back to article NASA 'quiet' supersonic jet is nearly ready for flight

NASA's mission to create a supersonic aircraft that doesn't rattle windows and vibrate teeth is one step closer to reality as the experimental X-59 aircraft dubbed the "Son of Concorde" may soon be ready for its first test flights. The X-59 is the centerpiece of NASA's Quiet Supersonic Technology or "Quesst" project to …

  1. steelpillow Silver badge
    Trollface

    As much political as technical

    "NASA will provide a complete analysis of the community response data" - right.

    So this is all about "if we generate booms that don't stand out quite so much and give less reason to take offence, will folks still find other reasons to do so?"

    Of course flying a modest-sized airplane at modest-supersonic speeds is not going to skew those public perceptions, how could any cynic imagine so?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: As much political as technical

      A complete analysis will be important.

      Back when Concorde was still flying, BA used to get regular complaints about the noise. So regular that they even got complaints on days when the Concorde wasn't flying. I'm not finding the reference, I think I saw that in a PPRuNe thread.

      1. Agamemnon

        Re: As much political as technical

        My StepFather worked on the avionics for the QSRA at NASA AMES (where I basically grew up in the late 80s).

        https://www.flyingmag.com/the-quiet-little-life-of-nasas-qsra/

        The QSRA was ideally a solution for "puddle jumps" with a jet engine:

        * Blowing exhaust Over the wing to create lift.

        * Reducing the sound footprint by using the wing to reduce downward noise.

        This is handled largely by Turboprops (my last flight from SF to Sac was nice) but the idea was to make jets faster and more... amenable to the locals.

        Going supersonic is cute, but NASA's point is: If we can do $foo,then $bar is trivial.

        Guess I'll pay my taxes next year.

        I'm actually disappointed

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: As much political as technical

          Funny thing is that back when the F-4 Phantoms were flying out of Moffett Field (1960s) they often left sonic booms behind. At least three or four per week. I do not remember any of the adults complaining about it at all, and of course the kids loved it! Most of us hated the P-3 Orions constantly circling ovehead, sometimes just one or two minutes apart for hours ... That was really irritating noise. The Wind Tunnel[0] turning on at around 3AM (lower 'leccy rates at that hour) was annoying the first couple times, until I knew what it was ... then I just rolled over and went back to sleep. Science has always soothed my soul.

          I grew up on the Palo Alto side of San Antonio Road, right under the pattern.

          [0] It was capable of high Mach numbers, and is thus on topic. The complex is now hypersonic capable.

          1. Dr_N

            Re: As much political as technical

            The Galaxies taking off from Moffat sound horrendous. They scream to get airbourne.

        2. anothercynic Silver badge

          Re: As much political as technical

          The Russians did that with the An-72 and An-74... using the Coanda effect to induce a stronger airflow over the top of the wing. Did wonders for their STOL performance. :-D

          1. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: As much political as technical

            Antonov is Ukrainian.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: As much political as technical

              Indeed, Soviet at the time being referred to. But very definitely Ukrainian today.

              1. anothercynic Silver badge

                Re: As much political as technical

                I should've been clearer, apologies. Yes, I meant the Soviets.

          2. Orv Silver badge

            Re: As much political as technical

            Cheburashka!

        3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Coat

          Re: As much political as technical"Blowing exhaust Over the wing to create lift."

          Oh you mean like the Buccanneer did in the 50's? * It cut the size of the wing by about half

          It'll be fun to see what happens when someone finally applies Pradtl's second paper on optimising the wing to reduce root loading to the supersonic design problem.

          *Roughly the nearest UK equivalent to the A4 Skyhawk.

        4. Spherical Cow Silver badge

          Re: As much political as technical

          As a kid I watched the test flights of the BAe146 passing low over my house, a passenger "whisperjet" with a similar brief: to offer quiet short-haul flights to&from inner-city STOL airports. It operated successfully for many years from places such as London docklands.

          1. localzuk

            Re: As much political as technical

            Flew on those a number of times to and from the Isle of Man. They were like luxury compared to the old Shorts 360 that were also used.

          2. anothercynic Silver badge

            Re: As much political as technical

            Those babies are still around today as the Avro RJ. I believe the Formula 1 management use one to fly staff from/to races.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: As much political as technical

        I don't have a written reference for you but I can confirm - my ex-wife used to work in the team monitoring the trials in the mid-1970's and got the daily reports from around the world. Complaints about noise from Concorde (from the USA) were quite common on days it wasn't flying, or was several hundred miles away;, if noise really had been heard from Concorde, we would have had complaints from central London when it took off from Bristol. I worked for Rolls Royce back then and lived less than 10 miles from the factory - I can honestly say we never heard it. I've actually been standing at the end of a runway when it took off over me (long story) and it was no louder than a Phantom taking off at an airshow demo.

        When the UK built Concordes left the factory (and I saw every one take off on its maiden flight) it went a few miles north to an airbase shared with the US airforce. There were very few complaints of noise there (mainly because the airbase was there before most people moved in to live in the vicinity). However, quite a number of noise complaints started up after Concorde had finished visiting there - the US airforce started to use it more and the excess noise was from their air-refuelling tankers. Concorde may have been loud, but care was taken to minimise disturbance...

        While I'm on this rant, another Concorde story. When the test flights needed passengers, the team would take up BA and RR employees from the factories at the site - it was quite a popular perk. However, one day the flight lasted beyond the shift-end for some and the unions demanded they were paid (at the overtime rate) for the extra; bear in mind no pay was deducted for being away from their normal workstations. The company declined and invested in sandbags to simulate the passenger load from then on. I never heard what happened to the ones who Brought in the union - but I don't think it enhanced their popularity.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: As much political as technical

          I met a woman at an airport in the US whilst waiting for a delayed flight. During the conversation the topic of noise cancelling headphones came up as she liked the look of mine. She told me her dad was one of those who protested against Concorde in NYC and JFK in the 70s. She said he wasn’t really fussed about the noise, rather the fact that Concorde wasn’t made in the USA. That really pissed him off.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: As much political as technical

          When the early test flights were run up & down the Irish Sea I was living in N. Ireland, and remember going out into the garden to hear the sonic boom. It was really distinctive, couldn't be mistaken for anything else, but never seemed that loud to me. When the papers carried stories about people's greenhouse windows being shattered it always seemed that they were just trying it on.

          I've actually been standing at the end of a runway when it took off over me (long story) and it was no louder than a Phantom taking off at an airshow demo.

          I remember once returning a hire car at Heathrow, and was on the perimeter road just at the end of the runway when a Concorde took off over me. My abiding memory of that is of the whole car shaking, and when I looked up through the glass sunroof all I could see were four cones of blue fire from the afterburners.

          My abiding regret is that by the time I had enough money to treat myself to a Concorde flight, it wasn't flying any more.

          1. myhandler

            Re: As much political as technical

            It used to fly directly above my street in Twickenham on take off. Not sure how high by then but the whole damn house shook and car alarms would sometimes go off. Didn't stop me running out to see it, if I had time.

            Ordinary jet noise is more annoying as there's never any quiet.

            1. Crypto Monad Silver badge

              Re: As much political as technical

              I used to live in Fulham in the late 1990's, and twice a day you had to pause for a minute as Concorde went overhead - it was impossible even to speak to the person standing next to you.

              But we're not talking supersonic booms here - just regular engine noise. Those were *damned* noisy engines.

          2. anothercynic Silver badge

            Re: As much political as technical

            Same here... I had several opportunities to travel on Concorde and every time turned it down because it went to New York, not Chicago where I was going. I still regret never having flown it today.

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: As much political as technical

              "I had several opportunities to travel on Concorde and every time turned it down because it went to New York, not Chicago where I was going."

              Concorde was an experience, not a transportation device. Several of the companies I worked for/with used it as PR ... "He'll be on the next Concorde!". Never mind that flying me direct from SFO to Heathrow via 747 was often faster than flying me from SFO to New York, then wait for Concorde and on to London. Or vice-versa.

              The Concorde flights were cramped, loud and bumpy, although fortunately short. The food, booze list, and service was excellent (the absolute best I've ever seen on commercial air) ... but I always felt like I needed a nap on landing. Note that I wasn't paying for it. Nor would I.

              While I am glad that I had the chance to fly on her, I would not recommend it more than once, and then just for the WOW! factor. Which was real, and (almost) worth the price of admission. Once. If you're into that kind of thing (as most commentards are, I'm sure). Me DearOldMum? Maybe not so much ... For the price, she'd much prefer to take a boat across the pond. I'm not sure she's wrong, even in our fast-paced world.

      3. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: As much political as technical

        The purpopose of the 1973 supersonic ban was essentially THAT (political, not technical). In the 1960's I used to hear a lot of sonic booms from aircraft operating near Santa Barbara, CA. They were probably military aircraft, researched by Hughes Aircraft. Needless to say, cracked windows were too common, and people complained a LOT. Then a lot of environmentalists said it was harming Condors (which it probably was, I used to see them occasionally flying over the house) and finally gummint stepped in and said "OK that's enough" and also semi-banned military aircraft as well [only allowed if there is a really good reason to make a sonic boom, in other words].

        So I suppose the new standard ought to be revised, such as "no sonic booms above THAT sound level" and maybe some approved designs over populated areas or places where wildlife might be severely impacted.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: As much political as technical

      Some people will just choose to be offended because they can.

      Unless the fuel consumption difference stacks up, the tech probably won't filter down to anything else. Concorde famously burned an awful lot of it's fuel just getting off the ground and up to speed - once there it was pretty efficient per mile covered per head.

      Though there is precedent that resistance to airflow might be better in the range Mach 1.1-1.4 than 0.9 to 1.1. that'd shave quite a chunk of time off transatlantic ops. If the low speed stuff can be optimised and still allow for that range there is mileage in the idea for next gen airliners and biz jets.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Happy

        "Concorde famously burned an awful lot of it's fuel just getting off the ground "

        Well it was the only civilian aircraft ever with an afterburner :-)

        Both mfgs were aware of this and had they had a continual programme of flight tests during the early days.

        Had they got to the 17th Concorde they planned a series of structural and engine upgrades that would cut the noise and ended in eliminating the AB entirely.

        Eliminating AB saves a lot of fuel from the takeoff and punching through the M1 drag rise (which drops back around M1.1. IOW all the early transonic aircraft were trying to fly in the worst speed for drag rise).

        And lets not forget that Concorde demonstrated supercruise (no AB) for decades before the F35 made such a big thing of it.

        1. Red Ted
          Megaphone

          Re: "Concorde famously burned an awful lot of it's fuel just getting off the ground "

          Being really picky (I know that’s uncommon around here), being a British jet engine design it’s technically called reheat rather than afterburner.

          Whatever it’s called, it gives your more power, but at the expense of appalling fuel efficiency!

          If they had built more Concordes they had planned to drop the reheat.

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
            Coat

            Re: "Concorde famously burned an awful lot of it's fuel just getting off the ground "

            "Being really picky (I know that’s uncommon around here), being a British jet engine design it’s technically called reheat rather than afterburner."

            True

            "Whatever it’s called, it gives your more power, but at the expense of appalling fuel efficiency!"

            True

            IIRC the rule-of-thumb is 2x the thrust at 3x the fuel consumption.

            So you don't use it unless you really need it.*

            If they had built more Concordes they had planned to drop the reheat.

            That's my understanding.

            *The joker in the pack is of course the SR-71, the first (and only) aircraft designed to operate under continuous AB (well, it was American)

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: "Concorde famously burned an awful lot of it's fuel just getting off the ground "

              Arguably, given the expected use profile, the SR-71 did in fact need it.

              Horses for courses and all that.

      2. Orv Silver badge

        Re: As much political as technical

        The target market for this tech is supersonic business jets, not faster travel for the masses.

  2. usbac

    The nose on that thing is so long, that even at supersonic speeds, it will arrive 10 minutes ahead of the rest of the airplane!

    1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Sir Arthur Marshall

      Sir Arthur Marshall, whose eponymous company produced Concorde's nose cone was quite proud of the fact that the first part of Concorde to reach the destination was made by Marshalls

      1. RockBurner

        Re: Sir Arthur Marshall

        Small world innit - my dear departed father wrote up the Patent for the 'droop snoot', and was proud to display a photo of said implement in his office.

        He also did the Patent for the JIM Diving bell apparatus amongst other oddities.

    2. jake Silver badge

      My first thought was "I wonder if that's reinforced enough to survive skewering a goose at take-off speed?"

      Gut feeling is it'll collapse like a used condom after hitting a bird at anything resembling speed... that is one LONG lever!

      1. anothercynic Silver badge

        But it's *great* at reducing the bang!

        1. Yorick Hunt Silver badge
          Devil

          De-bang

          Yeah, nothing halts a bang quite like a burst condom

          1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: De-bang

            Good one !

            And entirely true.

          2. anothercynic Silver badge
            Pint

            Re: De-bang

            Touché!

  3. jpennycook
    Megaphone

    Concorde, so loud

    When I lived under the Concorde flight path (Slough, Brentford) I found that there was no volume setting on the TV that could compete. It was always fun in pub beer gardens if your friends weren't expecting it.

    1. Giles C Silver badge

      Re: Concorde, so loud

      On a similar note, during the 80s both my house and school where on the RAF Wittering flight path, so we constantly had aircraft flying over, mostly Harriers with some other bigger stuff at times, I think there were about 10-20 flights a day, after a while we didn’t notice them apart from the teachers having to stop talking when one flew over as nobody could hear what was being said.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: Concorde, so loud

        I was under the flight path for F1-11s transiting between Mildenhall/Lakenheath and Upper Heyford. Lessons would pause for a few seconds when they went over in pairs.

        Miss that noise.

        1. IJD

          Re: Concorde, so loud

          We once moored a narrowboat overnight on a nice quiet remote stretch of the Oxford Canal. We woken up at 7am by an F111 on afterburners taking off a few feet above our heads, then another one a few seconds later. Never heard anything like it, we thought the end of the world had arrived. With hindsight, mooring at the end of the Upper Heyford runway wasn't such a smart move... :-(

      2. Mooseman

        Re: Concorde, so loud

        We used to live a few miles from and RAF base that housed a Vulcan squadron. Windows definitely rattled when they took off.

    2. David Hicklin Silver badge

      Re: Concorde, so loud

      SAP Training centre used to be alongside Heathrow on the North side and classes always paused when Concorde was taking off.

    3. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

      Re: Concorde, so loud

      "When I lived under the Concorde flight path"

      I wasn't aware that the Concorde flew supersonic over land. (Britain anyway. There was at least one flight out of Vancouver BC that went supersonic over the northern territories of Canada. The moose logged a complaint.) What most people objected to was the noise from the afterburners on takeoff. Loud. Very loud.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Concorde, so loud

        It generally wasn't supposed to do so, but a bit of southern Ireland could pick up the boom as it was on the way out.

        The Olympus engines powerful they were, were also atrociously inefficient even by 1970s standards. An RR engineer did tell me of stories of the fuel consumption basically looking like an order of magnitude off.

        1. dinsdale54

          Re: Concorde, so loud

          They were stupidly inefficient at low speed and when using afterburners. At mach 2 and 60,000ft they were incredibly efficient. The problem was getting up there.

      2. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

        Re: Concorde, so loud

        I was in Fulham for the last year of it's life, it would come over at 3pm on descent to LHR - loud, but definitely not supersonic.

        1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
          Pint

          Re: Concorde, so loud

          The "double boom" was always a reassuring sound as I walked my dog in the 70's & 80's, she must have been over the English Channel & heading into the Atlantic as she throttled up & made Mach2 but the sound still carried to Exeter Devon about 9.10pm.

      3. Screepy

        Re: Concorde, so loud

        "I wasn't aware that the Concorde flew supersonic over land."

        I don't think the OP was saying that it went supersonic over his area, just that the engine noise as it came over was really loud.

        My grandmother's house was on the flight path and when we visited we all would stop talking and listen to the cups and saucers rattle on the shelves as it came over. It was really loud - I loved it.

        A couple of years before Concorde was cancelled. BA took a load of RAF war vets up on a short circuit flight as a thank you for their services during ww2.

        My grandad (rear gunner on Lancaster bomber) had already died by then but the widows were still invited.

        My gran went on the flight.

        When I asked her what it was like she just shrugged and said it was '.. a bit bumpy and quite chilly, but the air crew were gorgeous"

        My dad pointed out that it was the only plane she'd ever flown on and consequently had nothing to compare it too :D

      4. Fifth Horseman

        Re: Concorde, so loud

        Absolutely the take-off noise.

        A university mate of mine had a place in Heald Green slap next to Manchester airport. Most aircraft you quickly learned to ignore, Concorde not so much. It was hellish loud and also very good at setting off all the car alarms on the street. Not great when you are nursing a hangover from a typical student beer and curry night round Rusholme.

        Engine-wise Concorde was essentially an Avro Vulcan with afterburners, and the Vulcan was already bloody loud to start with.

        1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

          Re: Concorde, so loud

          Engine-wise Concorde was essentially an Avro Vulcan with afterburners,

          There was 1 Avro Vulcan with an after-burning engine...

          The one used as an engine test bed during the development of the Olympus 593...

          so was the only aircraft to fly with "5" Olympus engines

          https://avrovulcan.com/vulcan/engine-test-beds

          http://www.2av8.co.uk/pages/xa903/xa903c.htm

    4. D@v3

      Re: Concorde, so loud

      Supersonic? Take off? I don't know.

      I was quite young at the time. I lived in Kingston (not too far from Heathrow) from '89, I can't remember when I would have seen it, but I do have memories of what sounded like thunder from a near by storm, and being able to see Concorde soar overhead. Always got a kick out of it.

      At the age I was at the time, i knew it was a supersonic craft, so just assumed it was the sonic boom, it may well have just been, as others have said, the extreme background noise.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

    I think have read on in past Reg comments somewhere a comparison between the UK/France govt sponsored development of the Concorde and the US Boeing sponsored development of the 747 - which both took place at approximately the same time - the former being a complete financial failure while the latter became an huge financial success lasting for decades. How has the US sunk this low?

    NASA should simply not be in the business of developing commercial passenger aircraft. It's only being done by NASA because it has no commercial value so neither Boeing nor Airbus would ever take on that risk. NASA might as well take down this website now - climate dot nasa dot gov : "Global Climate Change, Vital Signs of the Planet, Understanding Our Planet to Benefit Humankind".

    1. Giles C Silver badge

      Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

      It is an easy way to research quiet military jets which would have considerable advantages?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

      " the former being a complete financial failure"

      Obviously for a reason you chose to ignore and doesn't have anything to do with the plane itself: Oil crises in 1973.

      Complaints about noise came a lot later, but 400% rise in the price of fuel, the largest single cost of daily operation, was too much.

      1. LogicGate Silver badge

        Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

        While the Concorde was in development, the US government was also sponsoring the development of supersonic airliners. Boeing SST got the furthest, but I believe thel Lockheed-martin also did substantial work.

        The Boeing 747 program was an afterthought, and it very much ran on what was left over in development capacities. The faith in the program was so low, that the aircraft, from day 1, was designed as a freighter. Fate had other plans for the machine.

        Also; without the first generation of bypass engines, I do not think that the 747 would have become the sucess that it became.

        1. LogicGate Silver badge

          Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

          747: Creating the World's First Jumbo Jet and Other Adventures from a Life in Aviation -by Joe Sutter, "Father of the 747"

          https://www.amazon.com/747-Creating-Worlds-Adventures-Aviation/dp/0060882425

    3. anothercynic Silver badge

      Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

      You should maybe do a bit more research... The US government sponsored Boeing's SST (Boeing 2707) project.

      The difference is that in the US, environmentalists were concerned about the ozone layer (because of the cruise altitude of the proposed jet) and the sonic booms, and became more and more vocal until it became untenable for the US government to continue. In the UK and France there were no such concerns, probably because for them the primary market was intercontinental across oceans, whereas in the US it would have been transcontinental mostly across land, which would have had a much wider effect when it comes to noise pollution (well, sonic bang pollution for that matter).

      In the British press you can still today see that sonic booms are a thing, as whenever an RAF jet has to be scrambled because of some airliner being incommunicado or in trouble, the Beeb and others go absolutely gaga over the bangs people heard, and the RAF having to explain yet again that yes, one of their jets caused a boom.

      Ironically, the Port Authority of New York tried to get Concorde banned (and succeeded in delaying its entry into JFK for years) over noise. But when actual tests were done, it was discovered that Concorde on approach was quieter than the jets of the day, and it was only the departures at after burner that would be absolutely teeth-rattling. PANY lost, Concorde got to fly into JFK, but BA and Air France both came up with approaches and procedures together with JFK to make it as quiet as possible (so not all of wider Brooklyn, Queens and the rest of Long Island were hammered with noise 8 times a day).

      1. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

        Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

        "In the British press you can still today see that sonic booms are a thing, as whenever an RAF jet has to be scrambled because of some airliner being incommunicado or in trouble, the Beeb and others go absolutely gaga over the bangs people heard"

        We had a couple of F-16s go supersonic over Maryland and Virginia when a small plane went incommunicado. (It crashed, reasons as yet to be determined.) But that and other emergency scrambles occur at very low altitudes compared to SST cruise. So their bang is quite serious.

        I used to live under SR-71 and XB-70 flight paths. The booms were no big deal when they were at 70,000 feet altitude. Much less than thunder which, for a cloud to ground lightning strike could easily blow windows out.

        1. AndrueC Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

          I was playing golf when the jets were scrambled a month or so ago. A mate of mine is a bit miffed that he took his swing about half a minute before the boom. It would've been so much more impressive if it had coincided with the boom.

          Actually it wasn't so much a boom as a bang.

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge

            Actually it wasn't so much a boom as a bang.

            Like a high velocity bullet.

            And for the same reason.

          2. jake Silver badge

            Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

            Back in the late '60s I was taking an early morning golf lesson at Sunnyvale Municipal. I was getting ready to tee off on the 10th when four Marine Corps. Phantoms screamed into view from roughly the south east, at about tree-top level. Mid-runway, they pointed their noses straight up & kicked in the afterburners and kept going up until out of view ... in perfect finger-four. They repeated the maneuver eight or ten times over the next couple hours. Practicing for the Moffett Field Air Show the following weekend. (I found out later they were refueling off the coast.)

            Now keep in mind, Sunnyvale Muni is right at the end Moffett's runway, so most of us were used to aircraft flying low overhead on a regular basis ... usually it was Orions (P-3) practicing takeoffs & landings, occasional small trainers and cargo planes, and sometimes even a couple of F4s would grace us with an overflight. But four of the things, about 150 feet up, at roughly 650 MPH just as I was addressing my ball was somewhat surprising to say the least :-)

            No, this wasn't the Navy's Blue Angels ... they were still flying F11s at the time, and practiced later in the same day.

            1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

              Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

              screamed into view from roughly the south east, at about tree-top level. Mid-runway, they pointed their noses straight up & kicked in the afterburners and kept going up until out of view

              I've seen an F16 do that during the fleet week airshow, coming in over Fisherman's Wharf and standing on its tail over the bay. Since everyone was looking out over the bay when it came in from behind it's fair to say they were quite surprised, and some of their kids may have learned some new words.

            2. Andy A

              Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

              Of course there are still no conventional aircraft which can match the performance of the English Electric Lightning, which could go supersonic in a VERTICAL climb.

              1. RockBurner

                Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

                I might be wrong, but I seem to remember that the later variants of the F-15 can do it now. (and have fuel left over.....)

        2. Orv Silver badge

          Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

          I live near Santa Barbara, California and get sonic booms every time SpaceX launches from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It's a peculiar sound, so low pitched you don't hear the sound itself so much as feel it and hear its effects. Every window in the house rattles.

    4. that one in the corner Silver badge

      Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

      > the former being a complete financial failure while the latter became an huge financial success lasting for decades

      Go and actually read the National Geographic piece that is linked to in the article; Concorde was making money for decades.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

        It was making money but never enough to recover the cost of development.

    5. Bitsminer Silver badge

      Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

      NASA should simply not be in the business of developing commercial passenger aircraft.

      The National Aeronautical and Space Administration should not do airplane research?

      Oh.

      1. Francis Boyle

        Come on

        we all know that the first A is just there so people don't confuse NASA with the NSA.

        1. Ken G Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: Come on

          Incorrect, they wanted Space in the title but wanted minimum change from the the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics acronym. Only one letter to paint over.

    6. herman Silver badge

      Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

      The 747 was developed to be a military freighter. When they did not get mil orders it became a civil passenger jet.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

        No not really - read the book(s) - any of them and inform yourself - even if history and facts are a bit old hat they more often than not come in handy ...

      2. anothercynic Silver badge

        Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

        Incorrect. It was a commercial development from the beginning. HOWEVER - Some design features (like the cockpit sitting above the main deck) came from the military freighter design competition that Boeing lost to Lockheed (which spawned the C-5 Galaxy).

    7. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

      "NASA should simply not be in the business of developing commercial passenger aircraft."

      It's not. This testbed aircraft is and will never be even close to any form of commercial aircraft, except, possibly, as a billionaire cock extension. It's fortesting one single part of the supersonic flight profile. The article even tells us that. They are not, with this aircraft, looking at fuel consumption or even the noise of take-off, never mind the economies of production.

      Also, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    8. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

      Re: less-noisy maybe but still un-sound

      Isnt NASA spending money on faster planes socialism for corporate types ?

      Im sorry but we dont need more planes of any speed in the sky. Idiots fly across the world when they can do the same via Skype.

  5. Christoph
    Facepalm

    Just what we needed. Another plane to pump huge amounts of CO2 into the air so the very rich can travel a bit faster.

    1. jake Silver badge

      It's a pilot-only research aircraft. Can't carry a lot of rich people very far in that, not even on a good day.

      It will probably lead to more fuel efficient airframes and engines, leading to more fuel efficient flight overall.

      Learn to think for yourself, stop parroting the ignorant doom-sayers.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        The research they're doing is so that Boeing can make an aircraft for rich people to travel a bit faster while dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.

        It's ultimately corporate welfare and welfare for the rich, while we have the largest homeless population ever and medical bankruptcy is still a thing.

        We don't need supersonic flights over land. We need high speed rail so people don't need to fly over land at all.

        1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          We need high speed rail so people don't need to fly over land at all.

          True up to a point, but 70% of the earth is covered by water. Not so good for trains, Harry Harrison notwithstanding.

          1. WolfFan

            Mr. Harrison had coal-powered aircraft. Yes, really.

      2. Justthefacts Silver badge

        Will it?

        I can’t see it leading to more efficient engines. That’s all about the CFM RISE open-rotor, for 2030 or so. And that will in all likelihood be the final ever major commercial airliner jet engine development, in the West anyway. These only come around every 20 years or so, and there just isn’t time for another, before the electric transition by 2050.

        I don’t know whether there will be electric airliners after that date, I’m not convinced the tech flies. But I’m fairly sure there won’t be avgas airliners by then, so we might just have none at all. And nobody invests $20bn in an engineering development that is unsaleable within a decade. See: there hasn’t been *any petrol engine development to improve efficiency since 2018*. Because Electric 2030.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Will it?

          *any petrol engine development to improve efficiency since 2018*. Because Electric 2030."

          As we prototype car engines, full hybrid, hybrid/ICE and full Electric, I can safely say you are talking absolute bollocks.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Orv Silver badge

        The target market for this type of design is faster private jets. When you look at the supersonic-capable engines currently under development they're all too small for airliners.

        1. Ken G Silver badge
          Happy

          I can't think of any type of aircraft that didn't start off small and get bigger.

          1. Orv Silver badge

            Sure, but airlines these days are all about efficiency. They don't have the fuel budget for supersonic aircraft. You know who does? Billionaires.

      4. jmch Silver badge

        "It's a pilot-only research aircraft.... It will probably lead to more fuel efficient airframes and engines, leading to more fuel efficient flight overall."

        Yes, it's pilot-only reasearch aircraft, and yes, it will probably lead to more fuel efficient *supersonic* airframes and engines.

        Can any of the research be used in subsonic jets? possibly, but unknown. Is there some specific flight configuration for which supersonic is more efficient than subsonic? Possibly for very high altitudes over very long distances, but again, speculative. The only area which this research is certain to contribute to is small or relatively small supersonic passenger jets, which as the original poster mentioned, are most likely to be private playthings for the 0.01% or commercial flights for executives trying to pretend that cutting 2-3 hours of flighttime is giving any business value to their companies compared to a longer first-class or private jet flight where they still have satellite connectivity and what is essentially a flying office.

        1. jake Silver badge

          "Can any of the research be used in subsonic jets?"

          Judging by the past, very probably. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on it.

          But who cares? It'll also be used in SSTO craft ... which are necessary if we truly plan to get off this rock en masse.

    2. anothercynic Silver badge

      If you want to whine about that, go whine at Overture, who are doing what NASA is doing, but for commercial use.

      Even if Overture fails in the end, their research will *also* be useful for the human race.

    3. steelpillow Silver badge
      Pint

      Agreed. Today's borderline transonic will always be more fuel-efficient than pushing sonic booms aside, however smudged-out and unobtrusive those booms might become. Despite all the kneejerk downnvotes you have been getting, you are absolutely right.

      1. Spazturtle Silver badge

        "Today's borderline transonic will always be more fuel-efficient than pushing sonic booms aside"

        That's only due to the specific impulse of kerosene, if you instead use hydrogen which has a much higher specific impulse then engines can remain efficient into hypersonic speeds.

        1. Orv Silver badge

          Hydrogen has a great specific impulse, however it has a low energy value per volume, and the tanks needed to contain it are extremely heavy.

          1. Spazturtle Silver badge

            Yes but if flying at twice the speed only costs your 50% more fuel then you don't need to carry as much fuel.

  6. that one in the corner Silver badge

    Can anyone confirm this Silent Supersonic memory

    I have dim memories of an article from the mid/late 1970s that discussed the issue of sonic booms and and included the description of a circular wing design that could fly supersonic without creating a sonic boom. The drawback being that it also didn't create any lift (hey, nothing is perfect).

    Ring any bells? Even if it was an April Fools I'd like to know it wasn't all just a dream.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Can anyone confirm this Silent Supersonic memory

      You're probably thinking about the recently declassified Project 1794, an Avro Canada/US Air Force collaboration ... I remember reading about it on Usenet (FIDONet? Some other BBS?) way back when. Wiki has enough for you to start a better search.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Can anyone confirm this Silent Supersonic memory

        I don't think that was what he meant even if it was fun idea :-) That design was never going to go anywhere near supersonic. It was only ever meant to be a "flying jeep" type thing. On the other hand, I too remember seeing artists impression of a concept aircraft with a circular wing but can't say if that was related to "boomless" supersonic flight,

    2. steelpillow Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Can anyone confirm this Silent Supersonic memory

      Sounds like a typical crazee saucer claim - but only because it applies to any wing with certain profile features, not just magic saucers.

      There are actually two variants of the idea. One is that the wing has a dead-flat underside and only bulges upwards. However, under conditions of zero downward boom it creates zero or negative lift.

      The more subtle one is the Busemann biplane; the lower wing is of the flat-bottomed type, the upper wing is the other way up with a flat top. Profile the inbetween surfaces right, and their shock waves will interfere and exactly cancel out, eliminating both wave drag and the boom. Sadly, this condition also eliminates lift.

    3. John Smith 19 Gold badge

      Re: Can anyone confirm this Silent Supersonic memory

      The terminology for this is tricky. I think the common phase is "Ring wing"

      Yes they have been researched, mostly in the 20's and 30's but later in the 50's. Nasa NTRS, Cranfield and the U North Texas servers should have several reports on them (UNT treats NACA as a separate section which is probably when the work was done). And yes people have built actual aircraft to test the idea out. Yes they do fly, but I don't recall any of them going to M1 IRL.

      Usuaully the line of reasoning has been "Wings form drag producing vortices at their ends. What if we extend them together so there are no ends?"

      So it's usually viewed as a drag reduction strategy.

      Good luck and happy reading.

      1. steelpillow Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Can anyone confirm this Silent Supersonic memory

        "I think the common phase is "Ring wing"... mostly in the 20's and 30's but later in the 50's"

        Sorry, way off beam. The only significant work on this configuration was during the pioneer era. Following work by Ziegler, Storey and Kitchen, Cedric Lee and G. Tilghman Richards in the UK built several such aircraft between around 1910 and 1914. The vortices do not disappear, they roll over the rear wing to maintain stability where lesser planes stall and fall. But development was curtailed by the outbreak of WWI. Richards eventually ended up as a curator at the Science Museum. He continued to promote the design when the opportunity arose, but became frustrated because the mainstream went deaf.

        If NASA/NACA, Cranfield or whoever did study them later on, I have never heard of it: please post an url or something useful like that!

        Saucers are something else altogether - lethally unstable little bitches.

    4. Orv Silver badge

      Re: Can anyone confirm this Silent Supersonic memory

      There were some biplane designs proposed where the shockwaves from the upper and lower wings canceled out. Unfortunately it was shown that the canceling could only work if there was no net lift.

  7. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

    Fairey Delta 2

    Flashback to an earlier supersonic research aircraft...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Delta_2

  8. Tom 7

    That diagram/faux graph makes me a little suspicious.

    Given most of the markers are pretty meaningless (OK not the db bits. But a card door slam? What kind of can and how hard - slightly or wife just found you getting a blow job in the car hard? Ditto baseball bounce on grass, from hand or smacked by a pro etc etc And I'm assuming the value for the plane is at its cruising altitude, what about when its a lot closer to the ground and driving its engines at full power to get up there.

    And as for son of Concorde - not even close until its big enough for a lot of passengers when I imagine it will be a lot louder.

    I'm interested to see the results but I'm not sure it will make a commercial plane or even something for the military - by the time its radar proofed its going to be loud again,

    1. JimboSmith

      Re: That diagram/faux graph makes me a little suspicious.

      You’d rather they stuck to standard Reg units I see. https://www.theregister.com/2007/08/24/vulture_central_standards/

      1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
        Mushroom

        Re: That diagram/faux graph makes me a little suspicious.

        Whilst there are no equivalent Reg units to PLdb, one could speculate as to what the units could be -

        Perhaps something akin to an Elephant's fart at 1m?

        Whilst dinosaurs feature in Reg units, we have no contemporaneous observations to describe the intensity of say a brontosaurus fart at 1m. Therefore, perhaps we can settle on a scale based on the sound pressure of an Elephant's fart at 1m - 1 EF

        The next thing to settle is should it be a linear or logarithmic.

        Note: No distinction has been made between African and Asian Elephants - no idea if the data is readily available/if not, feel free to research the subject

        1. Ken G Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: That diagram/faux graph makes me a little suspicious.

          Both are vegetarian but I don't know much else about their diets.

          You need to launch a research project covering different sizes and shapes of elephant arsehole and their sonic boom characteristics on grass vs leaves etc.

          Frankly you'll find it easier to get funding for a jet.

          1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

            Re: That diagram/faux graph makes me a little suspicious.

            May be, if Sunak has signed off on the Horizon programme...

            https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/06/uk_negotiates_draft_deal_horizon_europe/

        2. ravenviz Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: That diagram/faux graph makes me a little suspicious.

          micro-Krakatoas

  9. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Flash Gordon called, and wants his rocket ship back!

    That's an incredible looking bird!

  10. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    It's an X plane.

    Proper X plane programmes are designed to acquire a "Capability"

    In this case "Exceed M1 at an acceptable altitude and with an acceptable level of boom"

    In an X programme everything is sacrificed to the core goal. Everything else should be as OTS as possible (which BTW is what most pilots who've seen the SR71 cockpit notice. "Most of the controls are so normal"). So don't expect its fuel consumption to be good enough for a real SST, because that's not a core requirement.

    It's to get the data into the database that the next generation of (US based) aircraft mfgs can use to build an actual passenger carrier.

    Note that per Skunk Works doctrine LM do a chunk of their own flight testing before it goes to NASA, although it's been decades since LM left the commercial airline business.

  11. Arthur the cat Silver badge

    Is there a point to this?

    New York to London or vice versa in 3 hours made some sense for business meetings before widespread networking, but a video call set up takes only a few minutes (allowing for "I can't hear/see you") as opposed to six hours total flying time. About the only uses I can think of for quiet SST are spy planes for cloudy regions or upgrading the squadron watching the Sleeper in the Pyramid.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is there a point to this?

      Nowadays spy planes are pointless, since they've become trivial to destroy. They made sense back when the only way to intercept them was enemy planes unable to fly high or fast enough to catch your fancy spy plane. Nowadays missiles (ground or air launched) can intercept any plane, at any speed or altitude.

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Is there a point to this?

      Yes, a couple

      One is where something (or someone) has to be physically sent someplace ASAP and remote computer access won't work as a proxy for that person.

      The question is wheather there is enough of a market to justify the development for what is less than what Concorde offered (but is still 50% better than any airliner flying today)

      Development-wise the big joker in this pack is the engine.

      Concorde was powered by an engine already developed for V bombers, so large thrust. AFAIK no one builds pure jets this big these days (even back as far as the Phantoms and the F111 they were low bypass turbofans) and a supersonic passenger plane carrying the engine development bill as well is going to need a lot of cash.

      Unless of course you engage the assistance of Reaction Engines to put a pre-cooler in front of a current generation LBR turbofan (if you can buy such a thing on the commercial market, most AFAIK are military). A pre-cooler means (in theory) any turbofan can be used, but the ones on civillian passenger jets are very big, so very large frontal area. Either you junk them (turning it back into a pure turbojet) or get a new blade set which are much shorter. I'm not even sure either of these options is actually possible. They should be cheaper than a new-build engine, but I'm not sure by how much.

      1. anothercynic Silver badge

        Re: Is there a point to this?

        Boom Supersonic (the people who are building the Overture) is not working with any of the classic engine builders (like RR, P&W or GE) for their SST. They've engaged some... boutique engine builders for theirs.

        It'll be interesting to see how Boom's plans unfold, and if the engines they're putting in do the right thing to push the planes through the sonic boundary.

    3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Is there a point to this?

      a video call set up takes only a few minutes

      For a 2-hour discussion, video is unbeatable, but for 1+ days of intense negotiations you can't beat being there in person, it will always give you an advantage over the video participants.

      1. Graham Cobb

        Re: Is there a point to this?

        And also for bringing recalcitrant local management under control. Calls are fine for regular weekly status but, in my experience, face-to-face meetings of middle and senior management are critical for keeping a global business running effectively. Otherwise, local management priorities, goals and instructions unavoidably drift away from the global needs of the business but towards making local managers' lives easier.

        I know a global IT director for a manufacturing company who finds she has to visit China, India, US, etc in person at least twice a year to avoid the local teams choosing to "reinterpret" her global instructions claiming their local management is "empowered" by the global CEO to run their part of the business their own way. A view that is not true (the CEO sees their IT strategy as a major differentiator for the global company and needs them all to do it the same way to support each other) and which, of course, evaporates into nothingness whenever a security issue, or a serious customer cock-up, or a system failure occurs because they have departed from the corporate policy leaving her teams to sort it out!

        Corporate politics, across cultures, are hard enough to manage even face-to-face: you should see the number of local CEOs who choose to address their remarks in meetings to the male members of her team because they, purely unconsciously, can't imagine a woman with the power to tell them what they need to do. Video conferencing just isn't up to "knocking some heads together" meetings. Or to the social side of building better and stronger relationships over dinner.

        1. jmch Silver badge

          Re: Is there a point to this?

          "a global IT director for a manufacturing company who finds she has to visit China, India, US, etc in person at least twice a year"

          Having to visit somewhere in person "at least twice a year" is not much justification for needing to shave 3 hours off a on-way flight, especially since nowadays the first / business class in long-haul has in-plane wifi connected to satellite internet. Basically all of the "being there in person is better" is perfectly justifiable reason to take a flight and go there in person. Hardly any of the reasons really justify having to travel there in 3 hours less.

      2. Arthur the cat Silver badge

        Re: Is there a point to this?

        For a 2-hour discussion, video is unbeatable, but for 1+ days of intense negotiations you can't beat being there in person

        I completely agree, but if you're having meetings for a day or more then the extra couple of hours needed for subsonic flight are irrelevant and we're back to no need for an SST.

        1. Graham Cobb

          Re: Is there a point to this?

          Not really. 2 days of meetings in New York can take only 2 days out of the diary if you can go west supersonic from London. Subsonic it takes 3 days out of the diary. Even more useful if you are going further west and the plane has the range and can remain supersonic the whole way.

          Only westbound, of course. Eastbound supersonic is much less useful.

          1. jmch Silver badge
            Trollface

            Re: Is there a point to this?

            "Only westbound, of course"

            Of course. Make it fast enough and you can have a full day's work, fly west all the way till back where you started, and start the same day all over again!!

    4. Spherical Cow Silver badge

      Re: Is there a point to this?

      It's not all about business. It will also make visiting distant relatives a lot more convenient (which could be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on the relatives).

      1. Orv Silver badge

        Re: Is there a point to this?

        It's all going to be predicated on having a lot of disposable cash, though. No one with a net worth of under eight figures is ever going to be able to afford to fly on an SST.

  12. david 12 Silver badge

    overland -- 1.2 Mach

    I get that this is a research project, not a new airplane, but even so -- that looks like NYC to LA, not NYC to London.

  13. StrangerHereMyself Silver badge

    Ugly

    This aircraft could signal a revolution in supersonic flight since the sonic boom has held it back for decades, especially over land. The only thing that irks me is that this thing looks ugly and unwieldy.

  14. Big_Boomer

    As a kid I lived in north Somerset in the late 60's and early 70s. I used to love Concorde spotting from Beacon Hill as they went supersonic over the Bristol Channel on test flights out of Filton, Bristol where they were assembled. I never found the "boom" to be that loud but you did feel it in your chest more than hear it. In the late 80's/early 90s a friend lived in Kingston-upon-Thames and from his house we would hear Concorde on take-off (Heathrow, 7 miles away) every afternoon. The roar was very distinctive and WAY louder than any other commercial aircraft. In these days of environmentalism I can't see commercial supersonic flight ever becoming a thing again, but I've been wrong before.

  15. Ken G Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    It looks right

    That's what a proper jet prototype should look like.

  16. imanidiot Silver badge

    Averages are misleading

    "which consumed approximately 5,638 gallons, or 25,629 liters, of fuel per hour of flight"

    This was an average though and the overall number is a little misleading. IIRC Concorde used about as much fuel taxiing to the runway and climbing to altitude (at subsonic speeds) as it did for the entire supersonic ocean crossing. Afterburners are extremely fuel hungry. (And then it used another boatload taxiing to the gate on the other side) to the point where later in life they considered towing it out to and from the runway and starting up/shutting down there to save fuel.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like