What's Actually the Plane of the Future

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart


Wendover Productions : Hey I hope you enjoy this new video! Some 370 of you got to see this early as I accidentally pressed the button that I didn't mean to press so the video was live for about a minute this morning, but here's the real version! Make sure to check out Squarespace because this video *literally* would not have happened without their support.

Davrell Bhola : Why don't they just make a stretched version of the 757, a 757 neo with the new wing and engine tech that they now use?

TheLiberalMachine : There is fanboys for boeing and Airbus? Weird.

5lav : Oh yeah please cheaper and cheaper.....I could puke when people think they can fly long range for 300usd, that's just not how it works, stay at home

Toms Friend Kake : Building the 797 as a twin isle is stupid. If they built it as a single isle, it would be more likely to be cross-utilized on domestic flights. I think it would make more sense to build something similar to the 757, with three model's (all coach configuration: 225 seats, 250 seats, and 275 seats). They could then further differentiate these models as being standard range - 4500 miles and long range - 6000 miles. It's not like something similar hasn't existed before, the Douglas DC-8-62 had an all coach configuration of 259 seats and a range of 4500 miles, which increased to 5000 miles when they were re-engined in the 1980's. And the Boeing 707-320B could seat 189 passengers in an all coach configuration, and had a range of 5000 miles. What prevented the 707 from being further stretched was it's landing gear configuration; it needed to be completely redesigned in order to be stretched. But by 1972, the 747, DC-10, and L1011 were entering service, so it wasn't pursued. Building the 797 as a twin isle would be like building a modernized 767-200. While the 767-200 was envisioned as a domestic plane, once the full effects of deregulation had taken root, the 767 began being used primarily for international flights. And while airlines today are looking for smaller planes to fly longer and thinner international routes, there is a limit too how many of those planes are needed. Furthermore, aircraft designers have a habit of stretching the models over time; so the 797 would most likely morph into modern versions of the 767-300 and 767-400. Over time, due to economic pressures, the smaller models would be parked, such as what happened to the 767-200. Then Boeing would still have a gap between the 737-10 and the larger 797's. But by building the 797 as a single isle, it would be much more likely to enjoy a long life of service since they can be utilized better on domestic routes.

GraveUypo : "oil prices are low now" well, not in brazil. they've all but doubled in the last 5 years. not even kidding.

DefCon1Shooter : Why should electric planes be cheaper? Electricity is currently a very expensive form of energy and the storage of it is a mayor problem that even car manufatures haven't fully solved yet. Electric cars still have significantly lower ranges than normal cars. There will be mayor costs to develop a save energy storage that is capable of delivering enough power and energy to fly a commercial passenger aircraft. I can't see how this should beat train travel...

Thomas Kossatz : As long as we don't have more landing slots, there is a market for bigger planes. Same applies to air control: As long as we don't have a sytem that allows shorter distances between planes, there is a problem with increasing the number of planes in the air. Predictions are hard, specially about the future.

Mitch W : It's called a 747 that's the middle ground or the Quantas a380 which is 2 stories

Bongalicius : Why is nobody considering hydrogen powered planes? The production of hydrogen doesn't need rare metals, the technology to store hydrogen savely already exists and we don't need to reinvent engines, since hydrogen behaves equaly to jet fuel. Economical concerns regarding fuel costs would drop since the demand for hydrogen would be so enormous, that the industry had to find a way to drop production costs for hydrogen.

Ryu Fitzgerald : Why did you describe electric engines as weak? They have quite high power to weight ratios

BrainDoesStuff : Hyperloop is never happening.

FƔbio Pedrosa : teste212

Tmask M : Doesn't get up to speed? What planes are you flying on?

snowben837 : Why is Boeing obsessed with using 7s in their model numbers?

TXnine7nine : 6:30 Um isn't manpower the #1 cost of most businesses (airlines included)?

dēaĆ¾ : Hyperloop is a fraud and will never work.

Navneet Murti : The Boeing 777 is already flying London to LA

jacian podell : Electricity can now be transmitted wirelessly, through the air. Electric planes could be recharged, using a network of ground-based and floating, oceanic transmitters, whilst mid-flight, miles above the earth.

Jeremy The Dino : I love the Boeing 757. So sad :(

762rk95tp : Damn you are a Boeing shill. What is Airbus A321LR?

planedudea380 : Middle of the market, the 757 is hard to replace, such a great aircraft. Liked that you used many -300 series clips too haha

Green Lantern : Hello I'd just like to say that I admire your videos very much and they are actually my main source of a template for how to structure the videos that I make at school as part of projects. I've seen almost every video you've made and I hope you continue to make great content. Idk how you do it, no matter what the topic is I look forward to the next Wendover productions video because I somehow am always completely engrossed by whatever you're talking about! Keep making great and interesting videos!

CuppaWolnir : "Like Hyperloop" I would recommend checking out a science channel by the name of thunderf00t. They've debunked it pretty damn well.

Dahkeus3 : @ 2:50 HAHAHAHAHAHA! Airlines don't give a shit about passenger comfort. If anything, they more likely want a new plane that can fit in more passengers per square foot by decreasing leg room even further.

Kidney Bone : why create an entirely new aircraft instead of modernize the 757 to a 757Max? i just don't get ist. it would save money because of the similarity of the models exactly like 737classics/NGs and Max.

Adam Ware : This is only really an American problem, Ā no where else was the 757 as popular. Everywhere else they don't need this place type in the world and is why neither Boeing or Airbus have created a new type. And lets be honest, long haul travel in a single isle plane is terrible.

Theskeletongamer : pilots will always be there incase the system fails, and on average they fly about 5 minutes w/o auto pilots, and some of the newer planes can land them selfs

The Gaming Bros! : As long as they don't remove the sound, i'm fine with it.

xgeneric99 : the plane of the future will carry 500-600 people on average, without seats. more like a subway car. there will be a few seats but they will cost 2-10x what standing room will cost. flights will on the whole be 30% slower but the loading and unloading time will be so long it won't matter.

Dan Sertich : Preparing for a world without oil??? your kidding right? or at the very least ill informed. Have you never heard of algae oil? It has already flown.

cz3chmonkey : what do i do with this information

Kaleb Bruwer : Small plane commuting doesn't seem like it can take off. Airports are designed to process very high amounts of people who easily have an hour to get through security. Also, you need public transport just to reach the airport. To commute by plane, you would need to reshape the world and city layouts.

Jeff Keith : Jet of the future a fighter jet that a kill anything all the way around the world and it doesn't Evan have to take off jet of the juture

David Game : Trains cheaper than planes for 200-400 miles? Really. Check prices of budget airlines in the UK from London->Scotland and the comparable train prices!

fat lizard : Seaweed is being used to create fuel which seems as good as I expected

JackTheBeast88 : the problem with short range domestic flights is that you aways have to add check-ins, security procedures and travelling back and forth from the airport. trains will never have this problem. to bring an example, take to Rome-Milan route (assuming you destination is Milan central station): 1)by train you have to go to the station (which takes 20 to 40 minutes by metro) 10 minutes before departue, then it's 3:20 or 2:55 hours (depending on the train) to arrive at Milan central station 2)by plane: go to the airport (at least 40 minutes), go trough security check (10 to 20 minutes), be borded (30-40 minutes), fly (50 minutes), exit the plane and go to the central station (30 to 50 or more minutes depending on which aiport and traffic). final time: train: 4 hours on average plane: 3:20 hours (assuming you do everything with little spare time) if they can't reduce boarding times and stuff like that it's unikly they'll ever compete with the train

2Awesome : Teleporters would put all airlines out of business

0ZinX0 : No word on thec chineese Comac? Feels like they are going to have an impact on the market simply by state subsidy..

Bill Bingham : If solar panels became super efficient, they could build an airliner that has really long range. In fact, it would just keep flying, following the sun. Then they could load and unload passengers like aerial refueling. That's the future!!!!

looneyflight : ah cool saw clip of N323AS getting refueled. Iv been on that plane before!

SiD996 : I would say the A350 XWB would be a great replacement for the 757 ? efficient, has a massive range and can carry enough passengers to make it worth while .

Rick Smith : I'm not quite sure, after doing very little research, if they have chosen an engine provider for this design. I work for an aviation company as a tube fabricator and I believe that ultimately Boeing will go with the more "well known product". Our market share is and will continue to grow. The Paris Air Show was a huge success for us, and our demand is through the roof. Everybody has to travel...

Nick Gold : 0:33 bitch be texting for then 50 minutes

Artorius : Lol the train from London to Edinburgh is both more expensive and less convenient than flying. That's why I chose the BA flight for a recent trip. Flyby may have been even faster, but BA is so much nicer.

Mark Cannon : I'm not sure we have 15-20 years left.

The Right Honourable Jimmy : Regional flights might be quicker....but air security will take you about an hour of your time. 30 minute flight + 1 hour at security. No...I'd rather take the train.

cedricmeallan : All Airbus needs to do is to release an A310neo and Boeing 797 will be *cooked*.

Overlord : I just checked the times for the BA A320 flight from Edinburgh to London and the same flight for Fly Be with their D8D. TIme is the same about 65-70 minutes for BOTH. So you are lying. You simply cant compare it this way. Planes dont fly at maximum speed they have cruising speed. Moreover on this specific flight D8D reaches usually cruising altitude of 25000 feet while A320 BA reaches cruising altitude of 33 000 feet. Different cruising altitude in this case is there for better fuel efficiency of both planes. While D8D uses the 25 000 feet as the maximum altitude the Airbus goes higher to achieve better fuel efficiency. And finally on such a short flight it is obvious that the Airbus wont be there much earlier because of earlier descent and on such a short flight you cant see the difference even though the Airbus cruises about 200-250km/h faster than D8D. Three of your last videos are really meh...

James Larson : Do a video about concept planes such as the x-57 Maxwell and the Boeing Blended Wing body and their potential impact on the industry