Sonic Boom and Drag Evaluation of Supersonic Jet Concepts

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.

[1]  Jean-Antoine Désidéri,et al.  Cooperation and Competition Strategies in Multi-objective Shape Optimization - Application to Low-boom/Low-drag Supersonic Business Jet , 2013 .

[2]  Joseph A. Schetz,et al.  Full Configuration Drag Estimation , 2009 .

[3]  Howard Smith,et al.  A review of supersonic business jet design Issues , 2007, The Aeronautical Journal (1968).

[4]  C. L. Thomas.  Extrapolation of wind tunnel sonic boom signatures without use of a Waitham F-function , 1971 .

[5]  Bi-feng Song,et al.  Research of low boom and low drag supersonic aircraft design , 2014 .

[6]  R. Harris,et al.  An analysis and correlation of aircraft wave drag , 1964 .

[7]  John Bonet,et al.  Supersonic Vehicle Systems for the 2020 to 2035 Timeframe , 2010 .

[8]  C. L. Thomas.  Extrapolation of sonic boom pressure signatures by the waveform parameter method , 1972 .

[9]  Naoki Uchiyama,et al.  Optimization of Canard Surface Positioning of Supersonic Business Jet for Low Boom and Low Drag Design (Invited) , 2003 .

[10]  G. Carrier,et al.  LOW BOOM / LOW DRAG SMALL SIZE SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT DESIGN , 2016 .

[11]  Kazuhiro Kusunose,et al.  Low-Boom / Low-Drag Design Optimization of Innovative Supersonic Transport Configuration , 2016 .

[12]  Shigeru Obayashi,et al.  Low-Boom and Low-Drag Optimization of the Twin Engine Version of Silent Supersonic Business Jet , 2008 .

[13]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Natural Laminar Flow for Quiet and Efficient Supersonic Aircraft , 2002 .

[14]  Domenic J. Maglieri.  Compilation and Review of Supersonic Business Jet Studies from 1963 through 1995 , 2011 .

[15]  Paul Okonkwo,et al.  The GENUS aircraft conceptual design environment , 2019 .

[16]  M. K. Chan,et al.  Supersonic aircraft optimization for minimizing drag and sonic boom , 2003 .

[17]  Bernd Chudoba,et al.  What Price Supersonic Speed? - A Design Anatomy of Supersonic Transportation - Part 1 , 2008 .

[18]  H. E. Kulsrud,et al.  SONIC BOOM PROPAGATION IN A STRATIFIED ATMOSPHERE, WITH COMPUTER PROGRAM. , 1969 .

[19]  Clives Leyman.  Case Study by Aerospatiale and British Aerospace on the Concorde , 2003 .

[20]  Yicheng Sun,et al.  Supersonic business jet conceptual design in a multidisciplinary design analysis optimization environment , 2018 .

[21]  Harry W. Carlson,et al.  Simplified sonic-boom prediction , 1978 .

[22]  Wu Li.  A WING DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR LOW-BOOM LOW-DRAG CONCEPTUAL SUPERSONIC BUSINESS JET , 2008 .

[23]  G. Whitham.  The flow pattern of a supersonic projectile , 1952 .

[24]  Yicheng Sun,et al.  Review and prospect of supersonic business jet design , 2017 .