Talk:Gulfstream X-54

A fact from Gulfstream X-54 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 January 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that despite being designated as an X-plane by NASA, the Gulfstream X-54 project does not otherwise involve the space agency? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/January.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

According to the Jane's 2010 article, the DoD and NASA have no involvement in this project. That is not accurate. NASA is not involved in the Gulfstream X-54A project, but is independently developing the project plans for an X-54 demonstrator aircraft. There was some speculation in the wiki about this aircraft being based on a previous generation fighter aircraft, it is not.

This article perhaps needs the title corrected, as the X-54 designator belongs to NASA and Gulfstream is developing the X-54A based on the low-noise supersonic research designated under the X-54 program.

Information on the low-noise research is here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=15492&media_id=160283561 An example of a NASA X-54 concept is here: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/future_airplane_gallery22.html

Wind tunnel model of an X-54 concept is here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2497.html

Evolution of shape, not derived from previous generation aircraft: http://lbpw.larc.nasa.gov/files/2012/12/FAP2008-WedAM-Cliff1.pdf

Letterman (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast with my boss talking about the X-54 project. http://www.nasa.gov/mp4/730430main_NE00022813_52_LowersTheSonicBoom.mp4 Letterman (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell which Rolls-Royce_RB.183_Tay#Variants engine?- Marcus334 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://kenyadailyeye.jibostudios.com/?p=17446

http://article.wn.com/view/2012/06/25/Supersonic_jet_to_fly_London_to_Sydney_journey_in_four_hours/

http://coolsciencenews.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.202.44 (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2163953/Nasa-joins-race-build-successor-Corncorde-capable-flying-London-Sydney-FOUR-HOURS.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.202.44 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/SR71_J58_Engine_Airflow_Patterns.svg

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat_veh.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/262499/supersonic-jet-will-fly-london-to-sydney-in-4-hours/

http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2012/06/sons-of-concorde-640x467.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1698.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.202.44 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gulfstream.com/products/special-missions/index.htm 71.110.202.44 (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the Hitechweb (reference no. 7). I cant see nothing bad on the fact that my description differs compared to that from DoD from may 2008. Remember that not DoD nor NASA has anything to do with it, because X-54 is fully private project with the private funding. For the reasons that are not fully clear to me NASA supported Gulfstream to acquire X-54 designation. Description of the DoD (especially about the used engines) suggests that the demonstrator is something from the Gulfstream IV family, which is hardly optimal for the sustained supersonic research without heavy modifications. To be specific, modifications at least to that form: http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/8259/file0324.jpg My source suggests, that the X-54 demonstrators (two built/planned to be built?) are in the final form modified F-104 airframes with the new PW F100-229 engine and winglets from Aviation Partners. This program is currently internally classified by Gulfstream, so I will not specify my source. Thus it cant be used as the verified official information (it will be allowed to only after the declassification of the program by Gulfstream). Considering that the goal of the Gulfstream is to collect enough data to present them in the conference in 2016, related to the relaxing of the regulations, that can effectively allow the supersonic flight above the ground (and only that relaxing will justify the start of the commercial SST development), it is again very unlikely that they are developing the new design from scratch. On the other hand, cheap F-104 airframe is ideal for that purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.57.214 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the input. I'd find it very odd if the F-104 was used - its size/weight profile isn't consistent with any possible supersonic transport (except maybe the BD-10!) and fitting the F100 engine would seem to be quite the undertaking. I could see winglets in place of the tip tanks but... I can't help but wonder (and no offence to you, of course!) if maybe the "modified F-104" is a red herring on Gulfstream's part? Either way, it'll be interesting to see what exactly does roll out of Savannah with "X-54A" painted on its side! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as I understand it, X-54 is not SST research but sonic boom research. Gulfstream wants to determine, how much is it possible to reduce the sonic boom, present the results in the 2016 conference and only then to decide, if it is even worth to start the commercial SST development. Note that F-5SSBD or NASAs F-15B with the modified retractable nose probe were in general also far away from any proposed SST design. But as I said before, my information is not official nor confirmed by various independent sources so... we will see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.228.200 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The funding for NASA to develop a supersonic flight demonstrator was inserted into the President's Budget for 2014, and the low-boom flight demonstrator project at this point is being lead by the NASA Supersonic Research program. In the past, Gulfstream has participated in this research and was the originator for the designator X-54, which is sponsored by NASA. Since NASA however is funding the development of the demonstrator aircraft, it will at some point have to go through a competitive bidding process. This means Gulfstream may lose the bid to develop the aircraft. It would definitely be better to change the title from Gulfstream X-54 to X-54, at least until the manufacturer is selected. Gulfstream has not been selected as the manufacturer even though they are the ones that asked NASA (prematurely it appears) for the designation to be created. This is a premature page for an aircraft still in the initiating phase of development, and as a result likely most of the information on it has been outdated. Letterman (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Gulfstream may lose the bid..." This is crystal-balling, as all current, reliable sources state "Gulfstream". Until we have a reliable third-party source (which the President's Budget is not, being not a third party) that states it is not/no longer Gulfstream, any alteration of the title or article to remove Gulfstream is original research. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last cite in this article is 2013. It seems like it desperately needs an update, though I understand that organizations don't always like to come out and say a project is dead.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]