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

US Supersonic Transport(SST) Program post-1971

kenneth

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
51
Reaction score
1
hey
found this picture of an SBJ. anyone knows something about it?
 

Attachments

  • SBJ.jpg
    SBJ.jpg
    11.6 KB · Views: 170

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,128
Reaction score
1,213
something says me think late 80s Gulfstream

...or Dassault?

obviously have seen it in Volare ca.88
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
index.php


ahem
cant it be that this SST
is flying a littel bit to high ?
so 1246719160 ft ;D

or is this a SSTO also used as SST ?
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,573
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770005054_1977005054.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    29.8 KB · Views: 204
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    33.8 KB · Views: 189
  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    60.8 KB · Views: 166

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Oh it's F-108!
JAXA's researcher taught me that,
1.Wave resistance minimum shape is not equal to sonic boom minimum shape.
2.It's effective to stretch the fuselage for sonic boom reduction.
3.Quiet spike or plasma discharge is one method to get stretch fuselage effect.
4.Self weight origin sonic boom is difficult to deaden.
5.The "A" shape tail stabilizer such as SAI's SSBJ is effective to reduce sonic boom from fuselage after
end. Also it has stiffener effect for main wing.
6.Combination of expansion pressure part and compression pressure part along the fuselage is
important for sonic boom reduction. Strong boom from the fuselage tend to catch up the boom
from top of the fuselage.
7.MISORA's concept is interesting, but self weight origin sonic boom is difficult to deaden also for
bi-plane SST.

I can't understand exactly what he means. It's very difficult to understand sonic boom for me.
 

Attachments

  • QUIET SPIKE.jpg
    QUIET SPIKE.jpg
    64.9 KB · Views: 177

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
49
Is the current SST research still focusing on lower altitude cruise to make NASA fund a good deal of the sonic boom reduction techniques?
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
I believe that high altitude cruise is effective for sonic boom reduction.
 

KJ_Lesnick

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
38
I think they should have got rid of the canard and instead made a long strake at the front. Think L-2000 meets F-108 Rapier *drools*
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,573
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000044616_2000049515.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    33.9 KB · Views: 112
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    38.2 KB · Views: 94

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,573
Hi,

a starnge McDonnell Douglas design,it was from Douglas division.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940028967_1994028967.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    48.2 KB · Views: 56

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
I think this growing boom shape is rather comfortable than sudden strong boom shape.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,573
Hi,

the Lockheed Mach 4 SST.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910004119_1991004119.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    18.7 KB · Views: 68
  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    14 KB · Views: 69

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,573
Hi,

the MD SST aircraft.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910020822_1991020822.pdf
 

Attachments

  • SST.JPG
    SST.JPG
    28.4 KB · Views: 54

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Hi hesham!
Thank very much for very interesting report.
McDonnell Douglas M3.2 SST study in1991.
Cruising speed:M3.2
Cruising altitude:65,708ft
Initial cruising weight:669,200lb
Range:6,500n.m
Canard shape for sonic boom reduction is very radical.
This study include LFC system study and noise evaluation for some engine type.
 

Attachments

  • NOISE-2.jpg
    NOISE-2.jpg
    122 KB · Views: 29
  • NOISE-1.jpg
    NOISE-1.jpg
    141.3 KB · Views: 20
  • LFC-2.jpg
    LFC-2.jpg
    106.7 KB · Views: 21
  • LFC-1.jpg
    LFC-1.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 23
  • MD MACH3.2 SST LOW BOOM.jpg
    MD MACH3.2 SST LOW BOOM.jpg
    152.6 KB · Views: 33

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,573
Hi,

the Boeing SST aircraft.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900016628_1990016628.pdf
 

Attachments

  • Boeing.JPG
    Boeing.JPG
    45.2 KB · Views: 55

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,573
Hi,

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1975/1975%20-%202822.html
 

Attachments

  • AST.JPG
    AST.JPG
    30.5 KB · Views: 212

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Hi! Boeing's laminar flow control system from hesham's post.
We can design natural laminar flow wing without suction system by super computer calculation now.
 

Attachments

  • BOEING LFC 1.jpg
    BOEING LFC 1.jpg
    128.3 KB · Views: 172
  • BOEING LFC 2.jpg
    BOEING LFC 2.jpg
    232.4 KB · Views: 184
  • BOEING LFC 3.jpg
    BOEING LFC 3.jpg
    180.5 KB · Views: 99

PNorwood

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
49
Reaction score
2
blackkite,

I was under the impression that you would require boundary flow suction on the leading edge with the rest of the wing designed as a natural laminar-flow wing
 

airman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
102
Website
zeef.com
All beatiful concepts !!! :D :D

I have impression that after crash of Concorde Flight 4590 in 2000 , all dreams about supersonic trasport seems gone !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-2000
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
PNorwood said:
blackkite,

I was under the impression that you would require boundary flow suction on the leading edge with the rest of the wing designed as a natural laminar-flow wing
Hi! Last year I saw JAXA rocket lunched Mach 2 glider for SST technology verificaiton, there are no suction holes at leading edge of the wing. It's natural laminar flow wing. Natural means no additional devices are needed for laminar flow.
 

PNorwood

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
49
Reaction score
2
blackkite said:
Hi! Last year I saw JAXA rocket lunched Mach 2 glider for SST technology verificaiton, there are no suction holes at leading edge of the wing. It's natural laminar flow wing. Natural means no additional devices are needed for laminar flow.

That's highly impressive
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
751
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
The 1989 High-Speed Civil Transport Studies by HSCT Concept Development Group,
Advanced Commercial Programs, Douglas Aircraft Company, Long Beach, California 1991

Abstract:
The results are presented for the Douglas Aircraft Company system studies related to high speed civil transports (HSCTs). The system studies were conducted to assess the environmental compatibility of a HSCT at a design Mach number of 3.2. Sonic boom minimization, exterior noise, and engine emissions were assessed together with the effect of a laminar flow control (LFC) technology on vehicle gross weight. The general results indicated that (1) achievement of a 90 PLdB sonic boom loudness level goal at Mach 3.2 may not be practical; (2) the high flow engine cycle concept shows promise of achieving the side line FAR Part 36 noise limit but may not achieve the aircraft range design goal of 6,500 nautical miles; (3) the rich burn/quick quench (RB/QQ) combustor concept shows promise for achieving low EINO(sub x) levels when combined with a premixed pilot stage/advanced technology high power stage duct burner in the P and W variable stream control engine (VSCE); and (4) full chord wing LFC has significant performance and economic advantages relative to the turbulent wing baseline.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910014882_1991014882.pdf
 

Attachments

  • D3.2-3ADouglasHSCT.JPG
    D3.2-3ADouglasHSCT.JPG
    31.5 KB · Views: 47
  • DouglasHSCTGeneralArrangement.jpg
    DouglasHSCTGeneralArrangement.jpg
    98.4 KB · Views: 66
  • DouglasHSCTCabinArrangement.jpg
    DouglasHSCTCabinArrangement.jpg
    104.1 KB · Views: 63

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
751
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Douglas Aircraft HSCT Status and Future Research Needs by H. Robert Welge, Douglas Aircraft Company, April 1992

Current activities on the High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) at Douglas are focussed on baseline vehicle development at Mach 1.6 and 2.4. Parallel design activities incorporating the latest technologies in structures/materials, propulsion/noise, and aerodynamics are also being conducted and incorporated into the baseline to establish performance, economic viability, and environmental compliance. Studies are also being conducted to establish the feasibility of incorporating laminar flow control and minimized sonic boom concepts into the baseline. A decision point on these last two technologies is targeted prior to the start of the NASA HSR Phase 2 Program in 1993.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940028948_1994028948.pdf
 

Attachments

  • DouglasHSCTMach3.2.JPG
    DouglasHSCTMach3.2.JPG
    33.5 KB · Views: 70
  • DouglasHSCTMach2.4Baseline.JPG
    DouglasHSCTMach2.4Baseline.JPG
    28.3 KB · Views: 60
  • DouglasHSCTMach1.6Baseline.JPG
    DouglasHSCTMach1.6Baseline.JPG
    25.4 KB · Views: 61
  • DouglasHSCT.JPG
    DouglasHSCT.JPG
    60.3 KB · Views: 60

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
53
Here's a Boeing concept.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing-NASA HSCT-small.jpg
    Boeing-NASA HSCT-small.jpg
    111.3 KB · Views: 70

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
751
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Artist's impression of Lockheed SST concept circa 1979. Engines are mounted over and under the wing. Noise from lower engines masks that from the upper ones. It also leaves more wing surface free for control flaps, so wings can be smaller. Lockheed used a modified blended body; passengers in the midsection do not have windows.

Source: "New Aerodynamic Design, New Engines, Spawn a Revival of the SST" by Jim Shefter, Popular Science, July 1979.
 

Attachments

  • LockheedSST.JPG
    LockheedSST.JPG
    29.1 KB · Views: 49

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
751
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Front and ventral view of Douglas Advanced Supersonic Transport (AST) model circa 1979.

Source: "New Aerodynamic Design, New Engines, Spawn a Revival of the SST" by Jim Shefter, Popular Science, July 1979
 

Attachments

  • DouglasASTFore.JPG
    DouglasASTFore.JPG
    71.6 KB · Views: 45

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,532
Reaction score
311
Source: "New Aerodynamic Design, New Engines, Spawn a Revival of the SST" by Jim Shefter, Popular Science, July 1979.

I think that's not a Boeing SST but a Boeing fighter design.

Please anybody can confirm my words?


Thanks,

Antonio
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,532
Reaction score
311
Hey found myself, the forum's resources are growing extraordinary

Look at Flateric's reply #4

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,398.0.html
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
357
Triton said:
Model of Boeing SST concept circa 1979 with blended body. The blended body means that there are no windows in the passenger compartment. Passengers would have video monitors at each seat offering entertainment programs or outside views.

I've seen the engineering drawings for that concept as a two seat demonstrator/interceptor for the USAF, back when I was in school in the '80's, (Also see pometablava's reply above for the renderings) and if you check the patent drawings for the design it's for a supersonic bizjet.

See the patent here
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
751
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Oh dear! Popular Science got it wrong. :-[ I found a report after posting from the NASA Technical Reports Server that describes the Boeing design as a supersonic demonstrator. It just isn't big enough to be a supersonic airliner.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,573
Hi,

the Boeing SST.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/aviation_week/on_space_and_technology/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost:07856d18-29c1-411d-aa9f-6f6c9af19b3d&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
 

Attachments

  • SST.jpg
    SST.jpg
    10.3 KB · Views: 338

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Beautiful! But tail stabilizer is very large. Why?
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
357
Stargazer2006 said:
Nice, but the inward leaning intakes are extremely strange, I dare say...
The inward leaning intakes are just aligning themselves with the airflow over the top of the wing.
 

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,162
Reaction score
73
High-Speed Flight and the Military

A 1999 assessment of the HSCT for military use.

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA397157
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,532
Reaction score
311
Flug Revue May 1994

McDD concept

300 passengers
Mach 2,4
5000 NM
 

Attachments

  • McDD SST 1994.jpg
    McDD SST 1994.jpg
    341.6 KB · Views: 311

The Artist

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
638
Reaction score
262
While this will not add much to the discussions going on here, I thought I'd post this two page spread from Future Life, December 1980.
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed Advanced SST.jpg
    Lockheed Advanced SST.jpg
    810.4 KB · Views: 233

Similar threads

Top