NASA N+2 Program Concepts

http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/PowerPoints/SUP-Coen-final.pdf

Artist's impression of Boeing N+2 concept.

Source:
http://www.nasa.gov/aero/centers_tackle_sonic_boom.html#.UyiJmoXDV0v

Hmmm...
“Engine installation is a critical part of achieving an overall low boom design," said Coen, who is located at NASA's Langley Research Center. "If we mount the engines in a conventional manner, we need to carefully tailor the shape of the wing to diffuse the shock waves. If we mount the engines above the wing, the shock wave can be directed upward and not affect the ground signature. However, such installations may have performance penalties."
Again, it is confrontation of Lockheed and the Boeing? Fly off?
Lockheed : 3 engines, 2 engines are under the wing and 1 engine is over the wing.
Boeing : 2 engines are over the wing.
Nose shape and tail stabilizer shape are same. Wing shape is different.
How do you think which is the better? ;D
Anyway Lockheed Martin's concept(QSST?) has many windows for passengers compared with Boeing's concept(QSSBJ?).

If it weren't for NASA research dollars, would Boeing or Lockheed Martin be looking at quiet SST concepts?

If NASA or Government dollars were not available, aircraft manufacturers would all but ignore the idea of a supersonic or hypersonic transport (in my view) with the exception of artists concepts. Commercial airframers constantly look at advanced designs, but Boeing and Airbus have generally resigned themselves to the fact that the state of the art does not allow for an financially viable supersonic commercial transport. The rise in dynamic pressure as you approach and exceed M=1 exacts a signficant weight penalty on the airframe and as Boeing learned with the Sonic Cruiser, passengers were not willing to pay the ticket premium that would be required for financial viability. I would also add that given the length of time before a manufacturer would see a return on their investment for a supersonic transport, the Government (NASA or DoT) would be the only entities willing to invest. This has been true since the 733 and 2707 projects in the 1960s. Take a look at Boeing advanced designs as of late- a spanloader mega-transport concept, the Sugar Volt concept to create the ultimate green aircraft, and a replacement for the 757. As Randy Tinseth (VP of Marketing for BA) recently stated, technology development isn't needed for the airframe, it's needed for the production process. NASA dollars and research not withstanding, I think the quest for speed is gone and has been replaced by the quest for efficiency.

Other similar concepts.

http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/nra_awardees_10_06_08.htm

blackkite said:

Anyway Lockheed Martin's concept(QSST?) has many windows for passengers compared with Boeing's concept(QSSBJ?).

Click to expand...

It just seems to be considerably larger, carrying more pax.

Triton said:

If it weren't for NASA research dollars, would Boeing or Lockheed Martin be looking at quiet SST concepts?

Click to expand...

They were before these studies. The quiet supersonic configurations you see are the product of their internal efforts.
If the company believes there is a market, they will invest their own money to get ahead.

Is there not a confusion between N+2 and N+3 in the latest post? Just asking.

Stargazer said:

Is there not a confusion between N+2 and N+3 in the latest post? Just asking.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... ;D Someone please show us the difference between N+2 SST and N+3 SST.

In the generational lexicon NASA uses to prioritize its aeronautics research, N
is today, N+1 is 2015, N+2 2020 and N+3 beyond 2030. The environmental targets
get tougher with each generation. For supersonic aircraft, N+1 is a business
jet, N+2 a small airliner and N+3 a 100- to 200-seat commercial transport

Click to expand...

Airliners in 2030: Supersonic Dreams
Posted by Graham Warwick 4:53 PM on May 14, 2010

Triton said:

If it weren't for NASA research dollars, would Boeing or Lockheed Martin be looking at quiet SST concepts?

Click to expand...

N+2 and N+3 SST studies have boom supression implemented in design

Thanks Gregory.

I found this NASA document.
http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/2012-PRESENTATIONS/SUP_2012_508.pdf

'The NASA High Speed ASE Project: Computational Analyses of a Low-Boom Supersonic Configuration':
http://fun3d.larc.nasa.gov/papers/aiaa-2014-0675.pdf

Plus a Morgenstern paper (N+2 Low Boom Wind Tunnel Model Design and Validation):

Read More:http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2012-3217, if you're a member.

, or same (but at a currently dead link :'( ) if you're not:

http://fun3d.larc.nasa.gov/papers/aiaa_2012-3217.pdf

'Green model' ID'd as 'LM 1021-01' (P-1021??...) here (Morgenstern et al):

http://fun3d.larc.nasa.gov/papers/aiaa-asm-2013-low-boom-model-grid.pdf

Again but bigger... 'Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018 to 2020 Period, Phase I Final Report':

http://fun3d.larc.nasa.gov/papers/N20130010174.pdf

Very nice Mr London.

Low Boom Study Contract Awarded
Posted 25 June 2014


The NASA-Langley Flight Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, awarded the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works a study contract on 11 June 2014 for additional low sonic boom technology work. The new study’s aim is to mature the design concept for a Low Boom Flight Demonstrator, or LBFD, aircraft. The LBFD design was developed under NASA’s Structures, Materials, Aerodynamics, Aerothermodynamics, and Acoustics Research and Technology, or SMAAART, program previous concept formulation study contract. The LBFD program is tasked with developing a manned, low sonic boom demonstrator that will be used to conduct sonic boom community testing. The eventual goal is to develop federal regulations governing acceptable sonic boom levels.

Click to expand...

Source: CodeOne - Low Boom Study Contract Awarded

Wow,very beauty design my dear Rolf.

From the article "Fast Track - Boeing and Lockheed Unveil Supersonic Concepts" by Guy Norris in the latest Aviation Week & Space Technology, 14 July 2014, pages 40 & 42

Guy Norris said:

Boeing’s concept is a sharply swept design with canted twin tails, an extended needle-like nose and twin, top-mounted engines.

Click to expand...

If I find a larger picture during the next weeks, I will swap the smaller one out for the larger one.

https://www.scribd.com/document/317473402/Lockheed-Low-Boom-Model

Very detailed NASA N+2 design concepts paper from Lockheed/Stanford/GE:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150015837.pdf

Includes in-depth discussion of LM1044 configuration development and evolution.