@nautico666 You just proved how stupid you are. It's easy to say something is fake. It's clear that this is real. Clear, that is, except to dummies like you who are so quick to try to prove how smart they are. Just another skeptic casualty in the dumbing down of America...
@ViperWK The very fact that you have no ability to see the difference between fake video and something that is real, makes you so far below the norm, that nothing I say will be within your ability to comprehend it. In which case, I might as well attempt talking to a bot...
@TheMarkHaze Scepticism is actually a good thing.Usually its the dumb or subservient people that aren't and the smart people who are. At 0:16 it flys a meter or so above the branch's but they don't move.? At 0:24 the guys on the truck don't move an inch yet they are right under it.? At 2:20 no sand is kicked up yet its only just a meter above the ground ? At 2:07 nothing is kicked up yet its just 3 ft above the ground ? Are you saying this is normal.? Do you have an explanation ?
@TheMarkHaze You didn't answer my questions ?...I'll ask again..What factor proves this thing can fly... Why is there no down draft in "most" of the shots ?
The "current" generation of Cruise missile has a 2,500 mile range and is 4 times "better" than the WASP' original engine.. I propose the Technology is "classified" and forbidden from being exported outside of the United States.... BUT I don't want the new stuff. The 1980 Tech which is 31 years old will be good enough for me, hell I like classic cars and airplanes, I want a WASP II and now I have to figure a way to get my hands on the 0002 Prototype in the Museum of Flight in Seattle Washington.
@TheBubbleboy35 The cable you refer to is "retroTECH" if you look at the 1970 hearing aids they used a braided wire for a ear piece, the Military was involved with this video shoot and the pilot had a radio to talk to the command officer, remember when this was created cell phones,personal computers did not exist, if I recall correctly fuel injection did not exist until the late 1980's 88-89.
Looks fake, if it is a jet engine with down thrust, why isn't anything moving when he flies over trees, grass etc... And where is the air intake Wouter sucking the pilot into the engine?
@DaveMoi The (2) intakes are on either side and forward,covered with painted expanded STEEL to prevent FOD-Foreign object damage, as for thrust "footprint" this is a WR-19 TurboFAN, which has a exhaust temperature of 580 degrees F VS a JET engine with exposed flame, which has a exhaust temperature of 1,280 degrees F. due to the dual intakes the vacuum created by an engine that weighs 68 pounds with 570 pounds of thrust is divided by 3 and a turboFAN has demands less air than the jet.
@DaveMoi I agree, it's totally fake. There is a lack of down draft in most of the shots except for at 0:20 .This i believe this was due to the helicopter (that was suspending it ) was attached lower in that particular shot. The two guys on the back of the truck don't move an inch yet it blows like a hurricane in this shot. ? (big discrepancy...) The air intake wouldn't of been a problem ..
@DaveMoi Why don't you use your brain to look up the company and get the schematics like I did? I'll tell you why - because you've been taught skeptical shorthand, i.e. if it looks unusual, there has to be something wrong with it so know need to learn anything new, just scream FAKE! like any trained animal response...
People writing this off as fake would shit their pants if they knew how much cool stuff has been created in the last hundred years. If not for Youtube, would you people who've never opened a book or watched a documentary even know about this thing? No. As with a lot of stuff, the tech to make it practical didn't (and still doesn't) exist, so these awesome projects collect dust in a museum corner if they're lucky. Normally they're scrapped, and paper, video and memories are the only remains.
@hectiky Cool stuff being invented throughout history does not prove this thing could actually fly.. The are millions of practical applications and uses that this thing could have.. Why dont we see any flying around ? . Because they didn't actually fly ! Generally it's the "uneducated" that have blind faith in believing things they see on the "internet" when they know nothing about them. Cold fusion looks cool, we've made cool stuff in the past, ahh it must be real then... lol
@ViperWK Woah, hold on there. Things "not working" aren't the only reasons they aren't put into mass production. Politics (government and otherwise) frequently stand in the way. As for this, it ate fuel like nobody's business, and someone with a pistol could've taken out the operator fairly easily. Not to mention the platform had no room for any useful load. The engine (used in US cruise missiles) has more than enough power to move a human.
@hectiky Ive heard just about every bogus and lame excuse under the sun why this thing "isnt' being used. Its all crap. FYI ..Its meant to fly at 100km per hour..You try and hit a small target at that speed with a pistol from say 300 meters away..It could fly around behind enemy positions and flank them. It could hold a hell-fire missile, or say 20 kg of cluster type munitions, or perhaps just do recon missions. BTW its meant to fly for 45 minutes on a tank. It had no problems with fuel.
@ViperWK Pistols was an exaggeration, as most troops have rifles. Anyway, companies do tend to exaggerate capabilities or their products, so yeah. The X-Jet really doesn't have all that much room, though. Can't imagine trying to fire missiles from a small floating platform. Don't know what kind of altitude would be needed to drop cluster bomblets, but that doesn't sound too appealing either. Agreed that it'd definitely make a useful recon tool, but heck, we got drones, now.
@hectiky Politics and government is not the reason why you don't see these things flying around today..Williams is a "private" company.. When the Pentagon passed on it Williams had it up for sale to any buyers they could find. They even tried marketing it for civilian use.(look at the pictures). Imagine how many people could of been saved during 911 with this technology or the billion's other use's.This thing never flew mate. Time to wake up to yourself and stop making up lame excuses.
@hectiky You've got it right. The sad part is that these morons screaming FAKE are so dumb they have no idea just how stupid they look, and never will...
This really hard to believe but in the information you have given in the comments i think you have a reliable source, just think on day we could all have one of these, don't you think it's amazing?!
ViperWK So much for Australia in Space. Maybe you guys will get there someday! Keep dreaming and reaching for the stars. We'd love for you to join us!
@AROUGHMAN Big deal, so we don't have a space industry..We've only got a population of 22 million people. Not ever country has to have one. We pioneer other things such as bio-research and original invention's. If we started our own space industry we'd go and pioneer all of the work ourselves rather than outsource and have ex-Nazi's build it for us. Not having a space industry is better than having one that failed. Yep you definitely live up in the stars alright .. LOL , umm see you there.
@ViperWK . Wow! I never thought Australians were such Haters. I know it's not easy to accept the fact that technologically we are just so far advanced than you guys are - Nazis or not, lol... But it's ok, you guys will find out about what we are doing sometime in the future - maybe! You are one of our allies right? Just imagine what you don't know about. Did you hear that we are now bending light around objects? Maybe Im standing next to you right now! Open your mind and lose the attitude.
... And by the way, my work is orbiting the earth as we speak ViperWK. What have you done besides criticize other people's work? I'm still not going to discuss the design of the XJet and you are still going to be an XJet Hater. Why don't you contact Williams between engineering your next world changing project and ask them about the platform? I am sure they will be happy to tell you what I already know - that the XJet really flew.
@AROUGHMAN Im curious, was your satellite launched using a Russian Soyus while they were giving your Astronauts a lift to the international space station. ? Oh yeah BTW the X-Jet engine has no Gyro's .. You lied... Let me guess , no comment , its top secret ... lol
@AROUGHMAN Right, so let me get this straight, the only proof that you have that this thing "can" fly is just an old grainy VHS tape that's being played in a museum which was produced by the company itself..So your idea of getting "independent" proof is to just go and call up the company.. Rightttt.. BTW Im not an X-jet hater, your fabricating that to make me sound biased..I use to love the X-jet. I saw the video when i was a kid back in the 80's, I couldn't stop dreaming about it.
ViperWK. You just keep believing that it doesn't fly. You will remember that we had this conversion. I will speak with the work we are doing. Good Luck!
For the record ViperWK, I didn't leave the conversation because I felt cornered . You reminded me of a saying we had at NASA. "Never argue with someone who does not have as much information as you do. People may not know the difference." I am not willing to sacrifice details on Xjet to prove you wrong so I respectfully left the conversation. You are looking at it from the perspective of what can't be done. My knowledge, experience and plans tell me that it was done. Everything is possible!
@AROUGHMAN You left the discussion after i simply and politely asked you about your claim that the engine was gyro'd .. When i asked you about this "politely" you kept replying with answers that had nothing to do with gryo's , you then briskly left the discussion. I've talked to some experts on the X-jet.. It has no gyro's , nor is there any way or means that gyro's could manipulate or influence the engine without either a moveable nozzle or set of vanes inside it.. It has no gryo' s ????
@AROUGHMAN , Your excuse that you wont discuss this any further because you don't want to divulge any of the design or plans is totally lame.. This thing is essentially just an engine wacked into a frame that somebody stands on, that's it !.. From an engineering point its just a fancy po-go stick with an engine under it. There's nothing special or secret about it. I could go down to the museum tomorrow with a measure tape and see how its built .. Do you have any independent proof it can fly..?
No Commercial value ViperWK? You have no idea how the Xjet is built. You are using a vid and museum photos/models. We are not. Flying to burning buildings? We have more than a few people interested in what we do even with the fact that it's a very dangerous concept. I am betting that there are quite a few 1% ers willing to purchase the ability to zoom past and over all those custom Harley Riders out there. How's that for commercial value? Worth not discussing core details on the Xjet huh?
@AROUGHMAN Ummm you failed to see the sarcastic point that i was trying to make..There are plenty of commercial and public applications that these things could be used for. I totally agree with you on that.. With so many possible uses it could have as either a recreational craft or used to save lives not one entrepreneur or government has ever built one ..Why ? Because they cant actually fly, or fly like what is seen in this video..
I didn't contact you or anyone else about the Xjet. My comment was to correct the assumption about the XJet being a Black Project. It was proposed to the Military as a flying platform but is no longer top secret. While the plans are not readily available to the general public, the original Patent is. I think it's awesome that you have confidence in your knowledge of flight dynamics but I am not the person you want to test that knowledge on. Especially if you understand what I do. Good Luck!
@AROUGHMAN It's good to see comments from someone who actually knows what they are talking about. I hope to see some videos on your version of the XJet as you progress into the flight test stage. Most of the comments I see are from people who "know" this video is a hoax. I wish you well in your project.
@wesley9761 Hi Wesley... Aroughman hasn't back up or explained anything. He's bogusly evaded answering a few simple innocent questions. Balancing the pilot against the engine does NOTHING to solve the stability and control issues. He lied about the engine having gyroscopes controlling it. It has NO such feature. He failed to address "any' of the valid observations I made about the footage then left the discussion when cornered on the topic. Are sure you sure he knows was he's talking about ?
@wesley9761 Thanks. Too many people don't look at the possibilities of what humans can do. Instead of using their knowledge to find ways of doing things that are bigger and better they waste their time trying to knock down those who were brave enough to reinvent or just do away with the wheel. I spent years collecting info on and studying Xjet and it wasn't easy even though I work in Aerospace. We still have challenges but It's a great platform! In Texas n NASA we don't believe in failure.
@AROUGHMAN NASA doesn't believe in failure ?. With all due respect NASA has pretty much shut down from what ive seen ?.They have scraped the space shuttle program all together.. Overseas's countries now do most of the space missions including launching US satellites and astronauts. All NASA has right now is a vehicle that's patched together using old boosters from the Shuttle which have been quite literally strapped to an old rocket design..That's failure if you ask me.
@wesley9761 I agree with you that the plans are not "readily" available and the patent was an interesting read, what is more interesting?? the WR-19 engine was developed from in house funds by Sam Williams 1963 and the first WR-19 was built in 1965, the Patent expired in 1985 and the engine has been declassified by the Military, which means "anyone can" make a W-19 how much does a 12.025 Dia 3inches thick piece of Titanium cost, that what the FAN is made from, one single piece.
Ha Ha ViperWK. I knew you would go that route. I am of course not going discuss the technical aspects of the propulsion system of the XJet just to prove how smart you are. As I mentioned, this is an active project for us with commercial potential - that's why we acquired the plans. Contrary to what was blogged here, the original patent is in the public domain and available not TOP SECRET. Do yourself a favor, look it up, and maybe you will have a better understand of the XJet's flight dynamics.
@AROUGHMAN Ummmm , they don't have any commercial potential value !..That's why no one has bothered re-creating one since the 80's.. This is the reason why they haven't been used to save people from burning buildings , used to fly around battlefields flanking enemy positions and saving soldiers lives, or used to deploy fire fighters in remote forest fires.. Either that or the fact these things cant fly .. mmmm . Makes you think doesn't it... ?
I am glad you are interested in the platform but it's an active project for us and I am looking at it from a different perspective. It's not a matter of if it works. Our only issues are the modification to the propulsion system required for safe and reliable operation of a very cool but dangerous platform on so many levels.
Yaw is based on exhaust vanes. The system is basically modified kinesthetic control. Leaning into pitch and roll by the operator to adjust the center of gravity of a vertically balanced platform. These are the basic details of how it works. Williams had a relatively simple but effective concept. I am sure you knew that already. Thanks for the info on the availability of the F107's but we have what we need. I won't be discussing the XJet on this site any further.
@AROUGHMAN hmm, fails to answer a few simple technical questions, constantly and repetitively goes on about neutral weight distribution evading the topic of discussion then randomly leaving the discussion. Im really starting to doubt the validity of this claimed project. Obtaining military plans ? It all sounds sus to me.. If im wrong i sincerely apologize to you now but you've explained nothing and have just waffled on with some technical jibber jabber failing to address anything relevant..
The thrust of the F107 provides direct lift to the Xjet. It is mounted vertically in the vehicle with respect to a fore and aft plane but at a leaning angle of 12 degrees relative to the lateral plane. The exhaust outlet is also at 12 degrees to the trust line of the engine downward to allow vertical lift. The vehicle's center of gravity is balanced forwardly of the thrust line to offset the pilot's weight which is behind that line. The operator does lean forward to control the balanced vehicle.
@AROUGHMAN Im not sure if your following what im saying. Im well aware that the pilots shift in CG makes the unit move forward, backward and pitch. That's my question. What i wanted to know is how do the Gyro's manipulate the craft ? Unless it's got servo's and control rods connected to the pilots waist making him move around how do to Gyro's have any bearing or influence of the craft considering that the pilots weight is the only thing that affects directional movement of it ?
ViperWk I can show you how to balance a broom on your finger and move it very efficiently in any direction. It's not that difficult if you know how to calculate the center of gravity. It's the same principle without getting into aviation engineer speak.
@AROUGHMAN Calculations mean nothing when trying to balance a broom, it doesn't make it any easier...What is required to make a "bottom up" powered object stay steady and also manage any desired changes in direction is a very fast and active electronic control system that's also integrated with the controls. The X-jet doesn't have this nor does it have the physical means to manipulate forward, backward , left or right movements to make corrections. It is essentially a flying broom.
The way the platform is designed, more thrust doesn't mean better performance. It's all about balance with the Xjet. I mentioned the mount angle of the powerplant which is important. The F107's weight is used to offset the weight of the pilot which was very limited. A heavier pilot would require a heavier jet engine with more thrust. Those who can't get that trait of the Xjet will not be able to wrap their mind around why it worked so well. It has to because any failure means major injury.
@AROUGHMAN Hi Aroughman, Setting the unit up with a neutral centre of balance on the "vertical axis" doesn't remove any of the main physical issues. The unit will still be highly sensitive to minor changes in CG and/or external side forces requiring constant and extremely precise counter balancing and correction to stop it "over running" and tipping. Say the neutral weight of my broom is evenly balanced, this still doesn't make it any easier to keep it steady on the end of my finger.
ViperWk we are working on it but it is not that simple. Most of our guys work for NASA so we are more than capable. When I mentioned the F107, I was referring to just anyone out there building an Xjet not that we needed one. There are some issues to overcome as the F107 in the XJet is very modified in order to be mounted vertically. As far as balancing, the Xjet used gyros for balance like a Segway in a really simple way. Gyros are a lot smaller today.
@AROUGHMAN Interesting, I wasn't aware these had Gyro based control units inside them. Out of curiosity what are the Gyro's actually controlling or manipulating.. From my understanding the X-jet is operated by the pilot shifting his weight around plus a manual control of a set of vanes in the nozzle which affect yaw only. How could they have any bearing on the control of the unit ? Also if the Gyros are trying to self level the unit how do they differentiate from intended pilot movement ?
It blows my mind some of the comments that I see here and why nothing like this gets built today. No one believes it can be done because they expect something complex or it's not real. The SR71 was built in the 60's using a slide rule and nothing can fly as fast to this day. I was completely blown away at how simple this design was when I first saw the plans. But it was done and we will do it again. This is very real but was and will always be very risky to fly. Houston is working on it.
@AROUGHMAN The doubt being cast is not because it was made during simpler times where technology was less advanced but is mostly due to the physic's of how it "should" work as the video contravenes the expected physical behaviour. When you have an object or mass that is supported from underneath it becomes highly unstable. Just the "slightest" change in centre of gravity or side force makes it unbalanced. Try and balance a broom on the tip of your finger, its almost impossible to keep steady.
@cdamistaken Hi Chris, If im correct the point of balance would be at the very bottom of the pod where the thrust outlet is.. If so this would mean the that entire weight of the unit would be top heavy.. There are many reasons for possibly faking a project.. Williams trying to get government interest to scam some funding.. Could of been cold war propaganda at the time by the Pentagon to spook the Russians..There is only one shot in the video that shows dust under it, the rest don't.
@cdamistaken Gday Chris, Here's my observations of the footage.. At 0:16 flys a meter or so above the branch's but they don't move at all.. At 0:20 the down draft is very wide and is quite heavy and blows everything around quite violently..This i believe this was from a helicopter above at that point. If it wasnt then this sets a precedent for how strong the thrust of the X-jet should be.. At 0:24 the guys on the truck don't move an inch ..(Remember the jet wash at 0:20) mmm..
@cdamistaken Continuing on - The guys pants waving around, this got me to. If you look carefully you'll find that this is distortion in the video tape. VHS is notorious for putting ripples in the top or bottom of a picture. The dust at 0:26 is subjective. It takes off near the ground but there's no dust. It gets higher away from the ground then dust. I don't think it was dust rather the exposure in the picture had changed due to the brightness of the sky causing a haze in the video compression.
@cdamistaken Chris, the US military industrial complex is a highly corrupt system that has a very cozy relationship with the US government..Governments don't care about results or efficiency when it comes to spending money. Many billion dollar projects have failed due to a contractor failing to produce the goods they promised. They just move on and don't care and the contractor still stays in business. NASA contractors promised congress that the space shuttle would fly once a week mmm
@cdamistaken Continuing on (again) - At 1:53 has what looks to be a single blade of grass pop up, but its hard to say definitively as there is alot of graininess and clutter in the picture. Lets say it was a blade of grass then why isn't everything else around it blowing quite violently as seen in 0:20 ?.It could be probable that while the pod was suspended by cables the engine was running at say 10% thrust to give effect. Still there is hardly any down draft which "should" be expected.
@cdamistaken Hi Chris, How do you know there are branches over hanging the track at 0:34 ? I cant see any.. The track could of been clear from above.. Again the engine in the pod could of been idling at say 10% at that point explaining the small wisp of sand behind it. At 0:40 they wouldn't of used the pod or wires. The camera was likely mounted on a 4x4 vehicle. Again there is NO dust or branches being kicked around at all and its flying a meter above the ground. ? Still no explanations ?
@cdamistaken At 0:34 to 0:38 there is a very small wispy trail but this could be due to the engine running at 10% so as mentioned before while being suspended.. On the subject of sand you'll also notice at 2;20 not sand is kicked up , nor any branch's blow around yet its only a meter above the ground... (Remembering what's seen at 0:20) .. If anyone can explain any of these anomalies in the video id love to know.. Especially when comparing the shot of 0:20 with the one at 2:07 ???
ViperWK this vehicle is real. The design is very simple down to the thrust vectoring contraption used. Williams basically gyro-ed a vertical jet engine. The pilot's weight was offset by mounting the trbojet 12 degrees relative to the fore and aft plane. The plans that we have are not for sale so don't ask. They cost us too much. The main problem with rebuilding this concept is an available powerplant with a reliable way to oil the turbofan while it is vertically mounted as the modded F107 was.
@AROUGHMAN I forgot to ask , what do you mean by "gyro-ed a vertical jet engine".. Also wouldn't the oil in the engine be pressurised meaning that it shouldn't matter what angle the engine sits at .. ?
@AROUGHMAN Im not doubting that its physically real. They did indeed make a frame/pod and wacked an engine in it. What i doubt is that it can actually fly as is shown in the video and that the video itself was faked using a series of support wires attached to the side of the pod. Ive got no interest in buying the plans, but thanks for affirming that..Im just curious how you obtained them. Isn't it patented by Williams ? Being military project you would think it wasn't accessible to the public.
Wikipedia has some basic information. They show 600 lbs. thrust for the engine, which doesn't leave much room for fuel after allowing for pilot and airframe weight. Control seems to be throttle plus mechanical linkage to vanes in the exhaust to control roll on the vertical axis. Weight shifting was used for steering. Don't know if the claim for 45 minutes of light was ever proven. Fun looking machine.
This is really cool! Sort of a hovering Segway! The only thing I can't figure is how much fuel can it carry? After allowing for the size of the fanjet engine, all the control mechanisms and electronics, how much space is left for fuel? Probably the run time is quite short, as jet engines have voracious appetites. There is no doubt this thing is real, when the military wants something bad enough, enough money is available to make it so. Thanks for the post.
@2n918 To get the fly time they claim it could do it had of held around 60 litres of fuel.. Can anyone explain how they possibly fitted this in considering the pilot and engine take up most of the space? There is no secret or magic way that the engine ran on less fuel. More reason to think that this thing is fake.. There is no way that it flew for 45 - 60 minutes as the Pentagon/Williams claim it could...?
@cdamistaken Hi cdamistaken , thanks for the info.. I read somewhere that the F07's fuel consumption was about 14 Gallons per hour which was how i made my rough calculations on a supposed tank size.. Is that figure of a 20 Gallon tank quoted by Williams themselves or can this be backed up and verified by seeing actual photos' of the tank sitting inside of the pod, if not perhaps seeing the dimensions of it in the plans..?
How cool is that,it's in metal gear solid snake eater!!!old car in the back ground from the 70's but they could have built it 3 years ago for all i know.
That is awesome. I have never seen anything so cool. I would love to have one, but I don't think anyone would be selling one in my price range for a few decades or so!
Excessive fuel weight/use means too short flight times...and....why exactly is this a "silent" video. Got any idea just how NOISY these things are. Bad guys would hear them coming a mile away. Low, slow, and easy to shoot. Stupid idea, dumb use, and Williams pulled the plug on allowing their engines to be used.
@60knightsix Ummm helicopters are noisy.. ? This thing could fly at 10,000 feet (supposedly).. ?. It is small and fast ? It could fly for about an hour, plenty of time..? . The "stupid" and "dumb" idea was you choosing to post a comment in this thread..lol
Information on this flying platform was extremely hard to find but the design is very simple. The most expensive part is the Jet Engine. The patent is actually public domain and I now have a copy (and build plans) The Williams F107 which powers this thing is the same one on the Tomahawk and unless you are NASA or Military research... forget it. No other engine on the market is small enough and weight compatible to do the design but we are working on it. It's a fore/aft vs vertical thrust thing.
@Ramboide2 My video was shot with a digital camera (Canon A540) pointed at the video kiosk at the National Museum of the United States Air Force outside Dayton, Ohio. It was uploaded without any editing. The original video was presumably filmed and produced by Williams International during the development of the aircraft in the 197's and 1980s. A prototype is on display at the museum, along with the video presentation.
@wesley9761 Cool. Any Idea how it was made? ;) I need to travel 500 kilometres a week to meet my girlfriend and it takes me so much time and money. A device like this could make my life a lot easier...
@125varma The top speed is 100 km/h with an endurance of 60 minutes. That means at least six landings for fuel enroute, with very little allowance for safety. My suggestion — move, or find another girlfriend.
Information on this flying platform was extremely hard to find but the design is very simple. The most expensive part is the Jet Engine. The patent is actually public domain and I now have a copy (and build plans) The Williams F107 which powers this thing is the same one on the Tomahawk and unless you are NASA or Military research... forget it. No other engine on the market is small enough and weight compatible to do the design but we are working on it. It's a fore/aft vs vertical thrust thing.
@AROUGHMAN Hi Aroughman.. Ive seen some old F07's show up on Ebay. I think they sold for about $2500 but needed a starter conversion. Old surplus engines like these aren't hard to find if you spend the time looking around. From my research on this ive come to the conclusion that it was fake. It couldn't of physically flown, its claimed performance is impossible and the video shows many anomalies.Id be really curious see one of these things fly if it was re-constructed from the original design.
@cdamistaken Hi Chris, It was some time ago now..I did a quick look just then but the listing record for it has gone.. From memory one engine was very clean, the other looked was very scruffy and dirty like it had been left in a warehouse for years.. Yeah abit of gun powder whacked in them wouldn't do them much good... lol.. Im fairly good an engineering projects.. What needs doing with the oil system ?
Information on this flying platform was extremely hard to find but the design is very simple. The most expensive part is the Jet Engine. The patent is actually public domain and I now have a copy (and build plans) The Williams F107 which powers this thing is the same one on the Tomahawk and unless you are NASA or Military research... forget it. No other engine on the market is small enough and weight compatible to do the design but we are working on it. It's a fore/aft vs vertical thrust thing.
imagine the stuff they built that they haven't told us about. If somethign like this had some kind of generator that assited its propulsion system you might be able to fly virtually unlimited distance. if this thing could do 100mph with unlimited distance then you could cross the atlantic
Why not rap it w/ big clear safety bubble like the ones for rolling down hills in . Along w/ the chute ,That could help solve the low alt. safety problem. Its so JOHNNY QUEST !!!
Why not rap it w/ big clear safety bubble like the ones for rolling down hills in . Along w/ the chute ,That could help solve the low alt. safety problem.
It's legit. Made in 1970 til 1983. Jet powered Williams aerial systems platform. Look it up. They flew perfectly but flopped in the military market which was where they wouldve made their money. Bc too expensive as toys. But military pays big contracts for those things. New York times called it "a flying garbage can"
What a load of bull. Of course it's fake the concept would not have been dropped! If that was real that would be beyond useful and worth a lot of money. "deemed inferior to helicopters" what those huge, noisy things? Of course. Yea someone probably built it. And it's probably in a museum, bur those videos are bull.
Outstanding, even tho the concept is about 40yrs old, these techs are being stored I feel certain for DoD military app studies for the time being tho not commercial as of yet, however they the dirty fuel giants of the world may wait & hope if not actively contribute to the global population decreasing to about 1 billion then will bring this out to market, hell this flyin device would be critical in seismic active areas & flooded locations also, they'll need serv station locations I reckon also.
I would have to say with todays technology it is insane that we could not make a version that flew for 2 hours or more and the engines would be 3 times smaller and less noisy. This was in 1974, that was almost 40 years ago. Just put a Ipod & program to control the whole device even include a parachute system.
If we stop making weapons out of everything: An do away with the War concepts forced upon us by Governments hidden agendas. In a world, the only thing that conquers hate LOVE." Were has your Brother gone?"You insist he die because he continues to be better then you!
Go to the HOW STUFF WORKS webpage and type Hiller Flying Platform in the search box. The resulting vid is of the original, prototype flying platform; granddaddy to the one you see in this video. Just think how much more advanced the ones that are being developed are. The military is probably keeping them under wraps and out of use for the gen pop. Maybe in 20 or 30 years we'll all be using one to get to work!
they could definitely make one of these with two or maybe even three backup systems im talking multiple engines that cannot engage at the same time, especialyl considering that thing goes 60mph (much faster than it needs to) there is tons of room to make one of these safe and viable, ie up to the paro f a flying bike (max 20-30mph)
1:26 - 1:33 shadow looks fake. It should not be seen at the ground due to the small size of the craft, or at least appeared bigger than the shadow cast on trees
@wesley9761 eh... you are a tit, this was built as a proof of design ONLY...... IT NEVER FLEW!!!!! if it did work there would be thousands of videos of them flying all over the world, and at some point would end up in the news after some one used it for the wrong reasons. The us military did however scoop up all the patents as usual!
@FPVdrone First of all, don't be rude. Name calling is just a great way to show how immature one is. Second, this is not a prototype. The prototype was the Hiller flying platform developed in the 1950s. There's video of that one flying and maneuvering very well on the How Stuff Works website. The one you're seeing in the vid above is many generations removed from that original machine. You can bet that it's in use by the military somewhere. Just cuz you've never seen one doesn't mean it's fake.
@jcchandley Ýou are right, i should not be rude lol sometimes i loose control of my comments here on you tube, only to cringe when i get a reply days or weeks later. I am sorry for calling you names, but do appreciate being called immature at 40 lol
I still think this could be redeveloped with modern tech. Put together auto-balance ala Segway, more powerful/efficient engine, lighter structure, increased payload, small caliber helmet aimed vehicle mounted weapon or sensor, some sort of seat/alternate control for long distance cruising, GPS nav/radio, and you would have a hell of a scout recon vehicle. Depending on price civilian applications are countless. UAV function. Troops fly into combat, dismount, vehicles fly back to safe area.
@wesley9761 All vehicles have critical situations where engine failure is unrecoverable. I figured a balistic recovery parachute system would help minimize the death option.
@Bigfoot1955 The BRS wasn't included in your list of upgrades, but, yes, that would certainly help, above a critical altitude. Rumors say that upgraded versions are being used by the government, but don't tell us if they are manned or not. The prototype certainly was an impressive vehicle.
@wesley9761 The prototypes were equipped with a ballistic parachute — years ahead of their time. In that sense, they were safer than a Chevrolet Suburban stuck in commute traffic.
@upajos Thanks, I hadn't found a reference to that in the past. I would assume that there is still a critical altitude below which even a ballistic parachute wouldn't have sufficient time to deploy.
@Bigfoot1955 -- trust me, they have something much much more advanced, dont think the gov took one look at this and said "a personal hovercraft?? who needs it?" lol no way, they have not stopped developing this thing since it was concieved.
@Bigfoot1955 this is most certainly developed and in action judging how well it flew even back then.. anyone with a brain will see that it is impossible that Governments would alow this because it would destroy their feudal taxation system through enforcement of roads and ports being the only way to cross National borders
With a flying platform, the game would be up.. smugglers, gun running, sabotage attacks. ad of course.. the end of the passport
@Bigfoot1955,this WASP recce scout vehicle is by far the most amazingly stable of any other such platforms of that time,unlike the underfuselage-rotor concepts(options that we can view on the right here)were inherently too noisy owing to the HI-speed supersonic spinning blades,though jets too are equally noisy,but with the availability today's very quiet Hi-bypass turbofan & if anybody at all would choose to go the Xtra mile to develope a scaled down versions of the engine it'd be exciting
@Bigfoot1955,(cont)U can be right on most counts of opinion,but the US military estb.had it shelved for reasons that it being too conspicuous with parasitic low level engine noise,limited payload-service ceiling & pilot would essentially be a"flying duck",if not a sitting one at low alt.,it was so followed with the advent of UAVs as aptly put unmanned,so no life deficit may incur,however UAVs are much more costlier though,I hope the US would put 2 good use the hover-flight concept in todays UAVs
There are some things that could make this death-machine a lot safer. I wonder if it has anything like I'll describe?
1.) A parachute that instantly deploys upon engine failure. Practically useless at low altitude.
2.) An ejection feature, but seems impractical.
3.) Best would be adding another engine. But, in a multi-engine airplane it takes time to secure control after an engine failure. Low altitude failures can be challenging to impossible. This is time you won't have on this Xjet.
I'm a commercial pilot, instrument rated, and a career A&P specializing in structures & sheetmetal.
So, I speak with a little expertise (ce?) in saying; "This Flying Platform is a very dangerous and deadly thing!" Can you see what would happen if the engine failed? Engines quit OFTEN. You would come down HARD! Death or severe injury is certain. Airplanes with 2 or more engines can fly if 1 or more quit. Planes with 1 engine are usually able to glide & land on a field, road, airport. Safely.
@nautico666 You just proved how stupid you are. It's easy to say something is fake. It's clear that this is real. Clear, that is, except to dummies like you who are so quick to try to prove how smart they are. Just another skeptic casualty in the dumbing down of America...
TheMarkHaze 3 weeks ago
@TheMarkHaze How is it real ?
ViperWK 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ViperWK The very fact that you have no ability to see the difference between fake video and something that is real, makes you so far below the norm, that nothing I say will be within your ability to comprehend it. In which case, I might as well attempt talking to a bot...
TheMarkHaze 1 week ago
@TheMarkHaze Scepticism is actually a good thing.Usually its the dumb or subservient people that aren't and the smart people who are. At 0:16 it flys a meter or so above the branch's but they don't move.? At 0:24 the guys on the truck don't move an inch yet they are right under it.? At 2:20 no sand is kicked up yet its only just a meter above the ground ? At 2:07 nothing is kicked up yet its just 3 ft above the ground ? Are you saying this is normal.? Do you have an explanation ?
ViperWK 6 days ago
@TheMarkHaze You didn't answer my questions ?...I'll ask again..What factor proves this thing can fly... Why is there no down draft in "most" of the shots ?
ViperWK 5 days ago
i want one
danisaac6 1 month ago
that video is a total fake, an edited video, all the strings were erased.
nautico666 1 month ago
@nautico666 I agree.. Look at my other comments regarding lack of down draft in many of the clips..
ViperWK 1 month ago
OMG metal gear is real!
gastroization 1 month ago
I would use this to get to work every single day if it was available..
raddpuppy70 1 month ago
The "current" generation of Cruise missile has a 2,500 mile range and is 4 times "better" than the WASP' original engine.. I propose the Technology is "classified" and forbidden from being exported outside of the United States.... BUT I don't want the new stuff. The 1980 Tech which is 31 years old will be good enough for me, hell I like classic cars and airplanes, I want a WASP II and now I have to figure a way to get my hands on the 0002 Prototype in the Museum of Flight in Seattle Washington.
frickandfracksicem 1 month ago
I want one.
GORIZARD6 2 months ago
I bought one off PAWN STARS for 12 thousand dollars. It is very unstable and can only fly for 4 minutes tops.
2012goingNutz 2 months ago
@2012goingNutz REALLY now, I'd really hope you post a video. It'd be really cool
Riushinn 1 month ago
looks like a cable @ 1:17-1:20 on his left shoulder. not say-n its fake but looks like a cable.
TheBubbleboy35 2 months ago 2
@TheBubbleboy35 The cable you refer to is "retroTECH" if you look at the 1970 hearing aids they used a braided wire for a ear piece, the Military was involved with this video shoot and the pilot had a radio to talk to the command officer, remember when this was created cell phones,personal computers did not exist, if I recall correctly fuel injection did not exist until the late 1980's 88-89.
frickandfracksicem 1 month ago
I can't wait to get one!!!!
TheCottonTop 2 months ago
Looks fake, if it is a jet engine with down thrust, why isn't anything moving when he flies over trees, grass etc... And where is the air intake Wouter sucking the pilot into the engine?
DaveMoi 2 months ago
@DaveMoi The (2) intakes are on either side and forward,covered with painted expanded STEEL to prevent FOD-Foreign object damage, as for thrust "footprint" this is a WR-19 TurboFAN, which has a exhaust temperature of 580 degrees F VS a JET engine with exposed flame, which has a exhaust temperature of 1,280 degrees F. due to the dual intakes the vacuum created by an engine that weighs 68 pounds with 570 pounds of thrust is divided by 3 and a turboFAN has demands less air than the jet.
frickandfracksicem 1 month ago
@DaveMoi I agree, it's totally fake. There is a lack of down draft in most of the shots except for at 0:20 .This i believe this was due to the helicopter (that was suspending it ) was attached lower in that particular shot. The two guys on the back of the truck don't move an inch yet it blows like a hurricane in this shot. ? (big discrepancy...) The air intake wouldn't of been a problem ..
ViperWK 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaveMoi Why don't you use your brain to look up the company and get the schematics like I did? I'll tell you why - because you've been taught skeptical shorthand, i.e. if it looks unusual, there has to be something wrong with it so know need to learn anything new, just scream FAKE! like any trained animal response...
TheMarkHaze 1 week ago
How long can this thing fly?
lceus 2 months ago
People writing this off as fake would shit their pants if they knew how much cool stuff has been created in the last hundred years. If not for Youtube, would you people who've never opened a book or watched a documentary even know about this thing? No. As with a lot of stuff, the tech to make it practical didn't (and still doesn't) exist, so these awesome projects collect dust in a museum corner if they're lucky. Normally they're scrapped, and paper, video and memories are the only remains.
hectiky 2 months ago
@hectiky Cool stuff being invented throughout history does not prove this thing could actually fly.. The are millions of practical applications and uses that this thing could have.. Why dont we see any flying around ? . Because they didn't actually fly ! Generally it's the "uneducated" that have blind faith in believing things they see on the "internet" when they know nothing about them. Cold fusion looks cool, we've made cool stuff in the past, ahh it must be real then... lol
ViperWK 2 months ago
@ViperWK Woah, hold on there. Things "not working" aren't the only reasons they aren't put into mass production. Politics (government and otherwise) frequently stand in the way. As for this, it ate fuel like nobody's business, and someone with a pistol could've taken out the operator fairly easily. Not to mention the platform had no room for any useful load. The engine (used in US cruise missiles) has more than enough power to move a human.
hectiky 2 months ago
@hectiky Ive heard just about every bogus and lame excuse under the sun why this thing "isnt' being used. Its all crap. FYI ..Its meant to fly at 100km per hour..You try and hit a small target at that speed with a pistol from say 300 meters away..It could fly around behind enemy positions and flank them. It could hold a hell-fire missile, or say 20 kg of cluster type munitions, or perhaps just do recon missions. BTW its meant to fly for 45 minutes on a tank. It had no problems with fuel.
ViperWK 2 months ago
@ViperWK Pistols was an exaggeration, as most troops have rifles. Anyway, companies do tend to exaggerate capabilities or their products, so yeah. The X-Jet really doesn't have all that much room, though. Can't imagine trying to fire missiles from a small floating platform. Don't know what kind of altitude would be needed to drop cluster bomblets, but that doesn't sound too appealing either. Agreed that it'd definitely make a useful recon tool, but heck, we got drones, now.
hectiky 2 months ago
@hectiky Politics and government is not the reason why you don't see these things flying around today..Williams is a "private" company.. When the Pentagon passed on it Williams had it up for sale to any buyers they could find. They even tried marketing it for civilian use.(look at the pictures). Imagine how many people could of been saved during 911 with this technology or the billion's other use's.This thing never flew mate. Time to wake up to yourself and stop making up lame excuses.
ViperWK 1 month ago
@ViperWK I would think far more people would be killed flying them than people saved. But, ah well. Nice chatting with ya.
hectiky 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hectiky You've got it right. The sad part is that these morons screaming FAKE are so dumb they have no idea just how stupid they look, and never will...
TheMarkHaze 1 week ago
Мля..... Да мы на таких ступах еще при Царе Горохе уже летали!!! :)))
У нас заслужиная пенсионерка "Баба Яга" фигуры высшего пилотажа показывала!
chizikreva 2 months ago
This really hard to believe but in the information you have given in the comments i think you have a reliable source, just think on day we could all have one of these, don't you think it's amazing?!
SuperNoobNinja 2 months ago
Это же ступа "Бабы Яги" Плагиат!
OrlandoK2008 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We need these :P
Difellior 2 months ago
Right!
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
ViperWK So much for Australia in Space. Maybe you guys will get there someday! Keep dreaming and reaching for the stars. We'd love for you to join us!
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN Big deal, so we don't have a space industry..We've only got a population of 22 million people. Not ever country has to have one. We pioneer other things such as bio-research and original invention's. If we started our own space industry we'd go and pioneer all of the work ourselves rather than outsource and have ex-Nazi's build it for us. Not having a space industry is better than having one that failed. Yep you definitely live up in the stars alright .. LOL , umm see you there.
ViperWK 2 months ago
@ViperWK . Wow! I never thought Australians were such Haters. I know it's not easy to accept the fact that technologically we are just so far advanced than you guys are - Nazis or not, lol... But it's ok, you guys will find out about what we are doing sometime in the future - maybe! You are one of our allies right? Just imagine what you don't know about. Did you hear that we are now bending light around objects? Maybe Im standing next to you right now! Open your mind and lose the attitude.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN physorg(dotcom)/news/2011-08-breakthrough-corner.html
ViperWK 2 months ago
It's ok to disagree or not believe in something but you can do it without being a Richard Cranium. It's unbecoming.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
... And by the way, my work is orbiting the earth as we speak ViperWK. What have you done besides criticize other people's work? I'm still not going to discuss the design of the XJet and you are still going to be an XJet Hater. Why don't you contact Williams between engineering your next world changing project and ask them about the platform? I am sure they will be happy to tell you what I already know - that the XJet really flew.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN Im curious, was your satellite launched using a Russian Soyus while they were giving your Astronauts a lift to the international space station. ? Oh yeah BTW the X-Jet engine has no Gyro's .. You lied... Let me guess , no comment , its top secret ... lol
ViperWK 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN Right, so let me get this straight, the only proof that you have that this thing "can" fly is just an old grainy VHS tape that's being played in a museum which was produced by the company itself..So your idea of getting "independent" proof is to just go and call up the company.. Rightttt.. BTW Im not an X-jet hater, your fabricating that to make me sound biased..I use to love the X-jet. I saw the video when i was a kid back in the 80's, I couldn't stop dreaming about it.
ViperWK 2 months ago
ViperWK. You just keep believing that it doesn't fly. You will remember that we had this conversion. I will speak with the work we are doing. Good Luck!
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
For the record ViperWK, I didn't leave the conversation because I felt cornered . You reminded me of a saying we had at NASA. "Never argue with someone who does not have as much information as you do. People may not know the difference." I am not willing to sacrifice details on Xjet to prove you wrong so I respectfully left the conversation. You are looking at it from the perspective of what can't be done. My knowledge, experience and plans tell me that it was done. Everything is possible!
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN You left the discussion after i simply and politely asked you about your claim that the engine was gyro'd .. When i asked you about this "politely" you kept replying with answers that had nothing to do with gryo's , you then briskly left the discussion. I've talked to some experts on the X-jet.. It has no gyro's , nor is there any way or means that gyro's could manipulate or influence the engine without either a moveable nozzle or set of vanes inside it.. It has no gryo' s ????
ViperWK 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN , Your excuse that you wont discuss this any further because you don't want to divulge any of the design or plans is totally lame.. This thing is essentially just an engine wacked into a frame that somebody stands on, that's it !.. From an engineering point its just a fancy po-go stick with an engine under it. There's nothing special or secret about it. I could go down to the museum tomorrow with a measure tape and see how its built .. Do you have any independent proof it can fly..?
ViperWK 2 months ago
No Commercial value ViperWK? You have no idea how the Xjet is built. You are using a vid and museum photos/models. We are not. Flying to burning buildings? We have more than a few people interested in what we do even with the fact that it's a very dangerous concept. I am betting that there are quite a few 1% ers willing to purchase the ability to zoom past and over all those custom Harley Riders out there. How's that for commercial value? Worth not discussing core details on the Xjet huh?
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN Ummm you failed to see the sarcastic point that i was trying to make..There are plenty of commercial and public applications that these things could be used for. I totally agree with you on that.. With so many possible uses it could have as either a recreational craft or used to save lives not one entrepreneur or government has ever built one ..Why ? Because they cant actually fly, or fly like what is seen in this video..
ViperWK 2 months ago
I didn't contact you or anyone else about the Xjet. My comment was to correct the assumption about the XJet being a Black Project. It was proposed to the Military as a flying platform but is no longer top secret. While the plans are not readily available to the general public, the original Patent is. I think it's awesome that you have confidence in your knowledge of flight dynamics but I am not the person you want to test that knowledge on. Especially if you understand what I do. Good Luck!
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN It's good to see comments from someone who actually knows what they are talking about. I hope to see some videos on your version of the XJet as you progress into the flight test stage. Most of the comments I see are from people who "know" this video is a hoax. I wish you well in your project.
wesley9761 2 months ago
@wesley9761 Hi Wesley... Aroughman hasn't back up or explained anything. He's bogusly evaded answering a few simple innocent questions. Balancing the pilot against the engine does NOTHING to solve the stability and control issues. He lied about the engine having gyroscopes controlling it. It has NO such feature. He failed to address "any' of the valid observations I made about the footage then left the discussion when cornered on the topic. Are sure you sure he knows was he's talking about ?
ViperWK 2 months ago
@wesley9761 Thanks. Too many people don't look at the possibilities of what humans can do. Instead of using their knowledge to find ways of doing things that are bigger and better they waste their time trying to knock down those who were brave enough to reinvent or just do away with the wheel. I spent years collecting info on and studying Xjet and it wasn't easy even though I work in Aerospace. We still have challenges but It's a great platform! In Texas n NASA we don't believe in failure.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN NASA doesn't believe in failure ?. With all due respect NASA has pretty much shut down from what ive seen ?.They have scraped the space shuttle program all together.. Overseas's countries now do most of the space missions including launching US satellites and astronauts. All NASA has right now is a vehicle that's patched together using old boosters from the Shuttle which have been quite literally strapped to an old rocket design..That's failure if you ask me.
ViperWK 2 months ago
@wesley9761 I agree with you that the plans are not "readily" available and the patent was an interesting read, what is more interesting?? the WR-19 engine was developed from in house funds by Sam Williams 1963 and the first WR-19 was built in 1965, the Patent expired in 1985 and the engine has been declassified by the Military, which means "anyone can" make a W-19 how much does a 12.025 Dia 3inches thick piece of Titanium cost, that what the FAN is made from, one single piece.
frickandfracksicem 1 month ago
Ha Ha ViperWK. I knew you would go that route. I am of course not going discuss the technical aspects of the propulsion system of the XJet just to prove how smart you are. As I mentioned, this is an active project for us with commercial potential - that's why we acquired the plans. Contrary to what was blogged here, the original patent is in the public domain and available not TOP SECRET. Do yourself a favor, look it up, and maybe you will have a better understand of the XJet's flight dynamics.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN Ummmm , they don't have any commercial potential value !..That's why no one has bothered re-creating one since the 80's.. This is the reason why they haven't been used to save people from burning buildings , used to fly around battlefields flanking enemy positions and saving soldiers lives, or used to deploy fire fighters in remote forest fires.. Either that or the fact these things cant fly .. mmmm . Makes you think doesn't it... ?
ViperWK 2 months ago
I am glad you are interested in the platform but it's an active project for us and I am looking at it from a different perspective. It's not a matter of if it works. Our only issues are the modification to the propulsion system required for safe and reliable operation of a very cool but dangerous platform on so many levels.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
Yaw is based on exhaust vanes. The system is basically modified kinesthetic control. Leaning into pitch and roll by the operator to adjust the center of gravity of a vertically balanced platform. These are the basic details of how it works. Williams had a relatively simple but effective concept. I am sure you knew that already. Thanks for the info on the availability of the F107's but we have what we need. I won't be discussing the XJet on this site any further.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN hmm, fails to answer a few simple technical questions, constantly and repetitively goes on about neutral weight distribution evading the topic of discussion then randomly leaving the discussion. Im really starting to doubt the validity of this claimed project. Obtaining military plans ? It all sounds sus to me.. If im wrong i sincerely apologize to you now but you've explained nothing and have just waffled on with some technical jibber jabber failing to address anything relevant..
ViperWK 2 months ago
The thrust of the F107 provides direct lift to the Xjet. It is mounted vertically in the vehicle with respect to a fore and aft plane but at a leaning angle of 12 degrees relative to the lateral plane. The exhaust outlet is also at 12 degrees to the trust line of the engine downward to allow vertical lift. The vehicle's center of gravity is balanced forwardly of the thrust line to offset the pilot's weight which is behind that line. The operator does lean forward to control the balanced vehicle.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN Im not sure if your following what im saying. Im well aware that the pilots shift in CG makes the unit move forward, backward and pitch. That's my question. What i wanted to know is how do the Gyro's manipulate the craft ? Unless it's got servo's and control rods connected to the pilots waist making him move around how do to Gyro's have any bearing or influence of the craft considering that the pilots weight is the only thing that affects directional movement of it ?
ViperWK 2 months ago
ViperWk I can show you how to balance a broom on your finger and move it very efficiently in any direction. It's not that difficult if you know how to calculate the center of gravity. It's the same principle without getting into aviation engineer speak.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN Calculations mean nothing when trying to balance a broom, it doesn't make it any easier...What is required to make a "bottom up" powered object stay steady and also manage any desired changes in direction is a very fast and active electronic control system that's also integrated with the controls. The X-jet doesn't have this nor does it have the physical means to manipulate forward, backward , left or right movements to make corrections. It is essentially a flying broom.
ViperWK 2 months ago
The way the platform is designed, more thrust doesn't mean better performance. It's all about balance with the Xjet. I mentioned the mount angle of the powerplant which is important. The F107's weight is used to offset the weight of the pilot which was very limited. A heavier pilot would require a heavier jet engine with more thrust. Those who can't get that trait of the Xjet will not be able to wrap their mind around why it worked so well. It has to because any failure means major injury.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN Hi Aroughman, Setting the unit up with a neutral centre of balance on the "vertical axis" doesn't remove any of the main physical issues. The unit will still be highly sensitive to minor changes in CG and/or external side forces requiring constant and extremely precise counter balancing and correction to stop it "over running" and tipping. Say the neutral weight of my broom is evenly balanced, this still doesn't make it any easier to keep it steady on the end of my finger.
ViperWK 2 months ago
ViperWk we are working on it but it is not that simple. Most of our guys work for NASA so we are more than capable. When I mentioned the F107, I was referring to just anyone out there building an Xjet not that we needed one. There are some issues to overcome as the F107 in the XJet is very modified in order to be mounted vertically. As far as balancing, the Xjet used gyros for balance like a Segway in a really simple way. Gyros are a lot smaller today.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN Interesting, I wasn't aware these had Gyro based control units inside them. Out of curiosity what are the Gyro's actually controlling or manipulating.. From my understanding the X-jet is operated by the pilot shifting his weight around plus a manual control of a set of vanes in the nozzle which affect yaw only. How could they have any bearing on the control of the unit ? Also if the Gyros are trying to self level the unit how do they differentiate from intended pilot movement ?
ViperWK 2 months ago
It blows my mind some of the comments that I see here and why nothing like this gets built today. No one believes it can be done because they expect something complex or it's not real. The SR71 was built in the 60's using a slide rule and nothing can fly as fast to this day. I was completely blown away at how simple this design was when I first saw the plans. But it was done and we will do it again. This is very real but was and will always be very risky to fly. Houston is working on it.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
Comment removed
cdamistaken 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN The doubt being cast is not because it was made during simpler times where technology was less advanced but is mostly due to the physic's of how it "should" work as the video contravenes the expected physical behaviour. When you have an object or mass that is supported from underneath it becomes highly unstable. Just the "slightest" change in centre of gravity or side force makes it unbalanced. Try and balance a broom on the tip of your finger, its almost impossible to keep steady.
ViperWK 2 months ago
Comment removed
cdamistaken 2 months ago
@cdamistaken Hi Chris, If im correct the point of balance would be at the very bottom of the pod where the thrust outlet is.. If so this would mean the that entire weight of the unit would be top heavy.. There are many reasons for possibly faking a project.. Williams trying to get government interest to scam some funding.. Could of been cold war propaganda at the time by the Pentagon to spook the Russians..There is only one shot in the video that shows dust under it, the rest don't.
ViperWK 2 months ago
Comment removed
cdamistaken 2 months ago
@cdamistaken Gday Chris, Here's my observations of the footage.. At 0:16 flys a meter or so above the branch's but they don't move at all.. At 0:20 the down draft is very wide and is quite heavy and blows everything around quite violently..This i believe this was from a helicopter above at that point. If it wasnt then this sets a precedent for how strong the thrust of the X-jet should be.. At 0:24 the guys on the truck don't move an inch ..(Remember the jet wash at 0:20) mmm..
ViperWK 2 months ago
Comment removed
ViperWK 2 months ago
@cdamistaken Continuing on - The guys pants waving around, this got me to. If you look carefully you'll find that this is distortion in the video tape. VHS is notorious for putting ripples in the top or bottom of a picture. The dust at 0:26 is subjective. It takes off near the ground but there's no dust. It gets higher away from the ground then dust. I don't think it was dust rather the exposure in the picture had changed due to the brightness of the sky causing a haze in the video compression.
ViperWK 2 months ago
Comment removed
cdamistaken 2 months ago
@cdamistaken Chris, the US military industrial complex is a highly corrupt system that has a very cozy relationship with the US government..Governments don't care about results or efficiency when it comes to spending money. Many billion dollar projects have failed due to a contractor failing to produce the goods they promised. They just move on and don't care and the contractor still stays in business. NASA contractors promised congress that the space shuttle would fly once a week mmm
ViperWK 2 months ago
@cdamistaken Continuing on (again) - At 1:53 has what looks to be a single blade of grass pop up, but its hard to say definitively as there is alot of graininess and clutter in the picture. Lets say it was a blade of grass then why isn't everything else around it blowing quite violently as seen in 0:20 ?.It could be probable that while the pod was suspended by cables the engine was running at say 10% thrust to give effect. Still there is hardly any down draft which "should" be expected.
ViperWK 2 months ago
Comment removed
cdamistaken 2 months ago
@cdamistaken Hi Chris, How do you know there are branches over hanging the track at 0:34 ? I cant see any.. The track could of been clear from above.. Again the engine in the pod could of been idling at say 10% at that point explaining the small wisp of sand behind it. At 0:40 they wouldn't of used the pod or wires. The camera was likely mounted on a 4x4 vehicle. Again there is NO dust or branches being kicked around at all and its flying a meter above the ground. ? Still no explanations ?
ViperWK 2 months ago
Comment removed
cdamistaken 2 months ago
@cdamistaken At 0:34 to 0:38 there is a very small wispy trail but this could be due to the engine running at 10% so as mentioned before while being suspended.. On the subject of sand you'll also notice at 2;20 not sand is kicked up , nor any branch's blow around yet its only a meter above the ground... (Remembering what's seen at 0:20) .. If anyone can explain any of these anomalies in the video id love to know.. Especially when comparing the shot of 0:20 with the one at 2:07 ???
ViperWK 2 months ago
ViperWK this vehicle is real. The design is very simple down to the thrust vectoring contraption used. Williams basically gyro-ed a vertical jet engine. The pilot's weight was offset by mounting the trbojet 12 degrees relative to the fore and aft plane. The plans that we have are not for sale so don't ask. They cost us too much. The main problem with rebuilding this concept is an available powerplant with a reliable way to oil the turbofan while it is vertically mounted as the modded F107 was.
AROUGHMAN 2 months ago
Comment removed
cdamistaken 2 months ago
Comment removed
ViperWK 2 months ago
Comment removed
ViperWK 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AROUGHMAN I forgot to ask , what do you mean by "gyro-ed a vertical jet engine".. Also wouldn't the oil in the engine be pressurised meaning that it shouldn't matter what angle the engine sits at .. ?
ViperWK 2 months ago
@AROUGHMAN Im not doubting that its physically real. They did indeed make a frame/pod and wacked an engine in it. What i doubt is that it can actually fly as is shown in the video and that the video itself was faked using a series of support wires attached to the side of the pod. Ive got no interest in buying the plans, but thanks for affirming that..Im just curious how you obtained them. Isn't it patented by Williams ? Being military project you would think it wasn't accessible to the public.
ViperWK 2 months ago
Wikipedia has some basic information. They show 600 lbs. thrust for the engine, which doesn't leave much room for fuel after allowing for pilot and airframe weight. Control seems to be throttle plus mechanical linkage to vanes in the exhaust to control roll on the vertical axis. Weight shifting was used for steering. Don't know if the claim for 45 minutes of light was ever proven. Fun looking machine.
wesley9761 2 months ago
This is really cool! Sort of a hovering Segway! The only thing I can't figure is how much fuel can it carry? After allowing for the size of the fanjet engine, all the control mechanisms and electronics, how much space is left for fuel? Probably the run time is quite short, as jet engines have voracious appetites. There is no doubt this thing is real, when the military wants something bad enough, enough money is available to make it so. Thanks for the post.
2n918 2 months ago
@2n918 To get the fly time they claim it could do it had of held around 60 litres of fuel.. Can anyone explain how they possibly fitted this in considering the pilot and engine take up most of the space? There is no secret or magic way that the engine ran on less fuel. More reason to think that this thing is fake.. There is no way that it flew for 45 - 60 minutes as the Pentagon/Williams claim it could...?
ViperWK 2 months ago
Comment removed
cdamistaken 2 months ago
@cdamistaken Hi cdamistaken , thanks for the info.. I read somewhere that the F07's fuel consumption was about 14 Gallons per hour which was how i made my rough calculations on a supposed tank size.. Is that figure of a 20 Gallon tank quoted by Williams themselves or can this be backed up and verified by seeing actual photos' of the tank sitting inside of the pod, if not perhaps seeing the dimensions of it in the plans..?
ViperWK 2 months ago
Comment removed
cdamistaken 2 months ago
How cool is that,it's in metal gear solid snake eater!!!old car in the back ground from the 70's but they could have built it 3 years ago for all i know.
AllIAnceghost 3 months ago
@AllIAnceghost oops 1969 according to wiki.
AllIAnceghost 3 months ago
That is awesome. I have never seen anything so cool. I would love to have one, but I don't think anyone would be selling one in my price range for a few decades or so!
elinikk 3 months ago
Can i get one made into a motorcycle frame?
LordBicen 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You're breaking the laws of physics!
The universe as we know it will cease to exist!
*Turns into a pineapple*
Fabokano 3 months ago
БАБА ЯГА 2008.
andrey76able 3 months ago
what if u fell backward?
elmotpoopie 3 months ago
Excessive fuel weight/use means too short flight times...and....why exactly is this a "silent" video. Got any idea just how NOISY these things are. Bad guys would hear them coming a mile away. Low, slow, and easy to shoot. Stupid idea, dumb use, and Williams pulled the plug on allowing their engines to be used.
60knightsix 4 months ago
@60knightsix Ummm helicopters are noisy.. ? This thing could fly at 10,000 feet (supposedly).. ?. It is small and fast ? It could fly for about an hour, plenty of time..? . The "stupid" and "dumb" idea was you choosing to post a comment in this thread..lol
ViperWK 1 month ago
U.S.A spent millions back then on this research.No good then,like it's no good now.Out of date....
fabyiros 4 months ago
I want one!!!!!
bmister50 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Information on this flying platform was extremely hard to find but the design is very simple. The most expensive part is the Jet Engine. The patent is actually public domain and I now have a copy (and build plans) The Williams F107 which powers this thing is the same one on the Tomahawk and unless you are NASA or Military research... forget it. No other engine on the market is small enough and weight compatible to do the design but we are working on it. It's a fore/aft vs vertical thrust thing.
AROUGHMAN 4 months ago
just going to the store honey to grab some smokes.
yappertrap 4 months ago
Which program this video was edited with? It seems real.
Ramboide2 4 months ago
@Ramboide2 My video was shot with a digital camera (Canon A540) pointed at the video kiosk at the National Museum of the United States Air Force outside Dayton, Ohio. It was uploaded without any editing. The original video was presumably filmed and produced by Williams International during the development of the aircraft in the 197's and 1980s. A prototype is on display at the museum, along with the video presentation.
wesley9761 4 months ago
@wesley9761 Thanks for your answer.
Ramboide2 4 months ago
@wesley9761 Cool. Any Idea how it was made? ;) I need to travel 500 kilometres a week to meet my girlfriend and it takes me so much time and money. A device like this could make my life a lot easier...
125varma 3 months ago
@125varma Or youporn.com could save you a bundle LOL!
schlusselmensch 3 months ago
@125varma The top speed is 100 km/h with an endurance of 60 minutes. That means at least six landings for fuel enroute, with very little allowance for safety. My suggestion — move, or find another girlfriend.
upajos 3 months ago
Information on this flying platform was extremely hard to find but the design is very simple. The most expensive part is the Jet Engine. The patent is actually public domain and I now have a copy (and build plans) The Williams F107 which powers this thing is the same one on the Tomahawk and unless you are NASA or Military research... forget it. No other engine on the market is small enough and weight compatible to do the design but we are working on it. It's a fore/aft vs vertical thrust thing.
AROUGHMAN 4 months ago
@AROUGHMAN Hi Aroughman.. Ive seen some old F07's show up on Ebay. I think they sold for about $2500 but needed a starter conversion. Old surplus engines like these aren't hard to find if you spend the time looking around. From my research on this ive come to the conclusion that it was fake. It couldn't of physically flown, its claimed performance is impossible and the video shows many anomalies.Id be really curious see one of these things fly if it was re-constructed from the original design.
ViperWK 2 months ago
Comment removed
cdamistaken 2 months ago
@cdamistaken Hi Chris, It was some time ago now..I did a quick look just then but the listing record for it has gone.. From memory one engine was very clean, the other looked was very scruffy and dirty like it had been left in a warehouse for years.. Yeah abit of gun powder whacked in them wouldn't do them much good... lol.. Im fairly good an engineering projects.. What needs doing with the oil system ?
ViperWK 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Information on this flying platform was extremely hard to find but the design is very simple. The most expensive part is the Jet Engine. The patent is actually public domain and I now have a copy (and build plans) The Williams F107 which powers this thing is the same one on the Tomahawk and unless you are NASA or Military research... forget it. No other engine on the market is small enough and weight compatible to do the design but we are working on it. It's a fore/aft vs vertical thrust thing.
AROUGHMAN 4 months ago
imagine the stuff they built that they haven't told us about. If somethign like this had some kind of generator that assited its propulsion system you might be able to fly virtually unlimited distance. if this thing could do 100mph with unlimited distance then you could cross the atlantic
210482fmj 4 months ago
Can it fly without broom?
DragonToko 4 months ago
i bet it's really loud lol
robiniroven 4 months ago
Why not rap it w/ big clear safety bubble like the ones for rolling down hills in . Along w/ the chute ,That could help solve the low alt. safety problem. Its so JOHNNY QUEST !!!
spaceghost049 4 months ago
Why not rap it w/ big clear safety bubble like the ones for rolling down hills in . Along w/ the chute ,That could help solve the low alt. safety problem.
spaceghost049 4 months ago
god damn that looks fun
trakrekkid 4 months ago
SHOOT IT DOWN!
Frostyxx9 4 months ago
That would be awesome when stuck in traffic!
sphinxart 4 months ago
@Gaiboi16muk
It's legit. Made in 1970 til 1983. Jet powered Williams aerial systems platform. Look it up. They flew perfectly but flopped in the military market which was where they wouldve made their money. Bc too expensive as toys. But military pays big contracts for those things. New York times called it "a flying garbage can"
riv4aces1 4 months ago
I want to go to Dayton now =P
steelmesh 4 months ago
What a load of bull. Of course it's fake the concept would not have been dropped! If that was real that would be beyond useful and worth a lot of money. "deemed inferior to helicopters" what those huge, noisy things? Of course. Yea someone probably built it. And it's probably in a museum, bur those videos are bull.
gaiboi16muk 4 months ago
Outstanding, even tho the concept is about 40yrs old, these techs are being stored I feel certain for DoD military app studies for the time being tho not commercial as of yet, however they the dirty fuel giants of the world may wait & hope if not actively contribute to the global population decreasing to about 1 billion then will bring this out to market, hell this flyin device would be critical in seismic active areas & flooded locations also, they'll need serv station locations I reckon also.
SuperZenozeno 4 months ago
I would have to say with todays technology it is insane that we could not make a version that flew for 2 hours or more and the engines would be 3 times smaller and less noisy. This was in 1974, that was almost 40 years ago. Just put a Ipod & program to control the whole device even include a parachute system.
CarbonicHolyPally 4 months ago
We had that thing since the 60's...I seen picks of it when I was a kid.
bryanttillman 5 months ago
If we stop making weapons out of everything: An do away with the War concepts forced upon us by Governments hidden agendas. In a world, the only thing that conquers hate LOVE." Were has your Brother gone?"You insist he die because he continues to be better then you!
davidjonjohn 5 months ago
Assuming a turbine powerplant, I'd imagine even with the air intakes on the side it would be god awful loud and a short flight from a small tank
R5H4D0W 5 months ago
Go to the HOW STUFF WORKS webpage and type Hiller Flying Platform in the search box. The resulting vid is of the original, prototype flying platform; granddaddy to the one you see in this video. Just think how much more advanced the ones that are being developed are. The military is probably keeping them under wraps and out of use for the gen pop. Maybe in 20 or 30 years we'll all be using one to get to work!
jcchandley 5 months ago
I want one of these
skunksnag 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we need speed bikes
rgqric 5 months ago
I need a vehicle to pick up girlfriend on the planet Mars
budiwan 5 months ago
they could definitely make one of these with two or maybe even three backup systems im talking multiple engines that cannot engage at the same time, especialyl considering that thing goes 60mph (much faster than it needs to) there is tons of room to make one of these safe and viable, ie up to the paro f a flying bike (max 20-30mph)
Nndankn 5 months ago
Can we use Magnetic Fields to Lift Metal??
heartlessvietboy 5 months ago
Didnt realise it wasnt grav-control hahaha.
Oh well.
I like it
Akzimo 5 months ago
Why make videos for doubters - they are doubters .
I have created a number of antigrav/grav control systems - its not impossible.
Akzimo 5 months ago
This is Baba Yaga.
FiEctro 6 months ago
1:26 - 1:33 shadow looks fake. It should not be seen at the ground due to the small size of the craft, or at least appeared bigger than the shadow cast on trees
kikimbrown 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Total hoax...kinda weird you cant see the surrounding foliage getting affected
almorlina 6 months ago
@almorlina I have to believe one of the following:
1. You're a troll
2. You don't understand camera angles and telephoto lenses (most of the shots don't show the ground directly below the aircraft.)
3. You ignored the parts where the downwash is clearly visible.
4. You didn't bother to look at the additional video which shows the effects of downwash when the vehicle flew over trees.
5. You're a troll
I'd like to believe the answer is number two, but then, I'm an optimist.
wesley9761 6 months ago 9
@wesley9761 eh... you are a tit, this was built as a proof of design ONLY...... IT NEVER FLEW!!!!! if it did work there would be thousands of videos of them flying all over the world, and at some point would end up in the news after some one used it for the wrong reasons. The us military did however scoop up all the patents as usual!
FPVdrone 6 months ago
@FPVdrone First of all, don't be rude. Name calling is just a great way to show how immature one is. Second, this is not a prototype. The prototype was the Hiller flying platform developed in the 1950s. There's video of that one flying and maneuvering very well on the How Stuff Works website. The one you're seeing in the vid above is many generations removed from that original machine. You can bet that it's in use by the military somewhere. Just cuz you've never seen one doesn't mean it's fake.
jcchandley 5 months ago
@jcchandley Ýou are right, i should not be rude lol sometimes i loose control of my comments here on you tube, only to cringe when i get a reply days or weeks later. I am sorry for calling you names, but do appreciate being called immature at 40 lol
FPVdrone 5 months ago
@almorlina oh yeah? look up on wiki for Williams X-Jet
R5H4D0W 5 months ago
@almorlina Its in the flight museum in seattle, not a hoax.
Ahainer1 4 months ago
I still think this could be redeveloped with modern tech. Put together auto-balance ala Segway, more powerful/efficient engine, lighter structure, increased payload, small caliber helmet aimed vehicle mounted weapon or sensor, some sort of seat/alternate control for long distance cruising, GPS nav/radio, and you would have a hell of a scout recon vehicle. Depending on price civilian applications are countless. UAV function. Troops fly into combat, dismount, vehicles fly back to safe area.
Bigfoot1955 6 months ago 2
@Bigfoot1955 It would still be a deathtrap if the engine failed.
wesley9761 6 months ago
@wesley9761 All vehicles have critical situations where engine failure is unrecoverable. I figured a balistic recovery parachute system would help minimize the death option.
Bigfoot1955 6 months ago
@Bigfoot1955 The BRS wasn't included in your list of upgrades, but, yes, that would certainly help, above a critical altitude. Rumors say that upgraded versions are being used by the government, but don't tell us if they are manned or not. The prototype certainly was an impressive vehicle.
wesley9761 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wesley9761 -- "It would still be a deathtrap if the engine failed."
I'm pretty sure quite a few people said that same thing to the wright brother's.
IWOP1 4 months ago
@wesley9761 The prototypes were equipped with a ballistic parachute — years ahead of their time. In that sense, they were safer than a Chevrolet Suburban stuck in commute traffic.
upajos 3 months ago
@upajos Thanks, I hadn't found a reference to that in the past. I would assume that there is still a critical altitude below which even a ballistic parachute wouldn't have sufficient time to deploy.
wesley9761 3 months ago
@Bigfoot1955
Perfect like that , nothing aproch this flying thing now !
cataruc 5 months ago
@Bigfoot1955 -- trust me, they have something much much more advanced, dont think the gov took one look at this and said "a personal hovercraft?? who needs it?" lol no way, they have not stopped developing this thing since it was concieved.
tylerdurden666able 4 months ago 2
@Bigfoot1955 this is most certainly developed and in action judging how well it flew even back then.. anyone with a brain will see that it is impossible that Governments would alow this because it would destroy their feudal taxation system through enforcement of roads and ports being the only way to cross National borders
With a flying platform, the game would be up.. smugglers, gun running, sabotage attacks. ad of course.. the end of the passport
dharmathai 3 months ago
@Bigfoot1955,this WASP recce scout vehicle is by far the most amazingly stable of any other such platforms of that time,unlike the underfuselage-rotor concepts(options that we can view on the right here)were inherently too noisy owing to the HI-speed supersonic spinning blades,though jets too are equally noisy,but with the availability today's very quiet Hi-bypass turbofan & if anybody at all would choose to go the Xtra mile to develope a scaled down versions of the engine it'd be exciting
beaggyboy 3 months ago
@Bigfoot1955,(cont)U can be right on most counts of opinion,but the US military estb.had it shelved for reasons that it being too conspicuous with parasitic low level engine noise,limited payload-service ceiling & pilot would essentially be a"flying duck",if not a sitting one at low alt.,it was so followed with the advent of UAVs as aptly put unmanned,so no life deficit may incur,however UAVs are much more costlier though,I hope the US would put 2 good use the hover-flight concept in todays UAVs
beaggyboy 3 months ago
hmm looks like that thinks in Metal Gear 3.
Negue92 6 months ago
WOW! how come I never heard of this?
420techdeckpro 6 months ago
There are some things that could make this death-machine a lot safer. I wonder if it has anything like I'll describe?
1.) A parachute that instantly deploys upon engine failure. Practically useless at low altitude.
2.) An ejection feature, but seems impractical.
3.) Best would be adding another engine. But, in a multi-engine airplane it takes time to secure control after an engine failure. Low altitude failures can be challenging to impossible. This is time you won't have on this Xjet.
ProChoiceJesus 7 months ago
I'm a commercial pilot, instrument rated, and a career A&P specializing in structures & sheetmetal.
So, I speak with a little expertise (ce?) in saying; "This Flying Platform is a very dangerous and deadly thing!" Can you see what would happen if the engine failed? Engines quit OFTEN. You would come down HARD! Death or severe injury is certain. Airplanes with 2 or more engines can fly if 1 or more quit. Planes with 1 engine are usually able to glide & land on a field, road, airport. Safely.
ProChoiceJesus 7 months ago
and still u did. He he
zorry dude, ain't looking for no fight :P
danieo1210 7 months ago
Is there a way I can buy one?!