[throwaway00127]

>It’s not a matter of physics.

It is, and you're misunderstanding some of the basics of supersonic flight.

"As speeds approach the speed of sound, the additional phenomenon of wave drag appears. This is a powerful form of drag that begins at transonic speeds (around Mach 0.88). Around Mach 1, the peak coefficient of drag is four times that of subsonic drag. Above the transonic range, the coefficient drops drastically again, although remains 20% higher by Mach 2.5 than at subsonic speeds. Supersonic aircraft must have considerably more power than subsonic aircraft require to overcome this wave drag, and although cruising performance above transonic speed is more efficient, it is still less efficient than flying subsonically."[1]

Factoring in that supersonic airplanes are significantly heavier, have lower L/D, must spend more fuel getting to higher altitudes, still have to fly subsonic a considerable amount of the flight time/path, etc. means that it's a matter of physics.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_transport

[credit_guy]

A few lines down in your link you have this: "At about Mach 2, a typical wing design will cut its L/D ratio in half (e.g., Concorde managed a ratio of 7.14, whereas the subsonic Boeing 747 has an L/D ratio of 17)".

Sure, at trans-sonic speeds the coefficient of drag is horrible, but a supersonic commercial jet doesn't spend more than the minimum time necessary in that speed range.

What's more, improvements are possible even for the trans-sonic range. The planned Concorde B was projected to have dramatic fuel consumption improvement of 25% at Mach 1.2 [1]. This projection was made around 1980. In the 40 years since, computers have advanced a bit, so there's a chance the Boom guys know what they are talking about.

[1] http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html

[throwaway00127]

>A few lines down in your link you have this: "At about Mach 2, a typical wing design will cut its L/D ratio in half (e.g., Concorde managed a ratio of 7.14, whereas the subsonic Boeing 747 has an L/D ratio of 17)".

That is literally proving my point. Thanks for agreeing with me?

>Sure, at trans-sonic speeds the coefficient of drag is horrible, but a supersonic commercial jet doesn't spend more than the minimum time necessary in that speed range.

And the wave drag is still bad even at supersonic speeds. The planes still have to spend a significant amount of time subsonic (take off, approach, landing, etc.) even if it's minimalized, it's still a significant amount.

>What's more, improvements are possible even for the trans-sonic range. The planned Concorde B was projected to have dramatic fuel consumption improvement of 25% at Mach 1.2 [1].

Still worse than subsonic at that time. Since then, subsonic, high bypass engine design has made that gap even wider.

So still, no, it's a matter of physics.