Review of Sonic Boom Prediction and Reduction Methods for Next Generation of Supersonic Aircraft

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled "Review of Sonic Boom prediction and reduction methods for next generation of supersonic aircraft" provides a comprehensive overview of the challenges, advancements, and solutions in the domain of supersonic flight, specifically focusing on sonic boom prediction and reduction methods. The manuscript offers a thorough examination of the topic, delving into the fundamental theories of sonic boom, prediction methods, minimization techniques, and active/passive reduction solutions. The review demonstrates a meticulous analysis of the existing literature, encompassing both theoretical frameworks and practical applications. The authors have successfully elucidated the complexities involved in sonic boom prediction and reduction, presenting a balanced view of the challenges and opportunities in the field (to an extent, the overall paper becomes lengthy).

Some strengths:

1. The manuscript provides a detailed and comprehensive analysis of sonic boom prediction methods, considering various factors and variables. It effectively covers the historical context, theoretical foundations, and contemporary advancements in the field.

2. The presentation of content is clear and well-organized, making it accessible to readers with varying levels of expertise in the subject matter. The manuscript maintains a logical flow, enhancing the readability of the review.

3. The critical review of existing prediction methods and mitigation solutions demonstrates a thoughtful evaluation of the literature. This critical perspective adds depth to the review, allowing readers to discern the limitations and potential avenues for future research.

4. The inclusion of unconventional aircraft configurations and shapes as potential solutions showcases the forward-thinking approach of the review. Considering breakthrough technologies is essential for advancing the field, and the manuscript appropriately emphasizes this aspect.

Given the thoroughness of the content, the clarity of presentation, and the critical perspective adopted, I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Thanks I appreciate it really much

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you so much for the effort of creating a comprehensive review on the sonic boom topic. The considerable effort of the authors is highly appreciated. However, before moving to the publication step, this work shall undergo a major revision process.

Hereafter you ca find a detailed list of comments per each of the main sections of the paper.

General: The template used by the authors does not follow the Aerospace template.

Abstract:

-       You wrote: “This review expounds upon all the aspects of the sonic boom ”. Please, be more specific (e.g. highlighting in details if you are addressing more theoretical investigations or numerical/experimental ones).

-       While the abstract depicts the context, reading it, it is not clearly stated which is the main goal of this review paper. Is it the identification of knowledge gaps or it is a collection of references ?

Introduction

-       This section does not state why this review is innovative (and thus it deserves to be published). The authors shall analyse other reviews/research papers on the topics available in literature and understanding why this paper can be considered a novelty.

-       Please, instead of listing the purposes of the paper, elaborate a bit more indicating the innovative aspects introduced per each topic.

-       Did you make use of any scientific/structured approach to perform this literature review? If yes, please, state it clearly, providing details. If not, I do believe it would have be beneficial to adopt one.. this will highly improve the publication and its possibility to become a reference in the scenario.

Sonic Boom Prediction

-       It would be very important to add summary tables per each subsection

-       Subsection 3.5 is more a conclusion, rather than a critical review. Please, make sure you can identify main pros and cons of each reported method with a quantitative approach. Also in this case, a summary table may help highlighting the most important findings. Similar considerations apply to other critical review sections 

Sonic Boom Minimization

-       I would move section 3.1. above.. like 2.X.. In this way, Sect. 2 will collect all theoretical investigations, including the attempt of sonic boom minimization, while Sect. 3 will focus more on technologies and operations to reduce the problem

-       Very interesting and broad analysis of possible technological solutions. It might be interesting to report the TRL of the investigated technologies and/or the costs associated to their development.

-       In section 3.2, it is written “shaping the aircraft for low boom purposes could lead to increase manufacturing costs.”. Can you please quantify? Any reference studies?

-       3.2.2: are there any studies linked to the structural response due to the induced vibrations?

-       A summary of the quantitative effects of sonic boom reduction potential per each technology might be very interesting.

-       What about possible operational strategies (trajectory optimization techniques) which might be adopted?

Promising design and unconventional configurations

-       A structured approach, including a graphical (or tabular) overview is required. This shall also include the Country leading the design efforts.

-       Few European funded projects dealing with Sonic Boom seems to be missing: for example: RUMBLE https://doi.org/10.3030/769896, MORE&LESS https://doi.org/10.3030/101006856 , ATLLAS I and II, etc..

Conclusion: please add quantitative details 

Funding: please, add the name of the project and the DOI (available on cordis)

List of Abbreviations is missing

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I had replied in the attached file.

Regards,

Giordana Bonavolontà

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing all the comments