Guided tour around the last F-107A left on display!

[@t.travelerjg1908]

Glad to see that they moved her indoors. She had been in the sun at Pima since at least the 80s.

[@newflyer6837]

I was going to say this. I remember seeing photos of it outside in the Tucson heat. Great job Pima as it looks like it's in great shape now.

[@marckyle5895]

That's why the canopy glazing is cloudy

[@gtv6chuck]

I used to live not far from the USAF Museum and whenever I went there (which was often), I always had to stop and admire this plane. It was one of those planes that looks like it's in a sci fi movie, and looks like it's going Mach 2 standing still.

[@darrengladstone3159]

Right? SciFi needs to catch up I think the SR72 and F22 are now actually cooler than the current sci Fi imagination.

[@SaturnCanuck]

Thanks Paul. I am lucky enough io have seen both F-107’s left - both here and at Dayton. If she had gone into production it is fun to speculate on her name - while Super Super Sabre was considered I liked Ultra Sabre. Also you mentioned the USAF markings and also of note is that, from 1917, it was mandated that they NEVER go over or onto the alerions, and if you look at other US aircraft they never do.

[@adambane1719]

Wow! I've done some research on this plane and its unique shape is so it could also dive into water to avoid detection and missile attacks ... and its rounded under surface is so that it could more comfortably land inside of volcanoes for vertical take off and landings.

[@PaulStewartAviation]

😂😂

[@ottobyte]

Very interesting one. I had seen pictures but didn’t know much about it

[@ironman7261]

Another informative video, Paul! Was lucky enough to see one on display in Dayton, it's not surprising they choose the 105 over it, being a larger more capable bomber and more traditional looking than this with the intake on the top. The 105 was a real work horse in Nam, being used on lots of missions

[@glacieractivity]

One must love the 1950s/60s experimental. It is the Cambrian evolution period of fighter design. Evolution and fluid dynamicists had the same attitude - "let us try everything" separated by half a billion years. Also - kudos to the test pilots of the day stepping into these machines with zero computer analysis to assess the flight characteristics (outside of knowledge about inherent stability) before leaving the ground. In this case, they were, in addition, strapped into ejection seats located half a yard in front of the air intake, which must have felt extra reassuring from the concept of "suffering being brief" in case of problems.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

The 1920s/30s had similar levels of experimentation, but the planes were slower and had no ejection seats. It would be interesting seeing some comparison of test pilot deaths and injuries compared to number of test flights.

[@roberttalarsky4238]

Great show thanks for your hard work

[@PaulStewartAviation]

Cheers, glad you enjoyed it!

[@koh_ling]

Very interesting as usual Paul! Thanks

[@PaulStewartAviation]

My pleasure!

[@gcrauwels941]

Thanks Paul. Interesting aircraft.

[@PaulStewartAviation]

Cheers! Glad you enjoyed it.

[@joeharris3878]

I loved my c1960 F107 toy . I had a dream about a real one as a 5 or 6 year-old I still remember .

[@JustJohn505]

Mr Stewart i hope you get to do a video on that big blue guy behind you someday!

[@hordboy]

The 50’s were wild times in aircraft design!

[@marckyle5895]

They were trying everything. It was like the first burst of designs that finally settled on a prop in front and one or two wings by 1916 because that was what worked the best. The videos of the odd looking designs like the Phillips Multiplane failing to even achieve a foot or more of altitude as they fell apart...

[@Travelsbydreamer]

My goodness that rocket takeoff would’ve been jarring 😅 Great video as ever mate

[@NoManClatuer-pd8ck]

He doesn't disappoint.

[@newflyer6837]

Great G😃 great video!

[@AnonymousFreakYT]

I visited that museum last year, and loved seeing the -107A. It's just hilarious to me how much writing there is all over it.

[@VAZSFV4]

Babe wake up Paul Stewart posted a new video ❤️

[@applejacks971]

Interesting plane and vid, thanks for putting this together for us! Personally, I'd be so distracted by the Blackbirds awesomeness I would've spent the whole day sitting under it just to be in its presence.

[@kiereluurs1243]

Video.

[@dtrain1634]

Beautiful plane :) I’ve built a modern what if and I’m now building a gulf war 1 what if then a Vietnam one :)

[@matthewcaughey8898]

USAF museum in Dayton has one as well

[@PaulStewartAviation]

Yep, in storage

[@marckyle5895]

@@PaulStewartAviation I was wondering why I didn't see in when I visited in '19. I sure wish they'd change those bulbs in the hangars. They ruin every picture.

[@PaulStewartAviation]

yes it's very dark in there. I suspect it might be to help preserve the aircraft? it certainly makes filming difficult

[@4rdF1Hunny]

Always thought this was a neat looking aircraft.

[@NoManClatuer-pd8ck]

That's awfully generous. 😉

[@zoperxplex]

Your video on the F-107 highlights how designing new, ground breaking fighter planes often involve making a series of compromises to get the performance the designers were looking for. That explains the unusual decision to mount the air inlets on top.

[@zacklewis342]

Looks almost modern, but remember, when this thing was flying, people were driving around in Studebakers with AM radio and no seatbelts.

[@ColtonRMagby]

That aircraft's look is so distinctive, it's painful to think about.

[@zlm001]

Thanks.

[@jamielacourse7578]

I'm going to like it here. I'm Canadian and still feel pissed about the Avro Arrow fiasco. Cheers......

[@joeharris3878]

Yeah , what a mistake the Ottawa made.

[@jaydeister9305]

Great video!

[@dwjr5129]

Kinda looks like a frankenplane with those intakes up high like that.

[@Sacto1654]

In the end, the F-105 was a way better plane for the role of nuclear interdiction than the F-107, mostly because it could carry the B28 nuclear bomb truly internally and plane could be better adopted for other roles, for example very successful _Wild Weasel_ conversion to attack enemy radar sites.

[@cbroz7492]

..if you want to read a really old..and good..book on the post war era of jet development...look for "Skyrocketing into the Unknown" by Charles Coombs..written in ir ca. 1959 it covers many/most designs..good and goofy both up to that date..I had it first at age 9 or 10...(1959/60)..I'm 75 now...

[@entiller]

The exhaust petals actually expand at maximum thrust. It doesn't work like your hoze nozzle example.

[@That_Stealth_Guy]

At full military throttle (100%) the nozzle is closed to it's smallest position. Once the throttle is advanced into afterburner the nozzle will expand to allow the increased exhaust gas pressure to exit the engine. Watch the following KZbin video to see it in action. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGOwi5xvma9rrLc

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@9:00 regarding eyes being attracted to the single roundel ... I don't know about Australian critters, but two common animals where I am are the jack rabbit and deer, both of which flip their tail up and show white when running, which sure seems counter-productive. Some professor investigated this and wrote a simple computer game, trying to keep cross hairs on a critter's head while it ran a crooked path, just as rabbits do, back and forth instead of the faster straight line. He found that it was harder to keep the cross hairs on the head with the high-vis tail, presumably because the shooter was distracted. Speaking of rabbits ... I live on a dirt road, part of which is a 1/4 or 1/3 slope for a hundred yards or so (real fun with snow!) and one day coming home from work, I spooked a jack rabbit who started zigzagging in front of me instead of just running off to the side away from the road. I got curious and sped up, trying to see if he'd ever straighten out. He did not. At 18 mph, I started catching up, and he would not straighten out. Then the road took a 90° turn and the rabbit and I parted ways. 18 mph up that steep section was pretty impressive.

[@keithammleter3824]

So, American jack rabbits and deer have evolved to confuse the aim of men with guns??!!!

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@@keithammleter3824 1. The professor's game undoubtedly had cartoon animals. 2. It was the professor's conclusion, not mine, but seems plausible. 3. It applies to all the natural predators they evolved with -- foxes, wolves, lions, even bears for all I know. 4. It seems especially plausible for ground level attackers seeing that tail at eye level, unlike me in my truck.

[@keithammleter3824]

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 I realised that they would have been cartoon animals, but presumably they were designed to resemble the real ones and only had white tails because the real ones do.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@@keithammleter3824 I don't remember many details now. It may have been in the Nature science itself, or just some popular summary, and I'm pretty sure it was the print edition, so no videos, and as to how realistic the cartoons were, no idea -- I'm guessing the 1990s, so probably pretty low resolution. To be honest, my main memory at the time was thinking some grad students had been sitting around joking and someone came up with the idea as a simple screwy project. But the end result seemed plausible, since it's hard to imagine evolution favoring an ingrained instinct which made them more vulnerable, and while deer might use it as a flag to others, I'd think just running would be enough to raise the alarm, and rabbits don't seem like herd animals. Squirrels raise their tails when running, but don't show white that I remember, and they usually climb trees pretty quickly instead of zigzagging all over. There was another project, which I know was in Nature print sometime before 1986, about substitute salt shaker tops on Qantas airline flights between Australia and the US, where the tops had varying numbers of holes with varying sizes, trying to see if they could get people to use less salt, and they even counted how many passengers tried enlarging the holes with their fork. Both just seemed like idle time projects rather than anything serious, although I wondered who was flying back and forth and how they watched the passengers, or maybe they just compared salt usage at the end of each flight. Neither one seemed like a rigorous study with serious results, although both did make it to Nature.

[@Mcflycoolvideos]

One of my favourite planes of all time, she’s so cool!

[@kiereluurs1243]

No, he! No, it.

[@threeparots1]

Philippine Mars going to Pima soon

[@marckyle5895]

I wonder why a downward ejection system wasn't considered? 99 times out of 100 you will eject at some substantial altitude.

[@keithammleter3824]

The USAF paints roundels on only one wing in order to confuse the aim of enemy pilots as they instinctively aim between a pair of markers? Paul, you've had your leg pulled by a museum volunteer again. It could only be relevant in WW1 or WW2 dog fighting, for a start - once they developed radar and air-air rockets, it doesn't matter what you paint on a plane. Look at combat footage - most of the time, all a dog fighting pilot saw was an outline, and couldn't make out roundels or anything else.

[@therealniksongs]

I think that on more modern aircraft they simply are following a long established tradition.

[@keithammleter3824]

@@therealniksongs Undoubtedly. They did in on heavy bombers too - aircraft so big compared to the roundels it could never affect aiming, and the bombers had wing engines, making it just as good or better to aim at a wing anyway. Once a government agency or military think up a policy on something, it is very hard to change it and unless there is some disaster, nobody ever wants to. But that begs the question - why did they adopt that policy? Probably because some pizzed off officer confined to a desk decided painting one wing instead of two saved 50% of cost.

[@HankyInTheTanky]

The NMUSAF needs to get theirs back on display

[@erikt7795]

It is. Source: I was there a few weeks ago.

[@PaulStewartAviation]

Is it? Which section? Any pics?

[@HankyInTheTanky]

@@erikt7795 it’s not it’s still in storage there is no room for it, especially with the F-15 Streak Eagle and X-32 now on display

[@erikt7795]

@@HankyInTheTanky I looked to check my phone and I didn't shoot the 107 *this* visit, since I'd seen it there before and the lighting in that gallery can be challenging. I was 95% sure I saw it again. Apologies for rolling the mental dice and falling within the 5%.

[@erikt7795]

@@PaulStewartAviation I was almost certain I saw it in its usual spot in the R&D gallery near the XB-70, but it looks like I may be mixing up my visits.

[@AnonymousFreakYT]

Minor annoyance - when saying their serial numbers you add an extra five. "Fifty five, five one one eight" and so on.

[@therealniksongs]

Actually, the serial number as he says it is correct. It was 55-5118. The first two digits signify the procurement year. It was Air Force practice not to post the first digit nor the dash on the tail.

[@NoManClatuer-pd8ck]

"junk, junk, garbage, 'engines' upside down....."

[@CaymanIslandsCatWalks]

Lol at 12:10 55118

[@ItsKing32]

Have u done a video on the B-66/A-3 or (R)A-5? Id love to see either or both if u havent

[@kiereluurs1243]

English please.

[@BalshazzarWastebasket]

THE F107 LOOKS SO CRAZY. I AM SURE THE ENGINEERS TAHT WERE DESIGNING IT HAD A MOMENT OF "OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE" WHEN THEY LOOKED AT IT. BUT BY THEN MILLIONS OF MILLIONS OF DLLARS WERE ALREADY SPENT.

[@kiereluurs1243]

WHAHAT?!!

[@JohanMsWorld]

You still miss the main reason for the long pito rod in the front of test aicraft. Great work otherwise.

[@EthanThomson]

Does he? He mentioned it being so long to get it out of the airflow around the aircraft

[@PaulStewartAviation]

What was the reason I missed?

[@EnfieldNo4]

Pitot.