so fo you feel Lockheed or Boom has the most potential..? I think Lockheed will probably make the sonic boom quieter...but yeah, hopefully someone pulls out off and make it practical.. that would be great!
There is one reason that somehow wasn't often mentioned: 50 years ago any type of transport and flight in particular was considered as a time waster, you just sit and wait. Now you have Wi-Fi on your average jet so you can be as productive as in the office. Not to mention modern portable entertainment systems. So there is no need to pay extra to skip 3 hours, especially if you wouldn't even notice it.
It's come up a bit already in the comments, but I think "Business Class plus WiFi" and "private jets" basically killed the market for supersonic passenger travel. The former means you can work on the plane in comfort (not possible in the 1970s) and even time your flights on a red-eye flight to sleep for much of it, and the latter means that the really wealthy aren't going to fly supersonic passenger travel when they can fly on their own private jets. All that's left are people who are really super-time sensitive, can't work remotely by WiFI in business class, and have lots of money, and I think that's too niche for it to survive (incidentally, "too narrow niche to survive" is what also kills the occasional giant airship revival that pops up every few years).
Yours is the right answer to this plane in a nutshell. That being said, if this new company with zero experience in aviation, led by a software engineer... Somehow manages to design, build, test this plane, and somehow get the FAA to CERTIFY it... It could have some limited future, since United basically placed an order with them. And a bunch of sheiks and crazy rich randos would probably consider them as well.
That still leaves an opening for supersonic private jets, though. I wouldn't be surprised if this focus on a commercial passenger jet is really just a feint
I kinda disagree because all of what you say applied to the Concorde as well. Cause in the 1970's telephones and fax machines existed and you could also do work on the plane like write papers and hold meetings. For inspection visits you usually have many establishment fairly close together so it's a series of short hops in which private jets make far more sense. The Concorde for it's entire existence was a novelty. People flew on it for the sake of flying on it.
Ahhh not even close. One of the reasons Concorde was profitable for 20 years for BA (before it was prematurely forced into retirement by Airbus (politics and money) was that its purpose was to compete against subsonic First Class. Concorde’s tickets were only around 10-15% more (1996 GBP 4,772 vs subsonic First Class GBP 4,314) and this meant that a company could have its executive (who would have been sent First Class anyway) leave London at 10:30am, arrive in NYC at 9:30am (yes before they took off, as Concorde flew faster than the Earth rotates) take a 10 min helicopter ride to the East River heliport, have a bunch of meetings and zip back to JFK for the 1:30pm Concorde to London and be in bed the same night. Concorde had its own security, check-in, lounge adn boarding gate from teh lounge. No lining up for anything... Time as they say, is money, especially for these folks, and Concorde built a very loyal following that lasted throughout its service life operating in its own P&L division, and consistently profitable for BA from 1982 on, even when the mainline carrier was unprofitable.
One tiny correction. The Concorde actually flew to Washington DC and on to Miami 3 times a week for many years. I worked in Miami and we used to watch the Concorde land if we were bored.
*_@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344_* There were 7,000 return flights from Heathrow to Barbados as well, between 1987 and 2003. A Concorde is on display near the Grantley Adams International Airport, Barbados.
The concorde looks really like a marvel of engineering. I mean being able to develop a supersonic plane without modern technology and still being copied years after because your design was very good is like one of the biggest testamnent.
Well, sorta, maybe. But in truth, the laws of physics are just the laws of physics, and the laws of aerodynamics are just the laws of aerodynamics, sooo… That’s why none of these designs are ever drastic departures from the ones preceding them: the Wright brothers had wings attached to a fuselage, as did the DC-10, as did the 747, as did the Concorde, as did the Buran … the wiggle room within which to innovate is quite small!
What we know today and also what computers use today is a result of our yesteryear engineers, computers wouldn't know what to do if we didn't first program them.
It transpired later that that piece of metal alleged to have punctured a tyre etc was NOT the reason it crashed.The main reason was faulty wiring causing sparks in a leaky environment ,bad fuel weight distribution and the pilots shutting down the two still running engines!
@@danopticon that's not very plausible. There is a lack of innovation. The economy is not growing as fast as it was between the war and the crisis in the 70s.
Final passenger flight was New York JFK to London Heathrow on October 24 2003, final ever flight of a Concorde was London Heathrow to Bristol Fulton airport on November 26th 2003.
0:26 I think you got confused. Concorde definitely was *NOT* still flying in 2006. The final passenger flight was from New York JFK to London Heathrow on October 24 2003, and the final ever flight of a Concorde was from London Heathrow to Bristol Filton airport on November 26th 2003.
Speaking of errors; 0:37 "Passengers rewinding their watch only 2 hours" ??! The time difference between London and New York City is 5 hours. What's wrong with this logic?
Concorde was such a beautiful plane. I was living close to Orly. I could see it everyday going to work to Paris. One was in permanent position in front of the airport. I think it was the most marvelous non military plane of all time. The other being the sr71 to my opinion, that we can see at New York, on the naval museum carrier.
That is the Intreprid Air and Space Museum, where one of the Concordes now stands on the concrete path next to the aircraft carrier. The Space Shuttle Enterrise is on the carrier deck with the other aircraft, including the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.
@@raymondramirez9177 I hear that NONE of the US Concordes, have been protected and maintained properly. THIS WAS, the case in Bristol UK, home of UK Concorde, But now, she has a brand new Museum, and wonderful presentational lighting system, and Story sound track.
I really appreciate the level of scrutiny you're providing. Seems like many of their advertised claims simply aren't feasible. Looks like a good start and lots of the Concorde's drawbacks are being solved with today's tech advances, BUT: - They need an engine that doesn't exist and usually takes the better part of a decade to produce, yet they want it in a couple of years from scratch. - They haven't significantly decreased the boom - They haven't significantly increased range I guess this is more evolutionary than revolutionary, which as you pointed out probably still won't be economically feasible.
My guess for range is just that they don't know yet being that they have no engine, or rather that range estimate was utilizing numbers from the 60s era GE engine they will use for flight testing soon.
Yeah this sounds like a company about to get themselves impaled to address a niche that faded away for well-documented reasons. Their self-promotions don't instill confidence and honestly look arrogant or apathetic at worst.
@@kamilpotato3764 When I told my dad about this video, his first thought was the same. He suspects that if people really want a fast travel solution and avoid sonic booms, they're better off making globe-spanning high-altitude space planes, and avoid atmosphere altogether. Frankly, I agree with both of you; I remember reading about some insane turbine that was in development maybe 6 years back, and it would be used for space planes right before they hit vacuum.
RR is completely cash strapped at the moment, and just barely clinging on amid the pandemic. Even if they had the resources, there's no way they would take such a massive gamble on developing a supersonic engine for this thing, when there are no guarantees of any orders. GE have already ended development on their supersonic engine program, which means there is no one who can realistically provide an engine for Boom. Edit: By "completely cash strapped" I don't mean they are on the brink of collapse right now. But they have negative shareholder equity, which is a big red flag. In any case, they don't have the resources for a clean sheet supersonic engine. The commercial failure of such a program really could push them over the edge after the financial pressures of recent years (covid, Trent 1000) etc.
@@jackroutledge352 RR are not complete cash strapped. And they are too valuable for even the current Conservative government to allow to fail and be bought up by foreign companies. But yes, there's no reason for them to put much effort into a pure jet engine and one certainly won't be ready by 2026.
As an engineering student, your videos are extremely helpful to have something in the background while I’m playing Minecraft avoiding studying for my final test.
As a Brit, I have a special place in my heart for concorde. I've been underneath its flight path when I heard the sonic boom, it's quite something! I remember feeling awed, but if I lived under the flight path, i guess it could have become irritating, obviously can't say for sure. I was very sad when I heard it was being decommissioned
In case anybody watches the video and thinks 105 dB can't be much louder than 75 dB, it's worth noting that decibels are a logarithmic, not linear, unit. 20 meters, a linear unit, is twice as long as 10 meter. 20 dB is 10 times louder than 10 dB. 30 dB is 10 times louder than 20 dB and so is 100 times louder than 10 dB. In other words, 105 dB is 1000 times louder than 75 dB.
*_@JohnDoe-yp3zv_* It's quite true that decibels are logarithmic, but then so is human hearing. That is why dBs were invented. An increase of 10dB sounds twice as loud, so 105dB-75dB =30dB, which would sound 8x as loud.
@@SafffOneee 10dB increase sounds twice as loud, so the vacuum cleaner would sound twice as loud as the office and the motorbike would sound four times as loud as the office and twice as loud as the vacuum cleaner.
the sonic boom is only one of several problems of supersonic flight. there's also engine noise and fuel consumption, and i don't know what can be done about those. - to generate thrust, you need an exhaust speed that is faster than the aircraft moves forward, and the problem is that the noise level increases with the square of the exhaust speed. it may be possible to block the noise from radiating downwards by putting the engine exhausts above the wings, but that leads to other problems that need to be solved - another problem is fuel consumption. not much to be done about that, and this problem will keep increasing as fuel prices keep going through the roof. there are several ways to make a jet engine more efficient. one way is to increase the bypass ratio which makes the engine LESS suitable for supersonic speeds. another way is to increase the TIT. this is not really an option because in modern engines the TIT is already close to the limit of what the available materials can handle. 14:50 more efficient than the concorde? maybe. efficient enough to compete with other airliners? i don't think so. all in all i think supersonic travel is gone for good, and those companies are wasting their money.
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt that depends on how you look at it, doesn't it? The concorde burned more than 4 times as much fuel per passenger as a 747. With fuel prices going through the roof, that kind of difference is just not acceptable. And that isn't even taking polluton into account.
@@mrxmry3264 So on point 1, yes engine nose would be a problem. Though I do imagine they would be able to get waivers. There is really no way to quite turbo jet engines down to modern standards. As for fuel consumption, it's not as large of an issue as one might think. With max passengers with max fuel, the fuel costs per pax on the Concorde would only be about $560 USD. A first-class ticket from New York to London will cost over $3000, so fuel isn't going to be your largest expense.
Did the concord cruise around in afterburner? If so then working on making the plane be able to supercruise could be an option to cut down on fuel consumption
Another caveat is that developing a new (state of the art) engine costs many billions of dollars, which they would never be able to recover due to the limited market size. This leaves (older) off-the-shelf engines, which are fine for a prototype, but are going to be suboptimal for the speeds and/or amount of thrust required. And then there is the issue of using military technology, which is often required for the engines...
this is the main barrier to entry for any of this. Commercial Turbojets are just not a thing and will never be a thing. Unless a country like China or the US want to make it a State issue. Even then, there is developing the engine, then there is supporting the engine. Spare parts and maintenance were another major nail in the Concorde Coffin.
It will probably not be an entirely new engine, but something out of the younger military projects, maybe adapted a bit for commercial needs. The Boom Overture will probably fly with something like the EJ 200 (Rolls-Royce XG-40 derivative) or the F136. Commonly known aircraft powered by Rolls-Royce supersonic engines are the Lockheed martin F-35 or the Eurofighter Typhoon
@@oadka you see the problem here is that you're expecting somebody who somehow thinks a military is going to let their engines into the commercial space at all is going to get any facts even remotely close to correct.
I remember hearing sonic booms as a kid in the early 80's living on the California coast. I loved them. Its one of the things that started my interest of wanting to become a fighter pilot...then Top Gun came out and that sealed the deal. Unfortunately I was in a major accident in '89 at 14 that dashed those dreams. Still love sonic booms though.
Thanks for doing this video! I've always been skeptical with Boom's claim. Even though 60 years of engineering improvements have brought many technologies that Concorde's engineers didn't have, supersonic jet engines haven't improved much since then. Only a few aircrafts can reach supersonic speeds without afterburner, and the pinnacle of that kind of engines was basically the Olympus and the PW J58, that have both been developed 60 years ago. So I always wondered how they would manage to beat the engineering prowess of 3 of the largest engine builders in the world. I feel like that partnership with Rolls-Royce should have been made much earlier in the process. To give a nowadays comparison, Space x didn't start building starship without Raptor's engine development being already well advanced. It feels like they started building an F1 car but planned to use a motorcycle engine
I am old enough to remember when it was thought that supersonic transport flights would be the future of aviation. I suspect that even this newly designed supersonic transport plane from Boom will not be a success and that only a few will be made. Here are the reasons for this opinion. It is the laws of physics, there will always be the double sonic boom when aircraft is flying at supersonic speed. Although the noise level can be reduced, it can not be eliminated. So this airplane will only be used on ocean crossing routes just like the Concorde. Also even though this supersonic airplane will be more efficient than the Concorde, it will still burn a tremendous amount of fuel to travel at supersonic speed. This and other factors like passenger capacity will make airline tickets costs for this airplane very expensive just like the Concorde where only a few very wealthy people will travel on this airplane. Also we live in a time when fuel conservation and fuel economy is a big issue. So my best guess is that there is not a future for commercial passenger supersonic transport.
You don't get it do you? This plane was not designed for thr average person, but for the elite to fly around and possibly down our throats "hmmm fuel efficiency."
I am sorry but I disagree. Like all of international companies fly their employees on first class. Also they travel more often than they did 40 years ago since everything became globalised. Since the time of these people is very expensive these companies would pay for the expensive tickets. And then talk about the number of millionairs today. How many rich people were like 40 years ago? Dubai, China, UAE and other oil rich nations were nowhere near. They are so rich they would casually pay for it and they do travel a lot. I think there would be a need of cross-atlantic routes for this Mach 2 travel. I think the problem is that these companies still think inside the box. They are still thinking of using these planes on the same route, daily several flights, etc. Instead they should look at it more like train companies do. You fly from A to B then from B to C then from C to D and then turn around. Like you did a route from NY to London. Then London to Buenos Aires. Then from Buenos Aires to Paris. Then back to NY. or something like that. So that each of these routes would be covered like twice a week with these planes and for others there would be still slower but cheaper ones. Like regular trains and ICE. It could work.
@@humorpalanta When you mention those oil rich nations that had bulit another new york on steroid (dubai), lamborghini for cop cars, and real gold toilet paper for swiping those poop residues, then expect a steady amount of income to one day get this project of long term availability of commercial supersonic flight on the go.
He meant by arrival; leave watch as is during flight, then just move back by two hours upon reaching destination. You are describing adjustment at departure.
(they will still arrive earlier than when they left, but the flight time does not change how much your watch needs to be adjusted by) Edit: close parentheses
I think that this concept, though very interesting, as a near-ZERO chance of success. It's still a pipe dream that simply will not work in the modern passenger aviation environment. The economics of supersonic flight have changed very little since the 1960s, and they're using a 1950s-era turbojet engine. Seriously? This idea is a relic of a very heady-but-bygone era in passenger aviation. The name of the game in modern passenger aviation is EFFICIENCY - achieving the lowest cost per passenger mile. Thus, modern passenger airliners use exactly two enormous high-bypass turbofan engines that sip fuel in comparison to previous-generation engines. The huge fans on the GE-90, GE-Nx, and other high-bypass turbofan engines create the VAST majority of the thrust - quietly and reliably. A turbojet engine simply has no way to do that. Turbojet engines burn massive amounts of fuel to create thrust, and there is realistically very little that can be done to improve the efficiency of them. All they do is burn fuel to create direct thrust. And they are LOUD... very, very LOUD because there is no slow-moving blanket of air created by the giant bypass fan around the high-speed jet exhaust to reduce noise. It's all just hot, fast-moving, and very LOUD jet thrust. There are probably some minor improvements that could be made, but they are very likely miniscule compared to the huge improvements that have been made by developing turbofans with ever-higher bypass ratios using larger and more efficient fans. Turbojet engines on a supersonic aircraft would be working hard during the entire flight. This would wear them out more quickly, and would significantly increase maintenance costs. Supersonic flight can never achieve anywhere near the efficiency of subsonic flight... at least as long as there is, you know, atmosphere and friction and all that other "physics" stuff in the world. The economics of achieving long-term, profitable, mass-market supersonic flight simply don't work. They never have, and I see nothing in this project to suggest that they will work any time soon. Saving a few hours of flight time on any flight is simply not worth the exponentially-higher cost in this modern age of efficiency. Supersonic flight will remain a very high-end service for wealthy passengers - if it ever really gets off the ground at all. And oh, as you pointed out. there is still the horrible sonic boom issue to deal with. The Ranger is STILL not gonna like that, Yogi!
I completely agree, but the CEO will probably be able to sock away enough investor capital for a nice nest egg before the company's eventual failure. So it will be a success after all. XD
@@brainmind4070 It reminds of of the reckless environment in tech in the 90s - which of course all came crashing down with the Dot-Bomb in 2001. Lots of people losing lots of money on companies that never made any money and went out of business, because they never had a solid business plan to become profitable… short term nor long term.
This was an amazingly concise video on Aeronautics. You touched upon so many aspects in under 18mins. Also, your copy of _'Skunk Works'_ definitely get a like!
the problem still economical, all this advantage will not result to improved economics, the Concord cabital cost was zero by 2000...and saftey is also factor of quantity, the more airplane, the more safe it becomes, which will not happen if not economical
Thanks for this BRILLIANT video -- as always. One downfall though: around the 1 minute mark, you say the Concorde lost many purchase agreements because of "soaring production costs". This is true, but it is important to mention that the US in particular did everything it could to penalise the program (eg: the Secretary of Transport only gave permission for landing the Concorde at Dulles, but the line was closed quickly due to low demand. Only in February 1977 was the ban lifted for JFK). This would obviously be a huge contributing factor to stop other airlines from purchasing the Concorde. Thank you so much for your great work, keep going!
Correction: The Cone Vortex used by concord originated from the leading edge, close to the wing root, not the same as wingtip vortex shown at 8:14, but based on similar principles. The cone goes over the wing to prevent the flow separation (Stalling). This phenomenon is also used by modern jets such as F-15, F-16, F-18 and Su-27 Family. 12:38 Supersonic aircraft don't NEED to use "pure jet" as in Turbojet engine. Most modern fighters and several bombers uses Low-bypass turbofans, ever since F-111 pioneered using turbofan instead of turbojets. But yes, low by pass is not as efficient. The problem with exhaust flow speed is a problem can be solved by adding a variable nozzle (like most fighters and B-1B and Tu-160).
The only way commercial supersonic travel could work is if 1) Planes can switch between supersonic and subsonic wing configurations (possible, Rockwell B-1 Lancer & Tupolev Tu-160 as basis for this) >> Needed to travel over land at subsonic speeds so they can reach airports without causing sonic booms >> Switching to supersonic wing config. when traveling over oceans/non-populated areas 2) Supersonic engines can achieve high fuel efficiency at supersonic speeds 3) Supersonic engines can achieve high fuel efficiency at subsonic speeds These were the three things that killed any prospect of using supersonic airliners for commercial air travel. Considering the large supersonic planes we currently have that use variable wing geometry mechanisms, I think it's possible to build supersonic airliners that can reach most airports without causing sonic booms over populated areas so we definitively could have a new Concorde or Tupolev 144 that could meet air travel regulations and reach most cities, but it'd be competing with other subsonic airliners to do that and the worse fuel efficiency would kill the supersonic airliner on that regard. For example, a supersonic airliner traveling from Moscow to Paris wouldn't be able to travel faster than a subsonic one, and one traveling from Paris to New York would lose some of its time savings while traveling over Europe before reaching the Atlantic ocean. This would still allow for several more destinations within reach compared to the Concorde, but without better fuel efficiency and lower operational costs it'd still be something for rich customers only, so we're not talking about a commercial, but a luxury, exclusive service. To summarize, IMO with the technology we have today a supersonic luxury airliner like Concorde that solves its sonic boom problems is possible, but the high costs compared to normal subsonic airliners kill any prospect of massively available supersonic commercial airliners.
Boeing only recently revealed the 777X, the first ever commercial airliner with folding wings, and it only has folding wingtips. Even such a seemingly small change raises many serious concerns of safety. Putting a variable-sweep wing on a commercial airliner is a far greater challenge that just is not possible. Instead of just having a small portion of the wing move, it's the entire wing all at once, and the mechanism must work perfectly everytime without the possibility of accidental activation. The wing pivots must be made sufficiently strong so that the wing cannot fall off like that one time on an F-111. Both of these factors increase mass and fuel consumption significantly. And that's not even talking about the aerodynamics of variable-sweep wings
@@swedistandoge8437 That's a good point. I think as a minimum a variable sweep plane would need to be able to land at an airport with the wings at full sweep in case of failure
Also add that the comfort won't be as good as today conventional planes also even with that they lose to train with comfort unless your flying in business class but even train can match that if they want
@@kingdavewoody if your aircraft can safely land with wings at full sweep at an average commercial runway, there's not much point in having the sweep in the first place. The only airports a supersonic airliner would ever fly out of have long runways, and in the event that you did have to abort to a shorter runway airport, the takeoff from there would be empty weight plus fuel, giving the plane enough lift to power out of there. Swing wings are used to extend an aircraft's takeoff capabilities, allowing heavier takeoffs from shorter runways. If all your heavy takeoffs are at long runways and you'll never have to do short runway takeoffs, what's the point?
Concorde was consistently profitable for 20 years for BA as its purpose was to compete against subsonic First Class. Concorde’s tickets were only around 10-15% more (1996 GBP 4,772 vs subsonic First Class GBP 4,314) and this meant that a company could have its executive (who would have been sent First Class anyway) leave London at 10:30am, arrive in NYC at 9:30am (yes before they took off, as Concorde flew faster than the Earth rotates) take a 10 min helicopter ride to the East River heliport, have a bunch of meetings and zip back to JFK for the 1:30pm Concorde to London and be in bed the same night. Concorde had its own security, check-in, lounge and boarding gate from the lounge. No lining up for anything... How's that for time saving? Time as they say, is money, especially for these folks, and Concorde built a very loyal following that lasted throughout its service life operating in its own P&L division, and consistently profitable for BA from 1982 on, even when the mainline carrier was unprofitable. www.key.aero/article/inside-story-how-ba-made-more-ps500m-profit-concorde#:~:text=The%20result%20of%20this%20change,billion%20pounds%20profit%20for%20BA.%E2%80%9D
I'm commenting very rarely, but I wanted to thank you for all your videos, your new visuals on desks are so good (this is a mix with 3D and real shots ?).
Informative and well presented. Thanks for posting BTW, 0:30 Concorde wasn't retired in 2006. Its last scheduled flight was the return trip from JFK to Heathrow on 24 October 2003, and its last flight was Heathrow to Filton, Bristol on 26 November 2003. I believe it's on display at Filton.
2:16 Concorde didn’t fly those routes exclusively. The only one i can name off the top of my head is the one to mexico city with refueling in dulles (The only reason i’m aware of this route is because my parents lived in mexico city at the time concorde flew there, they would hear it every time it flew overhead). Of course the routes that stayed constant throughout were the LHR-JFK and the CDG-JFK routes, but they weren’t the only ones to exist.
We have an air show every year in Bournemouth at the end of August and even over the ocean they still can't hit Mach 1. We have the EuroFighter Typhoon Fly and it is one of the most impressive planes made. It's agility and capabilities are barely rivaled bar a few more recent planes. I would love to see the barrier hit to see the air compression and hear that crack but as it is too close to land they are restricted. I've been on the concord and that experience when hitting sonic speed is amazing. And when a passenger in a harrier pulling G and hitting those insane speeds is one of the best feelings I have experience
I flew 2 times on the concord, the most thrilling thing was the violent acceleration that was felt in flight, when the plane reached the ocean and then supersonic speed....well violent deceleration to stop the plane on landing was also fantastic!
At 7:28 the Ogival Delta Wing angles seem to have changed places. In addition the picture is illustrating the complement angle of the sweep angle (90° - sweep angle) while showing the right numerical value for the sweep angle. Great video, anyway! Thanks.
My completely undeducated intuition is Does the engine really have to be a pure jet? A number of fighter jets nowadays use low-bypass turbofans (albeit afterburning) and are capable of supercruise. The Eurofighter is one of those and its powerplant was largely developed and built by Rolls-Royce. So RR definitely have knowledge of supersonic capable turbofans.
Supercruise by itself does nothing for the commercial aviation though. It's all about fuel efficiency and range. And Eurofighter has a pathetic 2900km listed(and it's probably not in supercruise either), while even the 7800km mentioned in the video are cutting it super close to a shortest trans pacific route. Not to mention how much less drag to fighter jets experience due to more permissible shape design constraints.
@@Th3Apothecary I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously the eurofighter has less range than a planned airliner, it has a much smaller fuel capacity and is not built with absolute endurance in mind. My point was regarding the statement that supersonic aircraft have to have pure jets, that's why I used an example of a supersonic capable aircraft that uses a turbo fan.
Exactly. FYI, General Electric has been developing exactly this for the past few years. "GE Affinity" is a supersonic, non after-burning, turbofan engine for commercial general aviation use. It was chosen to power the "Aerion" supersonic aircraft.
@@anthonycanalese2142 hahaha, the Aerion. I spent 20 years reading updates every other year about that company. They were always 10 years away from launching their plane lol. Hopefully the Boom aircraft will do better, but I don't have much trust in them tbh...
Early versions of the Tu-144 have low-bypass turbofans with afterburners. However, due to technological gaps within Soviet aeroengineering, they are somehow more fuel-thirsty than a regular turbojet at that time. Subsequent versions later carried turbojets. It’s still too early into development to say anything about them strictly developing an efficient turbojet, but RR is the ONE firm that could do turbofans rated for supersonic flight. Assuming they solved the inlet geometry pretty quickly, the only major obstacle I think they need to solve is to figure out the proper combustion cycle for the turbofans to safely supercruise at Mach 1.5+ without the use of an afterburner.
The Concorde nose also pointed into the airflow, creating a laminar flow over the top of the fuselage despite the steep angle of attack, which was critical to producing the vortex lift. If the air running down the top of the fuselage were turbulent, the vortices would have been broken up instead of being stable.
It wasn't the nose that created vortex lift is was the extended leading edges of the Ogival Delta. You can find many wind tunnel photos of this. The vortices stabilised the upper surface airflow so it didn't break away at high AOA.
@@Completeaerogeek Correct but I didn't say the nose produced the lift. I said if the nose pointed up it would have interfered with the production of vortex lift. This from an engineer who worked on the design. Forget his full name. Last name Fischer. With the nose up, there would have been vortex shedding across the back of the fuselage, which results in an oscillating left-to-right turbulence. Now imagine your inward spirals curving into that from the delta, and how much sooner they'd break up from the instability, not to mention how unpredictable the stall characteristics would be.
A huge negative factor with the Concord was the massive noise during takeoff. The Concords noise during takeoff would rattle buildings. Boom would need to solve the takeoff noise problem before it would be allowed near any major city.
It actually was about the same dB as the contemporary B-707 and DC-8. On take off from 31L at JFK it always made a steep left turn over Flushing Bay and as a result actually had a lower noise footprint than modern subsonic jets.
*_@ziggy2shus624_* Yes, Concorde made an awesome tearing noise on take off. I loved the sound, and the sound of a Vulcan, but people living near airports weren't so keen. There were a lot of complaints around the Heathrow area about Concorde's noise. The 707 was bad enough at 104dBs, but Concorde's noise was 120dBs. This means that Concorde would sound 3x louder than a 707. Boom claim that Overture will comply with the ICAO-14 noise regulations, so it will be a lot quieter and be able to use all airports.
0:29 you'd rewind you'r clock FIVE HOURS regardless of speed, even if you took a cruize ship, as your clock would normally not stop ticking while traveling
Yep. You cannot use high or medium bypass engines for supersonic flight. The exhaust gas velocity must equal or exceed the aircraft's speed. Boom is dreaming with their 72 inch fan. That's bigger than the 737 MAX's LEAP 1B at 69"
You neglected to mention that even with all those downsides, *and* the mandatory yearly maintenance to replace parts that were damaged because of the sonic boom pressure, the Concorde was *still* profitable, and if I remember correctly, the most profitable plane both of British Airways and Air France. The problem they had was back when they sold cheaper seats. Then they started selling them for $12k (adjusted for inflation), and since London-New York is the route with the most capacity for selling expensive tickets in the world, it worked out well. It's true that slower planes were way more comfortable, but we have to remember that, although some of the Concorde's travelers wanted the novelty of the fast planes, in actuality the Concorde's travelers were overwhelmingly traveling on business, and traveling frequently. And as someone who has had a family in one city and had to fly to work in a different city, I would 100% prefer the fastest plane over the comfortable one. It's one thing to travel and see your family for a day and a half in a week once in a while, but to have to do it all the time was the worst experience I've had in my life--I left the job after like two and a half months. For a history of the Concorde I recommend the excellent Mustard channel, by the way. Really, if you don't know it, go see it right now.
*_@dr.victorvs_* *Will Overture be able to fill the gap left by Concorde in the SST market?* *_Introduction_* Boom have undertaken a mammoth task in developing and producing the Overture SST, with its Symphony power module and turbofan engine. The biggest risk is that they will deplete their capital, before a prototype Overture flies. Once that milestone is reached funding should be available. The following, is based primarily on information from Boom, and assumes that Overture meets its specification and goes into airline service. I have no connection with Boom whatsoever. *_Aviation_* Aviation has changed radically since the iconic Concorde first carried passengers in 1976. More people are flying, the number doubles every 10 years, and they are richer. Aviation fuel is roughly the same price as it was in 1976, taking into account inflation, and with deregulation, airline tickets are now cheaper, in real terms. Aircraft now have the range to fly non stop between any two airports in the world. *_Technology_* Computer aided design, and simulation has transformed aircraft design and development, by drastically reducing time and costs, and increasing effectiveness. In addition, advanced technology and materials, have enabled more powerful, more efficient engines, and lighter, cheaper, and more streamlined aircraft. *_Flight_* Because Overture will be economical at sub and supersonic speeds, 500 routes, some mixed land/water, are viable, rather than just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Overture will be carbon neutral, using sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Overture will will create a sonic boom, but not over land, where it will cruise 10% faster (Mach 0.94) than subsonic airliners. It will cruise at twice the speed of subsonic airliners over water. Concorde carried 100 passengers at Mach 2, over 4,488 miles. Overture will carry 65 to 80 passengers at Mach 1.7 over 4,880 miles. *_Airframe_* Both aircraft are 202ft long, but Overture will have a gull wing with computer controlled leading and trailing edge flaps, and a greater span, at 106 feet compared to 84 feet. Overture will also have an empennage. Carbon composite construction will enable streamlining, weight saving, and increased strength, while practically eliminating thermal expansion and contraction. Overture will weigh an estimated 154 tons, Concorde weighed 185 tons. Concorde could carry 2.5 tons of cargo. The cargo capacity for Overture is not known. *_Engines_* Overture's engines will be medium bypass turbofans without reheat, while Concorde had turbojets, with reheat. This means that Overture will be economical at subsonic speeds and will be low noise on take off and landing. Variable geometry ducting in the Symphony power units will probably allow the engines to supercruise. *_Costing_* Overture's predicted development cost is $8bn, against $14.4bn for Concorde. Manufacturing cost will be less, maintenance costs will be lower, and availability will be higher. Overtures selling price will be $200M, compared to $320M for Concorde. At a guess, Overture's development payback will be 150 aircraft, and airline payback will be 10 years, assuming 72 seats and 8 hours a day utilisation. *_Operation_* Overture will be simpler to fly, eliminating the need for a 6 month pilot conversion course. Overture will have improved low speed handling, especially on take off and landing, while maintaining low drag at supersonic speeds. It will have a modern cockpit, with a flight deck similar to subsonic airliners. A flight engineer will not be required. Instead of a droop snoot, external cameras and cockpit displays will give the pilots a view of the terrain when taking off and landing. Its cabin will be quieter and all its seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet. In contrast to Concorde's awesome engine noise, Overture will comply with ICAO-14 noise regulations, allowing it to use all airports, without triggering protests. *_Ticket Cost_* Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight: Showing: _Aircraft type, Fuel cost per passenger, Economy ticket, Business Class ticket, Duration_ Boeing 747 $147 $577 $2,308 8hrs Concorde $753 $5,000^ 3.5hrs Overture^^ $708 $1,200 $3,000^^^^ 4hrs Business jet^^^ $53,000 to $99,000 8hrs Notes ^ 2023 value ^^ Estimated prices, assuming Overture carries 72 passengers against Concorde's 100. For the first 2 years, only business class seats will be available. ^^^ There are no supersonic business jets ^^^^ $5,000 return A 16 hour flight across the Pacific on a subsonic jet could be achieved with a 1 hour refuelling stop by Overture, giving a time of, 4 + 1 + 4 = 9 hours. *_Market_* Overture will not be competing for the mass economy market. Instead it is aimed at the 700 million long-range business flights made each year world wide. Boom and airline customer surveys show the viability of Overture, and they have identified 500 suitable routes. All Overture's seats will be business class and ticket prices will be comparable with business class on subsonic airliners. Once Symphony gets established it could become a niche service, similar to Concorde, but with many more routes. *_Conclusion_* Overture will be popular with both airlines and passengers, because it will half many journey times and will be cheaper, more comfortable and a lot more practical than Concorde. The military have already shown an interest in Overture. It would also be suitable for charter flights. There may even be a market for the Symphony power unit or just the engine. As Overture matures, it will probably be developed, just like subsonic jets. So the range may be increased, there may be a stretched version, and even an all economy seat version. After Overture, Boom could possibly develop a 200 seat SST. _22-2023.09.04_
Mustard is a great channel, but Real Engineering also made a long episode on the Concorde after this video was released; ruclips.net/video/hnrpXxbVhME/видео.htmlsi=Yaic2yXr4fuqJBOJ And in fact, even made a second on the engineering issues with it; ruclips.net/video/8Oi8ZO-2Kvc/видео.htmlsi=wQUoZy0nOk0_fjA_
My elderly neighbor said that when there was a supersonic boom, for several days but almost never up to a week unless there were multiple booms on multiple days, that the chickens wouldn't lay eggs, some of the cows wouldn't make milk, horses acted super skittish, and would scare the crap out of pigs who got over it in approx 10 seconds. Yes, he grew up on a rural Arkansas farm.
Even assuming Boom somehow overcomes the fact that they don't have a viable engine, can't cross the Pacific in a single hop, and have no answer for the sonic boom or fuel consumption issues, there's still aircraft certification to contend with -- a multi-billion dollar process that currently costs more than the entire company is worth. And that's to say nothing of waning political will for a highly polluting "deluxe" service that benefits only the ultra wealthy at the apparent expense of the environment. I wish there were a better way to spin all of this (bc supersonic passenger travel would be great), but right now Boom looks like even more of an investor money pit/cesspool than Aerion did before it folded earlier this year -- and that company was at least considering things like sonic boom mitigation, catering to the business niche specifically (since they were making a business jet first), *AND* they had the technical/financial backing of freaking Lockheed-Martin -- and even with all that going, Aerion still failed... but Boom is supposed to fare better? Can't help but be skeptical.
I'm sure the CEO knows this and has increased his salary due to the increased workload he will be under to make everything work out, i.e. knitting his golden parachute for when the company inevitably fails.
Interesting video but you didn't discuss either of the key flaws in Concorde, which were the reasons why Air France 4590 crashed. The first flaw with Concorde was the wheels and landing gear. The materials were not up to scratch relative to the enormous loads they had to bare. It was a piece of scrap metal from the plane that took off before Air France 4590 that caused the explosion and fire in the wheels and landing gear that ultimately led to engine failure and disaster. The other flaw that led to the crash of Air France 4590 was the V1 point of no return. Once Concorde reached a certain speed on the runway it was impossible to abort the take-off without a cataclysmic crash, which is why Air France 4590 took off in the first place despite the in-flight warning systems indicating there may be a serious problem. So either the aircraft needs a lower V1 threshold, which is not really possible with the delta-wing design, or the runways themselves need to be longer to accommodate supersonic passenger jets like Concorde Summary:- Wheel materials and landing gear design along with V1 threshold (no aborted take-off possible without crashing) along with runways designed for regular passenger jets led to the Air France disaster and the end of Concorde (along with 2008 financial crisis)
The V1 thing would just depend on where a piece of FOD is on the runway, like you could run over a piece of debris just before hitting V1. Runways would need to basically double in length to eliminate V1 even for subsonic airliners
Those are literally not flaws related to the Concorde itself, since without the DC10 dropping a part in front of it and punctured the wheel (then the fuel tank) the Concorde's design is well within the limits of what it is supposed to handle. As for V1 literally every plane has the V1 no-return speed, had this happened to say a 747 Airliner and they know shits up but is already at V1 they will have to take off as well.
@@周生生-f1f The crash was caused by the debris on the runway yeah, but the aircraft should have redundancy for that. It's like having a single engine airliner doing trans-atlantic flights. You could argue all day that an engine failure was caused by XYZ, but they should have a redundancy for that. After the crash happened, they redesigned to fuel tanks to be armoured the fuel tanks and did something (im not sure) to the tyre compound, but by that point they were already in a difficult situation money wise because of politics and public opinion
@@kingdavewoody Let me just say this real quick; at that kind of velocities the Concorde was travelling and the extra stress it needs to be handling, any "armoring" and "redundancy" is nothing more than just PR stunt that only provides spiritual support, when you are running over a sharp piece of titanium with a very high pressure tire under twenty tons of pressure. From a physical perspective that kind of damage is virtually impossible to defend even if it is not a Concorde.
@@周生生-f1f Concorde had its Certificate of Airworthiness withdrawn, at that point a PR stunt wouldn't have worked. They were making modifications to get it certified again, no to win the public over. We can argue about this forever, but at the end of the day the manufacturer and the CAA weren't dumb.... the manufacturer wouldn't have designed a modification they knew wouldn't work, and the CAA wouldn't have approved a safety modification that didn't work. The people involved were much smarter than you and I, so I think I'll just go by what they were saying
First of all, great video. Usually I don't comment much but I need so say something. At 15:01 you say that Boom wants to use biofules which are pure ecological nonsense as you already explained in a previous video. But Boom doesn't specify what type of sustainable fuel they plan to use. At least I couldn't find it after 5 minutes. I always assumed they wanted to use synthetic fuels (Power-to-Liquid) just like Lufthansa. Many people don't know much about the whole P2L or P2G concepts. It would be great if you could explain these concepts with their pros and cons. Especially since you seem interested in the biggest challenge for going green: large scale energy storage
P2L companies seem to have been keeping their heads down lately (they were doing the media rounds a year or two ago) as the 'no emissions at all' brigade are currently making a lot of noise.
@@tams805 interesting point of view. I personally don't think emission free aeroplanes (except small ones) are on the horizon. P2L might just be better alternative though it's not energy efficient
The far southwest of England had 2 sets of booms per weekday as Concord flights came in from the US. And those 2 times made EVERY pheasant cackle announcing where it was.
I definitely studied and got my degree in engineering for all of the wrong reasons. While I was strong at STEM subjects, my actual reasons for choosing engineering: 1. Didn’t require any study of foreign languages 2. Required only 2 semesters of English/literature 3. Pretty good pay Not reasons I chose engineering: 1. Passion for problem solving 2. Passion for challenge 3. A want to understand the world What I have gained in my career as an engineer: 1. Passion for problem solving 2. Passion for challenge 3. A want to understand the world What I hate about being an engineer: 1. I know how every scientist feels in a disaster movie, when no one will listen to them. On a personal note; while I still consider myself fairly ignorant, I’m amazed by how far I’ve come in 10+ years as a professional, and the ceiling is nowhere in sight.
Blain What you hate is you are a capable engineer but There already is a "Kelly Johnson" leading the project and you are left with the toilet seat. At the project meeting the seat is over weight. This is why my cousins husband and two other engineers started a computer processing company. Very fortunately he hired a very clever IBM COBAL programmer. Just celebrated our 50th anniversary.
The claim at 0:35 is very confusing to me, the fact that a passenger would need to rewind their watch 2 hours on a flight from London to New York. Say the plane takes off from London at 8pm GMT, it would touch down in New York at 11pm GMT 3 hours later. This is 6pm in EST (New York time zone) so the passengers watches display 11pm at the time of arrival, so they would need to rewind their watches 5 hours due to the time zone change. The speed of the flight does not make an effect on how far a passenger would need to adjust their clock as the time zones remain constant.
Yeah this is only true if you stop your watch the moment you depart. I feel he got a bit swept up trying to make a tag line out of the fact that the travel time is less than the pure time difference.
I do know people are critiquing Booms goal at the mission of super sonic, I just want to see how it happens. Because a lot of people said the Shinkansen would be a failure but with modern technology, it was able to succeed in the public transportation market. Same could be said now, there has been more technological improvements and with more eco friendly engines being made I believe it’ll have less of an affect on the environment. So I do believe Boom has a future
One advantage Boom has not acknowledged here: they aren't a government. They also aren't a legacy dinosaur like Boeing or Airbus. I'm cautiously optimistic, and certainly glad someone's having a go at it. People who throw their hat into the ring and work earnestly on hard problems deserve respect, and Boom has certainly earned mine.
I've meddled with supersonic flight in a little modeller's dream game called "Simplerockets2". There's a strange effect that happens with certain turbines, that some of them gain thrust after mach 1, i think it needs to have a terribly low compression ratio for it to happen though.
@@crackedemerald4930 as aircraft speeds up,air become compressable so in intake of jet turbine engine makes gain from transformation from dinamic to static pressure,at over Ma3, no need for compressor
@@crackedemerald4930 you are talking about video game, right,? maybe they did not made it fully real in aerodynamic and thermodynamic way,if did then it would be fluid mechanic simulator,i know dozens of real mig pilots and i talk with them about flying, and jet engines thrust become higher as plane speeds up, on low level it can easily close up to ma1 without afterburner
Excellent analysis. Concorde failed because the CASM was incredibly high thus the exorbitant ticket prices. Had it been larger with more seats it may, MAY, have had a longer commercial life. (The US SST being developed at the same time as Concorde was to have approximately 300 seats.) Even with new materials and engineering methods there has to be enough people buying tickets to pay the bills. Additionally, when the marketing department throws out “green” be very skeptical. As noted in the video there is no bio-fuel approved for high altitude jet engine operation and it WILL be expensive!
5:00: Ahhh, seeing the Concorde again, takes me back in time. Ray Bradbury would be so proud at hearing a sound of thunder from the newer planes though.
The economics of supersonic flight is no mistake, governments can afford the high price tags associated with the cost in fuel and maintenance, which is far beyond something a business can sustain to remain profitable. Further, even military jets try to avoid supersonic flight simply because of the inefficiency, where running out of fuel is a greater concern than speed-even when aerial refueling is available. I don’t see it happening again, ever. There will never be enough normal people who can afford it, and there will never be enough rich people to buy tickets routinely to make the business sustainable.
JFK departure - with a left hand turn, just at takeoff was incredible. Avoid Manhattan, flew over Jones beach / Canarsie climb out as quiet as possible. Dulles , was not a big deal with lots of unbuilt area. So no throttle up and down in noise abatement. It was a super loud aircraft - I sat back in the last row at takeoff and it was very loud. And the earth rumbled around you as you took off at 250mph. Was a fantastic experience and leaving at 10:00am - arrived in London at 6:20pm in 3hr 20mins. Just enough time for a gourmet meal and many glasses of Krug or similar champagne. Good luck to boom - however I think that will just never happen , if it does wont be in this decade - !!
Bombardier nearly went bankrupt building a more standard plane, and you want me believe a startup will be able to put a supersonic aircraft to the market? They will need very deep pockets behind them.
But didn't you hear? They aim to offer $100/seat 4-hour flights 2 or 3 generations down the road! How kewl! Seriously now, they're full of shit. Even a company as experienced as Boeing takes YEARS to certify an improved version of one of its existing aircraft (like the 777X, which will be under the same type certificate as the rest of the 777 family - 8 years and counting, and the FAA still won't certify it). This is only since Boeing has enormous financial and physical resources, an extensive amount of know-how in documentation, and experienced personnel. Now. A new, inexperienced company, that has never engineered a single aircraft, headed by a CEO who is a computer scientist and never worked in aviation... Attempting to engineer, build, and certify a supersonic airliner, something that was only ever done once, as a multi-nation prestige project, with disastrous financial implications... All through the FAA, which as the responsible authority for the type certificate of this aircraft, probably doesn't even yet have a proper pathway for certification of supersonic airliners. After all, it's never been done in the US. See how things went for Agusta/Bell/Leonardo since their tiltrotor didn't fit into any existing certification categories. 20 years in the certification process and counting... Hopefully it'll make it through, but very likely this thing will end up dying in certification hell. That is, if they even make it that far.
I'm taking a shot in the dark, but i think he's talking about absolutely pure jets, with no bypass whatsoever. Many fighter aircraft have turbofans but operate at significantly lower Mach speeds usually (without afterburner) and carry much less weight than a commercial airliner. Most jets I've read about with turbofans operate around Mach 1.5... So maybe he means they need pure jets for much higher thrust generated purely through the engine (through the combustion chamber and nozzle).
@@sharvapotdar3257 Simple definition: 1. Turbojet = ALL of the air that enters the front of the engine is used for internal combustion; 2. Turbofan = SOME of the air that enters the front of the engine is used for internal combustion, the rest is by-passed around the engine. The term "pure jet", whatever it is supposed to mean, is confusing and I wish people would stop using it. They are all "gas turbine engines". Of which, the above are but two. From a 30 year Mechanical Engineer.
@12:39. It is stated that supersonic jet engines have to be pure jets. If by pure jets, you mean "no bypass" or "turbojet", that is incorrect. All of the modern supersonic aircraft use low-bypass turbofan engines, like the GE-F110 used in the F-16. I believe a bypass ratio of 1 to 1 or 1.5 to 1. High bypass is usually 3 to 1 for higher, with the GE90 being more around 9:1, which to your point, is not useable for supersonic speeds due to the large frontal area. With that said, this was a good presentation. It really puts on display the fact that while regular commercial supersonic travel is currently possible, it is not currently probable.
Yeah, agreed. I hear people constantly say it's coming back, but there's a reason it failed. It is just more costly, uses more fuel, and makes noise that is open to lawsuits over public land.
This program has a lot of doubts, and they are reasonable, but I personally really want to see Boom succeed. I really want to be able to experience supersonic travel in my lifetime. :)
I never hear anyone discuss this when supersonic airliners are mentioned, so here goes: If corona taught us anything, it's that remote work is often very possible. If your time is valuable enough to jump on a supersonic jet, why not stay off the plane entirely? Also, everyone is fighting to reduce the carbon footprint, and even short haul airlines are looking at electric. So, are supersonic jets morally defensible in the first place? For the vast majority it'll be nothing but a source of excessive cabon emissions and reintroduction of noise pollution. This is a bit much to swallow for a plaything catering to the ultra rich. Will western governments allow this at all?
Translation, we're all going to be in a globalist gulag archipelago soon and Western govs are at the forefront of this so no it's all a distraction. there will be private ss jets a plenty though.
Corona virus taught us nothing except two things, one you survived, one you may not survive, that is one if you had all the jabs you had a 99.9% survival, and if you did not have the jabs you either had a 50% chance of survival or you DIED so Corona taught us nothing except Death and long waits on phones due to lazy people working from home going out doing the school run instead of answering phones, so yes when this is over everything will end up going back to office working and we will need Air travel and it takes some massive engines and thrust to get an airliner the size of an A380 off the ground and fly thousands of miles across the world with luggage and over 300 people so they can look at Electric planes 🤔 but believe me they will never come about, people are scared of flying on normal planes never mind Electric ones and how long will they take to charge and what size will the batteries be and what weight will the battery be, nope not every one is fighting to reduce their carbon foot print, I for one could not care less as the damage started when the first dinosaur farted, our fossil fuel cars, planes, trains, boilers and factories are far more cleaner and efficient than anything in the past so I and thousands of other people around the world will carry on using our gas boilers, our petrol cars and fly on holiday full stop plus it would be great to get another supersonic airliner going, one that any one can travel on.
Eh you make it sound as if there was no research in low bypass turbojets since the 60's when infact there was probably a lot more research done in that direction then in high bypass turbofans. What kind of engines do you think power high tech jets that have supercruise capability like the F-22, Eurofighter, Su-57 and so on? ;D
Correct me if I'm wrong but i don't think military aircraft are supposed to nearly have the range a commercial plane does. Also, many military aircraft are reliant on afterburners for Mach speeds, and carry a single human being with vastly less payload and come with a significantly high operating cost and reduced operation times. Boom is going to make an engine that's able to make a much heavier passenger jet go Mach 1.7, for multiple flights and have safety systems in place, and have a much higher range and much more efficient engines than military aircraft do. Military aircraft have no such criteria for efficiency, they are simply supposed to complete an objective even if it costs them money or resources. Operating many supersonic jetliners with increased weight, regulations, higher fuel efficiency all while being commercially viable is a great challenge.
@@sharvapotdar3257 Concord had military aircraft engines. Also if you want to go efficient and far, you don't go supersonic. Further, "supercruise" is the capability of an aircraft to go supersonic without having to engage afterburners (as Concord and older jet fighters had to). Back in the day they couldn't afford to design an engine powerful enough for Concord so they used a military one they allready had. Engine manufacturers who build engines for civilian airliners are also the same companies building the engines for fighter jets, so the idea to use a modern military engine for a modern supersonic airliners is not that far fetched ;)
@@sharvapotdar3257 "Boom is going to make an engine that's able to make a much heavier passenger jet go Mach 1.7, for multiple flights and have safety systems in place, and have a much higher range and much more efficient engines than military aircraft do." Ah yes ofcourse they will. Just like Tesla will build a semitruck and beam in in the past so they catch their timeline. And Space-X's Starship wil ofcourse do earth point to point transport rendering planes obsolete. And Hyperloop will make planes obsolete too. And Solar Roadways will solve all our power problems. I believe social media hype bullshit when i see it ;D
@@hernerweisenberg7052 oh yeah my bad. I meant Boom is going to have to make* an engine that can sustain Mach 1.7 for longer. Also, one of the reasons the concorde is out of service is because of fuel efficiency :). Turbojets are more efficient than turbofans at mach speeds and even if most military aircraft can supercruise, 1. They don't really have to all the time, and 2. Have no criterion for fuel efficiency (or no criterion in comparison to passenger jets). It simply makes more sense to use a turbojet if most of the aircraft operation time is going to be in the supersonic realm, hence higher efficiency. There's no need for turbojet to go supersonic, but it might as well help by being a bit better.
@@sharvapotdar3257 I believe you missjudge the importance of fuel efficiency for military aircraft. It is one of the most important factors. Air refueling is expensive and risky. Flying back to land and refuel renders the jet useless for the time that takes. If you go full burn you can suck your tanks dry in minutes. Fuel management is very important to increase loiter time. Agueably increasing efficiency and range of combat aircraft is more important than having the fastest jet.
The Boom supersonic jet is unacceptable for its outrageous fuel burn. We need to focus on ways to make jet transportation sustainable, and this is a a fast flight backwards.
Your statement makes no sense. Unacceptable for whom? Define what you mean by outrageous? Flying backwards to what? Aviation is one of the few industries that has actively pursued fuel use reduction, year on year, in order to drive costs down. This pursuit is not forced by Political legislation but the pure economic motivation to reduce consumption and cost. Along the way we all benefit with: lower fuel consumption; lower cost for travel; reduced emissions; safer travel. A number of factors will determine the viability of the BOOM supersonic aircraft. Fuel burn is but one element. ALL travel requires the consumption of "fuel".
Carbon fibre is honestly amazing. I’m in my first year of engineering at university and the more I learn about it, the more awesome it becomes 😂 besides the cost…
@FW25 And beside the energy needed to produce carbon fibre parts... Abd these parts cannot be recycled... And repairs are difficult if not impossible... And you can't check for hidden defects like broken fibres with an ultrasound probe... But other than that it's great.
@@ArchimedesvS I take your point but most of these problems are slowly going away thanks to scaling up the mass production. Roughly 5X more energy is needed to produce 1kg of CF than aluminium but it is far less dense so a little goes a long way. As for recycling, we’re perfectly capable of recycling CF via pyrolysis (which is also getting more efficient) and CF rarely fails under commercial use (such as in the 787) because the tolerances are so high.
@@FW25 From what i read, the energy needed to build a part (not just produce the material) of an aircraft is roughly the same comparing aluminum and CF. Recycing via pyrolysis is more of an downcycling as you get shorter fibres, which in addition are not precisely orientated. Recyled steel or aluminum is as good as new material. CF might rarely fail during normal operation, but i don't think it is inherently more reliable than properly constructed steel or aluminum parts.
Maybe it's an example of what TV drama writers call 'lampshading' - draw attention jokingly to a plot hole and the audience is more likely to accept it.
Saving time going fast on a jet to then having to waste it at the airport with customs and baggage collection and such is like racing to the next red traffic light.
2:35 Interestingly, if you dump enough energy into a plasma sheath ahead of the aircraft, you could completely destroy the shock wave, as per wikipedia's article on plasma actuators
Having the world amazingly interconnected nowadays via video conferencing, and knowing that that this kind of airplanes usually tailor to the actual business travelers, I do believe that when we have a new supersonic airplane there will be literally no interest at all and find the same fate of the Concorde.
You mean to be profitable for 20 years like it was for BA? The primary reason Concorde was profitable for 20 years for BA (before it was prematurely forced into retirement by Airbus (politics and money) was that its purpose was to compete against subsonic First Class. Concorde’s tickets were only around 10-15% more (1996 GBP 4,772 vs subsonic First Class GBP 4,314) and this meant that a company could have its executive (who would have been sent First Class anyway) leave London at 10:30am, arrive in NYC at 9:30am (yes before they took off, as Concorde flew faster than the Earth rotates) take a 10 min helicopter ride to the East River heliport, have a bunch of meetings and zip back to JFK for the 1:30pm Concorde to London and be in bed the same night. How's that for time saving? Time as they say, is money, especially for these folks, and Concorde built a very loyal following that lasted throughout its service life operating in its own P&L division, and consistently profitable for BA from 1982 on, even when the mainline carrier was unprofitable. www.key.aero/article/inside-story-how-ba-made-more-ps500m-profit-concorde#:~:text=The%20result%20of%20this%20change,billion%20pounds%20profit%20for%20BA.%E2%80%9D Concorde had its own security, check-in, lounge and boarding gate from the lounge. No lining up for anything...
@@Completeaerogeek it might have had all of that, but in the end it just wasn’t profitable. And nowadays with the possibility of remote working, and the price of fuel and yes, global warming, it’s just a kind of business model that is not working at all.
I spent a career designing new devices for vehicle manufacturers. One of the most painful lessons I had to learn, and I wish I could say I learned it the first time, is this: Just because you _Can_ doesn't mean you _Should_ .
That's what make disruptive innovators and entrapreneurs strikingly differs from the rest of the working population. If wright brother tooks those painful lesson and words to their heart, I dont know how we humans flying in the sky would have evolved so far.
@@DreamCatcher-wg1bk You misunderstood my meaning. Think of some of the unworkable attempts at human flight filmed near the same time as the Wright's first powered flights, things with flapping wings or the bouncing umbrella thing. Today it seems obvious to us that they are unworkable, but for a moment imagine the Wrights had tried such a thing and doubled down after each failure. Trying harder might have eventually gotten something like that into the air, but not something that would have changed the way we live today, as the air travel has. Supersonic flight can be achieved and has practical applications in military and spaceflight. The engineering principles are well understood. Equipment and fuel costs combined with the exhaust and sound pollution make it an impractical commercial _Product_ . The Wrights were engineers, inventors, but also businessmen. They weren't just designing a novelty, they were inventing a product. In the age of Zoom meetings, WFH, and climate change, supersonic passenger aircraft are not an innovation, they are a throwback.
Real Science uploaded a video today that is honestly much better than this one, you should watch it: ruclips.net/video/DmanbWwMa5w/видео.html
Imagine not watching that within thirty minutes of upload
You don't give yourself enough credit! This video is top-notch!
that link is about lab grown meat 🙁
What is the name of the book at 16:13? Edit: nvm found it, its called general aviation aircraft design
so fo you feel Lockheed or Boom has the most potential..? I think Lockheed will probably make the sonic boom quieter...but yeah, hopefully someone pulls out off and make it practical.. that would be great!
That Ryan George reference was something i never expected on this channel, but I love it!
Same here! I had to rewind just to make sure I heard it correctly
When I heard it, I thought to myself, "Wow wow wow wow.....wow."
Brian is going to need you to get ALL the way off his back about this
Fav part 😂😂😂
I did a double take.
Putting "super easy, barely an inconvenience" into script is tight
yeah, yeah, yeah
Shoot who was that RUclips again?
@@jacobdoolan4978 screen rant
Wow wow wow
@@jacobdoolan4978 the YT channel is screen rant, the guy is Ryan George
There is one reason that somehow wasn't often mentioned: 50 years ago any type of transport and flight in particular was considered as a time waster, you just sit and wait. Now you have Wi-Fi on your average jet so you can be as productive as in the office. Not to mention modern portable entertainment systems. So there is no need to pay extra to skip 3 hours, especially if you wouldn't even notice it.
But sometimes you really need to save that extra time to do something in person
In what world do you live in where people willingly work in a plane?
True
@@NatedoGP that's true. Low passager count is the way to go
The trend has been towards longer range and better efficiency
It's come up a bit already in the comments, but I think "Business Class plus WiFi" and "private jets" basically killed the market for supersonic passenger travel. The former means you can work on the plane in comfort (not possible in the 1970s) and even time your flights on a red-eye flight to sleep for much of it, and the latter means that the really wealthy aren't going to fly supersonic passenger travel when they can fly on their own private jets.
All that's left are people who are really super-time sensitive, can't work remotely by WiFI in business class, and have lots of money, and I think that's too niche for it to survive (incidentally, "too narrow niche to survive" is what also kills the occasional giant airship revival that pops up every few years).
Yours is the right answer to this plane in a nutshell. That being said, if this new company with zero experience in aviation, led by a software engineer... Somehow manages to design, build, test this plane, and somehow get the FAA to CERTIFY it... It could have some limited future, since United basically placed an order with them. And a bunch of sheiks and crazy rich randos would probably consider them as well.
That still leaves an opening for supersonic private jets, though. I wouldn't be surprised if this focus on a commercial passenger jet is really just a feint
@@federicomadden9236 Agreed. I'd say supersonic travel for business aviation is a way bigger market than commercial passenger jet.
I kinda disagree because all of what you say applied to the Concorde as well. Cause in the 1970's telephones and fax machines existed and you could also do work on the plane like write papers and hold meetings. For inspection visits you usually have many establishment fairly close together so it's a series of short hops in which private jets make far more sense.
The Concorde for it's entire existence was a novelty. People flew on it for the sake of flying on it.
Ahhh not even close. One of the reasons Concorde was profitable for 20 years for BA (before it was prematurely forced into retirement by Airbus (politics and money) was that its purpose was to compete against subsonic First Class. Concorde’s tickets were only around 10-15% more (1996 GBP 4,772 vs subsonic First Class GBP 4,314) and this meant that a company could have its executive (who would have been sent First Class anyway) leave London at 10:30am, arrive in NYC at 9:30am (yes before they took off, as Concorde flew faster than the Earth rotates) take a 10 min helicopter ride to the East River heliport, have a bunch of meetings and zip back to JFK for the 1:30pm Concorde to London and be in bed the same night.
Concorde had its own security, check-in, lounge adn boarding gate from teh lounge. No lining up for anything...
Time as they say, is money, especially for these folks, and Concorde built a very loyal following that lasted throughout its service life operating in its own P&L division, and consistently profitable for BA from 1982 on, even when the mainline carrier was unprofitable.
One tiny correction. The Concorde actually flew to Washington DC and on to Miami 3 times a week for many years. I worked in Miami and we used to watch the Concorde land if we were bored.
*_@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344_* There were 7,000 return flights from Heathrow to Barbados as well, between 1987 and 2003. A Concorde is on display near the Grantley Adams International Airport, Barbados.
YOU TELL 'M@@phonicwheel933
The concorde looks really like a marvel of engineering. I mean being able to develop a supersonic plane without modern technology and still being copied years after because your design was very good is like one of the biggest testamnent.
Well, sorta, maybe. But in truth, the laws of physics are just the laws of physics, and the laws of aerodynamics are just the laws of aerodynamics, sooo… That’s why none of these designs are ever drastic departures from the ones preceding them: the Wright brothers had wings attached to a fuselage, as did the DC-10, as did the 747, as did the Concorde, as did the Buran … the wiggle room within which to innovate is quite small!
What we know today and also what computers use today is a result of our yesteryear engineers, computers wouldn't know what to do if we didn't first program them.
It transpired later that that piece of metal alleged to have punctured a tyre etc was NOT the reason it crashed.The main reason was faulty wiring causing sparks in a leaky environment ,bad fuel weight distribution and the pilots shutting down the two still running engines!
@@danopticon that's not very plausible. There is a lack of innovation. The economy is not growing as fast as it was between the war and the crisis in the 70s.
@@jwadaow The rich is forcing the status quo to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor.
Note, the Concorde's final flight was in November 2003, 18 years ago yesterday. Not 2006 like it says in the video.
Final passenger flight was New York JFK to London Heathrow on October 24 2003, final ever flight of a Concorde was London Heathrow to Bristol Fulton airport on November 26th 2003.
I watched three Concordes fly west over the Thames on that day. End of an era. Heard and saw Concorde most nights heading into Heathrow.
they also said it was air france 4560 not 4590
0:26 I think you got confused. Concorde definitely was *NOT* still flying in 2006. The final passenger flight was from New York JFK to London Heathrow on October 24 2003, and the final ever flight of a Concorde was from London Heathrow to Bristol Filton airport on November 26th 2003.
Pretty sure that's a narrative error as the date is accurate just not the year.
and Air France 4590 crashed not 4560
You are correct Dylan. Concorde's last flight was indeed on the 26th of November 2003.
Speaking of errors;
0:37 "Passengers rewinding their watch only 2 hours" ??!
The time difference between London and New York City is 5 hours.
What's wrong with this logic?
@@Mash4096 I THINK they added the travel time of 3 hours? didn't they turn off watches on planes back then?
Concorde was such a beautiful plane. I was living close to Orly. I could see it everyday going to work to Paris. One was in permanent position in front of the airport. I think it was the most marvelous non military plane of all time. The other being the sr71 to my opinion, that we can see at New York, on the naval museum carrier.
That is the Intreprid Air and Space Museum, where one of the Concordes now stands on the concrete path next to the aircraft carrier. The Space Shuttle Enterrise is on the carrier deck with the other aircraft, including the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.
@@raymondramirez9177 I hear that NONE of the US Concordes, have been protected and maintained properly. THIS WAS, the case in Bristol UK, home of UK Concorde, But now, she has a brand new Museum, and wonderful presentational lighting system, and Story sound track.
I really appreciate the level of scrutiny you're providing. Seems like many of their advertised claims simply aren't feasible. Looks like a good start and lots of the Concorde's drawbacks are being solved with today's tech advances, BUT:
- They need an engine that doesn't exist and usually takes the better part of a decade to produce, yet they want it in a couple of years from scratch.
- They haven't significantly decreased the boom
- They haven't significantly increased range
I guess this is more evolutionary than revolutionary, which as you pointed out probably still won't be economically feasible.
I think future will be high altitude fast flights.
My guess for range is just that they don't know yet being that they have no engine, or rather that range estimate was utilizing numbers from the 60s era GE engine they will use for flight testing soon.
Yeah this sounds like a company about to get themselves impaled to address a niche that faded away for well-documented reasons. Their self-promotions don't instill confidence and honestly look arrogant or apathetic at worst.
@@kamilpotato3764 When I told my dad about this video, his first thought was the same. He suspects that if people really want a fast travel solution and avoid sonic booms, they're better off making globe-spanning high-altitude space planes, and avoid atmosphere altogether. Frankly, I agree with both of you; I remember reading about some insane turbine that was in development maybe 6 years back, and it would be used for space planes right before they hit vacuum.
LIKE CONCORDE ,THATS A GOOD IDEA.@@kamilpotato3764
Pinning the hopes of your new airliner on a yet-to-be-designed Rolls Royce engine? I hope it works out better than it did for the L-1011.
RB211 repeat will go just as well.
RR is completely cash strapped at the moment, and just barely clinging on amid the pandemic. Even if they had the resources, there's no way they would take such a massive gamble on developing a supersonic engine for this thing, when there are no guarantees of any orders. GE have already ended development on their supersonic engine program, which means there is no one who can realistically provide an engine for Boom.
Edit: By "completely cash strapped" I don't mean they are on the brink of collapse right now. But they have negative shareholder equity, which is a big red flag. In any case, they don't have the resources for a clean sheet supersonic engine. The commercial failure of such a program really could push them over the edge after the financial pressures of recent years (covid, Trent 1000) etc.
@@jackroutledge352 There are dozens of supersonic engines out there since 1946.
@@jackroutledge352 RR are not complete cash strapped. And they are too valuable for even the current Conservative government to allow to fail and be bought up by foreign companies.
But yes, there's no reason for them to put much effort into a pure jet engine and one certainly won't be ready by 2026.
@@jackroutledge352 what! No, it's not it makes the VTOL system for the F35B and many engines
As an engineering student, your videos are extremely helpful to have something in the background while I’m playing Minecraft avoiding studying for my final test.
never knew ryan would collab with a science guy. unfortunately he didnt do a backflip to kill the bad guy.
.....snap the bad guys neck and save the day
What
He does scienk.
As a Brit, I have a special place in my heart for concorde. I've been underneath its flight path when I heard the sonic boom, it's quite something! I remember feeling awed, but if I lived under the flight path, i guess it could have become irritating, obviously can't say for sure. I was very sad when I heard it was being decommissioned
In case anybody watches the video and thinks 105 dB can't be much louder than 75 dB, it's worth noting that decibels are a logarithmic, not linear, unit. 20 meters, a linear unit, is twice as long as 10 meter. 20 dB is 10 times louder than 10 dB. 30 dB is 10 times louder than 20 dB and so is 100 times louder than 10 dB. In other words, 105 dB is 1000 times louder than 75 dB.
Close - you get a 10x factor with 20db. So 10dB is about 3.3x louder, and 105dB is about 33x louder than 75dB
for me it was office > vaccuum cleaner > motorbike, each significantly louder than the previous yet only 10db difference
*_@JohnDoe-yp3zv_* It's quite true that decibels are logarithmic, but then so is human hearing. That is why dBs were invented. An increase of 10dB sounds twice as loud, so 105dB-75dB =30dB, which would sound 8x as loud.
@@SafffOneee 10dB increase sounds twice as loud, so the vacuum cleaner would sound twice as loud as the office and the motorbike would sound four times as loud as the office and twice as loud as the vacuum cleaner.
the sonic boom is only one of several problems of supersonic flight. there's also engine noise and fuel consumption, and i don't know what can be done about those.
- to generate thrust, you need an exhaust speed that is faster than the aircraft moves forward, and the problem is that the noise level increases with the square of the exhaust speed. it may be possible to block the noise from radiating downwards by putting the engine exhausts above the wings, but that leads to other problems that need to be solved
- another problem is fuel consumption. not much to be done about that, and this problem will keep increasing as fuel prices keep going through the roof. there are several ways to make a jet engine more efficient. one way is to increase the bypass ratio which makes the engine LESS suitable for supersonic speeds. another way is to increase the TIT. this is not really an option because in modern engines the TIT is already close to the limit of what the available materials can handle.
14:50 more efficient than the concorde? maybe. efficient enough to compete with other airliners? i don't think so.
all in all i think supersonic travel is gone for good, and those companies are wasting their money.
Consumption is only up a factor 2 compared to a long range subsonic jet.
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt that depends on how you look at it, doesn't it? The concorde burned more than 4 times as much fuel per passenger as a 747. With fuel prices going through the roof, that kind of difference is just not acceptable. And that isn't even taking polluton into account.
@@mrxmry3264 So on point 1, yes engine nose would be a problem. Though I do imagine they would be able to get waivers. There is really no way to quite turbo jet engines down to modern standards.
As for fuel consumption, it's not as large of an issue as one might think. With max passengers with max fuel, the fuel costs per pax on the Concorde would only be about $560 USD.
A first-class ticket from New York to London will cost over $3000, so fuel isn't going to be your largest expense.
Did the concord cruise around in afterburner? If so then working on making the plane be able to supercruise could be an option to cut down on fuel consumption
@@kuiper921Concorde was able to supercruise.
Another caveat is that developing a new (state of the art) engine costs many billions of dollars, which they would never be able to recover due to the limited market size. This leaves (older) off-the-shelf engines, which are fine for a prototype, but are going to be suboptimal for the speeds and/or amount of thrust required. And then there is the issue of using military technology, which is often required for the engines...
this is the main barrier to entry for any of this. Commercial Turbojets are just not a thing and will never be a thing. Unless a country like China or the US want to make it a State issue. Even then, there is developing the engine, then there is supporting the engine. Spare parts and maintenance were another major nail in the Concorde Coffin.
It will probably not be an entirely new engine, but something out of the younger military projects, maybe adapted a bit for commercial needs. The Boom Overture will probably fly with something like the EJ 200 (Rolls-Royce XG-40 derivative) or the F136. Commonly known aircraft powered by Rolls-Royce supersonic engines are the Lockheed martin F-35 or the Eurofighter Typhoon
@@KarlKarpfen Excuse me, but the F 35 is powered by the Pratt and Whitney F135...not rolls royce...
I think Boom will fail, but in the meantime, the CEO will probably sock away a lot of investor capital into a nice nest egg.
@@oadka you see the problem here is that you're expecting somebody who somehow thinks a military is going to let their engines into the commercial space at all is going to get any facts even remotely close to correct.
0:50 "Super easy, barely an inconvenience" SCREEN RANT WANTS TO: 📍 KNOW YOUR LOCATION 😂😂
I remember hearing sonic booms as a kid in the early 80's living on the California coast. I loved them. Its one of the things that started my interest of wanting to become a fighter pilot...then Top Gun came out and that sealed the deal. Unfortunately I was in a major accident in '89 at 14 that dashed those dreams. Still love sonic booms though.
Thanks for doing this video!
I've always been skeptical with Boom's claim. Even though 60 years of engineering improvements have brought many technologies that Concorde's engineers didn't have, supersonic jet engines haven't improved much since then. Only a few aircrafts can reach supersonic speeds without afterburner, and the pinnacle of that kind of engines was basically the Olympus and the PW J58, that have both been developed 60 years ago. So I always wondered how they would manage to beat the engineering prowess of 3 of the largest engine builders in the world.
I feel like that partnership with Rolls-Royce should have been made much earlier in the process.
To give a nowadays comparison, Space x didn't start building starship without Raptor's engine development being already well advanced. It feels like they started building an F1 car but planned to use a motorcycle engine
The Olympus was even more impressive than the J-58-it could supercruise at Mach 2.0. One of the reasons Concorde was profitable for BA for 20 years.
"Droop snoot"
Thank you for knowing that reference!
I am old enough to remember when it was thought that supersonic transport flights would be the future of aviation. I suspect that even this newly designed supersonic transport plane from Boom will not be a success and that only a few will be made. Here are the reasons for this opinion. It is the laws of physics, there will always be the double sonic boom when aircraft is flying at supersonic speed. Although the noise level can be reduced, it can not be eliminated. So this airplane will only be used on ocean crossing routes just like the Concorde. Also even though this supersonic airplane will be more efficient than the Concorde, it will still burn a tremendous amount of fuel to travel at supersonic speed. This and other factors like passenger capacity will make airline tickets costs for this airplane very expensive just like the Concorde where only a few very wealthy people will travel on this airplane. Also we live in a time when fuel conservation and fuel economy is a big issue. So my best guess is that there is not a future for commercial passenger supersonic transport.
You don't get it do you? This plane was not designed for thr average person, but for the elite to fly around and possibly down our throats "hmmm fuel efficiency."
I am sorry but I disagree. Like all of international companies fly their employees on first class. Also they travel more often than they did 40 years ago since everything became globalised. Since the time of these people is very expensive these companies would pay for the expensive tickets. And then talk about the number of millionairs today. How many rich people were like 40 years ago? Dubai, China, UAE and other oil rich nations were nowhere near. They are so rich they would casually pay for it and they do travel a lot.
I think there would be a need of cross-atlantic routes for this Mach 2 travel. I think the problem is that these companies still think inside the box. They are still thinking of using these planes on the same route, daily several flights, etc. Instead they should look at it more like train companies do. You fly from A to B then from B to C then from C to D and then turn around. Like you did a route from NY to London. Then London to Buenos Aires. Then from Buenos Aires to Paris. Then back to NY. or something like that. So that each of these routes would be covered like twice a week with these planes and for others there would be still slower but cheaper ones. Like regular trains and ICE. It could work.
@@humorpalanta When you mention those oil rich nations that had bulit another new york on steroid (dubai), lamborghini for cop cars, and real gold toilet paper for swiping those poop residues, then expect a steady amount of income to one day get this project of long term availability of commercial supersonic flight on the go.
@@Gnefitisis He literally mentioned it.
@@EduardoRodrigues-ev7ej No he didn't but Ok.
I get what you mean, but everyone always turns back their watch by 6 hours when they fly from Paris to NY, no matter how fast the aircraft is.
Yes, but the flight is shorter than the amount of time you turn your clock back by.
You don’t stop your clock when you enter an airplane?
He meant by arrival; leave watch as is during flight, then just move back by two hours upon reaching destination. You are describing adjustment at departure.
@@CompoundInterest-SG What's the point of doing that when you can simply rewind it more when you land?
@@manswind3417 You’re not the best at picking up on sarcasm, are you?
0:33 I don't think that's how clocks work. You have to rewind your clock 5 hours if you fly from London to New York no matter what.
(they will still arrive earlier than when they left, but the flight time does not change how much your watch needs to be adjusted by)
Edit: close parentheses
Glad you pointed that out, when I heard that it made me pause the video and think for a moment XD
I think that this concept, though very interesting, as a near-ZERO chance of success. It's still a pipe dream that simply will not work in the modern passenger aviation environment. The economics of supersonic flight have changed very little since the 1960s, and they're using a 1950s-era turbojet engine. Seriously? This idea is a relic of a very heady-but-bygone era in passenger aviation.
The name of the game in modern passenger aviation is EFFICIENCY - achieving the lowest cost per passenger mile. Thus, modern passenger airliners use exactly two enormous high-bypass turbofan engines that sip fuel in comparison to previous-generation engines. The huge fans on the GE-90, GE-Nx, and other high-bypass turbofan engines create the VAST majority of the thrust - quietly and reliably. A turbojet engine simply has no way to do that.
Turbojet engines burn massive amounts of fuel to create thrust, and there is realistically very little that can be done to improve the efficiency of them. All they do is burn fuel to create direct thrust. And they are LOUD... very, very LOUD because there is no slow-moving blanket of air created by the giant bypass fan around the high-speed jet exhaust to reduce noise. It's all just hot, fast-moving, and very LOUD jet thrust. There are probably some minor improvements that could be made, but they are very likely miniscule compared to the huge improvements that have been made by developing turbofans with ever-higher bypass ratios using larger and more efficient fans. Turbojet engines on a supersonic aircraft would be working hard during the entire flight. This would wear them out more quickly, and would significantly increase maintenance costs.
Supersonic flight can never achieve anywhere near the efficiency of subsonic flight... at least as long as there is, you know, atmosphere and friction and all that other "physics" stuff in the world. The economics of achieving long-term, profitable, mass-market supersonic flight simply don't work. They never have, and I see nothing in this project to suggest that they will work any time soon. Saving a few hours of flight time on any flight is simply not worth the exponentially-higher cost in this modern age of efficiency. Supersonic flight will remain a very high-end service for wealthy passengers - if it ever really gets off the ground at all.
And oh, as you pointed out. there is still the horrible sonic boom issue to deal with. The Ranger is STILL not gonna like that, Yogi!
I wonder if a combination of a variable bypass turbofan and a swing wing would make a more economical SST.
@@ryanchatham9971 Variable bypass turbofan? lol Good luck with that!
I completely agree, but the CEO will probably be able to sock away enough investor capital for a nice nest egg before the company's eventual failure. So it will be a success after all. XD
I feel bad for anyone whose invested a lot of money in this...
@@brainmind4070 It reminds of of the reckless environment in tech in the 90s - which of course all came crashing down with the Dot-Bomb in 2001. Lots of people losing lots of money on companies that never made any money and went out of business, because they never had a solid business plan to become profitable… short term nor long term.
This was an amazingly concise video on Aeronautics. You touched upon so many aspects in under 18mins.
Also, your copy of _'Skunk Works'_ definitely get a like!
the problem still economical, all this advantage will not result to improved economics, the Concord cabital cost was zero by 2000...and saftey is also factor of quantity, the more airplane, the more safe it becomes, which will not happen if not economical
0:28 Wasn't in 2003 Concorde's final flight?
Thanks for this BRILLIANT video -- as always. One downfall though: around the 1 minute mark, you say the Concorde lost many purchase agreements because of "soaring production costs". This is true, but it is important to mention that the US in particular did everything it could to penalise the program (eg: the Secretary of Transport only gave permission for landing the Concorde at Dulles, but the line was closed quickly due to low demand. Only in February 1977 was the ban lifted for JFK). This would obviously be a huge contributing factor to stop other airlines from purchasing the Concorde. Thank you so much for your great work, keep going!
Correction: The Cone Vortex used by concord originated from the leading edge, close to the wing root, not the same as wingtip vortex shown at 8:14, but based on similar principles. The cone goes over the wing to prevent the flow separation (Stalling). This phenomenon is also used by modern jets such as F-15, F-16, F-18 and Su-27 Family.
12:38 Supersonic aircraft don't NEED to use "pure jet" as in Turbojet engine. Most modern fighters and several bombers uses Low-bypass turbofans, ever since F-111 pioneered using turbofan instead of turbojets. But yes, low by pass is not as efficient. The problem with exhaust flow speed is a problem can be solved by adding a variable nozzle (like most fighters and B-1B and Tu-160).
The only way commercial supersonic travel could work is if
1) Planes can switch between supersonic and subsonic wing configurations (possible, Rockwell B-1 Lancer & Tupolev Tu-160 as basis for this)
>> Needed to travel over land at subsonic speeds so they can reach airports without causing sonic booms
>> Switching to supersonic wing config. when traveling over oceans/non-populated areas
2) Supersonic engines can achieve high fuel efficiency at supersonic speeds
3) Supersonic engines can achieve high fuel efficiency at subsonic speeds
These were the three things that killed any prospect of using supersonic airliners for commercial air travel.
Considering the large supersonic planes we currently have that use variable wing geometry mechanisms, I think it's possible to build supersonic airliners that can reach most airports without causing sonic booms over populated areas so we definitively could have a new Concorde or Tupolev 144 that could meet air travel regulations and reach most cities, but it'd be competing with other subsonic airliners to do that and the worse fuel efficiency would kill the supersonic airliner on that regard. For example, a supersonic airliner traveling from Moscow to Paris wouldn't be able to travel faster than a subsonic one, and one traveling from Paris to New York would lose some of its time savings while traveling over Europe before reaching the Atlantic ocean. This would still allow for several more destinations within reach compared to the Concorde, but without better fuel efficiency and lower operational costs it'd still be something for rich customers only, so we're not talking about a commercial, but a luxury, exclusive service.
To summarize, IMO with the technology we have today a supersonic luxury airliner like Concorde that solves its sonic boom problems is possible, but the high costs compared to normal subsonic airliners kill any prospect of massively available supersonic commercial airliners.
Boeing only recently revealed the 777X, the first ever commercial airliner with folding wings, and it only has folding wingtips. Even such a seemingly small change raises many serious concerns of safety. Putting a variable-sweep wing on a commercial airliner is a far greater challenge that just is not possible. Instead of just having a small portion of the wing move, it's the entire wing all at once, and the mechanism must work perfectly everytime without the possibility of accidental activation. The wing pivots must be made sufficiently strong so that the wing cannot fall off like that one time on an F-111. Both of these factors increase mass and fuel consumption significantly. And that's not even talking about the aerodynamics of variable-sweep wings
we really need a jet engine that can transition between subsonic and supersonic while still being fuel efficient. there has to be a way.
@@swedistandoge8437 That's a good point. I think as a minimum a variable sweep plane would need to be able to land at an airport with the wings at full sweep in case of failure
Also add that the comfort won't be as good as today conventional planes also even with that they lose to train with comfort unless your flying in business class but even train can match that if they want
@@kingdavewoody if your aircraft can safely land with wings at full sweep at an average commercial runway, there's not much point in having the sweep in the first place.
The only airports a supersonic airliner would ever fly out of have long runways, and in the event that you did have to abort to a shorter runway airport, the takeoff from there would be empty weight plus fuel, giving the plane enough lift to power out of there.
Swing wings are used to extend an aircraft's takeoff capabilities, allowing heavier takeoffs from shorter runways. If all your heavy takeoffs are at long runways and you'll never have to do short runway takeoffs, what's the point?
Don't think you can slip that Ryan George reference past us
It's not just the sound barrier. It's the cost barrier. An even stronger effect.
The most important effect. If it were cheap enough we’d definitely find a way to deal with or tolerate any sonic booms.
Concorde was consistently profitable for 20 years for BA as its purpose was to compete against subsonic First Class. Concorde’s tickets were only around 10-15% more (1996 GBP 4,772 vs subsonic First Class GBP 4,314) and this meant that a company could have its executive (who would have been sent First Class anyway) leave London at 10:30am, arrive in NYC at 9:30am (yes before they took off, as Concorde flew faster than the Earth rotates) take a 10 min helicopter ride to the East River heliport, have a bunch of meetings and zip back to JFK for the 1:30pm Concorde to London and be in bed the same night.
Concorde had its own security, check-in, lounge and boarding gate from the lounge. No lining up for anything... How's that for time saving?
Time as they say, is money, especially for these folks, and Concorde built a very loyal following that lasted throughout its service life operating in its own P&L division, and consistently profitable for BA from 1982 on, even when the mainline carrier was unprofitable.
www.key.aero/article/inside-story-how-ba-made-more-ps500m-profit-concorde#:~:text=The%20result%20of%20this%20change,billion%20pounds%20profit%20for%20BA.%E2%80%9D
1:44 actually it was Air France 4590
All I can say is that this guy really does deserve all the subscribers he has till now. He makes top notch quality content.
Real engineering and real science videos in less than 1 hour! What a great Saturday!
And both videos look behind the hype of new technologies to ask if they are actually commercially viable. Awesome.
I'm commenting very rarely, but I wanted to thank you for all your videos, your new visuals on desks are so good (this is a mix with 3D and real shots ?).
Super easy, barely an inconvenience!
I couldn't believe he'd done that to us lmao
Informative and well presented. Thanks for posting
BTW, 0:30 Concorde wasn't retired in 2006. Its last scheduled flight was the return trip from JFK to Heathrow on 24 October 2003, and its last flight was Heathrow to Filton, Bristol on 26 November 2003. I believe it's on display at Filton.
2:16 Concorde didn’t fly those routes exclusively. The only one i can name off the top of my head is the one to mexico city with refueling in dulles (The only reason i’m aware of this route is because my parents lived in mexico city at the time concorde flew there, they would hear it every time it flew overhead). Of course the routes that stayed constant throughout were the LHR-JFK and the CDG-JFK routes, but they weren’t the only ones to exist.
We have an air show every year in Bournemouth at the end of August and even over the ocean they still can't hit Mach 1. We have the EuroFighter Typhoon Fly and it is one of the most impressive planes made. It's agility and capabilities are barely rivaled bar a few more recent planes. I would love to see the barrier hit to see the air compression and hear that crack but as it is too close to land they are restricted. I've been on the concord and that experience when hitting sonic speed is amazing. And when a passenger in a harrier pulling G and hitting those insane speeds is one of the best feelings I have experience
I flew 2 times on the concord, the most thrilling thing was the violent acceleration that was felt in flight, when the plane reached the ocean and then supersonic speed....well violent deceleration to stop the plane on landing was also fantastic!
Sounds like great fun. The rest of us want peace and quiet, thanks.
@@robgrey6183 The rest of you are boring as hell.
At 7:28 the Ogival Delta Wing angles seem to have changed places. In addition the picture is illustrating the complement angle of the sweep angle (90° - sweep angle) while showing the right numerical value for the sweep angle.
Great video, anyway! Thanks.
"Super easy! Barely an inconvenience!"
I love it that you, too, watch Ryan George's Pitch Meeting :)
My completely undeducated intuition is Does the engine really have to be a pure jet? A number of fighter jets nowadays use low-bypass turbofans (albeit afterburning) and are capable of supercruise. The Eurofighter is one of those and its powerplant was largely developed and built by Rolls-Royce. So RR definitely have knowledge of supersonic capable turbofans.
Supercruise by itself does nothing for the commercial aviation though. It's all about fuel efficiency and range. And Eurofighter has a pathetic 2900km listed(and it's probably not in supercruise either), while even the 7800km mentioned in the video are cutting it super close to a shortest trans pacific route. Not to mention how much less drag to fighter jets experience due to more permissible shape design constraints.
@@Th3Apothecary I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously the eurofighter has less range than a planned airliner, it has a much smaller fuel capacity and is not built with absolute endurance in mind.
My point was regarding the statement that supersonic aircraft have to have pure jets, that's why I used an example of a supersonic capable aircraft that uses a turbo fan.
Exactly. FYI, General Electric has been developing exactly this for the past few years. "GE Affinity" is a supersonic, non after-burning, turbofan engine for commercial general aviation use. It was chosen to power the "Aerion" supersonic aircraft.
@@anthonycanalese2142 hahaha, the Aerion. I spent 20 years reading updates every other year about that company. They were always 10 years away from launching their plane lol. Hopefully the Boom aircraft will do better, but I don't have much trust in them tbh...
Early versions of the Tu-144 have low-bypass turbofans with afterburners. However, due to technological gaps within Soviet aeroengineering, they are somehow more fuel-thirsty than a regular turbojet at that time. Subsequent versions later carried turbojets.
It’s still too early into development to say anything about them strictly developing an efficient turbojet, but RR is the ONE firm that could do turbofans rated for supersonic flight. Assuming they solved the inlet geometry pretty quickly, the only major obstacle I think they need to solve is to figure out the proper combustion cycle for the turbofans to safely supercruise at Mach 1.5+ without the use of an afterburner.
The Concorde nose also pointed into the airflow, creating a laminar flow over the top of the fuselage despite the steep angle of attack, which was critical to producing the vortex lift. If the air running down the top of the fuselage were turbulent, the vortices would have been broken up instead of being stable.
It wasn't the nose that created vortex lift is was the extended leading edges of the Ogival Delta. You can find many wind tunnel photos of this. The vortices stabilised the upper surface airflow so it didn't break away at high AOA.
@@Completeaerogeek Correct but I didn't say the nose produced the lift. I said if the nose pointed up it would have interfered with the production of vortex lift. This from an engineer who worked on the design. Forget his full name. Last name Fischer. With the nose up, there would have been vortex shedding across the back of the fuselage, which results in an oscillating left-to-right turbulence. Now imagine your inward spirals curving into that from the delta, and how much sooner they'd break up from the instability, not to mention how unpredictable the stall characteristics would be.
- Guys what sould we call our plane company ?
- How about boom or crash ?
- You're hired !
A huge negative factor with the Concord was the massive noise during takeoff.
The Concords noise during takeoff would rattle buildings.
Boom would need to solve the takeoff noise problem before it would be allowed near any major city.
It actually was about the same dB as the contemporary B-707 and DC-8. On take off from 31L at JFK it always made a steep left turn over Flushing Bay and as a result actually had a lower noise footprint than modern subsonic jets.
*_@ziggy2shus624_* Yes, Concorde made an awesome tearing noise on take off. I loved the sound, and the sound of a Vulcan, but people living near airports weren't so keen. There were a lot of complaints around the Heathrow area about Concorde's noise. The 707 was bad enough at 104dBs, but Concorde's noise was 120dBs. This means that Concorde would sound 3x louder than a 707.
Boom claim that Overture will comply with the ICAO-14 noise regulations, so it will be a lot quieter and be able to use all airports.
Naming a plane company "Boom" in the post 9/11 world might not have been as good a marketing choice as they thought it was...
And not to mention the fact that they are trying to create a product that avoids a "boom" 😂
Nah
Terrorism aside, it just draws attention to the noise nuisance
@@seff1890 yah
It's not like the entire world is the USA though
8:57 i love how you can hear him trying not to laugh when he says "droop snoot"
Think you can get a Ryan George reference in the script?
Sure. Super easy; barely an inconvenience!
0:29 you'd rewind you'r clock FIVE HOURS regardless of speed, even if you took a cruize ship, as your clock would normally not stop ticking while traveling
I love Sonic, gotta go fast!! 🦔💨💨💨
High bypass engines are also much quieter, so SST aircraft are louder even when flying sub sonically and especially at take off with maximum thrust.
I lived near JFK airport in New York, and I could always tell when the Concorde was taking off or landing by the noise of the engines.
Yep. You cannot use high or medium bypass engines for supersonic flight. The exhaust gas velocity must equal or exceed the aircraft's speed. Boom is dreaming with their 72 inch fan. That's bigger than the 737 MAX's LEAP 1B at 69"
You neglected to mention that even with all those downsides, *and* the mandatory yearly maintenance to replace parts that were damaged because of the sonic boom pressure, the Concorde was *still* profitable, and if I remember correctly, the most profitable plane both of British Airways and Air France. The problem they had was back when they sold cheaper seats. Then they started selling them for $12k (adjusted for inflation), and since London-New York is the route with the most capacity for selling expensive tickets in the world, it worked out well.
It's true that slower planes were way more comfortable, but we have to remember that, although some of the Concorde's travelers wanted the novelty of the fast planes, in actuality the Concorde's travelers were overwhelmingly traveling on business, and traveling frequently. And as someone who has had a family in one city and had to fly to work in a different city, I would 100% prefer the fastest plane over the comfortable one. It's one thing to travel and see your family for a day and a half in a week once in a while, but to have to do it all the time was the worst experience I've had in my life--I left the job after like two and a half months.
For a history of the Concorde I recommend the excellent Mustard channel, by the way. Really, if you don't know it, go see it right now.
*_@dr.victorvs_*
*Will Overture be able to fill the gap left by Concorde in the SST market?*
*_Introduction_*
Boom have undertaken a mammoth task in developing and producing the Overture SST, with its Symphony power module and turbofan engine. The biggest risk is that they will deplete their capital, before a prototype Overture flies. Once that milestone is reached funding should be available. The following, is based primarily on information from Boom, and assumes that Overture meets its specification and goes into airline service. I have no connection with Boom whatsoever.
*_Aviation_*
Aviation has changed radically since the iconic Concorde first carried passengers in 1976. More people are flying, the number doubles every 10 years, and they are richer. Aviation fuel is roughly the same price as it was in 1976, taking into account inflation, and with deregulation, airline tickets are now cheaper, in real terms. Aircraft now have the range to fly non stop between any two airports in the world.
*_Technology_*
Computer aided design, and simulation has transformed aircraft design and development, by drastically reducing time and costs, and increasing effectiveness. In addition, advanced technology and materials, have enabled more powerful, more efficient engines, and lighter, cheaper, and more streamlined aircraft.
*_Flight_*
Because Overture will be economical at sub and supersonic speeds, 500 routes, some mixed land/water, are viable, rather than just 2 Atlantic routes for Concorde. Overture will be carbon neutral, using sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Overture will will create a sonic boom, but not over land, where it will cruise 10% faster (Mach 0.94) than subsonic airliners. It will cruise at twice the speed of subsonic airliners over water. Concorde carried 100 passengers at Mach 2, over 4,488 miles. Overture will carry 65 to 80 passengers at Mach 1.7 over 4,880 miles.
*_Airframe_*
Both aircraft are 202ft long, but Overture will have a gull wing with computer controlled leading and trailing edge flaps, and a greater span, at 106 feet compared to 84 feet. Overture will also have an empennage. Carbon composite construction will enable streamlining, weight saving, and increased strength, while practically eliminating thermal expansion and contraction. Overture will weigh an estimated 154 tons, Concorde weighed 185 tons. Concorde could carry 2.5 tons of cargo. The cargo capacity for Overture is not known.
*_Engines_*
Overture's engines will be medium bypass turbofans without reheat, while Concorde had turbojets, with reheat. This means that Overture will be economical at subsonic speeds and will be low noise on take off and landing. Variable geometry ducting in the Symphony power units will probably allow the engines to supercruise.
*_Costing_*
Overture's predicted development cost is $8bn, against $14.4bn for Concorde. Manufacturing cost will be less, maintenance costs will be lower, and availability will be higher. Overtures selling price will be $200M, compared to $320M for Concorde. At a guess, Overture's development payback will be 150 aircraft, and airline payback will be 10 years, assuming 72 seats and 8 hours a day utilisation.
*_Operation_*
Overture will be simpler to fly, eliminating the need for a 6 month pilot conversion course. Overture will have improved low speed handling, especially on take off and landing, while maintaining low drag at supersonic speeds. It will have a modern cockpit, with a flight deck similar to subsonic airliners. A flight engineer will not be required. Instead of a droop snoot, external cameras and cockpit displays will give the pilots a view of the terrain when taking off and landing. Its cabin will be quieter and all its seats will be business class, almost certainly with internet. In contrast to Concorde's awesome engine noise, Overture will comply with ICAO-14 noise regulations, allowing it to use all airports, without triggering protests.
*_Ticket Cost_*
Taking a JFK to LHR one way flight:
Showing: _Aircraft type, Fuel cost per passenger, Economy ticket, Business Class ticket, Duration_
Boeing 747 $147 $577 $2,308 8hrs
Concorde $753 $5,000^ 3.5hrs
Overture^^ $708 $1,200 $3,000^^^^ 4hrs
Business jet^^^ $53,000 to $99,000 8hrs
Notes
^ 2023 value
^^ Estimated prices, assuming Overture carries 72 passengers against Concorde's 100. For the first 2 years, only business class seats will be available.
^^^ There are no supersonic business jets
^^^^ $5,000 return
A 16 hour flight across the Pacific on a subsonic jet could be achieved with a 1 hour refuelling stop by Overture, giving a time of, 4 + 1 + 4 = 9 hours.
*_Market_*
Overture will not be competing for the mass economy market. Instead it is aimed at the 700 million long-range business flights made each year world wide. Boom and airline customer surveys show the viability of Overture, and they have identified 500 suitable routes. All Overture's seats will be business class and ticket prices will be comparable with business class on subsonic airliners. Once Symphony gets established it could become a niche service, similar to Concorde, but with many more routes.
*_Conclusion_*
Overture will be popular with both airlines and passengers, because it will half many journey times and will be cheaper, more comfortable and a lot more practical than Concorde. The military have already shown an interest in Overture. It would also be suitable for charter flights. There may even be a market for the Symphony power unit or just the engine. As Overture matures, it will probably be developed, just like subsonic jets. So the range may be increased, there may be a stretched version, and even an all economy seat version. After Overture, Boom could possibly develop a 200 seat SST.
_22-2023.09.04_
Mustard is a great channel, but Real Engineering also made a long episode on the Concorde after this video was released; ruclips.net/video/hnrpXxbVhME/видео.htmlsi=Yaic2yXr4fuqJBOJ
And in fact, even made a second on the engineering issues with it; ruclips.net/video/8Oi8ZO-2Kvc/видео.htmlsi=wQUoZy0nOk0_fjA_
My elderly neighbor said that when there was a supersonic boom, for several days but almost never up to a week unless there were multiple booms on multiple days, that the chickens wouldn't lay eggs, some of the cows wouldn't make milk, horses acted super skittish, and would scare the crap out of pigs who got over it in approx 10 seconds. Yes, he grew up on a rural Arkansas farm.
Even assuming Boom somehow overcomes the fact that they don't have a viable engine, can't cross the Pacific in a single hop, and have no answer for the sonic boom or fuel consumption issues, there's still aircraft certification to contend with -- a multi-billion dollar process that currently costs more than the entire company is worth. And that's to say nothing of waning political will for a highly polluting "deluxe" service that benefits only the ultra wealthy at the apparent expense of the environment.
I wish there were a better way to spin all of this (bc supersonic passenger travel would be great), but right now Boom looks like even more of an investor money pit/cesspool than Aerion did before it folded earlier this year -- and that company was at least considering things like sonic boom mitigation, catering to the business niche specifically (since they were making a business jet first), *AND* they had the technical/financial backing of freaking Lockheed-Martin -- and even with all that going, Aerion still failed... but Boom is supposed to fare better? Can't help but be skeptical.
I'm sure the CEO knows this and has increased his salary due to the increased workload he will be under to make everything work out, i.e. knitting his golden parachute for when the company inevitably fails.
Interesting video but you didn't discuss either of the key flaws in Concorde, which were the reasons why Air France 4590 crashed.
The first flaw with Concorde was the wheels and landing gear. The materials were not up to scratch relative to the enormous loads they had to bare. It was a piece of scrap metal from the plane that took off before Air France 4590 that caused the explosion and fire in the wheels and landing gear that ultimately led to engine failure and disaster. The other flaw that led to the crash of Air France 4590 was the V1 point of no return. Once Concorde reached a certain speed on the runway it was impossible to abort the take-off without a cataclysmic crash, which is why Air France 4590 took off in the first place despite the in-flight warning systems indicating there may be a serious problem. So either the aircraft needs a lower V1 threshold, which is not really possible with the delta-wing design, or the runways themselves need to be longer to accommodate supersonic passenger jets like Concorde
Summary:- Wheel materials and landing gear design along with V1 threshold (no aborted take-off possible without crashing) along with runways designed for regular passenger jets led to the Air France disaster and the end of Concorde (along with 2008 financial crisis)
The V1 thing would just depend on where a piece of FOD is on the runway, like you could run over a piece of debris just before hitting V1. Runways would need to basically double in length to eliminate V1 even for subsonic airliners
Those are literally not flaws related to the Concorde itself, since without the DC10 dropping a part in front of it and punctured the wheel (then the fuel tank) the Concorde's design is well within the limits of what it is supposed to handle.
As for V1 literally every plane has the V1 no-return speed, had this happened to say a 747 Airliner and they know shits up but is already at V1 they will have to take off as well.
@@周生生-f1f The crash was caused by the debris on the runway yeah, but the aircraft should have redundancy for that.
It's like having a single engine airliner doing trans-atlantic flights. You could argue all day that an engine failure was caused by XYZ, but they should have a redundancy for that.
After the crash happened, they redesigned to fuel tanks to be armoured the fuel tanks and did something (im not sure) to the tyre compound, but by that point they were already in a difficult situation money wise because of politics and public opinion
@@kingdavewoody Let me just say this real quick; at that kind of velocities the Concorde was travelling and the extra stress it needs to be handling, any "armoring" and "redundancy" is nothing more than just PR stunt that only provides spiritual support, when you are running over a sharp piece of titanium with a very high pressure tire under twenty tons of pressure.
From a physical perspective that kind of damage is virtually impossible to defend even if it is not a Concorde.
@@周生生-f1f Concorde had its Certificate of Airworthiness withdrawn, at that point a PR stunt wouldn't have worked.
They were making modifications to get it certified again, no to win the public over. We can argue about this forever, but at the end of the day the manufacturer and the CAA weren't dumb.... the manufacturer wouldn't have designed a modification they knew wouldn't work, and the CAA wouldn't have approved a safety modification that didn't work.
The people involved were much smarter than you and I, so I think I'll just go by what they were saying
One of the most beautiful passenger planes 👌👌 Great video!
My Grandmother flew on the Concorde 7 times back in the late 80's. Had photos framed of her on each trip in her house.
First of all, great video. Usually I don't comment much but I need so say something.
At 15:01 you say that Boom wants to use biofules which are pure ecological nonsense as you already explained in a previous video. But Boom doesn't specify what type of sustainable fuel they plan to use. At least I couldn't find it after 5 minutes. I always assumed they wanted to use synthetic fuels (Power-to-Liquid) just like Lufthansa. Many people don't know much about the whole P2L or P2G concepts. It would be great if you could explain these concepts with their pros and cons. Especially since you seem interested in the biggest challenge for going green: large scale energy storage
P2L companies seem to have been keeping their heads down lately (they were doing the media rounds a year or two ago) as the 'no emissions at all' brigade are currently making a lot of noise.
@@tams805 interesting point of view. I personally don't think emission free aeroplanes (except small ones) are on the horizon. P2L might just be better alternative though it's not energy efficient
The far southwest of England had 2 sets of booms per weekday as Concord flights came in from the US. And those 2 times made EVERY pheasant cackle announcing where it was.
I definitely studied and got my degree in engineering for all of the wrong reasons.
While I was strong at STEM subjects, my actual reasons for choosing engineering:
1. Didn’t require any study of foreign languages
2. Required only 2 semesters of English/literature
3. Pretty good pay
Not reasons I chose engineering:
1. Passion for problem solving
2. Passion for challenge
3. A want to understand the world
What I have gained in my career as an engineer:
1. Passion for problem solving
2. Passion for challenge
3. A want to understand the world
What I hate about being an engineer:
1. I know how every scientist feels in a disaster movie, when no one will listen to them.
On a personal note; while I still consider myself fairly ignorant, I’m amazed by how far I’ve come in 10+ years as a professional, and the ceiling is nowhere in sight.
Blain What you hate is you are a capable engineer but There already is a "Kelly Johnson" leading the project and you are left with the toilet seat. At the project meeting the seat is over weight. This is why my cousins husband and two other engineers started a computer processing company.
Very fortunately he hired a very clever IBM COBAL programmer. Just celebrated our 50th anniversary.
The claim at 0:35 is very confusing to me, the fact that a passenger would need to rewind their watch 2 hours on a flight from London to New York.
Say the plane takes off from London at 8pm GMT, it would touch down in New York at 11pm GMT 3 hours later. This is 6pm in EST (New York time zone) so the passengers watches display 11pm at the time of arrival, so they would need to rewind their watches 5 hours due to the time zone change.
The speed of the flight does not make an effect on how far a passenger would need to adjust their clock as the time zones remain constant.
Yeah this is only true if you stop your watch the moment you depart. I feel he got a bit swept up trying to make a tag line out of the fact that the travel time is less than the pure time difference.
Would love an update!! Also an aerion and Hermeus video maybe a combo
Idk if u saw this but thank you!!!!!
I do know people are critiquing Booms goal at the mission of super sonic, I just want to see how it happens. Because a lot of people said the Shinkansen would be a failure but with modern technology, it was able to succeed in the public transportation market. Same could be said now, there has been more technological improvements and with more eco friendly engines being made I believe it’ll have less of an affect on the environment.
So I do believe Boom has a future
One advantage Boom has not acknowledged here: they aren't a government. They also aren't a legacy dinosaur like Boeing or Airbus. I'm cautiously optimistic, and certainly glad someone's having a go at it. People who throw their hat into the ring and work earnestly on hard problems deserve respect, and Boom has certainly earned mine.
Neither was Theranos.
@@aolson1111 tell me, have you given up your short TSLA position yet?
"Super easy. Barely an inconvenience."
Me: OH REALLY?!?!
I've meddled with supersonic flight in a little modeller's dream game called "Simplerockets2". There's a strange effect that happens with certain turbines, that some of them gain thrust after mach 1, i think it needs to have a terribly low compression ratio for it to happen though.
ram effect
@@makantahi3731 that's what i guessed, but didn't think the game would have that
@@crackedemerald4930 as aircraft speeds up,air become compressable so in intake of jet turbine engine makes gain from transformation from dinamic to static pressure,at over Ma3, no need for compressor
@@makantahi3731 it was increasing thrust just after mach 1 though
@@crackedemerald4930 you are talking about video game, right,? maybe they did not made it fully real in aerodynamic and thermodynamic way,if did then it would be fluid mechanic simulator,i know dozens of real mig pilots and i talk with them about flying, and jet engines thrust become higher as plane speeds up, on low level it can easily close up to ma1 without afterburner
Excellent analysis.
Concorde failed because the CASM was incredibly high thus the exorbitant ticket prices. Had it been larger with more seats it may, MAY, have had a longer commercial life. (The US SST being developed at the same time as Concorde was to have approximately 300 seats.)
Even with new materials and engineering methods there has to be enough people buying tickets to pay the bills. Additionally, when the marketing department throws out “green” be very skeptical. As noted in the video there is no bio-fuel approved for high altitude jet engine operation and it WILL be expensive!
5:00: Ahhh, seeing the Concorde again, takes me back in time. Ray Bradbury would be so proud at hearing a sound of thunder from the newer planes though.
The economics of supersonic flight is no mistake, governments can afford the high price tags associated with the cost in fuel and maintenance, which is far beyond something a business can sustain to remain profitable.
Further, even military jets try to avoid supersonic flight simply because of the inefficiency, where running out of fuel is a greater concern than speed-even when aerial refueling is available.
I don’t see it happening again, ever. There will never be enough normal people who can afford it, and there will never be enough rich people to buy tickets routinely to make the business sustainable.
Always a pleasure watching your videos.
Double thumbs up for the reference to Pitch Meeting.
Man, references to Ryan George are TIGHT
JFK departure - with a left hand turn, just at takeoff was incredible. Avoid Manhattan, flew over Jones beach / Canarsie climb out as quiet as possible.
Dulles , was not a big deal with lots of unbuilt area. So no throttle up and down in noise abatement.
It was a super loud aircraft - I sat back in the last row at takeoff and it was very loud.
And the earth rumbled around you as you took off at 250mph.
Was a fantastic experience and leaving at 10:00am - arrived in London at 6:20pm in 3hr 20mins.
Just enough time for a gourmet meal and many glasses of Krug or similar champagne.
Good luck to boom - however I think that will just never happen , if it does wont be in this decade - !!
Excellent explanation of the pros and cosn of the Boom project. Great work.
Bombardier nearly went bankrupt building a more standard plane, and you want me believe a startup will be able to put a supersonic aircraft to the market? They will need very deep pockets behind them.
But didn't you hear? They aim to offer $100/seat 4-hour flights 2 or 3 generations down the road! How kewl!
Seriously now, they're full of shit. Even a company as experienced as Boeing takes YEARS to certify an improved version of one of its existing aircraft (like the 777X, which will be under the same type certificate as the rest of the 777 family - 8 years and counting, and the FAA still won't certify it). This is only since Boeing has enormous financial and physical resources, an extensive amount of know-how in documentation, and experienced personnel.
Now. A new, inexperienced company, that has never engineered a single aircraft, headed by a CEO who is a computer scientist and never worked in aviation... Attempting to engineer, build, and certify a supersonic airliner, something that was only ever done once, as a multi-nation prestige project, with disastrous financial implications... All through the FAA, which as the responsible authority for the type certificate of this aircraft, probably doesn't even yet have a proper pathway for certification of supersonic airliners. After all, it's never been done in the US. See how things went for Agusta/Bell/Leonardo since their tiltrotor didn't fit into any existing certification categories. 20 years in the certification process and counting...
Hopefully it'll make it through, but very likely this thing will end up dying in certification hell. That is, if they even make it that far.
You say that the engine needs to be a pure jet (turbojet?) but plenty of fighter jets are turbofan. What am I missing?
I'm taking a shot in the dark, but i think he's talking about absolutely pure jets, with no bypass whatsoever. Many fighter aircraft have turbofans but operate at significantly lower Mach speeds usually (without afterburner) and carry much less weight than a commercial airliner. Most jets I've read about with turbofans operate around Mach 1.5... So maybe he means they need pure jets for much higher thrust generated purely through the engine (through the combustion chamber and nozzle).
@@sharvapotdar3257 Simple definition: 1. Turbojet = ALL of the air that enters the front of the engine is used for internal combustion; 2. Turbofan = SOME of the air that enters the front of the engine is used for internal combustion, the rest is by-passed around the engine.
The term "pure jet", whatever it is supposed to mean, is confusing and I wish people would stop using it. They are all "gas turbine engines". Of which, the above are but two. From a 30 year Mechanical Engineer.
I clicked on this video with supersonic speed
@12:39. It is stated that supersonic jet engines have to be pure jets. If by pure jets, you mean "no bypass" or "turbojet", that is incorrect. All of the modern supersonic aircraft use low-bypass turbofan engines, like the GE-F110 used in the F-16. I believe a bypass ratio of 1 to 1 or 1.5 to 1. High bypass is usually 3 to 1 for higher, with the GE90 being more around 9:1, which to your point, is not useable for supersonic speeds due to the large frontal area.
With that said, this was a good presentation. It really puts on display the fact that while regular commercial supersonic travel is currently possible, it is not currently probable.
Yeah, agreed. I hear people constantly say it's coming back, but there's a reason it failed. It is just more costly, uses more fuel, and makes noise that is open to lawsuits over public land.
This program has a lot of doubts, and they are reasonable, but I personally really want to see Boom succeed. I really want to be able to experience supersonic travel in my lifetime. :)
I never hear anyone discuss this when supersonic airliners are mentioned, so here goes:
If corona taught us anything, it's that remote work is often very possible. If your time is valuable enough to jump on a supersonic jet, why not stay off the plane entirely? Also, everyone is fighting to reduce the carbon footprint, and even short haul airlines are looking at electric.
So, are supersonic jets morally defensible in the first place? For the vast majority it'll be nothing but a source of excessive cabon emissions and reintroduction of noise pollution. This is a bit much to swallow for a plaything catering to the ultra rich. Will western governments allow this at all?
Dude how can you say no to a concorde :(
Translation, we're all going to be in a globalist gulag archipelago soon and Western govs are at the forefront of this so no it's all a distraction. there will be private ss jets a plenty though.
It's that nuanced ratio; carbon emissions vs efficacy.
@@Veldtian1You need to add more reality to your "dog-whistling". This ideological soufflé of yours failed to rise.
Corona virus taught us nothing except two things, one you survived, one you may not survive, that is one if you had all the jabs you had a 99.9% survival, and if you did not have the jabs you either had a 50% chance of survival or you DIED so Corona taught us nothing except Death and long waits on phones due to lazy people working from home going out doing the school run instead of answering phones, so yes when this is over everything will end up going back to office working and we will need Air travel and it takes some massive engines and thrust to get an airliner the size of an A380 off the ground and fly thousands of miles across the world with luggage and over 300 people so they can look at Electric planes 🤔 but believe me they will never come about, people are scared of flying on normal planes never mind Electric ones and how long will they take to charge and what size will the batteries be and what weight will the battery be, nope not every one is fighting to reduce their carbon foot print, I for one could not care less as the damage started when the first dinosaur farted, our fossil fuel cars, planes, trains, boilers and factories are far more cleaner and efficient than anything in the past so I and thousands of other people around the world will carry on using our gas boilers, our petrol cars and fly on holiday full stop plus it would be great to get another supersonic airliner going, one that any one can travel on.
I like more the idea of a delta-wing passenger plane, rather than a new Concorde
delta wings are for supersonic flight so you can either have new concorde or no delta wings
@@jebise1126 I think he means a blended wing body aircraft, like the Airbus MAVERIC and Boeing X-48.
@@FastSloth87 could be... but thats no delta
@@jebise1126 Just did some googling, apparently Virgin Galactic has a proposal for a delta wing supersonic jet.
@@FastSloth87 is it small and more like private business? i believe a year ago 3 companies were "developing" supersonic. now its only 2.
At 1:42 in the video its not *Air France 4560* its *Air France 4590*
8:56 NNNnNNnnnNNNNNnOOOooOOOOOOo NOT THE DROOP SNOOT 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Eh you make it sound as if there was no research in low bypass turbojets since the 60's when infact there was probably a lot more research done in that direction then in high bypass turbofans. What kind of engines do you think power high tech jets that have supercruise capability like the F-22, Eurofighter, Su-57 and so on? ;D
Correct me if I'm wrong but i don't think military aircraft are supposed to nearly have the range a commercial plane does. Also, many military aircraft are reliant on afterburners for Mach speeds, and carry a single human being with vastly less payload and come with a significantly high operating cost and reduced operation times.
Boom is going to make an engine that's able to make a much heavier passenger jet go Mach 1.7, for multiple flights and have safety systems in place, and have a much higher range and much more efficient engines than military aircraft do. Military aircraft have no such criteria for efficiency, they are simply supposed to complete an objective even if it costs them money or resources. Operating many supersonic jetliners with increased weight, regulations, higher fuel efficiency all while being commercially viable is a great challenge.
@@sharvapotdar3257 Concord had military aircraft engines. Also if you want to go efficient and far, you don't go supersonic. Further, "supercruise" is the capability of an aircraft to go supersonic without having to engage afterburners (as Concord and older jet fighters had to).
Back in the day they couldn't afford to design an engine powerful enough for Concord so they used a military one they allready had. Engine manufacturers who build engines for civilian airliners are also the same companies building the engines for fighter jets, so the idea to use a modern military engine for a modern supersonic airliners is not that far fetched ;)
@@sharvapotdar3257 "Boom is going to make an engine that's able to make a much heavier passenger jet go Mach 1.7, for multiple flights and have safety systems in place, and have a much higher range and much more efficient engines than military aircraft do."
Ah yes ofcourse they will. Just like Tesla will build a semitruck and beam in in the past so they catch their timeline. And Space-X's Starship wil ofcourse do earth point to point transport rendering planes obsolete. And Hyperloop will make planes obsolete too. And Solar Roadways will solve all our power problems. I believe social media hype bullshit when i see it ;D
@@hernerweisenberg7052 oh yeah my bad. I meant Boom is going to have to make* an engine that can sustain Mach 1.7 for longer. Also, one of the reasons the concorde is out of service is because of fuel efficiency :). Turbojets are more efficient than turbofans at mach speeds and even if most military aircraft can supercruise, 1. They don't really have to all the time, and 2. Have no criterion for fuel efficiency (or no criterion in comparison to passenger jets). It simply makes more sense to use a turbojet if most of the aircraft operation time is going to be in the supersonic realm, hence higher efficiency. There's no need for turbojet to go supersonic, but it might as well help by being a bit better.
@@sharvapotdar3257 I believe you missjudge the importance of fuel efficiency for military aircraft. It is one of the most important factors. Air refueling is expensive and risky. Flying back to land and refuel renders the jet useless for the time that takes. If you go full burn you can suck your tanks dry in minutes. Fuel management is very important to increase loiter time. Agueably increasing efficiency and range of combat aircraft is more important than having the fastest jet.
The Boom supersonic jet is unacceptable for its outrageous fuel burn. We need to focus on ways to make jet transportation sustainable, and this is a a fast flight backwards.
Your statement makes no sense. Unacceptable for whom? Define what you mean by outrageous? Flying backwards to what? Aviation is one of the few industries that has actively pursued fuel use reduction, year on year, in order to drive costs down. This pursuit is not forced by Political legislation but the pure economic motivation to reduce consumption and cost. Along the way we all benefit with: lower fuel consumption; lower cost for travel; reduced emissions; safer travel. A number of factors will determine the viability of the BOOM supersonic aircraft. Fuel burn is but one element. ALL travel requires the consumption of "fuel".
Carbon fibre is honestly amazing. I’m in my first year of engineering at university and the more I learn about it, the more awesome it becomes 😂 besides the cost…
@FW25
And beside the energy needed to produce carbon fibre parts...
Abd these parts cannot be recycled...
And repairs are difficult if not impossible...
And you can't check for hidden defects like broken fibres with an ultrasound probe...
But other than that it's great.
@@ArchimedesvS I take your point but most of these problems are slowly going away thanks to scaling up the mass production. Roughly 5X more energy is needed to produce 1kg of CF than aluminium but it is far less dense so a little goes a long way. As for recycling, we’re perfectly capable of recycling CF via pyrolysis (which is also getting more efficient) and CF rarely fails under commercial use (such as in the 787) because the tolerances are so high.
@@FW25 From what i read, the energy needed to build a part (not just produce the material) of an aircraft is roughly the same comparing aluminum and CF.
Recycing via pyrolysis is more of an downcycling as you get shorter fibres, which in addition are not precisely orientated. Recyled steel or aluminum is as good as new material.
CF might rarely fail during normal operation, but i don't think it is inherently more reliable than properly constructed steel or aluminum parts.
This is wild. First time hearing about it.
One: I love this channel
Two: sonic booms sound fun tbh
I find it amazing how you managed to not show a single image of the Concorde that's not from British Airways.
Ah you know me, I just love the Brits
That was the worst part of the video
Oi bruv
@@RealEngineering Yup ou dah!
Is this something really worth getting upset about?
I think this project was already doomed from the moment they thought that Boom was a good comercial trademark for planes. Does anyone else agree?
At least they didn't name it the "Crash"!;)
Exactly what I thought. Let's name a supersonic jet after it's worst feature. It's like Boeing rebranding the MAX as the 737-MCAS.
Maybe it's an example of what TV drama writers call 'lampshading' - draw attention jokingly to a plot hole and the audience is more likely to accept it.
Seems comparable to the “Clik” drives that Iomega produced.
Saving time going fast on a jet to then having to waste it at the airport with customs and baggage collection and such is like racing to the next red traffic light.
0:49 love the reference
2:35 Interestingly, if you dump enough energy into a plasma sheath ahead of the aircraft, you could completely destroy the shock wave, as per wikipedia's article on plasma actuators
Having the world amazingly interconnected nowadays via video conferencing, and knowing that that this kind of airplanes usually tailor to the actual business travelers, I do believe that when we have a new supersonic airplane there will be literally no interest at all and find the same fate of the Concorde.
No, Concorde will at least have entered commercial use. This plane may never see the tail end of a runway.
You mean to be profitable for 20 years like it was for BA? The primary reason Concorde was profitable for 20 years for BA (before it was prematurely forced into retirement by Airbus (politics and money) was that its purpose was to compete against subsonic First Class. Concorde’s tickets were only around 10-15% more (1996 GBP 4,772 vs subsonic First Class GBP 4,314) and this meant that a company could have its executive (who would have been sent First Class anyway) leave London at 10:30am, arrive in NYC at 9:30am (yes before they took off, as Concorde flew faster than the Earth rotates) take a 10 min helicopter ride to the East River heliport, have a bunch of meetings and zip back to JFK for the 1:30pm Concorde to London and be in bed the same night.
How's that for time saving?
Time as they say, is money, especially for these folks, and Concorde built a very loyal following that lasted throughout its service life operating in its own P&L division, and consistently profitable for BA from 1982 on, even when the mainline carrier was unprofitable.
www.key.aero/article/inside-story-how-ba-made-more-ps500m-profit-concorde#:~:text=The%20result%20of%20this%20change,billion%20pounds%20profit%20for%20BA.%E2%80%9D
Concorde had its own security, check-in, lounge and boarding gate from the lounge. No lining up for anything...
@@Completeaerogeek it might have had all of that, but in the end it just wasn’t profitable. And nowadays with the possibility of remote working, and the price of fuel and yes, global warming, it’s just a kind of business model that is not working at all.
I spent a career designing new devices for vehicle manufacturers. One of the most painful lessons I had to learn, and I wish I could say I learned it the first time, is this: Just because you _Can_ doesn't mean you _Should_ .
That's what make disruptive innovators and entrapreneurs strikingly differs from the rest of the working population. If wright brother tooks those painful lesson and words to their heart, I dont know how we humans flying in the sky would have evolved so far.
@@DreamCatcher-wg1bk You misunderstood my meaning. Think of some of the unworkable attempts at human flight filmed near the same time as the Wright's first powered flights, things with flapping wings or the bouncing umbrella thing. Today it seems obvious to us that they are unworkable, but for a moment imagine the Wrights had tried such a thing and doubled down after each failure. Trying harder might have eventually gotten something like that into the air, but not something that would have changed the way we live today, as the air travel has.
Supersonic flight can be achieved and has practical applications in military and spaceflight. The engineering principles are well understood. Equipment and fuel costs combined with the exhaust and sound pollution make it an impractical commercial _Product_ .
The Wrights were engineers, inventors, but also businessmen. They weren't just designing a novelty, they were inventing a product. In the age of Zoom meetings, WFH, and climate change, supersonic passenger aircraft are not an innovation, they are a throwback.
They're either going to end up with a plane that has insufficient capacity/range, or too big of a boom, to be economically viable.
Just a minor correction, the Air France accident was Air France 4590 not 4560