Hearted Youtube comments on Found And Explained (@FoundAndExplained) channel.
-
9700
-
5800
-
5700
-
3600
-
3300
-
3200
-
3100
-
3100
-
3000
-
2700
-
2500
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
2100
-
1800
-
1800
-
1700
-
1700
-
1600
-
1600
-
1500
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1300
-
1200
-
1200
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1000
-
950
-
930
-
911
-
906
-
900
-
866
-
865
-
864
-
853
-
830
-
814
-
811
-
811
-
792
-
792
-
777
-
773
-
752
-
737
-
704
-
697
-
647
-
635
-
625
-
618
-
605
-
598
-
576
-
567
-
565
-
564
-
556
-
548
-
543
-
527
-
523
-
519
-
516
-
509
-
506
-
505
-
503
-
497
-
494
-
494
-
494
-
494
-
493
-
490
-
481
-
481
-
474
-
474
-
473
-
465
-
465
-
461
-
457
-
450
-
449
-
449
-
444
-
443
-
443
-
442
-
433
-
432
-
432
-
427
-
422
-
421
-
410
-
409
-
404
-
404
-
399
-
397
-
395
-
391
-
391
-
386
-
385
-
384
-
382
-
380
-
379
-
376
-
374
-
374
-
372
-
371
-
368
-
367
-
363
-
361
-
358
-
353
-
345
-
344
-
342
-
334
-
334
-
333
-
332
-
329
-
329
-
327
-
325
-
323
-
322
-
322
-
321
-
318
-
316
-
315
-
309
-
306
-
303
-
294
-
293
-
293
-
292
-
290
-
289
-
288
-
288
-
286
-
282
-
282
-
282
-
279
-
278
-
276
-
274
-
274
-
271
-
270
-
265
-
265
-
264
-
263
-
262
-
260
-
260
-
257
-
256
-
250
-
249
-
244
-
244
-
241
-
240
-
239
-
238
-
236
-
233
-
230
-
227
-
227
-
225
-
225
-
223
-
221
-
221
-
220
-
218
-
217
-
215
-
214
-
214
-
213
-
213
-
207
-
205
-
205
-
204
-
203
-
202
-
200
-
200
-
200
-
198
-
198
-
197
-
196
-
195
-
194
-
192
-
190
-
186
-
183
-
182
-
182
-
182
-
182
-
182
-
180
-
179
-
178
-
177
-
177
-
177
-
175
-
174
-
174
-
173
-
172
-
171
-
171
-
171
-
170
-
170
-
170
-
168
-
167
-
166
-
165
-
164
-
163
-
162
-
162
-
160
-
160
-
160
-
160
-
159
-
159
-
159
-
155
-
154
-
151
-
151
-
148
-
146
-
145
-
143
-
143
-
141
-
140
-
140
-
139
-
138
-
138
-
137
-
136
-
135
-
135
-
134
-
133
-
132
-
132
-
131
-
131
-
131
-
131
-
130
-
130
-
129
-
127
-
127
-
126
-
125
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
122
-
122
-
122
-
121
-
118
-
117
-
116
-
116
-
115
-
115
-
113
-
111
-
110
-
110
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
107
-
The primary reason that monorail proposals have failed in America is because railroad construction planners and road construction planners come into the bidding process and underbid monorail, and then later down the line run into massive construction costs which put the projects way over cost. You don't see this issue happening in other countries where transportation is heavily regulated at the federal level.
Many cities are short-sighted when it comes to considering monorail for construction. Los Angeles famously rejected a monorail project from Alweg (who built the Seattle and Disney systems), who offered to build it for free in exchange for revenue, and would then turn it over to the city when the revenue paid off the construction costs. LA decided to build more freeways, and we see how that worked out. Seattle looked at expanding the monorail there a decade ago, it was rejected in favor of a light rail project which ended up over-budget, tied up the city for years, is not making a profit, and has added to congestion. Las Vegas has a nice monorail, but the company has had to fight with the city for years to get permission to expand, as well as facing never-ending objection from taxi cab companies. Currently LV Monorail is the only proposed public transportation extension to the new Allegiant Stadium.
When you look at the rest of the world, however, you will notice what sets all of them apart from Sydney. That would be integration into the public transportation network. Only in Sydney did the city not do this. They expected that the downtown monorail would be a tourist attraction that would fetch additional tourist revenue. But when buses are 3x cheaper and go to all the same places as the monorail, it was a no-brainer for tourists. Despite calls for it to be re-developed into a connector for downtown employees, no proposal was ever put forward. Everywhere else, monorail systems tie into public transportation that links to buses, metro trains, light rail, trams, subways, seaports and airports. Almost all of them use the same integrated fare and ticketing systems as the rest of the public transport systems.
Further compounding Sydney's issue was the fact that the company which designed it, Von Roll, historically had only worked on amusement park rides and essentially used the same vehicle, which was ill-suited for public transportation. The company eventually went bankrupt and it became impossible to obtain spare parts for when the vehicles prematurely broke down. Public transportation systems in Japan were developed by Mitsubishi and Hitachi. In Korea they were developed by Samsung, in Japan by BYD and CRCC - all licensing Hitachi technology, which itself was developed from Alweg.
When you look at the long history of monorail, Sydney is the only city that has ever dismantled its monorail network. Everywhere else it has been built, it has worked, it has been profitable, and it boasts impressive safety records and uptime. To me, that doesn't speak to failure.
106
-
106
-
104
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
101
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
99
-
99
-
98
-
96
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
90
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
In 2006, an agreement was signed on the creation of a new engine, which was named PD-14 (a promising engine with a thrust of 14 tons). ĐĐ-14 in russian language.
PD-14 is a fifth generation turbofan engine developed for MS-21-300 aircraft, PD-14A for MS-21-200, PD-14M for MS-21-400. PD-8 engine will be installed on the Be-200, AN-148 and Sukhoi Superjet 100 aircraft, etc. Therefore, the designers and engineers were faced with the task of creating a unified gas generator, which is the main element of the engine.
16 new technologies were developed for PD-14 by russian designers, engineers and scientists, namely - single-crystal blades for a high-pressure turbine with an advanced cooling system that allows the turbine to operate at temperatures up to 2000 ° K.; hollow wide fan blade made of titanium alloy, thanks to which it was possible to increase the efficiency of the fan stage by 5% in comparison with the fourth-generation turbofan engine PS-90 produced in the USSR in the late 1980s; low-emission combustion chamber made of intermetallic alloy; sound-absorbing structures made of composite materials; ceramic coatings on hot parts; hollow blades of a low-pressure turbine, etc.
20 new materials were created for PD-14 with indisputable advantages: a decrease in specific fuel consumption by 10â15%, a reduction in the life cycle cost by 15â20%; operation of the engine will cost 14-17% cheaper than existing analogues. All of them have been certified according to international standards.
New Russian titanium and nickel alloys are used to create the engine. The engine nacelle design consists of 65% of domestic polymer composites, which achieves the required level of sound insulation and reduces engine weight.Â
The technologies used in the production of PD-14 are state secrets and are protected. Therefore, information on PD-14 is largely classified. Example: China would gladly copy production technologies, by analogy with the Su-27. They copied the plane, but they failed to replicate its AL-31F engine.
The PD-14 project, in addition to creating the engine itself, includes the most important element - the provision of after-sales service. A large amount of work is planned in this area: the creation of a support center with round-the-clock work 365 days a year, the opening of a network of field offices, engine service stations, ensuring the replacement of modules in operation. It is expected that this all together should increase the foreign prospects of the new Russian engine.
The state's ability to produce cooled cast blades for a modern turbine aircraft engine is an indicator of the highest level of development in mechanical engineering. There are fewer states capable of producing fifth generation aircraft turbojet engines than countries with nuclear weapons or those that launch satellites into space. Only four countries - Great Britain, Russia, USA and France - possess full-cycle technologies for creating such engines.
83
-
83
-
83
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
There's much more to it than this video makes out. A lack of Government will is part of it, but only because they felt alternative solutions could be used. Examples include electrification of the West Coast Main Line in the 60s, development of the InterCity 125 in the 70s (which greatly reduced intercity journey times), the Advanced Passenger Train project of the 70s and 80s which employed tilting technology to increase the speed a train can travel around bends, as well as major weight saving techniques (The project was cancelled in the mid 1980s, but much of its technology lives on in modern British trains) and more.
As for why High Speed 2 has finally been chosen over other methods such as Maglev, Hyperloop etc, there's many different reasons for that. Firstly, since High Speed 2 uses the same track gauge as our existing railway lines, trains that run along High Speed 2 can continue onto the existing railway lines to serve more destinations, such as Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Furthermore, since it's being built in stages, destinations that are planned to be added to the HS2 network later on can still be served by HS2 trains before the later stages are completed. Finally, there's a bit of debate whether or not Maglev trains would actually be faster, since High Speed 2 is being built with passive provision for 400km/h operation, which is only 30km/h slower than the Shanghai Maglev system, currently the only operational high speed maglev in the world. As for Hyperloop, there are major concerns about whether or not it will be able to carry anywhere near the number of people needed. As you say in your video, the UK's intercity railways are operating at near capacity. Yet Hyperloop has a lower capacity than many of those existing railways. Most Hyperloop companies quote a capacity of around 800-1200 passengers per hour in each direction, whilst HS2 is designed to carry around 18,000 passengers per hour per direction
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
"There is simply nothing comparable?" - I don't know, the British had jet fighters at a relatively comparable state of development, they were just not desperate enough to put them into frontline action, and wanted to avoid any crashing over enemy territory to be taken apart by the enemy, so mostly used them over British territory defensively, particularly agains V1s, while gaining experience with jet plane handling characteristics without risking their best aces and building up their numbers to a point, where if necessary they would actually matter.
That's the problem with all these Wunderwaffen non-sense. It isn't that the allies didn't have amazing new inventions of their own, sometimes even in the same area, they just didn't have to use prototypes on the frontline, at least later in the war, and what they got from Germany after victory gave them complementary technology that together with their own created that seeming sudden burst in perceived technological capability.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
American does have major hubs, including JFK/LGA, ORD, DFW, and LAX.
But, airlines like BA, Air France, Lufthansa, Emirates, and Singapore all have one hub. LH has Frankfurt and Munich.
U.S. carriers have multiple hubs for overseas service. AA has service to Europe from JFK, PHL, CLT, MIA, DFW, ORD, and LAX. It has Latin American service from MIA and DFW, with limited service from other hubs. Its Asian service flies out of DFW, ORD, and LAX. The Phoenix metro area keeps growing, meaning that AA will start to add more overseas service in the future.
It's the same situation with United and Delta. United has EWR, IAD, ORD, IAH, DEN, SFO, and LAX.
Delta has JFK, ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC, and LAX.
Meanwhile, AA and DL are starting the fight over Seattle. Delta has been expanding, and AA and Alaska are expanding code sharing, while AA plans to add international routes.
Except for a very few select routes, such as JFK or ORD to LHR for AA, ATL to LHR, CDG, or AMS for Delta, or ORD or EWR to FRA for United, the A380 would be way too many seats for any given flight.
It doesn't make sense to buy only a few planes of any type, let alone a few super-jumbos.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
3:01 Some fun facts about this weird plane
-The creator has many concepts so I'm not certain the video one is the one I'll be describing.
-Entirely an artist's concept, no engineering design was involved
-Actually, they did CFD analysis to "check the geometry" (so they didn't design it based on CFD, but designed it and then did CFD)
-All sorts of ridiculous interior features one can expect from these silly concept planes
-Has an onboard wind turbine, so that it can produce energy from the speedy air around it. Perpetual motion if you're asking me
-This, and solar panels, make the plane produce more energy than it consumes. At the airport, battery "fueling" trucks don't recharge the plane, they extract the electricity from it.
-Has incredibly low drag, because quantum
Check out their website, it's hilarious. I'm surprised to see this concept in such a serious channel. Speaking of serious channels, it was featured on CNN as the future of flight.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
The trouble, trying to comment in short format, is that the whole MIddle of Market situation is both difficult to solve and difficult to explain. Part of the A322 question sits on the questionable assumption that the market could be perfectly satisfied with a modern take on the Boeing 757. There is, admittedly, a temptation to believe it, even though the most painful problem is the single aisle. You mentioned several of looming issues with regard to stretching the A320 design past it's current A321 limit: the need for new wings to keep the weight down, a new tailplane, and very likely a taller gear to lift a bigger fan farther from the ground. The only thing we have got is a long METAL fuselage, and we don't really want that either. Lack of an efficient 43,000 pound engine comes down as the insurmountable obstacle. That's what it takes to fly the 757-300.
The market is watching for a clean-sheet carbon-fiber gizmo and Boeing is apt to render an optimal architecture that works in both single and twin-aisle segments, in order sell airplanes for 20 or 30 years. You have to wonder. Safran already has a 35,000 pound LEAP engine so whatever Boeing is doing with the -5x, it is probably a good guess that they are gunning for the short end of the middle first, something you could fly with that sort of thrust and extend upward and possibly downward in the future as MoM engines come online. Right now, there really is an impossible hole in the middle of the thrust range. Home Runs from Boeing and Rolls-Royce are the nightmare Airbus dreads, a complete do-over coming sooner rather than later. Why even think about a short life airplane that does not say anything about fuel efficiency or sell long-enough to recoup investment? The 757 concept is a has been.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
God how I love this channel, I've watched a lot of your videos hehe, this is probably my favorite, since it touches on my favorite theme, Zeppelins!!.
By the way, a question that came to me after watching the Ultimate Hellsing anime, where a zeppelin (the deux ex machina) appears, which is capable of transporting 1000 soldiers (not counting the crew), several Uboat submarines, airplanes, and numerous missiles. V1 and V2 with napal and probably white phosphorus, and a steel coating, would it be possible and how big would such a zeppelin be?
I appreciate answers.
PDST: Greetings from Argentina and good luck!!!
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
In terms of design and tech, I've liked the look of the Alweg cement beams. I've seen designs for a hanging monorail that had the bogie inside of the beam. This allowed for a switching mechanism similar to the duo-rail system; albeit one swing arm instead of two. I've seen videos of hanging monorails in both Germany in China. I noticed some swaying with the German one, not so much with the Chinese one. The hanging monorails seem to always have metal support beams instead of cement ones which seems to reduce the track signature further. With the bogie inside the track, the track could be built right next to trees and such without worry.
I've also seen a video of an elevated public transit system in Japan using tires instead of rails (like the one I rode in Paris). From what I can tell, switching is done by the car, not the track (I can easily be wrong on that detail). BTW, the video was done to the song "Love on a Real Train" by Tangerine Dream.
Straddle type monorails are definitely restricted to above ground travel, though they do that very well and have a rather small footprint. Suspended monorails can run at ground level (and there's no track for a car to go over), but it still requires the support beams (and the expense to put them in). Elevated duo-rails have the advantage of popularity and, like suspended monorails, can go above, below, or on ground. A tire-and-concrete rail system would have the advantage of easy track maintenance and the disadvantage of replacing tires more frequently.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
When watching this video, I was surprised by how well a plane with such a huge cross section could fly, and it made me think:
Has any aircraft manufacturer considered a concept for a plane, based off the regular 2 engine model, that seeks to gain a significant increase in internal volume, without much of an increase in the size of the aircraft, it's weight, it's carry capacity, or it's fuel consumption? And if not, would such a concept be possible?
A new type of aircraft, around or slightly above the modern double egines in weight and size, but with a much larger cabin internal volume, that could be used to finaly stop packing seats so tightly, and give the passengers some much needed leg room? (literally)
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Nothing like coming home and finding a video from this incredible channel, fresh out of the oven.
By the way, could you talk about some airplane projects that were made here in Argentina? Like the Pulqui 1 and 2. And I even got to read about a hypersonic airplane project, although I'm not sure about that.
And many other interesting projects done here in Argentina in those years.
After the end of World War II, many Germans fled to this part of the world, where they came up with their own ideas for airplanes, among them were, The Horten Brothers!! In the end, most of the projects came to nothing, because the government had other concerns and few funds were allocated, a pity.
I still think it would be very interesting if you talked about these issues and also could show how many countries in this region could be great nations if they wanted to.
I still believe that there is still hope if we propose it and we vote well and we strive to improve and expel these jets (word used in Argentina to say to the Thieves).
PDST: Greetings from Argentina and good luck!!.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
In 1953, I was in the Navy, stationed @ Adak, Alaska. I got a 30 day "leave" and went NORTH to my home in Fairbanks, Alaska. My Dad owned "The Elbow Room" bar on 2nd Ave in downtown. At the back of the bar was a big circle area where 6 to 8 could sit and see each other. Test pilots from different aircraft Cos. hung out there in the evenings. One night I'm sweeping peanut shells into my apron when one of the guys said, "Hey, would you like to see some airplanes tomorrow?" My answer was a loud "SURE!!!!!!!!" So at 8 AM I'm at the hangar check-in and get in like it's a movie theater, not a place where SECRET AIRCRAFT are testing. When I walked into the hangar, a big thing is blocking my view so I look under it and see an F-80 sitting on the other side of the hangar, then I looked up, and this monster, the XF-102 is what I'm under, and on the other side of it was the XF-101. I got to sit in both of'm. When I got back to Adak and told guys about them, they said something like, "Ray, you've got to change beers because the stuff you're drinking is screwing up your mind. I'd like to have seen their faces when those planes became public.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I'll say this, I truly enjoy your content, but you couldn't be anything more than wrong. Modern air travel is a horrible, uncomfortable s***show. Let me explain why.
1) Cheapness: While traveling is becoming more and more accessible to your average Joe, it comes at a HUGE price. And that price is a good, quality product. What I mean is that cheapness is horrible. The materials used to build these aircraft are of less quality, the interiors are almost 90% cheap white plastic, and the ever growing number of seats in smaller cabins are nothing more than deplorable.
2) Entertainment: Boo hoo. There were no fancy, retina-burning screens behind EVERY seat back then. So what? Why this need to have a screen in front of our face 24/7? When I fly, I NEVER use IFE. I entertain myself by listening to podcasts or music and reading. And I am only 21 years old. People back then found ways to pass the time. But with the introduction of personal IFE, we have become such short thinking creatures that we've almost completely lost our ability to even hold conversations longer than 7 seconds. Because of modern tech, we've become insanely bored.
3) Food: Todays modern meals are almost always nothing short of TV dinners in terms of quality. Very few airlines truly offer real food.
4) Comfort: There is absolutely nothing comfortable about modern air travel. aircraft seats have gotten so thin, small and cheap that literally lawn chairs are more comfortable. Even business and first class seats cushions are almost near hard solid on most airlines. And lavatories are so small now that my midget friend had trouble fitting inside one.
I could write a whole book on this, but I'm short on time.
Airlines have become so incredibly cheap and lazy that REAL passenger comfort isn't a top 100 priority (assuming it is at all) anymore. I truly detest modern aviation and aircraft. Aircraft built/designed between 1930 and 1990 are truly the best. I still have yet to meet a frequent flier like myself who disagrees with me. That includes airline staff.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Really interesting video, thanks! Just for the record, IMHO, though I certainly appreciate the time and effort involved in doing the conversions, I think you can just stick to metric without alienating many of us (speaking as an American). The conversions are just awkward, especially given that the sizes quoted are so large as to be almost incomprehensible either in standard or metric. Conveying size to your audience is important though, so relating something like "500,000 kg" could be possible if you compare it to, say, the max takeoff weight of an A380 (544,000kg according to a quick google search, I'm not an expert!). Still astronomically huge, but far more relatable. Either way, thanks again, really enjoyed this.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
AirBus just got, a better small aircraft from Bombardier for zip in the A220, it is a better aircraft than shrinking a A320, They get the tech, they get to sell far more air craft, they get the servicing and parts of more aircraft, and they get the extra profits. They get the benefits from Canada government subsidies, they get to manufacture in the US and they get more customers, and if one plant in Canada and US is competing against Toulouse, they get a bit of healthy internal competition. AirBus get a chance to dominate the hottest most competitive and largest sector in airline manufacture. What a problem? No problem. $$$$$$$$$$$ and âŹâŹâŹâŹâŹâŹâŹâŹâŹâŹ,
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Everything he puts his hands on just turns to gold",,, until his charity got disbanded for not using its funds for charity. Until his college was sued for not being an actual college. Until he got a casino and ruined that. A steak company,,, ummm, yeah that fell. Vodka company, fell. But hey, he wants to bring back jobs to America,,, by not returning any of the jobs his companies have to America and applying for migrant workers for his vineyards wooooooo. Trump.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The amazing thing is that Airbus learned so little from this lesson. When I first learned about the wake turbulence from an A380, I began to wonder where the economy was from the perspective of the airport. Sure, they had more passengers per airliner, but they couldn't land as many of these aircraft on the runway in a given period of time. Given the expense of the modifications required to enable that airliner to land there, was it worth the 10 to 15% bump in passenger traffic?
And in fact, while the 747 can land at over 250 airports world-wide, the A380 was only able to land at 60. This severely limited where the aircraft would be able to perform. Also, the 747 was originally designed as a freighter. However, the A380 was never designed for freight service.
Yes, they got past the issue of range. That short range of the Lockheed is a killer because it severely limits mobility across the oceans. But range alone isn't the problem. The real problem is that precious real-estate called a runway. That's the limiting factor. If you have to wait for the air to clear for several minutes between landings of those super-jumbo aircraft, your economies of scale become a joke. Time is literally money here.
I think Boeing played a fantastic bluff card by continuing development of the 747-8, and this must have made the executives at Airbus lose their minds. They may have been aware of these issues, but they couldn't help themselves. Somewhere in all this history there is enough material for a a fascinating book...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
â @melon_coaster6393 The cone first stage was suppossed to be reuseable, so lifting it all the way to orbit would mean that it would need a far more complex heatshield. So the Shuttle with the ET would act as a second stage, the ET being discarded, but the expensive and complex main engines recovered. The envisioned flight rate is key to why SRB's wouldn't make sense. The SRB's on the STS as built, where a compromise to keep the idea of reuseability alive while cutting cost. The most complex part of SRB Construction is the molding of the solid Rocket propellant, through wich the different phases of flight are precast. So where a liquid rocket would throttle down in flight, the shape of the solid proppellant changes. This process cant be reuseable, so what was recovered where sophisticated, empty steel tubes with swiveling nozzles. While the flight rate of the Space Shuttle in reality turned out to be to low to ever save money through recovering the SRB's a very high flight rate would justify the developement of this more complex, but reusable first stage. It would be fished out of the water, inspected and reflown, wich is far less complex and expensive than the SRB operations. (but developement is far more expensive)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
As someone who formerly worked in the aviation industry, I can tell you that while this is not a bad idea at all, it is incredibly infeasible. The reason being is that passengers and cargo (pacs in the industry) are assessed a "per mile" figure that calculates how much an aircraft must carry to make the operator a profit. Aircraft like that have been proven time and time again to not be economically sound due to complex maintenance, complex technology, special airport requirements for weight on the tarmac, and size.
This was also attempted by Lockheed Martin in their C-5A (now C-5M) Galaxy cargo aircraft. They had a study of making the Galaxy strictly a passenger airplane. The numbers were amazing, clocking in at 800 passengers well over 5000 plus miles. But the idea had no takers in the airline side as they were happy with the 747. Every attempt at making a "super airplane" has fallen apart when the numbers are crunched. The Boeing C-17A was offered as a civilian version to UPS and FedEx. They didn't want it, and a passenger model was displayed as well carrying around 250 passengers in basically a STOL (short take off and landing) with short, unimproved runway capability, very high performance, and suited for the short routes the Bombardier Challenger and ATR-72 regional planes enjoy. But always the same thing, nobody want to have to comply with strict size, noise regulation, and runway composition to get these projects off the ground.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
 @stevenbass732 Want me to start listing "open international competitions" by various US agencies that got cancelled when the end-users choose an entrant other than Boeing or, rarely, some other politicians' pocket stuffing lazy member of "military industrial complex" Eisenhower was warning about? For example, while Boeing KC-46 Pegasus keeps stumbling from one development issue to the next, other airforces enjoy services of Airbus A330 MRTT / KC-30A for years. KC-30A had one little disadvantage - not made by Boeing. (It would be made in the US, in Alabama, with the US prime contractor.) Similarly, AgustaWestland AW101 (fronted by Lockheed Martin) won VXX competition for presidential helicopter replacement. Of course, the program was cancelled after four years (under pretense of "cost overruns"), restarted, and given to Boeing. Etc.
I mean, if you know in advance who is to receive those billions, why the charade? Even if the only reason is national pride, fair enough. But don't pretend!
Here, the only reason for "protective tariffs" was that Delta wanted to buy something that Boeing could not offer, as if there's a law of nature stating that Boeing is be all, end all of aircraft manufacturing.
In the case of more recent search for the presidential transport, A-380 at least did have some actual disadvantages compared to B-747 in this context, and some of its advantages (like larger volume and floorspace) were not that important.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yeahhhh... I'll respectfully disagree. A pipe dream, especially for '50s technology. Making aircraft and battleships (I'll assume you mean any combat oriented ships) OBSOLETE? No. Destroyers, cruisers and the like provide maritime security, embargo capability, and a number of support roles ranging from SONAR/RADAR detection to long range fire support, to supply replenishment. Aircraft would definitely stay relevant, as they're the cheaper transportation option, provide Close Air Support, Search and Rescue/Recovery ops, and can actually evade whatever is shooting at them. Carrying 1,200 marines sounds great until you lose 1,200 marines because missile countermeasures don't always work and it has the aerodynamics of a dragster- it's great when straight, but burns when turned. The idea that they'd just leave the rocket once it reaches its destination presents its own issues too. For one, rockets are insanely expensive assets, so a one use asset that is vulnerable the entire descent carrying over a thousand Marines is a great way to waste hundreds of millions in gear, training, resources and of course- the lives of marines. Secondly, that leaves the issue of the means of exfil in clandestine ops. Use a helicopter? Helicopter can come pick you up. Use the rocket? Pray to God the PJs reach you before the enemies do because a brightly burning rocket re-entering the atmosphere is gonna act like flames for the moths. Admittedly, strategically and in a pinch, this idea is great. Anywhere in the world in 45 mins you can deliver a literal can of whoop ass. In a long drawn out war though? Get your AA good enough, surround the continental U.S. by sea so you can shoot down any rockets- then use aircraft to annihilate any troops that make landfall. At any rate, using this alongside what we have MIGHT be a valid option for today's technology. Stealth technology, advances in safety, rocket engines have made strides, and a number of other advances may be what we need to make this a valid option for sudden ops. Over a Stealth helo, HALO jumps, submarine insertion or something like those for a planned op? Mmm, I'd be hard pressed to think of reasons why. Anyways, fantastic video regardless of how asinine I think the rocket itself is đ
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Boeing didn't have anything to do with the B-36. This was also NOT cheaper or less complex in fact the engine design, layout and operations were quite complicated and prone to failure. While initial (purchase) cost was found to be cheaper actual operations costs were higher than expected and actually using them was likely going to be more expensive than thought. (This held true for the B-36 as well)
The YB-35 actually had a pretty 'normal' radar cross section due to the props and the raised engine housings. Speaking of engines they were the same ones provided to Convair for the XB-36 design and as the ones who proposed the contrarotating prop system 'testing' the combination was actually on Northrup not the government. (They fell back to essentially using the same set up as Convair)
The bomb bays would be a tight fit for the Little Boy bomb and could not carry the Fat Man types at all which is one reason it wasn't pursued. It also could not carry the "Tall Boy" or "Rainmaker" deep penetration bombs which was another downside to the military. Modification WAS required, (but to be fair the B-52 had to be modified to carry the post-WWII nuclear bombs) so arguably a 'big-belly' mode might work but the initial design could not carry the bomb load as efficiently as a 'tubular' fuselage design. And no the Air Force didn't 'refuse' to allow modifications to the bomb bay, Northrup felt the required modifications would (and did) impact the aerodynamics which would slow the plane even more. This is where the smaller bomb bays bit Northrup in the butt in that BECAUSE they were so small and diverse they could not 'borrow' from each other and therefore modifications would mostly require expanding them out into the air stream. You see the downside.
That APU claim seems dubious as, again that's a contractor thing not something the government provides.
The YB-49 was a great idea but the bomb bay was still to small for the planned atomic bombs. Again actually fitting them would mean pushing them out into the airstream which Jack Northrup was adamantly against. (He also hated the 'podded' jets they hung on the wings and the 'air-separator' fins they added for stability to replace the 'props')
Oddly the oil problem had a simple explanation, it wasn't on the ground crews checklists because they HAD no checklists for the YB-49. It was on the crew checklists but not the ground crews which were working from XB-35 paperwork which DID require checking and filling the oil reserves for a PISTON powered aircraft, not a jet powered one. Quite plausible when you consider all the engines serviced by ONE crew seized up but the other four serviced by a different crew did not.
Uhm "unusual" ground test? Full speed, high weight taxi tests are standard for large aircraft and finding things like the nose wheel resonance is exactly why they are run. So no, not "odd" at all.
And no the YRB-49 had extra engines on the wings, (in the pods Jack hated) but the extra fuel tanks were in the bomb bays, not the wings.
The order was canceled because the design was not meeting the required, (and yes they'd changed several times but that was actually 'standard' for the Air Force of the day and not something that Northrup initially found "unusual") goals. The podded engines actually helped with the persistent stability problems (pitch issues) but they didn't go away and the design still couldn't carry the new bombs and because of the new fuel tanks it's total bomb load was less than a 'medium' bomber of the day. Later Jack and some in Northrup 'blamed' the government and claimed that because they wouldn't 'merge' as the government wanted the contract was canceled but really the YB was simply not meeting goals and not proving to be as effective as hoped.
She was fast and sleek but the flying wing design has issues that required some advancement of technology to overcome such as the stability issue (and oddly let me point out your "YB49" CGI that has 'fin' on the end of the PISTON engine nacelles was actually suggested over the eventual "air-separator" design as it it was found the props and engine housing greatly contributed to the overall stability, but Jack felt that it was too much of a compromise to the design) and limited load carrying capability. The flying wing was very sleek and very advanced but it needed to make some compromises that Jack Northrup specifically was unwilling to make. It was actually suggested that the 'central' wing area be increased to allow accommodation of the needed modifications and as we see today in the B2 for example such a 'blended' wing/body actually works but Northrup felt that any significant deviation from the "pure-as-possible" flying wing design was unwanted.
Symington (as noted below) had budget issues and frankly if the Smithsonian couldn't, (and they couldn't) pay to preserve the example then there wasn't much choice but TO scrap it. (Keep in mind that Northrup had an option to 'preserve' an example but had neither the space nor budget to do so either) The 'turbodyne' thing is overblown as well, Northrup SOLD the designs and patents to GE as they were not 'rivals' since Northrup didn't actually HAVE an 'engine' division. Again Northrup could have 'saved' parts but didn't by their own admission. Kind of understandable given how bitter Jack Northrup was over the whole thing, but he, (not the Air Force which had no 'say' over un-delivered parts nor any claim on the patents) junked everything. In fact this all hurt the overall development of 'stealth' technology because with all the research data and that gone a lot of work had to be accomplished.
Changing times and requirements indeed had a hand in the demise of the flying wing but in the end the refusal to compromise a 'vision' of the future was more responsible than anything else.
Convair had a point actually, the B-36 was more 'conventional' but it also was more practical and capable than the YB-35/49. (And again Boeing had nothing to do with the B-36 they were working on the B-29 as a priority project and had nothing to spare for the intercontinental bomber project until well after the war) And oddly the entire reason that the Air Force had to 'choose' was because the Truman administration was essentially strangling the military with budget cuts!
Now mind you the official policy was to rely on long-range bombers carrying atomic bombs for the majority of the US 'defense" requirements in order to 'save' money by reducing military spending. (Literally Truman would pay all domestic and unavoidable foreign debts first and then take whatever was left over and give it to the military with the lions share going to the Air Force) Which to be clear was not even enough to actually MAINTAIN the then current "strategic" bomber force that the US policy depended on! The Air Force was unable to pay to retain personnel or maintain aircraft and they were getting the MOST money at the time! It took the Korean war to stop this downward trend.
In perspective at this point (1946 to 1948) all most all post war military research and development programs ended up having to be shut down due to lack of funds. Keep in mind that in 1946 the US actually had the most advanced missile program, more advanced jet aircraft research and several promising aircraft development programs going on and 90% of these would be canceled due to lack of funding. And this was the service getting most of the military budget at the time!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
HI THERE,,,,,,,,,,,I especially ENJOY your videos on LARGE airlines and you do well researched info'' off them which does not go unnoticed......good job..
I have a question for you please------why don't airplanes put a strong solid sorta like a '''''Chicken Wire ''' over the front of their engines to stop bird strikes as we all know how serious an issue that is....
Thank you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually, Dreamliner is not a single family of planes. It is two: one high margin comprised of the 9 and 10 variants, with 90% commonality (thus easier and less costly to build) and the 8, which since 2018, after introducing the same empenage (tail section) as the other two models now has 40% commonality, thus making it a low margin product for Boeing. The 3 would have required a smaller wing (reducing commonality further and saddling development costs). Even after all these troubles it would still be a poor performing MOM craft, high OEW being just one reason. Were this not the case, Airbus could come up with a A330-800 R regional, which they wont, for the very same reasons. The European planemaker does however have yet another ace up its sleeve. It can introduce within just a couple of years with a modest cost a new composite wing to A321XLR, adding a dozen pax or so and some 500 more NM. And Boeing fully knows that they can be so trumped. The MAX crisis left the Americans reeling and short of cash for a decade to envision innovative and costly new developments. Their MAX9 and 10 will be poor sellers since they offer a materially lower range than A321NEO. By now the damage is done and there is no solution in sight
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great video, but I think the real passenger mission for a plane like this would be as a flying yacht for a billionaire. A glass nose, a lounge, bar, bedrooms, throne room (!), sweeping stairs, a garden, skylights, toy storage, etc, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
IMO the problem was she forced to carry the SA-2 missiles. She would be a good launcher for smaller SA-8. Which also happens to be in this video.
The problem with missile rotation is easily fixed IMO, even with SA-2. Do not rotate each missile individually ad shown in this video. Instead as a pair. Although it need to raise the rocket to a complete vertical before rotating to the other side.
What i saw about as a SA-2 launching platform is how the hell it can carry the tracking radar. I think SA-2 had a set of two or more BIG radars one for search and one for track and fire control if I'm not mistaken. Definitely not as radome as shown in the video.
SA-8 is a smaller missile, also has more compact radar equipment. To shot down a high altitude target, simply to fly the helicopter to higher altitude... Where the atmospheric pressure is less denser, the rocket could fly even higher. When launched form the ground. SA-8 could reach 12km altitude and 15km range according to Wikipedia.
The Engines...why it need 4 jets to drive a set of propeller? I think more modern engines could do better.
The biggest problem of this design was how inefficient it was. Like how to fly two planes which have less than 2 hrs endurance with 1hr endurance helicopter, which gulp 10 times more fuel than what it carry... Not exactly what it is but roughly you get my idea.
Maybe, just maybe, if USSR had more subtle design, like only carrying 1 jet. 4 sets or lower props. Or Single SA-8 system. This heli could see the light of the day. As they had success making big ass helicopters like Mi-6 or Mi-26.
Or else, make the helicopter only able to fire the missile while flying. Even standard design helicopter can carry something as big as ICBM. Tho i never see anyone dare to put radar to guide the carried missile if it was that big. Probably it was the main hurdle?
Else, just carry SA-8 truck around :)) I think the driver would be glad to know they can fly.
Jet? Just tow underneath. And drop when ready. :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Your timelines are out of whack. The A319neo was already in production when Airbus bought the 50.1% stake in the CS series.
The A318 hasn't been produced for years, and no neo version was announced, so the CS range was never in competition with it.
Air France are only talking about the MAX to get a reaction out of Airbus. AF currently have 115 A320 family aircraft, and Airbus offer an updated version of all except the A318. Why would AF even consider giving up a workhorse aircraft type to go to a 60 year old airframe which has such a horrendous reputation amoung the flying public? Especially with all the re-training of pilots, at the same time they're training on the A220 which is far closer to the A320 family in it's systems design. Although it isn't impossible that Airbus develop the A220-500, it is also likely AF is trying to get a deal with the neo, either in price of delivery schedule. Despite losing some customers, the MAX still has quite a backlog (amoungst a plethora of other problems), so AF would be waiting either way.
What would be logical is for the Airbus NSR to cover the range from the A321 up to just short of the A330 (what Boeing considers the NMA size, as the A321neo is slightly smaller than this range), and produce the A220-500 to replace the A319 and A320 size.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I live in central Florida (originally on the west coast, but later in Orlando). As such, I've ridden the original Walt Disney World Mark IV monorails and the Mark VI monorails that replaced it. I've also ridden the Disneyland monorail (Mark V I think?), the Las Vegas monorail (WDW's old Mark IV's), and the Seattle monorail (built by Alweg around the time Disneyland built theirs). These latter rides were some 20+ years ago, so they could have easily changed since then. BTW, Walt Disney purchased the right to use Alweg's design from them (Alweg was sad they weren't building the actual trains for Disney; their first American venture would be Seattle for their Worlds Fair).
Busch Gardens in Tampa had a hanging monorail that I've also ridden. It used two propane engines to generate the electricity for the electric motors. It was a very slow, boxy, and simple design. I don't recall much swaying (one of the problems with hanging monorails), but then it didn't go very fast. I think it went away in the 70's.
I've also been on several other mass transit systems: the New York Subway, the Long Island Railroad, the Washington D.C. subway, the London Underground, the Paris Metro, the Chicago EL, and the Atlanta Metro (ALL of them at least 20-30 years ago). The Paris system was unique in that some of the lines used a tire on concrete system instead of rail. Oh, and the Vancouver Skytrain (only 15+ years ago on that).
My experience has been that monorail cars tend to be smaller than rail cars, though all the monorail trains I've been on were designed for amusement parks; not public transportation. The ride is always very smooth and appears quick (except for Busch Gardens) even though the WDW monorails are governed at 40 mph (they can go 60 mph). I've always enjoyed riding them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm really surprised you don't have more subs with this quality content! you definitely got my attention really fast, I have always loved the concept of flying aircraft carriers, as long as they weren't just the copy pasted Nimitz class with large turbofans on the side, you know, the generic flying aircraft carrier everyone knows about that looks almost exactly the same as the one from the Marvel movies. (not that I don't like the movies, but I have seen a few flying aircraft carrier concepts, and most of them are literally just the Marvel carrier thing). The CL-1201-1-2 could have possibly been some sort of SPECOPS variant, or a nuclear Missile Carrier(instead of holding aircraft, it holds ICBM's and IRBM's and stuff.) I would like to see more of these types of videos, finding some of the most crazy and insane ideas Militaries across the world had back in the cold war.
i really like flying Aircraft carrier designs that were actual planes, like this one. for example the B-36 Parasite fighter project, the 747 ACC briefly talked about in the video and other stuff like this. aircraft like these are just amazing to look at and think about how they would work, with the aircraft continuously being rearmed, refueled, and how supplies would get to the vehicle, if its too big to land anywhere. its just so cool!
some crazy engineer from the 70's definitely made the general design for this, just like most other Lockheed designs from that era.
anyways amazing video, good job, keep up the good work!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's a cool jet definitely, but I would always be careful about the "the US made them cut it" statement. I get the channel deals with a lot of hearsay and what not, but this defense is usually pretty easily refuted. I find it I'd listed as a reason offered as a way of pushing blame off of a countries own political indecision to blaming the US. First, it sounds like they licensed many US engine components which, yeah, the US maintains export controls over specifically because, well, Iran has a fleet of F-14s, which were still state of the art when this went into development. Second, I recall hearing about a Israeli developed fighter when I was younger, and the problem listed was inability to mass produce, along with internal fights over funding. And this makes since. Building a prototype is one thing, building a fleet can be hyper expensive just look at the F-35. Had it not been for bulk sales, the cost of the aircraft could easily be over $300 million a unit, and not the $70 million starting MSRP before options. Lastly, surprisingly, I am inclined to believe the Russians on the J-10. Up to that point, China had never produced a successful fighter that wasn't a licensed design from another country. Sure they did work with canard, but so did everyone else and they are still a rare feature on fighters today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nick, this is a well presented concept for consideration of future flying possibilities. Anyone with an ego which demands personalized service in a monstrous aircraft would be much better renting a bizjet with amenities to serve that need. The cost might be a consideration, but time between departure and arrival would be comfortable and uncrowded, making for a more efficient use of time.
As for the maximization of space for corporate profitability, the demise of the A-380, and the beloved B-747 have proved unsuccessful in the present age. The idea of flying a "city in the skies," regardless of amenities, to me, represents nothing but a designer's "pipe dream."
Newer, and practical, versions of aircraft, as you have pointed out in other videos, offer more merit for the flying public. Long flights will always be long flights. Rushed passengers, and "frazzled" crew (air and ground) should be a major consideration. This could be offset by better attention to ground service with every consideration given to immediate remedies for the potential of security and technical "glitches." Corporate greed would spoil the whole process. Thanks for the useful information you provide. To answer your question as to whether I would fly one of these monsters - "NO!" The space is more suitable, and perhaps better economically, for cargo applications, and would preclude the expense of paying legal fees to all parties, should there be a flying catastrophe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are forget some key facts about Boeing, the make & airline industry.
Boeing is $b of dollars in debt due to the Max crashes
It costs at least $30 bn to develop a new plane
It cost about $4 bn to deveolp the 777X to replace the 747.
Larger planes (eg 747) cannot never be able to compete with smaller planes (eg 777).
The 737 has not had an X version.
The 757 is a narrow body twin with tall landing from the 80's like the A320 .. and has never had an NG, Max or X version.
747 & 767 production is winding down, and can be easily converted to 757 production.
Covids has devastated the the market routes for wide bodies jets especially the 747 & A380.
Airlines have been downsizing, retiring old less efficient jets especially the 747, A380 and earlier variants of the 777 to cut costs, and ensure maximum profitability with the major reduction in demand for flights. They are moving two small narrow bodies.
Now ... with all these facts, the right path for Boeing is not what you are proposing. There will not be a $30 bn investment by Boeing into any jet in the next 10 years. Boeing needs spend $7 bn maximum each, developing the 737 X and the 757 Max or X. And that's it. So long as Boeing is making good profit with existing models, and they fulfil the needs of airlines, it is unwise to be developing more radical planes especially in the widebody market that may not return to normal for 10 years.
So no need to spend $30 bn on any plane, unless there is a significant competitive advantage over the competition. There is no significant advantage with your proposals. Airliens are cutting costs, trimming the fat, and making sure they are as efficient as possible. Adding a new plane to the market is simply not smart at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I doubt weâll see much of anything new out of the aviation industry for a very long time to come. Covid-19 has darn near killed the travel industry. Airlines are laying off workers faster than most any other industry in the world. Top tourist destinations are doing everything possible just to avoid bankruptcy, but itâs not looking good. Boeing itâs self will be lucky if it can manage to avoid bankruptcy court too. Right now airline companies appear to be slimming down to a bare bone working capacity. That means massive layoffs! The cruise ship industry is selling off large fleets of ships at very low prices just to cut overhead as much as possible in order to save a once thriving industry(if they can). With all of these airlines, tourists, and cruise ship industries making such massive budget cuts, I believe itâs pushing the world into a global economic depression the likes of which the world hasnât seen in over a hundred years. I highly recommend everyone stalk up and save up on all of your basic living supplies, because itâs about to get really bad financially. If you donât believe me, just stick around, because time will no doubt be teaching you a very hard lesson!
Oh, and youâll also wanna repent and surrender to Jesus as quickly as possible, because the rapture of the true church is extremely close! If youâre not born again, youâll be left behind in what can only be described as âHell on Earthâ!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Interesting video. I hadn't read about this, so it was news to me.
That said, there was one huge problem with your math. It has to do with the speed of Mach 3 as you described it in the video. The speed of sound changes with temperature. At sea level on a standard day, you'd be almost right, Mach 3 would be 2220 mph. However, a jet like this doesn't cruise at sea level. Up where Concorde cruised, more or less 50,000 feet, and 70,000 feet where the proposed US supersonic transports were intended to cruise, and where this plane will likely cruise, the speed of sound is about 660 mph, making Mach 3 1,980 mph.
Concorde put a bad taste in everyone's mouth as to the cost of supersonic travel, especially as a matter of operational costs versus revenues. It was going to be a difficult proposition even before the energy crises of the '70s, and most options were canceled before the first energy crisis.. The American designs would have mitigated this somewhat, promising seat mile costs not that far off of the jetliners of the time. It's easier to pay for a flight when that cost is divided among 300 passengers, which was where we were, more or less, when the program was cancelled.
I'd look forward to what they'll be able to do with the latest design tools, materials and construction techniques. To my way of thinking, though, they aim too low to build a plane with such a limited passenger capacity. especially when it's already a large part of the size of the Concorde.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Found and Explained ,Hi Found and Explained. Nice Video! But I have to explain a little more info for you if you don't mind that.
At the time, the F-4 would be considered as a close contemporary of the Arrow, but not as technologically advanced, but able to preform the same exact mission. The XF-108 Raiper never left the plywood mockup status and simply would have just been an Arrow on a fat diet. It's weight would have made it over 102,000 lbs heavier if they ever built one. Simply put there was nothing as advanced as an Arrow Mk.2 in 1959.
Money wasn't the driving issue for the Arrow's cancellation, it's all recorded history courtesy of the archival record's now, it's no longer up for any debate anymore, there is a very great book written on it by Palmiro Campanga that shows it all. The spec speeds that are posted online (Wikipedia) for the Arrow are from the Mk.1 Variants with the test engines (J-75) Not fully opened up. The First F-106's required two hands on the stick to fly the aircraft, I will wait a thousand or more years until you can figure out what appendages were used for the throttle. The Arrow was Fly-by-wire with haptic (force) feedback; not seen on American Aircraft until the F-16 & F-18. it was designed with Inherent instability in the Y-axis giving it an instantaneous turn-rating using solid state computers (we would call them Calculators today.); again also not seen until the F-16 & the F-18, A 4,000 psi hydraulic system and an engine with twice the power of the J-79 of the time period. With all respect it was most certainly the Iroquois engines that were the most advanced out of anything; built from the ground up using titanium , hot-streak ,fuel introduced into the combustion chamber in a vapor form so the Arrow would not leave a smoke trail, 10 stage compressors instead of the traditional 17 stages, (J-79) etc.. think of the Iroquois as a 427 Corvette engine with a two barrel Chevette carb producing 40 to 50% more HP. Orenda had designed the engine this way to increase the power more easily. There was approximately another 40 to 50% more thrust left in the Iroquois for the Series 3 variant for the Arrow Mk.3. The Arrow Mk.2 with the Series 2 Iroquois would have been capable of Mach 2.4, ( it's original air inlet configuration was designed to hold it at that speed.) With the follow on Series 3 Iroquois for the Arrow Mk.3 which had Variable geometry air inlets that would have taken it to Mach 3.6. But if this is too much for you to understand I will cut it short;
Think of the F-106 as an American M-16 sniper rifle and the Arrow as a Canadian C-7 sniper rifle. They look similar to each other, but the C-7 is the desired weapon for the SAS, where as the M-16 doesn't have a rifled barrel and can only fire 3 shots at a time. In terms of power:
American M-16 Caliber (F-106)
Cyclic rate of fire: 650 - 750 rpm
Magazine capacity: 20 rounds
Range of effective fire: 460 m
Canadian C-7 (CF-105 Mk.2)
Cyclic rate of fire 700 - 900 rpm
Magazine capacity 30 rounds
Range of effective fire 600 m
And yet they look the same. Hopefully the light bulb has finally come on for you. Case in point The F-106 and the F-4 were Shelby Cobras, the Arrow was a Ferrari..
There is very a thought-out Series on YouTube that explains the Arrow to those who don't understand it that well. As well as documentary that shows the Arrow in it's correct light.
None the less keep up the good work.
Cheers, Noah
Series: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3EReMs3ND7UC-VT6gOjFauI_PgDDPWdo
Documentary: https://youtu.be/hMKAoryHVP8
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This video is entirely mistaken. Boeing could build the 787-3 tomorrow if there was a market for it. Boeing sold several 787-3 models to ANA, but the airline converted the entire set to 787-8 orders as the more efficient airplane. The assumption that a short 787 could fill the sweet spot is bad math and wishful thinking. It is still too big and too heavy. Short airplanes are never efficient because the heavy parts of the machine come along without weight reduction. Wings, gear, engines and empennage don't get lighter simply because the fuselage is shorter. That is why Boeing dropped the 737-600. The A-220 weighs so much less and carries a similar load. The empty weight is always higher on a per passenger basis when short aircraft are made out of longer ones. Efficient airplanes always have a low per passenger empty weight and tend to be a longer, but not longest, model. The NMA fits well below the size of any 787 because the niche is for long, thin, less travelled routes. Were it not for the single aisle and outdated engines, a modernized 757 would suit. Compare the 757 against the 767-200 and you realize why the long skinny airplane is far more efficient than the short fat one. That is why the 797-5x as currently re-envisioned by Boeing targets improvements upon the 757, possibly a 2-2-2 twin-aisle, made of carbon fiber. The main problem is engines. Nobody (not GE, not RR, not PW) makes a modern, highly-efficient turbofan in the thrust range for the niche. The GEnx is too big and too heavy, and forms an insurmountable hurdle. That's the elephant in the room. The LEAP isn't big enough. If it was that easy, to adapt an eight-across 2-4-2 airplane (where another 2-3-2 airplane is still too big) Airbus would bring back an A-300neo tomorrow. Same problem, though. No modern, efficient engines in the thrust class.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The foundation of this video piece is wrong, and the code name is mixed up. First, there never was a real sonic cruiser program. I'll explain that in a second. Next, there was a Glacier configuration proposal as a part of airplane #1 of the 20xx program, but it was not what became known as the sonic cruiser. Rather, the sonic cruiser was the Yellowstone configuration proposal. Glacier was a different plane. What really happened is that we had a long range program under Mulally to replace the entire lineup of Boeing planes. That program was called the 20xx program, and it was very secret, even within Boeing. I'm guessing that only a couple hundred of us actually knew what was going on. Even execs with the rank of VP in other parts of the company were kept in the dark about it. The first plane was to replace the mid-market wide-body occupied by the 767. The many configuration studies were whittled down to three, when a model of one of the three was shown to an airline CEO, who in turn blabbed to Aviation Week, which ran a story on it. So a decision was made to take one of the two wilder configurations and do a full blown publicity campaign around it to provide cover to 20xx. It worked incredibly well. I even heard a Boeing IT VP swear up and down that the program was real. It wasn't. When we had a meeting with a bunch of the key customers involved in fleet planning, the at the Bell Street Terminal conference center in Seattle, the vote was nearly unanimous that they wanted all of that technology poured into a conventionally shaped plane. There are a lot of solid economic reasons for that, not the least of which are fuel burn, gate configurations, and maintenance hangar configurations. The baseline plane became the 787. There were to be at least four more in the series, but the GE idiots so screwed up program execution, that instead of the 787 being on time and reasonably close to on budget, 15 years later they still can't run an airplane program right. So Walt retired, Alan left for Ford, and that was the end of 20xx. Airplane #2 would have replaced the 737. We were soft on what would be third in the firing order, but there was a lot of interest in a baby wide-body (2-3-2 seating in coach) with a flight deck close enough to that of the 737 replacement that the larger discount carriers could have economically added it to their fleets. The larger plane or planes (there was debate about that too) would have gone last. They would have require much more evolved tape laying equipment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1