very interesting

Brian, where are the SR 71 wallpapers

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

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

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

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

Thats so cool, thnaks for sharing.

Very cool 😄

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bravo

i READ THAT THE SUN SETS TWICE DURING THE CROSSING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm really excited to hear fact #6

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

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

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

Excellent comment.

Happy memories😊

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

You live underneath a runway? 😁

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

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

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

was it annoying every time you saw it

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

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

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

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

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

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

same

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

BRO? Lol really?

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

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

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

I remember that vox Video!

Yo why the snoot droop

Snoot. UK slang for a nose.

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

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

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

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

That's like 3 residential swimming pool of fuel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am really sad for Brexit

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

Think of Concorde as Europe's moon shot program. It didn't cost nearly as much, but pushed engineering and technology limits like the Apollo program. Technologies it developed were later used. It certainly benefited a lot more people directly, in that several hundred thousand people over the years got to experience supersonic flight in comfort. Now to get anything close to that experience you would have to be invited to fly with a military pilot and have minimum training to sit in the back seat of a fighter jet.

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

HE DROOPED THE SNOOT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The price of fuel finally shot down commercial supersonic flight

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

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

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

@@tantroe-biff696 Interesting BBC documentary with ex-Concorde pilots ukposts.info/have/v-deo/gmB1eq-MgZyUyoU.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@Aeronaut1975 - convert to metric you savages!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idk, the crisp grabber was pretty cool too.

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

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

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

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

@@hernerweisenberg7052 drag can be reduced.

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

You need to read and memorize books that are taller than you. Get ready for that. Training a pilot need only 2-3 years but for an engineer, more than 5 years and more, like a doctor. For an engineer, especially aviation field, once you messed up, your qualification will be as good as kindergarten. This is not to beat down on your dream but for you to be prepared mentally.

@@eone2345 lol you arent an engineer, right?

@@mycosys I used to be in aviation field and have an engineer licence, is that good enough for you?

@@eone2345 So your just a curmudgeon that wants to discourage the next generation? cos what you said is BS. It takes about a decade to become a full engineer once you include the bachelor and professional experience. You dont need to memorise masses of books, you need to understand stuff from first principle so you can create tools, not spit rote. And there isnt an engineer alive who hasn't made mistakes - thats why we have systems and teams and process engineering to catch them.

@@mycosys are you an engineer?

Droop snoot? 😅

plane go droooooop

@@RealEngineering the snoot would droop

dont get snooty!