SONIC BANGS WILL THE CONCORD FLY SUPERSONICALLY OVERLAND'?

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31168, 19 September 1966, Page 16

SONIC BANGS WILL THE CONCORD FLY SUPERSONICALLY OVERLAND'?

• By

MARK ARNOLD-FORSTER

in the “Guardian”. Manchester!

(Reprinted b» arrangement!

“Experiments (according to the Minister of Aviation, Mr Mulley) have shown that sonic bangs of the intensity expected to be caused by the Concord do not damage structurally sound buildings. There is no evidence so far that sonic bangs are injurious to health.” This opinion, delivered to Parliament by Mr Mulley on August 3. is the boldest statement that the Government has yet felt able to make about what is rapidly becoming the most critical aspect of the who.e Concord project. Will it be possible to fly the Concord supersonically oyer land? Or do the French and British taxpayers—in return for £5OO millions—get an aeroplane which will only be tolerable to fish?

The question of the Concord’s sonic bang has become more important than ever since the opening of the Farnborough air show. New orders announced all come from American domestic carriers whose routes cover almost the whole of the United States. Nearly one-third of the Concord order book (or option book) has now been underwritten by airlines who have no interest in air liners which are only tolerable to fish. They are bound, by the nature of their businesses, to insist that the Concord is quiet enough to be tolerable to people. Between them they now hold at least 19—possibly 21—of the 64 or 66 Concprd options that have so far been taken up. No Option The really critical customers are likely to be American Airlines with six options, paid for, Continental with three. Eastern Airlines with two (and the possibility of four), United Airlines with six options, and the Braniff with two. Other potential customers, like Sabena, T.W.A., and 8.0.A.C., would also be obliged to think again if the Concord could not be used overland. But all of them operate main-line routes across oceans where noise would not greatly matter. If Concords prove intolerable overland some airlines can always use them over water. The American domestic lines, however, have no option. Their main routes traverse the most populous States in the Union. Braniff runs from Chicago to Texas, from Minneapolis to New Orleans and from Kansas to Mexico City. United flies from New York to California calling, from time to time, at 40 airports on the .way. Eastern's main line serves the Atlantic coastal States, with nearly 30 ports of call between Providence and *Miami. Continental’s goes from Chicago to Kansas City, Denver and California American Airlines’ main route is from Boston to Washington, Nash-

i ville, Dallas, El Paso and Los I Angeles. The inhabitants of all these places are people, not fish. Nor will it be good enough to assure these airlines (as a spokesman for the British Aircraft Corporation once assured the “Guardian”) that even if the sonic bang proved over-loud the Concord could still be flown sub-sonically overland. No airline executive in his senses is going to invest in a supersonic jet unless he can fly it supersonically. He will be far better off with the equipment he has already. The Sydney Route Other airlines, too, will be only slightly less concerned. 8.0.A.C., for example, could find to its dismay that it could only operate Concords on the route to Sydney by flying subsonically part of the way. The Concord’s bang is more than a tiresome and worrying uncertainty. It is an essential factor in the aircraft’s economics. Mr Mulley’s opinion had better be right if the Concord is to pay even a part of its adventurous way in the world. Nor, as his statement said, is it simply a question of the sort of noise that proves intolerable to people. Buildings are important, too. Is Chartres cathedral, for example, structurally sound when it comes to sonic bangs? It lies between Paris and New York and its great west window is one of the glories of France. Mr Mulley did not specify the experiments he had in mind, and it is possible that the British and French Governments have tested the Concord’s boom-making potential more thoroughly than anyone has yet supposed. It is unlikely, however, that either Britain or France has the means to carry out a test programme on the scale now envisaged by the Americans, who are seeking further information about the acceptability of supersonic flying over California by a 870 bomber. Oklahoma City Tests Tests with the 870 are nowhere near complete, but

.they «re held to be necessary because no other supersonic aircraft approximates in size or speed to the supersonic transports—American or British —now foreseen. An earlier programme, carried out with a 858 over Oklahoma City, produced results which the Americans are now inclined to regard as inconclusive. The 858 was neither big enough nor fast enough to reproduce the effect of an American Supersonic Transport or even of a Concord. So the Americans are trying again. Mr Mulley, on the other hand, seems to be satisfied with what he knows already. The Concord, at any rate, is going ahead. The Government promised as much when the Prime Minister of France. Mr Pompidou, was in London in July. It is going ahead, to the sound of rebellious muttering from the Treasury, at an increasing pace—at least in monetary terms. Mr Mulley may have been vaguer than some M.P.s would have wished about the noise problem but his department is now, somewhat ruefully, precise about the price. A senior official recently disclosed that the cost of developing and testing the Concord to the point at which the airlines could use it would be £5OO millions. This burden would be shared by the French and British Governments. Gloomy But Correct This figure is the result of a careful joint study by both Governments and is held to be gloomy but correct. It coincides, more or less, with estimates prepared by the Treasury in April, at a time when the Ministry of Aviation estimate was £lOO millions less, li is more than three times the size of the Government's original estimate of 1962 (£l6O millions). It represents a contibution of £l> per head by every man. woman and child in Britain and France. If Mr Mulley is wrong about the sonic bang much of the investment could be wasted. Even for a nation of gamblers. £5 from everyone is a lot of money.