It's great they want to take on the technical challenges of making the sonic booms quieter but the fact remains they are not going to be commercially viable due to limited capacity and the high cost of the development and operations.
THE WEALTHY, HAVE ALWAYS PAID THE PRICE FOR QUALITY SERVICE AT ON ANY LEVEL BE IT BY PLANE SHIP OR RAIL. B.A SAID THEIR CONCORDE SERVICE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 25% OF THEIR TOTAL NET PROFITS. AND WAS GROWING. THE FRENCH WERE LOOSING A LOT OF MONEY, HAD DIFICULTY RESPONDING TO MORE AND MORE SAFETY REGULATIONS, WHEN AIR FRANCE ABANDONED THEIR CONCORDE SERVICE, BA, WERE ABLIGED TO FOLLOW, BECAUSE OF A LEGAL CONTRACT ARRANGEMENT WITH AIR FRANCE, 'IF 'YOU' FINNISH, WE WILL.
I grew up when the Concorde was still zipping through the air and was saddened when it was grounded. It would be nice to see new superspeed aircraft available to the masses so everyone can enjoy a mini vacation anywhere in the world on the same day if needed, lol.
I really hope Overture can pull this off. While we need hydrogen/electric aircraft MORE we still need these flagship programs to inspire innovation and bring hope to an industry that has become increasingly stagnant under Airbus and Boeing...
For the record, hydrogen aircraft is bad in terms of logistics. you are dealing with a highly volatile fuel that needs to be handled by a highly specialized crew that needs constant refrigeration. it's just way too costly. Electric jet can work, but it needs way better batteries.
You know it’s funny when the concord was first built everyone was elated, everyone but the US. It was said and I believe it to be true, that the US were jealous because they weren’t involved in the plane and it’s why it was so restricted when it came to the US. Now they are all excited about it because some of the major plane manufacturers there, in the US, are looking at it. If the concord didn’t get so much of a fight when it was first introduced and operating, over 30 years ago, supersonic flight would’ve been a everyday thing today…….
I meant, if concord was so successful, why more airline companies around world buying it? I am sure in the 90s, Japanese wants to fly to SF under 5 hrs.
Sad to say Peter that you are correct.. I remember hearing that Boeing were instrumental via extensive lobbying to have Concorde denied many landing rights across numerous intended U.S. routes. Boeing realising that they were too far behind in the race to build a Supersonic Passenger Aircraft, decided to allow thye Anglo French, simply a pyrrhic victory, making sure sublime airliner could never be a finacial success. They of course gave us the 747 instead, although maybe a technical masterpiece in it's own right, no-one could call it graceful or elegant. But then I would suggest that wherever American profit or prestige enters into an "international" situation, the concept of "fair play" becomes at best a "quaint" anachronism to them...!!
Just a few polite corrections here. First of all Concorde didn't 'fail'. It did exactly what its brief required it to do which was safely fly 100 passengers for 3500 miles in shirtsleeves at a sustained Mach 2 (1350 mph). It did so for the best part of 27 years. It was incredibly economical for what it did, cruising at Mach 2 for over three hours without afterburners. But it was conceived to be too small and came to market just as Boeing introduced the 747 which completely changed the economies of airline operation for the masses. Concorde wasn't withdrawn because of the Paris crash either (when the impact of a very heavy piece of punctured tyre compromised a fully-fueled wing tank spewing kerosene into the jetwash of two powerful turbojet engines causing uncontrolled fire which quickly weakened the aluminium airframe). Upgrades such as kevlar linings to the fuel tanks and redesigned tyres saw a fairly quick return to service. Concorde was actually withdrawn in 2003 because Airbus Industrie refused to continue to maintain just 16, by then 30 year old, aircraft belonging to British Airways and Air France unless the airlines contributed vast sums towards their future upkeep. I'm sure I read that Richard Branson wanted to take a BA Concorde as the Virgin flagship but couldn't for this same reason. The sonic boom problem has never been solved though NASA is indeed experimenting with 'sonic bumps' with the X-59. However...Concorde was a highly optimised system not just a nice shape strapped to four big engines. It became that shape after many thousands of hours of empirical testing to minimise aerodynamic drag over long distances at Mach 2 and had what is still considered to be one of the most efficient supersonic powerplants EVER produced. You may have noticed the Boom Overture is very similar in shape to Concorde and this isn't an accident. The X-59, though, is a very different shape because its brief is to reduce the sonic boom not to transport passengers efficiently. There is a big leap from a test bed to a fully feasible and certificated supersonic passenger aircraft. A future SST will need a reduced sonic boom if it is to fly overland. This means that at some stage the technology of X-59 will have to find its way onto a passenger aircraft and so the development and optimisation cycle will begin again but with the emphasis (as always on an SST) on drag reduction. There were no compromises in the design of Concorde...not one. I don't want to seem anti SST. On the contrary I think the world seemed to step backwards when Concorde was withdrawn. But it is unfair to say that it 'failed'. Whatever replaces Concorde is going to be a much smaller aircraft but it still has a mountain of technical challenges and legislation to overcome. I think it is going to be a long time coming.
Check out the Venus Aerospace hypersonic plane concept using existing rocket technology to achieve Mach 9. The 51 Km cruising height and the lack of air virtually eliminates the sonic booms.
*_@cbody70_* The Venus Stargazer looks quite something. I was wondering about the sonic boom at 51km. The Venus site makes no mention of it. AFAIK you need to go to around 500,000ft (95mi, 153km) to eliminate sonic boom at Mach 9.
Mach 3 was the reason the 1970's American supersonic transport failed. Europeans could never understand why the Americans wanted to go mach 3 because it is in the "thermal thicket" where heat generated by friction with the air literally bakes the plane. Mach 2 to 2.4 is so much cheaper and decreases maintenance expenses drastically.
*_@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958_* After funding in-house SST studies for 17 years, Boeing won a contract to develop the 2707 advanced SST in 1967. Subsequent oil price hikes, protests against sonic boom, and the environmental lobby forced the senate to axe the project in 1971, at a $1bn spend. This decimated Boeing's finances, and resulted in many lay-offs. The Mach 3 specification for the 2707 was causing technical problems, but the project died largely due to the environmentalists, including Charles Lindbergh.
I recall a video just like this saying the same thing about 2 years ago, another one before that 5 years ago, another one celebrating Concorde 40th birthday 13 years ago. You can keep making documentaries about it America but at some point you actually have to Design, manufacture and perfect supersonic travel for more than a handful of pilots in a cockpit. So............ get on with it.
Yeah, this is getting old. It’s starting to feel like another one of those “nuclear fusion” or “alternative fuel source” Ideas. But just like those, they clearly have some serious obstacles to overcome.
Yeah right, young people these days have no idea how advance the technology in the 60s and 70s. We sent human to the moon, had commercial supersonic airplane, etc. Look what we have today so called “high tech” companies, make phones, apps, online shopping. Oh man fun period
@@chelsea7xhf We now have commercial aircraft that can takeoff with very little noise and fly from Europe to Australia non-stop. No, your generation was brainwashed into believing what the future would hold, and then you became broken hearted when the future did not shape into your imagination in your head. An F-35 is a flying computer, and only pilots who have grown up using technology can fly it.
I'm curious about these sonic booms. I'm sure they happened, but every time I ever looked up to watch a Concord fly over in the 90's, it never seemed to occur. But maybe it was just going slow over London.
I believe there are regulations banning supersonic flight overland in most countries after testing in the 70s and 80s. All supersonic commercial aircraft concepts I am aware of all intend to fly further than Concorde mainly to expand service to trans-pacific than just trans - Atlantic.
Lockheed Martin and Airbus are in discussions to manufacture a faster jet. liner. They are scouting out a place to construct a plant, somewhere in the south.
Whilst the Paris Crash was undoubtably horrific, when one compares it to the number of Boeing aircraft crashes as just one example, "Concorde" had an exemplary safety record, with just one crash in 25 years of servicde..!. I would suggest to the team at "C.N.E.T" that the real reason for the magnificent aircraft's sad demise, was the "Bean Counters" and "Book Cookers"(Accountants) who are obsessed with "Profit Above All Else". They capitalised on the Paris crash as reason for axing the aircraft which they had long desired becuase of high operating costs. They could not accept that somethings are beyond mere financial considerations... Perhaps one of the reasons the world is in such a sad state today, now it is becoming "Profit Before People"..!!
I hate to rain on your parade of cheering on supersonic transportation, but here's the thing with SSTs: they are costly and the ticket on them are very expensive. Yes, you will get some customers that have the bucks so that they can get to their destinations in half the time. For the average flyer, that convenience is a bit too expensive. When Concorde first flew, there was high demand for a new thing. But eventually the high cost caused ticket sales to drop. In point of fact, Concorde was losing money the few years before they ceased operation.
You may want to reassess your comment about costs. Inflation has driven development cost up, fuel prices are also up. What killed the Concorde was the cost of the tickets. Of course you will always have those few for whom costs do not matter. But...are there sufficient numbers of them to support the development, building, and operation of a new SST? That is the real question.
The main challenge facing the 1950s UK supersonic transport study group was to find a suitable wing. The big breakthrough was the short slim ogival delta, which has low supersonic drag and, at a high incidence, provides lift for take off and landing, by generating upper surface vortices. The high incidence necessitated a very tall landing gear, and a droop snout so that the pilot could see the runway, giving Concorde an iconic swan-landing-on-ice appearance on approach. Take off and landing speeds were 250mph and 187mph respectively, which is pretty fast, and highly stressed the Michelin designed tyres, both mechanically and thermally. By comparison, the Boeing 737 take off and landing speed is 150mph. The lofty landing gear, meant that it was subject to high leverage. These factors caused continual problems, particularly tyre disintegrations, throughout the life of Concorde. At Charles de Gaulle airport on 25 July 2000, a Concorde's tyre burst while accelerating down the runway. Pieces of the tyre smashed into the left wing and caused a pressure wave in a tank which ruptured, allowing fuel to gush out and catch fire. The aircraft subsequently took off and then crashed at low altitude. Controversially, the French Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis (BEA) blamed a thin strip of titanium, measuring 17.1in (435mm) x 1.3in (32mm) x 0.06in (1.4 mm), that was found on the runway, for the burst. The accident led to modifications to Concorde, including more-secure electrical controls, Kevlar lining in the fuel tanks, and specially developed burst-resistant tyres. Here is a summary of an Observer report shortly after the above crash: On the 16 August 2000, the Civil Aviation Authority revealed that Concorde has suffered 70 tyre-related incidents, that makes it plain that the Paris disaster on 25 July 2000 could have happened at any time during the plane's 26-year commercial history. The fact that a single tyre blowout could cause potentially catastrophic damage to Concorde's landing gear, wings and fuel tanks was known as long ago as 1979. Despite a string of design and maintenance improvements, this type of blowout has repeatedly occurred since then. Concorde has suffered seven tyre bursts that resulted in punctured fuel tanks. Two, in 1979, happened to Air France planes taking off and landing in Washington, triggering a mandatory upgrade in tyre specifications and the introduction of a puncture alarm system. But by 1982, following half a dozen similar incidents, including a holed fuel tank on a British Airways Concorde taking off from New York, the US National Transportation Safety Board was still sufficiently alarmed to order extra safety measures: Concorde's landing gear and tyres were to be inspected before every take-off. Subsequent serious incidents, in 1985, 1988 and 1993, all involved BA Concordes at Heathrow and New York's JFK. In each, tyre bursts led to pieces of landing gear or rubber being ingested by the aircraft's engines, and wing skins being damaged, with fuel leaking from the punctured tanks. Further improvements were ordered in 1983, 1985 and 1993, when pieces of the landing gear's water deflector had punched holes in the wings. But in spite of all the changes, Concorde's wing skins still remain vulnerable to flying debris. Refs: _(Wiki: Concorde)_ _(Wiki: Air France Flight 450)_ _(theguardian: concorde world)_
well NASA and Lockheed can pull it of faster than the other mentioned company, for sure in less than a decade we'll have a working prototype or in service supersonic passenger jet from Lockheed and NASA
I was wondering what had happened to the X-59's quieter supersonic tech. I think it has the most potential to be the most profitable if it can fly overland... as weird as it looks. 😃
Some names are unfortunate, Comet and Meteor spring to mind for aircraft. Protests about sonic boom have been going on since 1960, so why would you name an SST company, Boom?
The first TUPOLEV TU-144 which flew on December 31, 1968 was indeed very similar of Concorde. It was a "proof of concept" model which was the TU-144A. The Soviets realized that this aircraft, which flew very well, could in no way be certified for civilian passenger transport because of its very high approach and landing speed. After a few test flights the Soviets came to the conclusion that another very different plane had to be built, the TU-144A was scrapped and they started to build the others, the TU-144B and after the C and D. Models C and D used important parts in titanium in an epoch metallurgy of this metal was unknown in the west reason why Concorde was only made in steel and aluminum (and this was the reason its cruise and maximum speed are limited to mach 2 while the TU144 having its critical parts in titanium could cruise at mach 2.2 with a maximum of mach 2.30) . Double delta wings with strait leading edges would make easier to implement slats. Having engines near the center line close to the cabin it liberates the wing trailing hedge (a wingspan of 28.8 meters and 507 m² of wing area to be compared to 25.6 meters and 358 m² for Concorde) making it possible to have the significantly larger flaps all along the trailing edge that were necessary as having low speed in approach and landing that was the goal. Landing speed of Concorde was 305 km/h (165 kts) to be compared to 270km/h (146 kts) for the Tupolev that was indeed very similar of the Boeing 747 that was at time the fastest commercial plane landing. Another important difference was the width of the cabin more comfortable allowed the TU144 to have five seats up front while the Concorde only had four with seats next to the window being uncomfortable, only for people of below average height. Concorde flew in march 4, 1969 and Westerners (French and English) came to the same conclusions as the first version of soviets, it had a very high approach and landing speed, another plane had to be made. The French agreed to build another aircraft but the British did not. The new labor government led by new prime minister Harold Wilson begun to reorganize (and partly nationalize) the entire British aviation industry in what became later British Aerospace with the cancellation of many ongoing and operational projects. Cancelation of the TSR2 aircraft project (Supersonic Tactical & Reconnaissance Bomber) few weeks after its first flight was a serious blow to the Concorde project as it had the same Olympus 593 Concorde engines and had an early version of electric commands a kind of fly by wire but still of analog technology to be implemented in Concorde among other innovations. For the English a design of a new Concorde plane was not possible, they had to continue with the Concorde as it was in the state it was, with all its faults and problems due to design flaws, or else cancel it as the English wanted. The British government did everything to cancel the project, which was firmly opposed by French President George Pompidou. In February 1973 the Concorde project was virtually dead and in the process of being definitively cancelled. It was then the French president embarked to Azores in prototype number three on what is called the flight of last chance to Concorde for a meeting requested by the US President Richard Nixon. Nixon asked the French President to stop converting into gold each dollar entering in France because the US exits the Brenton Woods agreements and the dollar will no longer be convertible on the fixed price agreed in 1947. For his part, George Pompidou explained to Nixon the problem of the Concorde and the danger of having a more efficient Soviet competitor thanks to the use of new metals such as titanium. It was decided to continue the Concorde project as it was the first prototype, but a special committee was created to adopt a very special (and extremely expensive) approach and landing procedures were adopted especially for supersonic planes (but actually only for the Concorde). On approach it was necessary to create a gap in front of the Concorde, which made it impossible for 4 and sometimes 5 planes to land, which were sent to turn around or to a waiting circuit. In all air control centers, priority had to be given to the Concorde, it often arrived at its destination with just ten minutes of fuel in reserve, which was a safety aberration, all regulations require it to land with at least 45 minutes reserve. The French and British governments would pay enormous compensation, this was the price of prestige. Among other several design flaws one was the very great exposure of the kerosene tanks to projections from the landing gear were even the cause of many incidents but three accidents with significant leakage of kerosene, two in 1979, one in Dakar and the other in Washington/Dulles. In November 1981, the American National transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sent a letter of concern to the French BEA that included safety recommendations for Concorde. This communiqué was the result of the NTSB's investigations of four Air France Concorde incidents during a 20-month period from July 1979 to February 1981. The NTSB described those incidents as "potentially catastrophic," because they were caused by blown tyres during takeoff. During its 27 years in service, Concorde had about 70 tyre- or wheel-related incidents, seven of which caused serious damage to the aircraft or were potentially catastrophic. The most serious accident was in July 2000 in Gonesse (France) that caused 113 deaths and marked the end of the aircraft's prestige. This design flaw could be easily corrected on a second copy of the prototype but … it didn’t happen . On the TU-144 such an accident would be impossible or would not have had the same consequences, projections from the landing gear were not in line with fuel tanks and these are protected by titanium pieces. IN SHORT : Concorde was an immature project mainly due to budgetary constraints from the British government, it flew for 27 years below important safety rules authorized through derogation obtained at the highest at political level.
Can't wait to see how many Boom Overture flights are cancelled last minute due to crew shortages because airlines don't want to pay the six pilots they'll have type-rated for it.
That Lockheed supersonic jet which doesn't even have a cockpit window makes me wonder....you are just one bad solar flare or EMP from certain death when it fries all of the electronics onboard and the pilots lose the ability to see, and the flight computer stops working. I guess most modern jets probably suffer the same problem since they also rely on computers to stay airborne
*_@Nightsd01_* Yes, all this electronics is a worry, even in a car these days brakes and steering are controlled by electronics. But there are design techniques to mitigate against disaster. Most safety critical systems have triple redundancy and there is also Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA).
So basically, the US didn't want supersonic booms and thus banned Concorde. But now it's OK cause of NASA ? wow.Cause there was only 1 accident due to the long career of Concorde and Boeing Max, which has a lot of crashes is still OK flying
*_@EfthymiosBarmparousis1707_* Concorde was only banned from JFK in 1976 by the New York Harbour Authority in the face of massive protests from people living near the airport. In 1977 the supreme court overturned the ban. Since then Concorde had regularly flown to the US. The US banned supersonic flights over land in 1973. Many other countries followed. Those bans are still in place. Concorde did not cease operations because of the crash in France. It ceased operations due to lack of demand and also massive maintenance costs which Airbus were no longer prepared to pay.
This is supposed to be an interesting video until it uses Imperial Units. Come on majority of the world today are in Metric. I suggest have a metric conversion too in your future videos.
"Why the Concorde failed" it did?! I distinctively remember it flying for 37 years with just one crash and being extremely popular amongst the wealth. You call that a failure?
*_@danielpeixotomartins1582_* Concorde was a fantastic technical achievement. Nobody would say otherwise. But, sadly, it was a huge commercial failure. Nobody could deny that.
Well said, sonic boom was the show stopper for Concorde and the Boeing 2707 SST. Worldwide objections to supersonic flight over land meant that most of Concorde's key routes were uneconomic. Sadly, in the end, Concorde only flew between Heathrow and JFK, and then not with a full load of passengers.
What about starship point to point? It could be fully completed and human rated before the next super sonic plane is complete... anywhere on earth in 45 min
Suppose you live in New York. Do you rather pay 600 dollars to fly to London in ~7 hours. Or pay 12000 dollars to shorten the trip to 45 minutes? And don't believe anyone that tells you "but in the future it will become cheaper". In this future flying will be even cheaper. It is a fundamental difference, rockets use much more energy.
The plane didn't crash due to engine failure the engine was sucking in flames from the wing and caused a fire warning light and the engineer switched off the engine even though it was still creating thrust
The aircraft crashed due to a large fire that was consuming the left wing. The crew followed the procedure correctly. The Engineer announced the engine failure on No 2 and then the Fire warning. The procedure was to use the Engine Fire Shutdown checklist which the Engineer carried out on the command of the Captain. The structural damage done to the flight controls and the left wing made it highly unlikely that it could have reached Le Bourget in any circumstance.
Concord it's over 40 years since Scotland to the skies in the first ba concord fleet commercial passenger flight. G_boaa the national Museum of flight is home to Scotland only concorde.
Here's the thing. Even for business purposes, say you would like to get to a destination instantaneously. But you are hampered by the time zones! Say you want to fly from New York City to London, there is a 5hr difference. So even if you left at say 7am it would be already afternoon in London. Now throw in travel to your local airport and then travel from you London airport to some location in London. This is instantaneous travel. Throw in the SST travel time of say 3hours and in reality you are already late in the evening. Works a bit better for travelers from the West Coast to points in Asia.
@@RedRat98074 I see where your going with this but Instantaneous travel only exist in the movies and our imaginations. My question is do we have a global government for this SST travel anywhere to happen 🤔
@@1skeeta4u My real point here is that speed alone will not be a selling point in the LONG RUN. This is what did in the Concorde. SSTs are expensive to develop and build. Of necessity, airline who buy them must charge more for a ticket. Ultimately, once you get past the romantics and adventure types, what is that extra cost buying me. The problem is that time zones don't help here. As I said below, instead of buying an SST ticket why not just buy a First Class ticket (which tend to be competitively priced) and just accept the longer flight time but at least you are doing it in comfort.
Almost 50 years since the first supersonic airline flight, and we still haven't solved the sonic boom problem? You would think by now some young upstart would've solved issue and is now the richest person in the world. Or someone would've claimed to solve that issue and is now in jail for fraud.
*_@CannonKnight_* The ultimate solution would be to fly at the height defined by the Knudsen number for a particular aircraft, where the air molecules are so far apart that shock waves cannot form. At around 500,000ft (95mi, 153km), sonic boom, drag, and skin heating vanish, allowing an aircraft to 'glide' under inertial force, after being accelerated to supersonic cruise speed by rocket power. Only the power to overcome gravity would be required. The proposed Venus Aerospace Stargazer won't reach the 'Knudsen height', but in part, it's like the ultimate solution. According to the Venus site, it will take off using jets, to keep the noise down, then, under rocket power, it will climb to 170,000ft (32mi, 52km), where it will cruise at 6,900mph (sonic boom isn't mentioned). It will carry 12 passengers and reach any airport in the world from any other airport within 2 hours.
Actually, I think Boeing saw that the SST would not be profitable and they could only have sold a handful of them. I suspect that economic analysis showed them that SSTs are not the way to go. It took a decade but their analyses proved correct.
Yes… it was a failing-financial, commercial venture. Yup, a totally random incident in 2003. 😳 I ASK: WHY DOESN’T EVERY AIRCRAFT MODEL/BRAND, THAT CRASHES… BECOME DISCONTINUED? No, no, no, this was a conspiracy, I theorize.
for starship point to point rocket travel - spiral/shuffle everyoneone with window seats, flight attendants buckle you back in after your zero-g experience
How’s is it gonna come back the fuel is now higher then it ever was before that’s mostly the reason why it went under in the first place back then it was way too expensive and now the whole world is goin into a recession so who can even afford to travel that way honesty I think they should wait till fuel goes back down and everything becomes back to normal again
SpaceX? 30 minutes around the world? Also the Concorde was old and people realised they could spend half the amount and fly first class overnight in a bed and wake up in NY or London.
See my comment above to 1Mateø. On SSTs you spend a lot for ticket for only a minimal improvement in wanting to get to your destination. Frankly, instead of spending thousands on an SST ticket, I would buy a first class ticket on regular commercial jet flights. Yes, it takes perhaps double the time to get there, but at least I am comfortable in First Class.
Ha! I most certainly do not. In point of fact, I tend to be very critical of Boeing and Boeing management. It just so happens that I happen to agree with the management decision to stop development of the SST some decades ago. I think, and history tends to prove me right, it was the correct financial decision to do so.
As recently as the year 2000, 109 passengers are still dying in a plane crash as a result of simply running over a piece of metal on the runway....now you wanna go faster by compromising pilots having a window view of what's in front of them, using cameras instead.....humans aren't as smart as we claim to be .....
@@GE90man No, why? If you are going to suggest that plane crashes are rare, they aren't rare enough. And moreover, the odds of surviving one are more important than the odds of being involved in one...
@@wildreed21 The video is quite misleading. Concorde didn’t crash simply by running over a metal strip. There were many factors. You probably won’t listen to anyone who tells you that flying part 121 airline operations is extremely safe, so I won’t tell you that again.
To be fair here, the Concorde crash could be blamed on design failure. It was more a problem of engine placement. I am sure that such things could be improved in modern SST design.
It's great they want to take on the technical challenges of making the sonic booms quieter but the fact remains they are not going to be commercially viable due to limited capacity and the high cost of the development and operations.
I think most will be converted or sold as private business jets, seems like the next status symbol for the mega-rich.
THE WEALTHY, HAVE ALWAYS PAID THE PRICE FOR QUALITY SERVICE AT ON ANY LEVEL BE IT BY PLANE SHIP OR RAIL. B.A SAID THEIR CONCORDE SERVICE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 25% OF THEIR TOTAL NET PROFITS. AND WAS GROWING. THE FRENCH WERE LOOSING A LOT OF MONEY, HAD DIFICULTY RESPONDING TO MORE AND MORE SAFETY REGULATIONS, WHEN AIR FRANCE ABANDONED THEIR CONCORDE SERVICE, BA, WERE ABLIGED TO FOLLOW, BECAUSE OF A LEGAL CONTRACT ARRANGEMENT WITH AIR FRANCE, 'IF 'YOU' FINNISH, WE WILL.
I grew up when the Concorde was still zipping through the air and was saddened when it was grounded. It would be nice to see new superspeed aircraft available to the masses so everyone can enjoy a mini vacation anywhere in the world on the same day if needed, lol.
yes, it was the best airplane and all should be faster
I really hope Overture can pull this off. While we need hydrogen/electric aircraft MORE we still need these flagship programs to inspire innovation and bring hope to an industry that has become increasingly stagnant under Airbus and Boeing...
For the record, hydrogen aircraft is bad in terms of logistics. you are dealing with a highly volatile fuel that needs to be handled by a highly specialized crew that needs constant refrigeration. it's just way too costly. Electric jet can work, but it needs way better batteries.
At least they are using SAFs and offsetting emissions
@@Apollo-tj1vm I agree
11th
Flew on the Concorde when I was a kid, my best friend's dad was a British Airways VP, it was awesome.
What was the experience like.
çhief csss flewçoñciretp eroulp frñcsé itsßy when hecwaß kd had girlfr twa okay preb ivery da bext ciñçßre té cjñciré lad ifff loàd àßj teach jisss fkyy cñcord ch8ef forbd oeca cakl ed oear booked ciñcord tíçkes oñ cored eeath orivte schll not púplíc scouke hàly yrar cist of cincireef oer yesrcibciretckes cjeàp
You were lucky, I wanted to do it was too expensive
You know it’s funny when the concord was first built everyone was elated, everyone but the US. It was said and I believe it to be true, that the US were jealous because they weren’t involved in the plane and it’s why it was so restricted when it came to the US. Now they are all excited about it because some of the major plane manufacturers there, in the US, are looking at it. If the concord didn’t get so much of a fight when it was first introduced and operating, over 30 years ago, supersonic flight would’ve been a everyday thing today…….
I meant, if concord was so successful, why more airline companies around world buying it? I am sure in the 90s, Japanese wants to fly to SF under 5 hrs.
Sad to say Peter that you are correct.. I remember hearing that Boeing were instrumental via extensive lobbying to have Concorde denied many landing rights across numerous intended U.S. routes. Boeing realising that they were too far behind in the race to build a Supersonic Passenger Aircraft, decided to allow thye Anglo French, simply a pyrrhic victory, making sure sublime airliner could never be a finacial success. They of course gave us the 747 instead, although maybe a technical masterpiece in it's own right, no-one could call it graceful or elegant. But then I would suggest that wherever American profit or prestige enters into an "international" situation, the concept of "fair play" becomes at best a "quaint" anachronism to them...!!
Haterz are gonna Hate. Even if the Hater is the US.
Concorde was so far ahead of its time
that the world wasn't ready for it.
Arguably we still aren't
Concorde was such an amazing plane! I wish I would have got to fly on it!
I did, one way from Toronto to Heathrow. I made a dream come true!
Just a few polite corrections here. First of all Concorde didn't 'fail'. It did exactly what its brief required it to do which was safely fly 100 passengers for 3500 miles in shirtsleeves at a sustained Mach 2 (1350 mph). It did so for the best part of 27 years. It was incredibly economical for what it did, cruising at Mach 2 for over three hours without afterburners. But it was conceived to be too small and came to market just as Boeing introduced the 747 which completely changed the economies of airline operation for the masses.
Concorde wasn't withdrawn because of the Paris crash either (when the impact of a very heavy piece of punctured tyre compromised a fully-fueled wing tank spewing kerosene into the jetwash of two powerful turbojet engines causing uncontrolled fire which quickly weakened the aluminium airframe). Upgrades such as kevlar linings to the fuel tanks and redesigned tyres saw a fairly quick return to service.
Concorde was actually withdrawn in 2003 because Airbus Industrie refused to continue to maintain just 16, by then 30 year old, aircraft belonging to British Airways and Air France unless the airlines contributed vast sums towards their future upkeep. I'm sure I read that Richard Branson wanted to take a BA Concorde as the Virgin flagship but couldn't for this same reason.
The sonic boom problem has never been solved though NASA is indeed experimenting with 'sonic bumps' with the X-59. However...Concorde was a highly optimised system not just a nice shape strapped to four big engines. It became that shape after many thousands of hours of empirical testing to minimise aerodynamic drag over long distances at Mach 2 and had what is still considered to be one of the most efficient supersonic powerplants EVER produced. You may have noticed the Boom Overture is very similar in shape to Concorde and this isn't an accident. The X-59, though, is a very different shape because its brief is to reduce the sonic boom not to transport passengers efficiently. There is a big leap from a test bed to a fully feasible and certificated supersonic passenger aircraft. A future SST will need a reduced sonic boom if it is to fly overland. This means that at some stage the technology of X-59 will have to find its way onto a passenger aircraft and so the development and optimisation cycle will begin again but with the emphasis (as always on an SST) on drag reduction. There were no compromises in the design of Concorde...not one.
I don't want to seem anti SST. On the contrary I think the world seemed to step backwards when Concorde was withdrawn. But it is unfair to say that it 'failed'. Whatever replaces Concorde is going to be a much smaller aircraft but it still has a mountain of technical challenges and legislation to overcome. I think it is going to be a long time coming.
I remember being school when the windows would rattle from the Sonic Booms. I thought it was cool!
That would be cool
i also remember when they came over, you didn't see them but man the sound (boom) they made
though with current prices of fuels, the future looks grim
úes it dóse
Concord is a proper noun so you shouldn’t use “the” before it. It is simply Concord.
Check out the Venus Aerospace hypersonic plane concept using existing rocket technology to achieve Mach 9. The 51 Km cruising height and the lack of air virtually eliminates the sonic booms.
*_@cbody70_* The Venus Stargazer looks quite something. I was wondering about the sonic boom at 51km. The Venus site makes no mention of it. AFAIK you need to go to around 500,000ft (95mi, 153km) to eliminate sonic boom at Mach 9.
Whoa, cool and unexpected to see Kent taking on a new aviation beat.
Mach 3 was the reason the 1970's American supersonic transport failed. Europeans could never understand why the Americans wanted to go mach 3 because it is in the "thermal thicket" where heat generated by friction with the air literally bakes the plane. Mach 2 to 2.4 is so much cheaper and decreases maintenance expenses drastically.
*_@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958_*
After funding in-house SST studies for 17 years, Boeing won a contract to develop the 2707 advanced SST in 1967. Subsequent oil price hikes, protests against sonic boom, and the environmental lobby forced the senate to axe the project in 1971, at a $1bn spend. This decimated Boeing's finances, and resulted in many lay-offs. The Mach 3 specification for the 2707 was causing technical problems, but the project died largely due to the environmentalists, including Charles Lindbergh.
i saw the plane in Manchester today, and honestly they should try again the technology we have would be amazing.
Nice video. Thanks for posting. The lady presenter has a pleasant clear voice.
I'm super excited about this!
I recall a video just like this saying the same thing about 2 years ago, another one before that 5 years ago, another one celebrating Concorde 40th birthday 13 years ago. You can keep making documentaries about it America but at some point you actually have to Design, manufacture and perfect supersonic travel for more than a handful of pilots in a cockpit. So............ get on with it.
Yeah, this is getting old. It’s starting to feel like another one of those “nuclear fusion” or “alternative fuel source” Ideas. But just like those, they clearly have some serious obstacles to overcome.
Yeah right, young people these days have no idea how advance the technology in the 60s and 70s. We sent human to the moon, had commercial supersonic airplane, etc. Look what we have today so called “high tech” companies, make phones, apps, online shopping. Oh man fun period
@@chelsea7xhf We now have commercial aircraft that can takeoff with very little noise and fly from Europe to Australia non-stop. No, your generation was brainwashed into believing what the future would hold, and then you became broken hearted when the future did not shape into your imagination in your head. An F-35 is a flying computer, and only pilots who have grown up using technology can fly it.
people really need to innovate faster, we can't travel to the space if restrictions are everywhere
Ong preach brother✊
So what can you do in person that you can’t do in a video call...?
I'm curious about these sonic booms. I'm sure they happened, but every time I ever looked up to watch a Concord fly over in the 90's, it never seemed to occur. But maybe it was just going slow over London.
I believe there are regulations banning supersonic flight overland in most countries after testing in the 70s and 80s. All supersonic commercial aircraft concepts I am aware of all intend to fly further than Concorde mainly to expand service to trans-pacific than just trans - Atlantic.
thaßt masyer cjef schole over oondo kady bug çatmeiw placre 300 kis 3 c9ncriser 5500 per kid schol trip
thats líke 1.65 mioln dlres 165000 orifit ciñciréd
Flying at supersonic speeds were banned over land and Concorde didn't begin that climb until reaching the Bristol Channel.
More content like this please, I really enjoyed it
Lockheed Martin and Airbus are in discussions to manufacture a faster jet. liner. They are scouting out a place to construct a plant, somewhere in the south.
Whilst the Paris Crash was undoubtably horrific, when one compares it to the number of Boeing aircraft crashes as just one example, "Concorde" had an exemplary safety record, with just one crash in 25 years of servicde..!. I would suggest to the team at "C.N.E.T" that the real reason for the magnificent aircraft's sad demise, was the "Bean Counters" and "Book Cookers"(Accountants) who are obsessed with "Profit Above All Else". They capitalised on the Paris crash as reason for axing the aircraft which they had long desired becuase of high operating costs. They could not accept that somethings are beyond mere financial considerations...
Perhaps one of the reasons the world is in such a sad state today, now it is becoming "Profit Before People"..!!
I hate to rain on your parade of cheering on supersonic transportation, but here's the thing with SSTs: they are costly and the ticket on them are very expensive. Yes, you will get some customers that have the bucks so that they can get to their destinations in half the time. For the average flyer, that convenience is a bit too expensive. When Concorde first flew, there was high demand for a new thing. But eventually the high cost caused ticket sales to drop. In point of fact, Concorde was losing money the few years before they ceased operation.
Cost to fly today are lower than what they were 20 years ago. The new supersonic aircraft ticket should cost around the same as a first class ticket.
You may want to reassess your comment about costs. Inflation has driven development cost up, fuel prices are also up. What killed the Concorde was the cost of the tickets. Of course you will always have those few for whom costs do not matter. But...are there sufficient numbers of them to support the development, building, and operation of a new SST? That is the real question.
The main challenge facing the 1950s UK supersonic transport study group was to find a suitable wing. The big breakthrough was the short slim ogival delta, which has low supersonic drag and, at a high incidence, provides lift for take off and landing, by generating upper surface vortices. The high incidence necessitated a very tall landing gear, and a droop snout so that the pilot could see the runway, giving Concorde an iconic swan-landing-on-ice appearance on approach.
Take off and landing speeds were 250mph and 187mph respectively, which is pretty fast, and highly stressed the Michelin designed tyres, both mechanically and thermally. By comparison, the Boeing 737 take off and landing speed is 150mph. The lofty landing gear, meant that it was subject to high leverage. These factors caused continual problems, particularly tyre disintegrations, throughout the life of Concorde.
At Charles de Gaulle airport on 25 July 2000, a Concorde's tyre burst while accelerating down the runway. Pieces of the tyre smashed into the left wing and caused a pressure wave in a tank which ruptured, allowing fuel to gush out and catch fire. The aircraft subsequently took off and then crashed at low altitude. Controversially, the French Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis (BEA) blamed a thin strip of titanium, measuring 17.1in (435mm) x 1.3in (32mm) x 0.06in (1.4 mm), that was found on the runway, for the burst. The accident led to modifications to Concorde, including more-secure electrical controls, Kevlar lining in the fuel tanks, and specially developed burst-resistant tyres.
Here is a summary of an Observer report shortly after the above crash:
On the 16 August 2000, the Civil Aviation Authority revealed that Concorde has suffered 70 tyre-related incidents, that makes it plain that the Paris disaster on 25 July 2000 could have happened at any time during the plane's 26-year commercial history.
The fact that a single tyre blowout could cause potentially catastrophic damage to Concorde's landing gear, wings and fuel tanks was known as long ago as 1979. Despite a string of design and maintenance improvements, this type of blowout has repeatedly occurred since then.
Concorde has suffered seven tyre bursts that resulted in punctured fuel tanks. Two, in 1979, happened to Air France planes taking off and landing in Washington, triggering a mandatory upgrade in tyre specifications and the introduction of a puncture alarm system.
But by 1982, following half a dozen similar incidents, including a holed fuel tank on a British Airways Concorde taking off from New York, the US National Transportation Safety Board was still sufficiently alarmed to order extra safety measures: Concorde's landing gear and tyres were to be inspected before every take-off.
Subsequent serious incidents, in 1985, 1988 and 1993, all involved BA Concordes at Heathrow and New York's JFK. In each, tyre bursts led to pieces of landing gear or rubber being ingested by the aircraft's engines, and wing skins being damaged, with fuel leaking from the punctured tanks.
Further improvements were ordered in 1983, 1985 and 1993, when pieces of the landing gear's water deflector had punched holes in the wings. But in spite of all the changes, Concorde's wing skins still remain vulnerable to flying debris.
Refs:
_(Wiki: Concorde)_
_(Wiki: Air France Flight 450)_
_(theguardian: concorde world)_
Keep Dreaming on Boom Company, has 150 employees Concorde when in construction had over 100,000
Are you aware of how startups work?
well NASA and Lockheed can pull it of faster than the other mentioned company, for sure in less than a decade we'll have a working prototype or in service supersonic passenger jet from Lockheed and NASA
I was wondering what had happened to the X-59's quieter supersonic tech. I think it has the most potential to be the most profitable if it can fly overland... as weird as it looks. 😃
Chef would yy b ut
Way to go CNET. Story about breaking the Sound Barrier while breaking Hijab Barier.
Ummm...have you forgotten about the weekly flight to Barbados?
Some names are unfortunate, Comet and Meteor spring to mind for aircraft. Protests about sonic boom have been going on since 1960, so why would you name an SST company, Boom?
The first TUPOLEV TU-144 which flew on December 31, 1968 was indeed very similar of Concorde. It was a "proof of concept" model which was the TU-144A. The Soviets realized that this aircraft, which flew very well, could in no way be certified for civilian passenger transport because of its very high approach and landing speed. After a few test flights the Soviets came to the conclusion that another very different plane had to be built, the TU-144A was scrapped and they started to build the others, the TU-144B and after the C and D. Models C and D used important parts in titanium in an epoch metallurgy of this metal was unknown in the west reason why Concorde was only made in steel and aluminum (and this was the reason its cruise and maximum speed are limited to mach 2 while the TU144 having its critical parts in titanium could cruise at mach 2.2 with a maximum of mach 2.30) . Double delta wings with strait leading edges would make easier to implement slats. Having engines near the center line close to the cabin it liberates the wing trailing hedge (a wingspan of 28.8 meters and 507 m² of wing area to be compared to 25.6 meters and 358 m² for Concorde) making it possible to have the significantly larger flaps all along the trailing edge that were necessary as having low speed in approach and landing that was the goal. Landing speed of Concorde was 305 km/h (165 kts) to be compared to 270km/h (146 kts) for the Tupolev that was indeed very similar of the Boeing 747 that was at time the fastest commercial plane landing. Another important difference was the width of the cabin more comfortable allowed the TU144 to have five seats up front while the Concorde only had four with seats next to the window being uncomfortable, only for people of below average height.
Concorde flew in march 4, 1969 and Westerners (French and English) came to the same conclusions as the first version of soviets, it had a very high approach and landing speed, another plane had to be made. The French agreed to build another aircraft but the British did not. The new labor government led by new prime minister Harold Wilson begun to reorganize (and partly nationalize) the entire British aviation industry in what became later British Aerospace with the cancellation of many ongoing and operational projects. Cancelation of the TSR2 aircraft project (Supersonic Tactical & Reconnaissance Bomber) few weeks after its first flight was a serious blow to the Concorde project as it had the same Olympus 593 Concorde engines and had an early version of electric commands a kind of fly by wire but still of analog technology to be implemented in Concorde among other innovations. For the English a design of a new Concorde plane was not possible, they had to continue with the Concorde as it was in the state it was, with all its faults and problems due to design flaws, or else cancel it as the English wanted. The British government did everything to cancel the project, which was firmly opposed by French President George Pompidou. In February 1973 the Concorde project was virtually dead and in the process of being definitively cancelled. It was then the French president embarked to Azores in prototype number three on what is called the flight of last chance to Concorde for a meeting requested by the US President Richard Nixon. Nixon asked the French President to stop converting into gold each dollar entering in France because the US exits the Brenton Woods agreements and the dollar will no longer be convertible on the fixed price agreed in 1947. For his part, George Pompidou explained to Nixon the problem of the Concorde and the danger of having a more efficient Soviet competitor thanks to the use of new metals such as titanium. It was decided to continue the Concorde project as it was the first prototype, but a special committee was created to adopt a very special (and extremely expensive) approach and landing procedures were adopted especially for supersonic planes (but actually only for the Concorde). On approach it was necessary to create a gap in front of the Concorde, which made it impossible for 4 and sometimes 5 planes to land, which were sent to turn around or to a waiting circuit. In all air control centers, priority had to be given to the Concorde, it often arrived at its destination with just ten minutes of fuel in reserve, which was a safety aberration, all regulations require it to land with at least 45 minutes reserve. The French and British governments would pay enormous compensation, this was the price of prestige.
Among other several design flaws one was the very great exposure of the kerosene tanks to projections from the landing gear were even the cause of many incidents but three accidents with significant leakage of kerosene, two in 1979, one in Dakar and the other in Washington/Dulles. In November 1981, the American National transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sent a letter of concern to the French BEA that included safety recommendations for Concorde. This communiqué was the result of the NTSB's investigations of four Air France Concorde incidents during a 20-month period from July 1979 to February 1981. The NTSB described those incidents as "potentially catastrophic," because they were caused by blown tyres during takeoff. During its 27 years in service, Concorde had about 70 tyre- or wheel-related incidents, seven of which caused serious damage to the aircraft or were potentially catastrophic. The most serious accident was in July 2000 in Gonesse (France) that caused 113 deaths and marked the end of the aircraft's prestige. This design flaw could be easily corrected on a second copy of the prototype but … it didn’t happen . On the TU-144 such an accident would be impossible or would not have had the same consequences, projections from the landing gear were not in line with fuel tanks and these are protected by titanium pieces.
IN SHORT : Concorde was an immature project mainly due to budgetary constraints from the British government, it flew for 27 years below important safety rules authorized through derogation obtained at the highest at political level.
do the SAME
and
expect DIFFERENT results.
Brilliant !!
*_@maximme,_* Yes, the logic does seem a bit odd.
Virgin have been talking about supersonic for 30 years now, all bluff!
Yes, you were thinking about Guile… sonic boom!
Wow. The audio voice over didn’t match the end of the video.
Such a pleasure to hear a female voice on this kind of subject. The sound in the end is out of phase though.
I don't hear the sound at the end of the video
Heyyyy! I was hoping to see the X59 on the list 😁 I helped make it. They have incredibly tight tolerances on this plane 👀
Assembly line worker more like🤣
That Lockheed Martin NASA plane looks so cool.
Not with these gas prices
Make them electric just like electric cars?
@@carlosarriaga7428 bruh
Well the Boom Overture uses SAFs
Can't wait to see how many Boom Overture flights are cancelled last minute due to crew shortages because airlines don't want to pay the six pilots they'll have type-rated for it.
That Lockheed supersonic jet which doesn't even have a cockpit window makes me wonder....you are just one bad solar flare or EMP from certain death when it fries all of the electronics onboard and the pilots lose the ability to see, and the flight computer stops working. I guess most modern jets probably suffer the same problem since they also rely on computers to stay airborne
Isolated electronic systems can be hardened against EMP events. FYI.
*_@Nightsd01_* Yes, all this electronics is a worry, even in a car these days brakes and steering are controlled by electronics. But there are design techniques to mitigate against disaster. Most safety critical systems have triple redundancy and there is also Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA).
Grew up hearing sonic booms.
It was no big deal and certainly wasn't scary.
So basically, the US didn't want supersonic booms and thus banned Concorde. But now it's OK cause of NASA ? wow.Cause there was only 1 accident due to the long career of Concorde and Boeing Max, which has a lot of crashes is still OK flying
*_@EfthymiosBarmparousis1707_* Concorde was only banned from JFK in 1976 by the New York Harbour Authority in the face of massive protests from people living near the airport. In 1977 the supreme court overturned the ban. Since then Concorde had regularly flown to the US. The US banned supersonic flights over land in 1973. Many other countries followed. Those bans are still in place.
Concorde did not cease operations because of the crash in France. It ceased operations due to lack of demand and also massive maintenance costs which Airbus were no longer prepared to pay.
No mention of SpaceX's plans for on planet long distance transportation with Starship? Why?
This is supposed to be an interesting video until it uses Imperial Units. Come on majority of the world today are in Metric. I suggest have a metric conversion too in your future videos.
Come on why does the worst airline have to order the boom overture?
"Why the Concorde failed" it did?!
I distinctively remember it flying for 37 years with just one crash and being extremely popular amongst the wealth. You call that a failure?
*_@danielpeixotomartins1582_* Concorde was a fantastic technical achievement. Nobody would say otherwise. But, sadly, it was a huge commercial failure. Nobody could deny that.
@@phonicwheel933 did it fail? No. It flew successfully for 37 years and succeded where no other could. That's not a failure.
Wow Mach 3 is fast
Don't bother making it if it can't fly over land, it's like having one arm tied behind your back.
Well said, sonic boom was the show stopper for Concorde and the Boeing 2707 SST. Worldwide objections to supersonic flight over land meant that most of Concorde's key routes were uneconomic. Sadly, in the end, Concorde only flew between Heathrow and JFK, and then not with a full load of passengers.
What about starship point to point? It could be fully completed and human rated before the next super sonic plane is complete... anywhere on earth in 45 min
Even more expensive. Elon is working on it with Starship, but that’s even farther off.
Suppose you live in New York. Do you rather pay 600 dollars to fly to London in ~7 hours. Or pay 12000 dollars to shorten the trip to 45 minutes?
And don't believe anyone that tells you "but in the future it will become cheaper". In this future flying will be even cheaper. It is a fundamental difference, rockets use much more energy.
The only people whose time is worth thousands of dollars an hour is the 0.01%.
@@MrFujinko i am cheap $600 flight it is
@@MrFujinko note that if the fuel is cheap enough you can get more flights/day with your craft and pay it off sooner. More enticing business plan
The plane didn't crash due to engine failure the engine was sucking in flames from the wing and caused a fire warning light and the engineer switched off the engine even though it was still creating thrust
Because a DC10 dropped part of it's engine cowling on the runway . It ruptured one of the Concorde's tires.
The aircraft crashed due to a large fire that was consuming the left wing. The crew followed the procedure correctly. The Engineer announced the engine failure on No 2 and then the Fire warning. The procedure was to use the Engine Fire Shutdown checklist which the Engineer carried out on the command of the Captain. The structural damage done to the flight controls and the left wing made it highly unlikely that it could have reached Le Bourget in any circumstance.
Keep the riff raff off Overture 🙊
Just wait for portal technology
We're so behind in advanced technology just because of greed
Concord it's over 40 years since Scotland to the skies in the first ba concord fleet commercial passenger flight. G_boaa the national Museum of flight is home to Scotland only concorde.
Of course the DC-10 AKA the death cruiser would kill the Concorde
Who wrote the script for this video? Lots of incorrect facts
Welcome
finally
But Nasa Ehre is the Space for Passangers?
Supersonic jets vs SpaceX
Title: super sonic planes are making a comeback
2/3rds of video: why the concorde failed
We don't need to travel faster than the speed of sound if we're going to be packed into planes like sardines.
Here's the thing. Even for business purposes, say you would like to get to a destination instantaneously. But you are hampered by the time zones! Say you want to fly from New York City to London, there is a 5hr difference. So even if you left at say 7am it would be already afternoon in London. Now throw in travel to your local airport and then travel from you London airport to some location in London. This is instantaneous travel. Throw in the SST travel time of say 3hours and in reality you are already late in the evening. Works a bit better for travelers from the West Coast to points in Asia.
@@RedRat98074 I see where your going with this but Instantaneous travel only exist in the movies and our imaginations. My question is do we have a global government for this SST travel anywhere to happen 🤔
@@1skeeta4u My real point here is that speed alone will not be a selling point in the LONG RUN. This is what did in the Concorde. SSTs are expensive to develop and build. Of necessity, airline who buy them must charge more for a ticket. Ultimately, once you get past the romantics and adventure types, what is that extra cost buying me. The problem is that time zones don't help here. As I said below, instead of buying an SST ticket why not just buy a First Class ticket (which tend to be competitively priced) and just accept the longer flight time but at least you are doing it in comfort.
wring bith wrobg flykbg hótekß
Great video
Tinie Tempah might still get his chance!
Almost 50 years since the first supersonic airline flight, and we still haven't solved the sonic boom problem? You would think by now some young upstart would've solved issue and is now the richest person in the world. Or someone would've claimed to solve that issue and is now in jail for fraud.
*_@CannonKnight_* The ultimate solution would be to fly at the height defined by the Knudsen number for a particular aircraft, where the air molecules are so far apart that shock waves cannot form. At around 500,000ft (95mi, 153km), sonic boom, drag, and skin heating vanish, allowing an aircraft to 'glide' under inertial force, after being accelerated to supersonic cruise speed by rocket power. Only the power to overcome gravity would be required.
The proposed Venus Aerospace Stargazer won't reach the 'Knudsen height', but in part, it's like the ultimate solution. According to the Venus site, it will take off using jets, to keep the noise down, then, under rocket power, it will climb to 170,000ft (32mi, 52km), where it will cruise at 6,900mph (sonic boom isn't mentioned). It will carry 12 passengers and reach any airport in the world from any other airport within 2 hours.
1:39 “Noooooooo!!!” Said the flat earther🙄
The sustainable Overture will run on wood pellet.
I can't explain how stupid I find these "science" UA-cam videos from nice, serious channels like CNET, without the metric system on the video. Jesus.
If the plane manufacturer is in the US government’s pocket like Boeing, I’ll never take the flight. I value my life over crony corporate profits
Actually, I think Boeing saw that the SST would not be profitable and they could only have sold a handful of them. I suspect that economic analysis showed them that SSTs are not the way to go. It took a decade but their analyses proved correct.
wr8ng
Yes… it was a failing-financial, commercial venture.
Yup, a totally random incident in 2003. 😳
I ASK: WHY DOESN’T EVERY AIRCRAFT MODEL/BRAND, THAT CRASHES… BECOME DISCONTINUED?
No, no, no, this was a conspiracy, I theorize.
Did they really use flight simulator for footage? Lol
for starship point to point rocket travel - spiral/shuffle everyoneone with window seats, flight attendants buckle you back in after your zero-g experience
How’s is it gonna come back the fuel is now higher then it ever was before that’s mostly the reason why it went under in the first place back then it was way too expensive and now the whole world is goin into a recession so who can even afford to travel that way honesty I think they should wait till fuel goes back down and everything becomes back to normal again
Ummm yeah .... what's it gonna be an electric plane....lol
bey elyrric airoleñ
Hillary Clinton hated Concorde.
They didn’t pioneer it…
They should probably have specified that it pioneered supersonic passenger flights, rather than any supersonic flight
SpaceX? 30 minutes around the world?
Also the Concorde was old and people realised they could spend half the amount and fly first class overnight in a bed and wake up in NY or London.
A waste of attention, money and time
So are you
The Concorde was fast however it wasn’t a game changer at all. That was the problem.
HIGH ROLLERS ONLY from the lifestyles of THE RICH & FAMOUS!
isn't the sonic boom problem BS ? The Concorde wasn't flying over the speed of sound at low altitude lol
It's a problem if you want to fly NY to LA. Sonic booms would be heard all along the route.
@@Alohanate2004 Even at super high altitudes?
why do you even need planes didnt you ppl said that The HyperLoop will make them all obsolete 😂
coomíng 2029 hyper loópe
Lol! Hyperloop is gonna take years and only do very certain routes
tbh in a world where people wanna get to places faster and faster they should remove the ban and bring the supersonic flights back
See my comment above to 1Mateø. On SSTs you spend a lot for ticket for only a minimal improvement in wanting to get to your destination. Frankly, instead of spending thousands on an SST ticket, I would buy a first class ticket on regular commercial jet flights. Yes, it takes perhaps double the time to get there, but at least I am comfortable in First Class.
yes that what çhief hooiiñ fír
@@RedRat98074 you are so against any progress in aviation. Do you work for Boeing?
Ha! I most certainly do not. In point of fact, I tend to be very critical of Boeing and Boeing management. It just so happens that I happen to agree with the management decision to stop development of the SST some decades ago. I think, and history tends to prove me right, it was the correct financial decision to do so.
@@RedRat98074 Nicely put.😊
As recently as the year 2000, 109 passengers are still dying in a plane crash as a result of simply running over a piece of metal on the runway....now you wanna go faster by compromising pilots having a window view of what's in front of them, using cameras instead.....humans aren't as smart as we claim to be .....
Do you work in the aviation industry?
@@GE90man No, why? If you are going to suggest that plane crashes are rare, they aren't rare enough. And moreover, the odds of surviving one are more important than the odds of being involved in one...
@@wildreed21 The video is quite misleading. Concorde didn’t crash simply by running over a metal strip. There were many factors. You probably won’t listen to anyone who tells you that flying part 121 airline operations is extremely safe, so I won’t tell you that again.
To be fair here, the Concorde crash could be blamed on design failure. It was more a problem of engine placement. I am sure that such things could be improved in modern SST design.
chief tiotan know tyat tuat why reyrrn not takin gid hunn earyh misibg any ore too stupid fir gods of universe
thats why greàst god baned outkàwsd hiknaty reoace hins bmany tinve ivèr wished hiñs did nit iver hyboer snartt and make smaet gids fell stuopid smar gids shoud fel alwssoume guoer felmg alwaoume