He notes overland supersonic flight isn't allowed but not why it isn't allowed (both in Europe and in the US). BTW, military fighter aircraft break sound over land all the time and life (might not be permitted over the UK, though) goes happily on. The issue is air traffic control and the need to go transonic to match speeds every time a passenger carrying commercial supersonic aircraft enters controlled space.
Physics says to move a mass faster one applies more work. In this day and age no business will buy into moving a small bunch of toffs at Mach 1.5 at a hideous increase in the amount of energy expended over what is needed to move at 500mph. There is no need for a speed capability when you have to fly assigned speed, heading, and altitude in controlled airspace which includes the flight-lanes between those spaces. Concord lived a brilliant life during its time, but died because it was operationally, socially, and financially obsolete, and arguably was before it flew. SST never got off the ground for the same reason. There was only a tiny market then and there is no market now.
Your thesis whinging Americans somehow made all the difference to the life or death of Concorde isn't even addressed in that not very well argued few paragraphs, and still is not a fair accusation. Sure, they might have whined piteously then and might congratulate themselves with awards and wikipedia edits now but, in the great scheme of things, they made no difference one way or the other.
Message Thread
« Back to index