When Will We Finally Fly with Supersonic Airplanes again?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 03. 2024
- 🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
🤗 Join our Patreon community: / ultrafuture
🤗 One-Time Donation?
- PayPal: paypal.me/JS2TheFuture
- Bitcoin: bc1qv4lsfsplvfecrrgvmfclhga28we7mvh9563xdj
🔗 Share the video with anyone who might be interested (it helps a ton!)
Music:
"John Tasoulas - Odyssey" is under a Creative Commons (CC-BY 3.0) license
/ johntasoulas
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: htt ps://bit.ly/bc-odyssey-song
Neon Renegade · StreamBeats by Harris Heller
• Neon Renegade
📬 Contact us: ultra.future.video@gmail.com
#UltraFuture - Věda a technologie
🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/UltraFuture
A lot of those transplantation issues is related to day and night cycle, what not many people realize. It is why trains are optimal for medium ranges as you could sleep during the movement. When using flight you arrive earlier, but until you want take flight during the night, you would arrive late enough, that you would need take a hotel anyway. So that make flight pointless. Same issue was also applicable to Concorde. In many cases it was more efficient to take normal flight and sleep during it, saving money on it and the hotel. And that putting aside other issues like sound.
I know it was for narrative reasons. But I excepted that you would at least put disclaimer that fall of Roman Empire and primitiveness of Dark Ages are highly exaggerated? But yes. Decline in quality of gear from Mid to Late Rome is a good example. Even if new gear was actually more practical (also cheaper) and in some aspects better (new swords and spears).
The problem with supersonic airlines is the fuel consumption, it economically doesn't make since and makes the prices of tickets super high.
We had really comfy seats, and even beds, onboard aircraft in 1934!
Its the diffrance between the rich and the super rich.
In 2024 the rich have comfy beds on aircraft, in 1934 it was only the super rich... or even the ultra rich.
Every time the aircraft get more efficient (say 2X), everyone take one step forward.
The aircraft getting more efficient about 3 times.
Mid 30s with the introduction of larger airliners
60 with the introduction of high bypass engines
The last one is a bit ... lets say diffuse. The introduction of large twin engine aircraft with the combination of advanced turbo fans. Some thing that happened between 1995 and 2011.
Now people that is just wealthy can afford lie flat airplane chairs and me who is poor can afford to fly
@@matsv201 There is something to your assertion, but it is not as extreme or clear cut as you claim. I’ve seen what you posted coming from many free market/libertarian type sources who tend to accept things like this on faith. Regulation, protectionism, subsidies, inflation, and corporate return expectations are all things that have affected pricing and that have been different at different times throughout the history of commercial aviation.
Oh, and when I first flew in 1972, economy, our seats had plenty of width and legroom, and my family was barely middle class.
@@DeanStephen
" I’ve seen what you posted coming from many free market/libertarian type sources "
Wrong, i done all the math my self.
"Oh, and when I first flew in 1972, economy, our seats had plenty of width and legroom,"
Here is where your imagination and reality don´t match. The issue is that Boeing 707, 727, 737 and 757 have exactly the same internal fuselage width, and they always had 6 seat a breast, already since the very first flight of the 707 in the 50s.
The A320, A330, 777 actually have slightly wider economy seats than the previews aircraft had. For seat pich is a bit more complicated.
Where it comes to pitch its a bit more complicated and its highly dependent the airline. It worth saying seat thicknes have decreased with 5 cm for the latest gen that in turn so the pitch is not always relevant to directly compare.
Your anecdotal claim don´t matter much when traveling by plane have been cut in price by a quarter since 1970s, While that is mostly true for medium range distances
@@matsv201 Surprisingly, you’ve overlooked one very obvious thing. I was much younger and much smaller in 1972. Of course everything seemed larger. I’m pretty certain the jet in question was a 727-100.
It would seem that our governments are more interested in hypersonic cruise missiles than they are in hypersonic airliners.
Never mind flying cars - *where's my rocket backpack?!*
Wouldn't that burn your legs? (OK, we can make fire-resistant clothing and footwear, but it still needs to be mentioned.)
Never going to happen, because the general public wouldn't be trusted with them. Even flying cars would be automated, because the average Joe can't be trusted with something so potentially dangerous.
BOOM originally wanted ROLLS ROYCE to build their engine for the OVERTURE when BOOM selected it back in 2020, but in 2022 Rolls Royce declined the offer as well as other engine manufactures, so that's why that want to build their own turbofan engine instead hence the symphony engine.
The reason Concorde failed is a bit more complicated that it was expensive. While it was expensive, most of the reason why it was expensive was really because it was expensive. That is, they never reach economy of scale.
The reason for that was that when it was designed it was designed to compete with low bypass subsonic aircraft's. But when it was finished it competed with medium bypass aircraft's. Also wide body.
This was a issue because something that suppose to be only 30-40% more thirsty, suddenly went to 200% more thirsty, lowering manufacturing and.. well everything spiraled out from there.
I had not heard of this!
the new company I mean
You say Concorde stopped being profitable - but was it ever profitable?
I just had a look, and apparently at its absolute height, BA made around £30-50M a year profit. Air France a bit less. But it cost the two governments the best part of $3 Billion in development. They never made that back, not even close.
I'm honestly suspicious about the profits the airlines made too - they were national fleets.
A lot was at stake. I think that the taxpayers may have contributed towards the profits, in the form of subsidies.