Hrm, time to dust of your "local" history. The RM8 used in Viggen was a (low ratio) by-pass engine and it run for the first time in 1964, two years before the Olympus 593!
@Sean Price As far as I can tell after a short check that is not a bypass engine even if it's a two spool engine. It has been covered in AgentJayZ's (ua-cam.com/users/AgentJayZ) detailed videos on it though if someone wants to know for sure. But I have no doubt there are more bypass engines out at the time, after all the RM8 was based on Pratt & Whitney JT8D-1 so that's one (first run 1960).
As someone who lived in the flight path of the concord on Long island NY. I can tell you we where very happy to see that plane grounded for good.....the thing was so loud it rattled the windows in my high school every day.
Planes are generally more timeless than any other vehicle. By necessity more so than anything. A WW2 fighter still looks like a modern, top of the line stunt plane.
@@colgatetoothpaste4865 Not at all, it was just an observation of the timeless exterior design coupled with flight controls of much earlier aircraft, especially the flight yoke.
I worked for BA at LHR at a time when Concorde was flying. The Offices emptied out every day to watch her take off. Even at take-off (obviously sub-sonic) she'd still cause the alarms in half of the cars to express their approval ♥ There was a waiting list that BA employees could put themselves on to travel on engineering flights. It was a loop over the coast, go supersonic, come back. I never prioritized it and I still regret it. Lastly, you can tell it was pre-9/11 because we used to cut-through Concorde's hanger on our way to the staff canteen for lunch. What I think surprised almost everyone was how much smaller she was in real life.
I have visited Concorde . G---BOAF ( 216) at Bristol ( Filton ) Museum a couple of times. She was the last one made , in 1979, and the last one to fly. I was not surprised by her size, she looked exactly as she always appears, beautifully proportionate.
I remember back in the 90s seeing Concorde fly over my head numerous times as it descended above the London suburbs on its way to Heathrow. I didn't even need to look up to confirm it was Concorde - the sound was so completely different from any other plane.
In 1986, I watched it fly over Auckland, New Zealand, accompanied by a military jet. The passengers were set to view Halley's comet. Perhaps this was the furthest it ever flew from home.
I remember on a PR stunt they flew it across the country and it landed here in Texas. Huge turn out and the pilot must’ve gotten a little too excited and made a little too much noise during the flyby and broke a few windows or two or three or four or the neighborhoods around the airport. But the in the end it was really cool to see and hear that amazing design called the Concord zoom over our neighborhood just under mach or was it over mach!? Either way wow!!! 🎉🎉🎉
Got the chance to see the one in Seattle for the second time this past summer. First time I saw it in Seattle at the museum of flight was about 25 years ago on a trip with the royal Canadian air cadets. No idea where we were going, just walking through the lobby area and coming around a corner to the display floor to be greeted by my favourite aircraft in the flesh so to speak.
A few years ago, I flew from New York (Newark) to London, looking out the window of that 747 while taxiing , I saw one of the retired Concordes sitting in the “back lot” I was so excited and saddened at the same time… I wish I had the chance to fly on that beauty! Keep up the great work Peter!
The one at Manchester is in a hangar in pristine condition, if was one of the few that wasn't cut up for transporting to a museum. Theoretically it could fly again if money was no object
@@ant2312Might work if some big airline company took the risk, but otherwise I give it at best a one time kickstarter funded exhibition flight. Or maybe some Saudi prince one-time flight where he would have the plane for himself (besides the crew ofc).
Unfortunately, I feel like Boom is going to join the other defunct start-ups looking to create a new supersonic passenger jet. They're making a product looking for a market, which never works out well. There has to be a demand for it in the first place which just doesn't seem to be. As a result, it's not surprising no engine manufacturers want to take on the cost of R&D. While, as someone with an interest in aviation a new supersonic passenger jet would be exciting, I can't see it happening any time soon.
Recently they announced a partnership with Northrop Grumman for the development of military versions of this plane. That could mean some US military budget to engine manufacturers
Yes, there was a reason that 'Concorde' got retired. Today's price for a 100-seat supersonic airliner to make a profit would be around the ballpark price upwards of $10,000 per head for a 4hr flight one way. 'Boom' are planning a much smaller aircraft...so prices would be above $15,000 for a 4hr flight. Is there a market for this at todays' prices?
I was lucky enough to fly Concorde London - NY. It was like getting into a sports car, low to the floor, bucket seats. It was very loud. 1st Class on any top airline was vastly more luxurious and spacious BUT still, you did something so remarkable and rare. It was an Honor and worth doing once.
I agree with Izzie. The fact that a company is pushing the envelope to re-establish commercial supersonic capabilities using modern aeronautic technology is extremely exciting; however, I do not believe there exists a significant market share for this type of transport to justify the immense costs and potential negative environmental effects such a project would entail. It seems like another glaring example of the tail wagging the dog.
I am an aeronautical engineer. The technology of Boom is great, but I hate the fact that we are building another toy for the rich to destroy the environment with. SAF will not make it all of a sudden environmentally friendly. I would rather see these engineers work on designs that reduce the environmental impact of aviation, like electric designs.
The B-36 had two different engines with five different subtypes: 4 jets and 6 props, subdivided into those turning, those burning, those choking, those smoking, and those unaccounted for.
Į know only one aircraft that had 2 different types of engines. Beginning with the B-36D, Convair added a pair of General Electric J47-19 jet engines suspended near the end of each wing; these were also retrofitted to all extant B-36Bs. Consequently, the B-36 was configured to have 10 engines, six radial propeller engines and four jet engines, leading to the B-36 slogan of "six turnin' and four burnin' ".
Some versions of the C-119 Flying Boxcar had a "Jet-Pack", a turbojet mounted on top of the fuselage. Love the B-36 as well: two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking and two more unaccounted for.
@@MentourNow You could also count the BAC Trident 3B. That was a tri-jet that technically had 4 engines. A Rolls-Royce RB162 turbojet as a 'boost' engine to give 15% more thrust on take-off. Was only used when required, but that's kind of worse in the sense of otherwise being dead weight and still needing maintenance.
There been quite a few aircraft with a mix of engines. Most of them are prototype or pre production, but there was a few full peoduction. But this is not the same as in the case of then3 engiend boom, that was really the same core engine with a diffrent index. If I rembeer corectly that is also true for 727 and L1011 Anyway, here is a list of mix engine aircradt A-90 Orlyonok Avro 720 Blohm & Voss P 194 Bréguet 960 Vultur Consolidated Vultee XP-81 Curtiss XF15C Douglas D-558-2 Skyrocket Douglas XBTD-2 Destroyer Grumman OV-1 Mohawk Gulfstream American Hustler Hawker P.1072 HyperMach SonicStar Lockheed NF-104A Lunar Landing Research Vehicle Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250 Republic XF-103 Rocketplane XP Ryan FR Fireball Ryan XF2R Dark Shark Saunders-Roe SR.53 Saunders-Roe SR.177 Skylon (spacecraft) SNCASO Trident Sukhoi Su-5 Vickers Type 559 McDonnell XF-88 Voodoo Zero Emission Hyper Sonic Transport This list also contain a handfull of aircraft that never left the mock up stage. But it dont contain aircraft with diffrent index engiens. It also dont contain test beed aircraft like the 747 and A380 engine test plattform, and it also dont include aircraft with lift engies, as well as helicopters will push jets
"I don't know if I've ever heard of any aircraft that had different engines on the same airframe." Here's one: the Hawker Siddeley Trident (used by British Airways) had a tiny Rolls-Royce RB162 turbojet installed on its final 3B model that added 15% more thrust just for additional "hot and high" take off performance. This was easier than redesigning the whole aircraft to accommodate larger engines than the normal Spey models. As a kid, I remember seeing the Tridents around Heathrow in the 80's.
The Olympus engine also had marine and land-based variants, used for naval propulsion and gas turbines for electricity generation, and many are still in use in those roles so the development costs were well covered, which could not be said for a new engine as Boom needs.
Huh, but the F-16 engine is outdated-enough that the US wouldn't care about it, would they? I mean, you'd still need the actual alloys mixing and the production facilities (and good luck getting all the bugs out that cause way higher wear and tear than actual F-16s suffer). And then you'd need air-to-air missiles, and avionic and IFF systems and such. Without _any_ of all those things, a 'fake' F-16 would be deeply inferior to a real one! And even a real one would lose to an F-22 or an F-35, which the US has plenty of. Oh, and without institutionalized skill in the maintenance crews, they also won't be as effective as F-16s that are produced and operated by NATO countries. TLDR: the US would have nothing to fear from uploading the entire engine blueprints to Wikipedia... Right? 🙃
@@ERIK31351 F16s are sold to other countries as functional aircraft. If any part of the engines were classified, they couldn't be sold like that, or there would have to be a version of the engine installed that had no classified assemblies. If we can sell a plane to Israel or Turkey, we can use its parts in an airliner.
its one thing to create a beautiful graphic on a computer....its another thing to have a working, certified aircraft. We've seen this scenario play out so many times over the years
It seems a strange choice to choose "Boom" as the name of the company, considering that just draws correlation to the biggest drawback of supersonic air travel.Maybe their second choice was "Fuel Hog" so Boom was a better choice.
I think the original idea behind the company was to figure out a way to design a supersonic plane that could cancel out or mitigate the sonic boom. So the name "Boom" was a reference to the problem that they set out to solve, but it sounds to me like they've changed direction a bit.
When they first came out I thought I recalled hearing that Boom was trying to make an aircraft with little to no sonic boom so that they could go supersonic over land? Sounded impossible and probably was since that goal seemed to disappear quickly. If they could had achieved that it would have been a game changer. Without it they won’t survive.
I think you're confusing Boom with another project. There are people trying to greatly reduce the sonic boom of a supersonic plane, but I'm pretty sure Boom was never one of those.
@@MatthijsvanDuin There was a fair bit of hype around the NASA testing efforts around that time, and it may have gotten muddled in people's memory. Especially since its logical that supersonic transport being viable would NEED to be as quiet as possible in order to even have access to the markets they're looking for.
You're probably thinking of the X-59. And it's still progressing well, to the point that they'll be doing testing over cities relatively soon to measure volume.
As much as I love Concorde, everyone else does too. So my number one pick (just) tips towards the L-1011. So ahead of its time, despite being a commercial flop. We also have the L-1011 to thank for the RB-211, which is still the core in basically all the big RR engines today. It is a bucket list item to fly on one, which may be possible with the Tristar experience, something I only just learned of.
The tristar is a really good choice and definitely also nearly tops my own list. It was, for its time, the most technologically sophisticated aircraft, introducing autoland before autoland ever became a thing for the rest of the industry.
@@ant2312 But he is absolutely correct, Rolls-Royce was grossly late and screwed the entire L1011 program. Now, they have backed out of the Boom supersonic deal.
I think supersonic transport has a better future in business and charter jets, they are getting faster and faster anyway. For me as average Joe, the waiting times not flying, from the moment I set foot into the departure airport, to when I get my baggage are as significant as turning a six hour flight into a three hour one. As far as engines go, the Saab Viggen was equipped with essentally an afterburning version of the 737-100/200 engine and could go up to Mach 2.
Even more interesting the only major changes they did to it was cut down the main fun from 1.1:1 to 0.97:1. The engine named RM8 (A and B), where the B model added on more medium pressure fan was made by Volvo Aero engines, that is still around to this day and still makes jet engines (well sort if, taken over by GKN Aerospace in 2012) they also make most part for the rocket for the European launch vehicle. Also interesting, the RM8A/B have a dry thrust of 65 and 72kN, that can be compared to the 67-89 kN needed for boom overture. The ultimate irony of it is that Volvo Aero didn´t make the RM8 to be fuel efficient or something like that. Not, the reason why they made the RM8 the way they did had everything to do with serviceability.
Kind of agree with you, I don't think it'll easily take over commercial flights, but it could indeed do something to these other sorts of transport, or perhaps when someone wants to quickly get from point A to point B, however, I'm no aviation expert on this.
As a huge Concorde fangirl there’s nothing I’d love more than for something similar to return to the skies. Though like everyone else, I have a lot of doubts about the viability of the project. Just cross our fingers and hope 🤞🏼
If ya'll want an opprotunity to walk through one (as well as a Tu-144), one of the Sinsheim/Speyer air museums has them on static display on stilts. And they let you walk through them.
@@davidcole333 because it has almost all the same problems concord had. It's too expensive to be offered to the mass market the plane is even smaller than concord so less passengers. The sonic boom means it can only work a limited amount of routes. In order to make it work you need to be able to offer it to regular customers not just billionaires who would just fly privately, and you'd need to get around the problem with the sonic boom.
I was blessed enough to do both! I’ve been to 67 countries. No other landing approach came close to coming into Kai Tek, see the checkboard, go hard right, drop to about 600 feet and see people sitting eating breakfast. Extraordinary.
As much as I enjoyed watching and hearing Concorde take off at EGLL, it doesn't come close to seeing and feeling the Eurofighter Typhoon at Bournemouth Air Festival, I'll never forget the spine tingling noise!
I was fortunate to see a Concorde once back in the 80's. One flew into Omaha for a charter flight to England. It was beautiful to see it all flared out with the nose up to come in for a landing and then to have the pilot drop the nose, hit the throttles and do a fly by. I do not remember seeing the afterburners light, but it was still very loud. I went back to Epply Airfield the next morning to watch it take off. A truly beautiful aircraft.
*_@billratekin4134_* Great story. BTW the afterburners were only used to take off and then at 43,000 feet they were turned on to break the sound barrier when over sea.
My favorite is the 747. I got to fly on the Queen of the Skies once, from Frankfurt to Mumbai (I may have flown back on a 747 but I can't remember). That was the first time that I can remember flying on a four engined jet, so I was amazed. I didn't even know that a plane could be so big yet still fly.
now i feel really old. all those iconic aircraft you listed, i've ridden on--even a Stretch-707 and a Connie, back when prices meant either you were well-to-do, or military. more or less the entire passenger cabin was "first class", booze, food, snacks, pillows and blankets, and plenty of room. the heyday of commercial aviation is gone forever. good vid, as always.
Of course you also had immense noise, bad turbulence, and air sickness. Other than takeoff and landing modern business class is basically just a waiting room with movies and snacks.
Thank you for making a video spotlighting Boom and their efforts! And yep, you nailed it: Concorde is my favorite aircraft of all time. And for my money, the most beautiful machine humans have ever created.
I can only wish for this technology to return to the public. Living in Australia and New Zealand having high speed flights to connect us to the rest of the world really would be incredible. Living on a plane for an entire day and the jet lag is a real problem. I can only wonder how cool it would be if Australian cities, places like Brisbane and Perth, would consider having specific hubs for supersonic flights: Perth to Europe; Brisbane to USA. Yes please. But get the fuel and environmental stuff sorted too of course!
The notion that faster aeroplanes defeat jet lag is spurious. It's the change in time zones that gets you, and it gets you regardless of the speed of journey (unless you go really slowly, e.g. cruise ship speeds, and then jet lag does not get you at all because you can adjust steadily at a rate of about one hour per day of travel)
@@harryspeakup8452 I humbly disagree. Having had the privilege to fly on a Qatar A380 in 2019, and comparing to other heavies like the good ol 747, I can attest to the actual planes, the duration and routes playing a massive role in jetlag. It's not purely a timezone issue but rather the shock to our bodies being in that environment for the flights. The A380 was far superior in it's humidity, air pressure, lighting for circadian rhythms etc. and the route (to Europe) via Doha was also better on the body vs stopping via Singapore/Hong Kong etc. giving better chances of decent sleep. Obviously this is anecdotal because it's my experience, but when I told others to try it to compare, they agreed. Also wanted to add a slight contradiction: Qantas' A380s are not as comfortable as Qatar's because of Qantas' seating plans and slightly reduced features in the plane for passengers. Qantas is stingy and it makes long haul more exhausting
@@SallyGreenawayyou have a point, but to add to the subject: it’s as significant as compared to the plethora of factors that also add on to the effect, as there is no quantitative source that, while they can exacerbate symptoms due to dehydration, the cabin pressure, and major lack of movement, ultimately have little to no presence to demonstrate a “majority” factor in jet lag based on mostly available information, but still significant enough to be warranted as a contributor. according to the Employment Security Commission NCESC: “The duration of the flight does not directly affect jet lag. It is the time difference between the departure and arrival locations that affects the severity of jet lag. However, long flights can exacerbate symptoms due to factors such as cabin pressure, dehydration, and limited movement.” Other factors, like the direction of travel, have also been noted to affect jet lag symptoms (being worst eastwards than west), the melatonin levels present during the trip, and wether on not the trip was started during a night can really make a variable occurrence of the severity and length of jet lag symptoms. It’s variable to the point that the authors of a ScienceDirect article “To what extent is circadian phase predictive of subjective jet lag in long-haul cabin crew pre- and post-trip?” conducted a test using the melatonin rhythm as a method of understanding more of the phenomenon .
I have seen a Concorde plane that is still parked outside , welcomming travellers in Paris airport.... What a sight....such magnifficent ellegance and beauty..... it would be awesome to see such kind of swans fly again....
Always loved the Concorde! I always thought (and hoped) that more commercial supersonic aircraft and routes would become available in the future. The one and only time one of the Concorde jets flew into my local airport - it was beautiful to watch! Although the local authorities evidently banned future flights because of the noise level. Still loved it!
I know this video is 3 months old but fortunately Boom found an engine designer, FTT (Florida Turbine Technologies). This is fantastic news as Boom is currently building it's superfactory in North Carolina as we speak. The future of commercial supersonic flight has been saved!!!!
What did you expect from start-up bro dudes? Concorde had the best engineers in the world from the the UK & France and squillions of pounds to develop it and even then it was a monumental challenge
@@davidf2281 Sending rockets into space took nation state funding in the 60’s-90’s. Now private companies do it for a fraction of the cost. Finding an engine supplier is a major stumbling block, but I don’t think a national tax has to be levied to make a program like this work today.
Petter, I, unlike your core audience, am not interested in a future in aviation - mostly because that is an old dream and I'm in retirement. The reason I watch your channels is the other reason you teach aeronautics: to reduce ignorance in the general public about everything related to flying. And man, am I having a blast! Putting Tom Scott in the cockpit of a 737 simulator without Otto made my heart race. Thanks for the thrill :) Anyway, this channel about the ancillaries around flying is also interesting. Learning about the politics, economics and feasabilites seems just as interesting.
Here's the real problem: These are still commercial flights. You lose a LOT of time on each end dealing with security, navigating large commercial airports, baggage claim time, and more. New York to Paris is barely a 7 hour flight on a long range private jet. You can't shave enough off that with a commercial supersonic jet to overcome the inefficiencies of the airport itself. The truly wealthy have no use for a supersonic jet so these will remain a novelty for those a very narrow segment of people that can't afford private but want the novelty of going Mach 1+. The net is this: By improving airport inefficiencies, we could reduce travel times for ALL passengers on ALL flights, all the time. And we don't need faster aircraft. Money spent on this has a much broader benefit. I do agree, though, that new tech like this is super exciting to see.
High-speed rail might be good for this. Not only will it cut back on many of the emissions caused by short-haul regional travel (not to mention automobiles), but it will also make airports less crowded- a win for everyone.
@@anonymoususer3012 I'm a huge fan of high speed electric rail powered by the power grid. Fast, efficient, using proven tech, and best of all - can carry heavy loads no problem, unlike air which is costly as weight goes up. But rail can't cross oceans, so there's still a gap to fill there.
I will add: If Boom could get the cost of the aircraft down to the $75MM range, then there is probably a market for privately owned or charter fleet sales...
I once heard Concorde take off from the terminal at Heathrow. The sheer volume of those turbojets on reheat was amazing to experience. I cannot imagine what it must have been like to be out on the tarmac. That said, I would rather pay $600-1000 to fly from Washington, DC to London on a 787 or 777, not several thousand.
I used to live not too far from JFK Airport in New York city (My house was in line with one runway and I frequently watched as planes flew overhead, outbound), plus I drove on the parkways near that airport as well. I always knew when a Concorde was flying because of how loud, and distinctive, the noise was.
What if... A Washington to London ticket cost $1000 with a 787... and $1100 with a Overture? You might think that is impossibly cheap? Well... 1KG of JET-A1 currently cost just over $1. And the price of fuel is really not very cheap currently (compare to what it usually is). Overture carry about 30 tons of fuel. But it will not need everything for Washington to London trip, rather 20 tons. That is shared over 88 seats. or at least, effectively 80 seats. That is $250 worth of fuel. The 787 uses about 2kg of fuel per 100km, so that is about $150 worth of fuel for your seat. But that is actually not the end of it. Think now that you are traveling from NY but not to London but to Stockholm. This route is to small for a 787, so in steed it goes with a A321XLR. This matters. Because when the planes get smaller the pay of the pilot impact the passenger higher. Faster plane, less hours pay for the pilots... AND for the cabin crew. Now say you traveling from Miami to Fortaleza, you can either travel in a E2-195, or A overture. IF you travle with a E2-195 you pay $800, if you travle in a overture... you pay $700.... Yes, less money. That might sound absurd, but if you run the numbers, it actually turns out that for a route like that, Overture can in theory be cheaper to operate.
@@ChapatiMan It was a prestige ticket that rarely, if ever, made sense from a business perspective. The cost of the ticket always outweighed the value of the time gained.
The maximum passenger capacity of the Concorde was not 100. That was the configuration BA/AF chose. Original design was for 130 passengers, but not all First Class of course. Trouble was the extra passengers hence payload meant the aircraft would struggle to fly from Europe to the US East Coast. I flew Concorde twice. Once BA. The other time Braniff. Many have forgotten about that!
Boom reminds me of the Nikola Truck scam - big tech promises, without actually having the tech. The whole idea was to make people/media report about it(like Mentour Pilot) and get investors, which would fund the research. They made only the frame of the Truck and had it rolling down a hill, for videos. In the end, they were not able to develop the tech and the scam was exposed, but very late.
The thing is, with Boom, the tech already does exist. High performance supersonic turbofans are nothing new, as we've seen in all 4th generation and later fighters. The cost of building/repurposing one for small-market civilian use is where you run into the problem.
@@EscapeTheCloudsOfficial Same thing with the Nikola Truck. Electric vehicles already exist. Trucks already exist. "only" some repurposing required. But development does not work that way.
We used to drive past Heathrow on a regular basis - I couldn't tell you the road, I was a kid at the time and this was a LONG time ago now. But at least twice a week we'd be going along and watching the planes land, or take off. Periodically, that plane would be Concorde. The landings were always amazing, but there's still nothing as incredible as feeling like you were racing Concorde as it took off parallel to you in the car.
Concorde taking off to the West used to be an accident hazard on the M25 in the M4 junction area, drivers would not be paying attention to the road. Just this year I passed the same place just as an A380 approached low overhead, must have been 200 feet. Same effect, somebody got rear-ended.
Peter, from the very beginning this has been a bust for me. I mean, to have ready and fully certified aircraft for commercial use by 2029, impossible. Even Rolls-Royce left the agreement. Let's look at Boeing 777X case, and we are talking about the already existing model. I remember myself, 6 years ago at EK, working as an Cabin Crew, and being informed about exciting news of getting first 777x by 2020. 6 years later....
I'm happy to see your enthusiasm. Too many people sneer at great ideas. Looking back to history, some of the wildest ideas made today's technology a reality. Seriously, howe many of us saw a business case and economic sense when the iPhone appeared?
I remember seeing the Concorde flying not far from my uncles as we were stood in the back garden here in England, west Yorkshire. i cant remember where it was landing that day but we knew it was going to be passing us. i remember hearing it long before we saw it. i dont think it was the first flight over here because i was about 3 year old then and im fairly sure i was older...
Just finished Cpt Mike Bannister's book called Concorde and i think the british Concorde venture was technically profitaboe from 1984 onwards.. highly recommend the book to anyone interested in the history of Concorde and what happened in the subsequent court cases after the tragic crash in 2000
3:37 that is NOT a Boeing 2707 imagery. The Boeing 2707 was an American supersonic passenger airliner project during the 1960s. The 2707 actually looks much like the current Boom 4engine aircraft. The aircraft you see is boeing discussing HYPERsonic aircraft around 2018.
Another issue with Boom is the range, fine for trans Atlantic flights but not so much for trans Pacific routes like LA to Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney etc. People would pony up to cut that flight time in half, but Boom can't make it without a refueling stop which takes away it's advantage.
Hi Mentour, thanks for making this video. I have been saying this online for months. Their scaled demonstrator now doesn't even look like the new design so how valid with the data be? And mimicking the B-2707-300 with those draggy engine pods? I would love to see another SST as I loved my Concorde flight in 1999. It was awesome to see the curvature of the Earth from 60,000' and to sit in the cockpit chatting with the pilots and Flight Engineer. The premature retirement of Concorde was forced by Airbus pulling the Type and Airworthiness Certificates because they could. This is unheard of for a manufacturer. Boeing still supports their airliners from the '60s and 70s. I suspect the problem was that Concorde dominated the First Class trans Atlantic market (soaking up 800 seats per day) and any airframe manufacturer has to sell First and Business to its customer because that is where all the profit is made. At the US major I worked for, if BusinessFirst on our trans Atlantic DC-10s was 75% full, the aircraft was paid for. All the rest of BF, economy and the freight was pure profit. That's how important this was. They weren't making much money from Concorde support and Air France made it quietly known that they wouldn't mind letting it go and being government owned at the time, had the influence to support Airbus in this. Not great for BA who had just refurbished 5 of their aircraft with new interiors, Kevlar liners and other upgrades. Reportedly they went to Airbus with a plan to go it alone but Airbus said 'Not at any price'. As for profitability, it made more than half a billion pounds in profit from the 5 aircraft in regular service. They were clever with using charters and round the world trips but across the Atlantic BA was profitable. It worked in its own division from 1982 so was not cross subsidised in any way. This is documented in numerous books and other sources and as BA is a public company, can be verified. Air France struggled with profitability with it and their mainline airline for years. The development costs are a separate issue as quite a few airliners never made back their costs (DC-10, L-1011,VC-10) but were profitable to operate. (No manufacturer charges back the development costs to a customer except a small portion in the sales price.) The major achievement for Concorde was being able to supercruise (fly supersonic without afterburner) for 3+ hours at Mach 2.0 something no other aircraft civil or military has ever matched. The supercruising bit is critical and supersonic aircraft require low bypass or turbojet engines as they need the high exhaust gas velocity. This means noise. Rolls Royce pulling out is almost fatal. There is no engine in sight and engines take up to 10 years to develop. The Olympus 593 was the most thermally efficient turbojet ever produced and its SFC is still impressive today. At 30,000lb dry and 38,000lb wet it is head and shoulders above anything available now and ever surpassed the J-58 in the SR71 by some distance. The dry figure is critical for supercruising. The Olympus' clever inlet and exhaust system produced 60% of the thrust at Mach 2.0 with the core providing the rest. You can find more about this amazing aircraft here www.heritageconcorde.com/ Best books are by Christopher Orlebar, Brian Trubshaw and Neil Kelly Concorde solved all the problems except noise and boom and I doubt that Overture will solve these either.
05:27 - "I don't know if I've ever heard about an aircraft that runs different engines on the same airframe" ...The Hawker Siddeley HS-121 Trident 3B comes to mind. In addition to its three Spey RB.163s , it had also a fourth engine, an RB 162.
Personal favorite... L1011. Amazing plane, and I loved flying on it back in the 90's on a route I flew a lot back in the day. I really miss it, it was well ahead of it's time.
Making it out at a young age is quite difficult. I started a side hustle at 17, saved up and made some good investments. l'm 28,live on my own and having a good life for myself. Big ups to you and everyone out there trying
I remember being at the Donington rock festival in the late 80s, which is a few miles from East Midlands airport. Concorde happened to fly over, and it was sooooo loud and so amazing looking that the entire crowd turned around to look at Concorde and not the band, which you couldn't hear above the engine noise anyway.
I have always felt ~Mach 3 or about 2000+ MPH. Also trans Pacific range. It came down to economics. At those speeds, you can double the number flights. Half as many pilots per flight. Also twice as many flights per airplane. I think Mach 3 flights from the the US to Japan could easily command good premiums. Add in savings from double the flights, would probably make it worth while.
The problem you have is materials. Above Mach 2.3 you cannot use aluminium. Kinetic heating weakens it. All of the top speeds you see for fighter aircraft historically are dash speeds, They cannot be sustained due to fuel burn and heat soaking. You have to use stainless steel or Titanium and economically that's a non-starter. That is one of the things that broke the B-2707 program. Composites likely won't cut it either. Again, heatsoak is the problem. Concorde designers picked the sweet spot at Mach 2.0. They could use an aluminium alloy (Hiduminium) and RR Olympus 593 engines to supercruise. (fly long distances supersonically without afterburner) Concorde solved supercruising problem at the time but at present there does not appear to be a suitable engine. No supercruise no SST. There is also the problem of noise. In order to have high enough exhaust gas velocity, you have to use a turbojet or a very low bypass turbofan with afterburning. The Mach 2.0 to Mach 3.0 leap is a huge one. If GE and others come out with a variable cycle engine, this might make it possible but these are about a decade away and will likely be kept for military applications As it stands, there is currently no practical way to build a Mach 3.0 airliner.
@@narrowistheway77 Of course. The STAC committee came to that conclusion in the early 1960s which it why them went with Hiduminium, a Rolls Royce high temperature aluminium alloy for Concorde which limited it structurally to Mach 2.3. Boeings B-2707 intended to use Titanium which is one of the many reasons it failed and all that was produced was a wooden mockup.
Very informative video. Among other things, I've been curious about the apparent lack of variable-geometry air inlets on Boom. Anyway, regarding the comment at ~5:30 "...haven't heard of an aircraft running different engines on the same airframe..." The re-engined 727s still flying are using larger MD-80 engines on the #1 and #3 pylons, namely the JT8D-200 series, while still using the smaller original JT8D engine type on the centerline position. Apparently, the mounting bolt positions were the same, making the transition relatively easy, while the enclosed #2 engine was always going to have size limitations.
Regarding sonic boom issues, NASA and some private contractors have been actively investigating how to eliminate the 'boom' from supersonic flight for about 8 years and reduce fuel consumption/emissions profile. Progress is being made on that effort too.
This company is on my same airport. I see them often testing there smaller version. Only ground runs so far. Thier hanger is always open and seeing the aircraft looks pretty sweet
I'm not quite sure that naming the company BOOM was such a smart decision. BOOM is not generally a desired noise to associate with commercial planes, not to mention the desire to engineer away most of the sonic boom hinderance. Having said that, i do like to see some new crafts with unique designs, i hope to see an age of airships again.
Agree about their name, Boom is not a great association. It actually sounds like a joke, another undesirable attribute for an aerospace brand. A little adjustment needed perhaps.
Your wait for an Airship is in vain... Physics don't really are in their favor. Back in the 1990s there were high hopes from Airship-Industries and several other enterprises, all of them overtouting that "with 'modern' composite materials, turbines and electronics, the airship was comming back"... As of today, 30 years later, there is still one single company doing efforts towards a "modern airship", but with some mishaps and no firm results. Back in 1993, my company studied the concepts then going "strongly", only to find a lot of hot air (pun intended) and little more than just beautiful watercolor paintings of imagined "designs", loudly called "conceptual designs" that lacked almost all calculations and engineering, buy were completely fantasious. When we consulted with Dr. Norman Mayer, then head of the LTA comitee of NASA, Dr. Mayer honestly replied to our question about the possible success of a modern airship as a replacement of helicopters for personnel transportation to offshore oil platforms; Dr. Mayer replied "The helos were going to be very hard to beat", and told us that he was already packing up all his things, as NASA was closing down their entire LTA ("Lighter than Air") comitee, due to lack of firm results and because they had observed a "dead end" concerning LTAs for transportation, deeming them useable only for aerostats used for atmospheric research or for lifting radar platforms, a kind of cheap, tied "AWACS"... The main weakness of an airship is the huge lateral wind exposed area making huge drag, wind and gusts vulnerability, and the lack of maneuverability due to having little WEIGHT, but still a large MASS... so, Physics are against them for any practical use. That is the reason why drones and helicopters with their large power to mass ratio have an instant response, and are way more favourable than any conceivable airship; and no amount of miracle electronics or composites is going to override their physics.
@@alfredomarquez9777 Ah yeah, i know, thinking about airships is like having your head in the clouds (pun specifically structured into the sentence). They're unstable and their load capacity will never match that of any properly motorized vehicle. But i'm imagining some affordable rides around/above town, because hopefully we can somehow keep them afloat without real dangers, and a crash would be at considerable low speeds that survival is almost guaranteed, but of course, crashes should be eliminated. I would prefer a light gas over spinning blades, considering they'll be slicing up seagulls en masse if they patrol the cities, and i prefer to go sightseeing without the blood. But yeah, i know it's not going to happen anytime soon, or ever again. Even the blimps are disappearing. Although i do see some hot air balloons occasionally, but i loved seeing the Zeppelin shaped blimps in the air when i was a kid in the 80s/90s. It just has something magical about it, seeing the oversized objects in the air.
I think not having an engine supplier will not help matters, the airframe will have a maximum temperature it can safely fly at. On Concorde the nose tip got to 127 degrees at maximum. Building a new airframe from composite materials makes the issue a lot harder to control as titanium and other metals used for Concorde were very light and thin, the areas around the windows were specifically cooled. Checkout out the excellent book by Christopher Orlebar, it gives a great insight into things. I think the combine of speed and range will be an issue. I can’t see Boom making the engines in house and I don’t think they could just buy up a few engines to get a prototype off the ground. The weight of the engine and it’s fuel will be a tricky issue, with Concorde fuel was moved around for Center of gravity and to maintain the correct balance. Having rear tail fins might appear ok but could be a step backwards. I think the double delta wing off Concorde should be used as template and the technical changes devised might improve things. Sadly the sonic boom cannot be bypassed and making the aircraft have the range and ability to pay for itself is another. The maintenance required is something else too,how many cycles can the airframe sustain and what happens about fatigue? Components have a limited life and aircraft parts are somewhat expensive and specialist stuff too. Let’s see how long it is before an engine supplier is agreed upon, from there the prototype is going to have to do some serious testing. It will be worth watching as it were.
How do you fly the Concorde when fuel is empty. Would be nice to have a supersonic sail plane diving down from 20 km. Gives some extra range. Maybe able to push out the heavy engines out the back in emergency.
My sister's boss, who was loaded, used to love Concorde because it meant he could wake up at his home in London, get a morning flight on a Concorde to New York City, hang out in New York from morning till late afternoon local time going shopping or doing whatever, then fly back to London and be back at his home in time for bed. He was really upset when Concorde was retired without anything comparable to replace it.
Thanks again for another of your wonderfully interesting, complete and informative videos. As a retired airline pilot, I find your channel to be my most trusted link to the industry.
Hello Peter, I have a question maybe you can explain to us, is what are the new crew alert systems required by the FAA to certify the 737-7/10? what modification they need to do for 2023 regulations?
I would focus on range extension and go for the transpacific market. The demand for flights between the US and Asia will continue to grow, while US-Europe it is largely saturated, and the high cruise speed has a greater impact on longer routes. However, the technical feasibility of such a long range is nothing I can assess.
@@liam3284 that is the killer question. The so-called prototype is only a reduced scale proof of concept, not a prototype of a commercially usable aircraft
Aircraft with more than one engine type on the same airframe include the Ford Trimotor models 7-AT-A and 13-A, the B-36, the Ryan Fireball, the D-558-2, and the NF-104, in addition to a number of testbed aircraft fitted with a variety of engines temporarily.
I see the Concord as a aviation example of a "halo" car. A car built in small numbers to increase brand interest, ie the Lexus LFA or Acrura NSX. In this respect I think it did great, when you hear the name Concord you think Air France or BA.
Or the Bugatti Veyron and Chiron for VW, or the Corvette for GM. And I wouldn't be surprised if British Airways and Air France operated them at least in part as "loss leaders" like that -- not making much money in and of themselves, but drawing in more business to flights that do.
It's pretty comon knowledge that BA did in fact make a profit from Concorde, though AirFrance did not. But they realised during the grounding that they made more money if pax flew in First pr Business on subsonic jets, combined with the fact that as Concorde aged, it needed a lot of work to keep flying, which caused rising maintenence costs, which would quickly eliminate any profits if Concorde had kept flying. The alternative would have been extensive refurbishment, but this would have been extremely expensive per plane due to how few there were, and Airbus simply weren't interested.
Rolls could always adapt and update the olympus if they were interested. As that engine has already done the job once before. Cheaper than a totally new design, but would possibly tie boom to a similar engine management arrangement, inlets etc to concorde. However new materials and modern computers might improve the old design enough to work well.
The SR-71 is and probably always will be the quintessential cool aircraft. It even looks good today, and that's not even addressing the things it could do.
I drove past the end of Heathrow 27L just as Concorde took off. The vibrations were incredible. Our home had huge plate glass windows that vibrated with the sonic boom every day.
The F414-GE-400 engine (58-98 kN) could be a nice choice. It is used in F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet that can do in Mach 1.6, and a variant F414-G is used in Swedish Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen, where it did Mach 1.2 on a single engine without using afterburner.
I think a GE F404 variant might serve them well too, they are smaller, parts are abundant and the long list of variants proves they can be tuned for different uses.
Not nearly powerful enough dry. The M 1.2 was a dash speed. You have to sustain Mach 2.0 without afterburner to have a viable SST. Concorde's Olympus 593 produced 30,400 lbs dry and this allowed it to supercruise at Mach 2.0 for 3+ hours, something no other aircraft has ever come close to. No supercruise- no SST.
@@Completeaerogeek 4 * 58 kN to 77111 kg (Boom Overture with previous engines) max takeoff weight is 332 kg/kN. Concorde had 4 * 140 kN to 185070 kg max takeoff weight = 330 kg/kN. The power to weight is roughly equivalent.
@@bgezal I understand but having so radically changed their design and knowing how aircraft gain weight in development (this is why Concorde designers had to accept temporary reheat) I have serious doubts . You want an engine that has probably a 25% thrust excess just to start. Also in Concorde, the engines ran at 100% constantly in climb and cruise above M 0.90. This was one of the challenges for the Olympus development team. I can't think of any jets that run the engines at 100% for hours at a time but I am happy to be corrected. I am also concerned that their test vehicle now bears no relationship to the current design...
Absolutely agree that this type of innovation is required to move forward, it is important that everyone gives the importance required. And dedicate the required funding, there is no tomorrow without innovation
From the point of view of engineers making really cool stuff that looks amazing it'd be great if Boom are successful and I very much hope it happens. But I do wonder if Mach 1.7 is a bit slow, not just for commercial viability now but in the longer term if suborbital flights ever become a thing. Sure, suborbital tickets will probably make Concorde look cheap, but someone will probably pay for it to go from Melbourne or Sydney to London or New York in a couple of hours while the rest of us stick with something cheap, efficient and subsonic and put up with a day's travel. But where would that leave operators who can do the journey in half the time that ordinary aircraft take but still can't get anywhere close to suborbital travel times? It could be too slow for the super-rich but too expensive for nearly everyone else.
Supersonic is currently more likely than suborbital. Starship isn’t doing that before 2030 at least, probably 2035 before they start considering it seriously, getting it rated for astronauts is one thing but civilian rating and building the infrastructure and proving the technology in that way is something else entirely. And billionaires won’t take it as having someone so important regularly flying ins technological marvel whose landing procedure is so novel and unproven is far too much risk.
Agree, I would love to see this! With high inflation hard for startups and small companies to stay viable vs large companies or legacy companies. Small companies/startups have much higher debt loads.
I wonder if the engine that is being developed by Reaction Engines in the UK could be used for the Boom design. It would not have to fly into space like the Skylon design but it might work... just saying...
Me too... because it will have an as large noise problem as the sonic boom! (an un-enclosed fan will tend to be as noisy as the Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" with its counterrotating props with their almost supersonic propeller tips...
As you said in 14:53, these projects will fall over without an engine supplier or viable engine option, especially for a supersonic aircraft since it is even more critical. The engine suppliers, before committing to spend money to modify an existing engine model, would want to know if they can get a return on investment - and how big the engine market will be. Even though airlines have placed orders, it seems most engine manufacturers are reluctant to commit.
People are reminiscing about Concorde The house my family has been in since the 1970's is under the usual outbound path from Heathrow, just where the Concorde flights usually split either south or west. We could identify the sound but they became route. Into the 1980s our house was doubly blessed by aviation, low(ish) demonstration and test flights by the then British Aerospace out of Dunsfold used to come in over the low population heathland and use our house, with it's distinctive colour roof, as an aim point and directly overhead. Later in the 90s and early 2000s I got to casually converse electronically with some of the people who had worked on the wing design and still worked, like I do, for the Ministry of Defence (people sometimes forget that a lot of the Concorde design and test work was done by military research and development establishments). Happy days, sat in the offices up on the hill during the Farnborough airshow with Airbuses up to the 380, various Boeings, An 225's, C17s and wotnots circling about overhead - and that's before we mention the Fast Jets. There was a fascinating (publicly available) book in the Farnborough library on the development process. IIRC it all began with some transatlantic fuel burn vs airspeed and flight time curves that showed that if you flew fast enough the extra fuel required to generate the airspeed was outweighed by that saved by the shorter flight time and the airspeed at which that happened was just within the technology practical for a civil aircraft at the time.
On the subject of a trijet with different engine types: I want to see a trijet with 1 huge high bypass turbofan and 2 small turbojets with reheat. You'd use all 3 engines for take-off and landing, but cruise as a single engine aircraft. In the event of the large engine failing, the two small engines would be able to be started in flight from the APU, and would have enough power to let you divert.
Boom designed new motor called Symphony that some us military jet engine manifacturer will build, basically from stock parts. They had to design whole new motor because none motors supported 100% sustainable fuel. At best some of them support 50/50 mix.
It does look very risky, but it could work. There are more extremely wealthy people in the world now than when concord was in operation. The green credentials are a bit of a stretch especially if other airlines are able to use biofuel which could be a possibility if boom development leads to this technology being accepted by the FAA etc
Video conference is going to kill the supersonic, not enough business travellers today to support it, they can make a zoom call and be home early, or not even leave home! And save thousands.
Concorde is (and I suspect always will be) my favorite plane. I gasped when I spotted the one on display at CDG and was able to tour and sit inside the one in New York on the USS Intrepid... which felt surprisingly small and somewhat cramped. Still, as a graphic designer and AV geek, there's no better commercial example of truly innovative, elegant design than Concorde.
Try free for 7 days, and get a 60% discount if you join the annual subscription. speakly.app.link/Speakly
Hrm, time to dust of your "local" history. The RM8 used in Viggen was a (low ratio) by-pass engine and it run for the first time in 1964, two years before the Olympus 593!
@Sean Price As far as I can tell after a short check that is not a bypass engine even if it's a two spool engine. It has been covered in AgentJayZ's (ua-cam.com/users/AgentJayZ) detailed videos on it though if someone wants to know for sure.
But I have no doubt there are more bypass engines out at the time, after all the RM8 was based on Pratt & Whitney JT8D-1 so that's one (first run 1960).
Can they hire engineers and make their own engines?
Or buy a small engine manufacturer to make their engines?
Convair B 36 Peacemaker..
Jet and prop..
As someone who lived in the flight path of the concord on Long island NY. I can tell you we where very happy to see that plane grounded for good.....the thing was so loud it rattled the windows in my high school every day.
Concorde always fascinated me because the outside is timeless, almost futuristic looking even today, yet the cockpit looked like a WWII bomber!
An Aston Martin comes to mind.
Planes are generally more timeless than any other vehicle. By necessity more so than anything. A WW2 fighter still looks like a modern, top of the line stunt plane.
Thats because the electronics now are so small
and you were expecting 4k displays in the cockpit on a plane from the 1970s
@@colgatetoothpaste4865 Not at all, it was just an observation of the timeless exterior design coupled with flight controls of much earlier aircraft, especially the flight yoke.
I worked for BA at LHR at a time when Concorde was flying. The Offices emptied out every day to watch her take off. Even at take-off (obviously sub-sonic) she'd still cause the alarms in half of the cars to express their approval ♥
There was a waiting list that BA employees could put themselves on to travel on engineering flights. It was a loop over the coast, go supersonic, come back. I never prioritized it and I still regret it.
Lastly, you can tell it was pre-9/11 because we used to cut-through Concorde's hanger on our way to the staff canteen for lunch.
What I think surprised almost everyone was how much smaller she was in real life.
I have visited Concorde . G---BOAF ( 216) at Bristol ( Filton ) Museum a couple of times. She was the last one made , in 1979, and the last one to fly. I was not surprised by her size, she looked exactly as she always appears, beautifully proportionate.
Meanwhile my time veing 911
I remember back in the 90s seeing Concorde fly over my head numerous times as it descended above the London suburbs on its way to Heathrow. I didn't even need to look up to confirm it was Concorde - the sound was so completely different from any other plane.
Our kitchen widow resonated with its sound. One could set your watch by it.
In 1986, I watched it fly over Auckland, New Zealand, accompanied by a military jet. The passengers were set to view Halley's comet. Perhaps this was the furthest it ever flew from home.
I remember on a PR stunt they flew it across the country and it landed here in Texas. Huge turn out and the pilot must’ve gotten a little too excited and made a little too much noise during the flyby and broke a few windows or two or three or four or the neighborhoods around the airport. But the in the end it was really cool to see and hear that amazing design called the Concord zoom over our neighborhood just under mach or was it over mach!? Either way wow!!! 🎉🎉🎉
@@CODE3tv its NOT "The Concord", it's simply Concorde
@@ant2312 back in the day I would sometimes hear people call Led Zeppelin “The Led Zeppelin” 😄
As an airline employee back in 1999 I bought a one way ZED fare on Concorde for $500 bucks ! Was the best money I have ever spent.
My all time favourite aircraft is the SR71. Not a civilian aircraft, but a beautiful piece of engineering that is also stunning to look at
Yep the Blackbird was ahead of it’s time!
Got the chance to see the one in Seattle for the second time this past summer. First time I saw it in Seattle at the museum of flight was about 25 years ago on a trip with the royal Canadian air cadets. No idea where we were going, just walking through the lobby area and coming around a corner to the display floor to be greeted by my favourite aircraft in the flesh so to speak.
SR-71 is probably my favorite as well, but I had it’s scary faults, most notable being the “engine unstart” at supersonic flight
look for front view photos of the Handley Page Victor.
love it, it looks likeba spacrship.
A few years ago, I flew from New York (Newark) to London, looking out the window of that 747 while taxiing , I saw one of the retired Concordes sitting in the “back lot” I was so excited and saddened at the same time… I wish I had the chance to fly on that beauty! Keep up the great work Peter!
The one at Manchester is in a hangar in pristine condition, if was one of the few that wasn't cut up for transporting to a museum. Theoretically it could fly again if money was no object
@@ant2312Might work if some big airline company took the risk, but otherwise I give it at best a one time kickstarter funded exhibition flight. Or maybe some Saudi prince one-time flight where he would have the plane for himself (besides the crew ofc).
@@ant2312 Theoretically almost nothing would be impossible, if money was no object
If you flew out of Newark, then you didn’t fly out of New York, Newark is an airport in New Jersey, USA..
Unfortunately, I feel like Boom is going to join the other defunct start-ups looking to create a new supersonic passenger jet. They're making a product looking for a market, which never works out well. There has to be a demand for it in the first place which just doesn't seem to be. As a result, it's not surprising no engine manufacturers want to take on the cost of R&D.
While, as someone with an interest in aviation a new supersonic passenger jet would be exciting, I can't see it happening any time soon.
Yeah, I hope you are wrong but it will be up to BOOM to prove that. Thanks.
Boom is doing exactly what they set out to do - separate investors from their money.
Recently they announced a partnership with Northrop Grumman for the development of military versions of this plane. That could mean some US military budget to engine manufacturers
Yes, there was a reason that 'Concorde' got retired. Today's price for a 100-seat supersonic airliner to make a profit would be around the ballpark price upwards of $10,000 per head for a 4hr flight one way. 'Boom' are planning a much smaller aircraft...so prices would be above $15,000 for a 4hr flight. Is there a market for this at todays' prices?
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus Do you have any evidence of this or are you just a liar?
I was lucky enough to fly Concorde London - NY. It was like getting into a sports car, low to the floor, bucket seats. It was very loud. 1st Class on any top airline was vastly more luxurious and spacious BUT still, you did something so remarkable and rare. It was an Honor and worth doing once.
I agree with Izzie. The fact that a company is pushing the envelope to re-establish commercial supersonic capabilities using modern aeronautic technology is extremely exciting; however, I do not believe there exists a significant market share for this type of transport to justify the immense costs and potential negative environmental effects such a project would entail. It seems like another glaring example of the tail wagging the dog.
You could be correct.
nice to see well formed, and well informed opinions in the comment section.
@@ERIK31351 You can’t see my redneck, my mullet is too long.
I am an aeronautical engineer. The technology of Boom is great, but I hate the fact that we are building another toy for the rich to destroy the environment with. SAF will not make it all of a sudden environmentally friendly.
I would rather see these engineers work on designs that reduce the environmental impact of aviation, like electric designs.
The problem is not market share but the fact that they don’t have the tech that is in the main marketing point
The B-36 had two different engines with five different subtypes: 4 jets and 6 props, subdivided into those turning, those burning, those choking, those smoking, and those unaccounted for.
Į know only one aircraft that had 2 different types of engines. Beginning with the B-36D, Convair added a pair of General Electric J47-19 jet engines suspended near the end of each wing; these were also retrofitted to all extant B-36Bs. Consequently, the B-36 was configured to have 10 engines, six radial propeller engines and four jet engines, leading to the B-36 slogan of "six turnin' and four burnin' ".
I stand corrected. Thanks!
Some versions of the C-119 Flying Boxcar had a "Jet-Pack", a turbojet mounted on top of the fuselage.
Love the B-36 as well:
two turning, two burning,
two smoking, two choking
and two more unaccounted for.
@@kilianortmann9979
>and two more unaccounted for
oh... oh no
@@MentourNow You could also count the BAC Trident 3B. That was a tri-jet that technically had 4 engines. A Rolls-Royce RB162 turbojet as a 'boost' engine to give 15% more thrust on take-off. Was only used when required, but that's kind of worse in the sense of otherwise being dead weight and still needing maintenance.
There been quite a few aircraft with a mix of engines. Most of them are prototype or pre production, but there was a few full peoduction.
But this is not the same as in the case of then3 engiend boom, that was really the same core engine with a diffrent index. If I rembeer corectly that is also true for 727 and L1011
Anyway, here is a list of mix engine aircradt
A-90 Orlyonok
Avro 720
Blohm & Voss P 194
Bréguet 960 Vultur
Consolidated Vultee XP-81
Curtiss XF15C
Douglas D-558-2 Skyrocket
Douglas XBTD-2 Destroyer
Grumman OV-1 Mohawk
Gulfstream American Hustler
Hawker P.1072
HyperMach SonicStar
Lockheed NF-104A
Lunar Landing Research Vehicle
Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250
Republic XF-103
Rocketplane XP
Ryan FR Fireball
Ryan XF2R Dark Shark
Saunders-Roe SR.53
Saunders-Roe SR.177
Skylon (spacecraft)
SNCASO Trident
Sukhoi Su-5
Vickers Type 559
McDonnell XF-88 Voodoo
Zero Emission Hyper Sonic Transport
This list also contain a handfull of aircraft that never left the mock up stage.
But it dont contain aircraft with diffrent index engiens. It also dont contain test beed aircraft like the 747 and A380 engine test plattform, and it also dont include aircraft with lift engies, as well as helicopters will push jets
"I don't know if I've ever heard of any aircraft that had different engines on the same airframe." Here's one: the Hawker Siddeley Trident (used by British Airways) had a tiny Rolls-Royce RB162 turbojet installed on its final 3B model that added 15% more thrust just for additional "hot and high" take off performance. This was easier than redesigning the whole aircraft to accommodate larger engines than the normal Spey models. As a kid, I remember seeing the Tridents around Heathrow in the 80's.
common knowledge about the Trident 3 that is, a tri-jet with 4 engines
You didn't know this until you googled it. Stop playing smart.
@@sparkythesecretsquirrel4013 Uh, Google wouldn't exist for a decade when I was seeing 4-engined Tridents with my own eyeballs.
The Olympus engine also had marine and land-based variants, used for naval propulsion and gas turbines for electricity generation, and many are still in use in those roles so the development costs were well covered, which could not be said for a new engine as Boom needs.
Very good point!
I served on 4 Oly-powered destroyers and frigates. It was always a thrill to move those levers up to full-power. But no reheat, unfortunately!
My dad used to work at RR and was an inspector on the engines actually used on Concorde.
Huh, but the F-16 engine is outdated-enough that the US wouldn't care about it, would they?
I mean, you'd still need the actual alloys mixing and the production facilities (and good luck getting all the bugs out that cause way higher wear and tear than actual F-16s suffer).
And then you'd need air-to-air missiles, and avionic and IFF systems and such.
Without _any_ of all those things, a 'fake' F-16 would be deeply inferior to a real one!
And even a real one would lose to an F-22 or an F-35, which the US has plenty of.
Oh, and without institutionalized skill in the maintenance crews, they also won't be as effective as F-16s that are produced and operated by NATO countries.
TLDR: the US would have nothing to fear from uploading the entire engine blueprints to Wikipedia...
Right? 🙃
@@ERIK31351 F16s are sold to other countries as functional aircraft. If any part of the engines were classified, they couldn't be sold like that, or there would have to be a version of the engine installed that had no classified assemblies.
If we can sell a plane to Israel or Turkey, we can use its parts in an airliner.
its one thing to create a beautiful graphic on a computer....its another thing to have a working, certified aircraft. We've seen this scenario play out so many times over the years
It seems a strange choice to choose "Boom" as the name of the company, considering that just draws correlation to the biggest drawback of supersonic air travel.Maybe their second choice was "Fuel Hog" so Boom was a better choice.
Nah, it was either Boom or Bust
That and "go boom".
@@p39483 talk about a nervous flyer
I think the original idea behind the company was to figure out a way to design a supersonic plane that could cancel out or mitigate the sonic boom. So the name "Boom" was a reference to the problem that they set out to solve, but it sounds to me like they've changed direction a bit.
Not to overlook the characteristic “boom” the last one made on its final journey.
When they first came out I thought I recalled hearing that Boom was trying to make an aircraft with little to no sonic boom so that they could go supersonic over land? Sounded impossible and probably was since that goal seemed to disappear quickly. If they could had achieved that it would have been a game changer. Without it they won’t survive.
They might have been trying to achieve that in the very beginning but not now as it seems.
I think you're confusing Boom with another project. There are people trying to greatly reduce the sonic boom of a supersonic plane, but I'm pretty sure Boom was never one of those.
@@MatthijsvanDuin There was a fair bit of hype around the NASA testing efforts around that time, and it may have gotten muddled in people's memory. Especially since its logical that supersonic transport being viable would NEED to be as quiet as possible in order to even have access to the markets they're looking for.
It does sound odd that a company called boom would make a supersonic aircraft without a boom
You're probably thinking of the X-59. And it's still progressing well, to the point that they'll be doing testing over cities relatively soon to measure volume.
As much as I love Concorde, everyone else does too. So my number one pick (just) tips towards the L-1011. So ahead of its time, despite being a commercial flop. We also have the L-1011 to thank for the RB-211, which is still the core in basically all the big RR engines today. It is a bucket list item to fly on one, which may be possible with the Tristar experience, something I only just learned of.
The tristar is a really good choice and definitely also nearly tops my own list. It was, for its time, the most technologically sophisticated aircraft, introducing autoland before autoland ever became a thing for the rest of the industry.
And it was Rolls Royce's failures that hampered the success of the L-1011 . RR had to be rescued by the UK government.
its a shame really as the Tristar was so much better than the DC-10. The Vickers VC-10 as well. Great planes that didn't get the success they deserved
@@robertradmacher4135 well I'd still rather have RR engines over GE, you just have to get a dig in about anything that isn't American
@@ant2312 But he is absolutely correct, Rolls-Royce was grossly late and screwed the entire L1011 program. Now, they have backed out of the Boom supersonic deal.
I think supersonic transport has a better future in business and charter jets, they are getting faster and faster anyway.
For me as average Joe, the waiting times not flying, from the moment I set foot into the departure airport, to when I get my baggage are as significant as turning a six hour flight into a three hour one.
As far as engines go, the Saab Viggen was equipped with essentally an afterburning version of the 737-100/200 engine and could go up to Mach 2.
Even more interesting the only major changes they did to it was cut down the main fun from 1.1:1 to 0.97:1. The engine named RM8 (A and B), where the B model added on more medium pressure fan was made by Volvo Aero engines, that is still around to this day and still makes jet engines (well sort if, taken over by GKN Aerospace in 2012) they also make most part for the rocket for the European launch vehicle.
Also interesting, the RM8A/B have a dry thrust of 65 and 72kN, that can be compared to the 67-89 kN needed for boom overture.
The ultimate irony of it is that Volvo Aero didn´t make the RM8 to be fuel efficient or something like that. Not, the reason why they made the RM8 the way they did had everything to do with serviceability.
I have serious doubts on that one. The business Market has changed.
Get TSA Pre-check or whatever. We only need to be there an hour early now and walk right through security.
Kind of agree with you, I don't think it'll easily take over commercial flights, but it could indeed do something to these other sorts of transport, or perhaps when someone wants to quickly get from point A to point B, however, I'm no aviation expert on this.
yes but the Viggen couldn't do Mach 2 for 3 hours
As a huge Concorde fangirl there’s nothing I’d love more than for something similar to return to the skies. Though like everyone else, I have a lot of doubts about the viability of the project. Just cross our fingers and hope 🤞🏼
I agree 100%. Everyone wants Boom to succeed, it just doesn't seem viable at this point.
Concorde fangirl myself
If ya'll want an opprotunity to walk through one (as well as a Tu-144), one of the Sinsheim/Speyer air museums has them on static display on stilts. And they let you walk through them.
@@hatman4818 thank you! I would love to do that.
@@davidcole333 because it has almost all the same problems concord had. It's too expensive to be offered to the mass market the plane is even smaller than concord so less passengers. The sonic boom means it can only work a limited amount of routes. In order to make it work you need to be able to offer it to regular customers not just billionaires who would just fly privately, and you'd need to get around the problem with the sonic boom.
Boom are great at talking and making posts on social media 🤔 I'm not too convinced their project will get off the ground
It certainly looks a bit shaky
But they’ve paid themselves generous salaries off it for a few years, so at least the masterminds of this scheme haven’t missed out.
american airlines have already agreed to buy 20 of their planes
@@m4a1mag Good news but without seeing the contract it doesn't mean too much...
Plus, they have competition. What will happen to their orders, they claim they have?
There two things in aviation I would do if I could time travel;
1) Flying London - NYC in a Concorde
2) Land on Kai Tak in a 747
I've done one of those things unfortunately I was only 3 and so don't renember
3) Watch the take off of a Saturn V
I was blessed enough to do both! I’ve been to 67 countries. No other landing approach came close to coming into Kai Tek, see the checkboard, go hard right, drop to about 600 feet and see people sitting eating breakfast. Extraordinary.
As much as I enjoyed watching and hearing Concorde take off at EGLL, it doesn't come close to seeing and feeling the Eurofighter Typhoon at Bournemouth Air Festival, I'll never forget the spine tingling noise!
I was fortunate to see a Concorde once back in the 80's. One flew into Omaha for a charter flight to England. It was beautiful to see it all flared out with the nose up to come in for a landing and then to have the pilot drop the nose, hit the throttles and do a fly by. I do not remember seeing the afterburners light, but it was still very loud. I went back to Epply Airfield the next morning to watch it take off. A truly beautiful aircraft.
*_@billratekin4134_* Great story. BTW the afterburners were only used to take off and then at 43,000 feet they were turned on to break the sound barrier when over sea.
My favorite is the 747. I got to fly on the Queen of the Skies once, from Frankfurt to Mumbai (I may have flown back on a 747 but I can't remember). That was the first time that I can remember flying on a four engined jet, so I was amazed. I didn't even know that a plane could be so big yet still fly.
Concorde was queen of the skies
Concorde still looks amazing way ahead of its time
now i feel really old. all those iconic aircraft you listed, i've ridden on--even a Stretch-707 and a Connie, back when prices meant either you were well-to-do, or military. more or less the entire passenger cabin was "first class", booze, food, snacks, pillows and blankets, and plenty of room. the heyday of commercial aviation is gone forever. good vid, as always.
Of course you also had immense noise, bad turbulence, and air sickness.
Other than takeoff and landing modern business class is basically just a waiting room with movies and snacks.
Thank you for making a video spotlighting Boom and their efforts!
And yep, you nailed it: Concorde is my favorite aircraft of all time. And for my money, the most beautiful machine humans have ever created.
I can only wish for this technology to return to the public. Living in Australia and New Zealand having high speed flights to connect us to the rest of the world really would be incredible. Living on a plane for an entire day and the jet lag is a real problem. I can only wonder how cool it would be if Australian cities, places like Brisbane and Perth, would consider having specific hubs for supersonic flights: Perth to Europe; Brisbane to USA. Yes please. But get the fuel and environmental stuff sorted too of course!
The notion that faster aeroplanes defeat jet lag is spurious. It's the change in time zones that gets you, and it gets you regardless of the speed of journey (unless you go really slowly, e.g. cruise ship speeds, and then jet lag does not get you at all because you can adjust steadily at a rate of about one hour per day of travel)
@@harryspeakup8452 I humbly disagree. Having had the privilege to fly on a Qatar A380 in 2019, and comparing to other heavies like the good ol 747, I can attest to the actual planes, the duration and routes playing a massive role in jetlag. It's not purely a timezone issue but rather the shock to our bodies being in that environment for the flights. The A380 was far superior in it's humidity, air pressure, lighting for circadian rhythms etc. and the route (to Europe) via Doha was also better on the body vs stopping via Singapore/Hong Kong etc. giving better chances of decent sleep. Obviously this is anecdotal because it's my experience, but when I told others to try it to compare, they agreed. Also wanted to add a slight contradiction: Qantas' A380s are not as comfortable as Qatar's because of Qantas' seating plans and slightly reduced features in the plane for passengers. Qantas is stingy and it makes long haul more exhausting
@@SallyGreenawayyou have a point, but to add to the subject: it’s as significant as compared to the plethora of factors that also add on to the effect, as there is no quantitative source that, while they can exacerbate symptoms due to dehydration, the cabin pressure, and major lack of movement, ultimately have little to no presence to demonstrate a “majority” factor in jet lag based on mostly available information, but still significant enough to be warranted as a contributor. according to the Employment Security Commission NCESC: “The duration of the flight does not directly affect jet lag. It is the time difference between the departure and arrival locations that affects the severity of jet lag. However, long flights can exacerbate symptoms due to factors such as cabin pressure, dehydration, and limited movement.” Other factors, like the direction of travel, have also been noted to affect jet lag symptoms (being worst eastwards than west), the melatonin levels present during the trip, and wether on not the trip was started during a night can really make a variable occurrence of the severity and length of jet lag symptoms. It’s variable to the point that the authors of a ScienceDirect article “To what extent is circadian phase predictive of subjective jet lag in long-haul cabin crew pre- and post-trip?” conducted a test using the melatonin rhythm as a method of understanding more of the phenomenon .
I have seen a Concorde plane that is still parked outside , welcomming travellers in Paris airport.... What a sight....such magnifficent ellegance and beauty..... it would be awesome to see such kind of swans fly again....
Always loved the Concorde! I always thought (and hoped) that more commercial supersonic aircraft and routes would become available in the future. The one and only time one of the Concorde jets flew into my local airport - it was beautiful to watch! Although the local authorities evidently banned future flights because of the noise level. Still loved it!
I know this video is 3 months old but fortunately Boom found an engine designer, FTT (Florida Turbine Technologies). This is fantastic news as Boom is currently building it's superfactory in North Carolina as we speak. The future of commercial supersonic flight has been saved!!!!
What did you expect from start-up bro dudes? Concorde had the best engineers in the world from the the UK & France and squillions of pounds to develop it and even then it was a monumental challenge
And never came close to repaying its R n D.
@@offshoretomorrow3346 Never mind. She was a beauty.
@@briantitchener4829 Most beautiful aircraft ever built.
Exactly. Concorde needed nation-state levels of funding. I will be utterly astonished if a Boom aircraft ever enters commercial service.
@@davidf2281 Sending rockets into space took nation state funding in the 60’s-90’s. Now private companies do it for a fraction of the cost. Finding an engine supplier is a major stumbling block, but I don’t think a national tax has to be levied to make a program like this work today.
I for one wish these supersonic companies all success.
Petter, I, unlike your core audience, am not interested in a future in aviation - mostly because that is an old dream and I'm in retirement. The reason I watch your channels is the other reason you teach aeronautics: to reduce ignorance in the general public about everything related to flying. And man, am I having a blast! Putting Tom Scott in the cockpit of a 737 simulator without Otto made my heart race. Thanks for the thrill :) Anyway, this channel about the ancillaries around flying is also interesting. Learning about the politics, economics and feasabilites seems just as interesting.
Here's the real problem: These are still commercial flights. You lose a LOT of time on each end dealing with security, navigating large commercial airports, baggage claim time, and more. New York to Paris is barely a 7 hour flight on a long range private jet. You can't shave enough off that with a commercial supersonic jet to overcome the inefficiencies of the airport itself. The truly wealthy have no use for a supersonic jet so these will remain a novelty for those a very narrow segment of people that can't afford private but want the novelty of going Mach 1+.
The net is this: By improving airport inefficiencies, we could reduce travel times for ALL passengers on ALL flights, all the time. And we don't need faster aircraft. Money spent on this has a much broader benefit.
I do agree, though, that new tech like this is super exciting to see.
Indeed, exactly.
High-speed rail might be good for this. Not only will it cut back on many of the emissions caused by short-haul regional travel (not to mention automobiles), but it will also make airports less crowded- a win for everyone.
Exactly if a standard commercial flight could make the loading / unloading faster you might only be 1-2 hours slower than Boom
@@anonymoususer3012 I'm a huge fan of high speed electric rail powered by the power grid. Fast, efficient, using proven tech, and best of all - can carry heavy loads no problem, unlike air which is costly as weight goes up.
But rail can't cross oceans, so there's still a gap to fill there.
I will add: If Boom could get the cost of the aircraft down to the $75MM range, then there is probably a market for privately owned or charter fleet sales...
I once heard Concorde take off from the terminal at Heathrow. The sheer volume of those turbojets on reheat was amazing to experience. I cannot imagine what it must have been like to be out on the tarmac.
That said, I would rather pay $600-1000 to fly from Washington, DC to London on a 787 or 777, not several thousand.
It was more used by businesses who could afford those tickets and the fast speed was great for business men
I used to live not too far from JFK Airport in New York city (My house was in line with one runway and I frequently watched as planes flew overhead, outbound), plus I drove on the parkways near that airport as well. I always knew when a Concorde was flying because of how loud, and distinctive, the noise was.
What if... A Washington to London ticket cost $1000 with a 787... and $1100 with a Overture?
You might think that is impossibly cheap?
Well... 1KG of JET-A1 currently cost just over $1. And the price of fuel is really not very cheap currently (compare to what it usually is).
Overture carry about 30 tons of fuel. But it will not need everything for Washington to London trip, rather 20 tons. That is shared over 88 seats. or at least, effectively 80 seats. That is $250 worth of fuel.
The 787 uses about 2kg of fuel per 100km, so that is about $150 worth of fuel for your seat.
But that is actually not the end of it.
Think now that you are traveling from NY but not to London but to Stockholm. This route is to small for a 787, so in steed it goes with a A321XLR. This matters. Because when the planes get smaller the pay of the pilot impact the passenger higher. Faster plane, less hours pay for the pilots... AND for the cabin crew.
Now say you traveling from Miami to Fortaleza, you can either travel in a E2-195, or A overture. IF you travle with a E2-195 you pay $800, if you travle in a overture... you pay $700.... Yes, less money. That might sound absurd, but if you run the numbers, it actually turns out that for a route like that, Overture can in theory be cheaper to operate.
@@matsv201 AM/FM...I will believe it when there is an actual machine that can do that.
@@ChapatiMan It was a prestige ticket that rarely, if ever, made sense from a business perspective. The cost of the ticket always outweighed the value of the time gained.
Trident 3B aircraft had 3 RR Spey 512 engines and 1 RB162 boost engine as standard (for hot and high / short runway operations) plus an APU.
The maximum passenger capacity of the Concorde was not 100. That was the configuration BA/AF chose. Original design was for 130 passengers, but not all First Class of course. Trouble was the extra passengers hence payload meant the aircraft would struggle to fly from Europe to the US East Coast. I flew Concorde twice. Once BA. The other time Braniff. Many have forgotten about that!
14:53 "If you don't have an engine, you don't have an aircraft"
Glider pilots: "... and I took that personally."
I wonder what the glide ratio of their design is?
Boom reminds me of the Nikola Truck scam - big tech promises, without actually having the tech. The whole idea was to make people/media report about it(like Mentour Pilot) and get investors, which would fund the research.
They made only the frame of the Truck and had it rolling down a hill, for videos. In the end, they were not able to develop the tech and the scam was exposed, but very late.
I've seen booms prototype several times. And seen/heard it doing ground run ups
The thing is, with Boom, the tech already does exist. High performance supersonic turbofans are nothing new, as we've seen in all 4th generation and later fighters. The cost of building/repurposing one for small-market civilian use is where you run into the problem.
@@EscapeTheCloudsOfficial "Efficient Supersonic *Hydrogen* Engines"
@@EscapeTheCloudsOfficial Same thing with the Nikola Truck. Electric vehicles already exist. Trucks already exist. "only" some repurposing required.
But development does not work that way.
We used to drive past Heathrow on a regular basis - I couldn't tell you the road, I was a kid at the time and this was a LONG time ago now. But at least twice a week we'd be going along and watching the planes land, or take off. Periodically, that plane would be Concorde. The landings were always amazing, but there's still nothing as incredible as feeling like you were racing Concorde as it took off parallel to you in the car.
Concorde taking off to the West used to be an accident hazard on the M25 in the M4 junction area, drivers would not be paying attention to the road. Just this year I passed the same place just as an A380 approached low overhead, must have been 200 feet. Same effect, somebody got rear-ended.
Peter, from the very beginning this has been a bust for me. I mean, to have ready and fully certified aircraft for commercial use by 2029, impossible. Even Rolls-Royce left the agreement.
Let's look at Boeing 777X case, and we are talking about the already existing model. I remember myself, 6 years ago at EK, working as an Cabin Crew, and being informed about exciting news of getting first 777x by 2020. 6 years later....
Yes.
apart from the 787 it seems all Boeing can do now is keep updating vintage models
Just found your channel. I'm impressed. Pilot to pilot - you have a smooth style.
Liked and subbed.
Thank you for bringing us these interesting topics. I can't believe I've never heard of Boom before and wouldn't have if not for your channel
I'm happy to see your enthusiasm. Too many people sneer at great ideas. Looking back to history, some of the wildest ideas made today's technology a reality. Seriously, howe many of us saw a business case and economic sense when the iPhone appeared?
I remember seeing the Concorde flying not far from my uncles as we were stood in the back garden here in England, west Yorkshire. i cant remember where it was landing that day but we knew it was going to be passing us. i remember hearing it long before we saw it. i dont think it was the first flight over here because i was about 3 year old then and im fairly sure i was older...
stop calling it "the"
Favorite airplane of all time: 747. Blessed to be finally flying it.
Always a well delivered video. Great job.
For those curious, the B-36 Peacemaker had 2 different engines on it. Propeller and jet
The later versions of the US Navy P2V Neptune also had props and jets.
Just finished Cpt Mike Bannister's book called Concorde and i think the british Concorde venture was technically profitaboe from 1984 onwards.. highly recommend the book to anyone interested in the history of Concorde and what happened in the subsequent court cases after the tragic crash in 2000
3:37 that is NOT a Boeing 2707 imagery. The Boeing 2707 was an American supersonic passenger airliner project during the 1960s. The 2707 actually looks much like the current Boom 4engine aircraft. The aircraft you see is boeing discussing HYPERsonic aircraft around 2018.
Another issue with Boom is the range, fine for trans Atlantic flights but not so much for trans Pacific routes like LA to Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney etc. People would pony up to cut that flight time in half, but Boom can't make it without a refueling stop which takes away it's advantage.
*_@kenclassen6616_*
1 Hr refuelling stop 747 cruise=575mph. Overture cruise=1,304mph
Route 747 Overture Saving
JFK/LHR 8 4 4
LAX /TYO 11.5 2.88 + 1 + 2.88 = 6.76 4.74
LAX/SYD 15 3.75 + 1 + 3.75 = 8.5 6.5
LAX/HKG 16 4.00 + 1 + 4.00 = 9 7
LHR/PER 17 4.25 + 1 + 4.25 = 9.5 7.5
Hi Mentour, thanks for making this video. I have been saying this online for months. Their scaled demonstrator now doesn't even look like the new design so how valid with the data be? And mimicking the B-2707-300 with those draggy engine pods? I would love to see another SST as I loved my Concorde flight in 1999. It was awesome to see the curvature of the Earth from 60,000' and to sit in the cockpit chatting with the pilots and Flight Engineer. The premature retirement of Concorde was forced by Airbus pulling the Type and Airworthiness Certificates because they could. This is unheard of for a manufacturer. Boeing still supports their airliners from the '60s and 70s.
I suspect the problem was that Concorde dominated the First Class trans Atlantic market (soaking up 800 seats per day) and any airframe manufacturer has to sell First and Business to its customer because that is where all the profit is made. At the US major I worked for, if BusinessFirst on our trans Atlantic DC-10s was 75% full, the aircraft was paid for. All the rest of BF, economy and the freight was pure profit. That's how important this was. They weren't making much money from Concorde support and Air France made it quietly known that they wouldn't mind letting it go and being government owned at the time, had the influence to support Airbus in this. Not great for BA who had just refurbished 5 of their aircraft with new interiors, Kevlar liners and other upgrades. Reportedly they went to Airbus with a plan to go it alone but Airbus said 'Not at any price'.
As for profitability, it made more than half a billion pounds in profit from the 5 aircraft in regular service. They were clever with using charters and round the world trips but across the Atlantic BA was profitable. It worked in its own division from 1982 so was not cross subsidised in any way. This is documented in numerous books and other sources and as BA is a public company, can be verified. Air France struggled with profitability with it and their mainline airline for years. The development costs are a separate issue as quite a few airliners never made back their costs (DC-10, L-1011,VC-10) but were profitable to operate. (No manufacturer charges back the development costs to a customer except a small portion in the sales price.)
The major achievement for Concorde was being able to supercruise (fly supersonic without afterburner) for 3+ hours at Mach 2.0 something no other aircraft civil or military has ever matched. The supercruising bit is critical and supersonic aircraft require low bypass or turbojet engines as they need the high exhaust gas velocity. This means noise. Rolls Royce pulling out is almost fatal. There is no engine in sight and engines take up to 10 years to develop. The Olympus 593 was the most thermally efficient turbojet ever produced and its SFC is still impressive today. At 30,000lb dry and 38,000lb wet it is head and shoulders above anything available now and ever surpassed the J-58 in the SR71 by some distance. The dry figure is critical for supercruising. The Olympus' clever inlet and exhaust system produced 60% of the thrust at Mach 2.0 with the core providing the rest.
You can find more about this amazing aircraft here www.heritageconcorde.com/ Best books are by Christopher Orlebar, Brian Trubshaw and Neil Kelly
Concorde solved all the problems except noise and boom and I doubt that Overture will solve these either.
05:27 - "I don't know if I've ever heard about an aircraft that runs different engines on the same airframe"
...The Hawker Siddeley HS-121 Trident 3B comes to mind. In addition to its three Spey RB.163s , it had also a fourth engine, an RB 162.
Boom also has a demonstrator that was supposed to fly 2 years ago
Personal favorite... L1011. Amazing plane, and I loved flying on it back in the 90's on a route I flew a lot back in the day. I really miss it, it was well ahead of it's time.
‘’Courage taught me no matter how bad a crisis gets ... any sound investment will eventually pay off."
Making it out at a young age is quite difficult. I started a side hustle at 17, saved up and made some good investments. l'm 28,live on my own and having a good life for myself. Big ups to you and everyone out there trying
Sounds like plan, how do you put money to work?
Yes it sure is. I put in money in investments and get profits. That 's how I make more money without working. This does not sound new to you right ?
@@cryptocasey1083 Thanks for replying me, I've heard so many people talk about investment but none had said how to do it right.
Am hoping on you can explain more on how you make extra income from investments
I remember being at the Donington rock festival in the late 80s, which is a few miles from East Midlands airport. Concorde happened to fly over, and it was sooooo loud and so amazing looking that the entire crowd turned around to look at Concorde and not the band, which you couldn't hear above the engine noise anyway.
I have always felt ~Mach 3 or about 2000+ MPH. Also trans Pacific range. It came down to economics. At those speeds, you can double the number flights. Half as many pilots per flight. Also twice as many flights per airplane. I think Mach 3 flights from the the US to Japan could easily command good premiums. Add in savings from double the flights, would probably make it worth while.
The problem you have is materials. Above Mach 2.3 you cannot use aluminium. Kinetic heating weakens it.
All of the top speeds you see for fighter aircraft historically are dash speeds, They cannot be sustained due to fuel burn and heat soaking. You have to use stainless steel or Titanium and economically that's a non-starter. That is one of the things that broke the B-2707 program.
Composites likely won't cut it either. Again, heatsoak is the problem. Concorde designers picked the sweet spot at Mach 2.0. They could use an aluminium alloy (Hiduminium) and RR Olympus 593 engines to supercruise. (fly long distances supersonically without afterburner)
Concorde solved supercruising problem at the time but at present there does not appear to be a suitable engine.
No supercruise no SST.
There is also the problem of noise. In order to have high enough exhaust gas velocity, you have to use a turbojet or a very low bypass turbofan with afterburning. The Mach 2.0 to Mach 3.0 leap is a huge one.
If GE and others come out with a variable cycle engine, this might make it possible but these are about a decade away and will likely be kept for military applications
As it stands, there is currently no practical way to build a Mach 3.0 airliner.
@@Completeaerogeektitanium for an aircraft body truly would be overwhelmingly expensive for the airline
@@narrowistheway77 Of course. The STAC committee came to that conclusion in the early 1960s which it why them went with Hiduminium, a Rolls Royce high temperature aluminium alloy for Concorde which limited it structurally to Mach 2.3.
Boeings B-2707 intended to use Titanium which is one of the many reasons it failed and all that was produced was a wooden mockup.
Very informative video. Among other things, I've been curious about the apparent lack of variable-geometry air inlets on Boom. Anyway, regarding the comment at ~5:30 "...haven't heard of an aircraft running different engines on the same airframe..." The re-engined 727s still flying are using larger MD-80 engines on the #1 and #3 pylons, namely the JT8D-200 series, while still using the smaller original JT8D engine type on the centerline position. Apparently, the mounting bolt positions were the same, making the transition relatively easy, while the enclosed #2 engine was always going to have size limitations.
Also rooting for Boom! If successful, it is gonna be THE most ambitious aircraft that enters commerical service in the 21th century
Regarding sonic boom issues, NASA and some private contractors have been actively investigating how to eliminate the 'boom' from supersonic flight for about 8 years and reduce fuel consumption/emissions profile. Progress is being made on that effort too.
This company is on my same airport. I see them often testing there smaller version. Only ground runs so far. Thier hanger is always open and seeing the aircraft looks pretty sweet
The problem is the XB-1 now looks nothing like the new design so the data will no apply to it.
That's encouraging. Thanks for the report.
@@kevinb3812 they had it out again yesterday doung a run up.
Awesome Video and also I am praying that boom supersonic succeeds in getting their plane into production and into passenger service.
I'm not quite sure that naming the company BOOM was such a smart decision.
BOOM is not generally a desired noise to associate with commercial planes, not to mention the desire to engineer away most of the sonic boom hinderance.
Having said that, i do like to see some new crafts with unique designs, i hope to see an age of airships again.
Agree about their name, Boom is not a great association. It actually sounds like a joke, another undesirable attribute for an aerospace brand. A little adjustment needed perhaps.
Maybe silent but deadly would be a better name🙂
@Christian Haha
Your wait for an Airship is in vain... Physics don't really are in their favor. Back in the 1990s there were high hopes from Airship-Industries and several other enterprises, all of them overtouting that "with 'modern' composite materials, turbines and electronics, the airship was comming back"... As of today, 30 years later, there is still one single company doing efforts towards a "modern airship", but with some mishaps and no firm results. Back in 1993, my company studied the concepts then going "strongly", only to find a lot of hot air (pun intended) and little more than just beautiful watercolor paintings of imagined "designs", loudly called "conceptual designs" that lacked almost all calculations and engineering, buy were completely fantasious.
When we consulted with Dr. Norman Mayer, then head of the LTA comitee of NASA, Dr. Mayer honestly replied to our question about the possible success of a modern airship as a replacement of helicopters for personnel transportation to offshore oil platforms; Dr. Mayer replied "The helos were going to be very hard to beat", and told us that he was already packing up all his things, as NASA was closing down their entire LTA ("Lighter than Air") comitee, due to lack of firm results and because they had observed a "dead end" concerning LTAs for transportation, deeming them useable only for aerostats used for atmospheric research or for lifting radar platforms, a kind of cheap, tied "AWACS"...
The main weakness of an airship is the huge lateral wind exposed area making huge drag, wind and gusts vulnerability, and the lack of maneuverability due to having little WEIGHT, but still a large MASS... so, Physics are against them for any practical use. That is the reason why drones and helicopters with their large power to mass ratio have an instant response, and are way more favourable than any conceivable airship; and no amount of miracle electronics or composites is going to override their physics.
@@alfredomarquez9777 Ah yeah, i know, thinking about airships is like having your head in the clouds (pun specifically structured into the sentence).
They're unstable and their load capacity will never match that of any properly motorized vehicle.
But i'm imagining some affordable rides around/above town, because hopefully we can somehow keep them afloat without real dangers, and a crash would be at considerable low speeds that survival is almost guaranteed, but of course, crashes should be eliminated.
I would prefer a light gas over spinning blades, considering they'll be slicing up seagulls en masse if they patrol the cities, and i prefer to go sightseeing without the blood.
But yeah, i know it's not going to happen anytime soon, or ever again.
Even the blimps are disappearing.
Although i do see some hot air balloons occasionally, but i loved seeing the Zeppelin shaped blimps in the air when i was a kid in the 80s/90s.
It just has something magical about it, seeing the oversized objects in the air.
I think not having an engine supplier will not help matters, the airframe will have a maximum temperature it can safely fly at. On Concorde the nose tip got to 127 degrees at maximum. Building a new airframe from composite materials makes the issue a lot harder to control as titanium and other metals used for Concorde were very light and thin, the areas around the windows were specifically cooled. Checkout out the excellent book by Christopher Orlebar, it gives a great insight into things. I think the combine of speed and range will be an issue. I can’t see Boom making the engines in house and I don’t think they could just buy up a few engines to get a prototype off the ground. The weight of the engine and it’s fuel will be a tricky issue, with Concorde fuel was moved around for Center of gravity and to maintain the correct balance. Having rear tail fins might appear ok but could be a step backwards. I think the double delta wing off Concorde should be used as template and the technical changes devised might improve things. Sadly the sonic boom cannot be bypassed and making the aircraft have the range and ability to pay for itself is another. The maintenance required is something else too,how many cycles can the airframe sustain and what happens about fatigue? Components have a limited life and aircraft parts are somewhat expensive and specialist stuff too. Let’s see how long it is before an engine supplier is agreed upon, from there the prototype is going to have to do some serious testing. It will be worth watching as it were.
How do you fly the Concorde when fuel is empty. Would be nice to have a supersonic sail plane diving down from 20 km. Gives some extra range. Maybe able to push out the heavy engines out the back in emergency.
This looks more like a B58 all the time - as for Concorde? Golly that was incredible
My sister's boss, who was loaded, used to love Concorde because it meant he could wake up at his home in London, get a morning flight on a Concorde to New York City, hang out in New York from morning till late afternoon local time going shopping or doing whatever, then fly back to London and be back at his home in time for bed. He was really upset when Concorde was retired without anything comparable to replace it.
I really hope that Boom Supersonic succeeds.
Thanks again for another of your wonderfully interesting, complete and informative videos. As a retired airline pilot, I find your channel to be my most trusted link to the industry.
Hello Peter, I have a question maybe you can explain to us, is what are the new crew alert systems required by the FAA to certify the 737-7/10? what modification they need to do for 2023 regulations?
I would focus on range extension and go for the transpacific market. The demand for flights between the US and Asia will continue to grow, while US-Europe it is largely saturated, and the high cruise speed has a greater impact on longer routes. However, the technical feasibility of such a long range is nothing I can assess.
I'd like to find a place to make a wager that Boom will never get even a prototype off of the ground, much less certified for commercial use.
I have seen thier prototype do several ground runs. It's only a matter of time before it takes flight
What engine are they using? Or is it scaled down?
@@liam3284 that is the killer question. The so-called prototype is only a reduced scale proof of concept, not a prototype of a commercially usable aircraft
Aircraft with more than one engine type on the same airframe include the Ford Trimotor models 7-AT-A and 13-A, the B-36, the Ryan Fireball, the D-558-2, and the NF-104, in addition to a number of testbed aircraft fitted with a variety of engines temporarily.
I see the Concord as a aviation example of a "halo" car. A car built in small numbers to increase brand interest, ie the Lexus LFA or Acrura NSX. In this respect I think it did great, when you hear the name Concord you think Air France or BA.
Or the Bugatti Veyron and Chiron for VW, or the Corvette for GM.
And I wouldn't be surprised if British Airways and Air France operated them at least in part as "loss leaders" like that -- not making much money in and of themselves, but drawing in more business to flights that do.
Good point. Sacrifice the bishop to eventually win the game. If Bobby Fisher could do it, why not AF and BA?
It's pretty comon knowledge that BA did in fact make a profit from Concorde, though AirFrance did not. But they realised during the grounding that they made more money if pax flew in First pr Business on subsonic jets, combined with the fact that as Concorde aged, it needed a lot of work to keep flying, which caused rising maintenence costs, which would quickly eliminate any profits if Concorde had kept flying. The alternative would have been extensive refurbishment, but this would have been extremely expensive per plane due to how few there were, and Airbus simply weren't interested.
1 year later and the Baby Boom has yet to fly.
Rolls could always adapt and update the olympus if they were interested. As that engine has already done the job once before. Cheaper than a totally new design, but would possibly tie boom to a similar engine management arrangement, inlets etc to concorde. However new materials and modern computers might improve the old design enough to work well.
Another thing is that Boom has been advertising routes on their website that the Overture doesn't have the range for like SYD to LAX
Really?! I haven’t seen that
It never did. But with the fuel stop it's still significantly faster than subsonic competitors.
@@stephen_101 A fuel stop is slower because... another aircraft is currently on our jetway and the stairs have a flat tire.
@@stephen_101 between Sidney and LA? Have you discovered Atlantis?
A fuel stop? Does Hawaii cary a suitable runway?
The SR-71 is and probably always will be the quintessential cool aircraft. It even looks good today, and that's not even addressing the things it could do.
What about the Lockheed Constellation? A truly beautiful and unique aircraft.
I drove past the end of Heathrow 27L just as Concorde took off. The vibrations were incredible. Our home had huge plate glass windows that vibrated with the sonic boom every day.
The F414-GE-400 engine (58-98 kN) could be a nice choice. It is used in F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet that can do in Mach 1.6, and a variant F414-G is used in Swedish Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen, where it did Mach 1.2 on a single engine without using afterburner.
I think a GE F404 variant might serve them well too, they are smaller, parts are abundant and the long list of variants proves they can be tuned for different uses.
It is an interesting question that was not covered in depth in the video - Could Boom choose an existing military engine for the Overture?
Not nearly powerful enough dry. The M 1.2 was a dash speed. You have to sustain Mach 2.0 without afterburner to have a viable SST. Concorde's Olympus 593 produced 30,400 lbs dry and this allowed it to supercruise at Mach 2.0 for 3+ hours, something no other aircraft has ever come close to. No supercruise- no SST.
@@Completeaerogeek 4 * 58 kN to 77111 kg (Boom Overture with previous engines) max takeoff weight is 332 kg/kN. Concorde had 4 * 140 kN to 185070 kg max takeoff weight = 330 kg/kN. The power to weight is roughly equivalent.
@@bgezal I understand but having so radically changed their design and knowing how aircraft gain weight in development (this is why Concorde designers had to accept temporary reheat) I have serious doubts .
You want an engine that has probably a 25% thrust excess just to start. Also in Concorde, the engines ran at 100% constantly in climb and cruise above M 0.90. This was one of the challenges for the Olympus development team.
I can't think of any jets that run the engines at 100% for hours at a time but I am happy to be corrected.
I am also concerned that their test vehicle now bears no relationship to the current design...
Absolutely agree that this type of innovation is required to move forward, it is important that everyone gives the importance required. And dedicate the required funding, there is no tomorrow without innovation
From the point of view of engineers making really cool stuff that looks amazing it'd be great if Boom are successful and I very much hope it happens. But I do wonder if Mach 1.7 is a bit slow, not just for commercial viability now but in the longer term if suborbital flights ever become a thing. Sure, suborbital tickets will probably make Concorde look cheap, but someone will probably pay for it to go from Melbourne or Sydney to London or New York in a couple of hours while the rest of us stick with something cheap, efficient and subsonic and put up with a day's travel. But where would that leave operators who can do the journey in half the time that ordinary aircraft take but still can't get anywhere close to suborbital travel times? It could be too slow for the super-rich but too expensive for nearly everyone else.
Supersonic is currently more likely than suborbital. Starship isn’t doing that before 2030 at least, probably 2035 before they start considering it seriously, getting it rated for astronauts is one thing but civilian rating and building the infrastructure and proving the technology in that way is something else entirely. And billionaires won’t take it as having someone so important regularly flying ins technological marvel whose landing procedure is so novel and unproven is far too much risk.
Agree, I would love to see this! With high inflation hard for startups and small companies to stay viable vs large companies or legacy companies. Small companies/startups have much higher debt loads.
I wonder if the engine that is being developed by Reaction Engines in the UK could be used for the Boom design. It would not have to fly into space like the Skylon design but it might work... just saying...
This is a fantastic video and a joy to watch. Thank you for making it!
I’d definitely like a video on the Rolls Royce ultra fan
Me too... because it will have an as large noise problem as the sonic boom! (an un-enclosed fan will tend to be as noisy as the Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" with its counterrotating props with their almost supersonic propeller tips...
My favourite aircraft: DC3 (I learned parachuting on them). I took one flight on Concorde - l still have all the classy gifts they handed out.
As you said in 14:53, these projects will fall over without an engine supplier or viable engine option, especially for a supersonic aircraft since it is even more critical.
The engine suppliers, before committing to spend money to modify an existing engine model, would want to know if they can get a return on investment - and how big the engine market will be. Even though airlines have placed orders, it seems most engine manufacturers are reluctant to commit.
Grew up under final approach to DFW. I still remember everyone outside looking up as the Concorde flew overhead.
If you don't have an engine, you only have a glider.
And that's a very expensive glider...
@@Ashleigh_T Indeed. Too expensive.
Still need an engine to get airborne, even if being towed. Haha
A giant multi million dollar paperweight.
Do you think it would go supersonic if youxdrop it from high enough?
People are reminiscing about Concorde
The house my family has been in since the 1970's is under the usual outbound path from Heathrow, just where the Concorde flights usually split either south or west. We could identify the sound but they became route.
Into the 1980s our house was doubly blessed by aviation, low(ish) demonstration and test flights by the then British Aerospace out of Dunsfold used to come in over the low population heathland and use our house, with it's distinctive colour roof, as an aim point and directly overhead.
Later in the 90s and early 2000s I got to casually converse electronically with some of the people who had worked on the wing design and still worked, like I do, for the Ministry of Defence (people sometimes forget that a lot of the Concorde design and test work was done by military research and development establishments).
Happy days, sat in the offices up on the hill during the Farnborough airshow with Airbuses up to the 380, various Boeings, An 225's, C17s and wotnots circling about overhead - and that's before we mention the Fast Jets.
There was a fascinating (publicly available) book in the Farnborough library on the development process. IIRC it all began with some transatlantic fuel burn vs airspeed and flight time curves that showed that if you flew fast enough the extra fuel required to generate the airspeed was outweighed by that saved by the shorter flight time and the airspeed at which that happened was just within the technology practical for a civil aircraft at the time.
On the subject of a trijet with different engine types: I want to see a trijet with 1 huge high bypass turbofan and 2 small turbojets with reheat. You'd use all 3 engines for take-off and landing, but cruise as a single engine aircraft. In the event of the large engine failing, the two small engines would be able to be started in flight from the APU, and would have enough power to let you divert.
Boom designed new motor called Symphony that some us military jet engine manifacturer will build, basically from stock parts. They had to design whole new motor because none motors supported 100% sustainable fuel. At best some of them support 50/50 mix.
It does look very risky, but it could work. There are more extremely wealthy people in the world now than when concord was in operation.
The green credentials are a bit of a stretch especially if other airlines are able to use biofuel which could be a possibility if boom development leads to this technology being accepted by the FAA etc
Always covering the best news, Petter. I’m keeping my fingers crossed. A 15 hour flight to the Philippines sucks.
The L/D of a supersonic aircraft in cruise limits range to like 4000 miles. If you want to shorten a 15 hour flight it's going to take a spacecraft.
@@p39483 yeah, it’s an easy thing to solve. Doesn’t matter anyways, we will not see these again.
Video conference is going to kill the supersonic, not enough business travellers today to support it, they can make a zoom call and be home early, or not even leave home! And save thousands.
Actually, business travel is coming back strongly at the moment.
The rich like luxury trips on expenses
Yeah perhaps some dont want to be at home xD
Concorde is (and I suspect always will be) my favorite plane. I gasped when I spotted the one on display at CDG and was able to tour and sit inside the one in New York on the USS Intrepid... which felt surprisingly small and somewhat cramped. Still, as a graphic designer and AV geek, there's no better commercial example of truly innovative, elegant design than Concorde.