>>1977987>and.... Panpacific flights. Costs and desired travel times permitted, flight paths can be altered to get out from over land sooner.
Would also be really useful for much coming out or going to Oceania.
>0 commercial interest, 0 budget for R&DR&D isn't a magic wand and to be truly economic, fixed costs such as that have to be included in cost projections. Even on the military side, where there are sustained research budgets and interest in higher-performance higher-efficiency engines, they are still heavily and demonstrably physics/engineering constrained. Thus, the F135 which powers the F-35 doesn't have supercruise capability (trading it off for performance in other areas), and plans to re-engine the F-35 were shelved, largely over cost.
And there's still the dilemma of optimization for subsonic speeds impairing supersonic performance and vice-versa. This also affects and constrains the routes on which it could be feasibly operated, lowering the value proposition for airlines weighing whether to introduce another type, with all that logistically entails, into service.
>Sonic booms are way more than an inconvenienceChanges to design and operating practice affect the extent to which a boom is produced, and thus noise levels on the ground.
And if it were economic, especially if it had decent subsonic performance, then even route-restriction would still make it a net gain.
