The Fastest (Rocket) Aircraft In The world | X-15 by North American | Upscaled Documentary

The North American X-15 is an American hypersonic aircraft. It was operated by the United States Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as part of the X-plane series of experimental aircraft. The X15 set speed and altitude records in the 1960s, reaching the edge of outer space and returning with valuable data used in aircraft and spacecraft design. The X-15's highest speed, 4,520 miles per hour (7,274 km/h; 2,021 m/s), was achieved on 3 October 1967, when William J. Knight flew at Mach 6.7 at an altitude of 102,100 feet (31,120 m), or 19.34 miles. This set the official world record for the highest speed ever recorded by a crewed, powered aircraft, which remains unbroken.
The North American X-15 rocket-powered research aircraft bridged the gap between manned flight within the atmosphere and manned flight beyond the atmosphere into space. After completing its initial test flights in 1959, the X-15 became the first winged aircraft to attain velocities of Mach 4, 5, and 6 (four, five, and six times the speed of sound). Because of its high-speed capability, the X-15 had to be designed to withstand aerodynamic temperatures on the order of 1,200 degrees F.; as a result, the aircraft was fabricated using a special high-strength nickel alloy named Inconel X.
Air-launched from a modified Boeing B-52 Stratofortress aircraft, the X-15 required conventional aerodynamic control surfaces to operate within the atmosphere and special "thruster" reaction control rockets located in the nose and wings of the aircraft to enable the pilot to maintain control when flying on the fringes of space. Indeed, the X-15 design was so much like that of a space vehicle that during the formative days of Project Mercury, America’s first attempt to put a man in orbit, North American and National Air and Space Administration (NASA) engineers gave serious consideration to utilizing a growth version of the X-15 for the manned orbiting mission. This plan was dropped in favor of using a blunt-body reentry vehicle. Because of the potential dangers to the pilot should the X-15’s pressurized cockpit lose its atmosphere while the aircraft operated in a near-space environment, X-15 pilots wore specially developed full-pressure protection ‘spacesuits’ while flying the experimental plane.
Three X-15 research aircraft were built and flown, completing a total of 199 research flights. The National Air and Space Museum has the historic X-15 #1, Air Force serial 56-6670. The X15 #2 (56-6671) was rebuilt following a landing accident as the advanced X-15A-2, having increased propellant capacity and, hence, a higher potential performance. The X-15A-2 was the fastest X-15 flown, and it is now on exhibit at the Air Force Museum, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. The X-15 #3 (56-6672) featured an advanced cockpit display panel and a special adaptive control system. The aircraft made many noteworthy flights until it crashed during atmospheric reentry, following pilot disorientation and a control-system failure. The pilot, Capt. Michael Adams, was killed.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 50 ft 9 in (15.47 m)
Wingspan: 22 ft 4 in (6.81 m)
Height: 13 ft 3 in (4.04 m)
Wing area: 200 sq ft (19 m2)
Empty weight: 14,600 lb (6,622 kg)
Gross weight: 34,000 lb (15,422 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Reaction Motors XLR99-RM-2 liquid-fuelled rocket engine, 70,400 lbf (313 kN) thrust
Performance
Maximum speed: 4,520 mph (7,270 km/h, 3,930 kn)
Range: 280 mi (450 km, 240 nmi)
Service ceiling: 354,330 ft (108,000 m)
Rate of climb: 60,000 ft/min (300 m/s)
Thrust/weight: 2.07
Archive footage courtesy of NASA (nasa.gov)
#x15 #rocket #hypersonic

[@Dronescapes]

More aviation icons @ kzbin.info/aero/PLBI4gRjPKfnNx3Mp4xzYTtVARDWEr6nrT

[@zatozatoichi7920]

It is absolutely mind-boggling that this supreme feat of engineering first left the ground after just 56 years of the Wright brothers first ever powered and controlled flight with a heavier-than-air aircraft.

[@Dronescapes]

👍😯

[@pbr35586]

What's mindboggling is that 61 years after the X-15 we can't do any better. Really?

[@zatozatoichi7920]

@@pbr35586 There's a massive difference between 'can't' and 'don't want to'.

[@rafael6693]

@@pbr35586 because, there is no reason for it even though a Concorde like plane is being built. Also this was between the period of the cold war and a lot of tests were being made, specially in the aeronautical industry, between the militaries of USA and Russia to see who was the truly superpower. we can safely travel in today's world because many of this kind of tests during that period. coincidentally (or probably not), two years later there was the first moon landing.

[@notgray88]

@@pbr35586 if we did make something better, what is the point? There's no point in going faster if you can't do anything with that ability. It would be a complete money sink

[@johndavis9454]

I lived in SoCal in the early 1960's about 50 miles from Edwards AFB. We heard sonic booms weekly. I was just a kid but those booms were the sound of freedom to me.

[@Dronescapes]

👍❤

[@rpmflyboy]

The X-15 was launched by two different B52's. 008 "Eight ball" and 003 "The high and might one". My uncle was the copilot on 003. The 003 now resides at the Pima Air Museum outside of Tucson, AZ just a few miles from the famous "Boneyard". I don't know what became of the 008. but it sure would be nice to know.

[@tedsmith6137]

The X-15 is always interesting. The photo at 11:05 is nothing to do with Adams crash, which involved #3 (55-6672). The photo is the overweight landing incident for NASA's John McKay, after a failure of the XLR99 and inability to dump the fuel. A skid collapsed on landing. This was the #2 X-15 (55-6671) which was repaired and reflown, later modified as the X-15A-2.

[@mortdk]

It's almost unbelievable that this was done with 1950s technology. We just have no comparable vessel to this day. Imagine if the project had continued into the 70s. There was in fact proposals for delta winged and scram jet powered versions of the X-15. There was certainly potential for further development in the X-15 project.

[@robertshorthill6836]

I can still remember building a Revell model of the X-15. Damn, those were the days...

[@clive373]

There was an X15 on static display, at a BoB air display, at RAF Waddington, when I was a kid. I TOUCHED IT!!!!!!!!

[@Dronescapes]

👍❤

[@scottstevens7253]

The voice with the cool background music and jet is great

[@edfederoff2679]

Great photos of Neil Armstrong!

[@tedsmith6137]

The pilot shown at 12:03, when the narration is referring to Pete Knight, is in fact Scott Crossfield.

[@WiliiamNoTell]

Some of the technology for the X15 was integrated into the SR71 blackbird. Great video, love hearing about the X15. Thanks for sharing!

[@Dronescapes]

Yes, and many other aircraft as well

[@x15galmichelleevans]

Actually there was no technology from the X-15 that was incorporated into the SR-71. Kelly Johnson and his team worked at Lockheed, and there was no cross over with North American Aviation. Johnson actually bad-mouthed the X-15, saying that it was a worthless program, so he would never have used anything from the X-15 even it it had been offered.

[@x15galmichelleevans]

@@Dronescapes There are no aircraft that used any design features of the X-15. The X-20 Dyna-Soar would have used items first developed from the X-15, but that program was cancelled. The Saturn 1-B and Saturn V did use the Q-Ball that was developed for the X-15 to sense the direction of flight during the first few minutes of flight when the Apollo spacecraft was being launched. The biggest contribution of the X-15 was as a precursor to the Space Shuttle program. A big part of that was the proving that a winged vehicle could fly back from suborbital space to a pinpoint landing, under a pilot's control, thus the subtitle of my book "The X-15 Rocket Plane, Flying the First Wings into Space."

[@riskyron1416]

B-70 Valkyrie was quite an aircraft. Too bad it wasn't continued. In 1958 I saw a B-58 Hustler light up its engines over Phoenix Arizona. Either came out of Luke but more likely Williams AFB. Most of my life I worked with rockets. Solid Propellant. Also the F-15 Eagle. Sidewinder missiles are still Vietnam Era but upgraded. Still among the best. US has the bad habit of putting everything into one design with spacecraft. And like the Shuttle and others, the design flawed. Solid propellant motors are good on missiles and unmanned craft. But not so good on manned craft as they cannot be throttled up, down, shut down or relit like liquid propellant engines. Artemis is too much like the Shuttle, But one additional liquid engine and both boosters are 3 segment. But they are all about as dangerous as riding a nuclear bomb if anything goes wrong. I add liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engines are the way to go. The only output being pure water. The composition of solid motors is about as dirty as it gets. Burning tires would be cleaner. Plus Ammonium Perchlorate, HMX, , C4, C5 or C6. Hard to believe but it appears private companies have the best and most affordable space craft.

[@x15galmichelleevans]

@@riskyron1416 If you actually worked with solid propellant missiles then you should know that they can indeed be throttled. The Solid Rocket Boosters used on the Space Shuttle, and maybe soon on the Artemis are throttled. It is done by how the propellant is put into the booster. As an example, the thrust of the SRBs went down because of the propellant when the the stack went through the period of maximum dynamic pressure, or Max Q. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (now known as the RS-25) was throttled down at the same point. Both the SRBs and SSMEs were then throttled back up after Max Q. Throttling a rocket engine can be figured out when it needs to happen in flight before the vehicle ever leaves the launch pad, which is why the SRBs and SSMEs can be programmed to do that either by actually throttling them back electronically (as with the SSME) or through the way the propellant is load (as with the SRBs. Also, the SRBs on the Shuttle stack were 4-segment boosters, while the SRBs on the Artemis stack are 5-segment boosters, not 3. You are definitely correct that riding a rocket can indeed be very dangerous, as has been shown with both solid and liquid rockets over the course of the space program. Using liquids doesn't magically eliminate disastrous consequences. However, most people equate solids with having the most problems simply because they remember what happened to the crew of the Challenger in 1986 when the O-rings on the SRB failed. You are also correct that solid boosters tend to be the dirtiest way to get into space. Yes, there are much better way to do that. And by the way, the X-15 was still built only by North American Aviation, not Bell. The B-70 Valkyrie was also an NAA aircraft.

[@herpsderps9205]

Wonderful video, great writing. I don't often find well done, no-nonsense, in depth videos on here about specific projects like this, Feedback: the variable volume of the voiceover is pretty distracting. I'm not an expert but maybe look at consistency in distance to mic.

[@davidluna8372]

Excellent presentation . Very informative , good job !

[@Dronescapes]

Glad you liked it!

[@BlackMamba-ec4dn]

Legendary pilots, Brave enough to push and extend the boundaries of aviation. We would not be where we are right now in regard to aviation if not for those pilots pushing the limits in the early 60’s.

[@andrewhillis9544]

W-O-W ! ! ! I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS ICONIC ROCKET PLANE FLY AGAIN!!!👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@riskyron1416]

No doubt North American had a role in the X-15. But the primary contractor was Bell Aerospace. Hence known as the Bell X-15. I had a small role of being in the program myself. As well as the Bell Rocket Belt. All the X Series crafts X-1 through X-15 were incapable of ground takeoff. All the X-15's were dropped from the wing of a B-52. I did wiring, instrumentation calibration. Dang, but in the last 50 years the credit was given to North American. Even Time Magazine showed it in the 1960's with Bell -15 on the nose. Well guess I'm antiquated. I still say Pluto is a planet. Basically it was research for reusable rockets, early prototype for the Space Shuttle 10 years and more into the future. Bell retired from Plane and Rocket Production and concentrated on its helicopters.

[@SoloPilot6]

Uh . . .no. Yeager took the X-1 off the ground, once, to prove that it could be done.

[@chrish2666]

Pluto is a planet, at least in my mind. As as far as I'm concerned, all of the X- crafts were Bell. Thanks for your contribution.

[@x15galmichelleevans]

Sorry Ron, but you are 100 percent incorrect. Bell did build the X-1, but they most certainly did not build the X-15. It was built by North American Aviation at their plant next door to Los Angeles International Airport. The person leading the design team was Harrison Storms, and also included former NACA pilot Scott Crossfield, who left the NACA to work at North American. Scotty then went on to fly 14 contractor flights on the North American X-15 at Edwards AFB, before leaving the program. Bell had absolutely zero to do with anything related to the X-15. You may have done wiring and instrumentation calibration at Bell, but it had nothing to do with the X-15. The X-15 was never known as the "Bell X-15" but always as the "North American X-15." Time magazine definitely never published a photograph of the "Bell X-15" either. Sorry that you have somehow become confused about who built this magnificent aircraft.

[@x15galmichelleevans]

@@chrish2666 You may wish for them all to be Bell X-planes, but the fact is that they are not. Proper credit should be given to the right people and the right company that did the design and construction of the best research aircraft that ever flew.

[@x15galmichelleevans]

@@meteorfive6 Absolutely. If we can't give the proper credit, then what's the point?

[@SunAndMirror]

the whole process is insane fly in a place no one meant to be at speed no one meant to go and live the amount of sophistacted tools going into just moving in this world "needed to be fed oxygen" thhe tool operating the tool is about to break and they put human beings in that role insane feat of humanity, truly fascinating

[@michaelparks6120]

To me this is the coolest looking air/space craft ever !... I know thats not a great reason to like it as much as I do but it can't all be about the engine and hydrazine thrusters !

[@Dronescapes]

I totally agree!

[@riskyron1416]

Hydrogenated Hydrazine. In mid 1980s, Astrolite A-4-1 was composed of that and the world's most powerful non nuclear explosive. Chemical fueled motors and engines are advanced about as far as it goes. Ideally plasma fusion engines are the next step.

[@michaelparks6120]

@@riskyron1416 oh, I totally agree...chemical rockets, although fun to watch, are WAY to slow for the SERIOUS future exploration of space

[@x15galmichelleevans]

@@michaelparks6120 Just to be clear, hydrazine is about as dirty and dangerous as it gets with regard to rocket fuel. The X-15 used anhydrous ammonia as its fuel, for the LR-99 rocket engine and hydrogen peroxide was used for the tiny attitude thrusters. No hydrazine was used anywhere on the X-15.

[@michaelparks6120]

@@x15galmichelleevans Oh, okay. I will update my internal file on the subject. Thanks for the info ! 😀

[@PistoKTM]

Ok, we all love the x-15, but that red nose tail colour scheme of that b-52 Is wonderful!!!

[@hdgehog6]

That B52, the one that carried the X15 is at the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson AZ...... FYI

[@egroegartfart]

I have never heard a north American person pronounce nasa "nossa" there were a lot of really weird pronunciations here. Lol. I could understand if he was foreign but geeze. Lol. I don't mean to poke fun or anything I just find it interesting. Great video too.

[@k.h.1587]

No mention of using aereo instead of aero?

[@stephendecatur189]

@@k.h.1587 Like fingernails on a blackboard

[@mohammedcohen]

...I was in 7th & 8th grade when the X-15 was in its heyday...prolly the coolest timer to be a young boy...

[@Polar-bf7ol]

I've always been a huge fan of the aircraft.

[@robertbihn3005]

I had a small 1959 model x-15 hanging in my room, I was 12

[@fungibleunit4477]

NAA must have been an amazing place to work. They went from the P-51 in the 40s to the X-15, Navaho, Vigilante and XB-70 in just 20 years.

[@71Habu]

I firmly believe that, because of Sputnik, we lost out on flying into space instead being blasted on the top of a rocket. The X-15 proved hat we were on our way in a craft that flew.

[@x15galmichelleevans]

Yes, blasting into space aboard a ballistic rocket is not the best way to get up and back. The X-15 was a much better system. What the X-15 taught us was then used to design the Space Shuttle. Unfortunately, with Artemis, we seem to be going backward, not forward.

[@Channelscruf]

Twice as fast as an SR-71. Let that sink in.

[@mauriciocastro6363]

The most amazing aircraft were developed in the 50s and 60s. Now adays, we don't see this kind of flying machines anymore.

[@alexx3940]

Those back then were fast. These nowadays are stealthy, technologically advanced and more efficient

[@brandonc5965]

Wow this is soooo awesome

[@andrewhillis9544]

WE NEED AN X-15 2.0!!!👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@user-cg1ni7ub9i]

Skunkworks developed the SR71 from what was learned from the X-15

[@jesusgonzalez-xm4rk]

Why all the records happen in the 1960s but it’s 2022 and we still can’t beat it?

[@andrewhillis9544]

COME ON NASA AND SPACE-X AND PUT WINGS BACK ON THE SPACECRAFT!!!👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@thhorwitz1]

Interesting observation: Today, we know that the blunt end of a fin is faster and creates smoother airflow than a pointed fin.

[@luciustallman8022]

Hell I remember the X15 when I was just a kid and I am 69.

[@johnpalmer5131]

This highlights the philosophical difference between the Air Force and NASA/Army way to space… the AF approach was to fly there while NASA/Army wanted to blast the way to space on a rocket (ala Von Braun) … ultimately the NASA approach won out… not sure if this was the best way but so be it.

[@hunterhalo2]

Edwards Test Boom Operator, holy shit I learned so much. Thanks

[@DavidJG242]

balls of steel these test pilots

[@alexx3940]

Balls of steel? I would fly that thing if death was guaranteed

[@oxcart4172]

It would've been better if he explained the story behind that HUGE explosion and it's aftermath!

[@WiliiamNoTell]

The huge explosion was in a ground test for the XL99 throttlable rocket engine which was Tested byScott crossfield who survived the blast due to the hardened cockpit, Which he helped to design

[@oxcart4172]

@@WiliiamNoTell I know. But it wasn't mentioned here, was my point. You'd think that the aircraft that they're talking about blowing to bits would warrant an explanation!

[@seanpelletier2637]

@@oxcart4172 it's because this is just loosely strung together public domain footage with a script read by AI, all about quantity, not quality, that's how you make money on YT

[@stevenhoman2253]

In my estimation, the American space program was far in advance of anything offered by the USSR. To compare the orbit of a capsule, lacking any pilot control functions, to the X-15 crafts is risible. The public were not to know or understand how significant a manned space plane was, and the nature of its advanced systems would have been beyond their comprehension.

[@DrTWG]

They would have compared speeds & altitudes - making the X-15 look very slow and low. Doesn't matter if it's a useful comparison - people respond to highest & fastest .

[@the_epipan]

Hello. Why did the X-15 need the assistance of another plane to take flight? Because I see that it could land like any plane. Couldn't it do it by itself due to its short wing span that didn't allow it to generate enough lift to get away from the ground? Or was the rocket too powerful? Or could it actually be done but they preferred to start making it work in the air due to the large amount of fuel it consumed?

[@jtjames79]

Human guided missile, for the ultimate feeling of power.

[@Dronescapes]

😬😀

[@spinmaster4348]

So comes to the problem, are X-15s with external tanks count as rockets with crossfeed ability?

[@Dronescapes]

Fascinating question!

[@MrFlysafely]

Pretty good presentation however there was a distraction in the narration that had me cringing. It is NOT "arryodynamics", "arryospace" or "arryonautics". Think of them as starting with the word "ARROW"; e.g. "ARROW-DYNAMICS" and "ARROW-SPACE" and "ARROW-NAUTICS". Got it? Where you from boy?

[@Dronescapes]

1/2 American (Texas born), 1/2 Italian (Tuscany), but I lived in many places, including the mountains in Switzerland, Edinburgh, London, Prague, and many more.

[@laurencioenciso2500]

Thats great Hypersonic jet wow

[@Dronescapes]

Amazing times!

[@user-hf4nv6fb5r]

Imagine how fast they can go now i think the biggest problem is finding a way for humans to handle the speed

[@goobergobble-ux8lq]

So if we were already flying at 4,500 miles an hour as far back as the 1960s then what is the hold up on the 6th generation fighter ? Can't they just engineer it for the speed and the higher ceiling? Or maybe a bit more of one or the other?

[@Dronescapes]

The X15 was a rocket engine, with all its limitations

[@bandzxz9378]

There’s no point in a fighter jet going that fast

[@kart67racer]

I'm confused, hypersonic, like the hypersonic weapons of today? So how are we supposedly behind in hypersonic technology?

[@Dronescapes]

Hypersonic means 5 times the speed of sound

[@MrRyanisnumberone]

It’s not that things aren’t hypersonic. Our ICBM warheads are technically hypersonic upon re-entry into the atmosphere. Hypersonic weapons that are spoken about these days are the ones carried by an actual delivery device that is hypersonic under its own ability. In this case the x-15 was able to get up to that speed because it was delivered from a high enough and fast enough point by the b-52. Could the x-15 take off from a runway and achieve hypersonic flight? No it could not.

[@556tavor]

Yup

[@raymondmukama5919]

wow ish...

[@rogerbussiii]

15000 pounds of Propellant in 80 seconds.. wait what?...

[@BoxheadHakx]

I can't wait until the new air-launched stealth UAV's that can be deployed from our big boy fleet is unveiled.

[@chrifus31037]

7,274 km/h 😳😳😳😳😳😳😳

[@brandonc5965]

They finally got there astronaut wings 35yrs later now thats really wrong there

[@kiwidiesel]

3 joysticks🤣🤣🤣🤣 bugger that.

[@johnpalmer5131]

I heard in this that a John McCain mentioned in the video as one of pilots of the x15… is this the same McCain that went to be a Senator and Presidential candidate? Anybody know?

[@johnpalmer5131]

Never mind… on further checking, it appears that this video is referring to a John (Jack) McKay.

[@hrvojemikulcic7074]

Why not use X-15 engine in NGAD plane!?

[@Power5]

Need to get this thing back in the air to take down those pesky hyper balloons.

[@luciustallman8022]

I also remember when General Yeager broke the sound barrier.

[@user-cg1ni7ub9i]

Captain

[@k.h.1587]

Aero not aereo

[@chrisschuele4743]

it's nas-sa not naw-sa

[@12VIBES]

Read the book. Always another Dawn by Scott Crossfield. That is the truth.

[@clayblair6727]

Actually this book was ghost written by my father Clay Blair. He was the Time and Life pentagon correspondent at the time. He spent a lot of time with “Scotty” Crossfield. I was very young at the time when we as a family made a trip to California during the writing of the Time articles and the book.

[@ako9212]

McCain was so sick lmao. Flew the fastest aircraft known to man and survived torture in a jungle and came back. BA

[@jeffkocher328]

McCain did not fly the X-15, or the SR-71.

[@garylshelton2463]

"NAH-SA" seriously?

[@OmegataupodcastNet]

It's not called areodynamic!!!

[@mj7335]

x-15 so slow?

[@ggallen3156]

pov: you are fox 2

[@gdizhd8266]

So basically just a rocket with a seat attached to it

[@DungPham-on5dc]

🥰😍🤩

[@Dronescapes]

❤👍🙏

[@ronaldschoolcraft8654]

It would help if you would learn how to pronounce "aerospace" and "aeronautical".

[@mikefromflorida8357]

Yes it would. I agree.

[@squid0013]

That and NASA NACA Not NOSA and NOCA

[@rodbey9318]

Walk in the park

[@freddyodonohoe2644]

👌👍🍀🇮🇪

[@Dronescapes]

Thank you 🙏

[@freddyodonohoe2644]

@@Dronescapes 👍🙏

[@luciustallman8022]

As a madder of fact I built a model of it.

[@rastarn]

Nice presentation, though a dramatic narration is stripped of gravitas when the person speaking can't pronounce, "aeronautics", or any related words correctly: the Greek originating prefix is pronounced, "air-oh", not, "air-E-oh". "Aero", means air. "Aer-E-o", seems biscuit/cookie related. 😁

[@jeffkocher328]

Could not ignore that, plus the lack of a clear narrative arc, repetition, and apparent plagiarism from other written sources. It needed a good editor.

[@m3arvin]

I'll admit, I'm both anal retentive and a dinosaur, but FFS, it's N.A.C.A, not Naca (ie, you spell it out, not pronounced as a word). I made that faux pas early in my aerospace career and was promptly corrected by my elder AIAA and NASA colleagues.

[@x15galmichelleevans]

Yes NACA is usually spelled out by its letters rather than pronounced as the word "Naka." However, that is not always the case. When interviewing the people who design, built, and flew the X-15, I asked many of them how they pronounced the predecessor of NASA, and as often as not, they used the pronunciation of "Naka." I was actually surprised to find that out.

[@Matze239]

German engineering

[@Dronescapes]

There is also claims that the Miles M-52 has something to do with the X program, it it is mostly speculations. Indeed the likes of Von Braun contributed to such achievements as the space program

[@Istandby666]

One of my best times in life was growing up around Edwards Air Force Base.

[@Dronescapes]

👍👍