Archives for category: Uncategorized

Full Circle Moment

The 2009 IATA Biofuels commitment turned out to be a full circle moment. The commitment did not introduce legally binding quotas on members, but instead made a landmark industrywide commitment to pursue sustainable aviation fuels as a core strategy for decarbonization. This included a pledge to achieve carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onwards (no increase in carbon dioxide emissions from a 2005 baseline) and to cut net carbon emissions in half by 2050 compared once again to a 2005 baseline.(73rd IATA Annual Meeting 2010)

The pledge kickstarted global SAF adoption and over 400,000 commercial flights have used SAF since then (World Economic Forum 2022/ GE Aerospace 2022). The 2009 commitment led to 2021’s ‘Fly Net Zero’ initiative, targeting net-zero emissions by 2050.

This piece looks at not just biofuels but other options as well.

Note the smoke pollution coming off this amazing looking Convair 880. Pic Credit Larry Pullen

The Background

Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) has the following strengths. The first is the ability to operate  at low ambient temperatures,the second is to have a high calorific value, this is measured by the heat produced by a specific quantity, measured as J/kg (1 Wh/kg = 3600 J/kg). The third is volumetric energy density that is the amount of energy that can be stored within a given volume and is measured as Wh/L and ATF with a volumetric energy density of 35 MJ/L has high density. A flashpoint of 49 degrees centigrade obviously makes it combustible and needs to have safety protocols while being handled. Lastly ATF is cheap to manufacture at approx $1.0 per liter. (Aviation Fuel Wikipedia)

By the mid 2000s aviation was under intense scrutiny for its contribution to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Aviation was responsible for approx 2-3% of all carbon dioxide emissions, and was projected to grow rapidly. (expected to be over 25% by 2050).

While other forms of transport (road,rail,sea) had multiple forms of green propulsion coming up mainly dominated by electricity. Aviation had yet to see any move in the direction of decarbonizing. While the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference emphasized sector specific emission reductions there were other contributory incidents as well.

The 2008 financial crisis led to oil spiking at $147/barrel in July of that year and this only drove the point home to airlines, the need to hedge against fossil fuels. Biofuels did offer a hedge against this dependence, potentially stabilizing costs, Giovanni Bisignani of IATA emphasized that fuel innovation was key or else fuel would account for over 40% of airline costs by 2020 ( Reuters Factbox 2008, multiple sources)

By 2009, airframe and engine manufacturers had validated biofuels performance & safety and Virgin Atlantic flew the first flight with a SAF blend in 2008. Furthermore biofuels did not require any aircraft or engine modifications unlike electricity or hydrogen.

Growing calls from countries & private bodies like ICAO further influenced IATA to work on emissions reductions. Aviation was included by the EU in its emission trading system (ETS, a cap and trade policy that sets a cap on the total GHG emissions from specific industries) and added financial incentives/penalties for decarbonization. The commitment preempted stricter regulations through self regulation and fostered collaborations like the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group that was launched in 2008 and united producers, airlines & NGOs to ensure biofuels met sustainability criteria.

SAF

The roots of the idea of SAF can be traced back to the mid 20th Century with the 1940s Fischer-Tropsch (FT) Synthesis. The process which has its roots back in the 1920s was developed by German scientists Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch to convert coal or biomass into liquid hydrocarbons, including kerosene like fuels (ATF is kerosene). While originally developed to overcome wartime shortages, FT synthesis laid the foundational work of producing jet fuel from non fossil sources.

The Oil shocks of the 1970s further spurred global interest in developing alternative fuels. In 1974 Brazil started the ProAlcool program which produced bioethanol from sugarcane for road transport vehicles. This program demonstrated the scalability of biofuels and catalysed interest in bio-jet fuels.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol further heightened global focus on GHG emissions. Aviation, which then contributed about 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, was growing rapidly with no alternatives to ATF came under scrutiny. Initial studies focussed on adapting ethanol and biodiesel processes,  but jet fuel’s need for high calorific values at low ambient temperatures shifted focus to hydrotreating (process of removing impurities such as sulphur and improving fuel quality) & FT synthesis.

Recognizing that biofuels were the path to decarbonizing, with minimal changes to aircraft & infrastructure, the concept of drop-in fuels gained traction. The SAF concept crystallized in 2005 as the quickest solution and was adopted by IATA in 2009 using 2005 as a baseline.DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) took specific interest in this project.

The newfound synergy between all the stakeholders resulted in the first tangible steps. Honeywell UOP partnered with DARPA to develop the renewable jet fuel process. Boeing collaborated with airlines, fuel producers & research facilities to further explore the practical application of bio jet-fuel.

SAF is produced through multiple refining processes that convert feedstocks into drop-in fuels. These processes or pathways convert diverse raw materials such as waste oils, biomass or captured carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons that mimic fossil based jet fuel while reducing lifecycle GHG emissions by 80%.

HEFA (Hydrotreated Esters & Fatty Acids) uses feedstocks of waste cooking oils & animal fats removes oxygen from triglycerides & fatty acids ( fat the human body stores, remember this is from cooking oil)producing paraffinic hydrocarbons (linked carbon and hydrogen atoms, found in fuels and known for their clean burning, high energy density properties)via hydrogenation.Simply put it is gather the grease, remove the oxygen, make fuel like molecules by adjusting the molecular chains or makes fuel from unwanted oils. This process produces top quality SAF. HEFA competes with bio diesel and has limited feedstock availability. However this is still the dominant process and accounts for 80% of all current SAF production. (companies : Neste)

The FT Synthesis uses biomass such as agricultural & municipal waste as feedstock. The biomass is gasified into syngas (carbon monoxide & hydrogen), then catalytically converted into liquid hydrocarbons, which are then refined into jet fuel. While feedstocks are flexible which translates to potentially high volumes, the high capital costs & energy intensive nature of gasification plants are obstacles to the adoption. While certified in 2009, the FT synthesis process is still niche.

Synthesized iso-Paraffins (SIP) / Direct Sugar to Hydrocarbon (DSHC) uses sugars such as sugarcane or corn syrup as feedstock. Fermentation converts sugars into farnesane, a hydrocarbon, which is then hydroprocessed into jet fuel. While this process produces high density fuel, it is a niche pathway with a limited blend ratio and is expensive to produce. (companies: Amyris)

Alcohol to Jet (ATJ) uses ethanol or isobutanol from biomass as feedstock. Alcohols are dehydrated (water is removed), oligomerized (smaller molecules for more efficient & cleaner burning) & hydroprocessed (refined using hydrogen under heat and pressure)to form jet fuel hydrocarbons. Certified in 2016 this process leverages existing ethanol infrastructure and uses versatile feedstocks, however this process is complex and multi-layered, leading to higher costs. (companies: Gevo, LanzaTech)

Power to Liquid (PtL) / Synthetic Fuels (e-SAF) uses carbon dioxide captured from the air directly  and green hydrogen (from electrolysis using renewable energy) as feedstock. The carbon & hydrogen are combined using FT or methanol synthesis to produce synthetic hydrocarbons which are refined into jetfuel.While this is still an emerging process, it is an extremely niche method & energy intensive,it is reliant on cheap renewable electricity. The RefuelEU is an aviation initiative that requires 1.2% e-SAF by 2030.

There are multiple other emerging pathways such as Hydroprocessed Hydrocarbons (HH-SPK) that use algae oils, this is not scaled as it damages ecosystems. Catalytic Hydrothermolysis (CHJ) that converts oils/fats under high pressure & temperature. Lignocellulosic (plant biomass) pyrolysis is the fast pyrolysis (decomposition through high temperatures) into bio-oil, this is an experimental process that upgrades bio-oil to jet fuel.

HEFA dominates at the moment because of its maturity & cost effectiveness, but PtL & ATJ are growing fast. Current global SAF production is at 2.5 bn liters/year ( IATA , Jun 2025 press release )of the total global ATF requirement of 300 bn liters/year.

Neste is the world’s leading SAF producer with operations in 14 countries. Its strategy is centered around HEFA technology using its patented NEXBTL technology to produce high quality SAF. It has the early mover advantage and has been helped by EU policy ensuring a ready market for its SAF. Neste prioritizes 100% waste and residue materials such as cooking oil and animal fat waste. It avoids food competing crops such as palm oil (phased out in 2020). Neste produces 25% of global SAF with three refineries, supplies over 20 airlines and airports and uses logistics partner skyNRG for blending & distribution.

SAF continues to face challenges such as limited waste oil supply, and it costs between 2-3x(World Economic Forum, “The cost of sustainable aviation fuel: Can the industry clear this key hurdle?” July 2025). that what ATF costs, however global policy shifts ensure this fuel is the quickest off the blocks in the decarbonization race.

Note: Could not avoid the chemical terms, have tried to explain them succinctly 

Hydrogen

Hydrogen has always featured in aviation almost from the beginning. Starting with the early 20th Century when it was used for buoyancy on early airships such as the Zeppelin LZ1 as far back as 1900. Hydrogen is known for its high energy density by weight and is seen as a potential fuel due to its zero carbon emissions.

During the 1930s German engineers conducted turbojet experiments using gaseous hydrogen laying the groundwork for cryogenic (hydrogen needs to be stored at -252.8 degrees C for storage efficiency and maximize payload and range. Cryogenic LH2 tanks, though insulated and complex, enable aircraft to carry sufficient fuel for long flights). Gaseous hydrogen would require impractically large tanks, reducing payload or making the aircraft design unfeasible. This was followed by Sikorsky Aircraft proposing liquid hydrogen as a fuel. By the 1950s liquid hydrogen production was scaled for rocket applications. The USAF’s ‘Project Bee’ began with a Martin B-57B Canberra bomber becoming the World’s first airplane powered by liquid hydrogen. Skunk Works led by Kelly Johnson developed the CL-400 Suntan as a reconnaissance aircraft that ran on P&W’s model 304 hydrogen engines. The project itself was cancelled but advanced liquid hydrogen’s production & tankage for the space program.

Between the 1960s-80s both the US & Soviet Union ran tests on passenger airliners using liquid hydrogen as propulsion. Lockheed looked at 130-140 passenger transports with ranges between 2700 – 9300km and the Soviet Union used a Tu-155 with a Hydrogen fueled engine. Both the programs highlighted storage and boil off challenges.

By the 1980s aerospace research considered hydrogen a clean and promising fuel for long range aircraft because of its high energy content and low emissions. Messerschmitt Bölkow Blohm (MBB) , the company that included the historic Messerschmitt Aircraft Company, was heavily involved in hydrogen research. The company was acquired by Deutsche Aerospace AG (DASA) which in turn would be acquired by Airbus. In November 1989 a major European Colloquium was held in Strasbourg, Germany. The main topic of the Colloquium was the future of supersonic & hypersonic transportation systems, here a paper on hydrogen as a propellant was presented. While MBB was a major player in the hydrogen space in Europe, there were others as well.

By the late 1990s the Hydrogen Cell Era had begun and between 2000-2002 the Airbus led the Cryoplane study which was funded by the European Commission had assessed liquid hydrogen configurations for biz jets and widebody airliners, it emphasized safety and infrastructure transitions.

In April 2008 Boeing’s fuel cell demonstrator , a modified Diamond DA20 eclipse became the first manned aircraft to fly solely on a hydrogen fuel cell (HFC). It was powered by Intelligent Energy’s 24 kW Proton Exchange membrane (PEM) system (the PEM is key to splitting hydrogen molecules, the electrons are stripped and forced into the electrical circuit generating electricity, while protons head to the cathodes)  reaching 1,000 meters altitude at 100 km/h for 20 minutes.

Over the next decade multiple organizations such as The German Aerospace Centre, Boeing, AeroVironment etc would make advances in the field of hydrogen flight endurance, altitude,storage pressure (hydrogen being gaseous needs to be cooled and stored cryogenically to maximize fuel), fuel cell architecture. These advances set the ground for the next decade.

The decade of the 2020s has seen increased activity with Airbus announcing its ZEROe project with four hydrogen (combustion & fuel cell) concepts targeting the aircraft in the 100-200 passenger range. While most of the aircraft are conventional there is a Blended Wing Body being tested as well. Airbus targets 2035 for its first first craft with zero emissions.

ZeroAvia is a British/American Hydrogen aircraft developer. In 2020 they tested a hydrogen powertrain on a retrofitted Piper M-class and completed their first eight minute flight. The testbed crashed in 2021  at Cranfield during a power system test, nobody was hurt.Since then ZeroAvia has procured two Dornier 228 . One flew in 2023 for ten minutes with one of its engines powered by hydrogen electricity. ZeroAvia has partnered with Textron Aviation, the parent of Cessna, to develop a hydrogen powered Cessna Grand Caravan.

Universal Hydrogen is yet another company in the field, converting an ATR72-500 & Bombardier Dash 8-300 to hydrogen using hydrogen conversion kits to be retrofitted to flying aircraft. There are multiple other companies in the field focusing on different types of aircraft.

Over the next 25 years expect to see the commercial viability & scalability of hydrogen fuel established in multiple aircraft segments. Airbus definitely heads the area, but there are developments happening across multiple companies and aircraft types. What is critical are the proving flights of today.

Electric

The biggest challenge that electric aircraft face is their energy density. Current lithium-ion batteries have an energy density of 250 Wh/kg which is below ATFs 12,000 Wh/kg. This clearly limits range (once again range anxiety), furthermore batteries add significant weight while reducing payload capacity. Nonetheless, short taxi services are still very much in the picture.

Joby Aviation plans to launch commercial taxi services in Dubai & Los Angeles. They plan to have electric vertical takeoff & landing (eVTOL) services. In 2023 they delivered their first eVTOL aircraft to Edwards AFB and have flown their S4, a four rotor electric eVTOL vehicle in urban settings such as New York. Interestingly the S4 can also be converted to hydrogen and has flown a record 523 miles in this form! They have a couple of interesting acquisitions. The first is XWing which they acquired in 2024. XWing focuses on autonomous aircraft and in a capacity constrained aircraft, autonomy means extra space to sell. The second is Blade Air Mobility’s ride share business. Blade Air Mobility is an urban air mobility platform.

The biggest hurdle to Electric propulsion is battery density and weight. Density is expected to reach approx 400-500 Wh/kg by 2030, this clearly helps with range.

Electricity is definitely on the cusp of revolutionizing urban air mobility and this is predicted to be a $1 tn market annually by 2040. The next generation of batteries are expected to be in the 500-1000 Wh/kg range and this definitely improves range and enables larger aircraft.

Hybrid electric aircraft such as the Airbus E-Fan X bridge the gap between current technology and full electric systems, offering a path to decarbonize larger aircraft using electricity.

The Future

As of today the aviation industry is midway through its decarbonizing journey. The progress is accelerating as is seen from the advances in the last ten years. SAF has scaled from 0.1% of total ATF in 2020 to approx 0.3% or 2 billion liters.Over 400,000 flights have flown using ATF blended with SAF. By 2030 we can expect to see aircraft using 100% SAF. (Robb Report Apr’23)

Hydrogen is still in its infancy, however flights such as ZeroAvia’s 19 seater demonstrator prove feasibility. With almost a dozen aircraft in development, hydrogen powered aircraft should enter service by 2030. By 2035 we can see hydrogen powering about 15% of short haul flight below 1000 km. (ZeroAvia, McKinsey, Decarbonizing the aviation sector, Jul 2022)

Electric aircraft are on the cusp of revolutionizing VTOLs. Companies such as Joby & Archer aviation are planning commercial services by 2026.With rising battery densities , we expect aircraft applications to only increase from here. By 2050 expect eVTOls to handle 13% of all urban mobility trips rising from 5% in 2030. (Icct2020 Jul 2020)

Together these technologies are plugging critical gaps to meet the 2050 net-zero target. This means reducing aviation emissions from one billion tons per annum in 2025 to near zero. SAF with proper blending will account 65% of this with production reaching 450 billion liters by 2050. Hydrogen will complement approx 20-25% of SAFs targets by powering regional flights of below 2000km. Electric aircraft will dominate the short range (below 500km) with 20% of urban trips & 10% of regional flights covering a total of between 10-15% of total flight segments by 2050.

Collaboration & Continued Innovation is key…

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 BWB is Born

As J W Dunne was conducting his early flying wing tests, there were  developments happening across the Atlantic in Europe. For the very first time, engineers were thinking of using the insides of the wings. A design philosophy was born.

The JetZero Z4. Pic Source: JetZero Website

The Pioneers

In 1910 Hugo Junkers of Germany patented a cantilever tailless wing design. It was an all metal construction (almost all aircraft until then were fabric and wood construction). Such a design & construction would be without any external wires or braces. Furthermore the wings could be hollow and the space used to house passengers, cargo and fuel. His designs were used by the Germans in WW1 and later in WW2 (he was ousted from his company in 1933 by the Nazis). 

The G-38 of 1929 was a major innovation of his blended wing concept and was for a time the largest landbased aircraft in the World. The passengers were seated in the wings which were 5 feet 7 inches thick at the root. The leading edges of the wings had sculpted windows giving passengers a panoramic view as they flew. There were three 11 seat cabins,in addition to smoking & wash rooms. The wings had a gangway through them that allowed mechanics to work on engines while inflight, a first. There were two operating aircraft and flew through to 1941(both flew until 1936)  before the final one crashed.

The G.38 schematic . Pic Source : Wikipedia

The Mitsubishi Ki-20 was based on the Junkers G-38. Six were built as heavy bombers between 1931-35. During WW2 they saw active combat. These aircraft were considered secret and their existence only made public in 1940.

Nicolas Woyevodsky was a Russian Aerodynamicist who filed a 1911 patent called ‘Aircraft’. Here’s where the patent gets interesting. It was filed in the United States in 1911 and granted in 1921 ( how and why did a Russian file for a patent in the USA and why did it take so long?). Not much else is known about this path breaking scientist other than his name, country of origin and patent.

The patent spoke of a continuous airfoil section integrating the fuselage and wings, what we now call the BWB. The patent further described a triangular shaped body with pterygoid (triangular) aerofoil sections that enclosed the engines and passengers. Such a construction would reduce drag and weight enhancing lift. This was considered revolutionary as most aircraft were biplanes with separate fuselage and wings.

The Westland Dreadnought. Pic Source: Wikipedia

Woyevodsky’s 1921 patent led to wind tunnel tests (probably in Russia & Britain) and validated his theory which led to designer GTR Hill of Westland designing and building the dreadnought. GTR Hill was already experimenting with the Westland Pterodactyl. The Pterodactyl was a revolutionary flying wing and flew through the 1920s & 30s in the hunt for a safer aircraft. The Dreadnought unfortunately crashed on its very first flight. After an initial stable take off and stable flight the Dreadnought stalled at 100 feet altitude and crashed, seriously injuring the pilot. The design was abandoned at the time, however It is recognized and appreciated by history.

The British further tried to pursue the BWB airliner design in the late 1930s & 40s through the Miles M.26 & M.30. The data was useful, however a full scale prototype was never constructed.

The BWF (Blended Wing Fuselage)

The timeline between the 1940s & 1990s is a BWB gap (very similar to the flying wings but longer, aviation development had moved rapidly in the direction of conventional aircraft ),except for the military applications between the 1950s – 1980s when the BWF was used. The A-12 Oxcart and its successor the  SR-71 pioneered the BWF design. The BWF integrates the fuselage and wings in a smooth aerodynamic transition, however the fuselage continues to be a distinct structure. 

The SR-71 schematics. The fuselage chine clearly visible. Pic Source : Wikipedia

Such a design used the fuselage as a lifting body, and the chines around the body contribute between 15-30% of total lift generated. The design used Area ruling and mitigated parasitic & wave drag through smooth transitions.

In the 1970s the Rockwell B-1 introduced variable geometry to the BWF. The wings pivoted on 6 ton hinges which are buried inside a wide fuselage. The BWF of the B-1B contributes approx 15-20% of the total required lift. 

The B-1B Lancer & The Tu-160 Blackjack. Note their similarities. The BWF clearly visible on both. Pic Source: Wikipedia

The Tu-160 which has a very similar design to the B-1 has an even larger BWF. The BWF contributed approx 18-25% of the total lift in supersonic flight.

All the aircraft mentioned had variable geometry inlets of various types (spikes / ramps).

The BWB Evolution

The Generation 1 BWB’s commenced in the 1990s and ran through to the 2010s. They represented the ‘ High Risk High Reward’ approach to BWBs where they envisioned extra large 800 seat BWBs with maximum aerodynamic efficiency. This meant Boundary Layer Ingestion (BLI) of the engines and integrating them inside the airframe. This proved to be difficult to accomplish & certify.

The NASA/McDonnell Douglas Studies were funded by NASA between 1993-96. The studies included wind tunnel tests of tailless BWB concepts at 1-6% scale. Models tested had the centre body contributing between 31-43% of total lift and exhibited between 6-8% fuel savings. 

NASA BWB-17 was tested between 1997-2000. With a 17 foot wingspan, the 6% scale RC model was built by Stanford University for NASA. The model demonstrated low drag and had centrebody lift of between 30-40%. The model proved BWB flight handling with a tailless design. The BWB-17 had stability issues and needed artificial stabilization to correct. The model further highlighted scaling & control issues on larger aircraft.

The BWB-17 by NASA. Pic Source : NASA

Boeing Phantom Works BWB studies ran between 2000-2007. Post the McDonnell Douglas acquisition of 1997, Boeing continued to build on the earlier program that ran between 1993-96. 

Part of the program was to construct the 35 foot wingspan X-48A demonstrator in 2004, however the program was cancelled before construction began. In 2005 a 12 foot wingspan BWB model was constructed to study transonic aerodynamics in a wind tunnel. This model exhibited a 15-20% drag reduction and lift to drag ratio of 20-23. As the project was for 450 seat passenger airliners it highlighted manufacturing complexity & airport compatibility issues.

The Boeing X-48B program ran between 2007-2010. It was a 8.5% scale 21 foot wingspan model that was powered by three jet engines and flew between Mach 0.3-0.7. The centrebody contributed 35% of the lift and had L/D improvements of approx 20% over conventional designs. The X-48B continued to have challenges with yaw handling and full size scaling. Furthermore engine out control and stall characteristics were tested and needed improvement. The aircraft needed artificial stability management.

The X-48B. Pic Source : NASA

The Generation 2 BWBs run from approx 2010 to date. Gen 2 highlights a safety first approach to design and has podded engines mounted above the airframe. The realistic path sacrificed potential efficiencies for safety with the approach. The Gen 2 BWBs also explored different propulsion types.

NASA N2A/B/C BWB concepts ran between 2010-2015. The concept was for a 300-450 passenger aircraft. Conducted in partnership with Boeing the N2A had two podded engines mounted on top of the upper surface of the aircraft. Wind tunnel testing was done to study its aerodynamic and acoustic performance at low speeds. The N2B used BLI and had embedded engines. While the N2B showed improvements over the performance of the N2A, the embedded engines increased manufacturing complexity. The N2C was a supersonic concept. The data gleaned from these concepts was to inform the future aviation industry on future design areas.

The Boeing X-48C first flew in 2012. With a wingspan of 21 feet it was a 8.5% scale of a large transporter. The C was focussed on noise reduction and featured vertical surfaces adjacent to the engines.The Modified X-48B had an extended aft fuselage on which the engines were mounted. It completed its 30th and final flight in 2013.

 

The X-48C. Pic Source : NASA

NASA N3-X Hybrid Wing Body that ran between 2013-2018 is a concept design. NASA tests such concepts through computer simulations and & wind tunnels. The research was on advanced technologies and propulsion. Some of the concepts explored included Turbo Electric Distributed Propulsion where instead of large engines, smaller electric fans distributed propulsion across the aircraft. Another concept explored was the Superconducting Power System, where superconducting technology allows for high power density with minimum energy loss. Others included wingtip generators and liquid hydrogen cooling. 

The N3-X can achieve a 70% reduction in fuel burn, significantly lower emissions and noise levels while maintaining performance at the same time.

The Airbus Maverick began development in 2017. With a wingspan of 10.6 feet and a length of 6.7 feet, the Maverick had two engines to the rear with each having a vertical fin on it. The model explored aerodynamic and technical specifications and results were encouraging .

The Airbus Maverick. Pic Source : Airbus

Airbus has further built on its BWB program by targeting 2035 as the first year for a zero emission aircraft. Such an aircraft would use hydrogen combustion or cells for propulsion. Storing Hydrogen is a big challenge in aviation and the BWB is considered an excellent test design. Airbus is further  studying conventional aircraft for its zero emission program. 

JetZero 

JetZero is founded by Mark Page a BWB pioneer. He was part of the seminal NASA / McDonnell Douglas collaboration on the BWB program as technical program manager. NASA concieved the program as a challenge to rethink aircraft design for greater efficiency. The program (although Mark was not part of it after 1996) culminated in the BWB-17(spoken of earlier) the very first BWB of the modern era. It was inspired By Northrop’s flying wings of the 1940s but was a completely fresh approach to aircraft design. The BWB design was co-created with Robert Liebeck & Blaine Rawdon and offered 20-30% better L/D ratios than conventional aircraft. The three of them authored ‘Beyond Tube and Wing’ in 2020 in which they charted the path to the BWB design.

The philosophy was Multidiciplanry Optimization (MDO) integrationg aerodynamics, engines, stability and internal structures to minimize drag and maximize efficiency. Page virewed the BWB as the fundamental reimagining of an aircraft blending wing and body into a seamless flowing structure. In one presentation Page mentioned imagine a Boeing 777 fuselage cut up into three parts and placed side by side. You then stick wings on the first and last sections, the middle one being the longest (with the cockpit) and place the engines on top of the stacked side by side fuselage, and lastly smooth them all together into one fused structure.

Page’s contributions influenced the X-48B/C programs as well. These programs validated the theory of BWBs with subscale models and wind tunnel testing. They sorted out  issues such as space by moving the main landing gear to the rear of the aircraft from the centre, saving space and increasing passenger numbers another example is sorting out pitch stability control issues with belly flaps, every thought had to be out of the box.

Later in 2012 Page co-founded DZYNE Technologies as chief scientist & VP and here he continued to focus on aircraft with high lifting efficiency , but the BWB bug was always there, first as a business jet and later as an airliner. In 2021 Page along with Tom O’Leary founded JetZero to take forward the BWB vision.

Page has mentioned that startups like JetZero are ideally placed to revolutionize the aircraft manufacturing space as they do not have massive legacy businesses that need to transition ex : Boeing & Airbus.

So far it has walked the talk with Alaska & United Airlines investing in JetZero through their investment arms. Delta Airlines is a strategic partner sharing expertize from a customer engagement perspective. In addition JetZero are talking to 14 other airlines and the USAF has awarded a $235 million contract to JetZero to build a full scale demonstrator, but we are getting ahead of ourselves.

The 12.5% scale JetZero pathfinder with its 21 foot wingspan first flew in 2023 and received FAA clearance in 2024. The USAF found the Pathfinder to exhibit similar characteristics to the X-48 program and has given the go ahead to JetZero to create a full scale demonstrator which is to be ready by the first quarter of 2027. The demonstrator is being constructed by Scaled Composites founded by the legendary Burt Rutan who has aircraft/spacecraft such as Spaceship One (won the Ansari X Prize) and Stratolaunch to his credit. Scaled Composites is now part of Northrop Grumman (its amazing the name Northrop is involved here, a doff of the hat to Jack Northrop).

The Z4 is a multirole platform and can be used for both passengers & military applications such as a sky tanker (the USAF is looking at the KC-Z4 as a replacement to its aging KC-135 tanker). To cut down the development & certification runway JetZero will be using Commercial off the shelf (COTS) parts where possible. 

The KC-Z4. Pic Source : JetZero Website

The engine choice is Pratt & Whitney PW2040 each generating approx 43,000 pounds of thrust. These are the very engines that powered the Boeing 757 & the Boeing C-17 Globemaster. While the design of the engines might be almost 50 years old, they are tried and tested and have a solid track record. Delta have provided three engines for the demonstrator. These engines are more than capable of managing the Z4s 5,000 nm range and cruise altitude of 45,000 feet. They will obviously be modernized for the production models. In future the Z4 might be offered with newer engines. Mark Page did note they were not looking for perfect tech, but are more interested in proving the airframe.

The JetZero Z4. Pic Source : JetZero Website

The fuselage ( after the demonstrator)will be made of composites and be manufactured at their Greensboro facility. Some of the other innovations it will have are shorter landing gear to enhance low speed handling, cargo door matching the KC-10 size (USAF applications). The passenger experience stresses comfort & efficiency (the 3D renderings on the JetZero website look stunning).

The personal passenger experience aims to revolutionized by offering larger seats, flexible cabin layout and dedicated overhead bin space (have forgotten what this feels like!). Instead of physical windows JetZero plans on high definition exterior cameras that provide a live view on digital windows. There is a possibility of overhead windows as well in addition to mood lighting.

While the overall exterior design of the aircraft is very sculpted, Page and his colleagues came up with a ‘ T ‘ shaped plug solution to scaling up the aircraft to either smaller or larger capacities, this means the aircraft construction has to be modular in nature almost like ‘LEGO’ !! They did this back in the 90s and the 25 year limit on the patent has expired, in Page’s own words “ I am happy to have it back” !

Page giving a DZYNE Technologies presentation in 2018 where describes the T shaped plugs that sum up the scalability of the BWB. Note their similarities plugs next to the engines. Pic Source : Page presentation off YT

Mark Page emphasizes pragmitism over perfection and this is achieved by delivering on the USAF contract, using milestones to attact fresh funding (the Z4 is expected to cost approx $5-7bn to develop as per Jon Ostrower of TAC) and target the largest market segment for aircraft the 200-250 passenger aircraft market worth over $2.5 Bn per annum. With projected savings of 50%, this will be a no-brainer for airlines future fleet decision making.

BWBs have promises to keep…..

Please be sure to read Part 1 of the two part series which details the evolution of the flying wing in detail at http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/13/the-evolution-of-the-flying-wing-part-one/

End of Part 2

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

Prologue

On June 22nd 2025 seven B-2A bombers carried out strikes in Iran. The total sortie codenamed ‘Operation Midnight Hammer’ lasted 37 hours. They dropped a total of 14 GBU-57 bunker buster bombs on Iran’s Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant & Natanaz Nuclear Facility . 

The sortie only strengthened the B-2’s formidable reputation of striking distant targets unseen & unheard.. 

The B-2 Spirit is a major milestone in the ongoing evolution of the flying wing.

The Pioneers

Before we get to J W Dunne (considered the father of the flying wing) , we need to first acknowledge a couple of important milestones. The first is Sir George Cayley who in 1799 put forth the concept of a fixed wing ‘machine’, one that had separate systems for creating lift, propulsion & control surfaces. He is the first person to understand the forces that act on a flying machine, weight, lift, drag & thrust. Later in 1810 he worked out the importance of having a dihedral angle at wing roots. The upward angle of wings was “the chief basis of stability in aerial navigation”. It needs to be noted Sir George Cayley was more intent on sharing his knowledge rather than patenting them, and therein lies his greatness.

The second is Alphonse Penaud , best known for his 1871 ‘Planophore’ , a rubberband powered model plane. The design achieved stable flight for 40 seconds demonstrating the stability of fixed wing aircraft designs over any others (such as ornithopters). He teamed up with mechanic Paul Gauchot in 1873 and they patented the monoplane flying wing in 1876. The structure of the ‘flying wing’ had a slight dihedral angle which provided roll stability, they had unswept wingtips and a slight arch on the leading edge with elastic trailing edges, this gave the wing better flexibility when dealing with unstable airflow. The patent contained a detailed performance analysis and is an important milestone as it integrated fixed wings, propulsion & control surfaces into a flyable machine decades before powered flight became a reality.

Alphonse Penaud’s 1876 Flying Wing. Pic Source : Wikipedia

Between 1906 – 1913 J W Dunne ran his experiments on ‘inherent stability’. From a military background, Dunne collaborated with Col. J E Capper at the British Army’s Balloon Factory to test early designs of his tailless gliders with swept wings. In 1908 his D.1b glider exhibited stable glides after the earlier D.1 crashed unceremoniously. The D.1b ‘s ‘inherent stability’ was achieved through tailless wing design alone.

The D.5 & D.8 were powered tailless biplanes (flying wing configuration) with sweeps up to 30 degrees. The wings featured a washout (a twist reducing the angle of attack at the wingtips) for enhanced stability. The D.5 demonstrated a hands-off flight while Dunne was reading a newspaper). This was a first in the early days of powered flight. The D.10 saw further refinements with a more streamlined design. Dunne’s use of Elevons (combination elevators & ailerons) is considered a first. His designs definitely helped reduce pilot work load. His work would be foreshadowed for the next ten years.

The Dunne D.5. Pic source: Wikipedia
The Dunne D.8 Pic Source : Wikipedia

In 1910 the same year Dunne filed his patents, Hugo Junkers too filed a patent for a ‘flying wing or Nurflugel (pure wing). It was for a hollow metal airliner where passengers would sit inside the wing structure (an early blended wing). The fuel and cargo would be in the wings too.  Long-term he envisioned transatlantic flights in such airplanes. His designs had structural integrity due to all metal structures with cantilevered wings and small tails for stability. The G38 was an example of his ideology. He was thrown out of his own company in 1933 as he disagreed with Nazi ideologies.

The Junkers G-38 of 1929. Pic Sour : Wikipedia

Between the wars Germany was not allowed to build powered aircraft and this gave rise to a number of glider clubs . Alexander Lippisch worked at Junkers between 1925-27 and this inspired him to take up the ‘nurflugel’ torch. His Storch series of gliders were tailless with swept wings. His Delta series of gliders explored low aspect ratio wings for better roll control. His gliders featured wingtip rudders and elevons. By the early 1930s he had contracted with DFS (Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Segelflug a.k.a German Institute of Glider Research, a Nazi front) for powered prototypes such as the 1931 DFS 40, a rocket powered tailless plane. Lippisch directly inspired two young brothers who would go on to create one of the most fabled aircraft of all time, enter Reimar & Walter Horten and the aircraft they would create the Ho-229.  

The Lippisch, Storch & Delta gliders. Pic source Wikipedia

Mentions: The powered Cheyranovskii BICh-3 Tailless research aircraft of 1926 & G T R Hill’s Westland Pterodactyl series of tailless gliders between 1926-32. Hill would go on to design and construct the Westland Dreadnought, the very first purpose built Blended Wing Body.

The sequence of events mentioned above illustrates the evolution of wings over an almost 200 year period starting with Sir George Cayley. The unveiling of the B-2 Spirit in 1988 was 112 years after Alphonse Penaud’s patent of 1876. During the early years of aviation, patents filed in different countries could be viewed or accessed through scientific journals, world fairs & patent translating offices.  Percolation of ideas was slow and the timespan mentioned above makes the point.

The Horten Brothers

Between the wars in Germany several ‘civil clubs’ sprung up where students trained on gliders under the supervision of WW1 veterans. By the mid-late 1920s, the young brothers, heavily influenced by Alexander Lippisch began experimenting with tailless gliders. Their recollections in later life mention they turned their bedroom, attic & basement at home into a workshop, cluttering their family home in Bonn with airplane models. The home based experimentation was important to their later productions. Their gliders were simple tailless constructions with a cocoon for a pilot integrated into the design. The models focussed on keeping parasitic drag (all objects experience drag through the air) down and had better performance than conventional designs.

By 1931 the brothers had moved their activities to Bonn-Hangelar Field, a gliding club where they had access to mentoring, tools & materials from more experienced aviators. Their first full scale glider was the Horten H-I from 1931 and had a 40 foot wingspan, it was constructed of wood and fabric. The design integrated swept wings & elevons.

By the mid 1930s (1933-1937) the Hortens were further refining their designs at Wassekrupp, Germany’s Mecca of gliding. They too had support from the DFS and constructed their subsequent designs (Horten H-II – H-IV).

Each model kept growing in size. The H-II had a 52 foot wingspan while the H-III & H-IV each had a 80 foot wingspan. The materials used got better with funding from DFS, for example they began using plywood i.s.o fabric. The internal structure moved from wood on the initial models to steel and aluminum in later ones. 

H-III was a motorized version which had a 32hp VW engine driving a foldable propeller. Model H-IV was a high performance pure glider.

The models exhibited a bell shaped lift distribution curve across the wing. It is higher near the wing root and tapers off near the wingtips with a smooth non linear profile. This sort of lift balances efficiency & stability and is essential for gliders with no engine to compensate for inefficiencies. The non-linear curve is important as the bell has a flatter peak and falls off at the tips, meaning optimal lift is maintained for longer. 

The gliders achieved this with swept wings of up to 30 degrees, the wingtips had washout built into them and had variable chord, meaning they tapered toward the wingtips from the wing roots. An example of this lift efficiency is when the H-III achieved flights as long as 300 km. 

Reimar Horten’s focus on lift distribution gave their designs a glide ratio of 30:1 i.e they could glide thirty times their height in distance. The focus on lift distribution is also one of the possibilities of the Ho-229’s ‘ stealth properties’ which we speak of later. Ludwig Prandtl was the scientist credited with presenting the concept of spanwise lift distribution in 1919 , Reimar Horten adapted Prandtl’s insights fifteen years later.

The H-V (1937-1943) was an exception to the materials the Horten brothers used for their gliders. They used experimental plastics. The H-V is considered the very first composite materials aircraft, however the first prototype crashed on its very first flight and Hortens reverted to wood as their material of choice. The H-V had a 46 foot wingspan and was powered by two 79 hp Hirth HM 60 R engines from the mid 1920s, powering pusher propellers. Specs gleaned from wikipedia showed the H-Vb(the second of three built) had a cruise speed of 230 km/h and a landing speed of 70 km/h.

It is just about here we observe the iterative design approach the Hortens took. They alternated each glider model with a motorized version, the H-III had a motor as did the H-V, H-VII & H-IX.

The H-VI (1944) reverted back to pure glider form after the learnings from the H-V and had significant design improvements such as a very high aspect ratio of 32.4 and a 80 foot wingspan. The wings had a sweep back of 20 degrees. The refined control surfaces were drawn from H-V data. The model had extensive stall behavior examination using tuft tests done on it. A tuft test is where strings of yarn (tufts) are attached to the entire wing surface and the aircraft is tested either in a wind tunnel (or in the Hortens case in flight). Attached airflow shows the tufts align smoothly with the laminar airflow. Separated flow is when the tufts begin to flutter erratically. Using this test is important to identify stall onset, control effectiveness, drag data & tip stall mitigation.

The H-VII(1944) was once again the H-V under a new guise. It was powered by two 240 hp Argus AS 10C engines. The V8s powered propellers once again in pusher configuration. The pilot seating was side by side vs the H-Vs semi prone position. Key increments included better control surfaces (elevons, spoilers & drag rudders) and in general a more robust internal structure for longer operations.The H-VII had a cruise speed of 300 km/h and service ceiling of over 21,000 feet. (source wikipedia).

The H-VIII(1945) was an upscaled version of the H-VII. It was sold incomplete to the RLM (ReichsLuftahrtMinisterium a.k.a Ministry of Aviation). It had a 131 foot wingspan and was powered by six pusher propeller engines. Each Argus 10 engine developed 236 hp. It represented a clear step in the direction of military applications and was expected to have a 1000 km bombing radius. The incomplete aircraft was destroyed by the Allies.

The H-IX v3 or the Ho-229 was the aircraft that is responsible for the Horten legend. When the allies got to the Gotha factory they found an aircraft unlike any other they had seen. It had bat-like wings and jets for engines (largely unknown then). The H-IX was a direct evolution of the H-V & H-VII designs. It was powered by two Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines buried inside the wings. Each of the engines generated 1990 lbs of thrust. The H-IX had a 55 foot wing span and the wings had a 32 degree sweep. It could fly at 977 kmph and had a service ceiling of 49,000 feet. This aircraft was beyond anything the Allies had to offer in terms of speed and agility. 

The Ho-229. Pic source : Wikipedia

The tailless wing at such speeds did throw up control related challenges, and in the era before fly by wire computers the aircraft had as many as eight control surfaces for the pilot to manage. The aircraft had a total of four elevons (two per wing), two drag rudders (one per wing) to induce yaw, and two speed brakes to control dives (also known as dive rudders). The v3  was the third in the series after the v1 & v2 and is the only surviving example of the H-IX/Ho-229.

Jack Northrop

Northrop began his aviation journey as a young man in 1916 with the Loughead Aircraft Manufacturing Company. As a mechanical draftsman & engineer, during his first stint there (1916-17) he worked on multiple aspects of the F-1 flying boat. Importantly his work focussed on light weight and high strength structures which would further fuel his focus on efficiency.

By 1917 he was drafted into the US Army where he served as an infantryman, however he quickly transferred to the Signal Corps to analyse Curtiss flying boats. In 1918 Loughead secured his return from the army where he continued his aviation career co-designing the Loughead S-1 a small sports plane that used moulded plywood construction and was known for its  drag reducing streamlined fuselage.

Between 1926-28 after stints with Douglas Aircraft,  Jack Northrop rejoined Loughead Aircraft (soon to be Lockheed) as chief engineer and designed the Lockheed Vega made famous by Amelia Earhart and her 1932 Transatlantic solo flight. The Vega was known for its low drag coefficient of 0.02. His work on the Vega further refined his expertise and focus on lightweight aerodynamic airframes, contributing to his future work on flying wings.

In 1928 Jack Northrop founded the Avion Corporation focussed on developing all metal aircraft with tailless designs and by 1929 he built the Avion Experimental No 1 (Northrop Flying Wing a.k.a X-216H). While it was a flying wing, Northrop retained a twin tail boom, this was for added safety during testing (wings were still being understood). The wing was made of aluminium and was of stressed skin multi cellular construction. Such constructions distribute loads across the entire wing while reducing weight and maintaining structural integrity. The wing demonstrated low Cd of 0.015 but suffered from pitch and yaw instability. Aircraft company consolidation meant that Avion Corporation was acquired by William Boeing as part of UATC (United Aircraft Transport Corporation) and was renamed Northrop Aircraft. At the time Jack Northrop designed the Alpha, a conventional low wing monoplane mail carrier.

Around 1931 the depression played a major role with Jack Northrop and UATC merged Northrop Aircraft with Stearman in Wichita, Jack Northrop refused to relocate and quit. In 1932 with the backing of Donald Douglas, Jack Northrop founded the new Northrop Corporation as a Douglas subsidiary. He developed the Beta, a faster variant of the Alpha and Gamma between (1932-34). The Gamma was a 700 hp mail & research plane. The most famous was the ‘Polar Star” that was transported via ship to Antarctica. This was followed by the Delta which was intended for passengers, however regulations prohibiting single engined aircraft from carrying passengers at night or over rough terrain curtailed this aircraft. Technically it was a success.

Further to these aircraft Northrop’s multicellular wing design greatly influenced the legendary DC-3. By 1937 Douglas was acquired once again and Northrop who yearned freedom to chase his wing designs quit once again and founded the Northrop Aircraft Inc in Hawthorne California.

The N-1M(1940-41) made its first flight in 1940 as Northrop’s first flying wing. It had a 38 foot wingspan and two 65hp Lycoming O-145 pusher prop engines. The skin was laminated wood around a tubular steel frame. It had an adjustable wingtip with a 15 & 30 degree vertical sweep. Its glide ratio was 15:1 and it proved tailless flight stability.

In 1941 the USAF was looking for a new bomber and authorized Northrop to develop the YB-35 flying wing bomber. As a first step Northrop developed the N-9M(1942-45) a one third scale flying wing with a wingspan of 60 feet and two 400 hp O-540 engines. The aircraft had automatic trim, split flaps & drag rudders which were an improvement over the N-1Ms manual controls. The first airframe crashed in 1943 killing the pilot, the reason being pitch control failure, which prompted redundancies to be built into later aircraft. The aircraft had a cruising speed of 320 km/h and a service ceiling of over 21,000 feet with a glide ratio of 18:1. The numbers validated full scale construction of the XB/YB-35.

The YB-35 Dimensions. Pic source : Wikipedia.

With a wingspan of 172 feet and four contra rotating pusher props the X/YB-35 was a majestic sight. The aircraft used four Pratt & Whitney R-4360 radial engines. The contra rotating gear boxes caused excessive vibrations leading to mechanical failure and stress. The engines & propellers were owned by AAF ( United States Army Air Force) . None in the supply chain had checked the engines for compatibility with the Hamilton Standard propellers, furthermore nobody took responsibility for the shortcomings either. The XB-35 flew a total of 27 flights between the two aircraft and only one flight was deemed satisfactory. Of the 14 YB-35s built only one was completed and that flew a total of seven flights for a total of less than ten hours. The YB-35 continued to be plagued by the same engine problems that plagued the XB-35. Reverting the engines to single propellers resulted in the aircraft being underpowered resulting in low speed handling issues. 

Jack Northrop grew frustrated with the engines and attempted corrections, however he had severe limitations as the engines and propellers were owned by the AAF. In the meantime the AAF had turned its attention to jets and ordered two of the YB-35s converted to the jet engined YB-49. By 1948 the troubled YB-35 was terminated, never reaching fruition for reasons beyond its control.

The YB-49 had eight Allison J-35-A-15 turbojet engines, each developing 4000 pounds of thrust.The aircraft immediately hit 40,000 feet and cruised at 587 km/h (wikipedia), however with eight engines instead of four the range effectively dropped to half the YB-35. While the specifications were the same, the YB-49 did have four small passive vertical fins on the wings to help with yaw control. The two wings completed approx 25 flights between them, however both crashed in 1948 & 1950 the first killing all its crew including Captain Glen Edwards after whom Edwards AFB is named. 

The YB-49/A . Pic source : Wikipedia

One more YB-35 was converted to a YB-49A reconnaissance aircraft (with podded engines) however this was never completed either.

Jack Northrop’s dream project was abruptly cancelled in 1950. Northrop himself was deeply anguished to see his dream cancelled and retired in 1952. In 1979 Northrop mentioned the Flying Wing contracts were cancelled because he refused to merge with Convair. Hindsight shows the flying wing program was way behind execution deadlines and over budget, hindsight also shows there was always a place for the flying wing. Alas that was not to be and all the wings were scrapped and none exist today.

The Story of WW2 Stealth Myth vs Reality

The Indiana Jones style discovery of the Ho-229 v3 deep in the German countryside inside a dark deserted hangar created the myth. The fact it looked like no other plane before and was referred to as the batwing only added to the myth, the jet engines solidified it.

The aerodynamic properties of flying wings naturally make them stealthy. The glide ratios of all the powered wings (including the YB-35 & 49) had ratios in the range of 20-28:1 . This compares favorably with the B-2 which has a similar ratio. Physics dictates that all flying wings will look similar and flying wings through the decades attest to this.

The wings were built for speed, their aerodynamics being the enabler. This meant the speed of the Ho-229 was over 75% faster than convention fighters of the time.

The controversial 2009 Nat Geo documentary with Northrop Grumman where a representative replica was made and subjected to RCS tests, showed a 20% decrease in the RCS (Radar Cross Section) properties over conventional aircraft of the time. This combined with the speed of the Ho-229 / H-IX v3 is what would have made the aircraft difficult to counter. Point to note in the documentary was the Northrop Grumman team had difficulty replicating the complex aerodynamic surfaces of the original wing.

A step back from the Horten story tells you this was incomplete. The incomplete H-VIII which was delivered to the Ministry of Aviation highlights the state Germany was in and the increased pace of aircraft iterations (1943-45) along with the H-XVIII Amerika Bomber being just plans on paper point to the incomplete story (much like Northrop’s).

Reimar Horten’s 1983 claim in the book ‘ Nurflugel” about planning for the v3’s successors to be stealthy by mixing carbon in the binding elements & painting the aircraft with graphite sounds opportunistic in view that no hard evidence or documentation was ever found. The Ho-229 did not exhibit any carbon in its adhesives conclusively. The timing of the claim ties in well with the announcement of the B-2 Stealth bomber, and Reimar who for all his achievements was fading into insignificance perhaps wanted to make the best of the reflected glory and renewed interest in the Ho-229. This is the reality.

History finds stories like the Ho-229 irresistible, and there lies the fable.

The B-2 Spirit

By the 1970s military designers were chasing the concept of Stealth. Low RCS is achieved by a cross section of materials, aerodynamic design, electronics & of course masking engine thermal signatures & sound.

By 1979 Northrop’s Tacit Blue program had already proved that stealth was possible and the technology was incorporated in the B-2.

During the 1981 presidential race Ronald Reagan repeatedly dug into Jimmy Carter and his cancellation of the B-1A bomber. In response to this Carter on August 22nd 1980 disclosed the Department of Defence was working on the B-2.

While the development was a black program, the B-2 was less closely guarded than the Lockheed F-117 stealth fighter. The unveiling of the B-2 in 1988 was highly restricted. At least two Northrop employees went to prison for espionage during and after its development.

The B-2 dimensions. Pic source : Wikipedia.

That the wingspan of the B-2 is 172 feet, the same as the YB-35/49 is perhaps a happy co-incidence, however its capabilities are entirely intentional. Its cruise speed is 1010 km/h, range is 11,000 km, and service ceiling of 50,000 feet the numbers are very similar to the Ho-229/YB-49 (except range).

The control issues all the flying wings faced dissipated as computers took over the pilot’s work load and made continuous split second corrections for stable flight.

A very old Jack Northrop was shown a model of the B-2 a few months before his passing in 1981 and he poignantly commented “ I now know why God kept me alive for the last 25 years”.

The B-21 Raider had its first flight in Nov ’23. While it is smaller than the B-2 , it remains just as exciting. 

Epilogue

In the centre of the Udvar- Hazy hall at Smithsonian sits the H-IX / Ho-229 v3. Everyday hundreds of spectators file past its still figure as if paying homage. The aircraft that launched a thousand dreams continues to do so.

The Ho-229. Pic source : Smithsonian. Pic 2 Reddit user

In the skies above it flies the B-2 Spirit protecting a grateful Nation. Thousands of people watch each spectacular fly past. 

Flying wings are pure magic.

Please be sure to read part 2 where the evolution of blended wing bodies is traced in detail. http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/19/the-flying-wing-part-two-the-blended-wing-body/

To be continued….Part Two

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

A few days ago Blake Scholl the CEO of BOOM, put a picture out on X of something that looked vaguely like a Klingon ‘ Bird of Prey ‘ from Startrek. The most striking feature of the image were the highly sculpted wings.

The image Blake put out. A 3D rendering of the BOOM Overture rearview.

A couple of seconds later I realized it was a 3D rendering of the BOOM Overture rearview. The image got me thinking about Supersonic wings, hence this piece.

The Klingon ‘Bird of Prey’ was inspired by the grand daddy of supersonic flight, the NAA ( North American Aviation) XB-70 Valkyrie and the manta ray, the largest of the ray fishes.

A Lego model of a Klingon ‘ Bird of Prey’ from Star Trek.

This piece attempts a walk through the evolution of wings, delta wings in particular.

Wings

Flight of birds and insects has always held mankind’s attention. Icarus the Greek mythological figure crashed back to Earth as he flew too close to the Sun as his wax wings melted. Indian mythology is full of Vimanas (aircraft).

Leonardo da Vinci sketched ornithopters and gliders. Issac Newton & Daniel Bernouli identified the concept of lift through air pressure differences.

Sir George Cayley is credited with creating the first fixed wing followed by Otto Lilienthal who experimented extensively with fixed wing gliders 

And then the Wright Brothers and powered flight in 1903.

Bernouli’s Principle 

Bernouli’s Principle states that ‘ as the speed of a fluid (air or water) increases their pressure decreases.

Simply put the total energy in a fluid system remains constant along a streamline (path of a fluid particle).

From the perspective of an airfoil (wing) the curved surface on the top forces air to flow faster over the top of the wing than the bottom.

An image depicting Bernouli’s Principle.

Using the principle, air pressure on the top of the wing is less than the pressure below and the wing generates lift.

The Supersonic Wing Evolution 

Mention a delta wing and our mind’s eye thinks of wings that formed a triangle such as those on Mirage III fighters. 

The evolution of the Delta Wing began in Germany towards the end of WW2 first with swept wings and then complete deltas.

The Dassault Mirage  was the first delta winged fighter . It had a leading edge sweep of sixty degrees, no horizontal stabilizers . Elevons on the trailing edge provided both pitch and roll control.

A schematic of the Dassault Mirage III.

The sharp leading edge and thin airfoil minimized drag and the Mirage III could sustain Mach 2 and over. The delta wing provided stable control at trans/supersonic speeds but directional control at low speeds was challenging, required high angles of attack and long runways to roll in and out.

The Mirage III was the first production aircraft to use Vortex Lift (by accident!).

Vortex Lift??

The Evolution of the Delta Wing

All wings produce vortices.

Subsonic wings use planar lift, vortices develop at the wingtips. The vortices induce drag and reduce lift efficiency of the wing. The solution was winglets to mitigate the vortices increasing efficiency. Today most subsonic airliners have them.

What if Vortices are an essential lifting tool of the wing?

Vortices by their very nature are unstable and need to be actively managed.  Many early slender deltas were tailless with sharp leading edges that resulted in airflow separation at low speeds and high angles of attack. (Angle of attack is the angle between the airfoil(wing) and relative wind experienced by the aircraft.) The separation created vortices which rolled off the leading edges of the wing and created lift especially at takeoff and landing. 

Low speed handling needed better control , i.e vortices needed to be controlled, enter the highly sculpted ogival delta on the Concorde.

But before that we need to speak about the legendary XB-70 Valkyrie, the first aircraft to use all three kinds of primary lift. The types of lift were:

  • Planar lift : At sub & transonic speeds 
  • Compression lift : High supersonic speeds
  • Unoptimized vortex lift : Takeoff / landing / maneuvering 

We have already spoken about planar lift (Bernouli’s Principle), and Vortex lift (more on this later). But lets now speak about Compression Lift and the XB-70.

The XB-70 Valkyrie Wing

The XB-70 is an aircraft design like no other.

In the mid 1950s as the Cold War heating up the United States needed a bomber that could fly at Mach 3+ ( over three times the speed of sound) and fly at altitudes over 70,000 feet. 

Enter the XB-70 Valkyrie!

With a length of 185 feet, wingspan of 105 feet and MTOW (maximum takeoff weight) of 542,000 pounds this aircraft powered by 6 (six!!) General Electric YJ93 engines was massive. Each engine produced 28,000 pounds of thrust with afterburners and 19,000 pounds without. The range of this behemoth was 3,275 nm (nautical miles).

A side view of the XB-70 in flight. Wings drooped and canards clearly visible. Notice the length of the forebody and the engine intakes.

Managing the bulk of this aircraft across the speed range was a challenge that set the ground work for future SSTs (Supersonic Transport).Engineers came up with a triple whammy!

Planar Flow

The XB-70’s compound delta wing with it’s 58 degree sweep angle used planar flow to keep the air attached to the wing at subsonic speeds.

This was possible only at low AoA .As the the XB-70 had a large wing span and area, distribution of lift was even.

The wing had a subtle twist and a thin airfoil to delay early flow separation.

Vortex Lift

The swept back wings automatically generated vortices off their leading edges at high AoA. At low speeds and banking events vortices compensated for lack of high lift devices such as flaps.

The XB-70 was not optimized for vortices.

Compression Lift

During high Mach cruise the final 20 feet of each wing folded down 65 degrees from the horizontal ( a feature the Klingon Bird of Prey was inspired by ) and formed a compression chamber.

The sculpted nose and forebody trapped shockwaves along with the shaped engine intakes and directed the shockwaves between the Klingon wings.

A rearview of the XB-70. Wings drooping. Notice the six pack bringing up the rear.

Compression accounted for between 05-40% of total lift at high Mach numbers. The rest of the lift was generated by planar flows plus unoptimized vortex lift (at low subsonic numbers)

The canards on the XB-70 behaved as pitch control surfaces. As a tailess delta wing the XB-70 needed these surfaces to maintain balance at speeds in excess of Mach 2.5 as the nose of the aircraft had a tendency to pitch downwards.

The Valkyrie Learnings 

The two prototypes constructed flew a total of 160 hours and 16 minutes over 83 flights. Of this time AV-1 flew a total of 32 minutes over Mach 3 and reached a top speed of Mach 3.06. AV-2 which had several improvements over AV-1 flew a total of 20 minutes at Mach 3.08.

AV-2 was tragically lost on 08 Jun 1966 while flying in formation for a photo shoot. The vortices generated by the unfolded wingtips sucked the F-104 flown by NASA Chief Test Pilot Joe Walker, flipped it upside down over the starboard wing and across the twin vertical stabilizers killing Captain Walker instantly, and Major Carl Cross the copilot on the XB-70. Al White the pilot of AV-2 survived with serious injuries.The first ever warning on the dangers of wing vortices off large aircraft.

An image of the impact. Captain Walker’s F-104 in flames. AV-2’s vertical stabilizers gone. The other aircraft yet to break formation.

While the XB-70 flew for a very limited time between 1964-69 the lessons learned influenced future supersonic travel. A few listed below:

  • The XB-70 influenced the selection of Titanium as the material for use on the legendary SR-71 Blackbird/Habu
  • Aerodynamic data such as inlet design, shock wave interactions at high altitude & high Mach stability influenced the SR -71. Chines and inlet spike behavior were innovated as a result.
  • Human fatigue at high Mach numbers were studied and solutions found
  • Building on lessons learned by the XB -70 the Concorde (developed independently) focused on low speed behavior and wing sculpting to control stability at low speeds, take off & landing
  • The material limitations of Mach 3 cruise on the XB-70 helped Concorde engineers arrive at a cruise speed of Mach 2
  • The XB-70’s boom shaping and compression lift formed the early basis of NASAs QueSST program. The X-59 with its coke bottle shape and boom cheating design is a result of the early learnings from the XB-70

The XB-70 continues to be a supersonic reference point 61 years after its first flight.

The Concorde Wing

If the wing of the XB-70 Valkyrie was cutting edge technology & over the top engineering the Concorde wing comes across as a piece of supersonically sculpted art.

The Concorde’s secret was Vortex black magic.

Vortices playing over the Concorde wing in a wind tunnel. Notice the symmetry of the vortices on both wings.

The delta wing is naturally unstable at low speeds, while highly efficient at Mach 2. Extensive wind tunnel testing resulted in the ogival delta wing.

The slender Concorde ogival delta has a curved leading edge. If the plane is observed from the front, the S is clearly visible on the leading edge. Furthermore the wings droop down towards the wing tips. The droop or dihedral inversion contributed towards improved stability, and stable vortex structure.

A front view of the Concorde showing the wings drooping the S curve on the leading edge clearly visible. The angles of attack to the right. Image from Heritage Concorde.

This allowed the Concorde to smoothly transition from vortex lift during takeoff to planar lift as it got to transonic & Mach cruise speeds. The wing structure had minimal lifting surfaces and lift was managed by the sculpted wings.

The inboard section of the wings (swept back to 55 degrees) carried more lift at low AoA while the outboard sections improved stability and efficiency.

A screen grab of a Concorde coming into land. Notice the vortices coming off the wings.

The Concorde used a state of the art fuel management system to shift its CG (centre of gravity) by pumping fuel between 13 different tanks.

At supersonic cruise the CG was shifted towards the tail (trim tank 11), the forward tanks were used during take off and low speeds,  and forward (trim tank 9) during descent.

The entire system was automatic and the CG could be shifted by two meters (6.5 feet). The MAC (mean aerodynamic chord) at 55-59%. To explain, 0% of MAC is the leading edge (the front edge of the wing) and 100% is the trailing edge (the rear edge of the wing). 55-59% means at cruise the Concorde’s CG was just aft of the mid chord of MAC.

A representative ChatGPT image of the Concorde’s MAC.

This enabled Concorde to be extremely stable at Mach 2, minimize drag and maximize fuel efficiency.

The Concorde used all three types of lift as well. Controlled vortex lift at low speeds (the sculpted wings), planar lift at transonic and supersonic speeds along with compression lift as well. Concorde drew approx 30-40% of its lift at cruise from natural shockwave compression.

The XB-70 and the Concorde, two aircraft, two different deltas, so different yet so similar.

The Overture Wing 

The Overture will be operating in a very different speed regime from the Concorde. Where the Concorde operated at Mach 2+ for most it’s flights the overture will be operating at high transonic speeds (Mach 0.8 – 1.2). Aerodynamic needs at these speeds are a combination of subsonic & supersonic speeds.

The Boom website says the sweep of the Overture wings will be more than a 777 but less than Concorde.The 777 is at 31.6 degrees while the Concorde is at 55 degrees. The wing is of course thinner than a 777’s!

Where the Concorde relied on vortex lift at lower speeds the Overture will rely on planar lift(attached airflows).

The Overture will be a hybrid delta wing with horizontal stabilizers and will use a gull wing design. This means the wing arches upwards near the root and angles downwards towards the wingtips. The upwards attitude towards the root increases efficiency at Mach speeds. The outward droop towards the wingtips improves stability at subsonic speeds, takeoff, climb, descent and landing. The trailing edge has been shaped as well.

The Overture.

The podded engines slung below the wings on pylons offer net overall efficiencies, the embedded engines of the Concorde offered better aerodynamic efficiencies at Mach 2 (the max speed of the Overture is Mach 1.7)

Underwing podded engines offer advantages such as ease of maintenance, more space to add acoustic liners for sound damping, allows for modular engine design which in turn allows ease of maintenance. In case of uncontained engine failure engines on pylons under the wings are always safer.

Since the wings are a hybrid between the Concorde’s ogival delta and subsonic wings, the tail is more conventional with a horizontal stabilizer. The stabilizer offers finer pitch and directional control. The placement of the tail plane is outside the airflows over the wings and engines.

The wings of the Overture will provide higher lift than the Concorde at low speeds. The angle of attack at landing and take off will be similar to Concorde ( making the Overture a tall plane as well..the landing gear will be another story).

The Overture landing and underwing mounted engine.

Since the Overture has a horizontal stabilizer, trim will be handled aerodynamically. There will be no need for a fuel transfer system to manage CG.

Lastly AI( Artificial Intelligence) renders the aircraft intelligent, translates to lighter crew workload.

Exciting times!

Summation

The delta wing has matured over the last 70 years. The Overture represents the next step in the evolution of the supersonic delta wing.

Disclaimer: This article has used images from multiple sources accessed through Google.

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 Past & The Present

Global GDP in 2003, the year Concorde retired was $38 Trillion. In 2024 the same was $105 Trillion. The total number of air passengers in 2003 was 1.7 billion and the same in 2024 was 9.5 billion. In 2003 routes over 10 hours were unheard of, Singapore Airlines launched its non stop to Los Angeles from Singapore in 2003. Today such routes are taken for granted.

The numbers above suggest the nature of air travel has changed over the last 22 years. More people are traveling longer, more frequently and more people have more money to spend on air travel.

The air travel landscape that Overture will inherit is very different from the one Concorde left behind.

The Alliance

The single biggest advantage of an alliance is synergy. Synergy across Network. Synergy across operations and synergy across product (fares, lounges, loyalty programs and much more). More on this later.

Globally there are three airline alliances The Star Alliance, Oneworld & SkyTeam..

The alliances have directly been responsible for stimulating air travel by offering seamless travel over longer distances to more people than ever before.

Range

Over the last 22 years ultra long haul aircraft have taken over several premier fleets of the World. These aircraft have reset travelers’ expectations to ‘ direct nonstop flights’.

During supersonic flight the rate of fuel burn is three times that of subsonic flight and the Overture’s range of 4250 nm (nautical miles) looks puny compared to the range of Over 9000 nm for most modern ultra long haul aircraft.

What the Overture might lack in range, it makes up in speed. 

Passenger expectations however do not change, the speed becomes an added layer to the expectation.

Enter the Overture Alliance.

Concorde Pool History 

Concorde production ceased in 1979 and a total of 14 were built, seven each for British Airways and Air France.

Both airlines entered into a parts pool program to keep costs down.

The pool program was responsible for keeping the aircraft flying until 2003, as parts became scarce in later years.

The Concorde alliance was localized as it involved two airlines belonging to neighboring countries in Europe.

The Overture will birth into a truly Global World and we can expect airlines from around the World to feature on the Overture probables list.

Overture Probables 

The Overture currently has three confirmed airlines .The first two are American players, they are United and American Airlines. The third is Japanese, and it is Japan Airlines.

Who might the other probables be?

A tentative list might like this:

The Concorde operators:

British Airways – Low

Over the last twenty years British Airways has gone down the route of fleet optimization and post Concorde have turned away from SST. But you never know.

It bears mentioning that Qatar Airways (also on the probable list) owns 25% of IAG (International Airline Group) the parent company of British Airways and other airlines such as Iberia, Aer Lingus,LEVEL and Vueling

British Airways traditionally ran the New York and Barbados routes from London and both routes are well within the reach of the Overture. In addition to most of Continental North America.

The Overture Reach from London.
Range in Nautical Miles from London Heathrow.

Air France – Moderate

Of the two Concorde operators Air France might be higher on the probable list. They have embarked on a fleet renewal strategy and the Overture might make sense as AIr France  looks to differentiate itself on the European Business and Leisure market. In fact AF 4590 (the Concorde crash of 2000 at Paris) was a charter carrying passengers (most of them German) to New York, where they were to  join a Cruise to Ecuador.

The Overture reach from Paris is similar to that from London.

Overture reach from Paris CDG.
Range in nautical miles from Paris CDG.

The Concorde Marketer: 

Singapore Airlines – Moderate 

Between 1977 & 1980 Singapore Airlines entered into a partnership with British Airways to fly the SIN – BAH – LHR v v route. The aircraft was painted with both liveries one on each side and each airline was responsible for selling their own side. The partnership had several issues and died a natural death in 1980.

This partnership did highlight Singapore Airlines’ Supersonic aspirations and Overture presents exactly this.

The Overture range allows Singapore to have non stop routes across Australia, China and their traditional stronghold Japan, Korea and gives them non stop reach into the Middle East and slightly beyond into Eurasia.

Overture reach from Singapore Changi.
Range in nautical miles from Singapore.

The Wisher

Virgin Atlantic – High 

Richard Branson the founder of Virgin Atlantic is a longtime admirer of Concorde. In 1996 he made a highly publicized attempt to lease Concordes from British Airways. His argument being the British Government had subsided the development of Concorde and British Airways should not have monopoly on it.

In 2003 as Concorde’s retirement was announced, Branson once again offered to lease / buy them and first offered one pound per aircraft going as high as five million pounds per aircraft. He even had Concorde models produced in Virgin livery and distributed globally.

In 2016 Virgin entered into an agreement with BOOM for the purchase of 10 Overture aircraft, however this agreement has since expired and Branson turned his attention to Virgin Galactic, sending tourists to space.

The probability of Virgin coming back remains high even though nothing has been announced.

The Virgin Atlantic range footprint for the Overture is the same as British Airways.

The ME3

Qatar Airways – High

Qatar Airway’s has been at Commercial Aviation’s forefront for the last twenty years. They have a diverse fleet that represents agility. Overture is a fresh ingredient to the Qatar Airways mix. Qatar has consistently presented itself as a high end destination and the Overture adds to this aura.

The Overture range gives Qatar Airways reach across Europe, Scandinavia, Africa and Asia.

Overture network from Doha NDIA.
Range in nautical miles from Doha NDIA.

Emirates – Moderate 

Ever since the late 90s when Emirates began it’s meteoric growth to its current overwhelming scale. Emirates represents all that Dubai stands for and more. Dubai stands for the power of innovation as does Emirates, which has been very careful with its fleet choices. For an airline with over 250 aircraft (all long haul, widebodies) they have only two aircraft types, the A380 & B777 and only recently added a third type, the A350. However Emirates will always be a tempting choice.

The Overture range gives Emirates a similar footprint out of Dubai  to that of Qatar Airways out of Doha.

Etihad- Low

Etihad made several poor choices with mergers and acquisitions (Jet Airways, Alitalia, Air Berlin)and most have gone bad. However they are on a path to recovery.  They only turned profitable in 2024 and appear wiser for the experience. Overture is still 5 years away and you never know if a fresh spark might be ignited.

India & China

The fastest growing aviation markets in the World. 

India has two dominant carriers Indigo and Air India. 

Indigo – Low

Indigo is a LCC. They are growing at a phenomenal rate and Indigo is  among the most valuable airlines in the World. They have begun offering a Hybrid product that includes a Stretch class.

Air India – Moderate 

Air India is in the midst of a major turnaround after being taken over by the Tata group in 2022. Over fifty years of mismanagement have ensured that Tata is rebuilding an airline from scratch. 

Singapore Airlines holds a 25.1% stake in Air India and shares a very close relationship with the Tatas. In the 1990s they tried to start an airline in India with the Tatas but ran into government related road blocks. When Singapore Airlines’ predecessor MSA (Malaysia Singapore Airlines) was formed in 1966, Air India which was founded and run by Tatas since 1932 trained the early batches of MSA’s crew. 

Air India was nationalized in 1953 and stayed that way until 2022 when it reverted back to Tatas, who are turning the airline around with key stakeholder Singapore Airlines.

If Singapore Airlines has a go at the Overture Air India will probably be involved creating a tight double hub with a reach from Australia to Europe & Africa.

The reach of the double hub over Singapore & Mumbai.
Range by city pair in nautical miles.

China 

China has the second largest GDP Globally at over $20 Trillion. They are one of the two fastest growing aviation markets in the World.

The current economic situation between China and the USA renders any conversation about the Overture moot.  China has begun returning Boeing aeroplanes to the USA.

China is a very strong Supersonic market. Their premier airframe manufacturer COMAC (Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China) has expressed long term interest in SST and even has some concepts.

For now China will not be figuring in Overtures plans.

Bridging the Pacific 

The Overture enters an increasingly globalized market. Currently a high percentage of Global economic power houses are in East, South & Southeast Asia.

With it’s range of 4,250 nm bridging the Pacific becomes a challenge where distances are double the range of the Overture.

Two points present themselves. The first is Honolulu in Hawaii and the second is Anchorage in Alaska.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Honolulu 

The approximate mid point of the Pacific Ocean. Honolulu has a history of being a logistical stopover and later tourist draw.

In the 1930s as Panam’s Clipper flying boats began to spread out across the World. Panam used Hawaii as a major refueling point as their flying boats bridged the Pacific.

Traffic to Hawaii kept increasing as planes got faster, and the tourism industry there exploded. Today Hawaii is considered a major tourist destination.

Honolulu has the ability to connect the US West coast to Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Korea on the Overture.

The network reach over Honolulu Hawaii.
Range in Nautical miles over Honolulu.

Anchorage 

Anchorage emerged as a critical bridge on the East West Pacific route in the pre ETOPS ( Extended Range Twin Operations, applicable to aircraft with two engines) era. Right through the 1970s and 80s airlines used Anchorage as a critical technical refueling stop as they bridged the Pacific.

The arrival of aircraft such as the B777, B787 & A350 and ETOPS changed technical stops with their disruptive range efficiencies.

Since the 1990s Anchorage has exploded into a critical cargo hub, used by almost every major freight operator.

The Overture represents a return to Anchorage for passenger operations technical refueling stops. A stop in Anchorage opens up Continental North America from Tokyo or Seoul.

Note: The Concorde underwent extensive cold weather testing while based at Fairbanks through the early 1970s ending in 1974. Alaska is familiar was Supersonic Transports.

An Air France Concorde at Fairbanks Alaska in 1974.
Reach into Continental North America over Anchorage.
Range into North America over Anchorage.

The Overture Alliance

So what will the Overture Alliance look like?

Before we dive into the future, let’s examine two alliances that pre date todays mega alliances. These two stand out for their depth and synergy.

  • The KLM / Northwest Alliance from 1989
  • The British Airways / Qantas from 1995

The KLM / Northwest Alliance 

This particular alliance started off the JV (Joint Venture) model in aviation. The two carriers found synergy across Schedules,  revenue sharing (they pioneered the straight rate prorate model, a concept where airlines share revenue based at pre determined rates by route), frequent flyer programs and delivered a seamless passenger experience. 

The synergies created by a strong double hub strategy on both sides of the Atlantic which would become the template for alliances moving ahead.

The KL/NW alliance would set the ground for the SkyTeam alliance.

The British Airways / Qantas Kangaroo Route

The JSA (Joint Services Agreement) on the Kangaroo Route was to create synergy across a midpoint hub at Singapore.

The JSA involved revenue sharing across flights, coordinated schedules, synergized pricing and shared costs ( Singapore as a hub was not a home base for either British Airways or Qantas). They went as far as aligning product across cabins.

What sets the JSA apart was coordinated crew layovers, aircraft maintenance and provisions stock at Singapore.

The JSA between BA/QF would become the basis for Oneworld.

The two examples highlight the synergies achieved across Men, Machines & Money. 

The Morphing of Alliances 

The JSA changed with the emergence of Emirates and Qantas realized in 2013 they had superior reach into Europe / UK / Africa / India and the Middle East by using Emirates based in Dubai than using the JSA over Singapore.

On a more recent note (2022) within the OneWorld alliance, British Airways which represented the AJB (Atlantic Joint Business) with American Airlines to Asia and Africa was replaced by Qatar Airways as the AJB partner to Asia and most of Africa.

The above examples highlight the emerging importance of the ME3 and more importantly future alliances need to be extremely flexible and agile to deal with ever changing Global dynamics.

With this knowledge how will the Overture Alliance look?

The Overture Alliance with definitely synergize Men , Machines & Money.

Men

  • Dedicated Overture teams at each hub
  • Each Overture airline responsible for their hub
  • Costs at Honolulu & Anchorage to be shared
  • Overture lounges at transit points 
  • Common training facilities at dedicated hubs

Machines

  • For the most part airlines run the Overture as a p2p (point to point) operation 
  • Honolulu & Anchorage provide a transit/transfer hub as necessary (there may be other hubs)
  • A common pool program at Anchorage & Honolulu. Each airline responsible for parts at their hub 
  • Honolulu to Australia / New Zealand will be a side trip ( or a subsonic journey elsewhere)
  • Booking and back end systems to be aligned

Money

  • Deep synergy across revenue sharing 
  • Hub costs each airline is responsible 
  • Costs at Honolulu & Anchorage to be shared (as per use by airline)
  • Marketing expenditure can be shared across constituents 

Notes:

  • By doing so airlines avoid the pitfall of spreading themselves too thin, and allows them to focus on key routes, much like the concept of the LCC (Low Cost Carriers). Such an operation opens up LCCs buying into this.
  • The Overture Alliance once again heralds the return of RTW ( Round The World) journeys like the previous century.
  • As observed in previous alliances, the constituents and business needs are constantly changing and scalability has to be built into the alliance model.
  • Since the aircraft is the BOOM Overture, BOOM will need to be a critical part of this alliance from a Machine perspective.

I have probably missed many perspectives and airlines during the course of writing this and I apologize to those I missed.

Disclaimer: This article has used images from multiple sources accessed through Google.

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

Prologue 

At the end of my previous piece on the BOOM Symphony, more than a few questions were asked about the Sonic Boom, Sound Barrier, Boomless Cruise etc. This piece attempts to answer the questions. For that we need to go right to the very beginning.

History 

Prehistoric Man might have taken the concept of sound for granted and not given it much thought. The first inflection point was the realization there was a relation between lighting and thunder i.e how thunder always followed lightning. Some intuition later they realized that both travelled through the space around and above them.

The Norse God Thor was attributed by the the Vikings for Lightning as his hammer, Mjölnir travelled across the sky followed by Thunder as Mjölnir struck his enemies.

Similarly the Indian God Indra’s Vajra representing a diamond (indestructible) and thunderbolt (irresistible force)caused lightning as it travelled through the sky . Indra’s domain included Lightning and Thunder among many others.

History is replete with such allusions to Lightning and Thunder. From these allusions it is clear that lightning was faster than Thunder.

The concept of speed is arrived at.

Science Timeline

Scientific rigor made its entry. Below is a timeline some of the milestones in understanding sound.

  • By 500 BC Pythagoras discovered that musical pitch depended on the percussion instruments string length
  • Aristotle around 350 BC believed that an object striking air caused sound, he still thought sound was instantaneous
  • Vitruvius in 50 BC Discovered the concept of the echo was in manmade architecture
  • Between the 9-12th centuries several Islamic scholars studied vibration & resonance and the concept of sound moving through air as a medium

The Middle Ages & Renaissance periods made strides in understanding sound as a wave.

  • In the early 1600s Galileo observed the concepts of vibration
  • Marin Mersenne in 1636 measured the speed of sound for the first time at 1380 ft/s (the first measurement of the speed of sound)
  • Issac Newton around 1687 applied his laws of motion to sound in air and calculated the speed of sound at 979 ft/s
  • During the 1740s Euler and Bernouli created the wave equation for sound

There were several further increments to Man’s understanding of the phenomenon of Sound and then came Ernst Mach.

Ernst Mach

Mach was the first person to describe and photograph shockwaves.

By the 1800s when bullets or projectiles were fired at high speeds a loud cracking sound was observed. While piquing curiosity nobody understood what was taking place.

Mach who prided himself as a multi dimensional scientist merged physics , photography and optics in a fresh new manner.

Mach’s explorations into supersonic fluid dynamics led him to team up with physics photographer Peter Salcher.

Together in 1887 they presented a paper that correctly described  the sound effects of a supersonic bullet in motion. They determined the existence of a shockwave with the bullet as the apex of the shockwave.

The photography technique used was Schlieren Photography, a relatively new technique. The principle of this technique is light bends when it passes through air with a slightly different density.

Schlieren photos use mirrors, a lens, a bright light and a sharp edge to detect light refractions through the air. He then fired bullets through this set up and captured the shockwave! A first…

Pic 1. The 1887 Schlieren image present by Mach & Salcher. Pic 2 the Schlieren setup with a bullet and shockwaves passing through it.

It was August Toepler who developed this technique in the 1860s to capture heat and density differences in air. This was developed specifically for thermodynamics and gas flow. Mach innovated on this technique to capture bullets in supersonic flight.

A Schlieren image of BOOM’s XB-1 in supersonic flight. Note the shockwave off the nose.

Man finally began to grasp what the sound barrier was about….pictorially!

The speed of sound or Mach is named after Ernst Mach.

Transonic Adventures

The term transonic was coined around 1945 by NACA director (the NASA precursor) Hugh Dryden while referring to speeds that were close to the speed of sound. The speed range is between Mach 0.8 – 1.2.

In dogfights during WW2 P-38 Lightnings, Spitfires & Thunderbolts accidentally approached Mach 0.8 – 1 in steep power dives. 

As these speeds were hit pilots experienced locked controls and violent shaking of the aircraft also known as compressibility buffeting. In some cases the aircraft broke apart or just stopped responding to control surface inputs.

The phenomenon was experienced for the first time and terrified pilots, who were the guys in the hot seat. They felt like they hit a wall and described it as a barrier. The term sound barrier originated here.

Experiential research later scientists replicated these effects and understood that as airflow over the wings and airframe approached the speed of sound, shock waves formed and disrupted known flight rules. This was the compressibility effect.

The fix was dive recovery flaps under the wings to be deployed early in the dive. The flaps helped bring the nose up and recover the aircraft. Engineers had managed to fix an issue they had scant understanding of.

The swept wings courtesy the Germans were coming.

Glamorous Glennis

Post WW2 a large number of documents and scientists  on aeronautical research were seized from the Germans and transported to the United States as part of Operation Paperclip.. The documents were on wing design, shockwave research from the Me-262 (the first Jet aircraft) and airframe design among many others.

Glamorous Glennis was piloted by Gen Chuck Yeager(had the privilege of interacting with him a couple of times on X)and named after his wife. The Bell X-1 was an all American aircraft purpose built aircraft designed to break the sound barrier. Among the many innovations it had was an airframe shaped like a .50 Calibre bullet (a shape known to handle supersonic speeds). 

The wings were unswept (straight) and extremely thin with a thickness to wing chord (distance between the leading and trailing edges of the wing) ratio of 8%. 

Pic1. A cutaway of the Glamorous Glennis. Pic.2 image of Glamorous Glennis from Gen Chuck Yeager’s profile on X

The tail plane was all moving to handle speeds in excess of Mach 1 and powered by a four chamber XLR-11 rocket engine that developed 6000lbs of thrust.

On 14 October 1947, Glamorous Glennis piloted by  Gen Chuck Yeager after dropping from a B-29 Superfortress at 25,000 feet, ignited its rocket and flew into history as the first aircraft to go through the sound barrier in level flight.

The Bell X-1 flew over eighty flights and contributed greatly to our understanding of Supersonic flight.

The Golden Decade

The  next decade and half would be the golden age of Supersonic flight.

Using the German WW2 research along with their own the US and Russia developed several firsts for aircraft.

Swept back wings (typically about 35 degrees) became the norm for the next generation of transonic/supersonic aircraft.

The US F-86 Sabre and Russian MIG-15 were the first aircraft to maintain high transonic level flight with stable handling.

The F-100 Supersabre and the MIG-19 Farmer the first aircraft to consistently maintain Mach 1+ speeds in level flight.

The F104 Starfighter the first fighter to hit Mach 2 and the big boy, the B-58 Hustler the first strategic bomber to hit Mach 2+.

The Human Facor

The decade of the 1960s ushered in a SST competition between the Concorde(UK & France), the TU-144(Soviet Union) and the Boeing 2707(USA). Supersonic transport stood for national superiority and attention turned to transporting people at Supersonic speeds across continents.

A mockup of the B2707. The aircraft never made it past the concept stage.

Supersonic speed always has the shadow of the sonic boom following it. The Boom itself is a sudden sharp booming sound or a double boom that follows the aircraft and the sound decibels range of 110 – 140 dB. The best analogy is the waves off the prow of a boat as ploughs through water.

The Oklahoma City Experiment 

Starting Feb’64 for eight months Oklahoma City was subjected to 1253 sonic booms @ eight booms a day. 

The FAA wanted to study the effects of sonic booms on the local population and chose Oklahoma City as the test subject.

Initially the population was enthusiastic about these tests, but soon realized the booms were everything and more than they were cut out to be.

The people of Oklahoma experienced the following:

  • Disrupted sleep cycles that induced anxiety 
  • Physical damage to property 
  • Pets were frightened and stressed 
  • Sensitive instruments being disrupted 

Oklahoma City felt like a guinea pig and a $25 compensation per household for damage caused, only added insult to injury. The experiments drew over 15000 complaints.

The Oklahoma experience snowballed into a national anti supersonic travel movement. Congress cut funding to the B-2707 program and by 1973 supersonic travel over land was banned in the United States, the rest of the World followed suit.

This was a body blow to the Concorde and TU-144 which were in advanced stages of development. They would fly Supersonic only over water (Concorde) and the TU-144 with its limited range only over the Soviet Union.

Supersonic Travel would be on the backburner for the next 25 years.

QueSST

Psychoacoustic , a word that pique’s interest 

By the 1990s NASA and the United States after exiting the Supersonic race had data across fluid dynamics, community response and shockwave shaping. Technological and material improvements improved aircraft airframe and engine efficiencies, the time had arrived to realign Supersonic research from creating new aircraft to better understanding the shockwave and creating designer shockwaves!

Psychoacoustic is how a sound comes across to people. The factors that contribute to it are things like startle factor (suddenness and loudness), frequency (low or muffled sounds are more accepted by the human ear) and timing of the day.

NASA already knew that repeated sound over 100 dB drew complaints, while a decibel level of 75dB was more acceptable to people.

The QueSST ( Quiet Supersonic Transport)program is about laying down the guidelines on the future of Supersonic transport across airframes, flight paths, speeds, altitudes and many more parameters, hopefully overcoming the 1973 ban.

During the 1990s NASA used a T-38 Talon to fly controlled supersonic passes over microphone arrays to understand boom propagation over different terrains and study boom carpet (the impacted ground area of a sonic boom)patterns.

In 2003 a F-5E Tiger with a reshaped nose was used to demonstrate that shockwaves can be manipulated. This test proved that boom intensity can be reduced by at a third.

Between 2011-2016 there were several acoustic simulation studies conducted which arrived at the 75 dB target.

Between 2016-2021 NASA used a F-15B in conjunction with  advanced ground sensor arrays to measure shockwave propagation and help tune future computational models. These tests were run over unpopulated desert.

There were several sonic boom carpet models used to test and control sonic boom impact area. Some of the tests included F/A-18 Hornets dive maneuvers to narrow the boom carpet. 

The X-59

The Lockheed Skunk Works is NASA’s low boom flight demonstrator aircraft, designed to fly at Mach 1.4 over land.

The X-59 is a specially designed airframe to control, break and reduce sonic booms. The aircraft will be used to confirm the sonic boom carpet, identify shockwave interaction with different parts of the aircraft and further fine tune computational models.

The design innovations include a long tapered nose that is over a third of the length of the aircraft at thirty feet. The nose stretches the shockwave formation at the very start. Due to the nose design, the aircraft uses 4K cameras for forward vision. The design of the wings in relation to the nose need the use of canards (small wing shaped appendages forward of the wings) for stable flight. The all moving tail plane is designed to handle supersonic speeds with minimum shockwave. Lastly the GE F414 engine is mounted on top of the fuselage to direct shockwaves away from the ground.

The X-59 on the apron at Skunks Works, Lockheed Martin.

The aircraft uses area rule shaping to reduce drag (and mitigate shockwaves) at and around the speed of sound. Simply put, the rule states the shape of the aircraft should transition as smoothly as possible, also called the coke bottle shape.

The X-59 will be flown over multiple cities and communities across the United States and surveys will be taken of these communities to study their response to the shockwave characteristics of the X-59 in multiple flight profiles.

NASA’s goal is to prove to regulators that designed booms are acceptable to communities and pave the path to overturning the Supersonic ban over the Continental United States.

The Boom Connection

BOOM with the XB-1 did achieve Boomless cruise although they used a different approach.

The XB-1s use of atmospheric refraction to keep the sonic boom away from the ground.

BOOM used atmospheric refraction from a high altitude (over 35,000 feet) to use the atmosphere to bend the waves upward and keep away from the ground. They used area rule shaping to optimize shockwave generation. Furthermore BOOM limited the speed to Mach 1.1 to control shockwaves.

BOOM is part of the ecosystem NASA is looking to create. The X-59 tests are expected to initiate a Supersonic standards conversation and BOOMs Overture will benefit from these tests.

The Final Word

Finding innovative solutions to overcome physical limitations is the path forward. At the heart of the solution is managing human behavior and attitudes towards Supersonic Shockwaves.

Disclaimer: This article has used images from multiple sources accessed through Google.

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

Overture

On January 28 2025 the BOOM XB -1 demonstrator aircraft broke the speed of sound three times and achieved ‘Boomless ‘ supersonic cruise hitting speeds of Mach 1.1 . The Mojave supersonic corridor used by XB-1 was the same as the one used by the X-15 program. The XB-1 was flying in the footprints of history.

A screen grab of the tri engine XB-1 demonstrator with the speed indicator showing Mach 1.11.

Boomless cruise was a concept first pioneered by NASA with their Quiet Supersonic Transport (QueSST) program in the 1990s. Lockheed Martin is in advanced stages of building the experimental X-59 aircraft to demonstrate low boom technology.

Before the X-59 program Northrop Grumman showed this is possible with a modified T-38/F-5E Tiger dating back to the 1950s. The F-5E Tiger had a reshaped nose and fuselage in an early attempt to control the sonic boom that follows supersonic flight.

BOOM supersonic is now using data from the tests to design the BOOM Overture. While airframe aerodymanics are key to achieving sustained Boomless supersonic cruise, there is one aspect that is just as important and that is the engines.

SST History

To suitably know the present we first need to understand and acknowledge the past. Aviation history has two SSTs to use as a reference point. The first is the legendary Concorde and the second, the fabled TU-144 both developed in the 1960s , a decade that gave us several aircraft that helped shape the future of air travel. The  B747 (Jumbo) & the B737 among them, not to mention the grand daddy of High Supersonic (Mach 2-5) aircraft technology the XB-70 Valkyrie and the B-58 Hustler (first flight 1956) with which the Overture shares some similarity.

A side of the B-58 Hustler with and without the parasite tank. Two engines under the wing clearly visible.

This piece focuses on supersonic transport engines and their evolution.

Turbojet v/s Turbofan

Before we dive into the BOOM Symphony we first need to understand the difference between a Turbojet and a Turbofan. What separates the two is a concept called Bypass. Turbojets have what is called a bypass ratio of 0. This means that all the air that goes in through the engine nacelle also goes through the compression stages of the jet before being pushed out the back. Hot exhaust gasses can be loud because of exhaust gas velocity and in several cases the use of afterburners at various stages of flight be it take-off, climb or cruise.

The turbofan was an evolution of the Turbojet and has a bypass ratio of greater than 0. Engineers soon discovered that not all air needs to pass through the engine combustion chamber all the time. Infact, this is not only inefficient and noisy, but leads to high operating temperatures and this often resulted in structural failures both on the engine and airframe.

Turbofans can be generally divided into three broad categories, low(LBR), medium (MBR) and high (HBR) bypass ratio. The TU-144 used a LBR engine, the Symphony is a MBR and most subsonic airliners of today use HBR. Turbofans may also use afterburners.

What are Afterburners?

Afterburners are an extra combustion chamber located at the end of the turbine sections of a Jet engine.  Afterburners inject and combust additional fuel into the hot exhaust gasses passing out of the turbine section of a jet engine.They generate incremental thrust in engines that use them.

The Concorde afterburners at takeoff.

The Concorde’s Olympus 593 engines increased thrust from 32,000lbs to 38,050lbs with afterburners. On the TU-144s initial NK-144 Kuznetsov engines the thrust increased from 22,500lbs to 33,000 lbs. The later RD-36-51 Kolesov engines increased from 20,000lbs to 44,115lbs. (These engines came in too late in the TU-144 program and could do little to avoid the closure of the program. In any case the Kolesov engines too used afterburners during cruise, which meant the TU-144 was always short on range).

Afterburners might increase thrust substantially but the engines get thirty and range gets impacted negatively.

The Concorde & TU-144

The TU-144 won the first to flight race against the Concorde by 61 days. 

The placement and size (diameter) of the engine types was dictated by aerodynamic performance across the speed spectrum from zero to Mach 2+.

The rectangular engine pod of the Concorde and TU-144.

The choice for both these aircraft were engines embedded under the wings in squarish shaped pods. Since the nacelle diameter could not be large (due to supersonic aerodynamic concerns) the width on the Concorde was 1.8m, and the TU-144 was 1.7m per engine and the total width under each wing was 3.7 & 3.5m respectively The length of each of the pods were 9.2m on the Concorde and 8.5m on the TU-144. The height of the pods on both the aircraft was 2m. From these figures we see the engines were similar in size , the magic was what happened inside.

The Olympus 593 engineers of the Concorde opted for a Turbojet and the NK-144 engineers of the TU-144 opted for a very low bypass Turbofan ( BPR 0.6:1 ). Very low bypass turbofans have operating characteristics very similar to a Turbojet.

One of the key pieces inside a jet engine is its compressor. Every compressor has low pressure and high pressure stages each driven by coaxial shafts (twin spool)that drive the various stages of compression as air is driven through the engine and ignited.

The Concorde’s Olympus 593 had seven low pressure and seven high pressure compression stages. Alternatively the the TU-144’s, NK-144 had 6 low pressure and 7 high pressure compression stages. The overall compression ratio of the Olympus 593 was 15:1 and the NK-144 was 11:1 . These numbers look low by today’s standards but history acknowledges these were the limitations of the engines given the materials and technology of the time.

Compressors operate in a very narrow range. An engine compressor on the Concorde spun between 3,500 – 7,000 r.p.m and that on the TU – 144 spun between 3,000 – 7,000 r.p.m. These were the compressor rotations across the entire speed range . Maintaining a stable flow of air through the compressor at all times was one of the secrets of maintaining stable supersonic flight. Disruptions can result in either a compressor stall that is loss of compression and engine performance or Compressor Surge where airflow reverses direction, leading to a flame out.

On the Concorde this was done with innovative use of a series of ramps and bleed valves.The initial TU-144 was much simpler and had immovable fixed inlets and this led to compressor stalls and surges which were difficult to reverse. Later TU-144 models had ramps similar to the Concorde.

The Concorde ramps at work. Image from Heritage Concorde.

The use of afterburners on both aircraft only added to compressor demands. The Concorde used afterburn for takeoff and climb only. The TU-144 used it all times.

The use of afterburn at take off and climb added to severe sound pollution. The Concorde takeoff decibels was approx 120 – 125 dB and reduced a bit during climb. Landing was approx 100dB . The TU-144 had a take off sound level getting toward 140dB and climb at 120dB, landing was similar to the Concorde at approx 100dB. These figures show both aircraft were loud, the TU-144 more than the Concorde. For comparison a very loud night club is rarely over 110dB. Anything over 130dB is painful.

Such sound was unacceptable even over 50 years ago and definitely not today. The Concorde which flew the daily route out of JFK to London / Paris had a specially designed route out of JFK to minimize noise impact on residential areas.

Enter the Symphony

Creating a supersonic (airliner) engine has many issues specific only to Supersonic travel.

The first is sound at take off, climb and cruise. The second is fuel burn. Supersonic travel burns three times the amount of fuel a normal sub sonic engines burn. ( BOOM plans to use Sustainable Aviation Fuel/SAF to reduce carbon footprint). The third is the biggest enemy, air resistance also known as drag. Lastly the use of afterburners needed to be avoided for reasons stated above.

A cross section of the BOOM Symphony engine.

The lessons learnt from Concorde/TU-144 was that having engines embedded in the wings/airframe created turbulence and drag related efficiencies ,there were other inefficiencies related to maintenance and safety that needed to be overcome.

BOOM has decided to go with engines slung below the wing much like the B-58 Hustler from 1956. 

We are now in the realm of efficiency dictating form.

BOOM decided to go with a medium bypass ( MBR 1.5:1 ) turbofan for reasons of overall efficiency in the areas of noise, fuel consumption and eliminating afterburners. The Symphony will generate 35,000lbs of thrust ( compression ratio of 25:1)without Afterburn and this requires a great deal of optimization.

Initially BOOM decided on a three engine Overture, but this needed a much larger diameter turbofan which increased sound and reduced redundancy , BOOM decided to go with the traditional four turbofan layout . The current jets have 72in (6 ft) diameter engines. Rough back of the hand math shows the three jet config to be approx 96in (8ft) in diameter leading to inefficiencies mentioned earlier all round.

The engine design of an underslung engine is necessarily different from an embedded engine especially entry and exit.

The air nacelles are axis symmetric on the Symphony v/s levered ramps on earlier SSTs. The intake is engineered to manage airflow through the speed spectrum.

An excellent example of this kind of an intake is the system on the SR-71 a.k.a Blackbird/Habu. The inlet spike moved back 26 inches as speed increased to control the shockwave position and maintain compressor pressure. The engine had bypass doors and bleed slots to further manage internal pressure. In the case of the SR-71 80% of all thrust came from compression inside the intake. This clearly suggests a sophisticated yet simple design.

The SR-71 engine spike.

The Symphony has three low pressure (LP) and six high pressure (HP) compressor stages. Having much fewer LP stages is offset by having a bypass of 1.5:1 which neither the Concorde nor the TU-144 ( bypass 0.6:1 ) had. The HP stages work at optimizing the engine as it moves through sub, trans and supersonic speeds. Having fewer LP stages and more HP stages highlights technology improvement across aerodynamics and materials.

The 787 with chevron nozzles represents a fresh look at managing exhaust gasses. The chevron nozzles are effective in damping sound by managing the mixing of the hot exhaust gasses with the ambient cooler air.  The Concorde with it’s variable geometry buckets showed how supersonic airliners can optimize exhaust gasses. In the case of the Symphony we can expect to see variable geometry chevron nozzles?

The Chevron nozzles on a Cargolux 747-8 engine exhaust.

The last bit is Artificial Intelligence ( AI ). When Honda created the VTEC engine, it took the world by storm. It had effectively created two engines in one. One engine for pottering around the city and the second for zipping down expressways. When the iVTEC came out it added efficiency to this exciting mix and created the modern Honda engines of today. The i stands for intelligent, AI that manages engine requirements through the rev range. AI effectively developed fresh efficiencies.Honda has further used a twin scroll turbo (independent exhaust gas streams through one turbo two scrolls), effectively cutting turbo lag without the need for two turbos (compound not twin turbos) and still being relatively compact. The Acura TLX Type S is an exciting mix of VTEC technology and raw instantaneous power response . Much like what BOOM is attempting to do with the Symphony.

A cross section of the twin scroll turbo.

Postlude

BOOM appears to have learnt the lessons from Overture’s Supersonic siblings well. They are leveraging the efficiencies new materials and technologies to create a fresh new tomorrow.

During the course of the writing of the piece I once again realized what great aircraft the Concorde and the TU-144 were, a doff of the hat to the scores of engineers who built and worked these birds.

Disclaimer: This article has used images from multiple sources accessed through Google. No plagiarism intended. This article is for recreational / educational purposes only and of no monetary value.

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

Elon Musk is the latest in a long line of visionary pioneers responsible for the evolution of the concept of reusability. SpaceX is the first private organisation to do this at scale. A Falcon 9 booster with the serial number 1058 has been reused seventeen times. To track the concept of reusability, considered the Holy Grail of long term rocket technology development, we need to go back 104 years to the year 1919.

The Starship Superheavy full stack at Boca Chica. The dots on the beach in the foreground I’m are road vehicles…gives you a perspective of size.

A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes

Dr Robert Goddard considered the Father of modern rocketry in his pioneering paper of 1919 laid out the outlines which rocketry abides by to this day.

Dr Robert Goddard and his very first rocket.

He was the first  to theorise that rockets could operate in a vacuum unlike conventional aircraft and to achieve that he highlighted Newton’s Third Law of Motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. He deacribed experiments with various types of propulsion both solid and liquid, and spoke of the need for further detailed experiments ( which he would carry on for the next twenty five years). Furthermore he was the first person to predict that rockets could get to space ( at that time the demarcation between the atmosphere and space, later known as the Karman Line was not yet clear). He was the first person to create the vision of space travel using rockets (non fiction).

For all his visionary brilliance Dr Robert Goddard never received any of the accolades showered on him posthumously. He was at various times called a madman, viewed with derision or just plain indifference. He rarely had access to funding (which if made available to him might have changed the face of the Space Race decades later). He had over two hundred patents covering rocket designs, propulsion systems and other related engineering concepts such as the stabilising Gyro patent no 1102653 from 1914.

A closeup of the Goddard’s stability gyro in a rocket of his. The basis of rocket directional control.

Herman Oberth ( later considered one of the founding fathers of rocketry) published a book in 1927 called ‘ A Rocket into Planetary Space’, the timeline suggests he might have used ideas from Goddard’s 1919 paper. Oberth researched independently as well.

Charles Lindbergh, now a National Treasure after his Trans Atlantic exploit of 1927, visited Goddard’s laboratory in 1929 and expressed his support. This bought positive attention to an otherwise ignored Goddard.

The Rise of German Technology

Herman Oberth’s 1927 book created a lot of interest in Germany and whereas Goddard was viewed with derision, the Germans looked up to his ideas and formed rocket clubs. The VFRs ( translated to Society for Space Travel) were primarily based around Berlin and they experimented through the late 1920s and 30s with various aspects of rocketry such as propulsion and design. These societies were instrumental in not only contributing to rocket technology development, but nurtured several future rocket scientists, names such as Wernhard Von Braun.

From 1932 through the VFRs Wernhard Von Braun developed an all encompassing interest in rocketry. From then on he devoted the rest of his life to it. After coming to power in 1933 the Nazi party took more than a passing interest in the strides made at the VFRs. At around the same time the societies or the Nazi party using them as fronts (it’s not clear) asked for and received all of Dr Robert Goddard’s over two hundred rocketry patents, from the US Patents office for just 38 cents each!

Von Braun completed his PhD in Physics from the University of Berlin with a dissertation in rocketry in 1937, and began working on the A4/V2 program after first joining the SS as an officer at the Peenemunde rocket development facility on the German Baltic coast. His oratory skills along with his technical dedication to rocketry quickly brought him to the Nazi Party’s attention while still a hobbyist at the VFRs.

Unlike the VFRs which were impoverished and had out of work hobbyists playing around with rockets, the Nazis pretty much gave him a Carte Blanche which he used to construct the state of the art facility at Peenemunde. After almost six years of focused development an A4 demonstration to Hitler failed and the facility was almost closed down.

One of Von Braun’s early A4 rockets, the moonrocket from Tintin’s Destination Moon bears more than a fleeting resemblance to this.

He had one staunch supporter, the SS General Hans Kammler, who urged him to continue his work. In August of 1943 Operation Hydra launched an air raid on Peenemunde. The damage caused to the facility took about six weeks to repair, however the Nazi high command knew the facility needed to be moved, and the decision to move to Mittelwerk Dora, into miles of underground tunnels was taken.

Here using over 60,000 concentration camp prisoners in appalling conditions research on the A4/V2 continued at pace and in June 1944 a V2 rocket became the first manmade object to get to space. (The Nazis did not normally use concentration camp labour for sensitive work, this points to the urgency of development needed.)

This achievement immediately led to an order of 12000 V2s from the Nazi Party to be used as the first missiles ever . Over 5700 were constructed and 3100 launched. The V2s themselves were responsible for only about 2500 casualties, but the Allies and Russia became very aware of a new weapon that radically changed the rules of engagement.

The tragic aspect of Mittelwerk Dora is that over 20,000 prisoners of the 60,000 allocated died at the camp. Over 200 of them hanged for sabotage (it is impossible to estimate how many lives these poor souls saved).

Once Mittelwerk fell to the Allies and Russia, they quickly divided the groups of scientists and the remaining 2600 V2 rockets (some complete, others in various stages of completion) among them to develop their own rocketry expertise.

Wernhard Von Braun a SS and Nazi Officer was brought to America as part of Operation Paperclip along with over 1000 scientists, fourteen tons of rocket research documents and approximately 100 finished V2 rockets.

Once in America Von Braun and his team were  initially with the US Army as they continued with their research on rockets. They were part of the research team that fired the V2 rockets as part of high altitude experiments as the US worked on understanding the characteristics of flight in the upper atmosphere.

In 1950 the entire team was transferred to the ABMA (Army Ballistic Missile Agency) which in turn was transferred to the newly formed National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 1958.

A Nazi Officer would become an American Hero. This part of Von Braun’s life has been debated at length, the fact is He never expressed any remorse about Nazi actions during the war and He could not have not known about the appalling conditions of the workers.

He managed to use his expertise as a bargaining chip to avoid any persecution.

The X-15 Program

A X-15 just landed back on ground at Edwards AirForce Base. It was customary for the B-52s that dropped them to buzz them on the ground. Note the sleds for the main landing gear.

Until 1957 each of the arms of the armed services had their own rocket research program and they were in direct competition with each other. On that date in 1957 when Sputnik was launched and the launch a month later of Sputnik II with Laika the dog (went on a one way ticket) was just the kick the US needed. Their attempt to launch the Vanguard TV3 (Test Vehicle 3) ended in a launchpad disaster in December of 1957. The US would finally bring in Von Braun to be on the team that finally had the first successful American satellite launch in January 1958.

The X15 program had been on the drawing boards since 1955 but little progress was made.Once the unification body NASA was formed things began to move ahead albeit slowly at first. The first flight finally happened in June 1959.

The primary objective of the X-15 program was to gather data on high speed and high altitude heating and aircraft behaviour characteristics.

The rocket powered aircraft was shaped like a cross between a missile and plane. It had hydrogen peroxide thrusters in its nose and wings which gave the aircraft maneuverability at high altitudes and speeds and as speed and altitude decreased the control surfaces came into play. The aircraft had sleds for the main landing gear that gave it the ability to handle high speed and temperature landings on a variety of surfaces.

Over 199 flights the X-15 would bring back valuable data which would later be used on the Space Shuttle and other Low Earth Orbit vehicles.

An illustration of X-15s operating corridor.

The fleet of three aircraft had their share of mishaps, casualties and miraculous escapes. Along the way the X-15 set several records, highest altitude at 354,000 feet, highest speed at 4250 mph.

The X-15 finally retired in 1968 and was the first reusable spacecraft.

The Lifting Bodies

The lifting body program ran from 1963 to 1975. They were a series of experimental aerodynamic bodies that were meant to test the handling characteristics  of a small crewed reusable and cost effective spacecraft. They had no wings and the bodies looked like cones cut in half with vertical stabilisers only. The lift was generated by the body itself. They were also known as flying tubs.

The first non-powered body the M2-F1 was initially towed by a heavily modified Pontiac Catalina that got to 110 mph in 10.9 seconds. A true petrolhead car in the name of research. It was later towed by a C-47 to an altitude of approximately 12,000 feet and dropped. The craft descended at 3600 feet per minute.

The M2-F1 and the legendary Pontiac Catalina.
The M2-F1 towed by a C-47 with a 1000 foot line.

Once the low speed flight characteristics were understood, the program progressed to heavier powered bodies such as the M2-F3 which was dropped from 45,000 feet by a the same B-52s that dropped the X-15 and descended at a rate of 10,000 feet a minute and topped Mach1. The other bodies were HL-10, X24, X24A & finally X24B. All of these bodies descended at 10,000 feet a minute and made precise landings on their designated runway at Edwards Air Force Base.

The data gathered from over two hundred of the lifting body flights went a great way in understanding the gliding behaviour of manned spacecraft and helped in designing the Space Shuttle.

The M2-F1 and the Space Shuttle Enterprise in one frame.

The Moonrocket

Until the Starship Superheavy full stack of April 2023, the Saturn V rocket stack that launched the Apollo missions to the Moon and the Skylab between 1967 and 1973 was the biggest rocket by a long way. It held the record for over fifty years.

The height of 363 feet, thrust of over 7.5 million pounds and heavy lift capacity was staggering.

The immense size of the Saturn V rocket can be seen by the man in front. Musk has mentioned that Von Braun always wanted the rocket to get to Mars and hence over engineered it.

Wernhard Von Braun was at the heart of the design and deployment of this gigantic engineering wonder.

The cost of $185 million a launch in 1960s Dollars ($1.4 Billion in 2023) was staggering as well and Congress could not let this expenditure continue.

Future launches to the Moon could only happen when a more cost effective means of launch was made available.

The promise JFK made to the Nation back in 1962 was kept and Man did walk on the Moon before the 1960s was out, the project had played its part and run its course to a logical end.

The Space Shuttle

The hit single ‘ Space Truckin’ by Deep Purple from their album Machine Head of 1972 reflects the mood of the World and the decision made by the Space Task Group formulated in 1969 by Nixon and presented in 1972.

The group had to assess the future of Human spaceflight from America. The options were the Space Shuttle, the Space Station, Moon Missions, Mars Missions or the rest of the Solar System. 

The committee decided to go with the Space Truck and Low Earth Orbit Infrastructure. The Skylab was already in advanced stages of completion by 1972 (it would be launched in 1973).

The concept of the Space Shuttle was to be reusable, comparatively reasonable in cost ( remember each Saturn V launch), safe and be the enabler to furthering space exploration as Mankind headed into the modalities that went into truly interplanetary travel.

While designing the shuttle was a colossal nightmare it was a success on several fronts such as being the Space Truck that not only transported about 36% of the pressurised components of the ISS (International Space Station), it not only transported the Hubble Telescope to space but also transported personnel to space to fit Hubble’s glasses on. And several other significant missions.

However it was not completely reusable. The solid fuel tank was discarded after each launch, and the side boosters needed to be thoroughly refurbished before reuse.

The Shuttle itself had between 24000 and 31000 tiles as thermal protection on them and getting them to stick and stay in place was a nightmare (the Shuttle Columbia burned up on re-entry as a result of compromised thermal protection ).

The Boosters and tank made for a complicated set up and the Shuttle launches themselves were not exactly cheap at about $500 million a launch (2011 Dollars).

The Shuttle did have a total of 135 missions and is today considered a major step in the direction of utilitarian reusability, it however needed to be more reliable and cheaper.

The Ansari X Prize

Originally instituted as the X prize in May 1996 by the multifaceted Peter Diamandis. He was inspired by the Orteig Prize of 1919, a $25,000 prize instituted by New York Hotelier Raymond Orteig for the first solo aviator to fly non stop from New York to Paris or vice versa. The prize would eventually be won by Charles Lindbergh in 1927 and the rest is history.

Diamandis realised that  “such a prize updated and offered as a space prize might be just what was needed to bring space travel to the general public, to jump-start a commercial space industry”. The prize was further developed into a suborbital space barnstorming prize (a doff of the hat to the barnstormers of yore) and a prize money of $10 million was committed (backers were yet to be found). The target: The first crewed, non governmental and experimental spacecraft to launch into space twice in two weeks.

In May 2004, following a donation of $10 million by Anousheh and Amir Ansari, the X Prize became the Ansari X prize. Twenty Six Teams from around the World participated in this contest and much like the Orteig Prize that was won about eight years after it was instituted the Ansari X prize too was won by Burt Rutan and his team at Scaled Composites eight years after it was instituted. The Scaled Composites team was backed by Microsoft founder Paul Allen with a backing of $25 million.

The Ansari X Prize did catalyse private commercial spaceflight and Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin stand today offering private space trips. Their rockets / planes / spacecraft are fully reusable.

The Ansari X Prize achieved its set goals much like the Orteig prize seventy five years before it.

SpaceX

The X in SpaceX and The Ansari X Prize stand for different reasons.The X in SpaceX stands for Xploration and the X prize would stand for the person’s name who put the prize money up (but that changed). Founded in 2002 by Elon Musk, the goals of SpaceX were Cheaper space exploration (reusability the holy grail of rocketry), commercial spaceflight,Colonizing Mars (that’s the big one), and contracting NASA.

After nearly bankrupting Musk today SpaceX stands as a giant among the next age breed of private space companies, they have achieved scale of launches with a significant reusability and 99.3% success rate (2023). Today watching the Falcon 9 rockets land back on Earth is nothing short of magical.

Two Falcon Heavy side boosters come into land simultaneously…magical.

They launched their first private spaceflight with an all civilian crew in September 2021 led by Jared Issacman . The mission was billed as a fundraiser for St Jude’s hospital and raised over $243 million. Issacman is reputed to have paid $100 million and Musk topping up another $50 million and other public donations. This mission was a significant step as it proved all civilian crews could fly to space and back and highlighted equipment reliability and autonomy.

The Dragon Capsule used by inspiration 4. As it would not be docking with anything a transparent viewing dome replaced the docking mechanism.

The Starship/Superheavy full stack is today the largest rocket fullstack ever set up. While costs are not available, estimates per stack vary between $60 million and $200 million. This puts the cost in a similar ballpark to what the Saturn V stack cost in 1969! Furthermore the full stack offers a significant percentage of reuseability.

SpaceX have truly proved reusability on an industrial scale and continue to break fresh ground with almost every launch. For 2023 SpaceX plans 100 launches and has already completed over 70 with a very high success rate as of October 05,2023.

The Reusability Component Summation

Reusability the Holy Grail of rocketry has paved the way for an entirely new generation of experimental and commercial space craft. The current crop of experimental and commercial spacecraft today are a linear build up of knowledge from Goddard to Oberth to Von Braun and the gutsy test pilots , innumerable engineers and support staff (starting with Esther Christine, Goddard’s wife of over 40 years) who made Spaceflight what it is today….Reusable!

For more deep dive easy to read articles please go to https://theaviationevangelist.com

Follow me:

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

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

The 1965 movie Boeing Boeing has a much deeper aspect to it than what the premise suggests. Tony Curtis an American Journalist based in Paris has an elaborate timetable of Stewardess girlfriends who come in and out of Paris on their turboprop airliners and he is able to manage this beautifully, that is until the new fangled Jetliners begin to make their appearance. They cut travel time in half and the film is a satirical take on the turn of events as theses aircraft enter airline fleets. Jerry Lewis in the film is just being Jerry Lewis!

The poster of the movie Boeing Boeing starring Tony Curtis & Jerry Lewis.

From the coming of age for aviation on that chilly December day in 1903 when the Flyer first took flight, three aspects of aircraft have been centre stage, Speed, Range & Altitude flown.

Airlines – Airplanes

The St Petersburg – Tampa Airboat Line was the very first scheduled airline ever created in 1914. It promised to connect the two cities of St Petersburg and Tampa in twenty three minutes. This was against a time of two hours by boat, twenty hours by car or four to twelve hours by train.

A poster of the St Petersburg – Tampa Airboat Line (left) note the schedule, advance booking and revenue management.The Benoist Type XIV flying over Tampa Bay ( right).

The revenue management was simple. Ticket prices were $5 dollars for a one way ticket and the aeroplane could carry one passenger.A round trip cost $10 and advance booking of seats was possible (although no information exists on advance purchase rules). The very first air passenger ever was Mr Abram C Pheil, a former mayor of St Petersburg and he won the seat in auction for a winning bid of $400. The airboat never flew higher than five feet in the air.

Commenting on the significance of the St. Petersburg–Tampa Airboat line, Thomas Benoist, the builder of the Benoist airboats, said, “Some day people will be crossing oceans on airliners like they do on steamships today.” The airline served as a prototype for today’s global airline industry.

A sister aeroplane was ordered and this was to carry mail. The first air cargo bundle was a hundred pounds of the St Petersburg Times for $5. This is definitely the first freighter ever!

From the example above, it is clear that Airplane manufacturers and airlines have always gone hand in hand, and together created the global aviation industry what it is today, 110 years on.

The Incremental Years

The first airmail service was on February 11,1911 in India between Allahabad and Naini a distance of 13 kilometres (8.1 miles). Airmail networks quickly developed in the UK, USA,Europe and Australia.

An envelope from the very first airmail flight ever in 1911, note the special franking on the stamps. The early airmail route network in the United States. Possibly the first route network ever.

Airmail took off first before passenger transport as the initial years were about trial and error and most people viewed the aircraft as a dangerous novelty . Airmail was directly responsible for creating the early route networks. Furthermore they were responsible for creating the infrastructure such as airports including layover facilities for crew, runways, route navigation updates and guides , engineering & refuelling services needed to keep the airmail pipeline moving. Of course Government interest and subsidies helped develop them in a big way.

The first major airlines appeared in the late teens and through the twenties, KLM, Qantas, Imperial Airways, United Airlines and Panam to name a few. American Airlines only made its appearance in 1934, Air India in 1932. As people realised there were options to long steamer and rail journeys, they began to look to air as an option. The early air routes were about connecting cities within Europe, UK, Australia & USA and India.

Charles Lindbergh changed all that on those famous days in 1927 when he flew from New York to Paris , solo and non stop. Trans Atlantic passenger services soon followed.

Air Travel was very elitist and most aircraft only had first class and passengers travelled in airborne opulence. As is the same today, first and business class travel is a very limited segment and for airlines to scale up and democratise air travel, aeroplanes needed to be faster, bigger and cheaper to fly on. The race was on.

The Douglas DC-3 (left), the Boeing 247 (middle), the Ford Trimotor (right) were among the dominant aircraft of the 1930s

Early metal airliners such as the Douglas DC-3 , Boeing 247, Lockheed Model 10 Electra ( Amelia Earheart’s plane) and Ford Trimotor competed for the crown of most passengers and speed. The DC-3 outstripped most of the competition with a maximum passenger capacity of 32 passengers and a range of 1500 miles (2400 kilometres). The others had passenger capacities of around 10-15.

Amelia Earheart poses with Her Lockheed Model 10 Electra.

Aircraft needed to fly higher to go faster more economically, and there came the human factor, our bodies react adversely to the cold and lack of oxygen at higher altitudes. The highest we can breathe normally is around 10,000 feet, and the current crop of aircraft were restricted to this height due to the human factor. The barf bags we barely glance at on most flights we take today, were a necessity in the 1930s due to altitude sickness suffered. Aircraft therefore had to fly through rough weather systems instead of over them.  The flights were unpleasant.

The airlines needed to scale up and a solution was needed to tackle the human factor altitude restriction.

The Pressurization & Early Jet Effect

In 1938 the Boeing Stratoliner became the first aircraft to offer a pressurised cabin. Pressurised to 9000 feet. Passengers flew in relative comfort for longer distances. With a cruising altitude of 20,000 feet and range of 2200 miles it was a big improvement over what was currently available. There was one catch, the price was much higher than aircraft such as the DC-3. Airlines could not see the value of such a visionary aircraft. The war soon came and changed everything.

The Boeing Stratoliner the very first aeroplane with a pressurised cabin. Only 10 were ever built.

The Heinkel 178 ( He178) first was the first jet plane to fly in 1939. Owing to the early days this jet was only marginally faster than the current crop of fighters and guzzled much more fuel, the Nazi management could not see the advantage of speed yet and continued with their Messerschmitt Me 109s and Focke-Wulf FW 190s.

The Heinkel He178 (left), the Messerschmitt Me262 (middle), the Gloster Meteor (right)

The first pressurised aircraft to fly for extended periods successfully was the B-29 Superfortress. It first flew in 1942 and its specifications grabbed eyeballs immediately! In addition to a pressurised cabin, it flew at over 31,000 feet, at a cruising speed of 357 mph and a range of over 3000 miles.

The Me262 first flew in 1944 the same year as the Gloster Meteor. The pilots of these aircraft had to carry oxygen masks as the cabins were not pressurised, and the aircraft themselves entered too late in the war to make a difference to the eventual outcome, but their speed and advantage over conventional aircraft was obvious for all to see.

The Boeing B-29 Superfortress (left) and the Boeing B377 Stratocruiser (right),the similarities are clearly visible

Both Boeing and the airlines knew there was synergy here and Boeing quickly converted the B29 into the B377 Stratocruiser that set fresh benchmarks in air passenger travel. Although only 46 were ever sold, it were known for their comfort of travel over long distances.

The age of the pressurised cabin had arrived.

The Transition

Howard Hughes ‘The Aviator’ had a controlling interest in TWA. He wanted to create an aircraft that was far superior to anything in the late 30s and early 40s. Enter the Lockheed Constellation! A cruising speed of over 350 mph(575 km/h), cruising altitude of over 24000 feet and a range of 3500 miles (5600 kilometres). The cabin was pressurised and could carry over 75 passengers.

The Lockheed Constellation …the Connie

Howard Hughes was fanatical about the secrecy of the project and the only reason the project saw light was because of the US war effort and the mandatory inspection of Lockheed’s facilities.

The US Army immediately gave the Connie a designation number of C69 and put 15 of them to work for the US Military. Once the war ended Lockheed bought the aircraft back and fitted them out to airline specs and sold them.

The Super Constellation with an increased range of over 5400 miles (8170 kilometres) came into service in 1951. By then the De Havilland Comet was just making its appearance.

The Constellation is the first example of how closely airlines and airframe manufacturers need to work to create a legend.

The Jet Age

The DeHavilland Comet 1 was an aircraft before its time. It was first introduced in 1952 and could fly at over 500 mph (800 km/h) and carry 36 passengers with a range of over 1500 miles (2400 kilometres). With a cruising altitude of over 25,000 feet, this jet was all airline dreams come true, after initial scepticism they lined up to buy the aircraft. Airlines could not afford not to have them. And then the crashes happened.

The Dehavilland Comet 1 (left) note the square windows, the RAF Nimrod (right).

Aviation’s limited understanding of pressurisation and the resulting effects on the aircraft fuselage skin left the fleet grounded. Dehavilland a visionary company that even made its own engines, had lost the first movers advantage. By the time the Comet 4 was unveiled in 1958 with massive improvements over preceding models the momentum had been lost to another epic aircraft.  Proof the Comet’s ruggedness and endurance can be seen in the 46 RAF Nimrods ( derived from the Comet) that operated until 2011. A testament to engineering of the highest quality.

The Boeing 707-80 or demonstrator aircraft was a passenger jet disguised as military aircraft. The cost of development ( over $16 Million) was worth over 25% of Boeing’s total value. The disguise worked and the Military finally ordered the second iteration of the B707 ( KC135 and used over 800 of them) , and third with a completely redesigned fuselage and wing. The cost of the program development escalated exponentially with each iteration and Boeing needed to sell hundreds of 707s to break even.

The Boeing 707 Demonstrator ( left) and the KC135 Stratotanker (right)

The aircraft with a cruising speed of around 600 mph (960 km/h), cruising altitude of over 35,000 feet and range of around 4000 miles (6500 kilometres). Intercontinental models had higher ranges of over 5750 miles (9260 kilometres), changed aviation forever.

Summation

The B707 along with all that came before it shrank the world. The airlines who were looking to democratise air travel got to do exactly that.Fly more people further and cheaper than ever before.

The B707s biggest advertisement was President Eisenhower used the B707 to travel to 11 countries across the Globe in 19 days. A feat only made possible by the B707. And then there is Tex Johnston and his famous barrel roll.

The B707 as AirForce 1 (left), an image from inside the B707 Demostrator as She does the famous barrel roll (right).

Airline Commercial Infrastructure changed to keep pace. Route Network Planning became a critical department for every major airline. Revenue Management would find its true wings only in the twenty-first century.

Boeing Boeing the movie is a definitive marker of the turning to burning transition.

For more deep dive easy to read articles please go to https://theaviationevangelist.com

Follow me:

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

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Aerospace is a term that came into being in the mid 1950s and encompassed a wide array of topics from aeronautics, the study of planes and other flying machines and space flight. The term evolved over a period of almost four centuries.

Pre Flight

Leonardo Da Vinci the Italian painter / wizard / illuminati / visionary first sketched and conceptualised several different flying machines including gliders and ornithopters (a machine that achieves lift by flapping its wings) in the 1500s.

Leonardo Da Vinci’s ornithopter on the left, Sir George Cayley’s Airfoil and aircraft on a silver disc, the irrepressible Otto Lilienthal about to take flight with one of gliders.

It fell upon Sir George Cayley in the early 1800s to get the concepts of aerodynamics organised into the fundamentals of flight. Sir George surmised that flight can be achieved by aerodynamic lift and this can be achieved by making a surface support weight by the application of power to the resistance of air, the surface being the airfoil in a wing of an aircraft and the power coming from an engine.  Cayley’s fundamentals of aeronautics hold true even today and he is considered the ‘Father of Aeronautics’.

While the basic theory of aeronautics held true through rigorous experimentation, constructing an airfoil with control surfaces and a light weight engine to drive propulsion would take another hundred years.

Otto Lilienthal of Germany is considered very influential in the development of airfoil design and conducted over two thousand glider experiments including working on control surfaces. He was killed in a glider crash in 1896 as his glider stalled at height and crashed to the ground (he was testing new control surfaces).

Samuel Langley and his Aerodrome 5 is generally considered to be the first powered flight achieved in 1896. However it was powered by a steam engine and had almost no directional stability or control. It did fly 3300 feet and showed that powered flight was possible.

Samuel Langley’s Aerdrome from the late 1890s.

Enter the Wright Brothers, bicycle mechanics Orville and Wilbur Wright.Over a four year period between 1899 – 1903 they perfected three concepts very important to flight. The first was power delivery, they custom built a lightweight gasoline powered twelve hp internal combustion motor that drove the propellers of the Flyer 1. The second they developed the concept of wing warping which gave the aircraft directional control as it banked. This is the basis of aircrfa design even today. Third : They developed pitch control that controlled the attitude of the aircraft. These three together gave the aircraft three dimensional control. Their first controlled flight was achieved on December 17, 1903 and flew a total of 120 feet. Along the way they did create what will become the first take off track (runway) and definitely was the first MRO facility at Kittyhawk and lounge!

The Flyer 1 takes flight for the first time ever(left). Note the take off track (the first runway). The Kittyhawk airport with a a hanger and MRO facility and a lounge.

By the time they got to the Flyer 3 in 1905 they had flown the longest distance of 24.2 miles, an increase of almost 2000% over their first flight in two short years. In the year 1908 the Wright Brothers were involved in the first fatality involving powered flight when Lt Thomas Selfridge died in a Military Flyer crash at Fort Myers, Virginia.

The Flyer 1 sparked a century of aeronautical evolution that continues to this day.

TransAtlantic Flight

On May 20-21,1927 as Charles Lindbergh flew his way into the history books, little did He know that he would spark a global revolution. He flew ‘The Spirit of St Louis ‘ a single engined monoplane manufactured by Ryan Airlines Corporation for 33.5 hours non stop and a distance of 3,600 miles (5,800 kilometres).

The Spirit of St Louis to the left, note the lack of a windshield, the aircraft was a flying gas can. A Panam Clipper over Ireland (middle), and an Imperial Airways Hannibal (right).

This not only set the benchmark for endurance but with the flight, but this feat created the TransAtlantic Airplane passenger market. Imperial Airways offered passenger flights in The Hannibal with approx 5-6 overnight layovers and Pan Am followed with their Clippers in 1931. This traffic created TransAtlantic infrastructure. Infrastructure creation is the fundamental basis of the Gemini & Apollo programs to the Moon and all other Earthbound and Space missions that followed.

On October 4th, 1957 the term aerospace was fulfilled when Sputnik became Earth’s first artificial satellite in space and Aeronautics was now Aerospace. In the year 1958 aerospace engineering came into being, the first institution to offer the course was MIT.

Space Flight

Sputnik realised a long cherished dream of Mankind when it was launched into space in an elliptical low Earth orbit that ranged between 134 – 583 miles. This first move by the USSR sparked off the space race and an era of enormous technological advances.

The Sputnik 1, Earth’s first artificial satellite from 1957.

In 1961 Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space and the USA could not have another second spot to the USSR. It was in 1962 that President Kennedy announced that the USA would have a man on the Moon before the decade was out.

The Karman Line came into being in 1963 and was officially accepted as the edge of space (where the atmosphere ended) at a height of 62 miles (100 kilometres) above the surface of the Earth. This is the finish line for aeroplanes and the start line for spacecraft!

A pictorial representation of the Karman Line.

While there was plenty of data on aeronautical flight, very little was known about spaceflight. The X 15 program, a hypersonic rocket powered plane that flew at Mach 6.7 was launched from a B-52 Bomber at approx 50,000 feet. It would then ignite its rocket and get upto a height of 100 kilometres (62 miles). A total of 199 flights were conducted from the late 1950s through to the early 70s.

The data gathered by these flights was invaluable to the Gemini & Apollo programmers that eventually landed Man on the Moon and the Space Shuttle program as well.

Post the Moon Flights which created the vision of Mankind as an interplanetary species, a series of missions were undertaken for us to understand the effects of zero gravity on the Human body , these Space Laboratories have contributed immensely to our understanding of space. The ISS has been the longest in space for over twenty three years.

The X-15 is the first example of, is it a rocket, is it a plane? The second was the Space Shuttle and the third will be the SpaceX Starship. The concept of Aerospace just got stronger.

The X-15 dropped off a B-52 on one of it’s runs (left), the Space Shuttle landing (left), the Starship on it’s way back to Earth after a test flight (right). The X-15 is a plane, the other two are spacecraft.

Supersonic Flight

Legendary Gen Chuck Yeager (who once liked my tweet!!) was the first human being to fly supersonic on October 14,1947 in the Bell X-1 named ‘ Glamorous Glennis ‘ after his wife.

Gen Chuck Yeager and the Bell X-1 right after his supersonic flight on October 14,1947.

From that moment in December 1903 when the Flyer 1 first flew, there have been three objectives to all air travel: speed, height and endurance. If Lindbergh was the epitome of endurance then Yeager came to stand for speed. Height ( endurance and speed!) would go to the SR-71.

The amazing Lockheed SR-71 (Habu, meaning ghost) still holds multiple speed and altitude records thirty years after She became a museum piece.

However for speed to be achieved in multiples of Mach (the speed of sound), propellers would not do it, the aircraft needed turbofans (read jets). While the Bell X-1 was powered by a rocket engine, the ubiquitous jet engine of today was invented by Sir Frank Whittle and would be the mainstay of all supersonic aircraft.

Supersonic flight has continued to be the mainstay of air forces across the world, however supersonic speeds are not about endurance, which is what makes the Concorde and the Tu-144 so special. Both aircraft could fly supersonic for hours (the Concorde had far superior endurance) .

The TU-144 (above) and Concorde (below), hard to tell them apart. The picture of the Concorde in supersonic cruise at 60,000 feet was taken from a Panavia Tornado. The fighter could only keep up with the Concorde for less than four minutes! Such is the power and majesty of these aircraft.

Our understanding of Supersonic flight characteristics have gone a long way to bridge our understanding of high speed flight characteristics of reusable spacecraft such as the Space Shuttle and of the future of Space flight the Starship.

Aerospace is a crossover.

Future Flight

The Saturn V rocket that carried the Apollo missions to the Moon and the Skylab to space remains the only rocket to have carried humans beyond the LEO (Low Earth Orbit). At over 363 feet tall and 33 feet in diameter it was huge. Over three stages it generated 7.5 million / 1 million / 200,000 pounds force (lbf), the decreasing order of force over the three stages is the decreasing atmospheric force as the rocket rose and gathered momentum. It remained the largest rocket ever created for over fifty years.

A comparison of the largest rockets ever.

On April 20,2023 Saturn V lost its long held crown of the biggest rocket ever made and flown to the SpaceX SuperHeavy. The SuperHeavy has 33 raptor engines generating over 16 million pounds of thrust and at over 230 feet high and 29.5 feet diameter is only the first stage of the full stack. Sitting on top of SuperHeavy is the Starship with height of 164 feet with the same diameter , which generates an additional 3.3 million lbf. The full stack comes in 394 feet making this biggest ever constructed.

Much like the evolution of flight when Lindbergh created the vision of the TransAtlantic aerial route , airlines and countries followed suit by creating an infrastructure chain to ensure the TransAtlantic Clippers and Hannibals stayed on time , we observe the same happening with SpaceFlight.

The NASA Artemis Base on the Moon surface and gateway are steps in the same direction of creating infrastructure in space as we evolve into an interplanetary species.

SpaceX is sending tanker ships (Starships without windows) in LEO  for their planned Mars missions.

The term Aerospace was born of necessity (even NASA stands forNational Aeronautics & Space Administration) in the considerable overlap between Flight & SpaceFlight.

An important term was born…

Credits:

NASA

SpaceX

YouTube

Google

Plenty of missed credits…sorry

For more deep dive easy to read articles please go to https://theaviationevangelist.com

Follow me:

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

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist