Boeing SST 2707 Supersonic Aircraft. The American Challenge To The Anglo/French Concorde

[@Dronescapes]

Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes and their stories, missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes

[@lundsweden]

The Tupelov TU-144 was not a copy of the Concorde. Some of the major differences is the TU-144 had retractable canards, a double delta wing (Concorde had an S shaped delta wing) and the engines were placed close to the centre of the plane, whereas Concorde had the engines place out wide on the wings. The TU-144 had problems with cracks forming in the airframe, possibility as design flaw or issue with metal purity/quality.

[@davidpage3893]

That’s what likely happened when it crashed at the Paris Airshow in 1973. It was rushed into service about a month before Concord at the expense of questionable workmanship.

[@dennis-nz5im]

All these planes expand and contract by a foot, so they are prone to

[@kpnut59]

It should be remembered that the Bell X1 used a British idea, stolen from Miles Aircraft by a visitor from America, that idea was the all moving tailplane.

[@franciscook5819]

FYI. The Miles M.52 clearly would have broken the sound barrier. It had an all-moving tail plane (it wasn't the first aircraft with that - I believe the first was a French inter-war aircraft). The tail was tested on other aircraft, including a Supermarine Spitfire. In late 1944 the UK Air Ministry signed an agreement with the United States to exchange high-speed research and data. Miles gave the Bell Aircraft company access to the drawings and research on the M.52. The U.S. reneged on the agreement and no data was forthcoming in return. Bell used the data in the design of the X-1 - including the important all moving tail plane. This is similar to the US treatment of the UK via the "Quebec Agreement" in which the UK contributed significant materials and expertise to the Manhattan project, which developed the atom bomb, only for the USA to renege on the agreement once it had what it wanted. Chuck Yeager later claimed that no other country came up with the all moving tail plane and it took ten years for other nations to catch up (a remarkable display of ignorance from a well respected pilot). As a last insult, the M.52 was cancelled for two main reasons; 1) the UK had exhausted its financial resources in WW2, fighting for freedom and democracy and saw supersonic flight as an improbable extravagance (in contrast the USA profited hugely from the European war, which it entered two years after the UK and only when Germany declared war on it) and 2) the USA has had a policy of interfering in all of Europe's aerospace in order to keep it behind the USA and leaned on the UK government (hence, for example, the visit by Bell engineers to Miles). No, I don't have it in for America, I have contempt for perfidy.

[@dong6839]

This video could really use some music looped in the background! (J/k) 😜

[@Dronescapes]

:) did you see the link to the version without the loop?

[@orandaadnaro]

It looks like the US has learnt a lot technically from the Anglo French Concorde. However as we know historically the US banned supersonic flights over the US because of 'environmental' concerns. If that still stands (and why not), then where is the market for this aircraft?

[@johndoe-cd9vt]

French guy here.. that's what we call jealousy ... everything they do is automatically branded "the best of the world", and when they fail, they invent fake reasons to block the competition

[@MrDaiseymay]

THE COMMENTS ABOVE, ABOUT THE APOLLO, REGULAR SONIC BANGS, MAKES ME WONDER HOW THEY, GOT AWAY WITH IT? WHERE WERE THE THOUSANDS OF PROTESTER'S ? TALK ABOUT HYPOCRACY. I ALWAYS THOUGHT, THAT IF THE US HAD CREATED A SST WAY BACK THEN, THERE'D BE NO PROTESTS ALLOWED.

[@erichaley4485]

Looking at this plane and how enormous it was,it definitely needed all four of those engines to just help it get into the air. Nowadays technology is so superior that modern jet technology dont need fuel hungry afterburners to achieve supersonic speed! The 2707 was way ahead of its time!

[@sagittarius7569]

🗣 In my opinion, the *Concorde* is the most beautiful airplane ever constructed .... ✈

[@Mumbo_Jumbo_Kiwi.1]

It's a jetplane.

[@dextermorgan1]

The SR 71 has entered the chat. 😂 Seriously though, they're both beautiful planes.

[@akiko009]

Just a note on the latest supersonic aircraft designs. They tackle the sonic boom issue by shaping it, and avoiding multiple surfaces creating shockwaves that combine at a distance to form a more pronounced boom. It works, but it's still up for discussion if it's good enough for routine supersonic flight over land.

[@karlharvymarx2650]

I was sometimes close to the Space Shuttle's return path. Its sonic boom sounded like it had crashed into the roof of the house sometimes and that was followed by rattling all over the house, pictures falling off walls, and etc. For some reason it usually seemed to be early morning when I was still asleep. A few times I actually jumped out of bed and started to run out of the house undressed before it could collapse on me, lol. I can understand why some people wouldn't want to hear that every few minutes if SST had become popular and was that loud. On the other hand, I have been to airshows where they demonstrated sonic booms and those were relatively quite. I think if they could soften the blow and limit overland flight times to when most people are awake, it would be tolerable. Of course, there are always busy bodies who would complain even if it were silent.

[@akiko009]

@@karlharvymarx2650 For a while I used to live under the Shuttle's re-entry path, too. Though there the craft was high enough that the booms were quite benign. I didn't even realize it was the Shuttle until Columbia broke up on re-entry. Anyway, the shuttle was a massive blunt object with no consideration for sonic boom shaping, so one can't really use that as a comparison point. I don't know what the FAA's planned criteria for supersonic flight over land are, but presumably it needs to be effectively unnoticable, or the busybodies will find an excuse to shut it down...

[@karlharvymarx2650]

@@akiko009 Lol, the point I wanted to make was that the shuttle probably isn't a good example of the sonic boom reducing geometry you were talking about, but I lost my train of thought. I feel like I saw something a while back about designing so the bulk of the boom's energy would be directed away from the ground somehow. Is that part of current thought? I know with submarine sonar differing indices of refraction of different layers of water need to be considered in real time to make sense of the return echo. Maybe that air layers are dynamic and the airplane structure is fairly static, would make it impractical to steer the sound away from people? So if I understood you correctly the idea is now to avoid multiple booms from multiple surfaces which might constructively interfere at some regions on the ground? Or is it to reduce how long the boom is heard? Sorry I'm being thick, I'm ill, and not sleeping.

[@orandaadnaro]

@@karlharvymarx2650 Lets also recognise it is not just humans that could suffer from a sonic boom. Do we not owe it to protect the animals whose environment might suffer as well? After all a bit of cotton wool in the ears or noise reduction earbuds might help us, but not any of the other animals we share this world with.

[@karlharvymarx2650]

@@orandaadnaro Like OP said, the shuttle was a pretty extreme example of how not to design to reduce sonic booms. A survey of animals along the reentry path revealed 8.5/10 animals hardly noticed the boom and no one thought it was that bad. Some call the survey into question because it was done by telephone. Few animals had landline phones and smart phones weren't a big thing at the time of the survey. Sandhill Cranes were especially reluctant to bother with phones due to the migratory behavior and lack of good deals by the telecoms in the area. Alligators are big on phones and tend to be first adopters of technology...but they may actually like the sound since their mating calls tend to be loudest in the infrasound range. They were often spotted not wearing noise cancelling headphones, presumably because the booms kind of turn them on. Seriously, I can't remember animals being as bothered as I was. However, the best place to hear them where I lived was in a city so not a lot of wildlife so I can't really say one way or the other. Not sure if anyone has really looked into it. I feel bad for whales and dolphins that have to deal with high power military sonar. It is suspected of damaging or killing them.

[@superskullmaster]

If they went with Lockheed instead of Boeing I think it could have been pulled off. The final design looked like the L-2000 anyway. 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@Dave5843-d9m]

The Miles M-52 had a jet engine and used the pilot’s capsule as the intake cone. If things went wrong the capsule could be detached. It’s anyone’s guess why UK officials cancelled the project. Miles were in line to beat Yeager by two years with a real aircraft not a rocket sled. The spec called for 1000 miles at 1000mph.

[@Dronescapes]

Dear David, if you haven't watched it yet, here is a video also covering the M.52: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hoS1cpeQr7esmcU

[@eddean6663]

They have a J-93 engine at the GE Evendale plant in Ohio. There were 6 on the XB 70. The SST was going to use these too.

[@Echowhiskeyone]

A pair ofJ-93 were also to power the XF-108 Rapier. Which was also cancelled.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

The Wilson government in UK wanted to cancel Concorde (as they did with TSR-2) but the French were having none of that and the aircraft were built.

[@dougball328]

Three tons of thrust? Are they daft?

[@MarkBarrett]

Boeing is living on the old engineers that made big good products in the past. New engineers DID make new designs, but the top level executives since year 2005-2010, decided to cancel all new good engineering prospects; in exchange to keep selling the old products instead. Every engineer in the world is "screaming"!

[@SuperDare83]

But how elegant was Concorde though

[@Dronescapes]

Supremely beautiful Craig. Even today it would be a wonderful aircraft. Just like the SR-71, it is timeless.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@Dronescapes I believe one of the Concorde was sent to a US museum which still regularly flies it.

[@davem2369]

@@michaeledwards2251 very much a no on that. There are 3 Concordes in the USA and 0 flyable Concordes anywhere.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@davem2369 I remember seeing a news clip where one of the maintenance staff was talking saying that the Concorde they had was maintained in flyable condition, and they flew it to confirm its status. It was apparent no one outside the museum got to fly.

[@Dronescapes]

@@michaeledwards2251 No, the Concorde is not flying anymore. There is also one on display at CDG in Paris for everyone to see.

[@flybouy11]

In 1988 there was a concord present. You could get a ride over Canada supersonic for $400.

[@Dronescapes]

The Concorde was truly gorgeous and the British / French collaboration set their goals so that they were achievable. The American version was perhaps too ambitious, having superior performances, but unfortunately it did not make it. As you perhaps already know, the Soviets stole / copied the Concorde's project, but they Tu-144 was a semi disaster, and it was never operational. It also had severe performance issues. It was basically a Concorde clone with canards. Interestingly the US / NASA got hold of a Tu-144 from them, and used it for a while for research. I am assuming that had something to do with the fact that it was also a copied from the Concorde. After the Concorde was retired, people like Richard Branson tries to make a deal and buy them, but the offer was refused.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@Dronescapes There was no possibility of Branson making a deal because the French were given the safety authority over Concorde, as part of the joint deal, and they throttled it. They disliked the Concorde for being noisy. The Concorde disaster was a consequence of the TSR 2 cancellation. This had 2 immediate effects (a) The TSR 2 used air holes, adding and removing air, in the wings to reduce the take off speed of a delta wing aircraft by allowing greater angle of attack before stall. (The Concorde could have used one of the shorter runways avoiding the piece of metal responsible for the disaster, and the aircraft would have been travelling slower reducing the effect of an impact. ) (b) The loss of the final wheels designs which allowed the TSR 2 to land on a grass field for military reasons. Had the damaged Concorde being able to land on the agricultural land around the air field the passengers and crew would have had a chance. An additional effect is the loss of the possibility of developing sonic boom cancellation technologies. (The TSR 2 was a far smaller aircraft allowing rapid prototyping. )

[@sunray501]

Thanks for this version. I couldn't listen to the other video. At about minute 23, I got so sick of that same violin rhythm, i was about to click away and saw the link to this version. Even before this video, I already lost appreciation for that piece since it has been so overused by other sources :( Informative video tho. Also helps to remind of the challenges that still need to be answered as other aircraft designers attempt to explore commercial supersonic.

[@Stray1One]

This is so interesting to know France came on board, after the yanks said no, you see Europe was still cleaning up after the war! The yanks were free with cash more because of not having to clean their country! Thanks France ,and we are so sorry to leave a lot of your solid soldiers on the beaches at Dunkirk! To the Jerry’s! That there as a lot of french people don’t know how much we hurt for leaving them to their fates! Sorry France on behalf of us brits who still thinks of the ones left behind! So sorry!

[@joecrammond6221]

The Boeing 2707 aimed to be ambitious, whilst Concorde itself was ambitious, it was manageable, at least Concorde flew

[@mariuspetre1613]

It is sad that now days we do not have a supersonic passenger airplane… especially with the materials we have today…

[@mill2712]

Keep up with aviation news. Nasa is studying to make sonic booms quieter. And are soon to start test fights.

[@Dad-979]

America has Ricky Bobby!

[@trevorgwelch7412]

It's time for anti gravity passenger jets we have the technology hidden at S/4 Nevada .

[@brussels13207]

Instead of dipping nose, did they ever consider a separate little one man cockpit at bottom of nose to be only used for takeoff and landing? Is that a really stupid idea?

[@2boykins]

As a former Navy Fighter pilot and then a Commercial Airline pilot for 30 years after that, no that’s not a stupid idea. In fact I think it would have been worth considering. Probably, in the end, it would have been more complicated and expensive, but, not a stupid idea at all.

[@Orion3741]

Concorde was European. Werner Braun was European. Thanks to Braun, America could go to the moon, 1969-72. That said, the Boeing 747 "Jumbo Jet" was American. A beauty.

[@bobanundson9247]

I wrote a program to evaluate the chance of the SST design could make it from New York to Paris. The swing wing had 5% chance. The next day they canceled the swing-wing..

[@Dronescapes]

If you truly wrote that program, you must have a lot more interesting stories to share and we would be delighted to learn more about your insight on the SST program, if you have time

[@tonyduncan9852]

Arguing about the compressibility of the atmosphere isn't *_ever_* going to remove "boom corridors". Life is too short as it is.

[@ioanbota9397]

Realy I like this video

[@Dronescapes]

👍👍

[@MrDaiseymay]

THE TROUBLE WITH KENNEDY WAS, IF HE THOUGHT OF A IMPOSSIBLE DREAM PROJECT, HE THOUGHT IT COULD BE ACHIEVED , REGARDLESS.

[@requiscatinpace7392]

50 years too late. Concorde wasn’t retired because one crashed. It became financially unviable. Back in the day getting across the Atlantic quickly for business meetings etc could be advantageous but then came the internet the world became a smaller place and the advantage was gone. Business is now done with emails and Zoom meetings, plane tickets costing thousands and thousands of pounds no longer make sense.

[@Dronescapes]

Concorde made a profit

[@requiscatinpace7392]

@@Dronescapes yes ‘made’ but people who know way more than I do decided ‘making’ was not as likely. It’s not flown in 20 years.

[@Dronescapes]

But it flew for decades before being retired

[@simonm1447]

​@@requiscatinpace7392 a lot of Concorde customers (Bankers) were killed in 911, and modern technology made stock exchange possible without flying over the Atlantic in first place. This meant the seats could no longer be sold reliably and the era was ending

[@papagen00]

how's the teleportation technology and antigravitational propulsion coming along? jet engine is ancient caveman technology.

[@kennethkustren3966]

Yeah, I can understand why the Avro Arrow was nixxed.

[@mrsensibletimewastingarrog4185]

It's a challenge to something that no longer flies?

[@MrDaiseymay]

SEPT 2023. I hear that Rolls Royce have pulled out of the BOOST programme, and the whole show has been postponed.

[@glike2]

R.T. Jones Oblique flying wing could have been better, being much more aerodynamic efficiency and lighter weight. Canceling the 2707 was a fortuitous favor, as it would have been an economic failure. I worked on the second attempt to do this and then late 90s before it was also canceled.

[@dougball328]

Where were you working? I managed tha aero work at Boeing in the mid '90s on the HSCT program.

[@robdow6348]

With new lightweight composites and computer created aerodynamics, the Boeing 2707 could be built today. But at the time America was focused on the moon landing with Apollo. The Concorde was impressive, but a commercial flop.

[@awatt]

Concorde made a profit.

[@Dronescapes]

Exactly 👍

[@Dronescapes]

Despite fuel prices and an obvious subtle boycott, Concorde was able to make a profit. You should also consider the intangible benefits of Concorde, such as Airbus, or national pride. Concorde was an ambassador around the world. It inspired countless people. Airbus became such a menace to Boeing that a plane with fatal compromises was made, the 737 MAX, a stain that will never be cancelled from Boeing’s history. If profit was everything,then the Apollo program was a massive waste of money, but we all know how important it was for the time, and money was not the goal of the program.Flying on Concorde was the dream of countless people, that was priceless

[@ryansaving]

I thought here and watch the whole video on the fact that it’s just cost too much

[@jetsetter8541]

What they did with B-737MAX is disturbing & scary to fly their new planes build by lying psychopaths ...

[@charleshart6992]

This film is full of false claims and statements!

[@remobandini6144]

Ironic that he's (JFK) kid's demise was in flight.

[@patpozzuto4809]

"Outside the field, the entire SST concept was the subject of considerable negative press, centered on the issue of sonic booms and effects on the ozone layer."... Didn't really pay attention to the WOKE community of the sixties, perhaps its because the demented hippies were dominating thge headlines! Harvard organizes protesters against the SST, what a "SHOCK", no pun intended!

[@tkskagen]

Too bad that "BOEING" wasn't able to fulfill the "requirements" for this build. But in reality, this was never obtainable as a Passenger Vehicle...

[@simonm1447]

​@Phillip Banes the biggest issue of Mach 3 is not the technology, it is the cost. For the SR-71 and the XB-70 costs weren't top priority since these were military aircraft, a commercial project however is far more cost sensitive. At the end the Concorde was built because it was designed in a way it was feasible to build it without major breakthroughs in technology, just with Aluminium.

[@simonm1447]

@Phillip Banes surely, the US could have built it (at the end it was the funding). But it would have been even a bigger money pit than Concorde, due to the higher complexity

[@n.r.2258]

Boeing should fix theyr old aircraft’s first.

[@gavinboot4810]

Sorry,,but this is so off topic for so long,,i didnt need all the other filler !!,,30 minutes befor it even begins ??

[@toupac3195]

Extremely expensive to operate and maintain. I'd rather pay $500 for regular long flight than $10,000 to shave off a couple hours. These failed for that reason.

[@Dronescapes]

It also depends on who you are, and all in all, it was more than a couple of hours and flights used to be more expensive (that’s when flying was a bit more glamorous and not flying like squeezed cattle).

[@awatt]

Flying Concorde was amazing. Well worth every penny

[@toupac3195]

@@awatt well, yes. I do agree 100%. Otherwise it's not practical or efficient. We all love luxury. Our planet is big, but it is small as well. Supersonic is not, and probably will never be, useful for the everyday traveler.

[@awatt]

@@toupac3195 Nowadays they have their private jets.

[@defcon1africa676]

Europeans have a bizzare obsession with hating on America lol

[@Dronescapes]

Or perhaps Concorde was objectively the only real supersonic passenger aircraft ever made and at the time, pride meant a lot. Also, do not forget that Airbus is, in part, the result of working jointly on Concorde, and that the horrific and shameful reaction of Boeing to a competitor the surpassed them, resulted in the Boeing 737 MAX, which will forever be a stain in Boeing’s name. In order to compete with Airbus, they knowingly made a flawed aircraft that killed many people. They also cut corners (training) to regain market shares, perfectly knowing of the risks involved. Objectivity should transcend being partisan. This said, the US made exceptional things, including aircraft, but for example, if you say that the P-51 Mustang owes most of his fame to the British Merlin engine, you are just being objective. The same can be said (despite the movie), about the Ford GT40 that managed to finally beat Ferrari. It was David vs Goliath to begin with, but it only happened because the Brits largely made the competing car. The GT40 was beautiful and it really won that battle, but if you are objective if you consider that it required the Brits to do so. You are also objective if you say that the Moon landing, and beating the Soviets to it, required a notorious German engineer to do so. He was not a saint either, but the first man on the moon, ultimately, was American and perhaps that’s what really matters. I think there are exceptional people all over the world. Collaboration, sometimes, achieve exceptional results without a need to belong to a specific place in the world. Bank of America was created by an Italian, the son of two young immigrants, and possibly the only moral banker that ever existed. His name was Amedeo Giannini, but it is fair to say that he would have never achieved what he did had he been in Italy. Under him, Bank of America became the largest bank in the world. The list goes on and on. The United States has been and still is an exceptional country, where dreams can become a reality, and that can also generate some envy, it is only normal 🙂🇺🇸

[@simonm1447]

It's not hate, it's something called competition. There wouldn't be aircraft like the 787 or the A 350 without competition

[@Dronescapes]

@@simonm1447 wise words!

[@arfermo853]

Please settle down children you have no need to argue ,its obvious and plain to the world the we British made America and gave them our intelligence to kick start their country so calm down and chill out

[@IronBand4]

Dude, ease up on the commercials every other sentence!

[@Dronescapes]

ustin, perhaps you are not aware that you have options. You might want to take a look at KZbin Premium, among the many perks, it also eliminates all ads. More of less 20% of our KZbin users have it, and appreciate the benefits it comes with. It’s nice option that gives you a choice, unlike most other popular social platforms. By the way, you can also download an ad blocker if you really do not want to contribute to the YT community 😉 that will do as well

[@michael-grantkhaled7631]

So das nervt. Es gibt keine XB 50 a4 was ist das für ein Bullshit. Google hat diesen Flugzeug Typen nicht 😡