4 ms·

Really, it had a great deal more to do with politics: specifically, the Europeans had a supersonic airliner and the US didn't, so there was no way in hell the U

by rodgerd 12y ago

Really, it had a great deal more to do with politics: specifically, the Europeans had a supersonic airliner and the US didn't, so there was no way in hell the US government was going to do anything other than make it as difficult to use as possible.

hollerith 12y ago
Do you have any specific reasons to believe that the USG ever stopped or even simply tried to discourage the Concorde from flying to airports on the U.S. East Coast? As for flying over populated parts of the U.S. at supersonic speeds, not even the U.S. Air Force gets to do that. (Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8209976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8209976)
- WildUtah 12y ago
  I've been in a sonic boom under a navy plane in the continental USA, not adjacent to any military base. But it only happened once, so maybe it was a mistake.
jpatokal 12y ago
I take it you're referring to the "no sonic boom in my backyard" shenanigans that hampered flights to/from/over the US in the early days? These were sorted out for the key NY-Europe routes by 1977, just over a year from first commercial flight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Operational_history
- aidenn0 12y ago
  That only solved the transoceanic flights. No LAX to JFK flights for the Concorde.
bootload 12y ago
> the Europeans had a supersonic airliner and the US didn't Technically no, but the 747 is fast, almost too fast in these days of fuel economy. The 747 was designed by Boeing to do M.87 (Pan Am wanted M.9) , though it now sits around M.855 (913 km/h) [1] due mainly to the requirement of fuel efficiency over raw speed. Almost Mach 1. How did Boeing designers get this speed? Hint: The hump and area rule (min drag > M.8) [2] Now a DC8 was pushed to M1.012 under special conditions. [3] And as a point of interest, Air Force One (VC-25A) is rated at M0.92 (1015 km/h). [4] [1] http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400er_prod.page http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400e...? [2] http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0150a.shtml http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0150a.shtm... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-8#Production_and_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-8#Production_and_te... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25#Specifications_.28VC-25A.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25#Specifications_.2...
- idlewords 12y ago
  The high speed of the 747 is a function of its wing sweep. The hump and area rule have nothing to do with it.
  - bootload 12y ago
    "... The fastest airplane out there today is the 747. Not one of them has been able to match the cruise speed of the 747. That indicates to me that it’s a high-technology airplane ..." Joe Sutter [0] wing sweep alone doesn't explain why the 747 is the fastest subsonic transport to date. If it did, competitors would have copied the idea. I'm curious why? Boeing describe it as a combination of wing design, engine, electro-mechanical systems. Maybe I should ask Boeing. [0] http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2006/08/father_knows_best.html http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2006/08/father_kno...
    - idlewords 12y ago
      Because the penalty for that speed is higher fuel burn. That's why Boeing is having trouble selling the 747-8, and why four-engine airliners in general are getting phased out. My source for the wing sweep thing is also Joe Sutter, in his wonderful book. Also highly recommend Widebody, by Clive Irving, which is sadly out of print.
vermontdevil 12y ago
Really? I saw the Concorde at OshKosh Air Show. Doubt they had problems flying there, landing, and setting up for viewing plus several demonstration flights. After that, I recall they were set to fly out west coast for another show. Don't think the USG had any issues with the plane. Not to mention the flights from JFK to Heathrow and Paris.
- shoobedowop 12y ago
  It didn't fly supersonic over the CONUS. USG actively blocked Concorde in the early days, hence the first routes were to the ME and not the US.

by rodgerd 12y ago

hollerith 12y ago

Do you have any specific reasons to believe that the USG ever stopped or even simply tried to discourage the Concorde from flying to airports on the U.S. East Coast? As for flying over populated parts of the U.S. at supersonic speeds, not even the U.S. Air Force gets to do that. (Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8209976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8209976)

WildUtah 12y ago
I've been in a sonic boom under a navy plane in the continental USA, not adjacent to any military base. But it only happened once, so maybe it was a mistake.

jpatokal 12y ago

I take it you're referring to the "no sonic boom in my backyard" shenanigans that hampered flights to/from/over the US in the early days? These were sorted out for the key NY-Europe routes by 1977, just over a year from first commercial flight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Operational_history

aidenn0 12y ago
That only solved the transoceanic flights. No LAX to JFK flights for the Concorde.

bootload 12y ago

> the Europeans had a supersonic airliner and the US didn't Technically no, but the 747 is fast, almost too fast in these days of fuel economy. The 747 was designed by Boeing to do M.87 (Pan Am wanted M.9) , though it now sits around M.855 (913 km/h) [1] due mainly to the requirement of fuel efficiency over raw speed. Almost Mach 1. How did Boeing designers get this speed? Hint: The hump and area rule (min drag > M.8) [2] Now a DC8 was pushed to M1.012 under special conditions. [3] And as a point of interest, Air Force One (VC-25A) is rated at M0.92 (1015 km/h). [4] [1] http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400er_prod.page http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400e...? [2] http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0150a.shtml http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0150a.shtm... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-8#Production_and_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-8#Production_and_te... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25#Specifications_.28VC-25A.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25#Specifications_.2...

idlewords 12y ago
The high speed of the 747 is a function of its wing sweep. The hump and area rule have nothing to do with it.
- bootload 12y ago
  "... The fastest airplane out there today is the 747. Not one of them has been able to match the cruise speed of the 747. That indicates to me that it’s a high-technology airplane ..." Joe Sutter [0] wing sweep alone doesn't explain why the 747 is the fastest subsonic transport to date. If it did, competitors would have copied the idea. I'm curious why? Boeing describe it as a combination of wing design, engine, electro-mechanical systems. Maybe I should ask Boeing. [0] http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2006/08/father_knows_best.html http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2006/08/father_kno...
  - idlewords 12y ago
    Because the penalty for that speed is higher fuel burn. That's why Boeing is having trouble selling the 747-8, and why four-engine airliners in general are getting phased out. My source for the wing sweep thing is also Joe Sutter, in his wonderful book. Also highly recommend Widebody, by Clive Irving, which is sadly out of print.

vermontdevil 12y ago

Really? I saw the Concorde at OshKosh Air Show. Doubt they had problems flying there, landing, and setting up for viewing plus several demonstration flights. After that, I recall they were set to fly out west coast for another show. Don't think the USG had any issues with the plane. Not to mention the flights from JFK to Heathrow and Paris.

shoobedowop 12y ago
It didn't fly supersonic over the CONUS. USG actively blocked Concorde in the early days, hence the first routes were to the ME and not the US.