Mach 5 aircraft technology | The Edge

Mach 5 aircraft technology would enable flight times of 4.5 hours from Europe to Australia. CNBC goes behind the scenes with the latest innovators to find out more
Subscribe to CNBC International: bit.ly/1eiWsDq
Teams in Oxford, U.K., and Boston, U.S., are working on new designs for plane engines, with the potential to create a "very high-speed aircraft" and take fuel out of the equation altogether. CNBC takes a look at both options.
Scimitar is a prototype jet engine from UK-based Reaction Engines. Developers tell CNBC that the experimental apparatus can extend the speed, the power, and the range of existing systems by up to 5 times the speed of sound.
Researchers from MIT are working on developing technology they hope will completely rethink aviation propulsion altogether, using an ion thruster. CNBC takes a closer look.
CNBC.com for more great clips: cnb.cx/1o2BRDO
CNBC International playlist: bit.ly/1u34e9a
Like us on CNBC's Facebook page
cnbc
Follow us on CNBC's Twitter accounts
/ cnbcworld
/ cnbc

[@charlesblithfield6182]

A problem with wingtip mounted engines is the need for perfectly symmetrical thrust. When the SR71 experienced asymmetric thrust it was a very dangerous condition. At these speeds a flameout on one side could destroy the plane.

[@rogerhonacki5610]

Awesome! Now I can spend 4 hours in the airport for a one hour flight!

[@brianm7879]

Thank the Security Theater.

[@2cs2s]

Yay definitly in 2017 2018 2019 and 2020 in Ireland and definitly a global thing now yay

[@SabaDhutt]

I could watch videos like this all day. Fascinating!

[@FastCarsNoRules220]

I flew a 12 hour flight once from Manila to LA, I couldn't handle it. I just want affordable supersonic or hypersonic travel and maybe I would want to visit Asia again.

[@bobsaturday4273]

yes , its all about you , fuck the future

[@mariodrechsler2618]

If the experts of CNBC would look back to history they would have found out, that mach 5 need something like the heat shield of the space shuttle, a design, the can absorbe the changing lenght of the structure and what about the supersonic bang for those on the ground. And of course, passengers who are able to pay for this. This is a project of the "Old Europe". But our world needs DEGROWTH to live...

[@clapton79]

Well, almost 6 years passed and the only thing we heard back was Brexit

[@TheWebAdict]

@It is a Beautiful World These days, you mean a German engineer from.......Argentina 😉

[@2cs2s]

Yeah

[@sdprz7893]

They're still going and have officially successfully tested the engine, it works now it's time to build.

[@listerdave1240]

At 3:45 the caption incorrectly states that ion thrusters produce 50 times as much thrust per kilowatt as a jet engine. The reverse of that is approximately true. Stating that an ion engine NEEDS fifty times as much power to produce as much thrust as a jet engine is a reasonable approximation, though that figure can very a lot actually. The 'efficiency' of an ion thruster lies within how much delta-v it can give you for a given amount of propellant, or more accurately reaction mass. To achieve this though it requires far more energy. The advantage of an ion engine exists only in space where you are limited by the amount of propellant you can carry but relatively unlimited in the energy available to run the engine. So what you do is use the extra energy to put more kinetic energy into the propellant getting a higher specific impulse. That means reducing the mass flow rate (so the propellant last longer) but accelerating it to a very high speed, which consumes a lot more energy. In the atmosphere the opposite is true - you have relatively unlimited propellant but limited energy so you want to use your energy most efficiently which is by increasing the mass flow rate and decreasing the exhaust velocity. With a conventional rocket engine you are limited both by the amount of propellant as well as the amount of energy, since both the energy as well as the reaction mass is what is contained within the fuel (and oxidiser as the case may be).

[@johnwang9914]

The SABRE engine is in fact a liquid air rocket which was once called LACE for Liquid Air Cooled Engine which was once proposed for NASA's single stage to orbit concept. The issue with cryogenic cooling of surrounding atmospheric air is that ice clogs it up, SABRE plans to address that by using the supersonic intake to create a strong vortex so that dry air tends to be on the outside of the vortex while humid air tends towards the center hence keeping the humidity away from the cryogenic cooling radiators, basically an induced centrifuge. Normally, I would give them respect for at least trying to be creative but then they go off to say their engine can operate from a standing start through takeoff and then to hypersonic speeds when their entire premise requires supersonic to hypersonic speeds to begin with. Any such start from a standing start implies a hybrid multimode operation where it can operate as a conventional jet or rocket at the slower speeds without the cryogenic cooled liquid air. The promotion for a lot of these concepts is what loses my respect for them as the people doing the promoting have no idea what they are talking about and thoroughly misrepresents the proposals.

[@ablam8]

I like the scram jet, no moving parts.

[@jonathan102]

Why are they putting ion thrusters in the same discussion on alternative jet engines? Ion engines are incredibly efficient, but they don't generate a lot of thrust at once. At least certainly not enough to power any aircraft.

[@alexkunev87]

it says in the video 110N/kW of thrust, or 50 times the thrust of regular jet engines...

[@unknowncuyler5449]

+Alex Kunev if you do any research on ION engines you will find out that they are efficient but are very slow. it can take day, weeks, months, even years to complete one orbital maneuver. not realistic for alot of space flights.. of course they have a very high specific impulse (fuel efficiency) the amount of force produced is soo low it cannot be used to achieve orbits.

[@DivineMisterAdVentures]

The concept is about atmospheric thrusters where there is a huge additional thrust from the repulsion of air molecules against the ions. This effect is carefully controlled to keep the aircraft from blowing up. It's H-U-G-E ! Probably been in service a long time in those black delta wing ships that float around silently. The ship design was patented in open literature in 1964, btw. Same effect as is used in "fanless" air cleaners. :o|-

[@krumuvecis]

One could get to a sufficiently high ballistic trajectory using rocket engines and only then at the maximum altitude start the ion thrusters and get orbital speed.

[@bobk2966]

I agree and the difraginators would problemate to induction sensitivity levels.

[@cr4zyu]

"Electro-gravitic propulsion" was developed in 1929. So, how far behind the military industrial banking complex curved are you?

[@markhughes7927]

200:7 - miles - planetary tangency - Isotropic Vector Matrix - linear synchronous track - rotary synchronous ‘frisbee’ craft - weighted with water - electrolyse and burn - simultaneous tangent trajectory - what rockets do anyway - and vertical gain of height - shed remaining water - carbon hull - 3D printed - deployable rotary vanes on underside for re-entry: non-stop space......

[@4CatsGuy]

Okay, the aircraft engine might be able to thrust an airplane to Mach 5, but the fuselage and wings must also be able to withstand Mach 5 speed. Easier said than done.

[@MissionaryForMexico]

The flight surfaces can easily handle increased air speed, look at the SR-71 for example. Titanium flight surfaces too!

[@michaeltalbot8242]

Add to that thenairfraim will need to withstand friction heating as well as constant pressure cycles As for getting to the farsife of the world in a few hours is there going to be the market to genera busines it will probably have to fly over inhabited landmasses Malik supper sonic flightwull be a so no Due to thethe boom.lots of acceleration changer is going to make full an issue

[@Kavster92]

All these arm chair engineers saying "Bbbut its possible!" have failed to grasp the basic economics of mass flight or the actual cost of titanium machining and engineering. Reskinning every current air frame in titanium, the doing CFD on new designs, then retrofitting, then teaching pilots to fly. There is absolutely zero current advantage to mach 5 travel, and it will not reach the average consumer in our life time until titanium and high tech manufacturing methods become as cheap or worthwhile as aluminium manufacturing.

[@gerard4039]

Actually the biggest problem is the engine , I mean did you believe that just cooling an engine will give it more power !!!! NO , and the quantity on fuel needed for that !!!! Notice this documentary was in 2014, so after one year the only engines fast are the scram engines , only used in missiles because they burn so much fuel it only last for fews minutes , well at mag 6 or 7 fews minutes are like 1 or 2 thousands miles, so it’s all bulshit , lies , politicians propaganda , a larger airplane can never fly at mag 5 , it should be very slim , aerodynamic , with minimum loads , only the army can afford that .

[@oldgysgt]

@@MissionaryForMexico; Somehow, I don't think a Titanium airliner carrying 300 people from the UK to Australia at close to 4,000mph would ever be a money maker.

[@luciengrondin5802]

That sure is the most exciting vaporware in aerospace.

[@greenehouse3]

ion engine ions are created with radio waves not magnets. The magnets control the direction and speed of the ions.

[@xetrius4053]

mach 5 should bring you from europe to australia in aprx 2.5 hours, quite a difference

[@Gargamoth]

Last time I heard about the ion engine, it was supposed to be even at full thrust, a slow advancing method to gain speed.

[@ArcadeGames]

Just decommission the Millennium Falcon and use the thrusters off of it. Maybe Chewbacca can help.

[@ecomindedchoice]

The reason I believe hypersonic planes are not practical is heat. It would make much more sense to go up another 200,000 feet to be nearly free of the friction from air and would additional shorten the flight times burning less fuel.

[@helenlawson8426]

The designers of Concord succeeded because they based their design around how fast they could get a structure to go with the technology they had... others failed because they plucked a speed out of the air (pun intended) and then had to try and design something that could withstand that speed. The thing is you can always go faster but if you can't get paying public at those speed within acceptable risks then you just have an expensive paper exercise. How fast you can get a flying body to go has to be the core of any future design or you will fail to learn from the past.

[@NameNotAlreadyTaken2]

Ok I'm not sure why this video on aircraft then features the Scimitar engine. This a ramjet that switches to being a rocket engine after Mach 5, and can only be fueled by cryogenic liquid hydrogen. The fuel alone means it has no application to jet travel. If Concorde was held back by the cost of using a bit more jet fuel than conventional jets, imagine how cost-ineffective one powered by liquid hydrogen is. It's expensive as hell and is a nightmare to handle.

[@Halonkata]

the cooling not only of the engine is critical, the plane need to be cool down too.

[@cloroxbleach9612]

dj skar But titanium is expensive :\

[@iman2341]

Its possible to use the fuel as a heatsink before it is burned and run it through the hot areas of the plane to remove the heat.

[@andyduhamel1925]

Development of Graphene enhanced materials will solve a lot of heat induced stretch, that itself is not too far off.

[@eduardoroxas8149]

How about cooling the fuselage with nitrogen like they used on race cars tires will the air resistance heating the metal frame be compensated But again the mach 5 speed if done within the ozone layer will again produced negative effect upon the EARTH weather pattern just like the Concorde whose daily flights sucks the ozone till its eventual demise.

[@alien4993]

0.32 that guy under the engine...."in chain we trust"

[@kings7man]

One big hurdle , the sonic bang

[@raftinkiwi]

Eh?

[@kings7man]

+raftinkiwi the sonic bang , what is created by aircraft going faster than sound , the reason why they cannot fly over land

[@raftinkiwi]

I've news for you Douglas. Yes the sonic boom is created by aircraft breaking the sound barrier. No it hasn't prevented aircraft from flying over land. Be careful how you comment. Research before you make such statements.

[@hellothere_1257]

You just have to get high enough before you go supersonic. A Mach 5 airplane would likely travel at the edge of space anyway so it's not that much of a problem.

[@raftinkiwi]

Hellothere _1 Is that right? What minimum altitude does a supersonic aircraft need to be to achieve supersonic flight? Remember we are talking anything over mach one. If you are talking problems, what are they? Research before you reply.

[@arnoldskit]

Ionic thrusters, that was 6 years ago, wonder how far they've got?

[@ericb6784]

the noise from engines like these would shatter all glass, even reinforced. There has been no noticeable sculpting of earth around airports to reduce noise levels, and some airports have no room to build earth sculpting noise reducers

[@howardlitson9796]

If one jet engine is mach number 5, three jet engine mach number is 15. three jet engine can regard as three stages of missile body. it will run Intermediate-range ballistic missile

[@ernestimken5846]

Are they starting from zero or are they looking at engines from the SR - 71 which flies at Mach 3 ?

[@arnoldmayii3563]

We NEED this!!

[@flyingdog1498]

For what?

[@josepeixoto3384]

This was 6 years ago,anything yet?

[@maximkazhenkov11]

3:45 This claim is complete bogus, since P=F*v, this would mean the exhaust velocity of 9 m/s. At this speed you might as well use a propeller. In fact, ion engines are known for the opposite property: they have extremely high exhaust velocity (~100,000 m/s)

[@mr.peter.l.k]

Congratulate half way to even better development you have no idea yet

[@oldgysgt]

Engine heat is not the only worry at Mach 5. Mach 5 is around 3,835mph, (depending on your altitude), and when the SR71 got up to around 2100mph, its skin got up to around 600 degrees F. That is why it was made of Titanium. Somehow, I don't think a Titanium airliner carrying 300 people from the UK to Australia at close to 4,000mph would ever be a money maker. Didn't the failed Concord teach the British anything?

[@pippaknuckle]

The world doesn't need people to fly faster. We need people to fly less and go slower.

[@mitropoulosilias]

HOTOL engines is the future between earth to ISS and back, ideal for cargo transportation..

[@112233jjooee]

+mitropoulosilias you could use it both as passenger transport and as a LEO delivery transport. Maybe even the same plane.

[@nikolatesla2573]

+112233jjooee f#&k LEO'S

[@srengthay6301]

Sex Vietnam

[@srengthay6301]

Sexy

[@russell2449]

Ion pulse or ionic thrusters are better suited for space flight AFTER having achieved orbit, as stated you need a heck of a lot of electrical power that current battery tech can't supply (not for long range flight anyway). Maybe a small nuclear power plant would work, but good luck getting passengers to accept that idea, lol.

[@jkerman5113]

Those parts are in KSP!

[@Supernaut2000]

The PanAm plane from 2001 will fly!

[@rock3tcatU233]

That's not the entire engine, just the frontal heat exchanger.

[@omreahmad4069]

Have a lucky days ,with the best team ,go on step by step

[@ncwdevine]

Bond et al should get a Nobel prize if this works.

[@Bugdriver49]

Pie in the sky..... many barriers besides engines must be overcome to cruise at mach 5. Don't expect to see anything going that fast until there are major breakthroughs in materials that can withstand the enormous heat from compression. (not friction )

[@ta192utube]

We have autos capable of well over 100 mph top speed, but when I go on I-95, most of the vehicles are going slower than they were when the road was first opened...

[@dffranko1]

At 2:27 I think maybe the passengers will start to feel as if they are upside down lol.

[@gerardbronsard3118]

WHAT A BEAUTIFUL BIRD. MAC 5 ! Wow, for anybody who's been in TESLA technology and running it, it's so powerfull acceleration that you need very solid seats. No doubt in my mind, that's the futur of aeronotic, combined with crusing solars. Lot more efficient than carbon fuel and no pollution. Gerry

[@Pita_Lin]

I'm not sure if travelling at Mach 5 is for everyone or even for most of us. F/A-18 has a top speed of mach 1.8 and F-35 at mach 1.6, and these two are jet fighters!!!

[@Ihavetruth22]

The video gets silly with ion thrusters. How is that usable for flight to Australia?

[@williamvolkmann8658]

I find it funny how when the craft flys to astrulia it goes the long way around the earth

[@iancanty9875]

What do you mean by “the wrong way”. You haven’t specified where you’re taking off from. However, it’s obvious that flight planning takes advantage of the jet stream to save on fuel. Westbound flights always take longer than the same route back because of the jet stream

[@kenretherford6428]

Where is astrulia???

[@iancanty9875]

@@kenretherford6428 I think it’s south of Dyslexia 🙃

[@theseeker1237]

Flat Earth it is.

[@haidphone11]

Redblade it’s a youtube comment, not a book. Try not to be so ignorant half the time

[@clist9406]

Interesting idea , but we already have scramjet technology. It will not work attached to the wing tip like in the model

[@machia0705]

Newark to Paris in about 50 minutes .. WOW !

[@dukadarodear2176]

Where is Newark? Joking.

[@ihannah02]

Why did a this guy is fumbling dummy!

[@luisantoniomarrega1120]

FANTASTICO. Não precisa dizer mais nada. Rio RJ Brasil

[@112233jjooee]

how do you prevent icing in a pre-cooler?

[@rooftopvoter3015]

how do you prevent icing in a pre-cooler? Simple, use a pre-heater

[@JohnDoe-rn6qu]

Mach 5 in terrestrial airspace? At Mach 2 Concord use to expand due to the heat generally. I cannot remember by how much but it wasn't small. So how are they going to overcome the frictional heat at Mach 5 in terrestrial conditions?

[@frankbeesley5659]

All very well being able to travel from London to Australia in 4 1/2 hours, but you still spend hours in the airport before you get on the aircraft and get off. That's the part that they need to work on!

[@williampercival7662]

Your better off on a alien craft, which will only take a few seconds, even dolphins can figure that out, so wake up and smell the coffee. William Percival New Zealand Gardenia Band 🇨🇰 Kia Orana

[@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman]

@@williampercival7662 alien craft always seem luke the best

[@jimmyan1976]

near 5 years later... what's going on with this tech?

[@colin937]

the same thing will happen that did of Concored. Sonic boom complaints (noise). and restrictions (laws).

[@howtogaintime739]

Guess you can multiply efficiency metrics by 5×the speed of sound

[@elPoodb]

With that "family name" Mr. Bond . Nothing could be wrong 😁

[@johnchalinder6682]

Faster! Faster! We MUST beat the speed of light at any cost!!!

[@ianship5058]

Something odd here if an aircraft is flying at say 35 thousand feet its already --54deg that could be used to cool the engine .

[@magicwand6746]

Concorde regenerate... be mindful that speed destroys

[@nendipriyatno5774]

Nice

[@stronzer59]

The name of the Game today is Margins. Speed kills margins. Subsonic is here to stay.

[@pres68y]

Yes, and suborbital is beginning to start intercontinental travel.

[@valentinpaizos5261]

Inca mai avem ceva timp pentru a pune in practica ..urmatoarele...fuziunea plazmei ...metalul dinamic inteligent unde el isi ia forme dinamice pentru zbor si se poate modifica ....forma ...cabina ca un glob mini nava ....dar stabila pentru piloti ...sunt pentru pasul urmator ...nu poluare ..nu sunet...si siguranta

[@jnk3775]

Incredible!

[@user-sj4hf4rq1u]

دمتون گرم چی ساختید موفق باشید🌷🌷

[@mathiastwp]

This makes my idea of a mach 5 3-floor amphibious passenger jet sound plausible... It would have 8 of these engines with 4 intakes and 2 sets of engines, one on each wing. The plane would have a mix between a delta and a swept wing, something like a diving bird. It would have canards and a massive T tail at the back. between the T tail and the wing would be another canard like the one in the front. The plane would have a curvature like a 747, just more smooth. It would be slightly longer than the AN225, yet with narrower wings. Does it sound that bonkors? I surtainly don`t think so...

[@chrisharrisglobal]

+Mathias T.W.P why in the world would you want to add all the weight and complexity by making it amphibious...?

[@rosephoenix4634]

New engine and new plane design always must be a web safety the number one concern that to everyone needs to learn something about it is always to have a 4 grader of to be a responsibility of safety Airline customers and future passengers as well

[@carlosprada4852]

Don't hold your breath!!. this technology is only in the experimental phase. to get commercial and all, it needs another 15 years. so see you then to check if it made it!!!!

[@RoboticNerd]

2000°C! That's almost the temperature of a nuclear meltdown!

[@jemmasmedia8737]

That's very cool air plane

[@thothheartmaat2833]

i was just saying where the hell are planes like these. we should have had them in the 90s.

[@xzqzq]

Interesting concept...even if it works as advertised, would be limited to over-water routes due to sonic 'booms', like Concord.

[@truittmichael3645]

Not if they do like they say and make to little to no boom and then u can fly any where and not make the new soft ass ppl cry

[@shinmalpure7872]

sorry, i'm 6 years late but theyre still gonna travel slow, due to the fact that populated areas were a big problem with supersonic jets for example the Concorde.

[@michaeletzel4877]

1:52 "...This means that we are going to be able to fly at speeds of Mach 5 pretty easily in the future"--this statement is an absolute load of bullshit! There's nothing easy about flying at Mach 5, and having an engine that could theoretically do it doesn't make it any easier. Newsflash to the guy talking about his fancy precooler, in case he'd forgotten: it is already possible to fly at speeds much higher than Mach 5 by using rocket propulsion. A major problem at those speeds, which this guy apparently pretends does not matter, is structural and thermal stress on the airframe. Unless you can solve those problems, having a more powerful engine won't help you at all in sustaining travel at Mach 5. On a side note, the statement the newsman made at 0:55, "...the experimental apparatus can extend the speed, the power and the range of existing systems by up to five times the speed of sound" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The Mach number is a ratio of an object's speed to local speed of sound where the object happens to be travelling. This ratio has absolutely nothing to do with increasing speed, power or range of anything. I could go on complaining, but my point is, why do news stations bother spewing scientifically illiterate bullshit like this? There are much better ways of introducing the subject matter to the audience without butchering the details and giving people false ideas of what's possible and what isn't.

[@benedeknagy1]

They solved the structural and thermal stress problems of the airframe but in the engines they dont. The problem with rocket engines is that they are incredibly inefficient with specific impulses of 300-400, because they cant use the oxygen from the air. If you built an aircraft what works with rocket propulsion it won't be able to go further than a ballistic missile. But the precooler what they've created makes it possible to go from alasca to australia in 4 hours, without any CO2 emission. And it is much safer and cheaper than getting on a ballistic missile, and better than a ram or scramjet engines, because it works at any speeds. It's not bullshit just because you don't know enough of it...

[@coriscotupi]

TV shows are the worst possible source of information. We should take them for what they are - entertainment with no obligation whatsoever with real facts. Unfortunately, many people do take those shows at face value.

[@mazmusicornament525]

becuz they make money by running a story.

[@starvalkyrie]

Word I rolled my eyes really hard at this segment. But I enjoy smugly dismissing dumb content so, I got my fun out of it. Just holy shit... a commercial aircraft going mach5. Yeah, there's a whole nightmare of engineering problems beyond the engine. One might have. Guessing the engineer is just milking a research grant.

[@starvalkyrie]

Before lecturing people on lack of understanding you might want to check your own. A jet engine is not going to lack for CO2 emissions just because you put a precooler on it. You're still burning hydrocarbons, co2 is coming out the other side. Temperature is just one of the challenges for the engine as well. Intake charge turbulence is another. Backyard engineers pre-cool the intake charge on car engines with hardware store parts. Some water-methanol sprayers are child's play compared to the geometry considerations for managing air turbulence on the intake charge. Turbulence and heat over the frame are another huge issue. The SR-71 is the only aircraft that can take off and land on it's own power even flirting with these Mach numbers. The temperature changes are so drastic the aircraft body has gaps in it on the ground so that it's frame doesn't buckle when in flight. It bleeds fuel sitting on the runway. Thermodynamics didn't leave town just because these guys put a few sprayers in the engine. So the pre-cooler is a good idea but it is the least of your problems getting a commercial airliner to mach5. I suspect the engineer knows this and he's just milking a research grant.

[@ricktimmons458]

Heinkle built the first flying jet in 1937. what do they have to offer?

[@ravensfire8279]

Ionic light particals pass throw most everything except black matter from my understanding...anyway you may not be able to capture it but might use is to pass throw some thing that would use its movement to charge or run engine. Light travels faster thsn anything we know so use motion to create motion.

[@saultube44]

I heard on a video that at Mach 3 fuselage temp goes to 3,000°C, Mach 5? Unless you make it thing it won't fly that fast an probably never be a mass trnasport, I hope I'm wrong, I only want all commetcial planes to go at 1.7 Mach and dissipate the sonic boom efficiently and have a wing body for fuel capacity and efficiency, like Tu-160, why we need Mach 5? makes no sense to me, it'll need a long time to cooldown, special expensove materials, won't turn well, maybe won't fly safe at low speeds on airports, is this for orbiting purposes?

[@saultube44]

Jim Wong The Shuttle probably was coated with a special material and this plane I wtote about wasn't going to space, and I don't think the Shuttle was at Mach 3 while below 10 Km, whst we need is something like this, but going to Mach 5 in the atmosphere is a bad idea, too much energy dissipated as heat, therefore wasted, acceleration must be as efficient as possible

[@jimwong722]

search "fay riddell equation"

[@saultube44]

+Jim Wong Thank you

[@marcelokawas]

THey've tested mach 6+ capable aircraft. The only problem is having engines that work at such speeds

[@pres68y]

Need rocket engines to quickly propel the craft above most of the atmosphere for intercontinental travel. Then retrorockets to slow it down during reentry for landing.

[@majidshahri2037]

This is very very good I wish I was to that place

[@garundip.mcgrundy8311]

Yeah, but there are no windows! So, they just show old Gary Cooper movies and stuff!

[@princecharmonpoirtoi]

99% dreaming, 1% titanium!

[@bobsaturday4273]

100% bullshit ! the earth is heading into huge problems burning these fuels but these morons never mind , just keep going

[@lourivalantonio4539]

Beautiful

[@flatlander523]

Jet fuels for turbofan/jets do not have an octane rating

[@joerusso4219]

Maybe Alan can talk to his brother James about using Sabre it in the next movie.

[@leehansen4750]

The heat increases expotentially, as does the drag when speed is increased. Turbo jet engine components get in the way at higher Mach speeds so the ram jet was devised long ago. Ram jets don't work at lower speeds so a compound engine, of turbo & ram were devised buy ducting around the turbo when higher speeds are needed. The added weight, higher fuel consumption, greater drag, & extreme temperatures are a challenge! Like the Concord, all this speed comes at a high price & that is reflected of the price of the plane ticket & price drives sales & profits. Higher prices equals less profit!

[@MissionaryForMexico]

Actually the cooling of the air before intake has already been done thru U.S. military, that is old science. The ion engines is more then likely the future.

[@phoenixrising7047]

The dislikes on this video must be from employees of current jet engine manufacturers I believe.

[@leilabarbosabarbosa3942]

Very very Good.

[@connylaurine745]

Europe - Australia in 4 hours. That would be something.

[@williampercival7662]

Alien craft can do that in seconds even dolphins can figure that out, so wake up and smell the coffee. William Percival New Zealand Gardenia Band 🇨🇰 Kia Orana

[@pascalchauvet4230]

Very smart move to take an old Myasistchev bomber from Monino Air museum and fit it with new engines. Saves a lot of development time

[@kanyamagaraabdallah8300]

bravo.

[@olim6608]

The names Bond, Alan Bond.

[@cobrapub]

Hello at Mach 3 in the cockpit it's 300 degrees at 100,000 feet,so do the math,Mach 5 you have to be in sub space 400,000 feet or your roasted thru and thru!!!

[@jetstream01]

Anyone else thinking of KSP while watching this?

[@edstud1]

jetstream01 Do you mean KFC?

[@donpizzalondon]

I've tried to do that: it's very similar to Skylon w/ saber engine

[@agnetarunepetersson4675]

jetstream01 o

[@Fc2William]

Yes

[@JakeFrosty]

Ksp is kerbal space program which is a game that is paid around $20 dollars i dont know exactly how much, do some research lol

[@jameswatsonatheistgamer]

The only question I have to ask is does it come with a tea urn. It's an English thing.

[@garysheppard4028]

What's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, "Bollocks". That will do nicely.

[@twasbrillig33]

6 years later and still waiting

[@leilabarbosabarbosa3942]

Que avião lindo.Esse eu viajaria sem medo.

[@roberthicks1612]

We have had mach 5 aircraft for decades.

[@derrickfish7776]

Rebirth of the Concord

[@rollvideo]

Dear Earthling, Chapel Tibet. We gave up on Electro Magnetics centuries ago.