3 ms·
> The entire point of this concept is removing that noise pollution. My understanding was that the noise-reduction was specifically for sonic booms. If I under
by DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
> The entire point of this concept is removing that noise pollution.
My understanding was that the noise-reduction was specifically for sonic booms. If I understand correctly, commercializing this would mean a transition from no sonic booms to quieter-than-before sonic booms. From my own, personal perspective that's a net-negative.
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoSpeaking as someone who used to live pretty close to an airport, I'd point out that normal airliners are not without noise pollution, and I'd rather it be gone sooner rather than later. The faster a plane crosses the horizon, the less of your time will have noise pollution. Then the question becomes how much quieter these sonic booms are, and how they compare to more traditional airliners' noise pollution.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y agoI live 10-15 miles from a small regional airport, but apparently near one of the approach paths. I agree with the potential tradeoffs you listed. I'd also add that my concerns are ultimately pyscho-acoustic, which complicates the analysis.
- jhayward 7y agoThe planes you are noticing are all below the 10,000 ft level (i.e., on approach or takeoff) and are required to fly no faster than 250 knots. No supersonic aircraft will be flying supersonic on approach or at low altitude. If their engines are noisy they will be louder for the same amount of time as others.