ALBERT

Description: Preliminary human acceptability studies of sonic booms indicate that supersonic flight is unlikely to be acceptable even at noise levels significantly below 1994 low boom designs (reference 1, p. 288). Further, these low boom designs represent considerable changes to baseline configurations, and changes translate into additional effort and uncertain structural weight penalties that may provide no annoyance benefit, increasing the risk of including low boom technology. Since over land sonic boom designs were so risky (and yet the acceptability studies highlight how annoying sonic booms are), boom softening studies were undertaken to reduce the boom of baseline configurations using minor modifications that would not significantly change the designs. The goal of this work is to reduce boom levels over water. Even though Concorde over water boom has not been found to have any adverse environmental impact, boom levels for baseline HSCT designs are 50% higher in overpressure than the Concorde (due to a doubling in configuration weight with only a 50% increase in length),

Description: This paper describes the design features of a Douglas Mach 2.4/1.8 Low Sonic Boom High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) configuration developed for NASA. The configuration is designed to fly over water at Mach 2.4 for highest productivity and economic worth, and fly over land at Mach 1.8 with reduced sonic boom loudness.

Description: This report covers the entire effort of GE Global Research's NASA Prime Contract NNC15CA02C "Evaluation of Low Noise Integration Concepts and Propulsion Technologies for Future Supersonic Civil Transports". GE Global Research was supported by GE Aviation and Lockheed Martin in exploring the potential of wing shielding, flight path optimization, and jet noise technology to target aggressive community noise levels of 10 EPNdB lower than Chapter 14 for a future (mid-term) commercial supersonic transport aircraft.

Description: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LM), working in conjunction with General Electric Global Research (GE GR) and Stanford University, executed a 19 month program responsive to the NASA sponsored "N+2 Supersonic Validation: Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018-2020 Period" contract. The key technical objective of this effort was to validate integrated airframe and propulsion technologies and design methodologies necessary to realize a supersonic vehicle capable of meeting the N+2 environmental and performance goals. The N+2 program is aligned with NASA's Supersonic Project and is focused on providing system level solutions capable of overcoming the efficiency, environmental, and performance barriers to practical supersonic flight. The N+2 environmental and performance goals are outlined in the technical paper, AIAA-2014-2138 (Ref. 1) along with the validated N+2 Phase 2 results. Our Phase 2 efforts built upon our Phase 1 studies (Ref. 2) and successfully demonstrated the ability to design and test realistic configurations capable of shaped sonic booms over the width of the sonic boom carpet. Developing a shaped boom configuration capable of meeting the N+2 shaped boom targets is a key goal for the N+2 program. During the LM Phase 1 effort, LM successfully designed and tested a shaped boom trijet configuration (1021) capable of achieving 85 PLdB under track (forward and aft shock) and up to 28 deg off-track at Mach 1.6. In Phase 2 we developed a refined configuration (1044-2) that extended the under 85 PLdB sonic boom level over the entire carpet of 52 deg off-track at a cruise Mach number of 1.7. Further, the loudness level of the configuration throughout operational conditions calculates to an average of 79 PLdB. These calculations rely on propagation employing Burger's (sBOOM) rounding methodology, and there are indications that the configuration average loudness would actually be 75 PLdB. We also added significant fidelity to the design of the configuration in this phase by performing a low speed wind tunnel test at our LTWT facility in Palmdale, by more complete modelling of propulsion effects in our sonic boom analysis, and by refining our configuration packaging and performance assessments. Working with General Electric, LM performed an assessment of the impact of inlet and nozzle effects on the sonic boom signature of the LM N+2 configurations. Our results indicate that inlet/exhaust streamtube boundary conditions are adequate for conceptual design studies, but realistic propulsion modeling at similar stream-tube conditions does have a small but measurable impact on the sonic boom signature. Previous supersonic transport studies have identified aeroelastic effects as one of the major challenges associated with the long, slender vehicles particularly common with shaped boom aircraft (Ref. 3). Under the Phase 2 effort, we have developed a detailed structural analysis model to evaluate the impact of flexibility and structural considerations on the feasibility of future quiet supersonic transports. We looked in particular at dynamic structural modes and flutter as a failure that must be avoided. We found that for our N+2 design in particular, adequate flutter margin existed. Our flutter margin is large enough to cover uncertainties like large increases in engine weight and the margin is relatively easy to increase with additional stiffening mass. The lack of major aeroelastic problems probably derives somewhat from an early design bias. While shaped boom aircraft require long length, they are not required to be thin. We intentionally developed our structural depths to avoid major flexibility problems. So at the end of Phase 2, we have validated that aeroelastic problems are not necessarily endemic to shaped boom designs. Experimental validation of sonic boom design and analysis techniques was the primary objective of the N+2 Supersonic Validations contract; and in this Phase, LM participated in four high speed wind tunnel tests. The first so-called Parametric Test in the Ames 9x7 tunnel did an exhaustive look at variation effects of the parameters: humidity, total pressure, sample time, spatial averaging distance and number of measurement locations, and more. From the results we learned to obtain data faster and more accurately, and made test condition tolerances easy to meet (eliminating earlier 60 percent wasted time when condition tolerances could not be held). The next two tests used different tunnels. The Ames 11 ft tunnel was used to test lower Mach numbers of 1.2 and 1.4. There were several difficulties using this tunnel for the first time for sonic boom including having to shift the measurement Mach numbers to 1.15 and 1.3 to avoid flow problems. It is believed that the 11 ft could be used successfully to measure sonic boom but there are likely to be a number of test condition restrictions. The Glenn 8x6 ft tunnel was used next and the tunnel has a number of desirable features for sonic boom measurement. While the Ames 9x7 can only test Mach 1.55 to 2.55 and the 11 ft can only test Mach 1.3 and lower, the Glenn 8x6 can test continuously from Mach 0.3 to 2.0. Unfortunately test measurement accuracy was compromised by a reference pressure drift. Post-test analysis revealed that the drift occurred when Mach number drifted slightly. Test measurements indicated that if Mach number drift is eliminated, results from the 8x6 would be more accurate, especially at longer distances, than results from the 9x7. The fourth test in the 9x7, called LM4, used everything we learned to comprehensively and accurately measure our new 1044-02 configuration with a full-carpet shaped signature design. Productivity was 8 times greater than our Phase 1 LM3 test. Measurement accuracy and repeatability was excellent out to 42 in. However, measurements at greater distances require the rail in the aft position and become substantially less accurate. Further signature processing or measurement improvements are needed for beyond near-field signature validation.

Description: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LM), working in conjunction with General Electric Global Research (GE GR), Rolls-Royce Liberty Works (RRLW), and Stanford University, herein presents results from the "N+2 Supersonic Validations" contract s initial 22 month phase, addressing the NASA solicitation "Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2018 to 2020 Period." This report version adds documentation of an additional three month low boom test task. The key technical objective of this effort was to validate integrated airframe and propulsion technologies and design methodologies. These capabilities aspired to produce a viable supersonic vehicle design with environmental and performance characteristics. Supersonic testing of both airframe and propulsion technologies (including LM3: 97-023 low boom testing and April-June nozzle acoustic testing) verified LM s supersonic low-boom design methodologies and both GE and RRLW's nozzle technologies for future implementation. The N+2 program is aligned with NASA s Supersonic Project and is focused on providing system-level solutions capable of overcoming the environmental and performance/efficiency barriers to practical supersonic flight. NASA proposed "Initial Environmental Targets and Performance Goals for Future Supersonic Civil Aircraft". The LM N+2 studies are built upon LM s prior N+3 100 passenger design studies. The LM N+2 program addresses low boom design and methodology validations with wind tunnel testing, performance and efficiency goals with system level analysis, and low noise validations with two nozzle (GE and RRLW) acoustic tests.

Description: A sonic control device that reduces the effects of shock waves generated by an aircraft traveling at supersonic speeds. The control device includes a control surface located at or near the nose section of the aircraft. The position of the control surface can be moved between a retracted position and an extended position. When in a deflected position, the control surface increases the air pressure at the nose section. The increase in air pressure at the nose section decreases both the pressure amplitude and the slope of the overall shock wave as the wave travels toward the ground. Additionally, the deflection of the control surface may induce a downward directed pressure increase which creates less of a drag penalty than a truly blunt nose. When shock control is not desired, the control surface is moved back to the retracted position to reduce the drag on the plane. The moving control device allows a supersonic aircraft to efficiently travel above both land and water.

Description: No abstract available

Description: A summary is provided for the First AIAA Sonic Boom Workshop held 11 January 2014 in conjunction with AIAA SciTech 2014. Near-field pressure signatures extracted from computational fluid dynamics solutions are gathered from nineteen participants representing three countries for the two required cases, an axisymmetric body and simple delta wing body. Structured multiblock, unstructured mixed-element, unstructured tetrahedral, overset, and Cartesian cut-cell methods are used by the participants. Participants provided signatures computed on participant generated and solution adapted grids. Signatures are also provided for a series of uniformly refined workshop provided grids. These submissions are propagated to the ground and loudness measures are computed. This allows the grid convergence of a loudness measure and a validation metric (dfference norm between computed and wind tunnel measured near-field signatures) to be studied for the first time. Statistical analysis is also presented for these measures. An optional configuration includes fuselage, wing, tail, flow-through nacelles, and blade sting. This full configuration exhibits more variation in eleven submissions than the sixty submissions provided for each required case. Recommendations are provided for potential improvements to the analysis methods and a possible subsequent workshop.

Description: The N+3 Final Report documents the work and progress made by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in response to the NASA sponsored program "N+3 NRA Advanced Concept Studies for Supersonic Commercial Transports Entering Service in the 2030 to 2035 Period." The key technical objective of this effort was to generate promising supersonic concepts for the 2030 to 2035 timeframe and to develop plans for maturing the technologies required to make those concepts a reality. The N+3 program is aligned with NASA's Supersonic Project and is focused on providing alternative system-level solutions capable of overcoming the efficiency, environmental, and performance barriers to practical supersonic flight