As a car enthusiast I understand all too well the inverse relationships between fuel economy, weight, and speed. Loved this video dude, your explanations are on point. Subscribed
Maybe they should have new rules for airports. If you bring stuff that you know is not allowed, slowing down everyone else, you can't fly for a year. Keep it simple and it all speeds up.
@@wiibaron People spend more when they're miserable. They don't want you to be comfortable. It's like sucking on a dummy if you're unhappy you'll go and eat or drink coffee. And you have your holiday cash with you. People spend most of it at the airport.
Thanks, very informative video. My dad was an economics teacher, and he often talked about the concept of "diminishing returns". That certainly applies here.
Drive your car on a motorway at 70 mph watch your fuel consumption display. Now back down to 60 r 65 you will see a noticeable drop in fuel consumption but it won't increase your journey length by to much. Its like any vehicle you could drive them as hard and fast as possible but it won't be at its most efficient. There's a sweet spot there somewhere in between maxed out and slow.
Just Wow. As a Boeing Engineer (ex since 2013) this is perhaps the most complete and comprehensive explanation of the issue. Fantabulous Job presentating this.
@@rickyboy199554 Hey Ricky Fernandes, I didn't quit, I took an early retirement. My division of Boeing, was involved in the number crunching/flight performance for several Boeing Aircraft while I was there. This means high altitude TOGO/take off go around scenarios, extreme cross wind testing. These were performed respectively at Quito Ecuador, and Spitsbergen Islands for the cross wind components. We did the primary flight testing for the B777-2ER (including a record to this day for the longest un-refueled flight for a Boeing Product), the testing earlier on several of the Boeing BBJ 7/8 Series, The 737-Max, the B787 Dreamliner, and several more. By numbers crunching I mean my department of flight and trip planners planned all of both the logistical side of the flights..........secruity/hotels/passport information/visa requirements/ and a million other thing. My Flight Planning side did the actual numbers. Fuel, time to climb, drift down scenarios, ETPS, ETOP Data, Single Engine Out Scenarios, time to glide, etc. ad nauseam. Fun times, and I loved my job. I worked very, very hard to make my Division 'go away', from our physical location in San Jose Ca., and that happened about 18 months sooner than we'd all expected. All ended well. I got a generous early retirement package, my Fabulous staff retained their jobs, (albiet, had to move to a slightly smaller location a couple years after I left), I myself, I got an early retirement. I'm now working in Law Enforcement, of all things, which is my retirement job. I'll NEVER disparage Boeing in any capacity. They are cutting edge second to NONE. Sometimes, while attempting to increase the envelope of what is possible, problems develop. We've lost 2 737Max airframes in a short amount of time. Don't think for a moment that this isn't affecting the lives of every single Boeing Employee. Boeing will weather this, and continue to push the boundaries for improved safety in Human transportation. I can guarantee this audience that thousands of good, decent, American workers report every day with a heavy heart in light of the incidences. My long time experience with this Company assures myself that not one iota of data points is not being looked at. Hard to write this.
@@FT4Freedom - The media likes headlines and the public eats it up if Qantas 72 had experienced its uncommanded pitch down close to the ground the A330 would have been the first to kill 300+ with rogue automation and any documentaries praise the pilot's actions when in reality if the ADIRU fault hadn't cleared on it's own there was NOTHING they could have done to recover they didn't recover as much as the plane let them live
This is the most informative and professional video I've seen in aircrafts/piloting etc.. im a former pilot and aware of the content! Just great narrative!
Which leads to the topic of car speed vs fuel economy. Aerodynamic drag also affects cars, and driving at higher speeds adversely affects fuel efficiency and wear and tear on engines. So, why did they remove the national speed limit of 55MPH?
I would ... under the right circumstances. I also made the same offer concerning the V-22 Osprey. Sadly, no one took me up on that offer. 😥 Other such dream/fantasy aircraft? The XB-70 supersonic bomber...
I started noticing this when I realized flights 10 years later were taking 45 mins longer. I always thought w/ innovation they should be faster and not slower. Very interesting.
@@TheAnticlinton Not when it comes to inflation, because most poor could not afford on trip in a decade with old Plane prices in the 1980's, where the rich and big business were the ones whom could afford to fly and they dressed up in their finest formal clothes to fly. Today most people could afford at lease one flight a year, never mind pay for the finest formal clothes. The Golden age of flying was like 4 and 5 star travel. You get dropped off int eh airport, hardly a queue and you check in. The staff takes your bags and give you your airline ticket. You enter the lounge and did not usually wait long and you enter your flight. You usually get service with the best drinks and the best meals and quick service through the airport as they were not crowded and was wonderful way to travel. Tickets were very expensive for its day. Remember to include inflation and average wages. Today flying is very common and people are stressed out and waiting in long queues, annoying passengers, delays after delays. Airports are so over crowed today, security costs and government imposed costs adding to tickets prices and to people stress levels. That on top of fluctuations on ticket prices depending on demands from the general public. Welcome to modern day flying, just like Trains. Long ago only the rich could afford travel until they produce trains at lower costs for the lower class folks to travel. Higher standards means higher ticket prices. www.business2community.com/travel-leisure/see-cost-flight-changed-since-1963-charts-01576832 In 1965, no more than 20 percent of Americans had ever flown in an airplane. By 2000, 50 percent of the country took at least one round-trip flight a year. The average was two round-trip tickets.
Miami here, I work within 5 miles of the airport and I can always tell when a md-11 or 747-400 is coming in , you can just hear the distinctive scream from those old engines.
But speed can also reduce crew cost and the number of times that can run through each plane... I think there just isn't enough competition . Why bother inventing when u can just earn just as much . Well space x would probably change that soon
@@tommywong3147 Nah. An extra hour of wage for the whole flight crew is nothing compared to the extra cost of fuel, maintenance, and lowered aircraft lifetime involved with flying faster.
@@FantasticMrFrog you just arguing incremental efficiency. I'm saying why isn't it break through since the 60s . Because there is not a lot of competition. Of course if u can do what space x is doing cutting down a 18 hour flight into 1 hour u can cut down on a lot of other cost but it brings a lot of risk and manufacturer like Boeing or airbus are unwilling to take. What's the point for them if they can sell so many planes anyway.
The high bypass turbofan engine also reduced the loudness by 96% because air speed differential between different partitions of the air flowing out the back is less than the speed of sound.
This is an excellent summary -- very well done! I started in aerospace in 1968 and recently retired; I knew most of this, but not all, and the presentation was very well thought out and concise.
@e020443 Have you ever thought of doing a LIVE CHAT here on YT about your career? It would be really interesting to hear of your experiences and people in the chat could ask you questions, think about it. You'd get lots of views! Thanks.
@@Sm00thieK No it won't, the airlines will just adjust schedules more aggressively due to their craft's increased speed capabilities and delays will be the same..
@@Sm00thieK Wrong, delays are caused by weather, volume of traffic etc. A storm cloud causes more delays than anything as planes have to circle the airport waiting for it to become safe to land, assuming they are not sent to another airfield.
@@USARealMan-ls3zj Let's get rid of obsolete loud, lumbering, poluting aircrafts and get on with clean and fast teleportation already.. using spooky action at a distance ofcourse..
your english and pronounciation is becoming so good now. Heavily improved since the first videos. And I really love your content. They are super informative, amazing stuff man!
"737 MAX feels much better than it's grandfather on takeoffs and landings...capable of flying slower and is easier to pilot." This video did not age well..
========== || Edit || ========== I'll put the edit here so that it is actually read and not disregarded or overlooked at the end. I keep the original comment underneath this edit block untouched, though. I mixed my rules and regulations up a bit. Trijets are not a Product of ETOPS as @Reflected Miles pointed out. after doing some research to remind me of what went down this is why Trijets exist: In 1853 the FAA introduced the 60 minute rule. This rule was introduced after surveys have found out how reliable / unreliable the back then piston engines where. Before that, in 1936 it was even harscher as a 100mile rule was introduced. That meant that aircraft could only fly within a radius of 100 miles or 60 minutes respectively from any available airport. Despite the reliability of jet engines that rule wasn't abolished. So twinjets were forbidden to fly across the atlantic. With four engine planes being highly inefficient due to their size smaller jets with three engines were built to avoid the 60 minute rule. Later in 1976 the ICAO introduced the 90 minute rule. Small change but it didn't help much. It was only when ETOPS was introduced that the era of the trijets ended since ETOPS allowed twinjet planes to fly across large bodies of water such as an ocean. The first Aircraft to receive ETOPS ratings were the A310 with 90 minutes and the 767 in 1985. Back to the trijets: the very first trijet was the TU73. a bomber type plane introduced in 1947. The first commercial trijets came out in 1962: The Hawker Siddely Trident (Same company as the mighty and in early years catastrophe ridden Comet) and the all know 727. So, yeah, trijets are not a product of ETOPS as I said in my original comment (down below) but of the 1953 FAA 60 minute rule. One more thing though: the FAA 60 minute rule applies to American Airlines (not AA but Airlines that are American). While European Airlines were able to fly under the ICAO 90 minute rule rules this wasn't possible for American Airlines. ============= || ORIGINAL || ============= Be careful when you say three engines were needed because two weren't powerful enough. the three engine jet is actually a product of the ETOPS (Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim, or by its real name Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards) rating. Back then twin jets couldn't fly over the Atlantic because if one engine failed they wouldn't be able to reach an airport in time (put very simply). Three engines were enough to achieve ETOPS rating and they were more economical than four engine planes. I think wendover has a really good video on that topic. Also: the quicker you go the higher air resistance becomes and more power is needed to sustain or gain speed.
Yup. I used to really appreciate that while looking down at those mountainous frigid waves or barren craggy ice filled cliffs along the coast of Greenland. You know full well you won’t get some miracle in the Hudson out there.
ETOPS is an interesting criteria. As it turns out a twin is the most capable aircraft in terms of maneuver margin when one engine is out. Why? Because the cert criteria require a greater climb gradient for one engine out for a twin than for a tri - and the tri is greater than for a quad. Climb gradient equals excess thrust. The issue for ETOPS was reliability. Now that engines are extremely reliable, 330 minute ETOPS is easily achievable.
Three engines were needed because two weren't powerful enough. There. Any questions? The three-engine jet is certainly not a result of ETOPS. ETOPS was irrelevant until it was possible for twin-engine designs to do reliable, long overwater flights. As a result, ETOPS wasn't created by the FAA in the US until 1985, when the B727 was already old. Before ETOPS certifications began to be earned, everything twin was subject to the ICAO 90-minute rule.
@@ReflectedMiles Okay, admittedly trijets aren't a result of etops. And yes, etops made it possible twinjets can cross the ocean, that's my bad. Still they were introduced due to the 60 minute rule by the faa in i think somtime around the early to mid 50's not the icao 90 minute rule which was introduced in the mid 70's (i think 76) the earliest trijet was among the 727 and the Trident as commercial airliners the tu73 bomber which was introduced even earlier in 1947 after the 100mile rule was introduced in '36 still: trijets are not a product of a lack of power. Twinjets were capable of crossing the ponds.
@@boahneelassmal International flights (i.e., long overwater trips) are generally conducted under ICAO agreements rather than the myriad of domestic rules one could be invoking in a flyover. The International Convention on Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) agreement from 1944 is why Airbus could fly twin jets to and from the US on the ICAO 90-minute rule before ETOPS regardless of any FAA rule.
very interesting subject. Thank you for covering it. For those who don't know even on takeoff the full potential of engines is not used (with some exceptions) to preserve them from wear.
Do the videos like this even need music over the narration. No need to support narrative. (Like happy, epic, sad). Even low volume sounds a bit annoying. I listen those on the move with basic earphones or just skip them.
This video is full of information which I found very engaging and entertaining. I learned a lot. I also agree with the points mentioned at the end of the video as the reason of why the aeroplanes are not pushing the speed limit. For a 1.5 hrs flight, I have to go to the airport 3 hrs before to make sure that I won't ended up after 200 people in passport control line. In such situation, saving 30 mins by paying $300 more would be total waste for me.
Modern aircraft are driven purely by economics. Short haul aircraft gain little from high speed. They gain more from early boarding and direct routing than high speed. Long haul aircraft operators will happily swap payload for speed, providing they are not too slow. But in all cases, everything has to be paid for in fuel and takeoff/landing performance. But by flying slower with a lower aircraft weight less fuel will be used, airways and landing charges reduced and runway requirements reduces. Win - win - win. After all, how valuable is an extra few minutes?
.. especially when flying into Heathrow. Fast moving airstreams may mean that the flight arrives maybe an hour early but air traffic then give it a 30 minute delay. Madness... all that fuel wasted due to air traffic control not being able to get their act together despite having hugely expensive computers. Heathrow's (approximately) 97% utilisation doesn't help matters either
The benefit of slightly slowing down is due to the transonic barrier. Slowing more does not save fuel because you spend more time lofting the plane in the air.
Kirby Zhang sorry but you are wrong. Economy speed is partially about fuel use but also accounts for all sorts of other factors such as crew coats, engine wear, maintainence cost etc. The fast you fly the higher your form drag figure. As you slow down your induced drag increases. There is a ‘sweet spot’ where both curves meet at a low point, nowhere near VMo or MMO, often referred to as VMD.
Lots of legroom in first, business, and even some economy plus seating. Huge options. Don't blame anyone else just because you're cheap and make the voluntary choice of steerage class.
I am quite tall and know your pain. But in the end nowadays we get a Premium Economy Seat or even Business Seat for the price people used to pay for a normal ticket 50 years ago. Be realisitc. I can fly from Paris or Frankfurt to London for sometimes less than 100€. Cheaping out on a 10€ exit row seat and complaining afterwards that it is not comfy does not make sense. I hae booked emergency row seats numerous times in the past and it was never expensive. Flying is soo cheap sometimes it makes me uncomfortable. It is often alot cheaper than taking the train.
@@CristianValenzuela2155 Did You just assume my nationality? Would have never expected it from a Puerto Rican chick lol. The fact is that the gem of American modern engineering is stuck on ground and is not safe to fly, while the big old 747s, the 737-x00, A320s are still in the air doing their service.
Watch Mentour Pilot if you want the true story. Yes Boeing screwed the pooch on training and documentation. They also should have had the fricking MCAS reading BOTH sensors and not do ANYTHING if they disagreed, as well as leave the system disengaging when pilots fight with it. But it remains that if the pilots had been better trained they could have and should have disengaged the MCAS manually, just like the guest pilot did on the previous flight of the Ethiopian Airlines plane. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this never happened in the US or the EU. I agree with the guy that said ground the PILOTS until they get better training, not the plane. All that being said, the changes to the flight control software will fix the problem and the 737 MAX will finish it’s career as a great plane just like all the other models. This isn’t a simplistic sound bite by a sour grapes Russian troll, just a carefully researched opinion. I certainly don’t see any Illyushin airliners selling 4000 units. There’s a reason for that....
I can remember, as a kid and teen, flying Olympic Airways 707's to Athens, Greece nonstop from JFK, NYC. It took less than 8 hours! Now, the same distance takes about 10 hours or more commercially.
That's right! Bad fuel economy and high maintenance killed the Concorde. The higher fuel economy, half-empty passenger aisles, AND maintenance requirements are killing 4-engine jumbo jets now except for cargo and executive (presidential/PM) jets. The 747 was designed to slot into the cargo role, A380 wasn't. In 2 decades, there probably will still be some 747's running as cargo planes even as the passenger versions are winding down now. The A380 will likely be gone in less time than that because the economics don't add up for the plane and they DIDN'T make provisions to convert it for cargo. But then again, the Concorde had a far worse production run, more political headaches, and was kept alive mainly through government subsidies and high rollers who WOULD pay for prestige tickets to fly at Mach 2. That worked for about 20 years but they lost their market after the fatal 2000 accident and 9/11. It just couldn't survive those two events one on top of the other. Had the accident NOT happened and it survived the 9/11 air traffic dip, the Concorde would STILL be in the process of being retired now because they didn't consider it technically and economically feasible to fly for much longer than another 15 years...
@@AvengerII Except that was 40+ years ago. It wasn't economic partly bc it was banned over land bc of a tree hugger anti technology lobby and bc of protectionist trade policy in the US (they made the law to prevent Concorde sales originally) If it was really as uneconomic as ppl think , it would have been shut down in 5 years and just used for glamour runs for the British monarchy. The issues around Concorde are more nuanced than anyone gives it credit for. The Boeing company got state subsidies too. ExIm bank in the US is a state run bank and Boeing is its biggest client to this day.
@@dsanalysis5013 I think that you're being grossly unfair over the banning of supersonic flights by claiming it was only tree huggers. In another video here on YT, it said that the Federal government ran a 6 month test over Oklahoma City to test the public's tolerance of sonic booms, and it was such a spectacular failure that they had to stop the test early. The same video also said that an SST flying at over 60k feet would create a sonic boom that could be heard 30 miles away. That's one hell of a wide path to cut across the country if you're doing a NYC to LA flight. And BTW, I'm neither anti-technology nor a tree hugger by any stretch of the imagination. But from listening and watching that video, I think that it would have been unendurable to have SST constantly flying here and there across the continental US. There are also some videos talking about a possible resurgence in SST development, centered on the idea of removing or minimizing sonic booms. I'm not a scientist or whatever, so I'm at a loss as to how one could get rid of sonic booms while still flying at normal cruising altitudes. I also know that research has been conducted on suborbital hypersonic flight, where I think the idea is that there would be no or minimal sonic booms at those altitudes due to a far less dense atmosphere. And I wonder if that's where the real future of "super fast" flight may be.
I went to bootcamp in San Diego. There used to be a large naval base with Marine and Naval basic training. It's no longer there, but when I was there in 86, our barracks were right at the end of the San Diego Intl airport. We used to sneak up on the roof, lay on our backs and watch the jets taking off. They were only a hundred feet above ground at that point and you could see inside the wheel wells. The main reason we did it was the noise was just deafening. It was such a rush to feel your chest rumble. And we could tell the difference between jets based on their noise. The L-1011 and 747 was more of a high pitch whine, while the 727 was by far the loudest and it was just a mind numbing roar. DC10's and MD-11's were more felt than heard. Very subtle for their size and power. Oh well, it was just something I remembered when this guy mentioned the 727.
A very well done video with lots of good information. I wonder if the argument for faster planes suffers from the fact that an airliner can only fly near its maximum speed when at cruising altitude. On shorter flights, the climb and descent comprise such a large fraction of the total flight distance/time that the advantage of a higher speed is even further reduced, since that speed can't even be used very much.
Nice video. Thanks for the explanations. You showed that there are actual physical and economic barriers to large market air travel. Just one thing, what most don't realize fuel is the single highest cost to an airline. The cost of fuel is about 40% of the overall cost of running an airline. Therefore a 25% reduction in fuel consumption translates to about 8% reduction in the over all cost of doing business (CODB) and therefore reducing the price of the average fare.
Security, passport checking and customs have become a real nuisance of modern travelling. Because of very few criminals, millions are punished every day by slow and inefficient overall transport time.
@plaguelock The statistics proves otherwise, sorry. Airport security has never stopped any actual terrorist attempts. The only thing they're actually good at is detecting and catching drugs smugglers. All successful terrorist preventions are sniffed before the hijackers arrived in the airport, not by the pat downs or the X-ray/microwaves equipments. Aircraft hijacking had been going down since way before 9/11 because of real security improvements, but these real improvements are mostly happening behind the scenes, not due to the security theatres that's playing out in front of everyone in the airport everyday. Even many former TSA staffs acknowledges this. 9/11 was the first time aircraft has ever been used as mass destruction weapon ever since mankind flew, and it was the only time ever since. It took 100 years for an incident of that scale to happen, and chances are it'll likely took another 100 years for another one.
yvrelna air travel still sucks the most of all the available travel methods. That being said, even if you’re correct and all TSA does is catch drug smugglers - I’m way okay with that. I live in a state that legalized weed, life changed, anything they can do to keep drugs out of the country is worth the extra four hours.
That's an excellent point Sky, if I want to save time anywhere, it's with the process at the airport. Once I'm on the plane, I actually enjoy the view and the service usually. I love the onboard experience, so there's no hurry there. If we go faster, it can only increase fuel costs, ticket prices and emissions. So I'm fine having a nice long relaxing flight, I actually love long haul. If we save time anywhere when flying, let's save it on the ground.
You're just like me, I love long flights. I remember flying from Toronto, Canada to Warsaw, Poland and I was so mad that the 8 hour flight was already over, I wished it was 24 hours longer. But like you said I wish we could somehow make the airport check in quicker, because I hate going through all the airport checks, but I also understand that it's done for our safety. I hate what the terrorist have done to our airports, if it wasn't for the terrorists the check in would be so much quicker if we didn't have to go through all the security and be treated like a criminal just to board our aircraft. We as humans are hard to satisfy, we complain about all the security checks but if something was to happen on the plane because of a terrorist then we would again complain why the security didn't take their time and do a better job at keeping us safe.
@@FriendlyMarmot you are the one who likes waiting around to get on your slow white elephant . Not me . If flying was faster , it would force the tsa to take less time
Airline speed is less irrelevant today since a lot of your time is spent travelling to and from the airport and queuing in arrival and departures. Flight transfers also suck up a lot of the time. Most important thing in an airliner is seat size and leg room.
I think actually that the OIL CRISES is the reason why we stopped going faster. Because then we all saw: It's not ever-lasting, a small change can hurt us so bad that it's not acceptable. And all we do now is trying to get rid of the change we can get to that disasterous moment again.
I don't think that they are "slowing" so much as that they "slowed" . 40 years ago they settled on mach .85 as the best compromise for efficiency. Almost all new designs in the last 40 years fly at that speed. Since the 747 and on up to today they have abandoned the speeds beyond mach .85 as a diminishing returns situation where a lot more fuel is used to go only a little faster. You hit the nail on the head with your idea that the next supersonic aircraft will be bizjets!
@@trash4cash454 I don't understand what you are asking. Sky said at about 17:00 that the next supersonic planes will be bizjets and I agree with that. Yes the next supersonic jets will be bizjets :)
@@redlock4004 I absolutely agree with you. (Also I think that trash4cash didn't understand the expression "hitting the nail on the head" so that's why he had to ask)
@@o0xTHEcoPlayerx0o my guess is that in 1919 the fastest trains were about as fast as the fastest planes. Planes weren't really available to the public back then either because of the cost.
@@roundsm18 If your going on vacation and don't really care too much about the destination than ok. But if you want to get there and enjoy yourself its much better to fly. If you have a week of vacation and choose to take a cruise from the US to Europe and back than the trip alone is going to take up the majority of the vacation, compared to a plane where it takes a couple days to go there and back. This is even more important for business travelers who just need to get there, do their job, and leave. They don't want to sit on a ship and wait days before they arrive, and then have to do it again when they go back. There is a reason transatlantic flights took over from boats as the preferred travel method across the Atlantic.
Henri Bergeron I get four weeks a year. Last vacation I took was 2005. I do not fly, period, unless I am forced to for work. So if I’m spending the money and wasting the time to go on a vacation it won’t involve an airplane. What airlines have is a level of convenience that allows them to have the crappy service that ocean liners did not.
A lot of good points have already been said, but you should keep in mind that cruises are very damaging to the environment, even more than planes. In addition to that you might be miserable for several days if you hit bad weather. Even the normal movement of the ocean can make some people sick for the entire cruise. And as you stay there for the entire time its much more expensive, so not everybody can afford that.
Jutta Beckmann this is why I simply don’t travel. I don’t miss it, and it doesn’t hurt me. Shipping in general is bad for the environment yet we still ship cargo instead of flying it. Still sea over air if I were to care to go somewhere.
Aerodynamic drag increases with the cube of the speed. That means it takes a lot more power to go just a bit faster. Most people are not prepared to pay more to go a little bit faster and it makes sense.
@@dsanalysis5013 The Concorde couldn't remain a viable service because people (in enough numbers) weren't prepared to pay the high ticket price. I think that says it all.
@@rogeronslow1498 It's just not that simple. You talk as if the airlines, Boring and Airbus are bastions of free market capitalism now. This isn't true. The business is rife with govt bailouts, govt ownership and govt subsidy. The C series turned A220 had a govt bailout. ExIm bank in the US is a state owned bank used exclusively by Boeing . The 2 main causes of the death of the Concorde was 911 and Airbus's new baby, the A380. The Concorde fleet got an overhaul just before 911 . The London to NY route was a cash maker for BA. But since airbus was promoting the A380 And the hub model , they stopped making parts for the Concorde. Tell me. How many commercial aircraft would be economically viable if they were banned from the Americas for dubious political reasons ? The US did the same thing with the A380 and it was a money losing economic failure as a result too.
So true! Here in Carrasco MVD we have the last of those awesome machines, a cargo 727 that flies every Sunday late evening (nearly midnight) to Ezeiza (AR), and you can sure tell when that trijet has taken off! I live about 2 miles from the airport and sometimes it flies over my home. I'll miss it when they retire it.
Great! They are supposedly more comfortable? My ass. I’m 6’4” and I used to love to fly. Now I hate it. They have reduced the seating area to something for “average” people. I leave a plane with muscle cramps due to how I’m forced to sit for hours.
40 years ago, an economy seat cost about as much as a business class seat today. Probably more, in terms of buying power. I'm 186 cm tall (not sure how much that is in ft), so I also have issues in 32" seat pitch economy. I always try to get a seat in premium economy (somewhat bigger seat pitch, at a price) or maybe an exit row. I've even upgraded to business class occasionally...
@@dsanalysis5013 It starts going down, but it's still much more draggy than Mach 0.85 or so. Even at Mach 2 you're still roughly increasing the drag coefficient 50%. Add on to that the penalty of going (conservatively) two times faster and thus having about 4 times as much kinetic energy, and you find you're using somewhere around 12 times as much power to go triple the speed.
@@AmbientMorality Not quite, because altitude lets you get most of that back. Lift to drag ratios are the important number, because you set lift to the weight of the aircraft and then fly at the altitude that gives you the lowest drag. Supersonic lift to drag ratios are roughly half subsonic ones, so you only need twice the thrust for the faster speed. Energy is force time distance, so that means 6 times for triple the speed. The reason that Concorde was economic at the time was that turbofans were not well developed, and turbojets are more efficient at high speeds. Fuel flow corresponds to thrust up to very high speeds, so maintaining the same thrust for twice as long would actually use twice the fuel, despite the lower speeds. That loses you the lift to drag advantage that subsonic aircraft have.
One reason, which is not the flight speed, is also the airports. That is one reason why flights take longer. In the 60's and 70's, airports were not crowded. You could basically take off as soon as you were boarded, fly to destination, turn the course towards airstrip and land, and there was no delays. Nowadays the traffic, aka number of takeoffs and landings, has multiplied by a lot. More waiting before takeoffs, more time in holding pattern waiting for your landing slot and because of all these, airlines do add safety bumper to flight times just to make sure they won't have to pay lots and lots of delay fees to passangers. Most of the time flights land ahead of time, even though flight time was longer than in 70's.
@RoyalMela Not to mention that the experience at the airports is now horrible due to the crowded conditions and too many low class customers bringing their bad behavior and hygiene too. Get rid of economy class entirely and raise all fares.
30 years ago a flight JFK-FCO would take 7.5 hours from takeoff now the same route on the same airline but different aircraft now takes almost 9 hours. That's crazy that in a span of 30 years the flight time has increased by nearly 2hours.
05:00 The British Hawker Sidderly Trident was the first of the Tri Jets. The Americans came over in the 60`s and were shown the plans for the trident and they nicked them and made the 727. Something the British company regret`s , showing the plans that is.
And the tickets are vastly cheaper. Stop bitching about it and shell out for first class. You will get a better experience than they did back in the 60's and you will pay the same amount.
@Owen Major Problem is that the same economy class bums clog up the airport and bring with them their obnoxious behavior and personal hygiene problems among other things. Even still in 1st Class the economy class cattle are on the same plane and when you board you still can't totally avoid them. Also they still use 1st class bathrooms and blunder into business and 1st class cabin areas too. Nope. You have to get rid of economy class ENTIRELY.
@@watershed44 I bet you're a fat mess who can't get an erection lol. So you spent $5k? WOAH you must be Bill Gates! If you were who you claim to be you'd be on a private aircraft so you're not fooling anyone lol.
I absolutely love your videos and really like the way you went into depth on this topic. I started knowing that it was cheaper to fly a bit slower, but you gave a lot more insight about this. Edit: I also really love the way you ended this video. "Quite fast enough flights." I laughed.
They only had to go really fast long enough to put the prop planes out of business. Kind of like big box stores having low prices just long enough to put mom and pop out of business, then they do what they please.
Altitude has come down as well, it was always fly higher to get over the weather and turbulence, many flights I took in the 70’s were up in the 40k plus feet, now around 35k feet on average up to 38k and down to 32k over the Atlantic from US to Europe. Coming over the Rockies from Seattle we went up to 43k in a 737-700 to clear some really bad turbulence back in 2005, usually cross around 36k feet. Going east from US many flights go deep into the Jet stream, twice once on SAS and secondly on AA both A330-300’s we were clipping along at just over 1100kmh, pilots kept throttling back and must have been on idle thrust, we were being pushed into our seats, in the case of SAS we were 1:20 early into Copenhagen from Newark
Android811 it’s also aircraft economics, earlier Boeing aircraft were built stronger, able to fly more cycles, with cheap fuel and fixed prices, it helped the airlines but not Boeing, fewer planes needing to be replaced. Airbus built their planes slightly weaker, so less cycles and quicker plane replacements, rising fuel costs also lighten planes. Flying higher puts more stress on the airframe so lower altitudes are flown keeping cabin pressure lower. They can fly higher if needed but not on a regular schedule of hours.
DC-8 is a real beauty. It's long fuselage and elegant wings... DC-8 is the "fashion-model" amongst airliners. All those newer passenger planes are much fatter and less elegant... same as the passengers inside of them.
@@Shaun81000 if you're a member of the youngest generation, then you're the member of the stupidest generation ever. Laziest and stupidest. And to prove that, I'll just ask you two things: (1) Is smoking marijuana good for your health? (2) Do you ever check which access to your hardware an app requires when you're installing it on your Android or iPhone?
@@cinegraphics 1. Marijuana treats many diseases and ailments. Also, do you think it is appropriate to berate marijuana users while most men in the 20th century spent their lives using pipes, cigarettes and other forms of tobacco? 2. I own neither of the above 3. I don't understand how these two questions prove we're a lazy generation. But let me add a little math for you to get your old eyes to see the facts. In 1950, the population was about 2.6 billion. Today, its 7.2 billion. If you assume even if 60% of the population is lazy, it's just math telling you that you are more likely to see a lazy person these days.
@@Nicks_Pix I don''t even know what that means. But, if you're blaming this generation about wiping butts then it's probably you and people from your generation who proved incompetent in training their children
I sometimes wish pilots would take off like this, for me it would be exciting... I can clearly understand why they don’t. Actually, I just wish I could go on one of those test flights that they are performing at 7:29
Eric Highsmith ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We are about to take off, I suggest you squeeze your knees together and don’t forget to breath, we’re getting to our cruising altitude in 2 minutes.
I've seen and walked through a Concorde at Duxford Air Museum, it was surprisingly small Concorde had 95680 kgs of fuel... times by 1.266 to get liters of Jet/Jet-A fuel = 121130.88... Divided by 1000 to get cubic meters = 121.13088... Where did they put all that fuel?
The fact that we can even fly in the first place is good enough in and of itself in my opinion. Speed increase during flight is trivial as long as it brings with it as many drawbacks as it does today
I have lived near Heathrow circa 1.8miles from North runway start point since 1997, a few years of feeling then hearing Concorde thundering till take off was magnificent, seeing the Concorde in flight at take off / landing std speed in air was a special sight Long live Concorde & now the A380 is in demise, 2 aeronautical giants
Do some planes still fly faster than the speed of sound to make a sonic boom because every once in a while a passenger or cargo plane with fly over my city and it will makes a extremely loud sound that will sometimes slightly shake my house sometimes there military fighter jets but many times they have just looked like usual passenger or cargo planes, I live 24 km from the nearest big airport could it possibly be because there descending for landing??
Unlikely to be breaking the sound barrier when coming in for landing. Military fighters taking off make a lot of noise, especially if they're taking off on afterburner. All jets are fairly noisy though. I think a 747 taking off is supposed to produce around 120 decibels.
Great synopsis. I appreciate the time you must take to produce these well put together videos. Articulated brilliantly, condense, and in a timely fashion. Thank you , so interesting and you have something in every video for all types of aviation enthusiasts.
There is one more factor not even mentioned: Air freight. A large percentage of air freight goes by passenger planes. Higher fuel efficiency and lower freight rates beats velocity every time.
@Kilo Byte I was talking (not only but mostly) about ECONOMICAL SUSTAINABILITY... You certainly would know that this noun can be applied to a number of subjects, right? Instead of a tree, you should really hug and hold back your impetus preconceptions...
Interesting video which is easy enough to understand. I hope the priority will always be towards safety. Speed isn’t the most important factor for many people. Because the current max speeds are fine enough.
Before I even watched this vid I knew the answer. Cost and efficiency. EXCEPT for corporate big wigs. Sky pointed out their planes are going faster and faster. Cost, efficiency environmental concerns for them? No, they're special. Only the fastest most luxurious is good enough for them. Just pass the increased costs on to the customer.
That is why I don't listen to any of the Climate Change alarmists, like Al Gore: massive carbon footprints, demanding the rest of us reduce ours while theirs are bloated.
This. I grew up in the civilian part of Ramey AFB in Puerto Rico, which used to home B-52's in the late 50's through early 70s. There's a picture in one of my parents' albums of me as a kid during an airshow in the 90s standing directly underneath one of the wing outrigger wheels as the plane was leaning on the opposite end.
Did there fail to be a single preserved Convair 990? Do these new slower "Jets" have a lower service ceiling than the older loud and fast ones? Is such an engine as the LEAP more of a fancy shrouded turboprop than a real "jet" ?
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
As a car enthusiast I understand all too well the inverse relationships between fuel economy, weight, and speed. Loved this video dude, your explanations are on point. Subscribed
Doesn't matter how fast the aircraft is when it takes 4 hours to get through TSA security screening.
Maybe they should have new rules for airports. If you bring stuff that you know is not allowed, slowing down everyone else, you can't fly for a year. Keep it simple and it all speeds up.
It's because the airport is the business end where most of the money is made
@@wiibaron People spend more when they're miserable. They don't want you to be comfortable. It's like sucking on a dummy if you're unhappy you'll go and eat or drink coffee. And you have your holiday cash with you. People spend most of it at the airport.
I'll take a mach 3 TSA over a mach 3 plane.
Well stop being cheap and get TSA Pre ✔️
As long as we're safely above stall speed, I'm good.
Congratulations 🎉👏🎉👏 of being the top comment!!!! 😁😁😁
(As of now 😈😈)
@@itstomatogear6806 you type like this normally?
Wait till there's large passenger helicopter
@@matrix2697 the soviets built a prototype for it
Thanks, very informative video. My dad was an economics teacher, and he often talked about the concept of "diminishing returns". That certainly applies here.
7.5 hourd versus 7 hours with 25% fuel savings, makes absolute sense to me.
why not fly in 9hours with 100% fuel savings
Nigel Butlerr or fly backwards to generate fuel. 200 percent economy
@@ukkomies100 You are the expert on flying "backwards"
Drive your car on a motorway at 70 mph watch your fuel consumption display. Now back down to 60 r 65 you will see a noticeable drop in fuel consumption but it won't increase your journey length by to much. Its like any vehicle you could drive them as hard and fast as possible but it won't be at its most efficient. There's a sweet spot there somewhere in between maxed out and slow.
Yep, totally true. Especially now with airlines burning money like hell.
Just Wow. As a Boeing Engineer (ex since 2013) this is perhaps the most complete and comprehensive explanation of the issue.
Fantabulous Job presentating this.
Why did you quit?
Nah
@@rickyboy199554 Hey Ricky Fernandes, I didn't quit, I took an early retirement. My division of Boeing, was involved in the number crunching/flight performance for several Boeing Aircraft while I was there. This means high altitude TOGO/take off go around scenarios, extreme cross wind testing. These were performed respectively at Quito Ecuador, and Spitsbergen Islands for the cross wind components.
We did the primary flight testing for the B777-2ER (including a record to this day for the longest un-refueled flight for a Boeing Product), the testing earlier on several of the Boeing BBJ 7/8 Series, The 737-Max, the B787 Dreamliner, and several more.
By numbers crunching I mean my department of flight and trip planners planned all of both the logistical side of the flights..........secruity/hotels/passport information/visa requirements/ and a million other thing.
My Flight Planning side did the actual numbers. Fuel, time to climb, drift down scenarios, ETPS, ETOP Data, Single Engine Out Scenarios, time to glide, etc. ad nauseam.
Fun times, and I loved my job. I worked very, very hard to make my Division 'go away', from our physical location in San Jose Ca., and that happened about 18 months sooner than we'd all expected.
All ended well. I got a generous early retirement package, my Fabulous staff retained their jobs, (albiet, had to move to a slightly smaller location a couple years after I left), I myself, I got an early retirement. I'm now working in Law Enforcement, of all things, which is my retirement job.
I'll NEVER disparage Boeing in any capacity. They are cutting edge second to NONE. Sometimes, while attempting to increase the envelope of what is possible, problems develop. We've lost 2 737Max airframes in a short amount of time.
Don't think for a moment that this isn't affecting the lives of every single Boeing Employee.
Boeing will weather this, and continue to push the boundaries for improved safety in Human transportation.
I can guarantee this audience that thousands of good, decent, American workers report every day with a heavy heart in light of the incidences.
My long time experience with this Company assures myself that not one iota of data points is not being looked at.
Hard to write this.
Yah. The loss of 350 persons does not go unchecked. The media has been unforgiving so far.
@@FT4Freedom - The media likes headlines and the public eats it up if Qantas 72 had experienced its uncommanded pitch down close to the ground the A330 would have been the first to kill 300+ with rogue automation and any documentaries praise the pilot's actions when in reality if the ADIRU fault hadn't cleared on it's own there was NOTHING they could have done to recover they didn't recover as much as the plane let them live
This is the most informative and professional video I've seen in aircrafts/piloting etc.. im a former pilot and aware of the content! Just great narrative!
I agree. He's really good. Check out his video on the Celera 500L.
The answer is, (drum roll), Fuel Economy
🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂
Nope
@@jaybrooks1098
Thats a mighty convincing argument you got there.... everybody should take note from such brilliant insight. Well done
We know but I also like looking at planes. 🤷♂️
Which leads to the topic of car speed vs fuel economy. Aerodynamic drag also affects cars, and driving at higher speeds adversely affects fuel efficiency and wear and tear on engines. So, why did they remove the national speed limit of 55MPH?
The 7373 Max has a speed of 0 mph at the present. I doubt anyone would willingly travel on one of these any time soon.
OGNI COSTRUTTORE DEGLI. AEREI ,ADDOTTAVA. DELLE. TECHNOLOGIE #SUPPERSONICSYSTEM & METALAEREODINAMIC FOR SPACE SPIDY. TRAVELLING🤗🤗🤗
RIP 737 max along with the souls that perished in the tragedies
I would ... under the right circumstances. I also made the same offer concerning the V-22 Osprey. Sadly, no one took me up on that offer. 😥
Other such dream/fantasy aircraft? The XB-70 supersonic bomber...
Absolutely correct sadly...
I wouldn't go near a 737Max .
I started noticing this when I realized flights 10 years later were taking 45 mins longer. I always thought w/ innovation they should be faster and not slower. Very interesting.
Safety>speed
Fuel efficiency>speed
Low price tickets>speed
More eco friendly engines>speed
Noise reduction> speed
Laws of 'diminishing returns'. It just isn't worth it.
@Ørangey Add noise reduction to the list :)
i am fine with that
But tickets are much more expensive than during the 80s.
@@TheAnticlinton Not when it comes to inflation, because most poor could not afford on trip in a decade with old Plane prices in the 1980's, where the rich and big business were the ones whom could afford to fly and they dressed up in their finest formal clothes to fly. Today most people could afford at lease one flight a year, never mind pay for the finest formal clothes. The Golden age of flying was like 4 and 5 star travel. You get dropped off int eh airport, hardly a queue and you check in. The staff takes your bags and give you your airline ticket. You enter the lounge and did not usually wait long and you enter your flight. You usually get service with the best drinks and the best meals and quick service through the airport as they were not crowded and was wonderful way to travel. Tickets were very expensive for its day. Remember to include inflation and average wages.
Today flying is very common and people are stressed out and waiting in long queues, annoying passengers, delays after delays. Airports are so over crowed today, security costs and government imposed costs adding to tickets prices and to people stress levels. That on top of fluctuations on ticket prices depending on demands from the general public. Welcome to modern day flying, just like Trains. Long ago only the rich could afford travel until they produce trains at lower costs for the lower class folks to travel. Higher standards means higher ticket prices.
www.business2community.com/travel-leisure/see-cost-flight-changed-since-1963-charts-01576832
In 1965, no more than 20 percent of Americans had ever flown in an airplane. By 2000, 50 percent of the country took at least one round-trip flight a year. The average was two round-trip tickets.
It's amazing how much of the aviation industry is taken for granted. Thanks for a very informative video.
Miami here, I work within 5 miles of the airport and I can always tell when a md-11 or 747-400 is coming in , you can just hear the distinctive scream from those old engines.
Ros YEP The MD11 has a roar of authority to it.
But speed can also reduce crew cost and the number of times that can run through each plane... I think there just isn't enough competition . Why bother inventing when u can just earn just as much . Well space x would probably change that soon
@@tommywong3147 Nah. An extra hour of wage for the whole flight crew is nothing compared to the extra cost of fuel, maintenance, and lowered aircraft lifetime involved with flying faster.
@@FantasticMrFrog you just arguing incremental efficiency. I'm saying why isn't it break through since the 60s . Because there is not a lot of competition. Of course if u can do what space x is doing cutting down a 18 hour flight into 1 hour u can cut down on a lot of other cost but it brings a lot of risk and manufacturer like Boeing or airbus are unwilling to take. What's the point for them if they can sell so many planes anyway.
I love the sound of a 747 in the morning.
The high bypass turbofan engine also reduced the loudness by 96% because air speed differential between different partitions of the air flowing out the back is less than the speed of sound.
Fuel economy
I just spared you 20 min
Ah shut already watched 18 munutes
Thanks.
Thats assuming people read ALL the comments before watching the video.
Don’t care. Love watching planes so I will watch the entire clip thank u.
@@lombardo141 k
This is an excellent summary -- very well done! I started in aerospace in 1968 and recently retired; I knew most of this, but not all, and the presentation was very well thought out and concise.
Agree; he did a good job. :-)
Check out wendover productions video on it
@e020443
Have you ever thought of doing a LIVE CHAT here on YT about your career?
It would be really interesting to hear of your experiences and people in the chat could ask you questions, think about it. You'd get lots of views!
Thanks.
I'd rather have less flight delays than increase the flying speed.
@@Sm00thieK No it won't, the airlines will just adjust schedules more aggressively due to their craft's increased speed capabilities and delays will be the same..
@@Sm00thieK Wrong, delays are caused by weather, volume of traffic etc. A storm cloud causes more delays than anything as planes have to circle the airport waiting for it to become safe to land, assuming they are not sent to another airfield.
How about no delays and faster aircraft. Or... faster spacecraft. We are going backwards because of incompetence and a lazy population.
@@USARealMan-ls3zj Let's get rid of obsolete loud, lumbering, poluting aircrafts and get on with clean and fast teleportation already.. using spooky action at a distance ofcourse..
@@Sm00thieK check this video out.. faster can equal cleaner.. ruclips.net/video/I7MOlYhLZDY/видео.html
Efficiency. It's just that. Slowing down a little greatly improves cost per passenger mile.
your english and pronounciation is becoming so good now. Heavily improved since the first videos. And I really love your content. They are super informative, amazing stuff man!
Daniel Kandi Snooker yes, and I like his dry sense of humor
"737 MAX feels much better than it's grandfather on takeoffs and landings...capable of flying slower and is easier to pilot." This video did not age well..
737 MAX aka the “Russian Roulette Of The Sky”.
737 max doesn't like flying horizontal.
Glyn Roberts it likes flying towards the ground
@@ianzenda5944 You dumb asses need to educate your dumb asses !!! ! The 737Max flies fine , is a hot rod, pilots need more training !!!!
@@wilburfinnigan2142 idiot, there is a problem with software and sensors, pulling the nose down, untill it crashes
==========
|| Edit ||
==========
I'll put the edit here so that it is actually read and not disregarded or overlooked at the end. I keep the original comment underneath this edit block untouched, though.
I mixed my rules and regulations up a bit. Trijets are not a Product of ETOPS as @Reflected Miles pointed out. after doing some research to remind me of what went down this is why Trijets exist:
In 1853 the FAA introduced the 60 minute rule. This rule was introduced after surveys have found out how reliable / unreliable the back then piston engines where. Before that, in 1936 it was even harscher as a 100mile rule was introduced. That meant that aircraft could only fly within a radius of 100 miles or 60 minutes respectively from any available airport. Despite the reliability of jet engines that rule wasn't abolished. So twinjets were forbidden to fly across the atlantic. With four engine planes being highly inefficient due to their size smaller jets with three engines were built to avoid the 60 minute rule.
Later in 1976 the ICAO introduced the 90 minute rule. Small change but it didn't help much. It was only when ETOPS was introduced that the era of the trijets ended since ETOPS allowed twinjet planes to fly across large bodies of water such as an ocean. The first Aircraft to receive ETOPS ratings were the A310 with 90 minutes and the 767 in 1985.
Back to the trijets: the very first trijet was the TU73. a bomber type plane introduced in 1947. The first commercial trijets came out in 1962: The Hawker Siddely Trident (Same company as the mighty and in early years catastrophe ridden Comet) and the all know 727.
So, yeah, trijets are not a product of ETOPS as I said in my original comment (down below) but of the 1953 FAA 60 minute rule.
One more thing though: the FAA 60 minute rule applies to American Airlines (not AA but Airlines that are American). While European Airlines were able to fly under the ICAO 90 minute rule rules this wasn't possible for American Airlines.
=============
|| ORIGINAL ||
=============
Be careful when you say three engines were needed because two weren't powerful enough. the three engine jet is actually a product of the ETOPS (Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim, or by its real name Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards) rating. Back then twin jets couldn't fly over the Atlantic because if one engine failed they wouldn't be able to reach an airport in time (put very simply). Three engines were enough to achieve ETOPS rating and they were more economical than four engine planes. I think wendover has a really good video on that topic.
Also: the quicker you go the higher air resistance becomes and more power is needed to sustain or gain speed.
Yup. I used to really appreciate that while looking down at those mountainous frigid waves or barren craggy ice filled cliffs along the coast of Greenland. You know full well you won’t get some miracle in the Hudson out there.
ETOPS is an interesting criteria. As it turns out a twin is the most capable aircraft in terms of maneuver margin when one engine is out. Why? Because the cert criteria require a greater climb gradient for one engine out for a twin than for a tri - and the tri is greater than for a quad. Climb gradient equals excess thrust. The issue for ETOPS was reliability. Now that engines are extremely reliable, 330 minute ETOPS is easily achievable.
Three engines were needed because two weren't powerful enough. There. Any questions? The three-engine jet is certainly not a result of ETOPS. ETOPS was irrelevant until it was possible for twin-engine designs to do reliable, long overwater flights. As a result, ETOPS wasn't created by the FAA in the US until 1985, when the B727 was already old. Before ETOPS certifications began to be earned, everything twin was subject to the ICAO 90-minute rule.
@@ReflectedMiles Okay, admittedly trijets aren't a result of etops. And yes, etops made it possible twinjets can cross the ocean, that's my bad. Still they were introduced due to the 60 minute rule by the faa in i think somtime around the early to mid 50's not the icao 90 minute rule which was introduced in the mid 70's (i think 76) the earliest trijet was among the 727 and the Trident as commercial airliners the tu73 bomber which was introduced even earlier in 1947 after the 100mile rule was introduced in '36
still: trijets are not a product of a lack of power. Twinjets were capable of crossing the ponds.
@@boahneelassmal International flights (i.e., long overwater trips) are generally conducted under ICAO agreements rather than the myriad of domestic rules one could be invoking in a flyover. The International Convention on Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) agreement from 1944 is why Airbus could fly twin jets to and from the US on the ICAO 90-minute rule before ETOPS regardless of any FAA rule.
very interesting subject. Thank you for covering it.
For those who don't know even on takeoff the full potential of engines is not used (with some exceptions) to preserve them from wear.
You can teach Most channels about music choice and volume!
No kidding lol. Some channels put music so loud I'm wondering if I'm blaring it in another tab because I sometimes can't even make out the voice.
Yup, not just some loud Alan Walker music.
Do the videos like this even need music over the narration. No need to support narrative. (Like happy, epic, sad).
Even low volume sounds a bit annoying. I listen those on the move with basic earphones or just skip them.
@@Capade Agreed! 😀
For me I find the music a bit too quiet
The real question is "Why are aircraft seats so uncomfortable?". Maybe if they spent 1/1000 the amount of research money on seat comfort research....
This video is full of information which I found very engaging and entertaining. I learned a lot. I also agree with the points mentioned at the end of the video as the reason of why the aeroplanes are not pushing the speed limit. For a 1.5 hrs flight, I have to go to the airport 3 hrs before to make sure that I won't ended up after 200 people in passport control line. In such situation, saving 30 mins by paying $300 more would be total waste for me.
Oh, I've waited this video for a long time!
Half a yeat it was on the Russian channell
You gotta be kidd...Oh I get it. Funny, eh?
they go slow for comfort. no bumps and turbulence at low speeds.
Kinda like the difference between wooden wagon wheels and today's tubeless air inflated rubber tires with steel rims? Kinda?
It took this long to figure out what the hell language is that and then to find someone smart enough who knows both languages, good and bad.
Modern aircraft are driven purely by economics. Short haul aircraft gain little from high speed. They gain more from early boarding and direct routing than high speed. Long haul aircraft operators will happily swap payload for speed, providing they are not too slow. But in all cases, everything has to be paid for in fuel and takeoff/landing performance. But by flying slower with a lower aircraft weight less fuel will be used, airways and landing charges reduced and runway requirements reduces. Win - win - win. After all, how valuable is an extra few minutes?
.. especially when flying into Heathrow. Fast moving airstreams may mean that the flight arrives maybe an hour early but air traffic then give it a 30 minute delay. Madness... all that fuel wasted due to air traffic control not being able to get their act together despite having hugely expensive computers. Heathrow's (approximately) 97% utilisation doesn't help matters either
The benefit of slightly slowing down is due to the transonic barrier. Slowing more does not save fuel because you spend more time lofting the plane in the air.
@Dig Byck please try to read my statement again.
Kirby Zhang sorry but you are wrong. Economy speed is partially about fuel use but also accounts for all sorts of other factors such as crew coats, engine wear, maintainence cost etc. The fast you fly the higher your form drag figure. As you slow down your induced drag increases. There is a ‘sweet spot’ where both curves meet at a low point, nowhere near VMo or MMO, often referred to as VMD.
@@FlyingSi where did you contradict what I said?
Miss the speed but miss legroom and comfy seats more.
Shell out for first class.
Because at the end of the day nobody misses the cost.
Lots of legroom in first, business, and even some economy plus seating. Huge options. Don't blame anyone else just because you're cheap and make the voluntary choice of steerage class.
Owen Major another dick head.
I am quite tall and know your pain.
But in the end nowadays we get a Premium Economy Seat or even Business Seat for the price people used to pay for a normal ticket 50 years ago.
Be realisitc.
I can fly from Paris or Frankfurt to London for sometimes less than 100€.
Cheaping out on a 10€ exit row seat and complaining afterwards that it is not comfy does not make sense.
I hae booked emergency row seats numerous times in the past and it was never expensive.
Flying is soo cheap sometimes it makes me uncomfortable.
It is often alot cheaper than taking the train.
Steve Kennett haven't traveled by air in years but I heard it sucks now guess I'm not missing anything think I'll stick to the road
AH the Boeing 737-Max... Marvel of modern engineering. Grounded by all nations 2 years after first deliveries.
The Russian way would be to continue flying them, no?
@@CristianValenzuela2155 Did You just assume my nationality? Would have never expected it from a Puerto Rican chick lol.
The fact is that the gem of American modern engineering is stuck on ground and is not safe to fly, while the big old 747s, the 737-x00, A320s are still in the air doing their service.
Watch Mentour Pilot if you want the true story. Yes Boeing screwed the pooch on training and documentation. They also should have had the fricking MCAS reading BOTH sensors and not do ANYTHING if they disagreed, as well as leave the system disengaging when pilots fight with it. But it remains that if the pilots had been better trained they could have and should have disengaged the MCAS manually, just like the guest pilot did on the previous flight of the Ethiopian Airlines plane. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this never happened in the US or the EU. I agree with the guy that said ground the PILOTS until they get better training, not the plane. All that being said, the changes to the flight control software will fix the problem and the 737 MAX will finish it’s career as a great plane just like all the other models. This isn’t a simplistic sound bite by a sour grapes Russian troll, just a carefully researched opinion. I certainly don’t see any Illyushin airliners selling 4000 units. There’s a reason for that....
Actualy many Planes was groundet shortly after relase, ...
Georgi Valchanov And don’t forge the Dreamliner of all things is more safe! Yeah! The plane that had exploding batteries!
I can remember, as a kid and teen, flying Olympic Airways 707's to Athens, Greece nonstop from JFK, NYC. It took less than 8 hours! Now, the same distance takes about 10 hours or more commercially.
everything is in the end fuel efficiency.
That's right! Bad fuel economy and high maintenance killed the Concorde.
The higher fuel economy, half-empty passenger aisles, AND maintenance requirements are killing 4-engine jumbo jets now except for cargo and executive (presidential/PM) jets. The 747 was designed to slot into the cargo role, A380 wasn't.
In 2 decades, there probably will still be some 747's running as cargo planes even as the passenger versions are winding down now. The A380 will likely be gone in less time than that because the economics don't add up for the plane and they DIDN'T make provisions to convert it for cargo.
But then again, the Concorde had a far worse production run, more political headaches, and was kept alive mainly through government subsidies and high rollers who WOULD pay for prestige tickets to fly at Mach 2. That worked for about 20 years but they lost their market after the fatal 2000 accident and 9/11. It just couldn't survive those two events one on top of the other. Had the accident NOT happened and it survived the 9/11 air traffic dip, the Concorde would STILL be in the process of being retired now because they didn't consider it technically and economically feasible to fly for much longer than another 15 years...
Just a constant battle against entropy
Not really. Time is money. So there is a balance. There's no excuse for having no supersonic civilian aircraft
@@AvengerII Except that was 40+ years ago. It wasn't economic partly bc it was banned over land bc of a tree hugger anti technology lobby and bc of protectionist trade policy in the US (they made the law to prevent Concorde sales originally) If it was really as uneconomic as ppl think , it would have been shut down in 5 years and just used for glamour runs for the British monarchy. The issues around Concorde are more nuanced than anyone gives it credit for. The Boeing company got state subsidies too. ExIm bank in the US is a state run bank and Boeing is its biggest client to this day.
@@dsanalysis5013 I think that you're being grossly unfair over the banning of supersonic flights by claiming it was only tree huggers. In another video here on YT, it said that the Federal government ran a 6 month test over Oklahoma City to test the public's tolerance of sonic booms, and it was such a spectacular failure that they had to stop the test early. The same video also said that an SST flying at over 60k feet would create a sonic boom that could be heard 30 miles away. That's one hell of a wide path to cut across the country if you're doing a NYC to LA flight. And BTW, I'm neither anti-technology nor a tree hugger by any stretch of the imagination. But from listening and watching that video, I think that it would have been unendurable to have SST constantly flying here and there across the continental US.
There are also some videos talking about a possible resurgence in SST development, centered on the idea of removing or minimizing sonic booms. I'm not a scientist or whatever, so I'm at a loss as to how one could get rid of sonic booms while still flying at normal cruising altitudes. I also know that research has been conducted on suborbital hypersonic flight, where I think the idea is that there would be no or minimal sonic booms at those altitudes due to a far less dense atmosphere. And I wonder if that's where the real future of "super fast" flight may be.
I went to bootcamp in San Diego. There used to be a large naval base with Marine and Naval basic training. It's no longer there, but when I was there in 86, our barracks were right at the end of the San Diego Intl airport. We used to sneak up on the roof, lay on our backs and watch the jets taking off. They were only a hundred feet above ground at that point and you could see inside the wheel wells. The main reason we did it was the noise was just deafening. It was such a rush to feel your chest rumble. And we could tell the difference between jets based on their noise. The L-1011 and 747 was more of a high pitch whine, while the 727 was by far the loudest and it was just a mind numbing roar. DC10's and MD-11's were more felt than heard. Very subtle for their size and power. Oh well, it was just something I remembered when this guy mentioned the 727.
00UncommonSense00 do you still have any hearing?
Yeah the 727 was overpowered, if anything. But that third engine did help a lot for short runways and a fast climb.
A very well done video with lots of good information.
I wonder if the argument for faster planes suffers from the fact that an airliner can only fly near its maximum speed when at cruising altitude. On shorter flights, the climb and descent comprise such a large fraction of the total flight distance/time that the advantage of a higher speed is even further reduced, since that speed can't even be used very much.
Nice video. Thanks for the explanations. You showed that there are actual physical and economic barriers to large market air travel.
Just one thing, what most don't realize fuel is the single highest cost to an airline. The cost of fuel is about 40% of the overall cost of running an airline. Therefore a 25% reduction in fuel consumption translates to about 8% reduction in the over all cost of doing business (CODB) and therefore reducing the price of the average fare.
Security, passport checking and customs have become a real nuisance of modern travelling.
Because of very few criminals, millions are punished every day by slow and inefficient overall transport time.
@plaguelock The statistics proves otherwise, sorry. Airport security has never stopped any actual terrorist attempts. The only thing they're actually good at is detecting and catching drugs smugglers.
All successful terrorist preventions are sniffed before the hijackers arrived in the airport, not by the pat downs or the X-ray/microwaves equipments.
Aircraft hijacking had been going down since way before 9/11 because of real security improvements, but these real improvements are mostly happening behind the scenes, not due to the security theatres that's playing out in front of everyone in the airport everyday. Even many former TSA staffs acknowledges this.
9/11 was the first time aircraft has ever been used as mass destruction weapon ever since mankind flew, and it was the only time ever since. It took 100 years for an incident of that scale to happen, and chances are it'll likely took another 100 years for another one.
yvrelna air travel still sucks the most of all the available travel methods.
That being said, even if you’re correct and all TSA does is catch drug smugglers - I’m way okay with that. I live in a state that legalized weed, life changed, anything they can do to keep drugs out of the country is worth the extra four hours.
That's an excellent point Sky, if I want to save time anywhere, it's with the process at the airport. Once I'm on the plane, I actually enjoy the view and the service usually. I love the onboard experience, so there's no hurry there. If we go faster, it can only increase fuel costs, ticket prices and emissions. So I'm fine having a nice long relaxing flight, I actually love long haul. If we save time anywhere when flying, let's save it on the ground.
You're just like me, I love long flights. I remember flying from Toronto, Canada to Warsaw, Poland and I was so mad that the 8 hour flight was already over, I wished it was 24 hours longer. But like you said I wish we could somehow make the airport check in quicker, because I hate going through all the airport checks, but I also understand that it's done for our safety. I hate what the terrorist have done to our airports, if it wasn't for the terrorists the check in would be so much quicker if we didn't have to go through all the security and be treated like a criminal just to board our aircraft. We as humans are hard to satisfy, we complain about all the security checks but if something was to happen on the plane because of a terrorist then we would again complain why the security didn't take their time and do a better job at keeping us safe.
Couldn't disagree more
If waiting in long TSA lines etc. is what floats your boat, be my guest!
@@FriendlyMarmot you are the one who likes waiting around to get on your slow white elephant . Not me . If flying was faster , it would force the tsa to take less time
8 hours on a plane is more than enough for that thrill. @@AviationNut
Airline speed is less irrelevant today since a lot of your time is spent travelling to and from the airport and queuing in arrival and departures. Flight transfers also suck up a lot of the time. Most important thing in an airliner is seat size and leg room.
Why I always loved the 727, quite a hot rod for an airliner!
"...interesting theory. Explains a lot."
I love your combination of explanation and visuals at this point. 04:12
I think actually that the OIL CRISES is the reason why we stopped going faster. Because then we all saw: It's not ever-lasting, a small change can hurt us so bad that it's not acceptable. And all we do now is trying to get rid of the change we can get to that disasterous moment again.
I don't think that they are "slowing" so much as that they "slowed" . 40 years ago they settled on mach .85 as the best compromise for efficiency. Almost all new designs in the last 40 years fly at that speed. Since the 747 and on up to today they have abandoned the speeds beyond mach .85 as a diminishing returns situation where a lot more fuel is used to go only a little faster. You hit the nail on the head with your idea that the next supersonic aircraft will be bizjets!
You think the future supersonics woldn't be business jets?
@@trash4cash454 I don't understand what you are asking. Sky said at about 17:00 that the next supersonic planes will be bizjets and I agree with that. Yes the next supersonic jets will be bizjets :)
@@redlock4004 I absolutely agree with you.
(Also I think that trash4cash didn't understand the expression "hitting the nail on the head" so that's why he had to ask)
Its 2019, but I still love the Boeing 727
727 is an iconic veteran)
@@trash4cash454 Definitely.
Loved the Northeast Yellowbird and the Delta Shuttle. 727-200 best jet!
The 727 is my favorite airplane
Took my first flight on a 727, Braniff Airlines out of Phoenix... Never forget it.
It's interesting that one hundred years ago, traveling on a train at 60mph was considered fast. Now we are complaining about Mach .85 being too slow.
you know airplanes existed 100 years ago right.
@@o0xTHEcoPlayerx0o my guess is that in 1919 the fastest trains were about as fast as the fastest planes.
Planes weren't really available to the public back then either because of the cost.
a high class analysis video....very useful & reason-based
Passenger comfort crossed the line years ago. Flying is my last choice when it comes to travel method.
I’ve spent enough time flying to know, I’d rather go on a transatlantic cruise than be crammed in a sardine can.
@@roundsm18
If your going on vacation and don't really care too much about the destination than ok. But if you want to get there and enjoy yourself its much better to fly. If you have a week of vacation and choose to take a cruise from the US to Europe and back than the trip alone is going to take up the majority of the vacation, compared to a plane where it takes a couple days to go there and back. This is even more important for business travelers who just need to get there, do their job, and leave. They don't want to sit on a ship and wait days before they arrive, and then have to do it again when they go back. There is a reason transatlantic flights took over from boats as the preferred travel method across the Atlantic.
Henri Bergeron I get four weeks a year. Last vacation I took was 2005. I do not fly, period, unless I am forced to for work. So if I’m spending the money and wasting the time to go on a vacation it won’t involve an airplane.
What airlines have is a level of convenience that allows them to have the crappy service that ocean liners did not.
A lot of good points have already been said, but you should keep in mind that cruises are very damaging to the environment, even more than planes. In addition to that you might be miserable for several days if you hit bad weather. Even the normal movement of the ocean can make some people sick for the entire cruise. And as you stay there for the entire time its much more expensive, so not everybody can afford that.
Jutta Beckmann this is why I simply don’t travel. I don’t miss it, and it doesn’t hurt me.
Shipping in general is bad for the environment yet we still ship cargo instead of flying it.
Still sea over air if I were to care to go somewhere.
A well researched documentary as always, I learned a lot more than I thought I knew before
Wow! This is one of the very few videos I've seen online which actually is articulated well and keeps it real. Thank you.
Aerodynamic drag increases with the cube of the speed. That means it takes a lot more power to go just a bit faster. Most people are not prepared to pay more to go a little bit faster and it makes sense.
Obviously some people are rich enough to want to go faster. There is no excuse for no SS jets. Today it's Greyhound with wings
@@dsanalysis5013 The Concorde couldn't remain a viable service because people (in enough numbers) weren't prepared to pay the high ticket price. I think that says it all.
@@rogeronslow1498 It's just not that simple. You talk as if the airlines, Boring and Airbus are bastions of free market capitalism now. This isn't true. The business is rife with govt bailouts, govt ownership and govt subsidy. The C series turned A220 had a govt bailout. ExIm bank in the US is a state owned bank used exclusively by Boeing .
The 2 main causes of the death of the Concorde was 911 and Airbus's new baby, the A380. The Concorde fleet got an overhaul just before 911 . The London to NY route was a cash maker for BA. But since airbus was promoting the A380 And the hub model , they stopped making parts for the Concorde.
Tell me. How many commercial aircraft would be economically viable if they were banned from the Americas for dubious political reasons ? The US did the same thing with the A380 and it was a money losing economic failure as a result too.
Square of the speed.
@@johnp139 Apologies, you are correct. The square of the speed.
My takeaway from this video is that it's good to know that Father Guido Sarducci is still getting voiceover work.
So true! Here in Carrasco MVD we have the last of those awesome machines, a cargo 727 that flies every Sunday late evening (nearly midnight) to Ezeiza (AR), and you can sure tell when that trijet has taken off! I live about 2 miles from the airport and sometimes it flies over my home. I'll miss it when they retire it.
Great! They are supposedly more comfortable? My ass. I’m 6’4” and I used to love to fly. Now I hate it. They have reduced the seating area to something for “average” people. I leave a plane with muscle cramps due to how I’m forced to sit for hours.
I'm 6'4" as well. If you can't get emergency exit seating then get an aisle seat so you can stick you legs into the aisle.
40 years ago, an economy seat cost about as much as a business class seat today. Probably more, in terms of buying power. I'm 186 cm tall (not sure how much that is in ft), so I also have issues in 32" seat pitch economy. I always try to get a seat in premium economy (somewhat bigger seat pitch, at a price) or maybe an exit row. I've even upgraded to business class occasionally...
man fr im not even trynna go on a plane cuz of that
I'm 5'7, and on a long haul I totter off the plane, cramped and dead tired.
you're older, I am 64 and everything hurts for nothing
Keep it up! Also the closer you get to the sound barrier the fuel consumption rate goes way up.
But it falls back down right after you exceed it. Anyone apologizing for these pathetic low speeds is not cool
@@dsanalysis5013 It starts going down, but it's still much more draggy than Mach 0.85 or so. Even at Mach 2 you're still roughly increasing the drag coefficient 50%. Add on to that the penalty of going (conservatively) two times faster and thus having about 4 times as much kinetic energy, and you find you're using somewhere around 12 times as much power to go triple the speed.
@@AmbientMorality Not quite, because altitude lets you get most of that back. Lift to drag ratios are the important number, because you set lift to the weight of the aircraft and then fly at the altitude that gives you the lowest drag. Supersonic lift to drag ratios are roughly half subsonic ones, so you only need twice the thrust for the faster speed. Energy is force time distance, so that means 6 times for triple the speed.
The reason that Concorde was economic at the time was that turbofans were not well developed, and turbojets are more efficient at high speeds. Fuel flow corresponds to thrust up to very high speeds, so maintaining the same thrust for twice as long would actually use twice the fuel, despite the lower speeds. That loses you the lift to drag advantage that subsonic aircraft have.
@@agsystems8220 fair point
@@dsanalysis5013 I was about to say the same thing
One reason, which is not the flight speed, is also the airports. That is one reason why flights take longer. In the 60's and 70's, airports were not crowded. You could basically take off as soon as you were boarded, fly to destination, turn the course towards airstrip and land, and there was no delays. Nowadays the traffic, aka number of takeoffs and landings, has multiplied by a lot. More waiting before takeoffs, more time in holding pattern waiting for your landing slot and because of all these, airlines do add safety bumper to flight times just to make sure they won't have to pay lots and lots of delay fees to passangers. Most of the time flights land ahead of time, even though flight time was longer than in 70's.
I think he told it in the video
Before I retired I worked at a NASA research center working on Airport Surface Traffic issues.
And liberals want open borders letting in millions more and the airports are maxed out now.
@RoyalMela
Not to mention that the experience at the airports is now horrible due to the crowded conditions and too many low class customers bringing their bad behavior and hygiene too. Get rid of economy class entirely and raise all fares.
A very informative video. I have always wondered why commercial jetliners cannot approach even a quarter of the max speed of a jet fighter.
30 years ago a flight JFK-FCO would take 7.5 hours from takeoff now the same route on the same airline but different aircraft now takes almost 9 hours. That's crazy that in a span of 30 years the flight time has increased by nearly 2hours.
05:00 The British Hawker Sidderly Trident was the first of the Tri Jets. The Americans came over in the 60`s and were shown the plans for the trident and they nicked them and made the 727. Something the British company regret`s , showing the plans that is.
Well thought, well spoken and very informative. Thanks.
The sad fact it we're getting slower and the seat pitch is getting narrower.
Welcome to the prolonged suffering.
And the tickets are vastly cheaper.
Stop bitching about it and shell out for first class. You will get a better experience than they did back in the 60's and you will pay the same amount.
@Owen Major
Problem is that the same economy class bums clog up the airport and bring with them their obnoxious behavior and personal hygiene problems among other things. Even still in 1st Class the economy class cattle are on the same plane and when you board you still can't totally avoid them. Also they still use 1st class bathrooms and blunder into business and 1st class cabin areas too. Nope. You have to get rid of economy class ENTIRELY.
Or you can do as me, never set your foot in an airplane.
@@watershed44 I bet you're a fat mess who can't get an erection lol. So you spent $5k? WOAH you must be Bill Gates! If you were who you claim to be you'd be on a private aircraft so you're not fooling anyone lol.
Rommy how is 628 mph slow??? Thats really fast
I absolutely love your videos and really like the way you went into depth on this topic.
I started knowing that it was cheaper to fly a bit slower, but you gave a lot more insight about this.
Edit: I also really love the way you ended this video. "Quite fast enough flights." I laughed.
They only had to go really fast long enough to put the prop planes out of business. Kind of like big box stores having low prices just long enough to put mom and pop out of business, then they do what they please.
Altitude has come down as well, it was always fly higher to get over the weather and turbulence, many flights I took in the 70’s were up in the 40k plus feet, now around 35k feet on average up to 38k and down to 32k over the Atlantic from US to Europe.
Coming over the Rockies from Seattle we went up to 43k in a 737-700 to clear some really bad turbulence back in 2005, usually cross around 36k feet.
Going east from US many flights go deep into the Jet stream, twice once on SAS and secondly on AA both A330-300’s we were clipping along at just over 1100kmh, pilots kept throttling back and must have been on idle thrust, we were being pushed into our seats, in the case of SAS we were 1:20 early into Copenhagen from Newark
Don’t you mean going east?
The best efficiency is to fly at the tropopause, (36,000ft).
They will still fly higher if they have to for weather.
Ethan Lamoureux thanks, fixed😁
Android811 it’s also aircraft economics, earlier Boeing aircraft were built stronger, able to fly more cycles, with cheap fuel and fixed prices, it helped the airlines but not Boeing, fewer planes needing to be replaced. Airbus built their planes slightly weaker, so less cycles and quicker plane replacements, rising fuel costs also lighten planes. Flying higher puts more stress on the airframe so lower altitudes are flown keeping cabin pressure lower. They can fly higher if needed but not on a regular schedule of hours.
@@allanadam4553
How the hell do you edit? Well I'll be.
DC-8 is a real beauty. It's long fuselage and elegant wings... DC-8 is the "fashion-model" amongst airliners. All those newer passenger planes are much fatter and less elegant... same as the passengers inside of them.
Too bad our generation has to come up with ways to clean up the mess your elegant gas guzzling DC-8s and a million other inventions did
@@Shaun81000 if you're a member of the youngest generation, then you're the member of the stupidest generation ever. Laziest and stupidest. And to prove that, I'll just ask you two things: (1) Is smoking marijuana good for your health? (2) Do you ever check which access to your hardware an app requires when you're installing it on your Android or iPhone?
@@Shaun81000 Your generation finds it hard to wipe its butt without getting a trophy, soyboy.
@@cinegraphics 1. Marijuana treats many diseases and ailments. Also, do you think it is appropriate to berate marijuana users while most men in the 20th century spent their lives using pipes, cigarettes and other forms of tobacco? 2. I own neither of the above 3. I don't understand how these two questions prove we're a lazy generation. But let me add a little math for you to get your old eyes to see the facts.
In 1950, the population was about 2.6 billion. Today, its 7.2 billion. If you assume even if 60% of the population is lazy, it's just math telling you that you are more likely to see a lazy person these days.
@@Nicks_Pix I don''t even know what that means. But, if you're blaming this generation about wiping butts then it's probably you and people from your generation who proved incompetent in training their children
7:29
"feels much better on take off"
shows 787 going space shuttle status
I sometimes wish pilots would take off like this, for me it would be exciting... I can clearly understand why they don’t. Actually, I just wish I could go on one of those test flights that they are performing at 7:29
Eric Highsmith ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We are about to take off, I suggest you squeeze your knees together and don’t forget to breath, we’re getting to our cruising altitude in 2 minutes.
@@DontDisapPyrrha *Distant Grunting*
Jerome The Sheep haha
I'd love to be in that test flight
Super great explanation mate, very informative! Thank you!!
Excellent video with great content! Well done as usual Skyships.
The fuselage from both, 737 and 727, was taken from 707 and is the same, differing in length, wings and engines.
Andreas Walter So the only difference is the fuselage, wings, and engines. Ok.
I think the 737 is made of lighter gauge aluminum (skin)
The faster you get there, the longer you wait in a holding pattern to land...
lol
It’s worth watching just for the accent. Such conviction. And props for including km/h.
Thank you. Always a pleasure to receive actual facts rather than speculation or inept explanation.
Tremendous presentation and narration. Well done. Very interesting, and informative!
Man, your videos are more than incridible!
I've seen and walked through a Concorde at Duxford Air Museum, it was surprisingly small
Concorde had 95680 kgs of fuel... times by 1.266 to get liters of Jet/Jet-A fuel = 121130.88... Divided by 1000 to get cubic meters = 121.13088... Where did they put all that fuel?
Wings.
The fact that we can even fly in the first place is good enough in and of itself in my opinion. Speed increase during flight is trivial as long as it brings with it as many drawbacks as it does today
I have lived near Heathrow circa 1.8miles from North runway start point since 1997, a few years of feeling then hearing Concorde thundering till take off was magnificent, seeing the Concorde in flight at take off / landing std speed in air was a special sight
Long live Concorde & now the A380 is in demise, 2 aeronautical giants
Yes. I am with you here John. I remember people would rush outside to watch Concorde fly over. A wonderful sight!
Great video production. Congratulations. We understand it is hard work to produce one of these, let alone many. So thank you. =:)
It is because the turbofan engine is fuel efficient, within the range of speeds used, and does not make excessive noise.
Anywhere in the world within 24 hours. Pretty extraordinary that humanity has gotten to this point.
That was possible 40 years ago. We haven't (officially) advanced since then.
Exactly.
you have LOW standards! its NOT extraordinary....
Lets see you build a plane, if its so easy@@firstnamelastname776
@silvergreylion
Flight is STILL a miracle. You don't appreciate that, even after all these years. The efficiency that has been gained is advancement.
Do some planes still fly faster than the speed of sound to make a sonic boom because every once in a while a passenger or cargo plane with fly over my city and it will makes a extremely loud sound that will sometimes slightly shake my house sometimes there military fighter jets but many times they have just looked like usual passenger or cargo planes, I live 24 km from the nearest big airport could it possibly be because there descending for landing??
Unlikely to be breaking the sound barrier when coming in for landing. Military fighters taking off make a lot of noise, especially if they're taking off on afterburner. All jets are fairly noisy though. I think a 747 taking off is supposed to produce around 120 decibels.
great video skyships! you explain everything in a very pleasant way to listen to, and the footage and editing is great!
2:36 - I take my 1st grader to school in my V10 R8
Ah, a man of the right make.
0:43 she brings him a memo from corporate, one word: Faster!
It's a far simpler answer. The golden era of aviation is long passed. That's it. Even Military aircraft are following the same route. Sad.
Great synopsis. I appreciate the time you must take to produce these well put together videos. Articulated brilliantly, condense, and in a timely fashion. Thank you , so interesting and you have something in every video for all types of aviation enthusiasts.
Amazing video. Very well done. I like all the clips you put together!
Why not increase the discomfort? Nose-diving, loud engines, no seatbelts...
expensive aircraft maintenance, fines for exceeding noise levels, lawsuits of injured passengers
Incredibly uncomfortable discomfort
@@HedgehogStudios1 Year, really uncomfortable discomfort
I would definitely pay extra to fly on 'Stunt Airways' with surprise barrel rolls, loop to loops and inverted flight.
Ervand Rush The fine for noise can be eliminated by allowing everything to be infinitely loud
Me: Why can't we fly faster?
Him: What for?
Me: Haven't you seen Taken? I've only got 72 hours!!!!
4:11
the true answer to the question in the title
Lol ikr
People today: idiots
People back then: stars
There is one more factor not even mentioned: Air freight. A large percentage of air freight goes by passenger planes. Higher fuel efficiency and lower freight rates beats velocity every time.
This has been one of your most informative, well written, well presented videos ever.
Delightful presentation of todays needs in aviation. Well done.
Sustainability. This word is key in all in all aspects of life. Aircraft included...
@Kilo Byte I was talking (not only but mostly) about ECONOMICAL SUSTAINABILITY... You certainly would know that this noun can be applied to a number of subjects, right? Instead of a tree, you should really hug and hold back your impetus preconceptions...
Overused buzzword used today to justify anything.
Haven't seen the vid yet but gonna take a shot at it.
To save fuel, same as super container ships ? 😉
Not only to save fuel. But to save money. Money, money, money
@@ervandrush3116 Exactly my analogy. $ is the reason behind 99.9% of every human made decision. 😳
@@GIGABACHI Haha) What about sex and power. Or money can give both of it...)
@@ervandrush3116 it's money, the rest can be bought. 😉
Interesting video which is easy enough to understand.
I hope the priority will always be towards safety. Speed isn’t the most important factor for many people. Because the current max speeds are fine enough.
Why wasn't the Boeing 707-3xx mentioned? It did pretty good in the speed with its 4 P&W JT3D engines. :)
Before I even watched this vid I knew the answer. Cost and efficiency. EXCEPT for corporate big wigs. Sky pointed out their planes are going faster and faster. Cost, efficiency environmental concerns for them? No, they're special. Only the fastest most luxurious is good enough for them. Just pass the increased costs on to the customer.
So, if you can but the $50 million plane you can fly faster) in this matter money is cheaper than time
That is why I don't listen to any of the Climate Change alarmists, like Al Gore: massive carbon footprints, demanding the rest of us reduce ours while theirs are bloated.
@@shebbs1 Yep. Gullible Climate Hoaxism has made Gore billions of dollars.
Privatize the gains; subsidize the losses!
That is the way it has and always will be. Get use to it.
Most informative ; ) Many Thanks and Kind Regards.
Here's one! Why do we never see our own face/reflection in a dream?
History and description of my favourite bomber: The B-52 Stratofortress.
Why not?
Where've you found the B-52 there?
This. I grew up in the civilian part of Ramey AFB in Puerto Rico, which used to home B-52's in the late 50's through early 70s. There's a picture in one of my parents' albums of me as a kid during an airshow in the 90s standing directly underneath one of the wing outrigger wheels as the plane was leaning on the opposite end.
The 52 is being obsoleted by its ancient engine design.
@@hotrodray9884 There is an effort underway to put new engines on the B-52 fleet.
Did there fail to be a single preserved Convair 990?
Do these new slower "Jets" have a lower service ceiling than the older loud and fast ones?
Is such an engine as the LEAP more of a fancy shrouded turboprop than a real "jet" ?
No idea why this was a suggested video... but it was very well done and informative!!
Fuel Efficiency, Mechanical Reliability and FAA Regulation.