The first word that came to my mind from the photos is "sleek". Thanks for sharing! I had not been following this aircraft but will pay closer attention now.

I know there have been thousands of words written about the topic of commercial viability of the Concorde if it had not been accompanied by the sonic boom as we know it today. It will be interesting to see (if I live long enough, I am a dinosaur - tomorrow marks my 50th year in aviation) whether or not defeating the sonic boom removes enough obstacles to make supersonic flight commercially profitable.

Hey...

Several of these 'demonstrator aircraft' recently... that have gotten hyped for private funding... never seem to see actually see the 'light-of-day'... including some NASA projects... But the NASA-Lockheed-Martin team has made this jet happen with relatively low fanfare...

On the subject of 'first flights'... the B-21 RAIDER roll-out was advertised last year for ~March 2023... but there was a precautionary statement: 'when ready'. Hmmm the B-21 program [roll-out, first flight] has gone 'dark'... Secrecy?? Other?? Anyone heard anything about this jet... that they can talk about?

Also... a small super-performing, super-efficient composite 2-seat homebuilt [?] aircraft prototype made by '3 brothers'... DarkAero company [https://www.darkaero.com/]... should already have been completed and test-flown early this year. I have been looking for first flight videos on their website and YouTube... but there are none... just CAD images and images/videos of the 'black prototype' during assembly and doing engine-runs and taxi tests. Hmmm... I wonder if this program has gone 'dark'... Secrecy?? Aw Sh*t?? Other??.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

Same thing with the BOOM sst project, supposedly going to have taxi tests complete and flying by this year...(pushed back multiple times from 2018 for a variety of reasons). At least there are photos of the thing, and is apparently rolling around at Mojave airport as of March this year. But radio silence since then...

https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1

The Boom CEO recently said he expects entry into service in 2029! With a completely new engine design, LOL!!!

Watch NASA's sci-fi-looking X-59 'quiet' supersonic jet roll out of the hangar (video)
https://www.space.com/nasa-x-59-quiet-supersonic-j...

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

that is one massively big airplane for a single pilot !

it's hard to see practical applications ...

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

Its a research a/p to study the effect of shape on sonic booms. The Boom company is banking on the X-59 showing much lower boom levels so the FAA will allow supersonic flight over land, otherwise they are screwed.

of course it is. But the plane's geometry is the thing that's making the boom quiet. So a 10 seater will be enormously long ... certainly not smaller than the 100' of the X59 ...

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

Wow... uses F-16 landing gear and a relatively short wheel-base... for such a 'giant'. I am hopeful... but concerned... about taxi/take-off/landings part of flight.

The early F-16s were notorious for dragging stabilizer tips on the RW during take-off and especially landings... that is why the H-stab trailing-edge tips were 'chamfered-off'.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

My gosh, better not stop short in that plane.

Stopping short is not too concerning, look at the location of the cg, if anything a bit too close to the rear landing gear. Like Wil said, over-rotation on takeoff would be a bigger concern...but at least it has canards, which if actively controlled, could help prevent that.

I might have thrown the 3 view into autocad, since no one seems to list the wing area (!~640 ft^2).
Its got quite a low wing loading (35 lb/ft^2), which makes sense since with an aspect ration ~ 1.36, 9 degrees of rotation isn't going to generate that much lift (looks like Delta Cl .25 before flaps & and whatever contribution the foreplanes generate). It will be interesting to see what the flight handling is reported as

Edit: didn't double check scaling in autocad, minor numbers correction.

PS the tail height is listed as 14 ft, seems oddly round for a number measured from the ground, is this a hanger height limit somewhere?

I always wondered how efficient the F-16XL double-delta wing was... and what the sonic 'boom' profile was like for a 'slick' XL jet.

I REALLY liked the 'concept' [and 'looks'] of the F-16XL... especially since I worked a bit on the F-106A/Bs, early in my civil service career... which earned my respect.

I wonder if the F-16XL is why the Israelis 'bought' the F-16 digital flight control systems engineering data for use in their delta wing Kfir III[?]... which they canceled and subsequently 'sold all-engineering-for under-the-table' [no permission from US State] to the Chi-coms? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. That still boils my blood. sorry.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

how about ground viewing for landing (compare with Concorde) ? it'll have a camera on the belly somewheres.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

Flying an aircraft by cameras can be highly challenging.

The stereo optics are no big deal... it is the mind blowing challenge of dealing with ever-changing optical viewing conditions and weather and redundancy and maintenance [camera's and lens cleaning, etc]. For instance... de-icing spray on the cameras that does not get 'blown-off' can effectively make the Acft non mission capable. From what I understand, this was/is-still a major challenge for the KC-46A camera system for air refueling. The human eye is tremendously adaptive... cameras, not-so. I suppose for a test jet... they get to fly in perfect conditions.

On the subject of supersonic flight... I wonder how well hypersonic missiles penetrate heavy weather and dust/soot, etc? I would imagine that hypersonic flying thru a sandstorm or a thunderstorm or fog, etc are 'non-starters'.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

" would imagine that hypersonic flying thru a sandstorm or a thunderstorm or fog, etc are 'non-starters'.

LOL. Technical term is "unstarters", but we split hairs.