@Viss Really? Aviation technology would’ve not advanced much and supersonic passenger aircraft would still require afterburners to take off? That’s how the Concorde took off, and that particular fuel inefficiency was one of the reasons it was retired.
Unless we’re meant to believe it’s a spaceplane, in which case, it’s both flying too low and too slow.
@enoch_exe_inc @Viss Wasn't there a "Concorde B" design whose changes achieved less drag and a much smaller sonic boom? I may be misremembering but I think that redesign was sufficient to eliminate the need for wet thrust (which IIRC is necessary also for "trans-sonic climb", not just TO).
But I'm not a #Concorde expert, so maybe someone can correct me on the details?
@enoch_exe_inc @Viss This mentions the new design, although I think I read about it in some paper, not a web page. I'll link the paper if I manage to track it down.
@enoch_exe_inc @Viss Ok, didn't find such a paper so far, but http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html (which the above refers?) rings a bell, so I wonder if it was this which I read; there's also http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.9180 which at a quick first glance does not cover the B design, but does mention it in the noise graph (p9).
So maybe I'm misremembering and the noise reduction I read about was just the "airport noise"?
Viss
enoch_exe_inc
njsg