Boom Supersonic Overture M1.8 SST

[Kiltonge]

Is it really a huge leap in aerodynamics over, say, the F-105 that went supersonic on its maiden flight in 1955?

 

[Sundog]

Is it really a huge leap in aerodynamics over, say, the F-105 that went supersonic on its maiden flight in 1955?

Yes. Because configuration wise, it's representative of what we were doing in the eighties which was much better aerodynamically than an F-105. Where it improves on the eighties tech is in terms of materials, propulsion, and being able to use cameras/spatial computing for the cockpit so one doesn't need the windshield and/or the lowering nose for vision cockpit vision, allowing for much better cockpit integration and lower weight. I'm sure there are other areas I'm missing, but the key is in getting the costs down compared to what was done before.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Is it really a huge leap in aerodynamics over, say, the F-105 that went supersonic on its maiden flight in 1955?

Yes.

for example, in the 1970s, Nasa developed a supersonic supercritical wing, which greatly improves efficiency (lower drag, lower fuel burn).

The whole idea of shaping to reduce boom effects is something that wasn't even realized as possible until the late 1990s!

 

[TomS]

Yes.

for example, in the 1970s, Nasa developed a supersonic supercritical wing, which greatly improves efficiency (lower drag, lower fuel burn).

The whole idea of shaping to reduce boom effects is something that wasn't even realized as possible until the late 1990s!

Remember that Boom is not doing shaping for sonic boom reduction. Their scheme is to take off and fly subsonic at partial thrust over land and only go supersonic outside the 12-mile limit.

The goal of Boom's current test flights is mainly to validate their simulation and design tools. They want to see how closely the demonstrator flies compared to their computer models, which will tell them whether the tools are good enough or not.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Remember that Boom is not doing shaping for sonic boom reduction. Their scheme is to take off and fly subsonic at partial thrust over land and only go supersonic outside the 12-mile limit.

I thought they were? That super long nose looks like it's for boom reduction, for example.

 

[djfawcett]

FAA Clears Boom For XB-1 Supersonic Tests | Aviation Week Network

The special flight authorization is the first ever issued by the FAA for tests of a civil supersonic aircraft.

aviationweek.com

As guessed earlier the lateral stability and AoA were problematic. It is then understandable that adding the SAS for the next flight takes them time. I am only wondering why it wasn´t part of the first flight configuration.

The aircraft had a SAS system on board for first flight. It just wasn't active.

 

[TomcatViP]

I stand corrected.

 

[TomS]

I thought they were? That super long nose looks like it's for boom reduction, for example.

They may be doing some minor boom shaping efforts but it's not a significant part of the design now.

From their website FAQ:

How is Boom dealing with the sonic boom?
When flying over land, Overture can fly significantly faster than subsonic commercial jets—about Mach 0.94, without breaking the sound barrier. This is about 20% faster than subsonic flight.

Globally, there are more than 600 mostly transoceanic routes on which Overture offers a compelling speedup without changes to today’s overland flight regulations.

 

[Scott Kenny]

They may be doing some minor boom shaping efforts but it's not a significant part of the design now.

From their website FAQ:

Makes sense, the X59 needs to establish what the acceptable boom limits are before it's worth spending a lot of design time/$$ shaping to minimize boom.

 

[TomcatViP]

Meanwhile, with still no new flight attempted, another video was just released (that tells us a bit more on the curious conditions of this first flight}:

View: https://youtu.be/lYwXUsMloCM?si=U0G2fvhWlpv5oONv