How high would Concorde have to fly to prevent damage on the ground if it was supersonic overland?
Very high, minimum 50,000 feet. But as it cruised at that altitude and higher, that might not have been that much of an issue.
How high would Concorde have to fly to prevent damage on the ground if it was supersonic overland?
Perhaps in a TL where the XB-70 Valkyrie was mass produced, similar designs for commercial air travel may have survived and mass implemented?
What about having the XB-70 converted into a high speed military transport rather than being cancelled entirely when the USAF feels it won't be able to get through Soviet air defences as a bomber? That could be a stepping stone to a civilian model.
Yeah, nothing like the proper internal volume. Sad--I've seen the remaining XB-70 in person, it's definitely impressive (even if the hangar's so small and crammed with other research planes you can hardly get a real feel for the size of the Valkyrie), but it's just not well-suited for commercial service as-is.??? Its entirely the wrong shape, no? I wouldnt think it had the necessary internal space.
??? Its entirely the wrong shape, no? I wouldnt think it had the necessary internal space.
SunilTanna has it right, what killed the rocket was 9/11. That one event wiped out the top 100 Concorde passengers. These were the guys who not only flew on her nearly every week, but also handed out tickets to their staff, as good boy rewards on a regular bases. The French crash put the final nail in the coffin, as she was out of service for so long, people got used to the idea of her not being around. And at the end of the day, it’s far more comfortable in First class than it ever was on Concorde, I know; been there done that. LHR to JFK and back on the rocket, a long time ago. Told my boss who had fixed me up with the tickets at the time, thanks but given the choice I would take first any day. Concorde was cramped and hot inside, you didn’t get a seat much bigger or with more leg room than in economy, and while the food was excellent, it was still a tray service, unlike in First where you have a proper table all laid out and plenty of elbow room. Oh and if you are tall, as I am, and got the window seat, you flew with you head cocked to one side the whole way.
There were some other reasons in her withdrawal, but in the end it was 9/11 that killed her off. Do I miss the bitch, yes, loved working on her, and missed out by only a few points in being the head loader on her last commercial flight. I was there, doing the jumbo that took off for JFK after her. Got soaked by the water jets, she went through as she left. With regard to reheat, only on takeoff, and to push her through the sound barrier, rest of the time she flew on the jets alone.
Ramp-Rat, it’s what I am and what I do.![]()
"Carrying nuclear warheads" is something it would be suited to, as a nuclear bomber, but VIPs I'm more doubtful on. It seems the main conversion role for the A-3 was as a tanker or electronic intelligence platform, but I wouldn't expect good performance for the Valkyrie in those roles at all, certainly not enough relative to other aircraft already in those roles like the KC-135 to justify an entire production run.Would their be enough space to use for a small number of specialized transports? It wouldn't be able to carry a large cargo or things like tanks but it could carry nuclear warheads, VIPs or similar high value, low volume cargoes. The Navy A-3 Skywarriors were used as COD aircraft for carrying those types of cargoes to carriers IOTL.