Is Airbus Hiding a REVOLUTION?!

Enjoy 10% OFF on all Hoverpens and free shipping to most countries with code MENTOUR: North America & other countries: bit.ly/novium_mentour UK & Europe: bit.ly/noviumeu_mentour

Boeing knows that the US government won't let them go out of business - it's too much of a strategic risk to lose domestic production of aircraft. Boeing has taken that complacency to heart.

Airbus has a new methodology called "tightening the bolts" which puts them several years ahead of Boeing.

The main obstacle facing both Airbus and Boeing is gravity.

The problem with most companies, especially big American companies is they are all about Wallstreet instead of making the best product possible.

Airbus CEO just said last week that they are working on the A320 successor.

This is the American way. Outsource everything, cut costs, cheap out, until the company goes bankrupt due to no one buying its substandard products, then take your golden parachute and move on to the next huge American manufacturer and do it again.

I worked at McDonnell Douglas back in the 80s and the exposed fan (open rotor) engine concept was being put forth on the MD-80 at the time. It made sense on the MD-80 because the very dangerous fan blades were high off the ground, away from maintainers or other ground staff. It was felt that the noise and potential danger of a blade out event without any containment was deemed unfeasible. We'll see what happens with this latest attempt.

I used to work for an Airbus startup. Airbus is a wonderful company. To answer your question, yes, and they're not hiding it. You can find the answers in their new air traffic control system.... ;)

It's really important for airbus to dedicate to ultrafan aircraft developement, as we've seen, when companies relax, stagnate, a company can fall apart (see: boeing vs airbus for the a320 neo, or intel vs amd with ryzen), and very fast, really good oversight on airbus's end to keep growing and great summary by the mentour team!

There's another important reason to put the fans in front of the wings that I think you missed. If you put the fans behind the wings, the tip vortices from the fan blades interact with the vortex sheet coming off the back of the wing, which is impressively loud, just ask the Piaggio Avanti. The fans probably need to be in front to comply with noise regulations. The flexible wingtips for load alleviation are so cool. it's something birds do. Now that we really know composites for commercial use better, I wouldn't be surprised if they also use a fancy layup for the wings that'll reduce the angle of attack on the outer portions of the wing as it flexes up to take the load alleviation a step farther. Would just need to design it so the flaps stiffen the whole wing when they're extended to keep the flex lower and AoA higher for takeoff and landing.

I must admit, as a proud American, I’ve flown in many airbus’s and many Boeings…aside from the 777 and 747, I’d much rather take an airbus for domestic and intracontinental travel than a Boeing. I flew in a modern 737 with United last year and I felt like I was in a casket. I’m 194cm tall and flying economy, but I had absolutely zero room and it felt like zero chance of escape in an emergency. Now maybe it was United trying to fit as many seats as possible on that plane, but the similar sized airbus variant flown in Asia with Tiger and Asian airlines (budget) was much more comfortable and appeared better made with way more room overhead. I remember the days when we called them “ScareBus” …not true anymore.

Wish he still had the dogs wandering randomly through the video.

Even between doupoly, where no competitors exist, it is proven that innovation fetches profits, and there's no shortcut to success for innovation. Good work, Airbus!

I really love this channel. As an aviation enthusiast and private pilot I find the coverage of a variety of topics fascinating both on this channel and the other one. Really good job of the videos too and accurate information from an experienced pilot...thanks

Well (under)wing engine placement offers the following benefits: - since wings create lift, if you hang engines directly off them, you dont need to add extra material, to support and connect the weight of engines to the wing -> hence lighter aircraft (like the video said) - engine in front of the wing is in clean air - that is not all swirly and stuff due to wing hutting it, as it has not YET reached the wing). When you have nice laminar flow propellers work more efficiently - When air leaving the engine is hitting the wing (like with the setup seen in the video) you will get air (the air pushed by the engine) that moves faster than usual, thus generates more lift than usual. Downside of the last point is that the fan blades also make the air all swirly, so right behind them wing is a tad bit less efficient. However main benefit of last point is more lift at slow speeds, as engine pushes air over said part of the wing very fast even when aircraft has just slowly started rolling during takeoff. Thus you get extra lift at slow speed, helping reduce takeoff distance.

You have taught me so much about flying, planes, policy, maintenance, and so much more. I'm not a pilot but you follow my same train of thought with no filler. Also, you don't have an American English or UK English accent which is refreshing.

Saw you at PilotExpo today! Sadly the queue for you was kilometers long so i didn't get to talk to you. But i said hy from the distance anyway 😅

Frankly, Airbus (or anyone) saying they're going to have a hydrogen-powered airliner by next decade is just saying what the green crowd wants to hear in hopes of staving off more laws and regulations. Hydrogen power is very interesting, but it has a very large number of problems that have remained unsolved for the several decades that we've been using hydrogen combustion engines. Hydrogen does not like to be in liquid form at anything remotely resembling the normal conditions of Earth's atmosphere. Its hobbies include converting to gaseous form, leaking through even the smallest of holes (think very microscopic, molecule-sized holes that exist in nearly all materials,) and, the most fun one, combining with oxygen to combust. The latter is great when that combustion is in a place where you want it to be (think: engine core,) but otherwise not so great (think: Hindenburg.) Containing hydrogen fuel in a way that will not resemble Hindenburg in the event of a crash or emergency landing at 150+ kt is, shall we say, an open problem. If you had something like, say, Asiana 214 but with hydrogen tanks aft of the tail exist, the ending would have been very different and not in a good way. Of course, as previously mentioned, we've been using hydrogen as a fuel in aerospace for several decades. The Space Shuttle used it, for example. So, how have rocket designers solved this problem of making survivable hydrogen-powered vehicles? Simple: By accepting that a crash will kill everyone onboard and also destroy the vehicle and anything that happens to be nearby at the time. Getting the airline industry and its regulators to accept that, however, will prove a bit more challenging. This is not to say that solving these problems isn't possible. It's likely that there will eventually be decent solutions. But for an airliner in production and airline service in the 2030s? I wouldn't hold my breath, regardless of what Airbus executives (or anyone else) might "commit to."

I can add that, we are seeing more and more ads around Montreal, QC to recruit new Airbus Canada employees. This could possibly be linked to some futur ambitions for the A220 program