If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: Too bad they are wrong in using that particular choice of verbage, [...] Admitted (see my other posting). Sorry, Andreas--that was not intended as any kind of shot at your efforts. Rob OTOH has persisted to argue outright falshoods in spite of his having been provided overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He could take a lesson grom the graciousness you have exhibited in admitting your own minor error in wording. My compliments to you. Brooks Andreas |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Sorry, Andreas--that was not intended as any kind of shot at your efforts. Thanks - but I already knew that :-). Anyway, I felt a bit embarrassed to be quoted in favour of a "lost cause", so I just wanted to confirm again that I do no longer support that statement. Andreas |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
V-4 Missile Possibilities | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 42 | January 23rd 04 05:40 AM |
Australia to participate in US missile defence program | David Bromage | Military Aviation | 40 | December 13th 03 01:52 PM |
Titor's Time Machine... USAF Missile Box??? | Jason Strong | Military Aviation | 8 | November 28th 03 12:51 AM |
AIM-54 Phoenix missile | Sujay Vijayendra | Military Aviation | 89 | November 3rd 03 09:47 PM |
Surface to Air Missile threat | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 14th 03 02:13 PM |