Boom Aerospace's Concorde successor looks good

[KamenRiderBlade]

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.

[johnwill]

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.

[KamenRiderBlade]

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.

[linkomart]

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

[count_to_10]

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.

[KamenRiderBlade]

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.

[johnwill]

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.

[garrya]

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?

[johnwill]

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.