Concorde - conquering Machs

Aerospatiale/BAC Concorde is a supersonic passenger airliner, developed by the British-French Aerospatiale/BAC consortium in the 1960s.
The first made its maiden flight from Toulouse on 2 March 1969. The market was predicted for 350 aircraft, and the manufacturers received up to 100 option orders from many major airlines. In 1975, the Concorde finished certification.
Being a supersonic aircraft the Concorde has a unique design: tailless plane with a narrow fuselage, delta wing and 4-abreast turbojet engines. The airliner could maintain a supercruise up to Mach 2.04 (2,500 km/h; 1,550 mph) at an altitude of 60,000 ft (18,3 km).
Delays and cost increased the program cost. At that time the problems of a supersonic flight and operational costs made the aicraft not enough commercial effective. The airliner was operated from 1976 until 2003 by just a few airlines.
The Concorde is one of only two supersonic airliners, which have been operated. It was a competitor of the Soviet Tupolev Tu-144 supersonic passenger airplane.
Thank you for watching!
Subscribe to the channel, comment, like!
If you want to support Skyships and our work, welcome to our Patreon. We will create some special content for you there: / skyships
Our Facebook: / skyshipscom

[@jacobzimmermann59]

PS: There is an ironic twist to the Concorde story. The supersonic race was also a contest between three approaches - one realist and thorough, one based on a daring can-do attitude that believed that no challenge was too high, and one typically Communist. The realist approach is of course the Concorde itself. It's a masterpiece of meticulous engineering that wasn't ultimately successful economically, but it perfectly identified what was the absolute limit of what the technology of the day could do, and it remains the closest thing to successful supersonic commercial aviation we've ever had. The daredevil approach is the Tu-144. When the Soviets heard of Concorde, they decided there was no way they would be left behind and went on with building their own, to hell with whatever it takes. They solved many of the problems very well; wherever they couldn't, they got the KGB to obtain the information they needed and when even that failed, they just put something together and hoped that it would work. The result was both astonishing and disastrous, but whatever side of the Iron Curtain one lives, the Tu-144 is definitely one of the most fascinating aircraft of all time. And then, the distinctly Communist way was of course the USA's. The Boeing 2707 project was created to develop a plane that no-one on the market was looking for, with cartoonishly impossible specifications that defied both Economics 101 and the basic laws of physics. No-one cared about that, though, because the government was pouring billions after billions into a project whose only purpose was propaganda. The 2707 existed purely to send a political message: Pan Am must not buy the Concorde, we won't allow any of that free market nonsense when the US govt's political prestige is at stake! Not all was totally lost though, when the political necessity faded and Congress finally pulled the plug on this absurd project, it had actually achieved something: a nearly finished wooden mock-up :D

[@bftjoe]

Nope, to develop a supersonic airline makes 0 commerical sense so only the MOST subsidized aircraft makers made them.

[@mtsenskmtsensk5113]

@@bftjoe With all the government help that Boeing receives they were still lacking the required expertise to make a viable competitor, when even the Soviets managed to build a plane you'd have to wonder at their expertise back then. Visiting the moon cost the US taxpayer $600 billion, not based on commercial sense but rather on national pride. Should a plane ever have been built just for the criminally rich, well yes and no, it did push French and British technology, but would never make a fortune.

[@mtsenskmtsensk5113]

@Rumbert Dillahuntsville Nice to see you rail at the 'C' word, but according to by Dylan Ratiger, MSNBC, basically CORPORATE COMMUNISM, meaning the current government/corporate system in place that is funneling money=power=control from the masses to a few select individuals, at the cost of competition and choice.

[@bftjoe]

@@mtsenskmtsensk5113 So you think a company that makes supersonic fighter jets can't make a supersonic passenger plane? You are just delusional.

[@bassmith448bassist5]

The Soviets never had a "can do" attitude with the TU144. While It did fly before Concord, the Soviets stole most of the aerodynamic data from France. Or at least greatfully accepters some fraternal socialistic assistance from France. Don't have any illusions. The only way the Soviets design an airplane is if they have stolen or were given some one else's designs.

[@tonerotonero1375]

most elegant bird ever. built by passionate and visionary people at a time when such challenges could be financially afforded and sponsored. The modern airliners, children of finance, analytic market research will never make me dream that way, whatever their sophistication level, they are boring comparatively. Concorde was a big step forward. We stepped back. Great video. Congratulations.

[@connormclernon26]

TONERO Tonero they’re trying again. Lockheed Martin is creating a prototype with the hope of making supersonic transport economically viable.

[@tonerotonero1375]

@@connormclernon26 I am afraid we need major revolutions before these turn into economically viable projects. A revolution in terms of engines efficiency and the suppression of the sonic booms. Many projects of that kind were announced with lots of publicity but they were all hollow. I hope they can use some of the research they did with the modified F5, the front fuselage of which had been modified to delay the formation of the sonic boom. I don't recall having seen any results though. Thanks for your message.

[@connormclernon26]

TONERO Tonero the prototype is called the X-59 QUESST. The hope is to get the sound of a supersonic aircraft down to 75 decibels.

[@natetete1379]

Blackbird is better though. 🤭

[@hgkj61]

@@connormclernon26 ةى زون

[@MrR2185]

Concorde and Tu-144 are both stunning aircraft that look more futuristic than any airliner today. Really look like spaceships, almost.

[@jebediahgentry7029]

By far and away the most beautiful airplane ever made. Maybe even the most beautiful machine ever made.

[@trash4cash454]

A beautiful example of technology, dizzy with the thought that it was built in the 60s

[@titan9259]

Im thinking to buy a sky marks concorde

[@salipander6570]

Long, long ago as a boy I had a poster of the Concorde in my bedroom. Such a beautiful plane..it still looks futuristic.

[@andrewsmactips]

The Concorde is Europe's Apollo; both - audacious adventures that will never be forgotten.

[@ervandrush3116]

great comparison

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

Well, if you look on that way, that would be TU-144, because Russia is in Europe too, and TU-144 had maiden flight before Concorde.

[@viktorlonek6514]

@@jerromedrakejr9332 Tu-144 maybe had maiden flight before the Concorde, but always had operational issues so serious that it never really did a commercial operation, as such . It in no way stands a comparison to Concorde...

[@user-ky6vw5up9m]

Not really. “Europe” did not pay for it.

[@fangabxyfangabxy8563]

And quite sadly, would cease after a while but with plans to try again with current technology

[@waltersobchak471]

Very good video, thank you! My personal favorite curiousity about Concorde, that she could "outfly sunset and sunrise". Since Concorde flew at about 1400 MPH, the planes were significally faster, than the Earth's rotation (about 1100 MPH, or 1700 km/h at the Equator). That meant, if a Concorde took off from London after sunset, the passengers could perceive the Sun to RISE IN THE WEST (or to set in the East, if they took off a little after sunrise). However, this is possible today with subsonic airliners too, but only at latitudes greater than about 60 degrees (the Earth's rotation is slower then the current jets' speed only in those areas). Also, in 1973 (3 years before the Concorde's commercial debut), the 001 (French) prototype took part in observing a total eclipse above Africa. With the speed of Concorde, scientist managed to remain in the total eclipse zone ("umbra") for almost 75 minutes. This was impossible before Concorde (and it IS, after their retire).

[@Bu4o1603]

Catching up with the sun, you had to wind your clock backwords. Time travel confirmed! Although... jet lag must have been a bitch.

[@marcusdamberger]

Indeed I was thinking of the same thing during this video of some of it's amazing accomplishments. I have seen prototype 001 at Paris-Le Bourget Air and Space Museum. An interesting fact is that the windows of Prototype 001 are bigger than those of the production run. They made them smaller to limit how fast air would rush our during decompression. You can actually see this difference because they have a Air France Concorde "Sierra Delta" parked next to it. As part of the solar eclipse project they put in a "sunroof" in 001 for a telescope to peer through to see the eclipse. Prototype 001 did all kinds of scientific studies over the years and I believe was also used to test any updated gear that would be installed on production run Concorde's. Concorde's have some of the most elegant aerodynamic lines to look at I must say.

[@doncarlin9081]

Tigran Ovakimyan indeed, I flew the Concorde from London to New York, I arrived in NY 90 minutes before I left London, 😁

[@sturmgeschutze3070]

“Arrive before you leave” as they did say.

[@joesterling4299]

@@lolpop2872 Sure; but a group of scientists can't get on board with some equipment, and observe an eclipse for over an hour.

[@jrewing5886]

I flew on the Air France Concorde years ago now. It was the sister ship to the one that crashed outside Charles De Gaul that faithful day. The opulence on board was nothing less then flawless. Everything was perfect. There are only two commercial aircraft I have called "stunning". The Concorde and the 787 Dream Liner. Both though very different are aerodynamically the most perfect flying machines ever created in my personal opinion. Our take off from Charles De Gaul was on the same runway and we flew over the crash sight. It was so sad, so somber, yet, everyone on board was amazed. My fellow passenger, a French man had flown on Concorde numerous times. We talked the whole entire trip to JFK. We laughed and we even cried. He knew one of those killed on the Air France Concorde. I was astonished by his incredible knowledge of this aircraft. As we landed at JFK, it was a beautiful day. Sunny. The flight was totally uneventful. The food was 5 star. The flight attendants, immaculate. I was never to fly again on Concorde due to its untimely retirement..... JR🇫🇷🇬🇧

[@casualobserver77]

I saw concorde land and take off once as a child... It has stayed with me ever since. Awesome airplane.

[@mahmoudelshaer6786]

Thank you a million for making it finally

[@ervandrush3116]

Very long but interesting video

[@rmlawncare4130]

Every Saturday morning we waited to see the Concorde arrived in Barbados from UK ,the plane was loud what great times..

[@100SteveB]

She may not have been a commercial success, but she, and still is, by far the most beautiful commercial aircraft to fly. I grew up in south London, and i never grew tired of watching her every even ing when she flew overhead and banked around to line up with Heathrow. The sun going down in the west reflecting off of her whilst she banked was a sight I will never forget. That flight of course would have been the morning flight out of JFK. And lets not forget another great fact about her, if you took off from Heathrow just after sunset heading west to the USA, she travelled fast enough to catch up with the sun, thus you got to see the sun rising in the west - something that you could never do on any other airliner.

[@ILIJA26101993]

Human civilization used to be so brave. And it worked! We should go back to those brave methods, it would help us a lot. Only ideas that seam totally crazy at first are the ones that lead to big and important progress.

[@frankgaleon5124]

I believe that the times of such crazy search have not yet passed, and we will see many interesting things in the future

[@ILIJA26101993]

@@frankgaleon5124 I hope so, but from what I see I can't say I share your views. In engineering, in medicine(my field), in design, space exploration, economy...

[@TastingwithTonyShow]

ILIJA1993 Sometimes bravery is forging on towards a lofty goal whilst accepting huge risk to achieve an outcome that is greater than the sum of it’s parts. Bravery can also be the realization that a pathway is wrong and always will be irrespective of the effort expended. It takes special bravery to say that conventional wisdom, extraordinary effort, charismatic leadership and inspiring dedication to achieving our goal ins’t going to get us where we want to be. But I have the pathway, and by using as much of the great work done so far, here’s the rest of what we have to do, and how to do it. This will deliver us the success that we will have rightly earned.

[@ILIJA26101993]

@@TastingwithTonyShow Ok, but that is the boring slow and steady way. By going that way you will spend a lot of time (most likely to much) prefecting an old idea without considering new ones. That way can lead to great evolution, but apsolutely no revolution. Also I don't see much chance in realising that the pathway you chose is wrong, because you are heavily focused on that path only and you see no others, on every new idea you would react with "that's crazy, that will never work. Why don't we just stick with what so many people for so many years before us have done?" It takes a "crazy" man to make big leaps and create something completely new, after that it's up to people who think like you to perfect the idea, and make it work. Concorde was a crazy idea of the last century, I am sure it could have been improved in this century to a point of changing aviation industry.

[@erojerisiz1571]

ILIJA1993 yeah like when the Wrights invented the plane

[@maufuentes]

I like the even-handed approach to your narrative. There are no references to either Soviet or American attempts to thwart their counterparts. Just presented in a matter-of-fact way. Keep it up!

[@eggsjackarmy9]

Its simply beautiful. Failure, never in a million years. People will forget many off todays boring planes that all look the same. Concorde will always have a place in history. BA will never allow any body to restore one of these planes and we will never see one fly again. Thank you for the memories and thank you for Concorde!!!

[@777jones]

Sky I want to compliment you on the high quality writing. The visuals were great as always. Thank you for the hard work.

[@infinitetk4165]

Such an iconic plane I wish I got to fly on it I was born in 2006

[@ra9509]

I was born in 98 and remember telling my parents I was going to fly on Concorde. Gut punch when I found out it was going out of service. But I did get to see it take off from Birmingham for the last time

[@titan9259]

I was born in 2007

[@M.S-Music]

I was born in 1977 still never had the possibility (€€€€) to fly on one!

[@greateraviationgl91]

I was born in 2005 and Im almost 15. For me in 2005 it was too late because the Concorde has already being gone for 2 years, a fuel price increase of that year AND the SE-210 Caravelle was retired that year. But in 2018, me and my family went to the Air Force Museum in Linköping and i saw the Caravelle outside along with a DC-3 but no Concorde.

[@orsk9361]

@@greateraviationgl91 Expekterade du verkligen en concorde fär?

[@Rhiannonganon]

I'll never forget the sound of it as it went overhead, I lived in Reading through my childhood which isn't far from Heathrow, it certainly shook the windows as it went overhead, our school teachers used to stop talking til it passed over because we just couldn't hear them through Concorde!! She was a loud but elegant bird!

[@blatherskite9601]

It always amazes me that engineers successfully tackled the supersonic challenge only shortly after the 707 & DC8 came into service. All done with thought & slide rules, not even supermaterials. Respect!

[@jacobzimmermann59]

The most beautiful airliner ever built. I'm confident we will see another supersonic passenger plane one day in the mid future, but I don't know if it will ever be as gracious or carry the same mystique as the Concorde.

[@linchester8464]

Prob the most iconic plane in the SIA fleet was the Concorde SIA and British Airways had one Concorde to fly service between Singapore and London, via Bahrain. Singapore Airlines (SIA) flew one for about three years. the Concorde registration G-BOAD, was deployed on this route. It was adorned by the SIA livery on the port (left) side of the fuselage, while the starboard (right) side displayed British Airways Negus livery. On December 9, 1977, the first flight commenced, flying from Heathrow to Paya Lebar Airport in only 9 hours, including a one-hour layover in Bahrain. The service got off to a rocky start, however, when after only three flights it was suspended because the Malaysian government had complained of the noise caused by the supersonic boom caused by the Concorde when it broke the sound barrier flying over the Straits of Malacca. Apart from the noise, the Malaysian government was also going through difficult relations with the British government, after Malaysia Airlines’ request to increase its capacity on its London route was denied. It also didn’t help that SIA was one of Malaysia Airlines’ tough competitors. The route was temporarily suspended, but Concorde kept the SIA livery on the G-BOAD plane. The plane was deployed on various other routes, some to the U.S., before British Airways managed to resolve the issue with Malaysia. Service on the London-Singapore route resumed for the Concorde in January 1979, with the flight having to bypass Malaysian airspace. This time the service only lasted 20 months, however, because of falling passenger loads, especially on the route’s Singapore-London leg. Operational costs for flying at supersonic speeds were high and the service was losing about £2 million a year. In addition, British Airways had also found enough work for the aircraft on its original North Atlantic routes. Furthermore, supersonic speeds were not permitted in Indian airspace on the route, which further complicated the Concorde service’s route. Finally, on November 1, 1980, the London-Singapore Concorde service was terminated, and the SIA livery was removed from the G-BOAD plane. Though it was short-lived, Concorde’s brief affair with Singapore remains significant for several reasons, with the main one being that SIA was one of the few airlines in the world to ever operate a Concorde service via its joint service with British Airways. British Airways and SIA also took a unique approach to how they staffed the flights. All technical crew, including the pilots, were provided by British Airways, while the provision of cabin crew was split equally between both airlines.

[@jpaulc441]

SIA should have bought one to put on display (with the SIA livery)

[@mahmoudelshaer6786]

Such a beauty with a sad ending

[@ervandrush3116]

Yeah a bit sad. But tha plane is a legend now)

[@MrDaiseymay]

AND A TOTALLY UNECESSARY ONE.

[@bugproductions9050]

@@MrDaiseymay spot on.

[@PopExpo]

High ticket prices, low passenger capacity, cost of maintenance, fuel consumption, overall operating cost, limited destinations, etc.... Concorde, impressive as it was, really was just a novelty.

[@haz525]

*While the Americans and the soviets were inventing new ways of destroying each other* 😂 thank you for listening to me and making it i love your chanel

[@Colaholiker]

I was just about to comment on that hilarious line. I am glad those ways were finally never used, and I'm glad that a guy from Russia can nowadays make a joke like this in English on a video platform run by a U.S. company, using technology that was has its roots in inventions for a communication system that was meant to be usable even after the Soviets had used *their* latest method of destroying the U.S. (Yes, the internet was invented during the cold war...) One more great video, Sky, please keep on with this great work!

[@ervandrush3116]

@@Colaholiker Watching this channel, I see that in different countries of the world there are people who are trying to show this world, and not just arrange political clashes. It is encouraging

[@user-ky6vw5up9m]

....and protecting the west.

[@walterrudich2175]

Britain and France were atomic powers, too.

[@N34RT]

Slight correction: It was Convair's "B-58 Hustler", not Boeing's "B-52" which was supersonic.

[@gooner72]

👍

[@Aditya-zg9eo]

THANKS FOR MAKING MY DAY BECAUSE OF CONCORDE!!!!!! I LOVE IT TO THE MOON AND BACK!!!!!!

[@doncarlin9081]

I had the wonderful chance to fly on the Concorde in 98 from London to New York. The best flying experience ever!

[@horizonru]

You're a lucky guy)

[@AlmostMonumental27]

One of my best friends did too -- she worked for Bain in London and had to occasionally run home to the US on business.

[@Robocline]

I put Concorde in the same group as the L 1011. While not actually successful they’re both marvels of jet age technology and belong on a short list of legendary aircraft.

[@kikufutaba1194]

In my opinion, I think the Concorde was a great success. It made my generation dream of aircraft of this ability and beauty. Maybe the noise and sonic shock waves will be solved and a gen 2 Concorde will come to be. I was 2 when the last flight was made. How great would it have been to ride in one.

[@joelmullett]

Can the Concorde be considered a success? While it's profitability and practicality may have left something to be desired, I believe this aircraft is a gift from and to all of humanity. It's a perfect example of what happens when people get together and try to build something to make this world a better place to live in. In a time where it seems like all we do is create distraction or, sadly, destruction for each other (in whatever form or fashion), the Concorde remains a shining example of what humanity is capable of when we come together. A marvel to behold. Just imagine what we could do today if we erase profitability margins and turn the chaos of this world from discord to melody.

[@joelmullett]

Word

[@harrisonofcolorado8886]

I saw a Concorde at the aviation museum near Washington Dulles International Airport while on a school trip. It looked amazing!

[@joshuajoe1419]

Harrison La time traveler I saw it at the interpeid museum

[@joshuajoe1419]

I wish Virgin Atlantic purchased British airways concordes Then I could still fly it

[@darkchaotix1productions326]

Same dude. I came there with my school

[@joshuajoe1419]

I wish my school had fun fields trip

[@darkchaotix1productions326]

@@joshuajoe1419 it wasn't as fun cuz my teachers wouldn't let me take a pic or go to the front

[@munirone]

One of your best videos! Great growth!!

[@RomelioSanz]

I have seen some other documentaries about Concorde in KZbin, but this one is really eclectic and precise. A real Concorde guide for beginners and experts. Congratulations !!!

[@kougerat5388]

Thanks for posting I really enjoyed that, good humour too !

[@TastingwithTonyShow]

The economics of pushing an aircraft past transonic speeds means that fares on high subsonic-speed civilian airliners will remain an order of magnitude cheaper. The fundamental design requirements of supersonic flight work against the economics of airliners. Wide-body airliners make economic sense because they deliver economies of scale. However, as you enlarge a supersonic aircraft the power requirements per unit of mass goes up, not down. The Concorde was a cool aircraft with amazing performance. I love it. I also love F1 cars. Sadly, I can't have one as my daily drive.

[@ervandrush3116]

Very logical comparison. Concord was a concept that tried to become a real commercial aircraft. A technical miracle, but the economy did not work

[@harshadbrown2312]

I have waited for this video for so long

[@trash4cash454]

He has even more interesting videos. I hope they will appear on the channell soon

[@kaarlows]

Your best video to date. Thanks a lot for making it.

[@horizonru]

And few views...

[@LeeAirVideos]

Concorde was profitable for British airways; the Concorde division of BA made an average profit of 25 million Pounds per annum for the airline. BA were planning to keep their fleet in service until 2010. It was the manufacturer who wanted to end it along with Air France.

[@raventurini]

Fantastic job! Greetings from Brazil

[@paulhutchinson2396]

Love your vids Sky geezer.

[@anuragshirke2006]

Finally the long wait for this aircraft came to an end.. Thank you for uploading Concorde video..

[@SkyshipsEng]

I will make videos about all supersonic airliners

[@anuragshirke2006]

@@SkyshipsEng can you please reupload the Airbus A380 video. It seems the video was taken down plz reupload it

[@ra9509]

Quite interested to hear about the tu-144. The Russians did well to develop a supersonic airliner in such a short amount of time

[@ervandrush3116]

@@ra9509 The TU-144 will be interesting. There is no real good videos in English

[@Barabyk]

As always, well written, researched and presented!

[@MrDaiseymay]

YEAH ?

[@Barabyk]

@@MrDaiseymay Yup.

[@qasimmir7117]

The aircraft itself was fantastic thank you very much. The greatest aircraft ever made I’d say.

[@ThaFedejp]

Been waiting for this one since I subscribed!

[@drevil2675]

Concorde was one of the most successful aircraft in human history. This bird was fabulous and amazing.

[@animeshdas9842]

Depends on what is meant by "success"

[@drevil2675]

The Americans and Russian couldn’t make any bird like Concorde until now. Lol , so wasn’t Concorde successful ?

[@animeshdas9842]

@@drevil2675 It was a engineering success but financial failure. "success" depends on what the goal was. In this case the end goal was to make money, and in that regard concorde failed.

[@MICKEYISLOWD]

There is one at Manchester airport inside the huge café. It's stunning to look at whilst enjoying a coffee and some treats. You can look down on it and what strikes me is how futuristic it still looks. So sleek and elegant. It looks like a swan in flight.

[@BurakCanIldiri]

Awesome narrative, very well prepared video. Thank you! The Concorde has always been a special plane for many, including myself. We’re looking for more videos perhaps on Concorde’s sibling Tu-144, too. Thanks again!

[@alanhall9506]

The British designed two very excellent planes, the VC-10, Britain's answer to the 707, and the Concorde, which was in a class by itself. It is unfortunate that both have been lost to the sands of time.

[@MrKubotronix]

Great work, keep it up. I really enjoy this types of videos where i can gain some knowlege of various types of aircrafts.

[@ifpstopmotions9720]

Best videos!

[@alsifjlasieflooo]

Love that you put the sonic boom in the intro!

[@TastingwithTonyShow]

Thanks for making these great videos. At 3:18 I believe the aircraft is a B-58 Hustler.

[@jonremmers7723]

Dang I like your videos! So elegant!

[@scottpecora371]

Concorde was a beautiful example of what happens when people follow their dreams. It was the wave of the future, but as is often the case by the time the future arrived it was very different. Concorde flew for over two decades without ever harming a passenger. An the one accident wasn't a result of any failure on part of the plane but debris on the runway which ruptured a fuel tank allowing raw fuel to be ingested by one of the engines creating a blow torch for which there was no solution on the crews behalf.

[@firehog]

I saw the Concorde take off once, wow! Seing it with my own eyes and experience it from a fairly short distance was so awesome! I was saving up to a ticket but never did take a flight with it.

[@tompowers4013]

Very good 👍🏻 Supersonic reportage 🛫

[@slinehan4]

Cool addition of the sonic boom in the intro!

[@RB747domme]

I adore flying. I adore aviation. I also adore all _things_ aviation. I have no geographical allegiance. Born in Connecticut. Love, and flew on, Concorde five times. An Interesting metric (irony?), is the measurement of _NOT_ fuel used per hour - but tonnes of fuel used per 580 miles. The reason I find it an interesting metric, is because the aircraft is only flying for just over 3 hours, as opposed to more than 7 hours. Which is 4 hours of burning fuel that it's *_not_* doing. Don't get me wrong, Concorde burnt a horrific quantity of fuel to transport just 108 passengers 3,300 miles, which reduces the efficiency per passenger mile - for the gain of getting there twice as fast. However when we look at Concorde's 'fuel used per 580 miles at cruising speed and altitude in supercruise' we see that Concorde was burning around 9.7 tonnes of fuel per 580 miles, compared to the Boeing 707-320, which used 7.2 tonnes. This makes Concorde look very uneconomical - but that's _all_ it does. Affect its bottom line fuel usage, I mean. As long as the airline can charge enough, it is an irrelevance. Ecologists and environmentalists might argue this matter, but the fact remains, it is a metric that the average traveller on the plane new nothing about. Because flipping the metric upside down, and measuring the fuel usage per aircraft _mile_ , rather than 'per passenger hour', or 'per passenger mile', means that you have to also take into consideration that she has got there twice as quickly, is in the air for 3 h instead of 7, and when flipping the same metric on the 707, you arrive at a pretty horrific figure as well. Again, this is irrelevant in theory and means nothing in practice. The metric only serves to illustrate an exceptional point. And I use the word exceptional, in its actual meaning [as a reductive exception], rather than as a superlative. So don't jump on my case - it's merely a whiteboard illustration. Although considering when Concorde was in prototype, this probably ought to be 'blackboard' , but anyway.. The 707-320 used roughly 7200kgs of kerosene (my favorite fragrance in the World.. and partly the reason why I am an airport viewing gallery nerd.. It's like a drug to me!) per hour at cruise:- 7.2 tonnes over 580 miles is equal to:- → 14.4t over 1160 miles → 16.9t over 1360 miles So we arrive at a figure of nearly 17 tonnes of fuel used by the 707 to travel the same distance as Concorde taking more than twice the time. So what does this mean in reality? Well, nothing really. It's a pretty pointless metric in economic terms. It doesn't change the fact that Concorde needed 66 tons to cross the Atlantic, and the 707-320 needed 50 tonnes. So, even if the 707 was carrying the same number of passengers as Concorde, the plane would still be way more economical. But it wasn't, it was carrying a lot more passengers, making supersonic travel way more expensive considering the only metric of 'fuel needed in order to carry your wealthy a$$ from New York to London' that really matters - which, at the end of the day, is the only metric that counts when you are an airline. So the Concorde was an economic flop in terms of the aircraft manufacturer, and in terms of supersonic passenger aircraft generally, however, as we know, British Airways made huge profits on the Blue Riband New York-London route for many years.. .. so when we look at metrics on the supersonic route, we have to discount it completely because it means nothing to the airline, and it means really nothing to the wealthy passengers who couldn't care less about how much fuel, ultimately, the aircraft used to complete the journey, as long as the journey was completed in half the time, and they got their gallon of Champagne and vintage Claret, Beluga caviar and smoked salmon.

[@iyawesome9863]

Awesome!

[@CB2C]

Love the new intro

[@kingsofserbiangameplay1623]

Another great aircraft that revolutionised the aviation

[@gooner72]

The landing and take off speeds are unbelievable, most other aircraft can't land at speeds like that for fear of falling to pieces. According to NASA scientists, the Concorde took more expertise and technical know how to get her in the air and flying safely than the Saturn V and Apollo mission. The Concorde was an absolute engineering masterpiece. 🇬🇧🇬🇧✌✌

[@SDTVLiveAviation]

Lovely

[@robm5583]

Your voice is so good for this commentary well done

[@topgun767]

Can't believe my parents traveled TWICE on this plane...marvelous aircraft!

[@BlueDeepSeas]

Thank you for another video and your different look on airliners - For many years, British Airways Concordes made around 30% of the total profits of the whole company. The post 9/11 era depressed all air travel and was the main reason why it and other older aircraft was quickly phased out of fleets. The development of the TU 144 was never really completed. I recall in 1973 the russians were begging LUCAS to sell them parts to help improve it's engines.

[@joshuajoe1419]

Concorde-one accident Hindenburg-one accident B747-ton of accidents We will still fly the b747

[@siko9799]

Well the Concorde burned a ton of fuel. I don’t know about much the Hindenburg though

[@PlanesAndGames732]

But 1,500+ 747 were built

[@joshuajoe1419]

Aviões e Jogos I can’t argue with that

[@Real_British]

Atleast for few years to come bfore theyre completely gone

[@vksasdgaming9472]

When one Hindenburg is in one huge accident it is bad.

[@trash4cash454]

OHHH, CONCORDE!!! Awesome!

[@RB747domme]

I'd like to make a few points, and address a few issues in this video which weren't explained as accurately as perhaps they could be, and some which were missed out entirely. Other than these points, it was a brilliant video, and very interesting, so thank you for posting. I've been a sub for ages, and I love your videos. So keep up the good work! First of all, we need to address the issue of the term 'failure'. Of course the plane itself, may have been a failure for the manufacturers. But for British Airways itself, for about 15 years, the plane was making 25% of all of the profit by British Airways - across its entire fleet! And that's with just 7 aircraft. So for British Airways, at least, it wasn't necessarily a failure. Sure, they didn't have to pay for the planes, but they certainly made a profit out of them. Secondly, I don't know what incidents you are referring to after the Paris air crash, but after the Concorde was upgraded following the incident, it pretty much had an incident free running until the end of operation. So, that bit wasn't necessarily correct at all. 9/11, which you failed to mention, was one of the main reasons why Concorde began it's decline. About 60% of the regular travelers who used Concorde passed away sadly during that incident. This had a massive effect on Concorde's profitability. Ultimately, it was Airbus, and Air France, who played the biggest part in Concorde's ending. As many of Concorde's systems and components were coming to the end of their natural life, it needed an upgrade, which would have cost around £60 million to complete. Air France helped to box the plane into a corner, as they were looking for an excuse to stop operations, mainly because they had been making huge losses for many years - unlike British Airways, who had found a profitable niche on the New York run - and as a result, didn't want to pay for the upgrade. British Airways did, but weren't about to do it for it's 7 aircraft exclusively, and so, without Air France, they decided 60 million was too much to pay to upgrade just 7 planes. So they decided to end operations. So along with the Paris crash, 9/11, and Airbus, there was no reason to carry on flying. One more interesting point. Although Concorde was 3 times more thirsty than a 747 on the London to New York run, it was only this amount per passenger mile - not passenger minute. Because an 8-hour journey on a 747 - compared to a journey that could take as little as 2 hours 52 minutes on Concorde - means the plane might be in the air for more than 5 hours less time. Meaning that although Concorde was three times more thirsty with its four Olympus turbojets, ultimately, that figure came down to just 1.28 times more thirsty per passenger mile - which is still a lot, I grant you, but his way less than 3 times. This doesn't mean that in terms of aircraft economy, because the airline still has to pay for that many tons of fuel (it could carry 119,000 litres, but has done the journey using just 73,000 litres) to carry 100 passengers for the same journey, but in terms of economy of scale, I was just making a general point. In fact, the Olympus 593 with the computer controlled inlets and supercruise, was actually one of the most efficient turbojets ever designed. This means, that with the maximum takeoff weight of 185 tons, Concorde was able to travel between London and New York using 25,129 litres per hour, which works out at about 256.25 litres per person per hour. This works out at 0.18 litres per passenger mile to carry them 3500 miles cruising at Mach 2 without the afterburners. That's just 1/9th of a litre of kerosene per passenger mile. Or about 18 litres to carry one hundred passengers one mile at Mach 2. That ain't bad. Ain't ain't good, but it isn't bad, considering. But that is without factoring in the weight of the aircraft, so in total the Concorde used 46lb, or about 24.9 littes per mile. Other than that, the video was accurate and very interesting - so thank you for posting it.

[@hoytbenson6016]

Love the Concorde

[@flyerkiller5073]

Mach 2 and three hours across the Atlantic is very cool and very expensive

[@victorpelini5995]

The Concorde's engines where really good tbh. what killed it was the fuel cost and last of demand overall.

[@ylu5384]

The most beautiful plane ever. Fight me if you disagree :p

[@trash4cash454]

Nobody can disagree

[@mlosuno402]

It's an astonishing design, but I wouldn't call it beautiful.

[@towermoss]

I always thought it looked like an awkward goose. It looks better in flight, but near the ground....meh

[@stephenspreckley8219]

The most beautiful plane was the curve of my previous girlfriend's breasts! Lol

[@Michael.Chapman]

What perfect beauty-and they achieved technical and artistic superiority using only slide rules and the simplest of ‘computers’ :-)

[@lizaelliott6862]

The opening really got me 😂

[@alanhowitzer]

Very interesting!

[@bassmith448bassist5]

I think you meant B58 Hustler back there. Cheers!!!!! Great video!!!!

[@mlosuno402]

It took humanity thousands of year to progress beyond horse and buggy. Within the space of 100 years we went from buggy to car, grounded to being able to reach space and the moon. Supersonic civilian travel may have had a rough start, but I seriously doubt we've seen the end of it.

[@fraserhenderson7839]

Awesome segue to the end of the presentation, very smooth and subtle. Another high quality installment! It will soon be 50 years since the first flight of this product of very adventurous entrepreneurs, The Concord. It was way cool at the time but soon enough it was old hat. I was lucky enough to see one on the ground but I never heard the engines run. The fuel needed to cross the ocean then would probably move 1,000 people the same distance in a Dreamliner or A220 today. 50 years from now, we may "fly" at supersonic speed beneath the oceans and the surface of the continents in evacuated tubes and 50 years beyond that we may use an orbital ring. I would like to suggest a video on the F-104 Starfighter. I believe it was a fabulous little over achiever but it received some heavy blows to it's reputation. It seems they fell down a lot. I grew up on a Canadian air base. The Starfighter was the hot ticket. The signature "104" sound of a single J-79 engine passing (ripping up the sky) at low altitude was part of the sound track of my childhood. Indescribable!

[@luissemedo3597]

Wow, your speech is much better, great video

[@frankgaleon5124]

There is another guy on the chunnell)

[@RB747domme]

The plane 'itself' was a failure for the manufacturers, but for British Airways during the 1980s it was a massive success. Obviously we have to allow for the fact that they were bought for a nominal token, but, for BA between the mid-80s and 2000 it was making more money for the company with just 7 aircraft, than the entire rest of the British Airways fleet.

[@robertnicholson7733]

I am surprised that you showed the HP115 which was used only to assess the subsonic performance of the wing shapes, BUT, did not show the BAC modified version of the Fairey Delta 2 used to test the supersonic performance of the wing design. I had to edit this to include the point that the droop nose idea used in Concorde came directly from the original Fairey Delta 2. The Delta wing used by both of them forced the issue. Although now lost in the cacophony of records set by US aircraft, the Fairey Delta 2 had by then set a World Airspeed Record, raising the record by 310mph all at once (about 37% increase) and became the first aircraft to exceed 1000mph. It was, in its own way, quite revolutionary. Fairey had not previously been known for high speed aircraft. A bit like Miles, a manufacturer mostly of light aircraft, being at the centre of British supersonic research during, and just after, the war. The Handley Page HP115 (most people would not even know of Handley Page's existence) and both Fairey Deltas (Fairey is best known today for the Swordfish Torpedo Biplane - please, no bloody password tropes) that were built still exist, an amazing feat for the British who have a long record of destroying every single aircraft of a type, experimental aircraft, historical aircraft, important and historical aero engines, all sorts of important historical aviation equipment, important and historical company records, etc. And, although not as bad, they did the same thing for Naval equipment and all sorts of other interesting stuff! While, at the same time, they kept safe things like Queen Victoria's knickers.🤔 Although denied by some, it is quite clear that the Fairey Delta 2 was the basis of the Dassault Mirage, old man Dausault having himself alluded to this.

[@mealien0808]

sky, i love your videos so much, from Somaliland.

[@scribcaseteam4717]

Concorde) The best video

[@AlmostMonumental27]

At its height, BA (British Airways) was actually making a pile of money on its Concorde division -- a high percentage of the entire company's profits. I was driving by Dulles Airport IAD outside Washington in the late 1980s and got buzzed by the AirFrance Concorde. I thought I'd been aerosolized -- it was great!

[@AlmostMonumental27]

The Concorde that crashed in Paris was not a Paris-New York flight -- it was an excursion full of German passengers. Best to have your facts correct when making videos.

[@mikebtrfld1705]

When the Air France Concorde landed at Reno airport the city turned out en masse. We encircled the airport. The following morning I was with the crowd at the South end of the airport. It taxied over to us, cranked a tight u-turn and the pilot went full throttle just as it straightened up. I was amazed how fast it got in the air. It turned back south again and flew to Las Vegas.

[@justforever96]

Wow...'the first serious supersonic F-100 Super Saber' is just about a tongue twister!

[@munky123jw]

SR-71 would be a good one to make a video one. The highest and fastest plane ever built! 85000ft mach 3 speed! Can't beat it!

[@sturmgeschutze3070]

X-45, Mach 5.

[@nguyenchanh224]

super

[@gooner72]

Without doubt, the most beautiful aircraft ever designed..... and it was dreamed up, designed, built, tested and entered service in a time where men in drab brown suits or overcoats used pencils, rulers and compasses to create the most advanced aircraft on the planet. 🇬🇧🇬🇧✌✌

[@user-rp2nq1ev6x]

It was called The B-58 Hustler. B-52 Stratofortress. Big, long wings.

[@fuzzylogic5507]

I was expecting a video about this marvelous plane. Thanks a lot!! the question now is if a commercial supersonic plane will fly in the foreseeable future

[@tjittekamminga5170]

a beauty

[@luism5514]

Bring supersonic air travel back, to the masses.

[@seanliew7343]

They should have bring it back into service. It’s extremely expensive to fly in these things but we are talking about one extremely well engineered marvel well ahead of its time. Just imagine flying in 60000 feet with only your ordinary suit and luggage. It’s priceless. Besides in these new era most people could afford it. It’s just how you would repackage it.

[@touraneindanke]

2019 London to New York takes 3 times longer than 50 jears ago!

[@randybentley2633]

Where the US effort was dealt a disadvantageous start is the fact that Boeing was chosen over North American to develop the American SST. Their entry was designed from the lessons learned from the already flying XB-70. It boggles my mind why NA's entry wasn't green-lighted to this very day.

[@ervandrush3116]

Hope Sky will make a video about the American SST

[@Aeronaut1975]

I find it heartbreaking when people say that "Concorde was not a success". Admittedly, if it hadn't been built by French/British taxpayer's money, then it would have never entered service with either British Airways or Air France. Luckily for those Airlines, they were able to buy 7 Concorde each at a knockdown price when their respective governments wrote off the costs (In the case of British Airways, they bought each example for a token £1 each). However, BA were able to operate theirs at a very respective profit margin, so much so, that during her operating life, she was generating 20% (this figure may be higher, I can't remember exactly) of the entire profits for British Airways on an anual basis. She was a marvel of design and multicultural co-operation. She was designed and built on paper, without the use of modern computers, but was yet ground breaking for her time. She had full fly-by-wire flight controls, FADEC throttles, Carbon-Fibre disk brakes, an Auto-Cruise and Auto-Land system, she could supercruise at Mach 2, covering a distance of approx 4,500 miles and cruising at an altitude of 50 - 60,000ft. whilst passengers are served Champagne and Gourmet restaurant quality food. She flew faster than the rotation of the Earth, meaning that you could see the Sunrise in the West, twice in a day. She was a Time-Machine, and people who could afford it would pay the money to halve the time spent crossing the Atlantic. The AF crash in Paris had nothing to do with bad design, but was more to do with a chain of events caused and exasperated by extremely poor decision making by the crew. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKKylIyer7yIkLs

[@ervandrush3116]

In economics the Concorde was not a success, but it developed many technologies for the future aviation. From the engineering point of view it was a dream and marvel

[@tomhami]

Great video about an awesome and inspirational plane! How about the VC 10, another interesting British bird that should have succeeded! It's Rolls Royce Conway engines sound amazing! Oh, the British 'V' force bombers too being the Vickers Valiant, Agro Vulcan and Handley Page Victor.