Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn

Re:Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn by jessaustin on Thursday June 29, 2017 @01:42PM (#14665256)

It has been several months since I visited Chicago, but that was not my impression of the status quo? This is a very hypothetical concern, however. It's quite unlikely that any passenger flights will pass the sound barrier at an altitude of 200 ft. [0]

Then again, if Vladimir Putin wants to break some American glass in a really roundabout way, who are we to oppose him? Perhaps he needs to brush up on his Bastiat?

[0] https://military.id.me/aircraft/can-a-sonic-boom-break-glass...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn by idlewords on Friday June 30, 2017 @03:37PM (#14673157)

Sonic boom strength scales with aircraft size, and you know this. Your footnote is in bad faith.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn by tptacek on Friday June 30, 2017 @03:03PM (#14672969)

I don't know what that quip about Chicago was meant to accomplish, but I don't think you can complain about other people's "reading comprehension" while misapprehending that comment so thoroughly. Obviously, the point being made is that sonic booms break windows (some people near airports that saw supersonic traffic used to buy special windows), and Chicago is a major air transport hub.

[ Parent | on HN ]