Why We Still Don't Have Another Concorde
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 июл 2020
- The Concorde changed the way we traveled 40 years ago by drastically cutting flight times between Europe and the US. However, the Concorde retired in 2003, and there's yet to be a reemergence of a commercial supersonic jet. Companies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Airbus are working towards the next stage of development by reducing the sonic boom, while also keeping in mind efficiency and safety. So, what's the super holdup with supersonic passenger planes?
Editor's note: The aircraft shown at 2:16 is a representation of Boom's commercial aircraft, which will not be a private aircraft. At 5:03, the supersonic aircraft shown is a representation of Boom's Overture, not the XB-1 jet. We apologize for this error.
MORE AIRPLANE CONTENT:
Why We Still Don't Have Electric Planes
• Why We Still Don't Hav...
Why Plane Tires Don't Explode On Landing
• Why Plane Tires Don't ...
How Planes Land Sideways In High Winds
• How Planes Land Sidewa...
------------------------------------------------------
#Plane #Jet #TechInsider
Tech Insider tells you all you need to know about tech: gadgets, how-to's, gaming, science, digital culture, and more.
Visit us at: www.businessinsider.com
TI on Facebook: / techinsider
TI on Instagram: / tech_insider
TI on Twitter: / techinsider
TI on Amazon Prime: read.bi/PrimeVideo
INSIDER on Snapchat: insder.co/2KJLtVo
Why We Still Don't Have Another Concorde 
Наука
The engineering behind Concorde is awesome to this day
And the engineer design this bad boy using pencil and ruler, without CAD
The concorde, the sr71 and the space shuttle are real engineering marvels
Really tho 🤩
I’ve seen one of these in Manchester Airport
@@azertyaltin36 lmao the Concord is basically a commercial version of the SR-72
I can’t believe that Concorde was designed in the 1960s. That aircraft was genuinely a miracle in human history . Much respect for the engineers back then.
You probably wouldn't believe that work started on the Avro Vulcan in the late 1940s , and that she first flew in the early 1950s , yet still looks futuristic , and was the replacement for the Avro lancaster . The De haviland Comet was the first jet airliner , and the VC-10 was the fastest across the Atlantic ( Concorde excepted ) for 41 years . Nothing beats British engineering .
The actual concept, came from Britains / the Worlds, first jet powered air liner, The de Haviland Comet. Despite it's faults.
Par conte vous pouvez croire que ce sont les États-Unis qui sont responsables de la d'échéance de Concorde par simple jalousie allent jusqu'à provoquer le seul crash mortel en 30 ans d'exploitation ...
Et 20 ans après le clouage au sol de tous nos concorde, ils s'apprêtent à commercialiser "Boom " sur le sang de 113 victimes qui est un concorde amélioré.....
Vive la France et honte aux États-Unis Unis !!!!!!
The Concorde could easily survive with few modifications. But people were already against it and the crash just ignited the issue.(Which I understand)
When concrode got a red flag, many pilots said that this will push the aviation industry decades behind. And thats what exactly happened.
They actually started developing a "Concorde 2" but it wasn't worth it anymore.
The bloody Concorde isn't the most fuel-saving aircraft, and the limited market which only aimed only at rich people doesn't help the aviation industry investing on Concorde.
Total BS. What modifications? Why not centuries behind? Do you have any clue how every commercial industry works? It's all about economic efficiency. Concorde was just a costly toy. The airlines only kept them for advertising. There is no point in a jet like that until it's a private business jet for some billionaire who would fly over empty lands or oceans because of the sonic boom.
No... Look at the biggest scsndle with thr Boeing and its still here, one crash is not the end of the world
Get your facts straight
It was becoming more and more an economic bust, even with cheap fuel, if the plane is not economically viable to operate no one in their right minds will go that rout.
Sweet 3D Animation😎
why no ✔️
My man
Yessir
@Antony You're
@@Disapeare Your
My mom used to work on the concorde and she told me me all of those amazing stories speaking with movie stars, singers etc
@@castlevina8425 :0
@@raphizz338 It was funny...
You maybe movie star's kid..
Who knows🤷♂️😜
So did you find out who your daddy is?
Ask her your real father is bro, could be Mick Jagger
And my Nan was Buzz Aldrin's hairdresser.
See? I can make up silly stories too...
My parents grew up in south London knowing it was dinner time when they heard the Concorde take off 😂
😁
"2020 is gonna be the testing year"
2020: maybe i dont wanna be the bad guy anymore
2020: "I'm a bad, and that's good. I will never be good, but that's not bad. There is nobody I'd rather be than me."
@@hathaway893 🤣🤣
Is that from Wreck it Ralph.
@@TechTactics4253 yup
Prayers up for John Brown, He went all out for a catch and had a bad knee injury (at least what it seems like) when he landed. Here is the video on my other channel: ruclips.net/video/hIfzOAc2yu8/видео.html
Personally, I think the sonic boom sounds cool
Until you stand in that range, once you stand in that range, there is no more of you😂
The issue is that there is a shockwave accompanying it, which can potentially damage windows of buildings on the ground
But u know whats cooler? Not having to replace windows and ears
Same
Its maybe a sound you'll only hear once, if you're in a certain range
Can you imagine hearing a boom and having the privilege to see a Concorde going over you? People back in the days weren’t ready for the concorde
People complain about sub sonic planes being to noisy now days, they are half as loud as they used to be. People will ALWAYS complain
Technically you'd see the plane before the boom.
It gets old after a while
People back in the day? I'm 30 and remember concorde flying over my house when I was a lad. It was a sight to behold indeed.
Look at the Blackbird or R70, it was developed in the early 60th , I believe.
ALmost 6,5 minutes of talking without actually telling anything, pretty spectacular...
nah man, you just didnt understand anything
@@ntme-op2jj agreed 👍
@Sergei Suvorov 💪🏻😆😆😆👍🏻
norbert1636 I know what you mean. This is more like “infotainment” than a technical documentary/analysis. Geared more to a child or adolescent audience than curious technically adroit adults. Quite a bit of fluff and short on meaningful details.
It’s still interesting to see why it failed.
I am from Jamaica and my mom told me that that one of those airlines landed at the Norman Manley international in Jamaica and the sound of the airlines shattered the windows and all the glass
Jah know wish mi could a go pon that it look sick
One landed in Grenada also.. I missed it though
We don't need faster than sound, we just need roomier than economy
Yeah seriously the seats legroom are getting smaller.
I guess it the choice of "get there faster" or "Get the comfier", and that something that the answers depends on who you ask.
If you want more room, be prepared to pay more. Which I guess is an option even now, you can take first class.
I need faster than sound, I get nauseous in planes and It’s really annoying. So If I could arrive somewhere in only one hour, that would be life changing
If you finish a long 12 hour flight in 1 and a half the leg room is less of an issue.
Simple conclusion
When FAA Approves "name of company " start to invest while its cheap.
r/wallstreetbets
Not really. Plenty of FAA "approved" companies have flopped. So no.
" supersonic flight will be avalible from mid 2020's "
press x to doubt
X
X
X
x
X
“... and even wind tunnel testing.”
Umm there was wind tunnel testing back in the 40’s.
They also called it “traditional”
Far before that really
I never thought about the amount of supersonic booms we would have to endure in my Concorde conquering the world fantasies, which definitely puts me off it.. it’s still so amazing how you look at such an old plane to get a glimpse of how the future might be. Truly inspiring.
It’s good to see the younger generation take interest into something that was (still is) an engineering marvel.
I always looked forward to the CNE air show back in the day. The only time we could see Concorde do a demo run. What gorgeous plane.
I hope it’s successors come to fruition. 👍🏻
My favorite tech channel. Always, short and simple. To the point. Very informative. Thank you for being awesome Tech Insider!
Cool video now I knew about super sonic planes ✈️ keep up the good work
I am actually glad these videos comes in my recommendations I like wasting my time watching videos like that so I appreciate it..
1:57 I’m sorry but did they just use a picture of the concept Lockheed Martin sr-72 spy plane in a Boeing article? What?
Lol 😂😂😂
Yes I’m sorry they did
papameforIife/ Ryan Optekar lol
i was searching for this comment. zero respect to this channel
Lol😅
Was thinking same
I think the Spike Aerospace design is going to have to look at the intake duct on the engine to slow the airflow down.
The artist renderings are intentionally altered from the actual design.
Ah yes, RUclips Aerospace Engineers tell me more
Intel you know, it really shows your ignorance when you assume anyone in a comment section doesn't know what they're talking about compared to people who can draw pretty pictures.
It's well known and documented (you can find many videos all over RUclips talking about it) that supersonic intake air needs to be compressed/slowed down before entering the engine in order to get any kind of efficiency. A good rule of thumb is that subsonic airflow doesn't compress without compressor blades even when forced into a smaller intake area (either the airflow speeds up, or excess flows around the sides), but supersonic airflow will readily compress even when it is not forced into a smaller area. Simply deflecting supersonic airflow will slow it down, forcing it to compress.
This is how all supersonic aircraft feed their engines. It's actually responsible for ramjets producing thrust at supersonic speeds, but effectively none at subsonic speeds.
Having a completely exposed engine intake shows an immediate and critical design flaw, and a lack of understanding of supersonic airflow on the part of the artists (or the engineers, if that really represents the design).
@@J7Handle Yep on the one failure captain jon had it was one of these intakes that wasnt working properly which the engineer manually fixed
can we just admire the way he is wearing his airpods though
In short, future SST's will likely limit their top speed to around Mach 1.6. Such a speed limit has a number of benefits:
1. You don't need to run engines with a lot of reheat (afterburner) mode, which substantially cuts down on fuel consumption.
2. It makes it easier to "shape" the plane to reduce the sonic boom to nearly inaudible levels.
3. It means a lot less structural heating. That makes it a lot more viable to use many composite materials to lower the weight of the plane.
4. It may make it possible to fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo non-stop at full Mach 1.6 speed. That means Los Angeles to Sydney can be accomplished with just one fuel stop in Honolulu, with supersonic flying most of the way.
It should be noted that General Electric recently unveiled a new jet engine, the _Affinity_ , designed for such supersonic flight. It will be as quiet as today's high-bypass engines on takeoff and landing but its _supercruise_ ability means supersonic flying with very little need for reheat operation.
Interesting points, but it should be noted that wave drag is lower at higher Mach numbers, such as concorde's. Also, supercruise is not a new thing - concorde had supercruise as well. With a lesser advantage in speed than concorde, I wonder if all of that trouble will be worth the extra speed - after all, you can literally install satellite internet on planes nowadays, so you don't even have problems with being "disconnected" from the rest of the world, but all hurdles related to sonic boom restrictions and very high operating costs are still there.
@@RM-el3gw Americans can pontificate ; we in Britain get on with doing .
Another armchair 'Expert' with no idea what they are talking about. The engines only used re-heat at take off and briefly while transonic. Once in the cruise it was dry power, at less than 100% as the intakes provided some thrust.
A far larger longer range Concorde could have been very popular on trans Pacific route especially Australia to USA and Europe via Panama as both of these routes are mostly over open water. But suffer from extremely long travel times that such a plane could cut in half!
Concorde did some trial runs , London-Sydney , again mostly over water , and cut journey times in half . It all came down to politics . Would you rather cruise at 200mph on the autobahn , or get tickets for going not much over 70 mph on UK motorways ? German roads are the best .
I still think the Concorde looks better than all of them.
It really does look like something from the 2020's vs mid 1970's
I love old concordes
It's gorgeous...too bad they couldn't make it economical.
This was great. If you haven't already, I'd love to see a video about private aircraft enthusiasts who are building the best DIY planes👍🏿
RUclips recommends videos about concorde so often i will finally watch it jeez
♥️ I still dream of Concorde 🥰 loved hearing & seeing them in the sky in my childhood 😍
0:07 Fun fact: The one that took off from London landed in Bahrain🇧🇭🇧🇭❤️
Thx for the fact
I've never flown Concorde, and if there is a type of Concorde in the future that's cheap to fly on, then I would definitely like to fly on that plane because I think that it would be a great experience and and I could go anywhere in the world quicker than what it would take on a regular passenger jet. Truly amazing this video, yes!
Fantastic vid!
If you can fly it slowly, you can fly it quickly:)
Please don't try that on a 747
Mark Mulvenna I think my uncle jamir did that ,sadly his dumbass crashed into a tower
@@nikkity5491 "John you just about crashed into the empire state building"
Ahh a fellow twoset
Lily ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ yes
ppl in the 90's: i bet there will be supersonic planes in the futre
us right now: Why We Haven't Had Supersonic Commercial Jets Since The Concorde
Communists had a Tupolev. You as a commie should know that.
perry lin there was already supersonic jets in the 90’s...
@@iscloudy3922 oh yeah sorry
Supersonic travel has existed since the late 1940's..
@@atomic8681 ok i get it sorry
Amazing work 🌎👍✌️👽
Great episode. Very interesting
The drawings 👍 nice draftsmanship, pretty sure it all started with pencil which I'd like to see.
Finally you guys made a video about Concorde, supersonic flights and the future.
Superb video on Supersonic plane Concerd ✌️
Hoy me pregunté eso junto a mi papá, y este video me resolvió todas mis dudas. Sepan que tienen un seguidor desde México :D
Id like to hear about pollution. I know that was a huge concern with Concord which was a real harmer for the ozone. Is that a case w/ these new SSTs?
Concorde is still the best and always will be. It still holds the record for the fastest trans-atlantic crossing and it averaged on that run 1450mph and took less than 3 hours (2h 52min 59sec if I'm not wrong). It was a marvel of engineering when waaay back in the 60s when it was being developed and it is still better than anything that's ever flown since... I want Concorde back 😫😫
Thank you Alex
The future of flight is definitely the Concorde Way. It’s such a relief to see that the earliest test flight for any supersonic aircraft will be 2021 next year. Fingers crossed we get some good footage of that.
It is already 2023 .
We don't need a supersonic plane, we just need more leg room.
2:01 That is the plane😂😂😂
Thanks for the likes
Emirates: i'll take your entire stock
@@budisoemantri2303 a man of culture i see
lol 😂😂😂 It looks like a vibrator. ... Ops !!!!😂😂
well said by vibrator user KEKW
2:24
The "sonic boom!"- Guile voice, was the best part..
I like how at 1:55 they show a proposed Lockheed Martin High Speed military Drone (SR-72) as an example for Boeing. Don't think drones will carry many passengers
I hope we hear the droop snoot again.
MaxieM0us3 Won’t have one. It’ll probably be a digital front view of a modern SST.
The droop snoot added so much unnecessary weight. For the 70's, it may have been necessary, but now, we could probably just put it on a screen, if it's even necessary. Flying planes nowadays does not require too much pilot input. Speaking as a pilot.
In France in the 80ies / 90 ies, we had the bullet train (TGV) , the Concorde, the hovercraft crossing the Channel.
Good Times as only the high speed train is still around.
You now have the AGV
How about the environmental impact of these new gen supersonic ac?
That’s a good question this is the opposite direction humanity needs to be heading in terms of being environmentally friendly.
Or we can have fossil fuel planes along side with electric cars
@@taekwontheo then whats the point of the electric cars?
I want my planes to burn uranium and spew toxic waste
@@samuel34676 thats toxic
Ultrasonic planes when?
What XD???
"A plane that only makes noise too high-pitched for us to hear". So you really want that, cause it's impossible to do.
How about:
Subsonic
Transonic
Supersonic
*Hypersonic*
You may as well just start making sub-orbital planes that can go into space for a while, that'd be much faster than racing through our thick atmosphere.
That is the best plane/jet i havd ever seen
Wow that’s a beautiful looking airplane
The new “concord” doesn’t need windows with technology we have today, cameras and an LED screen is all we need
All fun and games till it starts laggin
Vados 💀
Nah that would suck taking pictures will be bad
2:35
Astronauts: *shut up!!!* I'm trying to sleep *up* here
Cant wait to fly one!
Concorde was arguably the most stunning aircraft to ever grace our skies, I remember back to the 1970's and watching its final approach to Manchester Airport and when I looked around me, everybody had stopped whatever they were doing and were all staring up to the sky. To this day, no other aircraft has this effect on people, so sad when it was retired.
The Avro Vulcan was also incredible : there are three left intact , and they threaten to cut XH-558 up rather than let her fly out . We should be donating them to Ukraine - after all , they WERE designed to bomb the russians !
Oh , apart from the similarity in shape , both used the mighty Olympus engines ! ( different versions of course ) .
Me: Sees this
Also Me: *I DONT NEED SLEEP, I NEED ANSWERS*
"Mid 2020" only thing here is the Rona.
You know what, I chose the right major because this stuff is awesome!
Nice
A supersonic airliner remains the fastest way to travel from solvency to bankruptcy.
Basically:
The Concorde's fuel costs a lot.
Concorde burns fuel so fast, even while taxiing.
A plane like Concorde is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYY so expensive.
Supersonic boom is very loud, and Illegal, also could kill people.
BUT, if airlines, Boeing and Airbus had even more money, and if Boeing and Airbus had so much materials, this would have been possible, maybe barely.
Concorde was so far ahead of the curve even the copied Russian plane had to use full afterburners the whole flight were as Concorde could go into supersonic cruise
@@zzirSnipzz1 Wasn't that Soviet Concorde a rip-off of the original Concorde design but just became built before the OG Concorde did?
Also why are you replying to a comment made 8 months ago?
@@BoltTheSunken2407 Because i can plus the American design never even got built suprised they never tried to ruin Concorde quicker like the avro arrow etc
Wind tunnel testing was something used on Concorde. In fact it had been around for years.
Hats off to our British and French engineers of the 60s. As an ex Aero engineer I only got to work on the A380 but wished I got to work on a project like this.
*insert vox "is it wrong to fly" video*
alright then.
I'm really happy and excited for Boom Supersonic with them on track to test fly their jet next year.
I'm wanting to become a commercial pilot, if money wasn't an issue I would of had my PPL a few years ago, I'm 18 and have a year of High school left, so I hope this gives you an idea as to why money has been an issue.
It would truly be amazing to be at the controls of a super sonic jet, even if it's not flying at Mach 2. I'm hoping they're right. I know I would love to have the chance to fly one.
Exactly the way I was thinking.
May I remind everyone that fuel is limited and the planet is dying
It's not....
Fossil fuels aren't renewable and are leading to drastic climate change which may end up making the world unlivable to humans.
The earth will still be here and likely some form of life will remain. The earth isn't dying, but it is changing in a way we don't like.
@@hathaway893 well yes the earth isn't dying but and climate change will happen weather were here or not but it's the rapid growth of it from human consumption of resources that is the problem because a lot of animal species cannot evolve or adapt as fast as us and some smaller mammalian species like rodents can survive through it
i mean this type of a jet won't be developed in huge numbers until we advance alot more
Because there is a speed that is most fuel efficient for jets and that is around 0.7 mach. Anything faster just equals more expensive jets or ticket prices for consumers.
No it's Mach 0.8. and it's not about fuel efficiency, it's about the speed of sound. If planes fly faster than Mach 0.8, then the air going over the wing will cause a shockwave causing the wing to loose lift and the ailerons to loose control authority, which is referred to as an overspeed, or high speed stall.
Actually, there's reason to believe supersonic flight could be made more efficient than subsonic flight.
Wave drag is a huge limitation created by supersonic flight, but can be reduced by increasing wing sweep angle and sharpening the nose. Boom Aerospace's design modifies Concorde's 55 degree wing sweep to 70 degrees, and has a noticeably sharper nose. Lockheed Martin's design goes even crazier with the idea. Of course, these measures increase weight, structural issues, heating issues, parasite drag and induced drag, so there's a trade-off, but there are gains to be made with wave drag (as a bonus, reducing wave drag also reduces the loudness of the sonic boom).
Furthermore, if you can make engines that can produce the necessary thrust without needing afterburner, you can massively improve fuel efficiency.
Lastly, the biggest area where supersonic flight beats subsonic flight is in altitude. The speed limit of subsonics caps out their altitude thanks to something called coffin corner, where the air gets too thin to maintain lift, and the aircraft stalls. By flying nearly 3 times faster, supersonics can massively increase their lift efficiency and thus, their cruising altitude. By increasing their cruise altitude, supersonics fly in thinner air. Thinner air means less drag, which means less fuel consumption, which means supersonics can easily beat subsonic fuel efficiency during cruise (in fact, I hear the Concorde accomplished this in its day. It's fuel inefficiency was caused by fuel guzzling during takeoff and landing).
@@J7Handle I don't see how turbojets would be able to create enough trust for supersonic speeds without afterburners. And I don't think that there are fan blades which could make supersonic turbofans possible.
@@CaptainChrom Supercruise is a well known capability. Afterburners aren't the holy grail of supersonic travel, they're just a thing that gives maybe 40% more thrust on average for something like 3 times the fuel consumption. The F-22 can supercruise at M1.6, but a dedicated supercruising airliner should be capable of Mach 2.
As for using a turbofan, it seems like a bit of a strange idea to me, but the Tu-144 made use of afterburning turbofans, albeit with horrendous fuel efficiency.
The only problem with turbofans for supersonic flight is that they create a larger intake area to thrust ratio, which has detrimental effects in terms of drag. However, a low bypass turbofan should still be able to power an airliner to supersonic speeds while massively reducing noise issues.
I remember once thinking that turbofans can never work at supersonic speeds. The idea was that the fan blades operate at subsonic speeds, therefore after slowing down the intake air, the bypass from the engine would never exceed the speed of sound, thus, at supersonic speeds, the intake would always be faster than the bypassed exhaust, indicating negative thrust.
This is not how it works, in case you were wondering. Yes, slowing down the supersonic intake air is necessary, and yes, the fan blades can never accelerate air past the speed of sound, but the fan still produces thrust.
The reason is that as the supersonic intake is slowed down, it necessarily gets compressed to higher pressure according to the mach number. When you decompress the airflow after it bypasses the engine, it accelerates beyond it's initial intake velocity, thanks to the fan.
It just requires proper intake and exhaust design to make a turbofan work.
It certainly looks fast and cool.
I can’t wait for the future
Legend the future has been and gone, it ended when Concorde was retired. We are living in the past now.
“Supersonic commercial aircrafts”
Yeah it will be useless because of corona😒😖
Let artificial intelligence drive this to cut down on Pilot errors
Cy Clones ai will never be as good as a human flying. They can not deal with unique failures
@@joeboi1342 Completely false. AI is able to understand every part of the plane and it's function and through practice and predictive algorithms calculate the best course of action. AI has been shown to continually outsmart humans at chess, games like League of Legends, Go etc. It can predict your move, or the effects of its move before you even make it. Even basic autopilot can fix errors, for example a flight in 1978 I believe, where a plane crashed into a mountain after the pilots lost control, the pilots over controlled to get it back in control but unfortunately it ended up in the plane losing further control, eventually it was discovered that if the pilots did nothing and instead used AP the AP system would have been able to correct the flight and save lives. So many flight errors are from over control which is a human condition, the irrational thought that too low is bad so too high must be good, instead of only middle is good, AI has no emotions and no fear, so doesn't over control due to fear.
Mark Mulvenna you’re right when talking about most applications, but aviation is the one field humans will almost always drive. The technology behind AI is currently what’s leading to modern day crashes, also there’s the fact that the reaction time of AI reacting to atmospheric changes with aerodynamics of flying is too slow compared to humans. The fact of the matter is, no amount of technology can correctly guess atmospheric aerodynamic changes, human pilots can’t do it either, but our 6 senses allow pilots to fly aircraft better. Specifically on take off and landings
Mark Mulvenna how abt 737 max. What if we only had ai no pilot there would have been more crashes ai will never be able to do what humans can do. Out Brain is millions of times stronger then the strongest supercomputer
@@joeboi1342 The 737 Max 8 was due to the AP system getting thrown off due to bad sensors.
AWESOME !!!!!!!
I live in the city where the concorde crashed (Gonesse in France), it's a small city near the CDG airport, so we are really used to planes over there, and it was really weird to not have concordes in the sky anymore !
Because they are hard to pilot
thats why its the perfect time today, with very good autopilots and assisting software
@@MrDragonorp yes like Boeing's MCAS software
@@AmalDevYT lol
ekusaS Wrong. They were supposed to handle amazingly. Although the high landing speeds must have required a lot of skill.
@@AmalDevYT Boeing's MCAS was just a particularly poor design. That doesn't mean that we should abandon all automation and go back to stick and rudder. Humans make far more mistakes than computers do.
Also, the two crashes actually had three causes: One was the lack of proper manual override in software; the second was a lack of pilot training; and the third was that fact that the software only relied on one input in order to do its job.
5:10 No Companies are making supersonic jets!
Elon Musk: My Time Has Come Again...
Wow. Nice.
I feel like we all know this information about Concorde already Bc of all the other videos, but we all still eagerly click Bc it’s Concorde 😍
Someone should bring this baby back to life again.
The Video aight, just finished it
Good
Forever in our hearts now than in the sky.
What made it go was stupid. It was the runway in France
What was on the runway in France, that had fallen off a prior Continental plane. Where the Concorde was struck was not the rupture point, the rupture point was nearby. Strip of metal, chunk of tire, non impact resistant fuel tanks. The fleets'
fuel tanks were lined with Kevlar to resist rupturing after the crash.
@@FloorEncer Check your facts mate.
@@goinawol9447 that was what happened, a shitty DC 10 left a piece of metal on the runway and burst the Concordes tire.
Really? someone said it was too "elitist"? . Liar. No one in that generation thought of it that way.
Now we have one!!
The renders at 5:25 are from Spike Aerospace, not Boom Supersonic.
I want to know more about you, you are so pretty nice idea Insider Tech!
i respect the people that built this engineering marvel
I'm happy to be alive in such a technological advanced century. 😊
I can still remember the first time I heard and saw one. I swore the sky was opening up
धन्यवाद 🙂
Is RUclips finally back up? I wanted to ask what you guys think of my new logo/banner. I'll be using this for the next couple months for the holiday season.
Join my Discord (we are almost at 10,000 members): discord.gg/highlightheaven
People do love sonic booms, and then the dogs start panicking and birds flying crazy 😅😅
These planes looks like what I'd make in KSP
COOL
5:14 did they just open task manager and select the performance overview to make it seem like they were doing something?