Mach 7!

"John T" wrote:
Calling it a plane is a bit of a stretch.

Why?

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


Calling it a plane is a bit of a stretch.

Why?

I admit it's as much opinion as anything else, but I hesitate to call the
X-43 a plane for the same reason I rather not call the Predator or the
Global Hawk planes. "Plane" brings to mind "humans in the aircraft and at
the controls". I think "aircraft" would be more appropriate - and even NASA
refers to the X-43 as "aircraft" and not "plane".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

John T wrote:

I admit it's as much opinion as anything else, but I hesitate to call the
X-43 a plane for the same reason I rather not call the Predator or the
Global Hawk planes. "Plane" brings to mind "humans in the aircraft and at
the controls". I think "aircraft" would be more appropriate - and even NASA
refers to the X-43 as "aircraft" and not "plane".

Odd definition. An airplane is any aircraft that uses the planing principle to fly.
They shove air down with planing surfaces, such as wings. Doesn't matter if they're
manned or not.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

Also I'm not sure of the practicality of an airplane with an engine that
won't start below 95,000' and over 3000kts!

Mike
MU-2

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Dan Luke" wrote in message


Calling it a plane is a bit of a stretch.

Why?

I admit it's as much opinion as anything else, but I hesitate to call the
X-43 a plane for the same reason I rather not call the Predator or the
Global Hawk planes. "Plane" brings to mind "humans in the aircraft and at
the controls". I think "aircraft" would be more appropriate - and even
NASA
refers to the X-43 as "aircraft" and not "plane".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Mike Rapoport wrote:
Also I'm not sure of the practicality of an airplane with an engine that
won't start below 95,000' and over 3000kts!

Mike
MU-2

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


Calling it a plane is a bit of a stretch.

Why?

I admit it's as much opinion as anything else, but I hesitate to call the
X-43 a plane for the same reason I rather not call the Predator or the
Global Hawk planes. "Plane" brings to mind "humans in the aircraft and at
the controls". I think "aircraft" would be more appropriate - and even

NASA

refers to the X-43 as "aircraft" and not "plane".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________


The technology being developed is supposed to be the replacement to
the large rocket method of delivery for low earth orbit. It's going to
be a hybrid system probably using a piggy-back launch followed by
ram-jet to get to Mach 3+ where the scramjet comes online.

The scramjet is meant for use in the upper stratosphere and works
pretty well there, not as well as rockets maybe but at least you don't
have to carry your oxygen around with you which makes it a little more
efficient.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 at 03:47:33 in message
om, John T
wrote:

I admit it's as much opinion as anything else, but I hesitate to call the
X-43 a plane for the same reason I rather not call the Predator or the
Global Hawk planes. "Plane" brings to mind "humans in the aircraft and at
the controls". I think "aircraft" would be more appropriate - and even NASA
refers to the X-43 as "aircraft" and not "plane".

To me a 'plane' means a flat surface or a tool used by carpenters. I
respond better to 'aircraft' or 'aeroplane'. ;-)
--
David CL Francis