Paris to New York in only 2 hours ... Airbus Mach 6 Commercial Plane
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- This concept aircraft is called the Drako, and it is a fantasy envisioning of the future of aviation as we know it today.
Its designed for trunk routes, those flown by aircraft like the Boeing 777 or the Airbus A350, between capitals like Paris and New York, or London to Singapore. But these planes will go much faster, clocking in under two hours between North America and Europe, and even quicker over the north pole to asia.
Unlike the planes of today, the hypersonic concept planes engines are decidely different. This aircraft has twin TBCC engines, or known as the Turbine-based Combined Cycles engine concept. This is how it works.
Its all about having the most efficent engine at the right speed. At low speeds, the plane uses a typical turbofan engine. Then when the aircraft is over the ocean, it will switch to its ramjet and move up to and beyond the sound barrier. The turbojet will then shut down until needed. While both engines will share an inlet and outlet for airflow, they will have speratee airflows inside the fuslage. the reverse process will also happen when the aircraft slows down for landing.
This would allow the aircraft to have a speed of up to mach 3 at 95,000 feet, or perhaps as fast as mach 6 where applicable. Because the aircraft moves so fast, its tail is effectively useless at steering at highspeeds - thus the design has two canards at the nose of the plane to allow for sterring at mach 3.
As regards to range, this will greatly depend on fuel. This radical design will require at least some form of hydrocarbons or ecofuel and its still unlikely by 2050 we will have any replacement as its so light and energy dense. For regional travel, aircraft will likely have switched to some form of electrical power, but thats a video for another time.
There are some major roadblocks before we see this technology become more fesible.
Namely the first is high speed legislation - particularlly towards sonic booms. In many countriesin the world, aircraft are not allowed to project a sonic boom while in flight as they go through their airspace - making such a concept impossible. Its possible that if an aircraft flew high enough that the boom would be minimal, but likely these aircraft would be restricted to specific corridors - like over the north pole, or only over oceans.
This aircraft is also missing some serious material science. The aircraft will require totally new material technology, to not only survive the high speeds without breaking up and be cheap enough for airlines to afford. Thus far the only mach 6 aircraft that is development, the SR-72, will cost easily a billion dollars each - double the list price of the Airbus A380. And we didn't even mention the cost to develop the aircraft for Boeing or Airbus. So if an airline wants this aircraft, it will have to be much cheaper.
Cooling will also be an issue for these aircraft. the skin of the aircraft (probably made of titanium) will get as hot as 1,100 degrees F during flight because of air friction, and thus there will have to be an internal cooling system such as liquid nitrogen in thousands of small tubes under the surface of the aircraf, as water just won't cut it. Especially if we want to take this concept from mach 3 up to mach 20 - the fastest aircraft ever made.
That leaves us with the last question, when?
Likely we will see hypersonic aircraft start with military, then become private business jets like gulfstream and boom, before entering the mainstream.
We know that that the military is working on several different ramjet and scramjet designs, that can push an aircraft up and to beyond mach six. One such project is the mysterious Lockheed SR 72, which is under development in the United States as the replacement for its spy plane program - which you can enjoy wawthcing here on the channel.
Other projects include the Boom supersonic Overture - the prototype aircraft was recrently unvailed this year and will likely start flight tests soon. United, Japan airlines and Virgin Atlanatic have all signed up to get these concorde mk2 aircraft.
There is also one other large company competiting in this avenue slowly biding their time - Boeing. Boeing has a long history of working on projects that go shockingly fast, and even at one point they were working on their own american version of the concorde, the Boeing 2707. So far there is no specific timeline for their concept aircraft, only that its 20-30 years away.
Looking over all the research for this video, you can't help but get a sense that this technology is about to usher in an inevitable wave of technological advancement, the future is coming and its coming faster than you think.
BUSINESS INQUIRES: Jared@foundandexplained.com
If you want to support the channel further, then jump onto Patreon.
www.patreon.com/foundandexplained
Ok
趁着美国总统拜登弱势任期内。动员全国力量2-3年兴建第一期台湾海峡铁索浮船桥连接台湾陆地。解放军舟桥部队专为战争环境兴建台湾海峡浮船桥。发扬红军精神大渡河铁索桥冒着枪林弹雨爬过铁索攻占桥头堡。平时全球自由航行，战时用船舰封锁通行。在最近台湾陆地大规模大面积填满半岛。驻扎解放军重装集团兵临台湾陆地。沿着台湾西海岸大规模大面积填满兴建公共房屋，免土地费供应台湾平民百姓。双方展开中央人民政府委任前主席洪秀柱台湾特区首任特首（习、洪会）和平回归谈判。符合美欧日要求台湾和平回归。台湾人民立即和平回归大中华。
俄罗斯超美国洲际氢弹威胁下。美国总统拜登见到俄罗斯总统立即低声下气永远不会核战。俄罗斯弱势舰队可以随时到美国太平洋基地附近横行。美国航母战斗群和F22战机没有任何影响力。是害怕俄罗斯强大的洲际氢弹毁灭美国本土的核力量。建议大陆兴建足够数量的、质量的（098）16000公里洲际氢弹核潜艇。陆基（东风51）洲际氢弹。东风十七（升级版东风二十七）射程四千公里部署大陆沿海岸威胁美国航母战斗群。中美两个超级大国必须核力量平衡。确保美国不能大中华统一台湾时核威胁。保证大中华千年世界第一。
。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
01:22 you got the wrong map of India, mate
No Window??? No passenger 🥱
@@saipranav7233long live ccp
"...between capitals like Paris and New York."
New York is a capital, you learn something new every day.
The best part is that it's not even the capital of its own state.
@@73_65 - well, I'll be... or is it Albany. : D
And I just learned that the capital of Singapore is Singapore. Everything is a scam.
@@Rajesh_Singh301 - Singapore is the capital of the "Republic of Singapore." : P
The United Nations building is in New York City so for practical purposes it is already the capital of Earth.
One little thing to keep in mind, these sorts of proposals are always 30 years away. Soon enough to happen in your life time, but long enough for you to forget all about it.
Nothing new was proposed here, I've heard all of this before. About 30 years ago.
To be fair a lot of concepts that were impossible less than 60 years ago are very possible today. Things to do with aviation as well as other realms of tech. These types of ideas, regardless of if they see the light of day or not end up inspiring the next generation of ideas. Innovation and evolution of concepts is required for us to keep moving forward. Granted I believe we are a lot more advanced behind closed doors and have access to technology that would appear to be magic to the layman. That's getting beyond the scope of this comment though.
I mean the most efficient and advanced airliners currently in service were conceptualized in the 80s or 90s
The front of the plane looks like a military drone nose with the notable bulb
It looks like the Valkyrie.
@@kitemanmusic but more bent
“Paris to New York in 2 hours!”
Concorde: *Am I a joke to you?!*
how about star ship
Musk said one hour
@@timlin8873 lol. You trust that
@@timlin8873 I seriously doubt that will be financially viable any time soon. Jet engines are far, far more efficient than rockets.
@@timlin8873 if it was new york to paris with starship would probably take less than 10 or 20 minutes.
That looks weird But at the same time cool!
It looks Hollywood. Right out of a Marvel movie.
It looks weird because of the nose
Looks so like it will get up and go
It looks like a fat valkyria
In fact, I'm seeing pretty the opposite, airliners getting slower, but saving more fuel, and being more reliable for the business.
It need bigger and longer wing then
If airliners keep getting slower then High Speed Trains would kill the aviation industry.
@@ChristIsKing4ever-l9w But high speed trains can't go over oceans... if they can, going over the ocean with floating tubes or seafloor tubes will be very expensive...
@@kerbodynamicx472 Not with Japan or China, those two would kill their entire economy to make those stupid trains better than planes. That's why supersonic planes are a priority.
@@ChristIsKing4ever-l9w I can see China building tens of thousands of kilometres of vacuum maglev trains across the every town and city you can see a name tag on the map, so does Japan. But building railways across the ocean? Probably not
While that nose shape seems sketchy at best, that's one heck of a good-looking aircraft
(Only a graphic?) but I think it would be to get the canards above and hence airflow clear of the main wing(s) (and engines). Typhoon has the same idea canards higher than the wings normal airflow.
Rear between the engines don't look right, clearly would get separation of the airflow therefore lots of drag.
Every time I watch your videos I’m amazed by the digital art work that you put in a lot of time and effort in making these never built aircrafts. Keep up the good work.
It feels like we are more likely to see point to point suborbital spacecraft then hypersonic passenger jets. 😐
born dead idea of supersonic jets , thanks for Starship of SpaceX
...No. intercontinental space travel is just taking every single problem of an hypersonic jet and multiplying them by three orders of magnitude.
If we don’t have the capacity to do the first, we’re definitely not gonna do the second.
@@nihluxler1890 U.S. Army are studying about using Starship to suborbital Flight
@@guilhermecardoso9818
For what purpose ?
@@guilhermecardoso9818
Apart from using it as an ICBM, which already exists, I really can’t see a point to it.
Airbus 2049: "Look at our brand new aircraft!"
Covid-48: "Hold on a sec..."
🤪😁
heart break in seconds
If we let out politicians fuck us over like this again then we're all fucking stupid.
@@TheRyujinLP the problem isn't our politicians or our medical community it is our ability to hold onto our loved ones
Do you know what's funnier than Covid-48?
Covid-57.
no way this plane will ever fly passengers. looks nice though.
Got to agree, they completely left out any mention of in air refueling, a critical aspect of the SR 71 and any other hypersonic craft's operation. The fuel consumption is enormous just getting airborne and above 20 K to reach a huge tanker the size of an A380 or 747. Musk's Starship is probably more likely to take any high speed travel market over vs the airlines venturing into such rare and costly territory.
Oh it can fly passengers, if you are willing to fork out 20k per ticket and ignore the sheer amount of emission per passenger per mile. Not to mention the lawsuits from blown eardrums.
They couldn't evacuate passengers fast enough to get approved for commercial use.
Flew
@Daniel Rodriguez Which is why SST is not gonna get mainstream until the costs come down, and it won't because you simply can't cheat physics. There is no physical way a SST can match the fuel mileage of a fuel efficiency designed subsonic jet and fuel costs are a huge part of operating costs. Not to mention the maintenance costs of a SST jet will likely make a normal jet look cheap.
Honestly, I'm glad the current air travel paradigm is based on fuel efficiency rather than speed. Saving a few hours for 5x to 10x the ticket price makes absolutely no sense. Human civilization has reach the point where we can get nearly to any part of the globe within 24 hours. Any better than that is just icing on the cake and probably required a lot of waste.
Hi definition displays would never ever replace windows. Your eyesight doesn’t require electricity and isn’t prone to failure like displays. Even with latency down to 0ms you would never convince bored officials it would be safe.
The cabin having displays is one thing, the cockpit being like a talon shrike just isn’t happening.
Pilots will always want to see out the front. Electronics fail. So you’ll have to at some point be able to see out and visualize a horizon. Gonna have to figure out at least a cockpit window.
Yep, I was thinking the same thing, unless the aircraft is fully automated, but if the computers fail again, there needs to be a way for a pilot to see out the cockpit window. Horrible idea, this Airbus aircraft.
@@thatguyalex2835 It's a flying coffin.
@@CThyran Agreed. But hey, if the coffin is safe, and we don't die, then this aircraft would be somewhat feasible. But I don't like the lack of windows.
Score: 0/10 poor design
@@thatguyalex2835 Outstanding logical argument, followed by the human need to look out the window to see stuff go nyoooooooom.
Score: 10/10 good comment construction
Call me a sceptic, but there was once an aeronautical engineer who said, if it looks right, it flys right.
This Airbus design just doesn't look right. Akin to cleaving through the air like a chest of drawers.
Good luck to em but I can't see it happening in this guise.
Back then the futuristic design of supersonic planes also seemed weird and „not right“ to most people because it was an innovation! Lets see what will happen to this concept here…
I think the design is based on an old 1970s Mach 3 interceptor or recon plane, like the SR-71 or the MiG-25. Two enormous engines with a minimal airframe to hold them together. Let's just scale that up by a factor of 4 or so, and give it the capability to carry passengers instead of weapons, right?
I shudder to think about the fuel costs, however. This thing is going to burn at least a couple hundred tons of fuel for a transatlantic flight with 50 passengers. Is this really worth it, in terms of both cost and environmental impact, especially considering that if you're crossing the Atlantic in 2 hours, then you will be spending most of your time first waiting at the airport to board, and then standing in line to pass through the border checkpoint when you arrive? The maintenance costs will be pretty serious, too - flying at Mach 3 or above will put *a lot* of aerodynamic and thermal stress on the airframe and the engines
It has front wing,its more like a military plane and the front padal is pointless,its gonna eat bunch of fuel and waste lots of stuff,and in mach 3 this design is quiet pointless. not just it ,the back wheel of this airple is extremely unreliable and the back side of the planr is not even high up in the air. Design like this mean the plane is going to crash when landing. This is some fan made military model made by someone and accidentally pick up as a fake news for france
3:24 this reminds me of the cockpit of one of the veritechs in Macross Plus.
"Who wants to look at clouds whizzing by, when you can literally be anywhere?" Wow, we've found yet another way to escape reality. Amazing how we fool ourselves ever more.
Congratulations on 100k subscribers my friend. 100’s more to come
thank you so much!
"Oops, I forgot to lock the passanger module, my bad."
No thanks.
Just let me board the plane itself.
Someone has been watching Thunderbirds again....
Lol, my first reaction was " _do you want to look at the window or get there fast?_ " =)
Updated valkyrie with elements of Tomcat , Thunderbird 2. And the Vulcan , Sr71/ oxcart.
Why does it look like a refueling connection point, on the top near where the cockpit would be located ?
Probably because a Mach 3 plane would burn too much fuel to be able to make it across an ocean, and would need mid-air refueling?
Back to the Future?
It's got XB-70 written all over it.
To me, the lack of windows everywhere seems like a major risk. It should have at least cockpit windows, just in case.
Well.. brittish airways .. I think it was flight 4, landet without Windows.... but I sure prefer the pilot having Windows... well not Microsoft windows
I have a question;why would you need Windows when you have cameras literally everywhere, synthetic aperture radar that replaces the need to see out and the fact that if the cameras fail, your going to die anyway as the momentary loss of power makes the plane go out of control and disintegrate?
@@Shinzon23 A window don´t work like a screen. In a window you can shift angle.
" anyway as the momentary loss of power makes the plane go out of control and disintegrate?"
Not really, all current airliners (and probobly future as well) is dynamically stable. That is if all control is lossed, the aircraft will just keep gliding. There is even example of aircraft that landed them self just by being trimmed with a dead crew.
@@matsv201 not for a hypersonic aircraft. Any loss of control stability and the plane disintegrates. They have this issue for missiles going high mach, and a SR71 came apart when it had issues at full speed as well.
@@Shinzon23 Not really. A aircraft can be stable at hypersonic speeds as well. Note SR71 is not hypersonic. The reason why the specific SR71 broke up had nothing to do with the very high speed, but rather by asymmetric thrust. This is a effect of the engines being very far apart. In a commercial aircraft the engines would be put closer together to avoid this problem.
Congratulations on 100k subscribers man! can't say it enough 🎊
3:59 found the airbus mega transport plane
Holy mackerel. This was thought up after a joint or 2
This really looks like something came out from the Macross universe
What are the fuel consumption implications of cruising on a ramjet? What are the maintenance costs on an air-breathing engine that is exposed to speeds above Mach 3? At this point, it might be cheaper to build a suborbital vehicle that goes out of the atmosphere and therefore doesn't have to deal with aerodynamic or thermal stresses so much.
Also, speeds of Mach 3 are achievable with normal turbofan engines (see MiG-25, SR-71, etc), so is the ramjet really necessary if Mach 3 is the goal? Why not build a scaled-up version of a MiG-25, remove the radar and weapons payload, lighten the airframe and the engines by using light-weight heat-resistant modern materials instead of steel (yes, the MiG-25 was built of steel in order to save money, making it extremely heavy for its size), and replace the reduced weight with passengers and extra fuel?
SR 71 has a bypass around the jet engine. Similar to the bypass in the video. It switches to RAM jet at Mach 3.
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt Ah, makes sense, so that's how they got around the turbine damage issues that the MiG-25 had above Mach 2.8. However, I wonder if turbines could be pushed to higher speeds with modern materials? Things must have improved since the 1970s, right?
@@alexeyvlasenko6622 The MiG also has an afterburner, just they could not feed enough air into it without the bypass. Modern materials sure help, but the nice thing is that you don't need a turbine for efficiency anyway at that speed.
I've believe it when the hyperloop actually works.
About that structure cooling...somewhere I've seen a NASA paper that discusses active cooling of structures for hypersonic flight, but they were discussing building a hypersonic craft out of aluminum.
Interesting episode but the aircraft looks a little awkward 🤷
Looks a bit like a scaled-up MiG-25, but with canards instead of the horizontal tail fins
Most Airbus airplanes look awkward. Look at the A-380 for context.
This plane is still slower than an SR-71 and it had windows. If I was a pilot, I would want the glass just in case.
What if an Su-27 was faster than an SR-71 and bigger than a 777? What if it had room for 200 passengers? Dang that thing looks good but it seems more likely to end up being used as a bomb truck or a military transport just given the fuel needs and high price. Just think of the bomb load that thing could carry, or what 200 cruise missiles could do launched at once!
Who wants to see clouds wizzing by? DUDE I WOULD LOVE TO LOOK DOWN AND SEE STUFF FLY BY AT MACH 3
We have already built engines that switch from turbo jet to scram jet. The commercial application is a long ways away. I would love to see 95,000 ft. If you are high enough to escape atmosphere, ou don't hve much of a problem with a sonic boom.
Idk, how is it going to combat the sonic booms.
Just sounds like a a SR 71 for people and cargo.
In 2049, sonic booms combat you
Tell people to suck it up?
@@Shinzon23 That was the original plan in the United States. Despite doing sonic boom testing in the early '60s, we didn't pass a law banning supersonic flight over the U.S. until the point that it was known there would be no Boeing SST.
@@rpsmith2990 Seriously, I spent my childhood living in the Soviet Union near an air force base. One gets used to the sonic booms, they are no worse than thunderstorms, and certainly not as bad as living near a train track. I'm not sure why people make such a big deal about them while giving a pass to all the other forms of modern noise pollution.
Actually at the altitude these aircraft would cruise anyways them going mach 2+ would impact people on the ground pretty much not at all.
This looks like a civil version of high altitude hypersonic bomber.
XB-70 Valkyrie? Such a pretty looking aircraft.
On a similar note, I think a slight cockpit extension of an SR-71 could make a decent business jet for billionaires.
Just give me a lay flat seat, a glass of wine, and an overnight flight
You used a propfan to represent the propeller era. But those are powered by a jet turbine!
When you are so fast at releasing videos that you don't even get sponsors for the video ...so you have to sponsor yourself😂😂
4:00 Like the reference in the background
You are never likely to see a windowless airliner due to safety regulations. Windows aren't just there to provide passengers a view but it's also a major safety feature. If there is an emergency and passengers need to quickly disembark, they need to be able to see outside to make sure their exit is clear of any dangers. Using cameras in lieu of windows runs the risk of an electrical failure or something else from potentially preventing them from being able to see outside and even perhaps more importantly, it prevents emergency crews from being able to see into the aircraft. There is a reason why window blinds on aircraft need to be left open during taxi, takeoff and landing.
The television screen concept has been a popular one (and a cool one at that) but I very much doubt for the reasons I put above that it's ever going to see the light of day on a passenger airliner due to safety issues
This is immensely impractical and completely out of its time considering how inefficient such high speeds are.
Yes, and even if you're set on going supersonic, it is extremely difficult to go from Mach 2.5 to Mach 3 or above. There are a host of problems that appear in this range: overheating, aerodynamic stress on engines and airframe leading to huge maintenance costs, the need to switch from a normal turbojet to afterburners or ramjets (which increases fuel consumption by *a lot*), etc. A plane that cruises at Mach 3 will literally cost ten times as much per flight as one that cruises at Mach 2.5. Why would anyone bother with this huge extra cost for a relatively small boost in speed?
I read somewhere that the SR-71 cost something like a million dollars per flight to operate. Another Mach 3 plane, the MiG-25, was comparatively cheap to build and operate, but it could only sustain speeds above Mach 2.3 for a few minutes due to overheating, and if it exceeded Mach 2.8, there was a good chance that the engines would be damaged beyond repair. At this point, if you're really in a hurry, a reusable suborbital rocket might be a better option.
@@alexeyvlasenko6622 any speed higher than what is necessary is difficult. Not only do the required wing sweeps lead to bad low speed handling and high takeoff speeds, requiring immense pilot skill and longer runways.
It also needs to be considered that force required to achieve higher speed rises with the square of given velocity.
In an age where efficoency is the main goal, a mach 3 aircraft is a mistake at best.
This would briliantly work
… But only in world where fuel is as infinite as Ocean water.
The future when fuel *is* ocean water
2049, pretty sure it's more likely by then Paris will be a distopian ghetto than hosting a supersonic paassenger jet...
Charles de Gaulle demonstrates that it can do both.
At least if it's a dystopian ghetto, no one will care about sonic booms
In the 2040s, money will have been replaced with the nostalgia baiting SHEEESHcoin.
SHEEEESH!!
Lame.
Your animations and renderings are getting better-keep up the good work!
Glad you like them!
"Windows are a structural weakness"... Somebody plays Mass Effect :)
It was interesting but as it relies on a SCramjet it's not likely to happen given how difficult they are to get working. (The fact it "tops-out" at Mach 6 tells me it doesn't even NEED a SCramjet as a standard sub-sonic combustion ramjet works fine at those speeds and arguably any speed needed till around Mach 10. The added complexity and mechanics needed to initiate and sustain supersonic combustion just won't be worth it for any civilian application)
Less goo, finally yt updated it
101k subs!! 👏🏻🍻
We need one... As of now, from New York to Bangkok it takes like 18 hours of nonstop flight... Need to cut that in half and cost like $1000, not $5000....
The combination of quality and quantity of videos you make every couple of days is staggering!
I'm really glad I discovered and subbed about a month ago. Back then I thought you had a nice "Mustard-esque" channel but now the tables have turned and it feels like this is the premier league!
Glad you enjoy it!
Now that you mention it, its rather funny that in the last video of theirs, they actually took inspiration from many of my 3d shots.
@@FoundAndExplained That's because no one can resist Aussie soft power. The tables are turning!
If you also start covering trains (and then perhaps cars starting from V8 supercars ofc) then it's over for everyone else, you'll have won hearts and minds.
On a serious note, very well done with the amount of output you produce!
How many hours is your workweek with the two channels? If I had your skills I'd still need a body double just to keep up
I would love to see it, but I wouldn’t want to be on it’s first flight.😉 Oh, and I wouldn’t be heart broken if the front end was a little more pleasing to the eye.
Agreed, NGL this concept isn't the most visually pleasing design
It looks like a mouse to me😂
Concorde shows that there is no mass market for commercial supersonic flight. this concept have similar economic sense as Concorde.
It's a crying shame all the minds of the world can't even figure out a way to negate or significantly reduce sonic boom.
Its been what best part of a century and no innovation is seen in this area of Aviation..
the “modular airframe” sounds like the type of thing that shouldn’t be integrated until well after they’ve made… a commercially viable airframe in the first place
if it were easy to do then conventional subsonic flights would probably already be doing it- but they aren’t, and that’s because unforeseen complexities can arise with integrating even one new technology into a prior concept, let alone rethinking the concept altogether
There's a host of examples of how it's a red herring to ask "if it were better, why aren't they using it now?"
Plenty of oddball aircraft that did as well or better than conventional, and "the market" not only ignores but quashes it.
"If it looks right, it'll fly right" is a refuge for mediocrity and ignorance & conformity.
@@JFrazer4303 the spirit of my critique is to say that modular and supersonic airframes are each nontrivial to build on their own, let alone to independently integrate as part of a larger, more ambitious ensemble of technical advancements, each bringing their own challenges
you can easily understand how it would be more difficult to implement many sweeping changes in a complicated system like an aircraft all at once, as opposed to iteratively introduce one or two at a time, so that any unforeseen interactions can be documented and corrected, rather than trying to innovate in multiple directions simultaneously- it feels as though this concept is trying to ingest too many radical changes in one sitting
At mach 6 you can fly from London to New York in less than 30 minutes (there would be little point in having stewards onboard to serve the passengers).
Congratulations for your 100K subs
Those engines! Whew…
This plane is beautiful and it’ has the colors of Air France planes. 😁
Need a hypersonic (M5.0) biz jet 🛩
Those are the people that can justify the development costs and new tech which will filter down into designs for airliners
The problem is as it has already been stated is that no one needs this anymore and the ones that would want to go on vacation don't really need to go that fast anyway. What they need to focus on now is space planes as also already stated, which should be the next direction anyway. And also, this design is based on older planes and it needs to be scraped for something more modern.
congrats on 100k subs :D
So this plane literally has a COFFIN system from Ace Combat? Sick.
I was looking for someone to comment something about Ace Combat as soon as I saw the ThumbNail. It just came straight out from Ace Combat 3 Eletrosphere (And Macross Vintage anime from the 80's I think)
0:06 who noticed the an-225 in the back?
Honestly, hypersonic travel makes wayyy more sense than supersonic because the time savings over the PACIFIC, not Atlantic, will be day and night difference. Passengers will finally be able to travel across the Pacific without being tired, such as from San Francisco to Tokyo or, at the very extreme, London to Sydney, because the flight will no longer take almost an entire day and instead be shortened to less than 3 hours. Even supersonic won't fix this problem, especially with the ever-increasing population of elders, but hypersonic will. 3 hours is an important target to meet because many 80+ elders can't handle being mostly stuck in their seat for longer than that. With hypersonic flights, 90-year old elders from Australia, assisted by their descendants of course, can finally visit their relatives in the UK without health concerns from travel.
80 year olds need to keep their old asses at home.
@@superskullmaster
You don't want your Grandma to visit you? Who are you to ban the elderly from flying?
Anyone else remember the 1970's TTA sci-fi series by Stewart Cowley? Because to me, this design somewhat resembles an Interstellar Queen starliner from that universe.
So it hasn't been built yet ; Is only on paper,right?
Congrats to 100k
Looks like something Derek Meddings might have made for a Gerry Anderson show.
Great Vid! Personally I think Space X starship has more potential for supersonic flight than any other prototypes currently out!
wow this plane looks great!
the greens , will have a fit
Omg can t wait to fly in this!
Regreted the concorde...
With today's technology this is dead in the water. Even with very low fuel prices this plane would be too expensive to build and fly.
Problem of this idea is thinking this is needed, people will need to move less and less for business with a world more connected to the internet, business travels will be a thing of the past and for vacation traveling nobody needs to go mach 3 inside a windowless plane. Concord shown us we don't need planes so fast, so expensive and so dangerous.
@@TuriusRay If you live in europe and you wanna travel to Australia or to China you don't want to spend so many hours on a plane flying too slow make it there in less than 1 day. This plane would definitely change that so it would serve more purpose in very long range travels for vacations.
@@ChristIsKing4ever-l9w Yes but that planes will be too expensive, companies have found that bigger or faster planes than a 747 are not worth...
@@TuriusRay For Jumbo Jets yes they're pretty much doomed, but companies are trying to make planes faster and it's actually a good thing because 1. you'd be able to go for buisness trips and for example, you live in Italy but you have a buisness in Japan and Supersonic and hypersonic planes are gonna help that. 2. Fast planes are the only thing that can prevent HSR from killing the aviation industry.
This is never gonna get past the scaled-down prototype stage
10% plane ,90% engine
*4000% baguette*
Looks like a redesigned Concorde of the future
Everybody gangsta til the display panels on the cockpit start glitching or goes black
Where the term blue screen of death is literal
Can you do a video on Skylon / Reaction Engines LAPCAT A2 ?
I've been watching too many airplane crash documentaries. So I'm thinking of all the problems that could occur😢
What about the sonic boom, that's what stopped the Concorde from operating on a wide scale as it wasn't allowed to go supersonic over land. So London to Singapore would not be an option.
It looks great, In aviation history there were many planes that people said could not be built and they were, same with space ships. Technology is moving so fast now with computer aided designs.
This plane will get built and fly.
Jets were implemented into aircraft over 70 years ago. Progress seems to have stifled since then. I am sure that planes are way more fuel efficient today, but we dont care to much about that in our dreams of cool planes. The concord counted as progress, but it failed and efforts to build supersonic planes ended with it. I wouldn't grant humanity anything it didn't deserve over something as superficial as A jet plane, but it is striking how meager airplane technology has progressed over such A long period. I bet you could document years and years where automobile gas engines did not progress as well, although the availability of electric certainly counts as an exciting development. In G-d I trust.
I wish they would make it look a bit more like the XB-70-its nearly there already!
So you want Airbus to copy like they usually do instead of coming up with their own stuff?
@@superskullmaster
Yeah, why not? They're doing well!
On that opening shot the 737 looks the size of one of the engines on this thing.
Well, the biggest hurdle is always a lack of vision. If you don’t dream it, you can’t build it.
Exactly, all the naysayer engineers here are a bore.
A blend between the functionality of the sr71 propulsion system and the XB70 Valkyrie.
Yeah, I had similar thoughts.
It looks like a giant fighter jet
Absolutely not required in present day time and foreseeable future.Fighter air crafts must enjoy air superiority over commercial as far speed is concerned.
30yrs before the wright flyer... flying was only a dream
3 decades is a loooong time ;)
This may be true but technology typically has a boom period then it slows dramatically. We have already had our boom period. We went to the moon in the 1960’s with computers that a 1st grader would laugh at yet we are having struggles going back.
Without windows, especially pilot windows no one will board this plane.
Fantasy or not, this aircraft or one like it will eventually become a reality in our future.
Whether or not this particular plane flies, the whole "inside is a giant screen" will most definitely be the future of all transport, plane and train to start and as self-driving vehicles become dependable enough human's don't have to monitor them, inside cars as well. I've often thought this is the only thing lacking, for example, from Elon Musk's hypersonic tube transport...mainly are people just supposed to stare at the walls as they whiz along at numerous times the speed of sound in a closed tube, etc.
That technology also has a very direct use in space travel. Imagine embarking on a nine month trip to Mars and being able to either have the entire room around you behave like a giant window (so you could see the vastness of space as if you were outside and not requiring a bulky spacesuit, etc.) **OR** showing any of several thousand (million?) different nature scenes, etc.
I see a flaw. If there is an emergency crash landing, and the cabin screen is inoperative, how can people see outside of the aircraft and know how to exit? There could be a fire near the rear exit, but no fire near the front exit
Use correct Maps, when you use one. Your videos are so detailed, it throws us off when you show a chunk of our country as seperate
👍Perfect only one thing left now is vertical take-off and landing engines inside its wings
It reminds me heavily of a more streamlined XB-70 Valkyrie.
Yeah, that is what I thought. Something vaguely resembling an XB-70, with certain features that look more like an SR-71.
The way they phrased "using scramjet technology developed in 2021" was totally done in a way to keep the viewer engaged with the false expectation that this was right around the corner. Only once you've made it far enough into the video to give them some extra ad revenue do they reveal we lack the technology to make this right now.