Comparison of Prediction Models for Sonic Boom Ground Signatures Under Realistic Flight Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is concerned with a comparative analysis of simplified and high-fidelity sonic boom prediction methods to assess their applicability in the conceptual design of supersonic aircraft. For comparison, the authors also conduct a high-fidelity approach. The comparison across climb, cruise, and descent conditions shows that the Carlson method captures general trends in sonic boom behavior. But high-fidelity analysis is still essential under realistic atmospheric conditions.

I find this work to be interesting and worthy of publications. I would suggest that the authors discuss, in more detail, how the modeling approach can be improved to account for its shortcomings relative to the high-fidelity approach.

Author Response

Comment: This paper is concerned with a comparative analysis of simplified and high-fidelity sonic boom prediction methods to assess their applicability in the conceptual design of supersonic aircraft. For comparison, the authors also conduct a high-fidelity approach. The comparison across climb, cruise, and descent conditions shows that the Carlson method captures general trends in sonic boom behavior. But high-fidelity analysis is still essential under realistic atmospheric conditions.

I find this work to be interesting and worthy of publications. I would suggest that the authors discuss, in more detail, how the modeling approach can be improved to account for its shortcomings relative to the high-fidelity approach.

 

Response: Thank you for investing the time to review our manuscript and the suggestion for acceptance. Although an improvement of the simplified methodology was not the primary scope of this study, we added a sentence to the end of the Discussion chapter, highlighting a possible extension to the simplified method: "Additionally, a simplified method to model wind effects on geometric sonic boom carpet spreading could improve the simplified predictions." (l. 786)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I would like to thank the authors for their comments and corrections. I think that the paper can be published now. I have only minor comments that can be accounted for without any further review.
Sec. 2.1.1, p. 4, l.134-135, please replace "in-viscid Euler equation" by "inviscid Euler equations".
Sec. 2.1.2, p.5, l.204, "mach" must be writtten "Mach"   Sec. 2.1.2, p.7, below Eq. (3), could you give some indication on how is computed A(x) from the ray-tracing simulation; please? 
Sec. 2.2., p.7, l.279, please replace "consist" by "consists".   Sec. 2.2., p.8, l.295, could you rephrase "equivalent area due to volume"?  Something seems missing in the sentence.  

Author Response

The authors would like to thank you for the useful comments and for the suggestion for acceptance afterwards.

Comment 1: Sec. 2.1.1, p. 4, l.134-135, please replace "in-viscid Euler equation" by "inviscid Euler equations".

Response 1: Indeed, thanks for pointing it out, we fixed the typo.

Comment 2: Sec. 2.1.2, p.5, l.204, "mach" must be writtten "Mach"

Response 2: Agreed, changed as suggested.

 

Comment 3: Sec. 2.1.2, p.7, below Eq. (3), could you give some indication on how is computed A(x) from the ray-tracing simulation; please?

Response 3: We added a sentence with a reference towards Yamamoto et al. who also briefly describe the quite common method of tracing 4 rays that form a tube: "It is modeled by a four-sided tube which is created with the help of three additional rays with small variations in azimuth angle and source location on the flight trajectory [41]".

 

Comment 4: Sec. 2.2., p.7, l.279, please replace "consist" by "consists".

Response 4: Agreed. Corrected as suggested.

 

Comment 5: Sec. 2.2., p.8, l.295, could you rephrase "equivalent area due to volume"?  Something seems missing in the sentence.

Response 5: Thanks for pointing this out, we exchanged "equivalent area due to volume" by "equivalent cross-sectional area".