The skies of Oklahoma City roared for six months in 1964 as military aircraft intentionally rattled the population below with a daily barrage of thunderous sonic booms. It was a controversial test — the consequences of which have lingered to this day.
Two approaches in the works could revolutionize air travel by making future supersonic passenger planes compliant with the FAA’s new noise rules: Colorado-based company Boom Supersonic, which is specifically mentioned in the FAA proposal, plans to use physics to prevent sonic booms from ever reaching the ground, regardless of plane design. NASA, on the other hand, is flying an experimental plane called X-59 that is specifically designed to reduce the intensity of the boom.
That one big hurdle is “What’s the fucking point”? The number of people who need to get halfway around the world six hours faster and who are willing to pay ten times as much for the privilege is vanishingly small, and frankly, that’s not a problem that needs solving.
I mean Boeing can’t even build subsonic airplanes any more and Airbus. . .well, they have “Bus” in their name. Who needs a supersonic bus?
deleted by creator
Sure that was why there was never really a business case for Concorde, but ……
I haven’t met a lot of private jet owners, but one in particular I absolutely know would buy a faster private jet if he could get one - and private jets are a lot like beach mansions - generally, the people who can afford one, can afford several.
You might be able to make it less uneconomical, but air resistance is a bitch. You wanna go twice as fast, you need four times as much power, and now you need a heavier plane to carry all that fuel. Which uses more fuel because of how heavy it is. Diminishing returns kicked in before you even got airborne, and now you’re just throwing thrust at the problem and you’re throwing fuel at the thrust.
Sure, there are some people who don’t give a fuck, and would be willing to expend whatever in fuel and emissions to build a plane that will use as much fuel as a commercial liner that carries hundreds to get six people to Dubai a couple hours faster, but no sane government would allow that kind of plane to be built or even land on their territory because of how plainly awful that math is for everybody not richer than god.
Right?
Unless your supersonic aircraft is up a lot higher than your subsonic one. Coffin corner is a different beast when you can go above Mach 1.
So perhaps this will work out as twice as fast for only 3 times the fuel. An acceptable tradeoff, perhaps.
There are people who DGAF, and there are people who don’t mind flying at a higher altitude, where the air is thinner and the resistance is less.
Oh, about the fuel thing… I go fishing with my Uncle, he’s got a little V8 inboard, probably spends $10 per day to go out and catch our licensed limits of fish. He’s got a friend who won the lottery and bought a big 1200hp outboard open fisherman, he’ll go blow $1000 in fuel in the same time to catch half as many fish, but he does get to go farther, faster.
Private jets should be illegal
You dont see an immediate usecase for faster travel and point out its cost as if costs do not come down over time.
Who needs a flatter screen, a few people with enough money to make freeing up a foot and a half behind their tv a worthwile expense isnt really a problem worth solving.
Your second point is amazing, irrefutable.