1950s INSANE VTOL Jet Fighter - Lockheed CL-346

Discord: / discord
This lockheed concept jet can not only fly at Mach 2.2, but land vertically using 1950s engine technology. It would have been able to fly longer ranges, intercept enemy bombers and even deliver an atomic payload.
But it never made it off the drawing board and was considered too advanced for its time,
This is the story of the never-built, mysterious, CL-346.
One of the challenges that air forces around the globe faced during world war two, was that there needed to be an airstrip long enough to launch aircraft and close enough to enemy targets. Capturing islands was a priority, as they could hold as many aircraft as needed, or act as refueling stops from the mainland. But some places in the world there was no land to build long runways. Thus in turn the military built aircraft carriers that could at launch aircraft at sea - but there were limitations to aircraft design. the solution?
A vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft is one that can hover, take off, and land vertically. Generally speaking, VTOL aircraft capable of rolling takeoffs like normal planes, use it wherever possible, since it typically significantly increases takeoff weight, range or payload compared to pure VTOL.
There are several advantages to using VTOL. One being space for takeoffs. The US navy was particularly interested in aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing aboard platforms mounted on the afterdecks of conventional ships. These planes would also be stationed at military bases that didn't have runways, or be located on city rooftops themselves.
The military of the 1950s was very keen to exploit these advantages, coming up with a program to develop the next generation VTOL fighter.
The jet would need to vertical take off and land at 2000 feet above sea level, at exactly 90 degrees
Delivery nuclear weapons of at least 1000 pounds, visually dropping it like a bomber.
Or alternatively, load four sidewinder missiles for anti-bomber duties
Fly at least over mach 1 at sea level, and over mach 2 at 35,000 feet.
Fly to a top altitude of 60,000 feet
And capable of supersonic flight at high altitude, and subsonic slow flight under 300 feet. Obviously, considering the last two specifications this would be a given but its interesting that the air force took the time to list it.
Have a range to fly 2132 nautical miles, 3948 kilometers, and then return to base. Or be able to fly at least 3600 nautical miles, 6667 km, fully loaded with no return.
This jet, called the CL-346.
It was a high wing monoplane with a low-horizontal tail service. It would have two General Electric J79-X207 engines mounted in its wingtip nacelles. The engines would have allowed normal supersonic flight, which i'll get to in a minute, but be able to rotate to allow vertical landing.
Engineers estimated that this rotation from vertical to horizontal flight would have taken around 30 seconds, allowing for the plane to rapidly responcd to nearby threats, or critical missions. The cockpit was also designed to slop slightly downward to give it good lines of sight for landing approaches.
At sea level, the C-346 would have had a top speed of Mach 1, or 1225.04 kph, and then a very fast Mach 2.2, 2450.09 kph, at 35,000 feet. It could also exceed the goal of a high altitude performace of 60,000 by an extra 5000 feet, to a total of 65,000 or 19.8 km above sea level.
The Lockheed VTOL creation also had an impressive combat performance, able to climb as quickly at 55,000 feet per minute, or 16 kilometers, to a range of 600 nautical miles. When not in combat, the planes fuel tanks allowed it to cruise to 3600 nautical miles, or 6667 kilometers, right on the target for the study.
When on the gorund, it didn't actually move on its own power but actually had a small triangle ground handling cart to move it from the hanger to the take off pad. This was seen as a fair comprimise as technically at any point the plane could just take off anyway, so why have the weight to drive it forward.
But the engineers at Lockheed were not done yet, and would actually go on to create several more varients of this VTOL plane, in an effort to improve on their concept
So why was the CL-346 or any of its brothers or sisters, never built?
The study concluded that it would indeed be possible to build this aircraft, and the ARDC passed on its findings to the air force. Today we know that the Air Force, and Navy, were working with several other candidates to produce a vertical take off aircraft like Bell, who was working on the Bell D-188A.
VTOL fighter designs would bounce around, with the german EWR VJ 101 getting really close in the 1960s with a prototype built, then the Mirage 8 and the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 which would finally result in the Harrier Jump Jet we know today. The only modern aircraft of equivalence is the Lockheed Martin F-35, which I guess we could say can trace its roots back to its grandfather, the humble CL-346.

[@kolinmartz]

This channel really reminds me of another one of my favorite channels. Mustard.

[@midgetman4206]

I'm pretty sure that's the... the what? not standard, more like a goal. Got the word?

[@fridaycaliforniaa236]

I said exactly this a few videos before lol It's a really nice channel =)

[@dawsonreum8096]

Except he uploads way more often.

[@vieuxbal1253]

I was about to make the very same comment.

[@UncleManuel]

EWR VJ-101 was the first thing that came to my mind. German aviation industry had some awesome prototypes back then. Let's not forget the ambitious Dornier Do-31... 😉

[@geoffreyherrick298]

Also the SO.9000 Trident.

[@Packless1]

...the VJ-101 was the first supesonic VTOL-plane...!

[@sinansarikaya3662]

Highly underrated project is the Bartini A-57 imo

[@baikal627]

Frank whittle invented the first working turbo jet engine and emigrated to the us after the war !!

[@diegoviniciomejiaquesada4754]

V-22 Osprey "What it could have been".

[@riliryrimaddyvia9630]

It's really incredible how people actually are able to preserve blueprints of such forgotten projects

[@FoundAndExplained]

He did such a good job

[@scottlowther9967]

@@FoundAndExplained Sadly, Bill Slayton died going on 20 years ago. He had compiled a pretty *vast* collection of stuff from Lockheed and wanted to publish a book, but it never happened.

[@jwadaow]

Is your name Cornish?

[@janemf]

Today we are frequently explicitly forbidden from keeping these documents.

[@badlandskid]

Idk... when I sold my house and moved, I still had blueprints from buildings I had built 25 years ago. 😬

[@jankeck8749]

In the beginning you mention that the reason for 1950's VTOL aircraft developments was mainly the "shortage of suitable airport sites", and the need for "long enough runways". You fail to mention that after WW2 with cold war nuclear doctrines, airstrips were considered one of the first targets for a nuclear first strike, in order to prevent a retaliation strike or to prevent intercepting. Thats the main reason for these developments: the vulnerability of airstrips, not the lack thereof. That called for a more decentralized interceptor fleet scattered around the countryside in hidden locations. Check out the starfighter zero lenght launch system, that was a similar project altough utilizing an already existing aircraft.

[@riliryrimaddyvia9630]

Maybe you should do a video on the forgotten YF 23?

[@skenzyme81]

Forgotten by most. Beloved by the rest.

[@captaron]

Here we go… it’s certainly not forgotten I see people talking about it a lot…

[@matchrocket1702]

Well done. Thank you for bringing this forgotten project back to life with those wonderful graphics. When I was young back in the early 1960s I lived on Long Island NY. As you might know Grumman and Fairchild aircraft manufacturers were located there back then. A few houses down the street from me a family from Britain moved in. Soon after that another British family moved in nearby. Later in life I wondered if their fathers had been brought over to work on VTOL aircraft as the British were the leaders in that kind of research at the time.

[@SkyWKing]

"It's too advanced for its time" is another way of saying "engines of this era suck". These designs are cool but impractical. The engineers were given the impossible job of designing aircraft with extreme specifications but limited to use bad engines. It's just simple physics. VTOL is just converting the chemical energy from fuel into the gravitational potential energy of the aircraft. You need a very efficient and lightweight engine to do that. The engines of that era simply don't have the efficiency and thrust-to-weight ratio to make practical VTOL aircraft with meaningful payload and range.

[@Wall_T3mbok4556]

I have missed the premier, gonna blame my phone for not vibrating of youtube notifications

[@Dumbrarere]

There is one bit of information you missed in this video. The Yak-141 is not the first Soviet VTOL fighter to be produced (though it is the first to be designed with an afterburning turbojet engine). In fact, the Soviets had an operational VTOL to compete with the Harrier, the Yak-38. Fun fact, though: much of the Yak-141's schematics (and allegedly even some of its designers and engineers) would migrate to the US under Lockheed Martin, and would be influential in the creation of the F-35B. We see physical evidence of this in both the central lift fan and the thrust-vectoring nozzle that are responsible for its VTOL capability.

[@Persian-Immortal]

Agreed. The F35's grandfather is the Yak 141. Lockheed Martin had paid for the design from Yak.

[@BrapBrapDorito]

The F35 being a “copy” or “based on” the Yak-141, while in theory seeming plausible is in reality a myth. Many of the similarities between the 141 and F35 come down to the fact it is a VTOL aircraft, and any practical VTOL platform will follow specific design conventions. While funds were exchanged between Lockheed and Yakolev, this was done as a sort of way of “raising an olive branch” to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in hopes of strengthening international relations, and mostly not as a technology acquisition. Not to mention, the only true similarity between the F35 and Yak 141 is the nozzle at the rear. Everything else is different, including the front engines as the F35 uses a clutch driven ducted fan, and the 141 uses multiple separate Lift Jets. As an example of these same design conventions creating similar aircraft, look at almost any proposed Gen 4+++ or 5 stealth fighter, most will share many design conventions with the F35 and F22. Does this mean they are copying the designs? No. But it does mean the design convention makes enough sense to not invent a new system.

[@BrapBrapDorito]

@@Persian-Immortal Copying this reply so you are notified as well. The F35 being a “copy” or “based on” the Yak-141, while in theory seeming plausible is in reality a myth. Many of the similarities between the 141 and F35 come down to the fact it is a VTOL aircraft, and any practical VTOL platform will follow specific design conventions. While funds were exchanged between Lockheed and Yakolev, this was done as a sort of way of “raising an olive branch” to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in hopes of strengthening international relations, and mostly not as a technology acquisition. Not to mention, the only true similarity between the F35 and Yak 141 is the nozzle at the rear. Everything else is different, including the front engines as the F35 uses a clutch driven ducted fan, and the 141 uses multiple separate Lift Jets. As an example of these same design conventions creating similar aircraft, look at almost any proposed Gen 4+++ or 5 stealth fighter, most will share many design conventions with the F35 and F22. Does this mean they are copying the designs? No. But it does mean the design convention makes enough sense to not invent a new system.

[@Persian-Immortal]

@@BrapBrapDorito thanks buddy!

[@BrapBrapDorito]

@@Persian-Immortal You’re welcome. I don’t blame you for thinking that the F35 is based on the YAK. Afterall, It is still very interesting to draw similarities between the YAK 141 and more modern VTOL platforms, especially seeing how advanced the 141 was for it’s day.

[@cesarojeda4934]

Great vídeo, as always!!! Lockheed actually bought the design patents of the Yak 141 after the Soviet Union fall in the early 90' and then design the F35!!!!

[@andrewmoore7022]

They bought the test data to improve their designs with not the design itself.

[@cesarojeda4934]

@@andrewmoore7022 They bought the designs of the plane and the take off sistem, that's what I read, but I wasn't there! So...

[@andreiker7812]

@@andrewmoore7022 разве дизайн это главное!?

[@AubriGryphon]

Point 6 was probably specified to avoid any suggestions that technically met the launch and landing requirements but otherwise couldn't hover, like launching with an expendable booster and landing under a parachute.

[@mattiavenator9931]

Good video Can you talk about the fiat g-95, a never built Italian VTOL fighter, if you want It?

[@andrewlawrence2272]

Great video on a military what if. However, I agree that Yak-38 should have been mentioned.

[@vincentgoudreault9662]

There is a reason that they only *jet* VTOL ever actually produced and deployed were single engine aircraft: it is almost impossible to even out the thrust of turbojet engines at all times, meaning that if multiple lifting engines are not on the center-line, the slightest variation in thrust from one side while hovering will flip the airplane and crash it. It is either a single engine, or a whole lot so that variations sort of even out one another. And engine controls really required the kind of computing power that has only comparatively recently (i.e. NOT in the 1950's) been available. Had it been made, the CL-346 would have crashed.

[@gabrielb9010]

VTOL jets are going to be the future of aviation if this was built then there would have been a passenger version

[@raycarolewallace466]

VTOL jets , otherwise known as "helicopters"

[@omnianti0]

sry but actually its the past since harrier is retired and x35 not worth more than yak141

[@nasaritechnicalsupport257]

Dude, the design of this jet was in my mind for a year Look, it didn't even cross my mind and it was designed in the market You guys won't believe it. I've been thinking about this design for a year now That it has two prop two engines to control the plane to prevent it from spinning round and round

[@raycarolewallace466]

At Moffitt Field near San Jose, Calif., in 1954 or '55, the "XVF-1" sat on it's tail out on the ramp in front of one of the blimp hangars. The noise of the twin opposite rotating props and the jet was astounding/painful. It only went up a few feet, up & down. I believe he TEST PILOT carried his "nads" in bowling ball bags.

[@shainemaine1268]

Twin J79s on a Starfire body would've been absolutely ridiculous!! I can't even imagine the performance... mach 2.2 honestly seems a little modest for this thing. I guess if you ever lost an engine while in vertical lift you'd be absolutely screwed though

[@LeBator]

Great video. Brilliant animation. 👍

[@michaelmckinnon7314]

The problem with nuclear assisted propulsion is that it has radioactive exhaust which is great for spacecraft, but not so good for operating near civilization which could possibly present a problem to people breathing the irradiated oxygen. The radioactive exhaust was discovered with the NB-36H using electric motors and smoke generators powered by the nuclear reactor being hauled aloft with the fuel lines being replaced by wires and connected to the aircraft's electric lines. The CL-346 sounds like a Canadair design and uses their company abbreviation for some reason.

[@pawedabek1445]

This Just looks like something I wolud bulid in ksp. Good video.

[@360contentscreators3]

Here are contents creators were proudly preserved humanity history even just only able create such a scracth or blue print. Here was proving how far we as humans will use our imagination to makes our lives so easy by adopting technology..

[@Sirikazy]

1- Yak-38 2-F-35 roots are from Yak-141

[@waldemarlubieniecki3763]

great idea, good job

[@binaway]

You can see where Germany's EWR got the idea for it's VJ 101. The Soviet Navy did put the flawed YAK38 into service.

[@marzolian]

Thanks for the video! Great concept, well explained. But a few annoyances. Too many times, you refer to the plane as if it had been built. "… its performance on take is rather incredible", "… had an impressive combat performance". Also, a slight overuse of the word "actually". Still, please keep it up. Thanks again.

[@Sig357mag]

Heinkel VJ 101 , Send Beautiful Greetings

[@forgenemours8110]

I'm feel this new aircraft video

[@napeekapunpimtongnara9111]

New idea wow

[@j.2.179]

Awesam

[@Ushio01]

The F-35B looks at those 1950's era specs and goes nope can't do any of that.

[@m.r.furianii3920]

Ha ha! Humanity is much better because of heroes in the background doing the little things, the valuable things. Bill Slayton, sir, thank you very much.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff

[@ethansiew61]

5:30 "we have the Alicorn at home."

[@whereswaldo5740]

That’s some Jonny Quest stuff right there.

[@thedarkknight1971]

IF Lockheed were successful in their endeavors at the time... Maybe Our (I'm from the UK) Harrier Jump Jet wouldn't have become the iconic and useful plane that it did... 🤔🤔🤔

[@schore69]

0:20 hmmm... why is there AV8 strapped under that contraption ??

[@thanhthe1311]

Very good

[@JustJohn505]

Mustard has competition, best of all? No curiosity stream!

[@stanleydavidson6543]

There are starship enterprise type blueprints too

[@ianandjohnandmaniandreni9323]

That front end looks familiar. A-12 and SR 71 precursor?

[@deanwcampbell]

@7:27 "55 thousand feet per minute". I think you intended to say 55 hundred feet per minute.

[@2018paulrobbinx]

That thing would be wild if you lost an engine. Dutch roll would be out of this world too without proper damping.

[@stevemickler452]

VTOL work in this time seems completely unnecessary since there was already a system that used a rocket to launch a fighter off of a trailer that I think was called the zero length launch system. It worked every time.

[@PugilistCactus]

That was rarely used. RATO or Rocket assisted take off was the preferred method as it was easy to swap out and maintain and didn't really require any special equipment.

[@startingbark0356]

Do Fokker/republic D.24 please, its a really nice looking aircraft

[@keithpennock]

What programs do you make you computer animations in? Do you make them yourself or do you outsource/subcontract their creation?

[@FoundAndExplained]

I do them in Blender!

[@scottmcintosh4397]

The Snecma-designed C-450 Coleoptere, manufactured by Nord Aviation 🛩️ 🌌🔭

[@ZucchiniSlayer]

Lockheed really is the coked-out eccentric of aircraft companies. It may not be on time, or on budget, or completely legit, but by damn will it be interesting and push the envelope.

[@killingfields1424]

JSF real grand father is the Yak-141

[@EmbeddedWithin]

Yak38*

[@leeprice2849]

Looks like something from the Thunderbirds TV show. Thunderbirds are Go!

[@thetreblerebel]

With the j79 going to be used I don't see any Wing mounted fuel tanks because this thing hovering and flying supersonic is going to drink more gas than a fleet of f4 phantoms

[@fakshen1973]

The f35 has stronger ties to the Yak...

[@marcobsdc1697]

I wish you could turn the Lockheed CL-346 into an airliner.

[@XLA-zg1nn]

meanwhile in Soviet Russia they still work on VTOL

[@koongdidam]

I think it's Mile, not NM. Please check.

[@jhill4874]

Looks like the Bell D-188A the German EWR VJ 101.

[@TheRedneckRoman16]

Where's a video on the German VJ 101?

[@NebosvodGonzalez]

Looks like a 1970s Plane. Crazy Bonker Cylinder m

[@beauxguidry5373]

I have a problem with this. I have to ask if the pivot points where the engines connect could take the stress loads or if they would self destruct dur to structural problem? It seems to me that this would be similar to the wear that Front-Wheel-Drive vehicles put stress on their front ends as compared to Rear-Wheel-Drive vehicles that have the stress on them equalized of the whole length of the vehicle, as opposed to the fact that Front-Wheel-Drive vehicles have structural flaw that is increaased by the stress that is on the front of it only.

[@Mr.kashokoy]

SSi, Ang Ganda Po ng eroplano mo parang Robot.. Sllien kanalaga,he here...

[@jimmyjohn9821]

You should make a video game so you could fly all of the never built aircraft

[@metatechnologist]

I don't see this technology as practical without the arrival of microprocessor technology in the 70s. There's just too much going on with vtol and probably the primary reason for it's lack of adoption. The Osprey had countless development problems and it doesn't use jets either.

[@BloPsy__]

The grandfather of the F-35's VTOL capabilities is actually the Russian Yak-141.

[@GamingWorld-mx9xh]

Mujy itna to pata ha k hm fighter jet ko zameen se thora sa oper rok sakty hain. Is it possible k jet ko hydraulic spider drone jesa banaya jae, landing k liye kisi bhi jaga us jet ki hydraulic legs open kr k us jet ka engine band kr diya jae. Aur phir hydraulic k through us jet ko landing gears pr khara kr k hydraulic legs band kr di jae. Same for take off like land to land missiles

[@bob19611000]

"too advanced" = "couldn't be built as hyped"

[@polygorg]

considering the straightness of the wings this probably would have had problems with control

[@babyaugustine6004]

world's VTOL jet lift transport built - Dornier Do 31. world's VTOL jet lift airliner never built- Dornier do 231. please check that out and make video about.

[@bartskinthepro3138]

W h o a a vtol wich is a rare topic

[@topazprism77]

Damn, it could fly at 2450 kilometers per hour per hour! (the '/' means 'per')

[@PS3TEKKENLORD]

0:25 considered to advanced for its TIME I HAVE NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE, I HAVE DEFINITELY HEARD THE EXCUSE WELL ITS TO EXPENSIVE OR WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RAW MATERIALS TO MANUFACTURE MULTIPLE FIGHTERS. ITS TOO ADVANCED FOR ITS TIME JUST GO'S WAY OVER MY HEAD I GUESS, CAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THE WHOLE POINT TO BUILDING AN ADVANCED FIGHTER WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS WAY MORE ADVANCED THAN ANYTHING THAT YOUR ENEMIES HAD IN-FACT ITS SO ADVANCED THAT YOUR ALLIES COULD NEVER HAVE DEVELOPED A FIGHTER OF THIS CALIBUR AND THE ONLY WAY FOR THEM TO USE THIS NEW FIGHTER IS THEY WILL HAVE TO PURCHASE THEM FROM US. F&E IF YOU READ THIS COMMENT PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW "TO ADVANCED" WOULD BE A DETRIMENT TO THE FIGHTER

[@lightcrimson8030]

No the grand father of the f-35 is the yak-141 and other than that it's a nice video

[@TRINITY-ks6nw]

I wonder if this was part of the inspiration of the Firefly tv series

[@davidgrover5996]

It looks like the EWR VJ 101.

[@laszlohrabovszky2489]

How does this have 1 million views, but only 6.6k likes and 430 comments?

[@DamplyDoo]

How would it have controlled all the axis with the engines in vtol mode? There's only 2 engines with a 2d vector of maneuverability

[@cranklabexplosion-labcentr8245]

KZbin “historians” be like 3:08 he’s talking about hover airplane but that’s CLEARLY a WWII aircraft brrrr”

[@JohnJohansen2]

Around 3:12 it get serious. Sort of. Although a great video!

[@hadleymanmusic]

The estes mars lander. Was it trw? Or boeing?

[@spittyboii]

Anyone else notice that the "atomic payload" in the intro was just a harrier with its wings on upside down? Edit: not a dig at anything, I just thought it was funny

[@DarrellLarose]

I am skeptical of the claimed range.

[@Moongoldnxay]

British harrier jet has been around for years

[@devondetroit2529]

That shit is awesome

[@anzaca1]

Little criticism: it's not "km/ph". It's either "km/h" or "kph".

[@EmbeddedWithin]

It’s not criticism, it’s just a small little correction.

[@putraadam7996]

Tell us about the rocket powered hercules

[@pancake4061]

I didn't know the Harrier was a nuclear payload.

[@rajkamalpresentations8543]

hey can u explain the all the micro planes that were made like the XF85 goblin btw XV4 looks like the yak38

[@wescarr1526]

Will there be one for the Convair 49 AAFSS?

[@seansverige]

So according to you the shortage of airstrips suitable for bombers within range in WWII meant "...thus, in turn, the military built aircraft carriers..." *_UTTER_** drivel* and demonstrably untrue - and if that's in the first 90sec what credence should I give anything following? And WTF is going on with the conjoined Harrier @11:00? Not impressed

[@Rykeroli]

so hear me out, if this was being made in the 50's. what are we making behind the scenes today??

[@masharinarusakova9357]

Next video: Airbus A380 freighter

[@711jastin]

is it doable? most probably. is it practical? most certainly not. is it cool? hell yeah. should we do it? fuck yeah.

[@spacesergeant101]

Wouldn't this have absolutely destroyed the landing/take off surface?

[@RandomnessCreates]

I'd say the 35B has stronger Russian blood in it rather CL-346 blood.

[@atilllathehun1212]

Cool project though I'd hate to be in it if an engine failed on (vtol) take off.

[@aaronatherton7431]

Did someone in LA find blueprints and make himself a jet pack?

[@mountainmantv4713]

I think the closest to this is the v22 osprey

[@allenwarburton8627]

Petition to have Found and Explain work with Mustard

[@alessiodecarolis]

On paper a lot of projects seems cool, then starts the problem(s) as you try to make THEM

[@JREVY22DECEPTICON416]

That's what I fly on halo 😇😎

[@fanstfs7661]

Now is 21st century..so build it