7 ms·

For me, the sad part of the story of Concorde is that Boeing has failed to build a supersonic plane and as a revenge has lobbied to prohibit the Concorde flying

by reacweb 10y ago

For me, the sad part of the story of Concorde is that Boeing has failed to build a supersonic plane and as a revenge has lobbied to prohibit the Concorde flying over the USA. This protectionism and the petrol crisis have caused its commercial failure.

Fuddh 10y ago
Supersonic flights over land is actually a fairly difficult problem to solve, as the noise levels are very high. This is a major reason behind why the Concorde only flew across the ocean. Nonetheless I did not know Boeing was lobbying against it - that kind of protectionism does indeed hinder innovation.
- caf 10y ago
  Concorde did actually fly over land - Braniff Airways operated it between Washington DC and Dallas Fort Worth under a short-lived, strange 'tag flight' arrangement (where the aircraft would continue on from Washington to London / Paris under BA / AF crews). This segment was sub-sonic, though.
  - dingaling 10y ago
    And for each US domestic rotation each individual aircraft was reregistered onto the US N-register, and then back onto the UK or French register for the Atlantic crossing. At that time only N-reg aircraft were pemitted to operate internal commercial US flights. To simplify the process the BA Concordes were allocated unique-for-the-UK alpha-numeric registrations which could have their 'G-' prefix hidden by speed-tape: http://www.braniffpages.com/n94aa.jpg http://www.braniffpages.com/n94aa.jpg
  - jrnichols 10y ago
    Here's a link to an old Braniff schedule showing the Concorde as a route out of DFW... http://www.departedflights.com/BN102879p52.html http://www.departedflights.com/BN102879p52.html
- mabbo 10y ago
  Apparently (can't find the article I read on it) the noise would be much less of a problem today. The magnitude of the sonic boom is relative to mass, and modern planes are being built lighter and lighter (to save on fuel). Something like a 50-seat mostly-carbon-fiber super sonic aircraft at 50,000 ft might well be perfectly fine to fly over land at Mach 2. The smaller size might also help with the problem of empty seats. As well, ideas like wings that change shape/angle for different portions of the flight could also help. Someone just needs to put down the R&D money and take the risk to build such a plane.
  - Fuddh 10y ago
    I did not know this - great point! Actually being able to use simulations to a much larger extent than was possible back when Concorde was being developed must play a role in lowering the costs of building a new supersonic aircraft. I believe this is what Boom is trying to do! Let's hope they can spur more investments into this field - it would be very cool if we got to see supersonic travel again :)
    - mabbo 10y ago
      Apparently, I was wrong! While many organizations are working on reducing sonic booms, mass is not a factor.
  - brian_cloutier 10y ago
    That doesn't sound reasonable. The sonic boom is caused by (I had thought) air being compressed at the front of the plane. That would mean the loudness is determined by speed and shape of the plane. The only way mass would have an effect is if the exhaust (which heavier planes presumably generate more of) contributed to the sonic boom, which doesn't sound right. I'll believe that modern planes might generate smaller sonic booms, being more efficient sounds like it's related to how you displace the air, which sounds very related to the size of the boom, but I don't believe you that mass is related.
    - mcguire 10y ago
- capilotractor 10y ago
  When I was 13, we had a math class that was scheduled at the same time the Concorde flew over the school, 35 km away from the Roissy airport. The teacher had to stop talking for 10 seconds and wait for it to fly away. This thing was loud.
hollerith 10y ago
This again! US warplanes are also prohibited from supersonic flight over the US (with the possible exception of extremely sparsely populated parts of the western US). Source: I'm 56 years old, have lived in 6 US states (including Nevada) and have never heard a sonic boom in the US. I know what they sound like because I visited Germany in 1970 where sonic booms from US warplanes were common. Is a vengeful corporation or protectionism responsible for that prohibition, too, in your opinion?
- cardiffspaceman 10y ago
  I don't know where you were but my experience is different. I grew up in Southern California equidistant from LA and Edwards AFB. In the 60's and 70's I definitely heard sonic booms. No one was taking off near us so they weren't damaging to property or people, as people expected the SST might be.
  - hollerith 10y ago
    Interesting. Would call where you grew sparely populated? How about extremely sparsely populated. >I don't know where you were Massachusetts, South Florida, other places east of the Mississippi.
    - cardiffspaceman 10y ago
      The area is now called Santa Clarita, California. The area was then a clump of bedroom communities that may have totaled about 50 thousand people. Some farmland was still cultivated then (the aroma of the onion harvest is a childhood memory), sheep were even grazed. But there were tracts of houses and the tracts were already closely spaced enough to support three significant high schools. Even from a jet you should have known you were flying over a populated area by looking out the window.
      - hollerith 10y ago
        Thanks. Roughly how many sonic booms did you hear during your time there?

by reacweb 10y ago

Fuddh 10y ago

Supersonic flights over land is actually a fairly difficult problem to solve, as the noise levels are very high. This is a major reason behind why the Concorde only flew across the ocean. Nonetheless I did not know Boeing was lobbying against it - that kind of protectionism does indeed hinder innovation.

caf 10y ago
Concorde did actually fly over land - Braniff Airways operated it between Washington DC and Dallas Fort Worth under a short-lived, strange 'tag flight' arrangement (where the aircraft would continue on from Washington to London / Paris under BA / AF crews). This segment was sub-sonic, though.
- dingaling 10y ago
  And for each US domestic rotation each individual aircraft was reregistered onto the US N-register, and then back onto the UK or French register for the Atlantic crossing. At that time only N-reg aircraft were pemitted to operate internal commercial US flights. To simplify the process the BA Concordes were allocated unique-for-the-UK alpha-numeric registrations which could have their 'G-' prefix hidden by speed-tape: http://www.braniffpages.com/n94aa.jpg http://www.braniffpages.com/n94aa.jpg
- jrnichols 10y ago
  Here's a link to an old Braniff schedule showing the Concorde as a route out of DFW... http://www.departedflights.com/BN102879p52.html http://www.departedflights.com/BN102879p52.html
mabbo 10y ago
Apparently (can't find the article I read on it) the noise would be much less of a problem today. The magnitude of the sonic boom is relative to mass, and modern planes are being built lighter and lighter (to save on fuel). Something like a 50-seat mostly-carbon-fiber super sonic aircraft at 50,000 ft might well be perfectly fine to fly over land at Mach 2. The smaller size might also help with the problem of empty seats. As well, ideas like wings that change shape/angle for different portions of the flight could also help. Someone just needs to put down the R&D money and take the risk to build such a plane.
- Fuddh 10y ago
  I did not know this - great point! Actually being able to use simulations to a much larger extent than was possible back when Concorde was being developed must play a role in lowering the costs of building a new supersonic aircraft. I believe this is what Boom is trying to do! Let's hope they can spur more investments into this field - it would be very cool if we got to see supersonic travel again :)
  - mabbo 10y ago
    Apparently, I was wrong! While many organizations are working on reducing sonic booms, mass is not a factor.
- brian_cloutier 10y ago
  That doesn't sound reasonable. The sonic boom is caused by (I had thought) air being compressed at the front of the plane. That would mean the loudness is determined by speed and shape of the plane. The only way mass would have an effect is if the exhaust (which heavier planes presumably generate more of) contributed to the sonic boom, which doesn't sound right. I'll believe that modern planes might generate smaller sonic booms, being more efficient sounds like it's related to how you displace the air, which sounds very related to the size of the boom, but I don't believe you that mass is related.
  - mcguire 10y ago
capilotractor 10y ago
When I was 13, we had a math class that was scheduled at the same time the Concorde flew over the school, 35 km away from the Roissy airport. The teacher had to stop talking for 10 seconds and wait for it to fly away. This thing was loud.

hollerith 10y ago

This again! US warplanes are also prohibited from supersonic flight over the US (with the possible exception of extremely sparsely populated parts of the western US). Source: I'm 56 years old, have lived in 6 US states (including Nevada) and have never heard a sonic boom in the US. I know what they sound like because I visited Germany in 1970 where sonic booms from US warplanes were common. Is a vengeful corporation or protectionism responsible for that prohibition, too, in your opinion?

cardiffspaceman 10y ago
I don't know where you were but my experience is different. I grew up in Southern California equidistant from LA and Edwards AFB. In the 60's and 70's I definitely heard sonic booms. No one was taking off near us so they weren't damaging to property or people, as people expected the SST might be.
- hollerith 10y ago
  Interesting. Would call where you grew sparely populated? How about extremely sparsely populated. >I don't know where you were Massachusetts, South Florida, other places east of the Mississippi.
  - cardiffspaceman 10y ago
    The area is now called Santa Clarita, California. The area was then a clump of bedroom communities that may have totaled about 50 thousand people. Some farmland was still cultivated then (the aroma of the onion harvest is a childhood memory), sheep were even grazed. But there were tracts of houses and the tracts were already closely spaced enough to support three significant high schools. Even from a jet you should have known you were flying over a populated area by looking out the window.
    - hollerith 10y ago
      Thanks. Roughly how many sonic booms did you hear during your time there?