4 ms·
Dude... in the 70ies to 80ies I grew up where they gave a shit about supersonic flights, sometimes even low level. By the military, because COLT WAR! Sometimes
by LargoLasskhyfv 1y ago
Dude... in the 70ies to 80ies I grew up where they gave a shit about supersonic flights, sometimes even low level. By the military, because COLT WAR!
Sometimes one could read about broken windows indeed, but that depended more on how low they flew (While being supersonic).
Concorde @M2 somewhere between 12 to 16km altitude wouldn't do that.
- Y_Y 1y agoConcorde certainly did manage to damage buidings, for example by going supersonic while still over land. Paywalled academic article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0007362873900315 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/000736...
- LargoLasskhyfv 1y agoHrrm. Let's see. The boom levels experienced at these sites caused no greater response than the environment (weather, people, traffic). At two of the sites no boom damage was observed, however at Castleward house on two occasions a few roof slates were cracked and loosened. No conclusions could be reached as to the cumulative effect on a building of a large number of booms. Just from the abstract. No mention of altitude, could still have been relatively low, still climbing. Which always could be avoided by climbing slower.