But Concorde is/was for passengers, a reasonable design constraint might have been 'it needs to look like a "normal" plane for end-customer confidence'. Military etc. aircrafts of course go far faster and did well before Concorde - and it's much more normal for them to have no eyeball visibility.
One of the more unique design complexities of the Concorde was the need to swing the nose out of the way for take off and (more so) landing, specifically so that the pilots could see wtf they were doing. That's why its nose looks like it does. It absolutely did not look "normal" at the time.
> Military etc. aircrafts of course go far faster and did well before Concorde - and it's much more normal for them to have no eyeball visibility.
Anything designed for an active fighting role (not just transport, observer, tanker, ...) likely has significantly better visibility than the average civilian aircaft.
Can you name an example of a fighter with visibility worse than a C172?
