Boom Aerospace's Concorde successor looks good

Non-military aviation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post12 Nov 2016, 22:05

http://boomsupersonic.com/

So far, in the company promotional CGI, it look slike they'll go for a 3 engine configuration.

Any thoughts from John Will / TEG / any of the folks with AeroSpace engineering backgrounds on their configuration?

I think it looks interesting to have one engine mounted in the main fuselage to the rear with dual side air intakes

And two engines below.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2150
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post13 Nov 2016, 02:35

TEG is much more qualified than I for comments on the engine, but that is where I would have the most concern. First, why not diverterless inlets? Maybe they don't work as well over mach 2. Second, why turbofan instead of turbojet? Fans are better at transonic low and medium altitudes, so I'm not sure they are good for 60k, 2.2 flight, especially without afterburner. I would think they must use an existing engine and I don't know of any modern turbojets. I do like the center engine inlet placement rather than DC-10 / MD-11 / L1011 style centerline inlets.

It will be interesting to see how a 1/3 scale demonstrator works out. If analysis capability is first class, it is not needed. So I have to believe it's primary function is to attract investment capital.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post13 Nov 2016, 06:06

johnwill wrote:TEG is much more qualified than I for comments on the engine, but that is where I would have the most concern. First, why not diverterless inlets? Maybe they don't work as well over mach 2. Second, why turbofan instead of turbojet? Fans are better at transonic low and medium altitudes, so I'm not sure they are good for 60k, 2.2 flight, especially without afterburner. I would think they must use an existing engine and I don't know of any modern turbojets. I do like the center engine inlet placement rather than DC-10 / MD-11 / L1011 style centerline inlets.

It will be interesting to see how a 1/3 scale demonstrator works out. If analysis capability is first class, it is not needed. So I have to believe it's primary function is to attract investment capital.

Given what we know about the F-22's TurboFan, I can see Mach 2.2 flight if they have a large enough diamater fan, altitude wise, the F-22 can hit the 60K range without much issue from what I know.

Given that they don't need to design for stealth in mind, only for minimizing drag; I think there is a reason why the inlet is designed the way it is.

Why that is, I'd have to leave it up to the Aerodynamicst on our forum.
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post13 Nov 2016, 09:48

johnwill wrote:TEG is much more qualified than I for comments on the engine, but that is where I would have the most concern. First, why not diverterless inlets? Maybe they don't work as well over mach 2. Second, why turbofan instead of turbojet? Fans are better at transonic low and medium altitudes, so I'm not sure they are good for 60k, 2.2 flight, especially without afterburner. I would think they must use an existing engine and I don't know of any modern turbojets. I do like the center engine inlet placement rather than DC-10 / MD-11 / L1011 style centerline inlets.

It will be interesting to see how a 1/3 scale demonstrator works out. If analysis capability is first class, it is not needed. So I have to believe it's primary function is to attract investment capital.


TEG is definately more qualified than me, but my guess is that you have to use a turbofan to be able to clear the noise regulations, especially in Europe.

Have looked at a few ssbj design suggestions, but there are a gizillion of problems, and a low risk (?) of profit at the end of the day. But it is a cool thing.

best regards
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post13 Nov 2016, 13:26

johnwill wrote:TEG is much more qualified than I for comments on the engine, but that is where I would have the most concern. First, why not diverterless inlets? Maybe they don't work as well over mach 2. Second, why turbofan instead of turbojet? Fans are better at transonic low and medium altitudes, so I'm not sure they are good for 60k, 2.2 flight, especially without afterburner. I would think they must use an existing engine and I don't know of any modern turbojets. I do like the center engine inlet placement rather than DC-10 / MD-11 / L1011 style centerline inlets.

It will be interesting to see how a 1/3 scale demonstrator works out. If analysis capability is first class, it is not needed. So I have to believe it's primary function is to attract investment capital.

There is definitely information out there that divertless inlets don't function properly as they approach Mach 2, though I don't know where to point on that. I think, at this point, new engines are all turbofans, rather than turbojets, if only to use the bypass for cooling.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post13 Nov 2016, 14:19

From my knowledge, DSI was only tested up to Mach 2.0 on the F-16 test bed.

They didn't bother going past it due to the F-16 being certified for up to Mach 2.0 flight speeds.

So whether or not it can work past Mach 2.0 is a big unknown.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2150
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post13 Nov 2016, 16:23

Certainly fans can exceed mach 2, but they all require burner to do it. But fuel flow for burner cruise would likely be prohibitive. Fans have lower exhaust velocity that limits top speed and reduces noise. J-20 shows diverterless inlets should work above mach 2.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post13 Nov 2016, 18:17

johnwill wrote:Certainly fans can exceed mach 2, but they all require burner to do it. But fuel flow for burner cruise would likely be prohibitive. Fans have lower exhaust velocity that limits top speed and reduces noise. J-20 shows diverterless inlets should work above mach 2.

Do we know J-20 speed though?
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2150
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post13 Nov 2016, 21:36

I don't know, of course, but I also don't think the Chinese would settle for anything under mach 2 for the J-20, considering it a loss of face.

Return to Civil and General Aviation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest