4 ms·
In general there was a time when supersonic flight was considered the future evolution that will displace the existing tech, like jets displaced propeller aircr
by sofixa 4y ago
In general there was a time when supersonic flight was considered the future evolution that will displace the existing tech, like jets displaced propeller aircraft. The Concorde was supposed to be the first one, and it was designed as a general use plane, it wasn't until much later British Airways and Air France thought about marketing it for business/first class "luxury" experience.
For a myriad of reasons ( Boeing failing to make their own supersonic airliner which helped the US Congress banning supersonic flights over the US being one of them), we never got there though, and it seems we never will since the currently planned crop of supersonic airliners ( Boom and co) are specifically targeting the business niche.
- jsjohnst 4y ago> Boeing failing to make their own supersonic airliner which helped the US Congress banning supersonic flights over the US being one of them You sure about that order? I thought supersonic domestic flights got banned in the US and then the Boeing supersonic airliner was doomed. I’m not positive, hence asking.
- sofixa 4y agoNope, government funding of Boeing's SST was cut in 1971, while the SST ban over the US was enacted in 1973. It's fairly certain that had Boeing made an SST there wouldn't have been any ban.
- jsjohnst 4y agoThanks! I only knew the oft parroted version of the story from family members who worked at Boeing. I guess the detail I didn’t immediately recall was “plane over budget” (which likely lead to the government funding you mentioned being pulled). I still believe that the biggest reason for the ban was NIMBYs though, if you’ve ever been around sonic booms you know how intrusive they are. I lived just far enough away from a military base as a kid that we happened to be near where pilots would occasionally go super sonic as part of their training. After living in California years later and experiencing multiple earthquakes, I’d say the sonic boom was about like a magnitude 6, but only lasting for a couple seconds.
- dorfsmay 4y agoIsn't the main reason the amount of fuel required to fly supersonic?
- bobthepanda 4y agoThe designs did burn a lot of fuel, but sonic booms were also extremely unpopular. The FAA picked Oklahoma City (without asking them first) for an experiment to subject a city to regular sonic booms. It, uh, didn’t go well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tes...
- dorfsmay 4y agoRight, but what I meant was that it'd be difficult to have a sustainable supersonic flight business given the fuel consumption required at those sppeds. My understanding is that even though Air France and British Airways were charging twice the price of normal first class for Concord, they were losing money on them. I'm surprised there aren't supersonic business jet though.
- sofixa 4y ago> My understanding is that even though Air France and British Airways were charging twice the price of normal first class for Concord, they were losing money on them. They weren't, the Concordes were quite profitable until 9/11 and the following slump in international travel ( due to fear, increased controls and inconveniences) and increase in oil prices. > I'm surprised there aren't supersonic business jet though There are companies trying to build supersonic business jets, like Boom.
- Deritiod 4y agoIt was a novelty. The market was small the expectation that it costly but still profitable is easy. But I wouldn't care for sonic travel besides the novelty. Price wins