How Lockheed Martin Designed the World's Weirdest, Quietest Supersonic Jet (fastcompany.com) 77
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fast Company: The Lockheed Martin X-59 is probably the strangest airplane ever designed. Its razor-sharp nose takes half of the airplane's length; there's no cockpit in sight; the wings are tiny compared to the entire fuselage; and its oversized tail engine looks like a weird hump about to fall off. Of course, there's a method to this madness. The design is the secret sauce that has produced a true unicorn: a supersonic jet that doesn't boom the hell out of people and buildings on the ground. [...] The X-59, developed alongside NASA, is designed as an experimental jet that NASA will use to test just how big of a boom people on the ground are willing to accept from a supersonic aircraft. According to Dave Richardson, the program director for X-59 at Lockheed Martin, with this new design, people shouldn't expect much of a boom at all.
The X-59's "quiet" supersonic boom isn't made possible by expensive magical materials or exotic engines, Richardson explains. "There is no radical technology in the airplane itself. It really is just the shape of the aircraft." And if the shape looks more like an anime alien spaceship than an actual vehicle created by human beings, that's because it was dreamed up in another dimension -- by computers and humans -- through special software created by the Bethesda, Maryland, company's engineers. [...] Richardson and his team learned a few important lessons about designing for supersonic boom. First, the heavy, bulky parts of the plane needed to be as far back as possible. "We really put nothing out in the front, but we want to have that long, fine ratio," he says. This resulted in an extremely fine nose and body, with no surface interruptions that can produce noise when the plane breaks the sound barrier. "You want to be able to stretch out and manage the different shocks across the length of the airplane," he adds.
They also learned that anything that causes discontinuity in the airplane's shape -- for instance a windshield or canopy -- can add to the boom effect. This led them to get rid of the windshield altogether. Instead, the X-59 uses an external vision system, which is the only advanced technology in the plane, according to Richardson. The pilot navigates using a camera, viewing the outside through a large display. This system had to undergo rigorous certification by the Federal Aviation Administration for use in the national airspace. [...] The X-59 has been designed to manage and distribute shockwaves differently from the very start while also flying at slower speeds than the Concorde (the Concorde's cruising speed was 1,350 mph, while the X-59 will cruise at around 925 mph). "I think most people look at the airplane and they say, 'Wait, something's wrong,'" Richardson says. "[They think] it's too long. The landing gear is too far in the back. And why is the nose so long?" The inaugural flight is scheduled for early 2024, notes Fast Company. "If they achieve their objectives, there's no reason why aircraft manufacturers can't take the concepts they discovered and turn them into commercial airliners, Richardson says."
"Someday, people might be able to look up and see an alien shape in the sky, with the X-59's design transcending experimental nature and ushering in a new era for high-speed travel across the globe."
The X-59's "quiet" supersonic boom isn't made possible by expensive magical materials or exotic engines, Richardson explains. "There is no radical technology in the airplane itself. It really is just the shape of the aircraft." And if the shape looks more like an anime alien spaceship than an actual vehicle created by human beings, that's because it was dreamed up in another dimension -- by computers and humans -- through special software created by the Bethesda, Maryland, company's engineers. [...] Richardson and his team learned a few important lessons about designing for supersonic boom. First, the heavy, bulky parts of the plane needed to be as far back as possible. "We really put nothing out in the front, but we want to have that long, fine ratio," he says. This resulted in an extremely fine nose and body, with no surface interruptions that can produce noise when the plane breaks the sound barrier. "You want to be able to stretch out and manage the different shocks across the length of the airplane," he adds.
They also learned that anything that causes discontinuity in the airplane's shape -- for instance a windshield or canopy -- can add to the boom effect. This led them to get rid of the windshield altogether. Instead, the X-59 uses an external vision system, which is the only advanced technology in the plane, according to Richardson. The pilot navigates using a camera, viewing the outside through a large display. This system had to undergo rigorous certification by the Federal Aviation Administration for use in the national airspace. [...] The X-59 has been designed to manage and distribute shockwaves differently from the very start while also flying at slower speeds than the Concorde (the Concorde's cruising speed was 1,350 mph, while the X-59 will cruise at around 925 mph). "I think most people look at the airplane and they say, 'Wait, something's wrong,'" Richardson says. "[They think] it's too long. The landing gear is too far in the back. And why is the nose so long?" The inaugural flight is scheduled for early 2024, notes Fast Company. "If they achieve their objectives, there's no reason why aircraft manufacturers can't take the concepts they discovered and turn them into commercial airliners, Richardson says."
"Someday, people might be able to look up and see an alien shape in the sky, with the X-59's design transcending experimental nature and ushering in a new era for high-speed travel across the globe."
Engine looks okay to me. (Score:3)
Guessing the guy has never seen a Boeing 727 [wikipedia.org] or McDonnel Douglas DC-10 [wikipedia.org] commercial airliners ...
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's not in the same narrow mold of all passenger jets since the Boeing 707 or even the earlier de Havilland Comet [wikipedia.org], but so what? It's not that far off from the Concord or even the B-70. Give it a rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the L-1011 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting, but not very practical for commercial use. The huge nose and small, swept wings will make it challenging to land. Capacity looks quite small, especially since it's single engine. Interesting use of canards, similar to the TU-144, the other supersonic passenger jet.
What I'm saying is that aside from specialist (mostly military) aircraft, solving the sonic boom problem this way isn't very practical.
Re: Engine looks okay to me. (Score:2)
The article contains renderings of more commercially viable designs. This was a cheaper technology demonstrator.
Re: (Score:2)
And they do nothing with it. (Score:2)
I think Boom will eat their lunch. (Score:1)
Meanwhile, Boom's small prototype [boomsupersonic.com] is almost ready for first flight. Neither of these are airliners, but Boom's tech is being designed to go faster if not quieter. Over-flying the continental US doesn't seem like a big enough niche. You're still going to take up a huge chunk of your day with the flying time. I don't think the time savings really matter that much until you start crossing oceans then it really makes a difference. Boom's tech is faster, the small prototype will get them valuable experience
Re:I think Boom will eat their lunch. (Score:4, Interesting)
Both of these are really interesting designs so let's be happy this type of stuff is getting looked at seriously again.
I would absolutely say being able to operate over land is an even bigger deal than fastest speed since now you use the same routes every other airliner uses. London to Los Angeles? No problem. Anywhere in Asia where you have to go west? NYC to Asia? If your plane is too loud you have to sub-sonic for a lot of those flights and probably change your route as well.
Until there is a working airliner these are both cool tech demos. The article says part of the contract to Lockheed was they also deliver a design for an airliner so we'll see if they get into that business again but if not since this was commissioned by NASA we can hope the tech can be used by other companies.
Re: (Score:2)
The article says part of the contract to Lockheed was they also deliver a design for an airliner so we'll see if they get into that business again but if not since this was commissioned by NASA we can hope the tech can be used by other companies.
We'll see what Lockheed produces, but let's be honest, they're doing this to build a better bomber.
Re:I think Boom will eat their lunch. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, there are international over ocean flights, but there are so many more continental flights.
And with flights going faster, then you can fly less planes because the same plane can cover more flights per day. I expect any flight under two hours, would be the last to be replaced with supersonic planes. But NY to LA in 3 hours instead of 6. Yup that would happen fast.
I bet the moment Lockheed proves this out, I will bet that Boeing starts to take a serious look at this. And Boeing makes lots of airplanes. They are back ordered for the 737Max for the next eight to ten years. If Boeing said to the major carriers - We have a replacement for the 737Max that can go supersonic and is legal for the continental US, it would sell, and it would sell like hotcakes.
It would sell for a simple reason: One of the carriers would advertise: "NY to LA in three hours, unlike the competition. You don't want to be wrecked by jet lag do you?" and the rest of the carriers would have to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it won't sell at all. This is why Boeing killed their sonic cruiser project two decades ago and why passenger jets generally fly slower nowadays. Fast aircraft is very inefficient and in the 21st century aircraft efficiency as in cost per available seat mile is the most important matter for the airlines.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it won't sell at all. This is why Boeing killed their sonic cruiser project two decades ago and why passenger jets generally fly slower nowadays.
This is an old myth. A modern 747 (-8i) flies faster than a 1960's 747. The earlier versions of the 707 (-120) could fly up to 1000 KPH but didn't have the range to make it from NY to London without a fuel stop (usually in Gander, Halifax) but most of it's competitors (DC8, DH Comet) flew around 900 KPH. So a modern airliner is still faster, granted not by much, a 60's airliner flew around 890-900 KPH, a modern one is around 930 KPH. Airliners have always prioritised efficiency over speed because there ar
Re: (Score:2)
Except they do fly slower, below their cruise speed. Schedule padding is only a part of it. I hate to quote the daily heil, but here you are: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
Also, DH Comet was the first jet airliner and hence not really optimised for fast high altitude flight. VC10 was fast and so was the Convair 990.
Re: I think Boom will eat their lunch. (Score:2)
Yes, a faster plane will replace more slower planes. Provided both have the dame capacity. But if you read the fine article, you'll see that the planned commercial supersonic plane they're thinking of developing if this prototype works only has a capacity of 44 passengers. Somehow I don't think it would be replacing any existing planes except for those in a very small niche market.
Re: (Score:2)
You can theoretically make more flights per day, but in practice it doesn't work out that way. For a start, supersonic jets need more maintenance. The stresses on them are much larger than on subsonic aircraft, the engines have to work harder and are more complex, and with designs like this they will be more reliant on fly-by-wire to keep a somewhat marginal aircraft flyable.
The other big issue is lower capacity. To go supersonic you need a smaller cross section so you aren't pushing so much air out of your
Re: (Score:2)
Guess that all depends on which corporate account is picking up that $3K plane ticket.
The prices I have seen for a Paris - New-York flight in Concorde in the 1990s are north of $10K. The flight NY - LA flight seems to be of similar duration so $3K seems like a low estimate. Also the decarbonation of air travel is all the rage these days. So right after they manage to scale up to a plane with room for more than a couple of passengers the question is going to be: can they make an electric version? With a useful range?
Re: (Score:2)
"NY to LA in three hours, unlike the competition. You don't want to be wrecked by jet lag do you?"
Huh? Faster planes wouldn't affect jet lag at all. Jet lag is caused by changing time zones, putting your body's circadian rhythm out of sync with your environment. Nothing at all to do with the flight duration, unless the flight duration is the days or weeks needed for your body can adjust slowly, i.e. boat speed rather than jet speed.
Re:I think Boom will eat their lunch. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
NYC to SFO in 10 hrs (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Airport security normally only checks people arriving from the ground, so the airport time delta is asymmetric. Also, high-speed rail will not have downtown stations unless they displace heaps of people and roads, which seems unlikely under US politics. Additionally, your ten-hour number assumes no stops between the cities. A lot of the country would be quite upset to be excluded like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Japan does not have 300mph trains. Their top speed is 320kph, quite a bit less. And riding these trains is hardly comfortable enough to do it for 10 hours. The 2+ hours ride from Tokyo to Osaka is shaky enough, despite all the advancements. It's much better economically and ecologically, and faster than taking a flight for the same trip, but it's not that great in terms of comfort. Shinkansen has too little room for luggage (90% of Japanese travelers travel for business and family visit and thus don't take
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot more comfortable than an airliner, and people sit in them for ten hours at a time.
There are luggage vestibules on the trains. They're usually close to empty because most people are using the train
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't work in the US because the US is designed around the automobile. And the folks building the HSR have never done so before (each attempt is by a new bunch) so they aren't developing experience. I suspect there's also a lot of corruption, but I'm less sure of that. I am sure there's a lot of folks who won't willingly sell their property at market prices.
Re: (Score:2)
The HST in China are very nice and they definitely live up to their expectations. However the CCP has much greater liberties in putting rail lines wherever they want. That wouldn't go over as well in the US. "Ok, everyone out..."
Re: (Score:2)
10 hours assuming no delays and no intermediate stops.
You will have to build new tracks through a large stretch of the country to accomplish that, the people living there won't be very happy about it especially if there aren't any stops for them to actually use the train, and it will cost a huge amount of money. Read up on the "HS2" project in the UK for example.
Why would driving to the train station be quicker than driving to the airport? Sure you might live closer to the station than the airport but there
Re: (Score:2)
Taking the train would be faster than taking an airplane because of security (theater?). You can't hijack a train.
Re: (Score:2)
Flight time NYC to SFO is 6 hrs 25 mins, they usually ask you to check in 2 hours before departure for the security theatre so thats still 8 hours 25 mins. If you go through security quickly then you have the airport lounge which has more facilities than a train would have, so you have food and somewhere comfortable to sit for that time etc.
You usually want to arrive early for a train too incase you hit unexpected delays, if you time your journey to the station without any margin for error and then you arr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you build an HSR that can do 300 miles/hour like Japan is building you can do NYC to SFO in 10 hours. Save 2 hrs each side on security and driving to the airport and its the same as a transcontinental flight but you can have much better seating. Additionally you can have a mall on wheels car and sell stuff for anciliary revenue.
The problem is commuter rail, even HSR doesn't scale to those distances. Sure I can get from London to Pairs or Madrid to Barcelona in less than 3 hours (equivalent flight times are approx 1 to 1.5 hours). However getting from London to Madrid is 13.5 hours by the fastest trains including the 200 MPH Eurostar service (London to Paris), its 4 trains (not including the station change between Paris Gare du Nord and Gare de Lyon as you could easily walk that one if you wanted). It's a 2.5 hour flight in compari
Re: (Score:2)
China has built dedicated high speed tracks on a scale much larger than NYC to SFO. China has built about 10x that distance, in about 20 years.
I know, China doesn't have the same problems as the US, there's always an excuse, but it is possible with the political will to make it happen. China thought about going for maglev but didn't, so maybe the US can beat them to it for some bragging rights. For reference the Japanese maglev does 600kph, or 372mph. NYC to SFO would take 7 hours, but a US train could prob
Re: (Score:2)
Train seats are always going to be more comfortable than plane seats. Also unlike on a road trip you can get up, walk around and use the bathroom so it is definitely more comfortable tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easily? Who are you kidding? Who do you think is going to build the multi-billion dollar rail infrastructure to do that? Certainly not Americans, and you can't share with existing rail which is freight company owned and operated.
Faster planes from big cities (with big airports) can use existing airports, so minimal infrastructure costs and time delays.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask California. The only one making money off of an idea like this would be the lawyers and political grifters fighting about land right-of-way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
given the current experience with CA high speed rail fiasco, a transcontinental USA high speed rail would likely be several trillion$ to be built, and likely take a half century
...and still only go from Bakersfield to Fresno.
Re: (Score:2)
If replacing them with high speed rail was easy, why hasn't it been done? You'd think someone would want to make lots and lots of money by outcompeting all the short haul flights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easily? Maybe in theory.
Re: (Score:2)
I once got to see the control room for the NE US air corridor in Cambridge MA. It looks like a river of planes pouring in and out towards Nova Scotia. I'm amazed anyone can manage it.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the routes...
Concorde could cover the atlantic, but didn't have enough range to cross the pacific to reach asia from the usa. Had development continued we'd likely have seen incremental improvements over the years, there was a "B" model concorde on the drawing board with slight improvements all round but it never got built.
A lot of routes are over land, europe to africa, the middle east or asia is primarily over land. A sea route would be a lot further, which would offset the increased speed.
Re: (Score:1)
Over-flying the continental US doesn't seem like a big enough niche.
It's a very large niche if you're planning to fly from the East coast to Asia, or from the West coast to Europe.
Energy costs say this will be niche tech (Score:2)
"Someday, people might be able to look up and see an alien shape in the sky, with the X-59's design transcending experimental nature and ushering in a new era for high-speed travel across the globe."
Supersonic travel will never be mainstream until these supersonic aircraft are running on a much cheaper fuel than anything available today. Until then, this is just designing the most expensive and exclusive private jet of the future, or at best a new Concorde.
Not even a new concorde (Score:2)
The british and french managed to build a full sized airliner that could do Mach 2 with 1960s technology. I really don't think building a small plane that flies 400mph SLOWER - but hey, its a bit quieter - is much to boast about 60 years later.
Frankly its embarrasing that this is the state of the art in 2023.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite "full sized", it was relatively small compared to other airliners and had up to 128 seats depending how much legroom the airline wanted to give people. That's quite a bit smaller than a 737, let alone a really big aircraft like a 747 or a380.
Concorde is roughly the same age as the first generation 747.
No windshield anywhere? (Score:2)
What happens when the electronics all glitch out?
Re: (Score:2)
Tbh if the electronics were to completely fail on a modern fly by wire airbus or boeing you're screwed anyway.
Fuel efficiency? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a little bit. The sonic boom is wasted energy (unless you're using it as a weapon). Reducing the sonic boom should reduce frictional losses.
Douglas X-3 (Score:5, Interesting)
So, someone finally got around to putting a big enough engine in the Douglas X-3 [wikipedia.org] to get the job done!
Military interest? (Score:1)
Booming all the time in the Netherlands (Score:2)
Hmm,
In the Netherlands we hear super sonic booms all the time. Likely military. Scares the hell out out people. Not a word is spoken. I guess different rules for government versus commercial.
You can tell that they are supersonic booms by observing the reactions on sites like https://watwasdieknal.nl/ [watwasdieknal.nl] and you notice a path where everyone in the path is reporting that it was very loud. Also sound localization does not make sense in these cases.
"perceived" decibel level? (Score:2, Offtopic)
from Wikipedia:
It is expected to cruise at Mach 1.42 (1,510 km/h; 937 mph) at an altitude of 55,000 ft (16,800 m), creating a low 75 Perceived Level decibel (PLdB)
So... no *actual* decibel level, just a "perceived" one. Concorde's cruising sonic boom from the ground was described as a "distant thud" so let's overestimate and say its "perceived" decibel level was 90. So in 60 years you've traded 20 decibels for a) a reduction in speed of 500 mph, b) a reduction in capacity from 100-ish to 1, c) 5,000 to 10,000 feet in cruising altitude (which will have an effect on efficiency) and d) being able to see out of the plane. I'll stick with my Concorde thank
Not fast enough to justify the cost (Score:2)
Next project (Score:2)
Can they do something about the obnoxious fart exhausts, cars tuned to backfire, mustangs/challengers, etc I have to hear around my neighborhood constantly?
Actual Information. (Score:1)
Starliner - there is no sonic boom in space (Score:2)
And yes, Musk is poised to capture this market all because he ignored capitalism: https://www.genolve.com/design... [genolve.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Starship will make this unnecessary (Score:2)
"With Starship and Super Heavy, most international long distance trips would be completed in 30 minutes or less. In addition to vastly increased speed, one great benefit to traveling in space outside of Earth’s atmosphere is the lack of friction as well as turbulence and weather. Imagine most journeys taking less than 30 minutes with access to anywhere in the world in an hour or less."
Wonder what the fuel efficiency is... (Score:2)
...for the Concorde, I think it took something like 5x as much fuel per passenger per mile, compared to a 747 or similar.
It's not clear to me that this has much commercial application. The Concorde never made a lot of money-- I doubt if they ever recouped the development costs.