Why are supersonic jets illegal?

>>1032440
Because they fuck up the ozone.

>>1032452
>Aren't smart enough in 2016 to make them more environmentally friendly?
I bet you Elon will do it.

Because supersonic chemtrails is a little too much, even for the gubberment.

>>1032440
Boeing.

They lost the SST and wanted to shut down the Concorde in favor of large, slow aircraft. So they funded the 'Ban the Bang' campaign.

>>1032440
If it would be economical it would be done.

Some UK consortium is actually building a 20 passenger super sonic jet to fly between LHR and JFK, I remember reading somewhere the projected ticket price would be about $10k per seat (not sure if one-way or return ticket).

>>1033141
We have the funds, the gov can definitely fund it if they see that another competitive country is doing it.

>>1032453
Supersonic engines literally can't be made more environmentally friendly than existing subsonic jet engines.

>>1033133
None of what you said is correct. It was known during Concorde's development that it wouldn't be an economic success.

File: ValkyriePassenger2.jpg (21KB, 960x576px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 960x576px

>>1033327
Wrong. The anticipated sales of 350 planes would have made it profitable for Aérospatiale/BAC. After they were banned from many land overflights, the total number built was 20. That turned out to be a money loser for the manufacturers. But BA and Air France made good money flying them. And once airline deregulation freed them from prices set by regulations, they were able to drop ticket prices somewhat. Still expensive compared to economy, but in line with business/first class rates at the time.

Boeing couldn't figure out how to make one that would actually fly, so they screamed and stamped their little feet and got over land supersonic flight banned, killing the Concorde's market.

The US Congress simply picked the wrong company for the contract. Pic related.

Are they a better idea for asia-pacific flights? High populations and lots of large coastal cities.

>>1033488
You're full of fucking shit. The French and British development teams knew during development that demand wouldn't be there. Nearly all potential customers that had expressed interest had already backed out by the time it entered service.

> they were able to drop ticket prices somewhat
Except they actually raised prices based on specific market research of price expectations.

> but in line with business/first class rates at the time.
Egregiously fucking false.

> Boeing couldn't figure out how to make one that would actually fly
Neat, so you believe urban legends.

>>1033525
You need 787's range for that which is not happening

>>1032440
they arent illegal, retard.

>>1032452
just take your retarded 60s propaganda elsewhere faggot

>>1032453
who the FUCK CARES? an A380 uses about 18 tons of fuel every hour. 18 fucking tons. not even the concorde used that much. it doesnt fucking matter.

>>1033531
> Boeing couldn't figure out how to make one that would actually fly
hes right.
they couldnt, retard.

>>1033574
Go ahead and keep making scientifically false claims nigger.

>>1033574
> what is fuel use per seat-mile
Learn how airliner fuel efficiency is measured.

>>1033604
>fuel efficiency
the guy i responded to was talking about environmentally friendlyness, faggot. learn to fucking read.

>>1033603
like what

>>1033607
You're dumb as fuck. Fuel efficiency is the only measure by which airliner "environmental friendliness" is determined. Hang yourself immediately.

File: Steinadler.jpg (623KB, 1920x1278px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 1920x1278px

>>1033608
you stupid fucking degenrate retard.

>open flightradar24
>filter for 747, 777, A380, A330, A300, A340
>all these planes use as much fuel as the concorde did, or more
>tell me how big the fucking difference if 2 more or less of these would be up in the air

just fucking kill yourself. nobody gives a fucking SHIT if one or two planes more using >10 tons of JET A an hour are up there. its fucking NOTHING compared to whats already happening.

you know what emirates does if they get a different RWY assigned and the taxi distance is shorter than predicted? they set the parking brakes and give thrust until the 777 weights 2 tons less.

shove your "envirnonmentally friendly planes" up your fucking ass. the volume of SS Airliners would be so small, theres literally no fucking difference at all.

>>1033611
You are literally rejecting the entire model on which airlines measure the economics of their operations. Everything you've said is counter to what every single airline on the planet does from a business model perspective in reality.

>>1033614
youre mixing up ecology and economy, idiot. lrn2words.

>>1033611
So you didn't even dispute that the Concorde is 3x less efficient than current last generation turbojet commercial aircraft. Excellent.

>>1033618
>efficiency
holy shit are you fucking retarded? OF COURSE its not efficient. its going mach 2.2. if you want efficient, buy a turboprop.

im saying the ecological difference some SS airliners make is fucking NOTHING. the discussion was about never about ECONOMY. economy and ecology are two different words you goddamn troglodyte

>>1033617
They are directly correlated for a commercial airliner. You're the product of several consecutive generations of incest. It's the only explanation for your existence.

This thread is a huge shitpile and you should all chug bleach.

>>1033622
>They are directly correlated
naw they arent. pack your shit and leave, you have been too retarded to keep two words with different meaning apart and now you try to control the damage.

>>1032440

Are you greentexting your own thought?

>>1032440
>supersonic jets illegal
Call up Thunder City nigga

>>1033626
> how much fuel is burned per passenger over a given distance isn't the exact metric by which airlines measure efficiency
Oh wait, it is.

File: XB70 cutaway.jpg (47KB, 736x353px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 736x353px

>>1033488
Literally every sentence you wrote was false. Just to pick one: the only reason the "made good month flying them" is because every ticket was highly subsidized by the French & British governments...so that $7500 one-way ticket price was only 50% of the actual price. And your pic. Here's a cutout of the Valkyrie....see any room for passengers behind the crew of 2? Heck, they barely remembered to put in a tiny payload bay for a single nuke.

File: guardians-galaxy-2-drax-4k-clip.jpg (91KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1200x630px

>>1033488
Nice!!

>>1032440
Assuming you're asking for widespread SST and not luxury accommodation, it is simply infeasible.

Supersonic drag and the associated fuel efficiency losses and low allowable passenger counts offset the greater flights-per-day an SST can make. That's ignoring the issues of sonic boom on people on the ground (Boeing-funded or not, the results are tangible and important).

Think of it this way: A British Airways Concorde carried 100 passengers from London to New York in 3 and a half hours, at roughly 203.47 gallons of fuel per passenger.
A British Airways 747-400 in average configuration carries 299 passengers on the same route in 7 and a half hours, at about 48 gallons per passenger.

That's a third of the passengers in half the time with 1.25x the fuel. From a business perspective, a senseless decision. That's ignoring the incredible maintenance and procurement costs of an SST.

It would, at best, be a high class luxury flight, for those with an adventurous side or a need to be somewhere immediately. Otherwise it would make absolutely no business sense to do it.

>>1033574
>an A380 uses about 18 tons of fuel every hour. 18 fucking tons. not even the concorde used that much. it doesnt fucking matter.
The A380 also carries SIX TIMES as many paying passengers as the Concorde, you dip. It matters because people aren't willing to pay an order of magnitude more PER SEAT just to get there a few hours sooner.

>>1033621
who the hell here is talking about ecology? those bans aren't for ecology

>>1033817
except they are willing to?

>>1033828
The airlines aren't, that's for sure. Once the British govt. sold Concorde to BA it met a swift end due to the insane upkeep cost compared to its profits.

The demand wasn't there.

>>1033830
except BA was the one who eager to buy the concorde so they don't need to split their profit to British government?

>>1033626
jesus christ this has to be one of the most retarded """arguments""" ive ever seen. hang yourself.

>>1033682

My point here is that North American Aviation actually knew how to take a specification and build an airplane that will fly.

>>1033682
>see any room for passengers behind the crew of 2

Crew deck of four, actually. And even given the B-70 fuselage, just move the EE cooling and body fuel tank to the two weapons bays and you free up enough room for about 20 passengers.

>>1033531
>Neat, so you believe urban legends.
I used to work at Boeing with some of the people on the SST program. Some smart engineers (all gone after the merger with McD-D) and lots of knuckle-dragging morons in management (who stayed on until retirement).

>>1033827
how about you actually read what i posted, and especially what the dude posted i replied to? this whole argument started because one fucking retard (this one: >>1033842 ) cant differ between economy and ecology

>>1033849
And it would still be wholly inferior in efficiency compared to modern subsonic airliners.

Again, Concorde (which carries 5 times the projected passengers you're determining) is still useless compared to a 747.

>>1033832
Richard Branson was allowed a minimum £1 million per plane when he offered to buy the Concorde fleet from them.

Compare that to a new 777 running for £250 million. They were practically GIVING Concorde away.

Even if BA wanted them at first, that enthusiasm dropped fast when Airbus stopped giving parts and 9/11 continued ruining air travel.

>>1033952
>inferior in efficiency

Not if you place a very high value on getting somewhere fast. A completely different market segment than what they cram into a 747 or A380.

I used to work for a company (not a very large one) that spent a couple of million a year to keep several business jets and crew maintained and on call for a couple of flights a year of their executives. Just hopping around the Pacific Northwest. If they were in a line of business that required occasional flights to someplace like London (from Seattle) dropping a few hundred thousand a ticket would have been chump change. B-70 based business jet? Bring it on!