US Supersonic Transport(SST) Program post-1971

Is the current SST research still focusing on lower altitude cruise to make NASA fund a good deal of the sonic boom reduction techniques?
 
I believe that high altitude cruise is effective for sonic boom reduction.
 
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*
 
Hi,

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

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    33.9 KB · Views: 169
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    38.2 KB · Views: 151
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: 104
I think this growing boom shape is rather comfortable than sudden strong boom shape.
 
Hi,

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

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    14 KB · Views: 115
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    18.7 KB · Views: 111
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: 99
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: 71
  • NOISE-1.jpg
    NOISE-1.jpg
    141.3 KB · Views: 57
  • LFC-2.jpg
    LFC-2.jpg
    106.7 KB · Views: 56
  • LFC-1.jpg
    LFC-1.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 56
  • MD MACH3.2 SST LOW BOOM.jpg
    MD MACH3.2 SST LOW BOOM.jpg
    152.6 KB · Views: 72
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: 101
Hi,

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

Attachments

  • AST.JPG
    AST.JPG
    30.5 KB · Views: 274
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: 226
  • BOEING LFC 2.jpg
    BOEING LFC 2.jpg
    232.4 KB · Views: 223
  • BOEING LFC 3.jpg
    BOEING LFC 3.jpg
    180.5 KB · Views: 140
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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

  • DouglasHSCTCabinArrangement.jpg
    DouglasHSCTCabinArrangement.jpg
    104.1 KB · Views: 114
  • DouglasHSCTGeneralArrangement.jpg
    DouglasHSCTGeneralArrangement.jpg
    98.4 KB · Views: 118
  • D3.2-3ADouglasHSCT.JPG
    D3.2-3ADouglasHSCT.JPG
    31.5 KB · Views: 93
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

  • DouglasHSCT.JPG
    DouglasHSCT.JPG
    60.3 KB · Views: 117
  • DouglasHSCTMach1.6Baseline.JPG
    DouglasHSCTMach1.6Baseline.JPG
    25.4 KB · Views: 108
  • DouglasHSCTMach2.4Baseline.JPG
    DouglasHSCTMach2.4Baseline.JPG
    28.3 KB · Views: 101
  • DouglasHSCTMach3.2.JPG
    DouglasHSCTMach3.2.JPG
    33.5 KB · Views: 118
Here's a Boeing concept.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing-NASA HSCT-small.jpg
    Boeing-NASA HSCT-small.jpg
    111.3 KB · Views: 129
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: 106
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: 105
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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: 409
Beautiful! But tail stabilizer is very large. Why?
 
Nice, but the inward leaning intakes are extremely strange, I dare say...
 
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.
 
High-Speed Flight and the Military

A 1999 assessment of the HSCT for military use.

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA397157
 
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: 387
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: 300

Attachments

  • 1995-09-20_thru_10-20_HSR_Configuration_Aero_numbers_15_and_17_5.jpg
    1995-09-20_thru_10-20_HSR_Configuration_Aero_numbers_15_and_17_5.jpg
    477.1 KB · Views: 103
Back
Top Bottom