The Insane Engineering of the Concorde

[@RealEngineering]

2nd episode of our Battle of Britain series is live! Watch it here: nebula.app/videos/realengineering-battle-of-britain-ep-2-chain-home

[@exoplanets]

very interesting

[@brrrrrr]

Brian, where are the SR 71 wallpapers

[@RTSLV]

The concord plane model of it sits in Heathrow Airport see it everyday thinking wish I could fly unit or fly it

[@NightBeyondVeil]

Hi I would love to see a video about what would it be like if we replaced all of today's planes with Concords and see the effect of the sonic waves produced around the world?

[@MindLaboratory]

The reason I haven't signed up for nebula/curiosity stream isn't lack of interest - it's lack of time. There are so many good science/eng channels on youtube and I already don't have enough time to watch them all. If one disappears behind a paywall, there are lots to take its place. I hope nebula is doing great and continues to.

[@donaldmoser212]

I was fortunate to fly on the Concorde one time, when I needed to get back from Europe to the U.S. due to a family medical emergency. While I wasn't in a celebratory mood, several things that really stood out to me: 1. The fuselage diameter makes a MD-80 feel like a wide body jet. 2. As you approach supersonic (0.95M), the plane started to buffet quite a bit. Once supersonic, it was very smooth to its max speed, and really no appreciable sensation of speed (versus subsonic flight). Very quiet. And obviously, no sonic boom heard. 3. I was sitting by a window. The interior walls of the plane got noticeably very warm at cruising altitude; almost uncomfortable. 4. Since you are flying greater than 50,000 feet altitude, you really notice the curvature of the earth. 5. Inside the cabin, you really notice the high angle of attack on takeoffs and landings, compared to standard aircraft. Apart from that, the service and food quality were fabulous, along with the Concorde lounge prior to flight. Glad I could witness it.

[@HnK_Alex]

Thanks for sharing your experience :) Feeling the heat from the air friction on the walls inside is insane

[@3characterslong]

Thats so cool, thnaks for sharing.

[@carlsoll]

Very cool 😄

[@rickyfebrian20]

Thank you for sharing. How much did it cost you back then?

[@donaldmoser212]

@@rickyfebrian20 - Oh boy, this is my best guess since that was a while ago, but I want to say around $3500-$4000 USD. That was the entire one-way trip with connecting flights, including credit from my original return ticket, plus a discount for family emergency.

[@gianluca.g]

Fun fact about Concorde no.1: traveling east to west just after sunset, you could actually see the sun reversing direction and showing up again. That was due to the Concorde traveling faster than the Earth rotational speed. Fun fact no. 2: at top altitude you could actually see Earth's curvature.

[@oeliamoya9796]

It was because of Fun fact #2 that the Flat Earthers wanted the Concord plane grounded. every flight showed the earth was round and proved them wrong

[@DaveTaste]

Fun fact 3. The plane was a project between France and the UK.

[@megawarpig3401]

@@DaveTaste Fun Fact 4: you should at least see the first 2 minutes of the video before commenting

[@DaveTaste]

@@megawarpig3401 here's a fun fact. The Concorde was a supersonic passenger-carrying commercial airplane. Built in the 1960s as part of a joint venture between the United Kingdom and France, the Concorde was the first commercial aircraft of its kind. Only 14 Concorde aircraft went into service before it was retired by both countries in 2003.

[@l21n18]

No that’s way too,ow to see the curvature

[@MrBubmer]

Concorde was such a massive engineering feat, hauling so many people and luggage at supercruise speeds without any modern computers is incredible

[@Aeronaut1975]

Agreed, not only was it a generation ahead of its time, it was also a work of art, I mean, just look at it!

[@bindingcurve]

Complex computers are NOT required for flight. They just help with systems to allow control systems to be more efficient.

[@heyyo162]

@@bindingcurve some aircraft types are inherently unstable, like the B2 bomber, and require computers to continuously adjust the plane.

[@jamesgornall5731]

@@heyyo162 those are the exception however, not every aircraft needs to fly through radar screen to deliver megaton-scale warheads

[@Tigershark_3082]

@@heyyo162 Yep. Flying wings, and other unstable designs 100% require computers to make possibly hundreds of corrections per minute.

[@jenesisjones6706]

This was the most amazing video I have ever watched! I'm just a 67 year old grandma, with no experience in anything past high school science. I was riveted by the details and explanation of this video. Thank you Real Engineering!

[@deadstick8624]

I'm your age, and I remember in high school science we only learned the basics compared to today. And remember when... that old game for us folks... when we needed to research something for a paper, we had to go to the library and get an encyclopedia, which is already outdated by the time it is printed and put on the library shelves?! So much has changed.

[@MrDaiseymay]

bravo

[@MostlyPennyCat]

It wasn't just supersonic. It flew well over TWICE the speed of sound. Military jet speed and that's with afterburners. For a few minutes. It supercruised at Mach 2 for HOURS.

[@alexandermoorehead3200]

Equal parts incredibly efficient engines, and much, much, MUCH larger fuel capacity. Fighter Jets have to be small and nimble for high-G maneuvers which doesn't leave much space for fuel. As an example the F-16 without external fuel tanks holds roughly 3,800 liters of fuel. Compare that to Concorde's ~120,000 liters as listed in this video.

[@phoenixgtr]

@@alexandermoorehead3200 you're missing the point. Concorde can fly at Mach 2 WITHOUT afterburners. F-16 cannot.

[@alexandermoorehead3200]

@@phoenixgtr That's part of "more efficient engines." Afterburners are inefficient.

[@busofmauritius8306]

The Tupolev TU144 flew over mach 2 with afterburners on. Concorde did it without afterburners

[@MrExcellent93]

Yes! I think mach 2.1 was achievable in optimal condition. If you flew from London to New York you were effectively faster than the rotation of the earth. Its an unbelievable feat of engineering

[@Aeronaut1975]

A few fun facts about Concorde (Not "the Concorde") that weren't mentioned in this video: 1 - Concorde's top speed wasn't limited by the power of it's engines, but by the heat of the aircraft's skin at the tip of the nose and wing leading edges of 127°Celsius. This was because it used an aluminium alloy for it's skin, and not titanium to save weight and production costs. 2 - Concorde was the first production fly-by-wire aircraft with analogue control. 3 - It was the first aircraft in the World to use carbon fibre disc brakes. 4 - At idle (especially at low weights), the engines provided enough thrust that the crew had to keep braking to keep it's taxi speed in check. Often they would have to "pull over" during taxi to allow the brake cooling fans to reduce the brake temps to a safe level, this was so that if it had to do an emergency stop/aborted takeoff, then the brakes wouldn't explode from the heat. For this reason, Concorde often shut down 2 of its engines while taxiing to the gate after landing, and each wheel had it's own brake cooling fan which could be monitored and activated by the flight engineer from the flight deck. 5 - Concorde flew so high that part of the pre-flight checks and paperwork involved checking radiation levels in the atmosphere, and there was a dosimeter instrument on the flight deck that detected the radiation, and if it got too high, would slow the aircraft down slightly so that it could descend to a safer altitude. 7 - Concorde's wing shape meant that it could theoretically accelerate down the runway to infinite speed and would never take off, it actually relied on the wing vortices caused by lifting the nose up to actually get it into the air. There's a few more interesting facts I could mention, but the sun is shining and pub is open. Cheers!

[@scottycatman]

I'm really excited to hear fact #6

[@schnufflerunerwunscht8872]

Why can't it be the "Concorde"? I mean it wasn't made by Apple right?

[@Aeronaut1975]

@@scottycatman Oops, ha ha. Ok, #6 - Concorde required approx 12hrs maintenance for every hour it spent in the air.

[@Aeronaut1975]

@@schnufflerunerwunscht8872 It's a good question that I can't find a definitive answer for, but you will never hear of an ex Concorde pilot refer to it as "THE Concorde", and neither will you ever hear it on the BBC news reports from the time of it's construction and frist flights. I suspect it has something to do with the agreement between the French and British and how it should be named (with the "e" at the end), which was a big issue at the time, and the French won the argument. Concorde got it's name from the agreement that was made. Good question, though!

[@veritasvincit2745]

Excellent comment.

[@theproceedings4050]

Sometimes it's frustrating to see machines that are not engineering failures, but are economic failures.

[@rubiconnn]

Part of successful engineering is designing things that are economically viable. The Concorde was a failure from the beginning, requiring taxpayer subsidies to fund the rich at their convenience.

[@teckyify]

In my opinion it's not proper engineering if you have quasi infinite resources. Compromises make the mastery.

[@randomotter6346]

After hiking up prices to the thousands of dollars, the Concorde actually made British airways money. For them at least, it was a success

[@brokeafengineerwannabe2071]

@@rubiconnn yeah but all things can only said in hindsight. Concord will still be the single most impressive civilian jet.

[@agdgdgwngo]

@@rubiconnn completely missing the point. The priorities of Concorde was to develop technology, foster Anglo-French relations, beat the Soviets and last maybe sell them. At least in Britain we our got money's worth from the national prestige it brought. We didn't beat the Soviets, but Concorde was better, and actually had a bit of a market for an SST. If you want commercial failures look to the VC10 and Dassaut Mercure, both fine aircraft that were absolute failures. The difference between these 2 and concorde is the cutting edge technology and prestige.

[@therichieboy]

She used to take off and land over my house every day. Literally everyone- aviation enthusiast or not- used to look up, glassy eyed. Her outer beauty was matched by her incredible and elegant engineering.

[@rjfaber1991]

You live underneath a runway? 😁

[@saqibmunir7609]

@@rjfaber1991 there's a place called way avenue, Cranford. That's where I lived as a kid and yes it was in the direction of the runway so all you had to do was look up to see all kinds of planes Jambo jets felt like you could touch them how low they were and as for concord you knew it was coming as the whole hose would shake

[@therichieboy]

@@rjfaber1991 the only affordable housing in London these days is underground. Even cheaper under airports.

[@therichieboy]

@@saqibmunir7609 I know it well. First time I saw an a380 land it blew my mind.

[@riacardi7011]

was it annoying every time you saw it

[@WillMoody-crmstorm]

My music teacher at school worked on the engine air intakes as an engineer before taking up teaching. When the music theory got boring we would ask him about the Concorde and he would burst into life, whip out a flip chart and describe the airflow with his conducting baton. Much more interesting!

[@ruslmuscl406]

Lol we do stuff like this with our physics teacher, although he didn’t work on Concorde.

[@steveprice1639]

Did the same in history class with our Mr Heap. " So what else did you do in the war Sir?" Cue the rest of the lesson talking about interesting stuff from WWII.

[@2760ade]

@@steveprice1639 Did he by any chance have a dopey white beard and a shiny head?🤣

[@capitalcitygiant]

​@@ruslmuscl406our physics teacher was like Wikipedia before Wikipedia lol. We'd spend half the lesson just asking him random shit and he always knew the answer

[@mr.washingtonsbuddy.8454]

His favourite music was Franck Pourcel's 'Concorde', I imagine.

[@TravellingTechie]

Flew on Concorde in 2003 as a passenger, shortly before it was retired from service from Heathrow to JFK. We were wined and dined for 3 hours on board, then arrived 'before' we left in New York. Mind blowing stuff.

[@MrDaiseymay]

i READ THAT THE SUN SETS TWICE DURING THE CROSSING

[@TravellingTechie]

@@MrDaiseymay Depends on the time of year, I flew on her once in 2003 (westbound only) in March and it was sunny the whole way. I'm now an airline pilot by trade and from Europe to Westcoast USA in say November time yes you can see 2 sunsets, just after departure, then over midwest USA.

[@marcorivas1534]

I remember this being a thing, ppl would fly to have two new year's eve. (idk if this was a myth, but I remember listening about that)

[@Sa.Maki97]

Lucky you

[@flymypg]

There is so much more to the Concorde! In particular, how the aircraft control system included some fascinating decisions AGAINST electronic automation in favor of either no automation or mechanical/hydraulic automation. These were case studies during the control systems courses for my engineering degree in the early 1980's. Talk about memorable examples making complex control law calculations easier to understand and remember.

[@cageordie]

Concorde was from before the times of digital control of everything, processors at that time were desperately slow. Decisions made then should be seen in that light. If she was being designed today she'd get full digital FBW.

[@dkdanis1340]

The Concorde was literally the most electronically automated plane at that time. Literally everything on it was variable and controlled by computers.

[@Voluntarists]

@@cageordie That's a matter of digital being cheaper, not better.

[@Mike-oz4cv]

@@cageordie Do you really need a lot of processing power in a flight computer? Wouldn’t it simply do stuff depending on some sensor inputs?

[@MichaelSteeves]

The analog electronic computers that powered Concorde are worth of entire documentaries. Widely praised fit-for-purpose analog computers that were decades ahead and did not share many of the weaknesses that make digital flight control a real challenge to validate.

[@boyraceruk]

The annoying thing about 4590 is it was a previous aircraft down the runway dropping debris that lead to the crash, not a design flaw with Concorde itself.

[@rocketman1969]

Yes, it's very sad how the DC-10 was so unsafe, it not just brought itself down on multiple occasions, but brought down other beautiful planes.

[@AndrewNineTen]

@@rocketman1969 I see a lot of people blaming the DC-10 for the incident of flight 4590, pointing out its troubled history as evidence that is was so unsafe that it could even bring down other aircraft in the process. However, this is simply unfair to the DC-10 as the Concorde was uniquely susceptible to tire blowouts and taking serious damage as a result, no other aircraft would of crashed immediately after striking a small foreign object on the runway, something that does happen on occasion. In fact, there was a very similar incident involving a Concorde at Washington Dulles Airport in 1979 where it blew multiple tires and suffered serious damage to its fuel tank and hydraulic systems, the plane was barely able to make a successful emergency landing. To say the very least, it was a serious design flaw with the Concorde and the metal strip that fell off the DC-10 had nothing to do with the type's previous history of issues.

[@rocketman1969]

@@AndrewNineTen That's valid, but this crash is still directly a cause of DC-10. Whether or not fatal, the DC-10 still shouldn't have been going along dropping parts on the runway. That's a flaw in the DC-10, although Concorde had it's own faults too.

[@rocketman1969]

@@AndrewNineTen (Thanks for your explanation, though! It's thorough.)

[@AndrewNineTen]

@@rocketman1969 Yes a random part shouldn't have just fallen off of the DC-10, but it came down to improper installation by maintenance personnel, so the aircraft's design really wasn't at fault.

[@bilalahmad-ou3jz]

As a high schooler who aspires to be an aeronautical engineer someday, your videos are what really convinced me that I wanna be a part of this field.

[@SheepyIsSleepy]

same

[@mastershooter64]

as a high schooler who aspires to be a physicist one day, i cant wait to make fun of engineers for approximating and for only using basic math like linear algebra and multivariate calc Lol im kidding, engineers are awesome

[@Nawabid]

BRO? Lol really?

[@Nawabid]

I don't allow others to think for me, I like to do what I want to do.

[@jackaddie7866]

Do it! I am a second year Aeronautical Engineering student and it is the best decision I have ever made. It is hard, but it is extremely interesting and equips you with so many useful tools for any branch of engineering :)) best of luck!

[@UpperAquatics]

One thing i love about your videos.. you dont make "drama" in your videos like history channel style shows. They add things like "and if this piece isnt installed the plane wont let the orphans get home in time" idk its hard to explain right now but i hope you take this as a compliment! Awesome videos!

[@altaccount4697]

Engineers are truly underrated. This journey took a MONTH in colonial times on a sailboat. Done in less than 3.5 hours. In much the same way that a legendary marathon runner can do 26 miles in just over two hours. Cars do that in 20 minutes in air conditioning. Concorde took 1 minute 15 seconds. "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

[@I_dont_give_a_care]

In no way are they underrated.

[@mr.unkreativ718]

Small correction: The Boeing 787 has a fuel capacity of about 34000 gal or 126917 liters to be exact. A Boeing 737 Max already holds 25,816 liters of fuel. So actually the 787 has a higher fuel capacity than concorde.

[@jimsvideos7201]

It's ok, fuel unit conversion errors in aviation are harmless and never cause problems. #gimliglider

[@alveolate]

wait for real? this is quite a massive error...

[@Kaanfight]

@@jimsvideos7201 it was so lucky that switching to the metric system didn’t kill people

[@dannydaw59]

That's like 3 residential swimming pool of fuel.

[@dbclass4075]

@@jimsvideos7201 Cause some problems, yes. Harmless is somewhat accurate, as that flight does not have fatalities.

[@iBECKENGINEERING]

As a mechanical engineer, watching real engineering videos always inspires me.... It helps me gain more insight about a particular topic and the methods they use is easy to understand.

[@SpaceMonkeyBoi]

"Since pilots couldn't see out of the plane because of angled landing, engineers put together a solution." "The concord featured a droop snoot." "Droop snoot?" "Yeah, the snoot drooped." "The snoot went droop"

[@mariussletvold6808]

i was just thinkin about it when i saw the thumnail... i was like "ahh yes, the droopsnoot"

[@AffanSyedx]

I remember that vox Video!

[@mfaizsyahmi]

Yo why the snoot droop

[@steveprice1639]

Snoot. UK slang for a nose.

[@Dubstone]

* "the snoot would droop" "The snoot drooped"

[@sebastianthehotsaucedude5473]

You and Mustard are literally the most high quality short documentary channels to exist period. Both use amazing 8k 3d models, and simple yet effective diagrams and cross sections. Coupled with a great voice for narrative story telling and I'm telling you, both your channels are just the best.

[@pgr3290]

They didn't start out to make it look good, but it came out as one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built. It's a swan, a dart, it's engineering art. If you can hang a Picasso you can put a photo of Concorde next to it just fine. It was one of those perfect moments and still a zenith for aviation up there with the Apollo lunar missions. Pushing technological boundaries of the era so damn far even 60 years later the achievement is still incredibly difficult to match.

[@MrDaiseymay]

i GET YOUR POINT, AND A APPOLO ASTONAUT'S REMARK, BACKS UP WHAT YOU HAVE SAID.

[@onetrickhorse]

Great video, thanks for sharing. Concorde truly is a masterclass in engineering. I had the good fortune of knowing one of the chief engineers growing up, and he told me a few interesting tales about Concorde that anyone who happens to read this comment might find equally fascinating. 1. The nozzles/thrust reversers were actually the main reason it got certified for civil operations at 60,000 ft. While they do perform the functions you mentioned, they also served another crucial purpose; they were rated to operate as thrust reversers at Mach 2 and 60,000 ft. Certification regulations stipulate that at ceiling altitude, in the event of depressurisation, an aircraft must be able to get below 10,000 ft within a short period of time, I cannot recall the exact maximum, but it's something like 1 minute, before passengers die of hypoxia. At 60,000 ft and Mach 2, in the event of depressurisation Concorde would suddenly throw the thrust reverse switch, the engines would act like a drogue and the pilots would put it into a steep supersonic dive, before levelling off below 10,000 ft. This in fact had to be tested. So the story goes, there flight test crew allegedly put it into the dive, throwing them forward, diving at about 60 degrees nose down, then pulled up at the end of the dive, whereby everyone except the pilots (who were used to this sort of thing) promptly vomited. 2. The reason Concorde could not fly faster than Mach 2 or fly further than it's maximum range was in fact due to skin friction heating and thermal management limits. Concorde would have in fact been able to fly faster than Mach 2, Mach 2.3 was apparently possible aerodynamically, but the problem was cooling the thing. The whole aircraft had to be pleasant for passengers and crew alike, which means keeping the temperature around 25 degrees at most. The skin of Concorde at Mach 2 was a relatively toasty 90-100 degrees C, and the tip cone limit was about 125 degrees C. You cannot use free stream air, because it would come in too hot, and would create significant drag. Surface air coolers and radiators were rendered useless for the same reasons. The way they got around the issue was to use the fuel in the wings to cool everything, which gradually warmed the fuel up as the flight progressed. At Mach 2.3, the temperature would have been too great for this to work as a solution, and by the end of a long flight, the fuel remaining in the tank got soo hot, you couldn't touch it. So thermal management was the reason it couldn't go faster.

[@w0ttheh3ll]

So the fuel tanks served three functions: energy storage, trim, and thermal buffer. Sandy Munro must love this plane.

[@algrayson8965]

Elsewhere I have seen the safe altitude for no pressurization at 14,000 feet. Humans have survived at 30,000 feet, without supplemental oxygen, that was achieved gradually. However, to subject passengers to rapid decompression could easily shock some of them into cardiac arrest. The pilots of B-17 and other WWII era unpressurized bombers and fighters had supplemental oxygen to enable them to remain conscious and mentally competent at 30,000 feet but it was rather stressful.

[@onetrickhorse]

@@algrayson8965 the maximum altitude for an unpressurised aircraft with no oxygen supply by regulations is 12,500 ft, but on large civil aircraft (part 25) the safe emergency limit requirement is 10,000 ft, because you have to account for passengers that potentially have health conditions. 15,000 ft you can still breathe if you're fit and well and under no physical stress, but above that and hypoxia begins to set in to varying degrees, which is highly subjective. Above 20,000 ft hypoxia sets in rapidly regardless of physical health, and normal people who haven't trained to deal with the onset of the symptoms eventually succumb to it. At 30,000 ft as you say, you would need oxygen to survive. At altitudes of 60,000 ft and above, the hazard of lack of oxygen becomes secondary to the pressure itself, as water readily boils at body temperature above that altitude, so eyes dry out, mouths and lungs dry out, and bubbles form in the bloodstream and lymphatic system, essentially you get the bends like a diver would if they ascend too rapidly from a deep enough dive. Rapid depressurisation can also cause that too.

[@Snail_With_a_Shotgun]

60 Degree pitch down, while slowing down considerably at the same time? It sounds to me like any passenger sitting unbuckled in one of the rearmost seats while this maneuver was performed would be sent flying forward through the cabin in a fall that would be roughly equivalent to falling off a several story building.

[@onetrickhorse]

@@Snail_With_a_Shotgun you're quite right, it would have been carnage for any passenger or cabin crew not strapped down at the time of such an event. Unsecured objects and people may well have also injured/killed other people in the process too, but it was thought preferable to risk 'some' injuries and/or deaths rather than have everyone die a certainty by not getting down to an acceptable altitude in time. Apparently it was traumatic enough for the test crew.

[@zeeclone]

My grandfather was head of flight research and dynamics for BAC and was shuttling back and forth between Bristol and Toulouse for months on Concorde. He died when I was 9. I wish I could have known him better as an adult.

[@MrTascat]

I was an engineering apprentice at Bristol Siddley as it was then at Filton outside Bristol during the development and manufacture of the engines. These then mated to the airframe manufactured by BAC. Workers from both companies lined up to watch the assembled concordes depart Filton airfield on their first flights. Awe inspiring and beautiful. The roar from the afterburners shook your very soul. Great memories. Fantastic engineering

[@vebulous]

Nostalgia indeed When I was in middle school back in the mid/late 90's, I learned of the Concorde. Instantly fell in love. It was finally added to MS Flight Simulator 2000, and i absolutely loved to pretend like i was flying it. The crash hurt deeper than you'd expect. When they announced the discontinuation in 2003, I actually cried.

[@Aeronaut1975]

Me too. I sneaked away from work (without anybody noticing) for a couple of hours to go and watch the final landings at Heathrow at home on TV. I also used to fly the MSFS Concorde addon, I still have the boxed CD-ROM and DVDs that came with it.

[@ForeverNeverwhere1]

I flew the real concord flight simulator that BA had at Heston mid 80s sometime, it was the only one on existence. Full cockpit, full hydraulics. It was nightime only visuals as screen graphics weren't super great back then. It was one of the lesser used sims there after the super 111, or TriStar, so I got a good few hours on it. So immersive you would be surprised when you opened the cockpit door after a session and you would expect to see down the fuse, not a concrete room. It was also wierd that if you were being stupid you just flicked a switch to turn off all the warning buzzers or the motion. It spoiled the effect.

[@eddiewillers1]

I worked at BA's Compass Centre, in Heathrow, in 1996. Most mornings, we'd go on to the roof for a smoke break around 10.30am just to watch BA001 - the morning Concorde service to New York. If we were lucky, and the northern runway (27R) was in use for takeoffs, we'd be treated to the sight of this magnificent machine come thundering along the tarmac, trailing black smoke and with the afterburners making a sound like cotton being torn. It was an impressive sight, and the memory has stayed with me.

[@phonicwheel933]

Happy memories😊

[@ianthomson9363]

@@phonicwheel933 I used to time my smoke breaks to hear Concorde take off too, only I was in Stanmore, about 13 miles from Heathrow. And I still occasionally take a drive along the A30 just south west of Hatton Cross, just to get a quick glimpse of her. Just as you pass the BP petrol station look to your right and there she is.

[@DavidHh1969]

My father was on the Concorde project in Filton . He was there for about 19 years. I have many pictures of him, including one looking out of the Cockpit. He is now retired, 84 years old, and still remembers his days of Concorde like they were yesterday. I also have a picture of him somewhere with him standing outside of the plane on the ramp. He is with Brian Trubshaw and others. I remember a time when he took me to the hangar During the build. Good memories

[@Minerva886]

Man. Imagine the stories..

[@nicjansen230]

23:42 This solution is exactly the same concept used on sailboats. One of many similarities in fact Depending on the angle to the wind compared to the heading, the sail has to rotate around the mast and be trimmed. One of these is the weight of the sailors: they move forward when sailing upwind and backwards when sailing downwind. Sailing fast is all about counteracting rotational forces on the ship. That's done by optimizing the shape of the sail and finding the correct weight distribution On some sailboats, it's taken a step further though: moving bodyweight to steer it. Rotational forces due to misaligned centres of lift (of both sails and keel, affected by weight distribution) don't create drag on their own. Steering with the rudder is a nightmare in terms of drag. So the shape of the sail, angle of the sail and bodyweight are all used to steer instead of using the rudder if possible. Moving bodyweight back and into the wind will make the boat want to head away from where the wind comes from, while moving the other way will make the boat want to head into the wind. When I sail a race, I even release my grip on the rudder completely whenever I can, forcing me to only steer with bodyweight

[@PinataOblongata]

Used to hang off the side of a Cherub doing a bit of that, but I let the skipper figure out all the directional stuff and just did as was told. What kind of boat do you race?

[@nicjansen230]

@@PinataOblongata If you've crewed a Cherub, learning how to skipper should be doable. At least getting the basics down is easy (especially on a more stable boat), but getting the advanced stuff will take years Most often, I race with my Laser Radial, but sometimes get the opportunity to race an Ynling or something up to a crew of 4. Our club even had a team going to the national league and we qualified to go to the Sailing Champions League some times. We also moved our weight around that 4-man J70 to steer it

[@PinataOblongata]

@@nicjansen230 I'm too poor for the sailing scene, I was just lucky enough to know a dude with a Cherub and a Space Sailor who I since had a falling out with. Used to see all the kids learn in Pelicans and I think his one-time partner had a Laser. I can't imagine the pressure of nationally competitive sailing - I'll stick to nationally competitive powerlifting ;)

[@reecewitcher7177]

These videos are so well done. I am completing my BS in Aerospace Engineering this semester and its amazing to see how well you article these concepts in aircraft design. You are truly a gift to youtube and deserve all the recognize you receive and more. Fantastic video!

[@MrDaiseymay]

AND HE'S OIRISH TOO. ALTHOUGH HE MAY ONLY BE THE NARRATOR----BUT STILL, A BLOODY GOOD JOB.

[@MrJoegotbored]

This is way more than I was expecting. I've seen so many of the Concorde videos repeat the same details. I love it so I still watch each one, but this one stands head and shoulders above the rest. Good work.

[@Chaosweaver-1]

After WW2, my grandpa went on to become a mechanic for British Airways, working on the concord. It was one of the highlights of his life.

[@Emily-zp1jf]

Hands down my absolute favorite airliner of all time. It never ceases to amaze me how advanced she was for the time she was engineered and built. I often fantasize about what it must have been like to fly on Concorde, what a thing of beauty that must have been.

[@chris8405]

For me it was mind-blowing flying on Concorde - because I knew all the engineering challenges that had to be solved to make it seem quite normal. The rapid acceleration on the runway and views of the world going past at fast-forward speed were the first differences experienced. Later on the heat coming from the windows, the dark blue sky and seeing a 777 several miles below apparently going backwards were others.

[@JohnnyWednesday]

The engines are actually a further development of the engines used in the TSR2 which were themselves upgraded and reheated engines from the Vulcan.

[@vincentkopytek2422]

True ! But the show seems to ignore the key achievements made by SNECMA on these masterpieces...

[@linuxgeex]

The "droop snoot" also made vortex lift possible by lowering the nose out of the airflow over the back of the Concorde. If it had been pointing up, it would have generated turbulent, oscillating vortex-shedding wake all down the back.

[@Aeronaut1975]

I didn't know that, and I though I knew everything about Concorde ;P

[@anthony.p1580]

Vive la France, and long Live England. For more than a millennium we have fought with the greatest violence against each other, but when we work together hand in hand we are able to do great things. 🇫🇷🤝🏻🇬🇧

[@akaTheWilyFox]

We haven't had the nicest terms together in our history agreed. But when we do work together few have ever matched our achievements! Greetings my overseas colleague!

[@bobmarley3594]

@@akaTheWilyFox so true ! (I'm French)

[@vicentiumunteanu2385]

I am really sad for Brexit

[@bushmanPMRR]

A few extra fun facts I've learned along the way: The French engineers used all metric calculations and the British used Imperial (obvs!) but it still came together perfectly. The cabin was like a filing cabinet inasmuch it wasn't fixed directly to the fuselage but to 'runners' that were fixed to the fuselage thus allowing the stretch at full speed. At full speed around 10% of the engine power was required for the air conditioning And the strangest possibly of all, the company that manufactured the nose is called Marshalls Of Cambridge who do all sorts of interesting work, including the military and it was them that re-bodied the old Land Rover Series trucks into military ambulances! I remember their final fly-past over London and watched the three of them pass over from my office window and it was a rather sad and melancholic time as I had never even flown on an aeroplane at that time, much less had the chance to fly on a Concorde.

[@stuartgodfrey279]

Loved this. My grandad worked at Rolls Royce on Concorde (modelling dept.), and my uncle was a flight engineer at one point. Still remember a story about the chain link fencing being covered in plastic to protect the watching public on take-off from Filton, but as she needed the full length of the runway, it just melted and caught on fire.

[@stefanpariyski3709]

8:13 The graph is not correct, the speed at the throat has to be Mach 1, as you correctly stated, but your line is at about 1,25. 8:59 The inlet to a jet engine does not need to be laminar, I doubt it even is in most cases. 22:47 According to Wikipedia page for 787 Dreamliner, all variants have a capacity of at least 126000 Liters, maybe you confused US gallons and liters?

[@0bloodshot0]

1. is correct. a diagramm of a laval nozzle would be more fitting. 2. the goal is to decrease the speed below mach 1 (around 0.8Ma) AND laminar flow to prevent pressure waves. if i remember correctly the air itself is laminar anyway at high speeds

[@BoomBoomBrucey]

When I was a child, I was so infatuated with Concorde I said that it would be the first plane I ever flew on, I'm 35 now and I don't know how much of an impact that statement had but I haven't flown at all to this day.

[@andresil8330]

Go for it when you can and book a flight. Pretty cool experience first time flying.

[@nopamineLevel100]

This is one of the most informative and easy to understand videos about Concorde! Loved it ✈️

[@EBgCampos]

Congratulations on your channel. This is the best content engineers at heart can consume. Completely different specialties merged together to make beautiful structures work. It brings a tear to the eye.

[@turnerburger]

I'm currently studying aerospace engineering and I swear every video you put out almost always goes over what I covered in classes just days or weeks ago, and this has been happening for the past two years lmao

[@thinktrovert]

The concorde feautured a "droop snoot" - droop snoot? Yeah, the snoot would droop. -the snoot drooped

[@exoplanets]

great timing, I will grab some snack!

[@vincentbujold-roux4898]

You're easily my favorite KZbinr by far, and these series are my favorite things to watch. The production quality, explanations, CGI and graphics are way ahead of any other youtuber or series I've seen. Being an aerospace engineerin student, it truly reminds me why picking this degree was one of the best decisions I've ever made, and really helps to understand the importance of thermodynamics, fluid dynamics and materials engineering! It even makes those topics fun! Sidenote, do you have a tracklist for this video? The background music was fantastic! Cheers!

[@Spinattitude]

Such good content! As an aero engineer myself, I can say the level of detail and research involved in getting this right is monumental.

[@callum8184]

Love the Concorde, being from Bristol in the UK its great to be able to go and visit one in the Aerospace Museum. It is crazy to see all the technical solutions that were needed to accomplish super sonic commercial flying. Such a amazing plane for so many reasons, wish i was able to be able to fly one!

[@pompeymonkey3271]

Some say that for Concorde the engineering challenges, and their solutions, were at least on par with those of the Apollo programme. :)

[@thegreatkwyjibo5529]

I just signed up for curiosity stream using your channels promo code. Thank you for everything you do, I can only imagine how hard you and your team work.

[@jamieknight326]

Stunning engineering and craftsmanship. I’ve visited most of the remaining airframes, but G-AXDN at duxford is my favourite. The fastest of the fleet, the first plane to fly with digital control of the inlets and she has escape tunnels in case it all went wrong and everyone had to bail out :) I’ve had the joy of sitting in her flight deck and holding her yoke while remembering what she achieved. A magic moment in my life and something I am supremely grateful to have experienced.

[@yesbe9920]

Excellent work and amazing explanations. I really appreciate and will talk about it. A perfect mixture of real and modelized images, excellent technical détails. I'm learning things at each épisodes !! Thank you!

[@DiscoverWithDeLo]

My grandfather flew Concorde in 1980, and still has the paper the gave each passenger on a plaque on his office wall. I just finished the Lego set I got for Christmas and I can’t stop staring at it, I’m so jealous of my grandfather

[@noplzs]

HE DROOPED THE SNOOT

[@danielfried2431]

Thank you so much for this video! My girlfriend and me visited the tech museum in sinsheim in germany just a few weeks ago and we had the chance to walk through a original Concorde. I'd love to have more info back then and this video was very insightful in retrospect. Thank you!

[@maartentoors]

You know the day is going to be good when you see "Real Engineering" has a new video out.

[@fatherpuck]

You are a brilliant narrator and creator. The value these videos have in engineering knowledge, history, and inspiration is insane in and of itself. Fantastic job.

[@ethanholbrook6647]

I can’t believe that the Concorde video comes out while I’m in the middle of my Senior Design 1 project to Reverse-Engineer the Concorde. It’s a crazy coincidence, and I’m going to send this video to the rest of my teammates. If I complete this project I’ll only have Senior Design 2 left before I graduate with a BS in Aerospace Engineering. Been watching “Insane Engineering of *insert plane here*” for a while and always loved it. Y’all do great work, thanks for the excellent content.

[@johnmurrell3175]

There is a lot of information about Concorde in the Haynes Workshop Manual. I could afford the manual but buying the aircraft to go with it is another matter ! For full detail you need the Concorde Manuals - I remember seeing them the print shop at Filton - an enormous pile of A4 loose leaf books each mneeding to be updated when something changed. It was said the weight of the manuals exceeded the mass of the aircraft !

[@nathanmccormack4681]

When flying into Heathrow last month I seen that concorde... Never knew it was sitting out there on the tarmac and I though it was just one too many little whiskeys that had me imagining it, it was a lovely surprise

[@userhessenone1469]

That's the one rotting away... Same in Moscow Shukowski with a TU144

[@Sacto1654]

It was really was a major engineering unknown building the Concorde because unlike Mach 2 jet fighters, the Concorde had to _cruise_ at Mach 2 for at least two hours at a time. That meant a total rethink of structural materials and jet engine design to maintain that speed for long periods, especially without using titanium structural parts. Today, the upcoming Boom Supersonic airliner uses all that knowledge gained from the Concorde, plus use of modern high-temperature composite materials and far more advanced engine designs, to cruise at Mach 2 with way less fuel burn per passenger.

[@justanotherviewer4821]

Boom is an interesting project... however, common criticisms of Concorde were small cabin and passenger capacity, which is pretty much required to make it possible, Boom plans for an even smaller capacity aircraft... which with fuel prices rising, looks to be a plane for billionaires only... I wonder if 50 or so of them want to get on a plane to London or Paris in half the time with a relatively uncomfortable environment, or travel in their own private jets in luxury at the normal (double) time. It is a similar case for the World's largest cargo Antonov plane that was destroyed recently. Plenty of applications for it... just the build cost is eye-watering and isn't economically viable. I hear Boom is going to be carbon neutral...

[@Sacto1654]

@@justanotherviewer4821 I believe that unlike the Concorde, the Boom Overture will have way more comfortable Business class seating for around 50 passengers. And could fly transpacific routes, something the Concorde couldn’t do.

[@AJR-07]

22:41, the 787 is not the record holder for the longest commercial flight, not even close. Its the a350 900 ULR.

[@mrajal8490]

Thank you, amazing video. I have read many books about the Concorde but this video provides additional insights I never read or seen before. 😊

[@Joel-hv3ik]

I saw the video on Nebula and I've got to say, I love the intro. I love the way you incorporated the title of the video.

[@Chris-ok4zo]

You really don't get the sense of complexity any machine has until you watch a vid from this man. Man is truly capable of great things.

[@agdgdgwngo]

I love the title, hopefully a snarky reference to that video called something like "concorde was a failure", judging it in terms of commerce. The point of Concorde was always to show what British and French engineering could achieve. Calling it a commercial failure is kind of like calling the moon landing a commercial failure in my eyes. The modern mindset can't wrap its head around the 60s ethic of "do it cos we can".

[@algrayson8965]

Concorde was intended to be a commercially viable enterprise. Boeing’s 747’s bulge was intended to clear a larger interior in a plane designed as a freighter in anticipation of long distance passenger traffic going by SST.

[@tams805]

@@algrayson8965 Yes, but it was just as much about prestige.

[@plica06]

According to Wikipedia, in 2020 money, the cost of Concorde was $12-17 Billion. And all paid for by UK and French tax payers.

[@Shattereddemon300]

If you make delta wings, it will reduce the wingspan resulting in smaller gate fees while the aircraft is on the ground, this is the same reason that the Boeing 777X has its wings fold while it approaches the gate. 13:43

[@perafilozof]

Great video as always. Also that was probably the gentlest scripted transition from conclusion to outro I have ever heard and watched. Bravo!

[@mattmccoy2514]

22:47 a 787-8 fuel capacity is 126,000 litres, not 34000 litres. You used the capacity in gallons. Interesting video though!

[@Aeronaut1975]

Cats and dogs have liters, the British and French measure in Litres ;P

[@JohnnyWednesday]

@@Aeronaut1975 - convert to metric you savages!

[@gunnern1]

At least we won't get another Gimli Glider from this error on a youtube video 😉

[@rjfaber1991]

The main problem with that statement is that the record for the longest commercial flight is actually held by the A350, not the 787, and the A350 has held that record since November 2018*, so I doubt the script for this video is that old. * = The current record dates from 2020, but that was just one A350 flight beating another A350 flight for length.

[@r.m.entenza1312]

@@JohnnyWednesday although I share your opinion on this, you have to recognise there are types of countries: the ones that use the metric system and the ones that went to the moon 😉

[@oiartsun]

@1:30 "Nothing remotely close to it had flown before" - Tupolev Tu-144

[@dymytryruban4324]

Yet the first commercial passenger flight of Concorde took place in January 1976. By that time, Concorde had already passed over 4000 hours of trials. More that any airplane. Tu-144 took its first passengers in November 1977, that is nearly two years later. Stealing the R & D and resorting to rush work, the USSR only managed to lift the raw prototype earlier as well as make it reach the supersonic speed.

[@TheByQQ]

@@dymytryruban4324 You forgot to mention Tu-144's first flight was before Concorde, went into service before Concorde, achieved Mach 1 before Concorde, and achieved Mach 2 before Concorde

[@angelusdr9676]

@@TheByQQ the Tu-144 also split in half mid air at an air show before the concorde too ! Very impressive maneuvers.

[@vpheonix]

At around 7:15 when you described subsonic air speeding up as it flows through a constricting passage, you called it "Bernoulli's Principal". I was taught in high school that it was called the "Venturi Effect". "Bernoulli's Principal" is where fluid pressure reduces as velocity increases. At least that is what I was taught. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[@ducky8075]

Bernoulli’s principle actually does apply! Air is actually a fluid, so the same thing happens in flight. In fact, that’s one of the reasons most airplane wings are asymmetrical in their camber - to create high and low pressure zones so Bernoulli’s principle can produce lift. The Venturi effect happens due to Bernoulli’s principle.

[@vpheonix]

@@ducky8075 Just so we're clear here:- "Bernoulli's Principle" is where pressure drops when fluid moves faster. The "Venturi Effect" is when fluid moved faster through a restriction. Correct?

[@nathaneddy502]

@@vpheonix The Bernoulli principle is directly linked to the Venturi effect. They both link to the decrease in pressure as fluid increases in kinetic energy. The Venturi effect is just the Bernoulli principle applied to a container.

[@vpheonix]

@@nathaneddy502 They might be linked but they are not the same thing. The Venturi Effect only describes the velocity of the fluid moving though a restriction, not the pressure of that fluid. In this video, he specifically describes how subsonic air moves faster through a restriction, and that's the Venturi Effect, not the Bernoulli Principle.

[@musiclover1960ED]

Orville Wright and Wilbur Wright must have been smiling in heaven as they heard the sonic boom when this wonder of technology flew. Thank you for posting this great video......

[@phonicwheel933]

Thanks for posting. Very good description of the detailed design of the Concorde which just goes to show what a fantastic achievement it was.

[@seanc6754]

It's crazy to think the concord came out over 40 years ago yet we still don't have supersonic air travel. Its had ONE accident just one and it still is the safest commercial airplane ever made

[@hiethane8318]

The main issue with supersonic air travel isn't safety, it was the sonic booms that disturbed too many people.

[@Aeronaut1975]

*Concorde (With the "e" at the end) Also, it first flew commercially nearly 50yrs ago, not 40 as mentioned in the vid (47yrs to be precise). it's first commercial flight was in 1976.

[@JohnnyWednesday]

@@hiethane8318 - they're not bad at altitude - most of the American sonic boom paranoia was stoked by propaganda paid for by Boeing who had failed with their own supersonic project. At 30k feet? a sonic boom is no more than light thunder - I really wouldn't care personally and the fact it was blown out of proportion and thus destroyed supersonic travel? is tragic.

[@vicentiumunteanu2385]

The price of fuel finally shot down commercial supersonic flight

[@dihydrogenmonoxide9210]

the concorde's safety record is shit regardless of flight 4590

[@Teej1218]

Imagine how amazing a Concorde-like plane could be if we made it with modern technology. Crazy

[@regfenster]

To be fair, I doubt apart from avionics such as navigation you could improve it a great deal. Modern technology comes with it's own fallacies. An example of would be Nasa and its heavy lift rocket program, the suggested idea was to put into production the V5 Saturn from the Apollo program, but the skill set to build it no longer existed as a lot of the components where hand finished by extremely skill engineers and artisans, the same applied to the Concorde, it was a hand drawn and built design that required very high levels of individual man powered skill that no longer exists to the extent it did 50 years ago or if at all as those who built this bird and the Apollo project are long gone by now and their subsequent skill sets with them. I know this as my grandfather was a chief electrical engineer in the Concorde project. Speaking to him about twenty years ago about Concorde long into his retirement and his thoughts were that the engineering practices taught today rely too heavily in CAD and CNC procedures with little or no experience working from pen and paper without a true understanding of the mathematics involved or required due to the reliance on CAD doing the heavy lift for you from a calculation perspective. The Concorde relied heavily on the human touch based on years of experience passed down through generations of engineers to be achieved within that golden era of British aerospace magnificence, neither no longer exists.

[@rbnhd1976]

@@regfenster Elon Musk... Space X...

[@CountScarlioni]

Concorde only left service in the 2000s. The 747 has been in service longer than Concorde and there's still over a thousand of them in service. If the Concorde was still flying, it would still be considered "modern". Not sure what that says about the aviation industry to be honest. The issue now is that new technologies for commercial supersonic flight haven't been developed anywhere since Concorde as it's regarded a dead end. There could have been, but the underhanded conspiring of the global aviation industry to strangle Concorde at birth ensured the plane saw few revisions. Anyone trying again with a "Concorde 2" today would find the subsonic industry just as hostile, and progress would be hard won.

[@bikes02]

@@CountScarlioni Correct...we was also robbed of the TSR2 because of 'political' shenanigans

[@kiwi_kirsch]

The insane fuel tank numbering of the Concorde.

[@WheatleyOS]

Correction to the vid, not sure if anyone pointed out: Choked throat is a throat in which the velocity is M=1. If the air passes through a chocked throat it will accelerate, not decelerate. For it to decelerate the air had to necessarily be NON-choked (M

[@junebegorra]

This is a truly amazing video. You explain such complex structures in a way that is thoroughly intuitive.

[@1.4142]

What's sad is that the disaster of air france 4590 led to the demise of the concorde, as it wasn't even caused by a design issue. It ran over debris on the runway during takeoff, blowing a tyre, which threw chunks of tyre into the underside of the left wing, rupturing the fuel tank which caught on fire, causing the plane to crash into a hotel.

[@paulhooper4599]

I'm pretty sure the tyre fragments did not rupture the fuel tank from the outside.. it was because the plane was over loaded & was over-filled with fuel. The fragments hit the tank like banging a huge drum hard, transferring a shockwave inside. Usually, there is an air gap left in a fuel tank - there was no air gap in her tanks that would have absorbed much of that shockwave, and as liquid doesn't compress like air does, (or hydraulics would never work) bounced the force back & ruptured the tank from the inside. I bet no other fuel tank is built to withstand what is effectively an explosion from the inside.

[@tantroe-biff696]

@@paulhooper4599 This sounds reasonable. Hmm, more in depth analysis of this whole situation would be interesting

[@paulhooper4599]

@@tantroe-biff696 Interesting BBC documentary with ex-Concorde pilots kzbin.info/www/bejne/gGGnd6yLf8uWn7M

[@F-BVFForever]

@@paulhooper4599 BAE Systems/Airbus did a huge amount of research into the effects of a tire fragment being fired at highspeed into the lower wing, and the hydraulic shockwave effects inside the fuel tank as part of the crash investigation. The “overfilled” Tank 5 theory has always been technically flawed. Firstly, you can’t physically keep topping up any Concorde fuel tank until it’s overfilled, overfull or packed with so much fuel its structurally ballooning. Concorde’s fuel tanks were all equipped with a fuel breathing system. SC’s Tank 5 was correctly fueled to 94% on 25th July 2000, with 6% ullage (air) in the tank. If any attempt was made to pump fuel into a 94% full Tank 5 then the additional fuel would be pumped straight back out via the breathing system, firstly into a scavenge tank in the tail, then either sent to Tank 3 or if that was full, vented to atmosphere. The aircraft was “overfilled”, also known as High Level Increment (HLI) fueling in the aircraft refueling world. This was a manufacturer approved method of adding additional fuel into Concorde’s main engine feed Tanks 1-4, on that day around 240kgs evenly spread around those 4 tanks. This “overfill” didn’t compromise the fuel breathing system in those tanks. Rolls Royce calculated, using the conditions of the day, aircraft weight etc that when SC ran over the titanium strip, he had consumed 880 Kgs of fuel/220kgs per engine. Airbus calculated that by that time, Tank 5 had already started to transfer fuel into Tank 1 to keep it topped up. They found no evidence any additional fuel was pumped into Tank 5 after the completion of the pre-takeoff fuel transfer and the time SC ran over the titanium strip. Secondly, the theory assumes that by having the correct amount of fuel in Tank 5 there would have been enough air between the fuel and top tank surface to dampen the shockwave. Concorde’s fuel tank capacity was dictated by having as much fuel as possible at take-off, on a highly fuel sensitive aircraft with as little ullage as possible, a small amount which was required to counter fuel surge and allow fuel tank pressurization at a few psi above 44,000 feet. There was no design consideration for the effects of 5kg tyre piece smashing into a lower fuel tank surface at 350mph nor was there the CFD testing equipment in the late 60s/early 70s that could possibly analyze the hydraulic shockwave effects of such an event or factor in various fuel/ullage ratios. If a 6% air gap had been enough to dampen the shockwave, by design this would be a been a complete fluke. Thirdly, the theory completely ignores Newtonian laws of motion. When the aircraft accelerated on take-off, like the passengers pushed back in their seats, the wing tank fuel content was also pushed back against the rear tank wall, with the ullage/air concentrated in the front upper area of the tank - a scenario that happens at lower fuel levels too. However, unlike any other Concorde take-off, one tire was completely obliterated, firing that 5kg piece of rubber at 350mph towards the lower wing, and by bad luck, hitting the rear section of Tank 5 with a solid wall of Newtonian motioned fuel above it. The BAE Systems test rig was never able to replicate the tank rapture, even with 100% fueled tank, but CFD modelling confirmed it certainly blew inside out, with the shockwave most likely finding a weak point at the bottom rear tank seam. The issue here was the BAE test wing/tank rig hadn’t sustained a ¼ Century of supersonic flight with all the strains, flex, heat cycles and flying hours that SC’s lower wing/lower tank skin had. And SCs flying hours in 2000, were much lower than any in the BA fleet. The BAE systems solution to returning Concorde to flight, was an expensive partial lower wing reskin with thicker aluminum including beefing up the inner engine nacelles, with many months of certification, a weight & performance penalty and perhaps additional fuel tank heat soak. However, as Airbus had the majority share in the airframe Design Authority, their pragmatic solution was the internal lining of the most exposed wing tanks & the crucial Michelin NZG tires, which is why the return to flight mods were much cheaper than had been initially feared. All the alternative AF4590 theories were addressed in the final BEA crash report published in 2002. They only exist today in a media fishbowl far removed for the technical process of getting an airliner grounded by a freak accident safely back into the skies.

[@Raouli00]

Hey im really fascinated by all of your video and wanted to ask in what field you studied, is it aerospace engineering or something else? I would really like to pursue something similar in a few years, i was thinking of doing a master in either aerospace engineering or material science or maybe mechanical engineering

[@whitesoserious]

I can't speak for him but I'm currently writing my Master's thesis in aerospace engineering and we can focus on diffferent aspects, from materials, over aero up to information technology, depending on our interests I can only recommend it

[@override7486]

I believe he wanted to be a jet pilot, but not qualified to be one because of poor eyesight/health etc, and he was studying some "regular" engineering degree, focus towards materials/metalurgy, as mentioned in one of his previous movie(s). But I might be 100% wrong here, talking total BS...

[@NoFL88]

1:28 Tupolev Tu-144. It actually flew before Concorde and was used for passangers. It was an absolute failure as a liner, but your channel and content is too good to distort the facts, imho.

[@river_salmon]

It wasn't a total engineering failure, actually. Corruption strangled it. Despite all amount of failures (which, in fact, didn't menace passengers' safety) it passed through during 7 months of operation, it kind of worked and could, with minor updates, easily be operated just as regularly as the Concorde.

[@fanman4230]

I was working at Heathrow when the Concordes were being refurbished. I couldn't believe how small they were compared to the 777s I was working on. The fuselage (2.87m) could pass through the inlet nacelle of a modern large high bypass turbofan engine (3.0m+).

[@lahma69]

This has got to be one of my favorite episodes you've ever created. Simply excellent! It contained a lot of information I have never heard elsewhere and I imagine it was an enormous undertaking to find and confirm much of this info. Thank you so much for all of your hard work!

[@michealoflaherty1265]

I am so glad I luved in a world with the Concorde and got to see it flying in Farnborough. And to anyone who says it was a financial failure I say, were the pyramids a financial failure? It was an engineering wonder of the world and we are poorer for losing it.

[@adion24]

Most interesting fact I ever heard about the concord was that it wasn't too popular till they raised ticket prices way up and made it "luxury".

[@vincentkopytek2422]

You must be kidding... Ah, and it's Concorde !

[@Rhythm8503]

Imagine if the concorde was made with today's technology, it would probably be able to hit Mach 2.0 way more efficiently and hold more people.

[@NoNameAtAll2]

with NASA developing silent supersonic flight, it might be even allowed on most routes

[@whitesoserious]

The company "Boom Technologies" is currently trying to build a smaller version of a supersonic airliner but with noise and ecological regulations it is kinda hard to do

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

Double the speed, four times the air resistance. Can't get around that, supersonic flight will likely allways be a massive waste of fuel for commercial flight.

[@gregknipe8772]

and zero people would allow it in our airports. now we have Elon building 'space ports' in bird sanctuaries. "todays technologies".

[@dkdanis1340]

@@hernerweisenberg7052 drag can be reduced.

[@aidankozakiewicz2291]

Love each and every one of your videos, the time and research you put into these is unmatched in the most of the video essay community.

[@connorchallis7333]

Once again, incredible video!! 🤘🏾💛

[@tacoboy2218]

The concord featured a droop snoot

[@WingZeroType]

incredibly well-made video. thank you so much for the effort that you've put into this

[@holopaste]

For people like me who initially came to understand why the nose cone tilted, that’s at 14:20 but I recommend this whole video because it’s excellent.

[@AluminumOxide]

7:03 the y axis on the graph says “Moch” number!

[@superspak]

This is one of the most amazing videos I have seen! I am only a mechanical engineer, so learning the fluid flow requirements between sub and supersonic speeds was particularly eye opening! This makes me want to move onto a Thermal career path!

[@carlosdossantos1251]

I’m so excited to book my tour to see it in person in Manchester Airport

[@modelllichtsysteme]

22:43 this information isn‘t correct. Start with 48000 liters for the 787-3 version and move direct to 120000+ liters for 787-8 etc.

[@MrLuap4321]

This is such an amazing channel! Thanks for those awesome and informing videos!!

[@maatchaos3338]

Your video about the whole plane has a better explanation of the engines than everything else.

[@TheEulerID]

The picture of the British Airways aircraft (G-YMMM) @16:03 was the result of fuel icing on BA flight-38, which caused the engines to fail on approach to Heathrow and the pilot had to crash-land just short of the runway. It has absolutely nothing to do with a tail strike, so why it is shown as such an example escapes me.

[@Dad_Woof]

The wings were developed using study from NASA’s F5D-1 Skylancer #708. We have the aircraft at Evergreen Aviation & Space, going though a massive restoration. I have a piece of the starboard part of the fuselage where the wing connects that we cut off during restoration. One of my favorite aircraft, beautiful and sadly passed over. NASA greatly benefited from that plane.

[@deansnipah1392]

A key thing about supersonic air is that it is uncompressable. You need the air to be compressed in order for it to ignite and expand, which is why supersonic jets need a convergent inlet duct to slow the incoming air below mach 1

[@flyingdutchman28]

Anachronistic belonging to a period other than that being portrayed. "'The Concorde' benefits from the effective use of anachronistic elements like its sleek design and futuristic engines"

[@peppapig9987]

2:06 smooth landing. Ryan Air could learn alot just from watching that clip.

[@lefr33man]

24:37 Not gonna lie, that's a pretty efficient contraception ad. "wrap your engine or it will catch on fire."