Many of the problems associated with Concorde have been either significantly reduced or sidestepped. Here are some examples: Concorde's Olympus engines were designed during the first wave of supersonic engines and were extremely inefficient compared to those developed today. They were also largely underpowered for the aircraft and were required to run at full afterburner during takeoff, generating a far greater amount of noise than if it hadn't needed full power at that stage of flight Concorde was designed for standard passenger service. Today, many of the resurgent SST designs like those of Boom and Aerion are catered towards business aviation clientele, where speed is the primary value and the cost is (relatively) irrelevant to them While not on display in this design, other new SST designs have focused on changes to airframe design which mitigate sonic boom The environmental impact is still a big question, but there is an effort to develop less impactful biofuels The most impactful flight routes for supersonic aircraft, long-distance, trans-pacific, are in far higher demand than when Concorde was developed. While China's economy took off in the 90s, Concrode wasn't designed for non-stop flight of that nature. These type of flights also avoid existing overland supersonic flight restrictions. Comment by Merker6 on Reddit: www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/i3hms9/meet_the_new_concorde_virgin_galactic_mach_30/
Found And Explained Please don’t lie. Just until now possible solutions will be tested in the US nor the UK. NASA is building the X-59 to see if they can reduce noise about 70%, When the plane is ready it will be flown through selected cities in the US and see if people find it acceptable. The plane was co designed with Lockheed Martin Skunk Works perhaps the most cutting edge aircraft}a manufacturer out there, certainly a trillion times better than anyone at Virgin
You’ re forgetting the huge cost for the consumer, which hardly pays of. The Concorde only gave a few hour advantage in return for a buttload of cash and less luxurious. I do see a market for flying extreme long distance, because the longer the distance, the more time can be won. But yea, who will fly if the true time saver is a Zoom or Teams meeting?
Yes Concordes Rolls Royce Olympus engines were inefficient, but this was mainly during take off and landing. Whilst she was cruising at Mach 2, her engines were actually very efficient. This was mainly because the inlets of the engines had a series of ramps that slowed down the air for the engines when cruising at Mach 2. In doing so the engine inlet air pressure increased, this resulted in them being much more efficient 👍
@@irisfailsafe where exactly am I trying to 'remove' it from the equation? I am merely stating a fact As for the noise, it was absolutely awesome watching Concorde take off, especially at night 😁
@@mattevans4377 As it will cost an arm and a leg to fly on this plane, it might even park where private jets do at a separate terminal. passengers at private jet terminals aren't waiting 2, 3 hours to go through TSA. Screening would take a few minutes and then walk to their plane. The video said 7 - 19 passengers depending on the luxury. Frankly, the cost to fly supersonic might be more expensive than flying first class on the most luxurious air lines. I'll take first class with great dining and luxury being waited on hand and foot.
Because he's comparing apples to oranges. The 3-hour concorde flight (including takeoff and landing) vs the 1.5 hours it takes to travel the distance at mach 3 (without takeoff and landing).
To be fair for many of those instances it’s less of that the idea got abandoned and more of that it takes a really long time to develop a plane and you will hear the phrase “next Concorde” being thrown out when it’s still in the concept phase. One example of this is boom supersonic a while back they were working in only concept however now they have their work could best be described as a low scale model (Xb-1) to act as a testing platform for the technology they’re working on and is capable of supersonic flight (first test flight in Is going to be in September)
I am skeptical too. 50 years ago we had an operational SST, the Concord. Now they come out with proposed SST's that are half the size. Looks like we're not making aviation progress, but regress.
Virgin Galactic was founded in 2004 to take paying passengers on short, suborbital spaceflights....16 years later and still waiting to see it. Of course I would like to see it happen, but don't blame me for being a bit skeptical about any timeline for a Mach 3.0 airliner....
Mach 3 is not double Mach 2. It’s approximately 150% faster than the concord with an approx speed of 2100 MPH. No doubt it would be an amazing jump and I look forward to seeing this aircraft being developed and eventually in production. It’s important to be accurate.
I wonder if this will be permitted to fly over land, or to fly from New York to LA, not just be limited to crossing the Atlantic only like the Concord was.
I wish them the best and hope they can pull off what they are saying, but based on Branson's performance with Virgin Galactica (which has been around for almost two decades) I would be very surprised if they ever fly any passengers on this jet.
SpaceX springs to mind. Did you guys see elon shitheads self-landing rockets were the birds in the background are FLYING BACKWARDS??? LOL! What a scam! What a hype! WHAT BULLSHIT!
How can you be so precise with the exact miles including seconds , pilots sometimes fly in to strong headwinds , or have to fly around a storm which would add more time to the journey .
I would imagine this line would cancel frequently due to weather. Flying above it is all awesome, but last I checked, weather dosnt avoid airports. If there's rough weather in the landing zone, your up the creek at ballistic speed! Super sonic debris is kinda terrifying, like the most absurd artillery you can imagine, loaded with weird swords...on fire!
I remember the last flight of the concorde departing JFK in new york. I could hear that thing taking of all the way from Newark. Wonder how they are going to address this issue with this new plane.
A few obstacles standing between this vision and reality: a. You don't fly top speed the whole way- you gradually accelerate and decelerate, ergo flight times will be longer. b. It's unlikely the range will allow for long transpacific or multi-continental routes. c. Supersonic flights are banned over most land. d. These flights will be cost-prohibitive. ...However I have no doubts the technology is there. It's merely a question if the politics and economics will support it.
2 questions if I may how will they fly it without noise or property damage cause that was on of the main problems with supersonic transportation back then and also how will they fix the high fuel cost cause that also caused a problem and one reason Concorde shut down Thank you for your time
Even if it ever makes it out of the drawing board, with a maximum capacity of carrying 19 passengers, it is unlikely to cause any significant change in the aviation industry.
I think this will definitely be done, What man can dream and conceive in his mind, will usually get done. At one time, travelling to the moon, seemed beyond ones level of comprehension, but it was done. At one time as automobiles were being developed, they didn't think a V-8 engine was possible, but at Henry Fords insistence to his engineers, it was finally done. Everybody loves the Concorde -- it's looks and it's speed etc.( including myself) The problem is "money" it's just not affordable, and has a very limited small market, so airlines cannot make a profit off the Concorde. Then there's the sonic boom issue, but every great thing that was accomplished, was done by man thinking their way around problems, and solving them. I see a Super Sonic Jet being developed, and it likely will be very hi - tech, like using strong lightweight composite materials to make the aircraft lighter, or find a way to make the engines far more fuel efficient. Also they may change the fuel source to be nuclear powered. Many of the US military submarines are nuclear powered. This may be problematic, because you'd need highly educated serviceman to handle nuclear materials, but maybe there is a way ? As for the Sonic Booms, I'm not sure if you can get around that, because going faster than the speed of sound, causes the sound not to come from where it's being created ( engines) the sound is left way behind, because the plane is moving much faster than the sound -- therefore sound gets stretched so far back, it finally snaps, like a giant elastic band, and therefore you get a Sonic Boom. I think the answer would be only to have Sonic Booms allowed over the Ocean where you do most of your travelling distance. This still would cause a problem for flights over populated continents, and I'm not sure what the answer is ?? These are the kinds of problems that need to be overcome. All I know, is that if this can be dreamed up, and conceived in ones mind, it is proven in the past, that "all obstacles" can be overcome. Personally I'd like to see a new and improved Concorde in the skies again, because it's such a beautiful, fast and elegant looking Jet aircraft. A lot of people want to see this happen -- and eventually it will. There are guys li9ke Elon Musk and others around, that can make it happen.
It's about time! When they ended the Concord, I felt like we were speeding BACKWARD into the 21st century. We need a full size jet, though - not something for 12 billionaires. If you can build one to hold 12, then you can build one to hold 200, right? At least that would bring the price down. Nobody wants to spend 12 hours in economy flying anywhere!
3D Printing the Whole new Plane that should Keep Cost's Down, can we have it all Electric as Well Please, With cheap tickets and a Cab to the Airport Or should i just Dream On.
MrTupi1000 if they ever get batteries that light and that powerful the world would benefit in so many ways. Shell , BP and Exxon would be reduced to lubrications and plastics.
@@wdwerker thanks for your Reply what a Usless word the word IF is Substance , not more empty words Get the job done, show us the Results, it is always about the Tomorrow that never comes
I find it extremely bizarre that we STILL do not have an SST in the air again. Especially with all the technology we have today. But I'm very excited that VG, TSC and RR have partnered up. Exciting times.
@@richardscathouse We just can't afford them.They are a Niche Product, you might never sell in large numbers. And the maintenance must be meticulous. One vibration t Mach 3 could end (very quickly) in a catastrophe.
i have to wonder how many deep-pocket business fliers will still be booking tickets in a post-covid world.. we're all learning to phone it in from anywhere to anywhere
It will NEVER get approved to fly in the USA .Sonic booms and such..Unless they find a way of silencing sonic booms,This project is DRT (dead right there)!
For this reason coast to coast is a dead duck. Miami to New York or Seattle south to SF, LA or SD might work if the route went 200 miles off the coast. Basically it can't fly sup-sonic over land..
thats becase us people already know the sonic boom sooo they revive the supersonic plane and silencing sonic boom if they did not silencing the sonic boom, they didn't learn anything from the past
@Zuul Gatekeeper Impossible, I doubt we'd have technology that is suitable for an airliner to use that can pass mach 3, infact they wouldn't even go mach.
@@wyatt_iley the Concorde went to mach 2 and it was a commercial plane but their was complaints about sonic boom and also the fuel prices was to high for it so that was a few of the reasons it got retired. so their was a commercial plane that went up to mach it was flying from 1976 to 2003
It is great to see these super-rich entrepreneurs using their wealth to create. I am with Buffett. I am not opposed to higher and more effective taxing of the super-rich but I am a long way from believing that the government will spend the money more productively than the individual. Whatever one thinks of Musk's personality he is "making the world he wants to live in."
While I love the thought of a return to supersonic travel, it will have exactly the same constraints faced by Concorde. It won’t be able to fly over land due to the sonic boom. That rules out 90% of the routes speculated in this video, nor would it be able to carry enough fuel for most of these trips. Concorde was so far ahead of its time it’s almost laughable, but I’ll watch this project with hopeful gaze.
Many of the problems associated with Concorde have been either significantly reduced or sidestepped. Here are some examples: Concorde's Olympus engines were designed during the first wave of supersonic engines and were extremely inefficient compared to those developed today. They were also largely underpowered for the aircraft and were required to run at full afterburner during takeoff, generating a far greater amount of noise than if it hadn't needed full power at that stage of flight Concorde was designed for standard passenger service. Today, many of the resurgent SST designs like those of Boom and Aerion are catered towards business aviation clientele, where speed is the primary value and the cost is (relatively) irrelevant to them While not on display in this design, other new SST designs have focused on changes to airframe design which mitigate sonic boom The environmental impact is still a big question, but there is an effort to develop less impactful biofuels The most impactful flight routes for supersonic aircraft, long-distance, trans-pacific, are in far higher demand than when Concorde was developed. While China's economy took off in the 90s, Concrode wasn't designed for non-stop flight of that nature. These type of flights also avoid existing overland supersonic flight restrictions. So long answer to your comment, but this design likely gets rid of many of the flaws of the Concorde, and thus may actually success for private individuals
Found And Explained Concordes engines have nothing to do with the sonic boom that ultimately prevented Concorde from flying other routes. If the engineers or governments can’t over come this anomaly with supersonic flight then I fear this may go the same way. Thanks for producing the video, great job on the edit.
I hate to tell you about those potential flight times with this VG mach 3 plane. But even the Concorde was only allowed to fly supersonic over open sea. The FAA and also back then the individual European nation-states (I'm not sure about other regions in the world) prohibited commercial flights faster than mach 1 due to noise and pollution. An yes, engines may be less polluting nowadays compared to those of the 70s, it will be cancelled out by flying twice as fast as the concorde (same as for the noise). So you still don't have to expect it to be allowed to fly supersonic over land in the future, at least not over Europe.
political problems, not physical! The history of why the sonic boom was banned is very interesting - while enviromental in the US, it was political in Asia because the UK refused to give landing slots to Malaysia and India - whom then forbid the Concorde to fly over.
I personally would love it if Sir Richard Branson can get her done. Please get this done. I want to be able to travel from LA to Manila Philippines in less than 17 hours. It would be nice to have atleast 3 hour flight there no need to get off another country. Just straight there and back please.
the big problem with most people is that they don’t know or remember the recent aviation history. Do you know which was the only plane that flew at mach 3? The SR 71 had to be made of titanium because of the heat generated by air friction, with engines so special to manage the different regimes of speed. It was made for 2 people with fuel tanks that leaked fuel on the ground because of the tolerance needed to allow for heat expansion. If you tell me we have better technology now it means you don’t know or remember the main reason why the Concorde failed was because NOBODY WANTED a supersonic boom over their country so it flew supersonic only over the sea. This is just a gig for super rich like space tourism, it will not happen not because it’s technologically impossible but because it doesn’t make any practical sense.
The Oklahoma City test flights were rigged to fail. The fighters were flying at very low altitude, not the 60k ft that the Concorde flew at. Don't believe me? Look up the Myth Busters when they tried to break glass with a sonic boom. The first pass (mach 1.3) was at 8,000 ft I think. You could hardly hear it. The more altitude, the more the wave dissipates. Boeing's plane didn't work. That's why the tests failed.
If you go from east to west, the rotation of the earth would add those extra miles to your speed. And there's no wind at 60,000 feet. Just the jet stream, which can be used to advantage in the right situations. The plane may be going Mach 3, but the earth turning and the jet stream can add plenty of ground coverage to that.
Supersonic passenger planes are real fuel hogs, not green at all. The Concorde was a technical marvel that never made money. Air travel takes all day, travel to and from the airport , getting through security, and flight delays take two or three times the flight time. Even if the flight time were zero your whole day is shot. Why pay five or ten times as much for a ticket when your total travel time is only reduced by 10% or 20%.
@@FoundAndExplained "Hearting" my comment? You _are_ a good sport. But I would have _much_ preferred a video with more information, at least what you put in that pinned comment. That this is yet another SS business jet concept, not airliner what Concorde was, that , unlike some potential competitors, it does not attempt to address the sonic boom issue, which limits its SS usability to overwater routes, problems with materials at Mach 3 (and potential solutions), the way potential competition, much further ahead in the design and testing process, went etc. After all, the channel _does_ have "Explained" in its title. And those "flight times between city pairs" were really jarring. You put them down to a second, which is completely meaningless even it you count only cruise time, and for very short routes this would probably be slower gate to gate (and that's the only thing that counts) than even a turboprop. You did add a kind of disclaimer after that absurd listing, but still. The world is full of half-information or worse - don't add to the pollution. This could have be a short, fun video, if you wanted it that way, while still giving viewers some actual information.
The Concord in part limited it's speed so it could use aluminum. I'm not sure what materials they could use in a repetitive flight scenario that would be economical to build and maintain.
Oh dearie me, where to begin. At sea level, the speed of sound is about 760 mph (1,216 kph) but at the higher altitudes commercial jets travel at it is around 660 mph (1,056 kph). This means that at altitude Mach 3 is around 1,980 mph (2,848 kph). In round numbers New York to London is about 3,450 miles (5,520 km),which at Mach 3, at altitude is a little bit less than than 2 hours. However, you have to factor in getting up to altitude and coming back down, which because of noise and sonic boom concerns might add up to another hour to the flight time - less if the plane can slip through the sound barrier without the loud boom you would currently get. Next, if it has the range of the Concorde, and given its size, it will be a very expensive ticket, afforable only by those you currently fly in first class suites on the mid-East's flagship airlines, and then some. SSTs will be a niche market until you can make one with the capacity, and economics as a modern twin-engine Boeing or Airbus product.
My car, a humble Toyota Camry can do 220 kph, maybe 240 with a tailwind. That means I should be able to get to Sydney, from Newcastle in less than an hour. In reality, we're talking 2 1/2 hours with less than ideal roads and traffic!
I actually think these planes should be much smaller, like literally 2 passengers. I love the fact that the time of travel is dramatically reduced, but I also think the total amount of travel time should be as well. Think of Uber and how quickly it is to call one up and go anywhere in the city. That's how this should be in my opinion.
You are on the money. Boom Supersonic is releasing a one seater supersonic jet later this year - they could make a two seater easily without much effort.
Do you think one or 2 Passengers would share the fuel bill? The price per Passenger would be enormous. It even was for Concorde passengers.(up to 7000$) You could easily book a week in a 5-star Hotel for that. Or skip a few stars but stay for a month.
Each Aircraft Frame will give you a different curve, but all are similar, efficient point is about 1.2 Mach, then the curve goes up and lowers again, and the new efficienct point is 2.0-2.2 Mach, and the airplane will be really hot outside, so heat-induced drag will cause huge drag exponentially; plus, the heat at Mach 3.0 is also big, you need expensive alloys to have the least material fatigue, like a fighter jet, huge $/hr of flight. All these generate sonic booms eve at 60,000+ feet. IMO Supersonic is a necessity for Space Flight, to get into Orbit and/or interplanetary travel. What we need to do is make Jet-Fuel sub-sonic flight more efficient: commercial jet engines are now glorified Turbo Fans, instead of taking the jet stream and mix it better with Side cold fan-compressed up air, in a longer case, so it expands rapidly, generating a 2nd stage propulsion like a rocket nozzle; this way we could use a lot less fuel, like 50%+ and have the 0.85 Mach speeds, and use 3 engines instead of 4 with blended-body triangular fuselage; increasing safety, efficiency, fuel & cargo capacity even more
Tickets will probably have to be $50,000 or more to be profitable. Tickets for Concorde were upwards of $1,000 and they weren’t very profitable for British Airways or Air France.
Aurora, which exists, is the size of a 747, because it has at least 3 engines (1 or 2 scram jets, and 2 or more, conventional engines for landing). Any supersonic passenger plane, to hit Mach 3, will have to be massive, just to fit the engines, let alone passengers and luggage.
Although there has been quite some progress with regards to several issues arising from SST aircraft, such as the sonic boom, they have not been completely solved. Also, if such an aircraft will be flying at 60k feet, I do not believe it is realistic to use them on short-haul routes. LAX-SFO? LHR-CDG? By the time the desired altitude is reached, the destination airport will be left behind. Let alone decent and land there. SST is very exciting, but I believe that solutions like the Hyperloop are far more realistic for the foreseable future, at least for short distances. I believe that supersonic aircraft will only be considered for long haul flights and, if they have to fly over oceans, then the sonic boom issue will not be as important too.
I'll belive it when I see it, but my biggest question would be cost. Jet fuel is relatively stable in pricing, bar major economic developments. However, for no more than 20 people tops? There had better be some serious room for same-day international shipping included in this design otherwise I dont see this being much if a profit earner from a pretty unknown developer, (Just look at the A300 when it first came out and how badly it did in the NA market originally). However, if airlines do decide to adopt this aircraft, I cant wait to fly on it mid 2030's or so
It’s only a dream for the moment. One of the main problem would be like for Concorde the noise generated by the plane to reach its Mach 3 speed. I remember the battle to land Concord to
Mach 3 is actually not a real number. It's a speed of sound travelling through the medium and at different heights air has different density. I'm holding on the SPCE stock for now until I see at least confirmed test flights for FAA approval. And time of flight highly depends on waiting in the airport, taxi, waiting in line, ATC, landing/take off windows etc. Usually when I fly Helsinki - Tokyo, I add up to 4 hours for security checks and so on. That's excluding time I spend getting to Vantaa and from Narita. That's another 2-3 hours. So it would be viable only if you use it as a private jet, paying to skip all the inconveniences. Regular passenger basically doesn't win anything.
The Boeing 2707 never happened a long time ago . The Russian TU-144 was made from stolen plans of the concord but the plans were not correct and the 144 broke up in flight and killed all on board .
Boom Supersonic in the meantime is getting close to testing the XB-1 this year..while Aerion keeps pushing their deadline and changing designs. I'll take any decent improvement over the current subsonic flight time, or isn't it possible to just tweak the current subsonic speed a bit say a Gulfstream G650ER or Bombardier Global series have a top speed of Mach .925 and cruising speed around Mach .085...can't they realistically tweak the engine or maybe lighten the load (only six-eight passengers total instead of 12) ......so they have at least .Mach 925-.93 cruising speed and it has to have 5000 nm range for long international travel (Asia to US).
@@FoundAndExplained True. I was just wondering about the current aircraft and technology if it's possible to really make it slightly faster..pushing the envelope so to speak while we wait for the private supersonic to come true.
@@winesoup6907 Boeing was about to do just that before the parasites from McDonnell Douglas killed their Sonic Cruiser in favor of the lackluster 787. We could have had highly efficient transonic flight by now.
@@jaffacalling53 Thanks! Yeah that would've been a good middle ground for non-private jet! G700 btw just finished its test flight and managed to clock in at Mach .99!
Last time we have to travel like 12 hours KL to Frankfurt and NO beds.... common lah.... if you travel shorter time, then just make very comfortable seats... two hours of wining and dining wont seem that long....
By not building an aircraft in 50 different factories in 50 different states so they can get contracts from congress because congress likes creating jobs.
1. The fuel leak was from the wings. The Air Force mandated that the wings also had tanks even though Lockheed objected. 2. The SR-71 air frame was built in one building - 309 Plant B-6, Hollywood Way, Burbank California. 3. The project was black. Congress had no knowledge of it. 4. Branson's design is a cartoon.
Many of the problems associated with Concorde have been either significantly reduced or sidestepped. Here are some examples:
Concorde's Olympus engines were designed during the first wave of supersonic engines and were extremely inefficient compared to those developed today. They were also largely underpowered for the aircraft and were required to run at full afterburner during takeoff, generating a far greater amount of noise than if it hadn't needed full power at that stage of flight
Concorde was designed for standard passenger service. Today, many of the resurgent SST designs like those of Boom and Aerion are catered towards business aviation clientele, where speed is the primary value and the cost is (relatively) irrelevant to them
While not on display in this design, other new SST designs have focused on changes to airframe design which mitigate sonic boom
The environmental impact is still a big question, but there is an effort to develop less impactful biofuels
The most impactful flight routes for supersonic aircraft, long-distance, trans-pacific, are in far higher demand than when Concorde was developed. While China's economy took off in the 90s, Concrode wasn't designed for non-stop flight of that nature. These type of flights also avoid existing overland supersonic flight restrictions.
Comment by Merker6 on Reddit: www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/i3hms9/meet_the_new_concorde_virgin_galactic_mach_30/
Found And Explained Please don’t lie. Just until now possible solutions will be tested in the US nor the UK. NASA is building the X-59 to see if they can reduce noise about 70%, When the plane is ready it will be flown through selected cities in the US and see if people find it acceptable. The plane was co designed with Lockheed Martin Skunk Works perhaps the most cutting edge aircraft}a manufacturer out there, certainly a trillion times better than anyone at Virgin
You’ re forgetting the huge cost for the consumer, which hardly pays of. The Concorde only gave a few hour advantage in return for a buttload of cash and less luxurious.
I do see a market for flying extreme long distance, because the longer the distance, the more time can be won.
But yea, who will fly if the true time saver is a Zoom or Teams meeting?
Yes Concordes Rolls Royce Olympus engines were inefficient, but this was mainly during take off and landing. Whilst she was cruising at Mach 2, her engines were actually very efficient. This was mainly because the inlets of the engines had a series of ramps that slowed down the air for the engines when cruising at Mach 2. In doing so the engine inlet air pressure increased, this resulted in them being much more efficient 👍
@@EAFXtrader You cannot remove take off and landing from the equation, plus the noise was unacceptable.
@@irisfailsafe where exactly am I trying to 'remove' it from the equation? I am merely stating a fact
As for the noise, it was absolutely awesome watching Concorde take off, especially at night 😁
One hour flying, three hours at the airport waiting to go!
If you are rich, then those waiting times will suddenly disappear.......
@@mattevans4377 As it will cost an arm and a leg to fly on this plane, it might even park where private jets do at a separate terminal. passengers at private jet terminals aren't waiting 2, 3 hours to go through TSA. Screening would take a few minutes and then walk to their plane. The video said 7 - 19 passengers depending on the luxury. Frankly, the cost to fly supersonic might be more expensive than flying first class on the most luxurious air lines. I'll take first class with great dining and luxury being waited on hand and foot.
That why i alwsys try to fly out of out towns airport. Just show up when you feal like it and hop on
Or more waiting for the blood tests
Longer during the pandemic hahaha
Since when are Mach 3 double the speed of Mach 2.04?
UA-cam math... Lol
Because he's comparing apples to oranges. The 3-hour concorde flight (including takeoff and landing) vs the 1.5 hours it takes to travel the distance at mach 3 (without takeoff and landing).
@@christophercook723 🤣
@@Digephil Just as I thought. :) But misleading anyways. ;)
it's metric.
How many time have we seen this kind of “next Concorde“?? I am tooooo skeptical about them.
boom looks like they have something commercially viable. this not so much. then again there are more billionaires now so who knows.
Roland Lawrence there’s also more billionaires because the value of money has dropped 🤷♂️
@@mrrolandlawrence Hard to say but Virgin has a track record and Boom doesn't, I'd bet on V if anything.
To be fair for many of those instances it’s less of that the idea got abandoned and more of that it takes a really long time to develop a plane and you will hear the phrase “next Concorde” being thrown out when it’s still in the concept phase. One example of this is boom supersonic a while back they were working in only concept however now they have their work could best be described as a low scale model (Xb-1) to act as a testing platform for the technology they’re working on and is capable of supersonic flight (first test flight in Is going to be in September)
I am skeptical too. 50 years ago we had an operational SST, the Concord. Now they come out with proposed SST's that are half the size. Looks like we're not making aviation progress, but regress.
Virgin Galactic was founded in 2004 to take paying passengers on short, suborbital spaceflights....16 years later and still waiting to see it. Of course I would like to see it happen, but don't blame me for being a bit skeptical about any timeline for a Mach 3.0 airliner....
I’ve heard 2059
I think their efforts on their spaceplane is better used to make a fast aircraft instead
They now have 16 years of knowledge
@@FoundAndExplained great! Ill only be 58 when it finally happens 🤣
@@CranioUomo
RE: "great! Ill only be 58 when it finally happens"
And I'll only be 112 when it finally happens
NY to London in two hours, but has bedrooms.....*scratching my head*
Rich people right
Roy&Shashi Brock
Sex, not sleep.
Speed like that costs - not much less than £30k for the cheap seats..
perfect nappy time
Roman orgies and power naps
Mach 3 is not double Mach 2. It’s approximately 150% faster than the concord with an approx speed of 2100 MPH. No doubt it would be an amazing jump and I look forward to seeing this aircraft being developed and eventually in production. It’s important to be accurate.
Mach 3 is 2301 MPH and not 2100 MPH. It's important to be accurate.
150% faster means 2.5X as fast, which this is not.
Mach 3.0 means 3 Times the speed of sound...Concord was Mach 2.0,which meant that Concorde could fly 2 times the speed of sound.
To double speed of Concorde it would need to go Mach 4 (4 times the speed of sound) not Mach 3.
Opps! I guess i rounded up!
@@FoundAndExplained Yeah and Spaceship 2 is not going to low earth orbit, it's suborbital.
@@FoundAndExplained riiiight...
@@FoundAndExplained woopsiesss...
Aerion is pitching the AS3 as a future Mach 4 airliner
Ah yes, the Boeing 2707....... still waiting! Hail Nick!
Do you really need to sleep when you're only going to be in the air for an hour and a half?
@Imagine No Religion Eww. The Mile-High Club is highly overrated...
Vancouver to Sydney? Yeah maybe a nap. Just in time for Canzuk.
Sleep with the stewardess
I do.in fact I won't get on a plane at all w/o being at least piss-drunk. especially after they started outsourcing maintenance 🤭🤭
I'd be enjoying the experience
It unbelievable in the past few weeks out of nowhere two companies says there are building and test flight this October 2020
I can't wait! We really are in the next supersonic jet race
Expect delays
I wonder if this will be permitted to fly over land, or to fly from New York to LA, not just be limited to crossing the Atlantic only like the Concord was.
I wish them the best and hope they can pull off what they are saying, but based on Branson's performance with Virgin Galactica (which has been around for almost two decades) I would be very surprised if they ever fly any passengers on this jet.
you're not allowing for altitude when you calculate your speeds. mach 3 at 60k ft is 1979mph
@j0n0b0t
60,000 ft = 18.29 km speed of sound: 294 m/s = 658 mph; Mach 3 = 1,974 mph (close enough)
Reference: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
Does your speed change if you are going with the Earths rotation or against it? East and West
9 tot 19 passengers? Wow, such efficiency!
Yup.
Three hours from midtown Manhattan to JFK, one hour, thirty minutes JFK to Heathrow.
WOW! Underrated channel. This channel has the best videos! Please keep on keeping me entertained through quarantine!
It would be rediculous to use a Mach 3 airliner on some of those shorter trips, such as London-Paris, Sidney-Melbourne, Los Angeles-San Francisco.
It's funny how this is the only video I've watched all day that doesn't have an ad for the space flight.
So this is more so a wish list than an actual plan
All dreams have to start somewhere!
@@FoundAndExplained Knock, knock ... 😀😀😀
Congrats for 100k. Did you get the silver button? 🤗
One more free marketing video for Virgin. Pure dreams and nothing realistic
and entertainment for you!
And it looks like Boom Technologies Overture SST. It won’t go Mach 3 or 4. Test flights of XB-1 next year. Hope the tests are successful.
SpaceX springs to mind.
Did you guys see elon shitheads self-landing rockets were the birds in the background are FLYING BACKWARDS???
LOL! What a scam! What a hype! WHAT BULLSHIT!
I still love and nothing will stop me from Loving the OG conecorde
How can you be so precise with the exact miles including seconds , pilots sometimes fly in to strong headwinds , or have to fly around a storm which would add more time to the journey .
They don’t do Mach 3 until they’re above the stratosphere and the weather. They fly a much lower speed for ascending and descending.
I would imagine this line would cancel frequently due to weather. Flying above it is all awesome, but last I checked, weather dosnt avoid airports. If there's rough weather in the landing zone, your up the creek at ballistic speed! Super sonic debris is kinda terrifying, like the most absurd artillery you can imagine, loaded with weird swords...on fire!
This is an awesome video and fantastic production. This channel is definitely going somewhere
Very big thank you~! I hope you enjoy and hang around for my next video
I remember the last flight of the concorde departing JFK in new york. I could hear that thing taking of all the way from Newark. Wonder how they are going to address this issue with this new plane.
Ear plugs👍
subscribed :) Great work buddy and really nice content here...just found ur channel yesterday when I was going to bed :)
I would be energetically awake for the whole trip.
It would be over pretty fast!
I think flying over 40000 feet with mach 3 and then descent and slowing it down to 180 knots is gonna be a trip on a rollercoaster for all passengers
It all depends on acceleration/deceleration. Speed has nothing to do with it.
Planes that could hit and use the stratosphere, and then descend, would be great. UK to Oz in 5 hours.... I'd buy that for a dollar.
A few obstacles standing between this vision and reality: a. You don't fly top speed the whole way- you gradually accelerate and decelerate, ergo flight times will be longer. b. It's unlikely the range will allow for long transpacific or multi-continental routes. c. Supersonic flights are banned over most land. d. These flights will be cost-prohibitive. ...However I have no doubts the technology is there. It's merely a question if the politics and economics will support it.
Spot on comment! I'm glad to read this in the down below
If I am getting there in one and forty-five minutes, why I need to sleep?
There probably thinking you didnt get any sleep before boarding the plane.
nap time is important
Mile high club
The most awesome flight that nobody I know will ever be able to afford.
Rich people only. Invest in Virgin Galactic and get some of that money 👍
Can't wait to hear some Sonic Bomb again
Go with throttle up!
Heck yeah! And the spood of loot too!
2 questions if I may how will they fly it without noise or property damage cause that was on of the main problems with supersonic transportation back then and also how will they fix the high fuel cost cause that also caused a problem and one reason Concorde shut down
Thank you for your time
Even if it ever makes it out of the drawing board, with a maximum capacity of carrying 19 passengers, it is unlikely to cause any significant change in the aviation industry.
I think you meant Mach 4, which is double Concorde's speed
At the moment, vaporware. We'll see if anything actually gets built.
Like so many of these concepts, I will believe it only when I see it.
I think this will definitely be done, What man can dream and conceive in his
mind, will usually get done. At one time, travelling to the moon, seemed
beyond ones level of comprehension, but it was done. At one time as automobiles
were being developed, they didn't think a V-8 engine was possible, but at
Henry Fords insistence to his engineers, it was finally done.
Everybody loves the Concorde -- it's looks and it's speed etc.( including myself)
The problem is "money" it's just not affordable, and has a very limited small
market, so airlines cannot make a profit off the Concorde. Then there's the sonic
boom issue, but every great thing that was accomplished, was done by man
thinking their way around problems, and solving them.
I see a Super Sonic Jet being developed, and it likely will be very hi - tech, like
using strong lightweight composite materials to make the aircraft lighter, or
find a way to make the engines far more fuel efficient. Also they may change
the fuel source to be nuclear powered. Many of the US military submarines are
nuclear powered. This may be problematic, because you'd need highly educated
serviceman to handle nuclear materials, but maybe there is a way ?
As for the Sonic Booms, I'm not sure if you can get around that, because going
faster than the speed of sound, causes the sound not to come from where it's
being created ( engines) the sound is left way behind, because the plane is
moving much faster than the sound -- therefore sound gets stretched so far back,
it finally snaps, like a giant elastic band, and therefore you get a Sonic Boom. I
think the answer would be only to have Sonic Booms allowed over the Ocean where
you do most of your travelling distance. This still would cause a problem for
flights over populated continents, and I'm not sure what the answer is ?? These
are the kinds of problems that need to be overcome.
All I know, is that if this can be dreamed up, and conceived in ones mind, it is
proven in the past, that "all obstacles" can be overcome.
Personally I'd like to see a new and improved Concorde in the skies again, because
it's such a beautiful, fast and elegant looking Jet aircraft. A lot of people want to
see this happen -- and eventually it will. There are guys li9ke Elon Musk and others
around, that can make it happen.
It's about time! When they ended the Concord, I felt like we were speeding BACKWARD into the 21st century. We need a full size jet, though - not something for 12 billionaires. If you can build one to hold 12, then you can build one to hold 200, right? At least that would bring the price down. Nobody wants to spend 12 hours in economy flying anywhere!
I wonder how the Virgin Airways financial troubles will affect this project ?
3D Printing the Whole new Plane that should
Keep Cost's Down, can we have it all Electric as Well
Please, With cheap tickets and a Cab to the Airport
Or should i just Dream On.
MrTupi1000 if they ever get batteries that light and that powerful the world would benefit in so many ways. Shell , BP and Exxon would be reduced to lubrications and plastics.
@@wdwerker thanks for your Reply what a Usless word the word IF is
Substance , not more empty words Get the job done, show us the
Results, it is always about the Tomorrow that never comes
I find it extremely bizarre that we STILL do not have an SST in the air again. Especially with all the technology we have today. But I'm very excited that VG, TSC and RR have partnered up. Exciting times.
We just don't deserve nice things
@@richardscathouse We just can't afford them.They are a Niche Product, you might never sell in large numbers. And the maintenance must be meticulous. One vibration t Mach 3 could end (very quickly) in a catastrophe.
i have to wonder how many deep-pocket business fliers will still be booking tickets in a post-covid world.. we're all learning to phone it in from anywhere to anywhere
I'm sure things will change for the future :)
What a beauty that Boeing 2707 was!!
It will NEVER get approved to fly in the USA .Sonic booms and such..Unless they find a way of silencing sonic booms,This project is DRT (dead right there)!
For this reason coast to coast is a dead duck. Miami to New York or Seattle south to SF, LA or SD might work if the route went 200 miles off the coast.
Basically it can't fly sup-sonic over land..
thats becase us people already know the sonic boom sooo they revive the supersonic plane and silencing sonic boom if they did not silencing the sonic boom, they didn't learn anything from the past
@Zuul Gatekeeper Impossible, I doubt we'd have technology that is suitable for an airliner to use that can pass mach 3, infact they wouldn't even go mach.
Screw the USA, they probably won't have the money to fly anyway. 😒😆
@@wyatt_iley the Concorde went to mach 2 and it was a commercial plane but their was complaints about sonic boom and also the fuel prices was to high for it so that was a few of the reasons it got retired. so their was a commercial plane that went up to mach it was flying from 1976 to 2003
That's insane speed is unbelievable! 🤯🛫✈️
It is great to see these super-rich entrepreneurs using their wealth to create. I am with Buffett. I am not opposed to higher and more effective taxing of the super-rich but I am a long way from believing that the government will spend the money more productively than the individual. Whatever one thinks of Musk's personality he is "making the world he wants to live in."
They are leaders in innovation at the moment it seems
Don’t hold your breath on Virgin!
It’s 20 years since SpaceShip One won the X-Prize and not a single customer flight...
Richard branson, the man who sued The NHS . Yeah he's properly interested in people's well being. Another Snake oil salesmen ,just like Elon musk.
@@metalicminer6231 bruh
@@metalicminer6231 what’s wrong with Elon musk?
Enjoyed the presentation!
For anyone that believes this bird will ever actually get built, can I ask what you'll be asking Santa for this year?
A mach 3 concorde of course!
NYC-to-London in 90 minutes for Bubble & Squeak... then back home to NYC for Mac 'n' Cheese dinner. Ab-Fab!
While I love the thought of a return to supersonic travel, it will have exactly the same constraints faced by Concorde. It won’t be able to fly over land due to the sonic boom. That rules out 90% of the routes speculated in this video, nor would it be able to carry enough fuel for most of these trips. Concorde was so far ahead of its time it’s almost laughable, but I’ll watch this project with hopeful gaze.
Many of the problems associated with Concorde have been either significantly reduced or sidestepped. Here are some examples:
Concorde's Olympus engines were designed during the first wave of supersonic engines and were extremely inefficient compared to those developed today. They were also largely underpowered for the aircraft and were required to run at full afterburner during takeoff, generating a far greater amount of noise than if it hadn't needed full power at that stage of flight
Concorde was designed for standard passenger service. Today, many of the resurgent SST designs like those of Boom and Aerion are catered towards business aviation clientele, where speed is the primary value and the cost is (relatively) irrelevant to them
While not on display in this design, other new SST designs have focused on changes to airframe design which mitigate sonic boom
The environmental impact is still a big question, but there is an effort to develop less impactful biofuels
The most impactful flight routes for supersonic aircraft, long-distance, trans-pacific, are in far higher demand than when Concorde was developed. While China's economy took off in the 90s, Concrode wasn't designed for non-stop flight of that nature. These type of flights also avoid existing overland supersonic flight restrictions.
So long answer to your comment, but this design likely gets rid of many of the flaws of the Concorde, and thus may actually success for private individuals
Found And Explained Concordes engines have nothing to do with the sonic boom that ultimately prevented Concorde from flying other routes. If the engineers or governments can’t over come this anomaly with supersonic flight then I fear this may go the same way. Thanks for producing the video, great job on the edit.
@@MaxRank Thanks for watching! Hopefully, there are other videos on my channel that spark some curiosity!
I hate to tell you about those potential flight times with this VG mach 3 plane. But even the Concorde was only allowed to fly supersonic over open sea. The FAA and also back then the individual European nation-states (I'm not sure about other regions in the world) prohibited commercial flights faster than mach 1 due to noise and pollution. An yes, engines may be less polluting nowadays compared to those of the 70s, it will be cancelled out by flying twice as fast as the concorde (same as for the noise). So you still don't have to expect it to be allowed to fly supersonic over land in the future, at least not over Europe.
Of course! but this is assuming that the FAA will overturn the sonic boom laws - closer than you think as well
THEN YOU WILL SPEND FOUR HOURS CIRCLING THE AIRPORT 🙄
There been a lot of research into lowering the sonic boom pressures. You can see some vids on the subject going back a few years.
Yes maybe we should do a video about the sonic boom!
It can't fly over land due to problems of sonic boom so most of those examples will not fly
political problems, not physical! The history of why the sonic boom was banned is very interesting - while enviromental in the US, it was political in Asia because the UK refused to give landing slots to Malaysia and India - whom then forbid the Concorde to fly over.
@@FoundAndExplained Agreed but i certainly wouldn't welcome the noise :)
I personally would love it if Sir Richard Branson can get her done. Please get this done. I want to be able to travel from LA to Manila Philippines in less than 17 hours. It would be nice to have atleast 3 hour flight there no need to get off another country. Just straight there and back please.
I will be married to Charlize Theron and living on Alpha Centauri when this thing rolls out. Which is to say the third day after never.
how long will it take from any where from airports to south africa
Sounds like hog wash to me.
the big problem with most people is that they don’t know or remember the recent aviation history. Do you know which was the only plane that flew at mach 3? The SR 71 had to be made of titanium because of the heat generated by air friction, with engines so special to manage the different regimes of speed. It was made for 2 people with fuel tanks that leaked fuel on the ground because of the tolerance needed to allow for heat expansion. If you tell me we have better technology now it means you don’t know or remember the main reason why the Concorde failed was because NOBODY WANTED a supersonic boom over their country so it flew supersonic only over the sea. This is just a gig for super rich like space tourism, it will not happen not because it’s technologically impossible but because it doesn’t make any practical sense.
100%
The
The Oklahoma City test flights were rigged to fail. The fighters were flying at very low altitude, not the 60k ft that the Concorde flew at. Don't believe me? Look up the Myth Busters when they tried to break glass with a sonic boom. The first pass (mach 1.3) was at 8,000 ft I think. You could hardly hear it. The more altitude, the more the wave dissipates. Boeing's plane didn't work. That's why the tests failed.
which is more faster between this super sonic planes
Concord or TU144 and BOEING 2707. I will like to know the RPM of their engines n their range
Good super sonic updates I love Concorde sst
Pretty SHARP LOOKING!!!!!👍
If you go from east to west, the rotation of the earth would add those extra miles to your speed. And there's no wind at 60,000 feet. Just the jet stream, which can be used to advantage in the right situations. The plane may be going Mach 3, but the earth turning and the jet stream can add plenty of ground coverage to that.
I wonder if even @ 60 000 feet the Atmosphere rotates with the Earth ? So the rotation of the Earth would be irrelevant.
Supersonic passenger planes are real fuel hogs, not green at all.
The Concorde was a technical marvel that never made money. Air travel takes all day, travel
to and from the airport , getting through security, and flight delays take two or three times
the flight time. Even if the flight time were zero your whole day is shot. Why pay five or ten
times as much for a ticket when your total travel time is only reduced by 10% or 20%.
4:25 im pretty sure it has to fly over 35000 ft if it doesn't want to melt
A remarkably information-free video.
Honestly its best to just see it as entertainment - after all its all they have given us.
@@FoundAndExplained "Hearting" my comment? You _are_ a good sport. But I would have _much_ preferred a video with more information, at least what you put in that pinned comment. That this is yet another SS business jet concept, not airliner what Concorde was, that , unlike some potential competitors, it does not attempt to address the sonic boom issue, which limits its SS usability to overwater routes, problems with materials at Mach 3 (and potential solutions), the way potential competition, much further ahead in the design and testing process, went etc. After all, the channel _does_ have "Explained" in its title.
And those "flight times between city pairs" were really jarring. You put them down to a second, which is completely meaningless even it you count only cruise time, and for very short routes this would probably be slower gate to gate (and that's the only thing that counts) than even a turboprop. You did add a kind of disclaimer after that absurd listing, but still.
The world is full of half-information or worse - don't add to the pollution. This could have be a short, fun video, if you wanted it that way, while still giving viewers some actual information.
The Concord in part limited it's speed so it could use aluminum. I'm not sure what materials they could use in a repetitive flight scenario that would be economical to build and maintain.
Doesn't need to be economical. It could cost $10 billion to build but you bet some oil prince will buy it
Oh dearie me, where to begin. At sea level, the speed of sound is about 760 mph (1,216 kph) but at the higher altitudes commercial jets travel at it is around 660 mph (1,056 kph). This means that at altitude Mach 3 is around 1,980 mph (2,848 kph). In round numbers New York to London is about 3,450 miles (5,520 km),which at Mach 3, at altitude is a little bit less than than 2 hours. However, you have to factor in getting up to altitude and coming back down, which because of noise and sonic boom concerns might add up to another hour to the flight time - less if the plane can slip through the sound barrier without the loud boom you would currently get. Next, if it has the range of the Concorde, and given its size, it will be a very expensive ticket, afforable only by those you currently fly in first class suites on the mid-East's flagship airlines, and then some. SSTs will be a niche market until you can make one with the capacity, and economics as a modern twin-engine Boeing or Airbus product.
Impressive. Eager 4 the next chapter.
Mach 3 at 30k feet is just 3200 km/h (2000 mph). You can't use sealevel air density to calculate Mach speeds.
4:09 this man really just said "hollolooloo"
There is so much that has to be overcome before this plane goes in to flight.
It never will!
Insanely beautiful
when this aircraft will be available for air-travel???
My car, a humble Toyota Camry can do 220 kph, maybe 240 with a tailwind. That means I should be able to get to Sydney, from Newcastle in less than an hour. In reality, we're talking 2 1/2 hours with less than ideal roads and traffic!
It's so amazing we finally live in the future. But what an amazing future were at the door to discover...
It was possible to fly on the Concorde at mach 2 in 1976. You can only fly 40% of that speed today.
I actually think these planes should be much smaller, like literally 2 passengers. I love the fact that the time of travel is dramatically reduced, but I also think the total amount of travel time should be as well. Think of Uber and how quickly it is to call one up and go anywhere in the city. That's how this should be in my opinion.
You are on the money. Boom Supersonic is releasing a one seater supersonic jet later this year - they could make a two seater easily without much effort.
Yea cost over 6k ticket
🤣🤣🤣
Do you think one or 2 Passengers would share the fuel bill? The price per Passenger would be enormous. It even was for Concorde passengers.(up to 7000$) You could easily book a week in a 5-star Hotel for that. Or skip a few stars but stay for a month.
Beautiful plane,Make sure you build it.
That's the plan!
My question is can it physically travel the distance? Like from L.A to Tokyo? Does it have enough fuel to go non stop
Each Aircraft Frame will give you a different curve, but all are similar, efficient point is about 1.2 Mach, then the curve goes up and lowers again, and the new efficienct point is 2.0-2.2 Mach, and the airplane will be really hot outside, so heat-induced drag will cause huge drag exponentially; plus, the heat at Mach 3.0 is also big, you need expensive alloys to have the least material fatigue, like a fighter jet, huge $/hr of flight. All these generate sonic booms eve at 60,000+ feet. IMO Supersonic is a necessity for Space Flight, to get into Orbit and/or interplanetary travel.
What we need to do is make Jet-Fuel sub-sonic flight more efficient: commercial jet engines are now glorified Turbo Fans, instead of taking the jet stream and mix it better with Side cold fan-compressed up air, in a longer case, so it expands rapidly, generating a 2nd stage propulsion like a rocket nozzle; this way we could use a lot less fuel, like 50%+ and have the 0.85 Mach speeds, and use 3 engines instead of 4 with blended-body triangular fuselage; increasing safety, efficiency, fuel & cargo capacity even more
This is such an underrated channel, I’m glad I found it. Great videos!
Glad you enjoy it!
I'm happy you found. And explained. 😊
Tickets will probably have to be $50,000 or more to be profitable. Tickets for Concorde were upwards of $1,000 and they weren’t very profitable for British Airways or Air France.
Waiting to buy this New version of The Concorde
Absolutely fantastic
Aurora, which exists, is the size of a 747, because it has at least 3 engines (1 or 2 scram jets, and 2 or more, conventional engines for landing).
Any supersonic passenger plane, to hit Mach 3, will have to be massive, just to fit the engines, let alone passengers and luggage.
Although there has been quite some progress with regards to several issues arising from SST aircraft, such as the sonic boom, they have not been completely solved. Also, if such an aircraft will be flying at 60k feet, I do not believe it is realistic to use them on short-haul routes. LAX-SFO? LHR-CDG? By the time the desired altitude is reached, the destination airport will be left behind. Let alone decent and land there. SST is very exciting, but I believe that solutions like the Hyperloop are far more realistic for the foreseable future, at least for short distances. I believe that supersonic aircraft will only be considered for long haul flights and, if they have to fly over oceans, then the sonic boom issue will not be as important too.
I'll belive it when I see it, but my biggest question would be cost. Jet fuel is relatively stable in pricing, bar major economic developments. However, for no more than 20 people tops? There had better be some serious room for same-day international shipping included in this design otherwise I dont see this being much if a profit earner from a pretty unknown developer, (Just look at the A300 when it first came out and how badly it did in the NA market originally). However, if airlines do decide to adopt this aircraft, I cant wait to fly on it mid 2030's or so
It’s only a dream for the moment. One of the main problem would be like for Concorde the noise generated by the plane to reach its Mach 3 speed. I remember the battle to land Concord to
New York....So, without proper adjustments to avoid the noise and other critical parameters we cannot see any Mach 3 plane flying soon.
Mach 3 is actually not a real number. It's a speed of sound travelling through the medium and at different heights air has different density. I'm holding on the SPCE stock for now until I see at least confirmed test flights for FAA approval.
And time of flight highly depends on waiting in the airport, taxi, waiting in line, ATC, landing/take off windows etc. Usually when I fly Helsinki - Tokyo, I add up to 4 hours for security checks and so on. That's excluding time I spend getting to Vantaa and from Narita. That's another 2-3 hours.
So it would be viable only if you use it as a private jet, paying to skip all the inconveniences. Regular passenger basically doesn't win anything.
The Boeing 2707 never happened a long time ago . The Russian TU-144 was made from stolen plans of the concord but the plans were not correct and the 144 broke up in flight and killed all on board .
good documentation .......
The math are a bit off but the race is over since long ago. What is comming now if it is comming at all is a refined version if it is going to succed.
Boom Supersonic in the meantime is getting close to testing the XB-1 this year..while Aerion keeps pushing their deadline and changing designs. I'll take any decent improvement over the current subsonic flight time, or isn't it possible to just tweak the current subsonic speed a bit say a Gulfstream G650ER or Bombardier Global series have a top speed of Mach .925 and cruising speed around Mach .085...can't they realistically tweak the engine or maybe lighten the load (only six-eight passengers total instead of 12) ......so they have at least .Mach 925-.93 cruising speed and it has to have 5000 nm range for long international travel (Asia to US).
Business jets is the only real market for faster travel. Rich people don't care about money but they care about time.
@@FoundAndExplained True. I was just wondering about the current aircraft and technology if it's possible to really make it slightly faster..pushing the envelope so to speak while we wait for the private supersonic to come true.
@@winesoup6907 Boeing was about to do just that before the parasites from McDonnell Douglas killed their Sonic Cruiser in favor of the lackluster 787. We could have had highly efficient transonic flight by now.
@@jaffacalling53 Thanks! Yeah that would've been a good middle ground for non-private jet! G700 btw just finished its test flight and managed to clock in at Mach .99!
We have a video about that aircraft here on the channel!
Last time we have to travel like 12 hours KL to Frankfurt and NO beds.... common lah.... if you travel shorter time, then just make very comfortable seats... two hours of wining and dining wont seem that long....
I wonder how they will solve the quirk the SR-71 had weeping fuel until the body would seal itself from the friction of fly.
By not building an aircraft in 50 different factories in 50 different states so they can get contracts from congress because congress likes creating jobs.
1. The fuel leak was from the wings. The Air Force mandated that the wings also had tanks even though Lockheed objected.
2. The SR-71 air frame was built in one building - 309 Plant B-6, Hollywood Way, Burbank California.
3. The project was black. Congress had no knowledge of it.
4. Branson's design is a cartoon.
That was cost-cutting.
Going supersonic isnt the problem, its doing it cost effectively and reducing the noises from sonic booms
How many small company's do you hear starting a SST not one has a flying prototype in over 10 years.Dreams Concorde was real D