Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T09:47:03.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2019

Y. Sun Open the ORCID record for Y. Sun [Opens in a new window]  and
H. Smith Open the ORCID record for H. Smith [Opens in a new window]
Y. Sun
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace Transport and ManufacturingCranfield UniversityBedfordUKYicheng.Sun@cranfield.ac.uk
H. Smith
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace Transport and ManufacturingCranfield UniversityBedfordUKYicheng.Sun@cranfield.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Supersonic business jet (SSBJ)Multidisciplinary design analysis and optimisation (MDAO)Sonic boomLow-boom low-drag design
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 124 , Issue 1271 , January 2020 , pp. 76 - 95
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Smith, H. A review of supersonic business jet design issues, The Aeronautical Journal, 2007, 111, (1126), pp 761–776. doi: 10.1017/S0001924000001883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Y. and Smith, H. Review and prospect of supersonic business jet design, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2017, 90, pp 12–38. doi: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2016.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockheed martin x-59 quesst. 2018, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-59_QueSST.Google Scholar
Boom airliner. 2016, URL: https://boomsupersonic.com/airliner.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supersonic, A. Performance objectives & specifications. 2018, URL: https://www.aerionsupersonic.com/.Google Scholar
Spike aerospace s-512 specifications & performance. 2018, URL: http://www.spikeaerospace.com/s-512-supersonic-jet/specifications-performance/.Google Scholar
Hypermach aerospace industries. 2017, URL: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/hypermach.htm.Google Scholar
Stocking, P. E-5 neutrino supersonic business jet project executive summery, 2005/2006 MSc Aerospace Vehicle Design, 2005.Google Scholar
Smith, H. E-5 supersonic business jet: Design specification, 2005.Google Scholar
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 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Sturdza, P. Extensive supersonic natural laminar flow on the aerion business jet, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamazaki, W. and Kusunose, K. Aerodynamic/sonic boom performance evaluation of innovative supersonic transport configurations, Journal of Aircraft, 2016, 53, (4), pp 942–950. doi: 10.2514/1.C033417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunton, L.W., Hicks, R.M. and Mendoza, J.P. Some effects of wing planform on sonic boom, NASA TN D-7160, 1973.Google Scholar
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 2932–2947. doi: 10.1177/0954410018788922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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 1168–1173. doi: 10.2514/1.C033369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Williams, J.E. and Vukelich, S.R. The usaf stability and control digital datcom, AFFDL-TR-79-3032, 1979.Google Scholar
Gur, O., Mason, W.H. and Schetz, J.A. Full-configuration drag estimation, Journal of Aircraft, 2010, 47, (4), pp 1356–1367. doi: 10.2514/1.47557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, R.V. An analysis and correlation of aircraft wave drag, NASA TM X-947, 1964.Google Scholar
Whitham, G. The flow pattern of a supersonic projectile, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 1952, 5, (3), pp 301–348. doi: 10.1002/cpa.3160050305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, T. A correction to sonic boom theory, Aeronautical Journal, 2009, 113, (1149), pp 739–745. doi: 10.1017/S0001924000003390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, H.W. Simplified sonic-boom prediction, NASA Technical Paper 1122, 1978.Google Scholar
Thomas, C.L. Extrapolation of sonic boom pressure signatures by the waveform parameter method, NASA TN D-6832, 1972.Google Scholar
Us standard atmosphere, NASA-TM-X-74335, 1976.Google Scholar
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 1890–1904. doi: 10.2514/1.C034659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamashita, R. and Suzuki, K. Full-field sonic boom simulation in stratified atmosphere, AIAA Journal, 2016, 54, (10), pp 3223–3231. doi: 10.2514/1.J054581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 531–541. doi: 10.1016/j.cja.2014.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarselli, G. and Castorini, E. Preliminary optimization of the sonic boom properties for civil supersonic aircraft, Journal of Aircraft, 2013, 50, (4), pp 1295–1299. doi: 10.2514/1.C031459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C.L. Extrapolation of wind-tunnel sonic boom signatures without use of a whitham f-function, NASA SP-255, 1970.Google Scholar
Hayes, W.D., Haefeli, R.C., and Kulsrud, H. Sonic boom propagation in a stratified atmosphere, with computer program, NASA CR-1299, 1969.Google Scholar
Rech, J. and Leyman, C.S. A case study by aerospatiale and british aerospace on the concorde, AIAA Professional Study Series, 1980.Google Scholar
Orlebar, C. The Concorde Story. 6th ed, Osprey Publishing, Oxford, UK, 1997.Google Scholar
Boom technology. 2018, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Technology#Airliner.Google Scholar
Aerion supersonic. 2018, URL: https://www.aerionsupersonic.com/.Google Scholar
Spike aerospace. 2018, URL: http://www.spikeaerospace.com/spike-images/.Google Scholar
Michalička, J. Supersonic business jets operation specification, Bachelor Thesis, Czech Technical University in Prague, 2015.Google Scholar
Supersonic project review. NASA, 2017, URL: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170007758.pdf.Google Scholar
Enginesim version 1.8a. NASA Glenn Research Center, 2014, URL: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/ngnsim.html.Google Scholar