I grew up when the Concorde was still zipping through the air and was saddened when it was grounded. It would be nice to see new superspeed aircraft available to the masses so everyone can enjoy a mini vacation anywhere in the world on the same day if needed, lol.

It's great they want to take on the technical challenges of making the sonic booms quieter but the fact remains they are not going to be commercially viable due to limited capacity and the high cost of the development and operations.

Concorde was such an amazing plane! I wish I would have got to fly on it!

Concorde was so far ahead of its time that the world wasn't ready for it. Arguably we still aren't

I really hope Overture can pull this off. While we need hydrogen/electric aircraft MORE we still need these flagship programs to inspire innovation and bring hope to an industry that has become increasingly stagnant under Airbus and Boeing...

Flew on the Concorde when I was a kid, my best friend's dad was a British Airways VP, it was awesome.

I remember being school when the windows would rattle from the Sonic Booms. I thought it was cool!

though with current prices of fuels, the future looks grim

Just a few polite corrections here. First of all Concorde didn't 'fail'. It did exactly what its brief required it to do which was safely fly 100 passengers for 3500 miles in shirtsleeves at a sustained Mach 2 (1350 mph). It did so for the best part of 27 years. It was incredibly economical for what it did, cruising at Mach 2 for over three hours without afterburners. But it was conceived to be too small and came to market just as Boeing introduced the 747 which completely changed the economies of airline operation for the masses. Concorde wasn't withdrawn because of the Paris crash either (when the impact of a very heavy piece of punctured tyre compromised a fully-fueled wing tank spewing kerosene into the jetwash of two powerful turbojet engines causing uncontrolled fire which quickly weakened the aluminium airframe). Upgrades such as kevlar linings to the fuel tanks and redesigned tyres saw a fairly quick return to service. Concorde was actually withdrawn in 2003 because Airbus Industrie refused to continue to maintain just 16, by then 30 year old, aircraft belonging to British Airways and Air France unless the airlines contributed vast sums towards their future upkeep. I'm sure I read that Richard Branson wanted to take a BA Concorde as the Virgin flagship but couldn't for this same reason. The sonic boom problem has never been solved though NASA is indeed experimenting with 'sonic bumps' with the X-59. However...Concorde was a highly optimised system not just a nice shape strapped to four big engines. It became that shape after many thousands of hours of empirical testing to minimise aerodynamic drag over long distances at Mach 2 and had what is still considered to be one of the most efficient supersonic powerplants EVER produced. You may have noticed the Boom Overture is very similar in shape to Concorde and this isn't an accident. The X-59, though, is a very different shape because its brief is to reduce the sonic boom not to transport passengers efficiently. There is a big leap from a test bed to a fully feasible and certificated supersonic passenger aircraft. A future SST will need a reduced sonic boom if it is to fly overland. This means that at some stage the technology of X-59 will have to find its way onto a passenger aircraft and so the development and optimisation cycle will begin again but with the emphasis (as always on an SST) on drag reduction. There were no compromises in the design of Concorde...not one. I don't want to seem anti SST. On the contrary I think the world seemed to step backwards when Concorde was withdrawn. But it is unfair to say that it 'failed'. Whatever replaces Concorde is going to be a much smaller aircraft but it still has a mountain of technical challenges and legislation to overcome. I think it is going to be a long time coming.

I'm super excited about this!

Whoa, cool and unexpected to see Kent taking on a new aviation beat.

i saw the plane in Manchester today, and honestly they should try again the technology we have would be amazing.

Concord is a proper noun so you shouldn’t use “the” before it. It is simply Concord.

Check out the Venus Aerospace hypersonic plane concept using existing rocket technology to achieve Mach 9. The 51 Km cruising height and the lack of air virtually eliminates the sonic booms.

Mach 3 was the reason the 1970's American supersonic transport failed. Europeans could never understand why the Americans wanted to go mach 3 because it is in the "thermal thicket" where heat generated by friction with the air literally bakes the plane. Mach 2 to 2.4 is so much cheaper and decreases maintenance expenses drastically.

You know it’s funny when the concord was first built everyone was elated, everyone but the US. It was said and I believe it to be true, that the US were jealous because they weren’t involved in the plane and it’s why it was so restricted when it came to the US. Now they are all excited about it because some of the major plane manufacturers there, in the US, are looking at it. If the concord didn’t get so much of a fight when it was first introduced and operating, over 30 years ago, supersonic flight would’ve been a everyday thing today…….

More content like this please, I really enjoyed it

Nice video. Thanks for posting. The lady presenter has a pleasant clear voice.

I hate to rain on your parade of cheering on supersonic transportation, but here's the thing with SSTs: they are costly and the ticket on them are very expensive. Yes, you will get some customers that have the bucks so that they can get to their destinations in half the time. For the average flyer, that convenience is a bit too expensive. When Concorde first flew, there was high demand for a new thing. But eventually the high cost caused ticket sales to drop. In point of fact, Concorde was losing money the few years before they ceased operation.

Way to go CNET. Story about breaking the Sound Barrier while breaking Hijab Barier.

The main challenge facing the 1950s UK supersonic transport study group was to find a suitable wing. The big breakthrough was the short slim ogival delta, which has low supersonic drag and, at a high incidence, provides lift for take off and landing, by generating upper surface vortices. The high incidence necessitated a very tall landing gear, and a droop snout so that the pilot could see the runway, giving Concorde an iconic swan-landing-on-ice appearance on approach. Take off and landing speeds were 250mph and 187mph respectively, which is pretty fast, and highly stressed the Michelin designed tyres, both mechanically and thermally. By comparison, the Boeing 737 take off and landing speed is 150mph. The lofty landing gear, meant that it was subject to high leverage. These factors caused continual problems, particularly tyre disintegrations, throughout the life of Concorde. At Charles de Gaulle airport on 25 July 2000, a Concorde's tyre burst while accelerating down the runway. Pieces of the tyre smashed into the left wing and caused a pressure wave in a tank which ruptured, allowing fuel to gush out and catch fire. The aircraft subsequently took off and then crashed at low altitude. Controversially, the French Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis (BEA) blamed a thin strip of titanium, measuring 17.1in (435mm) x 1.3in (32mm) x 0.06in (1.4 mm), that was found on the runway, for the burst. The accident led to modifications to Concorde, including more-secure electrical controls, Kevlar lining in the fuel tanks, and specially developed burst-resistant tyres. Here is a summary of an Observer report shortly after the above crash: On the 16 August 2000, the Civil Aviation Authority revealed that Concorde has suffered 70 tyre-related incidents, that makes it plain that the Paris disaster on 25 July 2000 could have happened at any time during the plane's 26-year commercial history. The fact that a single tyre blowout could cause potentially catastrophic damage to Concorde's landing gear, wings and fuel tanks was known as long ago as 1979. Despite a string of design and maintenance improvements, this type of blowout has repeatedly occurred since then. Concorde has suffered seven tyre bursts that resulted in punctured fuel tanks. Two, in 1979, happened to Air France planes taking off and landing in Washington, triggering a mandatory upgrade in tyre specifications and the introduction of a puncture alarm system. But by 1982, following half a dozen similar incidents, including a holed fuel tank on a British Airways Concorde taking off from New York, the US National Transportation Safety Board was still sufficiently alarmed to order extra safety measures: Concorde's landing gear and tyres were to be inspected before every take-off. Subsequent serious incidents, in 1985, 1988 and 1993, all involved BA Concordes at Heathrow and New York's JFK. In each, tyre bursts led to pieces of landing gear or rubber being ingested by the aircraft's engines, and wing skins being damaged, with fuel leaking from the punctured tanks. Further improvements were ordered in 1983, 1985 and 1993, when pieces of the landing gear's water deflector had punched holes in the wings. But in spite of all the changes, Concorde's wing skins still remain vulnerable to flying debris. Refs: _(Wiki: Concorde)_ _(Wiki: Air France Flight 450)_ _(theguardian: concorde world)_

Yes, you were thinking about Guile… sonic boom!

I recall a video just like this saying the same thing about 2 years ago, another one before that 5 years ago, another one celebrating Concorde 40th birthday 13 years ago. You can keep making documentaries about it America but at some point you actually have to Design, manufacture and perfect supersonic travel for more than a handful of pilots in a cockpit. So............ get on with it.

Heyyyy! I was hoping to see the X59 on the list 😁 I helped make it. They have incredibly tight tolerances on this plane 👀

Lockheed Martin and Airbus are in discussions to manufacture a faster jet. liner. They are scouting out a place to construct a plant, somewhere in the south.

Keep Dreaming on Boom Company, has 150 employees Concorde when in construction had over 100,000

I'm curious about these sonic booms. I'm sure they happened, but every time I ever looked up to watch a Concord fly over in the 90's, it never seemed to occur. But maybe it was just going slow over London.

The first TUPOLEV TU-144 which flew on December 31, 1968 was indeed very similar of Concorde. It was a "proof of concept" model which was the TU-144A. The Soviets realized that this aircraft, which flew very well, could in no way be certified for civilian passenger transport because of its very high approach and landing speed. After a few test flights the Soviets came to the conclusion that another very different plane had to be built, the TU-144A was scrapped and they started to build the others, the TU-144B and after the C and D. Models C and D used important parts in titanium in an epoch metallurgy of this metal was unknown in the west reason why Concorde was only made in steel and aluminum (and this was the reason its cruise and maximum speed are limited to mach 2 while the TU144 having its critical parts in titanium could cruise at mach 2.2 with a maximum of mach 2.30) . Double delta wings with strait leading edges would make easier to implement slats. Having engines near the center line close to the cabin it liberates the wing trailing hedge (a wingspan of 28.8 meters and 507 m² of wing area to be compared to 25.6 meters and 358 m² for Concorde) making it possible to have the significantly larger flaps all along the trailing edge that were necessary as having low speed in approach and landing that was the goal. Landing speed of Concorde was 305 km/h (165 kts) to be compared to 270km/h (146 kts) for the Tupolev that was indeed very similar of the Boeing 747 that was at time the fastest commercial plane landing. Another important difference was the width of the cabin more comfortable allowed the TU144 to have five seats up front while the Concorde only had four with seats next to the window being uncomfortable, only for people of below average height. Concorde flew in march 4, 1969 and Westerners (French and English) came to the same conclusions as the first version of soviets, it had a very high approach and landing speed, another plane had to be made. The French agreed to build another aircraft but the British did not. The new labor government led by new prime minister Harold Wilson begun to reorganize (and partly nationalize) the entire British aviation industry in what became later British Aerospace with the cancellation of many ongoing and operational projects. Cancelation of the TSR2 aircraft project (Supersonic Tactical & Reconnaissance Bomber) few weeks after its first flight was a serious blow to the Concorde project as it had the same Olympus 593 Concorde engines and had an early version of electric commands a kind of fly by wire but still of analog technology to be implemented in Concorde among other innovations. For the English a design of a new Concorde plane was not possible, they had to continue with the Concorde as it was in the state it was, with all its faults and problems due to design flaws, or else cancel it as the English wanted. The British government did everything to cancel the project, which was firmly opposed by French President George Pompidou. In February 1973 the Concorde project was virtually dead and in the process of being definitively cancelled. It was then the French president embarked to Azores in prototype number three on what is called the flight of last chance to Concorde for a meeting requested by the US President Richard Nixon. Nixon asked the French President to stop converting into gold each dollar entering in France because the US exits the Brenton Woods agreements and the dollar will no longer be convertible on the fixed price agreed in 1947. For his part, George Pompidou explained to Nixon the problem of the Concorde and the danger of having a more efficient Soviet competitor thanks to the use of new metals such as titanium. It was decided to continue the Concorde project as it was the first prototype, but a special committee was created to adopt a very special (and extremely expensive) approach and landing procedures were adopted especially for supersonic planes (but actually only for the Concorde). On approach it was necessary to create a gap in front of the Concorde, which made it impossible for 4 and sometimes 5 planes to land, which were sent to turn around or to a waiting circuit. In all air control centers, priority had to be given to the Concorde, it often arrived at its destination with just ten minutes of fuel in reserve, which was a safety aberration, all regulations require it to land with at least 45 minutes reserve. The French and British governments would pay enormous compensation, this was the price of prestige. Among other several design flaws one was the very great exposure of the kerosene tanks to projections from the landing gear were even the cause of many incidents but three accidents with significant leakage of kerosene, two in 1979, one in Dakar and the other in Washington/Dulles. In November 1981, the American National transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sent a letter of concern to the French BEA that included safety recommendations for Concorde. This communiqué was the result of the NTSB's investigations of four Air France Concorde incidents during a 20-month period from July 1979 to February 1981. The NTSB described those incidents as "potentially catastrophic," because they were caused by blown tyres during takeoff. During its 27 years in service, Concorde had about 70 tyre- or wheel-related incidents, seven of which caused serious damage to the aircraft or were potentially catastrophic. The most serious accident was in July 2000 in Gonesse (France) that caused 113 deaths and marked the end of the aircraft's prestige. This design flaw could be easily corrected on a second copy of the prototype but … it didn’t happen . On the TU-144 such an accident would be impossible or would not have had the same consequences, projections from the landing gear were not in line with fuel tanks and these are protected by titanium pieces. IN SHORT : Concorde was an immature project mainly due to budgetary constraints from the British government, it flew for 27 years below important safety rules authorized through derogation obtained at the highest at political level.

That Lockheed Martin NASA plane looks so cool.

well NASA and Lockheed can pull it of faster than the other mentioned company, for sure in less than a decade we'll have a working prototype or in service supersonic passenger jet from Lockheed and NASA

do the SAME and expect DIFFERENT results. Brilliant !!

Virgin have been talking about supersonic for 30 years now, all bluff!

So what can you do in person that you can’t do in a video call...?

Not with these gas prices

Wow. The audio voice over didn’t match the end of the video.

I was wondering what had happened to the X-59's quieter supersonic tech. I think it has the most potential to be the most profitable if it can fly overland... as weird as it looks. 😃

Grew up hearing sonic booms. It was no big deal and certainly wasn't scary.

"Why the Concorde failed" it did?! I distinctively remember it flying for 37 years with just one crash and being extremely popular amongst the wealth. You call that a failure?

I don't hear the sound at the end of the video

Ummm...have you forgotten about the weekly flight to Barbados?

people really need to innovate faster, we can't travel to the space if restrictions are everywhere

Can't wait to see how many Boom Overture flights are cancelled last minute due to crew shortages because airlines don't want to pay the six pilots they'll have type-rated for it.

Such a pleasure to hear a female voice on this kind of subject. The sound in the end is out of phase though.

Some names are unfortunate, Comet and Meteor spring to mind for aircraft. Protests about sonic boom have been going on since 1960, so why would you name an SST company, Boom?

Welcome

Great video

Wow Mach 3 is fast

That Lockheed supersonic jet which doesn't even have a cockpit window makes me wonder....you are just one bad solar flare or EMP from certain death when it fries all of the electronics onboard and the pilots lose the ability to see, and the flight computer stops working. I guess most modern jets probably suffer the same problem since they also rely on computers to stay airborne

Don't bother making it if it can't fly over land, it's like having one arm tied behind your back.

Just wait for portal technology

finally

The concord returns

Come on why does the worst airline have to order the boom overture?

The plane didn't crash due to engine failure the engine was sucking in flames from the wing and caused a fire warning light and the engineer switched off the engine even though it was still creating thrust

So basically, the US didn't want supersonic booms and thus banned Concorde. But now it's OK cause of NASA ? wow.Cause there was only 1 accident due to the long career of Concorde and Boeing Max, which has a lot of crashes is still OK flying

What about starship point to point? It could be fully completed and human rated before the next super sonic plane is complete... anywhere on earth in 45 min

We're so behind in advanced technology just because of greed

Keep the riff raff off Overture 🙊

Supersonic jets vs SpaceX

We don't need to travel faster than the speed of sound if we're going to be packed into planes like sardines.

Title: super sonic planes are making a comeback 2/3rds of video: why the concorde failed

Of course the DC-10 AKA the death cruiser would kill the Concorde

Tinie Tempah might still get his chance!

Concord it's over 40 years since Scotland to the skies in the first ba concord fleet commercial passenger flight. G_boaa the national Museum of flight is home to Scotland only concorde.

Whilst the Paris Crash was undoubtably horrific, when one compares it to the number of Boeing aircraft crashes as just one example, "Concorde" had an exemplary safety record, with just one crash in 25 years of servicde..!. I would suggest to the team at "C.N.E.T" that the real reason for the magnificent aircraft's sad demise, was the "Bean Counters" and "Book Cookers"(Accountants) who are obsessed with "Profit Above All Else". They capitalised on the Paris crash as reason for axing the aircraft which they had long desired becuase of high operating costs. They could not accept that somethings are beyond mere financial considerations... Perhaps one of the reasons the world is in such a sad state today, now it is becoming "Profit Before People"..!!

This is supposed to be an interesting video until it uses Imperial Units. Come on majority of the world today are in Metric. I suggest have a metric conversion too in your future videos.

But Nasa Ehre is the Space for Passangers?

Almost 50 years since the first supersonic airline flight, and we still haven't solved the sonic boom problem? You would think by now some young upstart would've solved issue and is now the richest person in the world. Or someone would've claimed to solve that issue and is now in jail for fraud.

The sustainable Overture will run on wood pellet.

Did they really use flight simulator for footage? Lol

I can't explain how stupid I find these "science" KZfaq videos from nice, serious channels like CNET, without the metric system on the video. Jesus.

Yes… it was a failing-financial, commercial venture. Yup, a totally random incident in 2003. 😳 I ASK: WHY DOESN’T EVERY AIRCRAFT MODEL/BRAND, THAT CRASHES… BECOME DISCONTINUED? No, no, no, this was a conspiracy, I theorize.

1:39 “Noooooooo!!!” Said the flat earther🙄

If the plane manufacturer is in the US government’s pocket like Boeing, I’ll never take the flight. I value my life over crony corporate profits

Who wrote the script for this video? Lots of incorrect facts

Ummm yeah .... what's it gonna be an electric plane....lol

No mention of SpaceX's plans for on planet long distance transportation with Starship? Why?

How’s is it gonna come back the fuel is now higher then it ever was before that’s mostly the reason why it went under in the first place back then it was way too expensive and now the whole world is goin into a recession so who can even afford to travel that way honesty I think they should wait till fuel goes back down and everything becomes back to normal again

for starship point to point rocket travel - spiral/shuffle everyoneone with window seats, flight attendants buckle you back in after your zero-g experience

They didn’t pioneer it…

Hillary Clinton hated Concorde.

The Concorde was fast however it wasn’t a game changer at all. That was the problem.

A waste of attention, money and time

HIGH ROLLERS ONLY from the lifestyles of THE RICH & FAMOUS!

SpaceX? 30 minutes around the world? Also the Concorde was old and people realised they could spend half the amount and fly first class overnight in a bed and wake up in NY or London.

isn't the sonic boom problem BS ? The Concorde wasn't flying over the speed of sound at low altitude lol

why do you even need planes didnt you ppl said that The HyperLoop will make them all obsolete 😂

tbh in a world where people wanna get to places faster and faster they should remove the ban and bring the supersonic flights back

As recently as the year 2000, 109 passengers are still dying in a plane crash as a result of simply running over a piece of metal on the runway....now you wanna go faster by compromising pilots having a window view of what's in front of them, using cameras instead.....humans aren't as smart as we claim to be .....

thats why greàst god baned outkàwsd hiknaty reoace hins bmany tinve ivèr wished hiñs did nit iver hyboer snartt and make smaet gids fell stuopid smar gids shoud fel alwssoume guoer felmg alwaoume