JHOPKINS@UGA.BITNET (John Hopkins) (01/24/89)
Just limiting supersonic flight (military or otherwise) to areas over
ocean doesn't always work in protecting the populace from the noise of
sonic booms. Under certain conditions those booms can travel for a great
distance. There was a tremendous stink about ten to twelve years ago
along the coast of South Carolina regarding what were called "airquakes."
These strange vibrations were quite a mystery in an earthquake-gittery
region. To make a long story short, the airquakes were finally traced to
supersonic military aircraft far out over the ocean. As soon as the
media published the military sonic boom explanation, the airquakes stopped.
"The System ain't John Hopkins
the Solution" College of Business Administration
Univ. of Georgiame85mda@cc.brunel.ac.uk (M D Ayton) (01/31/89)
>>The delay was from court battles over the noise issue.
Right, I've just about had enough of this.
Concorde was banned from American airports ONLY while it was still being
built and on the SPURIOUS gruonds of noise.
I'd better explain the last, because Concorde is, without doubt, a noisy
aircraft. One of Concorde's "added extras" is its truly incredible low-speed
manoueverability; this meant that during noise tests at JFK (I think) British
Airways, in conjunction with BAe, was able to pull a rather neat trick. The
location of the noise monitors at the airport was found and the pilot (who
must have been something special) was instructed to fly an approach path
which kept him as far as possible from the monitors at all times. When the
officials subsequently checked the recordings, Concorde had been DROWNED OUT
by the background roar from American BOEING 747s. As I recall, nobody then
suggested that the American craft may have been too noisy :-) .
So, lets face the real, and unpalatable, reason for Concorde's demise: At the
time *NO* American manufacturer was capable of building a supersonic carrier,
and on the principle of "if you can't join them, beat them" lobbied, lied,
bribed and cheated their way to making it uneconomic for anyone else to build
such a carrier either. That action is the root cause of there being no new
supersonic carrier being made and sold today. You have only yourselves to
blame.
Isolationism and protectionism are a sad, sad story.
Martin.PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) (02/03/89)
portal!cup.portal.com!PLS@uunet.uu.net (Paul L Schauble) writes: >London to Vancouver? On a Condord? >The extreme range of a Condord is Paris to Washington, DC. This is so close >to the absolute maximum range that during the summer it arrives without >normal fuel reserves and requires special handling from ATC. And makes that >only because it flys without a full passenger load. I thought that they also flew Paris-Rio de Janeiro, which is a slightly further distance on my map. Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)
ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (02/03/89)
In article <625@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>, me85mda@cc.brunel.ac.uk (M D Ayton) writes: > >>The delay was from court battles over the noise issue. > > Right, I've just about had enough of this. > > Concorde was banned from American airports ONLY while it was still being > built and on the SPURIOUS gruonds of noise. The grounds may have been spurious, although the Concorde is somewhat noisier than most other aircraft. At the time there was a big push, which has since collapsed, to force some noise reduction around airports. Concorde may have been an unfair victim of this. However..... It is my distinct impression that the opposition was from community groups around the airport. In America local governments have a great deal of autonomy on such issues. It is not always easy for the federal government to force them to change their minds, even if it is inclined to do so. As to who inspired the local opposition, unless my memory fails me it was not the American aircraft manufacturers, but the same coalition of environmental groups that had originally succeeded in killing funding for the American SST. -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother?
kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) (02/03/89)
In article <625@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>, me85mda@cc.brunel.ac.uk (M D Ayton) writes: > Right, I've just about had enough of this. > > At the > time *NO* American manufacturer was capable of building a supersonic carrier, > and on the principle of "if you can't join them, beat them" lobbied, lied, > bribed and cheated their way to making it uneconomic for anyone else to build > such a carrier either. 1) This does not have a lot to do with sci.space. It probably should be moved to rec.aviation, or some other newsgroup. 2) *NO* American manufacturer??? EXCUSE ME??? Are you talking about the same set of manufacturers which built the XB-70 Valkyrie, the B-58 Hustler, the X-15, etc, ad nauseum??? I'd say the technology for sustained supersonic flight was WELL established within the US Aerospace industry. Why DIDN'T American companies build an SST? Good question. Probably has lots to do with a radically liberal, anti-technology Congress. Probably some questions about the dubious economic feasibility of such a venture. I'd guess that you've not checked the 'facts' thrown before the US Congress during this time period--claims of ozone depletion, permanent stratospheric ice clouds leading to global cooling, damage to marine ecosystem from sound, etc. Sort of in the same vein as your 'fact' that the US simply couldn't do it at the time. Now let's move this to rec.aviation, and get back to space discussions. Norman Kluksdahl Arizona State University ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah standard disclaimer implied