Use this link 👉 curiositystream.thld.co/mentournow_0622 and the coupon code Mentournow to get an exclusive 25% discount on Curiosity stream. Check it out today, its awesome!
I'm sure we'll see supersonic bizjets because there's always a few super rich dudes whom munny is no objection. But supersonic passenger planes just can't be cost effective. Sure, some companies are building them, but I doubt they'll be sold in large enough numbers to be profitable. And they won't be profitable for airlines to operate except for the publicity value.
Petter, have you considered adding your channels to Nebula? It comes with Curiosity Stream (as you undoubtedly know), and it allows you to add things to a video that RUclips would demonetise you for. Look at Legal Eagle, he does the same videos but adds a Nebula bonus at the end. Your channels would be absolutely perfect for the platform. I much prefer to watch on that than on RUclips. It's only got top quality channels on it, so like I said, you'd be terrific!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperMach_SonicStar what do you think are the chances of the Hypermach SonicStar succeeding? This article might now be the most accurate.
As an engineer sometimes I fail to appreciate "economic feasibility" but as far as I'm concerned we took a step back in aviation when Concorde was retired in 2003 and 20 yrs later no comparable successor. Even the Boom overture will "only" cruise at M 1.7. Getting to Mach 2.0 and dashing for a few minutes is no big deal. Cruising for 3 hours comfortable, cooling the skin, stable turbine Temps for the duration is an amazing feat. Amazing to think Concorde was designed during an Era of sliderules and computers the size of rooms with less power than your average smart phone..lol
Concorde was not accessible to regular people, though, so we just gazed upon her, never to fly her. It was a failure to make such an elite use aircraft, esp by a government company, and spoke to the crappy financial feasibility of needing $10,000/seat tickets, one way, I believe. Round trip, doesn't matter. In today's dollars (from 1980) would be $35,000 per seat!
@@LemonLadyRecords my great-grand-aunt flew on the Concorde for her 100st birthday and I don't think that my family could afford $10000 🤔 I don't know how much it cost, however, and I couldn't fly on it myself, which I regret 😥
@@LemonLadyRecords Not only that, the British and French governments spent billions subsidizing the Concorde, regarding it as a matter of national prestige. One reason Boeing abandoned its SST was that a U.S. president-I forget which-ended the development subsidies.
I used to live on Exmoor, South West England. Pretty much every evening at a few minutes past 1800 hours (BST) I would hear the sonic boom of Concorde as it decelerated over the Bristol Channel. Interestingly, if i was walking out on the open moors, I would hear the startled calls of many pheasants just a few seconds before i heard the boom. I've always assumed they could detect the pressure wave before i could. Happy days - a truly majestic sight and testament to the engineers and pilots, two of whom presented me with my wings, many moons ago.
I thought I had mistaken my memories of hearing the boom in the morning on her way out, and just put it down to the engines having a distinct sound (I am going back 40 years so I am not putting much store into my memories!). I lived on the opposite side of the Channel, about ½ mile as the crow flies on the Welsh side. For some reason I only remember the morning flight out to the USA. Weird things, memories, aren't they?
@@y_fam_goeglyd Memories are wonderful Mandy! I've just recalled another time when i was sort of scurrying up a steep valley side and paused to catch my breath. As I looked up, panting, there SHE was (I know you are British because you called her "her", even though there was {I believe} 12 "hers" in total, six BA and six Air France) flying very low level. I later found out from a friend in Minehead that it was a special fly-past. Ps why do other nations insist on calling Concorde "the Concorde"? No soul😊
Just to make sure you realize, but the sonic boom doesn't happen from decelerating past the sound barrier. (There is no sound produced at the moment of crossing the sound barrier.) It's continuously produced from any aircraft traveling above the speed of sound.
@@Ergzay yes, i do realise that. (Supersonics were part of my Commercial Pilot's License 😘). Perhaps i worded it badly. Concorde used to decelerate down the Bristol Channel heading into Heathrow. As they passed me, they were still supersonic. I'd be interested to know at precisely what point they became subsonic ( I'd guess maybe abeam Hinckley Point nuclear power station?)
I loved Concorde, but she was of her time and I think now supersonic is just a gimmick. Comfortable, sustainable, quiet, efficient flying is the future, and supersonic is now little more than a number.
In middle school, we lived right below the flight path of a fighter jet training base. T-38s. Some days it was only 5-10min between sonic booms directly overhead. Started at 8-9am and went into the afternoon. You couldn't sleep late on the weekends. We lived on the very edge of town, just farms past us, but I doubt they would have done that in the midst of the large town. They did it with the full knowledge that they were impacting our lives. We told them so during an open house they had lol. Luckily dad got transferred within 18mos. It was pure torture.
As a kid growing up in the Los Angeles area, I remember the sonic booms, and they were not insignificant. The only subsequent ones I've heard were from the space shuttle.
The DC-8 was the first commercial jetliner to fly supersonic, though it was entirely unintentional. Even so, their marketers made some hay over it. 🤣 Glad to see you mentioned this 👍
if a dc8 went supersonic, it would fall apart , or/and be in a vertical dive ...I survived a 'flight' in one of these flying junk .. it only stayed in the air from pure thrust and nothing else ....
@@adrianpeters2413 I'm getting the impression it survived going supersonic in the same way it survived -its normal flight- staying in the air from pure thrust: it was built like a tank. ;)
Maximus channel has a special on the DC 8 going slightly over mach 1 in a dive. It was done my McDonald Douglas test pilots on purpose. The plane was instrumented. The RUclips on it explains why.
The reason they chucked the DC-8 into the supersonic gauntlet was that Douglas McDonnell wanted to prove that the DC-8 won't fall apart regardless of general abuses, yet supersonic test was quite hard on the subsonic airframe, so if it survived a supersonic dive, it of course would survive anything, along the lines of their thoughts back then. And yup, the test pilots mentioned that it was an exciting experience as flying the subsonic plane at supersonic speed is just different from the SST designed to fly that fast, making for a tricky flying.
I grew up seeing Concorde testing then would see, or hear, her pretty much every day once she was in service. Not many planes that I look up at every time but Concorde was the exception.
Me too. I was training at Heathrow and we always had a teabreak at 11 & 3 so we could watch her come in or leave. Beautiful sight! She was also the only aircraft I would hear from my house - being parallel to the runways aircraft noise was not a problem, and somehow I never minded her noisy departures at all 😃
There’s an article about it. The recovery from the dive was weird because the captain decided to push it further down and then let the lower altitude drag do the slowing down instead of over-stressing the elevators and horizontal stabilizer.
Random video idea that's tangentially related: talk about mach tuck, coffin corner, or other things related to operating in the high speed / high altitude regimes.
I once knew a guy whose dad worked for Boeing investigating crashes. He told me about a 707 where the pilots, behind schedule and trying to catch up, put it into risky high-altitude cruise configuration. Something happened that put the plane into a high-speed dive. The controls locked up, showing that they were supersonic. To get out of that dive, the pilots lowered the landing gear. Putting their feet on the console, they exerted every bit of their strength to bring it back to level flight. He said the only damage the plane had was to the landing gear doors. The 700+ knot airspeed slowed their opening enough that the landing gear contacted with those doors. No one knows how fast it went because the pilots erased the flight recorder data. The first voice on the voice recording, he said, was one pilot remarking something like, "Well, that takes care of that."
@@subjekt5577 I worked on those old “flight recorders”. It was a stainless steel foil that scribes scored marks on the foil according to speed (pitot presser), altitude, heading, and maybe one thing else. It had to be replaced with fresh foil every few hours.
@@subjekt5577 Wrong. The older ones were looped. If there was a incident there was a fuse to stop it after landing to keep it from overwriting itself. A pilot in flight could pull that before whatever stupid stunt and it would get left out.
Good to know Bombardier is making news again. They used to be the pride of Montreal. I live 15 minutes away from their St. Laurent facility and I once interviewed for a job there. 🇨🇦
As the Convair 880 and 990 proved to us, speed will not triumph over economic efficiency. When given the choice of a faster arrival time or a cheaper ticket price, people will more likely choose to sacrifice time in order to save money.
In the early 80’s we were living in E. TN when a sonic boom happened and shook the house. My dad who was a marine (discharged) jumped up and ran outside. He came in and said, that damn Air Force and sat back down to finish eating. I later joined the AF I think in most part to irritate him.
9:41 as a person who often gets really restless during long journeys, i always wanted to fly in a supersonic aircraft. now i understand why it's not that easy. thank you
I remember being in the Air Training Corps going for a ride in a Chipmunk at Filton when a Concorde was being tested. Beautiful Aircraft. As for Supersonic over land RAF Fighter Interception Aircraft have done this when QRA has been launched in an intercept of unknown Aircraft. It always appears in the Newspapers the next day with an explanation for breaking the sound barrier. They are either over land or just off land in The Wash. But yeah, I can't wait to see the age of Supersonic return. Sad that we lost it. It's like being able to drive a Porche then being given a Ford Model T as a Car.
Important note: The sonic boom is not created when the sound barrier is broken. It keeps occurring on the ground when ever a supersonic aircraft flies over a stationary observer on the ground. It's the shockwave that originates from the aircraft that is hitting the ground and that causes the sonic boom. It's not the act of first passing through Mach 1.0 and breaking the sound barrier.
@@IlluminatiBG As far as I know flying higher does reduce the perceived amplitude a bit but not enough. Many years ago I heard a sonic boom from a fighter jet and all I could see was a tiny fast thing way up there in the stratosphere, must have been about FL500 or so. It was quite a loud double explosion sound. Not enough to break windows but still loud enough to look around for a major explosion.
Important counter-note: You sort of know what you're talking about, and you sort of don't. You're right in that a supersonic aircraft/object in the air continually creates an expanding shock wave, it's not just created at the moment of "breaking the sound barrier" or anything like that. But.......you're making it sound like a sonic boom is an object rather than an observation of a passing shock. A sonic boom is not an object which is created, it is a sound which is heard by an observer, caused by the arrival of a shock wave front. One moment, their eardrum is in air at a certain pressure, a proverbial millisecond later, it's feeling a different pressure. Boom. It's not cyclical pressure like a tone, just a sudden spike. The physical object created by the aircraft, is a shock wave which becomes a moving front (often shaped like a cone for an aircraft moving in a straight line, but for a momentary shock, more of a sphere, and there are a lot of nuances making a shock front a complex shape changing with time), where a high air pressure gradient (large rate of change, not necessarily a large total pressure difference) exists across a very small distance perpendicular to the expanding front. OF COURSE an observer on the ground doesn't hear it until the shock wave reaches the location of their ears, which happen to be on the ground. But if the supersonic aircraft at 60,000 feet altitude passes a balloonist 50 feet away, you'd better believe that the shock wave front doesn't have to reach the ground for the balloonist to hear the boom. They will hear it right where they are, as quickly as someone on the ground hears a gunshot fired from 50 feet away (assuming equal air temp, etc if you want to get picky.) Also, the observer on the ground doesn't need to be stationary, they can be moving at any speed themselves, from stationary to supersonic. As long as they don't outrun the expanding shock front, when the shock front reaches them, they hear the boom.
My question is - would the entirely quiet aircraft engines cause less of a boom? To me, as a non-physicist and a total layperson, the boom itself sounds like it consists of the "accumulated spikes" of the sound wave produced by the aircraft engines that haven't been able to propagate as they usually do in sequence, but instead the spikes piled up one on top of another and amplified the original sound, which to me appears like it is that of the engines more than of anything else produced by the aircraft. In short, to me the loudest component of the sonic boom sounds like a tsunami of engine sound.
Bombardier sold their train business to Alstom at the same same as the other business unit sales. They basically mismanaged themselves towards bankruptcy and had to sell off almost everything as a result in order to neutralize the huge debt.
@@MentourNow Yep and their Recreative line (Ski-Doo, Sea-Doo and ATV) actually slit apart years ago. Probably for the best considering how the rest of Bombardier went…
I grew up in a part of Queens right near LaGuardia airport in the late seventies early '80s before the hush kits and high bypass engines all day and night the planes flying low and slow sometimes with parts falling off I can definitely live without a sonic boom in my life 😂
Back then, you could hear planes even some miles away from the airport. I worked at a company under the main airport takeoff and it was hell. I'll never forget watching the lumbering DC-10s whining into the sky. I always thought something was wrong with the engines! 747s were a sight, too, but better at flying. I think they must have had 'some' noise abatement, even in the early 80s, as they were going SO scary slow, esp the DC-10s. Often it was even hard just to have a conversation or talk on the phone.
Thanks for this, Mentour Pilot! I was not aware of this news. I worked for Bombardier for a couple of years during the initial development of the RJ program and I was always impressed with the quality of their engineering department.
Cessna did the same sort of tests with their Citation 10 Business Jet. During testing, in order to certify it at a speed of Mach .9 3, Cessna had to take the jet supersonic for a brief period .
Bombardier has sold its rail industry division to Alstom, a while ago (end of January 2021) for 6 billions of Euros. I worked in both companies and now I'm working with a competitor.
Yes, indeed. The Global-Line of the Business Jets is pretty much everything what is left over from Bombardier. Otherwise they´ve disappeared totally from the market.
I remember reading or watching somewhere that Convair's 1960's airliners were pushing close to transonic, and that the extra costs this performance entailed weren't really offset by this performance. Modern airliners fly slower than the planes back then, but are a lot more efficient.
When I visited the Brooklands Museum south of London in 2018, I found out that Concorde had a windows cooling system. Otherwise the windows wood get so hot by the outside air friction at speeds above Mach 1, that passengers would burn their hands while touching the windows. The windows were very small, compared to normal aircraft windows.
Indeed, lots of small diameter tubing running around the fuselage that contained fuel, pumped from the tanks (there were lots which had to be constantly balanced during flight).
How is that possible? Are high speeds not just occurring in the higher air where the outside temperature is far below zero? So the friction causes/caused a temperature difference of hundreds of degrees?
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg Interesting question, but I have seen it in the museum, and was surprised too. But friction can heat up things. Like when you rub your hand over a cold table, you will notice the area of the table you rub over heats up. And also the surface of the rubbing hand also.
The Cessna Citation X, Citation Ten, and the Gulfstream G650ER all have a MMO above M.92 and all went supersonic in testing in the same manner as this Global 8000 and for the same reasons. I believe the rule of thumb is to test ~10% above the desired certificated MMO.
I simply want to say thanks for these highly educational videos Mentour produces. The why and the physics behind the why are the questions I'm looking for. It's always great to learn new, explained in profound way.
I remember living in Central Florida & hearing sonic booms when the Space Shuttle would return for landing. Maybe it was the shuttle's altitude or distance from me but the booms only sounded like thunder. Nothing destructive at all.
I was working outside right before one of the later space shuttle flights landed at Edwards AFB, ~75 miles north. It sounded like someone next door fired a shotgun twice.
I was in a 747 that was moving along around .99 Mach a good chunk of the way back to IAD from Tokyo. We left four hours behind schedule and the pilot made up a decent chunk of that in the air. Had a very eventful landing with a crosswind gust as well, but that's a tale for another time.
I feel like it's worth reminding ourselves that the speed of sound is really the speed at which our atmosphere naturally responds to kinetic energy, the speed at which it transmits pressure changes through the volume, which is what sound really is. That thought really helped me understand why there is such a huge difference in the dynamics between subsonic and supersonic operations, and why these potentially damaging pressure waves are such a frequent topic in transonic and supersonic dynamics.
The trouble is that an international passenger flight from London to New York in reality takes between 12-16 hours, or more. It is 8 hours for the the actual transatlantic flight. plus up to a couple of hours in a holding pattern at the far end. Then there is a couple of hours getting through security in London and a couple of hours getting through customs in the USA. And maybe an hour stuck on the taxiway waiting for take off. If the aircraft only saves thirty minutes of flight time on that trip, most people will not even notice. Concorde used to do the whole cycle from check in in London to catching a taxi in New York in about six hours, so well worth the effort.
In a way aviation has advanced very slowly in the last 50 years, compared with earlier expectations. On the 70's we had the concorde and the 747. Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. By 2000 we were supposed to have colonised the moon, and have hypersonic travel round the world. Instead, we are still travelling at subsonic speeds, still stuck in the atmosphere, and in aircraft with a maximum of about 800 seats. However, the electronics industry has really shot ahead beyond all our wildest dreams.
As always, an impressively clear explanation of the aerodynamic issues around the sound barrier. I remember watching a documentary on the first supersonic flights, and while it did a good job of explaining just how much of a literal barrier the sound barrier is, it really didn't give much insight as to what was causing those issues. The full details, of course, are more than you went into, but this documentary that was literally about that issue and the efforts to overcome it was like "you get lots of turbulence" and that's it. Which seems....inadequate.
Topic idea: Anyone remember the *727 that went way supersonic in a steep dive over the Great Lakes* (believe in 1970's)? They accidentally reached much higher cruise alt than 727 designed for and stalled just below mach 1, rolled over, pilot pulled positive Gs while inverted to keep passengers in their seats, instantly going well past mach 1 then fighting to reduce speed they trashed flaps and slats then copilot dropped the landing gear which did the trick, they leveled off around 5k alt and landed safely. Wound up scrapping the aircraft as beyond repair.
TWA 841? It didn't go supersonic and none of the things you described happened. Pilot deployed slats at cruise speed causing them to be damaged, then claimed innocence but also erased CVR after landing.
@@Ficon You must be talking about a different situation. One I'm referring to went instantly supersonic. Parasitic drag on an airliner is tiny so as soon as lift induced drag is gone in a dive starting just below mach 1 there is no other possible result.
@@Mrbfgray That’s the only 727 dive over Great Lakes that I’m aware of. The captain made all sorts of wild claims in interviews about rolling and going inverted, nothing substantiated by FDR. Basically he screwed up, deleted the CVR and then spent decades arguing that FAA and Boeing were wrong.
Very interesting topic, I really love these kinds of videos! Would be cool to see an aircraft like the Concorde again, although I'm afraid these supersonic aircraft will be too small and expensive for "regular" airlines, and would be mostly used for business flights.
@@juliemanarin4127 until the US removes the over-land flight restrictions for supersonic planes, i think it's unlikely that you'll see supersonic flights out of Chicago.... sorry about that... my guess is that the initial Boom/United flights will be from Newark to London and/or Paris
A large part of the reason for the economic failure of Concorde was the American aviation industry and US Government putting commercial obstacles in the way of Concordes development. The US aviation market doing what it usually does freezing out market competition.
? Are you ignoring the effects of sonic boom? Concorde was sort of successful; it was simply too expensive and inefficient for most passengers to afford. The law actually hurt American industry far more.
@@jamesengland7461 How come Airbus were also frozen out/rejected for the recent competition to replace the USAF KC135s air refuelling tankers to ensure the contract went to an American company.
Yeah... as someone who lives next to several airports I'm not too keen on the idea of multiple sonic booms a day, even if they can get them to be less noisy. The coolness factor's gonna wear off pretty fast there.
They're only allowed to fly supersonic over the sea (as stated in the video). Also you're unlikely to get a supersonic aircraft coming into land travelling at supersonic speeds.
@@paul756uk2 Yeah! Over 600kt at MSL might be a *little* bit higher than max tire or max brake energy speeds. And the G forces from decelerating from 600kt to 0 on a distance of 3-4km could also be noticeable ;)
As a kid of the 50s living in Nevada , I heard sonic booms often. I remember they rattled windows and even i could feel a vibration for want of a word. I heard stories of windows breaking but never saw or knew of anyone having that happen to them. Of course those days are gone now. But most people I knew just accepted it. The controversy really started years later.
I remember flying several times from the USA to London and arriving a lot earlier than we expected as the plane had flown inside a fast jet stream air current over the North Atlantic. But did the ground speed exceed Mach 1? Possibly. I read that in 2019, a 'Virgin Atlantic jet set a new speed record flying from LA to London in just over nine hours, after a powerful jet stream propelled it faster than the speed of sound. The 787 Dreamliner was clocked at 801mph over Pennsylvania as it rode the fastest jet stream on record, blowing east at 231mph'
Ground speed may have an effect on arrival time but it makes no difference to the aerodynamics. It is possible to fly at 300 knots IAS but 600 knots GS.
I have been flying from Amsterdam to Washington DC about 10 times. Everytime it occurred to me: the westbound route took around 9 hours, the eastbound route had us back on the ground in 6,5 hours or even shorter. My guess is the same as yours, but these aircraft are not built to exceed Mach 1. Just my guess.
When talking about a tail wind making an airplane's ground speed higher than air speed, it is improper to say that the ground speed has a Mach number associated with it. Mach number only has meaning regarding the fluid mechanics of an actual object passing through an actual fluid such as air. It is a ratio of the object's relative speed through the fluid, to the speed of sound, in that fluid at that moment/pressure/temperature/etc. Mach is NOT just another unit of measure for speed, where you can apply a conversion factor and use it to talk about the speed of other things (ground speed, speed of the plane's shadow movement on a sloped surface below, or whatever), like you can with conversions between miles/hour and meters/second for instance.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg Centrifugal force would be another factor (the plane is a wee bit 'lighter' flying west to east). But if the difference is over 2 hours as you say, I'd say jet streams are the main reason.
As a Canadian, I was wondering if you would mention the DC-8! It was on a test flight during certification to approve the installation of Rolls-Royce Conway engines on the DC-8, which usually had Pratt & Whitney engines.
Petter, it’s so interesting to hear you explain some of the extreme aerodynamic changes that occur when you reach supersonic speed. Probably unrealistic to expect to fly that fast, but I do remember how much we loved all the power, noise and even some booms we experienced living three miles from a navy base in the sixties - as someone else commented on. Like I always feel after watching your videos, what amazing machines!!
Considering that Concorde burned about 5 times the fuel per seat mile compared to a subsonic airliner, I wouldn't like supersonic travel to come back. Sustainable fuels are nice and fine, but their amount will be limited, so we better use them for the most energy efficient aircraft only. Air drag increases with the square of the speed, so there is no easy way around increased fuel consumption. Apart from flying much higher - I don't know if this is possible.
When we are talking about sub-sonic aircraft achieving supersonic flight in a shallow dive, we must also remember the "mach tuck" problem, where the elevators begin to loose effectiveness due to turbulent air moving across them, and the dive becomes steeper and cannot be pulled out of. This is why most military supersonic aircraft have all-moving horizontal tails, to give the elevator enough bite to be effective.
Could you do a video explaining changes in aerodynamics of an aircraft between subsonic and supersonic speeds? :D Always a pleasure watching your videos!
The supersonic aircraft of the future will have the edges of the wings and the tip replaced with some high strength polymer interspersed with layers of piezostrictive ceramics. In this way the edge of the wing can operate an acoustic cancellation using a pressure wave in phase opposition. Thank you for the great video Mentour Pilot, it is always a pleasure to watch your videos. Regards, Anthony
It's not just about the plane, it's the VIP interior which is a huge part of the production, especially in Montreal. Which also means huge government incentives that subsidize the workforce and infrastructure.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Speed of sound is a function of temperature and of gas composition. (ratio of specific heats, specifically) Assuming the air remains 99% diatomic oxygen and nitrogen (and humidity at high altitudes is usually nearly zero remember), only temperature affects it significantly.
Hey! Big fan of yours! I watch all your videos. I noticed for the photo of the sonic boom you used my friends photo. His name is Andrea Galvani! And incredible artist💙 please give him credit!
As always, another excellent video. I knew the 8000 would not be "allowed" to go supersonic outside of testing, but the fact it did during testing is still impressive. And on SAF. It's cruise speed and range is also quite impressive, so, Bombardier looks to have a winner on their hands here... Gulfstream's going to have to up their game...
When I was a child, we lived in a small neighborhood, outside of town, and sonic booms were loud, sometimes breaking a window in my home. I remember when it stopped, and my dad told me that they had outlawed it.
I’m an aerospace engineer and a big fan of Concorde. But it’s hard to imagine us turning over vast areas of land to produce SAF when there is a global food shortage. Do millions starve, or do a few super rich have to spend more time in the air? I vote for the latter.
Hey Mentour! I recently asked you to do a video about SAA flight 295 if you’re keen. Here’s another suggestion: the rise and fall of South African Airways, from it’s first flight to being ‘captured’ and fall from grace. It gets political, but it would be interesting to get your views on it, especially from a leadership perspective. Or something like that
I have tried to point out that line to people before and they always look at me like I am a lunatic. My Aero instructor in college (Dr. J Polve, Col USAF Ret.)told us about standing normal shocks on the upper surface of wings at cruise. He also told us how the center of pressure shifts aft at supersonic speeds and so you need to make sure your fuel load is right when you drop to subsonic.
The fact that they can get an ostensibly subsonic jet to be safe to fly and controllable at slightly-higher-than-sonic is technical achievement. Being an aerospace school graduate, transonic regimes is something that is always an interesting area of focus. It should be mentioned that drag gets incredibly high when entering the transonic regime. I don't know how high the fuel consumption would become if you try to maintain mach .94 but I guess it's a lot. Then again, if your time is more valuable than gas money and the plane can get there, it's an option for sure.
As a petrol head who is into cars it makes me think that on roads we have brands such as Konigsegg,Buggati,Rimac,Lotus,SSC and Henessey who are all touching or getting close to 300mph on road with the exception of the Bugatti Chiron SS which clocked 304mph on a run.And ina time where cars and bikes are getting faster, it feels like since the concorde reitired the avation world hasn't really moved forwards and sometimes I feel like it's gone backwards.
We lived about 14-15 kilometers away from the Lohegaon Airport, Poona (in India)... during the 1990s. Indian airforce had a few of those Sukhoi aircrafts inducted already and Pune/Poona was one of the bases. (Poona only had one airport. It was not a civilian airport. The defence establishment got first priority to use it. And it was normal, acceptable for the port to be closed to civilian traffic whenever the Indian airforce had to perform sorties or similar stuff). We routinely looked up further ahead in the skies, from where our ears heard the Sukhois... for our eyes to spot them. Though fairly high above the town, many a times the planes would still be climbing... and the boom.. did make us all (on ground) aware that the boys were practising.
I think supersonic aircraft were a bad idea. Even in the military, the trends has been towards slower aircraft (albeit still supersonic capable). Your costs per flight hour shoot way up. When halfway decent planning makes any savings of a few hours pointless.
I remember a rather sobering factoid about Concorde. An expert calculated that if a Concorde broke up at cruising altitude the debris would be scattered over 65,000 square miles. (It could have been square kilometers.)
Back in the fifties when I was growing up I can remember many times hearing fighter jets break the sound barrier. We live near a Nike missile site an Air Force Base
That’s really neat. Thanks for the very informative video. Miss the Concorde even though I would never have flown on it. I remember when we were kids and our house got hit by sonic booms once, twice, or a few times. I don’t really remember how many times. We lived out in the country. We thought it was so cool. The windows were rattling. None got broken, so all was okay.
I used to work for Air Canada . Back in 1978 a coworker told me that the aircraft we were standing beside was the one that had gone supersonic. I don't remember the fin # but it was a short 8 with conway engines.
I think concorde was like the ship called the "Great Eastern", designed by Brunnell in that it was way ahead of its time. Definitely a backward step dismantling Concorde, and now another backward step discontinuing the A380. But then again, it's like pruning a tree. You cut out the main upper trunk, and lots more big, interesting branches grow.
Grew up in South Wales in the UK when Concord would take off from Heathrow in the cold winter months. At 9pm’ish you could go outside and wait for the window rattling sonic booms that did break glass in the earlier years, before they forced concord to not go supersonic until further out to sea beyond Lundy Island. The boom would hit you in the chest, was pretty cool as it was so far away.
This really is an expertly researched, edited and presented video. All of the science is laid out in layman's terms, without any hint of the slightest insult to the viewer. It's a fine line between information and knowing your audience, expertly trodden down once again by the always exemplarary Mentour. Great video. I think the only thing left out is that for every 0.01 Mach difference, we are only talking about 6 knots difference in true airspeed, and therefore groundspeed, if the comparable aircraft are operating at the same flight level in the same wind conditions. M.80 vs M.85 only equals 30kts (5×6=30) difference in groundspeed, or just half a nautical mile a minute. Enough to put to aircraft 10 nautical miles in trail for the sequence, but only if you have 20 mins of flying time to work to work with. After that they are on descent, and their speed is controlled with reference to IAS.
Although I guess when we are talking about an aircraft that can do 8000nm, and conservatively 7700nm (one fitty for climb and the same for descent) at cruise speed, then comparing M.80 to M.85, we are talking about 0.5nm per minute faster for 7700nm which equals around 40 mins difference in flight time, over that distance. Is that difference a game changer? Depending upon the destination, that could easily be wiped out in immigration and bags palava. If the Global 8000 is only going to cruise at M.85, it's no different to a Citation 10, Gulfstream 650ER etc, size difference aside. This is marketing bluff on the back of a certification programme.
Faster jets always seem to need longer runways and with higher rotate speeds need more fantasticaly expensive tyres, and get fewer landings from a set of tyres. Look at the SR71! Ten landings from a set of fabulously expensive tyres.
The DC8 supersonic flight was actually pretty terrifying for the pilots. Unlike the Gulfstream, the DC8 wasn't designed to remain controllable in the high-transonic / supersonic regime. So when the pilots tried to pull out of their supersonic dive they found that they could not, due to a shockwave blanketing their elevators. One of the test pilots had to make the unintuitive move of INCREASING engine power to force the plane to ascend slightly due to the increased speed and hence lift, eventually allowing them to level out and decelerate.
I hope to be able to fly in a super sonic airplane some day. I remember as a young person in Chicago hearing sonic booms. Probably were military craft.
Just 50km away from where I live there's a museum where they have a Concorde and a TU-144 on top of a roof. Everytime I'm visiting and I see them I wish I had the chance to fly with one of them.
As most Canadians who follow business or aviation matters, know Bombardier has been a chronically mismanaged company. They had to sell off many of their divisions to stay alive. BTW, they no longer have a train division- they sold it to the French group Alstom. The recreational division including the Ski-Doo was sold to the Bombardier family.
As long as they can keep it safe, supersonic is fine with me. Living in Florida, we used to get a double sonic boom when the space shuttle crossed the state. I lived on the Gulf of Mexico side and that double boom was loud. The first time I heard it I thought it was a bomb going off. You could also see them take off on a fairly clear day. We could see them after they rose above the curvature of the earth. Have a great day and an amazing trip.
Yay DC-8! I loved being a passenger on those, a few times, as a kid. 707 slow-rolled the entire runway before begrudgingly lifting off. DC-8 just launched.
When i worked for Boeing many years past, i engaged in conversation with two of the flight test pilot/engineers, who told of an incident where a B-747 reached a speed of mach 1.05 due to instrument inaccuries.
I would make a wager that instead of M.85 most operators will be cruising the aircraft between M.88 and M.91. I typically fly M.85 in an airplane that has MMO of M.90 so the Gulfstreams and Globals should be cruising at M.90 minimum.
As a psychologist I'm a bit concerned about this approach of using SAF for high consumption aircrafts. It's basically the good old rebound trap. We feel like doing something environmental friendly while in net damages we just traded one bad thing for another.
Global Express currently cruise at .85-.88 The new 7500 and 8000 will be cruising at .88-.90. All the new Gulfstreams cruise at .90 except for the rare occasion they need more range and slow to .88
Maybe what's needed is an airframe design that can handle the different aerodynamics of subsonic and supersonic flight without sacrificing too much in terms of efficiency. In theory that would allow you to fly subsonic over land, and then go supersonic once you were over the ocean. Not sure how feasible that would be though.
I know someone who works at bombardier. He told me that this plane is more than powerful enough to go supersonic but they say the top speed is mach .95 because they don't want their customers fooling around and causing too much strain and disrupting people on the ground.
You forgot to mention the Convair 990A - Coronado - witch was projected to fly closer to sound speed. My father flew this plane - Varig airlines - in early 60’s. He said that once - in some particular circunstances - the plane got faster than normal - it starts “shaking”, he had to reduce the speed. Of course it wasn’t projected to do it. The idea of this plane was to do NY-London (or Paris) in 50 min less than Boeing 707 and DC8. And she did it - but the problem was it’s range - much smaller than rivals. It was useles to Varig, cause was unable to do a direct non-scale Rio-Ny or Rio-Lisbon. Witch the rivals did with no problem.
Interesting that Bombardier is Canadian and that supersonic DC8 was from Canadian Pacific. As a side note, the RCAF when they had the Sabre F86 on strength had a supersonic club. If you were a Sabre pilot and was able (and brave enough) to go supersonic in a vertical dive, you were welcomed into the club with a certificate and some fanfare. A buddy's father is a member.
The Concorde didn’t fail only because of the supersonic boom, but also because of the huge fuel cost of flying at Mach 2.2 and the small cross section that allowed only 140 seats, to keep the drag Low enough. You need of course to fly a lot more than Mach 1 to make any significant difference in flight time, so you’ll face exactly the same physical restrictions of the Concord, because physics hasn’t changed in the last 40 years. Supersonic passengers planes are an absurdly, it’s like returning commercial aviation to the elite means of transportation it was before the ‘80s, few rich people that can slap us common mortals with 1st class seats. No modern technology can overcome the same physical restrictions, without paying the same price in performance. But someone is doing it! Yes and someone is also doing flying cars and electric planes and Hyperloop and underground highways and solar freaking roadways and preparing to go to Mars.
I know your focus is on fixed wing aircraft but it's interesting to note that parts of many rotor wing aircraft exceed MACH 1 routinely. I'm referring specifically to the tips of the rotors and much research has been conducted on the physics of that problem. This has resulted in significant changes to the geometry of rotor wing tips and to much quieter helicopters.
Imma save up for a used 7500 and overclock it, probably add water cooling tubing all over the trim and maybe some blacklight and neon fluid so it can go supersonic in style.........
My dad was a construction worker by trade. He was one of the workers who built the World Trade Center last century and he was called in to access and repair the damaged caused by 1993 bombing there. My dad made a lot of friends doing Sheet Metal as he was one of the best. He even took me to work sometimes when I didn't have school. One of the jobs the company my dad worked for was to build new terminals in JFK. I'd have to ask my mom the specific terminal numbers. One of my dad's friends there once offered me a chance to fly a Concord as a passenger for free for a day trip to London and back. Of course I was still young and absolutely terrified of the idea of not being on the ground. Never flew on a plane until 2009 for a vacation to Florida after my dad past. I'm still absolutely terrified of flying. Of course my medical conditions and not being able to bring my own supply of water and foods to help alleviate those conditions thanks to a bunch of jag-offs doesn't help. I would like one day to fly on a supersonic plane but I'm not holding my breath that will ever happen.
Use this link 👉 curiositystream.thld.co/mentournow_0622 and the coupon code Mentournow to get an exclusive 25% discount on Curiosity stream. Check it out today, its awesome!
I'm sure we'll see supersonic bizjets because there's always a few super rich dudes whom munny is no objection.
But supersonic passenger planes just can't be cost effective.
Sure, some companies are building them, but I doubt they'll be sold in large enough numbers to be profitable.
And they won't be profitable for airlines to operate except for the publicity value.
Petter, have you considered adding your channels to Nebula? It comes with Curiosity Stream (as you undoubtedly know), and it allows you to add things to a video that RUclips would demonetise you for. Look at Legal Eagle, he does the same videos but adds a Nebula bonus at the end. Your channels would be absolutely perfect for the platform. I much prefer to watch on that than on RUclips. It's only got top quality channels on it, so like I said, you'd be terrific!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperMach_SonicStar what do you think are the chances of the Hypermach SonicStar succeeding? This article might now be the most accurate.
if they actually try to make it a reality
the HyperMach SonicStar is a hypersonic corporate transport by the way
As an engineer sometimes I fail to appreciate "economic feasibility" but as far as I'm concerned we took a step back in aviation when Concorde was retired in 2003 and 20 yrs later no comparable successor. Even the Boom overture will "only" cruise at M 1.7. Getting to Mach 2.0 and dashing for a few minutes is no big deal. Cruising for 3 hours comfortable, cooling the skin, stable turbine Temps for the duration is an amazing feat. Amazing to think Concorde was designed during an Era of sliderules and computers the size of rooms with less power than your average smart phone..lol
Indeed! It was a feat of engineering but, like you pointed out, not economically feasible.
I miss her though.
It was a beautiful Aircraft and I was sad and dumbfounded when it was retired. Retrograde step.
Concorde was not accessible to regular people, though, so we just gazed upon her, never to fly her. It was a failure to make such an elite use aircraft, esp by a government company, and spoke to the crappy financial feasibility of needing $10,000/seat tickets, one way, I believe. Round trip, doesn't matter. In today's dollars (from 1980) would be $35,000 per seat!
@@LemonLadyRecords my great-grand-aunt flew on the Concorde for her 100st birthday and I don't think that my family could afford $10000 🤔
I don't know how much it cost, however, and I couldn't fly on it myself, which I regret 😥
@@LemonLadyRecords Not only that, the British and French governments spent billions subsidizing the Concorde, regarding it as a matter of national prestige. One reason Boeing abandoned its SST was that a U.S. president-I forget which-ended the development subsidies.
I used to live on Exmoor, South West England. Pretty much every evening at a few minutes past 1800 hours (BST) I would hear the sonic boom of Concorde as it decelerated over the Bristol Channel. Interestingly, if i was walking out on the open moors, I would hear the startled calls of many pheasants just a few seconds before i heard the boom. I've always assumed they could detect the pressure wave before i could. Happy days - a truly majestic sight and testament to the engineers and pilots, two of whom presented me with my wings, many moons ago.
I thought I had mistaken my memories of hearing the boom in the morning on her way out, and just put it down to the engines having a distinct sound (I am going back 40 years so I am not putting much store into my memories!). I lived on the opposite side of the Channel, about ½ mile as the crow flies on the Welsh side. For some reason I only remember the morning flight out to the USA. Weird things, memories, aren't they?
@@y_fam_goeglyd Memories are wonderful Mandy! I've just recalled another time when i was sort of scurrying up a steep valley side and paused to catch my breath. As I looked up, panting, there SHE was (I know you are British because you called her "her", even though there was {I believe} 12 "hers" in total, six BA and six Air France) flying very low level. I later found out from a friend in Minehead that it was a special fly-past.
Ps why do other nations insist on calling Concorde "the Concorde"? No soul😊
Just to make sure you realize, but the sonic boom doesn't happen from decelerating past the sound barrier. (There is no sound produced at the moment of crossing the sound barrier.) It's continuously produced from any aircraft traveling above the speed of sound.
@@Ergzay yes, i do realise that. (Supersonics were part of my Commercial Pilot's License 😘). Perhaps i worded it badly. Concorde used to decelerate down the Bristol Channel heading into Heathrow. As they passed me, they were still supersonic. I'd be interested to know at precisely what point they became subsonic ( I'd guess maybe abeam Hinckley Point nuclear power station?)
@@JohnJohn-hd1pc as an American, I call all aircraft, boats, ships, and even old houses "she."
I loved Concorde, but she was of her time and I think now supersonic is just a gimmick. Comfortable, sustainable, quiet, efficient flying is the future, and supersonic is now little more than a number.
In middle school, we lived right below the flight path of a fighter jet training base. T-38s. Some days it was only 5-10min between sonic booms directly overhead. Started at 8-9am and went into the afternoon. You couldn't sleep late on the weekends. We lived on the very edge of town, just farms past us, but I doubt they would have done that in the midst of the large town. They did it with the full knowledge that they were impacting our lives. We told them so during an open house they had lol. Luckily dad got transferred within 18mos. It was pure torture.
Maybe they shouldn't have built a school in the flight path to an Air Force Base?
@@VisibilityFoggy read again. It wasn't the school that was in the flight path.
@@VisibilityFoggy Knowing the US military, the school was there before the AFB.
@@ethanstewart9970 Knowing the US military, they can be happy they didn't scrap the school for the base.
As a kid growing up in the Los Angeles area, I remember the sonic booms, and they were not insignificant. The only subsequent ones I've heard were from the space shuttle.
The DC-8 was the first commercial jetliner to fly supersonic, though it was entirely unintentional. Even so, their marketers made some hay over it. 🤣 Glad to see you mentioned this 👍
if a dc8 went supersonic, it would fall apart , or/and be in a vertical dive ...I survived a 'flight' in one of these flying junk .. it only stayed in the air from pure thrust and nothing else ....
@@adrianpeters2413 I'm getting the impression it survived going supersonic in the same way it survived -its normal flight- staying in the air from pure thrust: it was built like a tank. ;)
Maximus channel has a special on the DC 8 going slightly over mach 1 in a dive. It was done my McDonald Douglas test pilots on purpose. The plane was instrumented. The RUclips on it explains why.
The reason they chucked the DC-8 into the supersonic gauntlet was that Douglas McDonnell wanted to prove that the DC-8 won't fall apart regardless of general abuses, yet supersonic test was quite hard on the subsonic airframe, so if it survived a supersonic dive, it of course would survive anything, along the lines of their thoughts back then. And yup, the test pilots mentioned that it was an exciting experience as flying the subsonic plane at supersonic speed is just different from the SST designed to fly that fast, making for a tricky flying.
I grew up seeing Concorde testing then would see, or hear, her pretty much every day once she was in service.
Not many planes that I look up at every time but Concorde was the exception.
You are a lucky man to have seen Her. I have only seen Her through glass. I so always to have been aboard Her, but life is nothing but despair.
Are you just assuming this airplane's gender?
Me too. I was training at Heathrow and we always had a teabreak at 11 & 3 so we could watch her come in or leave. Beautiful sight! She was also the only aircraft I would hear from my house - being parallel to the runways aircraft noise was not a problem, and somehow I never minded her noisy departures at all 😃
@@willfungusman8666 Grow up.
It would be fun to know how hard that DC-8 was buffeting. The beating that aircraft can withstand is amazing.
Especially when you placed 2 and 3 into reverse while descending. 😂
There’s an article about it. The recovery from the dive was weird because the captain decided to push it further down and then let the lower altitude drag do the slowing down instead of over-stressing the elevators and horizontal stabilizer.
Random video idea that's tangentially related: talk about mach tuck, coffin corner, or other things related to operating in the high speed / high altitude regimes.
That can certainly be done!
I’d watch this!!
I'd be interested in it.
I once knew a guy whose dad worked for Boeing investigating crashes. He told me about a 707 where the pilots, behind schedule and trying to catch up, put it into risky high-altitude cruise configuration. Something happened that put the plane into a high-speed dive. The controls locked up, showing that they were supersonic. To get out of that dive, the pilots lowered the landing gear. Putting their feet on the console, they exerted every bit of their strength to bring it back to level flight. He said the only damage the plane had was to the landing gear doors. The 700+ knot airspeed slowed their opening enough that the landing gear contacted with those doors. No one knows how fast it went because the pilots erased the flight recorder data. The first voice on the voice recording, he said, was one pilot remarking something like, "Well, that takes care of that."
You can't erase flight recorder data to my knowledge
BS on the details... Get away from your computer and get a life. You'll be glad you did.
@@subjekt5577 I worked on those old “flight recorders”. It was a stainless steel foil that scribes scored marks on the foil according to speed (pitot presser), altitude, heading, and maybe one thing else. It had to be replaced with fresh foil every few hours.
@@subjekt5577 Wrong. The older ones were looped. If there was a incident there was a fuse to stop it after landing to keep it from overwriting itself. A pilot in flight could pull that before whatever stupid stunt and it would get left out.
Good to know Bombardier is making news again. They used to be the pride of Montreal. I live 15 minutes away from their St. Laurent facility and I once interviewed for a job there. 🇨🇦
As the Convair 880 and 990 proved to us, speed will not triumph over economic efficiency. When given the choice of a faster arrival time or a cheaper ticket price, people will more likely choose to sacrifice time in order to save money.
And that's why I think that the companies trying to develop a new supersonic passenger jet are wasting money.
@@mrxmry3264 lets see , if this new generation of supersonic planes still have insane ticket prices, just wait and see the result,
In the early 80’s we were living in E. TN when a sonic boom happened and shook the house. My dad who was a marine (discharged) jumped up and ran outside. He came in and said, that damn Air Force and sat back down to finish eating. I later joined the AF I think in most part to irritate him.
Epic!
9:41 as a person who often gets really restless during long journeys, i always wanted to fly in a supersonic aircraft. now i understand why it's not that easy. thank you
I remember being in the Air Training Corps going for a ride in a Chipmunk at Filton when a Concorde was being tested. Beautiful Aircraft. As for Supersonic over land RAF Fighter Interception Aircraft have done this when QRA has been launched in an intercept of unknown Aircraft. It always appears in the Newspapers the next day with an explanation for breaking the sound barrier. They are either over land or just off land in The Wash. But yeah, I can't wait to see the age of Supersonic return. Sad that we lost it. It's like being able to drive a Porche then being given a Ford Model T as a Car.
Important note: The sonic boom is not created when the sound barrier is broken. It keeps occurring on the ground when ever a supersonic aircraft flies over a stationary observer on the ground. It's the shockwave that originates from the aircraft that is hitting the ground and that causes the sonic boom. It's not the act of first passing through Mach 1.0 and breaking the sound barrier.
How much this effect depends on the pressure (wouldn't flying higher, i.e. in lower pressure environment reduce the effect)?
@@IlluminatiBG Yes it would, but not enough to satisfy the public. Lower pressure and simple distance from the aircraft both help.
@@IlluminatiBG As far as I know flying higher does reduce the perceived amplitude a bit but not enough. Many years ago I heard a sonic boom from a fighter jet and all I could see was a tiny fast thing way up there in the stratosphere, must have been about FL500 or so. It was quite a loud double explosion sound. Not enough to break windows but still loud enough to look around for a major explosion.
Important counter-note: You sort of know what you're talking about, and you sort of don't.
You're right in that a supersonic aircraft/object in the air continually creates an expanding shock wave, it's not just created at the moment of "breaking the sound barrier" or anything like that.
But.......you're making it sound like a sonic boom is an object rather than an observation of a passing shock.
A sonic boom is not an object which is created, it is a sound which is heard by an observer, caused by the arrival of a shock wave front. One moment, their eardrum is in air at a certain pressure, a proverbial millisecond later, it's feeling a different pressure. Boom. It's not cyclical pressure like a tone, just a sudden spike.
The physical object created by the aircraft, is a shock wave which becomes a moving front (often shaped like a cone for an aircraft moving in a straight line, but for a momentary shock, more of a sphere, and there are a lot of nuances making a shock front a complex shape changing with time), where a high air pressure gradient (large rate of change, not necessarily a large total pressure difference) exists across a very small distance perpendicular to the expanding front.
OF COURSE an observer on the ground doesn't hear it until the shock wave reaches the location of their ears, which happen to be on the ground. But if the supersonic aircraft at 60,000 feet altitude passes a balloonist 50 feet away, you'd better believe that the shock wave front doesn't have to reach the ground for the balloonist to hear the boom. They will hear it right where they are, as quickly as someone on the ground hears a gunshot fired from 50 feet away (assuming equal air temp, etc if you want to get picky.)
Also, the observer on the ground doesn't need to be stationary, they can be moving at any speed themselves, from stationary to supersonic. As long as they don't outrun the expanding shock front, when the shock front reaches them, they hear the boom.
My question is - would the entirely quiet aircraft engines cause less of a boom?
To me, as a non-physicist and a total layperson, the boom itself sounds like it consists of the "accumulated spikes" of the sound wave produced by the aircraft engines that haven't been able to propagate as they usually do in sequence, but instead the spikes piled up one on top of another and amplified the original sound, which to me appears like it is that of the engines more than of anything else produced by the aircraft.
In short, to me the loudest component of the sonic boom sounds like a tsunami of engine sound.
One thing about Bombardier's train division - they got bought out by Alstom in 2021.
Bombardier sold their train business to Alstom at the same same as the other business unit sales. They basically mismanaged themselves towards bankruptcy and had to sell off almost everything as a result in order to neutralize the huge debt.
Ahh, I missed that
@@MentourNow Yep and their Recreative line (Ski-Doo, Sea-Doo and ATV) actually slit apart years ago. Probably for the best considering how the rest of Bombardier went…
I grew up in a part of Queens right near LaGuardia airport in the late seventies early '80s before the hush kits and high bypass engines all day and night the planes flying low and slow sometimes with parts falling off I can definitely live without a sonic boom in my life 😂
I can imagine Donald. The booms are something else..
Back then, you could hear planes even some miles away from the airport. I worked at a company under the main airport takeoff and it was hell. I'll never forget watching the lumbering DC-10s whining into the sky. I always thought something was wrong with the engines! 747s were a sight, too, but better at flying. I think they must have had 'some' noise abatement, even in the early 80s, as they were going SO scary slow, esp the DC-10s. Often it was even hard just to have a conversation or talk on the phone.
@@LemonLadyRecords absolutely
I can imagine that, too.👍
@@LemonLadyRecords This speaks to why I'm such a fan of good noise-cancelling headphones - wish you'd have had those back in the 80s...
When I grew up in Saskatchewan the jets would come up from Minot and break the sound barrier all the time. Supper cool to see them flying over.
Thanks for this, Mentour Pilot! I was not aware of this news. I worked for Bombardier for a couple of years during the initial development of the RJ program and I was always impressed with the quality of their engineering department.
Cessna did the same sort of tests with their Citation 10 Business Jet. During testing, in order to certify it at a speed of Mach .9 3, Cessna had to take the jet supersonic for a brief period .
Bombardier has sold its rail industry division to Alstom, a while ago (end of January 2021) for 6 billions of Euros. I worked in both companies and now I'm working with a competitor.
Yes, indeed. The Global-Line of the Business Jets is pretty much everything what is left over from Bombardier. Otherwise they´ve disappeared totally from the market.
Possibly Siemens? If so, a good choice! Lol
I remember reading or watching somewhere that Convair's 1960's airliners were pushing close to transonic, and that the extra costs this performance entailed weren't really offset by this performance. Modern airliners fly slower than the planes back then, but are a lot more efficient.
Yeah, those with the famous carrot like bulges over the wing
990, check out the vids
When I visited the Brooklands Museum south of London in 2018, I found out that Concorde had a windows cooling system. Otherwise the windows wood get so hot by the outside air friction at speeds above Mach 1, that passengers would burn their hands while touching the windows. The windows were very small, compared to normal aircraft windows.
Indeed, lots of small diameter tubing running around the fuselage that contained fuel, pumped from the tanks (there were lots which had to be constantly balanced during flight).
How is that possible? Are high speeds not just occurring in the higher air where the outside temperature is far below zero? So the friction causes/caused a temperature difference of hundreds of degrees?
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg yes, the piping is inside the fuselage but behind the plastic covering that passengers touch, creating a chilled cavity.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg Interesting question, but I have seen it in the museum, and was surprised too. But friction can heat up things. Like when you rub your hand over a cold table, you will notice the area of the table you rub over heats up. And also the surface of the rubbing hand also.
The Cessna Citation X, Citation Ten, and the Gulfstream G650ER all have a MMO above M.92 and all went supersonic in testing in the same manner as this Global 8000 and for the same reasons. I believe the rule of thumb is to test ~10% above the desired certificated MMO.
I simply want to say thanks for these highly educational videos Mentour produces. The why and the physics behind the why are the questions I'm looking for. It's always great to learn new, explained in profound way.
I remember living in Central Florida & hearing sonic booms when the Space Shuttle would return for landing. Maybe it was the shuttle's altitude or distance from me but the booms only sounded like thunder. Nothing destructive at all.
Exactly, great observation, even the double booms are little different than thunder.
I was working outside right before one of the later space shuttle flights landed at Edwards AFB, ~75 miles north. It sounded like someone next door fired a shotgun twice.
Fun fact: thunder is a sonic boom.
Glad you mentioned the DC-8. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw this video.
I was in a 747 that was moving along around .99 Mach a good chunk of the way back to IAD from Tokyo. We left four hours behind schedule and the pilot made up a decent chunk of that in the air. Had a very eventful landing with a crosswind gust as well, but that's a tale for another time.
Hey Peter, I’m curious about that landing story. Mind sharing it here?
Same what's that
I feel like it's worth reminding ourselves that the speed of sound is really the speed at which our atmosphere naturally responds to kinetic energy, the speed at which it transmits pressure changes through the volume, which is what sound really is. That thought really helped me understand why there is such a huge difference in the dynamics between subsonic and supersonic operations, and why these potentially damaging pressure waves are such a frequent topic in transonic and supersonic dynamics.
The trouble is that an international passenger flight from London to New York in reality takes between 12-16 hours, or more. It is 8 hours for the the actual transatlantic flight. plus up to a couple of hours in a holding pattern at the far end. Then there is a couple of hours getting through security in London and a couple of hours getting through customs in the USA. And maybe an hour stuck on the taxiway waiting for take off. If the aircraft only saves thirty minutes of flight time on that trip, most people will not even notice. Concorde used to do the whole cycle from check in in London to catching a taxi in New York in about six hours, so well worth the effort.
In a way aviation has advanced very slowly in the last 50 years, compared with earlier expectations. On the 70's we had the concorde and the 747. Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. By 2000 we were supposed to have colonised the moon, and have hypersonic travel round the world. Instead, we are still travelling at subsonic speeds, still stuck in the atmosphere, and in aircraft with a maximum of about 800 seats.
However, the electronics industry has really shot ahead beyond all our wildest dreams.
We can thank the accountants for that
As always, an impressively clear explanation of the aerodynamic issues around the sound barrier. I remember watching a documentary on the first supersonic flights, and while it did a good job of explaining just how much of a literal barrier the sound barrier is, it really didn't give much insight as to what was causing those issues. The full details, of course, are more than you went into, but this documentary that was literally about that issue and the efforts to overcome it was like "you get lots of turbulence" and that's it. Which seems....inadequate.
Real Engineering did a video explaining this... I think it's called "Why Airplane Wings are Swept Backwards"
Topic idea:
Anyone remember the *727 that went way supersonic in a steep dive over the Great Lakes* (believe in 1970's)?
They accidentally reached much higher cruise alt than 727 designed for and stalled just below mach 1, rolled over, pilot pulled positive Gs while inverted to keep passengers in their seats, instantly going well past mach 1 then fighting to reduce speed they trashed flaps and slats then copilot dropped the landing gear which did the trick, they leveled off around 5k alt and landed safely. Wound up scrapping the aircraft as beyond repair.
TWA 841? It didn't go supersonic and none of the things you described happened. Pilot deployed slats at cruise speed causing them to be damaged, then claimed innocence but also erased CVR after landing.
@@Ficon You must be talking about a different situation. One I'm referring to went instantly supersonic. Parasitic drag on an airliner is tiny so as soon as lift induced drag is gone in a dive starting just below mach 1 there is no other possible result.
@@Mrbfgray That’s the only 727 dive over Great Lakes that I’m aware of. The captain made all sorts of wild claims in interviews about rolling and going inverted, nothing substantiated by FDR. Basically he screwed up, deleted the CVR and then spent decades arguing that FAA and Boeing were wrong.
Very interesting topic, I really love these kinds of videos! Would be cool to see an aircraft like the Concorde again, although I'm afraid these supersonic aircraft will be too small and expensive for "regular" airlines, and would be mostly used for business flights.
Well, I think United have signed up for a few Boom jets.
@@MentourNow Awesome! I'm in Chicago and I think O'Hare might be a United hub!
@@juliemanarin4127 until the US removes the over-land flight restrictions for supersonic planes, i think it's unlikely that you'll see supersonic flights out of Chicago.... sorry about that... my guess is that the initial Boom/United flights will be from Newark to London and/or Paris
@@MentourNow They have. Ordered 15 in fact. They’ve got a very informative website and you can sign up to receive e-mail updates from them.
@PJ Train i know, but Julie 👆 seemed so hopeful to fly Boom/United outta Chicago....
A large part of the reason for the economic failure of Concorde was the American aviation industry and US Government putting commercial obstacles in the way of Concordes development. The US aviation market doing what it usually does freezing out market competition.
? Are you ignoring the effects of sonic boom? Concorde was sort of successful; it was simply too expensive and inefficient for most passengers to afford. The law actually hurt American industry far more.
@@jamesengland7461 How come Airbus were also frozen out/rejected for the recent competition to replace the USAF KC135s air refuelling tankers to ensure the contract went to an American company.
@@jjsmallpiece9234 so you are ignoring sonic boom. I'm not disputing other actions by industry and government, but how did those affect Concorde?
Yeah... as someone who lives next to several airports I'm not too keen on the idea of multiple sonic booms a day, even if they can get them to be less noisy. The coolness factor's gonna wear off pretty fast there.
They're only allowed to fly supersonic over the sea (as stated in the video). Also you're unlikely to get a supersonic aircraft coming into land travelling at supersonic speeds.
@@paul756uk2 Yeah! Over 600kt at MSL might be a *little* bit higher than max tire or max brake energy speeds. And the G forces from decelerating from 600kt to 0 on a distance of 3-4km could also be noticeable ;)
That got me thinking about legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager.... Maybe you could do a series of Pioneers of aviation 🤔
As a kid of the 50s living in Nevada , I heard sonic booms often. I remember they rattled windows and even i could feel a vibration for want of a word. I heard stories of windows breaking but never saw or knew of anyone having that happen to them. Of course those days are gone now. But most people I knew just accepted it. The controversy really started years later.
Thank you for this well done video. Interestingly composed and edited.
I remember flying several times from the USA to London and arriving a lot earlier than we expected as the plane had flown inside a fast jet stream air current over the North Atlantic. But did the ground speed exceed Mach 1? Possibly.
I read that in 2019, a 'Virgin Atlantic jet set a new speed record flying from LA to London in just over nine hours, after a powerful jet stream propelled it faster than the speed of sound. The 787 Dreamliner was clocked at 801mph over Pennsylvania as it rode the fastest jet stream on record, blowing east at 231mph'
Ground speed may have an effect on arrival time but it makes no difference to the aerodynamics.
It is possible to fly at 300 knots IAS but 600 knots GS.
I have been flying from Amsterdam to Washington DC about 10 times. Everytime it occurred to me: the westbound route took around 9 hours, the eastbound route had us back on the ground in 6,5 hours or even shorter. My guess is the same as yours, but these aircraft are not built to exceed Mach 1. Just my guess.
When talking about a tail wind making an airplane's ground speed higher than air speed, it is improper to say that the ground speed has a Mach number associated with it. Mach number only has meaning regarding the fluid mechanics of an actual object passing through an actual fluid such as air. It is a ratio of the object's relative speed through the fluid, to the speed of sound, in that fluid at that moment/pressure/temperature/etc. Mach is NOT just another unit of measure for speed, where you can apply a conversion factor and use it to talk about the speed of other things (ground speed, speed of the plane's shadow movement on a sloped surface below, or whatever), like you can with conversions between miles/hour and meters/second for instance.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg 9 hours one way, 6 1/2 hours back? jetstream can be a bitch.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg Centrifugal force would be another factor (the plane is a wee bit 'lighter' flying west to east). But if the difference is over 2 hours as you say, I'd say jet streams are the main reason.
As a Canadian, I was wondering if you would mention the DC-8! It was on a test flight during certification to approve the installation of Rolls-Royce Conway engines on the DC-8, which usually had Pratt & Whitney engines.
Petter, it’s so interesting to hear you explain some of the extreme aerodynamic changes that occur when you reach supersonic speed. Probably unrealistic to expect to fly that fast, but I do remember how much we loved all the power, noise and even some booms we experienced living three miles from a navy base in the sixties - as someone else commented on. Like I always feel after watching your videos, what amazing machines!!
My last flight as P.1 was in May 1979 - but it is still in my blood. Thank you for stirring happy memories !
Considering that Concorde burned about 5 times the fuel per seat mile compared to a subsonic airliner, I wouldn't like supersonic travel to come back. Sustainable fuels are nice and fine, but their amount will be limited, so we better use them for the most energy efficient aircraft only. Air drag increases with the square of the speed, so there is no easy way around increased fuel consumption. Apart from flying much higher - I don't know if this is possible.
When we are talking about sub-sonic aircraft achieving supersonic flight in a shallow dive, we must also remember the "mach tuck" problem, where the elevators begin to loose effectiveness due to turbulent air moving across them, and the dive becomes steeper and cannot be pulled out of. This is why most military supersonic aircraft have all-moving horizontal tails, to give the elevator enough bite to be effective.
Could you do a video explaining changes in aerodynamics of an aircraft between subsonic and supersonic speeds? :D
Always a pleasure watching your videos!
The supersonic aircraft of the future will have the edges of the wings and the tip replaced with some high strength polymer interspersed with layers of piezostrictive ceramics. In this way the edge of the wing can operate an acoustic cancellation using a pressure wave in phase opposition.
Thank you for the great video Mentour Pilot, it is always a pleasure to watch your videos.
Regards,
Anthony
It's not just about the plane, it's the VIP interior which is a huge part of the production, especially in Montreal. Which also means huge government incentives that subsidize the workforce and infrastructure.
FYI: Mach 1.0 at sea level is 761 mph, and at 50,000 feet, it’s 660 mph.
Because it is so much colder at FL500.
It is much colder, but more importantly, the air is much less dense
@@TricksterJ97 density does not affect the speed of sound in a gas
FYI at sea level it is temperature dependent and you are assuming a perfect standard atmosphere at altitude.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Speed of sound is a function of temperature and of gas composition. (ratio of specific heats, specifically) Assuming the air remains 99% diatomic oxygen and nitrogen (and humidity at high altitudes is usually nearly zero remember), only temperature affects it significantly.
As well as the DC8, the rumour that did the rounds in the 1960 was that the Vickers VC-10 also flew above Mach 1.
True as a BOAC BA RAF AND STILL THE FASTEST NON SUPERSONIC BUT FIRST SUUPERCRUISER JAN 12 1969. :)
Another wonderful video! Thank you for all the work you do over your two channels
Hey! Big fan of yours! I watch all your videos. I noticed for the photo of the sonic boom you used my friends photo. His name is Andrea Galvani! And incredible artist💙 please give him credit!
As always, another excellent video. I knew the 8000 would not be "allowed" to go supersonic outside of testing, but the fact it did during testing is still impressive. And on SAF. It's cruise speed and range is also quite impressive, so, Bombardier looks to have a winner on their hands here... Gulfstream's going to have to up their game...
When I was a child, we lived in a small neighborhood, outside of town, and sonic booms were loud, sometimes breaking a window in my home.
I remember when it stopped, and my dad told me that they had outlawed it.
I’m an aerospace engineer and a big fan of Concorde. But it’s hard to imagine us turning over vast areas of land to produce SAF when there is a global food shortage. Do millions starve, or do a few super rich have to spend more time in the air? I vote for the latter.
Hey Mentour! I recently asked you to do a video about SAA flight 295 if you’re keen. Here’s another suggestion: the rise and fall of South African Airways, from it’s first flight to being ‘captured’ and fall from grace. It gets political, but it would be interesting to get your views on it, especially from a leadership perspective. Or something like that
I have tried to point out that line to people before and they always look at me like I am a lunatic. My Aero instructor in college (Dr. J Polve, Col USAF Ret.)told us about standing normal shocks on the upper surface of wings at cruise. He also told us how the center of pressure shifts aft at supersonic speeds and so you need to make sure your fuel load is right when you drop to subsonic.
The fact that they can get an ostensibly subsonic jet to be safe to fly and controllable at slightly-higher-than-sonic is technical achievement. Being an aerospace school graduate, transonic regimes is something that is always an interesting area of focus.
It should be mentioned that drag gets incredibly high when entering the transonic regime. I don't know how high the fuel consumption would become if you try to maintain mach .94 but I guess it's a lot. Then again, if your time is more valuable than gas money and the plane can get there, it's an option for sure.
As a petrol head who is into cars it makes me think that on roads we have brands such as Konigsegg,Buggati,Rimac,Lotus,SSC and Henessey who are all touching or getting close to 300mph on road with the exception of the Bugatti Chiron SS which clocked 304mph on a run.And ina time where cars and bikes are getting faster, it feels like since the concorde reitired the avation world hasn't really moved forwards and sometimes I feel like it's gone backwards.
We lived about 14-15 kilometers away from the Lohegaon Airport, Poona (in India)... during the 1990s.
Indian airforce had a few of those Sukhoi aircrafts inducted already and Pune/Poona was one of the bases.
(Poona only had one airport. It was not a civilian airport. The defence establishment got first priority to use it. And it was normal, acceptable for the port to be closed to civilian traffic whenever the Indian airforce had to perform sorties or similar stuff).
We routinely looked up further ahead in the skies, from where our ears heard the Sukhois... for our eyes to spot them.
Though fairly high above the town, many a times the planes would still be climbing... and the boom.. did make us all (on ground) aware that the boys were practising.
I think supersonic aircraft were a bad idea. Even in the military, the trends has been towards slower aircraft (albeit still supersonic capable).
Your costs per flight hour shoot way up. When halfway decent planning makes any savings of a few hours pointless.
The F-117, B-2 and B-21 are all subsonic.
I loved the Mcdonnell Douglass planes. Despite all of the problems, the DC10 was a beautiful plane. My favorite will always be the VC10
The L-1011 was a much better plane but the DC-10 was cheaper so more airlines bought it.
I remember a rather sobering factoid about Concorde. An expert calculated that if a Concorde broke up at cruising altitude the debris would be scattered over 65,000 square miles. (It could have been square kilometers.)
Back in the fifties when I was growing up I can remember many times hearing fighter jets break the sound barrier. We live near a Nike missile site an Air Force Base
I used to experience sonic booms almost daily. I have no lingering issues from it. Except missing it.
That’s really neat. Thanks for the very informative video. Miss the Concorde even though I would never have flown on it. I remember when we were kids and our house got hit by sonic booms once, twice, or a few times. I don’t really remember how many times. We lived out in the country. We thought it was so cool. The windows were rattling. None got broken, so all was okay.
you are such a fantastic presenter and confident leader, i would listen to you reading children's story just for the experience
In the seventies we use to hear sonic booms all the time. Back then it was still allowed to fly that fast over land in The Netherlands.
I used to work for Air Canada . Back in 1978 a coworker told me that the aircraft we were standing beside was the one that had gone supersonic. I don't remember the fin # but it was a short 8 with conway engines.
I think concorde was like the ship called the "Great Eastern", designed by Brunnell in that it was way ahead of its time. Definitely a backward step dismantling Concorde, and now another backward step discontinuing the A380. But then again, it's like pruning a tree. You cut out the main upper trunk, and lots more big, interesting branches grow.
The A380 was obsolete the moment it was created.
Grew up in South Wales in the UK when Concord would take off from Heathrow in the cold winter months. At 9pm’ish you could go outside and wait for the window rattling sonic booms that did break glass in the earlier years, before they forced concord to not go supersonic until further out to sea beyond Lundy Island. The boom would hit you in the chest, was pretty cool as it was so far away.
This really is an expertly researched, edited and presented video. All of the science is laid out in layman's terms, without any hint of the slightest insult to the viewer. It's a fine line between information and knowing your audience, expertly trodden down once again by the always exemplarary Mentour. Great video. I think the only thing left out is that for every 0.01 Mach difference, we are only talking about 6 knots difference in true airspeed, and therefore groundspeed, if the comparable aircraft are operating at the same flight level in the same wind conditions. M.80 vs M.85 only equals 30kts (5×6=30) difference in groundspeed, or just half a nautical mile a minute. Enough to put to aircraft 10 nautical miles in trail for the sequence, but only if you have 20 mins of flying time to work to work with. After that they are on descent, and their speed is controlled with reference to IAS.
Although I guess when we are talking about an aircraft that can do 8000nm, and conservatively 7700nm (one fitty for climb and the same for descent) at cruise speed, then comparing M.80 to M.85, we are talking about 0.5nm per minute faster for 7700nm which equals around 40 mins difference in flight time, over that distance. Is that difference a game changer? Depending upon the destination, that could easily be wiped out in immigration and bags palava. If the Global 8000 is only going to cruise at M.85, it's no different to a Citation 10, Gulfstream 650ER etc, size difference aside. This is marketing bluff on the back of a certification programme.
Faster jets always seem to need longer runways and with higher rotate speeds need more fantasticaly expensive tyres, and get fewer landings from a set of tyres. Look at the SR71! Ten landings from a set of fabulously expensive tyres.
The DC8 supersonic flight was actually pretty terrifying for the pilots. Unlike the Gulfstream, the DC8 wasn't designed to remain controllable in the high-transonic / supersonic regime. So when the pilots tried to pull out of their supersonic dive they found that they could not, due to a shockwave blanketing their elevators. One of the test pilots had to make the unintuitive move of INCREASING engine power to force the plane to ascend slightly due to the increased speed and hence lift, eventually allowing them to level out and decelerate.
I hope to be able to fly in a super sonic airplane some day. I remember as a young person in Chicago hearing sonic booms. Probably were military craft.
It'll be interesting if you make us a video of what a new aircraft passes through before joining the market
Technically interesting Petter.
I see you released already.
Class complete.
Thank you Sean!
Yes, I had to release since this episode was 3 days late already.
@@MentourNow No worries.
I added a comment on Patreon Petter.😀
Just 50km away from where I live there's a museum where they have a Concorde and a TU-144 on top of a roof. Everytime I'm visiting and I see them I wish I had the chance to fly with one of them.
As most Canadians who follow business or aviation matters, know Bombardier has been a chronically mismanaged company. They had to sell off many of their divisions to stay alive. BTW, they no longer have a train division- they sold it to the French group Alstom. The recreational division including the Ski-Doo was sold to the Bombardier family.
That's BRP , publicly traded. Went private through Bain Capital. Then public again. The Family no longer has control.
Very informative, as always.
Thank you! It was a fun episode to make.
Yes. I love that DC8 story. Testimony to the strength of that particular airframe. Legend!
As long as they can keep it safe, supersonic is fine with me.
Living in Florida, we used to get a double sonic boom when the space shuttle crossed the state. I lived on the Gulf of Mexico side and that double boom was loud. The first time I heard it I thought it was a bomb going off. You could also see them take off on a fairly clear day. We could see them after they rose above the curvature of the earth. Have a great day and an amazing trip.
ruclips.net/video/ua-hF85Pl1Q/видео.html
best video ever
Yay DC-8! I loved being a passenger on those, a few times, as a kid. 707 slow-rolled the entire runway before begrudgingly lifting off. DC-8 just launched.
When i worked for Boeing many years past, i engaged in conversation with two of the flight test pilot/engineers, who told of an incident where a B-747 reached a speed of mach 1.05 due to instrument inaccuries.
I would make a wager that instead of M.85 most operators will be cruising the aircraft between M.88 and M.91. I typically fly M.85 in an airplane that has MMO of M.90 so the Gulfstreams and Globals should be cruising at M.90 minimum.
I think so too. Most of the customers are rich people, who value time over fuel efficiency.
As a psychologist I'm a bit concerned about this approach of using SAF for high consumption aircrafts. It's basically the good old rebound trap. We feel like doing something environmental friendly while in net damages we just traded one bad thing for another.
Global Express currently cruise at .85-.88 The new 7500 and 8000 will be cruising at .88-.90.
All the new Gulfstreams cruise at .90 except for the rare occasion they need more range and slow to .88
BOOM Supersonic is based in my hometown of Greensboro, NC. Cool to see so much aviation happening around there.
Maybe what's needed is an airframe design that can handle the different aerodynamics of subsonic and supersonic flight without sacrificing too much in terms of efficiency. In theory that would allow you to fly subsonic over land, and then go supersonic once you were over the ocean. Not sure how feasible that would be though.
Keep in mind that subsonic and supersonic aerodynamics are very different.
I know someone who works at bombardier. He told me that this plane is more than powerful enough to go supersonic but they say the top speed is mach .95 because they don't want their customers fooling around and causing too much strain and disrupting people on the ground.
You forgot to mention the Convair 990A - Coronado - witch was projected to fly closer to sound speed. My father flew this plane - Varig airlines - in early 60’s. He said that once - in some particular circunstances - the plane got faster than normal - it starts “shaking”, he had to reduce the speed. Of course it wasn’t projected to do it.
The idea of this plane was to do NY-London (or Paris) in 50 min less than Boeing 707 and DC8. And she did it - but the problem was it’s range - much smaller than rivals.
It was useles to Varig, cause was unable to do a direct non-scale Rio-Ny or Rio-Lisbon. Witch the rivals did with no problem.
Why are we always in such a hurry? I would welcome a return of dirigibles.. Go with the flow 😁
Interesting that Bombardier is Canadian and that supersonic DC8 was from Canadian Pacific. As a side note, the RCAF when they had the Sabre F86 on strength had a supersonic club. If you were a Sabre pilot and was able (and brave enough) to go supersonic in a vertical dive, you were welcomed into the club with a certificate and some fanfare. A buddy's father is a member.
The Concorde didn’t fail only because of the supersonic boom, but also because of the huge fuel cost of flying at Mach 2.2 and the small cross section that allowed only 140 seats, to keep the drag Low enough. You need of course to fly a lot more than Mach 1 to make any significant difference in flight time, so you’ll face exactly the same physical restrictions of the Concord, because physics hasn’t changed in the last 40 years. Supersonic passengers planes are an absurdly, it’s like returning commercial aviation to the elite means of transportation it was before the ‘80s, few rich people that can slap us common mortals with 1st class seats. No modern technology can overcome the same physical restrictions, without paying the same price in performance. But someone is doing it! Yes and someone is also doing flying cars and electric planes and Hyperloop and underground highways and solar freaking roadways and preparing to go to Mars.
Ahh yes the hyperloop pipe dream
I know your focus is on fixed wing aircraft but it's interesting to note that parts of many rotor wing aircraft exceed MACH 1 routinely. I'm referring specifically to the tips of the rotors and much research has been conducted on the physics of that problem. This has resulted in significant changes to the geometry of rotor wing tips and to much quieter helicopters.
And shorter blades...
@@toomanyhobbies2011 - and more of them.
Imma save up for a used 7500 and overclock it, probably add water cooling tubing all over the trim and maybe some blacklight and neon fluid so it can go supersonic in style.........
The most amazing thing I’ve read about that DC-8 flight is who was flying the chase plane. None other than Chuck Yeager.
My dad was a construction worker by trade. He was one of the workers who built the World Trade Center last century and he was called in to access and repair the damaged caused by 1993 bombing there. My dad made a lot of friends doing Sheet Metal as he was one of the best. He even took me to work sometimes when I didn't have school.
One of the jobs the company my dad worked for was to build new terminals in JFK. I'd have to ask my mom the specific terminal numbers. One of my dad's friends there once offered me a chance to fly a Concord as a passenger for free for a day trip to London and back. Of course I was still young and absolutely terrified of the idea of not being on the ground. Never flew on a plane until 2009 for a vacation to Florida after my dad past. I'm still absolutely terrified of flying. Of course my medical conditions and not being able to bring my own supply of water and foods to help alleviate those conditions thanks to a bunch of jag-offs doesn't help.
I would like one day to fly on a supersonic plane but I'm not holding my breath that will ever happen.