Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 207 posts

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#121

Post by throwaway85825 »

WalterBright wrote: post #114
foobarqux wrote: post #8

0.11 pound per square foot is what is being proposed. That's 108 decibels. Which is between standing next to a lawn mower and standing next to a car horn. I don't see how anyone will tolerate that in practice. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/db

Back in the 1960s (!) the military would fly supersonic over the town I lived in. I always enjoyed the boom. I would also open the window during a thunderstorm or go sit on the porch because I enjoyed the incredible electric display and the booms.

Military gets away with things that private industry doesn't. Supersonic passenger planes would be flying every day on a schedule, far far more than military. Commercial planes are also rated for far more flight hours.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#122

Post by nradov »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #82

That's funny - I had no idea it was actually banned in the first place. I live near a number of large military bases and hear the fighter jets break the sound barrier on a somewhat regular basis.

Are you sure you're actually hearing sonic booms? The low-bypass turbofan engines used on most current tactical aircraft are quite loud even in subsonic flight. F-35 and F/A-18 fighters overfly my house occasionally and while I don't mind the noise they're definitely much louder than airliners. They generally only go supersonic over designated training ranges away from heavily populated areas.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#123

Post by throwaway85825 »

27183 wrote: post #115
dylan604 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guessing from the couch would be they were further away than you might have thought. I was up in the mountains when a couple of fighters flew close with a boom, and it was one of the loudest things I have experienced.

Yeah that's entirely possible, I have no idea what their actual flight path was.

You could have checked adsb exchange.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#124

Post by WalterBright »

weinzierl wrote: post #44
imglorp wrote: post #7

If you really want to make an impact on the noise floor, ban gasoline leaf blowers.

As someone who grew up near an US military base with constant low altitude aircraft noise: No thank you, I'd prefer the leaf blower any time.

As someone who lived near Luke AFB, I used to ride my bike to the flight line and watch the F104's blast off with full afterburners!

Great memories.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#125

Post by throwaway85825 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #100
xoa wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...yes, really? Gun fire is indeed stupendously, dangerously loud, which is why we have suppressors and heavy hearing protection for them. And there are indeed significant public/legal fights around outdoor gun ranges that end up near habitation (even if it's not the range's fault at all but rather because construction moved towards it). So I'm not really seeing how that's an argument that people not wearing earpro w…

also, there are neighborhoods with extended amounts of gun violence and discharges and I can't say that the residents "don't mind it"

In this case they mind getting shot at by stray fire, the noise is a secondary concern.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#126

Post by WalterBright »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #121
WalterBright wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the 1960s (!) the military would fly supersonic over the town I lived in. I always enjoyed the boom. I would also open the window during a thunderstorm or go sit on the porch because I enjoyed the incredible electric display and the booms.

Military gets away with things that private industry doesn't. Supersonic passenger planes would be flying every day on a schedule, far far more than military. Commercial planes are also rated for far more flight hours.

Yes, the military ones were infrequent. I'm sure it would get annoying if it was too often.

> Military gets away with things that private industry doesn't.

For good reason. You cannot train for hedgehopping to avoid radar detection without flying low with firewalled throttles.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#127

Post by throwaway85825 »

tsherb wrote: post #90
IAmGraydon wrote: post #82

That's funny - I had no idea it was actually banned in the first place. I live near a number of large military bases and hear the fighter jets break the sound barrier on a somewhat regular basis.

I believe the supersonic ban is/was on civilian aircraft.

Here the military agreed to only allow booms in emergencies.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#128

Post by throwaway85825 »

vlovich123 wrote: post #63
vlovich123 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it’s not up to them. Look at Tesla: started with an overpriced roadster to sell to rich people and ended up with a budget electric car. Starting with the high end where there’s demand and revenues to justify R&D generally eventually filters out to enrich everyone because that’s fundamentally a larger market to go after. There’s a million problems these supersonic aircraft will have to solve so even if superso…

Here’s an example of a life saving application you could imagine being enabled: there’s a huge problem with getting organ donors’ organs to meet supply where demand is (why there’s state level registries instead of a national one). If there’s constantly these jets buzzing about, you could imagine regulations that require them to aid emergency personnel transporting organs when such transports come up - it’s not like…

Organs usually fly a short enough distance that supersonic wouldn't make a difference.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#129

Post by xnx »

yieldcrv wrote: post #112
bearcobra wrote: post #46

On one hand I think we should applaud when regulators target the specific issue (like noise or pollution level) vs using some other metric to achieve their desired outcome. On the other hand I don’t have a ton of faith that current administration will set the targets at levels that have the general public’s interest in mind

I kind of do have that faith. Sean Duffy's reality TV career hasn't really hampered the transportation agencies I think staff at the agencies as well as industry staff are very passionate about what they do in their respective domains, and even with the agency heads being industry plans or uncredentialed susceptible to regulatory capture, I still think I can appreciate the willingness to revisit old prohibitions in c…

The same Sean Duffy who took a vacation paid for by the companies he regulates? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/05/13/...). I expect that guy to put enrich "Sean Duffy" as priorities #1, #2, and #3.

Re: Supersonic flight returning to US after half-century ban

#130

Post by throwaway85825 »

WalterBright wrote: post #126
throwaway85825 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Military gets away with things that private industry doesn't. Supersonic passenger planes would be flying every day on a schedule, far far more than military. Commercial planes are also rated for far more flight hours.

Yes, the military ones were infrequent. I'm sure it would get annoying if it was too often. > Military gets away with things that private industry doesn't. For good reason. You cannot train for hedgehopping to avoid radar detection without flying low with firewalled throttles.

Overland private supersonic travel should not happen, it would just be a massive unpriced negative externality.

The lower the plane flies the fewer people end up hearing the boom. The denser air also requires an absurd amount of fuel to fly through. Commercially uneconomical. Even the military only uses low level supersonic for a last dash to the target.

Post reply on HN