X-3, The mighty arrow...

I was agin just surfin on the internet after secret planes. And i found this, It's called the X-3. Apparently it didn't get any further than testing stage. becasue I have never seen a plene like this in modern combat. I know that the project was founded int the 1950, but that's all. You have any ideas what it was used for...??

It was going to be used for Mach 3+ testing. It never made it even close to those speeds and was a huge disappointment though.

I don't believe the two have much in common other than the high-thrust, stubby-wing design, but it's always reminded me of the F-104 Starfighter.

EDIT: Here are a plethera of links on it: Google: X-3 Stiletto

[edit on 12/3/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
It was going to be used for Mach 3+ testing. It never made it even close to those speeds and was a huge disappointment though.

I don't believe the two have much in common other than the high-thrust, stubby-wing design, but it's always reminded me of the F-104 Starfighter.

EDIT: Here are a plethera of links on it: Google: X-3 Stiletto

[edit on 12/3/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]

Exellent, thank you... I read on an interenet page that it never reached a better top-speed than 1.0 mach.

Max. Speed = Mach 0.95 (650 mph) in level flight

[edit on 3-12-2005 by Figher Master FIN]

Exellent, thank you... I read on an interenet page that it never reached a better top-speed than 1.0 mach.

Max. Speed = Mach 0.95 (650 mph) in level flight

[edit on 3-12-2005 by Figher Master FIN]

And because that in light of sucess of X-1 and X-2 it was very big disappointment. In fact, X-3 Siletto is allways interpret as the only unsuccessful plane in X serie.

So, waht was the reason for this... was it the engines or what...

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
So, waht was the reason for this... was it the engines or what...

Generaly yes, wery poor propulsion system. Only two Westinghouse J34-WE-17 engines, each 18.68 kN of thrust. I think that the same problem had british experimental plane Bristol 188 or something like that [waynow will correct me if I am wrong ]

Originally posted by matej

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
So, waht was the reason for this... was it the engines or what...

Generaly yes, wery poor propulsion system. Only two Westinghouse J34-WE-17 engines, each 18.68 kN of thrust. I think that the same problem had british experimental plane Bristol 188 or something like that [waynow will correct me if I am wrong

]

Yes, I tought so too... the engines didn't lloks so powerful... Thanks for the help...

Originally posted by matej
In fact, X-3 Siletto is allways interpret as the only unsuccessful plane in X serie.

I really wouldn't go so far as to say that. It did provide lots of data that was used in controlling fighters of the time, namely the F-86. Also, a lot of what was done with the X-3 DID go for the development of the F-104. So I guess they do actually have something in common. Not to mention that the research from the X-3 also contributed to the X-15 and the SR-71 aircraft.

The X-3 was built by douglas aircraft company in 1953 and was used to not only test the airframe and shape but the materials in the airframe like titanium that would later be used on the x-15 and SR-71. It also provide the first insight into inertial coupling.

"During Walker's tenth flight on October 27, 1954, he performed two abrupt, rudder-fixed aileron rolls at speeds of Mach 0.92 and 1.05 (0.92 and 1.05 times the speed of sound) that led to inertial roll coupling, causing him to diverge from the expected flightpath. These two maneuvers, from which he fortunately was able to recover, yielded a wealth of valuable data on the (as yet not fully understood) phenomenon of inertial coupling. Together with data from other aircraft, such as the X-2 and the F-100, this helped the aeronautics community understand how to deal with the phenomenon of coupling dynamics."

link www.dfrc.nasa.gov...
the link also has 2 videos of the X-3 as well so check it out!

I am correcting myself - the problem of Bristol Type 188 was not in engines, but in a lack of fuel. It was able to stay on air only 25 minutes!

Originally posted by matej
I am correcting myself - the problem of Bristol Type 188 was not in engines, but in a lack of fuel. It was able to stay on air only 25 minutes!

That is pretty bad... But it's very ahrd to believe taht this would be the single reason... What doeas speed have to do with fuel...

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
What doeas speed have to do with fuel...

The faster you go the more fuel you consume.