7410 Рік тому

      @@azurlaneayanami7447 say that again but in English please

  • @mariqkostova2498
    @mariqkostova2498 11 місяців тому

    Tanks to the show... Tu as fait ces trucs avec Cesna? Je pense que bcp de gens en ont vu, contempler plutôt... Ét météo est tellement risqué

    • @mariqkostova2498
      @mariqkostova2498 11 місяців тому

      media.tenor.com/plSuoKbxZs4AAAAM/happy-dance-novy-start.gif media.tenor.com/cS2O4bhrjLkAAAAM/happy-pleased.gif

  • @Sunnanandi
    @Sunnanandi Рік тому

    True but a fighter can fire its missiles higher than the airframe ceiling. Also,
    Ramjets are being designed that will allow fighters to fly higher.

  • @Mtlmshr
    @Mtlmshr Рік тому

    50-60k Ft? However atleast two aircraft that I know of went well above that on a regular basis, the U-2 & SR -71 oh and the A-12 and BTW all Kelly Johnson aircraft! That absolutely says something about the man and his men & women that worked along side him!

  • @georgehopkins6342
    @georgehopkins6342 Рік тому

    Anyone who has worked around Military jets know that Pilots have a self-contained oxygen systems. It’s the engines that determine the altitude.

  • @tud_zx12
    @tud_zx12 Рік тому

    Aaaand also the density the pressure and a lot of more things make it hard for the jet engines to work properly

  • @Sink_8
    @Sink_8 Рік тому

    jet really doing ballerina spins💀

  • @sherwinsalvatori6997
    @sherwinsalvatori6997 Рік тому

    Depending on the jets is true but the rest is Incorrect. Breathable air is from jet engine compressor . Jet engines go faster to compensate thin air , the thinner the wing the higher they fly.

  • @DraykoV01
    @DraykoV01 Рік тому +2

    In 1959, the F-4 flew above 98,000 feet

  • @raviation7
    @raviation7 11 місяців тому

    Great one

  • @ioanbota9397
    @ioanbota9397 Рік тому

    I like this powerful fighters jets

  • @jackrobinson8328
    @jackrobinson8328 Рік тому +2

    There was one that reached 90,000. The f4 phantom was the one I was thinking about, 90,000 ( + ).

  • @ronniecoleman2342
    @ronniecoleman2342 Рік тому

    I piloted an X-25 Starfighter to the moon and back. 7th generation earth defender

  • @zarstar1576
    @zarstar1576 10 місяців тому

    thx

  • @al-xo2cy
    @al-xo2cy Рік тому

    and the engine goes « nope can’t breath here ill stop working »

  • @isaacsilvas2285
    @isaacsilvas2285 4 місяці тому

    That one f104 that flew up too 100k feet 🗿
    That one mi25 that flew too 120k feet 🗿
    That one sr71 that flew too 85k 🗿

  • @ggj666
    @ggj666 Рік тому

    "The maximum altitude depends on the type of aircraft" well thank you for stating the obvious.

  • @noobtuber103
    @noobtuber103 Рік тому +2

    Yea it has nothing to do with onboard oxygen systems it's cuz the engine(s) can't create combustion and maneuverability suffers from the air being thinner

    • @Woody-nc1ru
      @Woody-nc1ru Рік тому +1

      Thank you. The creator of this video just making up stuff??

    • @noobtuber103
      @noobtuber103 Рік тому

      @@Woody-nc1ru yes

  • @CRyan-Waltham75
    @CRyan-Waltham75 11 місяців тому

    Pretty sure it was Neil Armstrong that accidentally crossed over the Carmen line and wound up in space while flying the x-15…

  • @brucermarino
    @brucermarino Рік тому

    Correct facts would help...
    It's the availability of air for the engines that's critical.

  • @damiangrouse4564
    @damiangrouse4564 Рік тому

    Jet fighters have their own oxygen supply..the main issue is that the pilots don’t wear pressure suits. SR-71 pilots wore pressure suits and were rated astronauts. The f-22 is rated at 65k ceiling…but they’re not going to tell us the truth…and that jet is not for sale to any other country for a reason.

  • @Titancam_13
    @Titancam_13 7 місяців тому

    f-15: uhm i have some history

  • @semkali9028
    @semkali9028 19 днів тому

    Mig31 is record holder of all time 🇷🇺💪🏻💪🏻

  • @PuwaneshwariPuwaneshwari-dw2kj
    @PuwaneshwariPuwaneshwari-dw2kj 11 місяців тому +1

    ❤❤❤❤...

  • @johndaroza2987
    @johndaroza2987 Рік тому

    It is more than what your saying.

  • @warpdriveby
    @warpdriveby Рік тому

    Fighters ceiling without a pressure suit is 60k. The A-12 for example could fly above 80k ft because of its engine design and a pressure suited pilot(s). Also, there isnt "less" oxygen in the air, there are less oxygen molecules per unit volume.

  • @Del80VR
    @Del80VR Рік тому

    “How high to fighter aircraft fly?”
    No very f**king high

  • @WestryBlack
    @WestryBlack 5 місяців тому

    "What's the maximum altitude a fighter jet can reach?"
    Me: F15

  • @patrickvanrinsvelt4466
    @patrickvanrinsvelt4466 Рік тому

    No O2 for the engines. It's why rockets still have to bring oxiders along.

  • @mikenumbs4023
    @mikenumbs4023 Рік тому

    Sounds like a one time record setting flight by the MiG. The Air Force had an operational Yf12 fighter that had just little better performance then the SR. Equipped with aim47 range 45 miles. Operational between 75000 and 95000 ft. Yes operational. Not just to set records.

  • @froggydude1549
    @froggydude1549 Рік тому

    If you tied a Cessna to a balloon in such a way that would allow you to have the throttle wide open and you wore a space suit here is what will happen. You’d have to adjust the fuel/air mixture to a leaner setting to keep the gas/air mixture proportional. As a result your rpms will gradually drop. Eventually there wouldn’t be even enough breathable air to keep the engine turning and it would idle on the edge of a stall until finally the propeller stops entirely. You could release the plane and as you get down to denser air you could then finally start the engine again and land the aircraft safely with full power again.

  • @freedomstar3814
    @freedomstar3814 Рік тому +1

    I just drank a RedBull and it propelled me to 150k ft.

  • @badkittynomilktonight3334
    @badkittynomilktonight3334 Рік тому

    The NF104 reached 120,000 feet with a rocket booster. This was the plane that almost killed Chuck Yeager

  • @MikeMcCann-zq7zg
    @MikeMcCann-zq7zg Рік тому

    I want to remind everyone, sept 13th 1985 US sent F-15 over 300 miles from the earth’s surface and fired a missile to shoot down a satellite that was falling out of orbit. 123,500 ft ain’t shit!

  • @rizvisherif9040
    @rizvisherif9040 10 місяців тому

    these are like sharks in the sea while passenger planes are like whales

  • @GuyJustCool
    @GuyJustCool Рік тому

    Ok let’s sum it up:
    Pilot has… enough… oxygen. It would take multitudes of fuel tanks to exhaust main oxygen supply, and then chemical oxygen systems kick in.
    The reason is reduction of air density.
    Less air there is for wing to cling on, the faster the plane has to go to not lose altitude(in simple terms, it’s a bit more complicated). And the faster the plane needs to go, the more thrust it needs.
    Engines produce thrust by burning fuel. Burning fuel = combining it with oxygen, compressed by the turbine. The less compression, the less thrust, less oxygen - less thrust too. And higher we go the less dense the air is= less compressed it is, and less oxygen it has. Means major reduction in thrust.
    We are talking dropping down to 20-40% of surface level thrust.
    And now, let’s remember that we need to go Faster then we were at surface level in order for wings to cling to air.
    So at about 30000-40000 ft plane rapidly loses thrust, maneuverability and minimal Angle of attack(angle at which oncoming air meets the wing). And the higher AoA has to be the more plane is slowed down by drag = needs to go faster, but it can’t because it’s flying at 40% thrust.
    So yeah. 30-40k ft is the ceiling for most modern aircraft, gen 4/5.
    We will not touch planes designed for hypersonic flight tho, it’s whole other deal.
    Also, at high altitudes missiles have insane advantage, since they use engines that rely on internal oxidant and are very streamlined = not draggy.
    High altitude has 4 advantages.
    Insane fuel economy
    A lot of potential energy in case of engagement
    Increased missile range(higher you launch the missile, the farther it can go)
    And good radar coverage, since you can look down into terrain like mountain ranges and detect low-flying targets that may be trying to sneak up on you.
    Like Russian gen-4 fighers for example, they rely on their ability to come in knife(dog) fight distance and launch missiles undetected against their superior sensor American counterparts.
    Truth is, Russians are unbeatable if they get close.
    But IF here is very big.

    • @karlchilders5420
      @karlchilders5420 Рік тому

      You're insane if you think Russian planes can out-fight American planes. If you REALLY think that you don't know WTF you are talking about, and that's coming from a Hornet pilot that has FLOWN against MiG-29s in Europe.

  • @viesquespron3080
    @viesquespron3080 Рік тому

    The main problem is for engines.
    The Mig 25 in parabolic trayectory with engines off and no control in control surfaces due low density and final speed could pass 30km but can't fly at that level

  • @Lennex_
    @Lennex_ Рік тому

    If you would take the SR71 Blackbird in, it can fly 28km or about 92 thousand feet in altitude