Is Deutsche Wellē in a pocket of CCP...? Pushing the “competency” of the Chinese Aviation infrastructure.... Meanwhile their (CN) new buildings are falling apart... The safest way to travel in CN/RU is by train 🚊 So far... they have a long way to go....
No future of commercial aviation at all. 40 year Consumption era, based on credit stimulation, includes mass air travel - is over. Middle class will be disappear.
Well, considering Boeing's last new airplane project took more than 10 years, has problems with quality until today, included a half year grounding of the worldwide fleet and had a cost overrun of over 20 billion US, they do not have that much of an appetite to do that. And of course, at the time when they decided against a new plane and for the MAX instead, they were on the wrong foot to begin with as Airbus had a much easier time just bolting two new engines on a proven and unchanged airframe. That said, it is quite curious that the 737MAX has not yet been approved to fly in China after its groundings, for continued safety concerns.
It is good to stop the boing-airbus duopolio with China’s Comac but we need Brazil’s Embraer, Canada’s Bombardier, Rusia’s Sukhoi, Japan’s Honda to start to compete in the big passager planes.
@@DW_25 I want Tupolev, Yakolev, and Ilyushin back to commercial airplane business. At least i still trust them more thanks to their experiences of making commercial planes during Cold War era.
China is currently absorbing European and American tech and will produce a substandard aircraft that is forced on developing countries it has a financial stranglehold over. Basically like their vaccine.
@@stormy7744 people use to make fun of Chinese phones until iPhone became under thread and suddenly phone companies are a thread to national security. Expect same thing here.
Airbus made a fly-by-wire system that resulted in deadly crashes as well. The issue is that Airlines want more efficient aircraft immediately due to the costs of fuel, which will likely result in more rushed designs from all makers...
@@dennislin1212 who cares about the EASA? they just follow the FAA like everyone else. they don't have the guts to go against America. it has nothing to do with whether everyone has tested the 737 Max properly. China has no reason to play politics with Boeing. Boeing already is going to be forced to pay compensation to all the carriers who placed orders with them. And that means Chinese carriers will get the largest settlement. also, China has already won respect by being the first regulator to take air safety seriously in banning the 737 Max. we don't need anything from Boeing, other than for them to design a safe plane. China has a lot of demand for planes and only Boeing and Airbus can fulfill the orders.
Since it's the CCP we are talking about, they could be retarded enough to just force people to use those planes and they still manage to think afterwards that they chose them because their planes were competitive. And then they launch them on the global market and suddenly find out it's not competitive at all and that they could have found out earlier by just allowing the domestic market to actually judge whether those planes were good enough or not. It could also be that they get lucky and they manage to make a competitive product and that the entire coercion of the domestic market wasn't necessary in the first place. They'll find out.
Not true. The company has been trying to sell to the china's market for 3 years now. It just couldn't compete with the boing and airbus price or fuel efficiency.
Not necessarily because they know the practicality of using their planes is not competitive against Boeing and Airbus. Unless they make it better and trial it more domestically, they will then probably try to force companies or simply create airlines that use them
The Airbus jet in the thumbnail looks absolutely fantastic! Hope it comes to fruition! Boeing have sadly lost public trust, it doesn’t help that they lied about problems that plagued the 737 Max.
"Lost public trust" No they haven't. Nobody can't tell a single difference between a 737 and A320. The public aren't smart or aviation enthusaists... stop using that flawed argument.
@@sulil1938 they don't need to recognise them, they just need to know they'll be flying on a 737 Max. Same thing happened before with the McDonnel Douglas.
How many percent of the world's planes crash? The vast majority of plane "crashes" are non-fatal. How many percent of the world's cars crash? A moderate amount of car crashes are fatal. You're more likely to die from being struck by lightning than to die in a plane crash.
Even if it will suffer, it will be temporary. Aeronautical industry is an industry with a good future, it will always be developing. As the compatitiveness rises, there will be more work for you
Dude, we're not going to stop flying, even if it kills us as a species. Can you actually imagine humans deciding "yeah, being able to fly around the world was cool for a while, but we're going to give that up now for sustainability or health reasons?" Just do us all a massive favor and figure out how to make planes that don't create greenhouse gasses as exhaust. Good luck in your education!
We will see Airships used for Cargo, and perhaps Passenger Transport. By the way, they can use Gas Bags of Hydrogen inside of Helium Gas Bags to address the fire issue. And by using Methane as a Fuel, the weight of the Fuel is merely the Gas Bags for it, making them very Efficient but Slow. So expect Comercial Airships to be a thing in the future...
@@MrAmhara there's never competition alone. The report itself showed how these companies are all interdependant. Designed in one place, engines built somewhere else, avionics somewhere else... etc... It's just a shame how these reports only scratch the surface and don't really show whats out there. There's a plethora of innovation comming from Embraer and other companies/regions outside Boeing/Airbus US/Europe/China. But I'm not saying anything new... media reporting is usually low quality whatever the subject... "Murray Gell-Mann amnesia effect".
@@peabase they didnt try to merge.. Embraer received an acquisition offer. And the fact that Boeing, with its billion dollar defense budget, has a war chest to make an acquisition has nothing to do with the point that "if you recently took a flight it probably was in an Airbus, Boeing (OR Embraer) plane".
Hi DW, I would like to seek your permission to use 9:29 to 9:33 for a video project with regards to the future of aerospace. Please let me know if it is ok.
Somebody already has it or extraterrestrials are here. At 18 years old I saw an advanced technological spacecraft. So either somebody is lying on earth or aliens are here observing.
There are 7.8 billion people in the world. The global aviation market is too big to have a duopoly! The entrance of Comac is a good thing, but there needs to be at least one more! Can India found its own aviation company like China has done? That would at least give US, EU, China and India as the countries/blocs with an aircraft manufacturer. Eventually, given its size and population, Africa should have its own too.
@@MDP1702 There really isn't any green hydrogen, it either takes more power than just using the electricity or is polluting almost as much as gas already is. Not to mention that people like to point out many batteries use unethical and rare metals, which fuel cells also would need to use a ton of.
@@-JustHuman- Hydrogen produced by electricity from renewable sources is green. the fact that it isn't an energy efficient process doesn't change this. I am not advocating for a full hydrogen industry at the cost of batteries, for example road transport in all its forms is much better done with batteries than hydrogen, but for things like the shipping industry and long haul flights, hydrogen can definitely play a role, especially since you don't want to waste batteries that can better be used elsewhere when there is another option that might even be better or almost just as good.
I always choose Airbus and I will always do. I think only Airbus is doing the right thing towards green and safe commercial flight which I don't trust the other companies with their "strange and old new ideas".
I don't know why the BWB concept is being credited to Airbus? Boeing had the BWB concept years ago. There were major issues with those designs for passenger use, although as a freighter it could work. But there is no money in a pure freighter for non-military purposes.
@@fluoroantimonictippedcruis1537 Check out the HondaJet private jet. Very innovative. I'm sure that's what Harley-Davidson, Ford, GM, Chrysler, and all the other now dead carmakers said back in the 70s when they dropped their CBs and Civics. I'll put my money on Honda rather than your "H".
@@trevorwoodley3897 HAL is literally a much bigger company than some group that makes private jets. They are a key supplier of parts for the Indian airforce and they sell a wider range of products than Honda on the civilian market. They had a revenue of 3 billion last year And btw, ford and GM pull the same yearly revenue as Honda, Chrysler merged with Fiat and is close behind and harley davidson is exclusively into motorcycles
It still amazes me how Airbus became Boeing's biggest competitor in civil aviation by betting their entire company on success by handing out free 6 month trials of their jetliners to airline companies.
Efficiency is L/D * Eta (thermal + propulsion) * Wp / Wtogw * v . Simple formula. L/D must be 30+ or so (like a glider), eta thermal is governed by Carnot: take the hottest turbine blades you can get, eta propulsion: take the biggest fan or prop you can find, and take the lightest aircraft wih the highest load capability and fly as high as you can.
Supersonic doesn't mean more expensive, if you fly higher, you get the speed for free. For regional it's not a good idea, but got global trips, the more trips definitely offset the bit of extra fuel at takeoff and landing.
The necessary thing is to make planes more secure than the previous generations, yes. then how? This should be the question for today's aero engineers, to make planes safe and not let them crash. To land them securely in case of any type of flight failure.
I never liked the Boeing Airbus duopoly. I don't care if it is China, Russia, Pakistan or Senegal joining the party, as long as it is no longer the old duopoly.
@The Professional russia help them? Buddy, they are struggling to find another model to use in place of russian jet engines... chinese want to be free from russians, but they can't.
@@tengkualiff Its so rampant for China that essentially intellectual property is simply non-existent there lol. Literally, even including big name companies like Huawei, Xiaomi or Alibaba. Everything in China is essentially stolen IP
Germany will, but it will be their more efficient Turbo-Prop Aircraft & Aircraft Parts for larger Passenger Jets. It takes a large nation to support a Boeing, which is why Airbus is a Multi-National...
I love how the media so calmly talks about what will be happening decades from now, while we have the climate crisis, biodiversity crisis and the anti-biotic crisis that means we won't be around in decades!
thanks a lot for the comment: covering both (climate, & biodiversity - i aint much aware about anti-biotic crisis), and using the more appropriate word crisis instead of change/loss etc. These are indeed on the scale of crisis now.
This is so strange! I had a dream about this similar triangle planes many years back and it seem like I been through the future already known about it! Scary!!!
The Blended Wing Designs are similar to the Flying Wings of the past. The problem with Flying Wings is that they need a sophisticated Fly-By-Wire System, which didn't exist in the 1950s...
Our concern is the safety of air travel. They should concentrate on developing safety and protection for passengers from plane crush or engine failures for example, rather than some necessary competition that will jeopardize the safety of passengers
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - R. Buckminster Fuller In the cosmos of time the following holds true: The burning of Hydrocarbons is ancient technology. The semiconductor chip is also ancient technology. The applications of both is also wrongfully applied. Scientists and engineers need to engineer what's beyond their sight and what's beyond all of their senses to truly disrupt the future and push humanity FAR beyond what is impossible.
If anything, recent years proved people were flying much more than they needed to. The biggest culprit in the pandemic is mass trans-continental tourism and unnecessary business trips that could have been easily replaced with conference calls etc.
It can sell because Boeing stands behind it. Buying an commercial jet is much much more then just the plane itself. That's why Sukhoi have had problems expanding our of the Russian sphere. And they actually know their craft, and are not just doing copy paste work like the Chinese.
@@longmarch2668 Which is why no one serious would chose Comac. If even Boeing has a trail of bodies then with Comac that trail would be a literal motorway.
Trying to move fast is not far out perspective for passanger aircraft. Airplane builders should focus on the most efficient speed, which is slower than current airline velocity and on more space on board. Those are achievable shape with highly extended - smooth - wings, and speed is always equals to more power that is which are more fuel consumption. Difference between about half hour for ten hour fight is not big obstacle for passengers.
The SpaceX Earth to Earth project is not taken seriously by anyone in the business. And it is not green at all. Hypersonic high altitude flighs is interesting, but it depends on tech that is so complicated and expensive. The guy promising you a ticket to anywhere in the world in 4 hours for $100 is a liar.
@@markopodganjek845 Hydrogen* Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it's everywhere. Hydrogen powered vehicles are not bombs, they're inert.
@@tjmarx as you know, the first second when hidrogen contact the air it burst in flames. It is chalenge to keep air tight reservoar for space flight for short period. To keep it air tight on airplanes for years is for me mission imposible. It will be a lot of explosions and dead people, before they will stop to use hydrogen. I don’t see usage of hydrogen especialy “green” because to get Hdrogen you need clasical energy. So you burn for example coal or natural gas to make electricity and through that hydrogen. Under the line the same Co2 was produced as it is with flying on kerozin.
@@tjmarx But the challange is how to make pure hydrogen did not burst into flames, especially during an accident. Everyone still remember the horrific accident from hydrogen-filled Hindenburg that were burst into flames almost a century agoo.
@@ignatiusryd2031 Refining hydrogen isn't a problem. We have several methods in commerical production since 2005. All of the major oil brands have investment in hydrogen production. All of the major vehicle manufacturers are releasing mainstream hydrogen vehicles over the next 5 years starting last year (ie.there are already models available for sale). Hydrogen powered buses have been a thing for 15+ years. Hydrogen is not burned, these are not combustion engines. Hydrogen works with an electric motor, instead of having to carry heavy batteries around and recharge them hydrogen uses chemical reaction to generate electricity on the fly to power the electric motor. It's electric that you refill at the pump as quickly as you do with petrol. 160 petrol stations in the USA have already converted some or all of their pumps to hydrogen. The only by-products are water and breathable oxygen. THAT is what AirBus are talking about when they're saying hydrogen powered planes. Planes that use hydrogen powered electric motors to create thrust, which is why one of the concept designs is a prop plane. Hydrogen powered vehicles take the most abundant element in the universe and use it to power transportation in a way that we also produce drinkable fresh water and breathable air. P.S. Interesting fact, one of the methods for refining hydrogen was invented by actress Natalie Portman.
which they will do, and already do, by the tens of thousands and get volume discounts. Plus volume manufacturing gets cheaper overall, so every plane with those components will get cheaper.
It's depressing to see how little innovation has been made in domestic air travel over the past 40 years, hardly anything to note. From 1920 to the 1940s we went from biplanes to jetfighters. I'm sure the time it takes to travel from London to Paris in the past 40 years has increased not decreased, and comfort has gone downhill too. What the hells going on?!
Well powering your planes on clean/renewable energy isn't Airbus or Boeings problem, unless they start designing their own engines, that would be on the main engine suppliers RollsRoyce, Pratt and GE no?
People need to stop believing that 3D renders of planes doesn't mean those planes exist, or will ever exist. Trains are the best way to travel in 90% of situations. That's the actual future, not these CG planes that will never exist. Peace!
The future isn't about aircraft design as much as it will be about load efficiency. The more efficient the aircraft carriers the cargo load, (whether it be people or product) and the efficient use of the aircraft (turn the around time/time not in use) is maximised, is where the future lies. Aircraft design will match this theory and the engine power will depend on future technology. Any other design of aircraft will also follow to be efficient, whether to save time, by going fast or being able to take off quickly and land in the shortest distance and time. I look forward to the future.
why say weight and then ask about volume? Noting that to carry a lot of H2 effectively you want to do it as ammonia--it's more compact than liquid H2 and doesn't need cryogenic high-pressure storage. There is a catalyst for reforming it to pure H2 for engine use, and if you are feeding a fuel cell rather than burning it you're getting more energy per m3 and per kg than avgas. Also, a H2 fuel cell will, in not long, be a more size+cost+efficiency effective propulsion source than a fuelled jet. Use electric heat rather than burning fuel in the jet engine, it's been tested and works.
My idea to lighten the plane is to have it launched by a electro-magnetic catapult which launch the plane to cruising height and retrieve it withe a electro - magnetic regenerative breaking. It be like a ski jump 🛫🛬
In my opinion... Current airlines will buy only cheap upgrades to current designs until they buy other vehicle types such as Starship hoppers, quad copters, and for slow speed - Zeppelins. Airplanes will be mostly for economy class, and not need supersonic. Sonic booms all the time would not be tolerated and would be legislated against, especially considering fuel use. If Starship (or a design based on it) can take off at partial throttle until it hits altitude, it may be able to take off from anywhere without disturbing the public.
You lost to mention ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) Article 24 and Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation on that report. It reflects the motiviation of manufactures.
What I expected: -electric engines -instant passenger fuselage disengagement in case of catastrophe with safe landing. -etc What I found "meet the new same as the old." Corporation cannot innovate out of the box
Sorry to burst your bubble, but hydrogen isn't carbon or emission-free. The only cost effective way to produce large amounts of hydrogen is the water-gas shift reaction, which uses methane as the source of hydrogen and produces CO2. You lose a significant amount of energy in the conversion process.
The future should not be "greener but slower", the future should be greener but faster. Slower speeds decrease economic growth and bite into your time that you will never get back. We should progress technology, not regress it.
Is there less turbulence with wing shaped Aircrafts? Bc that’s what I’d market-not its environmental impact. The laymen who doesn’t know/care about planes , that’s the golden ticket to the public liking it
One of the issues with hydrogen is that it is rarely found in nature in a usable form. And the processes to make hydrogen are very energy intensive and usually release greenhouse gases. So while using hydrogen as a fuel may be 0 emission, production of hydrogen isn't.
Yes that is true but considering the main problem with renewable energies being the storage hydrogen quickly becomes a suitable solution (not the only one indeed)
Anything that releases greenhouse gases at any stage of its production or use cant really be considered a solution to the problem because the problem is the production of greenhouse gases. Because both the energy required to produce the hydrogen and sometimes the method itself both cause greenhouse gases to be released it doesn't really solve anything. Its like driving an electric car, the car itself may not have any emissions, but many of the places that makes the electricity for the car do.
@@Sciguy95 exactly Ure a hundred percent right. But we can’t use the whole potential of renewables and h2 might be a solution. so making green h2 and therefore using renewables to a full potential plus getting less greenhouse gases from aviation due to the use of h2 sounds like a win win. Don’t get me wrong I’m not a fan of single solutions or saying sth is the holy grail but might be worth studying. In the end research will clear the questions :) and yeah the key is on green h2 for that to work
@@jonasalopecia1662 at least your not totally against everything else. I saw someone trying to argue that anything that isn't nuclear power is a total lost cause nuclear is the 1 and only, end all solution. They just couldn't understand that the true solution will be comprised of multiple different things all working together.
as pointed out the C929 probably wont ever happen. russia is rightly focusing on their own mc21 engines. creating a whole new range is just not in the budget. video might have been more interesting if talking about new 3d printing technologies and how thats opening up the aircraft industry...eg boom.
The fundamental shape of an airplane has not changed much since 1910, with a box or tubular fuselage, wings up forward, and a much smaller tail section aft. A tubular fuselage is the most efficient way to handle the higher pressures inside. The wings up forward produce more lift than they would if the aft control surfaces were in the front. Supersonic planes will be for the super rich. And even then, there may be little public tolerance for the sonic boom noise pollution. And there's no replacing the gas turbine. It's greater horsepower per weight trump's it's lack luster fuel efficiency. Besides, present-day jet engines are more and more resembling turbo-props everyday. I wouldn't be surprised if global climate concerns force us to fly slower.
hahahah, in 2021 i saw a documentary of innovations. they said by 2016 Britain will have flying taxis. Now I believe by 2030 British will die because of hunger
What do you think - what will the future of commercial aviation look like?
Is Deutsche Wellē in a pocket of CCP...? Pushing the “competency” of the Chinese Aviation infrastructure....
Meanwhile their (CN) new buildings are falling apart...
The safest way to travel in CN/RU is by train 🚊
So far... they have a long way to go....
Nothing gonna change...😁
Chinese?
No future of commercial aviation at all.
40 year Consumption era, based on credit stimulation, includes mass air travel - is over.
Middle class will be disappear.
Just wondering how inbred the guy in the beginning is lmao
Boeing is promising that in the future you probably wont die on its 737 Max 8s after they get the bugs worked out.
Wasn't the plane. It was the software.
@@summerland6397 And the software is installed on the plane, like the engines it is a part of the plane.
Well, considering Boeing's last new airplane project took more than 10 years, has problems with quality until today, included a half year grounding of the worldwide fleet and had a cost overrun of over 20 billion US, they do not have that much of an appetite to do that. And of course, at the time when they decided against a new plane and for the MAX instead, they were on the wrong foot to begin with as Airbus had a much easier time just bolting two new engines on a proven and unchanged airframe.
That said, it is quite curious that the 737MAX has not yet been approved to fly in China after its groundings, for continued safety concerns.
The 737 is the safest jet in the history of aviation even if two Max variants crashed.
@@summerland6397 Oh. I feel perfectly safe then.
It is good to stop the boing-airbus duopolio with China’s Comac but we need Brazil’s Embraer, Canada’s Bombardier, Rusia’s Sukhoi, Japan’s Honda to start to compete in the big passager planes.
Bombardier lost their program to Airbus because Boeing illegally petitioned for a 370% tariff on their planes.
UAC is the successor to Sukhoi
@@DW_25 I want Tupolev, Yakolev, and Ilyushin back to commercial airplane business. At least i still trust them more thanks to their experiences of making commercial planes during Cold War era.
YES I agree
@@ignatiusryd2031 Afaik they're all part of UAC now
Any competition that can break an entrenched duopoly is a good thing.
until it becomes a triopoly
China also coming in race!
China is currently absorbing European and American tech and will produce a substandard aircraft that is forced on developing countries it has a financial stranglehold over. Basically like their vaccine.
@@dhanajon5528 I know, right ! And then Quadopoly, Quintopoly...
@@stormy7744 people use to make fun of Chinese phones until iPhone became under thread and suddenly phone companies are a thread to national security. Expect same thing here.
Boeing please make sure your planes can fly the whole journey not just the first 10 mins
The 737 MAX is not yet allowed to fly in China again, for continued safety concerns. Which was Boeings biggest market outside the US.
@@SoordhinNot likely yet. But 737 MAX fell on its own defect.
Airbus made a fly-by-wire system that resulted in deadly crashes as well.
The issue is that Airlines want more efficient aircraft immediately due to the costs of fuel, which will likely result in more rushed designs from all makers...
@@Soordhin We all know that it's political. EASA has alrrady stated they think it's safe now.
@@dennislin1212 who cares about the EASA? they just follow the FAA like everyone else. they don't have the guts to go against America. it has nothing to do with whether everyone has tested the 737 Max properly. China has no reason to play politics with Boeing.
Boeing already is going to be forced to pay compensation to all the carriers who placed orders with them. And that means Chinese carriers will get the largest settlement. also, China has already won respect by being the first regulator to take air safety seriously in banning the 737 Max.
we don't need anything from Boeing, other than for them to design a safe plane. China has a lot of demand for planes and only Boeing and Airbus can fulfill the orders.
5:32 "IF they convince their domestic carriers to buy them". They will have no choice, but to buy them..
"IF they convice..." they dont need to. xD
Since it's the CCP we are talking about, they could be retarded enough to just force people to use those planes and they still manage to think afterwards that they chose them because their planes were competitive.
And then they launch them on the global market and suddenly find out it's not competitive at all and that they could have found out earlier by just allowing the domestic market to actually judge whether those planes were good enough or not.
It could also be that they get lucky and they manage to make a competitive product and that the entire coercion of the domestic market wasn't necessary in the first place. They'll find out.
Not true. The company has been trying to sell to the china's market for 3 years now. It just couldn't compete with the boing and airbus price or fuel efficiency.
@@mikyas392 The CCP might control Chinese airlines, but no airline will buy those planes if they're unsafe or expensive to run.
Not necessarily because they know the practicality of using their planes is not competitive against Boeing and Airbus. Unless they make it better and trial it more domestically, they will then probably try to force companies or simply create airlines that use them
The Airbus jet in the thumbnail looks absolutely fantastic! Hope it comes to fruition! Boeing have sadly lost public trust, it doesn’t help that they lied about problems that plagued the 737 Max.
Just wait until a couple of of 787 dreamliner start to break in 2 because of faulty joints.
"Lost public trust" No they haven't. Nobody can't tell a single difference between a 737 and A320. The public aren't smart or aviation enthusaists... stop using that flawed argument.
I can build it in simpleplanes
@@sulil1938 they don't need to recognise them, they just need to know they'll be flying on a 737 Max. Same thing happened before with the McDonnel Douglas.
@@josipcuric8767 6 months later, no one talks about hwo they don't trust boeing, huh?
Boeing should focus on making planes that DOESN'T CRASH lmao!
How many percent of the world's planes crash? The vast majority of plane "crashes" are non-fatal.
How many percent of the world's cars crash? A moderate amount of car crashes are fatal.
You're more likely to die from being struck by lightning than to die in a plane crash.
Their planes dont crash often its very safe.
Only the 737 has issues lol stop being foolish
@@Student0Toucher They are educated by fox news and other American news that have no idea what they are talking about
I am studying Aeronautical engineering, so i hope the industry does not suffer greatly with this pandemic
Even if it will suffer, it will be temporary. Aeronautical industry is an industry with a good future, it will always be developing. As the compatitiveness rises, there will be more work for you
Hey I also want to pursue Aerospace Engineering. Which school in US do you think has the best Aerospace Engineering major
@@omarinuel I know more about Europe, but in the US maybe Austin,Texas
Dude, we're not going to stop flying, even if it kills us as a species. Can you actually imagine humans deciding "yeah, being able to fly around the world was cool for a while, but we're going to give that up now for sustainability or health reasons?" Just do us all a massive favor and figure out how to make planes that don't create greenhouse gasses as exhaust. Good luck in your education!
YOU HAVE BAD LUCK. NOW-A-DAYS IA ENGINEERING IS NEEDED.
Embraer has an awesome aircraft: E2-195. I think she's going to increase her market share! Key word: low cost of maintenance.
They only make private jets.This video is about passenger jets.
@@arbaz79 are you kidding? You should check the Embraer's website!! They produce everything!
@@arbaz79 Embraer 190 is a passenger jet, and a very fine one at that too.
@@arbaz79 Embraer produces and sells a lot of passenger jets, I just flew in one from KLM some weeks ago.
@@arbaz79 Do you know anything about aviation?
The airships a hundred years ago used to be dependent on hydrogen.
We will see Airships used for Cargo, and perhaps Passenger Transport.
By the way, they can use Gas Bags of Hydrogen inside of Helium Gas Bags to address the fire issue. And by using Methane as a Fuel, the weight of the Fuel is merely the Gas Bags for it, making them very Efficient but Slow. So expect Comercial Airships to be a thing in the future...
Flying in a Boeing 737 Max 8 is like playing Russian Roulette airborne style.
Nonsense. Check out un contained engine failures on Airbus products.
@@larrydugan1441 Wow Airbus really are the best aircraft manufacturers!
Why you didn't mention Embraer?
1:00... Embraer is missing on that list. Massive presence in regional flight markets.
Yeah. But Brazil has no chance of competing alone long-term. Long at the "long game" ( future) not past.
@@MrAmhara there's never competition alone. The report itself showed how these companies are all interdependant. Designed in one place, engines built somewhere else, avionics somewhere else... etc... It's just a shame how these reports only scratch the surface and don't really show whats out there. There's a plethora of innovation comming from Embraer and other companies/regions outside Boeing/Airbus US/Europe/China. But I'm not saying anything new... media reporting is usually low quality whatever the subject... "Murray Gell-Mann amnesia effect".
RIP Embraer
With all due respect, it's telling that Embraer tried to merge with Boeing.
@@peabase they didnt try to merge.. Embraer received an acquisition offer. And the fact that Boeing, with its billion dollar defense budget, has a war chest to make an acquisition has nothing to do with the point that "if you recently took a flight it probably was in an Airbus, Boeing (OR Embraer) plane".
Hi DW, I would like to seek your permission to use 9:29 to 9:33 for a video project with regards to the future of aerospace. Please let me know if it is ok.
Great video; loved your ending!
that flying wing from airbus looks rad
Not gonna lie, sustainable fuel is more important for the future, in the future
Somebody already has it or extraterrestrials are here. At 18 years old I saw an advanced technological spacecraft. So either somebody is lying on earth or aliens are here observing.
@Sen Se You only need to split dimension to travel faster.
Methane, Alcohol & Biodiesel will be the BioFuels of the near future...
There are 7.8 billion people in the world. The global aviation market is too big to have a duopoly! The entrance of Comac is a good thing, but there needs to be at least one more! Can India found its own aviation company like China has done? That would at least give US, EU, China and India as the countries/blocs with an aircraft manufacturer. Eventually, given its size and population, Africa should have its own too.
Is there a source for the Video Clip at second 0:38 ?
"Powered by Hydrogen, no more polluting Kerosene"
Depends on where'd you get the Hydrogen
Straight from the sun. 😂
hydrogen, straight from the excess waste hydrogen from natural gas refineries
@@TheWizardGamez hahahaha...
@@TheWizardGamez there's no where near enough byproduct to fuel a fleet of 100 passenger planes.
Water electrolysis 😉
What about Embraer?
I liked the Airbus vision for future. Great think green!
Some folk still say that the 2019 climate strikes did nothing. But minds are slow to change, and it is only now that we are seeing the effects.
Well Hydrogen isn't really green, not how it is made right now at least.
@@-JustHuman- True, though all these hydrogen concepts start from the assumption of using green hydrogen.
@@MDP1702 There really isn't any green hydrogen, it either takes more power than just using the electricity or is polluting almost as much as gas already is.
Not to mention that people like to point out many batteries use unethical and rare metals, which fuel cells also would need to use a ton of.
@@-JustHuman- Hydrogen produced by electricity from renewable sources is green. the fact that it isn't an energy efficient process doesn't change this.
I am not advocating for a full hydrogen industry at the cost of batteries, for example road transport in all its forms is much better done with batteries than hydrogen, but for things like the shipping industry and long haul flights, hydrogen can definitely play a role, especially since you don't want to waste batteries that can better be used elsewhere when there is another option that might even be better or almost just as good.
My Favorite Narrator from "Kings & Generals"
I always choose Airbus and I will always do. I think only Airbus is doing the right thing towards green and safe commercial flight which I don't trust the other companies with their "strange and old new ideas".
I've been waiting for cabin crew vacancy since 2020 , any suggestions like... Did I made the right choice??? Will i have career??
No discussion of the roles Embraer, Bimbardier and Mitsubishi can potentially play?
I am getting Vice vibe from the presentation. Keeping up with times.
I don't know why the BWB concept is being credited to Airbus? Boeing had the BWB concept years ago. There were major issues with those designs for passenger use, although as a freighter it could work. But there is no money in a pure freighter for non-military purposes.
2:02 that one kinda looks like Thunderbird 2
2 long flights on an Airbus would be better than any flight on a Boeing.
would variable swept wing airliners be good or bad
5:50 why use the word "steal" ? The market is the market, it does not belong to Boeing or Airbus.
There's no negative connotation to "stealing market share". It's a common idiom.
@@peabase I see. Thank you~
So it’s A,B,C (Airbus, Boeing & Comac). Wonder where is D, Embraer still needs to wait until we have a D!
Airbus, Boeing, Comac, Dassault, Embraer, Fokker, Gulfstream, Honda: ABCDEFGH. Lol
@@trevorwoodley3897 H should be Hindustan not Honda. Honda don't really do much
@@fluoroantimonictippedcruis1537 Check out the HondaJet private jet. Very innovative. I'm sure that's what Harley-Davidson, Ford, GM, Chrysler, and all the other now dead carmakers said back in the 70s when they dropped their CBs and Civics. I'll put my money on Honda rather than your "H".
@@trevorwoodley3897 HAL is literally a much bigger company than some group that makes private jets. They are a key supplier of parts for the Indian airforce and they sell a wider range of products than Honda on the civilian market.
They had a revenue of 3 billion last year
And btw, ford and GM pull the same yearly revenue as Honda, Chrysler merged with Fiat and is close behind and harley davidson is exclusively into motorcycles
DW, stop the music in the background. It is really distracting
I wish Bombardier would try their hand at making future ready flights
It still amazes me how Airbus became Boeing's biggest competitor in civil aviation by betting their entire company on success by handing out free 6 month trials of their jetliners to airline companies.
It's like he knew I thought that ending line was cheesy.
Efficiency is L/D * Eta (thermal + propulsion) * Wp / Wtogw * v . Simple formula.
L/D must be 30+ or so (like a glider), eta thermal is governed by Carnot: take the hottest turbine blades you can get, eta propulsion: take the biggest fan or prop you can find, and take the lightest aircraft wih the highest load capability and fly as high as you can.
Boeing says they will be ready for Sustainable Aviation Fuel, meanwhile Airbus did fly an A350 with 100% SAF already
Boeing flew a 787 with 100% Sustainable fuel back in 2018...
Love the idea of the flying wing, though I doubt one of them will make an appearance in the sky anytime soon
Slap some Laser/Wonder weapon or Attack Drone on that Flying wing and you got some Belkan Technology moment
Bruh 👍👌 nice
Supersonic doesn't mean more expensive, if you fly higher, you get the speed for free. For regional it's not a good idea, but got global trips, the more trips definitely offset the bit of extra fuel at takeoff and landing.
Flying higher is more expensive though
Gonna rock mind blowing like dreams come true
The necessary thing is to make planes more secure than the previous generations, yes. then how? This should be the question for today's aero engineers, to make planes safe and not let them crash. To land them securely in case of any type of flight failure.
airplanes are extremely safe, compared to the number flights we have everyday it's amazing how low accidents happen
I never liked the Boeing Airbus duopoly. I don't care if it is China, Russia, Pakistan or Senegal joining the party, as long as it is no longer the old duopoly.
@Lee Garrett tbh, that does seem to be the trend with any other industry lol.
@The Professional russia help them? Buddy, they are struggling to find another model to use in place of russian jet engines... chinese want to be free from russians, but they can't.
@@tengkualiff Its so rampant for China that essentially intellectual property is simply non-existent there lol. Literally, even including big name companies like Huawei, Xiaomi or Alibaba. Everything in China is essentially stolen IP
@make a wish The CCP directs their military to steal technology and then gives it to companies like Comac. That is not how it always works.
@@felipe333 Steal from your supplier usually means you don't get the best goods anymore.
I hope Germany would surprise something unique to the world ❤️🇧🇩🌹🇩🇪❤️🙏
Thank you greetings from Germany 🇪🇺🇩🇪
@D R no
Germany will, but it will be their more efficient Turbo-Prop Aircraft & Aircraft Parts for larger Passenger Jets. It takes a large nation to support a Boeing, which is why Airbus is a Multi-National...
@D R Germany is one of the driving forces behind Airbus, you clown.
As long as their political elite is puppet of USA they can't do anything.... USA systematically destroyed strategic industries of Germany
I love how the media so calmly talks about what will be happening decades from now, while we have the climate crisis, biodiversity crisis and the anti-biotic crisis that means we won't be around in decades!
thanks a lot for the comment: covering both (climate, & biodiversity - i aint much aware about anti-biotic crisis), and using the more appropriate word crisis instead of change/loss etc. These are indeed on the scale of crisis now.
just wanted to add the financial crisis
@@masmoudi5595 going by that, there will be a crisis of outbreak of types of crises lolol
This is so strange! I had a dream about this similar triangle planes many years back and it seem like I been through the future already known about it! Scary!!!
That because we live in matrix 😎 no lie in fact some scientists see it being possible with high percentage.
The Blended Wing Designs are similar to the Flying Wings of the past.
The problem with Flying Wings is that they need a sophisticated Fly-By-Wire System, which didn't exist in the 1950s...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but they will not be the aircrafts of the future.
The ideas are there.... As they where already at least 20 years ago.
@@lukasskymuh5910 It's time to make a good use of it.
the background music can drive you up the wall
Yea its not very well mixed. Some of the high frequency sounds stick out and detract from the video 🧐
Our concern is the safety of air travel. They should concentrate on developing safety and protection for passengers from plane crush or engine failures for example, rather than some necessary competition that will jeopardize the safety of passengers
Safety is already prety insane. Further improvements have diminishing returns.
Wow new frontiers for every aircraft manufacturer
Europe: sustainable flight
US: cheap flight
Russia & China: faster flight
Future looks promising 😏
These new startups will be leading the aviation industry in next decade
"Coalition is better than competition."-Nafis Fuad Ayon
Well competition is better if the peoples sake is at risk....
Coalition is better for producers whereas competition is better for customers.....
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - R. Buckminster Fuller
In the cosmos of time the following holds true:
The burning of Hydrocarbons is ancient technology.
The semiconductor chip is also ancient technology.
The applications of both is also wrongfully applied.
Scientists and engineers need to engineer what's beyond their sight and what's beyond all of their senses to truly disrupt the future and push humanity FAR beyond what is impossible.
If anything, recent years proved people were flying much more than they needed to. The biggest culprit in the pandemic is mass trans-continental tourism and unnecessary business trips that could have been easily replaced with conference calls etc.
Isn't 737max a lemon? If 737max can sell, why not C919.
It can sell because Boeing stands behind it.
Buying an commercial jet is much much more then just the plane itself.
That's why Sukhoi have had problems expanding our of the Russian sphere. And they actually know their craft, and are not just doing copy paste work like the Chinese.
@@benghazi4216 behind dead body😬
@@longmarch2668 Which is why no one serious would chose Comac. If even Boeing has a trail of bodies then with Comac that trail would be a literal motorway.
@@benghazi4216 I wish you good luck taking your next 737max🤗
@@benghazi4216 If Chinese could land a lunar space probe on the far side of the moon, I trust their technology much more than Boeing
the max 8 failed due to aoa sensors and the inability of pilots to be able to over ride it.
Sucks I’ll be a old geezer if this ever happens.
Omg I would feel so safe in that wing plane... I hope they push and accelerate that one out fast
Tell me more about short distance drone taxis. That will revolutionize people’s daily lives.
Only if you cash to throw around everyday will it revolutionize peoples daily lives.
Trying to move fast is not far out perspective for passanger aircraft. Airplane builders should focus on the most efficient speed, which is slower than current airline velocity and on more space on board. Those are achievable shape with highly extended - smooth - wings, and speed is always equals to more power that is which are more fuel consumption. Difference between about half hour for ten hour fight is not big obstacle for passengers.
they're already over 100 kmh slower than in the 1970s. The full extent of that, of course, is airships.
The SpaceX Earth to Earth project is not taken seriously by anyone in the business. And it is not green at all. Hypersonic high altitude flighs is interesting, but it depends on tech that is so complicated and expensive. The guy promising you a ticket to anywhere in the world in 4 hours for $100 is a liar.
I agree with you, a ticket for $100 to get anywhere in just four hours is simply ridiculous. That it is not profitable and also impossible.
I'm on board with hydrogen if the planes look like the middle one.
I'm sick of the flying cigar with wings design. It's so passé
Hidrogen plane will be like flying bomb
@@markopodganjek845 Hydrogen*
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it's everywhere. Hydrogen powered vehicles are not bombs, they're inert.
@@tjmarx as you know, the first second when hidrogen contact the air it burst in flames. It is chalenge to keep air tight reservoar for space flight for short period. To keep it air tight on airplanes for years is for me mission imposible. It will be a lot of explosions and dead people, before they will stop to use hydrogen.
I don’t see usage of hydrogen especialy “green” because to get Hdrogen you need clasical energy. So you burn for example coal or natural gas to make electricity and through that hydrogen. Under the line the same Co2 was produced as it is with flying on kerozin.
@@tjmarx But the challange is how to make pure hydrogen did not burst into flames, especially during an accident. Everyone still remember the horrific accident from hydrogen-filled Hindenburg that were burst into flames almost a century agoo.
@@ignatiusryd2031 Refining hydrogen isn't a problem. We have several methods in commerical production since 2005. All of the major oil brands have investment in hydrogen production. All of the major vehicle manufacturers are releasing mainstream hydrogen vehicles over the next 5 years starting last year (ie.there are already models available for sale). Hydrogen powered buses have been a thing for 15+ years.
Hydrogen is not burned, these are not combustion engines. Hydrogen works with an electric motor, instead of having to carry heavy batteries around and recharge them hydrogen uses chemical reaction to generate electricity on the fly to power the electric motor. It's electric that you refill at the pump as quickly as you do with petrol. 160 petrol stations in the USA have already converted some or all of their pumps to hydrogen.
The only by-products are water and breathable oxygen.
THAT is what AirBus are talking about when they're saying hydrogen powered planes. Planes that use hydrogen powered electric motors to create thrust, which is why one of the concept designs is a prop plane.
Hydrogen powered vehicles take the most abundant element in the universe and use it to power transportation in a way that we also produce drinkable fresh water and breathable air.
P.S. Interesting fact, one of the methods for refining hydrogen was invented by actress Natalie Portman.
Can only make it so cheap since most components are foreign-sourced at market prices. They can keep labor low but still need to buy the components.
which they will do, and already do, by the tens of thousands and get volume discounts. Plus volume manufacturing gets cheaper overall, so every plane with those components will get cheaper.
It's depressing to see how little innovation has been made in domestic air travel over the past 40 years, hardly anything to note. From 1920 to the 1940s we went from biplanes to jetfighters. I'm sure the time it takes to travel from London to Paris in the past 40 years has increased not decreased, and comfort has gone downhill too. What the hells going on?!
Develop Maglev trains and Boring Co loops and say goodbye to the air industry :-)
Because I am One. Be an innovator. Be The Best You Can Be.
Well powering your planes on clean/renewable energy isn't Airbus or Boeings problem, unless they start designing their own engines, that would be on the main engine suppliers RollsRoyce, Pratt and GE no?
“Boeing---the perfect choice if you have death wish.”
People need to stop believing that 3D renders of planes doesn't mean those planes exist, or will ever exist. Trains are the best way to travel in 90% of situations. That's the actual future, not these CG planes that will never exist. Peace!
Lovely Ending.
Comac you serious? they don't even have a plan in service lol
The future isn't about aircraft design as much as it will be about load efficiency.
The more efficient the aircraft carriers the cargo load, (whether it be people or product) and the efficient use of the aircraft (turn the around time/time not in use) is maximised, is where the future lies.
Aircraft design will match this theory and the engine power will depend on future technology.
Any other design of aircraft will also follow to be efficient, whether to save time, by going fast or being able to take off quickly and land in the shortest distance and time.
I look forward to the future.
Commercial Aviation is very slow moving in terms of Technical advancements.
"Hydrogen is lighter...': however calculate - by cubic meter - how much energy can be extracted from Hydrogen, vs. Kerosene.
why say weight and then ask about volume? Noting that to carry a lot of H2 effectively you want to do it as ammonia--it's more compact than liquid H2 and doesn't need cryogenic high-pressure storage. There is a catalyst for reforming it to pure H2 for engine use, and if you are feeding a fuel cell rather than burning it you're getting more energy per m3 and per kg than avgas.
Also, a H2 fuel cell will, in not long, be a more size+cost+efficiency effective propulsion source than a fuelled jet. Use electric heat rather than burning fuel in the jet engine, it's been tested and works.
Where are the likes of Bombardier, Embraer and Cassna. When will they be joining the party?
All of them had been acquired by Boeing or Airbus.
@@xuchen4012 Embraer dont.
My idea to lighten the plane is to have it launched by a electro-magnetic catapult which launch the plane to cruising height and retrieve it withe a electro - magnetic regenerative breaking. It be like a ski jump 🛫🛬
The biggest concern still will be the safety
3:06 There she lied....
Thumbnail plan looks awesome 🔥🔥
In my opinion...
Current airlines will buy only cheap upgrades to current designs until they buy other vehicle types such as Starship hoppers, quad copters, and for slow speed - Zeppelins. Airplanes will be mostly for economy class, and not need supersonic.
Sonic booms all the time would not be tolerated and would be legislated against, especially considering fuel use.
If Starship (or a design based on it) can take off at partial throttle until it hits altitude, it may be able to take off from anywhere without disturbing the public.
High speed rail anyone?
You lost to mention ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) Article 24 and Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation on that report. It reflects the motiviation of manufactures.
The biggest change will come from Reaction Engines in the UK with their Sabre engine. Planes could fly at match 6 to space even
The flying wing would require new terminals, same like the problem w the a380 and airstrips.
It wouldn't, the door is at the front, a jetbridge can reach it
Really cool and interesting report
What I expected:
-electric engines
-instant passenger fuselage disengagement in case of catastrophe with safe landing.
-etc
What I found "meet the new same as the old." Corporation cannot innovate out of the box
(Keep watching the skies)... is the last line in the original The THING From Another World movie.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but hydrogen isn't carbon or emission-free. The only cost effective way to produce large amounts of hydrogen is the water-gas shift reaction, which uses methane as the source of hydrogen and produces CO2. You lose a significant amount of energy in the conversion process.
The future should not be "greener but slower", the future should be greener but faster. Slower speeds decrease economic growth and bite into your time that you will never get back. We should progress technology, not regress it.
Anywhere in the world under 4 hours and for only 100 bucks, really? By the time that happens, 100 bucks will be worth 1 buck. So, eh, NO.
Is there less turbulence with wing shaped Aircrafts? Bc that’s what I’d market-not its environmental impact. The laymen who doesn’t know/care about planes , that’s the golden ticket to the public liking it
One of the issues with hydrogen is that it is rarely found in nature in a usable form. And the processes to make hydrogen are very energy intensive and usually release greenhouse gases. So while using hydrogen as a fuel may be 0 emission, production of hydrogen isn't.
Yes that is true but considering the main problem with renewable energies being the storage hydrogen quickly becomes a suitable solution (not the only one indeed)
Anything that releases greenhouse gases at any stage of its production or use cant really be considered a solution to the problem because the problem is the production of greenhouse gases. Because both the energy required to produce the hydrogen and sometimes the method itself both cause greenhouse gases to be released it doesn't really solve anything. Its like driving an electric car, the car itself may not have any emissions, but many of the places that makes the electricity for the car do.
@@Sciguy95 exactly Ure a hundred percent right. But we can’t use the whole potential of renewables and h2 might be a solution. so making green h2 and therefore using renewables to a full potential plus getting less greenhouse gases from aviation due to the use of h2 sounds like a win win. Don’t get me wrong I’m not a fan of single solutions or saying sth is the holy grail but might be worth studying. In the end research will clear the questions :) and yeah the key is on green h2 for that to work
@@jonasalopecia1662 at least your not totally against everything else. I saw someone trying to argue that anything that isn't nuclear power is a total lost cause nuclear is the 1 and only, end all solution. They just couldn't understand that the true solution will be comprised of multiple different things all working together.
If it doesn't include semi ballistic hops and space planes in general it's the same old same old.
as pointed out the C929 probably wont ever happen. russia is rightly focusing on their own mc21 engines. creating a whole new range is just not in the budget. video might have been more interesting if talking about new 3d printing technologies and how thats opening up the aircraft industry...eg boom.
The fundamental shape of an airplane has not changed much since 1910, with a box or tubular fuselage, wings up forward, and a much smaller tail section aft. A tubular fuselage is the most efficient way to handle the higher pressures inside. The wings up forward produce more lift than they would if the aft control surfaces were in the front. Supersonic planes will be for the super rich. And even then, there may be little public tolerance for the sonic boom noise pollution.
And there's no replacing the gas turbine. It's greater horsepower per weight trump's it's lack luster fuel efficiency. Besides, present-day jet engines are more and more resembling turbo-props everyday. I wouldn't be surprised if global climate concerns force us to fly slower.
The amont of fuel usage and tax money is huge.
hahahah, in 2021 i saw a documentary of innovations. they said by 2016 Britain will have flying taxis.
Now I believe by 2030 British will die because of hunger
The thumbnail looks like the MQ-101 from Ace combat 7