How To Design A Plane To Fly At 100,000 Feet?

Aircraft service ceilings are generally limited by their engine's ability to generate the thrust needed to sustain the airspeeds required to maintain lift at altitude. Roughly speaking the required thrust to exceed stall speed stays the same as altitude changes, but the engines get less powerful as that air gets thinner.
But in many regular planes they would be further limited by the point where the speed of sound converges with their stall speed, this is the case with the U2 which rides in a region of its performance envelope known as Coffin Corner.
Lots of these concepts are covered in the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, a free publication by the FAA
www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...
Lol at that intro.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley

[@omgitspylot4411]

Fun fact: the U2 flies so high in the atmosphere, it can fly into the temperature inversion in the stratosphere, meaning the speed of sound actually increases again and it can go even faster without exceeding its limitation on laminar airflow. It also makes a very weird flight performance/ coffin corner envelope.

[@xiphosura413]

That could explain why the graph at around 11:33 starts to pinch out but actually opens up again out the other side, you can see the upper limit bend back outwards again. I'm just left wondering how the stall flutter speed can decrease!

[@johndoepker7126]

I have no idea wat you said.....but I DO know wat laminar flow is, and its awesome....thanks to Destin!

[@xiphosura413]

@@stevemadak6255 Where have you been getting this information? What causes the wings to "fold up" but not the plane losing lift first? How on earth would adding more weight to the wingtips in the form of engines help? It was designed for minimum weight. Where did they put the wingtip skids then? If you're gonna claim things that go against all common knowledge, back up your claims if you wanna be believed!

[@call_me_stan5887]

@@xiphosura413 exactly! :)

[@hattrick2219]

@@stevemadak6255 Would like to know your source for the altitude spec. I've never seen a U2 with wing tip engines. Power's claimed repeatedly that he was "at altitude" and did not experience a flameout.

[@dreyna14]

Not sure if you've ever looked, but on an airline flight, if the sun angle is parallel to the recompression shocks on the upper surface of the wing(s), they will cast a refractive shadow on the wing. It's pretty easy to see once you spot it and watch it shift for and aft as the airflow changes from speed and/or turbulence.

[@ThatBoomerDude56]

"fore and aft" 😁

[@jtjames79]

@@ThatBoomerDude56 "four and apht" 🥸

[@martinputz8010]

For reference to what you are saying, I found this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fpbOk3ZshdFnlbs

[@cjmatulka8321]

I'll up the subject of light refraction, on a plane load of sleeping passengers near Greenland for about 90 seconds I witnessed a miniature aura 25 yards off the wingtip an hour after the Sun had set. One of the best phenomena I have ever seen, being from Alaska the incident reminded me of the "foo fighters" phenomena. A bit off topic but cheers just the same!

[@theussmirage]

@@jtjames79 "'fɔːr' and 'æft'" 🤓

[@MrHws5mp]

Coincidentally, I've just been reading the latest _Aeroplane_ magazine, which has an interview with USN vet, entrepreneur and record-setter Doug Matthews. In 2013, doing time-to-climb class records in a P-51 Mustang, he hit 42,300 feet (unpressurised cockpit, no pressure suit...). As he was passing 40k, he overheard this convo between an airliner and Miami Centre: "Miami, Delta 1479, requesting our descent." "Delta 1479, I'm going to give you a slight delay. There's an aircraft crossing your nose at 40 and climbing out. It's a WWII fighter." "Say again, Miami?" "There's a North American P-51 climbing through your altitude." "Oh. _Wow..._ "🤣😎😎😎

[@martijn9568]

That intercooled two stage supercharged Packard Merlin V-12 is nothing to be sneezed at.

[@waynerussell6401]

Another: “I remember saying, ‘Christchurch this is Golf Charlie Foxtrot. I am at 35,000 ft descending over Porters Pass. I think I have a world record.’ The exuberant response gave me a thrill. ‘Congratulations. If you look down you will probably see the DC 6 coming in from Australia.’ I looked down, and there, 20,000 ft below I could see a tiny little aeroplane. It was a nice moment.” Dick Georgeson, wave pioneer, December 16, 1960, near Horarata just south of Christchurch, New Zealand. Lucky to be alive with frostbite to hands and feet.

[@allangibson8494]

And a Spitfire XIX reached 51,550ft over Hong Kong in 1952… The pilot lost control on descent and reached Mach 0.96 on the way down…

[@jozsefsandor671]

P-51 was a shit in a comparison with ME-262

[@Inkling777]

@@jozsefsandor671 The P-51 could fly from SE England to Berlin and back. No ME-262 could come close to doing that.

[@jonhare392]

I supported Helios and Pathfinder during the record flight. It got to 97,000 feet at a flight speed of 35 mph. In a head wind of 40 mph it could fly backwards at 5 mph and gain altitude. PMRF had a runway wide enough for it to take off, I was on the side of that runway as it took off.

[@badc3o]

Wow, care to share anything more about your experiences? I'm fascinated with that project. Did they consider using a prop with an electric motor to try and push further? Do you know what composites the plane was built with? Anything special about the wing design? I can imagine the were at least 33m

[@rickrack78]

I worked on the Oxygen and Hydrogen low pressure tanks that were to supply the fuel cell for overnight flight. The solar panels were able to produce more energy ether aircraft required for daylight flight. The extra energy was to be used to run an electrolyzer which then pumped the Hydrogen and Oxygen into their respective tanks. After sunset, they would be used to produce electricity for overnight flight. I also built the high pressure tanks that were underwing on the Helios when it broke up and crashed.

[@darrengladstone3159]

Scott has a way of plucking obscure but interesting stories out of subjects well studied by most of his audience.

[@ozzymandius666]

I think the ballon that the F-22 shot down as at least a couple miles above the plane's flight ceiling, that's why they used a $400 000 Sidewinder instead of a few $50 20mm bullets.

[@philipwhiuk]

@@ozzymandius666 A few $50 20 mm bullets are a few dangerous projectiles if they miss/go through. The missile explodes.

[@gert-janbonnema]

@@philipwhiuk Yeah but it explodes into thousands of little bullets...

[@ScalarYoutube]

The gau has a much smaller range and accuracy compared to the sidewinder. There wouldve been a high chance of a bullet destroying the sensor array or missing and raining down on whatever is below. Also, the closer you are, the higher the chance of any debris from the collision impacting the air frame and potentially causing mortal damage to the raptor

[@JohnyG29]

@@ScalarKZbin TBH the sidewinder wouldn't have been that accurate either (as in they couldn't accurately predict the exact location it would hit the balloon). Being a heat seeker I assume it had nothing to track from an unpowered balloon, so they just shot the missile in a straight line.

[@Chriva]

"The science of getting really high". I have a friend that does that. It usually ends in an empty fridge lol

[@morecowbell2611]

dammit he changed the title!

[@arandomcommenter412]

@@morecowbell2611 literally 1984

[@Valery0p5]

@@morecowbell2611 it's in the thumbnail

[@Powertampa]

All these squares make a circle

[@Fish-ub3wn]

I'm doing a scientific experiment on the said subject. cheers.

[@cantrell3522]

I used to work for the company that designed and flew Helios on the team for the successor aircraft Sunglider. The guys who had worked on Helios back in the day were always annoyed that everyone brought up the 1 mishap they had, but not the dozens of flights that went off without a hitch both before and after Helios. Seeing the proprietary design methodology for that type of aircraft was amazing. It's like the ultimate extreme of aircraft engineering.

[@leifvejby8023]

That one Helios mishap was an impressive one. I was very impressed by the Helios, and annoyed by the X-plane simulator's inability to fly a model of it, tried several ways. RC-models however were controllable.

[@josephmatthews7698]

Build a hundred bridges they never call you Bridge builder but blow ONE homeless guy under that bridge and all of a sudden you're a ...

[@RobbieHatley]

Fascinating video. Your closing comment reminds me of an incident in which an F-15 suffered damage to its right wing in a training accident. Just how much damage was impossible to tell because the spray of leaking fuel obscured the pilot's view. The pilot considered ejecting when his plane became uncontrollable and tumbled out of the sky; but he found that above a certain speed, he could regain control. So he decided to attempt to land it. He found that his stall speed had roughly doubled, so he had to land at twice normal landing speed. After landing, on attempting to finally ascertain just how much damage there was to his right wing, he discovered to his shock that he _had no_ right wing! His reaction was to say "Huh! I guess with an F-15, if you get it going fast enough, you're a rocket and you don't _need_ wings!"

[@dylanhalifaux]

The more I learn about the U-2 the more I respect the pilots.

[@stinkyfungus]

Titanic testis... carbon fiber, instead of the usual Brass ones they issue fighter pilots. Strictly to save weight and eek out an extra 1,000 feet into coffin corner, Doncha know 😜

[@Thatonedude90]

My uncle is a pilot. Pretty interesting stories

[@sietuuba]

@@stinkyfungus eke out ;)

[@phmwu7368]

Read about the post Cuba crisis monitoring og the island and You'll be amazed by the 1963-1966 Lockheed U-2 operational stories !

[@DrDeuteron]

and the ER-2

[@AndreSomers]

The story about the Perlan project is actually quite fascinating. I heard a lecture on it once. It took a lot of effort and some very special meteorological conditions to reach these insane altitudes. Enough stuff there for a whole separate video…

[@gregkail4348]

Please 🙏

[@wesleycardinal8869]

I would love to see a video on the Perlan project, it deserves more attention.

[@cf453]

They have a great website if anyone is interested.

[@SkyChaserCom]

Even the Perlan project sailplane was designed to deal with avoiding high-speed / transonic-Mach buffeting with a true airspeed at 90,000 feet expected to be nearly 450 MPH, while indicated airspeed was only 64 MPH (only 3% of the atmospheric density at sea level exists at the near ceiling of the Perlan glider).

[@michaelderflinger5002]

Did Scott mentieon the altitude Perlan2 got to? It is also remarkable, that this glider design would be able to fly in martian atmosphere. But landing at those high true air speed could be a challenge.

[@Aeronaut1975]

if I remember correctly, "coffin corner" on the U2 is around 6 knots. In other words, there's a 6 knot difference between stalling and falling out of the sky or ripping the wings off.

[@robertbutsch1802]

At cruise the U2 must be flown by autopilot as a human pilot would have a lot of trouble keeping the airplane in this narrow speed corridor.

[@Dynamic_Flyer]

That’s a really good video and captures all the main points. All I would add is that stall speed does start to increase if you climb high enough; it only stays constant up to about 10,000 ft then slowly increases due to Reynolds number (viscosity and density related) effects until about 35,000 ft, at which point Mach effects start to become dominant. Because a given Mach number has a decreasing IAS as you climb, this means the wing suffers low speed “shock stall” at high angles of attack (AOA), but typically at lower AOA than a normal stall. As an example, an aircraft that stalls at 100 kt IAS at sea level could stall at 130 kt at 40,000 ft. This problem gets worse until the top of the tropopause, about 65,000 ft, at which point the stall speed for a subsonic aircraft starts to reduce again slightly due to stratospheric temperature increasing with altitude. This phenomenon is exploited by the U-2, as shown in the video, allowing it to climb in a very narrow flight envelope with just a few kt between stall and limiting Mach number. On the high speed side, ultimately it is aerodynamic heating that limits things, for the airframe structure and particularly for air-breathing engines. Scram jets help here, but they are fiendishly difficult to get right. Keeping combustion going in supersonic airflow is really hard to do! Ultimately we might see aircraft that can sustain Mach 4, or possibly Mach 5, but much above that is highly unlikely. As for altitude, 100,000 ft is really the limit for conventional aircraft. Much above that and you need reaction control systems because control surfaces don’t work. And or course, at 63,000 ft is the Armstrong limit, above which you have to wear a pressure suit to survive, and even before then you need pressure breathing for oxygen if the aircraft pressurisation fails. That’s why Concorde had such small windows, and also why even the most advanced business jets don’t fly above 55,000 ft. You have to ensure they can get down to 15,000 ft in the event of cabin depressurisation, before the passengers die of oxygen starvation.

[@papageo79]

Watching the video at around 06:40 I remembered that that propeller in front of the plane is actually a fan. It keeps the pilot cool. If it stops you can actually see the pilot sweating..

[@jaydonbooth4042]

Really liking the additional airplane videos you've been doing since going for your private pilot's license Scott. Gives me some more appreciation for them and for the engineering challenge of flying in general.

[@bamascubaman]

The A-12 at Battleship Park in Mobile relatively briefly had a sign stating that that particular aircraft had been an altitude in excess of 100'k, 108 IIRC. The next time I visited, the sign had been changed, with no reference to the altitude. When I inquired, the guy only said that they had been "asked" to change it.

[@tpaine666]

Jet engines do not push against the air anymore than rocket engines do... unless you are talking about turbofan engines. Perhaps a bit more clarity would be useful here... Love your stuff... keep it coming!

[@jerrymiller276]

My wife and i are currently staying on the 10th floor in a resort at North Myrtle Beach. I've been watching the scene for a couple of days and there are several navy ships of various sizes on the scene. Today I've been watching off and on through binoculars and there are also two CH-53 Stallion variants flying very slowly at a low enough altitude to kick up visible spray, obviously "mowing the lawn". I guess they are determined to get every fragment of the balloon's instrument package possible, no matter how long it takes. One of them just now flew in to Grand Strand Airport, (CRE) right behind us and landed. The process has been both interesting and boring to watch.

[@jerrymiller276]

The other one just came in. I guess it is lunch time for the aircrew and the helicopters. The first one was gray and the second green. I guess all the services want a piece of the action.

[@onenerdarmy]

@@jerrymiller276 it's good peacetime SAR and the like practice.

[@beachcomber2008]

Boobytraps, anthrax spores, radioactive shit. You have to be _more_ paranoid to escape the ministrations of a paranoiac.

[@buckstarchaser2376]

Should only take a couple of weeks before they drop it for the new current thing, or just wrap it up with a smear and encourage everyone to move on to the next current thing.

[@c6q3a24]

@@buckstarchaser2376 These constant "UFOs" are more likely just a distraction. For example the enormous chemical spill and "controlled" chemical fire from a derailed train in Ohio.

[@everTriumph]

There were rumours an EE Lightning zoomed up to 85,000 feet. This shot past and was observed by a U2 at that time. The maximum heights of some of the bombers of the sixties, Canberra. Vulcan, Victor was set by human factors, cold and more importantly the oxygen supply specs. A bomber designed to cruise at 50K feet plus with maybe 10 ton payload can obviously climb higher with a zero bomb load. Teddy Petter designed a high aspect winged high altitude fighter in WW2, the Welkin. The problems he encountered persuaded him to design a high speed high altitude bomber, the Canberra, with a low aspect high area wing. The US stretched the concept with bigger wings and engines as a precursor to the U2.

[@attilavs2]

The Lightning really is an impressive plane, it's actually plausible

[@TessellationRow]

It sounds reasonable. The F-15 zoomed over 100,000ft

[@monsieurchevrebois9811]

@@attilavs2 It happened close to Singapore where the tropopause was particularly high and cold.

[@peetky8645]

could glsdb be launched from a balloon at 80K feet and if it were, what would it range be?

[@afischer8327]

I have heard this also. EE Lightning doing a Mach climb, more or less vertical on reheat (afterburners), the engines would cut out, and then it's just ballistics. Thin atmosphere, control surfaces barely functioning, dark sky and stars above (in daytime), Earth curvature visible, then descending the ballistic curve, into the atmosphere, control resumed, all fine. Several aircraft have done similar, although not all of of them retained control at over 80,000ft. F-104 (tumbled around and flipped until it regained some air), MiG-25, probably MiG-31, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Su-27 and its relatives have tried similarly, although the MiG-25 family would be my favourite, currently, for a Mach climb to about 90,000ft. They're not going to tell us about this. Launching missiles from a plane in a ballistic Mach climb to hit a satellite - it's been done, but I'm not sure I'd volunteer. I salute the pilots.

[@MIG29SUU27]

I believe I may have taken part in the highest air-to-air 'kill". During my exchange tour from the Air Force to Navy Test & Evaluation Squadron Four (VX4) I was part of a detachment of three F-14s which flew from Eglin AFB (my previous home base). The purpose of this deployment was to test the then new AIM-54C Phoenix missile which was undergoing operational testing. The target for this test was an AQM-81A Firebolt which was undergoing development to meet an Air Force requirement for a high-altitude, high-speed aerial target. For our intercept the Firebolt was launched from the vicinity of MacDill AFB and was at 97,000 ft. and Mach 3 over the Gulf of Mexico. We used three F-14s to ensure that at least one of us would have an opportunity to launch a Phoenix (I was designated at the number #2 shooter). We climbed to 40,000 ft. and GCI provided us information on the target at 140 nm. We accelerated to Mach 1.5. The lead F-14 got a radar track at 90 nm. (two minute from launch) and we started our pull-up at approximately 65 nm. with a missile launch at approximately 40 nm. When the AIM-54 launched we were topping out at 50,000 ft. and the target was still almost 50,000 ft. above us which was a distance of 8 nm vertically (this was the highest I had been in a F-14)

[@MIG29SUU27]

@@mcs699 I commanded the 6513th Test Squadron - The Red Hats

[@mikeyKnows_]

What's the highest an F14 has ever gone? It makes me wonder if at those elevations the wings were spread out or tucked in.

[@MIG29SUU27]

@@mikeyKnows_ If I remember correctly the service ceiling for the F-14A was 55,000 ft. The wing sweep on the F-14 in automatic was positioned by the Central Air Data Computer. At 50,000 ft the level flight speed in military power was such that the wings would be programed fully forward (20 deg.)

[@JG-dx5wi]

@@mikeyKnows_ I've heard that the F-14 has been over 70,000 ft at mach 2.5 via some of the early F-14A pilots

[@blackout19]

I thought the U-2 was based on the F-104 too, but that was an early prototype, the CL-282. For the U-2 they threw out everything F-104 based. Kelly Johnson was quoted as saying the only thing left over from the 104 was the rudder pedals. Super interesting rabbit hole to go down! Thx for the content, amazing as always.

[@simongeard4824]

It's certainly hard to imagine two aircraft more different in concept than the F-104 and the U-2... one a missile with only token wings, the other a near-glider with giant wings. There's a familiarity about the fuselage though, which may have translated through the design...

[@phmwu7368]

Test pilot Tony Levier mentioned he went from flying the Lockheed with smallest wings to the Lockheed with the biggest wings !

[@PetesGuide]

The U-2 fuselage was from the F-104, but the plane the other guy was talking about was the Martin RB-57D Canberra, a stretched-wing English Electric Canberra, as a stopgap while the U-2 was being developed. It’s wings were lengthened again, and NASA still flies two.

[@AccAkut1987]

An aircraft that I sorta missed in this overview is the Grob G 850 Strato 2C , an experimental research aircraft build for Germany's DLR. It had a really unusual engine setup, using Teledyne piston engines that were pressure fed by turbine sections of PW127 turboprop jet engines. Current altitude record for piston powered flight at 18,552 m (60,866 ft). It's a real oddball that sadly did not have a long career, and now stands on the manufacturers airfield.

[@12pentaborane]

That's an insane airplane, it uses the regional turboprop engines as turbochargers for piston engines.

[@gasdive]

I was expecting it would get a mention.

[@PsRohrbaugh]

The jet engine evolved from turbochargers on WWII aircraft. At a certain point the scientists realized "wouldn't it be better if we just got rid of the piston engine completely?"

[@gasdive]

@@PsRohrbaugh long before the second World War.

[@aerodyneservices]

But it birthed the Grob G520 Egrett, one of which towed the Perlan II to 47,000 feet in 2019.

[@1KJRoberts]

Gosh, Scott, I think this episode was one of your most interesting and informative to date. Good stuff!

[@idanceforpennies281]

This is one of the best expositions of high-altitude flight I have ever heard. You even covered the fact that Mach number is the critical factor above 25,000ft.

[@bobstovall9570]

I don't recall ever seeing more actionable information packed into a shorter presentation that this, Scott. Very well done, Sir.

[@marsgal42]

I remember seeing James May going for a flight in a U-2 and a lot of the numbers on the flight instruments were classified until not that long ago. The altitude and climb speed schedule in the U-2 flight manual looks a lot different than the performance charts for a 172. 😎

[@JoshuaC923]

I loved that episode, great stuff

[@Ooooggggggllybooogly]

Or adam savages flight It was so cool to see how excited he was at seeing the earth curve below him

[@goatflieg]

One of the very rare times, as a pilot, that I already knew most of what you were explaining and was waiting for you to get to the good stuff.

[@maxtorque2277]

The Sr-71 is clearly the master of the "go fast by having a LOT of power" segment, but what is rather interesting is where all that power comes from. Thanks to it's clever inlets being able to leverage the incoming dynamic pressure and turn that into static pressure, at a M3.0 cruise the inlet is actually providing 70% or more of the total forward thrust. ie the higher static pressure behind the inlet tries to actually push it forwards out of the airframe and as a result actually puses the thing along! Of course, ultimately the energy is all coming from the fuel being burnt in the engine, and the engine must be running and removing that high pressure air from behind the inlet for this trick to work, however this way of seemingly getting something for nothing can be somewhat difficult to get ones head around initally 🙂 These high dynamic range inlets (and the classic long delta wing drag characteristics) are what enabled both the Sr-71 and Concorde to achieve lower fuel consumption the faster they went, which is also extremely counter intuitive. The fact all this was worked out in the late 1950's and early 1960's with very basic analysis, calculation and test equipment is truely mind boggling (to someone that these days routinely records nearly a thousand channels of data at >1KHz on a simple passenger car development test.....)

[@tlniec]

I had never considered the speed difference induced by a simple turn maneuver causing one wing to exceed its Mach limit (and potentially the other wing to simultaneously drop below its stall limit)... coffin corner, indeed.

[@prsearls]

As an old, retired corporate jet pilot, let me compliment you on your excellent explanations. You nailed it. Fly Safe!

[@mytech6779]

F-104 starfighters had zoom climbed over 100k feet before 1960. A later variant with a small rocket booster and managed 119k Fun to know mach 3.3 at 80k is equivalent to less than 400 knots at sealevel as far as aerodynamic forces go.

[@Arturo-lapaz]

That was Chuck Jaeger and on the return down he could not recover the yaw rotation, not the same as a spin, the added thruster could not stop the 'gyration' , stable rotation about the axis of maximum moment of inertia. He landed, bruised on the parachute, after a high altitude ejection , down as the early F-104 all did.

[@JonathanStCloud-yo5oq]

Yes and no. As you climb your Vne decreases because your true airspeed is higher than indicated. Ignore and you could meet Mr. Flutter

[@Arturo-lapaz]

@@JonathanStCloud-yo5oqRight. Those are 2 different effects, VNE is a force limit due to dynamic pressure q=½ rho V² Flutter is resonance of the flexibility of the structure inter acting with periodic vortex shedding phase shift until the vibration mode becomes unstable, the relevant shedding frequency is given by the struhal number f × d ÷ V V= TAS 1/sec × m ÷(m/sec) independent of density

[@JonathanStCloud-yo5oq]

@@Arturo-lapaz And right you are. I was merely trying, unskillfully, to convey that flutter is based on true airspeed, not indicated. Thank you for the math

[@Arturo-lapaz]

@@JonathanStCloud-yo5oq Your statement is correct. And the Vne , the redline is not sufficient to avoid flutter. Normally there is a margin in the redline to account for this, at lower altitude. By the way you can easily determine TAS by multiplication of CAS (~IAS) with RDR, (Root of Density Ratio) altitude (ft) RDR 18000 1.33 15000 1.27 12000 1.200 9000 1.15 6000 1.10 3000 1.05 0 1.00 of course this is valid if the out side temperature deviates little from the standard SL 15C 15°C - 2°C per 1000 ft ( defined : 15° - 6.5 °C per 1000 meter)

[@tambolianmap]

I was in the US Navy from 1961 to 1966 as an Aviation Tech. We talk to one another about what we hear over the radio. One tech formally stationed in Japan relates this story while checking the radio and heard this transmission - permission to come down to 100,000 ft!

[@jonwatkins254]

Most informative video. A high performance fighter can zoom climb above the altitude that aerodynamic control is effective and become ballistic. Reaction controls become necessary to maintain correct angle of attack, yaw and roll during the ballistic portion of the flight.

[@samsonsoturian6013]

The insane speeds of the SR-71 is why is was so expensive. Titanium was used in order to survive higher air friction while staying lightweight, and this was difficult to mine, refine, and machine. Also they were consuming half the world's supply, so they had to set up a shell company to buy some from the Soviets.

[@Genius_at_Work]

"Half the World's Supply" sounds a bit exagerated given that the Soviet Union built Nuclear Submarines with Hulls Made of Titanium

[@afoxwithahat7846]

Air compression, Samson, Titanium was used to survive hypersonic air compression, which heats up the shell. It's twice as hard to work with because at high temperatures the Titanium oxides and loses the majority of its properties.

[@TheBackyardChemist]

Mining is really not too bad, titanium dioxide is a common mineral and a byproduct of aluminium mining. Turning that white powder into usable metal is quite challenging and expensive.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

And it's getting cheaper ever day... look at the F-35 and how much that guy ujses of titaum compared to the F-15 for example.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

@@TheBackyardChemist And having havinnng the machines to shape the mmetal because of the reasons you want it in the first place.

[@sorover111]

Scott, I love to watch you going through the “aha” moments in flight training, and these videos on aerodynamic fundamentals. Also, having known a lot of pilots, instructors, examiners, etc.. I think you’ve got the perfect disposition / demeanor for flying.. Namely you’re a monumental skeptic .. and that’s a life-saving characteristic in flying. 😊 Be safe ! 💸

[@kenoliver8913]

They say that you should fly with the attitude that all aricraft mantenace crews, air traffic controllers and your airline bosses are intent on killing you ...

[@RobertBardos]

Great thumbnail Scott. Love getting high on science with ya!

[@dddd6606]

Oh, a rare Australian intro!

[@rocketology1105]

I love the SR-71 footage sporting the LASRE linear aerospike test! Perhaps an upcoming video on that?

[@potatopilot1699]

As a pilot this video brings me joy. 1. Because my flight instructors across all my certificates taught me well clearly! 2. I can fully understand and comprehend all of the info in this video!!!!

[@richgeorge4368]

Oh Scott. How I love your videos. Beautifully tailored to those of us who didn’t get beyond A level science. Fantastically simplified, pitched and delivered. Thank you. I find this fascinating.

[@everettputerbaugh3996]

I read where the speed limit of the SR-71 was the thermal limit of the air-frame. Even titanium gets soft when cooked to 800 degrees C. Mach 3.1 was deemed safe, while 3.4 was reached in emergencies.

[@hisheighnessthesupremebeing]

I was told it was the engine air INLET temperature that was the limiting factor... it's crazy that it's the temperature of the air being pressed into the front/cone of the engine and that air at that altitude (if I remember correctly) is -30 to -50c before being slowed down and heatet up by the cone ... And I remember the limiting number 427°C .. 427 because it's the size of the V8 in the legendary Shelby AC Cobra 427 (427 in cui of course).. and Celcius wich was odd for an American aircraft ... But apparently they used the metric system when designing the SR71

[@paulbrooks4395]

Other high altitude compensations are low bypass engines, ramjets, and eventually scramjets. Higher bypass engines lose effectiveness more quickly at altitude. The SR-71 did go above 85k, and it was more than capable of it. Due to its speed, ramjet, and lifting body it was well designed for those altitudes.

[@dl6519]

I recall reading about U-2 pilots making a gentle turn and the inside wing is in stall buffet while the outside wing is in Mach buffet. Insane!!

[@randomguyinanglider4090]

Finally someone talks abaut sailplanes! The power of nature is often underrestimated. The pearland 2 wing is actually an modified version of an dg505,which is an farely standart glider when it comes to performance.

[@paulgracey4697]

Nice summary and quite complete but you missed one. NASA's WB-57. It is a design that pre-dates the U-2. A licensed version of the English Electric Canberra bomber, I watched it sampling the exhaust plume of the Delta Rocket carrying the LandSat 7 to orbit when I was part of the group invited for the launch. It was atypical for it to be such a gorgeous day at Vandenberg as you are aware. On the bus going back to work at Santa Barbara Research Co.a co-worker noticed the aircraft and asked aloud about how high it was. I remembered that I had read up on it, and told him its "party trick" was its ability to exceed 60,000 ft.

[@scottmanley]

I actually have a completely separate video about the WB-57 in the works.

[@simongeard4824]

@@scottmanley Looking forward to it, since they're a pretty cool if largely uncelebrated plane...

[@Chris_In_Texas]

The Mach 2.1 F-104 Starfighter baby! 31.6Km (just under 104,000 feet) Such a cool plane! I have been to 51,120 feet in a LearJet back in the 80's. Was cool to be that high back then as there wasn't many private jets going that high. Then the other way I have been down to -131' in altitude in a sub! 😁👍 Keep up the good work.

[@wings9925]

Entertaining and informative as always. Very enjoyable, thanks Scott.

[@colinterry7261]

Awesome video! I really enjoy hearing your take on the physics and engineering of these topics!

[@neovo903]

Well, Reynolds number is very important. This can influence the aerofoil choice and wing aspect ratio. Picking the correct engine and the ramps for flight at that height is important.

[@neovo903]

Bernoulli's principle and the Coanda effect (If supersonic)

[@neovo903]

If you can fly fast at altitude, you can use ramps or a shock cone to slow down the air and compress it for the engine to ingest, this could get more performance from the engine at high altitude, especially considering you'd be increasing the difference between V9 and V0 which would increase thrust.

[@neovo903]

As an aircraft passes into supersonic speeds, the centre of pressure changes with is something worth noting. Concorde countered this by changing the centre of mass by pumping fuel to different tanks, thus keeping the aircraft under control.

[@neovo903]

The EE Lightning is a good example of massive power and zoom climbing too

[@neovo903]

The EE Lightning's max altitude is still classified if I remember correctly

[@roysmith5902]

I'll push back on your statement at 2:10 about helicopters not having wings. They do indeed have wings. Rotating ones. But a rotor blade generates lift in exactly the same way as a fixed wing does; airflow at some angle of attack over an airfoil. Hence the classification as "rotary wing" vs "fixed wing".

[@scottmanley]

Sure, but then you get into arguing that the fan blades in a jet engine are also wings.

[@spacexrocks1041]

@@scottmanley My apologies Scott - I know it's rude to question the host - but the rotating wings in a helicopter provide lift, whereas fan blades improve thrust by compressing air into an engine. Aren't lift & thrust different processes? If so, I'm not sure that anyone could reasonably argue that fan blades are wings.

[@another3997]

@@spacexrocks1041 Surely the principles are broadly the same? A set of rotating blades move air in a particular direction. How that thrust is used is what differentiates them.

[@spacexrocks1041]

@@another3997 They both move air. I just think it's for different processes. Lift is different than thrust. If you point a set of rotating fan blades straight down, without the engine running, they just pull in air, like a vacuum cleaner. It moves air, but it doesn't provide lift.

[@geraldhuot6302]

Really good and informative video Scott. Love your info videos! All the best

[@MeAndMyRoyalEnfield]

Corporate jet pilot here. Andrew at Rocket Ranch Boca Chica TX shared this with me and he had questions and an interesting conversation ensued about the characteristics of sound, speed of sound, air density, humidity, altitude. He records sounds at a high level and was so interesting to listen to where he comes from technically. I love all the interactions that evolve from the vastly different people who are drawn like moths to a flame that is SpaceX. Thank you for this excellent video and the conversation it created. You do great work.

[@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus]

The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter introduced in 1958 Was running level intercepts on U2s at 70,000 ft in the 1960s. The highest altitude reached by an F-104 was over 100,000 ft. An intercept flown at 65,000 ft has been possible since at least 1960.

[@richardvernon317]

F-104A could reach 93,000 feet in 1958 (broke the official world time to height records doing it). F4H1 (Prototype F-4A Phantom) managed to get to 98,500 feet (breaking the same records)) in 1961. In fact most Mach 2 capable aircraft can get well above 60,000 feet, The only reason that they don't do it day to day is because the pilots are not wearing full pressure suits which you need to wear if you want to survive any form of cockpit pressurization failure about 60,000 feet.

[@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus]

@@richardvernon317 A Navy F4H1 went to 98,500 on December 6 1958. On December 14 1958 Capt. Joe Jordan got in an Air Force F-104A and reset the absolute altitude record at 103,395.5 feet. While he was on the way up he hit M2.36 and set a time to climb record for 30,000m. The Phantom's record stood for 8 days. The Starfighter gets a lot of flak for the German experience, but DAMN, what a performer. Check out the Air Boyd Video "Joe Jordan's F-104 Record Altitude Flight (1959)"

[@justarandomname420]

The F22's glorious air combat kills make the cost well worth it...

[@cherriberri8373]

@@Nick-mt4wk truly. If theres one thing more annoying than overly expensive military gear, its the people making the same stupid jokes/comments about it

[@nubcake67]

A jet so unbelievably advanced that it has almost obsoleted itself without a single enemy engagement.

[@Anvilshock]

@@cherriberri8373 Reminds me of Americans stalwartly defending inches with that same old clichéed Moon landing line. Sure, it was an impressive feat in numbers, but not only was it a political dick-waving publicity stunt disproportionately overfunded (for a "science" project, wink-wink) to one-up the Soviets, it was also mostly metric except where jobs had to be handed out to contractors. Even the capsule spoke metric, yet had to spend valuable computation cycles to display everything in muppet units because the pilots were all trained Navy who didn't know metric if they got shot with it.

[@GabrielAKAFinn]

@@cherriberri8373 Cry about it

[@twotrackjack2260]

🎈🎈🎈🎈

[@JZ909]

I remember way back when this channel was about exploration in Eve Online. I too have moved on from that time in my life, but the "Fly safe" always brings me back.

[@giarcsavage]

well done! i enjoy these educational side-trips into the physics of things.

[@AthAthanasius]

What? No-one else commenting on the inverted intro animation ?

[@peterdisney]

Really enjoyed this one, very informative thanks :-) Suggestion for another aerodynamic related one would be the black art of Dynamic Soaring.

[@edstewart7688]

You have to really love the information this gentleman puts out really learn a lot keep it coming

[@FlywithMagnar]

Aerodynamics has always interested me, and this is a great video! Scott has the ability to get all those itty-bitty details right.

[@nekomasteryoutube3232]

Man this was quite the interesting video, got to learn some new terms/concepts like Zoom climb, which sounds pretty cool to get an aircraft up to higher altitudes quickly.

[@MattH-wg7ou]

Zooming can be quite dangerous. If you zoom too high your airspeed can get low enough, and the air is too thin, to keep the engines going and you can have compressor stalls. Losing both engines (and the flight controls they power) at that alt can be unrecoverable. I think Yeager bailed out of an F104 because of this once but I may be mistaken.

[@nekomasteryoutube3232]

@@MattH-wg7ou Yeah I can imagine, I mean while your trading energies around for altitude, your still pushing the aircraft beyond its limits if your going well above its flight ceiling. though I did see on wikipedia that jet fighters can do this as a tactic to out run missiles. TBH I'd rather take the risk of either breaking my jet (engines) or stalling than have a missile hit me (which it doesnt need to actually HIT you , just needs to get close enough to go off as some use shrapnel or some other fragmentation like balls or something as their weapon to damage aircraft)

[@thomasgoodwin2648]

OK odd added value story, I learned about Zoom Climbs playing "Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer" for C64 back in the late 80's early 90's ish. The game was chunky and hard to control, but with enough persistence, you really did learn about test piloting skills. How did those numbers get in the flight manual to begin with? Someone had to actually flight test the plane to the limit to find out (except for perhaps the 'Do Not Exceed' speed. Ripping the wings off of your perfectly good vehicle == BAD). Test piloting is mostly mundane and boring. For example: determining the best climb airspeed is done simply by a series of tests that just put the aircraft into a specific configuration to achieve the desired airspeed and timing how long it takes to climb through a given altitude range. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. Dull, Dull, Dull. The little bit left over would make for a great diapers ad. Full props to the Test Pilots living and dead. The required skill set is unique. Daredevil's need not apply.

[@peetky8645]

@@MattH-wg7ou mentour pilot did a video on this where two airline pilots took a small airliner above its service ceiling and stalled the engines. the heat in the engines then melted them and they could not restart and crashed. they were too embarrassed to admit to the tower that they had lost both engines and were not able to get to a strip by the time they declared an emergency

[@planespeaking]

Solar powered HAPS gliders are being discussed again to provide communication with lower lag than satellite internet like starlink etc. Really enjoyed this video, thanks

[@sergioaugustoangelini9326]

Your pronunciation of Caproni was spot on!! Love your videos!

[@MCsCreations]

Fantastic, Scott! Thanks for the lesson! 😃 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

[@markkosten]

The XB-70 was rated at 77.000 ft but the prototypes, especially number 1, had many issues that limited performance. If it was properly developed into production I am sure it would have gone much higher, perhaps matching the SR-71/A12.

[@Zakster90]

I sat here for 17 minutes thinking he was going to show us how to make LSD or something to get really high, I feel cheated

[@KubaSzymanowski]

The video is out for only 5 minutes

[@i-_-am-_-g1467]

We'd like to keep our brains and sanity thanks. Also the Title has broken English in it

[@i-_-am-_-g1467]

Also you say you sat here for 17 minutes when the video has only been out for 9 minutes? Keep taking your lsd freako liar

[@Bibibosh]

Recipe to make LSD!!!! Mix the banana juice with 3 Lego people in an egg basket. Take a cricket bat and touch the apple while eating the marshmallow. Microwave all the ingredients in a soggy Microsoft word document, talk to your mother's father's sister about earthworms, and let it cool down for about 30 phytoplanktons or 40pps if you live upstairs! Then you will have some LSD. That's how I make my own high substance! The effects should last about 4-6 hours. Just don't double dose unless you're sure and done this before! Good luck any questions just ask me! I have done LSD 2 times now and I'm 34 :)

[@josipbroztito6763]

@@Bibibosh I thought the recipe for LSD was to put a dyslexic Mormon in the oven at 420 degrees for 69 minutes and collect the juices?

[@CommentConqueror]

I like your aviation content. Keep it coming!

[@eamonstack4139]

Scott, Very well researched and presented video - I leaned lots of interesting stuff, many thanks, fly high, Eamon

[@jonathansmith6050]

1:24 - hmm, kind of borderline whether you could say a helicopter stayed aloft just from its engine when it's got those big rotating aerodynamic surfaces -- the blades of its rotor(s) -- which kind of are a type of wing. The NASA Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (aka flying bedstead) would seem a better, if not so well known, example of flying from pure engine power.

[@scottmanley]

You are absolutely correct, moreover when it’s moving forward through the air those blades generate lift like a wing.

[@kunjukunjunil1481]

Yeah, Helicopters are "Rotary Wing" Aircrafts.

[@another3997]

@@scottmanley With rotary aircraft, do the retreating blades produce less lift than the advancing ones in forward flight? I know the mechanics of typical helicopters are complicated and inefficient in comparison to typical fixed wing aircraft.

[@justinodom4189]

Hey Scott! Love your videos and your deep explanations and different perspective. Can you do a deep dive on the soviet N1? Everyone compares Starship to N1 and Saturn V, but would love to know more about how it really stacks up. Thanks

[@joshuaboudreau5258]

Absolutely love your video. As a glider pilot and plane enthusiast in general, I find your explanations "grounded" and easily understandable. Thanks, Scott.

[@herbertkeithmiller]

Oh in airplanes, I'll watch anyway because anything Scott does is good.

[@ue4770]

Great Video, Scott! I only disagree on one thing: although helicopters use engine power to directly drive their rotors, they don’t use engine thrust to defy gravity, but simply to move their rotor blades through the air, which are pretty comparable to airplane wings in the way the generate lift: an aerodynamic surface that moves through the air (or call it ‚fluent‘ to also cover Mars helicopters) and generates lift this way. The same limits of stall, flutter and Mach number apply as to a conventional fixed wing.

[@donadams8345]

A limit that should be considered is the human limit. The Armstrong limit is roughly 60,000 to 62,000 feet. Humans cannot go above this altitude without a pressure suit or in an unpressurized craft without dying. That's why U-2 pilots (and the old SR-71 pilots) wear pressure suits. A pressurization failure would kill them otherwise.

[@richardvernon317]

That is the reason almost everybody who has officially taken an aircraft above 60,000 feet has worn some form of full or partial pressure suit. The pilots that haven't (Namely two or three BAC Lightning pilots in the 1980's) very much risked killing themselves if the cockpit pressurization system failed). The British used a partial pressure system for their V-bomber crews and Lightning pilots in the 1960's, a Taylor partial pressure helmet that covered the face and a pressure jerkin that covered the upper body (made by a compony called J Frankenstein and son's based in Manchester), plus the standard 1960's Anti G suit. Should the cockpit pressurising system fail, the speed jeans and pressure jerkin would inflate while the jerkin would cycle inflation and deflations with the pressure breathing system in the helmet to allow the pilot's lungs to work. This was so that he could get to lower altitude ASAP. For the official RAF Lightning intercept trials against the U-2 in late 1962, Frankenstein and Taylor apparently built experimental full pressure suits. I do believe that the modern flying suits worn by USAF F-22 pilots and RAF Typhoon pilots have upper body anti G suits that can do the same function as the RAF pressure jerkins from the 1960's.

[@slothomatic]

There's an SR-71 on display at my local air museum. I don't think people realize just how large they are. I know I was surprised when I saw it in person.

[@imbibe9891]

Wouldn't happen to be the Air Zoo, would it?

[@slothomatic]

@@imbibe9891 It's the Evergreen Aviation and Space Museum in McMinnville, Or. Though I'm sure the plane is on display at others too.

[@Bubbydid]

Good description of coffin corner - to elaborate on the last piece of it, the idea is the low speed buffet near the stall and the high speed buffet from high mach number can coincide, meaning you don't know whether you're going too fast or too slow.

[@wally7856]

If you make a turn in coffin corner you can do both! Outside wing too fast and inside wing too slow simultaneously!

[@raymobula]

Ahh, this brings be back to my Fluid-mechanics times. Loved playing with wind tunnels and pushing limits of wing designs and impellers.

[@skywatcher2025]

KSP 2 KERBAL PLUSHIE?!?!?!

[@Bonamus]

I was wondering if anyone else noticed it

[@JombieMann]

Jet engines don't "push against the air" any more then rocket engines do. The actual mechanism is action and re-action. The air being forced backwards has mass and pushing it backwards results in an equal and opposite reaction.

[@scottmanley]

The turbofan disc pushes on the air, the air in core is pushed out that back. It’s pushing air.

[@WanJae42]

@@scottmanley It is pumping air mass, yes. It's not pushing 'against' the air. Physics classes go to some length to drill the 'against' mentality out of students. We know what you meant, but it's an important distinction.

[@ryanspence5831]

@@WanJae42 it's pushing against the air as much as you push against the water when you swim--you're making a distinction without a difference I think

[@WanJae42]

@@ryanspence5831 No, it's really not. Jet propulsion works in a vacuum (given oxidizer). This is a physics fundamental.

[@scottmanley]

Yeah, it works because it pushes gas out the exhaust. Equal an opposite reaction still require pushing agains the reaction mass.

[@frankgulla2335]

A terrific video about high altitude and "high" speed flight. Thanks, Scott.

[@Arturo-lapaz]

4:05 For your discussion : on a twin engine aircraft a blue line is also marked: It is the engine out best rate of climb speed, meaning the indicated airspeed( actually CAS) requiring the least power, to achieve climb, irregardless of the altitude. That helps to determine the highest altitude to make 100 ft/min, but only for propeller airplanes.

[@ericmatthews8497]

Ok.. A glider that can reach 100,000 feet .. unpowered .. is freaking amazing.

[@MatthijsvanDuin]

Their goal is actually 90,000 feet, not 100,000, but close enough. Definitely a "whoa" moment to know that a specialized glider can get there. At that altitude they'll be flying around mach 0.4-0.5 ... in a glider.

[@xiphosura413]

I've been following the Perlan Project for a bit of time now, and it is truly impressive some of the stuff they have achieved! A suprising problem is windows and instruments fogging up due to temperature differences, I'm fascinated by the wind systems they utilise to get these records.

[@andreipiv]

I was sad to see that the Lancair Evolution wasn't actually a Lancer Evo with wings

[@ryklatortuga4146]

Undercarriage fitted with Enkei wheels and studded tyres for those huge high speed Finnish landings.

[@robertschmidt8307]

Great job as usual. Thank you Scott!!!

[@jackallread]

Good episode Scott, thanks. Lots of fun/unusual facts and data.

[@bigdog91paper]

I think the title may be missing a word

[@Pillowcase]

I think if it was longer it wouldn't fit in the field and get the ... treatment

[@glauberglousger6643]

Use Balloons, if that doesn’t work, more Balloons, I miss airships though, they aren’t even that dangerous anymore

[@johndododoe1411]

For unique military missions, the danger of a hydrogen fire can be acceptable, especially without an onboard pilot. So a hydrogen airship remotely operated with hydrogen burning engines could be a useful high altitude tool. For advanced weather balloons studying high altitude winds, considerable navigation and communication electronics will be needed to accurately report back location and altitude far from the launch station. Thus when analyzing the Chinese balloon, they will need to subtract the parts that detect GPS/Baidu location and the parts that contacts available communication networks to phone home. After that, we'll know exactly what systems were included to record surface activity of interest to spy agencies. Without that subtraction, antennas to log on to Verizon Internet and send back data would confuse the intelligence.

[@sambo7734]

Thanks Scott I really enjoyed that, that was a great video!

[@privateer0561]

The SR-71 made sea level power at 85,000 feet despite the thin air due to its Pratt & Whitney J58 turboramjet engines. The A-12 versions flew at 95,000 feet at Mach 3.35

[@llMarvelous]

It was really breathtakingly interesting (coz thin air…) Aerodynamics become very complicated at higher speeds and altitudes, it is hard to imagine how planes like sr-71 was developed in 1950s, considering the fact that first electronic calculator was created in the early 1960s

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Well, the first _desktop_ calculator was perhaps at that time, but calculating machines, even digital, were around in the 1940s, and IBM 600 series were quite common in the 1950s.

[@llMarvelous]

@@UncleKennysPlace yeah… I bet they performed pretty well in fluid dynamics simulation and all that 😄 And now we can run cloud version of Solidworks in a browser on pretty much any computer What a time to be alive

[@randyrobertson4686]

I used to think that if you were in a helicopter and the engine stopped you would be toast. But then I learned about autorotation and realized that you might be better off in a helicopter that lost power than a plane. I’m sure autorotation is tricky to master but you can get to the ground safely.

[@Ylyrra]

I've no direct experience myself, but I've seen plenty of pilots say the difference between a plane having a problem and a helicopter having a problem is the time you have to react: in a helicopter you have VERY little time to react, and if you don't react correctly immediately there's no opportunity to recover from that mistake. Planes give you time to make choices.

[@lxndrlbr]

I am not a pilot, but a helicopter in autorotation is effectively a parachute: as long as you have some altitude to let you pick a spot to land, accounting for the final flare, you can have a "safe" landing in a small open area. Whereas in a fixed wing aircraft, you need a somewhat vast open field or you risk several bad things happening to you while you decelerate from best glide to zero speed... and your engine provides much more than thrust, usually electricals and hydraulic (that's why most have a ram air turbine to maintain some level of safety even if all engines fail)

[@philipsmith1990]

A fixed wing aircraft is just as safe and probably safer. Even commercial jet airliners can glide and occasionally have. I can think of at least three occasions. There was the pretty well known gliding jumbo which had all 4 engines flame out due to volcanic dust ingestion and went on to relight enough of the engines to make a safe landing, and at least two others which lost all engines due to fuel exhaustion, both of which made safe landings.

[@lxndrlbr]

@@philipsmith1990 noted, but these show bias confirmation: these stories show extreme skill in cockpit management, piloting and a good amount of luck... however there are countless more examples of fixed wing aircraft having engine failures that lead to deadly accidents especially in small leisure aircrafts without as stringent safety regulations as modern commercial passenger jets.

[@philipsmith1990]

@@lxndrlbr 'Countless' is obviously wrong, however, the question is whether you are safer in a helicopter in such a situation than in a fixed wing aircraft. The statistics on aircraft safety are clearly in favour of fixed wing.

[@honkhonk8009]

Scott Manley the only dude that can take a crazy event like this, and turn it into some KSP discussion lol. I love this guys channel. Always can count on him to make my day lol

[@GerardHammond]

proper density rich science - thank you. It will take me two watched to get al this. Wonderful Champ!

[@GiuseppeSan]

I was wondering about exactly this after the balloon news. Would also be interested in hearing about the missile itself which must have gained another 40,000ft before finding its target - impressive. Edit: I was wrong, balloon was at 60-65k ft, not 100k ft like I originally believed.

[@dylan6474]

I dont beleive the missile gained 40,000ft after it was launched. We know the F22 was at minimum 50k feet

[@samsonsoturian6013]

It's a rocket. It doesn't intake air.

[@stinkyfungus]

Balloon was at 60-65k Raptor was at 56k or there about at missile seperation. flying level, in the cons right at, and just below the Ballon Sidewinder AIM9 was used because 1. They are way cheaper than a radar guided AIM120 2. AMRAAM doesn't like stationary or nearly stationary targets. Burn time on an AIM9 is around 10 seconds, IIRC, (EDIT didnt recall correctly. it's closer to 5 seconds), and it couldn't climb 40,000 feet after launch. It's a close range system designed to hit a maneuvering target within visual range. My question is what (if anything) did they do with the seeker to get it to see such a passive, cold target? Unless the balloon had a big ass generator or battery charging system that cranked out some serious BTUs. I'm surprised the AIM9x could guide on a Balloon... might be the USAF just told the world something without saying anything about how sensitive an AIM9x seeker actually is.

[@m1k3droid]

F-22 is capable of flying at 65,000 feet. A sidewinder missile has a range of about 30 miles, which is 150,000 feet horizontally, and air to air missiles typically accomplish their maximum range by going to high altitudes of as much as 100,000 feet

[@cherriberri8373]

@@stinkyfungus i mean, going up into the sky, the only thing TO BE a different temperature than the air is the balloon. So it'd make sense it would be able to seek the balloon still

[@stevenross-watt8640]

Great video. I listened to it whilst driving my car with the phone screen off. Came across perfectly. Thanks again.

[@Mike_Costello]

You literally wanted to say "the operating manual for my Space Craft" 6:25 You almost said the quiet part out loud. Great video. Your videos are more interesting now you are flying yourself too. Well done.

[@Mark_317]

The dragon lady was usually operated where the difference between stalling and ripping a wing off was 6kias

[@eurybaric]

Mulatu Astatke playing and Scott Manley telling and explaining is A++

[@billferner6741]

Thanx, you explained the 'covin corner' very well for me.

[@wxdave5448]

Very nicely done. Like Scott, I’m a student pilot but also an enthusiast of all things aircraft and space. I have a special love of the SR-71 too.

[@joyl7842]

I remember something about a F-104 Starfighter flying above 100.000 feet, thanks to a kind of parabolic maneuver which allowed the very high altitude to be reached.