Skip to main content Accessibility help

Low-boom low-drag solutions through the evaluation of different supersonic business jet concepts

  • Y. Sun (a1) and H. Smith (a1)


This paper evaluates six supersonic business jet (SSBJ) concepts in a multidisciplinary design analysis optimisation (MDAO) environment in terms of their aerodynamics and sonic boom intensities. The aerodynamic analysis and sonic boom prediction are investigated by a number of conceptual-level numerical approaches. The panel method PANAIR is integrated to perform automated aerodynamic analysis. The drag coefficient is corrected by the Harris wave drag formula and form factor method. For sonic boom prediction, the near-field pressure is predicted through the Whitham F-function method. The F-function is decomposed to the F-function due to volume and the F-function due to lift to investigate the separate effect on sonic boom. The propagation method for the near-field signature in a stratified windy atmosphere is the waveform parameter method. In this research, using the methods described and publically available data on the concepts, the supersonic drag elements and sonic boom signature due to volume distribution and lift distribution are analysed. Based on the analysis, low-boom and low-drag design principles are identified.



Hide All
1. Smith, H. A review of supersonic business jet design issues, The Aeronautical Journal, 2007, 111, (1126), pp 761776. doi: 10.1017/S0001924000001883.
2. Sun, Y. and Smith, H. Review and prospect of supersonic business jet design, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2017, 90, pp 1238. doi: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2016.12.003.
3.Lockheed martin x-59 quesst. 2018, URL:
4. Boom airliner. 2016, URL:
5. Sakata, K. Japan’s supersonic technology and business jet perspectives, 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Grapevine (Dallas/Ft. Worth Region), Texas, 2013.
6. Supersonic, A. Performance objectives & specifications. 2018, URL:
7.Spike aerospace s-512 specifications & performance. 2018, URL:
8. Hypermach aerospace industries. 2017, URL:
9. Stocking, P. E-5 neutrino supersonic business jet project executive summery, 2005/2006 MSc Aerospace Vehicle Design, 2005.
10. Smith, H. E-5 supersonic business jet: Design specification, 2005.
(11) Yoshimoto, M. and Uchiyama, N. Optimization of canard surface positioning of supersonic business jet for low boom and low drag design (invited), 33rd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, Orlando, Florida, 2003, pp 2327.
12. Le, D.B. and Li, W. A wing design methodology for low-boom low-drag conceptual supersonic business jet. Virginia Space Grant Consortium Annual Research Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia, 2008.
13. Kroo, I., Tracy, R., Chase, J. and Sturdza, P. Natural laminar flow for quiet and efficient supersonic aircraft, 40th Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 2002, pp 0146.
14. Sturdza, P. Extensive supersonic natural laminar flow on the aerion business jet, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 2007.
15. Simmons, F. and Freund, D. Wing morphing for quiet supersonic jet performance-variable geometry design challenges for business jet utilization, 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 2005.
16. Yamazaki, W. and Kusunose, K. Aerodynamic/sonic boom performance evaluation of innovative supersonic transport configurations, Journal of Aircraft, 2016, 53, (4), pp 942950. doi: 10.2514/1.C033417.
17. Hunton, L.W., Hicks, R.M. and Mendoza, J.P. Some effects of wing planform on sonic boom, NASA TN D-7160, 1973.
18. Smith, H., Sziroczák, D., Abbe, G.E. and Okonkwo, P. The genus aircraft conceptual design environment, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2018, 233, (8), pp 29322947. doi: 10.1177/0954410018788922.
19. Sun, Y. and Smith, H. Supersonic business jet conceptual design in a multidisciplinary design analysis optimization environment, 2018 AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Kissimmee, Florida, 2018, AIAA pp 2018–1651.
20. Sun, Y. and Smith, H. Sonic boom and drag evaluation of supersonic jet concepts, 2018 AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Georgia, Atlanta, 2018, AIAA 2018–3278.
21. Sun, Y. and Smith, H. Low-boom low-drag optimization in a multidisciplinary design analysis optimization environment, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2019, 94, doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2019.105387.
22. Saaris, G.R., Tinoco, E., Lee, J. and Rubbert, P. A502i user’s manual-pan air technology program for solving problems of potential flow about arbitrary configurations, Boeing Document, 1992.
23. Yuhara, T., Makino, Y. and Rinoie, K. Conceptual design study on liquid hydrogen-fueled supersonic transport considering environmental impacts, Journal of Aircraft, 2016, 53, (4), pp 11681173. doi: 10.2514/1.C033369.
24. Ueno, A., Kanamori, M. and Makino, Y. Multi-fidelity low-boom design based on near-field pressure signature, 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, San Diego, California, 2016, pp 2033.
25. Kroo, I., Willcox, K., March, A., Haas, A., Rajnarayan, D. and Kays, C. Multifidelity analysis and optimization for supersonic design, NASA/CR–2010–216874, 2010.
26. Williams, J.E. and Vukelich, S.R. The usaf stability and control digital datcom, AFFDL-TR-79-3032, 1979.
27. Gur, O., Mason, W.H. and Schetz, J.A. Full-configuration drag estimation, Journal of Aircraft, 2010, 47, (4), pp 13561367. doi: 10.2514/1.47557.
28. Harris, R.V. An analysis and correlation of aircraft wave drag, NASA TM X-947, 1964.
29. Whitham, G. The flow pattern of a supersonic projectile, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 1952, 5, (3), pp 301348. doi: 10.1002/cpa.3160050305.
30. Cain, T. A correction to sonic boom theory, Aeronautical Journal, 2009, 113, (1149), pp 739745. doi: 10.1017/S0001924000003390.
31. Carlson, H.W. Simplified sonic-boom prediction, NASA Technical Paper 1122, 1978.
(32) Thomas, C.L. Extrapolation of sonic boom pressure signatures by the waveform parameter method, NASA TN D-6832, 1972.
33. Us standard atmosphere, NASA-TM-X-74335, 1976.
34. Ma, B., Wang, G., Ren, J., Ye, Z., Lei, Z. and Zha, G. Near-field sonic-boom prediction and analysis with hybrid grid navier–stokes solver, Journal of Aircraft, 2018, 55, (5), pp 18901904. doi: 10.2514/1.C034659.
35. Yamashita, R. and Suzuki, K. Full-field sonic boom simulation in stratified atmosphere, AIAA Journal, 2016, 54, (10), pp 32233231. doi: 10.2514/1.J054581.
36. Feng, X., Li, Z. and Song, B. Research of low boom and low drag supersonic aircraft design, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2014, 27, (3), pp 531541. doi: 10.1016/j.cja.2014.04.004.
37. Scarselli, G. and Castorini, E. Preliminary optimization of the sonic boom properties for civil supersonic aircraft, Journal of Aircraft, 2013, 50, (4), pp 12951299. doi: 10.2514/1.C031459.
38. Thomas, C.L. Extrapolation of wind-tunnel sonic boom signatures without use of a whitham f-function, NASA SP-255, 1970.
39. Hayes, W.D., Haefeli, R.C., and Kulsrud, H. Sonic boom propagation in a stratified atmosphere, with computer program, NASA CR-1299, 1969.
40. Rech, J. and Leyman, C.S. A case study by aerospatiale and british aerospace on the concorde, AIAA Professional Study Series, 1980.
41. Orlebar, C. The Concorde Story. 6th ed, Osprey Publishing, Oxford, UK, 1997.
43. Aerion supersonic. 2018, URL:
44. Spike aerospace. 2018, URL:
45. Michalička, J. Supersonic business jets operation specification, Bachelor Thesis, Czech Technical University in Prague, 2015.
46. Supersonic project review. NASA, 2017, URL:
47. Enginesim version 1.8a. NASA Glenn Research Center, 2014, URL:


Low-boom low-drag solutions through the evaluation of different supersonic business jet concepts

  • Y. Sun (a1) and H. Smith (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed