It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by waynos
A NASA scientist was quoted many years ago as saying that building Concorde and making it work was harder than putting a man on the Moon, maybe people should think about that?
The reality was the jet age itself was in its infancy, people were just getting used to the idea of traveling at close to Mach 1, was there there really a demand for a Mach 2 transport?
Of course noise with an SST is an issue. Flying over the Atlantic at Mach 2 is a lot different than flying over continental airspace where there's no way to avoid disturbing people with the sonic boom. I don't know about Europe but there's a constant battle here in North America around the needs of people living in residential areas near airports and the desire to bring in ever more aircraft. Noise has always been an issue since the start of large scale air travel and the Concord was one of the loudest aircraft built.
Originally posted by stumason
On a side note, the Soviet "Concordski" never was a success as when they stole the plans off us for the Concorde (they were virtually identical) we deliberately let them have some plans that were "wrong". Unfortunately, the problems this caused on the aircraft led to disaster and loss of life. But at least the Russians never figured it out!
is not that realistic though its right to say the plane would of been in terms of spec a better plane.
If the additional range and performance had been available many more airlines might have purchased Concorde and air travel as we know it today might have been completely different.