3 ms·

It was expensive because they only built 14 aircraft (plus 6 prototypes). And the overflight bans were a large part of the reason for all the sales to fall tho

by phire 1y ago

It was expensive because they only built 14 aircraft (plus 6 prototypes). And the overflight bans were a large part of the reason for all the sales to fall though. If the development/maintenance costs had been split over hundreds of craft as planned, they would have been much cheaper to both buy and maintain. There is still the issue of high fuel costs, but fun fact, most of the cancellations came in months before the 1973 oil crisis.

pfdietz 1y ago
The most important datum is that Boeing refused to build an SST without large government subsidy. This was evidence they decided there wasn't much of a market. And this decision was taken before the 1973 mideast war that kicked off the oil embargo and energy crisis. Today, we see similar evidence in that Boom is being forced to develop their own engine because none of the actual engine makers want to make an engine suitable for a SST. I believe there is considerable skepticism that Boom will be able to do this, btw. It should be noted that even subsonic airliners have gotten a bit slower over time. Fuel economy > travel time for them to some extent, even being subsonic.
- phire 1y ago
  The SST project was basically a government project. They even had both Boeing, Lockheed and North American submitting competing design proposals. They were also originally targeting the transcontinental market, so it would have exclusively flown over land, so the sonic boom issue was way more devastating. They actually ran tests, flying supersonic military aircraft over Oklahoma City for months to see how regular supersonic booms would affect the public. The public outcry was a large part of the reason why congress cancelled the SST project in 1971, long before 1973. They then immediately introduced the supersonic overflight ban to hinder operation of Concorde.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    There was also concern that the NOx produced in the stratosphere would affect the ozone layer. This was about the time concern about the ozone layer was ramping up.

by phire 1y ago

pfdietz 1y ago

The most important datum is that Boeing refused to build an SST without large government subsidy. This was evidence they decided there wasn't much of a market. And this decision was taken before the 1973 mideast war that kicked off the oil embargo and energy crisis. Today, we see similar evidence in that Boom is being forced to develop their own engine because none of the actual engine makers want to make an engine suitable for a SST. I believe there is considerable skepticism that Boom will be able to do this, btw. It should be noted that even subsonic airliners have gotten a bit slower over time. Fuel economy > travel time for them to some extent, even being subsonic.

phire 1y ago
The SST project was basically a government project. They even had both Boeing, Lockheed and North American submitting competing design proposals. They were also originally targeting the transcontinental market, so it would have exclusively flown over land, so the sonic boom issue was way more devastating. They actually ran tests, flying supersonic military aircraft over Oklahoma City for months to see how regular supersonic booms would affect the public. The public outcry was a large part of the reason why congress cancelled the SST project in 1971, long before 1973. They then immediately introduced the supersonic overflight ban to hinder operation of Concorde.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  There was also concern that the NOx produced in the stratosphere would affect the ozone layer. This was about the time concern about the ozone layer was ramping up.