My grandfather flew for Delta and one of his very favorite airliners was the Convair 880. He liked the speed of the plane and said that it was responsive and very fun to pilot. I can only imagine that he would have loved flying an SST, but of course he never got the chance. He retired in 1980 (flying the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar) and swore that deregulation took the good out of the industry. I think he would have hated the flying cattle cars airliners have become.
I feel the same about the L1011. As a non.-rev they were the best. My son moved to STL. Now that TWA is gone I have a heck of a time getting there. You can "Die in Dallas." 18 hours LAX STL last time.
The deregulation being the problem is 100% correct, demonstrated by everything from how consumer protections have been removed to the airport traffic controller firings in the 80s.
It’s funny that they did the supersonic tests over Oklahoma City. OKC is now home to the Oklahoma Thunder team in the NBA. That team was previously located in Seattle where they were known as the SuperSonics. The team was called the SuperSonics as a nod to Boeing’s SST aircraft. Funny how things tie together! Also to my fellow Seattleites I’d like to suggest that if you name your sports team after a plane that never got off the ground you probably shouldn’t be too surprised when the team also fails to attain great heights!! ;)
I do miss my Sonics. Especially the mid 90’s Sonics. Shawn Kemp, GP, Detlef Schrempf, Sam Perkins, Kendall Gill, etc. 1996 they would’ve been worlds champs if they were playing any team other than the Bulls.
Seattle's team was often colloquially known as the "Sonics." I used to wonder if that was a formal team name change after the cancellation of the 2707, but the Wikipedia article makes me believe that it was just an informal name. I have a hunch that the "Thunder" name was more of a reference to the frequent severe storms in the area than the link to the supersonic tests. You'd almost expect them to name the team the "Tornadoes," but that might hit a bit of a raw nerve there.
The Tupolev Tu-144 was actually a better design in most aspects. However the Soviet Union quickly discovered that the noise, maintenance costs and fuel consumption per passenger mile was just way too high... Unfortunately for the British & French Taxpayers, who had to pay for the Concorde, this made toy for the ultra wealthy, as the Concorde program wasn't canceled. As a two hour flight NY to London wasn't worth the obscene fuel waste that was the Concorde. As for the poor Merchant Marines who had their hearing badly damaged by the Concorde flights also should have been canceled... So yes, thank God the Concorde remains the one & only SST passenger aircraft, but it can't be called a successful commercial passenger aircraft as every flight cost the British & French government many times over the ticket sales price for each flight...
Mig-31 business jet is still my favorite concept, Dassault Falcon 20 was fitted with an afterburner star fighter was considered to be converted for business jet. I like how they still gave the Passanger variant a B designation.
You don’t even need subsonic. I once rode a gate truck around at Orly airport in Paris and at almost every sharp corner there were lost suitcases just lying on the ground that had flown off of baggage trains.
In one way the Convair B-58-9 SST project is quit simelar to the M-50 and M-52 SST versions of the M-50 & M-52 Bombers from Myasishchev. I just got a few days ago the new printet book "Myasishchev M-50 and M-52" The First Soviet Supersonic Strategic Bomber. Written by Yefim Gordon and Dmitriy Komissarov
@@uingaeoc3905 so what? Also the XB-70 and many more did not. Most of this bomber projects got cancelled because of intercontinental missiles. In this RU-vid channel are prototypes and unrealised projects the main topic.
haha.. yeeea that wing design & engine config immediately pop up on my mind as it´s basically identical as the M-50 well.. clearly we are talking about the peak of the cold war espionage era .. hehe someone clearly stole & sold the blueprints .... Russia to US??.... or...... US to Russia??
I have a theory that the number of complaints was so small because it was the '50s and it was the American military testing things. People were more likely to trust the military and government and let them do whatever.
After WWII the American Civilians knew that they needed a strong defense and thus they tolerated military aircraft, except when it broke their windows or deafened them. A Toy for the Wealthy that does the same and you would have seen these passenger SST's repeatedly set on fire while on the ground for damaging property and deafening people. Remember the Concorde educationally broke ship windows and deafened merchant marines. The catch was it was almost impossible to prove that their injuries were caused by the Concorde Flights even though they obviously were caused by the F-ing Concorde Flights...
As the Concorde was a nightmare in terms of maintenance, I can't even phantom the hell of a supersonic passenger carrier designed a decade earlier in terms of maintenance. Just think about the Concorde's windshield, it was finally makeable after initial designs, traditional materials couldn't stand the intense and prolonged heat due to friction at supersonic speeds
The 58-9 would almost certainly have been a hangar queen, *many* more hours spent in maintenance than in flight. but that was basically its purpose in life. The lessons learned from it would have been applied to the *next* SST, which would have been the actual operational commercial vehicle. Instead the Boeing 2707 had to learn all its lessons right out of the gate, an issue that contributed to it being simply cancelled.
@@awatt Concord made a profit for the two flag carriers, Air France and British Airways, who were given the Concorde for free (taxpayers footed the bill). Not one order was placed for the Concorde at full price, not one single jet!
So do I: My hearing was damaged by an ear infection when I was a child living in "Off Base Family Housing". I remember just after getting some of it back, a deafening noise that resulted in Tinnitus...
There was quite a bit to the US Supersonic Transport program. For example, the plane on the left at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jbGzuyPvBbo.html isn't a Lockheed L-2000. It is the third of the designs initially considered for the program, something known as the North American Aviation NAC-60. One thing that it had over the B58-9 is that it used what North American had learned from the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber program. For example, they decided that compression lift from the fold down wingtips of the bomber wasn't worth it. Also, the landing gear was simplified to something that would work in commercial operations. One unique feature of this design was the all moving vertical stabilizer. That's right, instead of a rudder, the whole vertical stabilizer was meant to move, about 20 degrees in each direction. There is an image where the names of the two designs are mismatched, and this is where the confusion comes from. Similarly, there were also initially three engine manufacturers in competition for the development contract, those being Pratt and Whitney, General Electric and Curtiss-Wight. Like North American, Curtiss-Wright was dropped from consideration after the first phase of the program, despite their claims of being able to build an engine with superior range to the others. A conspiracy theorist might, looking at the whole, decide the fix was in for Boeing from the outset. Indeed, there was a preference for the variable geometry or swing wing design. But a look at artwork of the aircraft might also tell the story. It's worth noting that only the Boeing design said USA Supersonic on them. Lockheed and North American both put their company names prominently on models and artwork of their designs. As a matter of personal opinion, the scheme North American used was almost criminally ugly. The NAC-60 looked better in any airline scheme, like the United (Loewy designed) scheme you showed in the video. Three percent of the population complaining about the sonic boom is a surprise. I'd have thought the number to be much higher. Nevertheless, I find it interesting that supersonic flights over land weren't prohibited here until years after the US SST program was cancelled. I've seen an economic forecast for the NAC-60 that includes the possibility of transcontinental flights. Want to fly to Portland? United will have you there in a flash! How about Cleveland? Also, a more likely stopping point for getting a 58-9 over the Atlantic would be one that was typically used in the propeller airliner era: Gander, Newfoundland. That model of the B58-9 is gorgeous. What sim were you using? There was a model done by J R Lucairny, but it is no longer available. It was for FS2004/FSX. Here's JFK's speech where he launches the American supersonic transport program: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tbFNQw0n7bw.html All in all,, you've given me something to talk about with this video. If I've taken this much time to discuss it...
It is hard to believe what I am seeing here, this is not a large airplane! I've been to the Pima Air Museum in Tucson, Arizona and have literally laid my hands on a B-58 Hustler. You read that right, the fingertips that are typing this message have touched the Convair aluminum and titanium of an actual B-58. Now... What my point is, is that this is NOT a big airplane. It is 96 feet long and about 58 feet wide, which means that it is about the size of a Canadair Regional Jet, on a good day. And the fuselage of a B-58 is very tight along the wing due to the area rule, probably about six feet wide at the narrowest point. Six feet wide? Yes, I know that Convair had a whole new fuselage design for a supersonic transport plane, but the other foot drops! Military designs are designed to successfully complete their mission and nothing else. As such in the design phase decisions are made that make sense from a military [disposable: It will be shot down] mindset that really would not work at all in the commercial environment, and this design is obviously one that simply would not work commercially. The cost per hour of a military aircraft is ENORMOUS on purpose; It has to do its job, and cost is no object. But a commercial aircraft design is a whole different animal; Just like evolved animals, it has to earn it's keep and prove its costs were worthy of its construction. While it is kind of Romantic to think of turning a B-58 into an airliner and seriously cool, I think the engineers at Convair quickly realized that they were opening Pandora's box and a can of worms at the same time and quietly nixed any notion of this project- Thus....I am officially labelling this as a stupid idea.
Whoa. This is amazing. The B-58 Hustler, Quite Possibly The Most Beautiful Jet-Powered Aircraft Ever Created (regardless of it's terrifying purpose), was considered for conversion to civilian transport usage? Whoa. What might have been... P.S.- I just wanted to add another voice to those in support of your excellent channel. The paranoid, delusional whack-jobs who've been leaving nasty and often totally batsh*t comments can't take away the deserved affection and respect you've earned from the great many of us who enjoy your outstanding and entertaining work. Keep it up, my friend, we are with you all the way.
Wonderful videos!! Wouldn’t the final outer engine configuration be more like the B-58, where they’re under the wing versus being mounted on the wings’ extremities? I seriously think they’d eventually mount the engines more similar to the bomber after testing the real thing. Obviously the experience with the B-58’s maintenance was a big clue as to the lack of economic viability of SSTs even before the Concorde, and also confirmed by Douglas’ studies with the 2229. Still burning questions: 1. Droop nose. Why did Convair’s B-58 and NAA’s XB-70 opt for a static nose versus a droop nose as did Concorde, B2707, and L-2000? 2. Tail configuration. Why did Boeing, Douglas (later SST proposal), and Convair opt for tail wings similar to fighter jets, versus the single delta wing on the Concorde and L-2000? I can find answers anywhere on these two design choices.
Convair,s B-58 hybrid is a step in the right direction but using the Hustlers original engine arrangement, it works, swapping the 'stove pipe GE J-79' for the Pratt&Whittney JT5A , an afterburning turbofan based on the J-75 turbojet used top power Republic F-105 Thunderchiefs. Said engine will increase Convair s' Corvette of The Air' range making a London to New York route viable with a significant noise reduction in the transonic cruise . Fore planes canards fixed or retractable will enable the 990 SS (Super Sport) aka Chevy Chevelle, to use any airport suitable for B707,s DC-8,s,using spoilers combined with thrust reversers. That overly complex 'gate leg' main undercarriage with sixteen tiny tyres replaced with a beefed up inwards retracting gear by Cleaveland Pneumatic based on that used the CV -990. One thing to mull over, the Convair would never suffer the same fate that befell the Air France Concorde in July 2000,as the engines are set far forward of the main undercarriage.
When I look at the B-58 SST derivatives, I still can’t figure out how you could fill the fuselage with passengers and there baggage, yet still have room for enough fuel to go anywhere. The B-58 didn’t have a stellar safety record either.
Don't feel bad... Whether the late Aerion, or Boom, etc. all the modern SST design proposals morphed over time to turn into aircraft that look remarkably like Convair's 1961 Model 58-9. Maybe Convair was just too far ahead of its time. :) I think I've seen this design with Air Force One livery... now that would've been one heck of a ride. :)
Your graphics are great, as always. Yet, I doubt that a passenger carrying B-58 would be able to sustain (or even achieve) high Mach numbers without an area-ruled fuselage. (Convair learned all about this with the F-102)
I agree. Additionally the engines would have to go through a performance growth program of some sort to achieve the much higher thrust needed. The wings to would have to be redesigned and enlarged.
@@gbrads Also, I notice it still has 2 of the low underslung engines necessitating the long and complicated landing gear that caused so many problems with the B-58.
@@mikearmstrong8483 I absolutely agree. I think better to start with a clean sheet design and if any B58 can be used without compromising great but if not continue with the clean sheet. The passenger pod looked fun though.
Great Video! If you are up for suggestions: You know how we have the Sukhoi KR-860, right? Did you know there was a planned double-decker version of the Il-96 called the Il-96-550?
@@awatt Yes the US aerospace industry should have caught up to the obviously superior europeans who the Russians and even the Chinese/Indians have surpassed lol.
@@awatt Damn Rolls Royce engines for the 100 year old B52s lol we subcontract things to make our vassal states feel like they contribute too. Looks like it worked lol. There is a reason why the B21 Raider doesnt use Rolls engines.
@supremegodemperordonaldtru3563 "Last month, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James sent her own signal about who will be building the jamming and other electronic-warfare equipment on the new bomber, which has now been designated the B-21. It will be BAE Systems"
Convair never figured out a way to achieve Mach 2 without afterburning. That's not a insult, because it took a while to figure out supercruise. It should also be pointed out that the B58 was on the bleeding edge of technology and that is fine for military applications, not so much for a civilian airliner. Concorde flew for a long time before killing any civilians, the Tu144 much less so. A B58 passenger mod would likely have been the first supersonic airliner to kill it's passengers.
The concept design of the Anglo-French SST was British and commenced in 1954 soon creating the classic 'ogival wing' planform. Costs for the Development Phase were however forecast to be considerably higher than expected and the timeline long, so discussions began with France, which also wanted to create an SST but lacked suitable powerplants and did not have a workable concept which could maintain supersonic airspeeds unless they used fuel-hungry Reheat ('afterburners'). Firms in the USA, notably Douglas, also contributed expertise to the Concorde Project, as did NASA. By 1962 the UK and France had completed a two-year formal negotiation and agreed to cooperate on a joint SST project, and they signed a Treaty on 29th November 1962 which bound them to share all Development Costs on an equal basis. This proceeded, with the first flights taking place in France in 1969. Six flyable Prototypes were built, three in the UK and three in France. Airworthiness Certification was approved in 1975. Fourteen Operational Concordes were built, seven for British Airways and seven for Air France. Passenger Flights, both on Scheduled Routes and as Charters, operated from 1976 to 2003. The Audited Accounts prove that the entire costs of developing and building the 20 completed airframes were shared equally by Britain and France, with ten aircraft built in each country. France never withdrew from the project at all, and their last passenger flight was actually on 30th May 2003. The last passenger flight of a Concorde for British Airways occurred on 24th October 2003. Eighteen Concordes still exist, many on display to the public in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the United States and Barbados.
The Convair SST would have been to small and limited in the projected SST commercial market (pre fuel crisis). Both French and British manufacturers were looking at possible SS transport options at about the the same time. They both realised that the vehicle would need to be larger, but that put it out of financial reach of either party. The answer was to pool design and financial resources, followed a decade of development leading to the Concorde. One can only speculate that had the B58 derivative had got off the ground, American opposition to SSTs would have been much lower leading to an earlier commercial debut of Concorde and the enviable technical and cost overruns of the US Mach-3 SSTs might have seen seen international sales including US airlines. Getting past the 1970s oil crisis would have been a drive for more efficient engines that could sustain the SST fleets. Wishful thinking on my part, but the B58 SST may have led to efficient and common SSTs in the 1990s, perhaps driving the development of Single Stage Fractional Orbit Transportation Systems by the 2010s and a return to the Moon and human landing on Mars by now!
I lived in the time of the American SST program and remember the headlines in the newspapers when Congress killed the program, and I was so disappointed. I even had a model of the swing wing 2707.
It occurs to me two things about phase 2 had it have been built: the third crew member could be eliminated and that space could be used to increase the fuel capacity. And I hope to everything that the people pod couldn't be accidently be ejected, or at least the pod has safety equipment in case of an emergency, like a parachute
Could you imagine a alternate reality where ejecting the pod was an actual practice. Like you have a main passenger cabin, then a secondary passenger cabin in the pod that would go to a alternate location. Sort of like a slip coach.
I feel it's a pity they didn't go for this-- small evolutionary steps usually work out better than great big blue-skies projects, though of course Concorde is an exception. The Boeing 2707 and L-2000 concepts were far too ambitious, especially given that it was still the early days for mass jet travel.
This would've been complicated by any means. To conceive such a program would've disabled the industry with high-cost. Convair might've perceived such drawings to begin with, that would later be similar to the B-58 "Hustler", but these were cut off almost immediately and they later couldn't see such an airplane become a reality. That's what happened to the project Boeing was to be hopeful with at one point, the model 2707 SST. Boeing played it smart back then and chose to continue working with the 747 "Jumbo" jet. The very 747 airplane that became a success itself. The British/French Concorde was a troubled project at first, but then 16 were built to welcome supersonic passenger flights. It was an expensive gamble, but stood for several years until 2003, or 06.
It really annoys me that people refer to the Concorde as British \French as the French pulled out of funding the development of it and it was designed by Sir James Arnot Hamilton a Scotsman. So the French have very little to do with it appart from initially paying a little bit at the beginning.
@@johnruddick686 The concept design of the Anglo-French SST was British and commenced in 1954 soon creating the classic 'ogival wing' planform. Costs for the Development Phase were however forecast to be considerably higher than expected and the timeline long, so discussions began with France, which also wanted to create an SST but lacked suitable powerplants and did not have a workable concept which could maintain supersonic airspeeds unless they used fuel-hungry Reheat ('afterburners'). Firms in the USA, notably Douglas, also contributed expertise to the Concorde Project, as did NASA. By 1962 the UK and France had completed a two-year formal negotiation and agreed to cooperate on a joint SST project, and they signed a Treaty on 29th November 1962 which bound them to share all Development Costs on an equal basis. This proceeded, with the first flights taking place in France in 1969. Six flyable Prototypes were built, three in the UK and three in France. Airworthiness Certification was approved in 1975. Fourteen Operational Concordes were built, seven for British Airways and seven for Air France. Passenger Flights, both on Scheduled Routes and as Charters, operated from 1976 to 2003. The Audited Accounts prove that the entire costs of developing and building the 20 completed airframes were shared equally by Britain and France, with ten aircraft built in each country. France never withdrew from the project at all, and their last passenger flight was actually on 30th May 2003. The last passenger flight of a Concorde for British Airways occurred on 24th October 2003. Eighteen Concordes still exist, many on display to the public in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the United States and Barbados.
Let’s see what will be the next supersonic transport or biz jet after Concorde. Many challengers, today, half a century later, still non one in flight..
"Massive increase in G forces" Poppycock. G forces have little to do with speed. A light aircraft can pull 10 Gs (see Red Bull Air Race), and the Concorde flew at Mach 2 subjecting its passengers to little more than 1 G, about the same as in a normal airliner. A B-58 flew most of the time at relatively low g-forces. Also, the pod on a B-58 did not have a standoff missile like the opening CGI portrayed. EDIT: And, yes, I know that force due to centrifugal acceleration is F = m v² / r. But most airplanes other than tactical combat aircraft normally maneuver with extremely large values for r (they don't do abrupt changes in direction), so they don't pull that many Gs
Many of us deal with trains and traffic and don’t see the noise really being the problem and I would love to as fast as a real jet as fast and high as we can go
Very interesting and informative. However, you would still spend more time loading and unloading passengers since people insist on stuffing everything they own into the overhead bins. Get rid of those bins. Either place it under the seat or check it. It wastes time but I digress. Perhaps we still will have SST’s but the market will ultimately determine such things.
Boeing didn´t win due to having the cooler plane, but actually following the specifications. The reason for the very high speed was to increase the engine thermal efficiency. The thing is if you have a turbojet engine with zero bypass its more efficient the faster you fly. When 2707 was designed high bypass planes did still not exist. While low bypass planes did, they amount of improved fuel efficiency of those was limited. So flying higher and faster in a much larger airplane would actually be more efficient. This was all well and good and would worked perfectly in theory. The issue was that the plane become to heavy and.. well high bypass engine sort of made the concept of increasing thermal efficiency via higher speed, no longer competitive.
Some people in the small island nation of Britain continue to drown themselves in nostalgia, are ‘poisoned’ with ‘colonial arrogance’ and ‘dreamy jingoism’. When are you Auzzies going to boot old Charlie and his ugly wife out and become a Republic-?@@FoundAndExplained
How many were built? Zero! So, what miracle allow you to proclaim : "How Convair built the American Concorde a decade earlier…", then, "He died on the drawing board." Next chapter please : How Tintin & Snowy landed on the moon, decades before NASA…." I’m realy curious to learn from your demonstration. ;) That being said, great graphics, as usual.
I love the brutish understating of what went into the development of the Concorde. Thirty years of wing to fuselage ratio . And as usual after the hard work was done , politicians decided we should involve the French . The same French that failed to maintain an aircraft properly that lead to the commercial end of the most incredible and beautiful aircraft ever built . Keeping dreaming America. You missed the boat ……….
I wonder how viable this design would have been for that roll? The wing tip engines make me suspect but it looks cool. I wonder why the "no chance in hell for a civilian" was uttered. I mean that always seems the case but why. Is it cost? Emissions? Karens? The public has a want, but we are kept just out of reach.
The 58-9 would not have been optimized for commercial flight. It would have cost as much as a military bomber to fly, since it used military designs and equipment, while the passenger capacity was *tiny.*
@@FoundAndExplained have I hit a nerve? Why so defensive. Like let’s be honest, I can’t be the first one who told you that. You can easily see the similarities. Have good one mate. Keep on doing what you think is right. Oh and just because you have similar content doesn’t mean you have ro change it. :D And yeah, you were almost right, I have never seen my biological father. 😂
2:06 what "massive increase in g- forces"? A supersonic aircraft is probably capable of sustaining greater acceleration in most directions but why would it be necessary? Or is this a reference to increased vibration?
From a former airline pilot, the G forces comment was obviously a quip, not based on evidence. G-force was a non-issue on the Concorde, during acceleration or turns.
