Beyond Concorde: The Rise and Fall of Boeing's 2707
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 02. 2024
- Uncover the lost story of the Boeing 2707, a supersonic jetliner that could have revolutionized air travel. Delve into its design, development, and the compelling "what if" scenarios. Join us on Megaprojects and discover why the world should still be salty about its cancellation. If you've ever wondered about the untold potential of supersonic flight, this episode is a must-watch!
Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
Love content? Check out Simon's other CZcams Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
The B-1 Lancer was developed by Rockwell. Rockwell's Aviation division was sold to Boeing in 1996, well after the B-1 entered service. The design of the Lancer is not attributed to the Boeing SST project.
Rockwell built the B1, not Boeing. Boeing just bought a few divisions of Rockwell in the 2000s
December 1996.
Seattle's NBA basketball team, formed in 1967, was named Seattle SuperSonics (shortened to "Sonics"). The name was inspired by the newly won SST contract.
THAT's where that name came from! I'm no sports fan, but still, I always wondered... Thnx!
@@ronjon7942irony being, that team moved to Oklahoma City and became the "Thunder"...supposedly because of "tornado alley" but ironic because of the sonic boom testing done there that helped kill Boeing's SST.
As a Sputnik baby, I grew up with the American space program, I also watched the development of the Boeing SST. In the early sixties, it was not unusual for us to experience sonic booms in East Central Illinois, with supersonic overflights being almost routine. These decreased markedly toward the end of the decade.
I remember reading detailed descriptions of the design decisions of the SST and the often over-the-top concerns of the environmentalists.
I remember the news when the SST was canceled and of all the layoffs in the Seattle area.
One day in the mid-eighties I was driving to work and I looked over at the city. The airport was across town and we often saw planes taking off overhead. I noticed a plane low to the horizon and marveled that the overlap of the wings and tail planes made it look like a delta wing.
I watched it occasionally as it climbed and the separate wings did not resolve. It WAS a delta wing!
It was in fact the Concorde! I had seen a story on the news that it was supposed to be making a stop at our airport. After reading about them for years this was the first time I actually got to see a real, functioning SST.
the fake american space program you mean
What’s a Sputnik baby?
@@user-yh1nm1vy3i Born in '57, eight months before the launch.
I grew up with the focus on science and math that was a result of America's panic.
@@lorensims4846 You would think they might have learned about it in school or in simple “self learning” while cruising the inter webs. My gosh, how we (American education) has fallen.
@@MrEnjoivolcom1 I did learn about it in school and in articles in my Weekly Reader. They often had stories of cutting-edge technology.
I can't imagine the name *"BOOM"* would instill much comfort and reassurance to boarding passengers.
Boing looks like a name for a bouncy castle
It’s just a name. No one takes it at face value. And even if they did it denotes “sonic boom”, not bloom the plane boom.
As Sir Frank Whittle stated
Failure through design
Boom & Concorde share the same Cockpit style of Windows ☠☠☠⚰⚰⚰
@robsinger973 - Boing does, yeah. Boeing, doesn't.
Hahahaha!
Years ago I worked for Boeing at the Everett plant (think 777, 767 and 747) and during lunch one day I wandered around the West end of the plant and walked into a large storage warehouse and a full sized mock up of the SST was just sitting there. I was just staring, gobsmacked, looking at history. When Simon said it was beautiful, it really was.
Oh, damn! Yeah, I'd have fallen backwards in awe.
Beautiful...too bad it wasn't practically achievable, especially with Boeings lack of large scale supersonic aircraft experience. Engineers at NAA and Lockheed already WAY more experience in the field. They would have had more genuine ideas of what was practically possible, at the time.
Contrary to popular belief, the image at 11:17 isn't an aircraft hitting the sound barrier and creating a sonic boom. It's called a vapour cone which happens at transonic speeds, not supersonic.
Happens as a result of supersonic flows; the aircraft is on the cusp of supersonic flight transonic flight is roughly everything between 0.8 and 1 so given that the aircraft in question is probably pretty damn close to 1. The distinction is almost as pedantic as my comment.
@@yarharyar The distinction is not pedantic at all, as helps to distinguish those who know what they are talking about and kids who like popcorn movies.
It also happens in one of the songs of the Black Eyed Peas.
@@yarharyar You, and the likes of you, also fail to mention the fact that the "vapor effect" is also the result of the lack of altitude.
@@thevoid7480 And most of the "experts", and goofwads on youtubes in general, who upload and give lectures on these subjects, are pretty much ALL popcorn movies.
I grew up in Seattle when the SST was canceled and remember seeing the billboard "Will the Last Person Leaving Seattle -- Turn out the Lights."
On April 16, 1971, real-estate agents Bob McDonald and Jim Youngren put the words, "Will the last person leaving SEATTLE -- Turn out the lights" on a billboard at S 167th Street and Pacific Highway S near Sea-Tac International Airport. The two realtors, who work for Henry Broderick, Inc., put up the billboard as a humorous response to pessimism generated by the national aerospace industry's nosedive, known locally as the Boeing Bust.
The recession came as The Boeing Company, the region's largest employer, went from a peak of 100,800 employees in 1967 to a low of 38,690 in April 1971. McDonald said their out-of-town clients "were amazed that Seattle wasn’t a ghost town with weeds growing in the streets. We wanted to counteract that attitude with a little humor" (Duncan). They chose a billboard site that they inevitably passed after picking up their clients at the airport. The men rented the billboard for $160.
The Boeing recovery began slowly: By October 1971 the firm employed 53,300 workers.
You forgot the X-59 QUESST, It is a single seat proof of concept aircraft built by Lockheed Martin for NASA and if the aircraft lives up to the design work that went in, it could lead to significantly quieter super sonic aircraft.
Indeed. The design is meant to reduce the sonic boom to a sonic thud. The actual boom will be directed upwards, hence only a thud reaches the ground.
Mom, who worked as an engineering aid at Boeing's wind tunnel, took me along when Boeing set up walk throughs of the full size SST mockup. The only thing I really remember is it felt larger inside than what the Concord looked like, and the way the nose folded down so the pilots could see the runway just looked weird.
I do not know if she worked on the SST, but I do know she was on the Dyna Soar project, a manned intercontinental ballistic bomber. I always wondered how the crew was supposed to return since they would no longer have that booster rocket...
Dyna Soar (did nobody notice that this was an inauspicious pun?) was a predecessor to the space shuttle, so it woild have launched bombs from orbit and then returned as an unpowered glider to the home country on a later orbit. Obviously this presented some challenges in accuracy and designing bombs to withstand re-rentry, but it wasn't a bad concept. Unfortunately, advances in ICBM missiles made it obsolete before it ever flew.
My uncle was a mechanical engineer. He drew up the design for the release mechanism on the B2 bomber.
It’s cool knowing someone and being able to pick their brains who is just so ultra.
Boeing didn't design or build the B-1 Lancer. It was designed by Rockwell. None of Boeing's design elements for their SST went into the B-1's design.
That is a rather large assumption. And I'm sure your know what "assuming' means.
Came here to say the same thing. What a glaring error from the self proclaimed "fact boy".
you are correct in saying that the current design of the b-1b lancer was not designed by boeing but by rockwell but the program as a whole recieved proposals from them as north american aviation. The joke's on them tho NAA was bought by rockwell and the aerospace and defense division of rockwell international was eventually bought by boeing, although not until 8 years after the b1 had exited production. That's not so say that the work on the boeing 2707 didn't also factor into the boeing b-1a proposal's design.
I’ve read the guy running Concorde towards the end started getting a return. He realised most, if not all flying Concorde didn’t look at the price of a ticket, so he started charging accordingly.
Still, entertaining video, thanks for the corrections ☺️
Concerns with respect to high altitude sonic booms are over-rated if not fear-mongering. When I was a college student in eastern Washington in the 1980s, SR-71s routinely flew over when returning from their missions. Though a dot in the sky that left two contrails, SR-71s were the ridiculously fastest dots in the sky. The sonic booms that followed were much less than a weak door slam. If you want jarring, try an F-16 executing a high speed pass at a big air show where no car alarm would be safe. (Ever wondered what 15,000 car alarms sounds like?)
I would object loudly to door slams foisted upon me, whether it was from a next door neighbor or a jet
Yeah sr71 is tiny though and way higher
I used to live under the flight path of concorde. Every evening around 6pm you would see the plane high overhead then the 2 booms would hit. They were quite loud but not disruptive or annoying, more like 2 distant thunderclaps. Windows would shake occasionally though. I think it was decelerating after its trip over the atlantic as it wasnt allowed to go supersonic over the UK.
That was a single plane once every day or thereabouts though, I imagine hundreds of the things whizzing around would create quite a racket.
You're not old enough to remember regular sonic booms from airliners. They were stopped for good reason.
@@harryvlogs7833 That probably matters but military aircraft never much considered engineering to reduce booms. I've heard many of them, SR71 and other military aircraft, not even like distant thunder in terms of apparent decibels, *nothing* lk lightening strikes within 5 or 10 miles, but I suppose some folks freak out about that too.
I always remember an english engineer when Concorde was being developed stating the B2707 just wanted fly too fast, the technology for a commercial plane at such a speed every few hours just didn't exist. Concorde (& the tu144) were really pushing the boundaries. I think the fact nothing commercially has come since backs that statement from the 70's up 100%. In 50 years since there is nothing to match these aspirations. If I was a betting man probably space-x might deliver the next big transcontinental breakthrough not Boom.....?
Agreed. For Boeimg to assume they could have a high Mach2 airliner operate reliably for tens of thousands of cycles with the available technology and economic realities was remarkably naive. I suspect they didn't really care, though, since Kennedy showered Boeing with a lot of cash following his bruised ego. Heck, Boeing would 'design' an airliner to go to the moon ifmthe govt is gonna rain down free dollars - who wouldn't?
Day 7 of asking Simon to do a video on the Iowa Class Battleships
Seconded!
I remember a battleship that never stepped out of the paper called the Montana Class
@@loadingnewads Day one of asking Simon to do a video about the Montana Class Battleships.
Simon: "At the end of this video, you would be salty."
No, Simon, I'm already a salty Brit over 2707. When Boeing pulled the plug, it essentially became a case of "If the US can't have its own supersonic airliner, we'll limit the opportunities for everyone else." Banning supersonic air travel over the US was definitely a ruse to curb Concorde's commercial opportunities, even with the truth of sonic booms causing building damage.
They politically destroyed the arrow as well.
The Concorde wasn’t allowed to go supersonic over Europe either though, so it wasn’t ONLY a US ruse to limit Concorde.
I had a thought experiment on this though. I’ve been inside a Concorde at a museum, and it’s extremely claustrophobic inside, and I’m used to flying in small regional jets.
Cost being equal (and at Concorde prices you’d be looking at international first class seats), would you rather sit in an economy seat for 3 hours, or in a first class suite with bed, shower amenities, private cubicle, etc for 7 hours?
Seems like most people go for the latter.
I wish I could have ridden Concorde once, but if I was wealthy and flying those routes a lot, I still would have preferred a slower flight in great comfort.
@@isaacfortner The US ruse to limit Concorde was partly out of spite because it couldn't produce its own SST; the European limit was out of practicality - that's an apples vs oranges comparison.
One shouldn't need to be reminded that the lower population density in the US between much of the midwest region and the west coastal states was conducive to some supersonic commercial flight if very strict paths were adhered to.
If the 2707 had become practical, I have little doubt that the US government would have made permitted supersonic flight over certain areas of the mainland US.
@@isaacfortner from what I understand you’d be in the minority of wanting to fly on a slower airplane in first class rather than cattle class on the Concorde. The Concorde was a party atmosphere full of celebrities and royalty, and apparently almost every flight there was a marriage proposal amongst other rituals, free bottomless champagne, and the most senior staff treatment at British Airways or Air France. You’re comparing going to bed at a 5 star hotel by 9pm, to the most exclusive night club on the planet and partying until dawn.
@@drewski5730 I'll stick w the slower, more cozy ride. The hour or two saved would never offset the time spent on the ground portion of air travel. And the exclusivity part of the Concorde was not its original design goal. It was mainly by chance that AF and BA discovered they could charge exorbitant prices for a ride, which naturally shifted the clientele to the more useless, but nonetheless higher paid, elements of society. Still, without subsidies, the jet set wouldn't have been able to sustain the Concorde. Besides, eventually it would have lost its novelty after these rarified passengers got bored with it.
Those advancements that you mentioned: better engines, lighter and stronger materials, etc would have also helped make subsonic planes even cheaper. Also with the TSA requiring 2+ hours to get through security, saving a few hours off your flight isn't as big of a deal. I would imagine there would be even more pressure on supersonic flights to makes the seats even smaller than they already are. The more efficient subsonic flights could have bigger and more comfortable seats for the same cost, at the expense of twice the flight time but not the TSA time.
Yeah, 1996 Concorde transatlantic tickets were about $15,000 in today's money for a comfortable seat. For $3,000, you can fly modern business class in a pod with a bed. Sure, it takes twice as long, but is 3-4 hours worth $12,000 to you?
And that's best case, if you're flying LAX-Rome, the regular jet can go nonstop but Concorde takes three flights and two layovers.
Especially with in-flight Wi-Fi and teleconferencing, the business case has disappeared.
@@morat242Some people rent helicopter vs. limousine just to get to a place half an hour quicker. So status image and small time savings can still win over comfort.
1:10 - Chapter 1 - Design & development
6:50 - Chapter 2 - What would have been
13:50 - Chapter 3 - Hindsights's 20/20
PS: Farewell the Hop-flight !!! RIP to the GOAT...
I understand the Rolls-Royce who Boom had contracted to do a feasibility study on developing engines for the Overture have concluded that while physically possible it would not be economically viable.
All the major manufacturers declined to design and build the engine. Probably because they know that designing such an engine will take a lot of time and money, the project is not guaranteed to succeed and even if it does, you might be selling a couple of dozen at best per year. I find it laughable that Boom now thinks they can do it alone and in just 2 years build a clean sheet design, get it tested, certified and production ready.
Doesn’t the boom look a lot like the concord in all the pictures
Exactly, likely that there will still be eco protests, expensive to operate, e.g., fuel and again only wealthy business people able to afford the ticket prices and countries / airports, etc restricting these planes from operating in their airspace@@Hans-gb4mv
I'm still absolutely astounded by the engineering hurdles Concorde engineers had to overcome to build this aircraft. It is a true marvel of engineering prowess!
I must of watched a tonne of documentaries about it and it still amazes me. This was all done in the age before computers.
On of the major factors that led to the downfall of the 2707 was boeing was in severe financial trouble. The development of both the 747 and the 2707 had the company hemorraging money. And the lenders were just about ready to pull the plug. So boeing had to take drastic measures to save the company. They had to drop the 2707 sadly.
Luckily the 747 was a booming success and it all worked out. They had to make the sacrifice, they didn't have much choice.
Hmm, the chief of Boeing had a round of golf with the chief of PANAM to persuade him not to buy Concorde for passengers (It was their plan and use the 747 for freight only-their original plan) as Boeing would build a bigger faster alternative. One $500 million mock up was all they got. By which time the US Congress passed laws that effectively banned Concorde overflying the US.
Despite the full-sized mockup, the technical issues with the 2707 were a long way from all being fixed. The US Government insisted that the America SST be much faster than concorde, which meant that just usng aluminium wasn't practical and titanium had to be used for heat resistance. But this was very new technology and ran into lots of issues.
If the 747 hadn't been such a hit, Boeing definitely would have been in serious trouble and could well have closed up shop altogether.
Boeing got into a death spiral with the SST (if you’ll excuse the horrendous pun). It was designed to be bigger and up to 50% faster than Concorde. It was the speed that eventually killed it because the technology wasn’t there yet. The spiral they got into was more speed, more weight, fewer passengers, reduced profit margins, bigger plane, bigger engines, more weight etc etc etc
That 50% speed advantage was an attempt to get to Mach 3 over Concorde’s Mach 2, with more than double the passenger numbers. At the time nobody could have made a plane to hit those goals.
I would love to see a video on that Boom overture aircraft, that would be pretty dope. Thanks as always for the content, love you Simon!
As a computer nerd i cant help but see a computer hard drive everytime Simon says SSD. Lol. Aside from that alone makes the rest of the commentary hilarious. It also conjures up images of Solid State Drives flying through the air at supersonic speed dropping bombs like the aliens in that adam sandler movie Pixels
I'm not so sure I would call Boeing a global leader in commercial aviation any longer. I'm certainly not too keen on stepping onto any Boeing 737's, especially now that the FAA is looking into all of Boeing's manufacturing practices and production lines. It definitely does give me a warm and happy feeling about flying on a Boeing plane.
The B2707 had everything going for it, except the small detail that it was unfeasible.
Interesting as the concept of SSTs in general was, the early seventies had another factor working against it: the oil crisis. As the experience with the Concorde showed, the amount of fuel that would be needed for an SST was astronomical, and with fuel prices rising quickly, it was a very bad omen for commercial supersonic flight. Hopefully newer designs like the Overture and the X-59 can go at least some way to addressing this particular issue, although I don't know how much it's possible to mitigate the amount of power output needed for sustained, supersonic flight.
Nice just as i need a video to watch
Boeing is still working on the SST concept and has it's new Boeing X-59 test bed that was designed to reduce or eliminate sonic booms.
Well done.
I am new sub to his various channels (he has a lot), and I listen to them while driving (which is a lot), he has great info and I definitely like the level of scholarly professionalism he has in his videos now, opposed to the early on videos. His videos now have the same feeling as though I am listening to a lecture from one of my professors, opposed to the earlier videos where it was more like listening to a classmate. All this to say, I appreciate your videos and presentations. If you would not be opposed to getting your doctorate in psychology real quick, I would greatly appreciate you being one of my professors (even if I have to wear sunglasses during class (for the glare).
The craziest part of the initial design is they were going to build part of the frame out of titanium due to concerns that typical materials like aluminum or steel would melt at mach 3. Titanium is heavy, expensive, and difficult to work with -- the opposites of what you want in a commercial airplane design.
(Source: my dad was an intern on the 2707 project.)
The Concorde was a technological success. Eventually an economic success in terms of revenue in the latter years for BA
Really? and by that I really mean, Really?
I mean, damn, if it was such a 'success' it would still be flying. Welcome to the real world.
@@comitatus111 fact is it made BA a lot of money in the latter years and it is only because Airbus stopped making the parts that it stopped. The lessons learnt from making concorde have made Airbus aircraft vastly superior to boeing. The reality is the USA were embarrassed that they failed and made sure Concorde would never be viable to US airlines. I've flown on Concorde LHR to JFK and back again. The Boeing 2707 was never more than a wooden model. All the while costing the same as the Concorde project.
It lost them SO much freaking money. You are forgetting that they would have needed to sell literally 10x the amount of planes alone to recover the costs. They also literally lost money on every flight. If that sounds like a success to you, you must have gone to Trump's business school. @@alistaircurrie9794
citation would be helpful@@alistaircurrie9794
The Overture factory is being built in my town actually (I'm hoping to invite a bunch of aviation CZcamsrs to my place so that they can produce videos about this aircraft)
So a plane that never got built from a company whose current board have put output and profits over safety MIGHT have done better than Concorde and Tupalev but we’ll never know as they haven’t thought to revive a commercial SST in half a century. Don’t get me wrong, I think supersonic air travel is cool but I don’t think you can confidently say that a project that never got into the air would’ve succeeded where it’s two contemporaries didn’t.
I had the good fortune to fly Concorde three times, and cruise @Mach2 for a few hours. It was quite an experience…in flight and the celebrities I shared those flights with!
At the time they were researching and designing the Boeing 2707, there was another plane they were researching and development: the Boeing 747 aka the “Queen of the Skies” (fun fact, the 747 took 16 months to fully design and build their first operational 747)
Nice video btw
Much as I enjoy flying in the 787, the demise of supersonic commercial flight saddens me. It seems like it was our species turning away from progress. As a kid in the 1970s, I would have laughed at you if you told me that in 50 years time, the commercial airliners would be effectively no faster than the 707s and DC9s we flew in back then.
Yes to a video on the Boom Overture, please.
Did he just say Boeing made the B-1? How do you even mess that up literally google “B-1” and it’ll come up as “Rockwell B-1”
It's US aircraft industry cross-pollination.
Because Boeing owns Rockwell's old aircraft devision.
Megaprojects used to be well researched. Recently it has been far less reliable on its facts.
Future MegaProject: Explain the future for the Boom Overture supersonic airliner
Simon; "At the end of this video, you would be salty."
Me; I am already salty before watching this video. Boom better not fail. The true future is on their shoulders.
@beaudavis3808 Boom might have picked the absolute worst name in world history.
@@goodson77784 Oh, SHUT UP.
I really don't see why people would choose supersonic over transonic jets, other than the novelty of it. The fuel burn is much higher, demanding much higher ticket price. The fuselage is long and thin, which means cramped seat.
@@viperabyss We chose them because they represent the future. Building them will allow us to build better space vehicles. To me, the ultimate goal is to reach the stars.
Most of the inconvenience of air travel is not in the plane. There's nothing wrong with a technology having reached maturity and it not being worthwhile to push it harder.
It's getting late and that night content is starting to appear;)
Yes please do a video on boom overture
And the Concorde was prohibitively expensive to maintain. It's one of the reasons there wasn't a Concorde 2. The primary reason it even existed was because tax revenue was used to develop it, yet the vast majority of those that paid those taxes wouldn't ever be able to fly in it. It's one thing to spend money to develop tech and equipment for military use, it's a whole other thing to use tax dollars for private business profit.
In the 80s, Concorde was making less than $20 million a year for either British Airways or Air France. Meanwhile, planes like the 737 were making airlines hundreds of millions. In its entire operational lifespan, the Concorde only ever made BA $600 million in profit. It was barely showing a profit, and it took just one crash to tank the whole thing.
If Boeing had gone through with it, they likely would have been forced to merge with McDonnell Douglas much earlier, and might have even been bought outright. So the corporate cultural change that saw the coverup of the 737 MAX would likely have happened earlier as well.
In the end, Boeing and the US tax payer dodged a bullet that both the UK and France took to the face.
It's really cool, just like hypercars are cool. But just like hypercars, they are wildly expensive and utterly impractical for what they do. Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should.
My first flight into Heathrow in 2010, I saw one abandoned Concorde parked next to a hanger… saddest sight ever.
Mr. Whistler, when will you be doing a deep-dive into NASA and Lockheed Martins new X-59 thats a quiet supersonic R&D aircraft? Thanks in advance ❤
NASA may have just solved the supersonic problem. Would make a great Sideprojeckt video.
some of my dad's classmates from college were on the Boeing SST project- they wound up on the 767 team after the SST was cancelled.
For ye old algorithm 👊🍻
Great vid Simon!
Thanks mate!
😎👍
The 747 generated 100000% more economic activity than any SST ever made.
Myriad failures of Concord....13:20. What you mean, the single, sole crash that happened due to an insane sequence of events. The technological marvel that no other country has ever been able to achieve. Boeing never even got to a real life testing stage, having to constantly redesign elements due to their own over ambition. I think you have been overly harsh on Concord and her achievements. They bailed as the project was never going to be achievable.
Would love an overture video! Hermeus too!
I wonder what would happen if you lost a door at Mach 2.7... Boeing is going to have to work for a while to get that picture out of my head. 😂
:)
If you want to see a very hyperbolic movie along those lines, check out the 1977 flick "SST Death Flight", which was also featured in the first season of Mystery Science Theater. It will definitely make you want to travel by ship in the future. :o
In 91 or 92 i worked in the 30x60 wind tunnel in Hampton va i worked on the High Speed Civil Transport model.
A supersonic aircraft for the rich while everyone else had to deal with the sonic booms seems a strange thing to long for
Talking about upgrading airframes, I’d think Boeing and the B52 has to be some sort of record for upgrading airframes, thus it makes sense that the 2707 would have been upgraded.
Boom. why not called it splode.
Geez, i always feel so called out, just cuz my name is Peter. For the record, i will have you know that the rockets i build in my garage are for defense, not human propulsion.
Besides that, great vid.😁
You're probably good, I'm pretty sure the 2nd Amendment covers that 😂
I had read somewhere that the variable sweep system required mechanics that would have clashed with the passenger area and reduced the volume available for fuel so the base concept was flawed, and that was why the project was abandoned. Is that urban legend?
I’d like to see a video about the first folks that _unintentionally_ flew through the sound barrier.
I can't help but feel like this specific video was written by some marketing sponsor. He never once mentions just how bleedingly expensive it is to break the sound barrier for a single manned jet. The Concord failed because no one could pay for the seats. That's the ultimate limiter for a commercial air linter. If no one can afford the tickets, what the point?
Hi there. I'm a drooling moron working for Android. Did you know there was a position at our company called a linter? OF COURSE NOT!! who the fuck even input that into the auto correct formula?! Also, can we all agree to delete the word duck from our vocabulary so our auto corrects can all FUCK off
I spent so long making sure this made sense. I just hate.
My late father-in-law was an engineer on the SST program.And told me all about it one night.I said it was amazing but at 1 point they just said.Now we're not going that direction and started working on the 747
I LOVED the concord, it was amazing. it was not very comfortable BUT... FAST.. I loved it. the problem with BOEING today is that thier QC is DISGUSTING if not criminal
This happens to every company where accountants are in charge. “Line must go up” to keep share holders making money is another major problem.
@@Bob_Smith19 bull. Boeing has a systemic problem on the manufacturing line. the people just don't care... the max line has been a crap show for 10 years. the facility is full of toxic and people that do not care. Not all but enught that the have killed people by thier lack of QC. it is not a pay problem, it is people that just don't give a crasp.
I wouldn't mind seeing a video on the Boom Overture.
Chuck Yeager really is a General Purpose Badass!
There was a funny New Yorker cartoon showing two men sitting in front of a greenhouse with shattered windows. One is reading a newspaper while the other is sitting with his head in his hands. The guy reading the newspaper says: "You might be interested to know the plane set a new speed record."
Geez, i always feel so called out, just cuz my name is Peter. For the record, i will have you know that the rockets i build in my garage are for defense, not human propulsion.
Besides that, great vid.
Imagine being on a boat on deep sea fishing trip in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
In the distance you see the entire horizon shimmer as an unknown force sends shockwaves through the water.
Seconds later the disturbed water reaches you shattering all glass on the boat.
Thank goodness Alaska Airlines isn't getting in on that, could you imagine your door randomly ripping off at 30,000 feet at supersonic speed?!
Being among the first t watch this masterpiece is definately "grand personal achievement"😅😅
One of the advantages of the B2707 would have been the ability to service the pacific route. Tokyo to LA with a stop in Honolulu. Enough rich people and business demand on both ends. It would have been the ultimate status symbol the 80's to fly to Hawaii and return on the same day
That was the era when the US was still a 'can do' country. Today it is a 'why we can't do that' country. I remember when I heard it was cancelled thinking, 'We have peaked. It is all down hill from here.' And how lucky I was to have lived during the best of times, before the oil started to run out.
There is a bit of an error in the video, but it was easy to overlook in research as I knew about these planes and I didn't know it at first. The US actually developed an SST back in the 50s B-58 Hustler. Apparently Convair recognized using the plane as a passenger transport and had sought to build one for use as a buisness jet, similar to the first Boom aircraft. Of course it didn't succeed and they realized all the problems which Boeing and Concorde would run up against quickly, which is why it ultimately never flew. But apparently they were very close, and by close, I mean they were ordering parts close. Didn't help that the Hustler was also retired from service pretty early. But that's ultimately why the 2707 failed. The US already had the numbers on what would constitute a successful SST, so they needed to aim bigger than Concorde to make it succesful which just wasn't practical at the time.
18:18 yes, just imagine all the spectacular issues they could have on the 2737MAX
Super sonic transport had its moment in the sun and that moment is over. Sub sonic transport is where the money is made.
I doubt anyone would want it so much if they lived near a major airport. 60,000lb thrust TURBOJETS! OMG!
Wait was the "we're talking to you Peter" a reference for Peter Stripol???
interesting design of the boeing 2707
It would be nice to see say 5 engineers as a side project at Boeing using today's tech and see what they can come up with.
I have been2.2 times thes speed of sound..thanks concord
I wonder if it was really canceled because Boeing didn't want to spring for the bolts to hold the doors on.
Did they want it to go too fast in the proposal requirements, upper MACH 2+?
They hit material problems - heat taking capabilities, and etc. and etc..
I think the biggest problem was that the Boeing 2707-300's four General Electric GE4 turbojet engines would have been ferocious fuel guzzlers and would not have met the then-nascent ICAO Stage III noise regulations. And it would have been very expensive to build because of its extensive use high-temperature stainless steel and titanium components.
The upcoming Boom Overture, on the other hand, uses modern high-temperature composites and aluminum alloys, and the engine will likely meet even ICAO Stage IV standards for noise emissions even at takeoff.
Absolutely wild that a sonic bomb can damage the ozone layer. I'd never heard of that before.
Even though Boeing did not originally design the B-1B, they purchased the companies that did. It is highly likely that lessons learned from the B-1A and B-1B would have inspired some improvements in iterations of the SST after the first 2707s.
It is also possible that some improvements in the commercial SST could have been used to improve the B-1B or later models of supersonic bombers. This could have reduced maintenance costs, modernized cockpits, and possibly improved engine efficiency.
Being that you've done this aircraft, any chance of doing a video on the Skylon & LEPCAT A5 then?
Hindsight's???? No apostrophe needed (or wanted)!
"Hindsight's 20/20" = "Hindsight is 20/20"
The apostrophe _is_ needed in this case.
Simon, it seems a lot of people are pointing out that Rockwell, *NOT* Boeing, actually built the B1 Lancer. Shall we change your nomer to “Mostly Correct Fact Boi”?! Lol.
Onr look at that thing and the cross section of it's main body is enough to see that while it looks beautiful, it could never be economic.
My first thought. Very pretty airplane though.
@@mr.joshua6818 Oh ywah. Very pretty and very impressive.
Yeah, just imagine if a door blew off an SST instead of "just" a max jet
and now you have to do a video about sonic thumps X-59
NASA just unveiled a test plane that is supposed to be able to go super sonic without creating a sonic boom so that planes could travel over cities at super sonic speeds. That would make for a good video 👍
Which will flop. There simply isn't a need for it. The idea of passenger supersonic flight is engineering a solution to a problem that doesn't exist
@@SmithCommaBenjamin I don't think you understand how research works, NASA isn't looking to turn a profit on this for themselves lol... This technology will have wider uses beyond just civilian, there is also military applications that the military can use from the research performed, as well as information that can be gathered for reentry purposes, the list goes on and on. There is a whole host of other tech being tested out as well in that plane.
@DanielChaves1984 Sir, have you not noticed planes are getting slower and lower? The days of fast, for fast's sake are over. Especially in a civilian sector.
Yeah, sonic boom issues will not be the problem that they once were ... because now we're building the SST
That horizontal stabilizer tail section must be pretty tough to hold all four of those engines, eh? That's the layout you got at 7:40-7:45. And in other drawings you have engines mounted on the main wing. Which is it?
The problem with supersonic planes isn't the lack of planes, it's the sonic boom they create. There have been multiple laws implemented that limit where a plane can go supersonic, and supersonic planes have terrible fuel efficiency at subsonic speeds because of the shape of the wings required for supersonic flight. They work fine at supersonic speeds, but no one likes to have the sound of explosions over their houses near airports.
There are efforts underway to figure out how to build a plane that can go supersonic without creating a sonic boom, or at the very least the sonic boom it creates either isn't heard on the ground below the plane. The technology doesn't exist yet. That's why we don't have supersonic jetliners. Not because the 2707 didn't get made.
After all the stuff in the news about Boeing's planes falling apart and stuff like that, I sure as hell wouldn't ride in a supersonic plane made by them
13:41 Mate the Concorde was not a failure. Its safety record is better than most of the aircraft today. The French not sweeping their runway was a good excuse to stop the flight but because of money. Nothing else. The actual Concorde was NOT a failure as you yourself actually pointed out.
My dad worked on the SST. He got laid off and ended up working as a civil servant for the air force.
In regard to the public effect of SS booms regularly...
I lived about thirty miles inland from the southern shore of Ireland and most mornings, around 10am, I'd hear a distant muffled thud, definitely coming from the south.
I realised it was Concorde going SS over the Atlantic, south of the island, and probably about thirty or forty miles offshore.
I was quite tickled by this, once I realised what it was.
However, if I'd been living near the coast and there were booms every ten minutes, I'd have a very different opinion.
While we're on the topic of airliner concepts is the TU Delft Flying-V worth looking at? I remember it making quite an impression a few years ago but i'm guessing it's just too radical to see the light of day, it still has a website :P.