When I was a kid my grandma lived in the desert in Barstow and we would hear those Sonic booms almost daily. They would rattle the walls in her little trailer house. When I was 10 years old it was incredible!
@@LuisSierra42 I don't recall ever hearing them late at night or early in the morning. If it had happened it would have woke my mom for sure, she was a light sleeper.
Coldfusion, Polymatter , Wendover productions, real engineering, OBF, Caspian report and reallifelore are literally the best channels to ever exist on UA-cam. Edit : yeah, i forgot to mention lemmino and Kento Bento
Largely because Conventional Airlines are so Efficient and as such Profitable that it made no sense to compete with them. Supersonic flight was fast but you have fewer Passenger per flight than a Regular Airliner.
@@arnowisp6244And also, it made sense when telecomunications where so expensive that for most people, the only way to attend something short order was a jump in the fastest means of transport possible, but today, I'm typing out this message from my home, that's also my office, while I work with a company in a different country. It's a very different world, and for most people, flying cheap will trounce flying very fast.
Sorry to nitpick but at 4:30 you somewhat imply that XF-84H "Thunderscreech" was an early attempt at supersonic flight before jets. But Thunderscreech first flew in 1955 almost a decade after F-86 and Bell X-1 both jet and rocket powered aircrafts achived supersonic speeds. Around 1955-56 early YF-104 were already reaching mach 2.2 speeds.
@@matviyk3066 Not sure why a few channels are having this issue, either retiring, pulling back, or having more production issues in factual or actual product. I have a gut feeling we are seeing more results of relying on various AI systems like Chat GPT to pull data and create scripts for videos, the hallucinations it has and humans not in the mix, or humans under pressure only fact checking off the same types of "do my work for me" AI systems.
It's made by a company pumping out videos to get clicks and sell ad space. Accuracy doesn't matter. Just look at all the ignorant comments saying how awesome it is.
The Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech, while an interesting and unusual airplane, was developed and built well after the Bell X-1 had crossed the sound barrier. It was also designed as a carrier based aircraft with no requirement for a catapult. The way it is placed in the video makes it sound like its design goal was breaking the sound barrier, which it wasn't.
@@timhall5382 If you're going to spam, back it up. Not trying to put you down. Your comments have made me actually curious about this but I can't find ANYTHING online. Maybe I'm using the wrong search terms?
@@mokahless what do you think you will find? He isn't a public company, he doesn't have to tell people how many employees he has. The narrator has mentioned many times for many years that he doesn't do it alone and has a "team". I can't tell you if they were his employees or independent contractors. Unless a public company bought his stuff I don't know how you would know or to whom it's been sold. It's garbage now though.
My Grandfather flew with Sir Charles Kingsford Smith when he was about 12 years old in the Southern Cross. He later went on to become a mechanic working for Qantas and Ansett. As a child in the late 1970s I remember going to someone’s house in Sydney who was a family friend who had also worked in the airlines. He had two huge concord models in a collection of models - each about 1.5 - 2 metres long. They were old and dusty but still in relatively good shape. They were on stands and looked like the sort of thing you’d see in a museum. They had the branding of Qantas on them, flying kangaroo on the tails and all. Turned out the back story was Qantas had committed to purchasing Concords in Australia due to our vast country and long distance between cities. However Boeing rushed in and scuttled the contract by underselling Concord at the 11th hour. The 747 was much loader and slower, but could carry many more passengers. The was a lot of public and political pushback about the sonic boom so in the end it was an easy decision. Both the concord and 747 were released in 1969 so the race was on to get fleet sales. The first 747 flew in Australia in 1971… the concord then flew to Sydney in 1972 as part of their global sales tour, coming in from Darwin in just 2 hours (the same flight still takes over 4 hours today)… almost in a ‘Look at what you missed out on’ type of moment. But the horse had bolted and rest is history... So the concord models had been destined for the bin, had been rescued and ended up at this suburban house in Sydney. I wonder where they are today? Australian aviation history!
At least the companies like Boom have access to technology that has been proven to work in other form factors (utilizing off the shelf Jet engines) and previous hypersonic jets as reference. Theranos’s tech was just simply a lie that could never work. Plus, I believe they are working with NASA which developed the X-59 which has been able to significantly reduce sonic booms DB level, specifically at ground level to about the DB level of a car door being shut.
There's a blood testing company called Babson Diagnostics making the same exact claims Elizabeth Holmes did and investors are falling for it....again. History repeats itself.
@@johnking9942 the point is to get to the green conventions faster... and talk about how bad is for the general public to use supersonic flight..oh wait 🤦♂
Living in LA and hearing the sonic boom as the shuttle would come in to land at Edwards was quite the experience - we all thought it would be common yet now it is gone never to be heard again. Similarly I can recall passing though Heathrow back in the day where Concorde had flights pretty much daily - the sound of that thing taking off was insane 😎😎😎
Fun fact about the SR-71: Mach 3.2 is only the unclassified top speed of the plane. There is much unofficial talk that it can go much faster. An SR-71 pilot I met on a museum tour was very cagey about the fastest he'd ever flown. Additionally, despite the fact that the planes are retired, not all aspects of its design have been declassified. Bonus fact: due to thermal expansion when it was at speed, the SR-71 is built with gaps in its body and wings. The plane had to be fueled directely on the runway because it would leak jet fuel until it reached an appreciable portion of the speed of sound and the gaps closed up.
it did not get refueled on the runway, Col. Richard H. Graham's book busts that myth, they refueled like normal on the ground and then would taxi to the runway and take off. They leaked, but they didn't leak nearly that much.
If its not anything official than it merely a theory without anything conclusive. If it was able to go faster it wont be by very much and it would be able to do it for a small amount ot time before its engines amd fuselage arent able to withstand the stress and temperatures. The mig 25 was able to reach mach 3.2 but if it maintained such a speed for more time than what engines and frame allow, then it would be permanently damaged.
There is a massive omission in the 'documentary'. What is missing is exactly what the Americans learned from Miles Aviation. The answer is simple. As an aircraft approaches supersonic speed, the air flowing over the control surfaces, the ailerons and elevators, begins to establish pressure fronts that move back along the wings surface. These fronts do not advance at the same speed, so when they pass where the ailerons or elevator hinges are positioned, the surface pressure can be very different above and below the control surface. This change in pressure result in the control surfaces moving with such force a pilot cannot withstand the pressure and the aircraft can go out of control and possibly break up due to the violent oscillation set up by the uncontrollable surface pressure. The British had learned this and had built 'fully flying' control surfaces to replace the traditional elevators, which are much more susceptible to the problem. The Americans quickly changed the design of the Bell X-1 to have fully flying elevators mounted on the vertical stabilizer fin. You can see this in the videos. The earlier glide and low speed flight aircraft clearly have traditional elevators, the hinges being clearly visible. The later ones do not. If you look closely, you can see the plate against the vertical fin, to which the 'fully flying' control surface is mounted. The plate rotates and this causes the 'fully flying' wing to rotate with it. It is ironic that the X-1 in the museum may be the one that Yeager broke the sound barrier in, but it has either been modified back to the original configuration, with elevators hinging on the fixed horizontal stabilizer, or it is not the correct airframe but a substitute, hiding the crime of stealing British technology. What is also lame about the Yeager record was the use of a rocket motor. First small ones and then ever larger and more powerful ones. The delays that hurt Miles Aviation was the development of the British jet engines. The first flights were made with a less powerful substitute when the planned engine was not ready in time. Once the larger engine became available, Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown quickly proved the Miles M52 was easily able to exceed the speed of sound, but using a British jet engine. This was something the "X" series of aircraft were not able to accomplish for years, despite the British still, stupidly in my opinion, sharing jet engine technology with the US companies that began building jet engines under a "free" license from Churchill!
The all moving stabilizer was not a British invention, nor was it a British invention to use it for supersonic flight and it was already being seen on the XP-86, in development at the same time. There is little evidence for this British conspiracy theory, past the claims of sore losers. The Bell visit to Britain is not even confirmed to have ever happened. I really wish channels like this wouldn't spread information like this without proper qualification or context.
2:02 The speed of sound in air is primarily dependent on temperature, rather than pressure. The reference to sea level is misleading, as it suggests a constant temperature, which is not accurate. Specifically, a speed of 1225 kph corresponds to an air temperature of 15 degrees Celsius.
You left out about Albert Scott Crossfield. He was an American naval officer and test pilot. In 1953, he became the first pilot to fly at twice the speed of sound. Crossfield was the first of twelve pilots who flew the North American X-15, an experimental spaceplane jointly operated by the United States Air Force and NASA.
Thanks Dagogo! Great job as always! I’ve been keeping a close eye on this stuff. Been an aviation nerd since I was 4. A large number of the Boom team seems to be former colleagues of mine, and they set the groundwork for the X-59 design. They are the team to watch in my mind.
It's a shame you didn't mention Avro Arrow made in Canada. It was the first unofficial level supersonic flight and also Lead to the use of Delta wing technology.
The Arrow's first flight was in March 1958, years after supersonic flight was a reality for military aircraft and delta wings were not unusual by then. For example, the F-102 Delta Dagger was actually in service by 1956, having first flown in 1953.
This video is all over the place, 3:48 , sorry but the thunderscreech was a program by the navy in the 1950's intended to create an aircraft that can perform short takeoff in its aircraft carriers with the ability to reach supersonic speeds. This video gives a false information that the thunderscreech was created to achieve mach 1 speeds, a better story would by p38 or mustang pilots performing steep dives to reach higher speed and crashing as conventional planes become uncontrollable. Then the creation of X plane, eXperimental, which led to the crearion of Bell X1. I hope you get your stories straight
The reason why we gave up to commercial supersonic flight is because internet became better and there was no need for as much "IN PERSON" meeting. And thus flight time isn't a lost time anymore. Plus it's super inefficient.
@@DrumToTheBassWoop that's not the time it takes. It's 2-3h for London to new York. And that was with a ticket price of 10k. Nobody cares about SS flight nowadays except maybe Influencer who can make video out of it
guys is that a Big company or television program or news aggency ? Because i am following ColdFusion very very long time ago they didnt even had 2m subs yet. But this channel improved my knowladge of many different things. you guys really deserve award or something like that.
ColdFusion delivers one of the most stunning swift overviews of the flight industry. It left me speechless a couple of times. The historical video kept me speechless, the great info seated. I'm not really fond of flights, but the history and it's touch on today's approach is unmistakable. As of the final question - I don't think it will be available any time soon, the energy(fuel) consumption is just too great. But I look forward to see further development in this field. I don't care if they are British, French, or US. It would be amazing to see the limitations of the technology moved forward.
@@Axicab no - it wasn't a 'cheap shot' at all. Boeing was in it's 6th year since the MD merger... aka; the beginning of the end for Boeing quality. That 'cheap shot' is quite justifiable -- Boeing 'EARNED' it. Lockheed needs to take over and let the engineers run the company and get rid of the pencil necks.
22:41 Concorde started flying passengers in 1976. It started flying paying passengers in Airline service before TU-144 so Concorde was the 1st supersonic commercial airliner
This should have just been called “flying faster then the speed of sound” because most of it is basically the history of faster than the speed of sound
What? Who is wanting to substitute supersonic travel for internet or work? I recently spent 10.5 hours on a plane one way. I would have paid much more to cut that in half.
FireMunki you basically just called passenger flights a niche market though. Anybody that flies even slightly often would want it to be quicker. Nobody wants to be middle seat beside some big dude crunching doritos any longer than they need to
IMO what killed Concorde and supersonic commercial flight are several things: Because of telecommunication there is really no need to get to New York (or the other way round) in three hours. And in reality to get through the airports you need four hours plus three hours to get to/from the city center. Secondly flying is no longer glamorous or fun if you do not fly First or Business and if you fly those then that can be (an certain airlines at least) so much fun that you don't want that to end in three hours, you'd rather enjoy the luxury and pampering for the whole day as the day is wasted anyway. There are many more who can afford many times higher ticket prices than what Concord charged and had capacity for but those people are not in a hurry and they want to pay for luxury, not speed.
(Detailed comment) This video skipped three vital FACTS. 1) Tupolev DID steal most of Concorde's plans. 2) There is no mention of the Ogival Delta Wing that made Concorde fast and more importantly smooth through the sound barrier. 3) AIRBUS was the response to the behaviour of both America and the Soviet Union in this era by European nations, who grew sick of the depravity of companies like Boeing, and just how far they would go for a monopoly on success. Sound eerily familiar still today? Now modern purveyors of sonic flight have a lie to get around with the public and experts that still live. After destroying Concorde's innovation with lies (time would have made engines quieter, more fuel efficient, whilst safety would have only improved anyway), the myth of 'dangerous' sonic booms will plague any company trying to go back in time to undo the sheer injustice that Britain faced throughout the twentieth century. Theft and espionage built Boeing, Tupolev and others into national giants. The only channel that has been truly 'diplomatic' on this subject so far was Mentour Pilot. Airbus is granted to us through Karma, as is the downfall of Boeing. They deserve all they get. I want to see any real evidence of the 'harm' of sonic booms, when people were told anything from seizures and vomiting, to building damage. I have seen hundreds of videos on this topic, and yet I am yet to see a single one that documents evidence of this. Come on Coldfusion, your channel is better than this. Everything I have stated is also public knowledge, except the conspiracy to make sure the Boeing 747 was not touched in her lifetime by supersonic flight. (The U.S redacts uncomfortable truth). As I began, it's more than coincidence that now that aircraft's life has ended, people can't move fast enough to revisit supersonic travel again. OR is it because Boeing no longer holds such power over the American government to stop it?? The truth is always out there.
Now now, you don't want Boeing to pay a 3 letter agency to unalive you like they did with john barnett, now do you? Stop it, no one will uncover the sheer incompetence and ill will of that company, because they are a military contractor and any attack on them is an attack on military industry
The video generally glosses over quite a few things or implies things that aren't true. That said, supersonic booms are loud and can, if you're unlucky, carry extremely well and it is still a shockwave - meaning it carries force. The thunderscreech in particular causing sickness is documented, but that's a unique case. The main issue is still cost. What we're currently seeing is a bunch of techbros convincing everyone that supersonic travel would be sick, but it just isn't efficient and with the current inflation and rise in energy cost in the west, it just isn't realistic. Aircraft at Mach 0.8 are the cheapest way to move people in reasonable time frames, so that's where it's going to stay. If we find a way to reduce the cost of operating these aircraft (cheaper fuel), we MIGHT make an economic case for supersonic flight - but the way the world is going, that's not going to happen.
It was a nice video, and I'm glad that you decided to look into supersonic flight. I expect to live long enough to see the Boom Ovation fly. However, a bit of care in researching the US SST program would have helped. The Secret Projects forum has a 38 page thread on the 1960s program. Just to throw a little bit out there, the program had three phases, and initially had three engine manufacturers and three airframe manufacturers competing North American, Lockheed and Boeing were vying for the airframe contract, while GE, Pratt and Whitney and Curtiss-Wright were competing for the engine contract. North American, with its NAC-60, and Curtiss Wright's TJ-70 engine were dismissed at the end of Phase I. Ultimately, that left Boeing and Lockheed in a match that Boeing won. The time lost as Boeing found out that they could not get their swing wing design to fly across the Atlantic with passengers and revert to a delta wing design was time given to the enemies of the program to bring it to a halt. People were worried about the sonic boom, and about the ozone layer, as well as other forms of pollution. Despite the decision, made after the US SST program was defunded, to ban supersonic flight over land, it was planned for the US SST to be flown on domestic coast to coast flights, as well as many shorter flights. In a North American proposal to United, for example, there was data on the costs of flights from Cleveland to Portland, among others. And the seat/mile costs weren't that far out of line with those of first generation jetliners (707, DC-8). As the SST program came and went before the first fuel crisis, fuel costs weren't a major concern. Concorde, asking for sales at the time of the fuel crisis, got the same resistance that Chrysler's newly redesigned full size cars did. Everyone dropped their options then. If I had to state a reason that we don't have American SSTs in museums (a la Fallout 3, which mentions a donated SST) or in our various aircraft boneyards, one might place it squarely on the complexity of the original Boeing 2707 design. Among other thoughts, a mechanic might wonder if this would be the day that he accidentally kills 300 people by making a mistake on working on those swing wings, and a pilot would absolutely have his hands full and then some landing it with the wings still in the fully swept position. This is despite Boeing not being the object of derision it is at the moment. Either the Lockheed or the North American designs might have proven less complex, and thus more likely to be flying by 1971. In that situation, the program would have been more likely than not to continue. Both were beautiful designs, though I admit that for some reason, I like North American's NAC-60 more. Perhaps that's a tip of the hat to Murphy's Law...
Afrer bruising my ribs and recovering from coughing... i could not imagine the pain that dude went through to clench for g forces and shunt blood around the body. What a G.
"The Americans took British data but did not reciprocate." No surprise there; US culture is still too young to have developed integrity and common decency. Those things take centuries. 🤷♂
24:39 can you really go pass Mach 1 without making a sonic boom? Sound is pressure moving through the air, right. Above the certain speed a sound wave becomes a shockwave. Basically an explosion. A boom
@@Global_Optimizationyou could fly at higher altitude where the air is thinner. How would you make the release of energy less destructive at commercial jet altitude. You can change the length of the shockwave, I guess. But you still have to deal with the force behind it, right?
First human flight was not 1903 - that was the first *powered* flight. People had been flying gliders for a couple decades prior to that (e.g. Otto Lillienthal).
@@sirBrouwer This was all Classified to the USA - after all only last year did we finally crack the research tree topic of how to detect 225+ year old technology of Aerial balloons and how to shoot them down. I am so proud of my country.
I usually expect extremely high-quality videos from this channel but this one feels off. It’s almost like it was written by chatGPT and rushed out. It was still good, but doesn’t seem quite right.
Thank you Dagago for educating us with yet another brilliantly researched documentary - much appreciated. Having flown on more than 1,000 international flights, I quite enjoy flights of 8-10 hours duration. The 17 hour direct flights I took from Singapore to NYC were far too long. I foresee supersonic passenger flights however at what cost, per ticket? Concorde flights were very expensive, partly because of the cost of fuel per passenger. The tickets were affordable for senior corporate and wealthy passengers alike, but not for the average person. I predict that supersonic flight will always remain as exclusive & expensive.
The big mistake with the Boeing 2707 was the decision that it should fly at mach 3. That's unrealistic, even supersonic jet fighters like the F-15 can only get up to about mach 2.5.
The US govt intentionally caused the shutdown of the Avro Arrow in Canada and most likely this project in the UK. The reason was that nobody was allowed to build a better plane than the USA or they would lose air superiority. And the Arrow was light years ahead of the US planes. Any plane that met that criteria was cancelled at the demand of the USA.
Hans Von Ohain of Germany was the designer of the first operational jet engine, with the first prototype aircraft, the Heinkel HE 178, first flying in 1939. However, credit for the invention of the first jet engine went to Great Britain’s Frank Whittle, who registered a patent for the jet engine design in 1930 but, did not perform a test flight till 1941. Honestly, he probably would have been first but the British government was overly skeptical and delayed its development. Us in the U.S. flying our first jet aircraft the Bell P-59 Airacomet powered by two GE J-31 jet engines.
Read first hand accounts. Like the genocidal powers that succeeded the Nazis, the Nazis blackmailed the scientists. Threatening to kill entire families if they failed. North Korea style pressure. But that’s why these scientists preferred to flee west to the US than to the Soviet Union. Under the Soviet Union they’d be under the same treatment.
![How to Lie Your Way to $34 Billion [Nikola Motors Fraud]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/88fWUZhYb04/mqdefault.jpg)
![How to Lie Your Way to $34 Billion [Nikola Motors Fraud]](/img/tr.png)
![Boeing's Downfall [Greed Over Safety] feat. Mentour Pilot](/img/n.gif)
As a tech guy, I really love all of the ColdFusion videos, and as a pilot, this one is particularly close to my heart!
Mentour Pilot
@@blaiseutubeMentour!
When I was a kid my grandma lived in the desert in Barstow and we would hear those Sonic booms almost daily. They would rattle the walls in her little trailer house. When I was 10 years old it was incredible!
Wouldn't those wake you up when you are asleep?
@@LuisSierra42 I don't recall ever hearing them late at night or early in the morning. If it had happened it would have woke my mom for sure, she was a light sleeper.
Coldfusion, Polymatter , Wendover productions, real engineering, OBF, Caspian report and reallifelore are literally the best channels to ever exist on UA-cam.
Edit : yeah, i forgot to mention lemmino and Kento Bento
Agreed, except I think OBF plagiarizes.
Smater Every Day? :)
Half as interesting and search party are also decent.
Agreed except for Caspian for me. Biased as anyone could be if geo P. Affects ones location
@@nowMUSHhe has changed I guess
When asked about Concorde NASA said it was easier to get to space than develop Supersonic Flight for the public to use
True, we have more companies working on rockets than on supersonic planes today
Largely because Conventional Airlines are so Efficient and as such Profitable that it made no sense to compete with them.
Supersonic flight was fast but you have fewer Passenger per flight than a Regular Airliner.
Yup.
The US killed the Concorde.
@@arnowisp6244And also, it made sense when telecomunications where so expensive that for most people, the only way to attend something short order was a jump in the fastest means of transport possible, but today, I'm typing out this message from my home, that's also my office, while I work with a company in a different country. It's a very different world, and for most people, flying cheap will trounce flying very fast.
22:25 Boeing (mistake) 😂
That was so unexpected man
I had to pause in doing the dishes and run that back to make sure I heard that right 😂😂😂
Nah that shit killed me
I cracked up so hard! 😂
I smiled,100% correct.
If it's BOEING, I am NOT GOING! If it's AIRBUS, that's a must!
“Boeing - mistake” 😂😂😂
yes - I also picked that up. was wondering about what he meant!
@@MrLorcanduffy Haven't you seen the recent scandals of Boeing?
They BEEN had uhh..."supersonic flight"...ijs..🙄😏🤨😐
😂 at least I didn’t hear that alone😂
I almost choked 🤣
Thanks!
Sorry to nitpick but at 4:30 you somewhat imply that XF-84H "Thunderscreech" was an early attempt at supersonic flight before jets. But Thunderscreech first flew in 1955 almost a decade after F-86 and Bell X-1 both jet and rocket powered aircrafts achived supersonic speeds. Around 1955-56 early YF-104 were already reaching mach 2.2 speeds.
He confused me, especially when you can see how more modernized its shape is compared to ww2 planes
This video is just all over the place. Very low effort was made
@@matviyk3066 Not sure why a few channels are having this issue, either retiring, pulling back, or having more production issues in factual or actual product. I have a gut feeling we are seeing more results of relying on various AI systems like Chat GPT to pull data and create scripts for videos, the hallucinations it has and humans not in the mix, or humans under pressure only fact checking off the same types of "do my work for me" AI systems.
Vario? @@plasmaburndeath
It's made by a company pumping out videos to get clicks and sell ad space. Accuracy doesn't matter. Just look at all the ignorant comments saying how awesome it is.
The Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech, while an interesting and unusual airplane, was developed and built well after the Bell X-1 had crossed the sound barrier. It was also designed as a carrier based aircraft with no requirement for a catapult.
The way it is placed in the video makes it sound like its design goal was breaking the sound barrier, which it wasn't.
Yeah, that jarred me too. The first half of this video is all over the place with the time line, not great.
Man do you ever make a video that isn't entertaining and educating?? Best content on UA-cam!
Also thanks to his British Australian accent
Way, way more than 1 person makes these.
@@timhall5382who else can you recommend?
@@timhall5382 If you're going to spam, back it up. Not trying to put you down. Your comments have made me actually curious about this but I can't find ANYTHING online. Maybe I'm using the wrong search terms?
@@mokahless what do you think you will find? He isn't a public company, he doesn't have to tell people how many employees he has.
The narrator has mentioned many times for many years that he doesn't do it alone and has a "team". I can't tell you if they were his employees or independent contractors. Unless a public company bought his stuff I don't know how you would know or to whom it's been sold. It's garbage now though.
Thanks
Great episode, keep doing what you're doing!
My Grandfather flew with Sir Charles Kingsford Smith when he was about 12 years old in the Southern Cross. He later went on to become a mechanic working for Qantas and Ansett. As a child in the late 1970s I remember going to someone’s house in Sydney who was a family friend who had also worked in the airlines. He had two huge concord models in a collection of models - each about 1.5 - 2 metres long. They were old and dusty but still in relatively good shape. They were on stands and looked like the sort of thing you’d see in a museum. They had the branding of Qantas on them, flying kangaroo on the tails and all. Turned out the back story was Qantas had committed to purchasing Concords in Australia due to our vast country and long distance between cities. However Boeing rushed in and scuttled the contract by underselling Concord at the 11th hour. The 747 was much loader and slower, but could carry many more passengers. The was a lot of public and political pushback about the sonic boom so in the end it was an easy decision. Both the concord and 747 were released in 1969 so the race was on to get fleet sales. The first 747 flew in Australia in 1971… the concord then flew to Sydney in 1972 as part of their global sales tour, coming in from Darwin in just 2 hours (the same flight still takes over 4 hours today)… almost in a ‘Look at what you missed out on’ type of moment. But the horse had bolted and rest is history... So the concord models had been destined for the bin, had been rescued and ended up at this suburban house in Sydney. I wonder where they are today? Australian aviation history!
Getting "Theranos" vibes from all those companies towards the end of the video.
At least the companies like Boom have access to technology that has been proven to work in other form factors (utilizing off the shelf Jet engines) and previous hypersonic jets as reference. Theranos’s tech was just simply a lie that could never work. Plus, I believe they are working with NASA which developed the X-59 which has been able to significantly reduce sonic booms DB level, specifically at ground level to about the DB level of a car door being shut.
Theranos was just a magical black box. Supersonic isn't that.
There's a blood testing company called Babson Diagnostics making the same exact claims Elizabeth Holmes did and investors are falling for it....again. History repeats itself.
I agree... Plus what would be the point of supersonic flight.
@@johnking9942 the point is to get to the green conventions faster... and talk about how bad is for the general public to use supersonic flight..oh wait 🤦♂
Living in LA and hearing the sonic boom as the shuttle would come in to land at Edwards was quite the experience - we all thought it would be common yet now it is gone never to be heard again.
Similarly I can recall passing though Heathrow back in the day where Concorde had flights pretty much daily - the sound of that thing taking off was insane 😎😎😎
Fun fact about the SR-71: Mach 3.2 is only the unclassified top speed of the plane. There is much unofficial talk that it can go much faster. An SR-71 pilot I met on a museum tour was very cagey about the fastest he'd ever flown. Additionally, despite the fact that the planes are retired, not all aspects of its design have been declassified.
Bonus fact: due to thermal expansion when it was at speed, the SR-71 is built with gaps in its body and wings. The plane had to be fueled directely on the runway because it would leak jet fuel until it reached an appreciable portion of the speed of sound and the gaps closed up.
What was the fastest he flew?
it did not get refueled on the runway, Col. Richard H. Graham's book busts that myth, they refueled like normal on the ground and then would taxi to the runway and take off. They leaked, but they didn't leak nearly that much.
If its not anything official than it merely a theory without anything conclusive.
If it was able to go faster it wont be by very much and it would be able to do it for a small amount ot time before its engines amd fuselage arent able to withstand the stress and temperatures.
The mig 25 was able to reach mach 3.2 but if it maintained such a speed for more time than what engines and frame allow, then it would be permanently damaged.
Great video! Keep producing videos which peak your interest, keeps them authentic and thought provoking.
"You aren't big enough and there aren't enough of you to get me in that thing again." -- XF-84H test pilot to XF-84H project engineer
Amazing work as always, thank you Dagogo!
There is a massive omission in the 'documentary'. What is missing is exactly what the Americans learned from Miles Aviation. The answer is simple.
As an aircraft approaches supersonic speed, the air flowing over the control surfaces, the ailerons and elevators, begins to establish pressure fronts that move back along the wings surface. These fronts do not advance at the same speed, so when they pass where the ailerons or elevator hinges are positioned, the surface pressure can be very different above and below the control surface. This change in pressure result in the control surfaces moving with such force a pilot cannot withstand the pressure and the aircraft can go out of control and possibly break up due to the violent oscillation set up by the uncontrollable surface pressure.
The British had learned this and had built 'fully flying' control surfaces to replace the traditional elevators, which are much more susceptible to the problem. The Americans quickly changed the design of the Bell X-1 to have fully flying elevators mounted on the vertical stabilizer fin. You can see this in the videos. The earlier glide and low speed flight aircraft clearly have traditional elevators, the hinges being clearly visible. The later ones do not. If you look closely, you can see the plate against the vertical fin, to which the 'fully flying' control surface is mounted. The plate rotates and this causes the 'fully flying' wing to rotate with it.
It is ironic that the X-1 in the museum may be the one that Yeager broke the sound barrier in, but it has either been modified back to the original configuration, with elevators hinging on the fixed horizontal stabilizer, or it is not the correct airframe but a substitute, hiding the crime of stealing British technology.
What is also lame about the Yeager record was the use of a rocket motor. First small ones and then ever larger and more powerful ones. The delays that hurt Miles Aviation was the development of the British jet engines. The first flights were made with a less powerful substitute when the planned engine was not ready in time. Once the larger engine became available, Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown quickly proved the Miles M52 was easily able to exceed the speed of sound, but using a British jet engine. This was something the "X" series of aircraft were not able to accomplish for years, despite the British still, stupidly in my opinion, sharing jet engine technology with the US companies that began building jet engines under a "free" license from Churchill!
thank you for clarifying! ❤
The all moving stabilizer was not a British invention, nor was it a British invention to use it for supersonic flight and it was already being seen on the XP-86, in development at the same time. There is little evidence for this British conspiracy theory, past the claims of sore losers. The Bell visit to Britain is not even confirmed to have ever happened. I really wish channels like this wouldn't spread information like this without proper qualification or context.
@phi...
Let me guess, you are British (some of my heritage, also).
I totally disagree. 😂
Obviously I'm joking. You seem to know what you're talking about
What a superb video,I witnessed a sonic boom in 2013 and it’s something I’ll never forget, cheers DAGOGO really enjoyed it 👍
2:02 The speed of sound in air is primarily dependent on temperature, rather than pressure. The reference to sea level is misleading, as it suggests a constant temperature, which is not accurate. Specifically, a speed of 1225 kph corresponds to an air temperature of 15 degrees Celsius.
Keep posting. Learning so much from your channel. Thanks.
Could honestly listen to you commentate the grass growing.
Such a great video, thanks guys!!!
That would've made an amazing April's first video. I bet he would've made it accidentally entertaining and educative though.
I'm so glad you're finaly covering an aerospace topic!
You left out about Albert Scott Crossfield. He was an American naval officer and test pilot. In 1953, he became the first pilot to fly at twice the speed of sound. Crossfield was the first of twelve pilots who flew the North American X-15, an experimental spaceplane jointly operated by the United States Air Force and NASA.
Thanks Dagogo! Great job as always! I’ve been keeping a close eye on this stuff. Been an aviation nerd since I was 4. A large number of the Boom team seems to be former colleagues of mine, and they set the groundwork for the X-59 design. They are the team to watch in my mind.
It's a shame you didn't mention Avro Arrow made in Canada. It was the first unofficial level supersonic flight and also Lead to the use of Delta wing technology.
The Americans did Canada so dorty with that program... And it's often overlooked sadly.
@@MeatyZeegwe do everyone dirty somehow
I was sad there was no mention of the Arrow either :(
The Arrow's first flight was in March 1958, years after supersonic flight was a reality for military aircraft and delta wings were not unusual by then. For example, the F-102 Delta Dagger was actually in service by 1956, having first flown in 1953.
Hey @ColdFusion
Little error at 16.13 "mach 2.44", I think you meant "1.44"
Also on the screen at the time: Manurer instead of maneuver
This video is all over the place, 3:48 , sorry but the thunderscreech was a program by the navy in the 1950's intended to create an aircraft that can perform short takeoff in its aircraft carriers with the ability to reach supersonic speeds. This video gives a false information that the thunderscreech was created to achieve mach 1 speeds, a better story would by p38 or mustang pilots performing steep dives to reach higher speed and crashing as conventional planes become uncontrollable. Then the creation of X plane, eXperimental, which led to the crearion of Bell X1. I hope you get your stories straight
Love the new direction, but still with the same super high class of production. We expect no less - fortunately for us you always deliver...
I prefer the idea of a 10 day blimp trip rather than a 30 min hypersonic passenger flight.
Great content Dagogo! Always interesting and in-depth your videos....
The reason why we gave up to commercial supersonic flight is because internet became better and there was no need for as much "IN PERSON" meeting. And thus flight time isn't a lost time anymore.
Plus it's super inefficient.
I dont know dude, imagjne being in Sydney ftom london in two hours.
@@DrumToTheBassWoop that's not the time it takes. It's 2-3h for London to new York. And that was with a ticket price of 10k.
Nobody cares about SS flight nowadays except maybe Influencer who can make video out of it
Maintenance cost and fuel costs is the reason.
Face to face meetings are absolutely still a thing. That’s why business jets market is huge.
guys is that a Big company or television program or news aggency ? Because i am following ColdFusion very very long time ago they didnt even had 2m subs yet. But this channel improved my knowladge of many different things. you guys really deserve award or something like that.
I really love these longer, more in-depth videos. I really hope you have the time/ability to keep making them in the future :)
Great content and one of the best narration voices on UA-cam. Is the accent local to a particular location in Australia?
Cold Fusion is one of my favorite channels 😍 I will never skip the ads!!
Same....
Dope Content Cold Fusion 🤘🏼😎💯💧
Great episode and a welcome change.. thank you.
ColdFusion delivers one of the most stunning swift overviews of the flight industry.
It left me speechless a couple of times. The historical video kept me speechless, the great info seated. I'm not really fond of flights, but the history and it's touch on today's approach is unmistakable.
As of the final question - I don't think it will be available any time soon, the energy(fuel) consumption is just too great. But I look forward to see further development in this field. I don't care if they are British, French, or US. It would be amazing to see the limitations of the technology moved forward.
Very nice documentary about aircraft ,I like your voice too
We've always watched sonic booms on UA-cam but never thought of the history..
thank you .. sami&isaac
Cold Fusion Class on a Easter 🐣 Sunday & I now get a great 30 minute break👍😊
Great video,as always. I liked that Boeing quip. Nice one.
that dig at Boeing was gold
Cheap shot at a company that was great back then
@@Axicab no - it wasn't a 'cheap shot' at all. Boeing was in it's 6th year since the MD merger... aka; the beginning of the end for Boeing quality. That 'cheap shot' is quite justifiable -- Boeing 'EARNED' it. Lockheed needs to take over and let the engineers run the company and get rid of the pencil necks.
Your videos are always top notch 🙌🏾
I love your videos, the quality and information is stunning. Also, love your calming voice! :D
You make the most incredible, thoughtful, educational, and well executed content. Thank you for all you do! Keep it up!
This was so interesting. So cool how coldfusion covers unique tech documentaries in his own style and the music 🔥🔥🔥so unique!
04:06 Definitely headache inducing even at low volume ,
I can't imagine what this same sound can do at louder volumes.
Interesting
Thank you for your insight and videos
22:41 Concorde started flying passengers in 1976. It started flying paying passengers in Airline service before TU-144 so Concorde was the 1st supersonic commercial airliner
Great video! I love your videos❤
w video i used this for my school project bc this vid has soooo much info
Sad that you missed the oportunity to talk about the MiG 31, the fastest fighter jet ever build, still in use after more than 40 years.
Always challenging my mind and expanding perceived reality. Thank you for sharing 😊
Chuck Yeager was an absolute pioneer & most daring of daredevils
Absolutely!
Love this video. This feels like classic Cold Fusion. Just need more eerie music 😅
So Boeing planes are literally falling out of the sky and they want me to try their super super sonic new airplane? No man I’m good!😂
At 1:15 the video claims that concord was the only supersonic application, but does not mention tu-144
I have had the Greatest honor to meet several of these fearless pilots.
General Yeager.
Scott Crossfield.
Al White.
Thanks for covering this fascinating topic!
Storytelling master! Great video, love the history of technology
I hated History subject 😂 but seeing it is related to engineering and technology i am hooked up
This should have just been called “flying faster then the speed of sound” because most of it is basically the history of faster than the speed of sound
You only need to travel so fast. With the internet and home offices there really is zero need for ultra fast travel. Its a niche market now.
What? Who is wanting to substitute supersonic travel for internet or work? I recently spent 10.5 hours on a plane one way. I would have paid much more to cut that in half.
What ever!
FireMunki you basically just called passenger flights a niche market though. Anybody that flies even slightly often would want it to be quicker. Nobody wants to be middle seat beside some big dude crunching doritos any longer than they need to
Brilliant video as usual.
05:28 is that Zero7 I can hear playing in the background?
I wouldn’t say Concorde retired because of the crash? 9/11 had a bigger impact on its retirement, and airbus not wanting to keep making spares for it
IMO what killed Concorde and supersonic commercial flight are several things:
Because of telecommunication there is really no need to get to New York (or the other way round) in three hours.
And in reality to get through the airports you need four hours plus three hours to get to/from the city center.
Secondly flying is no longer glamorous or fun if you do not fly First or Business and if you fly those then that can be (an certain airlines at least) so much fun that you don't want that to end in three hours, you'd rather enjoy the luxury and pampering for the whole day as the day is wasted anyway.
There are many more who can afford many times higher ticket prices than what Concord charged and had capacity for but those people are not in a hurry and they want to pay for luxury, not speed.
Small pronounciation tip: "Hee Ny" Dittmar has it's vowels the other way around, as in "High Knee" Dittmar. Heini is the abbreviation of Heinrich.
(Detailed comment) This video skipped three vital FACTS. 1) Tupolev DID steal most of Concorde's plans. 2) There is no mention of the Ogival Delta Wing that made Concorde fast and more importantly smooth through the sound barrier. 3) AIRBUS was the response to the behaviour of both America and the Soviet Union in this era by European nations, who grew sick of the depravity of companies like Boeing, and just how far they would go for a monopoly on success. Sound eerily familiar still today? Now modern purveyors of sonic flight have a lie to get around with the public and experts that still live. After destroying Concorde's innovation with lies (time would have made engines quieter, more fuel efficient, whilst safety would have only improved anyway), the myth of 'dangerous' sonic booms will plague any company trying to go back in time to undo the sheer injustice that Britain faced throughout the twentieth century. Theft and espionage built Boeing, Tupolev and others into national giants. The only channel that has been truly 'diplomatic' on this subject so far was Mentour Pilot. Airbus is granted to us through Karma, as is the downfall of Boeing. They deserve all they get. I want to see any real evidence of the 'harm' of sonic booms, when people were told anything from seizures and vomiting, to building damage. I have seen hundreds of videos on this topic, and yet I am yet to see a single one that documents evidence of this. Come on Coldfusion, your channel is better than this. Everything I have stated is also public knowledge, except the conspiracy to make sure the Boeing 747 was not touched in her lifetime by supersonic flight. (The U.S redacts uncomfortable truth). As I began, it's more than coincidence that now that aircraft's life has ended, people can't move fast enough to revisit supersonic travel again. OR is it because Boeing no longer holds such power over the American government to stop it?? The truth is always out there.
Now now, you don't want Boeing to pay a 3 letter agency to unalive you like they did with john barnett, now do you?
Stop it, no one will uncover the sheer incompetence and ill will of that company, because they are a military contractor and any attack on them is an attack on military industry
The video generally glosses over quite a few things or implies things that aren't true.
That said, supersonic booms are loud and can, if you're unlucky, carry extremely well and it is still a shockwave - meaning it carries force. The thunderscreech in particular causing sickness is documented, but that's a unique case.
The main issue is still cost. What we're currently seeing is a bunch of techbros convincing everyone that supersonic travel would be sick, but it just isn't efficient and with the current inflation and rise in energy cost in the west, it just isn't realistic. Aircraft at Mach 0.8 are the cheapest way to move people in reasonable time frames, so that's where it's going to stay. If we find a way to reduce the cost of operating these aircraft (cheaper fuel), we MIGHT make an economic case for supersonic flight - but the way the world is going, that's not going to happen.
He does it EVERY VIDEO@@zibingotaeam3716
This is great video, very intersting. I would love for you to do something around the Hyperloop, especillay it beating the speed of sound.
Thanks for a fun and well done video.
..from a former airline pilot who flew much slower, at 0.78 Mach :)
Love this content. Thanks for something a little different.
Well, that was a great video!!
It was a nice video, and I'm glad that you decided to look into supersonic flight. I expect to live long enough to see the Boom Ovation fly.
However, a bit of care in researching the US SST program would have helped. The Secret Projects forum has a 38 page thread on the 1960s program. Just to throw a little bit out there, the program had three phases, and initially had three engine manufacturers and three airframe manufacturers competing North American, Lockheed and Boeing were vying for the airframe contract, while GE, Pratt and Whitney and Curtiss-Wright were competing for the engine contract. North American, with its NAC-60, and Curtiss Wright's TJ-70 engine were dismissed at the end of Phase I. Ultimately, that left Boeing and Lockheed in a match that Boeing won. The time lost as Boeing found out that they could not get their swing wing design to fly across the Atlantic with passengers and revert to a delta wing design was time given to the enemies of the program to bring it to a halt. People were worried about the sonic boom, and about the ozone layer, as well as other forms of pollution.
Despite the decision, made after the US SST program was defunded, to ban supersonic flight over land, it was planned for the US SST to be flown on domestic coast to coast flights, as well as many shorter flights. In a North American proposal to United, for example, there was data on the costs of flights from Cleveland to Portland, among others. And the seat/mile costs weren't that far out of line with those of first generation jetliners (707, DC-8). As the SST program came and went before the first fuel crisis, fuel costs weren't a major concern. Concorde, asking for sales at the time of the fuel crisis, got the same resistance that Chrysler's newly redesigned full size cars did. Everyone dropped their options then.
If I had to state a reason that we don't have American SSTs in museums (a la Fallout 3, which mentions a donated SST) or in our various aircraft boneyards, one might place it squarely on the complexity of the original Boeing 2707 design. Among other thoughts, a mechanic might wonder if this would be the day that he accidentally kills 300 people by making a mistake on working on those swing wings, and a pilot would absolutely have his hands full and then some landing it with the wings still in the fully swept position. This is despite Boeing not being the object of derision it is at the moment.
Either the Lockheed or the North American designs might have proven less complex, and thus more likely to be flying by 1971. In that situation, the program would have been more likely than not to continue. Both were beautiful designs, though I admit that for some reason, I like North American's NAC-60 more. Perhaps that's a tip of the hat to Murphy's Law...
Superbly well presented and informative video as always, professional quality. Respect from the North of England. More please 👍👍
Whats the music from 6:49, does anyone know? I checked all of Dagogo's songs but its not there.
i would also love to know!
Always well done I learn something every time I watch your videos
It’s so funny seeing all this hypersonics stuff hit mainstream when I lucked into working on them when I was 18, 13 years ago
I get so hyped when I see a coldfusion notifications. He makes these videos so digestible.
Great content as usual!! Thank You! :)
Afrer bruising my ribs and recovering from coughing... i could not imagine the pain that dude went through to clench for g forces and shunt blood around the body.
What a G.
Another very interesting video. Keep up the excellent work!
"A certain crazy man" ... well done demonetization avoidance
Outstanding episode. Thank you!
"The Americans took British data but did not reciprocate."
No surprise there; US culture is still too young to have developed integrity and common decency. Those things take centuries. 🤷♂
If your urban centers are filled with basketball players, your societies don't get very far.
Didn’t take very long for the Americans to save your ass twice while propping up your economy for quite awhile.
24:39 can you really go pass Mach 1 without making a sonic boom? Sound is pressure moving through the air, right. Above the certain speed a sound wave becomes a shockwave. Basically an explosion. A boom
This is correct. There will always be shockwaves. The question is how big/loud they are
@@Global_Optimizationyou could fly at higher altitude where the air is thinner. How would you make the release of energy less destructive at commercial jet altitude. You can change the length of the shockwave, I guess. But you still have to deal with the force behind it, right?
First human flight was not 1903 - that was the first *powered* flight. People had been flying gliders for a couple decades prior to that (e.g. Otto Lillienthal).
True, history of aviation is just awesome with people like fokker lillienthal langley!😊
The first flight was done by the Montgolfier brothers all the way back on 21 Nov 1783 with a hot air balloon.
@@sirBrouwer This was all Classified to the USA - after all only last year did we finally crack the research tree topic of how to detect 225+ year old technology of Aerial balloons and how to shoot them down. I am so proud of my country.
Informative video, thank you!
I usually expect extremely high-quality videos from this channel but this one feels off. It’s almost like it was written by chatGPT and rushed out. It was still good, but doesn’t seem quite right.
I've been getting that feeling more and more often recently. Not sure what's going on.
Thank you Dagago for educating us with yet another brilliantly researched documentary - much appreciated.
Having flown on more than 1,000 international flights, I quite enjoy flights of 8-10 hours duration.
The 17 hour direct flights I took from Singapore to NYC were far too long.
I foresee supersonic passenger flights however at what cost, per ticket?
Concorde flights were very expensive, partly because of the cost of fuel per passenger.
The tickets were affordable for senior corporate and wealthy passengers alike, but not for the average person.
I predict that supersonic flight will always remain as exclusive & expensive.
You enjoy 8-10 hours of flights? Yikes, kill me now! I get to antsy over about 4 hours.
The big mistake with the Boeing 2707 was the decision that it should fly at mach 3. That's unrealistic, even supersonic jet fighters like the F-15 can only get up to about mach 2.5.
Thought I wouldn’t be interested in this at all, but this guy somehow makes the topic fascinating
10:55 - "the british got nothing in return" - and therefore neither did the Soviets.
Great video man
Hard to believe that engineers didn't look closer at falcons in a stoop.
They sweep their wings back to come down like a thunderbolt.
How did you get clearance for the Zero 7 track? Not sure it was a good choice. Doc is very interesting aside the bg music.
The US govt intentionally caused the shutdown of the Avro Arrow in Canada and most likely this project in the UK. The reason was that nobody was allowed to build a better plane than the USA or they would lose air superiority. And the Arrow was light years ahead of the US planes. Any plane that met that criteria was cancelled at the demand of the USA.
Good clip….. keep up the good work
Then came the Germans.
Hans Von Ohain of Germany was the designer of the first operational jet engine, with the first prototype aircraft, the Heinkel HE 178, first flying in 1939. However, credit for the invention of the first jet engine went to Great Britain’s Frank Whittle, who registered a patent for the jet engine design in 1930 but, did not perform a test flight till 1941. Honestly, he probably would have been first but the British government was overly skeptical and delayed its development. Us in the U.S. flying our first jet aircraft the Bell P-59 Airacomet powered by two GE J-31 jet engines.
Read first hand accounts. Like the genocidal powers that succeeded the Nazis, the Nazis blackmailed the scientists. Threatening to kill entire families if they failed. North Korea style pressure. But that’s why these scientists preferred to flee west to the US than to the Soviet Union. Under the Soviet Union they’d be under the same treatment.
Lead by a certain Austrian man.
@@michaelhusadamy hero