the supersonic future we ALMOST got - 1 hour FULL documentary
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 окт 2024
- Merch Store!
www.foundandex...
NEW CHANNEL:
• Launched from the bigg...
Discord: / discord
My News Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
Patreon:
/ foundandexplained
If I had a penny for every time “we almost got a supersonic airliner,” I might actually have enough for a first class ticket on one.
its supposed to be a nickle.
😂😂😂
But we got one the concord I used to run to the window everyday at 5pm to see them come in to land when I was a kid, but ultimately they were always a loss maker, only maintained as an advert for British airways and Air France.
@@GreatSageSunWukongand just imagine the climate crisis if OPEC had not increased oil prices! SST or lack thereof is a small price.
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt considering how much tat made in china everyone buys I doubt it would make much difference, they have the largest amount of coal fired power stations in the world and are still building more, responsible for 60% of emissions.
The problem with the SST was the speed goal was simply too high. By pushing way beyond Concorde specs they has to deal with heating, expansion and fuel efficiency. The faster you go the worse it gets. Concorde had an Al skin and did not leak like an SR-71.
To be fair to the SR-71, that leakage basically only happened on the ground...to compensate they often didn't even fill the tanks. Just a little over the required amount to get filled in air when the tanks have sealed
Dad (now 99) worked at Convair on the Atlas Project. He told me about the crazies at Convair who were trying to figure at supersonic airliners. He knew that Convair could do it if they had the money.
Dad kept talking about how the cost was going to be to high
The US just couldn’t get it done. They couldn’t build a supersonic airliner. And out of spite the banned the Concorde.
TWA optioned their Concordes to gain experience with SST, expecting to purchase the B2707. When the B2707 expired, so did the Concorde options.
FYI the YF-12 , A-12, & RS-71 aka SR-71 all gained fuel efficiency as speed increased because the inlet and spike produced up to 80% of the thrust. So @ Mach 3.2 it got the best fuel millage.
And there's the aspect that the fuel tanks leaked until it hit its cruising speed, if you were to build it with modern day alloys, it'd be extremely cheap to run for what it is
Babe, wake up, he uploaded
This channel spoils us so much and I love it ^^
2:55 ...if they removed the rear-gun, they would have saved weight and find space for some more liters of fuel...i mean, does an airliner need a M-61 'Vulcan'-gun...? ;-)
Brazilian "Panair Do Brasil" (now extinct) also had ordered Concorde. But Panair was "put to sleep" in the midle 60's due to a Military coupe
This is already looking awesome
Brilliant brilliant documentary. This scratches an itch I didn’t even know I had 😮. Really love the content you are putting out. So watchable. Your format is a winner.
nice video! :D
The main problem is that the US did not build the Concord. They really hate it when someone else is ahead of them in some technology. If the US had built the first supersonic passenger plane it would have sold much better, US airlines would have bought it and regulations would have been looser.
@@sferrin2 They were late, they would have trotted for years, it was easier and cheaper to simply ignore them ( supersonic plains ). I know airplanes very well, and what I am saying is not a guess, it is nothing subjective but a fact and history, the a380 had a similar fate. When it came out it was the most advanced and most economical large plane on the planet, at least 20% more efficient than the 747, confort +30%, yet the US airlines didn't buy a single one, they continued to buy the 747. If it was a US product, do you really believe they wouldn't have bought it ?
That is one big pile of cope you have there. The US was building gigantic Mach 3 airplanes a decade before anyone else managed it. It was called the B-70. No one has ever been "ahead" of us, least of all the British or French. I note that at the same time you were building a mediocre supersonic airliner, that was never profitable we managed to *put men on the moon" and also keep you all from being taken over by the USSR, mostly at no cost to you. And build the most practical, profitable, and successful airliner ever, the 747. The real issue was that after the Oklahoma City experiment, it was perfectly clear that continual sonic booms were not going to be tolerated. If they didn't put up with it in Oklahoma City, there for sure were not going to put up with it anywhere else.
@@markomicovic5308 the USA ruins foreign planes the same way it does cars, to hobble them as a domestic producer protection method. Airbus when left alone with the correct engines are far superior to boeing and everyone knows it even the staff at boeing wouldn't use their own planes.
Exactly this. The failed and couldn’t stand it. So they banned Concorde.
@@brettbuck7362haha what a load off bullshit. You were able to get on the moon because a German engineer. 😂😂😂 jet engines were invented by the British and the Germans. The US was still using props at that time. The fist jetliner was from the UK. You just stole every bit of knowledge 😂😂😂
Finally, new video
Great video keep up the good work 👏
The only one of these that actually aged half-way-well was the Boom XB-1.
It will damage normal private jet
13.7 feet above sea level for a quieter boom... not likely. I know you meant 13,700m asl 😁👍
wow battle ratin 13.7
@@AiRbU380 ?
@@pm9601 ah not a warthunder player then you wont understand
@@AiRbU380 I fell ashamed 😫
But only the UK and France actually built and operated one. Everyone else coulda wudda shudda.
Most of my flights are only of 20 minutes duration.
I see nothing to be gained by arriving before I leave.
I would say with hindsight 20:20 we was never going to get that future.. at that time.
While the main issue for Concorde was actually not fuel consumption, but the very low number of aircraft's. If there was more Concords around, they issue would have been fuel consumption.
While higher fuel-consumption may not be a deathblow, it would have been regardless in this case. The reason was high bypass turbines. The diffrance was simply to large.
This will probobly change with medium bypass turbines. The thing is that the bypass needed is half with speed doubled. So at mach 1.6 a bypass of 3:1 is the same as a bypass of 6:1 at mach 0.8 (a bit simplified). 6:1 is a pretty common high bypass turbine, and going up to 10:1 actually provide only minor fuel efficiency gains. And there is a ever deminishing return.
So supersonic engines will catch up eventuality.
My dad (now 99) said when Boeing dropped the swing that big problem was that aerospace was used to unlimited government funding. Thus if a company could get the government to buy a bomber, the company would only have to develop a fuselage for passengers. The problem was that wasn't enough money in the US economy to develop and fly the airliner. Thus instead of justifying the supersonic fighters and bombers in order to survive the USSR, the supersonic airliners would bankrupt the USA and thus the people of the USA would have lost the cold war without shooting. It is interesting that the USSR collapsed because they focused on military and their people were referred to the poorest whit people on the planet.
john Thomas lol
Bomb-bar-dee-A
Wow, mega cool 😉🕊
hello
Cool
why am i this early
7nth COMMENTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!