3 ms·

I think a lot of people here are missing the author's point. It's not about letting people go faster per se. It's about the fact that the ban doesn't actually

I think a lot of people here are missing the author's point. It's not about letting people go faster per se. It's about the fact that the ban doesn't actually target the right thing. The purpose of the Mach 1+ ban is to reduce noise. But if the goal is to reduce noise, why not just set noise limits? We have the ability to measure noise, so if the goal is to reduce noise, set a limit on noise. Then let the airplane operators innovate however makes sense for their business. If you're worried about pollution (which is a good thing to worry about!) then there should be a separate fuel per mile limit or a carbon tax. Then they can innovate within both constraints. But the whole point is that the metric being used is wrong -- it should be noise output, not speed.

ccooffee 4y ago
This is a good summary of the author's point. In a historical context, it may be the case that the only useful way to enforce "quiet skies" was to put a speed limit, but that doesn't account for changes in technology that may enable quiet booms. Most commenters in this thread seem to take issue with the author's assumption that there is no other justification for a speed limit other than noise reduction. Honestly, I find the author's premise to be vaguely reasonable, but the whole thing is undermined by the god-awful chart which extrapolates historical aircraft speeds to imply that without the "speed limit" rule, we would have commercial aircraft crossing the Atlantic Ocean at 2500 mph. (Per wikipedia[0], the fastest manned aircraft in history, a SR-71 blackbird flight, capped out below 2200 mph.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record
- jedberg 4y ago
  Yeah this is a good point. The military was never capped by speed limits nor fuel costs or pollution limits. And even they didn't go faster than 2200mph as far as we know. Which either means there was no reason to figure out how to go faster, or they just couldn't do it. If the former, maybe with commercial pressures there would be a reason to go faster, but that's unlikely. And with the latter, well I'm not sure a commercial entity would out-innovate the military-industrial complex.
  - hughw 4y ago
    "as far as we know" -- they're famous though for trotting out the Blackbird and setting a new public speed record just exceeding whatever the Soviets had previously advertised.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    > The military was never capped by speed limits nor fuel costs or pollution limits. And even they didn't go faster than 2200mph as far as we know. But the military had other constraints, and needs. One thing the military doesn't need as much as the civilian world is comfort. You might prefer to go from New York to Hawaii in 2 hours instead of 11. The military might prefer that too, but maybe not as much. A lot of the things for which the military needs speed have alternatives: if you want to bomb a place, you can send missiles, if you want to surveil it, you may use satellites. If you want to evade some incoming surface-to-air missile, you are out of luck anyway. That's the reason the top speed of F-35 is lower than the top speed of earlier jet fighters like F-14, F-15 and F-16. On the other hand, the military needs to optimize for other things. Maneuverability. Ability to open up a bomb bay and drop bombs (imagine Concorde opening up some hatch in the middle of its supersonic flight). Capability to take off from shorter runways. High G forces. And of course for more recent military jets low observability. Compared to that, civilian aircraft is very boring: it needs to fly at a constant altitude and constant speed. That's the reason Concorde flew more supersonic miles than all the military jet fighters in the world combined.
TinkersW 4y ago
Author never stated what the current noise level is, but in my experience when I'm in the middle of nowhere and a jet passes over at cruising altitude, I pretty much can't hear it If this changes it so that this is no longer true, then no, screw this idea. Plus the reality is it would just be used by rich people to jet about, probably emitting much more c02 per mile.
falsenapkin 4y ago
I think "noise limits" should extend beyond simple decibel. Even if sonic booms can be made much quieter, just a random faint explosion, if I can still hear them I will go nuts. The unpredictability and suddenness of it would be the problem, not the volume. Currently working up the energy to go on a walk so I don't have to hear my neighbors drying machine turn on and off at random intervals.
aeternum 4y ago
Absolutely right, it is somewhat disappointing that the top two comments are just negative gut reactions by commenters that don't seem to have actually read the article.

ccooffee 4y ago

This is a good summary of the author's point. In a historical context, it may be the case that the only useful way to enforce "quiet skies" was to put a speed limit, but that doesn't account for changes in technology that may enable quiet booms. Most commenters in this thread seem to take issue with the author's assumption that there is no other justification for a speed limit other than noise reduction. Honestly, I find the author's premise to be vaguely reasonable, but the whole thing is undermined by the god-awful chart which extrapolates historical aircraft speeds to imply that without the "speed limit" rule, we would have commercial aircraft crossing the Atlantic Ocean at 2500 mph. (Per wikipedia[0], the fastest manned aircraft in history, a SR-71 blackbird flight, capped out below 2200 mph.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record

jedberg 4y ago
Yeah this is a good point. The military was never capped by speed limits nor fuel costs or pollution limits. And even they didn't go faster than 2200mph as far as we know. Which either means there was no reason to figure out how to go faster, or they just couldn't do it. If the former, maybe with commercial pressures there would be a reason to go faster, but that's unlikely. And with the latter, well I'm not sure a commercial entity would out-innovate the military-industrial complex.
- hughw 4y ago
  "as far as we know" -- they're famous though for trotting out the Blackbird and setting a new public speed record just exceeding whatever the Soviets had previously advertised.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > The military was never capped by speed limits nor fuel costs or pollution limits. And even they didn't go faster than 2200mph as far as we know. But the military had other constraints, and needs. One thing the military doesn't need as much as the civilian world is comfort. You might prefer to go from New York to Hawaii in 2 hours instead of 11. The military might prefer that too, but maybe not as much. A lot of the things for which the military needs speed have alternatives: if you want to bomb a place, you can send missiles, if you want to surveil it, you may use satellites. If you want to evade some incoming surface-to-air missile, you are out of luck anyway. That's the reason the top speed of F-35 is lower than the top speed of earlier jet fighters like F-14, F-15 and F-16. On the other hand, the military needs to optimize for other things. Maneuverability. Ability to open up a bomb bay and drop bombs (imagine Concorde opening up some hatch in the middle of its supersonic flight). Capability to take off from shorter runways. High G forces. And of course for more recent military jets low observability. Compared to that, civilian aircraft is very boring: it needs to fly at a constant altitude and constant speed. That's the reason Concorde flew more supersonic miles than all the military jet fighters in the world combined.

TinkersW 4y ago

Author never stated what the current noise level is, but in my experience when I'm in the middle of nowhere and a jet passes over at cruising altitude, I pretty much can't hear it If this changes it so that this is no longer true, then no, screw this idea. Plus the reality is it would just be used by rich people to jet about, probably emitting much more c02 per mile.

falsenapkin 4y ago

I think "noise limits" should extend beyond simple decibel. Even if sonic booms can be made much quieter, just a random faint explosion, if I can still hear them I will go nuts. The unpredictability and suddenness of it would be the problem, not the volume. Currently working up the energy to go on a walk so I don't have to hear my neighbors drying machine turn on and off at random intervals.

aeternum 4y ago

Absolutely right, it is somewhat disappointing that the top two comments are just negative gut reactions by commenters that don't seem to have actually read the article.