Turning a B52 into a "spaceship" - Conroy Virtus

[@IsaacSmokingThatZa]

Plane engineers are either genius or high; and there's no inbetween

[@georgehilario3544]

It's normal to have high intelligence while living soberly life. High lifestyle actually brings in poverty and low education 💀

[@ericnadeau4767]

Or the average ones make for boring videos?

[@MrSupercar55]

I thought the in-between was them being both genius and high.

[@PrinceAlhorian]

LSD is an epic inspiration.

[@mugiwaradarwin4504]

Pun intended?

[@Glascar13]

I could be wrong but (1:20) isn't that a Buran and not a Space Shuttle?

[@Hurkas]

It is. Its the Buran.

[@AcroAirwolf]

Yes, thats the Buran. And a L-39 is passing.

[@digitalnomad9985]

And the Buran is a Space Shuttle with jet engines.

[@BobAbc0815]

I guess the flying Submarine would be the dream Vessel for the Bolivian Navy.

[@BillLaBrie]

Maybe the basis of a Bolivian-Paraguayan-Mongolian axis?

[@BobAbc0815]

@BillLaBrie dont forgett Lichtenstein

[@danielescobar7618]

We wuz flying submarines n shiet

[@bostonrailfan2427]

@@BobAbc0815the most dangerous of them all!

[@WindyHeavy]

seeing the shuttle ignite its engines without the external fuel tank is so cursed.

[@randycampbell6307]

Error right up front, could carry the Shuttle but can't launch it since it can't use the main engines without an external tank attached. (We'll give the "can't light the main engines off the ground" a pass) By "launch" they meant let it drop for the "Approach and Landing" tests, not space launch :) It's Point Ma-Goo :)

[@danielescobar7618]

The fuel is in the cargo hold now.

[@marlaqfromyearone6951]

Not to mention the many extra thrusters on the main booster/fuel tank that are needed to have enough thrust to reach space.

[@jooei2810]

Shuttle actually does not land under its own power because it is a glider.

[@ImpendingJoker]

This is only partly correct. It is a lifting body by design and it does land without power, however it is not a glider it is a rocket powered aerospace plane.

[@jooei2810]

@ Ackchyually… 👍

[@meritwolf219]

:( You deserve better than being bashed, but the Space Shuttle Orbiter does NOT 'land under its own power'. There's just no defending that statement, for the Shuttle has no atmospheric-thrust capability. It has rockets that last ~10 minutes (the SRBs only 2, IIRC), and when it comes back, it is completely at the mercy of gravity and Newton.

[@Coyote27981]

​@@ayc789gaming6you may be language challenged, but thats not what landing under power means. So don't go around correcting people when you don't even know what it means. The Shuttle glides during landing, its powerless. It does't matter how you got up in the first place. Under power means you can add energy during landing if required, and there is no such option.

[@jamieknight326]

100% this. It’s not a defendable statement. ‘Landing under power’ is a well defined phrase in aviation and the shuttle was purely a glider.

[@flickingbollocks5542]

Is there a rule that the Shuttle must be the same as the original. Or can they add thrust?

[@meritwolf219]

@@flickingbollocks5542 A, the laws of physics have a little something to say about that. If you want to add rocket time ... the Orbiter (the spaceplane part of the Shuttle system) held no fuel for its main engines anyway. That's what the big red tank is for. Any internal fuel you DO add is going to come out of the cargo bay, and it was never overgenerous to begin with. If you want a jet engine system (because jets are a hell of a lot more efficient in terms of thrust and time, and it is atmospheric flight we're arguing about), well, that's actually far more difficult than merely adding fuel and oxidizer tanks to the cargo bay. You need, just off the top of my unprofessional head, intakes and exhaust nozzles (no, you can not use the rocket exhaust nozzles for both), and that completely bypasses the jet engines themselves. You then need cooling for those engines, and to _close_ those intakes during some phases of flight, especially re-entry. Also, a jet engine exposed to vacuum is likely to have problems with the lubricating oils either boiling off or hardening. All of this brings us to B. The laws of economics have a few things to say as well. The Space Shuttle wasn't actually that good a vehicle. That's not me trying to talk it down, either. It just included too many compromises to be able to perform several different missions with a single airframe (see F-35). In its defense, it was revolutionary at the time, but revolutions are a bloody business, even when we're only talking scientific or engineering revolutions. It's also built with 1970s technology. Now, all of that could be worked around rather economically except for the fact that it's a _retired_ system. The orbiters have been decommissioned (made unflightworthy) and shipped to museums. Which means that instead of improving what exists, you're now building from scratch. And since you want to change it so fundamentally (adding power) and because it IS 1970s tech we're talking about, you aren't rebuilding it but designing from scratch. There's no space race anymore (not in the sense that you'll get Uncle Sam to pay liberally), and you're probably looking at a trillion-dollar process. All of which serves to suggest the true answer, C. Why would you? What problem are you looking to solve that a 'powered' orbiter/spaceplane would be the answer? The Shuttle lifted things into orbit with a (relatively) gentle 3g acceleration, and then it lowered them to the ground afterward. A hundred missions isn't _that_ long a history, but it's still worth noting that they had no mission failures in the glide phase. With proper planning, and of course the most skilled pilots in the US military, it wasn't that great a tradeoff to glide to a landing. As for the question you actually asked, about some kind of human 'rule' that the Space Shuttle shall remain engineless ... I'm not actually sure what you were asking. There currently IS no space shuttle, so you can build anything you want. See Elon Musk. But if you don't have Elon Money ... good luck, my friend.

[@99twenty9]

​@@jamieknight326i think the astronauts that actually flew it said a glider isn't even accurate. It's just a brick with wings. The glide coefficient was almost literally that of a brick

[@Nele_the_egg]

The "Shuttle with jetengines" Clip is actually a Russian Buran Shuttle

[@longdogmurph]

Remember in Habitual Linecrosser that talks about the Buff is Forever that he'll become a spacecraft with nacelles? Didn't expect this.

[@WhiteJarrah]

If I may address the elephant in the room: how is the Space Shuttle supposed to launch via double fuselage aircraft?! The Space Shuttle engines were powered by the enormous external tank which held over 700tons of propellant. The Space Shuttle cargo bay can only carry about 25 tons, and if you fill it with propellant tanks you defeat the purpose of it being used to launch satellites and interplanetary probes and various other payloads.

[@lighthousegravyP51]

Therapist: "The sub-carrying plane is not real. It can't hurt you." Sub-carrying plane:

[@Pwj579]

Doesn’t make sense since the B-52 engines were tiny J-57 turbojets. Large high bypass turbofans like the TF-39 , JT9D or CF-6 would be required. This was the same case with the Soviets with the An-124/225 this requires the program to develop the large D-18T engines

[@zh84]

You can see in the videos that the B-52's eight turbojets have been replaced by four much fatter engines which are obviously HBPR turbofans. What engines they actually are I would like to know.

[@Istandby666]

I graduated from Mojave High School. I also know the Rutan's personally. This is why, when I talk bad about the Rutan's and Scaled Composites. People from Scaled Composites. Remind me that the Rutan's have nothing to do with Scaled Composites. The only thing I'm thankful for the Rutan's and Yeager is after their world flight and won a bunch of money. Is that they gave Mojave High School the money to open an aviation shop. It was called the Voyager Program. It was a 2 yr program. This would give people the ability to gain employment after high school and while attending college.

[@GoatTheGoat]

The space shuttle's engines don't work without the orange fuel tank.

[@RedTail1-1]

Of course they do... They don't need the tanks attached in order to work at all.. they work just fine without them.

[@carlmcgregor2707]

@@RedTail1-1 Then where does the fuel come from then for them?

[@MaskedVengeanceTV]

Internal tanks. The shuttle carries a small amount of onboard fuel. They're provisions in the design to equip it with a fuel tank and its cargo bay.

[@jordansean18]

​@@MaskedVengeanceTV The main engines only work off the external fuel tank. You're probably thinking of the OMS engines (the two smaller engines by the tail)

[@theBlankScroll]

0:32 Uh ... Where's the shuttle's fuel tank?

[@Donkeymaster9000]

Weight reduction bro

[@Hatchet_Coywolf]

Ikr

[@ayc789gaming6]

Inside the shuttle 😊

[@Rusticcornhole]

@@ayc789gaming6that’s not how it works

[@Rusticcornhole]

@@Donkeymaster9000the main engines are firing without the large orange fuel tank which doesn’t make scene

[@WhiteJarrah]

1:20 That's the Soviet Buran shuttle. Only Buran was planned to have jet engines at some stage.

[@hamaljay]

The space shuttle is not a plane it's an orbital vehicle and glider. Literally.

[@RafaelGarcia-od5rb]

Well, it goes up on its own (even tough it drops some engines / fuel tanks, and lands on itself, so theres no towing involved per se. The catch is, there's no going around in an powerless round brick-like boi

[@scottstewart5784]

Video says it returns under its own power. It's a controlable brick under the power of gravity.

[@RafaelGarcia-od5rb]

@@scottstewart5784 b-but, but... Stubby wings... Tube shaped fuselage... Engine in the back... Etc

[@RafaelGarcia-od5rb]

@@scottstewart5784 well please admit its a good looking brick

[@WildVoltorb]

It looks like a plane to me

[@betterthanRCE]

13:41 Him: "watch this" AD: *appears*

[@v.a.d1784]

🔴 northern Grumman hydrofoil warship with helicopter concept 🔴 Chinook/helicopter Arttilery concept

[@qlog1411]

imagine having enough money to make a plane carry 2 massive spaceshuttles

[@CreepyFungus29]

When in doubt, air launch it from the B-52

[@anlydaly5726]

The moment I saw the thumbnail I thought 🤔💭 "What the ****** am I looking at?"

[@eliaspeter7689]

The consequences of our actions...

[@SomeOrdinaryJanitor]

5:39 when you take your Bombushka back into your Hangar in GTAO

[@christopherneufelt8971]

Submarines? You mean it would have sufficient room to organize a rave party? WHO IS THE IDIOT THAT CANCELLED THE PROJECT!!!!!

[@Airsky-z5k]

5:26 am, uh time to sleep but found and explained uploaded

[@flickingbollocks5542]

I saw the Shuttle flying over Manchester on the back of a 747. It would be about 1983

[@TOPTECH-r3r]

The engineering behind these machines is truly fascinating

[@davidponseigo8811]

I remember being a kid in the early 1980's when the shuttle was on top of a 747 jumbo jet and landed at Barksdale Air Force Base and my father was retired Air Force Colonel and we got to see it up close. I also got to see and touch the Enterprise shuttle at the 84 Worlds Fair.

[@aemssw2387]

Flying a "Submarine" & Airdropping it near Enemy 🎉🎉 Insane

[@davidponseigo8811]

When my father was in the Air Force he was attached to the Defense Atomic Support Agency and the Special Weapons Project so he worked on many projects like the B-1 B Lancer in the early 60'sand the XB-70 but he never worked with this probably because it wasn't going to be used as a weapon but I bet he would have liked to.

[@SomeOrdinaryJanitor]

i know they aren't the most practical option, but i wish we had more absurd and huge aircraft like this in the world.

[@nolanadams564]

You forgot about the MASSIVE Lockheed CL-1201

[@alan_foxy5922]

Some how i can't find information about this "glued b-52's" i really don't know how you can get a lot of information about this abandoned project, but is very nice to know the history behind this airplane.

[@1153mf]

I did a lot of work in south Houston and they would frequently fly the super guppy out of Johnson. Seeing that aging fly in person truly looks like they just took the physics book and tossed it out the window and picked up Hogworts instead

[@poodlescone9700]

So do we have retired B52s that can build this thing today?

[@TOPTECH-r3r]

Watching these massive machines at work is fascinating

[@seagullwitdaburrito4161]

You posted this while i was already watching an hour long video on the space shuttle lol

[@tibchy144]

@ 0:34 that is impossible because shuttle carried no fuel onboard

[@K-Effect]

You would think with the Antonov An-225 gone there would be a need for the giant scale composites aircraft to haul extremely large cargo.

[@Coyote27981]

0:30 i wonder where are those main shuttle engines getting their fuel/oxydizer from...

[@isaacfortner]

Conroy Virtus sounds like a GTA car.

[@SiliconRiot]

They basically did build this it’s known as the Stratoauncher….

[@MTTT1234]

*Some US engineer snorting anothing white line* 'What do you think, shall we make a plane that can drop a submarine like a giant bomb?' No seriously, how did they plan to drip a submarine cargo at its intended target area? Just drip the whole guppy-pod into the sea while flying at the slowest speed possible?

[@jeebusk]

maybe the hulls float 😅

[@nixxyz8233]

my man got PAID to advertise that ai lmao

[@PlayerE017]

This was one of my personal project of mine in making plugin in a game TheoTown however it was stalled due to college and my laptop being broken but i am determined to finish it again.

[@davidponseigo8811]

The shuttle did not land under power, it glided down.

[@JoshiJosho-mf8oi]

That's kind of what inspired the stratolaunch craft

[@PHDarren]

Is it just me or do only 4 engines seem a little weak for flying a submarine around. Let alone getting it off the ground.

[@jeebusk]

nah, they'll do fine 😅

[@jeebusk]

with some automation maybe less 😊

[@jonny5alive123]

I don't understand the need to use two entire B52 fuselages, and how are those tiny engines going to power a plane that looks 4-5x the weight of one B52.

[@baryonyxlord]

20 seconds in and i can tell its gonna be a banger

[@Eric-qo8vv]

It returned under its own weight

[@elvinsweb8777]

You should do the F18 or Eurofighter if possible. They are both amazing aircraft. Keep up the good work, love the videos👍

[@mikecyanide7492]

There was no fuel tank on that shuttle air launching lol

[@vincenzoverona7611]

You put Soviet Buran space Shuttle footage,that's the only Shuttle to fly with own engines ever

[@FoundAndExplained]

That was the space shuttle footage for sure! You're right, I'll make sure to edit that out, thanks for the catch!

[@vincenzoverona7611]

@FoundAndExplained you're, welcome, still the video is really cool!

[@deanspanos8210]

Drops submarine Submarine ignites its engines

[@vasilyevaanzhelika9963]

Super , one diagram for all element ; civic military spaceship .

[@0Defensor0]

Just for fun, try to use invideo to recreate this same video about the Conroy Virtus, or about any other plane that doesn't have many pictures, let alone video footage available!

[@ChristopherWhite-m2o]

Ah yes when blank checks ruled and fueled NASA

[@magnohim9463]

Didn’t even credit who made those pics at 3:16 and 3:19 smh dawg

[@MatejBeranek]

is it just me or the b-52 fuselages look goofy on it

[@WolfhuntFayed]

us spaceshuttle NEVER used engines for landing. The only spaceshuttle that could use side engines for flying and landing was the Russian BURAN. Someone mixes apples with bananas

[@dad_jokes_4ever226]

"Some modifications" 😅😅😅

[@eggsandnoodles]

Way too logical cost effective for the pentagon....and it looks too obvious they did a "bodge" can't make it look like we are trying to save money

[@olegshtolc7245]

I don’t know why youtube is trying to kill this channel. So hard to find a videos from this channel. Very sad

[@FoundAndExplained]

we are all at the mercy of changing youtube algorythms and what the platform wants to show people. I've had some videos underperform and in turn youtube is like "people don't want to see this" so it hides it. its all good though! I love making videos and will never stop

[@olegshtolc7245]

@@FoundAndExplained i love your vids , best wishes

[@DtWolfwood]

How can 2 b52 bashed together be cheaper than 1 747 😮

[@sheldoninst]

Unfortunately this only focused on Boeing management failures, and completely ignores the corruption of unions and more importantly, the awful local government policies.

[@claytonpozzer]

I Think the idea is very good!

[@robertheinrich2994]

5:03 that's the antonov AN-225. why do you say lockheed?

[@tacet3045]

Where's the Space Shuttle's fuel stored for air launch?

[@muhammadanargya8182]

Flanker family and gripen when?

[@jimsvideos7201]

Dear god what _is_ that thing?

[@Roman_22]

Great vid bro

[@Skinflaps_Meatslapper]

What a weird way to end the video

[@moodogco]

How wud of the shuttle worked without fuel tanks like the big brown thing its strapped too, sounds like they was getting high when they thought of this nonsense

[@JarnoPeschier]

Can you explain why you show Buran orbiters (separately, or combined with Antonov aircraft) when you're talking abouy US Space Shuttles, without explicitly mentioning this?

[@Rafedial1]

I wasn't until I saw what are true moon. That I check he is as good guy

[@WolfeSaber]

Did one better, turning a BUFF into a flying aircraft carrier.

[@jeebusk]

move more summaries 😅 13:00

[@DefinitelyPlay]

1 min into the video, i can already see the flaws

[@zlm001]

Thanks.

[@JCTV40]

I make videos but no one wach so it doesn't matter how good thing are it just have to lucky and hope you get people to wach

[@JenniferBean-k3z]

Very weird but cool

[@JCTV40]

This giv off a team vibs

[@jhill4874]

Only 4 engines?

[@markhuebner7580]

Awesome!

[@nashbeuh]

too much advertisement, man!

[@vjekoslavpavicic6575]

Way dont kech rocket in air layk Space x buster

[@bigpapapickles1079]

Hey, next time you steal someone elses work, maybe credit them? They also said they didn't want their work next to a shitty AI ad, so maybe respect their wishes.

[@FoundAndExplained]

hey sorry whos work has been stolen? We take this very seriously. Please email me at [e-mail] and i'll find out.

[@benjaminbutcher]

Bro. You don't need to take money from an AI company. I get that there's a lot of nuance on how and when to use AI, but the reality is that these models are built on stolen art from non-consenting artists. People who couldn't have even fathomed that posting their shit online could mean something like this. Don't get me wrong. AI is a game changing invention. But "art" or image based AI is theft. And not the good kind where we fuck over an evil corporation. Instead it's the kind that's used to further subjugate creators. We can build this technology ethically. But to do that, we need to stop taking money from and giving power to companies like this. We need to have consenting artists involved in the process and we NEED to ensure that these artists are compensated accordingly.

[@miguelleal4702]

Jesus. So much bullshit since the beginning of the video. It's lie after lie. I stopped at minute 2. I just couldn't hear more. I hope in the end he can actually explain how the shuttle can be sent into orbit without the massive orange stuff attached to it (by that I ment the fuel tank). And how the plane carries modern warfare submarines (since they weight more than 1000T). And appologies for liyng about the engine jets fitted to the Shuttle, that were only fitted for flight tests purposes and never for other intentions.

[@nigellanjuat3294]

Wow 😳

[@eliaspeter7689]

The AI demo is so laughable and lame. Please people don't be scammed for that crap-

[@MaurizioStefanelli-dd7yo]

🤔 spaceshit ?

[@glike2]

Point MUGU NOT MUGAL pronunciation 😡

[@venomouswolf8845]

Goob

[@ronaldmcdnaId]

sup

[@NeelavChetia]

HI

[@VikromBookung]

Ji

[@K-Effect]

You would think with the Antonov An-225 gone there would be a need for the giant scale composites aircraft to haul extremely large cargo.