Can you spot the hidden mistake in this video! I sure did, but I'll keep the video up all the same! enjoy and thanks for putting up with my slightly sloppy editng!
9:38 "With France's equivalent..." ? You mean Sud-aviation / Aérospatiale which became EADS the mother company of Airbus. No matter Concorde's commercial failure, she turned out to be the success of what is Airbus today. Concorde is a technological wonder and was the first commercial aircraft to feature full electrical fly-by-wire commands, the first thrust-by-wire engines (ancestor of FADEC), low tire pressure active monitoring... Concorde featured so many innovations: full hands off auto-throttle and dual autopilot from climb to landing, ILS full autoland system (CAT 3A), dual weather radar screens, electrically controlled hydraulic light ABS breaking system with ventilated carbon discs (3 breaking laws), composite flight control surfaces (ailerons/elevons, rudder), INS navigation system, IDG/GCU managed hydraulics and electrics, triple hydraulic system, on-the-fly center of gravity (CG) adjustment with fuel displacement, AU2GN/RR58 alloy light fuselage and wing, Teflon coated surfaces, electronically controlled shape shifting engine air intakes and exhaust, artificial feel pilot's commands... Also, Snecma began building (with Rolls-Royce) aircraft engines for Concorde's Olympus 593 and later joined forces with General Electric to form CFM International and create the CFM56 that equipped the Boeing 737 classic and NG, Airbus A320 family, A340-200/300, DC-8-70, and Boeing C-135 & E-3 (under the name F108, CFM56 military version). The offsprings of Concorde's innovations are today's aviation standards and stemmed Airbus backbone.
The sonic boom wasn’t really a huge issue. I used to live in Dorset in the UK. We used to hear it twice a day, the British Concorde heading out down the Bristol Channel to the North, and the French one heading down the English Channel to the South. The sonic boom was literally no more than a rapid triple rumble of distant thunder.Concorde wasn’t a failure as an aircraft, it was a huge success technologically, it was the first supersonic aircraft with the ability to super cruise, I.E. the ability to cruise at twice the speed of sound without using afterburners, this years before the likes of the F-22 could finally do the same. Commercially, both the Air France and British airways aircraft were nearly always overbooked,and flying Concorde was always very popular. People who flew in them always spoke very highly of the smoothness and comfort of the aircraft. It should also be remembered that US politicians and indeed Boeing, set about a massive campaign of disinformation to turn the flying public against Concorde, presumably to shutdown a rival aircraft builder, and to push their own SST project and the 747 Jumbo project. Had some of the other American airlines taken up their options for the trans Atlantic and other oversea routes the Concorde would have been a much more successful aircraft commercially. Even today, there are a number of companies who are trying to bring scaled down Concorde projects to market, it will be interesting to see how much bad publicity will be aimed at them.
Haha you would of heard it 4 times a day bc it had two sonic booms salt I never got to see Concorde bc I am too young :( but I enjoyed reading this though
*_@stallagiardino7877_* Far from sabotaging Concorde, the Americans helped. By special concession, for no benefit to themselves, they did allow Britain and France's noisy SST to overfly their country subsonically and use their airports, despite a public outcry. FAA data shows 120dB on take off, compared to 104dB for a Boeing 707, which itself was the subject of previous noise protests. American airline companies also supported Concorde by taking out 38 options to buy. In addition, the American SST Program and NASA provided technical assistance. When Concorde started flying, 50% of the passengers were American. From 1977 to 2003, Concorde's main scheduled flights were between London or Paris and New York or Dulles. America's SST Program shared data on the ogival wing with the European designers. NASA assisted by modifying a Douglas F5D Skylancer to mimic the ogival wing and, in 1965, the NASA test aircraft successfully flew the wing. On top of that, many technical reports, standards, and procedures are American or American based. The same goes for material, sub assemblies, instrumentation, electronics, production equipment, and test equipment. Americans think that Concorde is a phenomenal aircraft and, far from being jealous, admire it. Why would they be, jealous when you think of all their aviation achievements? In any case, Concorde was no threat to their dominance in passenger air transport. America certainly could have made a Mach 2 airliner, had they wished. In fact, they started studying SST in 1950, and had been working on the much bigger and more advanced Boeing 2707 Mach 3 SST since 1967. They already had the Mach 2 B58, and Mach 3 Valkyrie bombers flying, along with about 15 supersonic reconnaissance and fighter aircraft, and they were experts in jet technology. For all of its technical excellence, Concorde was hampered by sonic boom, subsonic noise, limited passenger capacity, and limited range. Concorde was also thirsty, especially at slower speeds. The cabin was 'cosy' and noisy and baggage capacity was extremely limited. Maintenance was costly and availability was poor. Concorde was also difficult to fly, requiring specially selected pilots to attend a six-month intensive conversion course. The development program overran, and the costs, which were all borne by the UK and French tax payers, were astronomical. There was also an on going history of undercarriage problems, and tyre blow outs, leading to punctured fuel tanks, causing a near crash and a fatal crash. But sonic boom was the showstopper. Amazingly, the SST study groups of the 1950s just assumed that sonic boom wouldn't be a problem at 60,000 feet so, in 1962, the Concorde development program went ahead, seemingly oblivious. This was one of the biggest blunders in aviation history. Many objections to SST are fanciful, not so for sonic boom. In 1964, when USAF aircraft flew supersonic near Oklahoma City, 9,600 people complained. There were similar outcries in 1967, when RAF aircraft made supersonic flights over Somerset. Finally, in the face of public outcry, the FAA banned commercial supersonic flights in 1973, and other countries soon followed, including the UK and France. This ban made most of Concorde's planned routes nonviable. The Labour Party of 1964 tried to pull out of Concorde, but were tied by a condition of the agreement, which ironically the UK had insisted on. With costs escalating and the program overrunning, the Conservative Party of 1970 also wanted to leave, but were prevented by politics. Likewise, British Airways and Air France didn't want to fly Concorde, but were forced by their respective governments to accept 7 aircraft each. Although the Boeing 2707 SST had technical issues, two prototype 2707-300s were being built and the program was back on track, when it was cancelled by senate in 1971, because the concept of SST was thrown into doubt. There was also strong pressure from the environmental lobby, who were the most vocal. It turns out that the cancellation, which was very unpopular at the time as it caused 6,500 layoffs, was fortuitous in the long run, because it saved the US a mint, and eliminated a potential Concorde competitor. Sadly, Concorde's last commercial flight was the return trip from JFK to Heathrow on 24 October 2003. In 2004 Concorde was retired because Airbus Industries declined to supply spare parts, and neither British Airways, or Air France wanted to fly it any more.
Concorde’s top speed is actually limited by temperature, not power. At Mach 2.0, the friction from moving through the air heats the aluminum skin almost to the point at which it begins to soften.
9:38 "With France's equivalent..." ? You mean Sud-aviation / Aérospatiale which became EADS the mother company of Airbus. No matter Concorde's commercial failure, she turned out to be the success of what is Airbus today. Concorde is a technological wonder and was the first commercial aircraft to feature full electrical fly-by-wire commands, the first thrust-by-wire engines (ancestor of FADEC), low tire pressure active monitoring... Concorde featured so many innovations: full hands off auto-throttle and dual autopilot from climb to landing, ILS full autoland system (CAT 3A), dual weather radar screens, electrically controlled hydraulic light ABS breaking system with ventilated carbon discs (3 breaking laws), composite flight control surfaces (ailerons/elevons, rudder), INS navigation system, IDG/GCU managed hydraulics and electrics, triple hydraulic system, on-the-fly center of gravity (CG) adjustment with fuel displacement, AU2GN/RR58 alloy light fuselage and wing, Teflon coated surfaces, electronically controlled shape shifting engine air intakes and exhaust, artificial feel pilot's commands... Also, Snecma began building (with Rolls-Royce) aircraft engines for Concorde's Olympus 593 and later joined forces with General Electric to form CFM International and create the CFM56 that equipped the Boeing 737 classic and NG, Airbus A320 family, A340-200/300, DC-8-70, and Boeing C-135 & E-3 (under the name F108, CFM56 military version). The offsprings of Concorde's innovations are today's aviation standards and stemmed Airbus backbone.
You're right. Its important to not regard this a failure. Airbus is now the gold standard of the aerospace sector long replacing that less trustworthy Boeing
@@FoundAndExplained rubbish, you didn’t find anything and you explained by making stuff up....... did you do ANY research???? Ever Bering nearby when a Concorde took off....... it can’t “go quiet”. Why do you think New York mandated it take off and turn immediately because of the extreme noise.... Here’s a tip pal, I have 40 years in aviation, you can’t just throw a baseball cap on and bullshit when you don’t know any facts. Go amd make videos about stuff you know about, otherwise you’re just generating uninformed misinformation.
Beautiful plane. Was so lucky to live in Queens and hear and see when these babies land and take off. FYI, at home you would know when this baby was departing. Loved it.
Concorde is not the most hated aircraft ever. Its most likely the most loved aircraft and the plane every aviation enthousiast likes or loves. Its to me the most beautiful object and plane ever made !
Given the fuel consumption, the Concorde was a bad idea from the very beginning. If I lived near an airport where it flew from I would have hated it...
@@davidhollenshead4892 and as a pilot i would have loved to hear those amazing RR snecma olympus 589-602 engines wake me up in the morning. Also, Concorde was built in the 60s when fuel efficiency wasn’t a huge concern just like for cars. Just before the crash they actually started to develop new engines that were to be more fuel efficient and more powerful to have less need for afterburners. Concorde could already make a full flight without afterburners take off included.
@@davidhollenshead4892 it was only fuel inefficient if it flew at Subsonic speed. At supersonic speed it was actually pretty efficient, especially when flaying at Mach 2. At the time it was developed, SST was seen as the future and fuel was widely available and prices were fairly low. It was not until the oil embargo following the Yom Kippur War when prices skyrocketed and thus made SST unviable. It wasn't a bad idea from the start. Also the whole too noisy over houses is a bit of a misconception. It was noiser than average, but it wasn't that much noiser. Certainly it did not trigger noise levels anywhere near unacceptable levels when Concorde did the noise meter tests in JKF or LHR
I remember seeing one take off from LHR in 1976 and being hugely impressed by the speed and grace of the take-off, not to mention the roar of those Olympus engines! Finally got to sit in one at the Imperial War Museum collection at Duxford.
Wow, I didn’t notice this video at first, but I’m lucky that I found it now. It’s an amazing video and I was hoping you would do a Concorde video soon. Also good job on getting that audible sponsorship!
@@FoundAndExplained It already does! I'm a Concorde freak, flew it for years in FS. In real life I had the opportunity to hug her wheels, sit at the commands, enjoy an extensive tour by pilots and see her from the apron do touch and go's and circle flights at Châlons-Vatry (LFOK/XCR) airport in 2001 during recertification campaign last flight. And it's also the cruelest missed opportunity of my lifetime : I came from Paris for the occasion, joining my father there who was promoting a champagne special aviation themed "cuvée". After the tour of the plane I talked (interrogated, harassed with questions to be honest) with an experienced Air France purser flight attendant. She was there with her husband and children and was supposed to fly back alone as a passenger to Paris on this Concorde then go back home. But seeing the sparkle in my eyes she offered to give me her seat as she preferred to drive home with her family directly and I had to go back to Paris anyway. The return flight to Paris included a supersonic loop over the Atlantic and Channel. I still beat myself up for not having the self confidence to ask her if there was any room for me onboard that flight. We talked for an hour and when she offered to give me her seat she went to talk with the ground and company crew and came back with a sad face : passenger manifest was already closed and sent to HQ and I had just missed my only opportunity to fly supersonic onboard Concorde. To this day I still ache of that missed opportunity. I was too polite to ask / beg for a seat and since then I'm bold and do not hesitate to take my chances! I would have asked 15 minutes before she offered and I would have flown on a special ferry / supersonic loop flight back home, that would have been the classiest moment of my life. There are no words to describe my face on the train back home, I'm still pissed at me 20 years later.
@@brucemaliga791 Yeah sorry but when it's Concorde it's never long enough! She was the Empress of the sky, pioneer of automation and mother of Airbus, with technologies 20 years ahead that are today's standards.
It took the USA years to be able to super cruise like the Concorde. I remember thay made a big song and dance about the fact the F-22 could super cruise!
@@phonicwheel933 The F-104 could supercruise but only at lower altitudes.. circa 20/22,000 feet. Like Concorde it required after burner to transit through Mach 1.. interestingly at higher altitudes.. 35/37,000. Even with AB the F-104 could not transit Mach 1. It had to transit to Mach 1 at lower altitudes, then with full AB could head on up to 48,000 feet .. but was very range limited because it always required AB at higher altitudes. Concorde, used AB to transit Mach 1, then shut down the ABs and climbed to 60,000 feet and supercruised at Mach 2.04 across the Atlantic. So Concord was able to supercruise at 38,000 feet higher than the F-104 could supercruise whos supercruise ceiling was 22,000 feet.
@@martinsaunders2942 Thanks for info Martin. I was just responding, tongue in cheek, to @stallagiardino. The comparison between a fighter and Concorde is invidious, but the F-104 first flew in 1954 and supercruised on one engine, not four like Concorde. BTW, for any one who doesn't know, supercruise is a seductive term, but all it means is that an aircraft can fly above Mach 1 without afterburners. Concorde's performance, being able to supercruise at Mach 2 at 60,000 feet, where the air is so thin, is a fantastic feat of engineering, even by today's standards. The variable inlet ducting was the secret, and required a digital, rather than analogue computer for control to get the required accuracy.
I wasn't aware of the JAL option before, it's rather sad they didn't go through with it. Sure, it wouldn't have saved the program, but having the only Tokyo-Honolulu-Los Angeles route in less than 12 hours would have been a powerful market tool while it lasted.
The issue with that is that Concorde didn't have enough range to make it to Honolulu. Concorde Model B would've addressed this issue, but by that point there was no political incentive to continue the program
You sort of skipped over one (or two) major order cancellations: British Airways and Air France. Part of the reason they got the planes for a pound was because they wanted to back out as well, but since their governments had invested so much into the plane, they refused to let them out. Also, rumor at the time that part of the reason why Airbus canceled the parts for the plane was because they didn't want the competition for the A380. The irony is, if they had held on even just a year, more powerful engines that don't even require afterburners to go supersonic became available. Granted, it was military technology, but so was the Olympus engines the plane was using to begin with.
The Olympus turbojets only needed afterburn for initial climbout and the early part of the acceleration to Mach 2 and climb to 50000 feet. Once at cruising speed and altitude, it could maintain that without afterburners.
The route from DC to London went right over the area I grew up in. I remember when these things went overhead, even if I couldn't see them I could hear them.
I flew on a Concorde. It was an unpleasant buzzy experience, not the gentle feeling of a cruise or a long drive. You knew outside that the elements were sanding down the fuselage, it was so fast and hot. What was really shocking was the jet. It looked like the giant B70 in pictures, but the Concorde was incredibly small. From a 747, you had a problem seeing it, you had to look down.
That's why some are still in service. Far easier and faster to load and unload. If it's full, it's far more efficient than anything else. But only if it's full
When 'The' accident happened in France, and investigation had been made, modifications to the Concordes fuel tanks were made, a brief restart of flights, and then the ban.... Richard Branson, offered to take on the fleet of British Airways Concordes, he said that he would fully strip, rebuild/renovate the ageing airframes and update all components to make them fully airworthy again and maintain all costs, he was refused... It was known at the time that British Airways complained to the then government that they would rather see the end of Concorde than see the Virgin logo on its tail as it was their plane (their co-op with Air France). Some back hand behind closed doors deals were done and Branson was screwed over. He KNEW that the Concorde WAS one of the great British designs/Engineering marvels and should be kept flying. Yet again, dirty business tactics screwed Branson out of something he wanted to take over for the British pride and the British people he wanted to be proud of (he got screwed over with Camalot/the Government with the UK Lotto too). 😒
Nice channel you have going here. Video format is really nice and relaxing. I shared your channel in a group of aviation/flight sim fanatics. Be safe and thanks for the cool content.
Concord had a tremendous operating cost per seat. Also, could only go supersonic over open waters. Overland it would have flown same airspeed as Airbus/Boeing.
I wonder if we'll ever see another supersonic passenger plane. It used to seem inevitable but with climate change and an emphasis on cheap ticket prices over speed I'm starting to think Concorde was a bit of an anomaly
I used to be a despatch rider in the 80s and we had a contract to collect cheques from the Midlands and take them down to dhl (i think) on skyport drive by heathrow where a seat was booked for them so they could get to New York for an extra days interest, i think any dhl staff who wanted a free flight could use that seat.
The range wasn't long enough for a Concorde to service any profitable Australian routes. The most profitable Australian route is Melbourne to Sydney, which takes about 45 minutes on a 767. There's not enough profit in Sydney or Melbourne to New Zealand, you need wealthy clientele in both cities. The other problem is that many who can afford to use Concorde regularly can also afford private planes, which, while slower than Concorde, can save time by flying direct to local airports instead of going straight between Heathrow and New York. And, of course, the capacity is dreadful. A concorde would have to cross the ocean many times a day to equal one 747
the sonic boom objections is a rubbish. the boom is produced by entering mach. or breaking the sound barrier. i.e. it is speed related. which also mean it's controllable. it would only mean waiting until, you have left British or American airspace, over water ideally. and obviously, the reverse coming into land.
That's just it - no country other than Australia would allow Cocordes to fly supersonic over land (a supersonic corridor was established through central Australia, presumably using parts of the Woomera exclusion zones).
You're missing the point, there were other far more efficient means to go across a continent. A 747 will cruise at 0.92 Mach. It's thirsty at that speed, but not thirstier per passenger mile than a Concord. Combined with Concords limited range there are no routes that make sense taking it far inland.
Its easy to comment in 2021 but in the 70’s there was uncertainty with US airlines.....We had two economic recessions/fuel hikes while introducing 747s late 1969, We were struggling with scheduling and marketing to a wide body market that didn’t yet exist and L1011’s/DC10’s coming as well, On top of that was the spectre of Deregulation in 1978 and impact on major airlines (now called Legacy) and our linear route systems. On top of all this we had new automated res systems and management oriented to a regulated environment and this is what Concorde was up against besides the activists suddenly finding their voice on sonic booms etc etc... Despite all that I didn’t know anyone that didn’t admire (and continue to admire Concorde).
I'll never forget the first time I saw one. I was at Heathrow in about 1975 (so, before they entered service) and I saw a plane coming in which was basically a white speck with smoke all around it! Beautiful aircraft though-3rd behind the SR-71 and the XB-70 IMO.
In another twist to this tale, did you know that the Air France Concorde that was involved in that awful accident actually 'went down' twice? Air France Concorde F-BTSC was also the aircraft used in the film Airport 79
@@FoundAndExplained Boeing put the fix in again. Teamed up with their marketing arm, better known as the FAA. They then trailed their own "version" which they never had any intention of building, to muddy the waters as much as possible. They do it every time somebody else has a decent plane. I worked on certifying the A320 in the USA, was a nightmare.
That's Australia for you! Their offer to New Zealand to join Australia was never withdrawn. Still technically on the table. Neither side pays any attention to it
Only been subed for a day or two but this channel is quickly becoming a joy to watch. Also if you haven't watch this guy's train videos there great to.
Quite a few subsonic airplanes that can go supersonic for a short time exist. But very few airplanes that can maintain supersonic speeds ever did exist. The B-58 is probably the first one at a maximum of 1,425 MPH. The B-70 is another. And today there are a few more like the SR-71 and the F-22. The Concorde was exceptional because it could maintain 1,350 MPH for a majority of a transcontinental flight without inflight refueling. But the TU-144 was actually a subsonic aircraft capable of short supersonic portions of a flight. It had many design deficiencies that made it a dangerous and very loud commercial airplane. At Concorde speeds the Russian jet was too loud in the cabin for normal conversations. People passed notes to one another. Comment Pinned by Found And Explained
Actually I think the Virgin airline is the one most possible to run the SST in the future, because they already attempt to develop the passenger spacecraft.
Another great and wonderful supersonic aircraft of those times, fantastic aircraft jewel I am fascinated by this special and spectacular documentary that brings it to life when I see it again 👍👍👌👏👏👏👏💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎🤩🤩🤗🤗🌄😏
I don't think there's any realistic alternative history where the Concorde succeeded. Sonic booms turned out far more annoying than they had anticipated, and even without oil prices spiking, the airlines were clearly not enthusiastic -- they all put in just a handful of options to keep up with the Joneses and dropped them as soon as they weren't necessary to keep up appearances. The economics of the situation just doesn't work -- it's essentially taking the first class cabin out of each airliner and cramming them together onto one single plane's schedule -- fast but inconvenient and expensive to maintain. Meanwhile, the plebs continue flying subsonic and bring in consistent, efficient revenue.
The reason the US companies abandoned Concorde was primarily political pressure (not invented here) plus rocketing fuel prices. As a point of interest we had designed a second gen engine which would've been around 60% quieter than the original engines.Sadly this engine was cancelled. Overall the killing factor was fuel prices. Ironically commercial airliners are only getting slower. The fastest subsonic passenger aircraft was the Vickers VC10 which was used on the transatlantic route. As for power, Concorde could do something the F-35 cannot do... supercruise. This means it flew at Mach 2.05 without reheat (which was only used for takeoff). Our new engine design completely dispensed with the need for reheat and would've cut overall fuel consumption almost in half. Mostly, America was pissed they hadn't made a supersonic jet, so as with the TSR-2 they embarked on carrot-and-stick tactics to discourage purchases of Concorde. It was frustrating.
Sounds like it would have been far more viable from an economic point of view. As you say though, it was political. I don't think it would have made a difference if it flew on hot air, Boeing would still have lobbied the US Government to keep it banned. Could we not have licensed Boeing to make their own? Always struck me as a massive leap backwards when these were cancelled, all the effort that went into the production of the worlds only supersonic aircraft thrown away.....thanks to Boeing, their shady shenanigans, manipulation of the media and the pitchfork brigade........some things never change.
“Hate” is such a strong word, especially for (among other things) aircraft. Even if a plane has poor performance and/or other negative qualities, that wouldn’t cause me to feel any hostility toward the aircraft. I will say the 767-200(ER) gives me bad vibes only because it was used on 9/11 for the attacks on the twin towers but that’s beside the point.
Yes maybe if those events haven't happened the supersonic planes would be flying but this pandemic or the inflation may e would have brought efficiency or 747 and 380 in anyway
You should probably mentioned as soon as PanAm announced their intention of buying Concorde, US presidential office summoned them and asked what their needs. Kicking off the American SST project. The American orders will most likely get cancelled if American SST was on rails, and oil crisis didn’t happen.
There is one missing. The Brazilian Panair had an option to buy the 3 supersonic aircraft then named Super-Caravelle by Sud Aviation (which was the basis for Concorde with BOAC and Nord Aviation so the plane was renamed ). Panair was immensely and built several airports still in use today. Unfortunately, there as a Cout d'Etat in 1964 and the new regime persecute Panair until bankruptcy for political reasons. A Few enthusiasts create an image of Concorde with the layout of Panair. www.airway.com.br/quando-o-brasil-quis-comprar-o-supersonico-concorde/
You forgot that if Concordes would be flying around everywhere right now, the climate will become hotter causing natural disasters and we don’t want that
With all the progress made in the 60´s, one might think we merely benefited from its inertia decades after. Or should I say the 40´s? Jets, semi-conductors...
Fuel was never that cheap. If adjusted for inflation the fuel was not much cheaper inte 60tys than in the 2010. The diffrance was that flying was a lot more expensive in general. The problem with concorde is that it was designen to rival the 707 but when it launched the 747 as well as the tristare and dc10 was alreddy a fact. While fuel economy might not be that importat when the diffrance is 20-50%.... when it is 3-4 Times it becomes a factor even if fuel would be cheap
There are several reasons why Concorde was killed off. The Americans were envious and so when they knew they didn't have the expertise to build the Boeing 2707, they thought they'd make the noise aspect an issue so as to deliberately fatally wound the Concorde programme. Obviously the increasing cost of fuel was a factor. The Air France crash delivered the killer blow.....R.I.P. those poor souls. Air France was never as committed to Concorde operations. If you read about the crash, you'll know what I mean. B.A. operation of Concorde was worlds apart from A.F. Airbus had its part to play in the demise too......think about the connections here! Unfortunately, there was no way Richard Branson was ever going to be handed the keys to Concorde.........ever. Can you imagine the envy this would have created? It was political, pure and simple. I travelled on Concorde.........I'm so glad I did........I'll never forget it. We took a giant step back, the day they grounded Concorde.
*_@MOPARdave999_* There are a few comments on RUclips and the net claiming that the Americans sabotaged Concorde by banning it, because they couldn't build a Mach 2 Supersonic Transport (SST) themselves, and were jealous. Far from sabotaging Concorde, the Americans helped. By special concession, for no benefit to themselves, they did allow Britain and France's noisy SST to overfly their country subsonically and use their airports, despite a public outcry. FAA data shows 120dB on take off, compared to 104dB for a Boeing 707, which itself was the subject of previous noise protests. American airline companies also supported Concorde by taking out 38 options to buy. In addition, the American SST Program and NASA provided technical assistance. When Concorde started flying, 50% of the passengers were American. From 1977 to 2003, Concorde's main scheduled flights were between London or Paris and New York or Dulles. America's SST Program shared data on the ogival wing with the European designers. NASA assisted by modifying a Douglas F5D Skylancer to mimic the ogival wing and, in 1965, the NASA test aircraft successfully flew the wing. On top of that, many technical reports, standards, and procedures are American or American based. The same goes for material, sub assemblies, instrumentation, electronics, production equipment, and test equipment. Americans think that Concorde is a phenomenal aircraft and, far from being jealous, admire it. Why would they be, jealous when you think of all their aviation achievements? In any case, Concorde was no threat to their dominance in passenger air transport. America certainly could have made a Mach 2 airliner, had they wished. In fact, they started studying SST in 1950, and had been working on the much bigger and more advanced Boeing 2707 Mach 3 SST since 1967. They already had the Mach 2 B58, and Mach 3 Valkyrie bombers flying, along with about 15 supersonic reconnaissance and fighter aircraft, and they were experts in jet technology. For all of its technical excellence, Concorde was hampered by sonic boom, subsonic noise, limited passenger capacity, and limited range. Concorde was also thirsty, especially at slower speeds. The cabin was 'cosy' and noisy and baggage capacity was extremely limited. Maintenance was costly and availability was poor. Concorde was also difficult to fly, requiring specially selected pilots to attend a six-month intensive conversion course. The development program overran, and the costs, which were all borne by the UK and French tax payers, were astronomical. There was also an on going history of undercarriage problems, and tyre blow outs, leading to punctured fuel tanks, causing a near crash and a fatal crash. But sonic boom was the showstopper. Amazingly, the SST study groups of the 1950s just assumed that sonic boom wouldn't be a problem at 60,000 feet so, in 1962, the Concorde development program went ahead, seemingly oblivious. This was one of the biggest blunders in aviation history. Many objections to SST are fanciful, not so for sonic boom. In 1964, when USAF aircraft flew supersonic near Oklahoma City, 9,600 people complained. There were similar outcries in 1967, when RAF aircraft made supersonic flights over Somerset. Finally, in the face of public outcry, the FAA banned commercial supersonic flights in 1973, and other countries soon followed, including the UK and France. This ban made most of Concorde's planned routes nonviable. The Labour Party of 1964 tried to pull out of Concorde, but were tied by a condition of the agreement, which ironically the UK had insisted on. With costs escalating and the program overrunning, the Conservative Party of 1970 also wanted to leave, but were prevented by politics. Likewise, British Airways and Air France didn't want to fly Concorde, but were forced by their respective governments to accept 7 aircraft each. Although the Boeing 2707 SST had technical issues, two prototype 2707-300s were being built and the program was back on track, when it was cancelled by senate in 1971, because the concept of SST was thrown into doubt. There was also strong pressure from the environmental lobby, who were the most vocal. It turns out that the cancellation, which was very unpopular at the time as it caused 6,500 layoffs, was fortuitous in the long run, because it saved the US a mint, and eliminated a potential Concorde competitor. Sadly, Concorde's last commercial flight was the return trip from JFK to Heathrow on 24 October 2003. In 2004 Concorde was retired because Airbus Industries declined to supply spare parts, and neither British Airways, or Air France wanted to fly it any more.
Can you spot the hidden mistake in this video! I sure did, but I'll keep the video up all the same! enjoy and thanks for putting up with my slightly sloppy editng!
Media offline.
The media offline still frame after the Chinese Concorde
Prices of concorde are first told to be 260M and later 46M while comparing to 747
9:38 "With France's equivalent..." ?
You mean Sud-aviation / Aérospatiale which became EADS the mother company of Airbus.
No matter Concorde's commercial failure, she turned out to be the success of what is Airbus today.
Concorde is a technological wonder and was the first commercial aircraft to feature full electrical fly-by-wire commands, the first thrust-by-wire engines (ancestor of FADEC), low tire pressure active monitoring...
Concorde featured so many innovations: full hands off auto-throttle and dual autopilot from climb to landing, ILS full autoland system (CAT 3A), dual weather radar screens, electrically controlled hydraulic light ABS breaking system with ventilated carbon discs (3 breaking laws), composite flight control surfaces (ailerons/elevons, rudder), INS navigation system, IDG/GCU managed hydraulics and electrics, triple hydraulic system, on-the-fly center of gravity (CG) adjustment with fuel displacement, AU2GN/RR58 alloy light fuselage and wing, Teflon coated surfaces, electronically controlled shape shifting engine air intakes and exhaust, artificial feel pilot's commands...
Also, Snecma began building (with Rolls-Royce) aircraft engines for Concorde's Olympus 593 and later joined forces with General Electric to form CFM International and create the CFM56 that equipped the Boeing 737 classic and NG, Airbus A320 family, A340-200/300, DC-8-70, and Boeing C-135 & E-3 (under the name F108, CFM56 military version).
The offsprings of Concorde's innovations are today's aviation standards and stemmed Airbus backbone.
At 2:42, you say 8 hours instead of 14 but the infographic shows 8 hours instead of 16 😉
The sonic boom wasn’t really a huge issue. I used to live in Dorset in the UK. We used to hear it twice a day, the British Concorde heading out down the Bristol Channel to the North, and the French one heading down the English Channel to the South. The sonic boom was literally no more than a rapid triple rumble of distant thunder.Concorde wasn’t a failure as an aircraft, it was a huge success technologically, it was the first supersonic aircraft with the ability to super cruise, I.E. the ability to cruise at twice the speed of sound without using afterburners, this years before the likes of the F-22 could finally do the same. Commercially, both the Air France and British airways aircraft were nearly always overbooked,and flying Concorde was always very popular. People who flew in them always spoke very highly of the smoothness and comfort of the aircraft. It should also be remembered that US politicians and indeed Boeing, set about a massive campaign of disinformation to turn the flying public against Concorde, presumably to shutdown a rival aircraft builder, and to push their own SST project and the 747 Jumbo project. Had some of the other American airlines taken up their options for the trans Atlantic and other oversea routes the Concorde would have been a much more successful aircraft commercially. Even today, there are a number of companies who are trying to bring scaled down Concorde projects to market, it will be interesting to see how much bad publicity will be aimed at them.
Plus every fighter plane of now a days have sonic boom snd if it was that bad then ground every single one of those planes
Haha you would of heard it 4 times a day bc it had two sonic booms salt I never got to see Concorde bc I am too young :( but I enjoyed reading this though
*_@stallagiardino7877_*
Far from sabotaging Concorde, the Americans helped. By special concession, for no benefit to themselves, they did allow Britain and France's noisy SST to overfly their country subsonically and use their airports, despite a public outcry. FAA data shows 120dB on take off, compared to 104dB for a Boeing 707, which itself was the subject of previous noise protests.
American airline companies also supported Concorde by taking out 38 options to buy. In addition, the American SST Program and NASA provided technical assistance. When Concorde started flying, 50% of the passengers were American. From 1977 to 2003, Concorde's main scheduled flights were between London or Paris and New York or Dulles.
America's SST Program shared data on the ogival wing with the European designers. NASA assisted by modifying a Douglas F5D Skylancer to mimic the ogival wing and, in 1965, the NASA test aircraft successfully flew the wing. On top of that, many technical reports, standards, and procedures are American or American based. The same goes for material, sub assemblies, instrumentation, electronics, production equipment, and test equipment.
Americans think that Concorde is a phenomenal aircraft and, far from being jealous, admire it. Why would they be, jealous when you think of all their aviation achievements? In any case, Concorde was no threat to their dominance in passenger air transport.
America certainly could have made a Mach 2 airliner, had they wished. In fact, they started studying SST in 1950, and had been working on the much bigger and more advanced Boeing 2707 Mach 3 SST since 1967. They already had the Mach 2 B58, and Mach 3 Valkyrie bombers flying, along with about 15 supersonic reconnaissance and fighter aircraft, and they were experts in jet technology.
For all of its technical excellence, Concorde was hampered by sonic boom, subsonic noise, limited passenger capacity, and limited range. Concorde was also thirsty, especially at slower speeds. The cabin was 'cosy' and noisy and baggage capacity was extremely limited. Maintenance was costly and availability was poor. Concorde was also difficult to fly, requiring specially selected pilots to attend a six-month intensive conversion course. The development program overran, and the costs, which were all borne by the UK and French tax payers, were astronomical. There was also an on going history of undercarriage problems, and tyre blow outs, leading to punctured fuel tanks, causing a near crash and a fatal crash.
But sonic boom was the showstopper. Amazingly, the SST study groups of the 1950s just assumed that sonic boom wouldn't be a problem at 60,000 feet so, in 1962, the Concorde development program went ahead, seemingly oblivious. This was one of the biggest blunders in aviation history.
Many objections to SST are fanciful, not so for sonic boom. In 1964, when USAF aircraft flew supersonic near Oklahoma City, 9,600 people complained. There were similar outcries in 1967, when RAF aircraft made supersonic flights over Somerset. Finally, in the face of public outcry, the FAA banned commercial supersonic flights in 1973, and other countries soon followed, including the UK and France. This ban made most of Concorde's planned routes nonviable.
The Labour Party of 1964 tried to pull out of Concorde, but were tied by a condition of the agreement, which ironically the UK had insisted on. With costs escalating and the program overrunning, the Conservative Party of 1970 also wanted to leave, but were prevented by politics. Likewise, British Airways and Air France didn't want to fly Concorde, but were forced by their respective governments to accept 7 aircraft each.
Although the Boeing 2707 SST had technical issues, two prototype 2707-300s were being built and the program was back on track, when it was cancelled by senate in 1971, because the concept of SST was thrown into doubt. There was also strong pressure from the environmental lobby, who were the most vocal. It turns out that the cancellation, which was very unpopular at the time as it caused 6,500 layoffs, was fortuitous in the long run, because it saved the US a mint, and eliminated a potential Concorde competitor.
Sadly, Concorde's last commercial flight was the return trip from JFK to Heathrow on 24 October 2003. In 2004 Concorde was retired because Airbus Industries declined to supply spare parts, and neither British Airways, or Air France wanted to fly it any more.
Concorde’s top speed is actually limited by temperature, not power. At Mach 2.0, the friction from moving through the air heats the aluminum skin almost to the point at which it begins to soften.
That is realy fast😅😅
Amazing!
How fast it has flown?
2,179 km (1,354 miles) per hour
As fast as fighter jet
9:38 "With France's equivalent..." ?
You mean Sud-aviation / Aérospatiale which became EADS the mother company of Airbus.
No matter Concorde's commercial failure, she turned out to be the success of what is Airbus today.
Concorde is a technological wonder and was the first commercial aircraft to feature full electrical fly-by-wire commands, the first thrust-by-wire engines (ancestor of FADEC), low tire pressure active monitoring...
Concorde featured so many innovations: full hands off auto-throttle and dual autopilot from climb to landing, ILS full autoland system (CAT 3A), dual weather radar screens, electrically controlled hydraulic light ABS breaking system with ventilated carbon discs (3 breaking laws), composite flight control surfaces (ailerons/elevons, rudder), INS navigation system, IDG/GCU managed hydraulics and electrics, triple hydraulic system, on-the-fly center of gravity (CG) adjustment with fuel displacement, AU2GN/RR58 alloy light fuselage and wing, Teflon coated surfaces, electronically controlled shape shifting engine air intakes and exhaust, artificial feel pilot's commands...
Also, Snecma began building (with Rolls-Royce) aircraft engines for Concorde's Olympus 593 and later joined forces with General Electric to form CFM International and create the CFM56 that equipped the Boeing 737 classic and NG, Airbus A320 family, A340-200/300, DC-8-70, and Boeing C-135 & E-3 (under the name F108, CFM56 military version).
The offsprings of Concorde's innovations are today's aviation standards and stemmed Airbus backbone.
You're right. Its important to not regard this a failure. Airbus is now the gold standard of the aerospace sector long replacing that less trustworthy Boeing
Hahaha, I live in Australia 2KM away from Sydney Airport. If Qantas order the Concorde now, I guess I will shift my house or else I will never sleep.
It would have gone quiet over the houses for sure!
@@FoundAndExplained :D
@@keeran2101 On s'en branle marcel de tes insomnies! Et puis en plus, je causepas aux kangourous!
@@hectorberlioz2634 Haha, Ok no worries it's fine, I just shared :).
@@FoundAndExplained rubbish, you didn’t find anything and you explained by making stuff up....... did you do ANY research???? Ever Bering nearby when a Concorde took off....... it can’t “go quiet”. Why do you think New York mandated it take off and turn immediately because of the extreme noise....
Here’s a tip pal, I have 40 years in aviation, you can’t just throw a baseball cap on and bullshit when you don’t know any facts. Go amd make videos about stuff you know about, otherwise you’re just generating uninformed misinformation.
Beautiful plane. Was so lucky to live in Queens and hear and see when these babies land and take off. FYI, at home you would know when this baby was departing. Loved it.
Concorde is not the most hated aircraft ever. Its most likely the most loved aircraft and the plane every aviation enthousiast likes or loves. Its to me the most beautiful object and plane ever made !
Given the fuel consumption, the Concorde was a bad idea from the very beginning. If I lived near an airport where it flew from I would have hated it...
@@davidhollenshead4892 and as a pilot i would have loved to hear those amazing RR snecma olympus 589-602 engines wake me up in the morning. Also, Concorde was built in the 60s when fuel efficiency wasn’t a huge concern just like for cars. Just before the crash they actually started to develop new engines that were to be more fuel efficient and more powerful to have less need for afterburners. Concorde could already make a full flight without afterburners take off included.
@@davidhollenshead4892 it was only fuel inefficient if it flew at Subsonic speed. At supersonic speed it was actually pretty efficient, especially when flaying at Mach 2. At the time it was developed, SST was seen as the future and fuel was widely available and prices were fairly low. It was not until the oil embargo following the Yom Kippur War when prices skyrocketed and thus made SST unviable. It wasn't a bad idea from the start.
Also the whole too noisy over houses is a bit of a misconception. It was noiser than average, but it wasn't that much noiser. Certainly it did not trigger noise levels anywhere near unacceptable levels when Concorde did the noise meter tests in JKF or LHR
Thanks for the video! Concorde remains amazing & I was even lucky enough to fly on her before she retired. It was a dream come true.
I remember seeing one take off from LHR in 1976 and being hugely impressed by the speed and grace of the take-off, not to mention the roar of those Olympus engines! Finally got to sit in one at the Imperial War Museum collection at Duxford.
Concorde has ever since changed our lives, and now its old but gold!
Lucas...
Didn't change my life!
Wow, I didn’t notice this video at first, but I’m lucky that I found it now. It’s an amazing video and I was hoping you would do a Concorde video soon. Also good job on getting that audible sponsorship!
"Pan Am cancelled their Concordes? Guess we'll be a good friend and cancel ours too."
Somebody said Concorde? I run like a rabid dog and I'm excited like a bedbug on a spring break hostel mattress!
I hope this video lives up to your expectations!
@@FoundAndExplained It already does!
I'm a Concorde freak, flew it for years in FS. In real life I had the opportunity to hug her wheels, sit at the commands, enjoy an extensive tour by pilots and see her from the apron do touch and go's and circle flights at Châlons-Vatry (LFOK/XCR) airport in 2001 during recertification campaign last flight.
And it's also the cruelest missed opportunity of my lifetime : I came from Paris for the occasion, joining my father there who was promoting a champagne special aviation themed "cuvée". After the tour of the plane I talked (interrogated, harassed with questions to be honest) with an experienced Air France purser flight attendant. She was there with her husband and children and was supposed to fly back alone as a passenger to Paris on this Concorde then go back home. But seeing the sparkle in my eyes she offered to give me her seat as she preferred to drive home with her family directly and I had to go back to Paris anyway. The return flight to Paris included a supersonic loop over the Atlantic and Channel. I still beat myself up for not having the self confidence to ask her if there was any room for me onboard that flight. We talked for an hour and when she offered to give me her seat she went to talk with the ground and company crew and came back with a sad face : passenger manifest was already closed and sent to HQ and I had just missed my only opportunity to fly supersonic onboard Concorde.
To this day I still ache of that missed opportunity. I was too polite to ask / beg for a seat and since then I'm bold and do not hesitate to take my chances! I would have asked 15 minutes before she offered and I would have flown on a special ferry / supersonic loop flight back home, that would have been the classiest moment of my life.
There are no words to describe my face on the train back home, I'm still pissed at me 20 years later.
@@brucemaliga791 Yeah sorry but when it's Concorde it's never long enough! She was the Empress of the sky, pioneer of automation and mother of Airbus, with technologies 20 years ahead that are today's standards.
Concorde didn't need its afterburners on in cruise mode.
It took the USA years to be able to super cruise like the Concorde. I remember thay made a big song and dance about the fact the F-22 could super cruise!
@@stallagiardino7877 The F104 could supercruise before the term was invented.
@@phonicwheel933 The F-104 could supercruise but only at lower altitudes.. circa 20/22,000 feet. Like Concorde it required after burner to transit through Mach 1.. interestingly at higher altitudes.. 35/37,000. Even with AB the F-104 could not transit Mach 1. It had to transit to Mach 1 at lower altitudes, then with full AB could head on up to 48,000 feet .. but was very range limited because it always required AB at higher altitudes. Concorde, used AB to transit Mach 1, then shut down the ABs and climbed to 60,000 feet and supercruised at Mach 2.04 across the Atlantic. So Concord was able to supercruise at 38,000 feet higher than the F-104 could supercruise whos supercruise ceiling was 22,000 feet.
@@martinsaunders2942 Thanks for info Martin. I was just responding, tongue in cheek, to @stallagiardino. The comparison between a fighter and Concorde is invidious, but the F-104 first flew in 1954 and supercruised on one engine, not four like Concorde.
BTW, for any one who doesn't know, supercruise is a seductive term, but all it means is that an aircraft can fly above Mach 1 without afterburners.
Concorde's performance, being able to supercruise at Mach 2 at 60,000 feet, where the air is so thin, is a fantastic feat of engineering, even by today's standards. The variable inlet ducting was the secret, and required a digital, rather than analogue computer for control to get the required accuracy.
I wasn't aware of the JAL option before, it's rather sad they didn't go through with it.
Sure, it wouldn't have saved the program, but having the only Tokyo-Honolulu-Los Angeles route in less than 12 hours would have been a powerful market tool while it lasted.
Or they might have used it for domestic routes
The issue with that is that Concorde didn't have enough range to make it to Honolulu. Concorde Model B would've addressed this issue, but by that point there was no political incentive to continue the program
0:15 You can't dislike this livery on this plane!
Only one word to describe this video: AMAZING!!!
I'd use the same word to describe you! have a great day :)
You sort of skipped over one (or two) major order cancellations: British Airways and Air France. Part of the reason they got the planes for a pound was because they wanted to back out as well, but since their governments had invested so much into the plane, they refused to let them out.
Also, rumor at the time that part of the reason why Airbus canceled the parts for the plane was because they didn't want the competition for the A380.
The irony is, if they had held on even just a year, more powerful engines that don't even require afterburners to go supersonic became available. Granted, it was military technology, but so was the Olympus engines the plane was using to begin with.
The Olympus turbojets only needed afterburn for initial climbout and the early part of the acceleration to Mach 2 and climb to 50000 feet. Once at cruising speed and altitude, it could maintain that without afterburners.
The route from DC to London went right over the area I grew up in. I remember when these things went overhead, even if I couldn't see them I could hear them.
It’s a beautiful aircraft
So clean and slim
great video, it's always amazing to think about how a single decision may have prevented an era from happening
I flew on a Concorde. It was an unpleasant buzzy experience, not the gentle feeling of a cruise or a long drive. You knew outside that the elements were sanding down the fuselage, it was so fast and hot. What was really shocking was the jet. It looked like the giant B70 in pictures, but the Concorde was incredibly small. From a 747, you had a problem seeing it, you had to look down.
In the sky you actually had to look way DOWN to see a much slower 747.
I would love to spend time getting a flight on the cramped Concorde 🍀💪💪
The Boing 747 began development as a pure cargo plane
That's why some are still in service. Far easier and faster to load and unload. If it's full, it's far more efficient than anything else.
But only if it's full
I can just imagine the Qantas CEO pulling out a machete and going 'My Concordes, Hand 'em ovah.'
When 'The' accident happened in France, and investigation had been made, modifications to the Concordes fuel tanks were made, a brief restart of flights, and then the ban.... Richard Branson, offered to take on the fleet of British Airways Concordes, he said that he would fully strip, rebuild/renovate the ageing airframes and update all components to make them fully airworthy again and maintain all costs, he was refused... It was known at the time that British Airways complained to the then government that they would rather see the end of Concorde than see the Virgin logo on its tail as it was their plane (their co-op with Air France). Some back hand behind closed doors deals were done and Branson was screwed over. He KNEW that the Concorde WAS one of the great British designs/Engineering marvels and should be kept flying. Yet again, dirty business tactics screwed Branson out of something he wanted to take over for the British pride and the British people he wanted to be proud of (he got screwed over with Camalot/the Government with the UK Lotto too). 😒
Nice channel you have going here. Video format is really nice and relaxing. I shared your channel in a group of aviation/flight sim fanatics. Be safe and thanks for the cool content.
Concord had a tremendous operating cost per seat. Also, could only go supersonic over open waters. Overland it would have flown same airspeed as Airbus/Boeing.
I wonder if we'll ever see another supersonic passenger plane. It used to seem inevitable but with climate change and an emphasis on cheap ticket prices over speed I'm starting to think Concorde was a bit of an anomaly
I used to be a despatch rider in the 80s and we had a contract to collect cheques from the Midlands and take them down to dhl (i think) on skyport drive by heathrow where a seat was booked for them so they could get to New York for an extra days interest, i think any dhl staff who wanted a free flight could use that seat.
A Pan Am Concorde would be a joy to behold; what a gorgeous paint scheme.
The range wasn't long enough for a Concorde to service any profitable Australian routes. The most profitable Australian route is Melbourne to Sydney, which takes about 45 minutes on a 767. There's not enough profit in Sydney or Melbourne to New Zealand, you need wealthy clientele in both cities. The other problem is that many who can afford to use Concorde regularly can also afford private planes, which, while slower than Concorde, can save time by flying direct to local airports instead of going straight between Heathrow and New York.
And, of course, the capacity is dreadful. A concorde would have to cross the ocean many times a day to equal one 747
the sonic boom objections is a rubbish. the boom is produced by entering mach. or breaking the sound barrier. i.e. it is speed related. which also mean it's controllable. it would only mean waiting until, you have left British or American airspace, over water ideally. and obviously, the reverse coming into land.
That's just it - no country other than Australia would allow Cocordes to fly supersonic over land (a supersonic corridor was established through central Australia, presumably using parts of the Woomera exclusion zones).
You're missing the point, there were other far more efficient means to go across a continent. A 747 will cruise at 0.92 Mach. It's thirsty at that speed, but not thirstier per passenger mile than a Concord. Combined with Concords limited range there are no routes that make sense taking it far inland.
A bit late, but no, the boom isn't produced only when entering mach, it's produced continuously as long as you're faster than sound.
Its easy to comment in 2021 but in the 70’s there was uncertainty with US airlines.....We had two economic recessions/fuel hikes while introducing 747s late 1969, We were struggling with scheduling and marketing to a wide body market that didn’t yet exist and L1011’s/DC10’s coming as well, On top of that was the spectre of Deregulation in 1978 and impact on major airlines (now called Legacy) and our linear route systems. On top of all this we had new automated res systems and management oriented to a regulated environment and this is what Concorde was up against besides the activists suddenly finding their voice on sonic booms etc etc... Despite all that I didn’t know anyone that didn’t admire (and continue to admire Concorde).
I'll never forget the first time I saw one. I was at Heathrow in about 1975 (so, before they entered service) and I saw a plane coming in which was basically a white speck with smoke all around it!
Beautiful aircraft though-3rd behind the SR-71 and the XB-70 IMO.
In another twist to this tale, did you know that the Air France Concorde that was involved in that awful accident actually 'went down' twice? Air France Concorde F-BTSC was also the aircraft used in the film Airport 79
Wow you got a sponsor, i believe your channel are just start getting bigger and better 👍
This was a beautiful aircraft
When Concorde’s time passed air travel technology moved in reverse.
American Airlines, Continental, Pan Am, Eastern, Braniff, United Airlines and TWA Concordes? Yes please. Wish it would’ve happened.
They just needed one American airline to order it
@@FoundAndExplained I did if these would’ve made it and it came out to 2,762
@@FoundAndExplained Boeing put the fix in again. Teamed up with their marketing arm, better known as the FAA. They then trailed their own "version" which they never had any intention of building, to muddy the waters as much as possible. They do it every time somebody else has a decent plane. I worked on certifying the A320 in the USA, was a nightmare.
2:42 :Nick:8 hours instead of "14"
My ears:Did I just hear that?
Is the error that the caption said 16?
That's Australia for you!
Their offer to New Zealand to join Australia was never withdrawn.
Still technically on the table.
Neither side pays any attention to it
@illmind tybahza That's WHY they ignore it!
Your a small great very underrated channel :), just like Logically answered
I appreciate that!
That Concorde landing was butter
Only been subed for a day or two but this channel is quickly becoming a joy to watch. Also if you haven't watch this guy's train videos there great to.
EPIC vid. This was very interesting!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Nice video like always!
Thanks again!
Hmm...Nick, looks like I've found and interesting fact, this video has the longest duration out of the others, doesn't it?
the audible a380 livery is so nice
The sound is a bit too muddy. I suspect you have too much middle frequency. You definitely need more higher EQ.
thank you sir, i'll try to improve nextime
I Love the video/live stream keep it up
will do!
Quite a few subsonic airplanes that can go supersonic for a short time exist. But very few airplanes that can maintain supersonic speeds ever did exist. The B-58 is probably the first one at a maximum of 1,425 MPH. The B-70 is another. And today there are a few more like the SR-71 and the F-22.
The Concorde was exceptional because it could maintain 1,350 MPH for a majority of a transcontinental flight without inflight refueling. But the TU-144 was actually a subsonic aircraft capable of short supersonic portions of a flight. It had many design deficiencies that made it a dangerous and very loud commercial airplane. At Concorde speeds the Russian jet was too loud in the cabin for normal conversations. People passed notes to one another.
Comment
Pinned by Found And Explained
Wow.
Actually I think the Virgin airline is the one most possible to run the SST in the future, because they already attempt to develop the passenger spacecraft.
Virgin Airlines tried to buy Concorde from Air France and British Airways, but they refused to budge.
Never been this early, great video aswell! Never knew that many airlines were gonna buy concord!
Its not "The Concorde" just Concorde. Why can't people get it correct?
If your talking about a plane type then it’s correct to say “the Boeing 747”
Nice video!
This video is expecially good!
Another great and wonderful supersonic aircraft of those times, fantastic aircraft jewel I am fascinated by this special and spectacular documentary that brings it to life when I see it again 👍👍👌👏👏👏👏💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎🤩🤩🤗🤗🌄😏
Concorde was an amazing airplane
I don't think there's any realistic alternative history where the Concorde succeeded. Sonic booms turned out far more annoying than they had anticipated, and even without oil prices spiking, the airlines were clearly not enthusiastic -- they all put in just a handful of options to keep up with the Joneses and dropped them as soon as they weren't necessary to keep up appearances.
The economics of the situation just doesn't work -- it's essentially taking the first class cabin out of each airliner and cramming them together onto one single plane's schedule -- fast but inconvenient and expensive to maintain. Meanwhile, the plebs continue flying subsonic and bring in consistent, efficient revenue.
To think there’s nothing like Concorde now!
They pushed technology to its absolute limit back then without anything like the help of computers.
When you sat up front what struck me was it was so 1950's in its look, feel, layout. Felt a bit like a V Bomber ...
Kinda wish it were still around from NY to London. But because of sonic booms over populated areas, don't see it being brought back.
...concordeski, comrade.
Love your humor
I love this channel
Funny that Richard Branson tried to buy BA’s Concordes for such a low price. 🤣
Just publicity
They were going to scrap them, £1 was generous ...
The audible a380 was pretty funny. excellent way to advertise if it was real
Honestly at this point they should buy one!
Would've loved to see it in the Qantas Livery
The reason the US companies abandoned Concorde was primarily political pressure (not invented here) plus rocketing fuel prices. As a point of interest we had designed a second gen engine which would've been around 60% quieter than the original engines.Sadly this engine was cancelled. Overall the killing factor was fuel prices. Ironically commercial airliners are only getting slower. The fastest subsonic passenger aircraft was the Vickers VC10 which was used on the transatlantic route. As for power, Concorde could do something the F-35 cannot do... supercruise. This means it flew at Mach 2.05 without reheat (which was only used for takeoff). Our new engine design completely dispensed with the need for reheat and would've cut overall fuel consumption almost in half. Mostly, America was pissed they hadn't made a supersonic jet, so as with the TSR-2 they embarked on carrot-and-stick tactics to discourage purchases of Concorde. It was frustrating.
Sounds like it would have been far more viable from an economic point of view. As you say though, it was political. I don't think it would have made a difference if it flew on hot air, Boeing would still have lobbied the US Government to keep it banned. Could we not have licensed Boeing to make their own? Always struck me as a massive leap backwards when these were cancelled, all the effort that went into the production of the worlds only supersonic aircraft thrown away.....thanks to Boeing, their shady shenanigans, manipulation of the media and the pitchfork brigade........some things never change.
“Hate” is such a strong word, especially for (among other things) aircraft. Even if a plane has poor performance and/or other negative qualities, that wouldn’t cause me to feel any hostility toward the aircraft. I will say the 767-200(ER) gives me bad vibes only because it was used on 9/11 for the attacks on the twin towers but that’s beside the point.
Very pretty bird
Yes maybe if those events haven't happened the supersonic planes would be flying but this pandemic or the inflation may e would have brought efficiency or 747 and 380 in anyway
You should probably mentioned as soon as PanAm announced their intention of buying Concorde, US presidential office summoned them and asked what their needs. Kicking off the American SST project. The American orders will most likely get cancelled if American SST was on rails, and oil crisis didn’t happen.
The 1973 Oil Crisis and also the sonic boom
There is one missing. The Brazilian Panair had an option to buy the 3 supersonic aircraft then named Super-Caravelle by Sud Aviation (which was the basis for Concorde with BOAC and Nord Aviation so the plane was renamed ). Panair was immensely and built several airports still in use today. Unfortunately, there as a Cout d'Etat in 1964 and the new regime persecute Panair until bankruptcy for political reasons. A Few enthusiasts create an image of Concorde with the layout of Panair.
www.airway.com.br/quando-o-brasil-quis-comprar-o-supersonico-concorde/
Can you also do the Lockheed l 2000 SST
Stream was excellent
Coming next month so make sure you subscribe!!
Thank you
@@FoundAndExplained sorry actually it only has double decker and it's longer and it has 6 engines
@@funnycommenter6969 what
You forgot that if Concordes would be flying around everywhere right now, the climate will become hotter causing natural disasters and we don’t want that
$20,000 For a round trip. Not to many people can buy tickets.
Concorde is the e most loved plane in the world
Could someone help how these animated videos are created. I mean which all softwares?
With all the progress made in the 60´s, one might think we merely benefited from its inertia decades after.
Or should I say the 40´s? Jets, semi-conductors...
Fuel was never that cheap. If adjusted for inflation the fuel was not much cheaper inte 60tys than in the 2010. The diffrance was that flying was a lot more expensive in general.
The problem with concorde is that it was designen to rival the 707 but when it launched the 747 as well as the tristare and dc10 was alreddy a fact.
While fuel economy might not be that importat when the diffrance is 20-50%.... when it is 3-4 Times it becomes a factor even if fuel would be cheap
Pity the was no Emirates then; they would have bought some Concordes!
PS: The Tu-144 was never equivalent to Concorde.
3:09 remember when audible owned an airline? yeah me neither
was the caac Concorde for commercial or for a private transport?
OK video... but it's "Concorde", not "The Concorde" ;)
I was just as fast as a Concorde when I seen this video about it
The video is great and i love the ideas and presentation styles but theres so many mistakes and the editing has room for improvement.
you forgot panair do brasil, that ordered 4 concorde
A name change...
Can u do video about battleship next?
If only airbus didn't end the concorde and gave it another chance as an upgraded concorde for the 21st century.
9:08 haha mini 747 go nyooooom
Wrong, the supersonics were banned from flying in the US due to the sonic boom.
It's now on display
There are several reasons why Concorde was killed off. The Americans were envious and so when they knew they didn't have the expertise to build the Boeing 2707, they thought they'd make the noise aspect an issue so as to deliberately fatally wound the Concorde programme. Obviously the increasing cost of fuel was a factor. The Air France crash delivered the killer blow.....R.I.P. those poor souls. Air France was never as committed to Concorde operations. If you read about the crash, you'll know what I mean. B.A. operation of Concorde was worlds apart from A.F. Airbus had its part to play in the demise too......think about the connections here! Unfortunately, there was no way Richard Branson was ever going to be handed the keys to Concorde.........ever. Can you imagine the envy this would have created? It was political, pure and simple. I travelled on Concorde.........I'm so glad I did........I'll never forget it. We took a giant step back, the day they grounded Concorde.
*_@MOPARdave999_*
There are a few comments on RUclips and the net claiming that the Americans sabotaged Concorde by banning it, because they couldn't build a Mach 2 Supersonic Transport (SST) themselves, and were jealous.
Far from sabotaging Concorde, the Americans helped. By special concession, for no benefit to themselves, they did allow Britain and France's noisy SST to overfly their country subsonically and use their airports, despite a public outcry. FAA data shows 120dB on take off, compared to 104dB for a Boeing 707, which itself was the subject of previous noise protests.
American airline companies also supported Concorde by taking out 38 options to buy. In addition, the American SST Program and NASA provided technical assistance. When Concorde started flying, 50% of the passengers were American. From 1977 to 2003, Concorde's main scheduled flights were between London or Paris and New York or Dulles.
America's SST Program shared data on the ogival wing with the European designers. NASA assisted by modifying a Douglas F5D Skylancer to mimic the ogival wing and, in 1965, the NASA test aircraft successfully flew the wing. On top of that, many technical reports, standards, and procedures are American or American based. The same goes for material, sub assemblies, instrumentation, electronics, production equipment, and test equipment.
Americans think that Concorde is a phenomenal aircraft and, far from being jealous, admire it. Why would they be, jealous when you think of all their aviation achievements? In any case, Concorde was no threat to their dominance in passenger air transport.
America certainly could have made a Mach 2 airliner, had they wished. In fact, they started studying SST in 1950, and had been working on the much bigger and more advanced Boeing 2707 Mach 3 SST since 1967. They already had the Mach 2 B58, and Mach 3 Valkyrie bombers flying, along with about 15 supersonic reconnaissance and fighter aircraft, and they were experts in jet technology.
For all of its technical excellence, Concorde was hampered by sonic boom, subsonic noise, limited passenger capacity, and limited range. Concorde was also thirsty, especially at slower speeds. The cabin was 'cosy' and noisy and baggage capacity was extremely limited. Maintenance was costly and availability was poor. Concorde was also difficult to fly, requiring specially selected pilots to attend a six-month intensive conversion course. The development program overran, and the costs, which were all borne by the UK and French tax payers, were astronomical. There was also an on going history of undercarriage problems, and tyre blow outs, leading to punctured fuel tanks, causing a near crash and a fatal crash.
But sonic boom was the showstopper. Amazingly, the SST study groups of the 1950s just assumed that sonic boom wouldn't be a problem at 60,000 feet so, in 1962, the Concorde development program went ahead, seemingly oblivious. This was one of the biggest blunders in aviation history.
Many objections to SST are fanciful, not so for sonic boom. In 1964, when USAF aircraft flew supersonic near Oklahoma City, 9,600 people complained. There were similar outcries in 1967, when RAF aircraft made supersonic flights over Somerset. Finally, in the face of public outcry, the FAA banned commercial supersonic flights in 1973, and other countries soon followed, including the UK and France. This ban made most of Concorde's planned routes nonviable.
The Labour Party of 1964 tried to pull out of Concorde, but were tied by a condition of the agreement, which ironically the UK had insisted on. With costs escalating and the program overrunning, the Conservative Party of 1970 also wanted to leave, but were prevented by politics. Likewise, British Airways and Air France didn't want to fly Concorde, but were forced by their respective governments to accept 7 aircraft each.
Although the Boeing 2707 SST had technical issues, two prototype 2707-300s were being built and the program was back on track, when it was cancelled by senate in 1971, because the concept of SST was thrown into doubt. There was also strong pressure from the environmental lobby, who were the most vocal. It turns out that the cancellation, which was very unpopular at the time as it caused 6,500 layoffs, was fortuitous in the long run, because it saved the US a mint, and eliminated a potential Concorde competitor.
Sadly, Concorde's last commercial flight was the return trip from JFK to Heathrow on 24 October 2003. In 2004 Concorde was retired because Airbus Industries declined to supply spare parts, and neither British Airways, or Air France wanted to fly it any more.
Sonic boom overland was a problem
A 240-250 seat plane could move the same amount pf people at a much lower price, more comfortably
The Concorde was much better on the comfort, all 1st Class, spectacular food for an airplane and no turbulence at its cruising height ...
the Concorde looked amazing in other airlines' liveries. too bad they didnt
I think it was because there was headaches because of the plane