Do we have a NEW SUPERSONIC Passenger Aircraft?!

[@MentourNow]

Use this link 👉 curiositystream.thld.co/mentournow_0622 and the coupon code Mentournow to get an exclusive 25% discount on Curiosity stream. Check it out today, its awesome!

[@fredashay]

I'm sure we'll see supersonic bizjets because there's always a few super rich dudes whom munny is no objection. But supersonic passenger planes just can't be cost effective. Sure, some companies are building them, but I doubt they'll be sold in large enough numbers to be profitable. And they won't be profitable for airlines to operate except for the publicity value.

[@y_fam_goeglyd]

Petter, have you considered adding your channels to Nebula? It comes with Curiosity Stream (as you undoubtedly know), and it allows you to add things to a video that KZbin would demonetise you for. Look at Legal Eagle, he does the same videos but adds a Nebula bonus at the end. Your channels would be absolutely perfect for the platform. I much prefer to watch on that than on KZbin. It's only got top quality channels on it, so like I said, you'd be terrific!

[@brodycalvert1341]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperMach_SonicStar what do you think are the chances of the Hypermach SonicStar succeeding? This article might now be the most accurate.

[@brodycalvert1341]

if they actually try to make it a reality

[@brodycalvert1341]

the HyperMach SonicStar is a hypersonic corporate transport by the way

[@aerofoca]

As an engineer sometimes I fail to appreciate "economic feasibility" but as far as I'm concerned we took a step back in aviation when Concorde was retired in 2003 and 20 yrs later no comparable successor. Even the Boom overture will "only" cruise at M 1.7. Getting to Mach 2.0 and dashing for a few minutes is no big deal. Cruising for 3 hours comfortable, cooling the skin, stable turbine Temps for the duration is an amazing feat. Amazing to think Concorde was designed during an Era of sliderules and computers the size of rooms with less power than your average smart phone..lol

[@MentourNow]

Indeed! It was a feat of engineering but, like you pointed out, not economically feasible. I miss her though.

[@chrisbentleywalkingandrambling]

It was a beautiful Aircraft and I was sad and dumbfounded when it was retired. Retrograde step.

[@LemonLadyRecords]

Concorde was not accessible to regular people, though, so we just gazed upon her, never to fly her. It was a failure to make such an elite use aircraft, esp by a government company, and spoke to the crappy financial feasibility of needing $10,000/seat tickets, one way, I believe. Round trip, doesn't matter. In today's dollars (from 1980) would be $35,000 per seat!

[@materliliorum]

@@LemonLadyRecords my great-grand-aunt flew on the Concorde for her 100st birthday and I don't think that my family could afford $10000 🤔 I don't know how much it cost, however, and I couldn't fly on it myself, which I regret 😥

[@Inkling777]

@@LemonLadyRecords Not only that, the British and French governments spent billions subsidizing the Concorde, regarding it as a matter of national prestige. One reason Boeing abandoned its SST was that a U.S. president-I forget which-ended the development subsidies.

[@Inkling777]

I once knew a guy whose dad worked for Boeing investigating crashes. He told me about a 707 where the pilots, behind schedule and trying to catch up, put it into risky high-altitude cruise configuration. Something happened that put the plane into a high-speed dive. The controls locked up, showing that they were supersonic. To get out of that dive, the pilots lowered the landing gear. Putting their feet on the console, they exerted every bit of their strength to bring it back to level flight. He said the only damage the plane had was to the landing gear doors. The 700+ knot airspeed slowed their opening enough that the landing gear contacted with those doors. No one knows how fast it went because the pilots erased the flight recorder data. The first voice on the voice recording, he said, was one pilot remarking something like, "Well, that takes care of that."

[@subjekt5577]

You can't erase flight recorder data to my knowledge

[@toomanyhobbies2011]

BS on the details... Get away from your computer and get a life. You'll be glad you did.

[@oldmech619]

@@subjekt5577 I worked on those old “flight recorders”. It was a stainless steel foil that scribes scored marks on the foil according to speed (pitot presser), altitude, heading, and maybe one thing else. It had to be replaced with fresh foil every few hours.

[@eleventy-seven]

@@subjekt5577 Wrong. The older ones were looped. If there was a incident there was a fuse to stop it after landing to keep it from overwriting itself. A pilot in flight could pull that before whatever stupid stunt and it would get left out.

[@jjsmallpiece9234]

A large part of the reason for the economic failure of Concorde was the American aviation industry and US Government putting commercial obstacles in the way of Concordes development. The US aviation market doing what it usually does freezing out market competition.

[@jamesengland7461]

? Are you ignoring the effects of sonic boom? Concorde was sort of successful; it was simply too expensive and inefficient for most passengers to afford. The law actually hurt American industry far more.

[@jjsmallpiece9234]

@@jamesengland7461 How come Airbus were also frozen out/rejected for the recent competition to replace the USAF KC135s air refuelling tankers to ensure the contract went to an American company.

[@jamesengland7461]

@@jjsmallpiece9234 so you are ignoring sonic boom. I'm not disputing other actions by industry and government, but how did those affect Concorde?

[@aileronhelicopters]

It'll be interesting if you make us a video of what a new aircraft passes through before joining the market

[@olympics1234567]

When I was a child, we lived in a small neighborhood, outside of town, and sonic booms were loud, sometimes breaking a window in my home. I remember when it stopped, and my dad told me that they had outlawed it.

[@tinaandalex]

Few people remember the Convair 880. It was designed to fly a bit faster then the 707 hoping to beat it in sales that way. The speed advantage it offered was not worth the extra cost it took to operate the aircraft. Nobody cared and Convair soon went out of business. This is all deja vu.

[@nomore6167]

Are there any dangerous or semi-dangerous conditions when transitioning from supersonic speed back to subsonic speed?

[@richiehayes7911]

hey man can you please do a video on the new top gun maverick movie it's about Aircraft thanks your channel rocks

[@littleferrhis]

So I think that supersonic jets really make sense for the private but not passenger market. In private jets its all about getting somewhere fast. A company like Walmart has a fleet of learjets for their execs because the time saved makes up for the costs. So say an exec needs to inspect two walmarts in 2 different parts of the country. They can do that and be back home before dinner. It would be a multi-day deal if they were to fly commercially. Supersonic travel is also a great flexing point for a rich tycoon. Donald Trump for example would do business deals on his decked out 757 since it would impress whoever was working with him. If his 757 could go supersonic I’m sure he’d invest in it. For the masses supersonic jets don’t make as much sense because really people aren’t on as much of a time constraint, and getting to a destination cheap and not having to drive is really the selling point nowadays(which is also why people say airline travel has gone downhill, it has, but its not as expensive anymore). The hurdle here is getting the aircraft to not make a sonic boom, because people are generally pissed at the rich already think of having earth shattering booms breaking windows in your house because Jeff Bezos wants to show off, is not really a good look on supersonic transport. I don’t see it getting legislation except over oceans like concorde.

[@mrbobgamingmemes9558]

Lets see if This new supersonic planes significantly reduce the problem that concorde have

[@steve-marsh]

I loved Concorde, but she was of her time and I think now supersonic is just a gimmick. Comfortable, sustainable, quiet, efficient flying is the future, and supersonic is now little more than a number.

[@JohnJohn-hd1pc]

I used to live on Exmoor, South West England. Pretty much every evening at a few minutes past 1800 hours (BST) I would hear the sonic boom of Concorde as it decelerated over the Bristol Channel. Interestingly, if i was walking out on the open moors, I would hear the startled calls of many pheasants just a few seconds before i heard the boom. I've always assumed they could detect the pressure wave before i could. Happy days - a truly majestic sight and testament to the engineers and pilots, two of whom presented me with my wings, many moons ago.

[@y_fam_goeglyd]

I thought I had mistaken my memories of hearing the boom in the morning on her way out, and just put it down to the engines having a distinct sound (I am going back 40 years so I am not putting much store into my memories!). I lived on the opposite side of the Channel, about ½ mile as the crow flies on the Welsh side. For some reason I only remember the morning flight out to the USA. Weird things, memories, aren't they?

[@JohnJohn-hd1pc]

@@y_fam_goeglyd Memories are wonderful Mandy! I've just recalled another time when i was sort of scurrying up a steep valley side and paused to catch my breath. As I looked up, panting, there SHE was (I know you are British because you called her "her", even though there was {I believe} 12 "hers" in total, six BA and six Air France) flying very low level. I later found out from a friend in Minehead that it was a special fly-past. Ps why do other nations insist on calling Concorde "the Concorde"? No soul😊

[@Ergzay]

Just to make sure you realize, but the sonic boom doesn't happen from decelerating past the sound barrier. (There is no sound produced at the moment of crossing the sound barrier.) It's continuously produced from any aircraft traveling above the speed of sound.

[@JohnJohn-hd1pc]

@@Ergzay yes, i do realise that. (Supersonics were part of my Commercial Pilot's License 😘). Perhaps i worded it badly. Concorde used to decelerate down the Bristol Channel heading into Heathrow. As they passed me, they were still supersonic. I'd be interested to know at precisely what point they became subsonic ( I'd guess maybe abeam Hinckley Point nuclear power station?)

[@maryeckel9682]

@@JohnJohn-hd1pc as an American, I call all aircraft, boats, ships, and even old houses "she."

[@LemonLadyRecords]

In middle school, we lived right below the flight path of a fighter jet training base. T-38s. Some days it was only 5-10min between sonic booms directly overhead. Started at 8-9am and went into the afternoon. You couldn't sleep late on the weekends. We lived on the very edge of town, just farms past us, but I doubt they would have done that in the midst of the large town. They did it with the full knowledge that they were impacting our lives. We told them so during an open house they had lol. Luckily dad got transferred within 18mos. It was pure torture.

[@VisibilityFoggy]

Maybe they shouldn't have built a school in the flight path to an Air Force Base?

[@johan.ohgren]

@@VisibilityFoggy read again. It wasn't the school that was in the flight path.

[@ethanstewart9970]

@@VisibilityFoggy Knowing the US military, the school was there before the AFB.

[@smort123]

@@ethanstewart9970 Knowing the US military, they can be happy they didn't scrap the school for the base.

[@bertoray5497]

As a kid growing up in the Los Angeles area, I remember the sonic booms, and they were not insignificant. The only subsequent ones I've heard were from the space shuttle.

[@BlueDinnie]

I grew up in a part of Queens right near LaGuardia airport in the late seventies early '80s before the hush kits and high bypass engines all day and night the planes flying low and slow sometimes with parts falling off I can definitely live without a sonic boom in my life 😂

[@MentourNow]

I can imagine Donald. The booms are something else..

[@LemonLadyRecords]

Back then, you could hear planes even some miles away from the airport. I worked at a company under the main airport takeoff and it was hell. I'll never forget watching the lumbering DC-10s whining into the sky. I always thought something was wrong with the engines! 747s were a sight, too, but better at flying. I think they must have had 'some' noise abatement, even in the early 80s, as they were going SO scary slow, esp the DC-10s. Often it was even hard just to have a conversation or talk on the phone.

[@BlueDinnie]

@@LemonLadyRecords absolutely

[@NicolaW72]

I can imagine that, too.👍

[@patheddles4004]

​@@LemonLadyRecords This speaks to why I'm such a fan of good noise-cancelling headphones - wish you'd have had those back in the 80s...

[@WhiskyCanuck]

Bombardier sold their train business to Alstom at the same same as the other business unit sales. They basically mismanaged themselves towards bankruptcy and had to sell off almost everything as a result in order to neutralize the huge debt.

[@MentourNow]

Ahh, I missed that

[@cedricpomerleau5586]

@@MentourNow Yep and their Recreative line (Ski-Doo, Sea-Doo and ATV) actually slit apart years ago. Probably for the best considering how the rest of Bombardier went…

[@douggale5962]

It would be fun to know how hard that DC-8 was buffeting. The beating that aircraft can withstand is amazing.

[@bena.4422]

Especially when you placed 2 and 3 into reverse while descending. 😂

[@samueljayachandran2849]

There’s an article about it. The recovery from the dive was weird because the captain decided to push it further down and then let the lower altitude drag do the slowing down instead of over-stressing the elevators and horizontal stabilizer.

[@commerce-usa]

The DC-8 was the first commercial jetliner to fly supersonic, though it was entirely unintentional. Even so, their marketers made some hay over it. 🤣 Glad to see you mentioned this 👍

[@adrianpeters2413]

if a dc8 went supersonic, it would fall apart , or/and be in a vertical dive ...I survived a 'flight' in one of these flying junk .. it only stayed in the air from pure thrust and nothing else ....

[@eekee6034]

@@adrianpeters2413 I'm getting the impression it survived going supersonic in the same way it survived -its normal flight- staying in the air from pure thrust: it was built like a tank. ;)

[@eleventy-seven]

Maximus channel has a special on the DC 8 going slightly over mach 1 in a dive. It was done my McDonald Douglas test pilots on purpose. The plane was instrumented. The KZbin on it explains why.

[@Dr_Mario2007]

The reason they chucked the DC-8 into the supersonic gauntlet was that Douglas McDonnell wanted to prove that the DC-8 won't fall apart regardless of general abuses, yet supersonic test was quite hard on the subsonic airframe, so if it survived a supersonic dive, it of course would survive anything, along the lines of their thoughts back then. And yup, the test pilots mentioned that it was an exciting experience as flying the subsonic plane at supersonic speed is just different from the SST designed to fly that fast, making for a tricky flying.

[@JasonGillmanJr]

Random video idea that's tangentially related: talk about mach tuck, coffin corner, or other things related to operating in the high speed / high altitude regimes.

[@MentourNow]

That can certainly be done!

[@fallende]

I’d watch this!!

[@whawaii]

I'd be interested in it.

[@BogeyTheBear]

As the Convair 880 and 990 proved to us, speed will not triumph over economic efficiency. When given the choice of a faster arrival time or a cheaper ticket price, people will more likely choose to sacrifice time in order to save money.

[@mrxmry3264]

And that's why I think that the companies trying to develop a new supersonic passenger jet are wasting money.

[@mrbobgamingmemes9558]

@@mrxmry3264 lets see , if this new generation of supersonic planes still have insane ticket prices, just wait and see the result,

[@Roadglide911]

In the early 80’s we were living in E. TN when a sonic boom happened and shook the house. My dad who was a marine (discharged) jumped up and ran outside. He came in and said, that damn Air Force and sat back down to finish eating. I later joined the AF I think in most part to irritate him.

[@maryeckel9682]

Epic!

[@Steve-gc5nt]

I grew up seeing Concorde testing then would see, or hear, her pretty much every day once she was in service. Not many planes that I look up at every time but Concorde was the exception.

[@minirock000]

You are a lucky man to have seen Her. I have only seen Her through glass. I so always to have been aboard Her, but life is nothing but despair.

[@willfungusman8666]

Are you just assuming this airplane's gender?

[@viklightfoot45]

Me too. I was training at Heathrow and we always had a teabreak at 11 & 3 so we could watch her come in or leave. Beautiful sight! She was also the only aircraft I would hear from my house - being parallel to the runways aircraft noise was not a problem, and somehow I never minded her noisy departures at all 😃

[@Steve-gc5nt]

@@willfungusman8666 Grow up.

[@Jet-Pack]

Important note: The sonic boom is not created when the sound barrier is broken. It keeps occurring on the ground when ever a supersonic aircraft flies over a stationary observer on the ground. It's the shockwave that originates from the aircraft that is hitting the ground and that causes the sonic boom. It's not the act of first passing through Mach 1.0 and breaking the sound barrier.

[@IlluminatiBG]

How much this effect depends on the pressure (wouldn't flying higher, i.e. in lower pressure environment reduce the effect)?

[@米空軍パイロット]

@@IlluminatiBG Yes it would, but not enough to satisfy the public. Lower pressure and simple distance from the aircraft both help.

[@Jet-Pack]

@@IlluminatiBG As far as I know flying higher does reduce the perceived amplitude a bit but not enough. Many years ago I heard a sonic boom from a fighter jet and all I could see was a tiny fast thing way up there in the stratosphere, must have been about FL500 or so. It was quite a loud double explosion sound. Not enough to break windows but still loud enough to look around for a major explosion.

[@EfficientRVer]

Important counter-note: You sort of know what you're talking about, and you sort of don't. You're right in that a supersonic aircraft/object in the air continually creates an expanding shock wave, it's not just created at the moment of "breaking the sound barrier" or anything like that. But.......you're making it sound like a sonic boom is an object rather than an observation of a passing shock. A sonic boom is not an object which is created, it is a sound which is heard by an observer, caused by the arrival of a shock wave front. One moment, their eardrum is in air at a certain pressure, a proverbial millisecond later, it's feeling a different pressure. Boom. It's not cyclical pressure like a tone, just a sudden spike. The physical object created by the aircraft, is a shock wave which becomes a moving front (often shaped like a cone for an aircraft moving in a straight line, but for a momentary shock, more of a sphere, and there are a lot of nuances making a shock front a complex shape changing with time), where a high air pressure gradient (large rate of change, not necessarily a large total pressure difference) exists across a very small distance perpendicular to the expanding front. OF COURSE an observer on the ground doesn't hear it until the shock wave reaches the location of their ears, which happen to be on the ground. But if the supersonic aircraft at 60,000 feet altitude passes a balloonist 50 feet away, you'd better believe that the shock wave front doesn't have to reach the ground for the balloonist to hear the boom. They will hear it right where they are, as quickly as someone on the ground hears a gunshot fired from 50 feet away (assuming equal air temp, etc if you want to get picky.) Also, the observer on the ground doesn't need to be stationary, they can be moving at any speed themselves, from stationary to supersonic. As long as they don't outrun the expanding shock front, when the shock front reaches them, they hear the boom.

[@donato286]

My question is - would the entirely quiet aircraft engines cause less of a boom? To me, as a non-physicist and a total layperson, the boom itself sounds like it consists of the "accumulated spikes" of the sound wave produced by the aircraft engines that haven't been able to propagate as they usually do in sequence, but instead the spikes piled up one on top of another and amplified the original sound, which to me appears like it is that of the engines more than of anything else produced by the aircraft. In short, to me the loudest component of the sonic boom sounds like a tsunami of engine sound.

[@christopherg2347]

I think supersonic aircraft were a bad idea. Even in the military, the trends has been towards slower aircraft (albeit still supersonic capable). Your costs per flight hour shoot way up. When halfway decent planning makes any savings of a few hours pointless.

[@shrimpflea]

The F-117, B-2 and B-21 are all subsonic.

[@Rachel_M_]

That got me thinking about legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager.... Maybe you could do a series of Pioneers of aviation 🤔

[@sbinnala5769]

One thing about Bombardier's train division - they got bought out by Alstom in 2021.

[@bearcubdaycare]

Fun explanation. I do wonder whether these myriad supersonic startups have a chance, or it's just a venture capital fad.

[@MentourNow]

We shall soon see!

[@ves5624]

Venture capital invests under the assumption that only 1 in 10 investments will end up making the investors a lot of money and that several will break even. If a startup develops a supersonic business jet, then another company may buy the company for their technology or that company might go it alone and try to become a viable jet manufacturer. Both of those might be profitable for the investors. At the same time, the startup may fail and the investors lose their investment. But, that’s why venture capital is diversified and the expectation is that most companies will fail. Venture funds invest around $2 billion spread over around 20 companies.

[@MrNicoJac]

Both ;)

[@LemonLadyRecords]

Yes ;)

[@jhonbus]

I suspect at least a couple of them will be successful. The problem with concorde was that people who were willing to pay such a high price would rather take a couple of hours longer to arrive at their destination if it meant they could have plenty of space and other luxuries, rather than being cramped into the tiny cabin that Concorde had. There wasn't enough time saving on the London - NY route to make it worthwhile and options like first class on subsonic aircraft, or even better - private aircraft - were far superior. The convenience of a private aircraft almost can't be overstated, especially if flying from smaller airfields that avoid all the time spent getting through the airport. Being able to combine that with supersonic travel (even if it's much less quick than Concorde was) is a winner, I think.

[@jasperoostdam4635]

Very interesting topic, I really love these kinds of videos! Would be cool to see an aircraft like the Concorde again, although I'm afraid these supersonic aircraft will be too small and expensive for "regular" airlines, and would be mostly used for business flights.

[@MentourNow]

Well, I think United have signed up for a few Boom jets.

[@juliemanarin4127]

@@MentourNow Awesome! I'm in Chicago and I think O'Hare might be a United hub!

[@pqrstsma2011]

@@juliemanarin4127 until the US removes the over-land flight restrictions for supersonic planes, i think it's unlikely that you'll see supersonic flights out of Chicago.... sorry about that... my guess is that the initial Boom/United flights will be from Newark to London and/or Paris

[@jillengel4124]

@@MentourNow They have. Ordered 15 in fact. They’ve got a very informative website and you can sign up to receive e-mail updates from them.

[@pqrstsma2011]

@PJ Train i know, but Julie 👆 seemed so hopeful to fly Boom/United outta Chicago....

[@wacomtexas]

Why are we always in such a hurry? I would welcome a return of dirigibles.. Go with the flow 😁

[@oscartango2348]

Designing passenger aircraft to fly super-sonic just seems like such a waste of resources. I'm not sure there is a major need to get to a destination an hour faster, when the downsides of doing that are so enormously high.

[@hallhowarth4584]

Pffff boring! We want bigger, we want faster, we want more powerful and we want it now!

[@chrisbentleywalkingandrambling]

I remember being in the Air Training Corps going for a ride in a Chipmunk at Filton when a Concorde was being tested. Beautiful Aircraft. As for Supersonic over land RAF Fighter Interception Aircraft have done this when QRA has been launched in an intercept of unknown Aircraft. It always appears in the Newspapers the next day with an explanation for breaking the sound barrier. They are either over land or just off land in The Wash. But yeah, I can't wait to see the age of Supersonic return. Sad that we lost it. It's like being able to drive a Porche then being given a Ford Model T as a Car.

[@JWpilot]

The Cessna Citation X, Citation Ten, and the Gulfstream G650ER all have a MMO above M.92 and all went supersonic in testing in the same manner as this Global 8000 and for the same reasons. I believe the rule of thumb is to test ~10% above the desired certificated MMO.

[@randyogburn2498]

I remember living in Central Florida & hearing sonic booms when the Space Shuttle would return for landing. Maybe it was the shuttle's altitude or distance from me but the booms only sounded like thunder. Nothing destructive at all.

[@toomanyhobbies2011]

Exactly, great observation, even the double booms are little different than thunder.

[@mattbartley2843]

I was working outside right before one of the later space shuttle flights landed at Edwards AFB, ~75 miles north. It sounded like someone next door fired a shotgun twice.

[@mpk6664]

Fun fact: thunder is a sonic boom.

[@midshiptrib4132]

Bombardier has sold its rail industry division to Alstom, a while ago (end of January 2021) for 6 billions of Euros. I worked in both companies and now I'm working with a competitor.

[@NicolaW72]

Yes, indeed. The Global-Line of the Business Jets is pretty much everything what is left over from Bombardier. Otherwise they´ve disappeared totally from the market.

[@dipling.pitzler7650]

Possibly Siemens? If so, a good choice! Lol

[@Mrbfgray]

Topic idea: Anyone remember the *727 that went way supersonic in a steep dive over the Great Lakes* (believe in 1970's)? They accidentally reached much higher cruise alt than 727 designed for and stalled just below mach 1, rolled over, pilot pulled positive Gs while inverted to keep passengers in their seats, instantly going well past mach 1 then fighting to reduce speed they trashed flaps and slats then copilot dropped the landing gear which did the trick, they leveled off around 5k alt and landed safely. Wound up scrapping the aircraft as beyond repair.

[@Ficon]

TWA 841? It didn't go supersonic and none of the things you described happened. Pilot deployed slats at cruise speed causing them to be damaged, then claimed innocence but also erased CVR after landing.

[@Mrbfgray]

@@Ficon You must be talking about a different situation. One I'm referring to went instantly supersonic. Parasitic drag on an airliner is tiny so as soon as lift induced drag is gone in a dive starting just below mach 1 there is no other possible result.

[@Ficon]

@@Mrbfgray That’s the only 727 dive over Great Lakes that I’m aware of. The captain made all sorts of wild claims in interviews about rolling and going inverted, nothing substantiated by FDR. Basically he screwed up, deleted the CVR and then spent decades arguing that FAA and Boeing were wrong.

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

Cessna did the same sort of tests with their Citation 10 Business Jet. During testing, in order to certify it at a speed of Mach .9 3, Cessna had to take the jet supersonic for a brief period .

[@majbabovic5364]

Could you do a video explaining changes in aerodynamics of an aircraft between subsonic and supersonic speeds? :D Always a pleasure watching your videos!

[@Ztbmrc1]

When I visited the Brooklands Museum south of London in 2018, I found out that Concorde had a windows cooling system. Otherwise the windows wood get so hot by the outside air friction at speeds above Mach 1, that passengers would burn their hands while touching the windows. The windows were very small, compared to normal aircraft windows.

[@JohnJohn-hd1pc]

Indeed, lots of small diameter tubing running around the fuselage that contained fuel, pumped from the tanks (there were lots which had to be constantly balanced during flight).

[@Dirk-van-den-Berg]

How is that possible? Are high speeds not just occurring in the higher air where the outside temperature is far below zero? So the friction causes/caused a temperature difference of hundreds of degrees?

[@JohnJohn-hd1pc]

@@Dirk-van-den-Berg yes, the piping is inside the fuselage but behind the plastic covering that passengers touch, creating a chilled cavity.

[@Ztbmrc1]

@@Dirk-van-den-Berg Interesting question, but I have seen it in the museum, and was surprised too. But friction can heat up things. Like when you rub your hand over a cold table, you will notice the area of the table you rub over heats up. And also the surface of the rubbing hand also.

[@frglee]

I remember flying several times from the USA to London and arriving a lot earlier than we expected as the plane had flown inside a fast jet stream air current over the North Atlantic. But did the ground speed exceed Mach 1? Possibly. I read that in 2019, a 'Virgin Atlantic jet set a new speed record flying from LA to London in just over nine hours, after a powerful jet stream propelled it faster than the speed of sound. The 787 Dreamliner was clocked at 801mph over Pennsylvania as it rode the fastest jet stream on record, blowing east at 231mph'

[@mrxmry3264]

Ground speed may have an effect on arrival time but it makes no difference to the aerodynamics. It is possible to fly at 300 knots IAS but 600 knots GS.

[@Dirk-van-den-Berg]

I have been flying from Amsterdam to Washington DC about 10 times. Everytime it occurred to me: the westbound route took around 9 hours, the eastbound route had us back on the ground in 6,5 hours or even shorter. My guess is the same as yours, but these aircraft are not built to exceed Mach 1. Just my guess.

[@EfficientRVer]

When talking about a tail wind making an airplane's ground speed higher than air speed, it is improper to say that the ground speed has a Mach number associated with it. Mach number only has meaning regarding the fluid mechanics of an actual object passing through an actual fluid such as air. It is a ratio of the object's relative speed through the fluid, to the speed of sound, in that fluid at that moment/pressure/temperature/etc. Mach is NOT just another unit of measure for speed, where you can apply a conversion factor and use it to talk about the speed of other things (ground speed, speed of the plane's shadow movement on a sloped surface below, or whatever), like you can with conversions between miles/hour and meters/second for instance.

[@mrxmry3264]

@@Dirk-van-den-Berg 9 hours one way, 6 1/2 hours back? jetstream can be a bitch.

[@featherstone5838]

@@Dirk-van-den-Berg Centrifugal force would be another factor (the plane is a wee bit 'lighter' flying west to east). But if the difference is over 2 hours as you say, I'd say jet streams are the main reason.

[@nabman_]

Good to know Bombardier is making news again. They used to be the pride of Montreal. I live 15 minutes away from their St. Laurent facility and I once interviewed for a job there. 🇨🇦

[@wolfhalupka8992]

way back, when there was a political crisis in then communist Poland, SR-71 were operating out of (I think...) RAF Mildenhall. we could hear the sonic booms when the Blackbird went out over the Baltic to have a look, accelerating to her operating speed...

[@cdl0]

The good, old Boeing 747 has a remarkably high max. Mach number: 0.92, according to Wikipedia.

[@tightcamper]

Why do you keep pronouncing decimals incorrectly? You cannot have point eightyfive. Eighty denotes 8 10s. not 8 times 0 .1. It's just so wrong and totally illogical.

[@featherstone5838]

Considering that Concorde burned about 5 times the fuel per seat mile compared to a subsonic airliner, I wouldn't like supersonic travel to come back. Sustainable fuels are nice and fine, but their amount will be limited, so we better use them for the most energy efficient aircraft only. Air drag increases with the square of the speed, so there is no easy way around increased fuel consumption. Apart from flying much higher - I don't know if this is possible.

[@hubbahdabut]

Imma save up for a used 7500 and overclock it, probably add water cooling tubing all over the trim and maybe some blacklight and neon fluid so it can go supersonic in style.........

[@valeriabeckhoffferrero5492]

Hey! Big fan of yours! I watch all your videos. I noticed for the photo of the sonic boom you used my friends photo. His name is Andrea Galvani! And incredible artist💙 please give him credit!

[@isbestlizard]

Urgh, as much as I want to go very fast to places and love well engineered complex machinery, imo the planet just can't take any more waste, and going very fast to places is very wasteful compared to going there slowly, or not at all. The 0.1%ers can't go on externalising the damage their emissions cause, and propping up industries (like hypersonic private jet manufacture) is as bad as continuing to drill for more fossil fuels. It's got to stop and these aren't inventions that humanity should be pursuing until we fix the damage we've caused.

[@The_ZeroLine]

We don’t NEED supersonic passenger planes. Sure, it’s cool, but there is ZERO need for it. I’d love a couple to be available for anyone who wants to experience it, but unless you’re talking about a specialized passenger sized supersonic planes to be used for super special reasons where both speed and cargo capacity are needed for life and death situations, there is no need for it. In fact, it sounds like just another way to waste fuel for status and novelty.

[@dingodango1]

I would make a wager that instead of M.85 most operators will be cruising the aircraft between M.88 and M.91. I typically fly M.85 in an airplane that has MMO of M.90 so the Gulfstreams and Globals should be cruising at M.90 minimum.

[@magnuskongskov3532]

I think so too. Most of the customers are rich people, who value time over fuel efficiency.

[@seymourpro6097]

Faster jets always seem to need longer runways and with higher rotate speeds need more fantasticaly expensive tyres, and get fewer landings from a set of tyres. Look at the SR71! Ten landings from a set of fabulously expensive tyres.

[@TricksterJ97]

FYI: Mach 1.0 at sea level is 761 mph, and at 50,000 feet, it’s 660 mph.

[@mrxmry3264]

Because it is so much colder at FL500.

[@TricksterJ97]

It is much colder, but more importantly, the air is much less dense

[@AmbientMorality]

@@TricksterJ97 density does not affect the speed of sound in a gas

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

FYI at sea level it is temperature dependent and you are assuming a perfect standard atmosphere at altitude.

[@mattbartley2843]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Speed of sound is a function of temperature and of gas composition. (ratio of specific heats, specifically) Assuming the air remains 99% diatomic oxygen and nitrogen (and humidity at high altitudes is usually nearly zero remember), only temperature affects it significantly.

[@darrylday30]

The Concorde is in my opinion the most beautiful aircraft ever built. However, it cost the taxpayers a fortune while the ultra rich sipped champagne at mach 2. I fear history will repeat itself.

[@geraldhuot6302]

Why fly supersonic to be specific, faster than the speed of sound. Nobody really wants it except the super rich person and pilots that want to feel thier balls in their own ass.Regular people just want to get to here and there safely and to have a good experience and even today that is challenging. Love your program Mentour

[@spacecadet35]

The trouble is that an international passenger flight from London to New York in reality takes between 12-16 hours, or more. It is 8 hours for the the actual transatlantic flight. plus up to a couple of hours in a holding pattern at the far end. Then there is a couple of hours getting through security in London and a couple of hours getting through customs in the USA. And maybe an hour stuck on the taxiway waiting for take off. If the aircraft only saves thirty minutes of flight time on that trip, most people will not even notice. Concorde used to do the whole cycle from check in in London to catching a taxi in New York in about six hours, so well worth the effort.

[@paulsharp3865]

I remember reading or watching somewhere that Convair's 1960's airliners were pushing close to transonic, and that the extra costs this performance entailed weren't really offset by this performance. Modern airliners fly slower than the planes back then, but are a lot more efficient.

[@muriwatch]

Yeah, those with the famous carrot like bulges over the wing

[@billdurham8477]

990, check out the vids

[@nr5494]

I’m an aerospace engineer and a big fan of Concorde. But it’s hard to imagine us turning over vast areas of land to produce SAF when there is a global food shortage. Do millions starve, or do a few super rich have to spend more time in the air? I vote for the latter.

[@swiper1818]

The aircraft in the picture is most certainly not supersonic - unless in a dive

[@MentourNow]

It flew at Mach 1.015 so technically.. it is

[@swiper1818]

@@MentourNow not sustainably in level flight..this video is basically clickbait with the current title

[@MentourNow]

@@swiper1818 if you look closely you will see that it’s asking a question. It’s not clickbait because it goes into great length to explain why it is NOT and that’s after major publication claimed it was.

[@horseandcart5978]

In a way aviation has advanced very slowly in the last 50 years, compared with earlier expectations. On the 70's we had the concorde and the 747. Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. By 2000 we were supposed to have colonised the moon, and have hypersonic travel round the world. Instead, we are still travelling at subsonic speeds, still stuck in the atmosphere, and in aircraft with a maximum of about 800 seats. However, the electronics industry has really shot ahead beyond all our wildest dreams.

[@DMac12flyers]

We can thank the accountants for that

[@HexerPsy]

Is there a market for it, though? Considering super sonic requires more fuel, and we tend to see a trend in cheaper tickets. Frankly I hate getting nickeled and dimed for every bit of comfort during flights... But if I have to choose between a 10 hour flight or an 8 hour flight, I still go by price.

[@CherrrrBear]

True

[@rayoflight62]

The supersonic aircraft of the future will have the edges of the wings and the tip replaced with some high strength polymer interspersed with layers of piezostrictive ceramics. In this way the edge of the wing can operate an acoustic cancellation using a pressure wave in phase opposition. Thank you for the great video Mentour Pilot, it is always a pleasure to watch your videos. Regards, Anthony

[@chrispetty6871]

I used to experience sonic booms almost daily. I have no lingering issues from it. Except missing it.

[@pawelec66]

Arrive in your supersonic plane at Gatwick and wait 3 hours for the luggage.

[@exploatores]

isn´t it the transonic speed the realy dangerous speed. If i got it right. the a aerodynamic can make a aircraf react kind of strange.

[@0bscura]

Glad you mentioned the DC-8. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw this video.

[@wickedcabinboy]

I know your focus is on fixed wing aircraft but it's interesting to note that parts of many rotor wing aircraft exceed MACH 1 routinely. I'm referring specifically to the tips of the rotors and much research has been conducted on the physics of that problem. This has resulted in significant changes to the geometry of rotor wing tips and to much quieter helicopters.

[@toomanyhobbies2011]

And shorter blades...

[@wickedcabinboy]

@@toomanyhobbies2011 - and more of them.

[@ddegn]

Maybe I'm not as grumpy this time but this video didn't have nearly as many annoying effects as the last Mentour Now! video. Some of the weird color changes are still annoying but at least the irritating sounds weren't in this video. My preference would be not to include any strange video effects and not use unrelated stock footage. As it is, this video was still very watchable. Thanks for the interesting video.

[@cstusa554]

Yes, the unrelated footage of random people doing random things is as annoying as the flickering color effects. Such a shame, as the rest of the content is exceptional but spoiled by these unnecessary gimmicks.

[@ddegn]

@@cstusa554 *"the rest of the content is exceptional but spoiled by these unnecessary gimmicks"* *YES!*

[@AFloridaSon]

Very informative, as always.

[@MentourNow]

Thank you! It was a fun episode to make.

[@aalhard]

Thank you for this well done video. Interestingly composed and edited.

[@aileronhelicopters]

It'll be interesting if you make us a video of what a new aircraft passes through before joining the market

[@TeddyBoy1940]

As well as the DC8, the rumour that did the rounds in the 1960 was that the Vickers VC-10 also flew above Mach 1.

[@patriciaionaduchessofargyl8214]

True as a BOAC BA RAF AND STILL THE FASTEST NON SUPERSONIC BUT FIRST SUUPERCRUISER JAN 12 1969. :)

[@christopherbrown6391]

When I grew up in Saskatchewan the jets would come up from Minot and break the sound barrier all the time. Supper cool to see them flying over.

[@mrxmry3264]

A global 7500 is what wolfie flies. Small world, huh?

[@Nivola1953]

The Concorde didn’t fail only because of the supersonic boom, but also because of the huge fuel cost of flying at Mach 2.2 and the small cross section that allowed only 140 seats, to keep the drag Low enough. You need of course to fly a lot more than Mach 1 to make any significant difference in flight time, so you’ll face exactly the same physical restrictions of the Concord, because physics hasn’t changed in the last 40 years. Supersonic passengers planes are an absurdly, it’s like returning commercial aviation to the elite means of transportation it was before the ‘80s, few rich people that can slap us common mortals with 1st class seats. No modern technology can overcome the same physical restrictions, without paying the same price in performance. But someone is doing it! Yes and someone is also doing flying cars and electric planes and Hyperloop and underground highways and solar freaking roadways and preparing to go to Mars.

[@ethansaviation2672]

Ahh yes the hyperloop pipe dream

[@petergray3594]

Perhaps we could deliver business people using nuclear warhead technology. Each missile would have multiple business pods that would aim for more accurate locations just like the nukes. The only part I’ve not figured is how they would land safely. I’m thinking a combination of parachutes and custard.

[@CherrrrBear]

😂

[@jonathantaylor6926]

Physics. Drag is squared. Double speed, quadruple drag. The fuel burn isn’t worth flying super sonic. All technology eventually hits psychical limits. This is why modern day jets look and fly at identical speeds at they did 40 years ago. They’ve gotten more fuel efficient over the years but the fundamental aviation tech was mastered decades ago.

[@MentourNow]

That’s mostly correct. There are other efficiencies that could be reached at much higher speeds and also, with new materials and technology we could reach better economy but yes, it will be expensive

[@mrxmry3264]

"Drag is squared. Double speed, quadruple drag." It is a bit more complicated than that. There are 4 types of drag, and they all behave differently with increasing speed. - form drag. The result of having to shove the air out of the way. Increases with speed. - friction drag. Comes from the air sliding along the surface. Increases with speed. - induced drag. The result of air flowing around the wing tips to form wing tip vortices. Decreases with speed because it increases with AoA. - wave drag or shock drag. Comes from the formation of shockwaves at transonic and supersonic speeds. BTW, in case anyone is wondering, cars only experience the first 2 types.

[@jonathantaylor6926]

@@mrxmry3264 Fair points.

[@mrxmry3264]

@@jonathantaylor6926 BTW, i don't think i mentioned that every aircraft has a certain speed where the drag (that is, the sum of all types of drag) reaches a minimum. of course, that speed depends on things like weight and configuration (flaps and gear).

[@JulianDanzerHAL9001]

the thing is the aerodynamic effects of even getting close t omach 1 are such a fundamental pain to deal wit hthat for supersonic flight to be worthwhile it has to have a really notbale advantage, not just a small percentual one so I don't see supersonic transprot becomin econmically viable as logn as it stays below mach 3 with modenr airlienrs being incredibyl efficient at subsonic speeds, the high fuel consumption at supersonci speeds, and the design compromises of the plane you're gonna be spending something up to 10 times the fuel per passenger per distance even with new relatively efficient supersonic designs in addition the plane will be a lot mroe expensive so you really need to save a lot of time for this to be worthwhile

[@ianmcgee9945]

As a Canadian, I was wondering if you would mention the DC-8! It was on a test flight during certification to approve the installation of Rolls-Royce Conway engines on the DC-8, which usually had Pratt & Whitney engines.

[@peterallen4605]

I was in a 747 that was moving along around .99 Mach a good chunk of the way back to IAD from Tokyo. We left four hours behind schedule and the pilot made up a decent chunk of that in the air. Had a very eventful landing with a crosswind gust as well, but that's a tale for another time.

[@alex_lamarche]

Hey Peter, I’m curious about that landing story. Mind sharing it here?

[@greatcanadianmoose3965]

Same what's that

[@juliemanarin4127]

I hope to be able to fly in a super sonic airplane some day. I remember as a young person in Chicago hearing sonic booms. Probably were military craft.

[@davidhillberg7623]

how to co mingle technologies and allow the environmentalists to have a heart attack

[@00muinamir]

Yeah... as someone who lives next to several airports I'm not too keen on the idea of multiple sonic booms a day, even if they can get them to be less noisy. The coolness factor's gonna wear off pretty fast there.

[@paul756uk2]

They're only allowed to fly supersonic over the sea (as stated in the video). Also you're unlikely to get a supersonic aircraft coming into land travelling at supersonic speeds.

[@migupl]

@@paul756uk2 Yeah! Over 600kt at MSL might be a *little* bit higher than max tire or max brake energy speeds. And the G forces from decelerating from 600kt to 0 on a distance of 3-4km could also be noticeable ;)

[@bazza945]

I remember a rather sobering factoid about Concorde. An expert calculated that if a Concorde broke up at cruising altitude the debris would be scattered over 65,000 square miles. (It could have been square kilometers.)

[@arnaudt3935]

I think that the future of transportation will be the opposite, low speed with extremely low energy consumption. Because of physics ... high speed means high energy by square, we can't afford speed anymore like now Unless we discover a totally knew way to manage energy storage.

[@naelblogger7976]

But apparently there will be still extremely rich people continuing destroying our planet for personal reasons, and companies supporting their demand.

[@namenotavailable11]

As most Canadians who follow business or aviation matters, know Bombardier has been a chronically mismanaged company. They had to sell off many of their divisions to stay alive. BTW, they no longer have a train division- they sold it to the French group Alstom. The recreational division including the Ski-Doo was sold to the Bombardier family.

[@guenthermichaels5303]

That's BRP , publicly traded. Went private through Bain Capital. Then public again. The Family no longer has control.

[@fredtedstedman]

Amazing , thank you for posting this ! Wales UK.

[@supratiksadhukhan4147]

😱I was not expecting a sonic boom 40k feet above ground can have considerable effect at ground

[@BogeyTheBear]

The SR-71 would throw a very noticeable double-boom from 80,000 feet. I was at an airshow at Edwards AFB where a Blackbird was permitted to overfly the crowd at supersonic speed.

[@mikekeenan8450]

Maybe what's needed is an airframe design that can handle the different aerodynamics of subsonic and supersonic flight without sacrificing too much in terms of efficiency. In theory that would allow you to fly subsonic over land, and then go supersonic once you were over the ocean. Not sure how feasible that would be though.

[@mrxmry3264]

Keep in mind that subsonic and supersonic aerodynamics are very different.

[@musmuk5350]

ACJ TwoTwenty 😍

[@Steaphany]

why can't a craft operate at an altitude high enough that the sonic boom dissipates it's energy before it reaches the ground ? at such near space altitudes, drag would also be minimized and ballistic trajectories may also be an option saving descent fuel requirements

[@Phiyedough]

Not much oxygen though and engines need oxygen.

[@marty0063]

That’s really neat. Thanks for the very informative video. Miss the Concorde even though I would never have flown on it. I remember when we were kids and our house got hit by sonic booms once, twice, or a few times. I don’t really remember how many times. We lived out in the country. We thought it was so cool. The windows were rattling. None got broken, so all was okay.

[@MXedos]

The cutscenes/transitions make me dizzy.

[@parrotraiser6541]

Please stop using the archaic term "sound barrier". It was created before supersonic aerodynamics were understood. Now they are, so it's no longer a barrier. The term does not belong in your usualyl high standard vocabulary.

[@horseandcart5978]

Love your channel. Thank you!! Now that they have flights from Australia to London, how likely do you think it will be in the future, that they will have flights to the antipodes from where they took off, for example from Auckland NZ, to Seville France. You simply can't travel further than that.

[@zapfanzapfan]

I hope to see civilian supersonic flights again even if it has to be only over water and low population areas.

[@cancelanime1507]

It's not happening

[@NicolaW72]

@@cancelanime1507 And rightfully.

[@TimothyChapman]

Guess someone decided to sensationalize the results of the test flight.

[@kjsingh9071]

Top Gun Maverick has entered the chat.

[@MentourNow]

😂😂😂

[@cupofjoen]

"just... a little bit push..."

[@wadesaxton6079]

Global Express currently cruise at .85-.88 The new 7500 and 8000 will be cruising at .88-.90. All the new Gulfstreams cruise at .90 except for the rare occasion they need more range and slow to .88

[@senzelian]

Just 50km away from where I live there's a museum where they have a Concorde and a TU-144 on top of a roof. Everytime I'm visiting and I see them I wish I had the chance to fly with one of them.

[@gapistan2335]

As a petrol head who is into cars it makes me think that on roads we have brands such as Konigsegg,Buggati,Rimac,Lotus,SSC and Henessey who are all touching or getting close to 300mph on road with the exception of the Bugatti Chiron SS which clocked 304mph on a run.And ina time where cars and bikes are getting faster, it feels like since the concorde reitired the avation world hasn't really moved forwards and sometimes I feel like it's gone backwards.

[@djwolffe_OG]

Hey Mentour! I recently asked you to do a video about SAA flight 295 if you’re keen. Here’s another suggestion: the rise and fall of South African Airways, from it’s first flight to being ‘captured’ and fall from grace. It gets political, but it would be interesting to get your views on it, especially from a leadership perspective. Or something like that

[@Sailor376also]

DC-8s were pretty cool. Iceland Air used to use them for transAtlantic flights. Fast, stable for the passengers,,, the ride character reminded me of a 767. What would a pilot take on the DC-8 be? I have no idea.