Totally true. Imagine: Passenger: Oh Captain? It’s too hot in here. Captain: Would you like to be colder? Passenger: Yes please. Captain: Ejects passenger into freezing cold stratospheric air. Captain: Cold enough?
This, or even the threat of it, could really help this unruly passenger issue that's been prominent the past couple years. Typical response from the other passengers seeing the obnoxious jerk go bye-bye would be polite clapping.
@@OrdinaryLatvian I could see a hydrogen supper sonic jet being cost effective though. Sure may cost more per hour to run but if you can get there in half the time you can save so serious cash.
I love how most of the projects you make videos on are "why tf not?" projects, & your "let's make war plane a civilian plane" series has the same energy. This video mixes both & I absolutely adore it!
The wife and I saw the only remaining XB-70 at the Air Force Museum yesterday. It’s one of the most impressive and beautiful airplanes ever. Great program! I had no idea they had kicked around the idea of a passenger version! Keep up the good work!
The XB-70 is one of my favorite airplanes. I read the account of someone who was in class, about 2 or 3 miles from Air Museum in Dayton, when the XB-70 landed. He said he couldn't hear his teacher in the class room. The XB-70 with its six engines might have had some noise issues.
There’s a chance NAA didn’t get picked because they knew what they were doing. Projected performance specs of the NAC-60 would come from experience with the XB-70s while Boeing and Lockheed’s specs were more like goals.
No.. it's not. That plane drank fuel almost as fast as they could load it. Plus, you think The Concorde was loud? Ufda. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure it needed insanely long runways to land on, and the tarmac had to be reinforced. The XB was a biiiig bird.
I've heard from multiple directions that some people weren't happy that with the Concorde there was a civil airliner capable of outrunning many military jets of the time... That they were guzzling fuel like crazy was just another nail in the coffin, next to some - in hindsight - questionable design decisions concerning safety (turbine intakes practically direct behind the landing gear). I'm pretty sure the fact that no other liquid fuel driven jet (!!!) was capable of catching up to the XB-70 if needed was a major point to prevent civil use of it.
I may not have noticed earlier, but you forgot the air refueler. Could you imagine a KC-70 refueling a B-70 to and from a strike mission? That would've been cool.
Thank you for this very interesting video on what could have been! As an aside, in 1964 when Lindberg Models brought out a 1/172 scale model of the XB-70, they also issued versions of this kit with decals for a civilian airliner version. One issue was in the livery of "Continental Airlines," and another version was in TWA livery. The TWA version had a single vertical stabilizer, and the most recent issue of this classic kit still includes the parts to build both versions. That said, the idea of a private billionaire jet based on the XB-70 is intriguing. I can just imagine one of these in markings for Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. The Kardashians would be another possibility, as would Taylor Swift - who could then say that any billionaire may own a jet capable of breaking the sound barrier, but her jet is capable of "breaking-up-with the sound barrier . . . ." Looking forward to your upcoming video on the B-58 SST. 113th like.
As I was watching this video I was thinking about the same thing, the Lindbergh civil XB70 airliner. But North American probably would’ve run into the same sonic boom problem. I used to live not far from KSC…. I could hear the shuttle take off and when they came back their sonic boom would remind me they were back… The only time a returning shuttle’s boom would annoy me when it was in the middle of the night and it woke me up.
@@robertdragoff6909My current idea is to build the reissue Lindberg 1/172 kit fitted with the X-15 (modified with delta wings) from the recent Atlantis reissue of the Revell B-52 / X-15 combination. At 1/175, it's close enough that I won't quibble.
A Valkyrie Air Force One would have been a total beast. If you've never seen it in Dayton, ya gotta check it out. It's the embodiment of brute strength.
@@adastra7939 Concord no matter how you judge its financial viability was on the bleeding edge of tech back then. If the Valkyrie SST was better then everyone and their dog would have bought it. Concorde was a wing and a prayer and in a blinking long time nobody, nobody has followed that thing.
@@rapidthrash1964 Tu-104 was the first Tupolev airliner converted from a bomber and it had a horrible string of crashes. Tu-144 just crashed in front of the whole world at the Paris Airshow after the pilot effective said "Watch This!"
One has to wonder what would've happened had NAA involved Juan Trippe at an earlier stage given his want for the Concorde when it finally came about. As a vindication of NAA being so far ahead of the game that their vision is only now being realized, Hermeus is in the developmental stages of what will be a passenger plane, the Halcyon, that bears a striking resemblance to the centerpiece of the National Museum of the Air Force in Ohio.
Next video; What if porcines could fly? Keep it up, I love the wacky stuff. Wackier the better! Incidentally, what about doing a vid on the British V-bombers proposed airliner equivalents: The Avro Atlantic, the Vickers V1000, Handley Page 101/111/123?
Interesting is that Sukhoi had the same Idea to propose an airliner variant of the Sukhoi T-4 the Sukhoi T-4P(who looks a little like a scaled down XB-70) , Also the Myasechev OKB proposed several differend SST based on theyer M-50, M-52 Supersonic Bomber prototypes and named them M-52P, M-53 M-55.
@@TypicalBritishperson4972 yes I know about the MIG-25 VIP idea..I first learnt about it when I got a book about the MiG-25 written by Yefim Gordon.. especially for Soviet, Russia and Chinese aircraft I like the books from Yefim Gordon, Dimitri komisarev.
I saw a film at the Air force museum in Dayton Ohio when I was a teen, in the late 70;s. The plain is there in their X plane hanger today... It said the plane was able to fly at mock 10 with the SR 71. As it used 6 of the same engines. Sub orbital planes would be the way to go. The X B 70 program was scrapped for two reasons. Missiles and Russia's development of a mock 3 interceptor. Though the mid air collision didn't help. Technology wasn't there then. Today maybe. But with the internet. The need to get there fast isn't an issue....
Great research, as always. I was really impressed with the condensation shock wave in the animations. It wouldn't surprise me if there really were classified passenger versions of this in operation now. But only for the diplomat class.
I didn't know that there was actually plans for this I have seen this idea used before in Muv Luv Altered Fable, where the Mitsurugi company uses one to fly everyone to a tropical island It's a fun connection because the biggest mech in the series is already based off of the XB-70, and to see the normal plane version used in the non-alien world is fun Looks like the writers did their research on the fact that this existed
The least with a commercial B-52; there's a vague sense of sensibility with that idea. Especially when knowing that the B-747 began as a failed military competing design. A commercial Valkyrie on the other hand is just completely crazy.
Concorde was specifically designed as an SST, yet even she was not a viable mode of transport except for the ultra-wealthy! Following the Paris/Air France tragedy, and notwithstanding the very expensive modification to the British Airways fleet to provide Kevlar fuel tank linings, BA were happy to have the excuse to cease Concorde operations. I cannot see a future for supersonic air transport in the light of current concerns over climate change and an increasing tendency to redistribute wealth more equitably (and about time too!)
Although a technical prowess the Valkyrie will be dead in the water before it takes off. The cost per passenger will be ten times higher than current prices.
75 passengers. Yeah, the Concorde with 100 passengers was so wildly profitable after all. So increasing the costs and lowering the passenger amount is certainly a good idea.
My grandfather designed the engines for the xb70 when he worked for general electric and eventually moved to work on the 777 design program in Everett Washington
we don't need use supersonic plane for supersonic,we use forr safe when a jet has super strong engine,after burned,climb with large corner near vertical against stall,when a passenger jet like fighter jet with fire thrust
Oh the B-70 I forgot about that version and that’s what your for, to make us remember what could have happened if someone went back and time and stepped on a butterfly
Maybe it might be the $250,000 dollars an hour it would cost to operate each one? Or the fact it can't fly above Mach 0.95 over land? Or the number of hours of maintenance between flights? Or the regularity of removing the engines completely for servicing? Or the horrendous NVH experienced by anyone on board?
Bummer, too short! From everything I’ve read over the years, the only version that was seriously considered a candidate for an SST was the 4 engined single rudder version shown at 6:50, namely the NAC-60. It was larger than Concord, and slightly smaller than the B-2707 and L-2000. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_NAC-60
The XB-70 required JP-7 jet fuel, as did the SR-71. I could not find the current or historical price, but that would contribute to an exceedingly high ticket price.
I'm pretty sure North American had an SST concept based around XB-70's compression lift design, but they didn't just copy the bomber, they had a full length fuselage and single vertical tail. As for the cute criticisms of either the satirical video or SSTs in general, it's rather ignorant. We live in a world of optimization where ideas have been overdone until they all look the same with the same specs whether planes, phones or cars. As a result, some folks take it for granted and act offended that we dare do anything different, like it isn't supposed to be -- but that's because they aren't exposed to everything and speak as if they know enough = ignorance. Maybe I've mentioned it before, I've had an interest in aviation concepts since I was young and went to school for engineering, I've noticed folks tend to confuse technology capability with business optimization. They think if something doesn't exist, either it doesn't work or isn't possible. Again, it's because they aren't exposed, but also those projects have objectives to meet. In engineering we're given an assignment, an objective, whatever the client wants. The client may have boundary conditions from where it's used, how much they want to pay upfront and operating costs. This is how optimization tend to flourish, and while you can take any approach to solve a problem, after a while, you'll settle on one design. It will look like others have done. It's why all newer combat stealth jets from other countries looks like F-22 or F-35; they aren't poor attempts at copying, it's a result of optimization, they will all look like that after a while. There is no logical reason to look so different, especially if those newer jets have to combat F-22/F-35 at some point. With SSTs, many designs were tried from multiple fuselages to no fuselage to a pivoting elliptical slew wing. But they will all settle on looking close to what companies have made so far -- unless the objective changes. UASF wanted a bomber with long range and high-speed intercept and dash, there aren't too many off-shelf ideas to fit the profile, they they went for something different: Compression lift by channeling the shock waves in between the side of the engine box and the lowered wing tips. Great for increasing the supersonic Lift-to-Drag ration, but the unfortunate side-effect of using compression lift is an amplified sonic boom on it's way to the ground, instead of using a wing to lift. If the aircraft flew higher then the perturbation wave may not have made it all the way to the point. It was unfortunate that the UASF decided to simulate supersonic commercial flights over a populated city for 6 months with XB-70, which inspired the protest of such flights, leading to the ban.
Here’s my proposal for an XB-70 variant. What if they made it into a firefighting aircraft? Rapid response, able to reach a fire halfway around the world in a relatively short amount of time. Essentially, a Mach 3 Global Supertanker
The problem with bombers is that they have a smaller fuselage than passenger aircraft. This is because bombs are much heavier/higher density. They just don't have the larger, passenger suitable fuselage volume for their size.
@@kentl7228 Concorde was a failure in the worst possible way... they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a plane No one wanted to buy, Concorde had zero sales.
As much as i love the 747 jumbo, an Air Force One Valkyrie would have made quite a statement on the world stage.
ONLY IN MAGAZINE CENTERFOLDS
Tu-144 was inspired by this bird much more purely than the Concorde. It wasn't practical.
@AlexKarasev 2/3s of us military hardware would never be practical outside of NATO.
@@andrewyork3869 I think you're right.
A Valkyrie in the air force one paint scheme would look amazing
Definition of I woke up in a new Bugatti.
Aircraft version
Here before it blows up
I woke up in a new boeingatti
That gives me an idea, how about a video on the Bugatti Model 110P fighter variant of the Model 100?
What colour's your bugatti?
“I do not enjoy your tone of voice”
**Opens bomb bay doors under passenger in question**
Totally true. Imagine:
Passenger: Oh Captain? It’s too hot in here.
Captain: Would you like to be colder?
Passenger: Yes please.
Captain: Ejects passenger into freezing cold stratospheric air.
Captain: Cold enough?
The OG "white Swan"
This, or even the threat of it, could really help this unruly passenger issue that's been prominent the past couple years. Typical response from the other passengers seeing the obnoxious jerk go bye-bye would be polite clapping.
@@Alexander_Haplington Anyone else care to drop out?
6 turbojets definately sounds like the economical means of flight airlines are so keen on
Yeah most so then once you factor in the never ending state of repair.
Definitely.
@@OrdinaryLatvian I could see a hydrogen supper sonic jet being cost effective though. Sure may cost more per hour to run but if you can get there in half the time you can save so serious cash.
@@andrewyork3869 I was just correcting their spelling, lol.
@@OrdinaryLatvian oh I see it now
As long as the Dash 80 doesn't try to barrel roll around it, I'm fine with the idea.
That would be an f-104 starfighter
I love how most of the projects you make videos on are "why tf not?" projects, & your "let's make war plane a civilian plane" series has the same energy.
This video mixes both & I absolutely adore it!
The wife and I saw the only remaining XB-70 at the Air Force Museum yesterday. It’s one of the most impressive and beautiful airplanes ever. Great program! I had no idea they had kicked around the idea of a passenger version! Keep up the good work!
The XB-70 is one of my favorite airplanes. I read the account of someone who was in class, about 2 or 3 miles from Air Museum in Dayton, when the XB-70 landed. He said he couldn't hear his teacher in the class room. The XB-70 with its six engines might have had some noise issues.
I always wondered why North American didn't have a slam dunk in the US SST compitition. Converting the XB-70 was a no brainer.
There’s a chance NAA didn’t get picked because they knew what they were doing. Projected performance specs of the NAC-60 would come from experience with the XB-70s while Boeing and Lockheed’s specs were more like goals.
No.. it's not. That plane drank fuel almost as fast as they could load it. Plus, you think The Concorde was loud? Ufda. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure it needed insanely long runways to land on, and the tarmac had to be reinforced. The XB was a biiiig bird.
It's obvious that the Americans understood that SSTs were not practical or commercially viable based on research gained from the XB-70.
I've heard from multiple directions that some people weren't happy that with the Concorde there was a civil airliner capable of outrunning many military jets of the time...
That they were guzzling fuel like crazy was just another nail in the coffin, next to some - in hindsight - questionable design decisions concerning safety (turbine intakes practically direct behind the landing gear).
I'm pretty sure the fact that no other liquid fuel driven jet (!!!) was capable of catching up to the XB-70 if needed was a major point to prevent civil use of it.
1ww
I remember a possible passenger version of the B-58 Hustler as well. Would've been closer to reality as the B-58 was actually in service at the time.
I may not have noticed earlier, but you forgot the air refueler. Could you imagine a KC-70 refueling a B-70 to and from a strike mission? That would've been cool.
'I woke up in a new boeingatti'
Thank you for this very interesting video on what could have been!
As an aside, in 1964 when Lindberg Models brought out a 1/172 scale model of the XB-70, they also issued versions of this kit with decals for a civilian airliner version. One issue was in the livery of "Continental Airlines," and another version was in TWA livery. The TWA version had a single vertical stabilizer, and the most recent issue of this classic kit still includes the parts to build both versions.
That said, the idea of a private billionaire jet based on the XB-70 is intriguing. I can just imagine one of these in markings for Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. The Kardashians would be another possibility, as would Taylor Swift - who could then say that any billionaire may own a jet capable of breaking the sound barrier, but her jet is capable of "breaking-up-with the sound barrier . . . ."
Looking forward to your upcoming video on the B-58 SST.
113th like.
As I was watching this video I was thinking about the same thing, the Lindbergh civil XB70 airliner.
But North American probably would’ve run into the same sonic boom problem.
I used to live not far from KSC….
I could hear the shuttle take off and when they came back their sonic boom would remind me they were back…
The only time a returning shuttle’s boom would annoy me when it was in the middle of the night and it woke me up.
@@robertdragoff6909My current idea is to build the reissue Lindberg 1/172 kit fitted with the X-15 (modified with delta wings) from the recent Atlantis reissue of the Revell B-52 / X-15 combination. At 1/175, it's close enough that I won't quibble.
This never could have been economics would have always ruled it out.
The B-1 did that in the air, the little computer controlled canards were added to dampen that out
A Valkyrie Air Force One would have been a total beast. If you've never seen it in Dayton, ya gotta check it out. It's the embodiment of brute strength.
Gorgeous visuals and storytelling as always, whether the concept is peak silliness or not.
Yes it is. Artists having fun with their imagination. nothing practicle
The writing ... love how it's implied that the XB-70 was a service platform.
I still can't get over how beautiful this plane is.
Without a doubt the best looking plane in history.
If everything went according to plan, would it have been a successful aircraft?
@@adastra7939 Don't be silly ;)
How so?
@@adastra7939 Concord no matter how you judge its financial viability was on the bleeding edge of tech back then. If the Valkyrie SST was better then everyone and their dog would have bought it.
Concorde was a wing and a prayer and in a blinking long time nobody, nobody has followed that thing.
I thought the XB-70 had some innovative design features to begin with?
Tupolev: Turns a bomber into a passenger plane
North American: Sure why not?
Well, the fact that the Tu-104 has a Russian folk song dedicated to just how many people died in crashes in it, is a pretty good reason why not
I meant with with the 114@@weldonwin
Boeing did it many times very successfully
@@rapidthrash1964 Tu-104 was the first Tupolev airliner converted from a bomber and it had a horrible string of crashes. Tu-144 just crashed in front of the whole world at the Paris Airshow after the pilot effective said "Watch This!"
Great video of the amazing Xb-70 valkyrie. Would be a great to see a passenger version if it was made.
One has to wonder what would've happened had NAA involved Juan Trippe at an earlier stage given his want for the Concorde when it finally came about.
As a vindication of NAA being so far ahead of the game that their vision is only now being realized, Hermeus is in the developmental stages of what will be a passenger plane, the Halcyon, that bears a striking resemblance to the centerpiece of the National Museum of the Air Force in Ohio.
Next video; What if porcines could fly? Keep it up, I love the wacky stuff. Wackier the better! Incidentally, what about doing a vid on the British V-bombers proposed airliner equivalents: The Avro Atlantic, the Vickers V1000, Handley Page 101/111/123?
Good Idea !
Just recently saw this plane irl and it was pretty incredible. A passenger variant is hard to imagine
it IS the most beautiful bomber ever built
Certainly it is the most badass-looking bomber, but for beauty of line, the Avro Vulcan B2 takes the biscuit!
@@royfearn4345 those are my 2 and 3 for bombers.
The valkyrie based SST looks a lot like the aircraft used in the man in the High Castle for people getting around the Reich
The xb70 was the most beautiful plane that America ever built
Interesting is that Sukhoi had the same Idea to propose an airliner variant of the Sukhoi T-4 the Sukhoi T-4P(who looks a little like a scaled down XB-70) , Also the Myasechev OKB proposed several differend SST based on theyer M-50, M-52 Supersonic Bomber prototypes and named them M-52P, M-53 M-55.
Did you know mig proposed a mig 25 business jet
@@TypicalBritishperson4972 yes I know about the MIG-25 VIP idea..I first learnt about it when I got a book about the MiG-25 written by Yefim Gordon.. especially for Soviet, Russia and Chinese aircraft I like the books from Yefim Gordon, Dimitri komisarev.
@@TypicalBritishperson4972
The Mig-25 biz jet would have been the CCCP = Craziest Communist ContraPtion ever.
i ve always thought about the contrary: the concorde would have been a nice mach 2 strategic bomber for least cost 👍
Sadly not much stealth with it flying above Mach 1.
Still a cool idea.
Thanks found and explained I was the one who recommend doing an episode on the xb-70 thanks
Please consider covering the Douglas model 2229, as well as McD's follow up designs which look a lot like the latter fixed wing B2707.
3hrs to LONDON?!?!
That's not very fast, I live in Manchester!!!!
I saw a film at the Air force museum in Dayton Ohio when I was a teen, in the late 70;s. The plain is there in their X plane hanger today... It said the plane was able to fly at mock 10 with the SR 71. As it used 6 of the same engines. Sub orbital planes would be the way to go. The X B 70 program was scrapped for two reasons. Missiles and Russia's development of a mock 3 interceptor. Though the mid air collision didn't help. Technology wasn't there then. Today maybe. But with the internet. The need to get there fast isn't an issue....
This channel is the perfect combination between Mustard and Dark Skies
Sacrificing some speed for improved costs (fewer engines, less exotic materials) might have made a civil version possible.
"I'm looking at you Ryanair!" LOL 😄
Once again thank you for bringing all the nooks and crannies on the Valkyrie program as well as many others. Pretty neat good Sir
Awesome concept for a video. The dash 70 was a fantastic design.
Great research, as always. I was really impressed with the condensation shock wave in the animations. It wouldn't surprise me if there really were classified passenger versions of this in operation now. But only for the diplomat class.
This video is like listening to Elon Musk go on about hyperloop
Concorde never made a profit, what makes you think this would be any different? There is no practical way to make this work.
I’d love to see one on the B-58 passenger version!
I didn't know that there was actually plans for this
I have seen this idea used before in Muv Luv Altered Fable, where the Mitsurugi company uses one to fly everyone to a tropical island
It's a fun connection because the biggest mech in the series is already based off of the XB-70, and to see the normal plane version used in the non-alien world is fun
Looks like the writers did their research on the fact that this existed
Greetings from another Muv-Luv reader. 👍🏼
They thought of doing EVERYTHING.
The least with a commercial B-52; there's a vague sense of sensibility with that idea. Especially when knowing that the B-747 began as a failed military competing design.
A commercial Valkyrie on the other hand is just completely crazy.
A question I have pondered over the years. It would have been very exclusive and VERY expensive but what a ride!.
The most beautiful aircraft ever produced hands down
For me, it was an awkward looking goose-necked dork from some angles, a beauty from others.
What about noise levels on board? Luggage space? Cabin pressurization? Never mind the supersonic boom issue.
This would've been a sick Air Force One.
Concorde was specifically designed as an SST, yet even she was not a viable mode of transport except for the ultra-wealthy! Following the Paris/Air France tragedy, and notwithstanding the very expensive modification to the British Airways fleet to provide Kevlar fuel tank linings, BA were happy to have the excuse to cease Concorde operations. I cannot see a future for supersonic air transport in the light of current concerns over climate change and an increasing tendency to redistribute wealth more equitably (and about time too!)
As cool as a private jet version would be, I hate a world where someone would be so disproportionately rich.
Although a technical prowess the Valkyrie will be dead in the water before it takes off. The cost per passenger will be ten times higher than current prices.
Hang on I got an idea there’s a spitfire with a rear turret as a strike fighter maybe that could be your next video
Interesting. Another, Whata...Coulda... Shoulda... video. Well done.
Glad you enjoyed it
75 passengers. Yeah, the Concorde with 100 passengers was so wildly profitable after all. So increasing the costs and lowering the passenger amount is certainly a good idea.
Imagine Jeff Bezos pulling up in one of these “haha, I beat you Craig’s list!” 😂😂😂
My grandfather designed the engines for the xb70 when he worked for general electric and eventually moved to work on the 777 design program in Everett Washington
It's funny how people post these claims, true or not, and expect anyone to believe them.
@@smark1180 I also have his commemorative project pin of the xb70
@@Yes-es8it It's funny how people post these claims, true or not, and expect anyone to believe them.
Hey fae could you do a Video about the west german mbb firefly, please?
I wish someone could make a list of every concept plane 😔
Clustered engine's have always been a problem with potential uncontained engine failure cascading to the others.
Who came up with this idea? Were they on day release and who were their carers? 😂😂😂
I don’t think it would have been as aesthetically pleasing as Concorde.
A nuclear passenger jet. Sounds like a great idea.....until the first crash.
Problem was also it made Concorde and the Avro Vulcan sound silent and it drank fuel like it was going out of fashion😂😂
Kinda reminds me of MiG-25 "Administrative"
we don't need use supersonic plane for supersonic,we use forr safe when a jet has super strong engine,after burned,climb with large corner near vertical against stall,when a passenger jet like fighter jet with fire thrust
How about an SR-71 as a passenger plane?
Yeah with Gemini spacesuits for all, that would have fixed Tu144 noise issues too..
7:09: Aw, snap!
Being a passenger plane there's no need for weapon(d)ry
Oh the B-70 I forgot about that version and that’s what your for, to make us remember what could have happened if someone went back and time and stepped on a butterfly
They should make all scraped vehicle designs just to see if they work
They really don't talk about the Valkyrie very much on you tube good to see some other stuff about it
Maybe it might be the $250,000 dollars an hour it would cost to operate each one?
Or the fact it can't fly above Mach 0.95 over land?
Or the number of hours of maintenance between flights?
Or the regularity of removing the engines completely for servicing?
Or the horrendous NVH experienced by anyone on board?
That's also why no one bought the Concorde
An upgrade for Jonny Quest’s dragonfly.
Hi blondie at 4:34 😁
Concorde before Concorde 😂
found & explained. Taking mustard's lunch money since 2020! 😜
I thought that about the B1 Bomber
I've always thought this would make a cool airliner.
"American style justice" 💀💀💀
It would’ve look nice flying together with F-104-derived private jet…
If memory serves, the private jet in "The Incredibles" looked like a hybrid of an F-104 and a Learjet. So, why not?
Idont know, think it needa an extended fusilage to the back
Its a bit cramped
Great it only holds about 65 people so my tickets from Vegas to Detroit cost about 15 thousand dollars because of fuel
...was this based on the second version of the Valkyrie, or the one that used Zip Fuel in the afterburner?...
Similar video idea: What if the P6M SeaMaster was a passenger (sea)plane.
Nonsense! I want a passenger version of the B-58.
the Passenger would probally can't take it how loud that engines is
love yourt vids
Reminds me of "X-1" from venture bros.
The fuselage wouldn’t disappear into the wing. It would go all the way to the tail
Bummer, too short!
From everything I’ve read over the years, the only version that was seriously considered a candidate for an SST was the 4 engined single rudder version shown at 6:50, namely the NAC-60. It was larger than Concord, and slightly smaller than the B-2707 and L-2000.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_NAC-60
Do the next video about the Super Tomcat 21 and 22 please.
The XB-70 required JP-7 jet fuel, as did the SR-71. I could not find the current or historical price, but that would contribute to an exceedingly high ticket price.
Well noted! 🤑
A lifting body airliner?
Yamaha Dong 🤣
I'm pretty sure North American had an SST concept based around XB-70's compression lift design, but they didn't just copy the bomber, they had a full length fuselage and single vertical tail.
As for the cute criticisms of either the satirical video or SSTs in general, it's rather ignorant. We live in a world of optimization where ideas have been overdone until they all look the same with the same specs whether planes, phones or cars. As a result, some folks take it for granted and act offended that we dare do anything different, like it isn't supposed to be -- but that's because they aren't exposed to everything and speak as if they know enough = ignorance.
Maybe I've mentioned it before, I've had an interest in aviation concepts since I was young and went to school for engineering, I've noticed folks tend to confuse technology capability with business optimization. They think if something doesn't exist, either it doesn't work or isn't possible. Again, it's because they aren't exposed, but also those projects have objectives to meet.
In engineering we're given an assignment, an objective, whatever the client wants. The client may have boundary conditions from where it's used, how much they want to pay upfront and operating costs. This is how optimization tend to flourish, and while you can take any approach to solve a problem, after a while, you'll settle on one design. It will look like others have done. It's why all newer combat stealth jets from other countries looks like F-22 or F-35; they aren't poor attempts at copying, it's a result of optimization, they will all look like that after a while. There is no logical reason to look so different, especially if those newer jets have to combat F-22/F-35 at some point.
With SSTs, many designs were tried from multiple fuselages to no fuselage to a pivoting elliptical slew wing. But they will all settle on looking close to what companies have made so far -- unless the objective changes.
UASF wanted a bomber with long range and high-speed intercept and dash, there aren't too many off-shelf ideas to fit the profile, they they went for something different: Compression lift by channeling the shock waves in between the side of the engine box and the lowered wing tips. Great for increasing the supersonic Lift-to-Drag ration, but the unfortunate side-effect of using compression lift is an amplified sonic boom on it's way to the ground, instead of using a wing to lift. If the aircraft flew higher then the perturbation wave may not have made it all the way to the point.
It was unfortunate that the UASF decided to simulate supersonic commercial flights over a populated city for 6 months with XB-70, which inspired the protest of such flights, leading to the ban.
Forget the passenger B-70, I want the passenger SR-91 Aurora.
it'd just be Large Concord
Concorde would just be a slower Valkrie
Very cool aircraft... produced in the age of aviation when it was exciting !!!
Here’s my proposal for an XB-70 variant. What if they made it into a firefighting aircraft?
Rapid response, able to reach a fire halfway around the world in a relatively short amount of time.
Essentially, a Mach 3 Global Supertanker
It would be crazy expensive.
Wasn’t there a proposed civil variant of the XB-70?
The problem with bombers is that they have a smaller fuselage than passenger aircraft. This is because bombs are much heavier/higher density. They just don't have the larger, passenger suitable fuselage volume for their size.
It was common to convert bombers into airliners.. Boeing in particular
@@WilhelmKarsten But it isn't ideal. Look at how thick a fuselage is on a typical airliner, compared to a bomber.
@@kentl7228 Concorde wasn't ideal either, a wide body isn't possible with a SSTs, besides,
Wide body jets are designed for economy, not comfort.
@@WilhelmKarsten Concorde was a failure in aspects. They aren't very good for roomy comfort either.
@@kentl7228 Concorde was a failure in the worst possible way... they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a plane No one wanted to buy, Concorde had zero sales.