Nonetheless I did not know Boeing was lobbying against it - that kind of protectionism does indeed hinder innovation.
This segment was sub-sonic, though.
At that time only N-reg aircraft were pemitted to operate internal commercial US flights.
To simplify the process the BA Concordes were allocated unique-for-the-UK alpha-numeric registrations which could have their 'G-' prefix hidden by speed-tape:
The magnitude of the sonic boom is relative to mass, and modern planes are being built lighter and lighter (to save on fuel). Something like a 50-seat mostly-carbon-fiber super sonic aircraft at 50,000 ft might well be perfectly fine to fly over land at Mach 2. The smaller size might also help with the problem of empty seats. As well, ideas like wings that change shape/angle for different portions of the flight could also help.
Someone just needs to put down the R&D money and take the risk to build such a plane.
The only way mass would have an effect is if the exhaust (which heavier planes presumably generate more of) contributed to the sonic boom, which doesn't sound right.
I'll believe that modern planes might generate smaller sonic booms, being more efficient sounds like it's related to how you displace the air, which sounds very related to the size of the boom, but I don't believe you that mass is related.
I can understand that objects floating on water follow that principle but that's because they are floating. Once fully suspended in water, I think the amount of water they displace is just their volume. Shouldn't it be likewise for aircrafts in the atmosphere?
Not quite. Outside of ground effect, a downward force is applied to the air mass around the aircraft, resulting in lift on the aircraft. IIUC, this results in compressed, high pressure air below the plane and low pressure air above it. The result of that is a pair of vortices roughly centered on the plane's wingtips. These vortices themselves are Somehow Important to the whole thing. Anyway, you can see the deal when a plane flies close to a cloud top.[1]
In ground effect (i.e. the aircraft is flying within roughly one wingspan of the ground), the proximity of the ground blocks the formation of the wingtip vortices (?) and greatly enhances the efficiency of lift production (by some form of magic, AFAIK).
[1] https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1c/33/e2/1c33e2f2f...
Someone else in the thread posted an article I may have read (or the author of the one I read, read, x levels of authors deep).
You may have misread an article describing pounds-per-square-foot as a measure of sonic boom intensity. This measurement is not about the mass or density of the aircraft relative to its area, this is the change in air pressure at the ground caused by the sound wave.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/meet-nasas-new-x-plan...
Pretty cool looking actually. Though it does dull the "fighter-planes-fighter-plane" look of the F-5 a bit.
Actually being able to use simulations to a much larger extent than was possible back when Concorde was being developed must play a role in lowering the costs of building a new supersonic aircraft. I believe this is what Boom is trying to do! Let's hope they can spur more investments into this field - it would be very cool if we got to see supersonic travel again :)
Source: I'm 56 years old, have lived in 6 US states (including Nevada) and have never heard a sonic boom in the US. I know what they sound like because I visited Germany in 1970 where sonic booms from US warplanes were common.
Is a vengeful corporation or protectionism responsible for that prohibition, too, in your opinion?
How about extremely sparsely populated.
>I don't know where you were
Massachusetts, South Florida, other places east of the Mississippi.