On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:08:59 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Too bad they are wrong in using that particular choice of verbage, since we
KNOW the Loon's engine could indeed operate and produce thrust in a static
mode; the catapult just shortens the required take-off length to a
manageable amount (there is no doubt that if you fired one up on a
long-enough runway that it could accelerate to a speed sufficient to get it
airborne, but then you'd have to have an undercarriage of sorts, etc.). As
has been pointed out to you by many posters, some of whom have demonstrated
one hell of a lot more expertise in the subject matter than you have, the
pulse jet can indeed operate and produce thrust in a static mount, and some
can even be started without any external forced air supply. Why you are
being so hard-headed in the face of proof, both verbal and visual, that your
rants are wrong is beyond me.

Perhaps we should all remember that the Tomahawk crusie missile is
usually either air-droopped or launched using a solid rocket booster
-- is this because the gas-turbine engine that powers it is incapable
of operating without forward airspeed? Hell no -- its because it's
not only dangerous but quite impractical for a cruise missile (V1 or
Tomahawk) to take off like a conventional aircraft using a runway.

The V1 catapault served the same purpose as the Tomahawk's SRB --
simply a method of getting the entire craft up to flying speed in the
shortest amount of time and distance.

--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/