Boeing 2707 - too ambitious

[@forbiddencrisis4149]

It was named Boeing 2707 because that is the year when Boeing actually produces one

[@grahamturner2640]

LOL.

[@rageikku9398]

@@grahamturner2640 same lol

[@membershipofbus]

2 for Boeing means a supersonic Boeing aircraft

[@w4vy]

Just wanted to say how much I enjoy this channel bro. You put out really good quality video's so thank you Sky.

[@charlesmadisonrhea]

I like this guy & his presentation. Some good, solid information and some interesting video clips. No fluff

[@Dr_Augustus_MD]

Very well done. It was both interesting and entertaining.

[@Phrancis5]

A Valkyrie-based passenger plane would've been awesome!

[@EricIrl]

@FangABXY FangABXY Yes. Converting bombers to airliners doesn't work very well. However, a Valkyrie BASED airliner would have had a different fuselage.
It would never have happened as the XB-70 was an extremely complex machine - expensive to build and expensive to operate.

[@binaway]

There was a North American proposal based on the XB-70. The North American NAC-60. The folding outer wing panel for supersonic compression lift was deemed to dangerous for a commercial airliner.

[@dahawk8574]

That airliner would have had audio pumped into all passenger seats playing Wagner on every channel.

[@dahawk8574]

​@FangABXY FangABXY, just as Ericlrl explained, an airliner BASED on the XB-70 would have had a heavily modified fuselage.
Just like how the B-17 had an airliner based on it with a much wider fuselage: the Boeing 307 Stratoliner.
And how the B-29 also had an airliner based on it with a much wider fuselage: the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser.

[@danpatterson8009]

Never heard of that before. Amazing.

[@BoldUlysses]

Oh HELL yes. Cannot wait to watch this one. Just finished an excellent book on the failures and missteps of the Tu-144, so I'm primed and ready for more SST content!
Love this channel!

[@cgunugc]

Yo, what's the name of that book? I want to read that.

[@astrakboat]

Bold was that the book by howard moon?

[@BoldUlysses]

@@astrakboat Yes! Here it is:
www.amazon.com/Soviet-SST-Techno-Politics-Howard-Moon/dp/051756601X/
I just wish he or someone would update it. Copyright 1989 and a LOT of new insight has come out since then. Still a great read though.

[@genghissmith4949]

Ian Harding French.

[@genghissmith4949]

Hooha888 Always do.

[@bunkie2100]

My dad, who was an executive for a European airline, toured the 2707 and 747 mockups in Seattle in the late ‘60s. I always envied his experience.

[@ddoyle11]

Great video, as usual. The SST was just too expensive to operate and the sonic boom problem insurmountable. Still, I am ready for the next paradigm shift in passenger plane evolution.

[@callenclarke371]

I think I'm right in saying this is the best and most detailed presentation of the American SST yet produced. Well done.

[@WildBill-kf2pc]

They should have never stopped the Concord. I saw it once. It flew into the San Francisco Bay Area. Wheels up and down along with the nose up and down. The noise was just like any other jet a Beautiful machine.

[@robertromero8692]

Easy to say when you're not paying the bills!

[@WildBill-kf2pc]

Robert Romero If you want to stay in the Stone Age it’s ok with me.

[@RobertR3750]

@@WildBill-kf2pc If you want to pay the bill to "move forward", it's ok with me. BTW, not having an SST hardly means that we live in the "stone age".

[@cebolenkosimaposa2030]

It was un-economical and too expensive to maintain. they were losing money each time it took off

[@timfenton7469]

I grew up during those days but I never knew the comprehensive story behind those planes. Thanks, that was interesting and fun.

[@catherinenelson4162]

Me too! I grew up near an air force base, and the early supersonics would make sonic booms right over our house ( test flights). It was like very loud, mini earthquakes each time!

[@MrKarlyboy]

The Brits did an amazing job to pull it off, and get their Concorde in the air, and boy was it an amazing plane, and flagship. Watching the Skylon project with interest as it develops. The reaction engines technology is just mind blowing.

[@cancelanime1507]

That’s for space travel though

[@cancelanime1507]

And those engines would be to much of a gas guzzler to ever work in the commercial industry

[@paulshepherd1348]

They certainly did......and to my mind is the only successful supersonic airliner to date... The Air France accident and 911 combined was sadly Concordes death knell. Very sad.

[@martinhughes2549]

@@paulshepherd1348 Concorde if it had a significant production run, would have been upgraded and developed. Concorde used loads of fuel however its flight time was less, less stress on engines and avionics etc. ( high fuel consumption for half the time) So it's not quite as uneconomic as sometimes implied. I think it's small passenger capacity and relatively limited range (for transAtlantic) flights limited destinations. You could just about fly Paris/New York, but not Vienna-New York for example.

[@paulshepherd1348]

@@martinhughes2549 I agree... infact the British Airways Concordes were significantly upgraded I believe, so much so, that by the time all Concordes were withdrawn from service, the British Aiways and Air France Concordes were very different aircraft. So who knows where it would have lead to had timing and circumstances been on Concorde's side. But it was still great to see it had an almost 30 year run in commercial service.

[@williamgeorgefraser]

At the end of 1974, I was living near Toulouse in Southern France. One day, I was sitting on my bed reading a book when Concorde went overhead. The sonic boom was so loud and unexpected that I literally jumped off the bed. The windows vibrated but fortunately didn't break.

[@donlarson679]

I was fortunate enough to be working for a company and had to run between Europe and the US every other week. My promotion got me the perk of using concord if I wanted to. IF IT WANTED TO? Hell, I didn't cross the Atlantic any other way for a solid year or longer. It was in the mid-1990s before the Concord did itself in.I live in California but would often fly to NYC on a Red-Eye and hop on Concorde to my trip to Paris or London. It was an amazing experience. My wife and I were invited to a New Years' day celebrations on Concorde. We saw the midnight pass and the sun come up in over twenty nations that evening. The cost of the journey was $4k each passenger, with deep discounts for Concorde Frequent Flyers. A few years later we played "Santa" and deliver gifts to children in cities all around the globe. What an amazing experience that was. I became friends with Joan Collins and her sister Jackie and spent two Christmases with them - one in Paris and the other in London. While Jackie's books were steamy, however when she filled you in on what really happened to her and others, the book soon paled when compared to the truth. Donald and Ivanka Trump frequently flew Concord. None of the celebs liked him and most avoided conversation with him at all costs. He was a LOUT and everyone knew it. The Concorde experience gave me memories most men in their 30's would never have. Whatever my company paid for those tickets, they were worth their weight in gold just on the basis of who I met and became friends with on those flights.

[@phonicwheel933]

*_@donlarson679_* What a terrific experience. You must have had a great job.😊

[@901EE]

I visited Boeing in 1962 and was escorted through the 2707 flight simulator which at that time was a huge pile of hybrid digital and analog computers connected to a cockpit and monitors. At that time they also had a 727 airframe hooked up to dozens of hydraulic cylinders to simulate takeoff and landing cycles. Quite a fascinating adventure.

[@AtheistOrphan]

901EE - In 1962? Are you sure it was that year? This from Wikipedia: ‘Kennedy introduced the National Supersonic Transport program on June 5, 1963 in a speech at the US Air Force Academy.’ So I can’t see how a simulator was constructed before the program was even announced.

[@901EE]

@@AtheistOrphan yes. I was there.

[@theweatherlizard2094]

The funny thing is that I was looking up supersonic planes and when I came to UA-cam this was the first
thing on my recommended

[@watchgoose]

don't you wonder how that happens?

[@stalincat2457]

Yes.... "Funny"... 🤔

[@sudonim7552]

Google shares all it's information with the UA-cam algorithm soooo

[@adamfoster7497]

@@sudonim7552 what about when you discuss thing with friends then it appears on social media or in suggestions on here

[@michaelesposito2629]

That’s not really funny.

[@prabhakarkmv4135]

Good,knowledgeable video.I am an aviation buff.I, as a boy of 15 yrs,I made a Model of Concorde just by seeing the picture of it in a magazine,Reader's Digest,and displayed it in a Science Fair on behalf of my school and won first prize for the Concord Model! More videos plz!

[@stephenwevans]

In end, it wouldn't have saved the idea of an American SST, but Lockheed was probably the best bet for making it work. They had the most experience with high speed aircraft. Today, look into Boom Supersonic. Promising things happening there. The dream isn't dead, just taking a slightly different road. Thanks for featuring this ambitious aircraft, it's one of my favorites.

[@MrDaiseymay]

It is now, August 2023, and 'Boom' has bust. (i.e. abandond.

[@khapho]

Finally, the best video ever of Boeing 2707 is finally back
Thank you SkyShips Eng

[@respxnd1321]

Thank you for the knowledge, now I can officially make a very fast and smooth paper airplane.

[@oliversmith9200]

I was a boy living in Oklahoma City, and remember the period of sonic boom testing there. The windows would rattle. Us kids thought it was wonderful.

[@Giorgiamelonitiamo]

thanks Sky I am always happy to see new videos from you, you have beaten the Discovery Channel, your videos are better and more often, i am really happy to see all your videos

[@benranson8424]

Amazing collection of archive footage, and great scriptwriting, like in all your videos. Subbed!

[@johnbockelie3899]

I remember when Boeing was going to build this plane.

[@roscoepatternworks3471]

My dad worked on the Boeing mockup. I still have a print of the sst flying over Seattle. It was given to him by his supervisor.

[@davidjames666]

The Supervisor had no right giving away stolen property. give it back.

[@repentuklondonwatchman1373]

Lovely Job, As Always, Young Brother SKY

[@glennworton2494]

It failed because it was too expensive to operate - My father was head of procurement for a major airline at the time, and we discussed it -

[@jeremiahfix5529]

I was just about too say, there are resources to do it, but people are not willing to pay the big ticket prices necessary to operate a super sonic plane commercially.

[@dahawk8574]

18:00 - He just says "serious subsidies". He held back from saying that their governments basically GAVE them all their Concordes basically for FREE. They were charged one pound/franc at all for each airframe, and not charged a single penny for development costs. Their governments ATE all of that loss, and STILL the airlines could not continue operating these jets in a way that made economic sense. Both BA & Air France QUIT the Concorde, even after being given this outrageous gift.
That is how inefficient supersonic flight is, compared to subsonic.
So the full picture is that it failed because it was too expensive to operate, even if you don't count the ginormous money pit you dug yourself into by developing the aircraft. BOTH development and operational costs need to be considered if you are going to attempt to make a profit. And because if fails on both counts, this is why no one today does supersonic airliners. Not even one single example of a supersonic business jet. The Jeff Bezos's and Bill Gates's of the world don't have anything to select from, because there are not enough of the people who have no concern about money to justify the development and manufacture of one single supersonic business jet.
SST fuel consumption simply cannot compete with the efficiency of subsonic flight. There are just not enough people who are willing to pay orders of magnitude more money just to shave off a bunch of minutes in their travel time.

[@dahawk8574]

...to shave minutes off of their flights _across the oceans,_ that is. Of course the other huge limitation is the need for people on the ground to not get continually boomed by SST overflight.

[@njones420]

@@dahawk8574 i think you mean *5 hours* off the normal paris - new york time

[@suddhojitgon5929]

Fabulous video. Very informative. Narration was top class.

[@michaelogden5958]

I really enjoy your videos. Personally, I believe there is *nothing* that justifies the resources wasted on supersonic flight for self-important civilians. Having said that, I happened to be in the parking lot of a grocery store near Dallas Texas and happened to see a Concorde fly directly above, presumably in a landing pattern. It was cool, but WAYYYY loud, even at subsonic speed. Cheers!

[@phonicwheel933]

*_@michaelogden5958_* Yes, the Olympus engine is noisy and it has a tearing sound, especially on take off, when the afterburners are on. 😊

[@alext8828]

Circa 5:06. Engineers built a mockup of the plane and can't get it out the door. Ha!
"This is typical." Basil Fawlty.

[@williamgeorgefraser]

A guy in my town spent 10 years building a concrete yacht in his back garden. When it was finished, he couldn't find a crane big enough to lift it over the house. He ended up having to smash it to bits.

[@lfox02]

Right on time Sky. Now I get to eat my dinner with an excellent video on the American SST! Thanks.

[@bobgoddard8582]

I worked for Pratt-Whitney R & D in W. Palm Beach in the 1960s. We were in a competition with G.E. for the SST engine contract. I worked on the cockpit simulation using two Beckman analog computers for engine dynamics. Exciting times for our industry. We lost the competition for the engine contract to G.E., resulting in the loss of jobs for many P&W employees (luckily I kept mine!).. The resulting cancellation of the whole SST project ended up costing the jobs of many GE and Boeing team members. Such were the dynamics of the aerospace industry in the 1960s-1970s.

[@georgemallory797]

As a young boy, I remember my dad telling me about the soon to be produced SST. I don't remember when it occurred to me that it was not going to happen. I guess I got distracted with boyhood things. Years later, I remember feeling like governments were not to be trusted after Watergate and SST.

[@mildpigeon]

That time lapse clip was awesome!

[@PaulStewartAviation]

Awesome! I'll watch this tonight over dinner. I can't wait for Boeing to put this aircraft on proper display (hopefully) at the Museum of Flight :D

[@colinw7205]

@10:25 re:the tail mounted engines,."... a gorgeous solution. Not realized in the end of course but still gorgeous." Sky after that comment I'd LAMO! . As a 60 yr old child of the Apollo Program. I remember that aviation promise. It was to be the Boeing 747 first then followed closely by the Boeing 2707 SST. For us the inauguration of 747 flights in 1970 was a source of national pride.

[@ahorsewithnoname643]

One problem I have heard mentioned about the rear mounted engines was airflow disruptions as the wing moved. All the military swingwing aircraft mentioned in this video have inlets ahead of the wing, avoiding disruptions to airflow and possible engine flame outs.

[@Speedbird61]

Concorde is still the most beautiful airliner in the World, no matter what country you are from. 😍😎

[@branon6565]

Speedbird61 .....no, not really, top 5 of course, but nowhere near the most beautiful aircraft on the planet....

[@usmale4915]

Great video. Very educational and entertaining, I appreciate all of your work you put into your videos. Thank you for the upload!

[@AMStationEngineer]

"Noise abatement", at virtually every major airport, was a battle which the SST had zero chance of winning, and the program was cancelled in 1971. The "during ocean crossings only" requirement, was thought to be a way towards resumption of the American SST program, which had been 'back burnered' until more acceptable technology was developed. The bear market which ensued after the 1973/1974 stock market crash, and by October, 1973, the OAPEC Oil Embargo - completed the trifecta which combined to ditch the program forever.
If there are any C-22's still flying, they'd very likely be the only examples of the 727 without those horrific "hush kits". A ride in a 727 which isn't "corked",,, that'll never happen again...

[@stejer211]

You make it sound like less jet engine noise is a bad thing?

[@dahawk8574]

It is NOT the sonic boom/noise abatement problems which doomed the SST. Nor the stock market crash.
If those were the fundamental reasons, then we would have seen supersonic airliners developed for transoceanic routes, Atlantic and Pacific, during a period when the economy was doing well. That never happened.
And the reason why this never happened is exactly as explained in this video: it simply cannot compete economically for the fuel efficiencies which are realized when flying subsonic.
Notice how there are a grand total of ZERO supersonic airliners today. There has been no market at all, because the minutes you save are not worth the many many times more money you need to spend on buying the ticket which pays for the extra fuel.
Now say that you are a cost-is-no-object kind of person. There are plenty of these kinds of people in the world. These people buy their own jets to fly themselves around. Now look at how many supersonic business jets there are. Here too, you find a grand total of ZERO. Because even with the obscenely rich, there are not enough of these cost-is-no-object kind of people to have created a large enough market to develop so much as one single supersonic transport aircraft.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the stock market. It is not noise abatement issues which have stopped this. It is simply the fact that flying supersonic is grossly inefficient, and that it does not make sense to spend orders of magnitude more money just to shave off a bunch of minutes to get where you are needing to go. There are lots of wealthy people in the world. But not enough of them who are willing to pay for the development of one single SST even for the business jet market.
Look at the sea, and all the obscenely oppulent yachts that are sold to these people. The huge difference between a boat that floats and goes 1000 knots is the outrageous development costs.
And that is why, in the year 2020, there is not one single example of a non-military supersonic aircraft flying today.
As this video explained, the only two which were ever built and flown both turned out to be FINANCIAL DISASTERS.

[@AMStationEngineer]

No, that wasn't even attempted; what I will say, and I was a repositioning flight pilot for EAL through 1986, is that the modifications made to silence high bypass turbofan aircraft via "hush kits" caused more problems than they solved: I'll leave it at that.
More than one type of aircraft was affected: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush_kit#Use
Noise abatement measures need not be limited to modifications affecting EPR performance, and new housing situated close to airports, and especially that which is constructed along both runway headings is ill advised. Engine thrust stolen through exhaust baffling may have contributed to losses in life and property. New engine designs since the CFM-56 series offer the best possible performance, efficiency, and are far less responsible for noise pollution than their predecessors.

[@AMStationEngineer]

It was zero fuel efficiency, maintenance costs, and the fact that the entire range of petroleum based fuels would never approach pre-1973 levels, which doomed supersonic design. Civilian aircraft cannot make use of hydrazine, and the hydrazine based fuels which military aircraft have access to, to enhance power ratios - allowing more efficient transonic operations.
Had fuel pricing retreated to pre 1973 pricing, I'm certain that SST research would have been taken on in the private sector. Fuel shortages, pricing, anti-pollution initiatives, noise reduction in urban areas, and several other factors, combined with public attitudes, to effectively quell the thought of faster than sound travel, and that mood will very likely not change in my lifetime.

[@maitele]

@@AMStationEngineer your last comment is patently absurd.
No military jet runs off *hydrazine.* No military jet *has* run off of hydrazine to my knowledge. Military jets use Jet A and/or Jet B fuel just like everyone else.

[@roger72715]

I stumbled upon this amazing channel. its 4 am in the morning

[@therocinante3443]

Awesome to learn again something I learned in the 80's. Very informative.

[@andreferro4618]

?????????

[@cancelanime1507]

This was the 60s and 70s

[@andreferro4618]

@@cancelanime1507 You're right. That's Civil Aviation HISTORY... HISTORY is been told all the time... I don't get his point... Greetings from Brazil!

[@ih8temoney]

16:03 The B1 Lancer is the end result of all that development. The Military liked it.

[@Hattonbank]

So Boeing designed and built the Lancer did they?

[@veronicacougar5687]

GREAT video. Couldn't click on it fast enough.

[@larrybremer4930]

I was always of the impression the main reason for Concord's retirement was Airbus stopping support. Because there were so few planes and aircraft manufacturers also have a high legal liability exposure for their products it's not a good enough risk/reward for Airbus to continue supporting them even though they were still operating profitably for BA and AF. Without manufacturer parts support you can't maintain airworthiness certificates and that means no registration or insurance. Soon the same will happen with the A380 while the 747s and DC-10s will still be flying on as cargo jets.

[@shinytan]

I just love this videos from. UA-cam is blissful place because of such channels... Wow

[@TigerChamp99]

The intro was awesome

[@daniels7907]

No mention of the Tu-144 crashing spectacularly at the 1973 Paris air show? That had a *big* impact in the SST race, as the U.S. felt less need to compete in a space where the Soviets had so publicly failed.

[@JDeubel]

I miss the Concorde I thought when I went on it that this is how all airplanes are going to be in the future boy was I wrong

[@yoof01]

I was also lucky enough to fly on her in 1994 & 1997, amazing wasn’t she, so disappointed the aircraft was retired. Still gutted.

[@tonymontana6368]

@@yoof01 your so lucky to have flown in the Concorde.

[@default123default2]

Yeah yeah. You were just early. Planes are getting smaller. Not bigger. Point to point is the way. Not hub and spoke.
Time is money. All of this talk that we are forever frozen at this speed of flight is ridiculous nonsense. Supersonic is not hypersonic. SS was done for 27 years. Technology will make it common in the next 35 years.

[@robertallen6710]

@@default123default2 Yep...747 is forever gone...A380 is a financial nightmare for Airbus...interesting sidenote might be...super long haul flights (10-20) hours seem to be more frequently offered...

[@cymaticCS]

You are so lucky, that you didn't get to fly on Concorde during Air France Flight 4590...

[@atatexan]

Excellent work! First class research.

[@kristensorensen2219]

Excellent history video!!💖

[@beenaplumber8379]

In 1979 my family visited the SST museum in Florida - Titusville or Kissimmee - where they had a full-size mock-up of the 2707 that we toured. It was such an extraordinary aircraft, and I could never understand why it was cancelled. Now I understand. It was probably for the best. It would have been by far the most impressive and capable SST out there, but it would also have been the most colossal financial catastrophe among them. I wasn't an aerospace worker then, and maybe I don't appreciate the financial catastrophe brought on by its cancellation - I dunno. (As an Apollo kid, I was still reeling from the cancellation of Apollo, even in 1979.)

[@gbixby3453]

It would not be the last time people dreamed of some super fast airliner... I recall getting in an argument with two businessmen when I was an engineering student (some 20 years ago), in which they were convinced that a Mach 6+ aerospace plane would transport people from Washington D.C. to Tokyo in 30 minutes (or was it 90?). I was arguing that it would never happen, based on the history of failure of such programs (not to mention the cost and inefficiency of such high-speed flight), and was told I was being short sighted.
Definitely wise to keep a healthy skepticism about the "next big thing" that is going to change the world. Not because world-changing technologies don't happen, but because they are rare and there are a lot of pipe-dream ideas out there. It's also good to know the environment that the technology is going into... cost, risks, regulations, etc.

[@danpatterson8009]

Ask those businessmen how much extra they're willing to pay got get to Tokyo faster.

[@gbixby3453]

@@danpatterson8009 they were middle management, I think. I don't think they would have been willing to pay the amount required to fly on the Concorde, much less the aerospace plane...

[@banmadabon]

How lucky that that project was grounded! It could have happened that Boeing have all his new planes grounded and with the Europeans snatching an enormous market share!

[@branon6565]

banmadabon ....why would that excite you? Fvck the EU and their junk-ass aircraft.....

[@Manny32V]

it would had been an amazing machine. to bad that it was killed just like the xb70. And speaking of the xb70 PLEASE MAKE A VIDEO ABOUT IT! its my fav xplane a true legend!

[@gtv6chuck]

I used to live a couple of miles from the Air Force Museum in Ohio as a kid, and I used to go there all the time. Every time I went I had to stop and marvel at that plane.

[@jamesricker3997]

Juan Trippe did the math.
A 747 could take a passenger across the Atlantic for 1/10th the cost.
The 747 was cheaper to buy and operate, all around a far more profitable aircraft.
If the 2707 was built it wouldn't have been a success.

[@seancycle1]

A lot of cool history I didn't know, especially how old this dated and more reasoning for the huge layoff in Seattle at that time.

[@RB747domme]

Thank you skyships as always, longtime subber. Thx for all your time, research, and editing.
It's a damn shame that the 2707 didn't really get off the ground (groan).
However, in this case, I think the politicians made the wrong choice.
First of all, Lockheed had decades of experience with supersonic aircraft. The engineers knew way more about the effects of aerodynamic heating, and friction as well as pressure differences around the aircraft during transitional phases. They also opted to use a simple and proven slightly anhedral ogival wing design, because after all, if the Europeans have done that kind of research there is no point pushing boundaries if you don't know what the outcome will be.
At the end of 1961, Kelly Johnson was appointed as lead consultant with his extensive knowledge of practical airframe design. And how Hibbard was appointed as the chief engineer. More importantly, management took a step back, and gave the entire project to the engineering board, because they didn't want any management distraction to interfere with progress. Wise choice.
By April 62, this had developed into an arrow design with the engines buried in the wing for aerodynamic streamlining.
However, the board of engineers managing this project instantly recognised the potential problems. That being, that the engines are taking up important room that could be used for fuel inside the wing, and maintenance by engineers in the future who need to climb into the wing to fix or maintain the jet engine is not a good design.
Back to the drawing board.
As of December 62 this older design hit the trashcan.. But in April 63, the engineers had produced drawings for a standard ogival wing with leading edges to eliminate the need for any canards, which would be very simple to machine, and fabricate, and provide a large amount of space for the fuel tanks.
The engineers also projected the manufacturing costs for the L2000 would be at least half the cost of of it's main competitor at Boeing, if not even cheaper. With a standard range of 4000 miles, it was also much more practical. Carrying at least 30 tonnes of freight as well as 227 passengers, with a comfortable interior, this really should have been chosen as the SST.
Political lobbying, corruption and brown envelopes were changing hands.
OK, I don't know about that last bit come up but political lobbying and corruption really was involved in this decision - the FAA were swamped with representatives from bowing, as well as having many friends in senior management cover being promised corporate tax cuts if they're design was the chosen SST.
That's disgusting.
By July of 63, the engineering board at Lockheed, led by chief engineer Hall Hibberd. It's important to remember that Kelly Johnson sat on this table too. Although he wasn't in charge of the L2000 design project, he was a very valuable consultant on supersonic airflow and aerodynamic effects and drag.
By the end of 63, they had chosen the JTF/17 and GE4/J5 as the potential power plants. However it soon became clear, and as pointed out by Carrie Johnson, that the plane wouldn't be able to fly in a supercruise mode due to it's weight, size and guide vane inlets on the engine cowling. The engineers knew that this was an important discovery, because it would mean it wouldn't have the required range to cross the Atlantic, or fly from the west coast to Hawaii etc. This would severely limit its marketing potential.
Johnson told Hibberd to make the wings and body out of Hiduminum (a strong alloy but very light, as used on Concorde, and use stainless steel honeycomb on the leading edges of the nose and wings and vulnerable areas where extra heat will pose problems. The use of Hiduminum would not only reduce the weight substantially, but also allow it to travel faster without causing structural damage. It's cheap to produce the alloy and nickel can be added to make it more heat resistant in problematic areas above Mach 2.35. the problem though, is that nickel was quite expensive to mix into a complex alloy, and so had to be used in just the vulnerable ateas.
Kelly Johnson also proposed to Hibberd, that the leading edges be made of honeycomb stainless steel - as above Mac 2.35 would reach more than 130 degrees. Any faster and it would get hotter, and even the hiduminum would start to soften, and anyway, there was tons of data, produced when Concorde was on the drawing board, and it would be foolish to ignore the groundbreaking research by the British and French.
Kelly Johnson and Hall Hibberd's proposal, was that the plane wiould be flying no faster than Mach 2.5 - due to the materials technology available on the day, unit costs for manufacturing, and how much the airlines would be willing to support the purchase of these very expensive aircraft, and maintenance of very complicated and expensive aircraft engineering just for the sake of another 200 mph. They won't bite.
Kelly Johnson ain't stupid, or naiive, and he knew that compromises had to be made. They0 chose Mach 2.5, because he knew that he didn't have to build an aircraft out of Titanium. This would add about $20 million per aircraft on purchase price. No, Sirs, we lower the maximum cruise speed to a little over Mac 2.4, and allow the aircraft to supercruise, and you'll have reached your goal, of producing an aircraft that flies faster, more economically, and carries more passengers than the Concorde. At a unit cost of half of what Boeing will end up charging because of a titanium airframe. Kelly also knew that Boeing didn't have the expertise or engineering.skills and processes involved to engineer or produce an entire aircraft out of Titanium.
Kelly Johnson obviously had first-hand experience of this during the SR-71 project+ a manufacturing technology that Lockheed haven't shared with the rest of the aerospace industry at that time.
By the beginning of 1964 the fnal design was released to the FAA and American Government. They were confident that they had a winning design that was not only cheaper, but that could be flying and fully tested within just a 5-year period.
But of course, the lobbying allowed one of the most stupid decisions ever, to take place. A politicians went with a fantasy dream that had no hope of succeeding.
As Kelly Thompson said, "We have so much experience with supersonic aircraft, and knowledge of how to build them, as well as build them within a fixed budget - but what we don't do is use corruption to lobby the congressman."
It was a farce.
Lockheed had already known that they would need multiple fuel tanks in order to call the airframe and the air conditioning colour as well as the ability to pump the fuel around the plane to order the centre of pressure depending on speed, altitude, pressure and temperature.
The Lockheed engineers were lightyears ahead of Boeing.
Unfortunately the politicians heads were in the dream World fantasy scape. And of course they would believe anything Boeing told them, even though Lockheed had a finished design on the table that would fly within just a few years easily.
Politics, eh?

[@phonicwheel933]

*_@RB747domme_* That was a very interesting and in-depth description. Thanks for posting.😊 It's a great shame that the US didn't produce an SST. I wonder what would have happened if they did. It's said that Boeing got the SST contract partly because they were experts in aircraft production. I'm not sure about corruption. If that were the case surely Boeing would have been able to stop congress from closing the 2707 contract, especially as it decimated their finances and led to 4,700 layoffs.
Although the original 2707-100 SST was overweight due to its swing wing, Boeing changed to the 2707-300 which was fixed wing with a tail. They were in the middle of building two prototypes and were on track for completion, when senate cancelled the program in 1971. This was because many factions had realised that SST was not viable due to an oil price hike, sonic boom, and pressure from the environmentalist lobby. It turns out that the cancellation, which was very unpopular at the time, was fortuitous, because it saved the US a mint, and eliminated a potential Concorde competitor.
It will be interesting to see how the latest SST ventures, from Boom, Lockheed/NASA, and Venus turn out.

[@dickalbright732]

First job post-VAW-11 was on the B-2707 (interiors for WDTA) @ Boeing's Plant 2 (watched the Duwamish flow by from the lunchroom windows).
Too much fun . . .
The race we won . . .
But then Feds hacked . . .
And we were sacked . . . !
But moved intact . . .
To B-747 & AF One . . . !

[@The_Real_Zaineman]

Great video. Always look forward to your vids. Thanks for making them. Z

[@jangelbrich7056]

I remember that Revell made a plastic model kit in the 1970s. Since then it is on my radar of interest. Thanks for this video!

[@mfl6789]

Almost 100,000 sub congrats!

[@user-vg5rv5xf4u]

My spine loves this

[@MrMousekillaz]

My dad worked at Boeing . He took me to see the mock-up during it's development . A mural was painted on the side of the plant that housed it visible to passing motorists on Hwy (old)99. It remained years after the project was cancelled.

[@teddy.d174]

Excellent video, nicely done! Probably the best choice Boeing ever made was to stop the process of designing/building this aircraft and focusing on the 747 which is one of the most successful planes ever built. The fact that they made the 747 to be such an excellent cargo plane as much as it’s been an excellent passenger plane is the reason it’s been so popular for so long and still flying to this day with cargo carriers as the A-380 dies a miserable, expensive death. Airbus was way too late to the party and not thinking enough to the future when they designed it, although it sure is a beauty! Saw my first one in person while taxi’ing a runway at LAX enroute to Hawaii, pics and vids don’t do that behemoth justice.

[@lance8080]

Build it !!!!!

[@s9523pink]

Excellent synopsis and history, I remember this plane and the hopes that America had for it. I hope, one day, a new visionary will bring it to pass.

[@TheRibbonRed]

That intro lol. I expect each aircraft category (jet fighters, commercials, supersonic transports) to be like that now.

[@sulphurous2656]

Those 2707 concepts are some of the most aesthetic aircraft models I've ever seen.

[@render.d]

Haha! That intro is brilliant

[@greateraviationgl91]

Brilliant.org

[@stein1385]

Ty SKY👍👍

[@JensenKangalee]

Good to see another one if your videos.. Very detailed and well put together as always. Thank you for your efforts

[@henrysantos121]

Nice video excellent well done

[@frankgaleon5124]

Not bad for the unreleased aircraft:)

[@21stcenturybohemian]

Hi Sky. Love your videos. I do have one request... could you please use imperial as well as metric/IS standards. Newtons are meaningless for thrust and torque here in North America, as is kilowatts for power. We use lbs, ft/lbs and horse power. It might add a bit to your time, but it would probably save many man-hours of viewer time having to constantly convert. No, I am not American, I am Canadian, and yes we use the metric system for almost everything, except, those relating to the aforementioned units. And for the most part, in the aviation industry, we use miles (distance), knots (speed) and feet (height), and pascals for barometric pressure. I think Russian and French planes are the only ones I have seen in metric. Almost everything else uses imperial.

[@Bitterrootbackroads]

Still have the Revell plastic model I built about 1968 as a 12 year old. It's 2 planes, one streamline and the other with dropped nose, wings out, and gear down.

[@2bitrasputin793]

Interesting video. The carbon fiber Boeing 787 Dreamliner has got to be the best jetliner out there. So smooth and quiet, who cares if it goes fast, there are lots of movies to watch.

[@malakai651]

When Concorde first started flying the Americans put every obstacle in the way to scupper it. Had it been an American project they would have been selling them world wide.

[@rjsanawesomemess5197]

malakai651 saying the “Americans” like we ALL have a say in things company’s and our government do here, there, or anywhere is ignorant. No one I know cuddled the Concorde just like no one you know built them. We’re just people. Your just people. You and I alike have no say in anything.

[@hobmoor2042]

Typical US protectionism. "We're a capitalist country but we won't tolerate foreign competition. By the way, you must buy our expensive US-made products or else we'll put tariffs on the cheaper products you sell to us".

[@pakopepefdez185]

@@rjsanawesomemess5197 not all americans...XD
Anyway, for sure you should preffer to see unemployment in Seattle bc Pan-am was buying concordes...for sure.

[@yapasphotozzz5456]

Totally true, Usa as the Roman Empire, commercial democracy "oops!".Américan don't like us to do better than them ...
Trump forgets that Americans are assembling Airbus in his country ....

[@xiaoka]

malakai651 they had the rest of the world and yet couldn’t make them work. Flying to the US was the only place that did work enough for them to even have regular service after a while. Try again, history doesn’t jive with your narrative.

[@dlew3624]

Looking at a tu 144 from the front always reminds me of the clangers for some reason

[@ghostindamachine]

Awesome documentary!!

[@martinda7446]

737 MAX the aircraft that did eat Seattle...

[@arcsolomon6360]

there are many youtube videos that talks about the max..not this one...ignorant dumbass

[@watchgoose]

are you really thinking of the MCAS on the 737 MAX-800? Not all 737s are alike, you know.

[@martinda7446]

@@watchgoose What are you on about? Any MAX model has MCAS.

[@martinda7446]

@@watchgoose And stop 'thumbing' yourself up - Nobody else would thumb up gibberish.

[@martinda7446]

@Sunamer Z Any 737 MAX model had MCAS. I was not talking about any other variant.
I said nothing about MCAS or anything about the aircraft apart from repeating the old joke about Seattle.
I am absolutely familiar with all aspects of the MAX aircraft.
Boeing certainly do have a lot to answer for but I agree the effect of AOA failure was a resulting runaway trim event which all pilots should manage.
It was a bit more insidious here as the trim was timed to run and stop - run and stop during an MCAS event so was not quite so obvious. I still think a bit of egg sandwich in the trim switch could do the same thing. Any pilot who was incapable of manually trimming his aircraft regardless of circumstance shouldn't be a pilot. To not understand the effect of high loads on the flying surfaces and how they affect the trim is crazy to me. The pilots turned off the electric trim - and then at 8000 feet turned it on again - fatally.
It will all come out in the report.
Remember the AOA sensor was not considered critical and therefore required no redundancy. It has never been critical on any Boeing aircraft or any other aircraft ever at any time past or present.

[@scrooge-mcduck]

...and all this calculated mostly on logarithmic scales and drafted with rapidographs on drafting tables with slide rulers.

[@larrydugan1441]

Good video

[@toni4729]

I was sorry to see Concord go and never knew about the others. Thank you for the info.

[@filanfyretracker]

NASA did get approval to build their quietboom demonstrator at least.
in some ways SSTs are a bit like a supercar, They look cool and go really fast but it turns out they are money sinks and not very practical.

[@bovineone2420]

David Kearns - Someday they'll become cost efficient.

[@Derpy-qg9hn]

@@bovineone2420 Nah, supersonic flight is inherently extremely high-cost - that's a lot of air to punch through, constantly, and you need some fat and hungry engines to do it. The only ways it can really be cost efficient, is if we either get a drag coefficient of basically zero, or if it's so far in the future that powerplants become strong enough to outright ignore drag at mach 1+.

[@forestdenizen6497]

@@Derpy-qg9hn plasma leading edge generates a vacuum and eliminates air resistance.

[@RyTrapp0]

The only thing that determines the future of airline travel is the value that we place on travel time - there's a sweet spot between cost and volume that is always being chased, as this inherently coincides with maximum profit and stability(or the potential to be anyway, depending on leadership and financials of course).
If the largest markets see citizens receiving greater salaries and/or more leasure time, bringing a clear and stable, presumably long term(good luck assuming the future of the market...), increase to airline travel volume/demand and profits, then we have a ripe landscape to explore more luxurious options with higher operating costs - what the market wants, the market gets(generally speaking).
But, given where things are at right now? No chance in hell, I suspect it would take a decade to actually generate support for the digging up of this concept - and detractors would be many, likely with a lot of emotion given how [fucking] reactionary and venomous the most vocal of society have become. From environmental impacts to those that remember the consequences of the past investment into these concepts(AKA, the results of the political dick measuring contest - it certainly wasn't market driven, as the Ruskis & Anglo-Francs would prove), it would be at least publicized as 'controversial'.

[@Derpy-qg9hn]

@@forestdenizen6497 Source? Also, maintaining plasma when it has to deal with so much air sounds incredibly electricity-intensive.

[@epicman9516]

Video was never boring at any part good job

[@mrmullett1067]

Simple answer to the sonic boom issue is to fly above significant air density and reflect the pressure wave upward. Then slow down in a glide format before continuing at subsonic speed. C'mon guys it can be done.

[@phonicwheel933]

*_@mrmullett1067_* Yes, that would be the way, but not simple:
The ultimate solution would be to fly at the height defined by the Knudsen number for a particular aircraft, where the air molecules are so far apart that shock waves cannot form. At around 500,000ft (95mi, 153km), sonic boom, drag, and skin heating vanish, allowing an aircraft to 'glide' under inertial force, after being accelerated to supersonic cruise speed. Only the power to overcome the drop due to gravity would be required (by choosing the correct height and speed satellites, are able to circle the earth for tens of years with no power).
The proposed Venus Aerospace Stargazer won't reach the 'Knudsen height', but in part, it's like the ultimate solution. According to the Venus site, it will take off using jets, to keep the noise down, then, under rocket power, it will climb to 170,000ft (32mi, 52km), where it will cruise at 6,900mph (sonic boom isn't mentioned). It will carry 12 passengers and reach any airport in the world from any other airport within 2 hours.

[@turbofanlover]

Great vid.

[@jwrappuhn71]

Excellent vid bro.

[@beechcraftkingair3799]

It could’ve happened even before the Concorde, but yet again, bureaucracy kills all great things.

[@eottoe2001]

Not just bureaucracy, there was a great environmental outcry against the SST. On the government side, the Vietnam war had created a lot debt and at that time unlike now, politicians of both parties were very concerned about that. Also there was a lot of financial issues happening, too, like inflation and the oil embargo. The embargo was a big shock to the economy. From Nixon's point of view, the country could not afford the space program or the SST program. However, that would have been one pretty plane.

[@Braun30]

Even Concorde should have happened before Concorde, the development was painfully slow due to technical an bureaucratic reasons.

[@DXMediaTV]

Boom Supersonic is keeping the dream alive. Located in Colorado USA

[@evoGage]

Good to see this video back!

[@vincentpellegrino789]

Very informative. Thank you.

[@RB747domme]

Concorde made half a billion profit for BA.. Worth at that time, over $1 BILLION.. I wouldn't really call that "not much" . Nearly 5 million pax over 27 years, profitable for 21 of them. At one point, making 20% of all British Airways profits.
I know it's not a huge amount in the grand scheme of things, but it's important for the facts to be correct.
Tragically "The tu didn't hardly fly at all" - is true, just 55 flights in all. Sadly, with a few fatal accidents, but at least it flew. A gallant effort by the Soviets, considering what they had to work with in terms of technology. It still holds the supersonic transport absolute speed record - 1526mph, in 1972. Concorde achieved 1490mph, and nearly 68,000ft on a test flight in 1973 with no ballast and light fuel load. [cit Flying Concorde, Calvert; Concorde, Inside Story, Trubshaw]
It would have been awesome if the US had built an SST, but the world just wasn't ready yet. But it's a shame.

[@fearless2782]

Can you put a video about IL 62

[@SkyshipsEng]

It will be made soon

[@KamilMB]

I am also waiting for that :)

[@MultiCconway]

Now that time is worth more money, and 'Low-boom' is under development, the over-water transport market may return more quickly, and the over land may come to fruition. Understanding atmospheric aspects that either accentuate or dissipate sonic booms must be fully understood so the FAA can correctly route, manage, and control traffic.

[@stein1385]

This is a juicy one Sky, well done! 👍👍

[@jkgou1]

Very instructive

[@Bill_Woo]

I love these! The topics, the narrative - all awesome.
And I find intriguing the choice of music after 8:00 ... intriguing.

[@AstroTomK]

Boom Supersonic Overture

[@linchester8464]

Now the 737 Max is the next plane that will never fly.

[@turbofanlover]

Huh? It already has, dude...and will again. Stay tuned.

[@linchester8464]

@@turbofanlover i not going to trust the MCAS software that is made in India.
And so many issues with the plane that it will stay grounded even longer

[@turbofanlover]

@@linchester8464 We shall see, dude. :)

[@shebbs1]

@@turbofanlover You might be playing it down, but a 12-month grounding, with no official end in sight, doesn't reflect well on the MAX, or Boeing. Or the FAA, come to that, as there is no guaranted now that the EASA or other aviation safety bodies will reciprocate FAA approval of the MAX, and nor should they, given its obvious corruption.

[@turbofanlover]

@@shebbs1 Stay tuned. :)

[@michelemarcolin2548]

Very interesting and informative. Did not know anything of this. Thannks!

[@Katniss218]

YEES! My favourite airliner.