>>1028795That's still a far cry from flying nonstop LA-Sydney.
I wonder if the "air discharge duct" could be closed. The article doesn't really say. And I also have my doubts about takeoff performance without afterburners and with the increased weight.
>>1028881>they had to foot the bill for replacing entire towns worth of glass windows.Uhh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Concorde_Project#Sonic_boom>Between 1970 and 1972, when prototype Concorde 002 made 20 flights over the Irish Sea, the Government paid £40,000 in damages for cracked and broken windows, slates falling from roofs, panicking farm animals and frightened people.So that's equivalent to about one hour's worth of flight expenses in damages over the course of TWO YEARS of testing.
And after testing, the Concorde only went supersonic operationally over the open ocean where nothing is there to damage.
Sonic boom damages did not directly kill the Concorde. Indirectly, maybe, since it restricted the jet to inefficient subsonic flight over land (thus greatly reducing the number of airports served), but not directly.
