Mike, thanks for the shout-out. I vividly remember being at my grandmother's house when the TV news reported the cancellation of the American SST. I saw it in glorious black and white. I was a bit crestfallen but not surprised. Nixon had other reasons for cancelling it and I think the cost projections were part of it. Remember the Vietnam war was still on and was a huge drain on the national budget. I am sure there was more to it than was ever reported.
The Concord is one of those great planes that I wish they retired just a LITTLE bit later so that we'd have some HD video camera footage of it for prosperity.
Thanks, Mike, for this excellent review of the SST. I remember leaving Heathrow on a TWA 747 in December of 1984 and noticed a British Airways Concorde parked at a gate near my gate. My first reaction was that it seemed so small compared to the 747. It was so sleek and futuristic looking. A professor I had in college flew on the Concorde and he proudly showed me a certificate that every passenger received from the airline ( I can't remember if it was BA or AF) recognizing that he broke the speed of sound during his flight. He told me that the service was excellent with a buffet served at the gate and an "upgraded" First Class meal served on board. He commented that the seats were similar to those on a DC-9 Coach(Economy) Class in the States. The novelty of supersonic flight combined with the "over the top" meal and beverage service made the seating configuration not important to him. I guess that you had a similar experience when you flew on the Concorde 🤔. Take care and have a pleasant and rewarding week.
Thanks Mike, great presentation as always! A truly beautiful aircraft. I never had the opportunity to fly Concord, but I have walked through the one at Duxford Museum in England. I was surprised how small it was on the inside. The curve of the cabin roof was very close to your head!
Having grown up in the JFK landing /takeoff patterns… the Concord will always have a distinct memory for me…rattling windows, setting off car alarms, scattering birds from trees…and this was throttled back engines on approach! Great stuff Mike!
@@donaldstanfield8862 Great question, and I'm thinking it did not for two reasons - the shape more blunt shape of the airplane, and the fact that the shock wave probably did not traverse the entire airframe. Thanks for watching!
In 1968 I built the Monogram 1/400 scale Boeing SST kit. Excellent video. currently building the 1/144 scale Concorde. Beautiful airplane, clean lines, elegant design. Echos back to the dart shaped paper airplanes we built as kids in school.
I have walked the whole length inside the Concorde at Brookelands and the overwhelming feeling is of just how tight the seating is and just how small the fuselage is. It is an experience that unfortunately I believe future generations will never have the opportunity to have. There is an expression coined by Jeremy Clarkson (of Top Gear fame) of when something disappears, never to be seen again, "This is a Concorde Moment". We will never have another "Concorde Moment".
As a licensed A&P mechanic I can say the best part of the video is from (7:00) to (7:13) Mike, this was such a enjoyable watch, it was like going down memory lane, I built many different SST models and would follow the aviation news as a kid.
I remember weekend yard work at my house in Maryland in the ‘90s, hearing jets approaching Dulles overhead. I quickly learned to recognize the sound of the Concorde, and always looked up to see its distinctive shape.
I always enjoy your histories, especially the time you take to recognize the less-successful machines. I remember the Revell Boeing SST kits (one in flight mode and another in landing configuration, both decked out in Pan American markings). I still remember my night flight on a Swissair CV990. It was a thrilling plane to fly on - very futuristic both inside and out... but very loud, even in cruise.
The first Douglas SST design looks like it came out of Johnny Quest. I built the model kit (Monogram I think) of two Boeing SSTs, one in landing/take off mode with wings extended, gear down and nose drooped while the second was in flight with wings swept, gear up and nose raised. Interesting kits.
The beginning 45 seconds make me think, wow... what could have been. I feel the need, the need for speed! "Please do not remove.." Hmm... someone was naughty! Awesome again, as always Mike. Great to see you over 30K followers now! Next stop.. 100K!
A child of the Sixties, space and SSTs dominated my vision of the future. Here in KC, the new airport, MCI, was purposefully built twenty-five miles away from the city and suburbs in anticipation of the coming SST flights and sonic booms. The Southwestern Bell directory even featured an inspiring cover depicting the powerful intercontinental planes zipping around the terminals. Alas, OPEC, Vietnam, etc., dashed all those hopes. The last half of the twentieth century belonged to the lumbering wide-bodies, and jumbo jets. I know as an adult all the reasons why SSTs were impracticable, and even dangerous. Still, I would still love to see something like the 2707 fly over the house, shaking all of my filings loose, en route to the future we were sold.
Mike, a Concord visited the Detroit area in the late '70s. I lived in Dearborn then and under the Detroit Metro Airport traffic pattern. So the Concord flew right over my house. I took a picture of it with my Kodak 110 camera. It was already several thousand feet high at the time and juxtaposed in the picture is our homes tall chimney against a beautiful clear blue sky. Quite a sight to see. I guess the flight was all over the news because lots of folks were outside hoping to get a glimpse of Concord. Pretty cool. I built a model of the Boeing SST a few years before that time. I didn't decal the kit and I still have the decal sheet! Thanks for the SST video. I wonder if any airliners will ever use super-cruise technology like the F-22 😀
I saw the BA Concordes at LHR numerous times, but probably the most memorable occasion was when I was driving past LHR on my way into London around sunset when one came in to land on the north runway from the west, closest to the road I was on, and it was just magical. A truly magnificent sight. BTW, there is an excellent Bristol Aviation museum in Filton, Bristol, UK, with a dedicated Concorde exhibition hangar that I can highly recommend. Excellent video as always, keep up the great work, and best regards from Perth, Australia.
When I was flying right seat in a DH-125 Hawker jet (2 years older than me) I was lucky enough to park next to Concorde at JFK on the ramp and pick up a passenger and fly them to Bedford Massachusetts. This was 1998 and I had taken a pay cut to leave flying single engine propeller cargo to flying this ancient Corporate Jet. The British know how to make an aircraft tho and it was a heck of an experience. Great video!
Astounds me that you mentioned the Concorde accident but not the Tu-144 crash: that was a pretty big deal too. All in all though, really cool to see the vast history of SSTs, a good many of which I don't believe I've ever seen before.
Yeah, I remember the 1st time I've ever seen that a/c with my own eyes, I'd just gotten out of the USMC, was up in the Bay, working at the Oakland Airport, and they were doing some champaign flights, over the pacific, to try and drum up some business. Wow, the 1st thing I noticed was how "SMALL" that a/c looked. It was only about the size of a DC-9/MD-80, but wow, so HIGH UP in the air. Those struts, wow, and the windows.... indeed that is the big thing that made the jet so different when you seen it, because you see the windows, you (of course), assume they're about the same size as the windows in every jet, but NO, they're TINY! Wow, that was in like November of '86
I did get to see Corcorde G-BOAF fly at the 1998 Airventure at Oshkosh... very impressive! Should have taken more photos, but that was back in the days of film photography.
WOW. brought back so many memories of the trip in the nose of the beast ! Should have taken more photos for sure ! Glad to have shared that experience with you ! The Beef Wellington was superb !
Interesting point. I was getting low on film and remember thinking, "I'll just buy more when we get to JFK" not knowing we'd never actually get into the terminal. I had only six shots left when we took off and had to choose what to shoot very carefully. Still worth every second!
Mike, I remember when I was at the Airliner International Convention in Phoenix when the Air France Concorde Crash happened, we all thought it might have been a midair brake-up, as always great presentation.
My wife and I traveled from EHR to JFK once in a 747, and taxied by the same Concorde at both ends. That was fun. We pined to be on the faster aircraft but we never got the chance.
I expected an exceptional video on the SST and got it. Never flew on one, but did see a few takeoff and land at JFK in the 1970s. It was graceful, impressive and screaming loud! Great work as always Mike.
I remember going to the grand opening of DFW airport back in the 70s which was also an airshow and they flew the Concorde there, of course because of Braniff. However, my main memory was taking a ride on a Ford Tri-Motor!
I used to see Concorde fly overhead most days when it was flying, despite the regularity people still stopped to watch it, the only Concorde I’ve been in is at the Imperial war museum Duxford, didn’t take off though. Is there any of the Russian Concordski aircraft still around ? Great video as always Mike, thank you
Pointy airplane Monday!! Yay. Wonderful presentation,thanks as always. Hope all is well Mike That closeup of the Concords nose was great, I've never seen that one before..
I recall in the 80's I was an aircraft maintenance guy at an fbo in Windsor Ontario YQG Canada. Concorde came in on a charter flight bringing Hiram Walker employees. I got to take a walk around the airplane while it was parked. Cool😢
6:49 I have a large, framed print of this image that my dad got as a gift for helping to light this shot. Told me that he got to prowl around in the rafters stringing cables and noticed another stage on the other end of the hangar for the Cheyenne helicopter.
What a cool video! I remember as a kid reading a book in my library about the SST Program. It was always fascinating to me so this video was a real treat! Thanks for taking the time and sharing sharing this experience with us. God bless…
I saw one take off from Ontario CA. Once. It was impressive. Thanks for the vid. Your last info on landing before you took off kinda brings it into perspective and all this less than 100 years from the Wright Brothers...wow
That was awesome. In 1980 my godfather worked for TWA and they had a BA Concorde parked in a hangar for maintenance. He called my mom, came and got me, and we went to JFK on his day off. Got to go inside with a BA rep. I remember how small the inside was and remarked at the lavatory, saying to myself, "gee, now I know why it goes so fast. If you got to go, better to hold it because you be there quick". 😁. The BA rep gave my godfather and I each a suede portfolio that was in the seatback pocket. It had the BA magazine, certificate for flying Mach 2.0, postcards, and the headphones for the audio system. I still have mine.
Thanks for a very interesting video Mr. Machat. I never knew there were so many SST designs. I built the Revell SST 2 plane kit. Also the Revell SR-71 and the B-70 (manufacturer forgotten).
My Dad was one of the government representatives on the SST Advisory Committee. He was with DOT at the time. The environmentalists were claiming that it was the water in the exhaust that would destroy the ozone layer. You can do a quick calculation which shows that 50 SSTs flying at 65,000’ every day for a year places less water into the atmosphere at that altitude than a SINGLE tropical thunderstorm. In cancelling funding for the American SST program, Congress had to ignore this calculation. Very sad.
environmentalists have ruined many things do to claims that later turn out to be false...i believe they canceled the sst by a 49-48 vote...pretty close...
I live in Portland, Oregon, and once only way home from work saw a Conorde circling south of the city, which was my direction of travel. I wish I had my camera, (this was before cell phones, let alone smart phones. We did get to go on one in Seattle a few years later however. Those things were tiny inside for as big as they are outside.
Great video as always, Mike. You mentioned that the Tu144 could cruise without being on full reheat. I think Concorde could do so on no reheat on its four RR Olympus engines, but am happy to be corrected on that. There are many great stories on RU-vid about Concorde: one that comes to mind is of an SR-71 crew off the eastern seaboard of the USA being asked to make way for traffic.......which turned out to be Concorde. The Blackbird's aircrew looked across to it and commented that here they were in spacesuits whilst over there passengers were in shirtsleeves drinking champagne!!! One quick personal story: aged 16 I was at RAF St Athan in South Wales where my uncle worked for Martin-Baker. The base was home to an Avro Vulcan being used as a flying test-bed for the Concorde's Olympus engine, two of which were bolted to the underside in a nacelle. What a noise that thing made at take off (pre hush-kit days)!!! I was maybe 100 yards away - the. ground, my insides, everything shook!!
My sister, Joanne, worked in corporate sales for BA and was fortunate to fly the Concorde nine times. As a result, I always had some pretty current info and to this day have many commemorative items, including a set of eight coffee cups and saucers, real chinaware labeled Concorde in gold leaf. I use them daily for my espresso and always think of her. The Concorde was an indisputable masterwork of engineering. The closer I look, the more amazed I am by its long life. I missed my chance to fly free with her on a deadhead return from London to NY because of a work engagement. I don’t remember the job, but I doubt it was worth it. When I look at the failed 2707 I can’t help but think that like many American projects, it was designed in the hubristic method; bigger and better, damn the consequences. Oh well, we did go to the moon and Apollo remains the most amazing engineering feat of all time. This was a great presentation, Mike. Thank you.
7:14 Boeing's SST doesn't look a lot different than the BONE (B-1). Thanks for another great trip thought aviation history with scale modeling memories included.
Wonderful video as usual, Mike. Just a small glitch.. The actual name of the city Concorde made regular flights is "Rio de Janeiro" not "Rio di Janeiro". I have seen several takeoffs and landings of the Concorde there, as it is my hometown! Greetins from Brazil!
What a tragedy that the fastest and most powerful airliner in history had its one fatal crash as a takeoff accident, so close to the end of service. I always thought that Concorde's greatest irony was that it left service just at the point where I could finally afford a ticket.
Kind of wish there was enough info out there for you to cover the McDonald Douglas design more, the Nasa 1990s design and Aerospacial/BAE Systems Alliance/ATSF of the 1990s.
7:10 sorry to be repetitive, but what a tragedy it was when Lockheed exited the commercial airliner business. The L-1011 was an excellent aircraft and one can only imagine how fantastic the L-2000 might have been (NO Rolls engines, please!).
I seem to remember building a kit in my youth that had 2 planes included. I don't remember if they were from different countries or just different prototypes though...
A great presentaion, Mike. But the business case for Mach 2 airliners is negated by the delays with everything from traffic to the airport, parking, TSA inspectionss, passport control, etc. They all negate the speed of the supersonic airliners in a very real sense.
As far as I know the "Pepsi"-Concord was limited in speed, not because of "the weight of the paint" - white paint is still paint - but to heating issues. The aircraft are painted white for heat dissipation; painting it a dark "Pepsi"-blue really impacted that dissipation forcing the maximum speed to be limited to prevent overheating of the cabin. It could still go Mach 2 but was deliberately throttled back during cruise.
Mike. One thing you mentioned that was.not accurate... Rolls Royce were not engine contractors for the Boom Overture. RR were contracted to carry out a feasibility study into the possibility of developing engines that met Boom's requirement. That was the total sum of their involvement Boom chose to act in a manner that implied that RR were partners in the engine development but that was never the case.
Mike, at 7:21 you show a photo of a Boeing 733 SST concept but you have labeled the pic as a Boeing 2707-100 and your dialog matches that (It does look similar to the BOne). At 7:33 you show a photo of Engineers examining a model of a 2707-100 and have mistakenly labeled and called it a 2707-200. The next three photos are also of the 2707-100. You did not include a photo of the 2707-200, which had the -100's swing-wings 'and' canards on the fuselage aft of the cockpit (my personal favorite). It never reached the mockup stage. (The Monogram model depicts the -200 also.) Engineers determined that, even though the -200 would have been more aerodynamically stable, the weight of the wing pivot structure and the engines proved to be too heavy with a full load of passengers to achieve desired speed. The -300 was the final re-design which existed when the program was cancelled. The nose section of the mockup is currently at the Boeing Museum of Flight at Paine Field in Washington State. Other than that, well done as usual.
Fraid I don’t concur on your Boeing designators there Mike. The first Boeing down selected was the 733 (as it says on the tail). 733 was a NASA wind tunnel number. The planform of 733 airframe was basically the same as the successful B1 Bomber and the larger successful Tupolev Tu-160.
If Boeing had stuck with the 733 planform, we’d had a US SST. It’s a myth that the “wing pivot was too heavy”, Boeing built full size pivots and testes the crap outta them to FAA requirements.
Boeing and the airlines got greedy for more range, so they moved the wings back to merge with the huge tail to form the 2707-100. This was a disaster, as all of the myriad alternate air doors, huge all-moving horizontal stabs to cope with lousy roll control, HIGH pressure hydraulics to drive the actuators and elaborate fuel pumping sys to cope with the extreme CG shift with the design.
Finally Boeing felt trapped, so the designed “THE BEAST”, the ridiculously huge 2707-200 (you don’t have a picture of the dash-200 2707. They made it longer, added canards up front, more alternate air doors and more fuel. Dash-200 double disaster that lead to the dash -300
