Sigh, R&D doesn’t always go perfectly…
NASA’s X-59 experimental aircraft, part of the “Quesst” (Quiet Supersonic Technology) mission, conducted its second flight on the morning of Friday, March 20. The flight was scheduled to spend roughly one hour in the air, but was abruptly canceled after a cockpit warning. It returned to the ground at 11:03 a.m. PST, roughly 10 minutes after takeoff.
In spite of the flight’s short duration, NASA engineers praised it, claiming that they had been able to collect valuable data that would help in subsequent flights.
The X-59 aircraft, designed to test supersonic flight without a sonic boom, is intended to pioneer an aviation breakthrough that would lift sound-related restrictions on supersonic travel.
Full article, HERE from the National Interest Organization blog.
It is definitely an ‘odd’ looking test article, but…
Even more interesting is that the pilot has zero forward visibility! He is dependant on cameras to be able to see foward. Shades of Charles Lindbergh!!!
A lot of the design work and math behind it are focused on ‘softening’ the crack of the sonic boom as it moves across the ground. If you’ve ever heard them, they are rather distinctive, and an oddity of the space shuttle was that it actually created two sonic booms from different parts of the airframe.
The long nose is supposed to ‘break up’ the boom, and the design of the tail is supposed to focus the noise ‘upward’, rather than down at the surface. Of course, the ‘seating’ would be a tad cramped, assuming there was a second seat, which there is not…
But if the math works, there are folks who would be very interested in upscaling the tech to a full sized aircraft capable of carrying passengers. The Concorde was the last true supersonic passenger transport, and even as big as it was, the ‘tube’ was extremely small, with only 100 seats total, in a 2×2 arrangement and very small overhead storage. And they were approximately $6000 one way from New York to London or vice versa but that was a three hour trip! Thank you
Heritage Concorde com helicopter
Who knows what it will cost when/if this new tech proves out? Or when it will be flying?
I know I probably will NOT be able to afford a ticket, nor do I really see a need to visit London…
I guess what I’m saying is that R&D isn’t quick, nor easy, nor does it always work out. So if, big if, they can make it work, so much the better. If not, well, lessons will be learned…
Glad “Clue” and the aircraft made it back safely. Good call on returning immediately once a warning popped up.
Bring it back, examine the aircraft, sift through all the telemetry, get the pilot’s observations, and let the engineers figure out how they want to tweak things for the next test flight.
It looks like a dart with a jet engine attached.
Interesting. I didn’t know they had gotten that far with their testing.
It looks highly specialized and with that shape would make a neat business jet, but seem unlikely to make a profit.
It’ll be interesting to see where the technology goes.
Ag- Yep!
Tuvela- Pretty much… That’s what the ‘math’ says…
Jonathan- That it will!
There is a company, Boom Supersonnic (https://boomsupersonic.com/) also working in this space. Their test vehicle has exceeded mach 1. It was shooting for reduced boom such that the craft could travel in continental airspace with sound on the ground similar to that of a modern large body jet.
As for the nose that’s pretty common. Both the Concorde and the XB-70 had drop noses for landing. The high nose limits turbulence and at higher mach (3 and up) you start to run into heating problems on the windscreen (C.F. XB-70 and SR-71) with cameras its far easier to give a decent down view rather than go to all the trouble of a drop nose, especially on a prototype. The other thing that is leading towards supersonic craft again is engine technology. Both the F-22 and F-35 can supercruise, that is, run at supersonic speeds without afterburner/reheat. That engine technology is now slowly making its way to commercial application. Part of the Concorde’s expense is it had to run most of the way on reheats, greatly limiting its range, limiting passenger load, and just generally making it commercially unviable.
Because of the fuel costs, I read that the Concorde lost money on every flight. However, because it was seen as a prestige project by the British Gov’t, it was heavily taxpayer subsidized to keep it flying. BOAC was also using the profits from its’ 747’s to defray the Concorde’s fuel costs.
My thought that the US Gov’t outlawing supersonic travel over the US killed the Boeing SST. Boeing then concentrated on the 747 which turned out to be a lot more profitable airplane, as it had a lot better fuel economy and could carry a lot more passengers.
I think what killed the US SST more quickly is Boeing of that period told the truth about fuel consumption and the XB-70 test data (which were NASA so basically public) matched that. Lots of US airlines signed up for Concordes but early Air France and BOAC costs made it clear if you weren’t a subsidized National carrier Concorde was hopeless even with seat costs that made 1st class look cheap. There is an old aphorism that you don’t railroad until it is time. It wasn’t time yet, and the loss of an aircraft by Air France, combined with increasing noise restrictions (Even without the boom the Concorde was like 110 dB at takeoff/landing) doomed Concorde. Should you be at or Near Dulles Airport there is a Concorde on display at the Udvar-Hazy extension to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum.
Will commercial passengers sign a mandatory insurance waiver in case of a bird strike? Like Lindbergh, the pilot can say “I didn’t see it”.
Tregonsee- Excellent points! And yes, saving fuel would be a BIG plus!
Robert- Damned good question! Don’t know the answer…
No sonic boom? That’s no good! There is SUPPOSED to be an earth-shattering kaboom!
What is actually going to happen with the X-59 is that it is going to conduct test supersonic flights over major metropolitan areas in the US. After the flights broad based statistically significant surveys are going to be conducted in those areas to determine if anyone was disturbed by the flights or even heard them. Those results will be presented to make the case that if this technology is used, the ban on supersonic flight over CONUS can be lifted with no harm.