Why Planes Don't Fly Faster
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- Get a free 30 day free trial and a free audiobook from Audible here:
www.Audible.com/Wendover
Support Wendover Productions on Patreon: / wendoverproductions
Get a Wendover Productions t-shirt for $20: store.dftba.com/products/wend...
CZcams: / wendoverproductions
Twitter: / wendoverpro
Email: WendoverProductions@gmail.com
Reddit: / wendoverproductions
Select visuals courtesy www.Shutterstock.com
Sound by Graham Haerther
(www.Haerther.net)
1970s first class image courtesy British Airways and used under fair use guidelines
Concorde interior photo courtesy ravas51
British Airways First Class Photo courtesy TravelingOtter
British Airways Business Class Photo courtesy Peter McCarthy and Tony Kent
“Prelude No. 7” and “Prelude No. 14” by Chris Zabriskie
Big thanks to Patreon supporters: Rob Harvey, Venkata Kaushik Nunna, Josh Berger, Paul Jihoon Choi, Huang MingLei, Dylan Benson, Maximillian van Kasbergen, Victor Zimmer, William Chappell, Eyal Matsliah, Sihien,Joseph Bull, Marcelo Alves Vieira, Jonah Paarman, maco2035, Hank Green, Plinio Correa, Connor J Smith, Brady Bellini
"Time is the enemy of the privileged few. Cost is the enemy of the masses." Well said.
time is everyone's enemy, to be quite honest
eashdk well it all comes down to money. But the value of the hour of the common person is not measured in hundreds of dollars.
harris nisar Trump scares me way more then the mexicans
Right! Never brought any first or business class ticket before. Probably won't be able to afford them anytime soon. Who is with me?
The vast majority of first and business class tickets are paid for by employers or obtained through upgrades.
"Time is the enemy of the privileged few; cost is the enemy of the masses" might be one of the best quotes for modern economics.
I was looking for someone to post this comment haha. Really resonates.
Deep 🤔
How would it be if time is currency? Like the movie In Time
Yeah but as with many so called wise anecdotes, it's flawed. Any terminally ill person usually values time more than cost. Some elderly persons might value the two equally etc.
soo deep stfu
_"Why don't we fly faster?"_
Because time is money, but not _that_ much money, apparently.
Time is money, shorter time = more money LOL
@@Douglas_Hamilton _Woosh_
@@R33Racer I don’t get it and don’t r/woosh me
@@Prokerboss Solvalu joke was time was money but not that much meaning becuase the cost to go faster was so high it was not worth it to go that fast with commercial flights
Time is money...
_Until you need _*_more_*_ fuel._
Its worth pointing out that although we may be flying no faster we fly a lot lot safer. The progress has been immense.
We also fly cheaper since modern high-bypass turbofan engines have much better fuel economy than the old fuel guzzling and very noisy turbojets.
What generates the most thrust in a turbofan is the bypass air and not the turbine. Usually the fan generates around 80% thrust and the turbine generates around 20%. There are some rare cases where the turbine generates more thrust, but in most high bypass turbofans (which are the most we use today) the fan is what generates most of the thrust.
I agree that they stated bollocks here
Tooniis+ Absolutely...
Tooniis+ Im with you on that.
Tooniis+ great stuff mate
Additionally, low bypass turbofans can absolutely exceed the speed of sound and are the best up to Mach 1.5 - 2. the F-16s in the video have turbofan engines
Its like Audible sponsors all videos on youtube
Learn about audible and their history from The Great Courses Plus!
😂😂
Mrudul Jain ikr
how bout you wrap that audible device with a dbrand skin
He who controls audible, controls the world
"When someone says, 'Why don't they...' the answer is usually money."
Robert A. Heinlein
He was pretty darned smart before his brain went to pieces. Yeah they kept him alive and he wrote more books afterward but he really got perverted after (and somewhat during) "Time Enough For Love". But there was always a bit of it there. The "hero" in "The Door Into Summer" falls in love with a little girl. Doh!
@@chrisbaker2903 I am not a fan of late Heinlein at all, but early Heinlein, the stuff he wrote in the 40's and 50's, is incomparable. RE: "The Door Into Summer," Heinlein, wasn't the only one. See the Twilight Zone episode, "The Fugitive."
What the heck else are companies supposed to do? The system rewards the talented and improves the standard of life for all
No the answer is usually about the left gumming up the works.
Well, when we say the answer is "money", but we mean is that the answer is "maximizing the efficient use of resources to prevent waste based on the priorities of individuals engaging in voluntary transactions". Money is just how we vote with our time and resources.
This video makes some very good points. For example, it’s never occurred to me that with flying, more than any other mode of transport, I (and everyone relevant who I know) never book flights by shopping around for the quickest flight. Ever. Whether the flight time takes say, 7h 31m or 6h 56m, never crosses my mind. By far the main factor is of course, cost. Followed far behind by factors such as stopover locations & numbers; airport convenience; etc etc. Interesting…….
It’s like we don’t Care about the time we just want to get there safely.
@@JoeSko
Yeah. Good point…. But we want the cheapest, too though….
I mean it also just really doesn’t matter if your plane arrives 30 minutes earlier in an 8 hour flight.
Interesting, I always take into consideration the flight time when choosing a flight. I'm trying to pick the one that gets me to my destination the shortest amount of time while still being within a reasonable price. I just want to get there without wasting more time than necessary.
@@danielz1666 agreed. Always shop for the most efficient flight time
do one about why old oceanliners aint no more
They are really slow compared to airplanes. Once airplanes had enough range to cross the oceans, there was no need to spend weeks on a liner when you could spend a hours on a plane.
There. Video done.
Well there are still oceanliners, just not as widely use
Hopefully so.
The 2 main reasons were cost and time. There was also a specific year that this started occurring: 1957. This year was the first time in history where more people traveled by air than by boat.
Sure, here's the video script: "This is a Wendover Production video, made possible by Audible. Ocean liners; they are slow as fuck. Ain't nobody got time for that. The end."
By the 1950s the prominence of the liner was challenged by the first regular transatlantic commercial flights. This challenge quickly asserted itself and in a decade the liners shifted from being the main support of transatlantic passenger movements to obsolescence. One of the last liners, the United States (mainly made of aluminum), held the transatlantic crossing speed record of 3.5 days in 1952. By the 1960s, air transportation has overtaken the supremacy of liners for transatlantic crossings and reference time became hours instead of days. Liner services disappeared and the surviving ships became the first cruise ships.
Pro tip, when you're talking about turbo prop aircraft, don't show footage of a piston engined Cessna 410.
no such thing as a piston engine Cessna 410? Lol
Ah I see, my bad, misread 410 as 411.
Thanks for the correction :)
how can you tell if its piston or turbo prop engine??? was it because the blue n white plane has an exhaust looking pipe hanging underneath??
Commander Xorph check video time of 2.02 that bronze pipe under wing.....is that an exhaust ???
At 2:37 he says that most of the thrust comes from air going through the core. When I went to A+P school and became a certified mech, we were always taught that 75-90% of thrust comes from the bypass air produced by the fan.
Majority just means more than half
squid's don't have ankles ...
@@ankledsquid yea but in the video he said that the most of the thrust comes from the air going through the CORE, while the comments says that most of the thrust comes from the BYPASS
This channel is more for the economics of flying than the tech
@@JosephHHHo Exactly that
Great video man, only small correction at 2:35 it's actually the other way around, the majority of the thrust actually comes from the bypass (on most commercial airliners)
THIS! 2:35 in the video had me doing a double take when i heard that lol
There are a couple other inaccuracies. One is that he fails to take into account altitude when listing the speed of sound. The speed of sound is closer to 660mph at cruising altitude (~35,000ft). Therefore the practical speed limit (which is closer to mach 0.85) works out to ~ 570mph.
@@onquarter speed of sound is not related to the altitude of the medium but the temperature and the heat capacity ratio (Gama)
There is quite a few errors. Turbofans work fine in supersonic speed. Pretty much all modern supersonic aircraft uses turbofan engines. F22 have a bypass ratio of 0.3.. that.. granted is not much, but is something. F35 have a bypass ratio of 0.57 that is sufficient so that it impacts fuel consumption. Saab Viggen have a bypass ratio of 1. As far as i know the highest bypass ratio of any mach 2 aircraft.. The engine is pretty much the same as a Boeing 727, but with a cut down bypass ratio
@@matsv201 "there are"
The last line was freaking amazing.
Sounds like it'd fit being cited as a quote from famous people.
Soumik Aswad 09gklmv 5
Oooh Commander Xorph you're edgy
Actually it is inaccurate; time is enemy to all. Money is irrelevant in the end.
franz kruhm While your alive money will always be relevant. When your dead relevance is irrelevant.
The aircraft you showed as having turboprop engines actually is a piston engine aircraft, which are exept for the propellers quite diffferent from turboprop aircraft. The difference is that a turboprop is basically a jet engine driving the propeller and a piston engine is basically a car engine driving the propeller, of course this is quite simplified though.
Piston engines are by far the most common in light aircraft, planes with up to ten or so passangers, but as you said in the video turboprops are most common in scheduled commuter airplanes. Other than that the video is spot on and I must say you did a grat job exlaining it!
thank you for saving me from having to write that
me too, and most propeller planes use piston engines. They are far far cheaper.
Was about to say the same thing
Thank you
That bugged me, too. Maybe "most commercial prop aircraft" are turboprop, but the VAST majority of prop aircraft are piston engine.
The F-15's you pictured are NOT turbojets. They are turbofans with a lower bypass ratio than the cargo planes you started off talking about, and they are afterburning turbofans. There are hardly any pure turbojets left anymore, including the SR-71 Blackbird.
Also, the F-15 tail number 042 from Kadena ("ZZ") is one of the aircraft I worked on when I was in the Air Force.
And the turboprob aircrafts he showed had piston engines... and the MMO isn't allways at .8 and depend on the aircrafts mass...
Yeah even F-22 uses turbofan; this guy is misled.
Fighter planes are not designed for supersonic cruise, only supersonic dash of 30 minutes or less. For an efficient supersonic cruise, like the Concorde, you need a pure turbojet and a convergent-divergent exhaust nozzle. This can be shown from a thermodynamic cycle analysis alone, i.e. a long spreadsheet calculation, while optimizing thrust-specific fuel consumption. Some conceptual supersonic business jet designs have low-bypass turbofans primarily for noise mitigation at takeoff.
@@johnerlacher9911 yeah, this is completely misleading. Designed for, yes, optimised for, no. The concord was optimised for SC, as that was it’s primary role. It didn’t need to be nimble/agile and it only needed to fly subsonic in restricted airspace, where routes were also optimised to keep to a minimum, vs varying mission capabilities. It also didn’t need to change external configuration, could carry vastly more fuel, etc, etc. You don’t need turbojet for SC, it just optimum (because for high speed you need high velocity exhaust), but you’re correct about low-bypass reducing noise pollution.
@@Nathanation88 Yes
The other big advantage to high-bypass engines is noise abatement. The cold air sheath from the bypass surrounds the hot (noisy) jet exhaust from the core. Cold air is denser and absorbs the hot air and noise slowly, cutting down on sound.
Awesome, didn't know this. Thanks.
2:38 Wrong, most thrust comes from the bypass. Up to 80%. Turbofans are basically high speed propellers.
TheΣnginεεr wrong
TheΣnginεεr right
TheΣnginεεr wrong
You are correct. You don't need to compress and burn all the air coming all. The Venturi effect pulls the bypass air creating more high-speed air, what is called thrust, making it as efficient as it is.
i was confused too. maybe just a mistake, not intentional.
OK... as an aviation nut and aerospace engineer, let me go through your wrongs:
1. Turboprops are only more common in commercial prop planes. "Most propeller planes" are piston, as they are far cheaper to buy and run then a turboprop.
2. Most (if not all) modern built fighter aircraft use turbofans. These are called "Low Bypass Fans", usually with ratios bellow 0.5 : 1 (The F404, engines on the FA-18, are 0.33 : 1 I think). Low bypass engines spin much faster then high-bypass engines (such as the ones on modern airliners), and many of them allow for aircraft to fly well above the speed of sound without afterburners (Known as a "Super-Cruise").
3. "Concorde" does not use an article, IE, no "The" before Concorde (look it up!)
4. The insane ticket cost of Concorde did not kill it. Concorde was killed off for various reasons: for starters the crash of Flight 4590 in 2000 was a major role in it's death. This (combined with the sharp decline of air travel following the September 11th attacks) led to a decline of ticket sales for Concorde. Prior to 2000, most flights on Concorde were actually booked solid, despite costs. With the decline of passengers, ontop of the aging fleet and outdated technology used (one of the few planes that had a flight engineer at the time), led to the program ending in 2003.
5. The MAIN reason we don't go supersonic is also largly impart due to Sonic-Booms... You see, although Concorde was very inefficient for it's time, that was not the reason why it wasn't selling... It was the sonic boom! Thanks to test performed in 1964 over Oklahoma City, we learned that people get mad when we go supersonic over them. This meant that planes could ONLY fly supersonic over bodies of water. We have technology to make another supersonic passenger aircraft (Known as Supersonic Transports, or SSTs) that are far more efficient then Concorde (perhaps not as much as other airliners, but still) that fly super-cruise at speeds > Mach 2.0, but still don't as they are limited to overseas flights (which means essentially NY to London or Paris)...
Sorry for the rant.
RoÆther Dreamcrosser , Thank you for that comment. Those exact things were bugging me too. I would add 1 more glaring error made though. He puts up a graph of the coefficient of drag and incorrectly states that it's a total drag curve. That's a huge mistake since the TOTAL drag will continue to rise the faster one goes where the coefficient of drag peaks at around Mach 1. This is because Drag = 1/2(air density)(air velocity)^2(coefficient of drag). Notice that although the coefficient of drag will peak around Mach 1, when you go faster the airspeed effect will increase with the square of that speed and offset the fact that the drag coefficient will start decreasing. So basically, it is NOT more efficient to go faster than Mach 1 than it is to go at Mach 1.
Thank you for pointing this out. his videos are not that great. they lack thorough knowledge on the subject and he just spews out facts he researched. because of this, his comments in the videos lack depth and insight of his own.
REPLY
he still makes a good business argument, though...
If it is cheaper to buy more planes than to fuel faster planes, why would they buy faster planes?
You still have to have pilots, mechanics, parts, staff. The argument that faster planes cost more than slower planes is fine, but his numbers exclude upkeep, maintenance, compliance, insurance, etc. The ratio is not universally in favor of slower planes.
isays actually, there are a few...
1. if the plane is going faster on long haul flights, you can increase number of flights the plane flies in a 24 hour period.
2. you can charge higher prices per seat... while you don't have to charge as much as Concorde for a seat, many people would probably be willing to pay a little extra to turn a 16 our flight to one of 8 or less.
3. longer flights would only require 1 plane per route. on longer flights (usually ones over 11 hours) that fly on a daily schedule will need atleast to planes to to fly the route. if you can cut that time down, you might need only 1 plane.
Why I enjoy your series so much: the narrative script is so brilliantly written and nicely reiterated, making your content second to none.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️💓👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
At 2:38, he states "While air that bypasses the turbine is also spead up, the majority of the thrust comes from the air that passes through the turbine."
FALSE! As someone who actually works with aircraft, this is actually the most false fact i've ever seen from Wendover (and disappointed by it). The turbine (center section) keeps the engine alive and running (which is also connected to the large fan upfront through a multi-axil system). Yes, this does produce about 10% of thrust, but the first two stages of large fans in the front that you see produce at least 80% of the thrust and bypasses around the turbine core. The turbines in the core cannot produce high-level of thrust due to the combustion of fuel creating irregularities in the airflow through the adjacent rear fan blades. DON'T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU READ/WATCH
Didnt he also make an error saying military planes use turbojets> all modern fighters are turbofans and have been for decades.
So clarity for me. If I was over simplifying it....the bypass air/section which the big fans up front are pushing air through "ARE KINDA" acting like a Turboprop with that portion of air? A big fan up front pushing air past it. ...and the air going through the engine, being compressed, adding fuel, then ignited is producing a smaller portion of thrust, BUT..it is used to turn the big fan up front and keep more bypass air flowing. So in general functioning of the engine, if you could magically get rid of the turbine section and keep just the fan and bypass air portion you would get an effect that would strongly resemble a turboprop type of "effect"?
Is that, simplified, correct?
Yup, he got it backwards. The majority of the thrust comes from the bypass air, the area outside the turbine.
@@mrhoffame In super simplified terms, yes! There should be some good .gifs on wikipedia that show a good example of what you're talking about.
@@mrhoffame Correct. It's funny to see as the decades have gone on, that the turbofan jet engines in jumbos behave more like turbo props for thrust - a giant fan/prop on the front.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the larger portion of the thrust come from the bypass air in a turbofan type engine?
WillebusGaming yes
75-80%
You're right i should say
He made a mistake initially but he then says that the large portion comes from the bypass
The core really only exists to power the bypass (at least in super efficient motors)
*Points at 787*
“THIS is brilliant.”
*Points at Concorde*
“But I LIKE this”
Clarkson? Is that you?
@@RobRandomVids and in the next scene there is the latest Nissan GTR "now we are going to find out switch is faster..."
It’s the Concorde exclamation mark
That's I feel when comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Ferrari.
Excellent, EXCELLENT comment. We like it, but we don't ever pay what we must to use it.
Even if a commercial aircraft could theoretically fly supersonic, the transonic shockwave would damage the front compressor face. Concorde could fly supersonically because the intakes have variable geometry ramps which slowed down the airflow. Most transonic/supersonic aircraft have specially designed intakes to reduce the airspeed for the engine. One other point - the older military aircraft have turbojet engines. A lot of newer aircraft have low-bypass turbo-fans.
I feel like they should just fly the concord once every 4~5 just for the experience. I'm sure there'll be plenty of people who just want to experience this and could make up for the cost of one trip.
I agree. Having Concorde flights be really infrequent like that could really capitalize on rich peoples' FOMO and the flights would probably sell out quickly even if they're overpriced even for a Concorde.
I don't think there's anyone alive or within working she who could restore a Concorde.
I hate it when I hear people complain about flying, about how long a flight is. Just imagine being born just a few hundred years earlier and having to, for example, travel from New York to Los Angeles. It would've taken you six months. And people are complaining about a 5 1/2 flight. We've gotten weak.
Good times create weak men, weak men create hard times, hard times create strong men, and strong men create good times
Chucklemaniac best comment! it cant be said in a better way than this.
That is called progress and human nature. Average person today is technically richer than kings of the past.
a few hundred years ago......really...in the 1700s...
Prymawl Well the exact date isn't important, but a time before cars, and more importantly, a time before commercial airlines.
So basically the answer to "Why planes don't fly faster" is money.
Jingya Sun the answer to most of things people do is money
Jingya Sun More its energy inefficient.....
its inefficiency
Jingya Sun: capitalism...
Because socialism would work soo much better..
There are a lot of technical details that this guy gets pretty wrong about turbomachinery and aerospace subjects in general. He gets the trends right, but not always for the right reasons.
Stop saying smart things. You don’t wanna fry their brains
@@tomevers6670 It is to late, I am already confused
That's why you can't trust the internet
when you use the wrong equation but get the right answer
Probably one of the best videos I've ever watched in terms of fantastically explaining a seemingly complex matter!!
What a great thing to wake up to
alexslander What a great thing to see when coming home from work.
What a great thing to watch before going to sleep :)
papa
Papanomaly?
But grotto is better
When talking about civilian airliners you say "the majority of the thrust comes from the air that passes through the turbine" (02:38) but then later you say "engines that accelerate more air through the bypass duct can get more thrust for the same amount of energy" (03:35). There you are contradicting yourself as the latter statement implies that the majority of the thrust is generated by the bypassed air.
Thrust is very simply the change in momentum of the air flowing through the engine. So there are two methods to produce thrust: 1) speed up a small mas of air by a lot or 2) take a large mass of air and increase its velocity by a small amount. That is the main principle of turbofan engines (TFE).
Civil airliners exclusively use high bypass (HB) TFE because of the fuel savings you mentioned but also because of noise reduction (high speed air = loud noise). Military aircraft trend toward turbojet engines (TJE) and low bypass (LB) TFE, as you said for speed issues but also LB TFE and TJEs are lighter they are much more manoeuvrable which is needed to pull higher g's in a dogfight. Additionally, there is the detection avoidance, a HB TFE has a massive inlet which is easily detectable via infrared. Military jets need to obscure as much as possible their heat signature by burying the engine deep into the body of the aircraft. For military aircraft stealth, manoeuvrability, speed rank higher than efficiency as the aircraft will not be in the air as long and the fact that most modern fighter jets can be refueled mid air.
Navin Sangtani Neat! I didn't know that. Thanks!
o
I ripped my hair out and bit my tounge at the sam time at 02:38
The speed of the airplane is almost irrelevant,
compared to the time spent waiting in the airport.
In 3 hours, you can get from the security x-rays
all the way to the boarding area.
Lol where?! It never takes me that long I show up frequently 45 min before boarding at ATL airport.
@@LeolaGlamour I was thinking the same thing. How long is it taking this guy to get through security and into the boarding area?
@@kamakaziozzie3038
Yeah people act like it’s hours and hours. It’s not generally, and when the airport is super busy you can get alerts so you can know to get there a little earlier.
Very well presented. You are truly thorough and concise as always. I think you guys deserve 5 m subs
The reason airlines list longer flight times now is so they can claim that more of their flights arrive on time.
This. Some pencil pusher thought it was a great idea to have the schedules done a certain way so we could make a cabin announcement to the pax explaining why we don't have a gate available-We're early!
carabela125 That and congestion getting worse with all the puddle jumpers taking up all the slots
Eh, not really. An increase in regional flying is just a decrease in mainline service. Its not like the 90's when "puddle jumpers" were Jetstreams or similar 19-32 seat props. Todays market is dominated by 70 something up to 90 something seat CRJ-700/900 and EMB175/195. Not much difference than the DC9's of or half empty 727's of decades gone by...except for the shitey service of today.
TR Mayo Zzdgh🌈🌈🌈🌈🗽🗽🗽🌈🌈🌈🌈✈️🚅🚄🚝🚤🎢⛺️🗼🎡🎢🎠🏗🎑⛲️🌋🚊🚉🚞🚋🚃🚟🚟🚠🚠🚡🚝🚂⛵️🚁⛵️🚀⛽️🚦🚥🗺🚏⛲️⛲️⛲️⛲️⛲️⛲️⛲️🎑⛲️⛲️⛲️ 🚏🚇🎧🚍🚕🚛🚐🎳🚡🚕🎨🏵🎗🚴🚗🚋🏎🚓🚓🚓🚑🚒🚒🚐🚎🚒🚒🚐🚒🚑🏆🕴🚎🚌🚙🚑🚒🚐🚓🚑🚙🚕🚗🏎🛤🌠🛤🛤🏝🏖🛣🌋⛲️🎠🏪🏪✈️🛰🚀⛵️🚁🚨🚂🚂🚡🚨🚥🚦🚢🎡🎢🎠🏗🏗🗼🏭🌁⛰🏕
TR Mayo well in Europe nobody flies the short distances anymore. That has all been taken over by High speed rail, freeing up slots for longer flights
If I up my patreon pledge will you stay off my turf?
Real Engineering Love your videos man
You guys should do some more collab videos!! You are two of my all time favorite youtubers and I can't thank you enough for how much effort you both put into making your videos!!
It is getting territorial here :|
I considered putting a blueprint background during my explanation sections but I figured that you might launch nukes if I did
Ireland has nukes now...?
Wendover, you are the best at explaining complex subjects... Keep up the great work
At every moment u answer the very question that pops up in my mind.. that's really cool 👍👍
Very good
RE: Concorde "No longer luxurious or efficient" and "cramped seats" Clearly you never flew on a BA Concorde flight.
The last Concorde passenger flights were in October 2003... I am aware of this. It does not change the fact that flying Concorde was, in fact, luxurious and efficient (although expensive). Additionally, the seats were in no way "cramped." My Concorde experiences were, without exception, the best airline experiences I have ever encountered.
I could take your word, or that of British Airways and their Concorde fleet manager. Concorde was making BA a net average profit of over £25M a year. A small amount by airline standards, but it was only a 7 plane fleet. Of course, the same can't be said for Air France. This video tries to lump BA and AF Concorde operations into one bucket... that was a mistake.
"Every documentary..." You made it too easy. Jock Lowe (former Concorde Commercial Manager) in several documentaries explains that once ticket prices were raised in the early 80's, Concorde made a profit for BA. It's a matter of public record due to the semi-public nature of BA in those days... Concorde operations were going to be cut if it was not making a profit by 1983. ***This is my last comment on this topic.***
+*hatroq*, I think the video was saying compared even to today's coach class air travel, Concorde was considered to have "cramped seats", and there's NO WAY IN HELL Concorde was even remotely comparable to today's luxury airline travel. Today's luxury airlines offer travelers [who can afford it] what is essentially a mini apartment. Nice as it was, Concorde was really just coach class seating in a really fast plane. Seems it's hard for some to deal with this fact.
You're missing the fundamental issue. You don't need an Apartment, Suite, or Lie-Flat for a flight that is barely over 3 hours. Also, the seat pitch was 38" with a unique pivoting recline method and foot rest. At 6'3", I did not feel cramped at all.
2:42 i belive this is wrong. if i remember corectly the "main fan" makes up 90% of the thrust while the internal combustion chamber does give a little bit of thrust, it's main role is to power the main fan.
i might be wrong tho
TTaiiLs ur not
you wer wrong it is 75-80%
spring som fågel! Still more right than the video tho
did not mean to offend you
hahaha no worries bro; i'm not offended at all haha
What a breathtaking presentation. Thank you so much.
“$200 to cross the pond”
lol you forgot a zero.
$233 from Miami to London now
He's talking about the budget airlines being that cheap. Yes, it is doable if you do not pay for bags or to choose your seat early.
Hello! Could you please also include metric notation (e.g. km/h alongside mph) in your videos too? It would really help!
He already does
Not on all videos and stats but its still very good compared to the other youtubers
9:27
2:09
there is Google conversions for a reason
6:22 Jesus, how wealthy do you have to be to have your funeral in first class on a 747???
this is the funniest comment I've read on CZcams this entire year, kudos
Lmao 😂
Damnit no wooooshes. I was looking for one here expected to find one
why is the casket so small?
@mike force ok buddy
Beautiful. Great video. Clear n to the point.
I’m doing aerospace engineering at uni and I have to say I have learnt more watching the first 2 minutes of this video than I have during my first year at uni. All it takes is some nice diagrams and someone who knows what they’re on about! Thank you.
The Concorde may be ineficcient in multiple regards, but that does not detract from what a remarkable feat of engineering it is.
Sure....but the governments of France/UK took billions in tax money for R&D so rich dudes could fly to NYC in 2.5 hours. If Airbus( then Aerospatiale/BAC) had actually paid to build the jet it would’ve been a complete disaster. Basically the government built a toy for rich people.
@@33moneyball woah tone down your cynicism there lol... I think its believable that the governments truly believed supersonic flight was the next step for air travel and not just for rich people, just by the time they were done fuel was more expensive and the competition was able to take more passengers with less of it. Governments being governments won't just scrap a program once it's already well underway or they would have even worse than people claiming they just "built a toy for rich people" as they'd be complaining "they spend all this money and then just binned it!?"
Essentially for a slide-rule airplane its even that much more remarkable!
Even by today's standards a truly amazing piece of engineering. Like a Formula1 car it looks fast just parked on the tarmack
@@RWoody1995 nah they built it for the elites. Only 100 passengers. 7500$ for a flight. More than first class.
@@33moneyball 3.5 hours no 2.5
New Wendover AND Casually Explained...i love today :)
jackmodz same
Very instructive video. I learned a lot.
Excellent video. The time and effort put into this video is duly noted.
You can find some pretty interesting stuff on youtube 🤔
You can say other videos are
HALF AS INTERESTING **knee slap**
Jordan Laliotis can
"Time is the enemy of the privileged, cost is the enemy of the masses". I like it.
Commander Xorph if you think about it that's a pretty stupid quote. You can't have both because it's saying they're the same thing. There isn't a "both" to be had, only one. Sorry to ruin your favourite quote.
Well made and thoughtful video. Very informative. Thanks!
Amazingly elucidative! Thanks!
So the turboprop operates best between 325 and 375mph... So ideally, it would want to fly at about treefiddy.
Lmao
Damnit monster!
Human arms operates best between 0 and 0 mph
@@WolfeYankee I find that I operate best horizontally and at a speed of between 0 and 0 mph
Well you shoulda given the plane a biscuit!
10:06 fucking perfect.
That sounds great, what time?
Hong Kong Airport
FreexeZ ya lol
FreexeZ What is the Concorde gonna do
You did not answer the question clearly.
The Answer is we are not flying faster because airline companies are hunting money like whores on streets.
Other than military aircraft, the Concord was still sexier than the others.
fantastic video and well structured.
Ugh, someone's been reading but not understanding the wiki on jet engines. Bypass ratio isn't necessarily a measure of efficiency. Modern turbo fans owe their incredible economic performance to superior pressure ratios, which increase thermal efficiency, and in turn allow you to drive a bigger fan. You can use a turbofan to go supersonic, its all about the inlet in front and the nozzle behind. The intake has to be able to slow the supersonic flow to subsonic speed before entering the engine inelt. Case in point: the F-22 which has a 1.2:1 or so bypass ratio turbofan engine, an obscene thrust to weight ratio when using reheat, but is limited to about mach 2.2 because of its intake type. You don't have to route all air through the engine core as in a turbojet and with Concorde to get supersonic performance. Case in point: the SR-71, which used a turbo ramjet. At mach 3.3 most of the air went around the turbine engine core and into the afterburner section for reheat. The intake was able to slow air at that speed to a subsonic flow and its nozzle was able to re-expand it to sufficient velocity to provide thrust. Both intake and nozzle were able to support higher mach numbers; the limiting factor was the inlet temperature into the first stage compressor. Over about 480C, it would start to melt. The incredible heat came from the ram compression due to slowing supersonic flow to subsonic speeds.
i
no... we have gotten stronger! WE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE WEAK!!!!
Brian Cox well I'm not going to question me of that. because I don't know anything about ratios. I have to ask you, are your aircraft engineer? just curious. I was just hopping through all the comments it's always interesting to read them. seems like you know quite a bit about this type of information.
On the SR-71, didn't all the air enter the core and went through a few stages of the compressor and then was bypassed through the six ducts?
people, buy a tie-fighter... it flies around 1,100Kph and almost never runs out of power (solar panel wings) and its cheap as fuck
Hail the Empire!
Kevin Kake Games Rebellion and New Republic. Get an X-Wing instead
ChicagoMel23 you have no likes, so I guess noone wants your fugly rebel wings
But I like my tie!
I have always wondered why we don't go faster, and why no one has brought back the Concord! I'm so glad to finally know the answer. Thank you! :)
This was very informative, bud! Good job 👍🏼!!
1:40 "the turboprop is the kind ..." shows a Cessna 340 piston aircraft. hahahah
Yeah.. The exhaust didn't exactly look like something out of a turboprop..
2:50, "If you need to go Supersonic, speeds above 700MPH, you need....a turbojet" .... Shows an F15 Eagle with Afterburning Turbofans.
Caio Poit he got a lot of mistakes, maybe he should do more research
Caio Poit lol i literually just saw it and were gonna comment it
I welded a turboprop exhaust onto my Volkswagen Beetle when I was 12.
Holy shit, looking through the comment section I now understand that you better not fuck with aviation fanatics
How does one wanting correct information in the video make one a fanatic?
That quote at the end hit me hard wow that’s why I love all your videos
Great info and well presented.
I still wish I could fly in a Concord at least once. Shame they were decommissioned before I had a chance to fly transatlantically. It would have my child self so happy.
You will be able to soon - boomsupersonic.com :)
It was cramped and REALLY noisy. But 3 hours... that's a nice bonus.
I was lucky, I got to fly on it from LHR to JFK in the summer of 98. Yeah it made my inner child stoked lol.
The Impish Dullahan Me too 😢
Just go on day out to a fighter jet ride cheaper i think even goto russia for it cheap
Turboprops are not the dominant engine used of "propeller planes." Piston-driven engines are by FAR dominant on "propeller planes." You speak of a turboprop, yet show pictures of piston aircraft.
So true I love my piper archer. Also I love your videos MrAviation101 keep up the good work!
Forrest Hutchens thanks!
MrAviation101 I think he meant airliners that are powered by propellers, you don't really see any piston engine airliners.
MrAviation101 l
But why is he showing piston engine planes instead of turboprop ones?
Very enlightening. Thank you.
Excellent, to the point presentation on the the evolution of modern aviation. The science is accurate, and understandable (not always the case!). Well done.
That plane you showed for a turboprop engine was a Beechcraft Baron, which is powered by reciprocating piston engines.
yup - knew what we were dealing with from that moment.
That did bug me. Also when he said that the majority of prop planes are turboprops, I don’t know if that’s really correct, piston are much more common in my country at least (I say this cuz I often go to aerodromes and most prop planes are pistons)
@@Al-Akram92 beyond incredible would be showing a lot more attention to detail than what is displayed here.
Whoever is reading this, hope you have an awesome day! :D
I just got home from school. Today I have failed two exams. What an awesome day
tetenric i have school off this week what an awesome day
Giant Asian Sticker hah mr beast
Autumn Shag k
"I feel so lonely that I'm willing to wish a nice day to people I don't know on CZcams. I will look like a nice person and probably get some attention because of that."
This is very informative. I happily subscribed. I'm looking forward to the next videos!👍
Great video as always very informative
1. Turbofans usually get most of their thrust from the bypass. 2. Most supersonic aircraft use low-bypass turbofans, not turbojets.
the majority of the thrust in a turbofan comes from the fan section, not the turbine.
Does that make difference, since fan is rotated by a turbine?
Yes it does make a difference. about 80% of the thrust come from the turbofan in the front, and about 20% comes from the turbine. Its the turbine that uses the most amount of fuel, so it is better to get the thrust from the fan instead of the turbine.
I mean... All of the thrust is regulated by turbine, since it's connected via shaft to a fan and rotates the fan. No burning fuel mixture in turbine=no thrust in the fan. Or I'm getting something wrong here?
Yes, the fan in the front is rotated by the internal turbine, but if you compare the air that comes out of the turbine in the middle versus the air that comes around it, most of the thrust comes from the air coming around the turbine.
Which came first the chicken of the egg?
Really liked this. Very insightful
Excellent and informative video!
Big error: the "turboprops" you showed were all piston engines with propellers. No turbines on those at all. Look at a King Air to see what a turboprop nacelle looks like.
Amen, brother: preach it!
I noticed the shot of three biplanes flying in formation. Does anyone know of a biplane with a turboprop engine?
hate videos like these.
mongoloid why are you here then?
Dmetri Meeks-Coleman because it was linked to. so we watched it. then saw half of the stuff was straight up lies and wrong
As a pilot, I appreciate Wendover Productions’ passion for the subject, but there are a LOT of mistakes in these Aviation videos.
Oh? I'm interested! What are they?
@@MrMowky One of them is about the turbofan engines for example. Actually, the fan generates the most of the thrust but he said otherwise in the video.
Video doesn’t mention the piston propeller engine category of airplane engine but displays them in the short clip of the small twin engine plane taking off, while incorrectly identifying them as an example of a turbo prop. I’m also still a fan of channel nevertheless.
@@FatihKeskinFK Yeah, that was big mistake on this dude's part. Disappointing.
@@FatihKeskinFK YES. I was wondering why a higher bypass ratio would lead to more thrust if you needed the turbine to generate more thrust.
Very informative. Thank you.
Great video. Learnt a lot.
Well... This is just well done.
I swear that 90% of thrust from a turbofan is from the fan
The percentage depends on the bypass ratio but you are right that it's mainly produced by the fan
75-80%
Yeah, the way the video said wouldn't make any sense. If most of the thrust was produced by the turbine you wouldn't get much benefit from the fan and you'd just have a turbojet with a big drag inducing disc in front of it and there'd be no point.
At low altitudes the fan produces more thrust. As you get to high altitudes the jet produces more thrust
This was great work!!
Excellent video thanks
The explanation regarding turbofans is totally wrong. Modern high bypass turbofan engines generate up to 80-90% of their thrust via the bypassed air, not by the air leaving the turbine.
Sodak World I thought so too. So which contributes more thrust? The bypass air or the air that exits the combustion chamber?
I'm confused!
The bypass produces more thrust. This is one of the reason's I'm not keen on Wendover's videos, false information. Think of the fan as just an enclosed prop. The turbine is only there to turn the fan. The little thrust it produces is just a nice bonus.
Vladmir Putin, the.diagram does not show the turbine shaft that drives the (ducted) fan. And the claim that all the fan does is pump air into the gas turbine engine's intake is.totally wrong.
Sodak World exactly. He is mistaking high bypass and low bypass. Airliners use high bypass which does in fact produce more thrust via the fan....
The bypass air creates more thrust than the air that exits the combustion chamber. The primary purpose of the air that passes through the core (exiting combustion chamber) of a turbofan, is to turn the fan (increasing the bypass-air/thrust).
@wendoverproductions Most of the thrust from turbofan engines doesnt come from the inner turbine. More than 80% of thrust is generated by the fanblades, that are propelled by the engine...
MrSuperairbus yeah that's what I thought, i was confused when he said thrust comes from inner turbine
not more than 80% 75-80%
Really good video. Very well explained. Congratulations. You got a new subscriber.
I seem to remember back in the day the big complaint about the continued viability and growth (which would’ve resulted in lower costs) was the problem of noise and sonic booms which right off the bat limited this type of supersonic air travel to only “”over water” air routes. So the fuel costs arguments may have been there years ago too, but they weren’t sole killer of future SST success.
I think the demand for the Concorde could have been a lot higher if its range had allowed it to cross the Pacific.
FromNorway - - That is a good point. But because the Concorde was a joint US/UK venture, I don’t think commercial supersonic air routes around the Pacific Rim were an economic priority (With the possible exception of Hong Kong) for the British government. That may have been part of the reason why the plane wasn’t flown out of US west coast locations. Plus, I remember that local west coast state and county governments were already declaring they would not tolerate the anticipated noise issues the east coast airports, i.e. New York, Washington D.C., Boston, Atlanta, etc. had been currently dealing with at that time.
em745a My mistake, thanks for the correction.
That last sentence in the video really hits the spot - good job!
Re: TurboFan: "The majority of the thrust comes from the air that passes through the turbine"
Well that's just plain wrong. Leave the engineering analysis to @Real Engineering please, unless you want to explain that the thrust is produced in the turbine by harnessing heat and converting it to work, which is then transferred to the Fan - where most of the thrust comes from.
Really informative thanks 👍
Thanks for this fantastic informative video !!!! 👍👍👍👍👍
Guy: "We had a method called a droop snoop"
"The snoop would droop"
Cameraman: "The snoop drooped?"
Every single plane you showed when talking about a turboprop engine wasn't a turboprop, those were piston engines.
I try and do the best I can. All you people can do is see a correction and/or a factual statement and take it as a personal attack or harsh and aggressive criticism these days. I'm not the devil. If something seems a little harsh than use your brain and stop reading in between the lines, don't try to fill anything in, be respectful and read what I say, take it as what I mean.
Weenie Hut Jr's We can all try to do the best we can, that doesn't mean we don't make blatant mistakes that need to be corrected.
He tries the best he can to make quick ad revenue with slob effort.
That reminds me, if you google "turboprop airplanes" not a single piston engine aircraft shows up so how did he manage this?
Very on point, well done, thanks!
Despite the fact that Concorde was too expensive to fly, I still love it. Its a super-sonic plane capable of travelling much faster than the traditional planes we see today. Travel times are cut in half because of how fast it is. I love it.
British Airways turned a profit from Concorde every year it flew. Air France did not.
@@KangoV I assume it was great for marketing too.
@Lucas Kotomski I think it was really because it became necessary to put more and more people on a single aircraft to make more money. That trend seems to have ceased now as shown by the demise of the Airbus A380. And people flew on Concorde because it was special as well as getting you to or from the USA in half the time.
Another thing worth noting with regards to Concorde is that one big reason BA withdrew their fleet is spare parts. Just getting tyres was costing more and more, parts had to be ordered in small runs which = higher expense.
Some companies stopped making them which would have required not just sourcing, but certifying new manufacturers which is a long, oftentimes expensive process and would apply to even stuff as inane as washers or wire sheaths.
As very unique aircraft, you couldn't just use what you have laying around.
I lived in Hells Kitchen NYC when the intrepid air sea museum acquired a concord. Oddest thing seeing a concord on a barge being dragged up the Hudson.
aw! it sucks that people would rather fly longer for more comfort, as someone who can't sleep on planes to save my life i'd definitely rather pay more (if i had the money) for a 50% faster journey. especially on long-haul flights which are 24 hours+
the longest commercial flight in service is only 17 hours
Pepe I think he/she meant long Journeys such as Heathrow to east coast of Australia which are really long flights including stop overs that sort of thing
Pepe what do you mean only 17 hours? 17 hours is a long ass time to pass if you can’t sleep
Also can't sleep at planes, but I wouldn't pay more for 50% faster journey since the time in the airport or going to the airport ain't going to change.
Mole I love sleeping on planes
great video and very informative
Very insightful. Cheers
I believe another problem for SSTs (Super Sonic Transports) was the sonic boom the jets created. When I was a boy in the sixties, I lived near an Air Force base (which was fun for plane watching). Once in a while, I would hear a loud boom as a supersonic jet passed by. It was fun for me, but probably not so fun for people closer to the base.