Awesome video. Amazingly smart technology applied in a relatively basic way.
@Engineering_Secrets
6 күн бұрын
Thank you very much for your comment, glad you enjoyed it!
@brandtpellerin3735
18 күн бұрын
Are you giving BuildWitt & others credit for their content your using?
@Piano_Castle
Ай бұрын
WHY? Why does everything need super-dramatic (distracting) music...? Are our collective attention spans that feeble? I left for a quieter channel.
@Engineering_Secrets
6 күн бұрын
Hello, sorry to hear that this style of video doesn't really fit your liking. We try to create a balance between a video that can be appealing to masses, and for that there needs to be some techniques to grab attention, but also some more technical viewers. It's hard, but we will try to refine this balance as best as we can. We hope that our future videos will improve over time. Thanks for the feedback.
@jacks5kids
Ай бұрын
3:26. He says: The stronger the wind, the greater the amplitude and frequency of the oscillation. Wrong. Only the amplitude increases monotonically with the wind strength. The frequency is determined by the distribution of mass and the stiffness of the structure.
@Engineering_Secrets
6 күн бұрын
Thank you very much for your correction! More accurate info is very welcome. I will pin your comment at the top.
@NikolaBabane
3 ай бұрын
No more Country hate me all the Same love me
@Engineering_Secrets
3 ай бұрын
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean, could you rephrase it better?
@MadhAviation
3 ай бұрын
You deserve so much more recognition.
@Engineering_Secrets
3 ай бұрын
Thank you so much for your kind words! We're trying our best to deliver good content, stay tuned for more!
@MadhAviation
3 ай бұрын
@@Engineering_Secrets i'm totally honest, i was watching the video and thought i was watching a big youtuber because of how detailed and professional it was. Keep making videos like this and the subscribers will 100% comd
@jdc4968
3 ай бұрын
it's close to be called a drone?
@Engineering_Secrets
3 ай бұрын
Great question! Yes, it does share some characteristics with drones, particularly in its ability to navigate autonomously, carry out precision strikes, and even loiter over a target area. However, there are key differences between the two. Drones (UAVs) are typically used for reconnaissance, surveillance, and sometimes strike missions, but they are reusable and controlled remotely by a human operator. They can perform multiple missions by returning to base after completing their objectives. In contrast, the Tomahawk is a one-use missile designed specifically for long-range precision strike missions. Once launched, it cannot be reused, regardless of whether it is in training or actual combat scenarios. Its mission is singular: to deliver a payload to a predetermined target and detonate upon impact or proximity. The evolution of military technology often blurs the lines between categories, but each system has distinct roles and operational frameworks. Thank you for your comment! :)
@craigsibley8161
3 ай бұрын
The 797 doesn't weigh 1.3 million pounds enpty. That would be more like gross weight fully loaded...
@Engineering_Secrets
3 ай бұрын
Hello! Thanks for your correction, you are indeed right, we mixed the "Rated Gross Machine Weight" with the empty weight in the making of this video. We are sorry for this mistake and we are trying to be more rigourous in our script review process to mitigate this type of errors. We hope that dispite this you enjoyed the rest of video! :)
@craigsibley8161
3 ай бұрын
It's okay 👍 Teething troubles and yes video enjoyable. Keep going...
@EduaC-mothercocker123
3 ай бұрын
Blah! Blah! Blah!
@chadnedohin
3 ай бұрын
FAmy is flying target practice. What an EXPENSIVE piece of junk.
@user-gf2co9tw1v
3 ай бұрын
That technology is good for the MIGs until the 29, but today the technology and electronic warfare has changed for both sides, and what about the cannon, just by changing the frequency of the radar the technology is lost, today according to the Russians they can capture and shoot up to 30 targets, So beware of propaganda.
@Engineering_Secrets
3 ай бұрын
Thank you for this information and for your comment! Hope you enjoyed the video though!
@markgodin3969
3 ай бұрын
😂😂😂😂😂
@pumelo1
3 ай бұрын
🤣🤣🤣🤣 US propaganda🤗🤗🤗
@jessegatto7759
3 ай бұрын
We don't need propaganda we spend more money on missiles alone than your whole country has in its GDP so sit down and slap yourself 😂
@mihalykun6715
4 ай бұрын
A kép hamis!😊🕊
@picklehayati2232
4 ай бұрын
This is it man
@Engineering_Secrets
4 ай бұрын
Thank you for you comment! :)
@Engineering_Secrets
4 ай бұрын
🤝 LIKE OUR CONTENT? GET EXCLUSIVE BENEFITS, BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER OR A PATREON! Channel Member: www.youtube.com/@Engineering_Secrets/join Patreon: www.patreon.com/EngineeringSecrets
@DennisFranz
5 ай бұрын
I wish the background music was not there.
@turbobluestreak
5 ай бұрын
Some of the information as retold in this video isn't 100% accurate. Much better videos on the XB-70 exist, don't waist your time on this.
@lucifersatoshi
5 ай бұрын
The Rofis do not light the engines. They exist to burn off uncombusted hydrogen/oxygen.
@CTI-Studios
5 ай бұрын
33 engines, not 29.
@RichFeldman
5 ай бұрын
Picky commenters please note: Original Booster was made with 29 Raptor engines (20 + 8 + 1) as seen in official engine-gimbaling video. The booster used in April 2023 launch was the first one with 33 engines.
@bBersZ
6 ай бұрын
I always thought those spark thrower things that fire off right before the mains do was to mitigate to risk of explosion by igniting any flammable gas that accumulated under the shuttle. Or something
@johnbigelson7471
6 ай бұрын
This was a nice explanation video..... for an 8 year old.
@bryandraughn9830
6 ай бұрын
Hack job of a video
@marktrevett881
6 ай бұрын
What a load of AI generated codswallop 😒
@johnbigelson7471
6 ай бұрын
so that's why it sounds so empty!
@johncillis3431
6 ай бұрын
It's not a matter of starting them (by the way your video is no reveal of what is by now common knowledge). When these 33 guys start, if someone is within five miles of the launch pad, they should run---definitely run! I am not a SpaceX fanboy, thus not inspired to buy your probably unauthorized (C) SpaceX products.
@pobinr
6 ай бұрын
Leave out the music ffs. You ruined the vid with it. Best talk in tons of thrust .
@mercerconsulting9728
6 ай бұрын
Huh? 29? Either I don't understand something or we have a credibility issue here.
@Sekahe
6 ай бұрын
An Engineering Channel that uses Fantasy Units? Come on man, you can do better....
@Mobius1_
6 ай бұрын
Ban trash AI generated channels. Everything in this video is incorrect.
@frankmueller25
6 ай бұрын
Sorry, but I have no intention to support a channel which gives so little accurate information (basically the 120ms ignition timing and concerns of vibration and imbalance), while showing so much inaccuracies (illustration of 32 engines, and saying 29 engines repeatedly, while there are actually 33 with 20 in the outer ring, 10 [not 9 as illustrated] in the middle, and 3 in the center).
@jasonpanah4261
6 ай бұрын
You’re a few engines short bud
@gmeast
6 ай бұрын
3:53 Why do they allow false crap to be posted. The 'sparklers' are NOT part of the engine ignition sequence. The sparklers ignite to burn off any gasses that might have accumulated at the base of the orbiter. If these gasses ignited to generate an explosion, the resulting shock wave could loosen tiles or damage components in the engine bay, or both. Engineering Secrets my A*S!
@mercerconsulting9728
6 ай бұрын
29??? 33 engines, or so I counted.
@Nienormalny
6 ай бұрын
5:35 these are not igniters.
@DavidCaissy
6 ай бұрын
You mean at 3:55 of the video? You are right, the sparks are there to flash off excess hydrogen that may accumulate in the environment prior to ignition, avoiding a potential external detonation.
@Nienormalny
6 ай бұрын
@@DavidCaissy yep, my mistake. 3:55 of course.
@TheMightyAtomNL
6 ай бұрын
3:54: With 10 seconds to go, four spark ignitors on the platform begin to ignite the fuel. Incorrect, the fuel is obviously ignited in the combustion chamber inside the engine. The spark igniters are there to burn off any excess hydrogen that could potentially have been building up underneath the main engines, if not burned off using the spark igniters, those gasses could damage the engines. Don't be cheap and resort to AI. Get your facts right by doing proper research yourself, you lazy bum.
@dudlesstheking
6 ай бұрын
Bit. Indeed 33 and sparks @ engine startup aren't there for fuel ignition. Another AI generated clip....
@bjhendrickson5563
6 ай бұрын
Its 33 engines you bot.
@XpertiCON
6 ай бұрын
terrible background music
@boruvka52
6 ай бұрын
Spark ignitors???!!... They are there for safety not for ignition....
@DarkKitarist
6 ай бұрын
You shouldn't look at the details too much... Especially since it's an AI voice and almost certainly written by a certain AI model...
@SubvertTheState
6 ай бұрын
The more of this content that gets made, the more bullsh17 is on the Internet.
@toddwilburn1988
6 ай бұрын
The booster has 33 engines. What 29 are you referring to?
@radian2323
6 ай бұрын
I was wondering the same exact thing. Glad to see I wasn't loosing my mind.
@DarkKitarist
6 ай бұрын
Yeah it's almost as if it was written by a language model and read by a computer voice with no care for the details...
@kernelsmith
2 ай бұрын
Same. For a second I thought maybe there were 4 center engines that were excluded bcuz they don't gimbal or something like that, but there are only 3 central engines, so...
@afterburner2869
6 ай бұрын
I ride a Valkyrie motorcycle that had a 6 cylinder engine! It too is a big powerful machine.
@steedperrins784
7 ай бұрын
Xb70 was build to do over Mach 3+ but didn’t in 1964 the sr-71 was built 1966 and was the most beautiful jet made to this day but they say it only went mach 3.5 haha do you smell that cause I smell bull shit
@winternow2242
6 ай бұрын
Yeah, something smells alright. The XB-70A did fly faster than mach 3. What have you been reading that tells you otherwise?
@MrsCraigJrPhiladelphia
7 ай бұрын
RIP 😇
@dennisdecoene
7 ай бұрын
After ww2, those who remained were a breed of people that cannot be imagined today. Capable of producing radical new things with a fraction of the technology we have now.
@BobGeogeo
7 ай бұрын
Great plane. But what was "untold" in this video? 1960 U-2 downing was not news in 1964-66. Also ,one of the 2nd prototype pilots survived the accident. Feedback to SR-71? Please get chronology right.
@winternow2242
7 ай бұрын
The U-2 shoot down was the front page headline on the 5/06/1960 New York Times.
@kidsafe
7 ай бұрын
AI voices are getting too good
@BobGeogeo
7 ай бұрын
Superficially, yes. But the narrative is sloppy in sequence and has serious errors.
@kidsafe
7 ай бұрын
@@BobGeogeoThere's some weird pacing and inflection here and there, but I bet most people watching this don't even know it's AI. I just think these throwaway AI generated content channels are a nuisance.
@Engineering_Secrets
3 ай бұрын
To be fully transparent, we use AI narration because we judge it to be of good quality and extremely practical and efficient for this type of content creation. However, that's the only thing that's AI. The script and editing are all manually done, and actually that's why there's some errors here and there, we are a new channel and we're still improving our scripts to mitigate this type of stuff, so don't confuse it with trash channel with fully AI empty content, there's really an effort to make good videos here, always improving!
@jeanettenorman7052
7 ай бұрын
It comes to greed again. Over stacked to make more bucks. Lloyds of London was founded to cover the loss of freight hunfreds of yrs ago. Nothing new
@Derangedforsure
7 ай бұрын
No reason for those fighters to be that close.
@winternow2242
7 ай бұрын
They needed to fit in the picture.
@maurices5259
7 ай бұрын
@@winternow2242 It was a publicity photoshoot for General Electric - all five (XB-70, F-4, F-5, T-38, F-104) had engines made by the same company.
@winternow2242
6 ай бұрын
@@maurices5259yep. That's why they had to fit in the picture.
@shaunmoreland6841
7 ай бұрын
intercontinental missiles were developed that could launched without risking anyone's life's best line ever.
@Engineering_Secrets
7 ай бұрын
The sentiment was meant to convey that ICBMs can be launched without risking the life of a pilot or aircrew, unlike manned aircraft. However, the inherent danger and catastrophic implications of using such missiles, especially those with nuclear warheads, are significant and cannot be understated.
Пікірлер