You have no idea how much this program shaped my childhood and life in general
@ZacYates
10 ай бұрын
Me too.
@djpalindrome
4 ай бұрын
I couldn’t believe Anthony Quale narrating a TV documentary
@carstenheine20
17 күн бұрын
Same for me
@Optimus-Prime-Rib
3 жыл бұрын
i still got this on VHS somewhere in my parents house. Loved this episode
@qalba3016
3 жыл бұрын
WOW it’s been a very very long time since I ran into VHS videos ThT took me 30 years back to good days May be the only good days I can remember
@phonicwheel933
Жыл бұрын
At 32:08, the part of the video covering the Concorde is fascinating. What an achievement to design and build an aircraft that would carry 100 passengers, 4,500 miles, at 1,340mph using 1960s technology and standard aircraft materials, and what a shame it's not flying today. Unfortunately, I never flew in Concorde, but have been in 002 at the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton, Somerset, UK. It's surprisingly high up on the ground and is awe-inspiring in the flesh. The cockpit is compact and uses traditional instruments and controls, which seem oddly out of place in such a space-age aircraft. The 2+2 cabin is quite narrow, compared to subsonic airliners, and also has small windows. Being a prototype, it is full of test equipment.
@ronpark5984
10 жыл бұрын
It is truly the best series on flight, along with the "Wings" documentaries on individual aircraft. It's worth saving here for future aviophiles and knowledge-seekers.
@alanhodder6166
11 жыл бұрын
I remember this series when I was 13 and had just started secondary school. It used to be on BBC 2 every Monday evening around 8pm. Thanks for sharing this!
@djpalindrome
4 ай бұрын
Concorde was a stunningly beautiful, brilliantly engineered airplane. What a monumental achievement
@densealloy
6 жыл бұрын
That flyby of the Comet over the pyramids is awesome!
@bushpilot182
10 жыл бұрын
I agree with the overview provided by pc1N as the best documentary in the history of aviation. I watched it when I was 11 years old, and have watched it several times, and now have shared it with three generations..still the best aviation documentary ever! Enjoy! Thanks for sharing!!!
@jeffhietala1609
4 жыл бұрын
My dad was a mechanic for Northwest Airlines from the late 80's to about 2005 or 2006 and worked on both the 747's and A320's.
@servicarrider
5 жыл бұрын
It's so exciting to look back and watch us grow.
@MrKevinmorrissey
8 жыл бұрын
Thanks a lot. I haven't seen this documentary series before, hours of content, cheers.
@granskare
6 жыл бұрын
When our family first flew, it was a 747 of KLM, I heard a noise but it was just landing gear. In 75, I had a map that KLM gave to pass along, it was the very same jet that had a terrible crash with a PANAM jet in Tenerife. Apparently the jets were sent there because of conditions at the main field at another island.
@stuart.8273
8 жыл бұрын
I realise the facts about its tragic history, but my goodness, the Comet is still a classy shaped aircraft - aeronautical art in the same glorious vein as the Super Constellation.
@phonicwheel933
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for posting this classic video. The Comet was the first passenger jet and could have given the UK a 5 year lead. It's a tragedy that the structure wasn't strong enough. 14:03 the commentator says that the B707 skin was 4 times thicker than the Comet 1 skin. The Comet 1 skin was 0.91 mm at the sides, and 0.71mm at the top. The B707 skin was 1.62mm, which is 78% and 129% thicker respectively. The Comet skin alloy was DT546 (AL-P2014A) which is strong and hard, but is subject to cracking. 13:28 Cunningham implies that the world has safer aircraft due to the lessons learnt from the Comet disaster. This is doubtful. Techniques for all metal aircraft design, including metal fatigue (13:20), were known well before that, as stated in the Cohen accident report and illustrated by the many other pressurised aircraft that had been designed before the causes of the Comet problems were known. Other pressurised aircraft that had been designed and flown successfully: USA USD-9A 1921 Junkers JU49 1931 Lockheed XC35 1937 Boeing 307 Stratoliner 1938 Lockheed Constalation 1943 Boeing B29 Super Fortress 1944 Douglas DC6 1946 Avro Tudor 1946 Boeing B47 Stratojet 1947 Vickers Viscount 1948 Bristol Britannia 1952 Boeing B52 Stratofortress 1952 Boeing 367-80 1954
@richardvernon317
6 ай бұрын
Nothing wrong with the Comet bar shoddy workmanship. The cause of the fuselage failures was bad riveting on the ADF aerial window.
@mcdonnell220
10 жыл бұрын
Great stuff, thanks PC!
@phonicwheel933
Жыл бұрын
As covered at 13:30, Boeing revolutionised air travel, not once but twice. In 1954 they risked the company by investing $50m in the 707 jet airliner development program. Then in 1966, they took an even bigger gamble by investing $1bn in the 747. During the 747 development the company amassed debts of $2bn, and needed a bank loan of $1.2bn. But, one thing that is not so commonly known is that, because of the Comet 1 crashes, Boing had a mammoth and expensive task to convince the public and airlines, especially in the US, that jet travel was both viable and safe. So, although Comet 1 did lead to a tightening of controls in the UK aircraft industry, it caused Boeing a major headache. Refs: _(Wiki: Boeing 707)_ _(Wiki: Boeing 747)_
@jumboneil
2 жыл бұрын
At 52:35 a Boeing executive makes one of the most interesting remarks about fly-by-wire tech in airliners….
@miquel440
9 жыл бұрын
Great docu withe the legendary Tex Johnston and his barrel roll and the first time i saw an interview with Jack Wadell,the 747 test pilot.Airbus may build good planes but Boeing set the standard at that time.And they build the 747,truly the Queen of the skies,no doubt about that.
@diegosilang4823
8 жыл бұрын
+Fligemon Hager lol 747 took off during the sexual revolution. Airbus A380 took off in Obesity revolution.
@branon6565
3 жыл бұрын
Airbus aircraft are pretty much garbage, just look at em, they look like they're cheaply made, constructed with cheap Chinese plastic parts....
@5012810
3 жыл бұрын
THE GOLDEN ERA OF AVIATION IS GONE.....
@phonicwheel933
Жыл бұрын
40:00, Concorde started scheduled flights from London and Paris to New York, Washington DC, Miami, and Barbados in 1976, but people living in the New York airport area demonstrated against the noise. They had good reason. Concorde was even more noisy than the Boeing 707, which they had previously demonstrated against. It also had an unpleasant tearing sound. As a result of the protests, the New York Port Authority temporarily banned Concorde, but the ban was subsequently overturned by a higher court. Opposition to supersonic transport (SST) grew from 1960, notably in the US, UK, and Scandinavia. By the 1970s there was opposition from Canada, Australia, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, India, Singapore, Malaya, and Australia. The UK based _'Anti-Concorde Project',_ started by Richard Wiggs in 1966, tried to kill Concorde on cost, environmental, and noise grounds. There were also many complaints about Concorde noise at Heathrow airport. US protestors targeted all SSTs, including Concorde. In 1967, Dr William Surecliff, of Harvard University, devised the _'Citizen's League Against Sonic Boom',_ which aimed to stop the US SST program and Boeing 2707 project. Also in the US, the _'SST and Sonic Boom Handbook',_ edited by William Shurcliff, was published in 1970. It states that Concorde will devastate the environment, destroy the ozone layer, harm 'human physiology', and upset animals, among other things. Many objections to SST are fanciful, not so for sonic boom. Amazingly, the SST study groups of the 1950s just assumed that sonic boom wouldn't be a problem at 60,000 feet so, in 1962, the Concorde development program went ahead, seemingly oblivious. In 1964, when USAF aircraft flew supersonic near Oklahoma City, 9,600 people complained. There were similar outcries in 1967, when RAF aircraft made supersonic flights over Somerset. Finally, the US banned commercial supersonic flights in 1973, and other countries soon followed. This ban made most Concorde routes nonviable. Many US politicians and experts doubted the feasibility of SST, but the US SST initiative still went ahead. After funding in-house SST studies for 17 years, Boeing won a contract to develop the 2707 advanced SST in 1967. Subsequent oil price hikes, concerns about sonic boom, and the environmental lobby forced the senate to axe the project in 1971, at a $1bn spend. This ban was very unpopular and decimated Boeing's finances, resulting in 7,500 lay-offs. The technical issues with the 2707 had been resolved and two prototypes were being constructed. Although the project was on line for completion, it was ultimately cancelled because of sonic boom and the environmentalists. It turned out that the cancellation was fortuitous, because it saved the US a mint and eliminated a potential competitor for Concorde's routes. As far as the _'special relationship'_ goes, the US government, with no benefit to itself, did allow Concorde to fly subsonically over the US, and use US airports, despite public objections. It's doubtful that they would have done the same for any other country's noisy SST. The FAA figures show that Concorde's take off noise was 120 dB compared to 104 for the Boeing 707, which itself was considered to be loud. Does SST have a future? The ultimate solution would be to fly at the height defined by the Knudsen number for a particular aircraft, where the air molecules are so far apart that shock waves cannot form. At around 500,000ft (95mi, 153km), sonic boom, drag, and skin heating vanish, allowing an aircraft to 'glide' under inertial force, after being accelerated to supersonic cruise speed. Only the power to overcome the drop due to gravity would be required (by choosing the correct height and speed satellites, are able to circle the earth for tens of years with no power). The proposed Venus Aerospace Stargazer won't reach the 'Knudsen height', but in part, it's like the ultimate solution. According to the Venus site, it will take off using jets, to keep the noise down, then, under rocket power, it will climb to 170,000ft (32mi, 52km), where it will cruise at 6,900mph (sonic boom isn't mentioned). It will carry 12 passengers and reach any airport in the world from any other airport within 2 hours. Refs: _wiki: Concorde_ _YT: Boeing SST 2707_ _wiki: Boeing 2707_ _wiki: Sonic Boom_ _wiki: Anti-Concorde Project_
@okhan5087
8 жыл бұрын
28:56 Boeing 707 and KC-135 prototype, Boeing 367-80 can be seen in the backround
@chopchop7938
5 жыл бұрын
@ULCC No need to apologize. You obviously made a mistake by purchasing an inferior British monitor.
@granskare
6 жыл бұрын
in 57, I rode the USAF C-121 to the Azores, then to Wheelus in Libya. I still recall looking at the sea and seeing a ship sailing. For a farm boy, this was amazing. Then from Tripoli via BEA to Malta. The plane was the Airspeed Ambassador, only 24 built which was odd. I thought it was a great plane and why it did not sell makes me think that bribery was involved- that has been done in America often.
@michaelclentworth1283
2 жыл бұрын
One of the 'improvements on what we have today' has been the use of carbon fibre airframes in the 787.
@michaelclentworth1283
2 жыл бұрын
As soon as the whole Covid thing has fully blown over, I plan to attend the Paris Air Show.
@branon6565
3 жыл бұрын
I remember flyin in a DC-9 from SFO to O'Hare with my Mom and brother when I was 6yrs old, in 1979, with the inside of the aircraft lookin just like what is shown here @30:11, cigarette smoke everydamnwhere....
@deksea
8 жыл бұрын
Clearly one of the best segments of this clip starts at 14:00 with the flight testing of the 707 by Tex Johnson and the subsequent famous/infamous roll maneuver he did with the aircraft with a good number of important airline executives on board. Called on the carpet the following Monday by his boss, he was asked "What did you think you were doing??" The answer "Selling airplanes."
@Mark_Ocain
4 жыл бұрын
LOL I'd rather a Concorde taking off with reheat over my house than a 707 with JT3C's with water injection. those early turbojets were amazingly noisy
@joeg5414
6 жыл бұрын
It seems to me that going from right handed control as a f/o to left handed as a captain with the side stick would be quite a challenge to get used to.
@granskare
6 жыл бұрын
I do not like the airbus controls on the sides instead of center control. It seems that one pilot can hold that side control and not be over rode by the chief pilot, which is sad.
@michaelclentworth1283
2 жыл бұрын
Without the Concorde, there would've been no Airbus company.
@phonicwheel933
Жыл бұрын
I didn't know that. Thanks for info: _Airbus, would simply not have existed or have been as successful a company that it is today, had Concorde never made it off the drawing board. The initial high outlays by the respective governments was the foundation of the European aviation industry that we have today, and this is all thanks to Concorde, and the skills and knowledge that it brought._ (from net)
@FireAngelZero
8 жыл бұрын
Wow, 49:41 the personal entertainment system has gone a long way since the 7J7 days... Those screens were so small you could barely tell up close what you were watching...
@ZacYates
10 ай бұрын
Can anyone tell me what the music is during the Concorde in flight sequence from 41:20?
@ZacYates
10 ай бұрын
I found it on the US version! "The New Challengers" by Richard Allen Harvey, for anyone else playing along at home.
@cjgangi0123
5 жыл бұрын
Is that a baby slung under the overhead bins on the stratocruiser?
@bobbypaluga4346
5 жыл бұрын
Check NO Airline “bought” the Concorde. British and French taxpayers were stuck paying the R and D costs for a non-commercial aircraft. Concorde was an incredible advance, I wish I could have flown before it was withdrawn.
@Sacto1654
9 жыл бұрын
In many ways, the British could have been world-beaters in the jet airliner business had the ugly politics that tied British civilian aircraft design to the needs of BOAC and BEA didn't hamstrung the British airplane industry as a whole. As such, while the de Havilland Comet 4 was the first to regularly fly the New York to London route (though it needed to land at Gander flying westbound), it was quickly overtaken by the Boeing 707, especially once the 707-320 Intercontinental entered production in 1960. Interestingly, this episode didn't mention the aborted Vickers V1000/VC7 project, which had it gone through with the Rolls-Royce Conway turbofan engine, could have stolen a lot of the Boeing 707's market share by 1960.
@awuma
9 жыл бұрын
+Sacto1654 Actually, the VC10 & Trident projects are the ones which suffered the most because they were explicitly built to BOAC/BEA requirements. Adequately capitalized and not hamstrung, they could have competed successfully with the 707, DC-8 and 727. The BAC-111 was quite successful, and as I recall, was not designed especially for BEA. The VC-7 was like a Comet on steroids, it might have given the 707 a run, but it too was hampered by BOAC's requirements, and a design layout which was already obsolete. The very well built VC10 went on to have a long career with the RAF as a transport and tanker.
@diegosilang4823
8 жыл бұрын
+Sacto1654 Even with the "Saviour" Vickers V1000 it wasn't enough. The British aircraft manufacturing is more expensive and slower than the Americans, just look how Vickers VC-10 had struggled to meet BOAC's order!
@diegosilang4823
8 жыл бұрын
Funny how some of the British giving the Americans "credit" for round windows on jet liners... Vickers Viscount (though a turboprop) comes with pressurized cabin and round windows made its first flight in 1948.
@diegosilang4823
8 жыл бұрын
+clipper321 I'm not talking about having the first pressurized cabin. Round windows had been around before the dehaviland comet.
@mattmopar440
8 жыл бұрын
Just like Cars Americans seem to focus on large economic transport. The British prefer more of a Luxury performance aspect. to each its one I guess
@noonedude101
7 жыл бұрын
Luxury performance that explodes*
@7mgtesup1
5 жыл бұрын
TheAviator370: yeah like no 747, DC10 or the likes has ever crashed......
@christopherburnham1612
5 жыл бұрын
As a young boy in school at Hamilton, in Brisbane we would watch pilots doing their certification test by flying constellations and landing them at the old eagle farm airport a couple of miles away as the crow or constellation flies, lol
@DavidAndrewsPEC
9 жыл бұрын
2:50 - Avro Lancastrian!!!!!
@FLT111
Жыл бұрын
Boeing was an excellent aircraft manufacturer until it merged with McDonnell Douglas.. now it lags big time.
@phonicwheel933
Жыл бұрын
Sad but true. It's a problem with all technical companies getting the balance between management and engineering right.
@walterrudich2175
7 жыл бұрын
120 million $ for a Boeing 747. How cheap was that! But the real bargain was Concorde: They gave it away for - tataaaaa! - 1 Pound or 1 Franc per piece! I should have bought one back then...
@carstenheine20
7 жыл бұрын
whats the name of the march at 37:30?
@invicta1313
8 жыл бұрын
I do like these British documentaries, but my God...I thought AMERICANS were nationalist! I mean, we are flag-waving obnoxious, but it seems like you can't watch a European documentary without hearing some poncy announcer hammering away at European technology, European luxury, European speed, European this and that and this and that. All while complaining and talking crap about America. I mean, Jesus, people...I understand being proud of your work, but there comes a point when pride trips over inferiority complex. When we talk about our products, we don't spend half the time talking about what the Europeans are doing. Honestly...I understand Europeans are proud, and justifiably so. But you guys really start sounding kind of desperate when you do things like this.
@CplBurdenR
8 жыл бұрын
+Richard Rowe You are aware this was a joint project between the BBC and (I believe it was) Paramount, and the US aired version had a different narrator (I am unsure if the words spoken were different). Accusing it of being a British Nationalistic flag waving documentary when it was funded 50% by a US Network..... EDIT: CBS and Turner, not Paramount. my apologies
@invicta1313
8 жыл бұрын
Robert Palfrey I realize that. But there are certainly enough Anglophiles here in the U.S., especially in big business, that they wouldn't mind paying the British lip service. Or at least letting them do it themselves. These are people who drive European cars, visit Europe on holiday, have European wives and have largely European values. A little more so than the average American, anyway. Again, I don't have a problem with Europeans or the British...just saying, this group would have no problem giving the BBC its head in polishing the Old Country's altar.
@invicta1313
8 жыл бұрын
phillyslasher Agreed completely. also, worth adding...the U.S. SST was supposed to be a lot bigger and faster than the Concorde. The only reason we didn't build one was because our airlines took one look at the Concorde, as small as it was, and said "that's a money loser." Which was absolutely correct. The Concorde was too small and too expensive to be a viable business plan next to the jumbo jets that were coming out at the same time. We could have EASILY built something like the Concorde. Like you said...we did the SR-71 in the 60s, and Valkyrie in the 70s. The Concorde was WELL within our technical capabilities. It was just seen as a crappy business plan...which it was. Still awesome, still brilliant, don't get me wrong. But who's smarter here? The people who built the brilliant machine, or the ones who didn't bother because they knew said machine would fail?
@dvamateur
8 жыл бұрын
It's more complex problem. British are not going to like anybody, because they used rule the world with the colonialism, and the colonies only benefited from that after becoming independent. The Indians took jobs all over the world because they could communicate in English (which Chinese couldn't), Tata bought Jaguar and Land Rover, Germans bought Rolls-Royce and Bentley, thrashed Rover, Russians bought TVR, and so on. I believe Morgan is the remaining British car manufacturer. The Brits are very likely to feel bitter after such such superiority and technological advancements in the '50s and '60s, the jet engine aircraft, the V-bombers, motorcycle industry, etc. Now everything is gone. The French will always be bitter because I think the British freed them. Whatever, it's not pretty. What worries me the most thought that now Germans and Swedes don't even like themselves and totally submit to the rather corrupt Belgian European Union. I am actually proud of the Brits they decided to go Brexit to protect themselves. Now, in the U.S. there will be election. And due to PC, I can no longer say what I think. Let the Brits be proud of their past at least. I am proud of them to go Brexit. I feel like Brexit is the only positive thing that happened in the world this year...
@tinglydingle
7 жыл бұрын
As a Brit, I'm not bitter about any of that.
@christopherburnham1612
5 жыл бұрын
They would fly them on 2 engines
@airplanebuilderman
6 жыл бұрын
long live the 747. Wish the airlines would buy more
@michaelclentworth1283
2 жыл бұрын
Sorry, but the era of the 747 is over. The same goes for the A380.
@granskare
6 жыл бұрын
an american sst would have been great but our gov't failed us. I recall that last concorde had a fire which killed it. a sad moment but it was small and expensive.
@phonicwheel933
Жыл бұрын
Not sure about 'our gov't failed us'. They probably did the sensible thing in view of the cost of trying to achieve Mach 3, the huge hike in oil price, and the intense lobbying by the SST objectors. But like you, I wish Boeing had produced the 2707 ASST.😊 Yes, during the take off from Paris France, a tires hit a panel that had fallen off a previous flight. That burst the tyre and pieces of the tire hit the wing underside and punctured a fuel tank. Fuel gushed out and caused a massive fire. The Concorde flew for a few miles in flames and then crashed. There had been 40 previous tyre incidents, 7 of which ruptured a fuel tank.
@densealloy
6 жыл бұрын
Any knowledgeable pilots? Johnston states he did a "roll" and then says he did a "chandelle". The articles I found says he did a barrel roll and was called on the carpet after doing it twice in a row. It appears as though he did it only the one time (date). So the footage would have to be from the incident then. So, in the footage (along with the photo),is he conducting an aileron roll barrel roll or chandelle? To muddy the waters up a bit more.. I found that there are a few different barrel rolls in relation to dogfighting. With Johnston's military community background could this be where people are confused? i.e. he picked up military jargon and continued to use it after ImO Johnston had to have misspoke on this interview because a roll and a chandelle look nothing alike and there was no indication that the chandelle was anything but a chandelle. In so far, as the term roll and the aforementioned article saying barrel roll it appears these terms are ambiguous. Any thoughts from SME would be interesting.
@UAL320
2 жыл бұрын
Tex never was in the military….
@densealloy
2 жыл бұрын
@@UAL320 okay I'll edit my op to clarify my point as to not confuse people...
@bobbypaluga4346
5 жыл бұрын
Richard Rowe - Excellent point, advances in aviation know no national boundaries. It’s not Nationalism, it’s arrogance and an uneducated lack of respect. The Brits invented the jet engine (Frank Whittle), as well as radar, and they produced the first jet fighter. All this took place under a nightly, and very furious Nazi bombing campaign. The knock British carriers were burdened with was government controls over routes and what the airlines were told they could buy. Lord Douglas of BEA wanted 727’s in the worst way, but the government prohibits such a sale forcing BEA to buy the Trident. To add insult to injury the British government told Hawker-Siddney the number of seats they could put in the Trident as well as its range and destinations it could serve as well as forcing them to buy a Rolls Royce engine that would underpower the tri-Jet. Hence 117 Tridents of all variants* were built, vs 1832** 727’s. Had the maker been free to build their own aircraft the way they wished the story could have been different. The Comet was originally set for ONLY 24 seats, while the 707 would seat over 100 followed by the 707-200 with 200 seats.don’t blame deHavilan blame the British government. The VC10 and Super VC-10 were great aircraft, but their niche was into flying hot and high African airports, not an airliner the world was going to buy. The Comet story is slightly off. The Comet did not pioneer pressurized cabins. In 1944-45 Boeing built the B-29’s, it was pressurized to 8,000 feet, guns were connected to computers so the personal hitting the triggers seemed to be firing, but the computer was actually firing on its own guided by the remote control. The bomb bay was left unpressurized, thank heavens. The skin on the Comet was 1/4th the thickness as the B-29 skin. YouTUBE has a video on the building of the bomber the most expensive project of the war at $3 billion, the Atomic Bomb projects cost was just $2 billion, both in 1940 dollars. The 707 was built with the heavier skin it was a Boeing standard as was the circular windows and drilled rivets holes. There were two fatal flaws with the aircraft,” says Hodgson. “First was the method of construction - the skin of the aircraft was made as thin as possible to save weight.” “The Comet flew very high, and it needed to be pressurised so the passengers inside can breathe,” says Hodgson. “If you do that, it’s like taking a toy balloon and blowing it up and deflating it constantly - eventually it’s going to tear.” The second problem concerned the rectangular windows. “If you have a square opening in a sheet of metal, like the skin of an airliner, and you stress it, the place where the crack is going to start is at the corner,” Hodgson explains. On 10 January 1954, Comet G-ALYP took off from Rome and climbed into the clouds. During a radio call to report the weather, the transmission suddenly cut off. Below, fishermen reported hearing multiple explosions before seeing burning debris plunge through the clouds. All 29 passengers and six crew were killed. *Trident 1C Production version for British European Airways; 24 built Trident 1E Increased seating capacity, uprated engines, and addition of leading edge slats over the Trident 1C; 15 built Trident 2E An improved Trident 1E with triplex autoland system; 50 built Trident 3B High-capacity short-medium range version of the 2E with a 16 ft 5 in (5.00 m) stretch and one additional RB.162 booster engine in the tail; 26 built Super Trident 3B Extended range by 692 km (430 miles); two built **edition.cnn.com/travel/article/boeing-727-last-flight-scli-intl/index.html
@pup1008
5 жыл бұрын
Very interesting & mostly all correct although it was *Frank Whittle* who invented the jet engine. My understanding though it's that it was of an inferior design (centrifugal?) to a subsequent German engine the designer of which had stood on the shoulders of Whittle though.
@grahamfigg5817
3 жыл бұрын
117 Tridents were built, not 81.
@bobbypaluga4346
3 жыл бұрын
@@pup1008 I wrote the little essay from memory, I’ve had to make a few corrections esp. with numbers and names, Sorry The Whittle Story- In 1928, RAF College Cranwell cadet Frank Whittle formally submitted his ideas for a turbo-jet to his superiors. In October 1929, he developed his ideas further. On 16 January 1930 in England, Whittle submitted his first patent (granted in 1932). The patent showed a two-stage axial compressor feeding a single-sided centrifugal compressor. Practical axial compressors were made possible by ideas from A.A. Griffith in a seminal paper in 1926 ("An Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design"). Whittle would later concentrate on the simpler centrifugal compressor only, for a variety of practical reasons. Whittle had his first engine running in April 1937. It was liquid-fuelled, and included a self-contained fuel pump. Whittle's team experienced near-panic when the engine would not stop, accelerating even after the fuel was switched off. It turned out that fuel had leaked into the engine and accumulated in pools. The Heinkel He 178, the world's first aircraft to fly purely on turbojet power. In 1935, Hans von Ohain started work on a similar design in Germany, and it is often claimed that he was unaware of Whittle's work. Ohain said that he had not read Whittle's patent, and Whittle believed him (Frank Whittle 1907-1996). However, the Whittle patent was in German libraries, and Whittle's son had suspicions that Ohain had read or heard of it.
@pup1008
3 жыл бұрын
@@bobbypaluga4346 Very interesting, thanks for that!
@daveworthing2294
Жыл бұрын
The Americans hated the fact they didn't have something like the Concorde. As Brian Trubshaw said, if it had been theirs, it's highly doubtful any protests about noise would have been made. The 'special relationship'my arse.
@phonicwheel933
Жыл бұрын
*_Hi Dave,_* many Americans admire Concorde and think it is a great achievement. At 40:00, the JFK airport demonstrations and subsequent New York Port Authority ban in 1976, were anxious times for Concorde, but most protesters seemed to be genuinely fearful of excessive noise. By lightening the fuel load and quickly turning to sea, Concorde take off noise was reduced to 105 EPN dB, against the airport limit of 112. Also, residents living near the airport didn't find Concorde's noise much more disturbing than other jets of the time, so the local protests gradually abated. As far as the _'special relationship'_ goes, in 1977 the US government, with no benefit to itself, overturned the ban and did allow Concorde to fly subsonically over the US, and use US airports, despite public objections. It's doubtful that they would have done the same for any other country's noisy SST. The FAA figures show that Concorde's take off noise was 119.5 EPN dB compared to 104 for the Boeing 707, which itself was considered to be loud.
@bruceblake9942
5 жыл бұрын
The magnificent BAC-SUD Concorde was followed by the Airbus A320. What a dismal failure in national perspective in UK/EU. Shame on you politicians and the lily-livered aerospace companies. [Aussie in BC]
@peterschmidt7543
8 жыл бұрын
Consider producers like BBC pretty much on top, but even with them you gotta be careful with what is real facts or presented as the truth. For whatever reason...
@christopherburnham1612
3 жыл бұрын
Trust the Americans to condem a plane they couldn't make themselves
@tiadaid
Жыл бұрын
In the end, they were right. It was not economically viable, and the only reason it lasted 27 years with BA and Air France is because they got the plane cheaply, subsidized by their respective governments.
@phonicwheel933
Жыл бұрын
@@tiadaid quite right. The French and British governments also paid the Concorde development costs of £1.8 billion in 1976 (£11.1 billion in 2021 money). I remember that at one time, each UK tax payer was contributing £20 PA towards Concorde. That is £123 in 2021 money. I think the governments also subsidised the Concorde maintenance costs. The running costs were high. For example just the fuel for a London to New York return flight was £128k. But, on the other hand, tickets were an eye watering £9k in 2023 prices, so that works out to £900k total revenue for a full load of 100 passengers.
@drstevenrey
4 жыл бұрын
People who whistle at every S they say are either daft as a brush or just too incapable to visit a dentist. Loses all credibility to me.
@drstevenrey
3 жыл бұрын
Such a waste of time, the Concorde. Too slow today. Zoom is now, not in 3 hours.
@Milkmans_Son
3 жыл бұрын
Plus on Zoom you can still yell at your mom to bring you a sandwich. Zoom is now. Ugh, thanks a lot, dork.
@michaelclentworth1283
2 жыл бұрын
drstevenrey Zoom won't transport you anywhere, though.
Пікірлер: 92