News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn. Parent comment

Re:Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn by idlewords on Thursday June 29, 2017 @11:54AM (#14664252)
They want the regulations banning overland supersonic flight removed, and are trying to frame it as a fuel efficiency issue rather than the "we will make people's lives miserable with noise" issue that led to the ban.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn by pdelbarba on Thursday June 29, 2017 @12:01PM (#14664316)
It can be done sanely, but they don't have anything flying yet (was supposed to be May 2017 but that came and went).

Also, don't be fooled. The smaller test aircraft, if it ever flies, will have a much lower sonic boom than the larger airliner. Sonic boom is largely proportional to aircraft weight.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn by Avshalom on Thursday June 29, 2017 @02:59PM (#14665968)
Reading between the lines it would appear that they are so far from having anything that flies that they're still willing to redesign their engine and presumably plane as a result.

(And yet they have the hubris to talk about how much a ticket will cost)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn by dragonwriter on Thursday June 29, 2017 @01:41PM (#14665247)
> They want the regulations banning overland supersonic flight removed

True, but

> and are trying to frame it as a fuel efficiency issue

No, they are trying to frame the changes they want to engine noise regs as a fuel efficiency issue; that's a separate rule change from (in the same legislation as) the one removing the overland supersonic flight ban.

[ Parent | on HN ]