NASA/Lockheed Martin X-59A Quiet Supersonic Technology (QueSST)

[Flyaway]

Looks like the quiet boom demonstrator is going to get funded.

Another winner in the proposed budget is the agency’s aeronautics division. The request offers $790 million for aeronautics, $150 million above what it received in 2016. The request is part of a 10-year, $10.6 billion plan that includes the development of several experimental “X-planes” to demonstrate new fuel-efficient technologies and supersonic flight that minimizes sonic booms.

“It’s largely due to the alignment of our strategy with the administration’s priorities,” said Jaiwon Shin, NASA associate administrator for aeronautics, referring to the division’s strategic plan completed in 2013. “All those efforts are the basis for this increased budget request.”

The requested increase, though, was still a pleasant surprise. Shin said he heard about the proposed increase in an email last month from the agency’s chief financial officer, David Radzanowski. “His email subject was, ‘Christmas in January,’” Shin said.

http://spacenews.com/white-house-proposes-19-billion-nasa-budget/

 

[Flyaway]

But if you can get rid of the sonic boom, or at least drastically reduce its negative effects, the US and other countries that imitated its ban might be persuaded to allow the revival of supersonic flight. That’s the goal of the “low boom” aircraft, NASA says: “to overcome the sonic boom barrier and open the door for development of a new generation of supersonic civil transport aircraft.”

NASA hasn’t said much about how that plane will reduce the boom, except that it will try to validate work it’s done in the wind tunnel. The general idea is to shape the plane so the shockwave it produces isn’t quite so rough for those on the ground. The plan right now is to produce a preliminary design review in FY 2016, with a detailed design in FY 2017. The agency’s not the only one working on this problem: Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, have shown concepts for supersonic aircraft in the past few years, and billionaire-backed Aerion Corp. plans to deliver a supersonic business jet around 2023.

http://www.wired.com/2016/02/boom-nasa-wants-to-bring-back-supersonic-x-planes/

 

[Flyaway]

And here is the project chosen. The Quiet Boom demonstrator from LM.

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-a-quieter-supersonic-passenger-jet

The concept is dubbed the “Low Boom Flight Demonstration Quiet Supersonic Transport” or “QueSST” (somehow). Today NASA announced that they’d awarded defense giant Lockheed Martin a $20 million contract for 17 months of preliminary development on the concept. The end goal of the project, according to NASA, is “A piloted test aircraft that can fly at supersonic speeds, creating a supersonic 'heartbeat'--a soft thump rather than the disruptive boom currently associated with supersonic flight.”

http://www.popsci.com/nasas-next-x-plane-will-go-fast-and-go-silently

This will be flying across the US by 2020, hopefully you will not even notice it. Cool design.

NASA selected a team led by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company of Palmdale, California, to complete a preliminary design for Quiet Supersonic Technology (QueSST). The work will be conducted under a task order against the Basic and Applied Aerospace Research and Technology (BAART) contract at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia.

After conducting feasibility studies and working to better understand acceptable sound levels across the country, NASA's Commercial Supersonic Technology Project asked industry teams to submit design concepts for a piloted test aircraft that can fly at supersonic speeds, creating a supersonic "heartbeat" -- a soft thump rather than the disruptive boom currently associated with supersonic flight.

“Developing, building and flight testing a quiet supersonic X-plane is the next logical step in our path to enabling the industry's decision to open supersonic travel for the flying public," said Jaiwon Shin, associate administrator for NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission.

Lockheed Martin will receive about $20 million over 17 months for QueSST preliminary design work. The Lockheed Martin team includes subcontractors GE Aviation of Cincinnati and Tri Models Inc. of Huntington Beach, California.

The company will develop baseline aircraft requirements and a preliminary aircraft design, with specifications, and provide supporting documentation for concept formulation and planning. This documentation would be used to prepare for the detailed design, building and testing of the QueSST jet. Performance of this preliminary design also must undergo analytical and wind tunnel validation.

In addition to design and building, this Low Boom Flight Demonstration (LBFD) phase of the project also will include validation of community response to the new, quieter supersonic design. The detailed design and building of the QueSST aircraft, conducted under the NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate's Integrated Aviation Systems Program, will fall under a future contract competition.

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-a-quieter-supersonic-passenger-jet

NASA video.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/index.html

 

[flateric]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8r-Pm1-dVc

 

[Rhinocrates]

NASA selects Lockheed Martin to design supersonic X-plane

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa-selects-lockheed-martin-to-design-supersonic-x-422539/

 

[CammNut]

On QueSST, the Skunk Works has a $20m contract to take its low-boom demonstrator concept to a preliminary design review in April 2017, a process during which it will deliver data to NASA that will enable the agency to hold an open competition to build the X-plane, which is scheduled to fly by September 2019.

The demonstrator is designed to produce a shaped sonic boom with the strength, signature and frequency content matching that of a larger, 100-120-seat supersonic airliner, so NASA can conduct community-response testing to gather data on the public acceptability of low booms to present to the FAA and ICAO.

Design features such as the foreplanes and small horizontal surfaces at the tip of the fin are there to help match the sine-wave low-boom signature of a much larger aircraft, according to the Skunk Works.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0BrdOa_Fz0

 

[flateric]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8r-Pm1-dVc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fyd_YDAJNg

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-work-to-build-a-quieter-supersonic-passenger-jet

Would Lockheed Corp. like to exclude a bulge of a cockpit for reduction of sonic boom or for reduction of drag?
Also we can see small canard, small wing located at the top of the vertical tail stabilizer and thrust vectoring nozzle.
Why???

 

[AeroFranz]

thrust vectoring nozzle could be for reduction of trim drag at high-speed. Or, less likely, being able to more quickly rotate the airplane on takeoff.

 

[flateric]

ftp://lbpw-ftp.larc.nasa.gov/outgoing/aviation-2014/OrdazGeiselhartFenbert-Design-Boom-Trim.pdf
semi-final, non-proprietary NASA LBDEF configuration

 

[TomS]

Is it really vectoring? it just looks like a classic variable geometry convergent-divergent nozzle for a turbofan, just recessed a bit in a trough.

The fins on the top of the tailfin have been explained as a way to make the boom signature of this rather small aircraft resemble that of a much larger one.

 

[Sferrin]

I can't help but wonder if the X-3 Stiletto might have been able to give them any earlier insight into this if they'd actually been able to go supersonic with it.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

As great as civilian supersonic transport sounds, it'll be something reserved for those who can afford it. Designing "quiet SST" aircraft will be even more compromising in terms of the number of passengers able to be carried and how tight construction tolerances will have to be.

 

[Sferrin]

As great as civilian supersonic transport sounds, it'll be something reserved for those who can afford it.

Not sure why that would be a problem. Flying itself is reserved for those who can afford it.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

What I mean is that I don't see QSST technology trickling down into large scale civilian SST airliners anytime soon. *Angry and jealous middle-class peasant*

I guess I better get to work making my fortune if I want a piece of the supersonic pie!

In all actuality though, I'm sort of pessimistic about QSSTs being a hit with even the super-rich. The cost to fly and maintain even barely supersonic aircraft is going to be leaps and bounds over even a Citation X or w/e Gulfstream is the fastest currently.

For example, even with just a single super-cruise capable GE F414 engine, the fuel consumption in full dry power (I can't find actual data on it's SFC, so I'm using the F404's .81 lb/lbf-hr figure) would be on the order of 10,530 lbs of fuel per hour at 13,000 lbs of thrust. Even with an optimistic Mach 1.5 Cruise Speed, that's only 990 Miles Per Hour at 50,000 ft standard day conditions during the cruise phase of flight, and not considering whether or not afterburner is used at take off and part of the climb. Sounds like you're going to need 30,000+ lbs of fuel to cross the United States.

QSSTs are likely going to need some pretty advanced pressure recovery and ejector nozzles to be remotely efficient, and that means big research dollars that have to be recovered in big sales cost.

 

[Sferrin]

What I mean is that I don't see QSST technology trickling down into large scale civilian SST airliners anytime soon. *Angry and jealous middle-class peasant*

Right there with ya. :'(

 

[quellish]

Makes you wonder what happened to X-54.

 

[Rhinocrates]

What I mean is that I don't see QSST technology trickling down into large scale civilian SST airliners anytime soon. *Angry and jealous middle-class peasant*

In all actuality though, I'm sort of pessimistic about QSSTs being a hit with even the super-rich. The cost to fly and maintain even barely supersonic aircraft is going to be leaps and bounds over even a Citation X or w/e Gulfstream is the fastest currently.

Can't dispute your reasoning, but Aerion reports very strong demand, which drove the major design changes a while back, and Flexjet has signed up as a fleet customer. We'll see what the market decides, I suppose, and the market isn't always rational.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nbaa-flexjet-is-first-fleet-customer-for-aerion-419231/

A joke goes that the two happiest days of a boat owner's life are when he buys it and when he sells it.

 

[blackkite]

Is it really vectoring? it just looks like a classic variable geometry convergent-divergent nozzle for a turbofan, just recessed a bit in a trough.

The fins on the top of the tailfin have been explained as a way to make the boom signature of this rather small aircraft resemble that of a much larger one.

"The single-engined design also features a vectored thrust nozzle,"
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa-selects-lockheed-martin-to-design-supersonic-x-422539/

 

[blackkite]

Boeing design?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/businessaviation/2014/07/23/momentum-builds-for-x-plane/#6240c413c40b

 

[TomS]

Is it really vectoring? it just looks like a classic variable geometry convergent-divergent nozzle for a turbofan, just recessed a bit in a trough.

The fins on the top of the tailfin have been explained as a way to make the boom signature of this rather small aircraft resemble that of a much larger one.

"The single-engined design also features a vectored thrust nozzle,"
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa-selects-lockheed-martin-to-design-supersonic-x-422539/

Ah, well, that's me corrected, then

In that case, this may explain it:

http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2008/PAPERS/388.PDF

NOISE REDUCTION BY THRUST VECTORING FOR
SUPERSONIC BUSINESS JET
Shigeru HORINOUCHI
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

Abstract
This paper describes the possibility of thrust
vectoring for supersonic business jet (SSBJ) to
reduce jet noise by making use of its directional
distribution characteristics. The Noise
calculations for an arrow wing SSBJ and a
variable sweep wing SSBJ showed significant
noise reduction under take-off climb, sideline
and approach conditions. The effect of the
thrust vectoring was up to 9dB reduction in
take-off climb noise and up to 20dB reduction in
cumulative noise. The variable sweep wing
configuration with thrust vectoring showed the
best result of 27dB reduction in cumulative
noise.

Pointing the thrust vector downward (vectoring the exhaust upward) reduces noise on the ground during take-off and landing.

 

[blackkite]

Oh thanks a lot!
I understand the meaning of thrust vectoring.
Lockheed has the confidence for thrust vectoring through F-22 and F-35B experience. But Boeing....X-31?
Fore planes has the fuction to generate counter force for the trim when thrust vectoring?
Perhaps this X-plane has many objectives.
The artistic impression shows upward thrust vectoring? ;D

 

[CammNut]

There is no thrust vectoring

 

[TomS]

Flight International writer reading this forum maybe?

 

[blackkite]

There is no thrust vectoring

Oh Lockheed said so? ;D

 

[flateric]

Flight International writer reading this forum maybe?

Exactly. There's no thrust vectoring in QueSST.

 

[Flyaway]

Skunk Works Refines Quiet Supersonic Design

Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works is beginning a fast-paced year of preliminary design work on a low-boom demonstrator for NASA that the agency is increasingly optimistic will pave the way for environmentally acceptable supersonic business jets and airliners. The single-engine Quiet Supersonic Technology (QueSST) aircraft is designed to test whether the shockwave signature of potential future Mach 1-plus vehicles would be acceptable to the public, clearing the way for supersonic flight ...

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-refines-quiet-supersonic-design

 

[Stargazer]

Wasn't the Quiet Boom demonstrator supposed to be the Gulfstream X-54, originally announced for display at Farnborough 2014?

 

[Moose]

I believe the Gulfstream deal starved to death due to lack of funding.

 

[Sferrin]

I believe the Gulfstream deal starved to death due to lack of funding.

SOP in the US

 

[Flyaway]

Does anyone want to hazard a guess what X number the quiet boom demonstrator is likely to be?

 

[Dynoman]

Gulfstream X-54A Quiet Supersonic Aircraft, nicknamed Whisper Jet. Since it was unproduced maybe its successor will be X-54 also, Idk.

 

[Flyaway]

Gulfstream X-54A Quiet Supersonic Aircraft, nicknamed Whisper Jet. Since it was unproduced maybe its successor will be X-54 also, Idk.

Thank you. Good thinking.

 

[TomS]

They don't appear to have recycled numbers assigned to other unbuilt X planes; once a number is assigned it stays with a specific aircraft.

The next unused number seems to be X-58. Anyone's guess whether there is another program that might take that before the QueSST gets to that point.

 

[Stargazer]

They don't appear to have recycled numbers assigned to other unbuilt X planes; once a number is assigned it stays with a specific aircraft.

Agreed. And even in the case when it was the most possible (i.e. cancellation of the Airbus deal over the KC-45A before a contract was even issued) they skipped it and moved on to KC-46A. So, yes. Despite the great similarities between Gulfstream and Lockheed's projects, there is no doubt that a new number will be allocated.

 

[AeroFranz]

DARPA's LightningStrike is farther ahead and a subscale vehicle is already flying. however, it may or may not qualify for an X-designation.

 

[TomS]

The criteria for x-plane designation has never been very clear, but DARPA even put the word "X-Plane" in the program name, so it would make sense for them to apply for a number. If so, LightningStrike might get X-58 and QueSST would be X-59. Or vice versa -- I think it matters who files first not who flies first.

 

[Stargazer]

This being said, NASA has flown countless aircraft over the past few decades that DIDN'T garner a DoD designation. I suppose for an "X-" designation to be allocated, there should be some degree of involvement, at least real interest from one of the armed forces, right? Can you think of any X-plane that was totally devoid of military interest? I shouldn't think so.

 

[Sferrin]

This being said, NASA has flown countless aircraft over the past few decades that DIDN'T garner a DoD designation. I suppose for an "X-" designation to be allocated, there should be some degree of involvement, at least real interest from one of the armed forces, right? Can you think of any X-plane that was totally devoid of military interest? I shouldn't think so.

Good as any, although I'm not sure the X-48 has much.. . .never mind. Has the USAF logo on it.