• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

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

Rhinocrates

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
180
Reaction score
11
NASA selects Lockheed Martin to design supersonic X-plane

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

Attachments

CammNut

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
296
Reaction score
3
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

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,802
Reaction score
286
Hi!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0BrdOa_Fz0
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
205
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8r-Pm1-dVc

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

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,802
Reaction score
286
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???
 

Attachments

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
20
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
205
ftp://lbpw-ftp.larc.nasa.gov/outgoing/aviation-2014/OrdazGeiselhartFenbert-Design-Boom-Trim.pdf
semi-final, non-proprietary NASA LBDEF configuration
 

Attachments

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
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.
 

Attachments

NUSNA_Moebius

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
NUSNA_Moebius said:
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

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
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

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
NUSNA_Moebius said:
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

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,056
Reaction score
15
Makes you wonder what happened to X-54.
 

Rhinocrates

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
180
Reaction score
11
NUSNA_Moebius said:
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

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,802
Reaction score
286
TomS said:
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

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,802
Reaction score
286
Boeing design?

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

Attachments

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
blackkite said:
TomS said:
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

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,802
Reaction score
286
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
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
Flight International writer reading this forum maybe?
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
205
TomS said:
Flight International writer reading this forum maybe?
Exactly. There's no thrust vectoring in QueSST.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
http://aviationweek.com/technology/nasa-aims-supersonic-airliners-quiet-subsonic?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20160809_AW-19_684&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=6649&utm_medium=email&elq2=86e46e72905a4901a79c8cc144bb9149
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,237
Reaction score
296
NASA has selected Lockheed Martin Skunk Works to build the quiet boom demonstrator.

Press Release.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-04-03-NASA-Selects-Lockheed-Martin-Skunk-Works-R-to-Build-X-Plane?_ga=2.248072455.12079722.1522787438-1851923502.1522787438

Flashy website.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/QueSST.html

https://youtu.be/C3ESPCQgDok
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,237
Reaction score
296
Success With Low-Boom X-plane Critical To NASA’s Aeronautics Vision

We may not recall them all, but those we do remember hold special places in aviation history. The X-1 in which Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in 1947. The X-15 in which Pete Knight reached Mach 6.7 in 1967. The X-43 that hit Mach 9.6 on scramjet power in 2004. They are the X-planes. Aviation afficionados will recall even more: the X-5 that pioneered variable wing sweep, the X-24 lifting bodies, forward-swept-wing X-29 and thrust-vectoring X-31—the international X-plane. Then ...
http://m.aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/success-low-boom-x-plane-critical-nasa-s-aeronautics-vision
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
205
https://www.nasa.gov/aero/nasa-experimental-supersonic-aircraft-x-59-quesst/

June 27, 2018
NASA’s Experimental Supersonic Aircraft Now Known as X-59 QueSST

NASA’s newest experimental aircraft, designed with quiet supersonic technology and intended to help open a new era in faster-than-sound air travel over land, will forever be known in the history books as the X-59 QueSST.
The U.S. Air Force, which is the government entity responsible for assigning X-number designations and the popular name associated with the aircraft, officially informed NASA of their decision on June 26.

“For everyone working on this important project, this is great news and we’re thrilled with the designation,” said Jaiwon Shin, NASA’s associate administrator for aeronautics.

“I’m confident that the contributions the X-59 QueSST will make to our nation and the world will ensure its place among the greatest NASA X-planes ever flown,” Shin said.

The X-plane number designation continues a tradition of naming important experimental aircraft and rockets that dates back to 1947 and the X-1, the rocket-powered airplane that Chuck Yeager flew to become the first human to fly faster than the speed of sound.

And while that famous X-1 was nicknamed the Glamourous Glennis, for Yeager’s wife, today’s X-59 takes its QueSST nickname from the quiet supersonic technology the aircraft will be equipped with.

Now under construction by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company at its famed Skunk Works plant in Palmdale, Calif., the X-59 QueSST is designed so that when flying supersonic, people on the ground will hear nothing more than a sonic thump – if anything at all.

Once fully tested and pronounced safe to fly within the National Airspace, the X-59 in late 2022 will begin making supersonic flights over select communities to measure residents’ reactions to any noise they might hear.

The scientifically valid data gathered from these community overflights will be presented to U.S. and international regulators, who will use the information to help them come up with rules based on noise levels that enable new commercial markets for supersonic flight over land.

Jim Banke
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate

Last Updated: June 27, 2018
 

Attachments

Rhinocrates

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
180
Reaction score
11
So whats X-58?

Wiki says that X-52 was skipped to avoid confusion with the B-52... so maybe this was skipped to avoid confusion with the B-58? Since we've skipped from B-2 to B-21, I wouldn't expect too much consistency now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X-planes
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
85
Rhinocrates said:
Wiki says that X-52 was skipped to avoid confusion with the B-52...
If what Wiki says is true... then the DoD really considers people stupid: either they think we are capable of mixing up a 70 year old giant bomber produced in the dozens with a one-off 21st century test article, or they haven't skipped #52 at all and think we will actually buy such a story. Either way they are insulting our intelligence.
In the 1940s, there were Boeing PT-17 and Boeing B-17 types around (darn! there was even a Boeing XBT-17 at some point!) and I don't think anybody got confused, nor that it left a permanent trauma on anybody. This whole "skipped to avoid confusion" thing is just ridiculous on so many levels.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
The USAF Nomenclature Office has been fighting a losing battle for proper use of designations for decades now. A skipped designation could reflect a hidden program, a reservation for a cancelled project that was never publicized or used, or just a mistake or whim by the program managers or leadership.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
TomS said:
The USAF Nomenclature Office has been fighting a losing battle for proper use of designations for decades now. A skipped designation could reflect a hidden program, a reservation for a cancelled project that was never publicized or used, or just a mistake or whim by the program managers or leadership.
*cough* F-35 *cough*
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
Also the Seawolf class.
 

sienar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
567
Reaction score
79
Rhinocrates said:
So whats X-58?

Wiki says that X-52 was skipped to avoid confusion with the B-52... so maybe this was skipped to avoid confusion with the B-58? Since we've skipped from B-2 to B-21, I wouldn't expect too much consistency now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X-planes
That somewhat understandable given that the B-52 is still in service, but the B-58 hasnt been for nearly 50 years.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
sferrin said:
Also the Seawolf class.
And DDG-1000. And LCS. And frankly pretty much every new fast transport ship type the USN has rolled out for the last 15 years or so (HSV, EPF, TSV, HST, etc.)
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,134
Reaction score
104
sienar said:
So whats X-58?
IMHO it is the Kratos XQ-58A Valkyrie for the AFRL Low Cost Attritable Strike Demonstrator (LCASD) program, formally known as AFRL Low-Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology (LCAAT) program.
Sources:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/afrl-sets-first-flight-date-for-xq-58a-450091/
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,27189.0/all.html
 
Top