Real Science uploaded a video today that is honestly much better than this one, you should watch it: kzread.info/dash/bejne/dqGV0MSQp7DHZdo.html

@Th3Shrike

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine not watching that within thirty minutes of upload

@WestExplainsBest

2 жыл бұрын

You don't give yourself enough credit! This video is top-notch!

@petermferguson

2 жыл бұрын

that link is about lab grown meat 🙁

@karam3045

2 жыл бұрын

What is the name of the book at 16:13? Edit: nvm found it, its called general aviation aircraft design

@dmeemd7787

2 жыл бұрын

so fo you feel Lockheed or Boom has the most potential..? I think Lockheed will probably make the sonic boom quieter...but yeah, hopefully someone pulls out off and make it practical.. that would be great!

Putting "super easy, barely an inconvenience" into script is tight

@TheSiprianus

2 жыл бұрын

yeah, yeah, yeah

@jacobdoolan4978

2 жыл бұрын

Shoot who was that KZread again?

@peterparker1724

2 жыл бұрын

@@jacobdoolan4978 screen rant

@ChefLuisFayad

2 жыл бұрын

Wow wow wow

@ariuss3009

2 жыл бұрын

@@jacobdoolan4978 the YT channel is screen rant, the guy is Ryan George

That Ryan George reference was something i never expected on this channel, but I love it!

@MejiUlises

2 жыл бұрын

Same here! I had to rewind just to make sure I heard it correctly

@gnexjeff

2 жыл бұрын

When I heard it, I thought to myself, "Wow wow wow wow.....wow."

@justthisguyyouknow42

2 жыл бұрын

Brian is going to need you to get ALL the way off his back about this

@kaden9572

2 жыл бұрын

Fav part 😂😂😂

@DirectorBird

2 жыл бұрын

I did a double take.

One tiny correction. The Concorde actually flew to Washington DC and on to Miami 3 times a week for many years. I worked in Miami and we used to watch the Concorde land if we were bored.

@phonicwheel933

10 ай бұрын

*_@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344_* There were 7,000 return flights from Heathrow to Barbados as well, between 1987 and 2003. A Concorde is on display near the Grantley Adams International Airport, Barbados.

@MrDaiseymay

8 ай бұрын

YOU TELL 'M@@phonicwheel933

It's come up a bit already in the comments, but I think "Business Class plus WiFi" and "private jets" basically killed the market for supersonic passenger travel. The former means you can work on the plane in comfort (not possible in the 1970s) and even time your flights on a red-eye flight to sleep for much of it, and the latter means that the really wealthy aren't going to fly supersonic passenger travel when they can fly on their own private jets. All that's left are people who are really super-time sensitive, can't work remotely by WiFI in business class, and have lots of money, and I think that's too niche for it to survive (incidentally, "too narrow niche to survive" is what also kills the occasional giant airship revival that pops up every few years).

@RM-el3gw

2 жыл бұрын

Yours is the right answer to this plane in a nutshell. That being said, if this new company with zero experience in aviation, led by a software engineer... Somehow manages to design, build, test this plane, and somehow get the FAA to CERTIFY it... It could have some limited future, since United basically placed an order with them. And a bunch of sheiks and crazy rich randos would probably consider them as well.

@federicomadden9236

2 жыл бұрын

That still leaves an opening for supersonic private jets, though. I wouldn't be surprised if this focus on a commercial passenger jet is really just a feint

@Erreurification

Жыл бұрын

@@federicomadden9236 Agreed. I'd say supersonic travel for business aviation is a way bigger market than commercial passenger jet.

@MrMarinus18

Жыл бұрын

I kinda disagree because all of what you say applied to the Concorde as well. Cause in the 1970's telephones and fax machines existed and you could also do work on the plane like write papers and hold meetings. For inspection visits you usually have many establishment fairly close together so it's a series of short hops in which private jets make far more sense. The Concorde for it's entire existence was a novelty. People flew on it for the sake of flying on it.

@Completeaerogeek

9 ай бұрын

Ahhh not even close. One of the reasons Concorde was profitable for 20 years for BA (before it was prematurely forced into retirement by Airbus (politics and money) was that its purpose was to compete against subsonic First Class. Concorde’s tickets were only around 10-15% more (1996 GBP 4,772 vs subsonic First Class GBP 4,314) and this meant that a company could have its executive (who would have been sent First Class anyway) leave London at 10:30am, arrive in NYC at 9:30am (yes before they took off, as Concorde flew faster than the Earth rotates) take a 10 min helicopter ride to the East River heliport, have a bunch of meetings and zip back to JFK for the 1:30pm Concorde to London and be in bed the same night. Concorde had its own security, check-in, lounge adn boarding gate from teh lounge. No lining up for anything... Time as they say, is money, especially for these folks, and Concorde built a very loyal following that lasted throughout its service life operating in its own P&L division, and consistently profitable for BA from 1982 on, even when the mainline carrier was unprofitable.

There is one reason that somehow wasn't often mentioned: 50 years ago any type of transport and flight in particular was considered as a time waster, you just sit and wait. Now you have Wi-Fi on your average jet so you can be as productive as in the office. Not to mention modern portable entertainment systems. So there is no need to pay extra to skip 3 hours, especially if you wouldn't even notice it.

@NatedoGP

2 жыл бұрын

But sometimes you really need to save that extra time to do something in person

@carlosandleon

2 жыл бұрын

In what world do you live in where people willingly work in a plane?

@andyc9902

2 жыл бұрын

True

@andyc9902

2 жыл бұрын

@@NatedoGP that's true. Low passager count is the way to go

@dessertstorm7476

2 жыл бұрын

The trend has been towards longer range and better efficiency

The concorde looks really like a marvel of engineering. I mean being able to develop a supersonic plane without modern technology and still being copied years after because your design was very good is like one of the biggest testamnent.

@danopticon

2 жыл бұрын

Well, sorta, maybe. But in truth, the laws of physics are just the laws of physics, and the laws of aerodynamics are just the laws of aerodynamics, sooo… That’s why none of these designs are ever drastic departures from the ones preceding them: the Wright brothers had wings attached to a fuselage, as did the DC-10, as did the 747, as did the Concorde, as did the Buran … the wiggle room within which to innovate is quite small!

@crf80fdarkdays

2 жыл бұрын

What we know today and also what computers use today is a result of our yesteryear engineers, computers wouldn't know what to do if we didn't first program them.

@routmaster38

2 жыл бұрын

It transpired later that that piece of metal alleged to have punctured a tyre etc was NOT the reason it crashed.The main reason was faulty wiring causing sparks in a leaky environment ,bad fuel weight distribution and the pilots shutting down the two still running engines!

@jwadaow

2 жыл бұрын

@@danopticon that's not very plausible. There is a lack of innovation. The economy is not growing as fast as it was between the war and the crisis in the 70s.

@belldrop7365

2 жыл бұрын

@@jwadaow The rich is forcing the status quo to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor.

Concorde was such a beautiful plane. I was living close to Orly. I could see it everyday going to work to Paris. One was in permanent position in front of the airport. I think it was the most marvelous non military plane of all time. The other being the sr71 to my opinion, that we can see at New York, on the naval museum carrier.

@raymondramirez9177

2 жыл бұрын

That is the Intreprid Air and Space Museum, where one of the Concordes now stands on the concrete path next to the aircraft carrier. The Space Shuttle Enterrise is on the carrier deck with the other aircraft, including the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.

@MrDaiseymay

8 ай бұрын

@@raymondramirez9177 I hear that NONE of the US Concordes, have been protected and maintained properly. THIS WAS, the case in Bristol UK, home of UK Concorde, But now, she has a brand new Museum, and wonderful presentational lighting system, and Story sound track.

I really appreciate the level of scrutiny you're providing. Seems like many of their advertised claims simply aren't feasible. Looks like a good start and lots of the Concorde's drawbacks are being solved with today's tech advances, BUT: - They need an engine that doesn't exist and usually takes the better part of a decade to produce, yet they want it in a couple of years from scratch. - They haven't significantly decreased the boom - They haven't significantly increased range I guess this is more evolutionary than revolutionary, which as you pointed out probably still won't be economically feasible.

@kamilpotato3764

2 жыл бұрын

I think future will be high altitude fast flights.

@NachtjagerVII

2 жыл бұрын

My guess for range is just that they don't know yet being that they have no engine, or rather that range estimate was utilizing numbers from the 60s era GE engine they will use for flight testing soon.

@jasonyesmarc309

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah this sounds like a company about to get themselves impaled to address a niche that faded away for well-documented reasons. Their self-promotions don't instill confidence and honestly look arrogant or apathetic at worst.

@jasonyesmarc309

2 жыл бұрын

@@kamilpotato3764 When I told my dad about this video, his first thought was the same. He suspects that if people really want a fast travel solution and avoid sonic booms, they're better off making globe-spanning high-altitude space planes, and avoid atmosphere altogether. Frankly, I agree with both of you; I remember reading about some insane turbine that was in development maybe 6 years back, and it would be used for space planes right before they hit vacuum.

@MrDaiseymay

8 ай бұрын

LIKE CONCORDE ,THATS A GOOD IDEA.@@kamilpotato3764

Note, the Concorde's final flight was in November 2003, 18 years ago yesterday. Not 2006 like it says in the video.

@dylanminett8552

2 жыл бұрын

Final passenger flight was New York JFK to London Heathrow on October 24 2003, final ever flight of a Concorde was London Heathrow to Bristol Fulton airport on November 26th 2003.

@neilford99

2 жыл бұрын

I watched three Concordes fly west over the Thames on that day. End of an era. Heard and saw Concorde most nights heading into Heathrow.

@Guynumber7

2 жыл бұрын

they also said it was air france 4560 not 4590

0:26 I think you got confused. Concorde definitely was *NOT* still flying in 2006. The final passenger flight was from New York JFK to London Heathrow on October 24 2003, and the final ever flight of a Concorde was from London Heathrow to Bristol Filton airport on November 26th 2003.

@RebootizerTech

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty sure that's a narrative error as the date is accurate just not the year.

@kabeertheavgeek

2 жыл бұрын

and Air France 4590 crashed not 4560

@thomaswin5535

2 жыл бұрын

You are correct Dylan. Concorde's last flight was indeed on the 26th of November 2003.

@Mash4096

2 жыл бұрын

Speaking of errors; 0:37 "Passengers rewinding their watch only 2 hours" ??! The time difference between London and New York City is 5 hours. What's wrong with this logic?

@arifhossain9751

2 жыл бұрын

@@Mash4096 I THINK they added the travel time of 3 hours? didn't they turn off watches on planes back then?

0:29 you'd rewind you'r clock FIVE HOURS regardless of speed, even if you took a cruize ship, as your clock would normally not stop ticking while traveling

In case anybody watches the video and thinks 105 dB can't be much louder than 75 dB, it's worth noting that decibels are a logarithmic, not linear, unit. 20 meters, a linear unit, is twice as long as 10 meter. 20 dB is 10 times louder than 10 dB. 30 dB is 10 times louder than 20 dB and so is 100 times louder than 10 dB. In other words, 105 dB is 1000 times louder than 75 dB.

@rickrickston3202

2 жыл бұрын

Close - you get a 10x factor with 20db. So 10dB is about 3.3x louder, and 105dB is about 33x louder than 75dB

@SafffOneee

2 жыл бұрын

for me it was office > vaccuum cleaner > motorbike, each significantly louder than the previous yet only 10db difference

@phonicwheel933

9 ай бұрын

*_@JohnDoe-yp3zv_* It's quite true that decibels are logarithmic, but then so is human hearing. That is why dBs were invented. An increase of 10dB sounds twice as loud, so 105dB-75dB =30dB, which would sound 8x as loud.

@phonicwheel933

9 ай бұрын

@@SafffOneee 10dB increase sounds twice as loud, so the vacuum cleaner would sound twice as loud as the office and the motorbike would sound four times as loud as the office and twice as loud as the vacuum cleaner.

0:50 "Super easy, barely an inconvenience" SCREEN RANT WANTS TO: 📍 KNOW YOUR LOCATION 😂😂

"Droop snoot" Thank you for knowing that reference!

As a Brit, I have a special place in my heart for concorde. I've been underneath its flight path when I heard the sonic boom, it's quite something! I remember feeling awed, but if I lived under the flight path, i guess it could have become irritating, obviously can't say for sure. I was very sad when I heard it was being decommissioned

I remember hearing sonic booms as a kid in the early 80's living on the California coast. I loved them. Its one of the things that started my interest of wanting to become a fighter pilot...then Top Gun came out and that sealed the deal. Unfortunately I was in a major accident in '89 at 14 that dashed those dreams. Still love sonic booms though.

As an engineering student, your videos are extremely helpful to have something in the background while I’m playing Minecraft avoiding studying for my final test.

Pinning the hopes of your new airliner on a yet-to-be-designed Rolls Royce engine? I hope it works out better than it did for the L-1011.

@ABrit-bt6ce

2 жыл бұрын

RB211 repeat will go just as well.

@jackroutledge352

2 жыл бұрын

RR is completely cash strapped at the moment, and just barely clinging on amid the pandemic. Even if they had the resources, there's no way they would take such a massive gamble on developing a supersonic engine for this thing, when there are no guarantees of any orders. GE have already ended development on their supersonic engine program, which means there is no one who can realistically provide an engine for Boom. Edit: By "completely cash strapped" I don't mean they are on the brink of collapse right now. But they have negative shareholder equity, which is a big red flag. In any case, they don't have the resources for a clean sheet supersonic engine. The commercial failure of such a program really could push them over the edge after the financial pressures of recent years (covid, Trent 1000) etc.

@martinda7446

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackroutledge352 There are dozens of supersonic engines out there since 1946.

@tams805

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackroutledge352 RR are not complete cash strapped. And they are too valuable for even the current Conservative government to allow to fail and be bought up by foreign companies. But yes, there's no reason for them to put much effort into a pure jet engine and one certainly won't be ready by 2026.

@Then.72

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackroutledge352 what! No, it's not it makes the VTOL system for the F35B and many engines

0:33 I don't think that's how clocks work. You have to rewind your clock 5 hours if you fly from London to New York no matter what.

@Bean-Time

2 жыл бұрын

(they will still arrive earlier than when they left, but the flight time does not change how much your watch needs to be adjusted by) Edit: close parentheses

@rusinsr

2 жыл бұрын

Glad you pointed that out, when I heard that it made me pause the video and think for a moment XD

Thanks for doing this video! I've always been skeptical with Boom's claim. Even though 60 years of engineering improvements have brought many technologies that Concorde's engineers didn't have, supersonic jet engines haven't improved much since then. Only a few aircrafts can reach supersonic speeds without afterburner, and the pinnacle of that kind of engines was basically the Olympus and the PW J58, that have both been developed 60 years ago. So I always wondered how they would manage to beat the engineering prowess of 3 of the largest engine builders in the world. I feel like that partnership with Rolls-Royce should have been made much earlier in the process. To give a nowadays comparison, Space x didn't start building starship without Raptor's engine development being already well advanced. It feels like they started building an F1 car but planned to use a motorcycle engine

@Completeaerogeek

9 ай бұрын

The Olympus was even more impressive than the J-58-it could supercruise at Mach 2.0. One of the reasons Concorde was profitable for BA for 20 years.

never knew ryan would collab with a science guy. unfortunately he didnt do a backflip to kill the bad guy.

@kalactose348

2 жыл бұрын

.....snap the bad guys neck and save the day

@andyc9902

2 жыл бұрын

What

@mlungisimokhethi6958

2 жыл бұрын

He does scienk.

- Guys what sould we call our plane company ? - How about boom or crash ? - You're hired !

Amazing video and I love how you presented it! Thanks for being on KZread!

8:57 i love how you can hear him trying not to laugh when he says "droop snoot"

I get what you mean, but everyone always turns back their watch by 6 hours when they fly from Paris to NY, no matter how fast the aircraft is.

@kinetictz7093

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly! Because its not like your watch stops the moment the plane starts flying, it still follows paris time until you change it. U just do the changing 4 hours earlier

@cheboyard

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, but the flight is shorter than the amount of time you turn your clock back by.

@SimaanFreeloader

2 жыл бұрын

You don’t stop your clock when you enter an airplane?

@wademyers6598

2 жыл бұрын

I go the long way

@dbclass4075

2 жыл бұрын

He meant by arrival; leave watch as is during flight, then just move back by two hours upon reaching destination. You are describing adjustment at departure.

Another caveat is that developing a new (state of the art) engine costs many billions of dollars, which they would never be able to recover due to the limited market size. This leaves (older) off-the-shelf engines, which are fine for a prototype, but are going to be suboptimal for the speeds and/or amount of thrust required. And then there is the issue of using military technology, which is often required for the engines...

@thefishkid1

2 жыл бұрын

this is the main barrier to entry for any of this. Commercial Turbojets are just not a thing and will never be a thing. Unless a country like China or the US want to make it a State issue. Even then, there is developing the engine, then there is supporting the engine. Spare parts and maintenance were another major nail in the Concorde Coffin.

@KarlKarpfen

2 жыл бұрын

It will probably not be an entirely new engine, but something out of the younger military projects, maybe adapted a bit for commercial needs. The Boom Overture will probably fly with something like the EJ 200 (Rolls-Royce XG-40 derivative) or the F136. Commonly known aircraft powered by Rolls-Royce supersonic engines are the Lockheed martin F-35 or the Eurofighter Typhoon

@oadka

2 жыл бұрын

@@KarlKarpfen Excuse me, but the F 35 is powered by the Pratt and Whitney F135...not rolls royce...

@brainmind4070

2 жыл бұрын

I think Boom will fail, but in the meantime, the CEO will probably sock away a lot of investor capital into a nice nest egg.

@the_undead

Жыл бұрын

@@oadka you see the problem here is that you're expecting somebody who somehow thinks a military is going to let their engines into the commercial space at all is going to get any facts even remotely close to correct.

Thanks for this BRILLIANT video -- as always. One downfall though: around the 1 minute mark, you say the Concorde lost many purchase agreements because of "soaring production costs". This is true, but it is important to mention that the US in particular did everything it could to penalise the program (eg: the Secretary of Transport only gave permission for landing the Concorde at Dulles, but the line was closed quickly due to low demand. Only in February 1977 was the ban lifted for JFK). This would obviously be a huge contributing factor to stop other airlines from purchasing the Concorde. Thank you so much for your great work, keep going!

Excellent explanation of the pros and cosn of the Boom project. Great work.

0:28 Wasn't in 2003 Concorde's final flight?

It's not just the sound barrier. It's the cost barrier. An even stronger effect.

@chadwells7562

2 жыл бұрын

The most important effect. If it were cheap enough we’d definitely find a way to deal with or tolerate any sonic booms.

@Completeaerogeek

9 ай бұрын

Concorde was consistently profitable for 20 years for BA as its purpose was to compete against subsonic First Class. Concorde’s tickets were only around 10-15% more (1996 GBP 4,772 vs subsonic First Class GBP 4,314) and this meant that a company could have its executive (who would have been sent First Class anyway) leave London at 10:30am, arrive in NYC at 9:30am (yes before they took off, as Concorde flew faster than the Earth rotates) take a 10 min helicopter ride to the East River heliport, have a bunch of meetings and zip back to JFK for the 1:30pm Concorde to London and be in bed the same night. Concorde had its own security, check-in, lounge and boarding gate from the lounge. No lining up for anything... How's that for time saving? Time as they say, is money, especially for these folks, and Concorde built a very loyal following that lasted throughout its service life operating in its own P&L division, and consistently profitable for BA from 1982 on, even when the mainline carrier was unprofitable. www.key.aero/article/inside-story-how-ba-made-more-ps500m-profit-concorde#:~:text=The%20result%20of%20this%20change,billion%20pounds%20profit%20for%20BA.%E2%80%9D

Hello, just subscribed to your channel. Your videos captivated my attention, the way you analyse in great detail to the way you elaborate on them. You're just too good. I love this bro. KEEP UP THE GOOD JOB. 🥇🏆👍

Informative and well presented. Thanks for posting BTW, 0:30 Concorde wasn't retired in 2006. Its last scheduled flight was the return trip from JFK to Heathrow on 24 October 2003, and its last flight was Heathrow to Filton, Bristol on 26 November 2003. I believe it's on display at Filton.

This was an amazingly concise video on Aeronautics. You touched upon so many aspects in under 18mins. Also, your copy of _'Skunk Works'_ definitely get a like!

Don't think you can slip that Ryan George reference past us

A small correction: at 0:36, you would not turn your clock back 2 hours. You'd still turn it back 5 hours as usual because you traveled west 5 timezones. The only difference would be that your arrival time is earlier in the day than your departure time was.

@Completeaerogeek

9 ай бұрын

Ahhh one of the reasons Concorde was profitable for 20 years for BA (before it was prematurely forced into retirement by Airbus (politics and money) was that its purpose was to compete against subsonic First Class. Concorde’s tickets were only around 10-15% more (1996 GBP 4,772 vs subsonic First Class GBP 4,314) and this meant that a company could have its executive (who would have been sent First Class anyway) leave London at 10:30am, arrive in NYC at 9:30am (yes before they took off, as Concorde flew faster than the Earth rotates) take a 10 min helicopter ride to the East River heliport, have a bunch of meetings and zip back to JFK for the 1:30pm Concorde to London and be in bed the same night. How's that for time saving? Time as they say, is money, especially for these folks, and Concorde built a very loyal following that lasted throughout its service life operating in its own P&L division, and consistently profitable for BA from 1982 on, even when the mainline carrier was unprofitable. Concorde had its own security, check-in, lounge and boarding gate from the lounge. No lining up for anything...

@phonicwheel933

9 ай бұрын

@@Completeaerogeek Great description. Those were the days. In your example the executive would arrive back at LHR at 10pm local time. Tickets were expensive in those days. In August 2023 first class return LHR/JFK on BA is £3,643. Inflation from 1996 to 2023 was 2.4 times which means that in 2023 money the 1996 ticket would be £4,314 x 2.4= £10,354.

One of the most beautiful passenger planes 👌👌 Great video!

Super easy, barely an inconvenience!

@muffinman3052

2 жыл бұрын

I couldn't believe he'd done that to us lmao

the problem still economical, all this advantage will not result to improved economics, the Concord cabital cost was zero by 2000...and saftey is also factor of quantity, the more airplane, the more safe it becomes, which will not happen if not economical

All I can say is that this guy really does deserve all the subscribers he has till now. He makes top notch quality content.

I absolutely love this channel. The content is excellent and you've got the perfect voice for narration.

I am old enough to remember when it was thought that supersonic transport flights would be the future of aviation. I suspect that even this newly designed supersonic transport plane from Boom will not be a success and that only a few will be made. Here are the reasons for this opinion. It is the laws of physics, there will always be the double sonic boom when aircraft is flying at supersonic speed. Although the noise level can be reduced, it can not be eliminated. So this airplane will only be used on ocean crossing routes just like the Concorde. Also even though this supersonic airplane will be more efficient than the Concorde, it will still burn a tremendous amount of fuel to travel at supersonic speed. This and other factors like passenger capacity will make airline tickets costs for this airplane very expensive just like the Concorde where only a few very wealthy people will travel on this airplane. Also we live in a time when fuel conservation and fuel economy is a big issue. So my best guess is that there is not a future for commercial passenger supersonic transport.

@Gnefitisis

2 жыл бұрын

You don't get it do you? This plane was not designed for thr average person, but for the elite to fly around and possibly down our throats "hmmm fuel efficiency."

@humorpalanta

2 жыл бұрын

I am sorry but I disagree. Like all of international companies fly their employees on first class. Also they travel more often than they did 40 years ago since everything became globalised. Since the time of these people is very expensive these companies would pay for the expensive tickets. And then talk about the number of millionairs today. How many rich people were like 40 years ago? Dubai, China, UAE and other oil rich nations were nowhere near. They are so rich they would casually pay for it and they do travel a lot. I think there would be a need of cross-atlantic routes for this Mach 2 travel. I think the problem is that these companies still think inside the box. They are still thinking of using these planes on the same route, daily several flights, etc. Instead they should look at it more like train companies do. You fly from A to B then from B to C then from C to D and then turn around. Like you did a route from NY to London. Then London to Buenos Aires. Then from Buenos Aires to Paris. Then back to NY. or something like that. So that each of these routes would be covered like twice a week with these planes and for others there would be still slower but cheaper ones. Like regular trains and ICE. It could work.

@TheGamingMotionTGM

2 жыл бұрын

@@humorpalanta When you mention those oil rich nations that had bulit another new york on steroid (dubai), lamborghini for cop cars, and real gold toilet paper for swiping those poop residues, then expect a steady amount of income to one day get this project of long term availability of commercial supersonic flight on the go.

@EduardoRodrigues-ev7ej

2 жыл бұрын

@@Gnefitisis He literally mentioned it.

@Gnefitisis

2 жыл бұрын

@@EduardoRodrigues-ev7ej No he didn't but Ok.

the sonic boom is only one of several problems of supersonic flight. there's also engine noise and fuel consumption, and i don't know what can be done about those. - to generate thrust, you need an exhaust speed that is faster than the aircraft moves forward, and the problem is that the noise level increases with the square of the exhaust speed. it may be possible to block the noise from radiating downwards by putting the engine exhausts above the wings, but that leads to other problems that need to be solved - another problem is fuel consumption. not much to be done about that, and this problem will keep increasing as fuel prices keep going through the roof. there are several ways to make a jet engine more efficient. one way is to increase the bypass ratio which makes the engine LESS suitable for supersonic speeds. another way is to increase the TIT. this is not really an option because in modern engines the TIT is already close to the limit of what the available materials can handle. 14:50 more efficient than the concorde? maybe. efficient enough to compete with other airliners? i don't think so. all in all i think supersonic travel is gone for good, and those companies are wasting their money.

@ArneChristianRosenfeldt

2 жыл бұрын

Consumption is only up a factor 2 compared to a long range subsonic jet.

@mrxmry3264

2 жыл бұрын

@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt that depends on how you look at it, doesn't it? The concorde burned more than 4 times as much fuel per passenger as a 747. With fuel prices going through the roof, that kind of difference is just not acceptable. And that isn't even taking polluton into account.

@TheOwenMajor

2 жыл бұрын

​@@mrxmry3264 So on point 1, yes engine nose would be a problem. Though I do imagine they would be able to get waivers. There is really no way to quite turbo jet engines down ​to modern standards. As for fuel consumption, it's not as large of an issue as one might think. With max passengers with max fuel, the fuel costs per pax on the Concorde would only be about $560 USD. A first-class ticket from New York to London will cost over $3000, so fuel isn't going to be your largest expense.

@kuiper921

2 жыл бұрын

Did the concord cruise around in afterburner? If so then working on making the plane be able to supercruise could be an option to cut down on fuel consumption

@TheOwenMajor

2 жыл бұрын

@@kuiper921Concorde was able to supercruise.

The far southwest of England had 2 sets of booms per weekday as Concord flights came in from the US. And those 2 times made EVERY pheasant cackle announcing where it was.

2:16 Concorde didn’t fly those routes exclusively. The only one i can name off the top of my head is the one to mexico city with refueling in dulles (The only reason i’m aware of this route is because my parents lived in mexico city at the time concorde flew there, they would hear it every time it flew overhead). Of course the routes that stayed constant throughout were the LHR-JFK and the CDG-JFK routes, but they weren’t the only ones to exist.

0:50 he said the thing!

"Super easy. Barely an inconvenience." Me: OH REALLY?!?!

Your videos are always so well made man. Unreal work

I'd recognize that "Super easy, barely an inconvenience" anywhere lol

"Super easy! Barely an inconvenience!" I love it that you, too, watch Ryan George's Pitch Meeting :)

Real engineering and real science videos in less than 1 hour! What a great Saturday!

@ooooneeee

2 жыл бұрын

And both videos look behind the hype of new technologies to ask if they are actually commercially viable. Awesome.

My Grandmother flew on the Concorde 7 times back in the late 80's. Had photos framed of her on each trip in her house.

Just bought nebula and watched all of your D-day logistics series - it's amazing and I love it.

I'm commenting very rarely, but I wanted to thank you for all your videos, your new visuals on desks are so good (this is a mix with 3D and real shots ?).

Naming a plane company "Boom" in the post 9/11 world might not have been as good a marketing choice as they thought it was...

@purplerabbit638

2 жыл бұрын

And not to mention the fact that they are trying to create a product that avoids a "boom" 😂

@seff1890

2 жыл бұрын

Nah

@brynclarke1746

2 жыл бұрын

Terrorism aside, it just draws attention to the noise nuisance

@aolson1111

2 жыл бұрын

@@seff1890 yah

@Shaker626

2 жыл бұрын

It's not like the entire world is the USA though

5:00: Ahhh, seeing the Concorde again, takes me back in time. Ray Bradbury would be so proud at hearing a sound of thunder from the newer planes though.

I remember when real engineering is so excited about nikola. And then, not only they don't deliver. It was scam all along. This time, I'll take all of their claim with big grain of salt.

@lenowoo

Жыл бұрын

@@BrainScramblies i don't think so, but I'm sure coldfusion did it

We have an air show every year in Bournemouth at the end of August and even over the ocean they still can't hit Mach 1. We have the EuroFighter Typhoon Fly and it is one of the most impressive planes made. It's agility and capabilities are barely rivaled bar a few more recent planes. I would love to see the barrier hit to see the air compression and hear that crack but as it is too close to land they are restricted. I've been on the concord and that experience when hitting sonic speed is amazing. And when a passenger in a harrier pulling G and hitting those insane speeds is one of the best feelings I have experience

@N1originalgazza

2 жыл бұрын

I flew 2 times on the concord, the most thrilling thing was the violent acceleration that was felt in flight, when the plane reached the ocean and then supersonic speed....well violent deceleration to stop the plane on landing was also fantastic!

@robgrey6183

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds like great fun. The rest of us want peace and quiet, thanks.

@Kyle-gw6qp

2 жыл бұрын

@@robgrey6183 The rest of you are boring as hell.

The only way commercial supersonic travel could work is if 1) Planes can switch between supersonic and subsonic wing configurations (possible, Rockwell B-1 Lancer & Tupolev Tu-160 as basis for this) >> Needed to travel over land at subsonic speeds so they can reach airports without causing sonic booms >> Switching to supersonic wing config. when traveling over oceans/non-populated areas 2) Supersonic engines can achieve high fuel efficiency at supersonic speeds 3) Supersonic engines can achieve high fuel efficiency at subsonic speeds These were the three things that killed any prospect of using supersonic airliners for commercial air travel. Considering the large supersonic planes we currently have that use variable wing geometry mechanisms, I think it's possible to build supersonic airliners that can reach most airports without causing sonic booms over populated areas so we definitively could have a new Concorde or Tupolev 144 that could meet air travel regulations and reach most cities, but it'd be competing with other subsonic airliners to do that and the worse fuel efficiency would kill the supersonic airliner on that regard. For example, a supersonic airliner traveling from Moscow to Paris wouldn't be able to travel faster than a subsonic one, and one traveling from Paris to New York would lose some of its time savings while traveling over Europe before reaching the Atlantic ocean. This would still allow for several more destinations within reach compared to the Concorde, but without better fuel efficiency and lower operational costs it'd still be something for rich customers only, so we're not talking about a commercial, but a luxury, exclusive service. To summarize, IMO with the technology we have today a supersonic luxury airliner like Concorde that solves its sonic boom problems is possible, but the high costs compared to normal subsonic airliners kill any prospect of massively available supersonic commercial airliners.

@swedistandoge8437

2 жыл бұрын

Boeing only recently revealed the 777X, the first ever commercial airliner with folding wings, and it only has folding wingtips. Even such a seemingly small change raises many serious concerns of safety. Putting a variable-sweep wing on a commercial airliner is a far greater challenge that just is not possible. Instead of just having a small portion of the wing move, it's the entire wing all at once, and the mechanism must work perfectly everytime without the possibility of accidental activation. The wing pivots must be made sufficiently strong so that the wing cannot fall off like that one time on an F-111. Both of these factors increase mass and fuel consumption significantly. And that's not even talking about the aerodynamics of variable-sweep wings

@danilooliveira6580

2 жыл бұрын

we really need a jet engine that can transition between subsonic and supersonic while still being fuel efficient. there has to be a way.

@kingdavewoody

2 жыл бұрын

@@swedistandoge8437 That's a good point. I think as a minimum a variable sweep plane would need to be able to land at an airport with the wings at full sweep in case of failure

@USSAnimeNCC-

2 жыл бұрын

Also add that the comfort won't be as good as today conventional planes also even with that they lose to train with comfort unless your flying in business class but even train can match that if they want

@wyattroncin941

2 жыл бұрын

@@kingdavewoody if your aircraft can safely land with wings at full sweep at an average commercial runway, there's not much point in having the sweep in the first place. The only airports a supersonic airliner would ever fly out of have long runways, and in the event that you did have to abort to a shorter runway airport, the takeoff from there would be empty weight plus fuel, giving the plane enough lift to power out of there. Swing wings are used to extend an aircraft's takeoff capabilities, allowing heavier takeoffs from shorter runways. If all your heavy takeoffs are at long runways and you'll never have to do short runway takeoffs, what's the point?

It's amazing how much knowledge you fit in 18 minutes. Great video!

My elderly neighbor said that when there was a supersonic boom, for several days but almost never up to a week unless there were multiple booms on multiple days, that the chickens wouldn't lay eggs, some of the cows wouldn't make milk, horses acted super skittish, and would scare the crap out of pigs who got over it in approx 10 seconds. Yes, he grew up on a rural Arkansas farm.

At 7:28 the Ogival Delta Wing angles seem to have changed places. In addition the picture is illustrating the complement angle of the sweep angle (90° - sweep angle) while showing the right numerical value for the sweep angle. Great video, anyway! Thanks.

I thought about a little something for supersonic passenger planes which I call "slingshot routes". Basically, these would be inter-continental routes between distant but frequented destinations (NY-London, Paris-Montreal, etc.) served by advanced high-altitude supersonics. Over such long distances, speed is the most desired, these destinations get lots of travel between them, and flying very high in combination with modern engineering (like on NASA's X-59 QueSST) should reduce the sonic boom. Maybe this would also renovate the hub-and-spoke air travel system - supersonic to a major airport, then subsonic to the final destination.

Smoothest segue into Brilliant you've done yet!

I rewatch your videos so often, and every time they're still captivating!

I clicked on this video with supersonic speed

Always a pleasure watching your videos.

The Concorde nose also pointed into the airflow, creating a laminar flow over the top of the fuselage despite the steep angle of attack, which was critical to producing the vortex lift. If the air running down the top of the fuselage were turbulent, the vortices would have been broken up instead of being stable.

@Completeaerogeek

9 ай бұрын

It wasn't the nose that created vortex lift is was the extended leading edges of the Ogival Delta. You can find many wind tunnel photos of this. The vortices stabilised the upper surface airflow so it didn't break away at high AOA.

@linuxgeex

9 ай бұрын

@@Completeaerogeek Correct but I didn't say the nose produced the lift. I said if the nose pointed up it would have interfered with the production of vortex lift. This from an engineer who worked on the design. Forget his full name. Last name Fischer. With the nose up, there would have been vortex shedding across the back of the fuselage, which results in an oscillating left-to-right turbulence. Now imagine your inward spirals curving into that from the delta, and how much sooner they'd break up from the instability, not to mention how unpredictable the stall characteristics would be.

"... cramped and limited seating..." *Shows picture of people enjoying twice as much room as on Ryanair*

The economics of supersonic commercial travel are tight!

Double thumbs up for the reference to Pitch Meeting.

@YouFightLikeACow

2 жыл бұрын

Man, references to Ryan George are TIGHT

High bypass engines are also much quieter, so SST aircraft are louder even when flying sub sonically and especially at take off with maximum thrust.

@stuartaaron613

2 жыл бұрын

I lived near JFK airport in New York, and I could always tell when the Concorde was taking off or landing by the noise of the engines.

@Completeaerogeek

9 ай бұрын

Yep. You cannot use high or medium bypass engines for supersonic flight. The exhaust gas velocity must equal or exceed the aircraft's speed. Boom is dreaming with their 72 inch fan. That's bigger than the 737 MAX's LEAP 1B at 69"

A huge negative factor with the Concord was the massive noise during takeoff. The Concords noise during takeoff would rattle buildings. Boom would need to solve the takeoff noise problem before it would be allowed near any major city.

@Completeaerogeek

9 ай бұрын

It actually was about the same dB as the contemporary B-707 and DC-8. On take off from 31L at JFK it always made a steep left turn over Flushing Bay and as a result actually had a lower noise footprint than modern subsonic jets.

@phonicwheel933

9 ай бұрын

*_@ziggy2shus624_* Yes, Concorde made an awesome tearing noise on take off. I loved the sound, and the sound of a Vulcan, but people living near airports weren't so keen. There were a lot of complaints around the Heathrow area about Concorde's noise. The 707 was bad enough at 104dBs, but Concorde's noise was 120dBs. This means that Concorde would sound 3x louder than a 707. Boom claim that Overture will comply with the ICAO-14 noise regulations, so it will be a lot quieter and be able to use all airports.

My completely undeducated intuition is Does the engine really have to be a pure jet? A number of fighter jets nowadays use low-bypass turbofans (albeit afterburning) and are capable of supercruise. The Eurofighter is one of those and its powerplant was largely developed and built by Rolls-Royce. So RR definitely have knowledge of supersonic capable turbofans.

@Th3Apothecary

2 жыл бұрын

Supercruise by itself does nothing for the commercial aviation though. It's all about fuel efficiency and range. And Eurofighter has a pathetic 2900km listed(and it's probably not in supercruise either), while even the 7800km mentioned in the video are cutting it super close to a shortest trans pacific route. Not to mention how much less drag to fighter jets experience due to more permissible shape design constraints.

@amct1019

2 жыл бұрын

@@Th3Apothecary I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously the eurofighter has less range than a planned airliner, it has a much smaller fuel capacity and is not built with absolute endurance in mind. My point was regarding the statement that supersonic aircraft have to have pure jets, that's why I used an example of a supersonic capable aircraft that uses a turbo fan.

@anthonycanalese2142

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. FYI, General Electric has been developing exactly this for the past few years. "GE Affinity" is a supersonic, non after-burning, turbofan engine for commercial general aviation use. It was chosen to power the "Aerion" supersonic aircraft.

@RM-el3gw

2 жыл бұрын

@@anthonycanalese2142 hahaha, the Aerion. I spent 20 years reading updates every other year about that company. They were always 10 years away from launching their plane lol. Hopefully the Boom aircraft will do better, but I don't have much trust in them tbh...

@Nafeels

2 жыл бұрын

Early versions of the Tu-144 have low-bypass turbofans with afterburners. However, due to technological gaps within Soviet aeroengineering, they are somehow more fuel-thirsty than a regular turbojet at that time. Subsequent versions later carried turbojets. It’s still too early into development to say anything about them strictly developing an efficient turbojet, but RR is the ONE firm that could do turbofans rated for supersonic flight. Assuming they solved the inlet geometry pretty quickly, the only major obstacle I think they need to solve is to figure out the proper combustion cycle for the turbofans to safely supercruise at Mach 1.5+ without the use of an afterburner.

"Super Easy! Barely an Inconvenience." I see what you did there ScreenRant

Great video! Thank you for making it. Do you leave in small mistakes like the ones with dates (2006. Instead of 2003.) to get more comments and engagement from the audience?

0:49 love the reference

Bombardier nearly went bankrupt building a more standard plane, and you want me believe a startup will be able to put a supersonic aircraft to the market? They will need very deep pockets behind them.

@RM-el3gw

2 жыл бұрын

But didn't you hear? They aim to offer $100/seat 4-hour flights 2 or 3 generations down the road! How kewl! Seriously now, they're full of shit. Even a company as experienced as Boeing takes YEARS to certify an improved version of one of its existing aircraft (like the 777X, which will be under the same type certificate as the rest of the 777 family - 8 years and counting, and the FAA still won't certify it). This is only since Boeing has enormous financial and physical resources, an extensive amount of know-how in documentation, and experienced personnel. Now. A new, inexperienced company, that has never engineered a single aircraft, headed by a CEO who is a computer scientist and never worked in aviation... Attempting to engineer, build, and certify a supersonic airliner, something that was only ever done once, as a multi-nation prestige project, with disastrous financial implications... All through the FAA, which as the responsible authority for the type certificate of this aircraft, probably doesn't even yet have a proper pathway for certification of supersonic airliners. After all, it's never been done in the US. See how things went for Agusta/Bell/Leonardo since their tiltrotor didn't fit into any existing certification categories. 20 years in the certification process and counting... Hopefully it'll make it through, but very likely this thing will end up dying in certification hell. That is, if they even make it that far.

Interesting video but you didn't discuss either of the key flaws in Concorde, which were the reasons why Air France 4590 crashed. The first flaw with Concorde was the wheels and landing gear. The materials were not up to scratch relative to the enormous loads they had to bare. It was a piece of scrap metal from the plane that took off before Air France 4590 that caused the explosion and fire in the wheels and landing gear that ultimately led to engine failure and disaster. The other flaw that led to the crash of Air France 4590 was the V1 point of no return. Once Concorde reached a certain speed on the runway it was impossible to abort the take-off without a cataclysmic crash, which is why Air France 4590 took off in the first place despite the in-flight warning systems indicating there may be a serious problem. So either the aircraft needs a lower V1 threshold, which is not really possible with the delta-wing design, or the runways themselves need to be longer to accommodate supersonic passenger jets like Concorde Summary:- Wheel materials and landing gear design along with V1 threshold (no aborted take-off possible without crashing) along with runways designed for regular passenger jets led to the Air France disaster and the end of Concorde (along with 2008 financial crisis)

@kingdavewoody

2 жыл бұрын

The V1 thing would just depend on where a piece of FOD is on the runway, like you could run over a piece of debris just before hitting V1. Runways would need to basically double in length to eliminate V1 even for subsonic airliners

@user-uv5ld3cx5t

2 жыл бұрын

Those are literally not flaws related to the Concorde itself, since without the DC10 dropping a part in front of it and punctured the wheel (then the fuel tank) the Concorde's design is well within the limits of what it is supposed to handle. As for V1 literally every plane has the V1 no-return speed, had this happened to say a 747 Airliner and they know shits up but is already at V1 they will have to take off as well.

@kingdavewoody

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-uv5ld3cx5t The crash was caused by the debris on the runway yeah, but the aircraft should have redundancy for that. It's like having a single engine airliner doing trans-atlantic flights. You could argue all day that an engine failure was caused by XYZ, but they should have a redundancy for that. After the crash happened, they redesigned to fuel tanks to be armoured the fuel tanks and did something (im not sure) to the tyre compound, but by that point they were already in a difficult situation money wise because of politics and public opinion

@user-uv5ld3cx5t

2 жыл бұрын

@@kingdavewoody Let me just say this real quick; at that kind of velocities the Concorde was travelling and the extra stress it needs to be handling, any "armoring" and "redundancy" is nothing more than just PR stunt that only provides spiritual support, when you are running over a sharp piece of titanium with a very high pressure tire under twenty tons of pressure. From a physical perspective that kind of damage is virtually impossible to defend even if it is not a Concorde.

@kingdavewoody

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-uv5ld3cx5t Concorde had its Certificate of Airworthiness withdrawn, at that point a PR stunt wouldn't have worked. They were making modifications to get it certified again, no to win the public over. We can argue about this forever, but at the end of the day the manufacturer and the CAA weren't dumb.... the manufacturer wouldn't have designed a modification they knew wouldn't work, and the CAA wouldn't have approved a safety modification that didn't work. The people involved were much smarter than you and I, so I think I'll just go by what they were saying

I don't know if it's been suggested before, but I'd love to see a video on hybrid airships and Lockheed Martin's attempts: the P-791 and LMH1

I'll look forward to the video on the paper you mentioned!

I think that this concept, though very interesting, as a near-ZERO chance of success. It's still a pipe dream that simply will not work in the modern passenger aviation environment. The economics of supersonic flight have changed very little since the 1960s, and they're using a 1950s-era turbojet engine. Seriously? This idea is a relic of a very heady-but-bygone era in passenger aviation. The name of the game in modern passenger aviation is EFFICIENCY - achieving the lowest cost per passenger mile. Thus, modern passenger airliners use exactly two enormous high-bypass turbofan engines that sip fuel in comparison to previous-generation engines. The huge fans on the GE-90, GE-Nx, and other high-bypass turbofan engines create the VAST majority of the thrust - quietly and reliably. A turbojet engine simply has no way to do that. Turbojet engines burn massive amounts of fuel to create thrust, and there is realistically very little that can be done to improve the efficiency of them. All they do is burn fuel to create direct thrust. And they are LOUD... very, very LOUD because there is no slow-moving blanket of air created by the giant bypass fan around the high-speed jet exhaust to reduce noise. It's all just hot, fast-moving, and very LOUD jet thrust. There are probably some minor improvements that could be made, but they are very likely miniscule compared to the huge improvements that have been made by developing turbofans with ever-higher bypass ratios using larger and more efficient fans. Turbojet engines on a supersonic aircraft would be working hard during the entire flight. This would wear them out more quickly, and would significantly increase maintenance costs. Supersonic flight can never achieve anywhere near the efficiency of subsonic flight... at least as long as there is, you know, atmosphere and friction and all that other "physics" stuff in the world. The economics of achieving long-term, profitable, mass-market supersonic flight simply don't work. They never have, and I see nothing in this project to suggest that they will work any time soon. Saving a few hours of flight time on any flight is simply not worth the exponentially-higher cost in this modern age of efficiency. Supersonic flight will remain a very high-end service for wealthy passengers - if it ever really gets off the ground at all. And oh, as you pointed out. there is still the horrible sonic boom issue to deal with. The Ranger is STILL not gonna like that, Yogi!

@ryanchatham9971

2 жыл бұрын

I wonder if a combination of a variable bypass turbofan and a swing wing would make a more economical SST.

@brainmind4070

2 жыл бұрын

@@ryanchatham9971 Variable bypass turbofan? lol Good luck with that!

@brainmind4070

2 жыл бұрын

I completely agree, but the CEO will probably be able to sock away enough investor capital for a nice nest egg before the company's eventual failure. So it will be a success after all. XD

@planescaped

2 жыл бұрын

I feel bad for anyone whose invested a lot of money in this...

@kencarp57

2 жыл бұрын

@@brainmind4070 It reminds of of the reckless environment in tech in the 90s - which of course all came crashing down with the Dot-Bomb in 2001. Lots of people losing lots of money on companies that never made any money and went out of business, because they never had a solid business plan to become profitable… short term nor long term.

As a United 1K member I CANT WAIT FOR BOOM!!!!!!

Applying the area rule and having first class at the front and then a long narrow corridor with standard at the rear sounds quite good. You could also do wacky paint jobs

First of all, great video. Usually I don't comment much but I need so say something. At 15:01 you say that Boom wants to use biofules which are pure ecological nonsense as you already explained in a previous video. But Boom doesn't specify what type of sustainable fuel they plan to use. At least I couldn't find it after 5 minutes. I always assumed they wanted to use synthetic fuels (Power-to-Liquid) just like Lufthansa. Many people don't know much about the whole P2L or P2G concepts. It would be great if you could explain these concepts with their pros and cons. Especially since you seem interested in the biggest challenge for going green: large scale energy storage

@tams805

2 жыл бұрын

P2L companies seem to have been keeping their heads down lately (they were doing the media rounds a year or two ago) as the 'no emissions at all' brigade are currently making a lot of noise.

@MaxMierzwa

2 жыл бұрын

@@tams805 interesting point of view. I personally don't think emission free aeroplanes (except small ones) are on the horizon. P2L might just be better alternative though it's not energy efficient

The claim at 0:35 is very confusing to me, the fact that a passenger would need to rewind their watch 2 hours on a flight from London to New York. Say the plane takes off from London at 8pm GMT, it would touch down in New York at 11pm GMT 3 hours later. This is 6pm in EST (New York time zone) so the passengers watches display 11pm at the time of arrival, so they would need to rewind their watches 5 hours due to the time zone change. The speed of the flight does not make an effect on how far a passenger would need to adjust their clock as the time zones remain constant.

@TeslaPixel

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah this is only true if you stop your watch the moment you depart. I feel he got a bit swept up trying to make a tag line out of the fact that the travel time is less than the pure time difference.

I love Sonic, gotta go fast!! 🦔💨💨💨

I love a sponsor segue that I didn't see coming. Nicely done!

One: I love this channel Two: sonic booms sound fun tbh

Truly amazing !!!! Thanks to everyone who is researching, and getting the facts behind the scenes. This subject is truly awesome. Keep up this great channel. So well done. God Bless 🙏

One advantage Boom has not acknowledged here: they aren't a government. They also aren't a legacy dinosaur like Boeing or Airbus. I'm cautiously optimistic, and certainly glad someone's having a go at it. People who throw their hat into the ring and work earnestly on hard problems deserve respect, and Boom has certainly earned mine.

@aolson1111

2 жыл бұрын

Neither was Theranos.

@sosaysthecaptain5580

2 жыл бұрын

@@aolson1111 tell me, have you given up your short TSLA position yet?

Concorde was such an amazing plane! I hope supersonic travel returns!

I’m really looking forward to your video about sonic booms!!!

You say that the engine needs to be a pure jet (turbojet?) but plenty of fighter jets are turbofan. What am I missing?

@sharvapotdar3257

2 жыл бұрын

I'm taking a shot in the dark, but i think he's talking about absolutely pure jets, with no bypass whatsoever. Many fighter aircraft have turbofans but operate at significantly lower Mach speeds usually (without afterburner) and carry much less weight than a commercial airliner. Most jets I've read about with turbofans operate around Mach 1.5... So maybe he means they need pure jets for much higher thrust generated purely through the engine (through the combustion chamber and nozzle).

@anthonycanalese2142

2 жыл бұрын

@@sharvapotdar3257 Simple definition: 1. Turbojet = ALL of the air that enters the front of the engine is used for internal combustion; 2. Turbofan = SOME of the air that enters the front of the engine is used for internal combustion, the rest is by-passed around the engine. The term "pure jet", whatever it is supposed to mean, is confusing and I wish people would stop using it. They are all "gas turbine engines". Of which, the above are but two. From a 30 year Mechanical Engineer.

I've meddled with supersonic flight in a little modeller's dream game called "Simplerockets2". There's a strange effect that happens with certain turbines, that some of them gain thrust after mach 1, i think it needs to have a terribly low compression ratio for it to happen though.

@makantahi3731

2 жыл бұрын

ram effect

@crackedemerald4930

2 жыл бұрын

@@makantahi3731 that's what i guessed, but didn't think the game would have that

@makantahi3731

2 жыл бұрын

@@crackedemerald4930 as aircraft speeds up,air become compressable so in intake of jet turbine engine makes gain from transformation from dinamic to static pressure,at over Ma3, no need for compressor

@crackedemerald4930

2 жыл бұрын

@@makantahi3731 it was increasing thrust just after mach 1 though

@makantahi3731

2 жыл бұрын

@@crackedemerald4930 you are talking about video game, right,? maybe they did not made it fully real in aerodynamic and thermodynamic way,if did then it would be fluid mechanic simulator,i know dozens of real mig pilots and i talk with them about flying, and jet engines thrust become higher as plane speeds up, on low level it can easily close up to ma1 without afterburner

Hilarious tip o' the cap to Ryan George! Well done

Loved the pitch meeting reference :)

Saving time going fast on a jet to then having to waste it at the airport with customs and baggage collection and such is like racing to the next red traffic light.

Hey, I was wondering if you could make a deep dive video on Reaction Engine's SABRE engine?

Enjoyed the video thanks! As someone who travels the Pacific routes for work, I would LOVE to see supersonic options but it seems a way off.