5 ms·
Wasn't that partly because of intense lobbying in the US to disallow it to fly overland routes (even subsonically) because of "sonic boom noise"?
by philjohn 5y ago
Wasn't that partly because of intense lobbying in the US to disallow it to fly overland routes (even subsonically) because of "sonic boom noise"?
- dghlsakjg 5y agoSonic boom noise/damage is a very real thing, and the engines on Concord were VERY loud compared to modern high bypass turbofans even when not operating supersonic. Flying the Concord subsonically doesn't make much sense; the range was tailored to cross the Atlantic at supersonic speeds (4,400 mi range. 3,600 mi trip. Don't forget that it needs to reserve 30 minutes of fuel, in addition to the nearest alternate). If you slow it down over land it gets less efficient so you really can't get too much farther than the coasts unless you stop to refuel. But then you've just got a low capacity, loud, expensive to operate subsonic plane. The reality is that the Concord was very good at one thing, getting across the North Atlantic at speed. But it was much worse for almost anything else since it lacked the range for longer crossings (it had about half the range of a 747), and wasn't a good option for subsonic overland travel, and consumed more fuel per passenger per mile.