Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T05:29:05.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feasibility study of a supersonic business jet based on the Learjet airframe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

B. Chudoba ,
G. Coleman ,
P. A. Czysz  and
C. M. Butler
B. Chudoba
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
G. Coleman
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
P. A. Czysz
Affiliation:
HyperTech Concepts LLC, St Louis, USA
C. M. Butler
Affiliation:
Aircraft Design Services, San Antonio, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the dawn of the jet age, passengers on all jet transports, except Concorde, have traveled at about the same speed — a standard Mach 0 83-0 87 range as a practical compromise. After 27 years of supersonic commercial travel, British Airways and Air France retired their fleet of Concorde aircraft at the end of 2003 because it was considered no longer profitable. Clearly, with the retirement of Concorde, the world has lost the only aircraft offering passenger transportation at supersonic speeds. Over the past several years manufacturers have proposed new aircraft designs that promise an increase in transportation speeds. In particular, the business jet market appears to present a business case for an exclusive supersonic business jet (SSBJ). However, there is a key-hurdle which has, until now, prevented the successful launch of a SSBJ hardware program: the development cost for an all-new aircraft quickly eradicates the soughtafter business case. This paper presents the results of a parametric sizing study which aims to answer the following question: is it possible to drastically reduce the development effort of a supersonic business jet design by converting an existing Learjet airframe into a supersonic vehicle while sustaining FAA interest and approval? This paper discusses selected aircraft sizing trades and operations related constraints. The feasibility study indicates some level of technical plausibility for the case of converting an existing airframe into a certifiable lower-cost supersonic aircraft. Acknowledging the range of actual complications related to the task of economically modifying and certifying a legacy airframe towards a SSBJ, it appears that a larger size SSBJ offers significant technical and economical advantages which outweigh the ‘off-the-shelf’ Learjet case.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 113 , Issue 1146 , August 2009 , pp. 517 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Miller, J., Program Update — Aerion enters advanced design phase, 5 October, 2008, Press Information, Aerion Corporation.Google Scholar
2. Henne, P.A., Case for small supersonic civil aircraft, J Aircr, May-June, 2005, 42, (3).Google Scholar
3. Paulson, M., SSBJ developments — Putting a ‘Q’ into supersonic flight, Professional Pilot, September, 2007, pp 58–62.Google Scholar
4. Antonov, V., Gordon, Y., Gordyukov, N., Yakovlev, V., Zenkin, V., Carruth, L. and Miller, J., OKB Sukhoi — A History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft, 1996, 1st Edition, pp 259–262, Midland Publishing.Google Scholar
5. Deremaux, Y., Intermediate aircraft configuration families, 31 October, 2007, Issue 1, HISAC-T-5-27-1, Dassault Aviation.Google Scholar
6. Chudoba, B., Coleman, G., Oza, A. and Czysz, P.A., What price supersonic speed? A design anatomy of supersonic transportation, Part 1, Aeronaut J, March, 2008, 112, (1129), pp 141–151.Google Scholar
7. Chudoba, B., Oza, A, Coleman, G. and Czysz, P.A., What price supersonic speed? — An applied market research case study — Part 2, Aeronaut J, April, 2008, 112, (1130), pp 219–231.Google Scholar
8. Chudoba, B., Coleman, G., Huang, X., Huizenga, A., Czysz, P.A. and Butler, C.M., A feasibility study of a supersonic business jet (SSBJ) based on the Learjet airframe, 2006, AIAA 2006-28, 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibition, 9–12 January, 2006, Reno, Nevada, USA.Google Scholar
9. Loftin, L.K., Subsonic aircraft: Evolution and the matching of size to performance, August, 1980, NASA RP, 1060, NASA Langley Research Center.Google Scholar
10. Hoak, D.E. and Finck, R., USAF stability and Ccontrol DATCOM, Flight Controls Division, October, 1960, revised, 1978, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.Google Scholar
11. ANON. AIAA aerospace design engineers guide,, 1998, 4th Edition, pp 7–25, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
12. Mattingly, J.D., Heiser, W.H. and Pratt, D.T., Aircraft Engine Design, 2002, 2nd Edition, AIAA Educational Series.Google Scholar
13. Howe, D., Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis, 2000, Professional Engineering Publishing, London and Bury St Edmunds.Google Scholar
14. ANON. Aerospace source book, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 2005, 162, (3).Google Scholar
15. Roskam, J., Airplane design — Part I: Preliminary sizing of airplanes, 2003, DARcorporation, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
16. Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 1999, 3rd Edition, AIAA Education Series.Google Scholar
17. Hagerman, E., All sonic, no boom, Popular Science, March, 2007, pp 64–67.Google Scholar
18. Huang, X. and Chudoba, B., Overview of a HTHL hands-on SAV design synthesis methodology, 2007, AIAA Paper, AIAA-2007-241, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibition, 8-11 January, 2007, Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
19. Nicolai, L.M., Airfoil and planform selection, 1979, The Annual Aircraft Design Short Course, Bergamo Conference, 8-12 July, 1979, Dayton, Ohio.Google Scholar
20. Küchemann, D., The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft, 1978, 1st Edition, Pergamon International Library, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
21. Küchemann, D., The aerodynamic design of aircraft — An introduction, Parts 1-6, May, 1972, February, 1973, August, 1973, July, 1974, February, 1975, September, 1975, TM Aero, 1421, 1486, 1535, 1580, 1622, 1647, Royal Aircraft Establishment.Google Scholar
22. Czysz, P., Hypersonic convergence – Volume 1, December, 2004, AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2004-3114, Air Force Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
23. Lachmann, G.V. (Ed), Boundary Layer and Flow Control – Its Principles and Application, Vol 2, 1961, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
24. Simon, W.E., Ely, W.L., Niedling, L.G. and Voda, J.J., Prediction of aircraft drag due to lift, July, 1971, TR AFFDL-TR-71-84, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory.Google Scholar
25. Ashley, H. and Landahl, M., Aerodynamics of Wings and Bodies, 1985, 1st Edition, Dover Publications.Google Scholar
26. Anderson, J.D., A History of Aerodynamics, 1998, 1st Edition, p 431, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
27. Seebass, R., Supersonic aerodynamics: lift and drag, Fluid dynamic research on supersonic aircraft, November, 1998, AGARD-RTO EN-4, Notes from the Special Course at the von Kármán Institute.Google Scholar
28. Chudoba, B., Primary Control Surfaces on Supersonic Transport Aircraft, August, 1994, Dipl-Ing. Thesis, Future Projects Department, British Aerospace Airbus, Filton, UK.Google Scholar
29. Vinh, N.X., Flight Mechanics of High-Performance Aircraft, 1993, 1st Edition, Cambridge Aerospace Series 4, Cambridge Press, London.Google Scholar
30. ANON. Dassault’s supersonic programme advances, Flight International, January 1998.Google Scholar