WHERE is the Boeing Sonic Cruiser?!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- Go to brilliant.org/... to get a 30-day free trial + the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription.
-----------------------------------------------------
NO. The aircraft you see here is NOT just another fanciful idea that someone once dreamed up. The Sonic Cruiser is something that Boeing worked on extensively, registering patents to its design AND presented it to its airline customers, many of whom took it VERY seriously.
And even though it wasn’t built, many of the technologies that would have made it possible and even much of the concept behind it, eventually led to the creation of an actual Boeing aircraft.
Stay tuned!
-----------------------------------------------------
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward!
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
Our Connections:
👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: mentour-crew.c...
👉🏻 Our other channel: / mentourpilotaviation
👉🏻 Amazon: www.amazon.com...
👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: boseaviation-e...
Social:
👉🏻 Facebook: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Instagram: / mentour_pilot
👉🏻 Twitter: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Discord server: / discord
Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the lastest aviation content
👉🏻
-----------------------------------------------------
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.
• Boeing Sonic Cruiser
• American Convair CV-99...
• VT-119 Convair Heritag...
• Convair Liner Promo Fi...
• United Douglas DC-8 Pr...
• McDonnell Douglas MD-1...
• Delta Convair CV-880 P...
• Boeing 707 Jetliner Pr...
• Elvis' private Jet "Li...
• F-0759 Convair 880 Gol...
• F-0639 Convair 990 Fir...
• Shock Wave Formation i...
• Video
• A380 and A400M in form...
• AIRBUS A3XX : L'AVION
• F 2198 Flight Testing ...
• History of Airbus fami...
• The A330-200F: flexibi...
• The Future of Superson...
• High Speed Flight : Pa...
• Boeing 787 Dreamliner:...
• N.J. Burkett reporting...
• F-0594 Convair F-102 D...
www.nytimes.co...
www.wsj.com/ar...
Go to brilliant.org/MentourNOW/ to get a 30-day free trial + the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription.
I always thought that "ETOPS" stood for "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim." 🙂
LOL You arent wrong there
First time I heard that joke said no one ever
@@zacherius137 I actually hadn't heard it before though 😂😂😂😂
That’s the pop culture definition 😅
The other version I heard was Eventually There’s Only a Plopping Sound.
Saving an hour by flying a super fast jet does not matter that much when you have to wait six hours at an airport waiting for your connecting flight.
I really do not want to fly any more since the Germans stripped me nearly naked in Frankfurt - on an intra-EU flight a few years ago. Why? Because i had a packet of tissues in my pockets to clean my nose - that was before Covid.
That is one of the reasons i drive Teslas now. Inside of Europe i do not have a need to travel by air anymore.
or have to get to the airport 3 hours early.
That’s likely true
Right - I like the idea of a plane that can do more point-to-point travel but I don't really see how a smaller faster plane helps you to do that.
@@kenbrown2808
Yeah that's a fair point.
Flying is actually really inefficient nowadays. You often end up spending more time waiting at the airport than in the flight itself.
This means that especially for short haul routes, flying is often no longer the quickest option as we have seen with competition from things like high speed rail.
Thank you for these Boeing history episodes. My brother was a passenger airplane engineer with Boeing from the late 1950s through the 1980s. Through your programs I am learning to really appreciate all he did.
That's great to hear!
Your brother saw very interesting times in aviation.
I remember him always being very excited about the 737.
@@kristinehaglund7135 Back when a 737 was what a 737 was meant to be. Small, easy to load, with unimproved strip capability. Not a low rider 757.
Dad was a flight test engineer on the Convair 990 (and the 880 and also on their previous turbo-props.) Most of Mom & Dad's friends were the families of Convair engineers, mostly on the the flight test team.
Talking about the Convair, I met Elvis's pilot Ron Strauss about 3 years ago, very interesting man.
My son is 10 years old and we both absolutely love your work 👌🏻 Thank you for sharing those rare gems with us. We can't go a single day without watching you and gathering new knowledge. Thank you Captain 😃 You are a true inspiration!
Wow, that's awesome to hear, thank you!
As @SwedishVFR pointed out in the current top comment, much of the failure of hub and spoke comes from the headache associated with layovers. I used to travel a lot for work, and airport lounges made the experience tolerable - but those are often just as noisy and crowded as anywhere else. I wouldn't mind a six hour layover if I had access to a swimming pool, or a movie theater, or a tiny hotel room where I could grab a shower and take a nap. These amenities are almost nonexistent for domestic air travel, and when they do exist, the prices are often crazy high. More importantly, they need to be on the sterile side of the airport, so I can set my alarm to go off 20 minutes prior to boarding, and not have to worry about security.
Layovers are also terrible if you're traveling solely with carry-on luggage - which is standard for business travelers due to the issues with checking luggage (extra time, lost luggage). Being able to check your bags, and count on them reliably being at your destination without having to wait a extra 30 minutes makes the whole airport / layover experience much nicer.
In short, hub - and - spoke is NOT intrinsically flawed. But it's dependent on support systems they often let it down.
I would love to fly to a hub, grab dinner, see a show, check into a hotel room, shower, sleep - ALL IN THE STERILE AREA - and wake up just in time to walk to my gate. But that doesn't exist.
Also, as someone with back pain, lay flat seating changed my life. I'd much rather spend 24 hours on a blimp with lay-flat seating than 4 hours in economy. I'm 190 cm and 136 kg. For me, coach seating qualifies as torture. The first time I was able to lay down on a flight, my world changed.
Hub and Spoke suffers from a lack of resilience. A closed runway at an airline's hub can completely shut down their network.
Yes, I agree. People don't care too much about slightly shortening the trip, they care a lot about avoiding the hassle of missing connecting flights, losing their belongings etc. when they are far from home and planning on being productive or spending an already expensive and non-postponable vacation.
Good points! I agree, I am actually sitting in Schiphol at the moment, waiting for a connecting flight and its not fun!
Thanks for your support!
I see it differently. Even if a layover saved me time, it would still make things worse just because of the hassle of having to get off and back on airplanes even once. If I can just stay in my seat for the whole time, with my computer, I'm set.
Baggage isn't an issue for me. I've always checked it through and only had a problem once.
@@psychohist I can see both sides - I think it depends on a lot of factors. First, boarding and unboarding used to take a LOT less time as there were fewer passengers with fewer carry-ons.
If we're talking about a layover between two short flights, say 2 or 3 hours, I agree with you direct is always better. But if I'm talking about a 6 hour flight into an 8 hour flight, I'd probably enjoy a chance to stretch my legs, grab a drink / meal, or visit a gym - versus be on a single 14 hour flight. Well, unless I had one of those first class "cabins". But I don't even want to sit in business class for 14 hours continously.
NASA bought at least one Convair 990. They were using it for collecting data from the air, including an early airborne synthetic aperture radar system built by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It was used for several years but had a catastrophic engine failure and fire on takeoff. Fortunately, all of the crew and radar operators escaped safely.
I remember seeing that airplane at Ames Research Center on a tour of the NASA facilities as part of a class at the local “JUNIOR University” 😊
@@Mentaculus42 Yes, I heard from people at JPL who used to travel to NASA Ames to fly on the Convair 990. I believe that the fire was on takeoff there.
@@ericfielding2540 Aircraft accident report: NASA 712, Convair 990, N712NA, March Air Force Base, California, July 17, 1985, executive summary:
On July 17, l985, NASA 712, a Convair 990 aircraft, was destroyed by fire during an aborted takeoff at March Air Force Base (Moreno Valley) in California. Material ejected from a blowout in the tires of the right main landing gear penetrated the right-wing fuel tank. The leaking fuel ignited. Fire engulfed the right wing and fuselage as the aircraft stopped its forward motion. The crew of four and the 15 scientists and technicians aboard escaped without serious injury.
Love your classic series. After WWII, my father transitioned to the Ohio ANG. Then, in 1951, he started with TWA. He flew many of these aircraft. DC 3, Martin 404 & 505 plus all models of the Connie. In 1958, he turned down a Captains promotion in the Connie to attend TWA's second class of Jet School. He started as a First Officer in the 707. However, he quickly made Captain. He became a check pilot for all models of the 707 & the Convair 880/990. In 1974, he checked out in the L-1011. Most of his career was out of SFO. He retired out of JFK, enjoying the 747's.
I grew up listening to his stories. He loved the 747. But he said the 880/990 was a real hot rod!
Sadly, I did not follow in his footsteps. Big regret.
Thank you for your channel.
Along with the professional sports teams that have left San Diego, CA, there was the loss of it's hometown airliner manufacturer, Convair. San DIego was where Lindbergh's Ryan aircraft was developed. KSAN is called "Lindbergh Field". It remains, I'm told, an issue of regret for older San Diegans. The C-240, 340, 440, and 600 turboprop conversion became the standard 2-engine regional in the 50's, 60's, and into the early 70's. As for the Sonic Cruiser, your point about compatible scheduling is important in dispatch and maintenance centers for all kinds of reasons.
They erased Lindbergh’s mural and renamed the airport because he opposed WWII.
@@naughtiusmaximus830 It was always "Lindbergh Field", in my experience.
@@inyobill Not anymore.
@@naughtiusmaximus830 but, them, also, Grossmont is termed "East county", so there ya go.
@@naughtiusmaximus830Hi!
I’m in the San Diego area and I know for a fact that the mural still exists. It was painted on detachable panels, not the terminal wall itself. It’s currently on public display in Ramona. To find it, just get on the 67 and follow it through town, it’s on the side of a building there. Can’t miss it unless you’re going the wrong way.
Originally the painting was taken down because it had been damaged from being out in the elements for about 15 years, and the Port Authority had the name changed about a decade prior because they thought “Lindbergh Field” sounded like a general aviation airport or something like that. Many weather and news reports continue to use the name and it remains widely known in the area.
In any case, a full-scale reproduction of his “Spirit of St. Louis” airplane still hangs from the ceiling inside the terminal, which would be a funny thing to leave up if they were in fact so determined to scrub him for his political affiliations.
My dad was a stress analysis engineer on the 880 landing gear team (and later the MD 80 series.) Kind of amazing how two or three aircraft used to be an entire career for an aerospace engineer. Thanks for the nostalgic memories.
Long Beach?
@@dummgelauft Yes! For Douglas. San Diego for Convair and General Dynamics. He did landing gear on F-111 also.
Another great video! You always manage to explain these topics in fascinating detail with new facts but in a simple, easy to understand manner
Thank you very much for the kind words, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I’m a truck driver in the US and other than the occasional delivery to an airport,I have no connection to the aviation industry. My desire to stay out of jail prevents me from flying as I have no use for the TSA. That being said,the analysis,cometary and history on this channel,not to mention the knowledge and affability of the host,make this one of my favorite TH-cam channels. Well done good sir.
What the hell would have you so scared of TSA???
@@EmperorDionx I detest government slugs and the 1st time one of them laid a hand on me there WILL be a fight.
@@oldman975 short fuse much ?
You might want to consider getting some therapy for that, fella. That’s not a reaction that would be considered normal in many places in the world. It might improve your wellbeing considerably.
Decades ago I read in my uncle's book about beautiful steam engines, that increasing top speeds provides relatively small time savings compared with increasing speeds on slow sections (and decreasing waiting at a stand-still, though that wasn't mentioned in the book). It's a simple truth that applies to all forms of transport, whether to explain why the same train arrives faster when stopping at fewer stations or why it's often close to a toss-up whether it's better to go by bus or airplane between European capitals.
So however much I would love to fly in a supersonic passenger jet, I'm fully aware that compared to the cost of doing so, the time savings don't really measure up. And increasing to only just below the speed of sound, would make so little difference in time, the money would definitely be better spent on an extra fast track check-in or two at the airports - and that way you can fit in the budget travelers and VIPs in the same airplane, saving the company - and potentially all classes of customer - a lot of money.
There are a few other Aviation channels that I tune into - but none are able to provoke the enthusiasm and admiration for the art and design of flying the way that Petter continues to do.
Many thanks for the knowledge Mentour, can't imagine any of us enjoying this content without you in the big chair 👍
I love the idea of sonic cruises for long distance flights. Crossing the Pacific or over the North Pole region, or even the Atlantic in massively reduced times would be amazing.
If you want to fly fast, use a rocket. Cruising speed around Mach 20. SpaceX plans to use it's new Starship for this purpose too. They think they can make the ticket price competitive too. I hope it happens, because it would be insanely cool.
@@andrasbiro3007 That it's scam
@@andrasbiro3007 No ones going to willingly fly on a controlled explosion
Never bet against Elon. SpaceX will deliver their suborbital system. Not tomorrow or next month but it will happen.
Honestly the sonic cruiser might be able to work in the modern environment. The time saving even on transatlantic routes while only 20% would mean the difference for taking a morning flight out to London, doing business and getting home before dinner all without losing the efficiency you'd get with a 777 or 787 which would happen if you attempted to design a supersonic airliner again.
Flight time is pretty much irrelevant compared to time for transport to airport, check in, transfer, re-check in (yes security at Dubai), check out at dest, transport to final hotel etc.
It takes me 28 hours point to point from my home in UK to my hotel in Perth, Australia. Flight time is ~20 hours at best. I hate flying.
Why don't you take a boat, then? Otherwise, shut up.
If you think air travel is bad now, on intercontinental flights, can you imagine the old days were you had to travel by ship. But I agree when it comes to domestic flights. We spend more time traveling to & from the airport, & waiting around in the airport, than time spent in actually "air travel."
@@annrn6148 I don't have to imagine because, yes, I am old enough to have travelled across the Indian Ocean in a ship from Perth to Cape Town when I was 10 years old. It took 11 Days and I hated every minute of it. It was not a cruise, it was a simple liner from A to B. So hardly anything to do onboard, and I got sick every day.
Love your videos. Incredible content and very "comforting" voice.... any music, even at low volume, hurts the experience.
Yes, please skip the background "music"
I have to say you have a real talent. I've never been all that interested in aviation, but you, sir, make the subject matter interesting. I'm sure you could read I cook book and still make it an interesting video. thank you for all you do and for opening my mind to a new area of interest.
Wow, thanks!
Mentour Chef in the works???
@falcon-ng6sd you know, making a local dish from each different place he's flowen to wouldn't be a horrible idea. I'd watch that. maybe add in some local aviation history. I think it would be worth looking into.
@@MentourNow - come on, serve us up an in-flight nose bag! 🎉
Concorde did actually make use of the Area Rule, albeit to a much lesser extent than the Sonic Cruiser. If you compare the area aft of the aft pressure bulkhead on test aircraft and production, you will notice the production aircraft are longer.
Concord - The reason the Concord did not have the wasp waist, as I heard way back then, was that it was much cheaper to build with a constant diameter, all parts identical all the way down the tube. This in the context that the project already going over budget. Ya, old guy here.
Yup, and the lack of better materials to easily solve it with.
The double delta covers almost the whole fuselage ( in length ). So it is all waist. Rudder starts where engines end. Also area rule works best transonic, not Mach 2.
We went to the U.S. on the dream liner and returned on the a380. The one we loved was the dream linnet. It was nicer and had bigger and more comfortable seats. The leg room was better then what we had been on before. The a380 really wasn’t the best. The seats were small. You couldn’t get a good sleep. The legroom was so small. I am hoping I never get to go on the a380 again.
For large airliners seat size and legroom have nothing to do with the model of plane you are in. It is up to the airline how many people they want to try and cram in to make more money and hence seat size and spacing, so if you had a squeezy flight back in the 380 change the airline not the plane. On other aspects of comfort, while both the 787 and the 380 are very smooth and quiet the 380 is renowned as the quietest plane in the sky.
That’s not an aircraft problem, that’s an airline problem
The 380 is really about the non-peasant class, apparently, with some very luxurious first class areas. And I feel that I use the term correctly. If you aren't business or first class, you simply are stuffed in like cattle. I see this trend a lot as well with smaller carriers - this super narrow, can't recline the seat more than 2 inches, a tray the size of a mousepad.. All to fit another 20 or 30 people. Assuming that every flight is at capacity. Being 80% full but suffering for 3 hours.. Or in the A380 - for 10+ in some cases...
The older mechanics who were still working when hired in 1987 used to rave about the Convair 990. Even if the flight performance came up a bit short, the engine power and response made for fun taxiing. By the way, Multiplex models from Germany made a radio control model called the Sonicliner. It is nearly identical to the Sonic Cruiser. I had one, and it was a blast to fly, except that control harmony wasn't great. It was way more sensitive in roll than in pitch. I put brushless motors in it, and it was a real screamer.
Hey, I had the luck of flying in a Convair 990 in 1975, from Managua to Miami and back, operated by then Nicaragua's flag airline, Lanica. Or perhaps it was an 880. But a Convair it was.
Great video Petter. Have you heard of any conversation about revisiting this concept? Not as a super fast plane, but using the different wing design elements and other factors into an even more efficient airplane to be the NMA?
What a totally awesome instructor you are. I wish I was younger and could have taken flying lessons from you!
I was in Seattle, at Boeing when the Sonic Cruiser project was first introduced at the end of March 2001. I interviewed Alan Mulally (and Phil Condit a couple of days later in St. Louis). 9/11 had a huge impact on the air travel industry and this affected the Sonic Cruiser program, but eventually the airliners preferred a 20% fuel consumption cut to a 20% flight time reduction. So the Sonic Cruiser gave way to the 787.
Brilliant! Thank you for giving us context to 787. A plane that I really love.
I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I remember rooting for Boeing's Sonic Cruiser as a bold bet on the future of commercial aviation, but I also understood the reasons for switching to the 787. I've enjoyed flying on the Dreamliner, but I do hope that there will be a near-Mach or supersonic airliner again since I never got to experience Concorde. Supersonic or bust!!
You might land 1 hour earlier, but that just means you have a hour longer layover before the connecting flight. I had never considered that.
That's the beauty of point-to--point operations. There is no connecting flight - you are already at your final destination. And that's exactly what the Sonic Cruiser was meant for.
I think you missed the critical point. There would be no connecting flight because this aircraft is meant to be used point to point.
@@Fastvoice Exactly
I was at Boeing when the Sonic Cruiser was announced, and I have different memories from your video. My recollection was that it was to be slightly supersonic, like Mach 1.1. It's real speed advantage would be on routes like London-Sydney, where the higher speed would allow much better utilization (turnaround, that is) than a slower jet. Also, it would have so much fuel volume that it would probably never be flown with full tanks.
As for the Convair 990, I got to fly in one in the sixties, as a child. Positive identification comes from the "Whitcomb bodies" on top of the wings, which drew my attention (I thought they were fuel tanks). Years later (in my teens), when relatives talked about "that trip we did in the Boeing in 1966" I confidently told them, "no, it was a Convair 990".
Perhaps we need to overhaul the entire flying experience from arriving at the airport to departing at your destination, not just the flight itself.
We could save say an hour in flight but it would do little if you end up having to waste that hour anyway in check in, long lines, securtiy screening, boarding, then waiting and holding times and so on.
I feel like we need to place more emphasis on speeding up and streamlining the entire flying experience.
Perhaps bring Aviation back to some of its former glory as in the golden age of flying back in the 50's and 60's.
Very good point - but the airport experience is out of the control of airlines to the greater degree.
@@rainscratch The airport experience is mostly a manifestation of the government. Maybe it is time for significant numbers of people to tell their governments that we are just not going to take it any more.
I'd settle for not being brutally beaten and mugged on my flight.
@@Eternal_Tech The government wants you on public transportation... so that you'll stay home and be quiet.
@@HC-cb4yp By other passengers and/or the cabin crew?
Thunderbirds are go! Gerry Anderson would be proud.
Very good, thanks.
I wonder if this design could have been more efficient than traditional jets at their operating speeds and ranges? Maybe added efficiency and operational flexibility could have been a selling point if true?
I have to wonder if trans-sonic aircraft might be more viable today, now that the 787 has proven the value of "long and thin" routes? Maybe not for medium-haul flights like New York to London, but maybe for even longer flights like Los Angeles to Sydney, where a 20% reduction in travel time would be more significant?
Rising fuel costs probably wouldn't help a newer attempt at this idea. But never say never!
@@MentourNow I think it could be viable if it would have a similar efficiency to a 777 or 787
That's basically what Boom is doing with their Overture
@@thearisen7301 No that's completely different because that's a supersonic airliner. The fuel burn and drag are much higher thus it will be much less efficient than what the Sonic Cruiser was aiming for.
Not all engineers at Boeing thought the Sonic Cruiser was a good idea. I say this with apologies to my friend, Chet Nelson, engineer X and the holder of the Sonic Cruiser patent (you see his name on it in the video) The SC was an outgrowth of the HSCT program. That airplane naturally wanted to cruise subsonically at about Mach 0.95. (Chet worked for me on the HSCT program) The big fatal flaw in the SC was you paid the structural price for the thin, highly swept wing appropriate for a Mach 1.6 - 2.0 airplane but only got about a 20% increase in speed. For many of us the airplane made no sense whatsover. The idea of point-to-point service was the single best idea to come out of the SC era. I say era because in the early 90s Boeing and Airbus teamed up to study a New Large Airplane. The cooperative effort ended when Boeing marketing came to the conclusion that P-P service with a smaller airplane made more sense. Airbus (well, France) wanted to build something bigger than the 747 - and we all know how this story ends.
what would a better wing design for mach 0.99 look like?
@@sadiporter2966 A Mach 0.99 airplane makes no sense. But if you really wanted to do that, the wing would look like a supersonic airplane's wing. And that's the point. You pay all the structural and aero penalties and then stop short of getting the real benefit. Just design a Mach 1.6 airplane and it wouldn't look much different.
It was a beautiful design in any case
Was out mowing the grass today and saw a KC-135 fly low over head on route to its home at KPIT. Love living right under the approach path. (though mostly because the airport is mostly closed at night so I don't get any planes buzzing my house when I'm asleep!)
I love how I always learn when watching mentours videos, I will now start look for the coke bottle shape in the planes!
I’m ashamed to say I had forgotten all about the Sonic Cruiser 😢Another great history update!
I hope you enjoyed this little refresher!
I worked in the Boeing wind tunnel at the time, and one of the reasons it failed was that they couldn’t make the numbers work and they lowered the cruise speed from .98 down to .96, and then again to .95 and at some point they realized the time savings was not going to cancel out the extra fuel burn. It was a beautiful plane, and I remember there being concerns about the wings on the model cracking because they were so thin
Now I understand why boeing made the 787 having the 777 already doing about the same
The 787 is not quite as large but is more fuel efficient and far more comfortable (I've had some terrible flights in 777s). Aircraft manufacturers have to try and fill the different niches.
If you could get into some Cessna history that would be cool, given they’re what many people learn on… I noticed a Cessna Citation CJ3+ cruising at 43,000ft on flightradar 24 earlier! Thought that was a pretty impressive cruise altitude for a small private jet!
A lot of the small jets can cruise that high, and frequently do so. I forget all that goes into the pros and cons of doing so, but at least up there you’re above most traffic. You can also travel faster at the higher altitude. I think it can be a little less efficient. Someone I knew with a CJ4 used to always complain if his pilots started going to high and fast as it burned more fuel. Also, small jets are much less laden with passengers and cargo.
As always, chock full with spot on historical and technical information.
Significant details make viewing and listening a veritable pleasure.
If your broadcasts were books, they would be as entertaining and captivating as can be and considered “page turners…so appropriate.
Thanks to you and to your “flight and cabin crew” for continuing the well-formatted and almost lost classic and intriguing story telling and super interesting “ground school” experience.
Best,
Mario
very nice as always, a little sad you didn't mention the "under table" aspects of that project. The fact that it was used to circumvent the agreement between USA and Europe about development help from the government to the aircraft manufacturers. That allows US gov to sponsor Boeing outside of that agreement on composite development for the later 787.
I always found the story of the Convair 880/990 really interesting if you want to delve into high speed passenger aircraft, much more so really than the true supersonic planes as they where made in while modest more substantial numbers than the true supersonics. However, they had to deal with many of the same issues.
What really killed the Convair 880 and 990 was the infamous mid-air collision in 1960 between a DC-8 and L-1049 Constellation in the New York City area. As such, the FAA started to impose speed limits on jet airliner flight, and that pretty much erased the speed advantage of the Convair airliners.
@@Sacto1654 Interesting
I click on your videos faster than my heart beats.
Awesome!
Hi @MentourNow I got to say amazing episode on an aircraft I and probably many others wish another manufacturer would get an idea of and built it from there. But I am glad to see that Boom Supersonic is doing just that with their Overture.
But I wish that other manufacturers would built more aircrafts. I am not a fan that there is just two manufacturers for Commercial airliners. I would love to see the days like how it was Lockheed, Mcdonald Douglas, Boeing, Convair and more.
But the Sonic Cruiser is a great aircraft that could be built but I understand the circumstances wasn't great when it was designed but man this is an awesome plane and love the specs of it. I hope Lockheed gets another take on a Supersonic Airliner but that one that is using proven technology and innovations.
good video. you can explain things so incredibly well. understanded everything AND i´m a german student!
Glad I could help! 💕
I just really started watching all of your videos and they are just Amazing and very informative. Thank you for all of your knowledge and hard work. Blessings 🙏🙏🙏🙏 Kimberly Gilmore Rochester NY
I’m always in awe of engine manufacturers. Flying jets for 26 years, I’ve had a chance to fly P&W, CFM, and R&R. In a 1K flying on gulfstream powered R@R engines, I only experienced one potential malfunction. They were generally bullet proof. If they can scale and sell this engine, they will be very competitive.
Really fascinating, knew very little of this - great content!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I was a Boeing 767 body structures mechanic from 1997-99. Loved working on the high tolerances and structural design
Spot on. Departure time slots from both Pacific and Atlantic routes drive the scheduling when you get to the airport. NAT tracks to Europe are timed for traffic flow into the major hubs. Sure high subsonic you could get there earlier, but the follow on flights won’t leave earlier. The hour you saved won’t save the hour extra on the ground.
Concorde actually still adhered to the Area Rule, even though not as drastic as F-5. If you look closely to the fuselage, the fuselage have a reduction of diameter,(the widest part is just before the starting point of the leading edge of the wing). In addition. The vertical tail doesn’t start until the wing’s trailing edge and tapering of the fuselage.
The sonic cruiser used some breakthrough technologies to achieve a marginal increase in speed. Turns out they enabled a substantial increase in efficiency in the 787 instead. Plus the extra fuel and range did at least as much for long thing routes as the sonic cruiser's speed would have done.
Incidentally, the airliner that made the biggest use of the area rule was the 747, with the hump phasing out just where the wings phased in. This made the 747 noticeably faster than other airliners.
A very interesting story. By the way, in English, numbers to the right of the decimal point are spoken individually, not as if they were numbers on the left of the decimal point. So 0.23 is said "Naught point two three" not "Naught point twentythree".
Except when you need "one point twenty one jigawatts" for time travel!
@@falcon-ng6sd No idea what you are alluding to mate. Should be One point two one Gigawatts.
@@Musketeer009 I take it you're not a Back to the Future fan?
@@falcon-ng6sd I don't dislike the film but you are correct. I'm not a fan.
One other issue with higher speed travel is not the travel time but the airport ground time - so the fixed times are the checkin/bag drop and document checks and boarding etc. Then the flight time and then destination document check time and baggage claim. On top of this is travel to and from the airports.
This could be 4 hours or more coupled with a 6 or 7 hour flight so the time saved for passengers by going faster is even a smaller percentage unless ground operations are faster too
Another interesting video, but I'm afraid Mentor Pilot missed the Sonic Cruiser/7E7 point. I was there working in Boeing customer support and marketing at the time. The Sonic Cruiser was canceled in December 2002 and the 7E7 was publicly launched in January 2003. At the time all of us with any knowledge of the the Sonic Cruiser program thought it wasn't anything other than a paper airplane to give the airlines something to think about other than the A380. Mentor, think about it. Any aircraft flying transoceanic are sequenced with the traffic flow and it is very difficult to overtake a slower aircraft. So you put a Mach .84 Airbus in the lane and the only thing a Mach .98 Sonic Cruiser could do is throttle back. Anybody flying the Mach .92 747 understood this problem. The 7E7 could never have been publicly reveled one month after the Sonic Cruiser was canceled without a very developed 7E7 on the drawing board. I'm still very proud of how the great Boeing Company hoodwinked Airbus over the A380 industrial disaster.
The 380 was surely an economic failures, but it remains one of the most comfortable aircraft ever built and as a passenger I would always prefer it above every single Boeing aircraft.
Or you could make a separate lane for the Sonic Cruiser specifically like what they did for Concorde.
@@cancelanime1507 Concorde flew in 18 km altitude, compared to 10 to 12 of a normal airliner.
A coffin corner did not exist for Concorde
@@simonm1447 The Sonic Cruiser would have cruised at 50,000 feet if I remember correctly.
@@cancelanime1507 the Wikipedia article says "in excess of 40k ft" , which means higher than the normal airliners
New video releases from Mentour Now, Curious Pilot and Theflightchannel over the last few days… perfect! 🎉🎉
Super Video! Thank You!😁
Glad you liked it!!
I'm learning so much about the history of airliners and airlines from these videos, thank you!
I believe the reason that passengers prefer the point-to-point model is mostly simplicity. I don't think it is about the hours, it is about the fact that you can't miss a connecting flight, you don't need find a place to spend the night if there is no immediately connecting flight etc. - just like in daily public transportation we humans prefer the route where we check in and get on board ONCE and don't have to spend the ride worrying and preparing for the next check-in, timing and orientation when changing to the connecting bus etc. Yes, hindsight is always 20/20 - but in this case it was more than obvious that a) passengers would always prefer point-to-point (not sure how Airbus missed this) and b) any performance difference that wouldn't cut the trip in half wouldn't make a difference to the individual passenger (not sure how Boeing missed this). Slight improvements are only relevant when you repeat something a LOT, which is why *small* fuel efficiency improvements are relevant to airlines, but rarely a consideration for people buying a new car (shamefully).
Betamax losing to VHS should have taught that lesson: Betamax offered *slightly* better quality, but VHS offered *double* the runtime. Long-haul trips are not exactly commuting. The vast majority of people taking these trips probably do them once a year or even just once a lifetime. They probably don't remember how long this particular trip took last time and don't expect it to be fast. And they know they will be jet-lagged anyway, so they expect that it will take one day to properly arrive. Also, if you book a trip and can choose between saving one hour or 50 dollars - well, most people don't make $50 an hour (especially not on vacation). This plane would have had to be efficient enough to be at least as cheap to operate as competing long-haul jets. One would assume Boeing had enough smart heads and access to data on passenger booking behaviour to figure out these factors and their respective importance.
A friend of mine is a pilot with American Airlines. He said management was very interested in the Sonic Cruiser. It would shave time off flights to Japan, China, and other Asian countries, as well as flights to Europe ftom Miami, DFW, and LAX.
The Sonic Cruiser's plan form makes great sense even if the idea of going Mach 0.1 faster for 20% more fuel burn doesn't. A canard aircraft with a two lifting wings can theoretically be more efficient than a wing-tail design. The rear located engines will make the cabin quieter and being wing mounted they won't incur the weight penalty of traditional tail engine designs. It is a shame that Boeing did not pursue this layout -- perhaps with less wing sweep and smaller strakes -- for the 787.
Thats interesting, I knew quite a bit about the 787 design process. But I didn't know that it spurred from the Sonic Cruser. I enjoy all of your videos.
I always enjoy the history of innovation. Thank you. Someday I hope this channel documents when we finally drop fueled engines for something new. Like sealed engines for an ultra quiet propulsion someday
Boeing Sonic cruiser: built using the same Boeing standards as the 787 Dreamcrasher and the 737 MAXimum Carnage
Beautifully done. Nice to see the 990 get a mention.
My understanding of the Sonic Cruiser project was that the extra speed was meant to appeal more to airlines than it was to passengers. The thinking was that the shorter flight times would mean that the aircraft could potentially operate one or two more sectors per day, compared to a more conventional aircraft. I’m fairly doubtful if this would have actually worked in practice, or if the extra sectors could have offset the additional costs operating the Sonic Cruiser would have entailed.
I was in Boeing PD at the time. Boeing Marketing and Engineering needed to put enough work into the Sonic Cruiser design for airlines to properly evaluate whether it was worth it more to travel faster across the Pacific with the same fuel efficiency as a 767 or to travel at the same speed with a 20% increase in fuel efficiency.
- Would passengers pay a premium ticket price for speed?
- Could airlines better use capital equipment by making more flights per day?
- Could an airplane be built with new technology for a price that airlines were willing to pay?
You aren't going to get a good answer on these questions unless you put the work in up front to develop a feasible configuration. And let's be honest here, Boeing never stopped working in Preliminary Design on a conventional airplane design while the SC was being shown to operators. The advanced engines in particular were the tent pole that dictated the pace of the program and both 7E7 and SC were going to use the same engine.
Wondering if anyone will build another supersonic passenger jet?🤞another great video Petter👌
Thanks! We shall wait and see..
Sometimes I feel the only way well build something as ambitious as a supersonic airliner anymore is if someone else does it first!
I mean hey that's basically the entire premise of the cold war isn't it, and why we got so many groundbreaking aircraft from during that time.
Nothing drives innovation like external competition, especially when national pride is at stake!
I assure you if someone like China came out with a supersonic airliner. We would be on the case in no time!
Shame though. Nowadays there isn't any real driver for such rapid innovation, nothing to justify the huge development costs especially when everything seems to be about the bottom line nowadays.
Forever is a long time but I don't see it any time soon. Civil aviation has been trending towards increasing capacity and efficiency rather than speed and I can see that continuing with increasing focus on environmental impact and hopefully noise abatement
Well, Aerion tried it with a large business jet configuration and failed. Boom supersonic isn't exactly in great shape either.
I suspect that technologies will have to change significantly. Maybe even a completely different power source.
@@jakebrodskype Nope, the killer with supersonic aircraft is noise - and innately so. Not just the supersonic boom, but supersonic aircraft speed means supersonic exhuast velocity from the turbines, with commensurate noise at takeoff and landing. Ever hear a fighter taking off?
wow! There were so many cool projects on go supersonic or close to it, but only Concorde made it, with a lot of conditions. In Argentina, a president promised sub-orbital flights that would take passengers in 90 min from Argentina to Japan
Only innovation and engineering done at Booing at this point is how to put a bigger engine under their existing wings and how to stretch a cabin longer.
@MentourNow I find the argument regarding the messing up the schedule by saving 1 hour somewhat strange. What about all the airlines using short-haul aircraft for these routes? These planes take 1 hour longer (!) than wide bodies to reach their destination. And, with the A321XLR on the way, this phenomenon will only increase! How does saving 1 hour throw schedules out the window, but delaying by 1 hour doesn't? It should really be the opposite, airlines love having passengers be early for their flights (and obviously hate having them being late).
Very nice work, and I don't think an hour which is closer to 15% with a 5 or 6 hour time difference really doesn't seem worth the billions and billions of dollars it would take to make the small change. However, without coming up with the idea and taking patents from that plan, it did help us move forward with even better more intuitive ideas today. Great work on the story!
Boeing’s initial design for the SST was minimum drag/max fuel economy design - an integrated wing/body. This meant no windows so Boeing even went so far as it include a scene generator system to project on each “window “ to provide a view of what a passenger would see if they could look outside. When they presented this prototype mock-up to the airlines they barfed saying no one will fly on a plane with no windows so Boeing had to redesign and create a supersonic aircraft with huge drag penalties and associated fuel costs leading to its demise …
I'd love to see a video about the 787-3, which seems to be a variant that would have a place in today's market.
I really love the 787, but the workers of the factories saying they wouldn't fly in one, that gets me worried... especially now that 787s are starting to age...
I suppose by now that 800-900 km/h is fast enough to go anywhere in the world for 95% of the people, if the alternative is paying more to get there faster. With energy only growing more expensive over time, I think this is what it'll be for a long time.
Fuel costs certainly aren't helping sell faster airliners.
Fossil fuels will be more expensive. Energy prices on the other hand will go to essentially zero in a decade. Solar panels and batteries will be dirt cheap, and the optimal combination would be massively overbuilding the generation capacity to minimize the storage requirement. That means essentially free power for most of the year.
And if you have essentially limitless essentially free electricity, you can make synthetic fuels from CO2 and water.
And if you want to go fast, a suborbital rocket can cruise around Mach 20. 30-45 minutes to anywhere on the planet. SpaceX plans to do this with their new Starship, and think they can offer competitive prices too.
At 13:25 you say that "drag increases with the square of speed". This is only true if the drag coefficent remains constant.
The big penalty with transsonic flight is that in this domain of speed the drag coefficient itself is increasing, making the drag penalty really worse. Otherwise there is no real drag penalty with speed. If we rework your example of doubling the speed, thus quadrupling the drag, this supposes that this happens with the same air density. But if you fly higher so that the air density is divided by four, the drag remains the same. Assuming that the lift coefficient also is inchanged, the lift also remains the same, just as the weigth of the airplane that it should support. The thrust needed to counter the drag also remains the same, but not the power, which is the thrust multiplied by the speed, so it is doubled, not quadrupled. Of course it is not obvious to provide a power multiplied by 2 in an air density divided by 4. Even with a factor less than 2 it was impossible with piston engines but with jet engines this became possible as long as they remained in the subsonic range.
His statement is correct. Drag does vary with the square of the velocity. The fact that the drag coefficient may also change is another matter. There is a practical limit to how high subsonic airplanes can fly. At altitude, a significant portion the lift comes from compression - not suction like on a subsonic airplane. Look up Robert Kulfan's patent 4,598,886 for Jonathan Livingston Seagull airplane. It is an analytic wing design that focuses the lower surface shock to produce a super efficient wave rider.
im thinking of the sonic cruiser type design not so much for speed as for fuel savings. something like the Piaggio where the shape of the fusulage contributess to 10% of the lift allowing use of a smaller wing. maybe that design will come back at the right time
That was really interesting! I had never heard of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser until now. Thanks for sharing this.
Elvis naturally had the coolest 4 engine airliner the Convair 880 with 4 J-79s. The 990's engines had fans at the hot end which was unique. I used to see the shock waves on Boeing 727s you had to have the sun on the other side of the plane.
Sorry to correct you - but the reason that SST's never caught on is because of the US FAA's rule against supersonic travel over the continental US. Consumer sentiment of "cheap" or "efficient" has nothing to do with the lack of SST's. The FAA rule against supersonic flight has nothing to do with sonic booms, as Gulfstream found out the hard way when they almost went bankrupt after developing a telescoping nose section that eliminated the sonic boom. The FAA still refused to let this aircraft fly supersonic over the US, causing Gulfstream to abandon the project entirely after sinking a very large amount of money into the design. So long as this archaic FAA rule exists - there will never be a widely adopted SST because the airlines aren't going to adopt a single SST airframe that can only be used over the oceans when they can adopt much simpler airframes like the 777 that can be used in both domestic and intercontinental flight. The more airframes, the more expensive (and difficult - in the case of SST's) the maintenance becomes.
No the Sonic Cruiser was a crazy idea. I believe it was more of a design study/stunt at a time when they had no answer to the A380. Cruising at Mach 0.90-95 you are at the place where drag rise begins to go vertical. It doesn't return, to a manageable level until M 1.2-1.4. If could post a drag rise chart here I would. It would have been much more efficient to design an aircraft to cruise at Mach 1.3-4 or go all the way like Concorde to M 2.0. That's where you get the efficiency benefits if you can supercruise like Concorde did. The 880/000 were 3x2 seating. As for the snazzy 880/990, there is no way 3x2 seating could compete on CASM with 3x3 seating.
Sonic booms over populated land masses has been a no-go and will remain so
So is the sonic cruiser an early example of the shape that airlines have started investigating again due to the innovations around electric engines? The extra (and constant) weight of the batteries I presume would want to be offset by improved aerodynamics, and with advancements in 3D printing make more complex shapes a lot more feasible (using technology akin to Relativity Space for fuselage construction for example).
Superb...as usual 👍
Your videos are very easy to understand ! Thank you !
Excellent information, thank you! I did, however, find the music to be annoying. Maybe that's just me?
Such an interesting video.
Thanks, Petter and MentourPilot Team ❤
Glad you enjoyed it!
I've flown on the 707, 747 and drank at the upstairs bar when I was 16 over Brasil, DC 10, L1011 and every other jet in the seventies. Good times. Smokin in the back, oh.yeah!
With Concorde a typical London to New York crossing would take a little less than three and a half hours as opposed to about eight hours for a subsonic flight. THis isn't like 1 hour early.
Good as always! Thank you! Can you make a video about our Swedish gripen jet?
It is interesting that most airlines like you said want twin engine jets!
And then there is Lufthansa, operating the A340-300, A340-600, A380, 747-400 and 747-8i.
And yes, we are in 2023!
Germans seem to be more conservative with engines. Might also be the appeal 4 engine planes have since it’s introduction to Lufthansa. LH still uses a 747-400 from Frankfurt to Toronto, whilst Air Transat used to operate an A310-300 on that route.
Lufthansa buys their aircraft, instead of leasing. This means they can't just not extend 10 year leasing contract.
Lufthansa already ordered 777X, but this program has delays. So they had to resurrect the A380s, and some A340s.
They will keep the 747-8i (since they are impossible to sell, and they were cheap for Lufthansa as the launch customer), the other 4 engine aircraft will get retired in mid term.
@@simonm1447 AeroNewsGermany said that Lufthansa reactivated the A340-600 because of the need for First Class seats in Munich. According to him the delay of the 777X doesn't really have an impact on their fleet strategy. The 777X will replace the 747-400 and adds some capacity. The A340-300 will be replaced by the 787-9. The 340-600 will be replaced by the A350-900 or -1000, but not until it gets some more First Class seats. And the 747-8i and 380 will keep flying much longer.
And as you said, Lufthansa owns their aircraft, so it makes sence that they keep them flying.
Great video as always. Thanks for the all the work that you put into making all your content.
Thanks Petter, another great story very well done.
Honestly the sonic cruiser might be able to work in the modern environment. The time saving even on transatlantic routes while only 20% would mean the difference for taking a morning flight out to London, doing business and getting home before dinner all without losing the efficiency you'd get with a 777 or 787 which would happen if you attempted to design a supersonic airliner again.
~ 15:00 - A civilian aircraft that makes full use of the flexibility that composites afford to the shape of fuselage is beautiful, insanely efficient Piaggio P.180 Avanti.
Ha! Its seldom short with you at the helm. Informative. Ty