Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Bob (not my real pseudonym)" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
Subject: Re: No need for an SST mockup
Message-ID: <3ukvha5pv5g12mho498de95ph9ogar3gu2@4ax.com>
References: <jaqdnQrGh8PLQoDInZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <AsWdnZYrrb3JJ4LInZ2dnUU7-emdnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
Lines: 362
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 05:09:30 -0700
X-Received-Body-CRC: 846462633
X-Received-Bytes: 23141
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.aviation:1334
<here@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>On 03/04/2015 01:31, Byker wrote:
>> A 2,500 nm. range wouldn't get it across the Atlantic unless they refueled
>> in Newfoundland. It'd make it from the West coast to Honolulu, or from L.A.
>> to NYC. I guess they hadn't yet considered what folks on the ground would
>> have to endure when it came to BIG sonic booms going off overhead several
>> times a day. The Concorde demonstrated that quite well:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE
>
>I used to watch Concorde go over on a daily basis and I can assure you
>that the sonic boom was certainly NOT a problem. Indeed, If I were to
>condemn any aircraft for excessive noise and pollution in the UK's skies
>it would be the USAF's Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker.
I don't think Concorde flew supersonic over any part of Europe...?
>Unfortunately we never had the option of banning it.
<< 78772057_125x125.png >>
|
|
