Low-Boom and Low-Drag Optimization of the Twin Engine Version of Silent Supersonic Business Jet

Sato, Koma; Kumano, Takayasu; Yonezawa, Masahito; Yamashita, Hiroshi; Jeong, Shinkyu; Obayashi, Shigeru

doi:10.1299/jfst.3.576

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] There are also many examples of conceptual aircraft design reports where the authors described going "deep" in a particular discipline, focusing on a single cruise point low-boom and/or low-drag design in their process. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Many of these are often byproducts of tool and method development and the testing of optimization algorithms and/or schemes. There are fewer instances focused on supersonic design for low-boom concepts with shape optimization tied to overall vehicle performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of Multifidelity Multidisciplinary Computer Codes for Design and Analysis of Supersonic Aircraft

Geiselhart

Ozoroski

Fenbert

et al. 2011

49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper documents the development of a conceptual level integrated process for design and analysis of efficient and environmentally acceptable supersonic aircraft. To overcome the technical challenges to achieve this goal, a conceptual design capability which provides users with the ability to examine the integrated solution between all disciplines and facilitates the application of multidiscipline design, analysis, and optimization on a scale greater than previously achieved, is needed. The described capability is both an interactive design environment as well as a high powered optimization system with a unique blend of low, mixed and high-fidelity engineering tools combined together in the software integration framework, ModelCenter. The various modules are described and capabilities of the system are demonstrated. The current limitations and proposed future enhancements are also discussed. = equivalent area C L = lift coefficient dp/p = (the calculated pressure -the ambient pressure)/(the ambient pressure) EXTR = extraction ratio FPR = fan pressure ratio L/D = lift to drag ratio nmi = nautical miles OPR = overall pressure ratio OML = outer mold line SFC = specific fuel consumption T 3 = compressor exit temperature, °R T 4 = combustor exit temperature, °R TTR = throttle ratio V app = approach velocity, kts V jet = jet velocity, ft/s

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of Multifidelity Multidisciplinary Computer Codes for Design and Analysis of Supersonic Aircraft

Geiselhart

Ozoroski

Fenbert

et al. 2011

49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the three-dimensional supersonic biplane is not a full aircraft configuration yet, the supersonic biplane has a very strong possibility for sonic boom mitigation. When these results were calculated with an operating weight nearly equal to that of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency's flight demonstrator [19], whose target value of the maximum sonic boom is also 0.5 psf, the maximum sonic boom was kept below 0.5 psf.…”

Section: A Sonic Boom Mitigation By the High-aerodynamicperformance mentioning

confidence: 99%

Aerodynamic Performance of the Three-Dimensional Lifting Supersonic Biplane

Yonezawa

Obayashi

2010

Journal of Aircraft

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the aerodynamic performance of the three-dimensional lifting supersonic biplane and its sonic boom. Although the Busemann biplane is known to cancel the wave drag, it does not produce lift, either. A few decades later, the supersonic biplane airfoils with lift were reported. This paper extends their ideas to the threedimensional biplane. The aerodynamic performance was revealed by using computational fluid dynamics. The possibility of sonic boom mitigation due to shock wave interaction was demonstrated.chord length c root = root chord length c tip = tip chord length h = wing clearance M 1 = freestream Mach number n = arbitrary point S = reference area, b c ref s = staggering length t ==FS = wing thickness parallel to freestream x = chord length coordinate y = spanwise coordinate z = height coordinate = angle of attack, deg 1 = oblique shock wave angle from the leading edge of the lower wing, deg 0 1 = oblique shock wave angle from the leading edge of the lower wing projected on the cross section, deg 2 = oblique shock wave angle from the leading edge of the upper wing, deg 0 2 = oblique shock wave angle from the leading edge of the lower wing projected on the cross section, deg 3 = diffracted oblique shock wave angle from the leading edge of the lower wing, deg 4 = diffracted oblique shock wave angle from the leading edge of the upper wing, deg ?LE = oblique shock wave angle in the cross section perpendicular to the leading edge, deg = taper ratio, c tip =c root = sweepback angle at the leading edge, deg Subscripts lower = lower wing upper = upper wing

show abstract

“…There have been many studies on low-boom and low-drag supersonic business jets [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. They, however, focused on a specific type configuration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sonic Boom and Drag Evaluation of Supersonic Jet Concepts

Sun

Smith

2018

2018 AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper evaluates three different class supersonic airliners (Concorde, Cranfield E-5, and NASA QueSST X-plane) in a multidisciplinary design analysis optimization (MDAO) environment in terms of their sonic boom intensities and aerodynamic performance. The aerodynamic analysis and sonic boom prediction methods are key to this research. 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 see their individual effect on sonic boom. The near-field signature propagates in a stratified windy atmosphere using the waveform parameter method. The aerodynamic results are compared with experimental data and the sonic boom prediction results are validated by the NASA PCBoom program. Through the evaluation, we find a direct link between the wave drag and the first derivative of the volume distribution. The sonic boom intensity is influenced by the lift distribution and the volume change rate. The study helps to study the feasibility of low-boom and low-drag supersonic airliners.

show abstract

Low-Boom and Low-Drag Optimization of the Twin Engine Version of Silent Supersonic Business Jet

Cited by 15 publications

References 16 publications

Integration of Multifidelity Multidisciplinary Computer Codes for Design and Analysis of Supersonic Aircraft

Integration of Multifidelity Multidisciplinary Computer Codes for Design and Analysis of Supersonic Aircraft

Aerodynamic Performance of the Three-Dimensional Lifting Supersonic Biplane

Sonic Boom and Drag Evaluation of Supersonic Jet Concepts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About