NASA fires up super-quiet supersonic X-59 aircraft The aircraft NASA hopes will usher in a new generation of transport that's supersonic but also relatively quiet has fired up its engines for the first time as a test. The X-59 Quiet Supersonic Technology (Quesst) airplane has been designed to generate what the agency refers to as a shaped sonic boom, or "sonic thump" [PDF] – …
Yes it is surprising that they actually put in a physical meat bag pilot . Technology already exists to fly remotely so what is the requirement to have a human being doing any of the flying.
I imagine that when flying well over Mach One there is not a lot of actual physical guidance of the aircraft. Basically it's flying in a straight line at a set altitude. Since there are no passengers on board the landing phase is no longer critical, and no need for their reassurance, so that can easily be handled remotely as well.
And these are not fight jets heading of into dog fights a la WW1
It would be interesting to know what purpose the pilot
I'd be surprised if a trained *test* pilot (i.e. someone specifically trained in the art of evaluating prototypes) wasn't able to offer up more useful feedback to the design team than any amount of telemetry captured via whatever sensors they could cram into the airframe. Yes, they'll also no doubt be capturing gobs of such data with every flight, but relying entirely on artificial data capture and taking the human element out of the loop risks missing something that would still not be obvious except to a human experiencing it first-hand.
There's also then the point that, with a trained pilot in the cockpit, they'd be in with a better chance of recovering from any untoward events that might occur during a test flight, where having someone on hand to a) immediately take stock of the situation and b) attempt to recover from it whilst being in full awareness of what the airframe is doing by virtue of actually being able to see, hear and feel it all around them, is still a better solution than relying either on a ground based pilot flying via datalink, or on an autopilot with sufficient capability to deal with events like this autonomously.
Having a meatbag in the cockpit also makes it much easier to gain access to airspace. Fully integrating UAV movements into civilian airspace is an ongoing effort. Gaining access to restricted military airspace where UAVs may be operated more leniently may be somewhat difficult for a "civilian" program such as the X-59.
Having a meatbag in the cockpit also makes it much easier to gain access to airspace
Plus, at mach 1.4, the latency of any remote control system is going to be a real problem. 1-2 second round trip isn't so much of a problem with a 100mph drone but this plane will go a *long* way in that 1-2 seconds..
In all fairness, so does a supersonic cruice missile. I am pretty sure that the flight controls of this machine does not use pushrods and steel wires, so there will be a computer on board taking care of the milisecond response.
For a real world example.
During the development of the 737 Max the simulations shows a nose up tendency for the aircraft, this is why MCAS was introduced.
But Boeing test pilots never reported this nose up tendency during test flights, and both the FAA and EASA test pilots have said that there is no noticeable nose up tendency with the 737 Max.
MCAS exists because Boeing managers trusted simulations more than the options of test pilots.
"Yes, they'll also no doubt be capturing gobs of such data with every flight, but relying entirely on artificial data capture and taking the human element out of the loop risks missing something that would still not be obvious except to a human experiencing it first-hand."
With sensors and telemetry, you only get what you intend to measure. With a trained human, you have something that will take is all in and can give an impression of the flight characteristics that rows of numbers aren't good at conveying. Of course you still instrument the heck out of the aircraft.
"Yes it is surprising that they actually put in a physical meat bag pilot . Technology already exists to fly remotely so what is the requirement to have a human being doing any of the flying."
Probably for the same reason there are no self driving cars on the market yet. Gathering all the data and inferring the correct results from said data is still a very hard problem and still misses things that are "obvious" to a human being.
But... His Trumpiness has said that it does not exist... and he can't lie now can he? {sarcasm overdrive}
Then his sidekick Musk will purloin the design (and to hell with copyrights and trademarks) and tell the world that HE alone invented it all. (just like he did with Tesla even though the history books say differently)
Fellow Regtards, get used to the official (sic) history books being re-written over the next 4 years. Slavery was a good thing, Global warming is fake news, etc etc etc.
Trump and his pals behind Project 2025 are setting out to dumb down a whole generation of young people in the USA. If you dare ask questions or point out a lie, you WILL be sent to Room 101 for re-indoctrination. You have been warned.
Posting AC but even though I'm not in the USA, I see the local FBI office (you probably have one in the US Embassy) or the CIA to come knocking at the door before we see the end of Trump/Vance/Don Jnr/Barron as POTUS (or Trump will repeal the 19th and 22nd amendments) while taking away the vote from 150Million+ women.
We are doomed.
With the Senate on his side and the House likely going Republican too then he can just start saying things like "I want the border closed" and as if by magic, someone in one of those chambers will propose such a law, it'll get voted on, probably passed, and then he'll sign it.
The next 2 years are going to be all his way unless something unexpected happens.
"or Trump will repeal the 19th and 22nd amendments"
For all his blusters, that's a pretty high bar. He seems to think being "President" gives him a lot more power than it actually does. You'd think after 4 years in the job he'd have learned that, yet still he tried to get Pence to do something that wasn't possible at the end of his time in office and even now is make "threats" and claims that he can't live up to.
. . . law is just an agreement we make amongst ourselves to act in certain conventional manners.
I keep hearing about guardrails and limits of power but those are meaningless to those who have the power and the money to override them. Examples abound.
The banner of "Who's gonna stop me" can carry the day.
Know any good universes?
"Who's gonna stop me" might collide head on with "why should we listen to you?", in that case. His brain will be pudding by the time his term ends; the infighting you saw in the Republican Party this time may look mild compared to what would happen if he tried to run again for a term he can't legally serve.
"Posting AC but even though I'm not in the USA, I see the local FBI office (you probably have one in the US Embassy) or the CIA to come knocking at the door..."
I hope you don't think posting AC is actually anonymous. Your post is still linked to your user account in the El Reg system.
Yeah there are probably FAA regulations requiring pilots to be able to see the ground, but those were probably written in the 1950s when a grainy black and white feed was the best they could get. Now you could have them in a virtual cockpit that allowed them far better vision than they have in today's cockpits. Add some redundancy with two separate systems of cameras and displays so that if one goes out you can still safely fly and you're fine.
Yes a nose that long is probably a pain for parking at a gate, but they could use the slots designed for 747s that have multiple entrances and just use the back jetbridge for the front of that plane behind the long nose. They'd only be flying these things into the biggest airports, and it isn't like anyone is going to bother with a Chicago to Salt Lake City flight at supersonic speed - saving one hour in the air when you consider how much time is required getting to the airport, going through security, then waiting at the gate makes that pointless. It'd be cross country flights and international flights that use it - i.e. all the airports that already have gates set up for 747s.
Might be a practical problem it the physics of turning a sonic boom into a sonic thump require the tapered nose to be half the plane even when scaling up. MIght work, but the passenger capacity in relation to the dead weight of the hardware would be ridiculously low. The seats would be super expensive. Of course they were on the Concorde, too, and it wasn't terribly succesful commercially.
The seats would be super expensive. Of course they were on the Concorde, too, and it wasn't terribly succesful commercially.
Concorde was very interesting: They found that people were willing to pay more than they were being charged. Once they put the prices up, Concorde became viable*.
* Yes, I am excluding the minor issue of development costs that were written off by the French & British governments.
the tapered nose to be half the plane even when scaling up. MIght work, but the passenger capacity in relation to the dead weight of the hardware would be ridiculously low
The nose doesn't have to be empty, or even windowless. Weight distribution is always an issue, but is there any reason the nose couldn't be used for storage, fuel for example? Or maybe limited seating, either very luxurious for 1st class, or cramped and windowless for cattle class? Beds?
I'd imagine for commercial flights on full size aircraft you may well end up with a "droop snoot" like Concorde, or something foldable (or indeed do the opposite and hinge it upwards) purely for practical purposes like being able to fit down taxiways without ramming stuff off to the side of them in corners, like other planes, giving the pilots visibility when on the ground without having to rely on complex electronics (which can and do fail), and to let it fit in hangars etc.
> require the tapered nose to be half the plane even when scaling up. MIght work, but the passenger capacity in relation to the dead weight of the hardware would be ridiculously low. The seats would be super expensive.
About 2014 I bought a ride on a WWII B-17 bomber. I could only afford a place behind the bomb-bay. Rich guys were buying seats in the NOSE (see Wikipedia 'B17'). Yes, it is all-view (clear bubble nose).
About 2014 I bought a ride on a WWII B-17 bomber. I could only afford a place behind the bomb-bay. Rich guys were buying seats in the NOSE (see Wikipedia 'B17'). Yes, it is all-view (clear bubble nose).
May 22, 2022, I rode as bombardier and my son was in the navigator seat of the Texas Raiders B-17G. Several months later the plane was cut in half by a fighter that missed a cue and turned into the bomber at a very low altitude.
Never ridden in a B-17, but I rode in a 1929 Ford Trimotor once. It seemed primitive until I remembered that it was built only 26 years after the Wright Brothers; then it seemed pretty impressive to be in this all-metal aircraft that could lift a ton of cargo or 11 passengers. Loud, though. I'm told there's a saying that the decibel level inside a Trimotor is roughly equal to the cruising speed in knots. I'm also told that this is a myth, that the cruising speed never gets anywhere near that high.
"The seats would be super expensive. Of course they were on the Concorde, too, and it wasn't terribly succesful commercially."
Concorde was also at a time where there wasn't the same quality of communications we have today. It's cheap to hold a meeting virutually with digital whiteboards, photos and the same god-awful powerpoint crap. If supersonic flight had a chance, it was when more business needed to happen face to face. Another big downside of Concorde was range. It just didn't have the capability of spanning the really long routes where it could be very amazing. If I could send my luggage from London to Sydney a day or two before since there'd likely be little cargo space on a supersonic plane and to be able to make the distance in half the time, that would be amazing. It's not as good if the route is much longer so stop can be made for refueling which lengthens the trip quite a lot.
>Another big downside of Concorde was range.
The Paris - Rio route was commercially successful even though it involved a stop at Dakar.
In its early days its range wasn't really that constraining (although by 2000 it probably would have been a factor); remember there were no non-stop flights to Sydney back then.
"remember there were no non-stop flights to Sydney back then."
Yep, but the new landscape of those modern comms and non-stop flights is a hurdle. Ticket price will be a thing. Concorde was fast, but not luxurious by today's standards. A business to first class ticket on many long haul flights will have very big and comfortable seats, good meals and lots of extras. If the prices are similar with supersonic seating more like what coach is today, I'd take the swank. Anyway you look at it, the day is blown when traveling. I can only remember once or twice taking a flight someplace was quick and not since 9/11 and all the added "security". One out and back trip I can recall was a real PIA, but I had to hand deliver some prototype parts to a customer due to a tight deadline.
You'll find that for some people, their time is more valuable to them than the equivalence in money. If they can fly to New York or LA in 3-5 hours (based on Concorde times) in what's nowadays considered 'cattle class' comfort, do something specific, and fly back all in the same day, it would be more valuable to them than say flying over in 7-12 hours in luxurious First, spend a few hours, and repeating the process, because they will have spent a day (14-24 hours) sitting in First with not much ability to do much other than sample the wares (which they probably know intimately already), or sleep (or shuffle paperwork that they have on their laptop).
THAT is what made Concorde special and worth it, even if it cost more money than First on BA (or Air France) did - The ability to fly 3 hours to NY, be picked up by helicopter to be dropped off at the Pan Am Center, head to Wall Street, do 'the thing', and then reverse it all to head back to London by tea time.
"The flight deck windshield must provide sufficient external vision to permit the pilot to safely perform any maneuvers within the operating limits of the aircraft and, at the same time, afford an unobstructed view of the flight instruments and other critical components and displays from the same eye position."
https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_25_773-1.pdf
Technically you only need side vision, now it does go on to talk about forward vision in the next section but it uses the word "should" instead of "must" which have quite different meanings in law. The FAA will probably ask you to explain your decision if you chose to ignore the "should" section.
Surely Concorde already solved this problem with the famous "droop snoot". Of course with a nose this long they might have to go one better and have a second hinge in the other direction to prevent the nose from touching the ground. Or multiple hinges so that the nose curls up under the body like a butterfly's proboscis :-D
"and it isn't like anyone is going to bother with a Chicago to Salt Lake City flight at supersonic speed"
Ultra-rich using jets like taxis, climate scientists warn
I could easily see Musk getting himself a supersonic "Lear Jet-a-like" for his short hops.
It would be smaller and not pull up to gates so those issues wouldn't matter. Private jet passengers don't go through TSA screening, they can drive up a minute before the doors close if they're the people paying or the people paying are willing to wait for them. So a faster flight on a shorter hop would make a material difference there in a way it wouldn't for a commercial flight.
If this ever became a commercial proposal, the FAA could probably be coaxed into issuing a waiver, assuming you could demonstrate it was safe. It's actually not that uncommon for aircraft designs to get requirements waived.
For now though it doesn't matter -- as a federal agency, NASA is outside the FAA's jurisdiction.
That'd mean the pilot having to learn to disregard the physical sensations felt during turns, and rely entirely on what their eyes are telling them. Which isn't beyond the capabilities of a trained pilot, but it is one additional burden to place on them in addition to the numerous others incurred by being the test pilot of a one-off prototype.
But will the military allow commercial airliners to use their low-volatility jet fuels (eg. JP-7), also the suitability of RP-2 is still being researched...
Even if they get to use these fuels, they aren't going to be cheap - according to AccuStandard JP-7 was 20USD per 1mL (ie. 20,000USD per litre). Not a problem to the hyper-rich...
>$18,000 per hour to run the SR-71 "Blackbird" according to this 1990 article
I also saw that and noted the discrepancy - as other sources say it consumed 16,000~20,000 kg of fuel per hour. I'm sure the Blackbird consumed more than a litre of fuel an hour, so assumed there are some other factors....
>SR-71 also used the fuel to cool its leading edges
I thought given space would be at a premium, the X-59 would also be using the wings as fuel tanks and thus the fuel will need to have similar characteristics to JP-7.
However, Concorde managed to fit in fuel tanks and keep the fuel cool so that conventional kerosene could be used. [see: https://www.heritageconcorde.com/fuelgeneral ]
Concorde managed to fit in fuel tanks and keep the fuel cool so that conventional kerosene could be used
To be fair, Concorde was doing 2/3 of the SR-71 speed so a lot less compression/friction heating to deal with, I think it did lengthen by a foot or so during flight as it heated though!
"how come its not communist or socialist for nasa to developer supersonic pax aircraft and then "give" the technology to manuf ?"
They aren't developing a complete aircraft ready for production. They are doing research into the technologies that would go into such an aircraft. A considerable amount of pure science has always been done by government and it has always paid off. It just doesn't pay off in corporate time frames.
mach: They aren't developing a complete aircraft ready for production.
cow: So they developing supersonic pax for fun w/ a plan to abandon the idea after learning stuff ?
That makes even less sense.
mach: A considerable amount of pure science has always been done by government and it has always paid off. It just doesn't pay off in corporate time frames.
cow: Im not q whether the gov does pure science, im simply questioning why tax payers are subsidizing the research and then "giving" it to public companies for free.
If giving food to hungry people is socialism, surely giving research which cost. billions sometimes tens of billions for free is what exactly ?
So it seems they want to reduce the sonic boom to imitate the most obnoxious sound in my street?
Although I'm not in favour of adding extra failure modes to passenger cars, motorised car doors would be a godsend. Actually, motion "dampers" aka "shock absorbers" would probably do as well.
I think the key to supersonic travel is evacuated tunnels under the oceans.
Meanwhile, the 7th of 10 planned subsonic flights of the XB1 was completed on the 5th of November
https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/xb-1-live-blog-flight-test-program#flight-7
Max altitude: 23,015 ft
Speed: Mach 0.82 (499 knots true airspeed)
Flight time: approximately 55 minutes
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
