Talk:Supersonic transport

message: Regarding the following text in the section "Damage to the Ozone Layer":
"The high altitude flight makes such damage theoretically more likely than with traditional aircraft. However, research showed that the comparatively tiny quantity of nitric oxides generated in the exhaust actually boosts the ozone layer."
The webpage http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/67.html (which was cited in Nitric Oxide) contains the following information on the effects of nitric oxide on the ozone layer:
"In the stratosphere, oxides of nitrogen play a crucial role in maintaining the level of ozone. Ozone is formed through the photochemical reaction of nitrogen dioxide and oxygen. However, too little nitrogen dioxide results in too little ozone being formed, On the other hand, too much nitric oxide reduces the level of ozone because of an increase in the reaction of ozone to convert nitric oxide to nitrogen dioxide."
Ozone: "The latter reaction (O3 + O → 2 O2) is catalysed by the presence of certain free radicals, of which the most important are hydroxyl (OH), nitric oxide (NO) and atomic chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br)."
Ozone-oxygen cycle: "Certain free radicals, the most important being hydroxyl (OH), nitric oxide (NO), and atoms of chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br), catalyze the recombination reaction, leading to an ozone layer that is thinner than it would be if the catalysts were not present."
From all these sources, I have concluded that NO has a very important role in the ozone cycle, but greater amounts of Nitric Oxide in the stratosphere would do nothing to boost the ozone layer. If anyone else with a slightly greater understanding of this comes along and happens to agree with my conclusions here, the text of that section should definitely be changed. Ph0t0phobic 22:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damage to the Ozone Layer 

message: Im no expert in this but the article fails to go into any detail
about the huge work by the USAF - e.g. the Blackbird program/SR71
built by Lockheed's skunkworks flew at record speeds during this timeframe (1960-85) at 3,600 MPH routinely.
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/sr-71_facts.htm 
Also Gen Gibbs headed up the USAF SST program developing an SST
which resulted in the superconic bomber the ? B1. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.68.78 (talk • contribs) 
:They're not SSTs they're just supersonic aircraft. An SST is for transporting people around commercially.WolfKeeper 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: USAF SST program

message: see above paragraph, unresolved, ab USAF SST program, so im' here suggesting again, to add Gen Gibbs, pioneer in SST aviation... and adding also his son Lt Jim Gibbs, pioneer in USAF OTH, the mountain R&D, aka the "criminal" Jim Gibbs, etc lil darpa sr !!!  69.121.221.97 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: add Gen Gibbs

message: The lead states "Supersonic airliners' greater speed and efficiency over their conventional counterparts have made them objects of numerous recent and ongoing design studies".  I don't see any supporting evidence for the greater efficiency claim.  I will remove it in due course. - Crosbie 21:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Concorde super-cruised across the Atlantic at Mach 2.0 on ~40,000lb of thrust, around the equivalent in power of a single early RB211.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Greater efficiency?

message: I would like to point out that footnote 187 on the Concorde's page cites a reference from the Times concering the use of the word Concordski. --Arkansawyer96 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concordski 

message: This article is highly deficient in that it has no links and very few references to the effect of regulations banning supersonic flights on the federal level in the United States as well as regulations and laws banning flight routes in parts of Asia both in the 1970s as well as later.  71.214.125.228 (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws and Regulations against supersonic transport 

message: Substituted at 07:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Supersonic transport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305021245/http://www.myduckeggs.com/category/supersonic-aerospace-international/ to http://www.myduckeggs.com/category/supersonic-aerospace-international/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article currently contains predictions for dates such as 2019 which have passed. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates have been passed 

message: I moved a couple of things around to get Aerion out of the 'Under Development' section but there's quite a bit more work to be done here if someone has the chance to tackle it. Lots of confusing info and a table that doesn't belong here as it includes long-gone airplanes. Retswerb (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under Development / Previous Concepts 

message: Please explain how my edit about the North American NAC-60 is vandalism.  I have reverted the reversion which was NOT done in good faith.  --KJRehberg (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't call it vandalism, as it wasn't vandalism, just unnecessary. I've reverted it again with a more complete explanation. Please assume good faith. BilCat (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to do better next time. --KJRehberg (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain how my edit about the North American NAC-60 is vandalism 

message: I believe an update is necessary to the article to keep it accurate, namely the american airlines purchase of 20 supersonic boom SSTs. DropBear42 (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Airlines Supersonic Boom