posted on Jun, 29 2018 @ 07:43 AM
a reply to: 1947boomer
If this was 1973 I would agree with you, it isn't. Plus it wasn't Boeing that conquered supersonic airliners.
As for the reasons that Concorde didn't take off, it had very little to do with the economics, as BA repeatedly pointed out, once they had the seat
price point where it should have been Concorde was actually the most profitable operation they had. Yes we all know that effectively the UK and French
taxpayer bankrolled it but it wasn't loosing money. No what really killed off Supersonic transports was the anti campaign that miraculously sprang up
after it became clear that the US was never going to close the gap on the Concorde effort. And that was the fault of the US administration of the time
that unreasonably directed Boeing and Lockheed to out do the Europeans at any cost with an answer that flew faster and higher and with twice the
number of people. And in 1967-73 that just wasn't practical with the design and material science available. Forty five years later however, it is very
possible. A 300 seat 7500-9000 mile range Mach 1.8 airliner is actually doable and without the intolerable sonic boom. I think a Mach 5 is also
doable but it isn't nearly so reachable as a supersonic step that could see a ticket between say SYD-LHR or LAX -NRT for maybe 10-20% above a current
economy ticket in half the time when all factors are considered, that is immediately doable.
And we know that the restrictions on supersonic travel over land and populated areas is about to change, even the FAA has conceded this.