There are supersonic corridors and restricted areas for the military in certain parts of the US. In general, for noise abatement, supersonic flight is not allowed outside those areas. Not that we have not busted those restrictions in the past. Has not been much of an issue, since Concorde usually only went supersonic overwater at high altitude.
Kind of my point. It sounds like its a corridor. Not like hes doing it over downtown Cleveland. Unless Black Mountain is military and that would leave the question, what right does FAA have to give permission? And for that matter is FAA the controlling authority of what and when military gets to go supersonic? A friend who was Navy and was for a while a maintenance test pilot at NAS Alameda and did it every flight out over the Pacific.
Nope, in some MOAs, restricted areas, some ranges and supersonic corridors, no permission needed by military aircraft. Also overwater a safe distance from the coast, which is where Concorde and your Navy buddy operated. All worked out in advance. Special weather check on some ranges to make sure ducting will not occur if supersonic low altitude, like Eglin Ranges. Otherwise, heavy damage to structures, especially windows, can occur. Have been supersonic dozens of times from 100' AGL to FL 495 and we never asked FAA for approval. Different for civilians if overland. FAA controls that airspace. Once it is determined an aircraft like Boom or the NASA equivalent can fly supersonic without noise issues, rules may change for those aircraft.
When I flew Talons out of Williams AFB just east of Phoenix, we never needed permission to fly SS so long as it was in the northeastern most MOA (most rural m, and now gone). We had to pencil ourselves into a log BEFORE and after we did the flight. In case we broke windows or something, I presume.
We busted about $50K worth of windows while on the Eglin ranges doing supersonic drops of Mk84 AIRs at 200' AGL. Weatherman screwed that one up and we did get ducting to a small town just off range. Probably told that story before.
April 22 AW&ST: The FAA has granted Boom Supersonic permission to conduct supersonic overland flight tests of the company's XB-1 demonstrator following its first flight on March 22.
’Son of Concorde’ supersonic jet crushes speed test – here’s how long it would take to travel from London to NYC The single-seat XB-1, a 201-foot-long test model by American company Boom Technology, reached 499 knots — about 574 miles per hour — during the milestone test at 23,015 feet above Mojave, California. https://nypost.com/2024/11/06/lifestyle/supersonic-jet-crushes-speed-test-heres-how-long-it-would-take-to-travel-from-london-to-nyc?utm_source=gmail&utm_campaign=android_nyp
I realize this is a preliminary test flight, but how is 499 knots / 574 mph crushing it? It's subsonic. Most 747s go faster than 600 mph: https://simpleflying.com/boeing-747-speed-guides/#:~:text=The%20747%2D100%20could%20reach,(981%20km%2Fh).&text=The%20unique%20Boeing%20747SP%20entered,Pan%20Am%20and%20Iran%20Air.
GREATEST HEADLINE EVER! Only because the ' "Good tires, Bob mused, casually lighting a cigarette, "but certainly not great tires." ' line was on the PS page, not the cover, of R&T. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Boom Supersonic says XB-1 aircraft flew over Mach 1 with no audible sonic boom on the ground below meanwhile, the airplane that Lockheed is building for NASA to test 'quiet' supersonic flight at the cost of +$250M, has yet to fly. Lockheed Martin X-59 Quesst - Wikipedia
Boom has $600M of funding, I would imagine a majority of that has gone into the XB-1. They're both like 5 years behind schedule.
$630 Million To Change a Regulation: NASA’s X-59 Has Questionable ROI You really didn't think Lockheed would be successful without some cost overruns
