Archives for posts with tag: Schlieren image

Introduction

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

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

The QueSST Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

The X-59 First Steps

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

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

The X-59 Design

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Engine

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

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

Materials & Construction

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

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

Summation

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

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

Innovation is Key…

Before you Leave

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

Follow me:

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

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

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

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

Intro

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

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

The Idea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Demonstrator

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

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

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

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

The Design

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Assembly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Overture

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

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

The Overture prototype should be ready by 2029.

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

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

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

Follow me:

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

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

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

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