Symphony at work

Two announcements by Boom last week caught the attention of the aviation ecosystem. Both announcements made simultaneously and represent an interesting pivot in the manner an aerospace company goes about its product development cycle.

Boom announced a fresh funding cycle of $300 Mn not for its aviation business but for a subsidiary Boom SuperPower. SuperPower is a 42MW natural gas turbine delivered in a 40 foot container, optimized for AI data centres, the turbine is built on the Boom Symphony’s supersonic technology and the launch was announced with a 1.21GW order from Crusoe Energy.

The Boom Superpower aeroderivative gas turbine

Boom Supersonic has been developing its Overture airliner since 2014. The Overture is to be the spiritual successor to the legendary Concorde. After multiple years of hunting for the right supersonic engine (a partnership with Rolls Royce fell through as RR wanted to shoehorn an existing subsonic engine) Boom decided in 2021-2 to develop its own Symphony supersonic engine. (Full Overture story here : The Boom Overture : A Return to Supersonic | theaviationevangelist ). The engine is designed and projected to develop 40,000 pounds of thrust and four such engines are slated to propel the Overture to Mach 1.7.

As per their CEO Blake Scholl the power turbine was always on their roadmap, it was just expected to come later after the Overture went supersonic, but Boom’s pivot came last week when the gas turbine slotted in before supersonic happened. The pivot happened because of an urgent need in the energy ecosystem and an opportunity to find a niche here in addition to their primary vision of a return to supersonic. https://x.com/bscholl/status/1998372107215122910?s=61&t=94iDmeURmA5WeYayiLPshA

Data

While the concept of data has always existed, we are very interested in the last 25 years. Data units have grown exponentially from Bytes to Kilobytes to Megabytes to Gigabytes to Terabytes – Petabytes – Exabytes all the way to Zetabytes and Yottabytes. To further illustrate the data growth, 1Zetabyte = 1 billion Terabytes, the unit we are most familiar with.

Mankind has always known that data & information is power. The advent of computers helped ease the laborious process of typing and handwriting massive amounts of data. The next logical step was having the data at one location to ease access.

Early data centres from the 1940s (remember ENIAC) were massive machines that filled up  buildings and needed tremendous amounts of power (hold the thought) , generated huge amounts of heat (data centres need a lot of water) and needed tight physical security (to control who has access, we now do all this online!!). The data centres were stand alone in the pre-internet days. The idea of time sharing on these massive machines would come about in the 1960s.

Data Base Management Systems would only happen in the 1970s and they provided a structured way to organize and retrieve data files. These systems were housed in corporate / military / government facilities and came with rigidity and maintenance issues. Furthermore such data centres continued to be very expensive and were considered rare. Scalability meant ordering fresh hardware, connecting to the system and configuring it. The process could go on for weeks or even months and entailed significant cost. The service bureau model emerged where the equipment was owned and maintained by an external organization and the space and time was sold to the company that needed the space. This is considered a precursor to the cloud model.

John McCarthy first proposed computation as a public utility back in the 1960s. By 1999 Salesforce.com launched one of the earliest Software as a Service (SaaS). SaaS along with Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) together form the three pillars of what we call the cloud!

It is the IaaS providers such as Amazon Web Services (AWS) in 2006  and Microsoft Azure in 2010 who were behind taking the idea of cloud computing mainstream. 2010 is also the year the Zetabyte era started with 2ZB processed and stored. In 2025 it is projected to be 181ZB up from 147ZB in 2024. The availability of easily scalable and cost effective models directly facilitated the manner in which organizations work. Decision making increasingly passed from human hands to a machine.

As of 2010 the US had approx 2100 data centre facilities all together that number has swelled to between 4,100 – 5400 facilities with cloud computing having widespread adoption by 2035 we should see a quadrupling of data needs from 2024 levels to over 500ZB. We are already seeing increased applications of generative AI in our everyday lives and the use of big data working with machine learning for our screens telling us what we need, when we need.

All this computing power means the power needs of these data centres will quadruple from 25GW in 2024 to over 100GW by 2035. U.S. data center power demand could reach 106 GW by 2035: BloombergNEF | Utility Dive.

Energy

Data centers with their exponentially growing power demands need sources of cheap and plentiful energy. The primary source of power in the United States is the electricity grid. The issue that comes up is data center growth and grid build out are running along completely different timelines.

In the past the average data center needed 40MW which is enough to power 30-40,000 homes. The same is now at a planned power need of 100MW or more. The largest of the data centers now have a projected power need of 500MW and more, going as high as 1.2GW.

Before we get to the power needs, a typical data center needs a minimum of between 10 – 40 acres of land and hyperscalers can go as high as 500 acres and more. Companies wanting to set up data centers need to look at land prices and water availability in addition to power needs. The combination of land pricing and water availability (taking into account existing water table loads) necessarily means that data centers have to sprout up in places with minimal population and cheap land prices. This also means that power infrastructure might be minimal to unavailable. In such a situation the data centers need to put down an application for a power line off the grid. Between 2010-2014 data centers accounted for 2% of total electricity generated in the US, by 2024 this had gone up to 4% and the same is projected to be 12-15% of all the electricity generated by 2035.

Power infrastructure is unable to keep up with the current and projected data center growth. By 2024 the grid build out rate had slowed down to 300 miles per year (across the USA) from 1,700 miles per year in 2010. The projection for 2035 is expected to be approx 300-400 miles per year. FEWER NEW MILES The rate of grid buildout has fallen by about 80% while data center growth is accelerating. The timeline gap only widens from here.

Data centers typically take anywhere between 2-4 years to be completed (depending upon size and complexity). Data centers with modular constructions can be completed in as little as 12-18 months! By comparison the grid with its slowing buildout rate takes between 7-12 years to fulfil data center connection requests for grid connections. The National Grid is already facing severe congestion and data center hubs like West Virginia consume 26% of the state’s total power, something that power authorities across the board are wary of. Furthermore the costs associated with laying out fresh/upgrading infrastructure vary anywhere between $100-300 per kW making the typical 40MW connections needed today cost anywhere between $4-12 Mn per connection and the developer is expected to bear the cost.Underground vs. overhead: Power line installation-cost comparison and mitigation . All these factors come together to delay electric connections to upcoming data centers. But hold on! 

The US is one of the biggest producers of oil globally and gas a by-product is vented and flared!! Approx 63% of all the gas generated in the US is flared/wasted. What if gas could be used to power the data centers and data centers go BTM (Behind The meter)? All the growth issues faced by the centers disappear overnight and growth stays on track! The data centers have their answer to cheap energy, gas & aeroderivative gas turbines.

Aeroderivative Turbines

The concept of gas turbines finds its beginnings with Leonardo da Vinci back in 1550, however the designs could not be implemented then due to non availability of materials. Gas turbines finally came about in the early 20th Century with the first commercial industrial gas turbine going online in 1939 at a power station in Switzerland.

Today gas turbine manufacturers such as GE Verona / Seimen’s Energy have a lead time anywhere between 3-5 years, in Asia the lead time can be as much as 8 years. Better than the electricity grid, but still much longer than the time it takes for entire data centers to come up. The gas turbine manufacturers have seen several growth and consolidation waves in their industry as demand peaks and falls off. This cyclic market behavior has made the turbine manufacturers reluctant to add on capacity and they are happy to have a backlog for their industrial gas turbines. 

By the early 1940s we saw the development of jet engines and engineers quickly saw multiple applications for the amazing engineering marvel. As early as 1947 we have the Metropolitan Vickers G1, an aeroderivative gas turbine based on the F2 jet engine that became the first marine gas turbine when it completed sea trials. By the late 1960s aeroderivative gas turbines emerged as a distinct turbine category for industrial and marine applications. Their strengths being their light weight, higher efficiency, compact size and quick start up times. Most importantly the engine cores were proven reliable with millions of flight hours and their modular construction meant maintenance was simpler than traditional gas turbines and down time was mitigated. In 1968 a GE turbojet from 1955 was converted into LM1500 for industrial and marine use. But what are the modifications that need to be made to a jet engine for it to become a gas turbine?

If the engine is a turbojet or low bypass then the front fan and nacelle are removed and an air filtration system is fitted directly on the engine. If the engine is high bypass just as the CF6-80C2 used in the PE6000 the integration is much more comprehensive, in either case the front fan is normally removed. A comprehensive filtration system is a must to avoid foreign object damage (FOD). The engine might be light, tough and powerful, but FOD can result in expensive maintenance.

The most important part of the modification is the Free Power Turbine. In a normal jet engine hot exhaust gasses are expelled out the back of the engine to create thrust. In an aeroderivative gas turbine the exhaust gasses spin the turbine before venting out. The turbine is connected to a generator via a shaft and the generator is where electricity is generated.

The engine’s fuel system is modified to work on natural gas instead of ATF. The modifications to the engine include fuel nozzle replacement in the combustor, gas feed lines are added including gas valves and compressors, the combustors are modified to optimize the mixing of air and gas and the engine fuel mix computer is modified to optimize gas combustion.

Finally the engine is housed in a compact 40 foot container that is easy to transport. Installation needs some ground work, but typically such turbines can be installed in well under two weeks.

Data centers repurpose old jet engines to meet AI’s power demand

aeroderivative Gas turbines

The Aeroderivative Gas Turbine  Ecosystem

The Aeroderivative Gas Turbine ecosystem is dominated by a clutch of players. Some of them include GE Verona, Mitsubishi Power, RR, Siemen’s Energy, Baker Hughes. GE & Baker Hughes dominate with a 63% marketshare of the current ecosystem. The market currently valued at just under $4 Bn and is projected to be valued at $6.79 Bn by 2034, to add there is an untapped market yet to be realized. [Latest] Global Aeroderivative Gas Turbine Market Size/Share Worth USD 6.79 Billion by 2034 at a 6.34% CAGR: Custom Market Insights (Analysis, Outlook, Leaders, Report, Trends, Forecast, Segmentation, Growth Rate, Value, SWOT Analysis)

It is into this market that Boom sees a clear opportunity. A quick look at the partners in this pivot. We first have Crusoe. Crusoe is a young start up that is about 7 years old, they specialise in  providing infrastructure for AI data centers. They have an out of the box approach to the energy needs of data centres. They go where cheap energy is available, a case in point is their site at Abilene, Texas. Abilene is in West Texas, an area active in oil and gas production. Furthermore there are a number of wind farms that we loss making until Crusoe stepped in with their data center project, taking in all electricity produced. Crusoe has placed an order with Boom Superpower for 29 gas turbines that will generate 1.21GW of power valued at about $1.25 Bn. This order is only part of their order book, they have over 4.5GW worth of orders with GE Vernova & Chevron.  Crusoe is building data centers where power is abundant and cheap – FastForward.

The second is Darsana Partners, an investment and advisory firm that has a portfolio valued at over $4.25 Bn. They are known for their fundamental research, and making high conviction investments in companies and industries undergoing significant change. They are the lead investor in Boom Supersonic’s ‘ Superpower’ turbine business which raised $300 Mn in funding.

Supersonic – Superpower – Supersonic

At the end of my previous piece on the Boom Overture we had briefly discussed the Overture funding and the funding gap that existed (link at the beginning of the article). The Superpower move by Boom is an excellent step towards that direction.

Boom promises its turbine cost will be at $1033 / kW this stacks up well against an average cost of between $930 – $1500 / kW by competitors such as the GE LM6000 & Siemens SGT-A45 , the plants generate power in the 40-50MW range. How much does it cost to build a gas power plant? – Gas Turbine World Where the Boom Superpower plant scores over the competition is its operation at high ambient temperatures. In summers when temperatures in many parts of the USA climb over 100°F Superpower promises to maintain power output of 42MW even at 110°F while competitors suffer from power derating.

Boom expects to commence deliveries to Crusoe by 2027 and expects to ramp up manufacture to 1GW by 2028, 2GW by 2029 and 4GW p.a by 2030. These translate to 24 units by 2028, 48 units by 2029 and 95 units by 2030 at 42MW each.

In revenue terms it translates to a topline of $1.03 bn in 2028, $2.06 Bn in 2029 & $4.13 Bn by 2030. The overall size of the aeroderivative gas turbine market is limited by the number of jet engines being converted to aeroderivative gas turbines and Boom expects to carry a backlog through towards 2035 (ideally).

Typical margins in the gas turbine business range between 10-15%. Since Boom Superpower has priced aggressively a conservative margin could be in the 5-8% range and this translates to a bottom line of between $51.5 – $82.4 Mn in 2028 and a bottom line number of between $206.5 Mn – $330.4 Mn in 2030.

While the numbers are sizable as a standalone revenue stream, they do not cover development costs of the Overture and the timeline seems to run parallel to the Overture timeline, the Superpower program does run significant add-on benefits.

The Overture is expected in service by 2030 and the Superpower program provides a revenue stream two years before anticipated commercial flights. Blake Scholl appears confident no more money will be needed to fund the Overture program, for this to truly happen the turbine program needs to accelerate by at least a year. For now their Superpower Superfactory expected to come up near Denver is still a grass field, but Boom have shown they can move quickly once permitting is complete in the past (their Greensboro factory).

Since the Superpower turbines will be using the same Sprint Cores as the Symphony, their use directly translates to real world use of their technology and this accelerates learning, validation and improvement required for their Symphony engines. Furthermore scaling up production at their Superpower facility builds supply chain and vertical integration experience that can be transferred to the Overture Superfactory.  Superpower.

Overall it looks like Boom has fast tracked their Symphony & Overture development timelines.

This is what pivots are all about!

Before you Leave.

Read More Amazing Content at: https://theaviationevangelist.com keep scrolling down.

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist/?hl=fr

Prologue

In the Research & Development Gallery at the National Museum of the USAF near Dayton, Ohio stands an aircraft towering over all the other aircraft in the gallery, the centre piece, in the shadow of its wings stand several other aircraft appearing to shelter there.

This is the XB-70 Valkyrie, arguably one of the most influential aircraft of all time.

The XB-70 Valkyrie with the B-58 Hustler

The Nuclear Deterrence

Before we dive into the XB-70 Valkyrie, it’s important to understand the backdrop which led to her development.

The 1945 nuclear events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly established the importance of nuclear deterrence. The cold war was ramping up and the modified B-29s used to deliver the nuclear ordnance were inadequate. 

The Enola Gay & Bockscar the two B-29s that dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

By 1941 Britain was at the risk of falling to Nazi Germany. America was looking for a new bomber that had at least a 5,700 mile range ( Gander – Berlin roundtrip), the ability to deliver a 10,000 pound ordnence load and return. Furthermore the bomber had to have a service ceiling of 40,000 feet and a cruising speed of approx 275 mph. The events of Pearl Harbor ensured the B-36 would only enter service post WW2.

The ten engined B-36 Peacemaker

Convair won the contract and the aircraft was originally designated the B-35, later switched to B-36 to avoid overlap and confusion with the Northrup YB-35 flying wing. The aircraft first flown in 1948 was huge with a wingspan of 230 feet and a length of 162 feet, was propelled by six pusher props. Later models had four turbojets  on the outboard wings making a total of ten power plants ‘ Six Turning & Four Burning’(the maximum on any production bomber aircraft ever), could carry over 80,000 pounds of ordnance. 

The ten engined B-36 . Six turning & four burning

The B-36 was relegated to obsolescence with the advent of the MIG 15 over North Korea by 1950. It was too slow for the faster interceptors Russia was producing. America needed an all jet powered bomber that was quicker.

The B-47 Stratojet entered operational service in 1951. While the requirement goes back to 1943 for a jet powered reconnaissance bomber, the original model 424 was essentially a version of the B-29 . Following the 1945 inspections of captured top secret German documents on swept wings the jet powered game pivoted on its head. With a 35 degree sweep and a wingspan of 116 feet with wings mounted on the fuselage shoulder, the aircraft was powered by six turbojets. The nuclear capable bomber had a max payload of 25,000 pounds and a range of  2500 miles. With a cruise speed of approx 500 mph the B-47 was the backbone of the Strategic Air Command’s ( SAC) bomber fleet through the 1950s. (Note: The B-45 operated from 1947-59 however had many shortcomings that severely curtailed its usefulness)

The six turbojet engined B-47. The very first jet engined bomber ever.

While the B-47 operated in tandem with the B-36 there was a clear gap in the Range / Payload / Speed doctrine and most importantly reliability, enter the B-52.

The eight jet B-52 is a venerable veteran among bombers globally, first entering service in 1955 and still in active service to this day. With a wingspan of 185 feet and a length of 159 feet, the aircraft cruises at 525 mph, has a range of 8,800 miles and service ceiling of 50,000 feet. The aircraft can carry 70,000 pounds of ordnance and is nuclear capable. 

The legendary B-52 with its eight engines. In service for 70 years and counting.
The B-52 prototype with a B-36 in the background.

Through the 1950s aircraft got faster and the push for air superiority quickly moved aircraft into the supersonic era. Starting with Gen. Chuck Yeager’s famous 1947 first in the Glamorous Glennis. Aircraft such as the F-86 Sabre and the F-100 Supersabre made sure that supersonic was here to stay. The Russians were making supersonic strides themselves with their MIG 19 ‘Farmer ‘ . Bombers needed to go supersonic.

The B-58 Hustler. The very first supersonic bomber.

The B-58 was designed with nuclear strike capability and was the very first operational Mach 2 bomber. While the B-58 was a clear statement of intent the aircraft had a limited range of 4,000 miles and payload capacity of approx 20,000 pounds. The delta wing (a recent innovation) made low speed handling very difficult and the aircraft had a high incident rate. SAC issued a fresh directive for new aircraft.

WS-110A

In 1955 the SAC  issued ‘ General Operational Requirement No. 38 ‘ the foundation for an operational bomber that had the capabilities of both the B-52 and the B-58. The conventional fuel powered jet version of this requirement was called ‘ Weapons System 110A ‘ or WS-110A.

The specifications of the bomber was a cruising speed of Mach 0.9, 50,000 pound payload and a combat radius of 4,000 miles. Boeing & North American Aviation both were included in round one of the development along with other leading companies.

By the mid 1950s USSR in addition to its supersonic fighters such as the MIG-19 had SAMs (Surface to Air Missile). The missiles were a threat to a Mach 0.9 aircraft. The rules of engagement changed to a Mach 3 heavy strategic bomber and a cruising altitude of 70,000 feet.

The initial designs from both companies had take-off weights in excess of 750,000 pounds and both the proposals were dismissed ‘ being too large ‘. Gen Curtis LeMay, the commander in chief of the SAC is said to have commented on seeing one of the proposals “ this is not a bomber, it is a three ship formation!”

Both companies were told to refine designs.

The NAA & Boeing initial designs for the WS110A.

NACA Supersonic Studies

In 1951 Richard Whitcomb put forward the ‘ Area Rule’. His discovery stated that ‘ Total cross sectional area ‘ of the aircraft was responsible for drag in the transonic ( Mach 0.8 – 1.2) regime and not just the wing cross section. This finding resulted in the ‘coke bottle fuselage’ , a narrowing of the fuselage where the wing cross section came into play.

In 1956 A J Eggers & Clarence A Syverton published ‘ Aircraft configurations developing high lift-drag ratios at high supersonic speeds’. The principle investigated the design concepts of aircraft at high supersonic speeds. The long title would come to be known as compression lift or wave riding.

The 1951 ‘Area Rule’ was first tested on the redesigned F-102A Delta Dagger. The rule which required the original F-102 to be lengthened by 11 feet , with narrowed coke bottle design in the middle, a new canopy along with redesigned wings and a pushed back tail, resulted in a much faster , more stable aircraft that comfortably sustained Supersonic speeds.

A design schematic of the F-104A design changes over the F-104 implementing ‘Area Rule’

The 1956 internal memorandum was studied in detail by NAA and they figured compression lift had to be central to the WS-110A design philosophy along with area rule.

By early 1958 the WS-110A would be officially designated the XB-70. The Air Force had transitioned the project from a concept ( Weapons System or WS) to an experimental program (XB). The name Valkyrie was the winning name submitted by Sgt. Francis Seller in a naming contest held by the USAF. Valkyrie the Norse Goddess is the ‘chooser of the slain’, guides souls lost in battle to Valhalla(the hall of heroes). Valkyrie was chosen from over 20,000 suggestions.

The Canards & Forebody

The XB-70 experienced significant ‘ Mach Tuck’ at high Mach speeds. This was caused by the centre of pressure moving aft as the aircraft accelerated through the speed regime.

The automatic canards managed by the FACS (Flight Control Augmentation System) adjusted continuously to manage the tuck. With a span of 28 feet they were significant in trimming out pitch shifts and helped smooth shock transitions.

The canards & forebody of the XB-70. Sr-71 in the foreground.

The canards worked in conjunction with the elevons on the wing’s trailing edges. 

The forebody of the XB-70 like most supersonic aircraft today was sharply tapered through to the canards. The underside as were the sides were not only flat and shallow, but also contoured to create the primary shockwave.

The XB-70 dimensions.

Behind the nose the contour widens and transitions towards the engine nascelles. It is here the coke bottle design is clearly visible.

Please be sure to read an about the evolution of the Flying & Blended Wings in the two part series here. http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/13/the-evolution-of-the-flying-wing-part-one/

The windshield of the XB-70 in flight with the side windows. The second picture shows the XB-70 from 1964, the waisting clearly visible.

The XB-70 used a retractable windshield ( the first of its kind). The windshield serviced multiple purposes. The first was to create a clear aerodynamic line. The second was heat insulation for the cockpit at 600 degrees F (it did heavily restrict forward visibility). To augment visibility, the canopy had flat, heat shielded windows on the sides. Aircraft such as the Concorde and TU-144 followed a similar concept with their droop noses.

The Wings 

The large & thin wing area with a high aspect ratio ( the wingspan divided by the mean distance between the leading & trailing edges of the wing a.k.a average chord) managed sub / transonic lift (aerodynamic lift). 

The sculpted leading edges of the wing helped control vortices the delta wings generated. Vortex lift is important during high angles of attack (specific to delta wings) during take off and landing. Concorde is a famous example of using vortex lift.

A front view of the XB-70 clearly showing the sculpted leading edges and some elevations raised.

The flat undersurface of not just the wings but also engines ‘6 pack’ was critical to the XB-70’s most important design feature, ‘ Compression Lift’. The wings outer panels ( last twenty of the trailing edge on each side ) drooped by up to 65 degrees. The droop was important to trap the shock waves created off the sculpted engine intake splitter & the intakes themselves.

The sculpted inlet , the vertical splitter being the prominent feature. The second picture shows the six pack and the flat underbody of the aircraft enabling shockwaves to be trapped under the aircraft with the drooping wings.

While most of us think of shockwaves coming off a supersonic aircraft horizontally, the splitter was responsible for generating shockwaves vertically, these waves being trapped by the folded wingtips creating a wave cushion. The XB-70 generated up to 30% of required supersonic lift through compression lift. Shock waves would bounce into the engine inlets too. The folded wingtips improved yaw handling a great deal and the XB-70 needed much smaller vertical stabilizers as a result.

The XB-70 is the first aircraft to use three different kinds of lift across the speed regime. The swept back wings at 65 degrees reduced transonic drag and improved handling. 

The wings flexed and bent considerably through the speed regime. To help keep the wing flexible the engineers at NAA intuitively integrated six elevons (combination flaps & airelons) on each wing and avoided binding the wing. Furthermore by doing so they managed extreme hinge and actuator loads inflight (hinge moments).

Detailed schematics of the XB-70 showing the crew capsule (top picture top left corner ) and elevons (both pictures).

The six elevon setup gave the FACS more flexibility as it managed pitch / trim (inboard elevons) and roll (outboard elevon). As the wingtips drooped (25 – 65 degrees) the two outboard elevons were faired to zero and became part of the folding wingtip. Lastly, having six elevons helped with redundancy. All hydraulics on the aircraft were at 4,000 psi.

AV1 had a flat wing with zero degree dihedral, while AV2 had a five degree dihedral as a design refinement. This gave AV2 better directional and roll stability over AV1 and also gave AV2 better compression lift efficiency. 

AV2 was unfortunately lost on June 8 , 1966 during a formation photo flight. General Electric had a photo session using the XB-70, F-104 Starfighter, F-4 Phantom II & a T-38 Talon. All of them used GE engines.

Test pilot Joe Walker (the most experienced supersonic pilot then) in his F-104 was sucked into the starboard wingtip turbulence of the XB-70, flipped over the vertical stabilizers of the XB-70 and crashed in a fireball. The doomed XB-70 flew level for a few seconds before going into a steep spiral and crashing, taking with it co-pilot Carl Cross. Pilot Al white ejected using the crew escape capsule engineed for high altitude ejection or depressurisation while retaining control of the aircraft (in event of depressurization).

The Engine Nascelles & Intakes

The engine nacelles not only fed the engines with air but also were an integral part of the compression lift generated by the XB-70.

The entry was split by a vertical splitter fins. The engines were split three on each side. They also projected the airflow towards the drooped wing tips to trap shockwaves. The nacelles created oblique shock waves at the inlet lips as they began slowing air to about 400 mph from supersonic speeds as stable air was directed to the engines. This kept engine compressor pressure within a constant bandwidth. The trailing edges of the three moveable ramps behind the engine inlets hinged inwards or outwards (between 10 – 30 degrees or upto one foot) as per the Mach number and compressor requirement. The entire system including the ramp angles & bleed doors (for excess air) was continuously adjusted by the inlet control system. 

The inlet detailed schematic .

The engine nacelle had a 2D rectangular configuration and had a maximum height of 4 feet. The length of the intake from the nacelle to the engines was approx 30 feet.

A front view showing the engine inlet and splitter in detail
Rare pictures of the inside of the intakes at different depths inside the 30 foot intake .

The underside of the entire intake ramp was flat as it aided in compression lift.

The Engines a.k.a ‘The Six Pack’

The XB-70 had six General Electric ( GE) YJ93-GE-3 turbojet engines.

Each axial flow engine generated 19,900 pounds of dry thrust and 28,800 pounds with afterburners. The engines had no thrust reversers and used drogue chutes as a stopping device. With eleven compressor stages and of which six were low pressure and five high pressure.

The engines were made of Nickel based alloys and stainless steel. Advanced blade cooling allowed the engine to survive high exhaust gas temperatures (EGT). The engines used high flash point JP-6 fuel.

The engine control system synchronised with automatic inlet control management to prevent compressor stalls and upstarts (happens when airflow to engines is unstable due rapid speed changes).

With so many different systems working in tandem on such a precision piece of engineering the YJ93 was a high maintenance product.

The Landing Gear

The XB-70 had the conventional hydraulic tricycle gear. 

The rearward folding nosewheel had two wheels.

The nose landing gear.

The main gear had two bogies with four wheels each. The main gear had a complex mechanism of folding the bogie in, then a twist and then folding into the wheel wells. The wells had a flap that closed and aerodynamically sealed the wheels inside.

The main gear each had one small wheel between the outer pair of wheels. This small wheel acted as a braking sensor was an early ABS mechanism. During rejected takeoffs the brakes could heat up to 1,000 degree F.

The main landing gear.

The landing gear struts were made of forged chromium-molybdenum steel for its exceptional strength and fatigue resistance. The struts were more than capable of handling the 500,000 pound gross weight during heavy landings at over 200 knots.

The tyres were made by Goodyear and had aluminium woven into them to withstand the high landing temperatures of over 300 degrees F. Each tire was Nitrogen inflated to over 250 psi.

The XB-70s brakes had a multiple disc setup. Each disc is made of forged steel. They were heat treated to resist warping and cracking under extreme thermal loads.

The Fuel System

The aircraft carried approximately 43 – 46,000 gallons of JP-6 Fuel. Everything about the system was about managing heat, aircraft stability & structural integrity in addition to feeding the engines optimally across the speed range.

Fuel was stored across eleven fuel tanks distributed across the fuselage and wings of the aircraft. The tanks themselves were constructed using the same honeycomb sandwich panels used for the fuselage skin. The honeycombing did throw up sealing issues which was resolved using advanced epoxy compounds. Although some tanks never properly sealed and hence were never used (ex: the tail tank).

Using the JP-6 fuel as a coolant was a first ! The fuel was circulated through ten heat exchangers throughout the aircraft to absorb and dissipate heat. The heat exchangers were part of the engines fuel pumping system enroute to ignition.

The tanks themselves had heatsinks within each of them to draw excess heat. Furthermore to prevent vapor ignition the tanks were inerted using 700 pounds of liquid nitrogen held in dedicated tanks. As fuel was consumed nitrogen filled the empty tanks to maintain pressure, displace oxygen and reduce fire risk at elevated temperatures.

The fuel management system was integral to the Centre of Gravity Management system. The system actively transferred fuel between tanks as Mach numbers increased. As speed increases the aerodynamic centre of the aircraft moves rearward. The centre of gravity needs to coincide with this to avoid a Mach Tuck. By drooping the outer wingtips in conjunction with its canards, the aircraft effectively moved the centre of pressure forward. The fuel management system worked in conjunction with the compression lift mechanism by moving fuel forward to balance the rearward move of the aerodynamic centre. The wing tanks were typically burned off first. 

We observe here that all systems were dependent on each other to maintain stability.

Lastly the JP-6 fuel was specifically developed for the XB-70 program and its extreme speed regime. It addressed the issues of aerodynamic heating, high speed engine performance and safety & high altitude operation. The fuel performance exceeded all the XB-70 operating parameters and was developed as an alternative to zip fuels (high calorific value boron based fuels). Zip fuels had caustic byproducts that caused engine wear and posed toxicity risks.

Kerosene based JP-6 was the safe alternative that provided for all requirements without the byproducts. 

The Materials of the XB-70

Over ninety percent of the external structure of the XB-70 ( fuselage skin, nacelles ) was made of type 321 stainless steel built as a honeycomb structure. The material and construction had high thermal resistance of up to 600 degrees F with minimal distortion at Mach 3. The structure itself was rigid, lightweight and thermally stable.

The Honeycomb panels used on the XB-70.

The hot areas such as engine bays & aft of bays & internal structure was made of a titanium alloy called Ti-6Al-4V also known as Grade 5 titanium. The alloy was 90% titanium, 6% aluminium, 4% vanadium and had excellent thermal resistance of over 1000 degrees F with an excellent strength to weight ratio.

High temperature adhesives used to bond the honeycomb structure were made of redux and epoxy adhesives. The honeycomb structure could not be riveted as it would weaken the structure.

Non heat zones such as avionics bays, hydraulic lines & non load bearing fuselage sections were made of aluminium alloys as they were light weight, easy to machine and cooler.

The engine and exhaust area materials were made of Inconel & Rene 41. These alloys can resist very high EGTs in the range of 1,800 degrees F.

All coatings and sealants had heat resistant coatings to prevent oxidation and surface degradation due high temperatures. The sealants protected the honeycomb edges from moisture intrusion & thermal cycling damage.

Strategic Bomber to Experimental Research Platform 

By the late 1950s the US & Soviet SAMs were getting bigger, faster and more powerful. President Eisenhower was a proponent of the ICBMs (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles). His take on the XB-70 program was that “ building the XB-70 was like fighting with bows & arrows in the era of gunpowder and guns” The XB-70 just could not cope with the banks of Soviet SAM systems coming online across the entire USSR. 

Gary Powers was shot down in a U2 over the USSR at 70,400 feet and this would prove President Eisenhower’s prophecy.

The program was cancelled in 1959, however to salvage the considerable expenditure already incurred (over $300 mn) the Pentagon authorized the production of a single vehicle. AV1 was almost completely handbuilt.

Pic 1 shows the XB-70 with flaked off paint after a supersonic run. The second picture shows the XB-70 with the A-12 Oxcart.

The XB-70 program is a great example of how politics directs expenditure. As the political tug of war continued NAA was caught in the middle of a fierce battle. The Air Force continued to support the program and even attempted to reinstate it as a combat test vehicle.

The 1960 election of President Kennedy brought fresh impetus to a failing program, the President switched the program from a manned bomber to an experimental aircraft. A total of three were to be constructed, however only two were ever completed, the third was incomplete (the avionics and other systems were actually ready).

NAA should be commended for sticking through the program at each step. Finally there was consensus across all stakeholders including the Air Force, Politicians, NASA & of course NAA.

The XB-70 in the Air

Total flights – 129

AV1 – total flights83
Total flight time – 160hrs 16min

Mach 3 flights – 1. 

AV1 had several design issues that restricted speed to Mach 2.5

AV2 – total flights 46

Total flight time – 92hrs 22min

Mach 3 flights – 9

On May 19, 1966 AV2 flew at Mach 3 for 32 consecutive minutes.

Combined, the XB-70 Valkyrie accumulated a total of 1hr 48min at Mach 3+.

Each flight of the XB-70 was an adventure and there were several incidents.

The Legacy of the XB-70 Valkyrie

The XB-70 was an aircraft of many firsts, later adopted for use by the Aviation / Aerospace Industry. Below are listed a few of them!

  • Variable geometry wings later adopted by aircraft such as the B-1A/B Lancer. Compression lift later used by the SR-71. The overall aerodynamic stability of XB-70 influenced several other projects.
  • Material and thermal management solutions advanced the development of heat-resistant structures and cooling systems, impacting aerospace exploration technologies.
  • Fuel and propulsion innovations directly contributed to the SR-71 and indirectly to modern jet engines and fuel systems, particularly for high-speed and high-altitude operations. 
  • Avionics and automation laid groundwork for modern flight control and safety systems, enhancing reliability and reducing pilot workload in complex aircraft .
  • The XB-70’s strategic obsolescence redirected military aviation toward low-altitude and stealth technologies, while its test data shaped research and development for decades

Epilogue 

Over 50 years after her last flight in 1969 the XB-70 at the National Museum of the United States Airforce, looks ready to take off and fly away to the clouds where she belongs. Makes you wonder what she would have been like in the air? A combination of size, speed, sound ,smoke & incredible power all coming together creating a show like none other.

Perhaps the Valkyrie’s greatest message to future generations is ‘ Always be innovating, it’s the only path forward’.

The XB-70 says good bye as she accelerates to Mach speed with her wingtips down to 65 degrees….

Credit for all pictures to the respective owners.

Please be sure to read about the Flying & Blended Wings, a two part series here. http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/13/the-evolution-of-the-flying-wing-part-one/

For more deep dive easy to read articles please go to https://theaviationevangelist.com do keep scrolling down, and do share

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr

The History

Any mention of the Kaveri Engine brings up visions of repeatedly missed deadlines, out of capabilities vision, underperformance & underinvestment. If a performance manager were to look at the Kaveri’s progress report, he/she will look to set up clear and realistic goals, realistic timelines & performance milestones with adequate investment across funding, human capital & materials.

The Kaveri Engine on display. Pic Source : Wikipedia

Project Kaveri was launched in 1986 under the oversight of India’s GTRE (Gas Turbine Research Establishment) to develop an indigenous turbofan to power India’s then under development LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) which would become the Tejas.

GTRE already had experience working on turbojets dating back over 20 years. In 1956 (the same year as the first flight of the B-58 Hustler) the Indian Government decided to develop inhouse a Mach 2 capable multirole aircraft and appointed German, Kurt Tank ( responsible for the creation of many important German aircraft during WW2 including the FW190) as design lead. From the get go the project was heavily constrained by a limited industrial base (under British Rule the nascent Indian Industry was not allowed to grow) and even more limited funding, and developing an inhouse engine looked out of reach. The Indian Government made the first compromise here by looking outside India to develop/purchase the engines for the aircraft.

The original vision of the HF-24 Marut was envisioned to be a Mach 2 aircraft and needed capable engines. Finally the project settled on the Bristol Siddley Orpheus 703 engines already in use on aircraft such as the Gnat and Hunter for over a decade. The engine was non afterburning and developed 4.850 pounds of thrust each (the Marut had two). The limited power of the engines barely got the Marut upto Mach 0.95 and was considered inadequate by the Indian Air Force (IAF). Furthermore the Indian Government had turned down a $17.5 Mn proposal by Rolls Royce to improve the performance of the engine as they believed it expensive. Similar conversations with the USSR & Egypt produced no results. The Marut would serve its entire operational life with underpowered engines limiting capability. The aircraft retired from service in 1990.

The HF-24 Marut on display in Bangalore. Pic Source: Wikipedia

By the early 1970s GTRE decided to improve the Orpheus engine performance by developing afterburners and the engine was certified in 1973-74 with between 5,700-6,500 pounds of thrust with afterburners at a temperature of 1,700°K. Unfortunately the engine design did not match the Marut’s and could not be integrated with the aircraft.

The 1974 Pokhran tests resulted in sanctions against India and finding replacement engine parts got to near impossible.These actions further incentivised GTRE to once again go back to the drawing boards and ungraded the afterburners to 2,000°K and reworked the engine’s subsonic compressor stages with a new transonic design that further improved the aging engine’s dry thrust. Unfortunately all of these efforts went in vain as the engine failed to integrate with the Marut (another airframe could have been developed). The plug was pulled on further engine development right about 1973-4 and the hardfought experience gained by a fledgling aerospace industry was put on hold for another four years. 

The Kaveri History

In 1977 GTRE, still smarting under international sanctions, had developed an afterburning turbojet prototype, the GTX37-14U. The experience gained from working on the Orpheus 703 was of great help.  It was the very first engine developed indigenously in India. The technology demonstrator was to showcase GTRE’s capabilities. A turbofan variant, the GTX37-14UB was constructed to further enhance GTRE’s capabilities. The GTX37-14U developed 14,550 pounds of thrust with afterburner and the GTX37-14UB developed over 20,000 pounds of thrust. Remember both the engines were proof of concept and should be viewed as such. The GTX37-14UB did have a large diameter frontal area considered ineffective for a fighter aircraft. Having said that India produced both an afterburning turbojet and turbofan by the time the project was completed in 1981. Both engines were stand alone projects (highlights the silos the various defense establishments operated in).Gas Turbine Research Establishment

A jet engine consists of the following stages, the intake, the compressors, the combustion chamber, the turbines and the afterburner. The intake is a critical element of any supersonic aircraft as air that is flowing at supersonic speeds needs to be slowed down to subsonic speeds for ingestion into the engine compressor, the intake includes elements of both the airframe and the engine and a fantastic example is the J-58 engine used in the Blackbird series of aircraft (https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/11/21/the-blackbird-family-aircraft/ ). The compressors need to be optimized to take the air coming off the inlet, compress and fire it in the engine core (the Kaveri’s core is called Kabini) the combusted air is then blown through the turbines followed by the afterburner. Maintaining optimal pressure through the entire entire engine length is critical to the engine’s efficiency (will speak of materials later).

The Kaveri’s ‘Kabini’ core is a connecting element from India’s foundational GTX37-U engine to the current Kaveri GTX35-VS. Other than the core everything needed to be rethought as per the IAF’s changing needs(it is important to scope any project and not move the goalposts after scoping). The target thrust requirement for the Kaveri was 81kN or 18,210 pounds of thrust and multiple high altitude test runs in Russia on IL-76 Test Beds never produced a thrust of more than 15,800 pounds or 70.4kN. The K1 iteration of the engine’s dry thrust was never more than 49-51kN or 11,000 pounds.In addition the engine had a target weight of 1,100 kg or 2,450 pounds and the weight of the K1 engine never went below 1,423 kg or 3,139 pounds. The engine was off on both thrust and weight targets. In 2008 the engine was delinked from the LCA / Tejas program and iterations continued. By 2009 after years of weight saving efforts the weight came down to 1,235kg or 2,723 pounds.and a thrust of 65kN or 14,612 pounds of thrust with afterburner. As of 2024 the engine weight has been brought down to 1,180 kg or 2,601 pounds. The engine weight is still considerably heavier than the GE F404 engine used in the LCA/Tejas at 1,036kg or 2,284 pounds and 84.5kN / 19,000 pounds of thrust. The Kaveri has a ways to go. It can be said the delinking of the Kaveri program from the LCA/Tejas was a body blow as funding and Government interest was inconsistent(the IAF kept looking outside India for their immediate strategic needs). A derivative of the Kaveri in only dry form was tested in 2024, again in Russia and it developed 49-51 kN or approx 11,200 pounds of thrust.This engine will be used in India’s UCAV Ghatak program. DRDO Ghatak – Wikipedia . As per Wing Commdr R.K Narang, India’s aerospace independence is based on 4 pillars: a fighter aircraft, a transport aircraft , a UCAV & an engine. True independence can only be attained by having your own versatile multirole capable engine, and we now realize the importance of the Kaveri Engine.  107 – Kaveri, Naval Fighter, AMCA and Supercruise: Can India Build a Truly Indigenous Air Power?

Before we proceed into analyzing the improvement areas of the Kaveri program, it’s best we take a look at a couple of examples. The first is ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization) and their radical change post the Cryogenic Engine story of the 1990s and SAC (Strategic Air Command) in the USA, both of whom have created a vibrant ecosystem that encourages innovation and excellence, and yes works on improving failures.

Note: In Nov 2024 Bahmos Aerospace reported the development of an afterburner for the dry Kaveri engine increasing thrust from 50kN to 80kN (11,240 pounds & 17,985 pounds), almost at the thrust requirements of the Tejas. Certification of the same is expected in 2032 and is currently undergoing tests in Russia. GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri – Wikipedia

The afterburner nozzle developed by Brahmos Aerospace. pic Source: IRDW

The Examples

In the early 1990s India’s ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization) and Russia’s Glavkosmos had almost reached a deal for the purchase of Cryogenic engines for India’s GSLV (Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle). After going through multiple negotiations ISRO had reached the decision that the Russian cryogenic engine was the right engine at the right price. The United States citing violation under the Missile Control Technology Regime (MTCR) imposed sanctions on both ISRO & Glavkosmos (ISRO had earlier rejected the American proposal). The recently formed Russia (after the fall of the USSR) was under financial strain, could not stand up to the sanctions and backed out of the deal, leaving ISRO’s GSLV without engines.

India’s cryogenic engine. Pic Source : Reddit user

A cryogenic engine is a rocket engine that uses liquefied oxygen and hydrogen stored at very low temperatures. The engines provide the highest thrust per unit of propellent mass as compared to other engines. These engines use specialized materials, handle extremely volatile liquid gasses under high pressure and sophisticated engineering to prevent propellent from boiling off under heat. All this needed to be developed inhouse now. There were fake controversies being generated against involved scientists ex: Nambi Narayan (who has been exonerated and compensated).

ISRO created an ecosystem that included companies like Godrej Aerospace & MTAR Technologies. Godrej established a vacuum brazing facility , a complex method of joining metal components at very low pressure (vacuum) in a furnace. Such a furnace eliminates gasses while joining metal sections of varying size , strengthening joints and eliminating oxidation. A critical property when operating under high pressure. MTAR Technologies created a turbopump. In the cryogenic engine the turbopump is a critical component to feed high pressure fluid into the combustion chamber. Such technologies are niche and needed to be developed in house.Developing such a high cost engine had high funding costs and this is where the public-private partnership (PPP) paid dividends. The government needed to be consistent while private entities developed the complex components.ISRO decided to step back from the day to process and instead became a technology incubator.

ISRO Scientists learned from failures and this became a consistent theme through the culture of the entire organization. A brilliant example of this is Chandrayaan 2 in 2019. The mission was to land the Vikram rover on the Moon, however due to issues that occurred during the landing sequence (15 minutes of terror) the spacecraft impacted hard on the Moon’s surface and Vikram lost communication. The Team at ISRO went through a root cause analysis and rectified the errors that caused the hard landing, built impact tolerances across the lander and the rover. In 2023 Chandrayaan 3 successfully landed on the moon.ISRO opts for ‘failure-based’ design for Chandrayaan-3 – Rediff.com Today India’s ISRO is known for commercially launching satellites for other countries at the most reasonable cost. At the heart of this story is India’s cryogenic engine, 100% Indian. The long road to cryogenic technology – The Hindu .

Chandrayaan 3 and river. Pic Source : NASA Science

The SAC in the United States has created a similar ecosystem of contractors who have amassed formidable experience across multiple disciplines of aerospace. For every great aircraft in operation, they have a competition between two finalists who are chosen after multiple rounds of iterations. Examples: The F-35 Lightning had a competitor in the Boeing X-32 at the experimental stage. The F-22 Raptor had a competitor in the YF-23. There is competition between Pratt & Whitney and General electric for the engines. The ecosystem is an extremely competitive technology incubator with SAC and even NASA playing the technology and funding facilitator.

GTRE Improvement Areas

India’s HAL and GTRE have so far been assembly partners to their international partners and this needs to change. The change needs to be based on four pillars: Human Capital Development (HCD), Materials, Funding & Testing Facilities. But first the improvement areas for the Kaveri Program.

The scoping of the Kaveri engine was never realistic from the very beginning. The parameters set down at the get go were the GE-404 turbofan and GE has over a century of experience manufacturing multiple engine types across speed regimes. The more important question is what goes into manufacturing a high performance jet engine. The answer immediately goes back to the four pillars mentioned above.

At the very head of HCD is company culture. GTRE culture is said to be too orthodox, monopolistic and institutional to manage cutting edge advances. They will do well to take a leaf from ISRO’s book and work on ‘ failure based’ design. Having said that, much like a Phoenix rising from the ashes and ISRO after 1994, GTRE can still develop its Human Capital using standard project development methodologies.

Every Project has a critical path and each critical path has milestones. The management of these milestones needs a special kind of project leader, one with deep knowledge of jet engines, governmental affairs & Human Capital Management, if we go back to the Marut failure Kurt Tank the German Engineer was informally accused of a rigid design stance, lack of engagement with the Government, lack of co-ordination across the project critical path & frequent infighting between his German & Indian counterparts. The project manager needs to balance all the abovementioned dynamics, leaning too much in any one direction will deliver below optimal results.

Human Capital needs to feel well compensated and appreciated, especially when they are working and creating something special like the Kaveri Engine. Moreover they need direction from an effective project manager who looks at every failure as an opportunity for a fresh and better improved iteration.Motivation is key when it comes to Teams and they need to feel every failure is one step back, but two steps forward. Losing Human Capital to other countries without a fight is criminal and our Indian ecosystem has to devise a way to keep and nurture our capital. GTRE has to focus on this instead of building the engine itself. The enabler.

Specialized equipment such as the Kaveri engine need special niche materials that are capable of withstanding extreme thermal variations and pressure reliably. Some examples are single crystal turbine blades made of nickel based superalloys such as inconel and rene. Such alloys lack grain boundaries found in traditional metals and their construction renders the blades resistant to thermal fatigue that causes blade deformation. This was a major stumbling block until 2021 when Defense Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL, with great pride I say my Uncle retired as a Director there in the late 1980s) delivered 60 single crystal high pressure turbine blades for HALs indigenous helicopter engine.

The single crystal blades delivered by DMRL. Pic Source DMRL

In 2025 Lucknow based PTC Industries received an order to manufacture the same for the Kaveri Derivative engine to be used in the Ghatak USAV . While such capabilities are scaling up, the vision of an afterburning Kaveri Engine capable of delivering upto 120 kN thrust 27,000 pounds of thrust should always be kept in the minds of the GTRE enablers. PTC Industries Receives Purchase Order from GTRE for Single Crystal ‘Ready-to-Fit’ Turbine Blades.

The single crystal blades delivered by PTC Industries. Pic Source : PTC Industries

Building an afterburning jet engine needs specialized test facilities such as a high altitude wind tunnel and flying test beds. So far GTRE has been dependent on Russia for wind tunnels and their IL-76 test bed for high altitude testing. India already has IL-76s. It’s a matter of modifying one aircraft that can be used for such testing. Being dependent on other countries means negotiating prices (which are never on your side) and waiting for a window of testing as per the other country’s schedule. Furthermore the lack of validation facilities means the incomplete prototype might end up on the test bed and might require going back to the drawing boards after testing. In the United States companies such as Boom Supersonic who are building the non afterburning Symphony engine for their Overture airliner use additive manufacturing (3D printing) to manufacture prototype parts at a rapid pace in their 3D printer farms. This after using CFD (Computerized Fluid Dynamics) to rapidly iterate the right design.  The Boom Overture : A Return to Supersonic | theaviationevangelist Such processes speed up the iteration, design improvements & validation by a factor of ten. In house testing and validation facilities are a must.

The cost of developing a new supersonic capable engine with afterburners costs anywhere between $2-5 Bn. In the case of the Kaveri engine the initial tranche of funding dating back to 1989 was $53 Mn. By 2009 the Kaveri project cost approx $595 Mn , and from the project’s perspective had severely overrun projected costs. A much larger perspective is China’s total expenditure of over $42 Bn developing a range of aero engines for their range of aircraft. Funding is extremely important for such projects and the Government & DRDO along with stake holders such as the IAF, Indian Navy & Military need to be clear on  their priorities and reserve a significant portion of their expenditure to indigenous R&D instead of looking outside. The last 30 years the IAF has consistently looked outside, be it the Su-30 or the Rafale and to go further back the Mirage 3000 and Jaguar aircraft. 

The Future

The Kaveri derivative on the Ghatak UCAV should be viewed through the prism of incremental improvements. Furthermore the engine’s development needs to be viewed as a National ‘Atmanirbhar’ priority and developing the four pillars i.e HCD, Materials Technology Development, consistent funding (including potential cost overruns) & testing infrastructure have to be nurtured and built (common infrastructure is always good and saves costs). On the testing infrastructure Boom Supersonic as an example has consistently spent millions of dollars on inhouse equipment to cut down development lead time. The Indian Navy’s aircraft carrier project is a brilliant example of ‘Atmanirbhar’.

The indigenously constructed INS Vikrant. Pic Source: Wikipedia

PPP under the GTRE & DRDO’s oversight is the right way forward with cost and profit split. ISRO has already shown the path here as has the Indian Navy with their carriers (they do not yet have a Marine variant of the Tejas fighter yet).

Persistent Indigenous Innovation is the only path to ‘Atmanirbhar’.

Late Edit : Coincidentally at the same time as publishing this article , Defense Minister Rajnath Singh has announced a comprehensive development contract with Safran for the AMCA engine. While this is great for immediate to interim strategic needs, the Kaveri project has to be seen through. True mastery of the jet engine can only then be had.

Before you Leave.

Read More Amazing Content at: https://theaviationevangelist.com keep scrolling down.

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr

SAMs , Satellites & Unseen Speed

The very first SAMs were the German V2’s from WW2. While their value was being understood they still had a long way to go as on the range & accuracy parameters.

The US began developing its missiles from the late 40s onwards and by the mid 50s had batteries of Nike Ajax missiles to guard against Soviet bomber attacks. By 1955 the Soviets themselves had the S-25 Berkut system and the famous S-75 Dvina came into being by 1957 having range, speed & accuracy.

The Soviet Sputnik launch of 1957 started off a whole new Cold War race and it was dominance from space. However satellites were still in their infancy and the CORONA & GAMBIT missions were still between 5 and 10 years away. Missile technology had a head start over satellite tech.

By 1956 the recently released U-2, Dragon Lady was already being painted regularly by Soviet defense systems, however the U2’s cruising altitude of 70,000 feet was still thought to be out of range of Soviet missile systems, even at its subsonic speed. Gary Power’s being shot down in 1960 only reinforced the need for speed, altitude and agility, the need for a Blackbird (which was already in development).

However even before the 1960 incident a fresh thought went through the US Armed services and it was speed. The recently launched B-58 Hustler had shown that Mach 2 was possible (if a little dangerous) and the various wings of the armed forces and CIA began to look at Mach 3 as the speed benchmark, stealth was not yet in the picture.

The WS-110A or what would become the XB-70 Bomber already underway was in trouble even before it got off the ground as it was believed Soviet SAMs could take down a large bomber with no stealth capabilities, the XB-70 would become an experimental aircraft as an attempt to just their cost of over $1.5 Bn for two vehicles or $750 Mn a pop! (Read here about the XB-70)

(https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/10/10/xb-70-valkyrie-the-grand-daddy-of-supersonic/ ).

At around the same time and in parallel to the XB-70 program the CIA went to Lockheed to develop a Mach 3 capable reconnaissance aircraft that flew at over 90,000 feet (considered untouchable by SAMs) and would be difficult to detect by Radar. Lockheed with previous experience developing the U2 Dragon lady which had a service ceiling of 70,000 feet albeit at subsonic speed looked the right outfit to build such a plane.

This is the story of the Blackbird Family of aircraft and it all started with the A-12 Oxcart, an ironic name considering the A-12 was the exact opposite of an Oxcart.

A pencil sketch of the Blackbird by my Daughter from a few years ago. Hung in my office.

Project Archangel

In Apr ’58 Kelly Johnson the legendary head of Skunk Works said ‘ I recall having long discussions with (CIA Deputy Director for Plans) Richard M. Bissell Jr. over the subject of whether there should be a follow-on to the U-2 aircraft. We agreed … that there should be one more round before satellites would make aircraft reconnaissance obsolete for covert reconnaissance ‘. 

The CIA’s hunt for a U-2 successor  was called Project Gusto and by 1958 the two finalists were Convair with their Kingfish and Lockheed with their Archangel. Convair’s Kingfish had a lower cross section than Lockheed’s A-3 concept. Both companies were asked to refine their designs and here is where Lockheed pulled into the lead.

The A-11 that would be modified to become the A-12. Pic Source : Wikipedia

Following the A-3, (the A stands for Archangel) Lockheed’s iterations A-4 to A-6 used Blended Body Fuselage (BSF) designs along with turboramjet (more on this later) & rocket propellant, but they fell well short of the range requirements. Iterations A-7 to A-9 used a single J58 engine (just the turbojet) with two Marquat XPJ-59 Ramjets that used J-150 fuel, a highly classified type of fuel the JP stands for Jet Propellent and was expected to improve range, however still well short. The A-10 used two GE J93 turbojets (same as the XB-70 Valkyrie)  with underwing inlets for better range, however the iterations continued to fly short of the required parameters. Iterations on the A-11 Lockheed added twin inward canted fins that were angled inwards at 15° made of composite materials, other leading edge surfaces featured composites as well, together the improvements went a long way towards improving RCS ( Radar Cross Section) of the aircraft. To add to these design improvements  the wings were extended through chines that went right upto the cockpit and the bottom of the aircraft flattened with the wings blended into the fuselage, the improvements won Lockheed a $96.6 Mn contract to construct a dozen A-12s. The dozen airframes would extend to 18 if you include the three airframes used for the YF-12 , one trainer and two M-21 aircraft. Project Archangel / A-12 was underway.

The A-12 design: Pic Source : Wikipedia

The J-58 Engine

While the A-12 was an amazing aircraft design that is yet to be replicated almost 70 years on, it is the insane engineering that went into the engines of the aircraft that needs to be spoken of first.

The J-58 Turboramjet!

The external dimensions of the engine were a length of 17.10’ a diameter of 4.9’ and weight of 6,000 pounds might feel puny by today’s standards, the engineering that went into them is unique.Pratt & Whitney JT-11 Mach 3+ jet engine (J58) . (strongly recommend a watch). The engine generated 30,000 pounds of thrust with afterburners and had 8 compressor stages.Pratt & Whitney J58 (JT11D-20) Turbojet Engine | National Air and Space Museum

Sometime between 1956-58 the US Navy approached P&W to develop a Mach 3 capable engine for their planned Martin P6M Jet Seaplane. P&W had begun testing their prototype when the Navy realized the costs involved did not justify an aircraft when their main weapons were ships, submarines & missiles. The Navy pulled out by 1958ish. The CIA, which already had Lockheed in advanced design stages of their project Archangel/A-12 had obviously heard of this engineering marvel and approached P&W to continue development on the J-58…and the rest is history.

The J-58 engine. Note the three pipes heading towards the afterburner. The plate right upfront on the side is the hydraulic computer. Pic Source : Air & Space

Coming back to the turboramjet, a couple of definitions. 

Turbojet definition : In a turbojet all the air that goes in the front is sent through the compression stages, fired up in the combustion chamber and the resulting exhaust gases generate thrust.

Ramjet definition : A ramjet is a type of engine that uses the forward motion of the aircraft to compress air and fire it up. Such an engine has no moving parts and aircraft using such engines need to be launched off another transport aircraft generally.

So why did the J-58 need both?

The J-58 was optimized for Mach 3.2 cruise and such high speed generates heat in the excess of 750°F which would melt the internals of the J-58 turbojet. A solution was required and here lies the engine’s unique feature, the frontal spike and six tubes running (three on each side) from the stage four compressor straight back to the afterburner section (a type of bypass).

The J-58’s variable geometry spike is where over 50% of the engine’s thrust is generated, but first another bit of information. At Mach 3.2 the compression at the engine’s inlet was almost as high as the thrust generated out the back, the engine would be in a neutral state of thrust, and in some cases negative (this is where the inlet management is critical). The pressure recovery on the J-58 is at 88% showing it is highly efficient at Mach 3.2.

The spike moves front and back by 26”. Right up to Mach 1.6 the spike stays in the full front position and the engine operates as a normal turbojet. At Mach 1.6 the engine begins moving back 1.6” for every increase in speed by Mach 0.1. The spike itself moves backwards into a conical receptacle and the backward movement of 1.6” for Mach 0.1 increase in speed maintains the ‘normal’ just behind the throat of the spike receptacle. The normal is the point where dynamic pressure switches to static pressure, and the movement of the normal is carefully calibrated by the spike to maintain optimal thrust across the speed Mach 1.6 – Mach 3.2 range.

At approx Mach 2.2 sensors detect that airflow and temperature are right to begin turboramjet operation by opening up the compressor bleed bypass valves, these valves are placed at the fourth compressor stage, and direct ram air through the tubes direct to the afterburners. The air is approx 400°F and helps keep the combustion chamber and turbines relatively cooler and within thermal limits. The afterburner fires more efficiently as a result of the cooler air.

A schematic showing the various engine regimes. Pic Source: Wikipedia

At Mach 3.2 the engine’s spike aligns the shockwave with the engine’s nacelle perfectly. The engine has a series of doors that maintain optimal pressure through the entire length. The cowl bleed doors is a porous strip on the inlet’s inner surface, the purpose is to bleed off excess boundary layer air and prevent an unstart at high speed.  Further back the engine has suck in doors, these doors open up at low speeds (below Mach 0.5) such as the beginning of a take off roll to feed the engine with more air and aid low speed thrust generation. Furthermore at low speeds right at the afterburners are tertiary doors that automatically open and close as per ambient pressure relative to the exhaust gases, these doors let in additional air as required. The spike itself has a porous strip that manages slow moving boundary layer air. At low speeds the engines are extremely air hungry and this creates a low pressure area at the engine nacelle, the strip pulls in the air into the centre body and vents it out through centre bleed louvres. The air reverses direction at approx Mach 1.5 the air inside the spike centrebody duct reverses. 

There is a story of a SR-71 pilot who decided to speed check his bird and got up to Mach 3.4 before he swallowed his own shockwave, flaming out both engines at 80,000 feet! He recovered one at 65,000 feet and the other at 25,000 feet. There was of course a discreet rap on the knuckles!! This story does highlight the fine balance within the engine and how it was optimized for Mach 3.2.

A look at the engine shows a tremendous amount of plumbing, not all of it is air, oil or fuel!. On each side of the engine nacelle is a hydraulic computer, yes hydraulic! The plumbing you observe is the computers optimizing engine operation. One of the computers is to manage the afterburner and the other is for the engine. The J-58s were created when computers were in their infancy and a solid state system was required that could withstand high temperatures and work optimally, hydraulic computers were the option.

The operating temperatures expand the engine by 6” in length and 2.5” in diameter and this sort of expansion and contraction needs exotic metals. The very front of the engine at the nacelle is titanium, the rest of the engine is made of iron nickel alloys such as Waspalloy, Inconel & Astrology. All the metal in the engine is directionally solidified so the metal expansion is directional and can be managed. The plumbing on the engine is made of steel 321 and 347 and there are over 600 pieces of plumbing on the engine.

The oil used in the engine is synthetic, made of polyphenyl ether and is stable at 650°F. The oil is maintained at 400°F by routing through a fuel oil cooler, a heat exchanger where the oil contacts with the cooler fuel heating it up and cooling itself before the fuel is routed into the engine.

The complex system was started by two V8 Buick Hellcat motors which were a petrolhead’s delight, apparently the crew blew through most of the Buick motors that salvage yards across the United States had with them. The two motors would spool up to 6000 rpm and the crank interfaced with a gearbox at the bottom of the engine and needed to retract as the aircraft engines got to 3000 rpm, the J58s fired up at 4000. The crew got so carried away with revving the Hellcats that they delayed retraction blowing their engines up! Once the Hellcat stock was run through the crew moved to Chevy 454 cu.in engines, but they were not the same.

At Mach 3.2 over 50% of the engine’s thrust was created at the inlet and an additional 28% at the afterburner. This left just about 20% of thrust needed from the turbojet! While the first A-12s flew with less effective J-75 engines, once they cutover by 1963-64 to the J-58, the blackbirds never went back to anything else.

The Design

The external dimensions of the A-12 Oxcart (the foundational Blackbird) was a length of 101.7’, wingspan of 55.7’ and a height of 18.6’. The MTOW of the aircraft was 124,600 pounds.

A front view of the aircraft showed off a flattish underbelly with blended in wings at the fuselage. A sharp angular cockpit at the very front and twin tail canted in at 15° each. The flow of the wing’s leading edge was interrupted by heavily integrated engines on each wing right in the centre.

A front view of the SR-71 note the canted fins, the flattish underbelly and the blended wing fuselage. Pic Source: Reddit User

The nose of the A-12 looks more conventional than the Blackbirds that followed. While it slopes up towards the angular cockpit windows in a more or less conical manner, the bottom is more flattened to merge with the rest of the flattish underbelly. This sort of contouring is necessary to manage shockwaves and keep the aircraft aerodynamically optimized.

While Blended Wing Bodies have existed since the early days of flight, they had never been used practically. The blackbirds are not traditional BWBs (as we know them since the 1990s) in the new sense they are what is called a Blended Wing Fuselage. Read here (https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/19/the-flying-wing-part-two-the-blended-wing-body/ ).

The chines that begin on each side of the cockpit at a sharp angle of approx 70-80° and swept back towards the delta wing were an integral part of the BWF serving multiple functions. The first was stealth (yes the A-12 is the very first purpose built stealth aircraft https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/10/22/the-theory-of-stealth/ ). The specially designed edges with their composite materials reflected radar waves away from the source and reduced the aircraft’s RCS to about 10m2 or a largish bird, a big improvement of over 90% over the RCS signatures of preceding aircraft Reducing the A-12 Blackbird’s Cross Section. The second purpose was the chines served had a critical to the aerodynamics of the aircraft and that was to generate lift. They worked to generate approx 17-20% of total aircraft lift in two ways. The first was the creation of vortices over the chines, inner wing and fuselage, delta wings with a sharp leading edge sweep, at high Angles of Attack (AoA) rely on vortex lift . The second is the blended and flattish underbelly works as a lifting body and contributes towards the 17-20% lift. This means the load is off the wings and more evenly distributed which is critical at high Mach numbers. The reason the chines were terminated at the cockpit i.s.o going right to the nose like the SR-71 was the A-12 was a single pilot aircraft and the chines terminating at the cockpit saved weight and were optimized for higher speeds at altitudes of up to 95,000 feet.

The chines blended into a delta wing with a leading edge sweep angle of 60°. The edge of the wing was interrupted in the middle by the engine nacelle.Close observation of the leading edge and the engine shows up a gap on both sides of the engine, this was to accommodate the 2.5” expansion of the diameter of the engine and boundary layer control. On the trailing edge the gap is more pronounced as this was the business end of the engine with the hot exhaust gases. Other than this the wing was fairly standard in the front view profile! A top view of the wing shows a second chime that comes off the outboard engine cowling on both wings blending back into the leading edge, these chines increase the aspect ratio of the swept back delta improving lift.

The trailing edges of each wing had a pair of elevons, one inboard and one outboard of the engine. In tailless delta wings the elevons serve the purpose of the elevators and ailerons. When they move together they control pitch and when they work opposite to each other, they control roll on the aircraft.

Further back is a pair of twin fins each canted in 15° as mentioned earlier, the canting is part of the aircraft’s stealth and the original fins were made of composite (because of they non reflective properties), however most of the aircraft in the entire Blackbird fleet used titanium fins with composite accents.

The entire Blackbird was a flying fuel tank. Fuel was stored in six tanks throughout the body and wings including the chines. The fuel was burned in a specific sequence as the center gravity moved significantly rearwards at higher speed numbers. The Blackbirds famously had wet wings. That is the skin of the wings and body of the aircraft was the fuel tank itself. In the interests of saving weight and the fact the titanium skin of the aircraft was heat resistant, the fuel was stored directly. The thermal expansion in flight meant the panels had gaps on ground and there were thresholds by area of the aircraft as to the number of fuel drops falling per minute that was acceptable. The same gaps sealed in the air as the metal expanded.

Acceptable fuel leak range by zone of the aircraft. Pic Source : Reddit User

The aircraft had a tricycle landing with the main gear having three wheels in parallel. The main nose gear had a single two wheel bogie. The Goodrich tires were infused with aluminium for thermal resistance and were inflated with nitrogen, a non combustible inert gas for safety.

Most of the aircraft was constructed of titanium because of its thermal resistance, however titanium is extremely hard to work with and a specialized set of rigs and tools had to be created to work with the metal. At the time the Blackbirds were being constructed the Soviet Union was the largest exporter of titanium and the CIA procured the required titanium through a series of shell companies making the final buyers (the CIA) untraceable.

The wings of the aircraft had corrugation on the top and bottom prompting jokes that Kelly Johnson was building a Mach 3 Ford Trimotor (an early airliner). The corrugation was to aid thermal dissipation and while there was a drag penalty at lower speeds which was powered through, at Mach 3 and over 80,000 feet the drag was minimal.

The aircraft was painted black with iron ball paint. The paint helps with stealth by converting radar waves to heat and dissipating it. Furthermore according to Kirchoof’s Law of Thermal radiation a good absorber of thermal radiation is also a good emitter, means that the black iron ball paint is the right color to repel heat by emitting it!

With a first flight in April 1962 the A-12 quickly demonstrated its capabilities even with the less capable J-75 engines. The USAF which was initially part of project GUSTO quickly realized this was an aircraft that was the answer to its need for a high speed aircraft. They put out the requirements for RS-71 (Reconnaissance Strike) by approx 1963, it was President Johnson who called the aircraft SR-71 erroneously and the name stuck. Furthermore the A-12 needed to be kept classified (which it was until 1990) and the USAF’s requirements for a high speed aircraft made a great cover story in 1964 when the SR-71 and YF-12 projects were announced. The M-21 Tagboard was never officially announced during its active life. TheYF-12 and the M-21 aircraft had approx same dimensions as the A-12 Oxcart while the SR-71 was longer and bigger. The M-21 aircraft had a pylon on top between the two fins to fit a D-21 drone on it. Of the two prototypes built, one crashed in 1966 when the the D-21 drone collided with the fins after separating, the plane crashed while the pilot survived, the M-21 was cancelled immediately after this and the surviving prototype is at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Lockheed M-21 (Blackbird) | The Museum of Flight .

The M-21 with the D-21 drone. Pic Source : Wikipedia

The YF-12 took spots 7-9 on the A-12 Oxcart assembly line and was a Mach 3 interceptor prototype. It was to be a replacement to the F-106 Delta Dart, however severe cost cuts in view of the Vietnam War resulted in the program being scrapped. The main modifications was cutting the A-12’s nose chines to accommodate radar and infrared tracking equipment. The chines of the YF-12 show a clear indentation. Today of the three aircraft constructed only one survives at the USAF Museum in Dayton Ohio, it flew with NASA until 1979 after the YF-12 program was cancelled in 1967.

The YF-12 Interceptor. Note the truncated chines. Pic Source: Wikipedia
The YF-12 with modified chines to accommodate the radar equipment. Pic Source : Wikipedia

The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird is a fairy tale of an aircraft, it has been immortalized in movies, books, articles like this and forum across social media with a huge fan following even 60 years after its first flight. Where the A-12 was heavily classified decades after its operation, the SR-71 was heavily publicized (to cover the A-12) and this is why the SR-71 is considered the most famous of the Blackbirds. Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird | Military Wiki

The SR-71 was to have a two man crew as against the A-12 single pilot. And where the A-12 carried a high resolution camera system the SR-71 carried a sensor array that included Side Looking Radar (SLR) and Electronic Intelligence Systems (ELINT). Where the A-12 was about covert photography for the CIA (the aircraft was disguised in USAF markings) the SR-71 was more about strategic reconnaissance (SR) for the USAF. To accommodate the radar installations, the chines were extended to the nose in the manner we know so well. The chine extensions on the SR-71 had the same lifting and stealth properties of the A-12, where lifting contribution remained at the same 17-20% as the A-12, the RCS was slightly higher than the A-12 but not by much (it was the larger bulk).

In case you are wondering why the A-12 on the USS Intrepid has the chines right to the nose tip, it’s because it was used as a radar object when understanding the stealth characteristics of the SR-71.

A front view of the A-12 at the USS Intrepid. Pic Source: Wikipedia

The SR-71 was longer than the A-12 by six feet to accommodate the second crew member and had a length of 107.5’. The wingspan and height of the aircraft was identical to the A-12.The dry weight of the aircraft was 6 tons heavier than the A-12 and MTOW was 22 tons heavier than the A-12. The additional bulk and mass made the SR-71 slower than the A-12 whose max speed was Mach 3.35 vs the SR-71s Mach 3.2. The SR-71s service ceiling was 85,000 feet vs the A-12s 95,000 feet. The range of SR-71 was 3250 miles vs the A-12s range at 2500 miles.When we see a comparison of the numbers we realize the A-12 Oxcart is just not celebrated enough.

Project Nice Girl

Project Nice Girl was the face off between the A-12 & the SR-71. The costs of running multiple high cost projects for the various services was getting out of control and in the autumn of 1967 the A-12 & the SR-71 had a play off. While the A-12 had superior speed and altitude , it was hampered by cloud cover during the fly off and the high resolution panoramic cameras on the A-12 were beaten by the SR-71s sensors that could peer past the clouds and collect valuable accurate data. The dividing factor was beating the weather and the A-12 was retired in 1968, the project was only declassified in 1990 and the aircraft handed over to museums across the United States.

Summation

As satellites got better and were in a position to take over from the considerable duties the SR-71, the amazing bird saw its days numbered. Additionally astronomical sosts of keeping the birds in the air just did not make sense to keep them flying and the decision was taken to retire the program.

Over sixty years after it first flew the SR-71 and the Blackbird Family of Aircraft continue to inspire awe, several of the projects they were involved in continue to be classified and this is what contributes to their enduring legacy. Their speed and altitude records intact over 35 years after the last flight of a Blackbird.

The peak of innovation… 

Before you Leave.

Read More Amazing Content at: https://theaviationevangelist.com keep scrolling down.

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr

Social Media continues to be flooded with images, stories and statistics about the Concorde, a troubled engineering marvel that retired in 2003. The ‘Concorde’ feed highlights the love and awe the aircraft inspired. The retirement had a sense of finality about it, like a curtain being drawn, not on just the Concorde but on Supersonic Travel itself, the reason being the issues were not about the aircraft but about the accompanying noise pollution at take off ,landing and the shadow called the sonic boom.

Boom Supersonic a startup founded in 2014, but birthed in the mind at least 2-3 years prior decided to do something about. Their CEO Blake Scholl decided he was going to make a supersonic aircraft that not only went supersonic , but was quiet and without an accompanying sonic boom over land. This is the story of The Overture and is part three of the QueSST series which you can read here. https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/10/09/the-boom-xb-1-the-little-plane-that-could/ & https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/11/04/the-lockheed-x-59-quesst-pinocchio-swordfish/

The Overture First Iteration

The first iteration of the Overture was unveiled in Nov 2016 along with the first iteration of the XB-1 the one third scale technological demonstrator of the Overture, and both of them looked extremely similar to what the Concorde looked like! The difference being the technologies available in 2016 vs 1969 when the Concorde first flew.

Overcoming the laws of physics means any supersonic aircraft needs to be shaped a certain way, and this is where the Concorde design was lightyears ahead of its time. Concorde was the only successful supersonic jet and it made sense to look at the Concorde baseline, the original Overture was to be a trijet as was the original XB-1.

By 2018 the XB-1 subscale model was ready for wind tunnel tests and the first set of tests confirmed the predicted aerodynamic calibrations that were arrived at through CFD was off by 30%. Such a difference keeps magnifying as it goes up in scale to the full sized Overture. The Team at Boom had to go back to the drawing boards after almost 4 years of work and rework the design of the XB-1 which in turn would impact the Overture.

The very first iteration of the the Overture & XB-1 : Pic Source : The Independent

Repeated finetuning of the design resulted in the XB-1 that broke the sound barrier in early 2025 with no apparent sonic boom (uses a concept called Mach Cutoff), the jet itself was still in a trijet configuration but looked considerably different from the original when it rolled out on Oct 7,2020.

The tests (both CFD & wind tunnel) highlighted the design on the final XB-1 was not scalable to the Overture and there would have to be a complete rework on the fuselage, wings and engines of the Overture. Some of the highlighted issues were high take off and landing speeds due to the very low aspect ratio on the reworked XB-1’s wing, the very high angle of attack that Boom addressed with an augmented reality system, a trijet would not produce enough thrust practically to push the bigger Overture to supersonic.

In July 2022 Boom unveiled its significantly reworked Overture. The unveiling was done after considerable CFD testing followed by wind tunnel testing across five locations in the USA & Europe covering various flight regimes.The fuselage and wings looked extremely sculpted and the aircraft featured four underwing podded engines instead of the original three.

The Design

At transonic speeds (Mach 0.8-1.2) local air flows accelerate over and around the aircraft fuselage and wings can reach the speed of sound. The minimum speed at which this occurs varies from aircraft to aircraft and is known as critical Mach number. The shockwaves formed at these localized zones cause a sudden increase in drag is called wave drag. To mitigate the strength and number of shockwaves an aircraft’s cross sectional area needs to transition smoothly from front to rear. This is known as Whitcomb Area Rule of 1952 .The phenomenon was observed in various forms by multiple aerodynamicists before Whitcomb.

In the case of the Concorde the area rule was applied at Mach 2 and the rear fuselage was extended by 12.2’ on the production aircraft over the prototype and reduced wave drag by 1.8%. A similar concept was applied to the first iteration of the Overture and XB-1, the results we have already spoken of. The final iteration of the Overture extensively uses the area rule to maximum effect.

The external specs of the Boom Overture are a length of 201 feet ,a wing span of 106 feet and a height of 36 feet. The interior cabin is expected to be 79 feet in length with an aisle height of 6.5 feet, good enough for a tall person to walk through at full height. It will be capable of Maxh 1.7 at 60,000 feet cruising altitude and a max range of 4.250 NM approx 350NM more than the Concorde. https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-newswire/technology-airlines-climate-and-environment-7e88c34a01a4194c6f1e6b4760d2bb86

A front view of the nose is the first observation of the rule. Where subsonic aircraft bodies in general are circular to oblong in appearance the Overture’s nose and body behind has a distinct oval shape (left ↔️right) like an egg starting from a singular point the tip of the nose. Much like the final XB-1 the nose slopes upwards at a much higher angle from the nose tip than the bottom, like a cone that has been pushed down flattening the bottom. The oval shape of the nose permits the cabin to have the maximum permissible height allowing for passenger comfort as they walk through the aisle while at the same time minimizing aircraft front on cross section. The reason for the differing angles top and bottom of the nose tip is to control shockwaves. One of the main lessons learnt from the XB-1 was shockwaves tend to be unpredictable when the nose is a perfect cone and sometimes tend to blanket the vertical stabilizer, doing so prevents the occurrence and ensures a smooth flow over the nose and aft across the fuselage.

A front view of the Boom Overture: Pic Source: Boom Media Assets

The nose slopes up to the cockpit windshield, the cockpit is the widest and tallest part of the fuselage. Much like the XB-70 Valkyrie where the wasting is clearly visible as the fuselage narrows down towards the tail from the cockpit the Overture does the same. In Fact the black stripes that extend from the cockpit and run rearwards forming an incomplete loop around the widest part of the fuselage looks almost Jumbo Jetish from a top view. The fuselage belly is comparatively flat and a similar design is seen on the XB-1. 

Where the Concorde had a drooping nose which was had heavy hinges and actuators, the Overture does away with the entire mechanism and instead has an augmented reality system tested on the XB-1. If the Overture’s system is like the XB-1’s it will have two 4K cameras that are mounted on the nose gear (so they can be retracted completely in flight), the cameras will be at least one large bird’s wingspan apart to build redundancy against bird strikes. The screen inside the cockpit will display a composite image along with airport markings etc if at ground level. The system is a huge weight saving over the Concorde of approx 1650 pounds.

The gull wings of the Overture have a complex geometry.

Boom – FlyBy – It’s About Time For a Bold New Era of Supersonic Flight . The modified delta planform has several special design tweaks to it. The wing appears to have a dihedral angle at the wing root and inboard section which transitions to an almost flat to anhedral angle at the outboard sections. A positive dihedral (approx 3-5° upward angle) helps with lateral stability and keeps the passenger cabin level at cruise. The flat to slight anhedral angle of approx 1° helps optimize supersonic wave drag while maintaining aileron command. The underside of the wings appear to be blended into the fuselage to soften shockwaves.

A side view of the Overture. Note the wing architecture & staggered engines. Pic Source : Boom Media Assets

A look at the leading edge from the top shows off a clear kink much like a cranked delta on the inboard form. The kink slows down the air over the wing even as the aircraft is supersonic. Imagine if you were running towards a fence that is perpendicular to you, when you hit the fence all of you hits it at once, now imagine the fence is at an angle and kinks slightly towards you, when you first run towards it the first bit goes much faster than the rest of the wing after the kink, even though you are running at the same speed and only a little bits of you hits the fence as you keep running, the same is good for the gull wing. The inboard kink generates a powerful vortex at high AoA over the inboard wing which generates lift at takeoff & landing. The vortex prevents air separation and stalling at high angles of attack.

A top view of the Overture. Note the kinks on the leading and trailing edges of the wings and the cropped wingtips. Pic Source : Boom Media Assets

The steep inboard sweep which is in the region of 70-75° transitions to a shallower sweep in the region of 50°, the sweep change happening at the kink or crank, the leading continues its transitionary sweep through to the wing tips The steep inboard geometry delays shock formation and reduces wave drag at Mach 1.7 while the shallower outboard sweep increases wing area which in turn boosts lift while at the same time delaying stall formation. The crank or kink creates a natural break between the inward vortex lift and the outboard attached flow, such geometry results in superior roll authority across the speed regime.

The leading edge further shows a thicker front view profile than the Concorde did, this helps generate more lift across the speed range while at the same time exhibiting heavy contouring. Where the Concorde had an S curved leading edge that was sharp and thin, the Overture has a more ‘traditional airfoil’ although there is nothing traditional about it. At the wing roots the wings tend to blend upwards (dihedral angle) into the tapering fuselage while they drop downwards (neutral to slight anhedral angle) and lower towards the cropped wingtips. Such a design naturally helps with managing roll and gives the wings the distinctive gullwing shape.

The Overture’s cropped wingtips represent an evolution over the Concorde’s pointed ogival delta tips. On the Concorde the tips maximized the wings aspect ratio (span to average chord ratio) while helping minimize wave drag, however they were vulnerable to flutter (vibrations at high speed) on the overture the cropped wingtips ensure the aircraft maximizes area ruling through the whole profile cross section, while details of the crop are not available, we can expect the wing to be about 10-15% more efficient in fuel burn per passenger. Since a large portion of the flight time will be in the subsonic/transonic regime, the cropped wings lessen induced drag aiding quieter takeoffs (the Overture aims to be below 75dB). At supersonic speeds the sharp tips of the Concorde amplified the sonic boom , while the Overture’s cropped wingtips combined with the gullwing design soften the boom signature.

The trailing edge of the wing has a very obtuse lambda (Λ) on it. The first function of the Λ is vortex control, if you look at it relative to the leading edge kink (the vortex generator) it is slightly outboard from it. The shape helps break up and weaken these vortices as they exit the wing surfaces by inducing geometric discontinuity. The trailing edge shape also acts a sonic boom diffuser by preventing the coalescence of shocks and softening the boom overland. The trailing edge Λ and the kink on the leading edge means the wing is also called a cranked arrow.

The Λ on trailing edge helps low speed handling and stall characteristics by promoting an earlier flow separation at the root encouraging an inboard to outboard stall pattern. The overall wing design should have a washout. The trailing edge Λ further reinforces the area rule ethos of the aircraft. The edge has an inboard flap  inboard of the kink and an outboard flap that appears to begin exactly on the kink. On the outermost part of the edge is the aileron. https://boom-press-assets.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Newsroom-Media-Assets/Overture/Videos/Overture-Systems-Configuration.mp4

The four symphony engines of the Overture appear staggered  and spaced out with the inboard engines about 5 feet in front of the outboard engines (no specifics available). The staggering enables the coke bottle design (area rule) and synergizes with the wing’s highly sculpted gull wing design to minimize shockwaves at Mach 1.7, increasing range. The offset also helps with yaw control in the case of asymmetric thrust and improves low speed handling as against the Concorde’s close engines placed further back on the aircraft fuselage.The engine setup looks like a B-58 Hustler from the 1950-60s. The Hustler itself was yet another troubled but genius engineering marvel, from a time when supersonic aerodynamics understanding was still in its infancy.

The wings transition towards the empennage of aircraft. Unlike the Concorde that had an ogival delta that used elevons (combination elevators and ailerons) the Overture has a traditional aircraft’s tail with vertical and horizontal stabilizers. The vertical stabilizer’s slanting leading edge appears to land on the top of the wasting fuselage at the same spot the wingtip’s trailing edge outboard corner finishes, respecting the area rule principle. With a height of approx 18-20 feet and an area of 450-500 sq ft the stabilizer has more area than the Concorde’s at 380 sq ft and height of 27 feet. The rudder on the vertical stabilizer enhances directional stability at high AoA and provides authority in an engine out situation.

The span of the horizontal stabilizers is approx 55-60’ and an area of approx 350-400 sq ft. The stabilizers are set at a slight anhedral angle of 3-4° (cannot confirm) work closely with the vertical stabilizer and provide the aircraft with pitch authority. The control surfaces on the horizontal stabilizers are actually at the very tail of the plane and are again placed in such a manner once again to respect area ruling. The stabilizer is trimmable to manage the angle of incidence for various speed regimes and centre of gravity shifts.

An image showing the structure of the Overture. Pic Source : Boom Media Assets

The landing gear of the Overture is a tricycle setup with the nose gear having two wheels which retracts into itself and forward into the fuselage to lessen its volume profile. The main landing gear features six wheels on each bogie , which is highly unusual for an aircraft weighing in at approx 415,000 pounds. So why take on the additional weight and space? Delta winged aircraft have a normal landing speed of approx 140-160 kts which is considerably faster than a normal subsonic airliner which 135 kts such a speed will require additional braking power plus the added redundancy in case of a blow out.

AoA at take off and landing has always been the central focus to the Concorde’s design. At take off the Concorde’s AoA was between 15-18° and landing approx 15-17°, such an angle was steep enough to entail the droop nose to manage visibility. The Overture with it’s wing and tail design is expected to have a take off AoA of approx 12-14° and a landing AoA of approx 11-13°. Visibility is managed by the augmented reality cameras spoken of earlier. For reference the 777 has a take off AoA of between 12-18° and touchdown of between 6-8°. The Overture aims to have an almost subsonic aircraft type of landing angle.

Design reference points: Boom – Overture & https://boom-press-assets.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Newsroom-Media-Assets/Overture/Videos/Overture-Systems-Configuration.mp4

The Engines

Engines are the key to any aircraft’s success and in the case of SST’s they assume an added importance. They need to be capable of speed, be quiet & efficient in addition to being 100% SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) compatible. Such engines can be expensive to develop and need fresh though and innovation at each step of the design and construction process. To understand SAF read here. https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/25/alternative-aviation-fuels/

By 2017 Boom was on the lookout for an engine partner and Rolls Royce looked the part with their previous experience developing Concorde’s Olympus Snecma 593 turbojets. The partnership with Boom looked like the natural step forward ushering in the sustainable supersonic era (the engines were to be 100% SAF compatible) and the partnership was announced with much fanfare in July 2020. After two years embedded with the Boom Team in Colorado as they narrowed down engine specs and characteristics and then the partnership fell through in September 2022 and by December 2022 Boom decided it was going to develop the Boom Symphony engines inhouse. The parting was cordial but stiff with RR saying that developing a supersonic engine was low on their priorities list and Boom stating they were appreciative of RR’s work.

The reality was RR was wary of another Concorde like disaster where they lost the equivalent of $1.32 Bn per aircraft and did not have the wherewithal to go through the development pains in the tough economic scenario the World was currently in (COVID). Boom for their side felt the engines offered, a low bypass Pearl 700 used in Bombardier Jets aiming for 30-35,000 pounds of thrust per engine with modifications such as the inlets and exhaust with chevrons would seriously compromise efficiency by approx 23-30% below Boom’s targets. Several options were studied but nothing came off. There was added pressure on RR with the worldview on emissions (supersonic aircraft burn 3X fuel compared to subsonic aircraft) and RR’s failed partnership with Airion developing the infinity engine which ended in 2021 with Airion folding up.

Further partnerships were explored by Boom with GE, Pratt & Whitney and even Safran but all of them declined to partner, this is when Boom decided they are going it alone.

The Boom Symphony. Pic Source: Boom Media Assets

The exterior dimensions of the Symphony engine are a length of 42 feet & height of 7 feet. The supersonic inlet is 12 feet in length with the variable geometry exhaust at 19 feet, the turbofan and sprint sore section at 11 feet.The Symphony is a medium bypass twin spool engine with 3 low pressure & 6 high pressure compressors with no afterburner developing 40,000 pounds of thrust per engine.The design of the engine is optimized to the Overture and is 100% SAF compatible.

All engines have three phases suck, bang & blow. The suck is done by the main frontal fan and compressors. The bang is in the sprint core and the blow is through the high & low pressure turbines just before the exhaust.

The inlet of any SST engine is where the magic happens. While the aircraft is supersonic the engines can only gulp in air at between 400-500 mph. The inlet is where the air is slowed down by use of shockwave creation. In the case of Concorde a series of ramps and bleed valves for excess air was used to slow the air down to approx 500 mph from Mach 2. The architecture of the Overture and Symphony is different where the engines are podded below the wings instead of being integrated into them in a cluster as on the Concorde. The Inlet of the Symphony is axis symmetric with a spike at the central axis (much like the Lockheed SR-71). The spike moves back and forth as per the speed of the aircraft and manages the inlet shockwave. In the case of the SR-71 the central spike moved back up to 26” at high supersonic flight. The Symphony will probably be up 18” (speculation).

Boom is currently in the advanced prototyping phase and last month they announced that 95% of all parts were done and have been moved to manufacture. Boom is making use of extensive 3D printing of parts at their printer farm (additive manufacturing) for a number of parts being used in the Symphony prototyping phase. The Sprint Core currently being tested has 193 3D printed parts. The alloy used is Haynes 282 a nickel based alloy that can withstand extreme heat and stress.Such an approach enables rapid prototyping & iteration. An example of the speed they work at is they prefer vertical integration (in-house manufacture) vs waiting upto six months for parts to be delivered and choose to spend a couple of million dollars on the required machine instead.

Currently the Sprint core is being tested at Georgia Tech’s Combustion laboratory where the hot section is currently being put through its paces. Similarly each component of the engine will be tested independently, such an approach saves time and helps with iterations. Once testing is complete across all the engine components, they are integrated into the prototype engines, fired up and parameters checked.

Blake says the Symphony expects to generate thrust early 2026. Such a tight timeline places great pressure on the propulsion team.

Generating 40,000 pounds of thrust on-time is critical to Boom’s future funding (will speak about this).

Symphony Reference: Fact Sheet

The Superfactory, Construction, Assembly & Partners

The 180,000 sq ft Boom Superfactory has been constructed by BE&K building group and cost approx $100 Mn to construct. Boom Supersonic Overture Superfactory | BE&K Building Group . The superfactory is at Piedmont Triad International Airport in North Carolina on 65 acres of leased land, which incidentally will also host the factory producing JetZero’s Z4 Blended Wing Body Aircraft. As per a press release, Boom plans to invest $500 Mn in NC of which the building is $100 Mn, that leaves approx $400 Mn in terms of tooling yet to come in. Governor Cooper Announces Boom Will Manufacture Supersonic Aircraft in North Carolina Creating More Than 1,750 Jobs by 2030 . The Superfactory is where the final assembly of the Overture will take place and there is an entire ecosystem of partners involved in constructing the individual parts. Some of them are Aernova for the wings (they list Boom as a top innovation). https://www.aernnova.com/products/wings . Safran Landing Systems will be manufacturing the Overtures beautiful landing gear. https://boomsupersonic.com/press-release/boom-supersonic-and-safran-landing-systems-sign-supplier-agreement-for-overture . The Overture’s empannage is manufactured by Aciturri.There are several other key component suppliers who are part of the ecosystem to help make the Overture flight ready.Fact Sheet. All of them are currently design ready .

Most of the Overture will be carbon composite including the fuselage, wings & empennage. Titanium will probably be used in high stress areas such as the landing gear, engine bays and wing & stabilizer leading edges. The engine internals will have alloys such as Inconel in addition to Haynes 282 mentioned earlier. The Superfactory will have autoclaves (large ovens that cure the layered prepeg under pressure). To put a cost perspective autoclaves can cost up to $4 Mn a pop.

The Overture inflight. Pic Source: Boom Media Assets

Cash Runway

Developing the Overture is estimated to cost approx $8 Bn up from a previous estimation of $6 Bn. Boom has so far raised approx $700 Mn through 12 rounds of funding and the investors have shown patience through the iterations process. However Boom is still well short of the required number by a long way. An IPO might be a way forward, but it will not bridge the gap.

The last funding round in late 2024 was termed as a series A showing a reset within the company, the valuation down to $584 from peak valuations of $1Bn and even $6Bn after the Aug’24 funding. Looking at the volatility of the valuation, it is extremely important for Boom’s Symphony engines to generate 40,000 pounds of thrust in early 2026, this can very well pitch the valuation up skywards and open a round of extremely high funding, Boom should target at least $1 Bn or more (thrust is the single most important milestone from here on) raised after the thrust milestone. 

In Nov ’23 Neom Investment Fund invested in Boom as a strategic investment. NIF is a subsidiary of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) and is a key vehicle to Prince Mohd Bin Salman’s Vision 2030, an ambitious plan to diversify Saudi Arabia from its oil dependence. If PIF’s investment in Lucid Motors is any indicator where they have become a majority shareholder with over $8 Bn invested in a relatively short period. Boom has much to look forward to as they generate thrust and tool up their superfactory.

An IPO will probably be at either the Overture’s first supersonic flight or just as FAA certification progresses past 50%. Boom has been working very closely with the FAA at each step and only moves with each part after the FAA certifies it, this vastly cuts lead time. Some of the other aerospace startups like Joby & Archer Aviation have valuations that are at ± $10 Bn and Boom should target at least that much if not more.

Innovation at Work.

Before you Leave.

Read More Amazing Content at: https://theaviationevangelist.com keep scrolling down, do share.

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr

Introduction

The X-59s first flight last week was a major step in NASA’s Quiet Supersonic Technology (QueSST) program. Every aircraft that flies supersonic is accompanied by the shadow of the sonic boom (read about it here : https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/04/13/shockwave/ ). QueSST’s aim is to fly supersonic with no audible sonic boom. To achieve that there are two approaches. The first is to use atmospheric refraction (where the sonic boom makes a U-Turn back towards the sky) like what Boom Supersonic achieved with its XB-1 (read about it here : https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/10/09/the-boom-xb-1-the-little-plane-that-could/ ) and the other is to engineer sonic booms that are weak and do not have the strength to reach Earth, and if they do, are very weak and barely audible. Enter the QueSST program.

A subscale model of the X-59 in a wind tunnel test, showing shock wave formation points. Pic Source: NASA

The QueSST Program

The 1973 supersonic over land ban was a bodyblow to the Concorde and civilian supersonic travel over land in the USA.  While supersonic travel in general went into hibernation and Concorde motored on until 2003, the writing was on the wall. For supersonic travel to be profitable, aircraft needed to have the ability to travel supersonic over land and to achieve this, they needed to have no audible sonic boom.

NASA’s High Speed Research (HSR) program which ran between 1990-99 focused on a High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) that would be environmentally acceptable. The program took into account fuel burn, emissions and of course noise pollution from sonic booms. The aircraft was to be Mach 2.4 capable and have a 300 passenger capacity. The tests involved tracking a Concorde in a U-2 spy plane to measure high altitude emissions and even had sonic boom mitigation technologies tested using a Lockheed SR-71 testbed. New engine nozzle technologies were tested to reduce takeoff and landing noise (on the Concorde the afterburners are responsible for the 110dB noise level). The HSR was probably the first time Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) was used to test new innovative designs. 

A heavily modified T-38 Talon and a F-4 Phantom in addition to F-16XLs were used to validate these designs and collect a database of sonic boom signatures, which could be applied to future aircraft designs. While Schlieren photography had existed for over a hundred years, NASA innovated on the technique and created Air-to-Air Background Oriented Schlieren Technique (AirBOS) where a full sized aircraft could be photographed using the Sun as a background to see where the shockwave formation and their interaction with each other and ambient surroundings.

An image of a T-38 flying in close formation with a second T-38. Note the shockwave interaction off the tail of the aircraft. Pic Source: NASA
Schlieren image of both T-38s in close formation. Note the shockwave interaction. Pic Source: NASA

While the actual HSCT program itself ended in 1999 due to lack of funding and Boeing’s withdrawal from the program , the AirBOS series of the tests continued through the 2010s, of note were 2019 flights featuring two T-38s going supersonic at close formation and the shockwave interaction of the two planes.

Lockheed Martin was awarded the preliminary design contract for the X-59 by NASA in 2016.

The X-59 First Steps

The design parameters were to create a Mach 1.42 capable aircraft with a service ceiling of 55,000 feet and a supersonic perceived sonic boom of not more than 75dB, the equivalent of a car door being shut (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220009074/downloads/QuesstMissOvuaX59Pres_050822r.pdf) . This puts the X-59’s perceived sound over 10 times quieter than the Concorde’s 110dB.

The preliminary design steps were to create a 9% subscale model that could be tested in a wind tunnel between Mach 0.3 – 1.6. Lockheed was finally awarded a $247.5 Mn contract to design and build the low boom X-59 in April 2018, the designation X-59 QueSST would follow in June 2018.

The X-59 Design

The design approach to the X-59 was to alter the aircraft’s shape & aerodynamics to prevent shockwaves from merging into a loud sonic sonic boom, instead the design was about dispersing them before they got stronger and keeping the sonic thump under 75dB. Such aircraft would be of a long and slender profile which distributes pressure disturbances over a longer axial distance (https://www3.nasa.gov/specials/Quesst/how-x59-designed.html  )

The X-59 dimensions: Note the symmetrical angles that will be spoken of as you move ahead. Pic Source: NASA

The highlevel specs of the X-59 are an overall length of 99.7’ , a wingspan of 29.7’ and a height of 14’. The all moving stabilizers have a span of approx 15’. For a long aircraft the wheelbase is just 17.6’. With the center of gravity exactly above the main landing gear borrowed from an F-16. The aircraft is area rule compliant.

To prevent the formation of a N wave , the X-59’s nose is over a third of the X-59’s length at between 30-35 feet to canard, 38 feet to cockpit. The nose of the X-59 is treated as an independent structure before being mated to the fuselage and is manufactured by Swift Engineering.

A frontal view of the nose presents a flat almost duck beak-like profile with a tip in the middle. The top view of the nose tip looks like swept back wing leading edges. The highly sculpted surfaces leading off the nose leading edge look like the nose ramping upwards and back towards the cockpit and a relatively flattish profile leading back towards the rearset nose landing gear. The reason for the shape of the nose is having a conical shape like earstwhile Concorde leads to shockwaves going off in unpredictable directions and in some cases blanketing the vertical rudder. As we move further back the nose cross section transitions from the flat tip to an elliptical type of complex shape as it moves up towards the cockpit. The nose funnel cross section is approx 2 x 2 feet. Overall the nose with its length and continuous uninterrupted design ensures the first shockwave off the tip is soft and has nowhere to merge into propagating downwards and staying soft (below 75dB).

A front view of the nose, note the flat profile. The nose camera is visible, along with the canards and the wings. Note the under wing sculpting. Pic Source: NASA

Just before the cockpit at around the 30-35 foot mark aft of the nose tip are the X-59’s fixed canards. They serve two purposes, the first is shockwave separation , distribution and keeping it off the cockpit & eXternal Vision System (XVS, more on this later), the second is to provide forward lift. The X-59’s design is such that the wings are at mid fuselage and the single engine is right back under the vertical T tail, to compensate for the unbalanced lift (as the centre of gravity moves rearward) generated by the lifting surfaces towards the rear of the X-59, the aircraft needs fixed canards that are upward canted generating a dihedral angle. Such positioning helps the X-59 generate a nose up pitch in cruise (at low speeds with their 63° swept angle, they generate vortex lift at high AoA) and maintain balanced flight without generating drag. Furthermore the canards interact with the shockwaves coming off the nose and with the wings further back to ensure shockwave strength is at a minimum, this helps with sonic boom mitigation. The trailing edges of the canards meet the fuselage at 59° angle with the fuselage. Such angling helps with boom mitigation as well. The canard root chord is 10.2’, tip chord of 3.8’ and the span is 13’. The canards generate approx 15-18% of total lift. The canards are subtly blended into the forward fuselage.

The nose design of the X-59 is such that there can be no cockpit canopy bubble like most experimental aircraft. Instead the cockpit of the X-59 has one major similarity to Charles Lindberg’s, Spirit of St Louis, both of them do not have a forward windshield and both of them use side windows to help with external pilot vision. In the Spirit of St Louis , Lindberg had to look out the flat side windows, in the case of the X-59 the side windows are contoured and offer a truncated forward view with the vision line running parallel to the nose. What the X-59 has is the XVS. The XVS consists of two high resolution 4K cameras, one is on the upper nose just forward just forward of where the cockpit windshield would have been, the camera is fairinged to deflect shockwave formation. The bottom camera is just forward of the nose gear and approx 12-18 feet aft the nose tip. The feed from both cameras is processed by the XVS computer for real time stitching and augmentation and overlaid on the secondary cockpit display which includes augmented reality (AR such as runway lines, glide slope indicators & Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). The latency is >50ms and is designed to feel natural to the pilot.

Note the gap between the wings & canards, the cockpit side windows, the camera, landing gear from an F-16 and the engine cowling. Area Ruling clearly visible. Pic Source: NASA

The flat (0°)low aspect ratio (AR) wings of the X-59 are a double delta(such wings trade pure supersonic speeds for incremental low speed handling) with the inward leading edges of 76° and outward leading edge of 68.6°, the crank is at approx 50-55% outboard sweep. The leading edge of the wings starts about a foot behind the canard trailing edge root (approx 45’ from the nose tip), the geometry of the canard trailing edge is such that the canard tip appears to be at the same level (or close) to the wing leading edge. Such architecture is critical to boom splitting, while at the same time maintaining aerodynamic continuity. The leading edge of the wings starts exactly at the cockpit side windows. The wing root chord is 25’ and the wings feature a washout of approx 2-3° for tip stall mitigation. 

The trailing edges of the wings have a pair of inboard flaps and the outboard ailerons (with restricted movement to avoid fouling up with the crank)are just beyond the trailing edge crank. The canards work in tandem with the ailerons by providing a small positive deflection and reducing mid body shock by 4%. We realize the X-59 is actually a cranked arrow (read here: https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/10/02/lambda-wings-moving-wingtips-flying-wings-part-3/ ). The trailing edge crank is approx 50-55% of the span with an inboard sweep of 59° and an outboard sweep of 63°. We also observe matching canard angles (something stealth aircraft implement (https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/10/22/the-theory-of-stealth/ ). The trailing edge allows inboard and outboard control surfaces to be decoupled. Area rule compliance is important for all transonic aircraft and the trailing edge crank ensures the same. 

The lower wing root is seamlessly blended into the fuselage underbelly using area rule sculpting to avoid waist shock like what Concorde had. The 22’ of blending appears to look canoe-like and is 1.8’ at the deepest point between the wing and fuselage. The blending reduces underside pressure by 18%. The sculpting incorporates fuel tank #2.

The all moving horizontal stabilizer has a span of 26.2’ (almost as large as the wings) root chord 14.6’ and a tip chord of 5.9’. Here is where it gets interesting! The area of the stabilizers at 2582 ft is actually larger than the wings at 2152 ft!! The reason for this is at Mach1.4 and 55,000’ the stabilizers are responsible for pitch control. The leading edge 63° (we now have the canards and horizontal stabilizers & wings having similar angles). The trailing edge of the stabilizer has a forward sweep of 12.6°. Such a design delays tail shock and extends pressure recovery, the delay is 22ms v/s a neutral trailing edge. A front view of the aircraft highlights how the canards & wings are mounted at two distinct vertical heights relative to the fuselage waterline. Such a placement further prevents shockwaves merging by separating them vertically, thereby reducing boom strength. ( Carnards at 1.8’ above the wing and the horizontal stabilizers appear to run at a similar angle and height to the wing). 

A rear view of the X-59 showing the engine aft tray, horizontal stabilizers, wings with ailerons, vertical T tail. Pic Source: NASA

The vertical tail assembly of the X-59 includes the engine fairing (the engine sits on top of the fuselage using area ruling) , the vertical tail above it and the T tail at the top. Behind the engine is the aft shelf that extends about 3-4’ under the engine exhaust to divert supersonic exhaust upwards, without it the jet’s mach diamonds will interact with the fuselage boundary layer amplifying sonic booms. 

The vertical tail of the X-59 is 14’ tall (including the engine height) with a backward sweep of 59° and a pure tail height of 10.5’. The horizontal fins on the T tail appear to have a similar geometry to the canards albeit about half the size.

The Engine

The X-59 uses a single GE F-414 low bypass afterburning turbofan with a bypass ratio of 0.25:1. The same engine is used on the F-18 Super Hornet. As mentioned earlier the engine is mounted on top of the fuselage and below the vertical tail fin. The engine produces 14,000 pounds of thrust dry and 22,000 pounhds of thrust with full afterburner. The engine with a service ceiling of 60,000’ is capable of handling the X-59’s test parameters.

The engine Shock diamonds flowing over the aft shelf. Pic Source: NASA

Materials & Construction

Over 85% of the aircraft is made of carbon fibre reinforced polymers (CFRP), working with such a material helps achieve the complex aerodynamic shaping of the X-59. The nose of the aircraft which weighs in at approx 300 pounds is a hollow CFRP cone. The inside of the nose has between 6-8 CFRP bulkheads that are each spaced about 4-6’ apart. Between the bulheads are between 8-12 stringers that run the full length of the nose cone. The nose is OOA (Out of Autoclave) cured to hold precise shape and is bolted to the fuselage with shear resistant bolts at flange joints that transfer loads to the fuselage. The nose is pressurised at 2-5psi with dry nitrogen. This increases panel stiffness by between 30-40% and helps boom consistency while preventing flutter and protecting avionics.

The fuselage is a central load bearing barrel that integrates 4 fuel tanks that hold 12,500 pounds of fuel, enabling the aircraft a range of 3,500nm. Furthermore the fuselage also integrates the cockpit and avionics. Titanium is used in the X-59 wherever it comes in direct contact with CFRP. The wingbox is aluminium and is bonded to CFRP skins via co-cured doublers. All the other bulkheads in the fuselage are CFRP (Toray 2510 prepeg). The forward engine firewall is titanium-aluminium-vanadium (Ti-6Al-4V), while the mid engine ring is Inconel, the aft nozzle is CFRP+Inconel liner.

Summation

The X-59 promises a fresh new look at supersonic flight and the data collected will be invaluable to future supersonic airliners. With a total of approx 50-100 flights planned over a 2-3 year period, the first 20-30 flights are expected to be subsonic and will test onboard systems. The next 20-40 flights will be transonic (over Mach 1.0) and will focus on acoustic measurements over remote areas such as Edwards AFB. The final 10-20 flights are planned over cities such as Galveston,TX and others to gather public perception. 

The first planned supersonic flight is expected to be mid 2026….

Innovation is Key…

Before you Leave

Read More Amazing Content at: https://theaviationevangelist.com keep scrolling down, and do share

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr

Introduction

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is on the cusp of a renaissance. For long, UAM was the domain of the ubiquitous helicopter. However helicopters had their limitations on the noise & emissions fronts in addition to being expensive and therefore rarified to the rich and famous.

The NASA Puffin eVTOL Concept from 2009-10. Pic Source : Wikipedia

Much like Tesla revolutionized the EV and the automotive landscape in general, eVTOLs are set to do the same for UAM. Like helicopters they have Vertical Take Off & Landing (VTOL) ability , however they bring advantages such as efficiency, zero emissions & mitigated noise pollution in their attempt to democratize UAM.

Tesla’s biggest developments lie in the integrating and increasing battery density and management systems. When Tesla launched the Roadster in 2008 the battery density was approximately 120 Wh/kg and today we are getting past 300 Wh/kg (marginally enough for eVTOLs). Similarly when we compare the power output improvements of the Roadster with the Model S (Plaid) we have numbers of 248 hp vs 1020hp (trimotor) in addition to thermal management of all onboard systems. eVTOLs face similar challenges with mass being all important and zero tolerance for failure.

We speak of four aspects of eVTOLs, the batteries, the motors, the propellers & lastly the design.

The second generation Tesla Roadster that was part of the EV revolution. EVs & eVTOLs share many technologies. Pic Source: Wikipedia

The Batteries

Range anxiety has always plagued EVs and Tesla was the first to create infrastructure such as superchargers across the USA, however before infrastructure comes battery technology.

The 2019 Nobel Prize for Chemistry went to Stanley Whittingham, John Goodenough & Akira Yoshino. Whittingham established the concept of intercalation, simply put, discovered how to make a rechargeable battery in the 1970s. Goodenough discovered the lithium cobalt oxide cathode that doubled existing battery power. Yoshino developed the first commercially safe lithium ion battery by using petroleum coke as the anode eliminating the use of pure lithium metal and making the battery safe for general use. The three of them are responsible for the power most of our devices use today and it took over 35 years of work to get the Nobel.

Tesla created the framework to harness battery power safely by using standard cylindrical cells in their Roadster. They created a sophisticated Battery Management System (BMS) to manage individual cells in battery packs to optimize performance across the temperature range and manage charge distribution. Tesla created a liquid cooling system for battery packs to maintain optimal operating battery temperature. They also pioneered the process of integrating a large number of batteries into the structure of their vehicles resulting in efficiencies across both performance & manufacture. Such integration also drove structural integrity. Reading this we realize it’s not surprising a significant number of battery engineers at eVTOL start ups cut their teeth while at Tesla.

To understand thermal management & put things in perspective, imagine having a Teams interview on your smartphone in a hot car with the AC running. Within a few minutes the battery pack in the phone heats and at some point it shuts the phone down (happened to me!). After cooling the phone in front of the AC vent your interview continues without video or speakers on. Now imagine 4680 cells working together (Tesla’s Roadster had this many) and the heat they generate. How do you manage to keep them cool and working optimally? This is where the BMS comes in along with the liquid cooling. BMS monitors each cell in the battery pack for voltages, temperatures and current flow. The system enforces safety limits on all of the above in addition to charge limits, heat & short circuits. All these need to be actively managed to avoid thermal runways (more on this later). Furthermore the BMS balances the loads on individual cells to ensure all cells have a balanced state of charge (SOC). The brain of the BMS is an algorithm that employs AI & machine learning tools to figure out what works best for each individual battery pack. The brain/algorithm further communicates with the EV’s systems as a holistic unit.

Joby Aviation’s integrated battery pack. Pic Source: Joby Aviation

The heating/cooling system runs antifreeze through Tesla patented cooling channels that have contact with each and every cell in the battery pack. The system is further integrated with the car’s HVAC system, and as needed the antifreeze is pumped through a heat exchanger for heating/cooling  as needed. The cooling system is integrated to the BMS to be actively managed. 

A thermal runway is an instance of a rapid and uncontrollable chain reaction within a cell or battery pack where temperature increases further accelerates the chain reaction. Thermal runways are triggered by an internal short circuit or external damage (ex: Richard Hammond’s 2017 Rimac, Concept One crash in Switzerland. The battery pack burned for five days after as per James May, more recently the AI171 crash is a thermal runway possibility, although no conclusions have been published. The pointers are there). Thermal runways need to be actively managed through prevention and if not, through mitigation. The same can be managed through BMS as mentioned earlier and mitigated through cell design such as using small cylindrical cells of limited number, fire retardant barriers between cells and modules such as mica. The battery packs themselves are designed to have venting systems that vent hot gases away from the passenger cabin and the rest of the battery pack to prevent spreading. Lastly the battery pack itself is created in a manner to contain such events in the safest manner possible.

The entire battery structure/BMS/cooling system is replicated in eVTOLs albeit with customization as per specific  individual needs.

Note: While battery power density might be ≥300Wh/kg eVTOLs unlike EVs have Depth of Charge (DoD) limits. In layman’s terms if a battery pack is at 300Wh/kg the eVTOL can use not more than 80% of the battery capacity. The first reason is safety in case the eVTOL needs to divert or the battery pack itself has a voltage crash. In actual terms this translates to not more than 240 Wh/kg of battery density available at any given time. The second is battery pack preservation as shallow DoD preserves packs. Lastly the FAA mandates these reserves. It needs to be mentioned that eVTOLs have very high power demands at takeoff/hover & landing. Typically Take off can demand approx 25% DoD, Cruise anywhere between 10-30% and landing a further 10%. Such a flight profile will use approx 65% DoD and keep the eVTOL within limits. 

The Motors

Wiki says the electric motor is a machine that converts electrical energy to mechanical energy through the interaction of the motor’s magnets with the electric current in a wire winding. The interaction produces torque which is applied to the motor’s shaft.

While electric motors have existed for about two centuries, we are more concerned with the developments of the last 25 years. In eVTOLs where power to weight ratio is all important, the role of electric motors takes on added importance when balancing weight, efficiency & power density all at the same time.

The power density of motors over the last 25 years has improved by a factor of 10! The trend points to power density doubling every 8 years from 2kW/kg in 2000 to 15kW/kg(In Oct’25 YASA created a motor that weights in 12.7kg and generates an insane 750kw! That is over 59.1 kw/kg). So contributes to the power density increases and where will we be in 5 years?

Archer Aviation’s electric motor on the left and Tesla Model 3 on the right. Pic Source: eVTOL.news

Materials are the first contributor to improved power densities in motors.

High performance rare earth magnets that contain materials such as neodymium has pushed up magnetic flux density inside motors which in turn produces stronger magnetic fields that produce higher torque. Energy loss is mitigated inside the motor core through use of thinner steel laminations, high efficiency and low loss materials and soft magnetic composites (SMCs) that permit complex 3D shapes for better efficiency. Lastly copper wire winding techniques themselves are being looked at to mitigate power loss and improve motor efficiency. One such example is ‘hairpin winding’, a technique that used solid rectangular conductors instead of wires to maximize conductor surface area.

The second contributor is motor design.

Motor design innovation is looking at pushing up motor speed of operation using fresh designs and parts that can handle higher centrifugal forces inside the motor. Motor architecture is looking axial flux architecture where the magnetic flux path is parallel to the axis of rotation instead of radial to it. Yokeless axial motors are motors where the stator (the motor winding) has teeth without a black iron or yoke connecting them.  

The third contributor is thermal management.

Thermal management inside the motors is critical to their performance. Liquid cooling using water or oil filled jackets are wrapped around or sprayed onto the stator. Advanced materials at the jacket / motor contact points improve thermal transfer with minimal resistance. 

The fourth contributor is systems integration.

Integration of electronics such as the inverter into a single unit reducing weight and improving efficiency. Wide gap semiconductors such as gallium nitride (GaN) and silicon carbide (SiC) significantly allow for a larger bandgap over traditional silicon, giving them the ability to handle higher voltages, temperatures while switching at higher frequencies. Algorithms such as advanced Direct Torque Control (DTC) permit precise and faster motor control.

All eVTOLs use Distributed Electric Propulsion (DEP) where they have between 6-36 motors & propellers to hedge against failure. The motors are fixed while the props have variable pitch or tilt. The motor / prop assembly is direct drive to improve efficiency (vs a gearbox). eVTOLs have the ability to land safely with just 70% motors operational as a result of this.

eVTOLs use a combination of axial and radial motors depending on application.

The Propellers

Now that we have spoken of the batteries & motors the third aspect to powering an eVTOL is propellers. They need to be efficient across the mission profile, safe and quiet.

Disk loading is the total thrust divided by the total swept area of all propellers and is measured in N/m2 . Low disk loading (50-200 N/m2) translates to large slow turning props that are quiet and have an efficient hover. High disk loading (500-1000 N/m2) translates to small, large fast turning props that are compact,loud and have a powerful takeoff and are inefficient at hover. In the urban space since noise pollution plays a role large props with low disk loading win as sound generally stays below 65dB while lifting efficiency is maintained.

Read More Amazing Content at: https://theaviationevangelist.com do keep scrolling down, and do share

Propellers have four kinds of setups.

Fixed-Pitch Open Rotor: Blades are locked at one angle, while the entire prop assembly tilts (Joby Aviation) or separate lift (fixed) and cruise (tilt) props (Archer Aviation). Typically such engines use between 3-5 props (Archer started its rear props with 2 blades each but has now switched to four bladed fans as they produced a vibration when they moved edgewise forward during cruise).  The props themselves are extremely lightweight made of carbon composites with 3D printed titanium leading edges and sleeves. Since the props have no moving parts they are simple , light & cheap while being low on noise. Such props are optimized for one speed such as hover (, Beta A250) and cruise (Archer Midnight)

With a project marketsize of $1 tn by 2040 (as per Morgan Stanley who downgraded the numbers from $1.5 tn due to development delays in their report  eVTOL/Urban Air Mobility TAM Update: A Slow Take-Off, But Sky’s the Limit , skeptics are much more conservative at approx $100-300 Bn range)the eVTOL industry is maturing rapidly. With high costs of development & certification most of the companies and products mentioned above have high burn rates and staying in the game is important. This is where partnerships & consolidation come in. Some examples below

Variable-Pitch Open Rotor:  Blades rotate on a hub much like a helicopter. The blades continue to be made of extremely light weight carbon compete with 3D printed titanium hinges. For VTOL the propeller pitch is set to high (steep angle relation to axis of rotation) and for cruise the props are set to low pitch (relatively shallow angle relative to axis of rotation). Such a setup can be used for all mission profiles. Joby S4 & Vertical Aeropace VX4 has such tilting props on the front having the best of both hover and cruise as needed.

Electric Ducted Fan (EDF): On the face of it an EDF looks very similar to a jet engine, they are even used on RC jet planes to mimic the jet engine effect, however they are very different. EDFs have a very small diameter compared to the other fans we have spoken of (Liliums fans were 0.8m diameter). They at very high speeds of over 6,000 rpm and generate over 2,000N of thrust per far. The disk loading is approx 800 N/m2 . The ducts block blade noise and to <55dB at height. Ducts do induce drag in cruise and are heavy in flight.

Coaxial Contra Rotating Rotors: Such props have two props on the same axis rotating in opposite directions.Such prop setups cancel torque within the assembly itself vs needing to have a similar assembly on the opposite side for torque cancellation. The EHang 216/VT-30 use such a setup. The blades themselves are made of carbon composite and have no gearbox. The setup is each rotor assembly has 2 sets of 4 bladeded props. They generate approx 1,000N thrust per assembly and disk loading is at 300 N/m2 . Such a setup is great for urban mobility, however range is limited due to high power needs.

The Design

Joby Aviation S4: A hybrid helicopter/aircraft design. It has six variable pitch tilting props with four on the wing and two on the V tail. Both the wingtips have and V tail tips have props to counter wingtip turbulence.The props have a diameter of 1.8m and have 5 blades each. The props on the S4 have scimitar-like curved tips for the purpose of aerodynamic efficiency and noise reduction. The S4 has a capacity of 1pilot + 4passengers .The wingspan & length are 39 feet length &  21 feet respectively with a height of 12 feet. The four battery packs are integrated into the carbon composite wings and have built in redundancy. Between the batteries , motors & props the S4 has MTOW of 4,800 pounds, a maximum cruise speed of 200 mph, range of 150 miles and a max altitude of 15,000 feet. The cabin sound is at 62 dB and the S4 is about 70% through its FAA certification process.

Joby Aviation S4. Props in VTOL tilt mode. Pic Source: Wiki Commons

Archer Aviation Midnight: The Midnight is once again a hybrid helicopter/aircraft design. It has a total of 12 props with 4 blades each. While all the props are loaded on the wings and have a diameter of 3m each with six on the leading edges of the wings are tilting and the six on the trailing edges are only for VTOL and fixed. The Midnight has a capacity of 1 pilot + 4 passengers. The wingspan & length are 48 & 41 feet respectively and the height is 12 feet. The batteries, motors & props give the Midnight MTOW is 6,500 pounds, a maximum cruise speed of 150mph with a max range of 100 miles, however the midnight is optimized for 20 mile trips. The six independent battery packs are in the wings . Cabin noise levels are around 45dB and the Midnight is approx 15through the FAA certification process as well.

Archer’s Midnight. Note the older props with two blades each on the trailing edge. The leading edge props are tilted upward for VTOL. Pic Source: eVTOL News.

Lillium Jet: Defunct Lillium Jet is in the lift due its stand out thrust vectoring EDF design. When their Intellectual Property went up for auction there was a bidding war between Joby & Archer and Archer won Lillium’s 300 patent portfolio for a total of $21million. The ducted EDFs had high thrust density and the all moving ducted fans were much wanted. The 7 seater Lillium Jet had 36 EDFs with a 24 fans of 0.45m each on the wings and 12 on the forward canards. The Lillium had 12 battery packs distributed through the wings and canards with high redundancy. The MTOW was to 7,055 pounds a range of 155 miles and a cruise speed of 175mph. The cabin noise was expected to be around 60dB. Lillium spent over $1.6 bn on developing the moonshot but did really proceed beyond a subscale demonstrator which again had a different set of fans with chevrons on them. When Archer won the bit Adam Goldstein their CEO said “Lilium’s pioneering work advanced the frontier of eVTOL design and technology, and we’re excited to bring their cutting-edge technologies into the fold at Archer as we advance our product roadmap”. So today Lillium can be considered a part of Archer Aviation.

The Lillium Jet. Pic Source: Wikipedia

Beta Technologies Alia A250: The A250 continues the helicopter/aircraft hybrid design. It had four fixed VTOL props + 1 pusher prop for cruise.The A250 has a lot of commonality with its sist eCTOL aircraft the CX300.The VTOL props have a 2.5m diameter, and 1.8m for the pusher prop. The A250 has two configs the first is 2 pilots + 1400 pounds of cargo or 5 pax. The battery packs are located in the fuselage floor for stability. The length & wingspan are 45 & 50 feet respectively with a height of 12 feet.The MTOW is 7000 pounds with a range of 250 miles and cruise speed of 170mph. The A250 is in advanced stages of certification as well.

Beta Technologies Alia A250. Pic Source : eVTOL News.

Volocopter Volocity 2X: Velocity is more like a helicopter with distributed propulsion. The Volocity 2X has 18 props distributed in two concentric circles above the fuselage. The diameter of each rotor is 1.8m The diameter of the outer rotor ring is 36 feet and the height of the Volocity 2X is 8.2 feet. The aircraft is designed for 1 pilot + 1 passenger with a MTOW of 1,984 pounds. The cruise speed is 68mph and range is 22 miles. Volocopter went bankrupt in early 2025 and Chinese company Wanfeng acquired their assets for $12 mn. Wanfeng is continuing the Volocity 2X’s certification through its Austrian subsidiary Diamond Aircraft.

The Volocity 2X. Pic Source: Wikipedia

Ehang EH-216: The EH-216 is the only eVTOL to commence commercial operations in specific locations in China for purposes of tourism and sightseeing. The EH-216 has 16 coaxial rotors of approx 1m each which spread out radially under the passenger cabin. The EH-216 is fully autonomous and can carry two passengers. The MTOW is 1,367 pounds with a range of 22 miles and a cruise speed of 81 mph. The aircraft has 12 battery packs integrated into the fuselage floor and rotor arms. The cabin noise is at 70dB and while flying in China FAA certification is in process.

The EH-216S the production version. Pic Source: eVTOL News

Partnerships & Consolidation

  • Toyota has invested $894mn in Joby and is a deep manufacturing partner
  • Joby has acquired H2Fly for its hydrogen tech & Blade air mobility’s passenger ops across 12 US vertiports
  • Integrated to Uber Elevate to tap into Uber’s UAM market
  • Stellantis has invested over $300 mn in Archer aviation & United over $10mn in Archer
  • We have already spoken of Lillum & Volocopter
  • Beta Technologies has a $46mn contract with USAF & UPS

Looking at these partnerships we see a clear blurring of lines in the manner people travel and the potential of this fledgeling industry. There are many more that have not been mentioned or are being incubated.

Innovation is here to stay….

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr

Introduction

The F-117 & the B-2 have firmly ingrained the shape of stealth in our collective imagination. Stealth represents the pinnacle of technology, power & supremacy. To truly understand stealth we need to go back to the beginning.

Stealth is a form of camouflage. The earliest forms were natural cover for example in forests, armies marching by night or hunters disguising themselves to blend with their surroundings. In the early days of aviation stealth as a concept did not exist. Flying in WW1 was mainly at night or Zeppelins flew noiselessly at high altitudes or under cover of night.

The concept of Radar was first introduced in 1886 by Heinrich Hertz who observed that radio waves deflect off metal bodies. The development of Radar in the 1920s & 1930s by both Germany & Britain also began the idea of radar avoidance. There was little understanding of how Radars actually detected metal objects or the concept of RCS (Radar Cross Section).

The first experiments with stealth began in WW2 and the most famous example of stealth albeit accidental is the Ho-229 by the Horten Brothers. A flying wing that had a severely curtailed RCS due to its combination of design & materials. Another example of accidental stealth is the  DeHavilland Mosquito, which had a low RCS because it was made of wood.

These aircraft are considered stealth generation zero some stealth and high maneuverability.

The Lockheed SR-71 and the Blackbird Family of aircraft are the first aircraft where stealth was conciously applied.  The Blended Wing Fuselage (read : https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/19/the-flying-wing-part-two-the-blended-wing-body/ ) and inward canted vertical stabilizers were intended to divert radio waves away from the emitter/receiver in addition to the fins being contructed from early composite materials.

The most popular image of the Lockheed SR-71 in flight. One that I first saw in 1975. Pic Source : Wikipedia

The paint on the aircraft was radar absorbing and consisted of iron particles to convert radar waves to heat, plasma stealth was experimented on the A-12 Oxcart where fuel contained a cesium based additive that created an ionized cloud of exhaust to absorb radar waves. The RCS of the SR-71 was bigger than a bird but smaller than a man. The SR-71’s biggest weapon was its speed at over Mach 3.0

The Blackbird Family of aircraft are the first generation of stealth combining speed and low maneuverability.

The Concept of Stealth was formalized by Russian electrical engineer & mathematical physicist Pyotr Ufemtsev when he published his epochal research now known as ‘Physical Theory of Diffraction’ (PTD) in 1962.

Pyotr Ufemtsev

While at Institute 108 (a key institute in the research of radio & radar technology) in 1954 Ufemtsev began his research into the reflection of electromagnetic waves and began developing a high frequency theory for predicting the scattering of electromagnetic waves from 2 & 3D objects.The shapes of the objects included discs, cylinders, cones, flat bases and wires in addition to several other geometrical shapes. These findings together came to be known as PTD and were published in his book ‘ Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction’ (PTD for short) in 1962.

The Russian think tank deemed the findings to have no significant military value and okayed his book to be published internationally. And the book languished for over a decade, before it was rediscovered by Denys Overholser of Lockheed. However this comes later.

Ufemtsev continued with his research in yet another gray forgotten facility in the former USSR for another twenty years. Gorbachev’s Perestroika gained traction in 1985 and the scientific funding that most of the institutes in the USSR received began to dry up. In the words of Ufemtsev, science took a back seat and political reform took center stage.

Pyotr Ufemtsev the Father of Stealth. Pic Source : Wikipedia

In 1989 Ufemtsev was in Stockholm to attend the Technology Symposium when in his own words he was surrounded by about ten Americans who said they were his students. You can imagine his shock as most of these ‘students’ looked middle aged and were professors themselves. One of them was from the University of California and offered him a position of visiting faculty. By this time USSR had almost fallen and Ufentsev was free to leave, which he did and Ufemtsev & his family found themselves in sunny California in University accommodation. It was here that could resume his research that was close to his heart. He was asked for a plan of reserach and funds were released direct from NASA to UCLA.

All this while Ufemtsev claims he was unaware stealth aircraft were being developed using his theory. His lecture at the 1992 National Convention of Science & Technology in Nice, France was one which was closely anticipated and watched by the Americans! Why? You might ask, the lecture was about how to defeat stealth.

Most radars of the time were monostatic radars. To put it simply, both the receiver and the transmitter of the radar are in one unit, so radio waves travel both and forth down the same corridor. At full absorption the radio energy is at coefficient zero or 50% absorption. He further explained that stealth aircraft were surrounded by a dispersed energy field, however there was no physical manner of decoding this. 

The other manner of defeating stealth was to have the bistatic or multistatic radars, where the transmitters and receivers are separated by varying distances. This increases the complexity of the unit, however as stealth aircraft are primarily about deflecting the radio waves away from the transmitter, the chances of being caught in a multi static radar array are much higher. The technology has been around since the 1920s, however post Ufemtsev’s lecture and the continued rise of stealth, bi/multistatic radar has seen a resurgence since the 1990s.

Into his 90s now Ufemtsev is the father of stealth. 

Project Harvey

The 1973 Yom Kippur war was a major wake up call for the US. The 19 day war was lethal for US made aircraft. Of the total 102 aircraft lost, 85 were American made, 32 F-4 Phantoms & 53 A-4 Skyhawks. The Soviet made S-75 Dvina missiles were part of an integrated air defense system supplied by the USSR to the Egyptian & Syrian forces were lethal against Israeli aircraft.

The war and result was a huge wake up call for DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) who initiated Project Harvey. Harvey the name from Harvey the Rabbit an invisible six foot tall white rabbit from the 1950 movie.

US strategic planners realized the vulnerability US aircraft & forces faced if they were ever to be in a similar high threat environment. In 1974 Chuck Myers, Director of Air Warfares Programs, espoused the ‘ Harvey ‘ concept to Robert Moore, Deputy Director of DARPA. They needed a new aircraft that would be invisible to enemy radar, infrared and other sensors. The idea almost immediately gained the support of the Pentagon and DARPA took the lead. This led to the highly classified ‘Have Blue’ program. DARPA invited McDonnell Douglas, Grumman, General Dynamics, Fairchild & Northrop. Lockheed was a surprise entry, they were initially not invited, however they leveraged their experience with the A-12 & SR-71 projects with DARPA and won an invite.

The final two projects accepted by DARPA were Northrop & Lockheed and after testing both model mockups (they were surprisingly similar) Lockheed won, and this would result in the legendary F-117 Nighthawk.

Have Blue & The F-117 Nighthawk

Ben Rich who succeeded Kelly Johnson as Director of Lockheed Skunk Works put together a team of talented individuals across several critical fields,  they consisted of Bill Schroeder a veteran designer, Dick Sherrer preliminary designer, Denys Overholser among many famous names.

Denys Overholser recommended an aircraft with flat surfaces. In Overholser’s own words “Well, it’s simple, you just make it out of flat surfaces and tilt those surfaces over, sweeping the edges away from the radar view angle, and that way you basically cause the energy to reflect away from the radar”. Using Overholser’s recommendations, Dick Scherrer drew a preliminary aircraft with low RCS. The aircraft had faceted surfaces. The aircraft looked like anything but an aircraft and definitely did not look like it would fly.

The original Hopeless Diamond. Pic Source : Wikipedia

Over the next several weeks Overholser and Scroeder put together a computer team to create a prediction software called ‘Echo 1’. Ufemtsev’s calculations were incorporated into the software (Ufemtsev’s work had been translated by USAF Systems Command Foreign Technology Division which Overholser accidentally discovered). The final design would be a faceted delta wing that was stuck with the name ‘Hopeless Diamond’ a reference to the famous Hope Diamond at Smithsonian. The team took six months to convert Ufemtsev’s calculus to design. On March 7th 1974 at 02:47 a.m the code had its moment of epiphany, pyramids reflected no radar. These shapes were to be incorporated into Have Blue. Kelly Johnson who was sceptical of stealth said to Ben Rich “Our old D-21 drone (a mach 3.3 drone, Kelly Johnson loved speed) has a lower cross section than that goddam diamond”. The shape of Have Blue was limited by the computing power available at the time to create complex shapes, and hence the extremely faceted design.

Have Blue. Pic Source : PICRYL

In the summer of 1975 DARPA formally invited Northrop & Lockheed to develop the Experimental Survivable Testbest (XST). Both the shapes looked surprisingly similar. Northrop used a software called ‘GENSCAT’ similar to ‘Echo 1’. By Nov 1975 both Lockheed and Northrop were awarded $1.5 mn each to build a full scale mockup of their designs to be tested for their RCS signatures. It is important to remember here the designs were about stealth and not about aerodynamics. Lockheed won the round and were asked to build a flying test bed. Northrop were asked to continue with their own development, but were not part of Have Blue anymore.

Northrop’s XST. Pic Source : Reddit User

Lockheed were to build two demonstrators for testing and Ben Rich raised over $10 mn from Lockheed management for development. The demonstrators were ¼ th the size of the final F-117 Nighthawk. They had a wing sweep of 72.5° and had an inverse V tail. It had a wingspan of 22’6” and a length of 47’3” and a MTOW of 12,500 lbs. The small aircraft was powered by two GE J85 turbojets that developed 2950 pounds of thrust each giving it a max speed of 600 mph.

The shape of the aircraft meant it was extremely unstable and it had a quadruple redundancy fly by wire control system that gave the aircraft normal flying characteristics. However actual flights tended to be extremely wobbly, something the F-117 shared with Have Blue and came to be called Woblin Goblin. The two prototypes flew a total of 88 flights between them, before both of them crashed. HB1001 flew a total of 36 sorties and HB1002 flew a total of 52 sorties. Both the pilots were safe. The Have Blue shape was very similar to what Ufemtsev had envisaged.

Overlap comparison of Have Blue & the F-117 Nighthawk. Pic Source: PICRYL

The final shape of the F-117 Nighthawk  had sides that were at least 30° off the vertical with multiple polygonal shapes. The aircraft now sported a V tail. The serrated edges that would be found on the F-117 Nighthawk were all about diverting radar waves away from the point of origin. The final radar cross section of the F-117 is about 0.001 m2 . The length was 65’11” and wingspan was 43’4”, the MTOW was 52,500 pounds with internal weapons bays.

The F-117 was powered by two modified GE F404 – F1D2 family of low bypass turbo fans. In the interest of stealth the engines had no afterburners. The engines were buried deep inside the aircraft to avoid radar waves hitting the fan blades as these give a very loud RCS return. Furthermore both the intakes were covered by a composite radar absorbing grill, so any radar waves that got in would not get out again. The exhaust was buried in a ‘platypus tail’ which was wide, rectangular and flat, furthermore exhaust heat was managed inside the long, buried exhaust duct lined with heat absorbing exhaust tiles. The bypass air was ducted over the tiles to cool them and further facilitate hot exhaust gas mixing with ambient cold air. Furthermore the hot exhaust air was directed at a very narrow angle just behind and above the aircraft.

Rearview and top view of the F-117. Note the faceted shape and exhaust. Pic Source : Wiki Commons

The F-117 had almost one ton of radar absorbent material (RAM) consisting of several composites. The RAM actually impacted load and trim. The first was iron ball paint which consisted of polymer based paint infused with ferrite. The second was several layers of carbon based layered composite materials. When radar waves hit the iron balls oscillate and convert the electromagnetic waves to heat which is dissipated by the aircraft body. The RAM was cut much like a linoleum sheet and glued to the aircraft skin. The gaps between the panels were filled with a putty called butter. This ensured a seamless face to radar with no gaps. The glass of the cockpit was coated with a special composite mixture to absorb radar waves as well. In fact at one point of time Skunk Works toyed with filling up the cockpit with Carbon Monoxide, which would mask the pilot, however this was firmly rebutted by the pilots themselves!

The F-117 had a hinged radio antenna that hinged back into the aircraft body. Once retracted it meant the aircraft was silent with no contact. The pitot tubes themselves were designed to divert radar away from the emitter. In fact they were so sharp that one could cut a finger on them. The main pitot tube speed incicator had one hole that flew directly into the path of oncoming air for airspeed. This was also right out front in clean air. One of the reasons the F-117 did not go supersonic was to avoid shockwaves coming off the tube.

While Have Blue first flew in 1977, it was a black project and was only publicly disclosed in Nov 1988 after the disclosure of the B-2. 

The flyaway cost of each aircraft was $45 in 1981 dollars.

The F-117A is the second generation of stealth combining stealth with reasonable agility.

Tacit Blue & the B-2 Spirit

The Northrop Tacit Blue was a low observable stealth surveillance technology demonstrator aircraft. The aircraft could operate close or behind enemy lines with a high degree of survivability due its low probability of intercept radar (LIPR) and other sensors. The aircraft flew between 1982 – 85 but was publicly unveiled only in 1996.

The designation YF-117D represents an evolution on both Have Blue & F-117 programs. Tacit Blue was about demonstrating not only the next level of stealth design but other advances such as radar sensor technology was part of the ‘ Assault Breaker ‘ program that included technologies such as lasers, electro optical sensors, data processors etc that could break up ground launches working together in unison.

Tacit Blue. Pic Source : Wikipedia

Tacit Blue, nicknamed ‘ the whale / alien school bus’ featured a straight tapered wing with a V tail.. The fuselage was curved in a manner to cut RCS, and ended in a rectangular edge all round that protruded. The engines had a single flush inlet on top of the fuselage that led to a S shaped curve as did the exhaust. The exhaust did not have the ceramic tiles the F-117 had but was instead lined with radar absorbent and heat resistant coatings. The exhaust nozzle itself was flat, wide and a curved arc that blended into the highly curved body. The nozzle was placed between the V tail. The setup ensured the engines would have no exhaust / intake signature on radar. 

Rearview of Tacit Blue. Pic Source: Wikipedia

The aircraft featured concealed radar as mentioned earlier so it could be in touch with its ecosystem at all times. The radar did not interfere with its RCS signature. The shape of Tacit Blue was possible because of strides in computing power that in turn enabled more complex radar cheating shapes. Overall a look at Tacit Blue tells you of a shape is continuous with no breaks and very reminiscent of the B-2 Spirit.

The aircraft used two Garrett ATF-3-6 medium bypass turbofans that produced 5,440 pounds of thrust each. The engines propelled the whale at 290 mph, which is reasonable considering the aim of the aircraft was reconnaissance and not speed. The aircraft had a service ceiling of between 25-30,000 feet. 

The materials used on the aircraft were aluminium for the fuselage and wings structure with Titanium in structural components. The empennage, wing & fuselage leading edges used proprietary Northrop radar absorbent composite materials. The RAM continued to use ferrite materials that were highly radar absorbent, however unlike the F-117 the material could be applied to the continuous curved surfaces and not have to use butter in between panels.

Tacit Blue flew a total 135 sorties and 250 hours over a three year period and gathered valuable data that was used in the B-2 Spirit. 

The B-2 was the spiritual successor to Tacit Blue. It incorporated several technologies from both Tacit & Have Blue. The S shaped engine intakes and active exhaust gas management. The curved surfaces of Tacit Blue showed that improvements in computing power meant stealth aircraft shapes could be complex curves. The radar integration on Tacit Blue is on the B-2 as well. 

The Advanced Technology Bomber program as the B-2 was known began in 1979. The black project codenamed Aurora narrowed on the Northrop/Boeing & Lockheed/Rockwell teams to begin preliminary work. Both the teams came up with Flying Wing designs with Northrop’s proposal codenamed ‘Senior Ice’ & Lockheed’s as ‘Senior Peg’. Northrop’s proposal won as they already had experience with flying wings from their YB-35/49 days , their aircraft was larger & was a pure flying wing. Lockheed’s proposal was more like its Have Blue program featured a faceted design and incorporated a small tail. Northrop was awarded the contract in late 1981.

Senior Peg by Lockheed. Pic Source : TWZ

For the Northrop the B-2 Spirit was the culmination of almost 40 years on flying wing aircraft ( read: https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/13/the-evolution-of-the-flying-wing-part-one/ ). Flying wings are naturally stealthy along with the technologies validated by participating in the Have Blue and Tacit Blue programs.

In its final form the B-2 is a lambda wing and is made of mostly carbon graphite composite material, with buried engines that have S shaped ducts for intakes and active exhaust management. The RAM on the B-2 is even more advanced than on the F-117 & Tacit Blue. While the material continues to be classified we can speculate it uses alternate high frequency material to reduce maintenance post each sortie. The iron ball paint technology is probably used as well in addition to signature control materials such as sealants (butter?), and conductive tapes. All of this gives the B-2 a radar profile of 0.1 m2 .To protect the coatings the B-2 is stored in environmentally controlled hangers called B-2 shelter systems (B2SS).

The B-2 Spirit. Pic Source : Wikipedia

The length of the B-2 is 69 feet with a wingspan of 172 feet (same as the YB35/49) and a height of 17 feet. Its MTOW is 376,000 pounds. The engines on the B-2 are four GE F118 non afterburning low bypass turbofans that develop 17,300 pounds of thrust each. The cruise speed of the B-2 is 630 mph with a service ceiling of 50,000 feet and a range of 6,900 miles, all phenomenal statistics considering it is almost never seen!

By 2004 the total program had cost $44.75 bn. Calculating the cost over 21 aircraft produced the cost per aircraft comes to $2.1 bn!

The B-2 represents the third generation in the stealth technology evolution.

The YF-23 & the F-22 Raptor

By 1986 the Soviet Union had several emerging threats such as the Sukhoi Su-27, the Mikoyoyan MIG-29 fighters and the under development Beriev A-50 airborne warning & control system (AWACS) along with increasingly sophisticated SAMs. The US needed to replace its aging air superiority fighter the F-15 Eagle. The Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) would use the stealth technologies developed along with advanced avionics, fly by wire systems, and advanced propulsion systems. Lockheed and Northrop were invited by DARPA as lead contractors of their respective teams due to their previous experience with all of the above. Lockheed’s proposal was dubbed the YF-22 & Northrop’s YF-23. Both aircraft had very similar properties.

The YF-23 with the B-2 coming in at Edwards AFB. Pic Source : Wikipedia

The YF-23 nicknamed ‘ Black Widow II’ had two prototypes built. Northrop teamed up with McDonnell Douglas and the prototypes would run both Pratt & Whitney and General Electric engines. So while this was a competition between airframe manufacturers it was a competition between engine manufacturers as well.

Three design concepts were studied, the Agile Maneuverable Fighter (AMF) with two vertical tails, that had the best handling but the least stealth was the first. The second was the Ultra Stealth Fighter (USF) that had the best stealth characteristics called the Christmas Tree due to its design and the third was the High Stealth Fighter (HSF) which balanced stealth and maneuverability. It had diamond shaped wings and all moving V tail rudders. The third would eventually become the YF-23.Northrop received $691 mn as did Lockheed and given 50 months to create for demonstration & validation (Dem/Val) two prototypes each.

The three designs Northrop assessed. Pic Source: Wikipedia

The YF-23s faceted & blended fuselage with its diamond shaped wings had very good RCS return of 0.001m2 , the steeply canted V tail (at 50°) gave the aircraft the agility it needed while at the same time blocking out the engine exhausts. The tail itself had the span of a small aircraft. A top view of the aircraft shows an alignment of all the edges along a couple of axis, this is critical to control radar return in a very narrow corridor. The engine intakes (at the entrance had a porous section) again had S shaped ducts similar to the B-2 and the exhaust had active gas cooling with ceramic tiles similar to the F-117. All weapons and radars were carried internally. The RAM continued to use the ‘iron ball paint’. Critical parts such as the all moving tail were made of advanced composite materials with high radar absorption. 

The YF-23 was tested with both the engine options. On the P&W YF119 option YF-23A number 1 flew a total of 34 flights for 44.3 hours. The maximum AoA at minimum speed was 25°, while the max speed was Mach 1.8 at maximum altitude of 50,000 feet..impressive numbers.

Prototype number 2 flew with the GE YF120 option, clocked 16 flights for a total of 21.6 flight hours. The max AoA at min speed was 20°, while max speed was Mach 1.72 at 50,000 feet max altitude. 

Both sets of numbers are impressive, while both the engines had afterburners the YF-23 could cruise comfortably at Mach 1.4-1.6 without them. An F-16 needed to afterburn to keep up.

The final specs of the aircraft was a length of 67’5”, wingspan of 43’7” and height of 13’11”. A MTOW of 51,320 pounds. The engines tested were two P&W YF119 and two GE YF120 that generated 23,500 pounds of thrust each (YF120) dry or 35,000 pounds with afterburner. The prototypes had to be constructed within a 3 month month period as their 50 month deadline was running out.

Lockheed teamed up with Boeing and General Dynamics to create the YF-22 which would become the F-22 Raptor. As stealth took centre stage the design team at Lockheed Skunk Works led by Bart Osborne moved away from its SR-71 type designs and once again came up with a design very similar to the F-117s faceted shape as they used the same computer program Echo 1. This design gave very poor aerodynamic handling characteristics. They needed to get better. They needed a design more like Northrop’s curved blended aircraft.

The final design submitted by Lockheed and team was vastly improved on the faceted design, incorporating curved shapes and surfaces. While the computers were not able to handle the design, physical reliance on radar range testing improved RCS while the curved shapes helped aerodynamics. The final design submitted for Dem/Val designated 090P had an arrow head forward fuselage, trapezoidal wings that had a steep crank on the leading edge and four empennage tail surfaces. The engines used the now familiar S shaped inlet and the rectangular exhaust nozzles and this is where the magic happened.

A screen grab showing the F-22 aligned edges. Pic Source: Western Museum of Flight

The nozzles featured a 2D thrust vectoring system that pivoted the exhaust stream down by up to 20°. This in conjunction with the all moving horizontal tail planes in conjunction with the twin vertical stabilizers (canted at 28°) gave the aircraft incredible pitch and stability control. And this probably won the F-22 Raptor contract.

The aircraft was constructed of composites which have now become a trend in stealth aircraft in addition to leading / trailing edge alignment all round. The large fins continue to mask the engine exhaust. The RAM on the YF-22 is a proprietary formula developed by Lockheed and Boeing an advancement on the iron ball paint formula and is done in layers. All hatches and openings on the aircraft are serrated much like the YF-23 to deflect radar waves away. In addition the surface of the aircraft is multiple shades of gray, these are different materials bonded together to further deflect radar waves and reduce RCS.

The first prototype with GE 120 engine first flew in September 1990 while the second with the P&W engines first flew in Oct the same year. The prototype with the GE 120 engines did a total of 43 flights for a total of 52.8 hours, maximum AoA at min speed was an insane 60°, while maximum speed was over Mach 2 at max altitude of 50,000 feet. The prototype with P&W engines flew a total of 31 flights for 38.8 flight hours, max AoA at min speed was 20° while max speed was MAch 1.81 at 45,000 feet. 

The YF-22 won, but it needs be said the YF-23 is a legendary aircraft in its own right. The F-22 Raptor final specs were a length of 62’1” and a wingspan of 44’6”. The MTOW is 83,500 pounds and is powered by P&W F119 engines that develop 26,000 pounds of thrust each dry and 35,000 pounds of thrust each with afterburner. The max speed is Mach 2.25 and range is 1,800 miles.

A total of 195 F-22 Raptors were constructed at a cost of $67.3 bn, at a unit program acquisition cost of over $350m each as the construction numbers were heavily curtailed from 750 as the costs proved to be prohibitively expensive and shifting priorities after the end of the Cold War.

The F-22 Raptor is the fourth generation of stealth incorporating speed and maneuverability.

The F-35 Lighting & The Democratization of Stealth

In 1993 DARPA launched the affordable Common Affordable Strike Lightweight Strikefighter (CALF) project to develop a stealth aircraft that would eventually repace the F-16, F-18 &Harrier across forces. The Joint Advanced Strike Technology project started in 1994. Congress order both of them to be merged and this became the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The fighter needed to a versitile fighter that was capable of Short Take Off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) and be capable of a supersonic dash while being stealthy. There were four submissions Mc Donnel Douglas, Northrop, Lockheed & Boeing.

By 1996 the two finalists were Lockheed and Boeing. Both were awarded $750 million each to build two concept demonstrators each. Boeing would develop the X-32 & Lockheed the X-35.

Boeing’s strategy was about keeping lifecycle costs down by minimizing variations across applications. The X-32 had a carbon fibre composite delta wing with a 55° sweep angle and a thick leading edge. This allowed the aircraft to have minimal transonic drag , aid lift at lower speeds and carry radio antennas internally.

The X-32 used a single P&W F119 powerplant that put out 28,000 pounds of thrust , dry and 43,000 pounds of thrust with afterburner. For STOVL the aircraft used thrust vectoring where the engine nozzle moved down upto 15°. The aircraft had a V tail canted to 58° each and an air intake that was directly beneath the cockpit reminicent of the F-16 and unfortunately could not achieve the kind of stealth required.

The Boeing X-35 prototype. Pic Source: Wikipedia

The final specs of the aircraft show a length of 45’0.1”, wingspan of 36’ & height of 17’3.8”. The MTOW of the aircraft was 38,000 pounds with all weapons to be carried internally. The max speed of the aircraft was 1,200 mph max range across profiles was 850 miles in the USAF profile. 

The X-35 used many design elements from the F-22 Raptor (and does not need to repeated) and the VTOL exhaust duct from the Covair Model 200 from 1972. Furthermore Lockheed had purchased technical data from the cancelled Russian Yak-141 for examination of its swivel nozzle in 1991. The aircraft used helmet mounted display systems that had already been around to integrate into the hardware.

The stand out element of the X-35 was the shaft driven lift turbofan. The design was pateneted by Lockheed engineer Paul Bevilaqua and developed by Roll Royce. During normal flight the engine behaved as a normal medium bypass turbofan with afterburners. The turbofan also acted as a turboshaft engine where the engine produces shaft power instead of jet thrust a concept used in helicopters.

The engine nozzle, shaft & hover fan assembly of the F-35. Pic Source: Wikipedia

Where the X-35 differs is only a portion of the jet’s power is directed to the shaft, the rest of the power is still directed towards a thrust vectoring engine nozzle for hover mode. The nozzle can swvel to an astonishing 95° using the 3 Bearing Swivel Duct Nozzle (3BSD). The aircraft can transition from normal flight mode to hover inflight. The shaft in turn drove a two stage titanium lift fan that was 50” in diameter. The entire fan assembly and housing weiged in 1.2 tons, a deadweight during normal flight. In the interests of stealth the far was closed out from both top & bottom when not in use and was a dead weight during normal flight.

The X-35 inflight. Pic Source: Wikipedia

The final specs of the aircraft was a length of 50’5” , wingspan of 33’ & height of 13’3”. The MTOW was 50,000 pounds and powerplant was the P&W F119 turbofan that generated 25,000 pounds of thrust dry and 40,000 pounds with afterburner. The max speed was Mach 1.5+ and a max range of 1,400 miles with a service ceiling of 50,000 feet.

The X-35 won mainly on the basis of its extremely versitality and would become the F-35 Lightening. The final unit cost of an average of just over $100 mn a unit across variants represents a huge improvement in costs.

The F-35 represents the Fifth Generation of stealth aircraft.

Since the 2010s as stealth technology has been better undertood & costs bought down countries such as China & Russia we have seen a raft of stealth aircraft make their way into pubic awareness. Of these the J-50 & J-36 from China stand out as they incorporate All Moving Wingtips (AMT) along with tailess designs ( read here : https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/10/02/lambda-wings-moving-wingtips-flying-wings-part-3/ ). The Chinese also have the J-20. Tailess aircraft being naturally stealthy. A late edit: A Chinese Team has recently unveiled an evolutionary new stealth material that has a durable and flexible coating that is extremely thin at just 0.1mm. Furthermore one of its properties is impedance tuning , adjusting dynamically to ambient surroundings including temperature. Such a property is critical to advanced stealth as it controls the material’s interaction with incoming electromagnetic waves from radars within range. This is a developing story and not many details are known yet.The Russian Su-57 is another example of stealth technology at work. The US has the B-21 Raider the the F-47 under development, both of them promise to be interesting developments in the evolution of stealth.

Stealth is the standard by which air superiority aircraft are measured.

The Future

The advent of drones like the loyal wingman, the Lockheed Vectiss is a stealth drone that flies ahead in high risk environments and ensure surviveability for airmen. This also represents the connected environment stealth enconpasses, it’s not just about stealth its about communicating effectively.

Stealth has spurred the evolution of radars. Bistatic & multistatic radars are getting more sophisticated (they are complex). RAM is optimized for high frequency but low frequency are getting better at stealth aircraft detection. Over the Horizon radars have the ability to monitor vast areas by bouncing their waves off the ionosphere. AI is playing a big hand in patching multiple data points to create a single picture this strenthens existing infrastructure. 

Quantum radar is in its infancy. Quantum radar looks at subtle changes in photons through quantum entanglement , this will render current stealth technology ineffective. We are getting better at detecting Ufemtsev’s theoretical radiation bubble around stealth aircraft. 

The next level of stealth is a cloaking device much like Star Trek!

Read More Amazing Content at: https://theaviationevangelist.com do keep scrolling down, and do share

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr

Intro

On Feb 10th 2025 the Boom XB-1 completed her 13th   and final flight. Baby Boom got to 36,514 feet in altitude, went supersonic all the way to Mach 1.18, flew for 41 minutes and was captured in vivid schlieren images going supersonic. While all these are stunning achievements, there are several standouts. The first is boomless cruise, the XB-1 went supersonic with no audible sonic boom and the second was this aircraft was almost directly responsible for having the 52 year old supersonic over land ban in the United States overturned and finally the Boom XB-1 is the very first privately funded aircraft to go supersonic. This is the story of ‘The Little Plane That Could’.

A Schlieren image of the XB-1 going supersonic. Pic Source : Boom Supersonic website

The Idea

The idea of the ‘Baby Boom’ as a technology demonstrator finds its underpinnings in 2013. Their CEO Blake Scholl was always interested in supersonic flight post a visit to the British Airways Concorde G-BOAG at the Museum of Flight in Seattle and had set up a Google alert if anyone ever came up with the idea of making a supersonic airliner, nothing ever came about. 

A X post of mine with Blake’s reply saying that’s where supersonic started for him.

In 2013 after yet another transatlantic flight delay, he pondered if this was something do-able. Like most ‘cowboy entrepreneurs’ he just decided to do it and Boom was born in 2014 with seed funding of approx $1-2 million and 10 driven engineers.

By 2016 the team at Boom had its first iteration of what the Boom Overture airliner would look like. It was a trijet design with two engines underwing and the third buried inside the tail. The aircraft looked very similar to Concorde being a tailless delta and was designed to carry 65-88 passengers and cruise at Mach 2.2. The aircraft renderings were unveiled at the Paris Air Show and the Boom revealed a letter of intent from Virgin Atlantic (that is a story by itself and speaks volumes of Richard Branson & Blake himself). This triggered a Series A funding of $50 million . The media highlighted the idea of ‘democratization of supersonic air travel’. 

The first iteration of the three engined Boom Overture. Pic Source: Flight Global

Developing a full scale airworthy Overture is a $8bn venture. There are designs to be proven, manufacturing processes to be validated and of course the need to prove that a small start up with almost no background in aerospace can build a supersonic aircraft.

It’s around this time a pivotal realization emerges within the Boom Team. They needed a ‘Falcon 1 moment’, they needed a demonstrator.

The Demonstrator

Small aerospace companies such as Boom have no track record but are extremely ambitious about their disruptive technologies and need a proving platform. Successful subscale (a percentage of full size) demonstrators provide the foundation their technologies and capabilities need at a fraction of the cost (Boom spent $13 million on the XB-1 & $156 million on the project, including early Overture development costs).

The Falcon-1 moment that Blake was referring to was the fourth launch of Space X’s first little rocket. After three failures between 2006-08 and on the verge of bankruptcy Space X had enough money for one more launch. The fourth of course proved private rocket launches were viable and the rest is history.

The XB-1 was a 1:3 scale prototype of the full scale Overture (first iteration of the Overture was a trijet which changed to four engines in 2022. The XB-1 was ready to start testing by 2020 itself, and hence stayed a trijet) and the project goals were to prove privately funded supersonic flight was possible by validating aerodynamic design & highlighting Boom’s manufacturing capabilities.

A mockup of the first iteration of the XB-1 at the Wing over Rockies Museum: Pic Source: Wing Over Rockies

The Design

The XB-1 had two designs. The first iteration had a length of 68 feet and a wingspan of 17 feet. The final iteration had a length of 62.6 feet and a wingspan of 21 feet. The increased wing span of the slender delta on the latter gives the aircraft an improved aspect ratio (even though the wing had a shorter chord at the root, the original had the wing chines right up to the cockpit, while in the latter the wings chines end behind the cockpit and the aircraft was shorter by over 5 feet) which in turn improves aerodynamic handling especially at lower speeds. The wing itself is an ogival delta, where the leading edge has a S shaped curve on the leading edge to manage vortices as lifting devices.

A front view of the XB-1 showing the nose curvature, merged canopy landing gear, underwing inlets & the leading edges of the wings. Pic Source: Boom Supersonic site

The XB-1 uses area ruling right through its entire length. Area Ruling a.k.a Whitcomb Rule is an aerodynamic principle that states the wave drag on an aircraft flying at transonic speeds (Mach 0.8-1.2) is minimized if the total cross sectional area of the aircraft changes smoothly and gradually along its length. An example is the manner in which the cockpit canopy tapers off where the wings begin, and a top view of the XB-1 shows off the horizontal stabilizer roots beginning where the wing trailing edge root ends. 

The underside of the XB-1 clearly shows the metal to the rear and the silhouette of the wings trailing edge root merging with the root of the stabilizer leading edge. Pic Source: Boom website

At the very tip of the nose is a ram air pressure sensor (works as a pitot tube). The ram air pressure tube reads the speed of the aircraft. The tube has two vanes attached to it , the alpha vane for the AoA of the aircraft and the beta vane to measure yaw (lateral directional movement relative to oncoming wind). Such a set up is used on experimental aircraft where data is still being gathered in real time as against an aircraft which already has a data history and is in clean air (undisturbed by the aircraft’s turbulence). Such a system is critical to validating the performance of the aircraft across the entire speed regime.

The nose of the XB-1 looks like a cone that has been flattened on the bottom. The contoured underside of the nose is critical to aircraft stability during take off and landing when the aircraft has a high Angle of Attack (AoA).The original iteration of the XB-1 nose was more conical but computational fluid dynamics (CFD) directed the nose to be flattened on the bottom. The nose design itself took about two years! The shape of the nose had a direct impact on the shape of the wing,the leading edges of the  wings of the final XB-1 are much further back on the fuselage than the original iteration as this combination gave the maximum stability at low speeds (more on this later). To sum up, having a perfectly conical nose means it sheds vortices in unpredictable directions to small changes in aircraft speed and attitude which interfere with the lifting surfaces and the vertical stabilizer. Behind the cockpit on the port side is the AC inlet that creates cold air via a turbocharger inside and bleed vanes behind.

The nose slopes up towards a canopy that is contoured into the curve of the upper nose cone. This gives the canopy a very merged look relative to the nose curve.  The nature of the curve of the canopy in tandem with the overall design of the aircraft means the pilot has very low visibility at landing and takeoff (slender delta wings have high AoA at low speeds). The Concorde had a dropping nose which is a relatively heavy mechanism, The XB-1 uses augmented reality, more on this later.The entire underbelly of the aircraft appears to be relatively flat and heavily contoured, all the way to the rear trijet configuration. The contours merge with the redesigned wings seamlessly. Right through the length of the underbelly of the aircraft  are a series of access panels that merge seamlessly with the surrounding fuselage contour. The panels are held in place by quarter turn fasteners such as those made by Howmet Aerospace. These panels give access to various avionics bays and fuel tanks (refueling happens off the top of the aircraft).

The landing gear on the aircraft have been optimized at the lowest possible cost. The first thing that strikes you about the nose gear is the heavily machined trunnion and pivot arm, they are made of titanium, these parts are mated to mechanisms salvaged for an F-4 & a T-38 to complete the gear. On the gear are two HD cameras and these are part of the augmented reality system that XB-1 uses to overcome the poor cockpit visibility mentioned earlier. They have a 12.5° down angle to compensate for aircraft attitude at low speeds. There are two cameras for redundancy and are spaced more than a standard bird wingspan apart, this ensures a birdstrike cannot take out both cameras at once. As the gear retracts, the strut first compresses to have a smaller profile as it sweeps up & forward into the fuselage.

The main landing gear continues the heavily machined theme and is capable of taking a hard landing load of 200,000 pounds and bouncing right back! The gear is a combination of three arms. The main strut is made of Aermet100, an ultra high strength steel alloy. The alloy has iron, cobalt and nickel as additives. The drag arm is grade 5 titanium as is the main shock absorber. The arms converge just above the wheels and radiate out into the bay. The twin main gear of the aircraft converge into the bay with the wheels laterally radiating out. The bay has two hydraulic reservoirs for redundancy, one on each side and an emergency DC pump as a backup. The XB-1 has no RAT, the DC pump is the back up. The landing gear bays are absolutely packed with different systems and include a generator control unit in there as well. All extremely well laid out. This gear was the second iteration.

Under each wing is an engine inlet (the third is on top of the fuselage with an S shaped duct to the third engine). The inlets look relatively small for a supersonic aircraft, what strikes you is the careful contouring of the inlet to slow supersonic air down to subsonic speeds for the engine compressors to work optimally. The front profile of the engine inlet is rectangular in 2D. The upper lip of the inlet starts about two feet in front of the lower lip. The sideview of the engine inlet shows a line running from the upper lip and converging with the vertical line running up from the lower lip at about 80% of the height of the inlet (there are no specs in the public domain).The inlet has no moving parts and the air is slowed by the inlet shockwave off the upper lip. The third engine of the trijet has a similar looking inlet, only thing is the geometry appears to run in reverse to the under wing inlets.The engine inlet geometry took about a year and half to finalize and hugely enhanced the engineering team’s capabilities.

The inlet architecture clearly visible and the main gear. Pic source: Boom site

A subtle design feature on the XB-1 is the gap between the underwing engine inlets and the wing. This gap is a boundary layer diverter to ensure the air the engines operate in clear air free of any turbulent vortices off the aircraft. While the diverters under the wings are thinner when compared to the center engine diverter on top of the fuselage as the boundary layer there is much thicker. The boundary layer itself is the layer of air that clings to the aircraft and is pulled with it. It is generally much thinner at the nose of the aircraft than the rear. In fact the boundary layer to the rear of the aircraft is so thick, the fasteners on the titanium engine bay covers do not need to be recessed and they actually protrude a bit with no additional drag.

The rudder on the vertical tail which is around six feet tall looks small but actually has about 20% higher authority than predicted by CFD. The all moving horizontal stabilizer (necessary for supersonic flight) is pivoted on a titanium torque tube that runs through the fuselage and connects to the stabilizer on the other side.This ensures the two horizontal stabilizers always move in unison. The horizontal stabilizer itself is positioned below the wings on the horizontal plane to avoid being blanketed by wing vortices.

The XB-1 has five fuel tanks running longitudinally down the length of the aircraft. The onboard flight control computer controls the centre of gravity by pumping fuel forwards or backwards depending on the acceleration or deceleration regime.

The Assembly

Industry 4.0 has revolutionized manufacturing by integrating digital technologies for efficient design, simulation and production. An example of this is computational fluid dynamics (CFD) where engineers ran thousands of simulations to optimize the aerodynamics of the XB-1 at a fraction of the time and cost. Traditionally the designs were validated in physical wind tunnel testing and reiterated upon, but now computers and artificial intelligence run the process end to end. It needs to be acknowledged that modern computing power and software have enabled Industry 4.0. 

Virtual prototyping has ensured a digital replica of the actual physical XB-1 is available at the touch of a keyboard. Generative design has ensured that algorithms can create complex component designs beyond human capability. End to end digitization is a digital information thread maintained from initial design to current status.

Boom has excelled by compartmentalizing the entire end-to-end creation of XB-1 by optimizing each component through the most suitable design and manufacturing process, and then bringing them together in perfect synergy across the whole aircraft.

A quick glance at the XB-1 immediately tells you the aircraft essentially has two colors. Most of the aircraft is white and towards the rear of the aircraft the engine bays are metal. All the white on the XB-1 is carbon composite and most of the metal on the aircraft is titanium.

The two dominant colors of the Boom XB-1. Pic Source : Boom Website

Boom has designed and constructed the composite parts of the XB-1 inhouse at a facility close to Denver, Colorado. The carbon fibre composites are used for most of the fuselage, wings and tail empennage. The material is lightweight, has very high tensile & flexural strength in addition to high impact resistance & a high strength to weight ratio. The heat resistance is very good. Additionally composites are easier to work with when creating complex aerodynamic shapes as compared to traditional materials such as aluminium.

Boom partnered with TenCate Advanced Composites (now Toray Group) to supply high temperature epoxy resins & prepregs for hot sections such as leading edges (temps as high as 307°F/153°C) and nose. Incidentally these are the same materials used on the Space X Falcon 9. Wing spar load testing was done in 2017.

For the Carbon composite Boom used the hand layup process where engineers manually layered carbon fibre prepreg sheets (pre-impregnated with TenCate’s epoxy resin) into molds to form the fuselage halves in addition to other components such as the wings. The sheet fibers are layered at 0°,45° & 90°, such layering gives the final product the longitudinal, shear / torsional & transverse strength we spoke of earlier. The process began in 2019, the fuselage halves were joined together in 2020. 

Post the layering the layered sheets with their molds, Boom used both autoclave & out of autoclave (OoA) curing using an inhouse oven for the curing of parts. The difference between an autoclave and an oven is the autoclave cures the composite sheets under heat & pressure while the oven heats the composites & their molds in a vacuum. 

During the post processing, the cured parts are checked for fit, surface quality & performance. Excess material is trimmed out and subjected to non destructive testing such as ultrasonic scans or tap tests to detect voids or delamination. Finishing involves surface preparation with primers and cleaners specific to the composite materials, followed by painting. The XB-1 was painted in high gloss white PPG Aerospace CA 9800 paint and added roughly 125 pounds to the aircraft while staying within the centre of gravity limits. The choice of white paint was prioritized by thermal management. The titanium sections were unpainted.

The titanium parts of the XB-1 are at critical high-temperature or high-strength areas of the aircraft . The XB-1 had a total of 21 titanium parts including engine bay covers, exhaust components and structural elements such as parts of the landing gear. Titanium has a high melting point and thermal stability which makes it ideal for such sections.

Boom partnered with VELO3D to produce the titanium parts using additive manufacturing (3D printing). VELO3D used their Sapphire 3D printing system which uses laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). In this process a laser fuses titanium powder (probably Ti-6Al-4V a.k.a titanium-aluminium-vanadium) layer upon layer on a digital CAD model. This method allows for complex geometries & reduced material waste for rapid prototyping which is ideal for XB-1s small batch, high precision needs. The precision & complexity enabled by the process is far superior to traditional processes such as using CNC machines. VELO3D’s expertise helped accelerate XB-1’s production timeline.

The post processing of the 3D printed titanium parts involved heat treating to enhance mechanical properties, surface finishing to remove any surface irregularities & non destructive testing using X-rays and ultrasonic testing. The finished titanium parts were integrated with the carbon composite fuselage.

The use of 3D titanium parts validated additive manufacturing processes for the Overture. In fact the XB-1 has a total of 193 parts on it that are 3D printed!

Most of the avionics used on the aircraft are standard off the shelf and a few that have been created specifically for the XB-1. The XB-1 sits midway between a fly by wire & a manual system. The reason for this is Boom needed the reliability and simplicity of a manual system for the experimental XB-1 at the same time they wanted to develop engineering expertise for a digital flight control system. The Overture will be a fly by wire aircraft. The engines on the XB-1 are General Electric J-85s with afterburners that produce approximately 4100 pounds of thrust each. The engines themselves date back to the 1950s. The XB-1 was rolled out in 2020, it was only much later (2022) that Boom decided to make its own Symphony engines which were unveiled at the Farnborough International Airshow.

The Overture

As of Jun’24 the Boom Superfactory was completed in North Carolina and currently the Superfactory is being tooled up. The factory will eventually produce 66 aircraft per year. 

Boom is currently prototyping its Symphony engine sprint core using surprise surprise 3D printing! Boom Symphony expects to produce thrust early 2026.

The Overture prototype should be ready by 2029.

The XB-1 ‘ The Little Plane that Could’….. 

The Overture. Note the similarity in wing design to the XB-1. The aircraft underwent a change in design in 2022. Pic Source. Boom website
The original mockup of the XB-1; Pic Source: Wings over Rockies

Read More Amazing Content at: https://theaviationevangelist.com do keep scrolling down, and do share

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr

The Shenyang J-50 / J-XDS

The leaked pictures of the Shenyang J-50 last week on its takeoff roll, with its sleek lines looking like something out of Star Trek raised quite a stir on Social Media.

While the J-50’s tailless design & lambda wings raised eyebrows worldwide, what really got the buzz were the all moving wingtips (AMT) .

Before we get into the evolution of Lambda Wings, let us first investigate the all moving wingtips.

The Shenyang J-50. Note the wingtip angle. Source: X intelligence Pic

The All Moving Wingtips (AMTs)

Tailless flying wings or low drag configurations have always had yaw and pitch control challenges typical only to them. The control challenges have two approaches in the flying wing ecosystem. The drag rudder (made famous by the B2- Spirit & the Ho-229) and the recently made famous all moving wingtip.

The drag rudder schematic. Pic source: screenshot from slope dudes

On the face of it both of them appear to do the same thing but in actuality they are different. 

In AMTs the entire wingtip swivels or pivots, this gets them to act as mini wings, generating lift to create precise pitching/rolling movements with minimal drag.

Split rudders by opening to disrupt airflow create drag based yawing moments, they are effective for directional control in tailless aircraft but less agile for pitch control.

To sum up, on a fighter aircraft which has to be capable of high-alpha (high AoA) movements, AMTs are much more effective than drag rudders which are effective for stable level flight with gentler yaw moments much like a B2’s.

The evolution of AMTs

Right from J W Dunne’s early tailless flying wing designs in the early 1900s, they  had high angle of attack (AoA > 15°) instability, a pitch up due to vortex formations and airflow flow separation. 

Early stability was achieved through wing washout (refer part one of this series), some others such Jack Northrop’s N-1M from 1941 had manually adjustable wingtips that were adjusted preflight. These wingtips moved up and down on the vertical axis (altering the dihedral/anhedral angle relative to the main wing plane), however it was found that drooping wingtips did not contribute to lift and increased drag. Subsequently the wings were left flat inflight.

The Northrop N-1M. Note the dropping wingtips set before flight. Pic Source: Northrop Grumman Corporation on FB

The Ho-229 used elevons, a combination of elevators and ailerons. The elevons on the wingtips leveraged the wings outer sections for a greater moment arm (the perpendicular distance from the axis of rotation to the line of action of a force), improving control authority. The Ho-229’s elevons(which either deflected together or rolled differentially) on the wingtips can be considered  an early precursor to AMTs.

The Short SB.4 Sherpa is considered a milestone in the evolution of AMTs. It had an aero-isoclinic swept wing (maintaining a constant angle of incidence despite wing flexing and air loads, preventing issues like torsional instability, aileron reversal, and tip stalling). It had a 42° leading edge sweep and was designed by G.T.R.Hill who had designed the Westland Pterodactyls & BWB(detailed in parts one & two). The SB.4 Sherpa was the very first aircraft with controllable AMTs and its all moving wingtips acted as elevons (only). The AMTs were 20% of the total wing area and were hinged at 30% chord (means that the pivot point for the elevon was not at the very front of the control surface but further back. This allows the elevon to act more like an all-moving stabiliser and less like a conventional aileron, increasing its control authority).  

The all moving wingtips set before on the SB.4 . Pic Source : Wikipedia

The elevons had a symmetric rotation of ±15° and asymmetric rotation of ±10°. While the design was pathbreaking the electric actuators were slow and underpowered for larger aircraft, limiting scalability. The tests on the SB.4 that ran between 1953-64 confirmed 15% better control at high AoA vs flaps. The SB.4 Sherpa’s cancellation would only highlight the influence AMTs could  have on future aircraft.

During the 1980s the concept of wingerons on RC gliders (C.R. Turbo Kit) came about. They adapted the AMT concept for lightweight, low speed gliders. It became popular in RC communities because it simplified construction and enhanced soaring efficiency. In these gliders either entire wings were pivoted or just wingtip sections around a central joiner (carbon rod). The AMTs improved glide ratios by approx 15% and the wingerons had great performance at high AoAs (greater than 20°). The wingerons were directly inspired by the Horten Brothers and the SB.4 Sherpa.

The 2023 paper ‘Numerical analysis of pitch-break and all moving wingtip aileron of lambda wing configuration’ (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1270963823004054) reflects on decades of tailless aircraft research (ex: SACCON(Stability And Control CONfiguration), 1303 UAV(lambda wing unmanned combat aerial vehicle UCAV, configuration used for extensive aerodynamic and stability studies, notably its low-speed characteristics) and advances in computational fluid dynamics (CFD). It further proposes AMTs on aircraft such as the B-2 & X-47B. The reason for this is pitch break (cites the B-2 crash of 2008) over lambda winged aircraft. Pitch break on a lambda wing aircraft is a sudden and unstable pitch up motion that occurs at high AoA . This aerodynamic instability is caused by the complex flow patterns over the wing at high AoA, particularly flow separation over the outboard portion of the wing. The paper further suggested that Pitch-break on lambda wings is attributed to the combined effects of the leading edge vortex and the trailing edge pressure gradient at high angles of attack. A numerical analysis suggests that an all-moving wingtip (AMT) auxiliary aileron could provide more stable pitch control during the pitch-break zone compared to conventional ailerons, demonstrating engineering feasibility.

The paper’s AMTs or pivoting wingtip sections suggested them to be approx 10-15% of the wingspan, rotated symmetrically for a pitch of ± 10°. The differential rotation for roll of ±8°. To achieve precise control fly by wire is a must and the leveraged wingtips influence spanwise flow by adjusting lift and manipulating wingtip vortices, thereby enhancing aerodynamic stability. The paper references A. Schutte ( German Aerospace Centre (DLR)) & Sedat Yayla  (Kocaeli University) among many others who researched aerodynamic challenges in tailless lambda wing configurations.  

The Shenyang J-50 is a synthesis of all the knowledge gained over 70+ years and applied on a sixth generation fighter. The J-50 likely has its AMTs working in a similar manner as suggested above. The hydraulic actuators driven by fly by wire should have responses of <0.5s with composite hinges. The weight of each wingtip should be <100kg (speculation).

In summation the AMTs on the Shenyang J-50 overcame the challenges the tailless Horten Ho-229 & Sherpa SB.4 elevons faced. It takes the RC community idea of wingerons for low drag rotation and further synthesizes it with the 2000s research to deliver unmatched agility on a tailless lambda wing.

The Evolution of Lambda Wings

Without doubt the most famous lambda ( ƛ )wing is the legendary B-2 Spirit. Lambda wings get their name from the lambda shaped kink on their trailing edges. Almost 40 years after her first flight, she continues to inspire awe and respect. The B-2’s lambda wing design emerged from a combination of Jack Northrop’s (considered one of the fathers of the flying wing) flying wings from the 1940s, the need for stealth and desire for superior aerodynamics. To truly understand the lambda wing, let’s go back to the beginning.

The amazing B-2 Spirit. Note the split rudder on the port (left) wing. The lambda shape clearly visible on the trailing edges. Pic Source : Wikipedia

The basic supersonic shape of a wing is the Delta wing, it shaped like a ⍙ . Triangular in shape with a continuous wing sweep of between 35-60°. Double delta wings have kink on the leading edge a 50-60° sweep (vortex lift) and the outer wing (planar lift) has a sweep of approx 30-40°. The moderate kink blends delta and straight wing traits, improving low speed handling without really compromising high speed performance while maintaining aspect ratio.

The J-50 is a Cranked Lambda(Arrow) Wing which has a sharp kink on the leading edge. The inner wing has a sweep of between 60-70° and the outer wing has a sweep of between 30-40°. Furthermore the trailing edge has a kink (ƛ shaped) on it too and contributes to the J-50s stealth performance.

The cranked lambda wings on the J-50. Note the kinks on the leading and trailing edges. The elevons & wingtips clearly visible. Pic source : China Weibo Image

To fully understand Lambda Wings let’s go back to the beginning. Post WW2 early deltas such as Convair XF-92 (1948) and Dassault Mirage I (1955) had excellent high speed characteristics, but poor low speed handling. Engineers looked at hybrids to balance the two, the cold war dictated fighters capable of Mach 2 intercepts and be agile dog fighters. The answer was the double delta.

The Saab 35 Draken is considered a major milestone as the first operational double delta winged aircraft. It had an inner wing sweep of 80° and an outer wing sweep of 60°, this gave it excellent transonic performance and high maneuverability. The draken had only a vertical stabilizer. The kink improved lift to drag ratio by 10-15% at subsonic speeds compared to pure deltas. The Saab 37 Viggen had canards coupled close to the double delta wing, this boosted low speed agility even more and reduced the incidence of stall by generating additional vortices that interacted with the main wing flow.

The Saab 35 Draken with the leading edge kink. Pic Source: Wikipedia

Through the 1960s & 70s various aircraft experimented with variations of the double delta wings, and some of the notable examples were the XB-70 Valkyrie(1964, please read the detailed piece on it), the Tu-144(1969). These examples highlight design progression toward multi role versatility.

The double delta wing on the TU-144. Pic Source : Aerospaceweb.org

Other examples of evolution of the double delta (kink of leading edge) handling include the General Dynamics F-16XL (1982), developed under NASAs high speed research program. It modified a F-16s cropped delta into a cranked double delta with an inner sweep of 70° and an outer wing sweep of 50° and incorporated an S curve on the leading edge for a smooth flow transition. This design experiment improved fuel efficiency by 25% at subsonic speeds , increased range and had enhanced payload (weapons / fuel). The F-16XL had a vertical stabilizer, but proved double delta wing efficiencies. Through the 80s there were several experimental delta wings such as the Grumman X-29, a forward swept wing with close coupled canards that tested aerodynamic efficiencies.

The F-16XL. Pic Source : Lockheed Martin

The 1997 McDonnell Douglas/Boeing – NASA X-36 was a sub-scale tailless demonstrator with lambda wings and close coupled canards. The X-36 would directly influence UACV designs moving ahead.

In the early 2000s a generic lambda wing was used in transonic research to study complex vortical phenomena that occur at subsonic speeds (Mach 0.5-0.8) on lambda wings. The SACCON was used as a research test bed.

The X-36 & X-45 along with other greats at the USAF Museum. Note the trailing edge kinks on both aircraft. Pic Source : USAF Museum

The 2002 Boeing X-45 was a tailless UCAV demonstrator featuring a cranked lambda wing with a 65° inner wing sweep and a 30° outer wing sweep. The trailing edge kink was in the range of 30°.The wing’s leading edge had a sharp kink and swept back planform aligned edges aided RCS (Radar Cross Section) reduction. The design exhibited improved lift coefficients by 15% at transonic speeds, with vortex lift sustaining high-alpha (high AoA) maneuvers. The X- 45 proved autonomous technology along with lambda wing maneuverability.  

The Northrop Grumman X-47B program that ran between 2011-2015 is another example of lambda wings. The X-47B was a lambda wing UAV to test carrier operations. The program was cancelled in 2015 as engineers struggled to balance stealth, aerodynamics & propulsion. The 2023 paper mentioned earlier recommended AMTs. The program validated the concept of unmanned carrier aviation.

Summation

The cranked lambda wings (a.k.a cranked arrow) represents a move forward and an evolution of the double delta wing design. The design features a more pronounced leading edge kink in the range of an inner sweep of between 60-70° and  an outer wing sweep of 20-40° to optimize transonic efficiency and stealth. The crank enhances lift by between 5-10% in the transonic regime and improves vortex sustainability for better longitudinal stability. The lambda shaped kink (approximately 30°)on the trailing edge improves aerodynamic efficiency across the speed regime in addition to contributing to stealth properties.

The Shenyang J-50 a sixth generation Chinese fighter with it’s cranked lambda wing balances subsonic agility , transonic efficiency and supersonic dashes, with its wingtips enhancing high-alpha control by over 15% over traditional elevons. The wing further aid reduced RCS.

The fly by wire J-50 represents the next step in lambda wing evolution and it combines stealth, autonomy & adaptive surfaces and is definitely up there as far as sixth gen fighters go.

The J-50 prepares to take off. Note the wingtips. Pic Source: X

Please do read parts 1 & 2 of this series:

http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/13/the-evolution-of-the-flying-wing-part-one/

http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/19/the-flying-wing-part-two-the-blended-wing-body/ do keep scrolling down, and do share

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr