NASA's X-59 supersonic jet makes 1st flight

I'm a supporter and used to work on a competing design, so I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the program. It's a tremendous achievement to be sure, but I wonder what specifically is historic about this particular flight?

Nauga,
and the cone of silence
 
nauga said:
I'm a supporter and used to work on a competing design, so I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the program. It's a tremendous achievement to be sure, but I wonder what specifically is historic about this particular flight?

Nauga,
and the cone of silence
Click to expand...

I'm guessing supersonic flight without the sonic boom?
 
Bob Noel said:
I'm guessing supersonic flight without the sonic boom?
Click to expand...
1. Not on this "historic" flight, and
2. Demonstrated to some extent by Boom earlier this year.

I *do* think it's a significant accomplishment and I hope the program is successful, I'm just curious about the choice of words. I haven't really searched in any depth but I have not seen where either NASA or LM referred to it as such so it may just be editorializing.

Nauga,
unfit to print
 
nauga said:
1. Not on this "historic" flight, and
2. Demonstrated to some extent by Boom earlier this year.

I *do* think it's a significant accomplishment and I hope the program is successful, I'm just curious about the choice of words. I haven't really searched in any depth but I have not seen where either NASA or LM referred to it as such so it may just be editorializing.

Nauga,
unfit to print
Click to expand...
Neither nor NASA or LM talked about it until media approached them is my take on it. The article was a complete puff piece showing the plane moved from where it was manufactured to Edwards AFB to begin the test regimen. The only thing historic I can see about the trip, was it was the first flight of the X-59. Not exactly earth shattering, BWTHDIK?

Tim
 
eman1200 said:
I was thinking besides creating supersonic flight without the boom, it would be REALLY cool if they could create the boom on less than supersonic flight. I’d like and subscribe to that!
Click to expand...

Carry a bullwhip in the plane. Use that.
 
eman1200 said:
it would be REALLY cool if they could create the boom on less than supersonic flight. I’d like and subscribe to that!
Click to expand...
Prop lever all the way forward!

Or fly a medium/heavy helicopter at high speed on a cold day.
Nothing pi$$es off the locals like 20 sonic booms per second.
 
The "historic" part of the flight was as tspear said, it was the first flight of the aircraft. I ran the FlightAware track animation and it cruised at 12k and never broke 250 kts. Still, it took off, cruised, and landed safely on its first flight, and the test pilot got to go home.

I do question the need for a supersonic airliner, though the research will likely be applicable in other aviation venues.
 
Domenick said:
I do question the need for a supersonic airliner, though the research will likely be applicable in other aviation venues.
Click to expand...
If the price is not crazy, it will be very popular in the business segment. The lost hours and days when crossing the country are substantial. For example right now, if I have an almost all day meeting in San Francisco from 9am till 4pm. I am flying the night before, losing most of the previous day. I then have the choice of a red eye; which leaves me at reduced productivity for a few days due to screwing up sleep patters, or I lose another day going back.
With a super sonic commercial service, I can catch a 7am flight from Boston, land at 7am Pacific in San Fran, make the 9am meeting. Catch a 6pm flight back east which will land at midnight EST. I effectively save almost two days. That will cover a lot of costs for mid to senior staff.

Tim
 
Even for us old crusty folks that are retired ... if the costs are not too prohibitive, getting from the east coast to the west coast in two hours, instead of five, while packed like cattle in a tube, would be very welcomed. We have family on the other side of the continent that we visit often and the five hour flight (after we get to Atlanta) is not on my lists of things I like to do ...
 
Domenick said:
The "historic" part of the flight was as tspear said, it was the first flight of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Maybe in retrospect if the program accomplishes what it has set out to, but I don't consider first flight of a new airplane in and of itself historically significant. If it is, I've got a few retroactive press releases to put out. Boom beat them to the punch on the first flight of a fore- and aft-shock shaping configuration - the historic significance of the program will be in the analysis, not the fact that the thing got off the ground once. I also think the players recognize that and I think the term is hyperbole (not by parties involved) to generate clicks.

Domenick said:
...though the research will likely be applicable in other aviation venues.
Click to expand...
*This* is the significant part. The goal of the QUESST program is not to develop a supersonic airliner or bizjet, it's to prove the pressure waves (shock waves) can be shaped to reduce the acoustic signature *and* to validate the tools used to predict that acoustic signature. The application of that technology is left to airplane manufacturers, but that's a separate effort.

Nauga,
on the books
 
Last edited:
Congratulations!
I wonder a few things ...

"For this flight, a NASA F‑15 chase plane flew nearby to monitor the X‑59. The loud sonic booms from the F-15 obscured any sound made by the X-59."
Why didn't they simply slow the F-15 to subsonic and then record the X-59 sonic boom?

I wonder/hope what they are learning can be applied to a full-size airliner and/or military aircraft. I wish them the best.
 
Domenick said:
"For this flight, a NASA F‑15 chase plane flew nearby to monitor the X‑59. The loud sonic booms from the F-15 obscured any sound made by the X-59."
Click to expand...
The author (of the quote - not @Domenick) clearly took "creative writing" in school instead of "journalism."
 
Domenick said:
I do question the need for a supersonic airliner, though the research will likely be applicable in other aviation venues.
Click to expand...
I think the market for such an airliner will be huge. I doubt I'd ever fly to Japan again in sub-sonic sardine can. Even in Businsess class.
 
Domenick said:
Why didn't they simply slow the F-15 to subsonic and then record the X-59 sonic boom?
Click to expand...
For envelope expansion (as this flight was) one of the chase's tasks is to monitor the airplane under test and report on observations (e.g. leaks, bits falling off) that might otherwise go undetected. Secondary is to stay in a position to monitor flight conditions in the event of an upset or worse. Both of these are hard to do when you're separated from lead to keep your own noise signature low. Acoustic signature flights will come, for sure, but for now clearing the envelope is primary.

Nauga,
rounding the corners
 
JOhnH said:
I think the market for such an airliner will be huge...
Click to expand...
In the past the anticipated market was bizjets. Gulfstream sponsored their own forebody shock shaping research with NASA for a time (see "Quiet Spike").
The X-59 is intended to validate tools, not designs, that will influence production airframes, and to help change rules on supersonic flight over land. Once you know your tools work and what you propose is 'legal' you can use them to "build" whatever special thing you need for your market. I still see that market as primarily part 91, not 121, but that's only an opinion.

Nauga,
who is probably repeating himself
 
i think the demand for this will be there.
People love fast.
Probably willing to pay 2x for 1.5x faster.
 
I find it interesting. We always talk about how we went from the Wright Brothers first flight to landing on the moon in just 60 years. Here we are almost 60 years later, and we are going back to the moon, and researching breaking the sound barrier again. Granted its using all new technology, but it does seem a little like the aeronautical knowledge growth has plateaued.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Here we are almost 60 years later, and we are going back to the moon, and researching breaking the sound barrier again. Granted its using all new technology, but it does seem a little like the aeronautical knowledge growth has plateaued.
Click to expand...
We are not specifically "researching breaking the sound barrier." Supersonic flight is an everyday occurrence and essentially a non-event in capable airplanes. This research has the potential to enable airplane configurations (significantly!) to reduce acoustic signature and as a result allow changes to current rules on supersonic flight. Think of the advances that came out of low observability ("stealth") research and the changes that came out of that. Same idea, different spectrum ;)

As for the new technology vs. plateaued aeronautical knowledge, with the possible exception of the enhanced or augmented vision system(s) necessary in some of the low-boom configurations, the level of systems technology used so far is roughly comparable to contemporary airplanes. The aeronautical knowledge (and to some extent the technology that made application of that knowledge practical) is very new. I wouldn't say the growth has plateaued, I'd say it's growing rapidly in unconventional areas and applications.

Nauga,
who rides the wind
 
JOhnH said:
I think the market for such an airliner will be huge. I doubt I'd ever fly to Japan again in sub-sonic sardine can. Even in Businsess class.
Click to expand...
If you dislike flying in "sub-sonic sardine cans," the supersonic sardine cans will likely be smaller.
 
Domenick said:
If you dislike flying in "sub-sonic sardine cans," the supersonic sardine cans will likely be smaller.
Click to expand...
I suspect the planes will be smaller, but does that mean the seats will be smaller? Or just fewer seats? If I can spend a couple of hours in the Bonanza then I could tolerate a sardine can for a couple of hours. It's those 10 & 12 hour sardine can legs that kill me.
 
Domenick said:
If you dislike flying in "sub-sonic sardine cans," the supersonic sardine cans will likely be smaller.
Click to expand...

Why that assumption? Yes the Concorde was designed in the day when passengers were 25% smaller. But if this is designed for premium prices, and you want to get premium paying clientele these days, it will need to be comfortable.

Tim
 
IMNSHO, the supersonic airliner is a pipe dream led by the P T Barnum of Aviation, Boom.

No engine, no real airplane (just a run of the mill experimental) and lots of other peoples’ money.

Shaving a few hours with the same customs, baggage, transport to/from house and final location for X$ above First Class is a very small market. Takes a long time to recoup the megabucks or so spending delivering an handful of airplanes. The “deposits” by airlines are “fun money” to them.

The reason it hasn’t been done is not that it can’t be done, it’s nobody with business sense thinks it should be done.

YMMV
 
X3 Skier said:
Shaving a few hours with the same customs, baggage
Click to expand...
More than once, when flying first/business at various overseas airports I skipped the main line and headed to a separate security/check-in area. Took 5 minutes instead of 45.

I fully expect something similar would happen for SST level of service.
 
X3 Skier said:
IMNSHO, the supersonic airliner is a pipe dream led by the P T Barnum of Aviation, Boom.

No engine, no real airplane (just a run of the mill experimental) and lots of other peoples’ money.

Shaving a few hours with the same customs, baggage, transport to/from house and final location for X$ above First Class is a very small market. Takes a long time to recoup the megabucks or so spending delivering an handful of airplanes. The “deposits” by airlines are “fun money” to them.

The reason it hasn’t been done is not that it can’t be done, it’s nobody with business sense thinks it should be done.

YMMV
Click to expand...

I guess you do not fly commercial much. I mean this is an aviation forum :D
From a business perspective. I made the following trip a number of times. Washington DC to San Francisco CA. I had to attend a single all day meeting. If flying a regular airliner, that was effectively a three day trip. I would leave Monday late morning, arrive Monday afternoon. Meet on Tuesday, fly home on Wed. Overnight flights were largely banned by the company because it left so many people screwed up from jetlag they had notable decrease in performance.

Compare that to an SST. Early morning flight Tuesday to CA. You basically arrive local time before you take off. Finish by 4pm, catch a 6pm local flight. Back by midnight. That is one very long day vs three; no jetlag issues, no hotel. For the vast majority of mid to senior staff, that will pay for a plane ticket that costs four or five times as much.

Tim
 
X3 Skier said:
The reason it hasn’t been done is not that it can’t be done, it’s nobody with business sense thinks it should be done.
Click to expand...
Except it was done just wasn't economically feasible with the technology of the day. Yet people flew the Concorde on a regular basis. People have always been looking for ways to get to places quicker, easier, or simply in a different manner. What changes is the technology advancements that drive those projects, which in the past 10 years has jumped considerably in the aviation industry. So while SSTs, eVTOLs, flying cars, etc. were considered mere pipe dreams, those tech advancements have moved them into a new reality to include the regulatory route they must follow.
 
Other than Boom, which BTW GE, RR and PWA passed on getting involved, anybody else claiming to build an SST?
 
X3 Skier said:
Other than Boom, which BTW GE, RR and PWA passed on getting involved, anybody else claiming to build an SST?
Click to expand...
Except its not an engine issue but a sonic boom issue. Unless they can fly supersonic over land quietly, it would never be economically viable which they knew in the 1980s. However, the Skunk Works or some other entity figured out how to significantly lower the sonic-boom via design but it limited the aircraft size. So no new airliners. However, a business jet size would work perfectly. And enter NASA’s X-59.

I believe Boom is somehow involved in this X59 technology for their aircraft. Aerion Corporation, which went bankrupt, was approaching the sonic-boom issue from a different angle that I don’t recall right now. But Spike Aerospace is still in the game, however, don’t know if they too are waiting on the X-59 data or not. Regardless, many OEMs and operators have discussed SSTs over the years which continues to this day. Again, its all about the technology that drives these projects forward.
 
Bell206 said:
I believe Boom is somehow involved in this X59 technology for their aircraft.
Click to expand...
Boom is not involved in the X-59. Their approach to mitigating the sonic boom is to take advantage of the "Mach cutoff" phenomenon, which requires flight at certain speeds/altitudes (which vary with atmospheric conditions) that allow the shock waves to refract/dissipate before reaching the ground.

boomsupersonic.com

Boomless Cruise | Boom Supersonic

Supersonic flight without the sonic boom. Flying faster over land, with no audible boom reaching the ground.
boomsupersonic.com boomsupersonic.com
 
Jim_R said:
Boom is not involved in the X-59. Their approach to mitigating the sonic boom is to take advantage of the "Mach cutoff" phenomenon, which requires flight at certain speeds/altitudes (which vary with atmospheric conditions) that allow the shock waves to refract/dissipate before reaching the ground.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I had thought Aerion was pursuing the mach cutoff path.
 
Bell206 said:
Regardless, many OEMs and operators have discussed SSTs over the years which continues to this day. Again, its all about the technology that drives these projects forward.
Click to expand...
Very much this. The intent of the X-59 test program is *not* to develop a viable supersonic passenger airplane, it's to refine and validate the tools that can be used to design one. Secondary is the potential to use the airplane to demonstrate the acceptability of the acoustic signature and use that to prompt rule changes that will permit commercial supersonic fight over land.

X3 Skier said:
Other than Boom, which BTW GE, RR and PWA passed on getting involved, anybody else claiming to build an SST?
Click to expand...
The astute reader will note that the X-59 has a GE engine. :cool: Established manufacturers have expressed interest in supersonic commercial airplanes but the ones I'm aware of have taken a more cautious approach than e.g. Boom and Aerion, using smallish IRAD and CRAD projects to reduce risk. When I had more insight into the goings-on there was quite a lot of interest in the ICAO rulemaking cycle and hope that something like what became the X-59 could be used to lobby for a rule change, which one might think would open the door to more extensive development programs once the giant regulatory roadblock was removed. What little details I, or any of us, know of *any* companies' long-range business plans is probably not suitable for discussion here, but just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it ain't being considered.

Nauga,
whose finger has been in many pies
 
nauga said:
When I had more insight into the goings-on there was quite a lot of interest in the ICAO rulemaking cycle and hope that something like what became the X-59 could be used to lobby for a rule change, which one might think would open the door to more extensive development programs once the giant regulatory roadblock was removed.
Click to expand...
ICAO is still active on supersonic rule research front and put out updated white papers last year, which included one from the Russians on their view to reimplement SST commercial travel. Plus, congress has funded the FAA supersonic regulatory research for the next cycle to ensure the US remains in a leadership role for civilian SSTs.
 
tspear said:
I guess you do not fly commercial much. I mean this is an aviation forum :D
From a business perspective. I made the following trip a number of times. Washington DC to San Francisco CA. I had to attend a single all day meeting. If flying a regular airliner, that was effectively a three day trip. I would leave Monday late morning, arrive Monday afternoon. Meet on Tuesday, fly home on Wed. Overnight flights were largely banned by the company because it left so many people screwed up from jetlag they had notable decrease in performance.

Compare that to an SST. Early morning flight Tuesday to CA. You basically arrive local time before you take off. Finish by 4pm, catch a 6pm local flight. Back by midnight. That is one very long day vs three; no jetlag issues, no hotel. For the vast majority of mid to senior staff, that will pay for a plane ticket that costs four or five times as much.

Tim
Click to expand...

What if it cost 10x as much? What cost increase would remain tolerable? Where is the profit point for a future supersonic aircraft, and where on the curve does that fall on supply/demand?

And at what point does a Teams meeting replace that trip? Business travel has increased since COVID, but still has not reached previous levels as online meetings have become more acceptable.
 
nauga said:
The astute reader will note that the X-59 has a GE engine. :cool:

Nauga,
whose finger has been in many pies
Click to expand...
The F414 in the X59 is in fact a GE engine that was developed for the Growler and Super Hornet. It’s one thing to push one or two people supersonic and quite another to push 50 or 100 via brute force for a significant range with a reasonable fuel burn

Seeing how a new centerline engine takes around seven years to develop, and nobody who knows what they doing has started one for this application, I’m confused how this is gong to happen before Boom runs out of OPM.

My rule of thumb when I was in the game was Engines take 7 years, radars take 5 and airframes are the easiest part and take as little as 4. Assuming that the demand is sufficient.

Take the F-47. Plans to start with off the shelf mods to existing engines for Initial fielding and later (or never), purpose designed ones like the XA102, an adaptive cycle engine.
 
X3 Skier said:
The F414 in the X59 is in fact a GE engine that was developed for the Growler and Super Hornet. It’s one thing to push one or two people supersonic and quite another to push 50 or 100 via brute force for a significant range with a reasonable fuel burn
Click to expand...
The X-59 is single-place and no one is talking about a 50 or 100 seat X-59. Tool develpment and validation, OTOH, does include propulsive effects so there is likely to be some valuable transfer. OTOH, I don't think Boom, their status, or their actions are an accurate reflection of pretty much anything QUESST related. I don't believe they have a role in it at all.

Nauga,
'til the wheels fall off
 
midwestpa24 said:
Business travel has increased since COVID, but still has not reached previous levels as online meetings have become more acceptable.
Click to expand...
Except private business travel significantly increased during that time frame which is the target market of the recent SST ventures on several levels. Put together a fractional owner SST program and that would be quite revolutionary in the aviation industry.

X3 Skier said:
It’s one thing to push one or two people supersonic and quite another to push 50 or 100 via brute force for a significant range with a reasonable fuel burn
Click to expand...
As mentioned, none of the current “quiet” supersonic technology support an aircraft sized to move 100 pax let alone 50. At your typical global bizjet loads, 10-15 pax is average, which does fit into the current SST projects and current engine abilities.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top