Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:49 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (James Matthew Weber) Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia References: 1 2 Followups: 1 2 3 4
View raw article or MIME structure
>Surely the main reason was very simple, and is the heart of why all civil >supersonic transports are fundamentally unsound (quite apart from take-off >noise, pollution and the ozone layer depletion)? Nobody will tolerate >sonic bangs over land. To the uninitiated, describing a sonic bang ("boom" >is a complete misnomer) is simple: it is simply the loudest noise you ever >heard in your life. It was more than just the sonic boom. The aircraft was is exceptionally noisey. I have friends who used to live in Twyford UK, just outside Reading. They were directly under the path of Concorde for the trip to JFK, and about 35 miles from the end of the runway. Everyafternoon about 4PM the whole house rattled. Came to call it 4 o'clock Concorde. It was simply amazing how loud the thing was, and if you looked, you could find it in the sky, but my guess is that it went over at something around 15,000 feet. I have also been number 1 for takeoff in a 747 behind Concorde, and it is a pretty good racket even inside the 747. I subsequently met up with a gentlemen who had worked on the design of the engines, and he admitted that the noise level behind and below the Olympus engines was very very high.