The sonic boom made Concorde's economics harder, but they'd have been hard anyway. It confined it to largely only being useful for that transatlantic route, and that was borderline economically viable for airlines. However, as there was really only one route where it was useful, there were not many Concordes flying and the fixed costs were considerable. Eventually Airbus pulled the plug, and ended maintenance, and that was the end of that. It was probably spurred on by a high-profile disaster, but even without that, the writing was on the wall; if you were an airline Concorde looked economically viable, but without subsidy by the state or by Airbus or both, it never had been.
In a world where there had been many viable Concorde routes, this could all have worked out a lot differently, Concorde B might have happened (which would have allowed a Pacific crossing), and maybe we'd still see supersonic airliners.
Even without the sonic boom, it was painfully loud on takeoff and final approach. It used to fly over us near Heathrow and the ground would shake as it went over at a few thousand feet.
Concorde B allowed a Pacific crossing in a technical sense, if you did a technical stop in Anchorage or Honolulu. And then only to Japan, but not to Korea or China.
In the 90s and 2000s you would have had 747s and a340s doing that nonstop without Anchorage or Honolulu, so if anything that would have made concorde B have an even shorter shelf life.
> Didn't the SR71 fly between LA and NY at above supersonic speeds? Don't military jets fly at supersonic speeds above land?
I think not routinely in either case? Most supersonic aircraft can't actually sustain supersonic speeds for a significant period; the Concorde and Tu-144 are, as far as I know, the only aircraft ever designed with supersonic flight as the effective _default_ mode of operation. For both planes, _getting_ to supersonic was rather expensive, and required the use of afterburners, so an ideal flight profile would involve ramping up to supersonic once, and then staying that way for the rest of the flight.
The SR71 was, unusually, _capable_ of sustained long-range supersonic flight, but I can't imagine it was routinely used above land when not actually on missions; why would it be?
> The SR71 was, unusually, _capable_ of sustained long-range supersonic flight, but I can't imagine it was routinely used above land when not actually on missions; why would it be?
Everything a military plane does is a mission, and the SR-71 absolutely did supersonic training missions over the US.
And as I understand, the military can and still does do supersonic training missions over land, but they do it at higher altitudes and in locations where it isn't disruptive to population centers.
_Can_, but does it routinely outside of training/deployment situations? Like if you're just moving one from one side of the US to the other, you're probably going subsonic.
> Don't military jets fly at supersonic speeds above land?
It can happen, but it is disruptive at best. It isn't something you'd want happening around a populated area on a routine basis in peacetime. And it typically is not, unless under emergency circumstances.
Thd only time I've ever heard a sonic boom was as a kid, on holiday in the south of France. They would regularly fly Mirage jets over the beach resorts. I suspect these flights were for when Gen. de Gaulle was in residence at the Chateau d'If.
>The sonic boom made Concorde's economics harder...
I live in south-east Canada in the province of PEI and I hope no supersonic aircraft are made. Right now all commercial air traffic from NA flies right over my house. Especially every evening the rumble of high flying jets can he heard. It's not loud but it's certainly noticeable for something 10,000m above me.
In a world where there had been many viable Concorde routes, this could all have worked out a lot differently, Concorde B might have happened (which would have allowed a Pacific crossing), and maybe we'd still see supersonic airliners.