X-43A successful flight

"AbsolutelyCertain" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
isi.com...
Limey Dave wrote:

"JL Grasso" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:03:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

wrote:


"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...


Tarver Engineering wrote:

It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.

Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale,
indicating
that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space...al.02.nasa.jpg

You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H
would
be
flying the payload and I am wrong.

As per . . .

Extremely UNusual on the other hand........for him to acknowledge
it.

Yeah, but notice he blamed it on someone else and tried to impress
with
his alleged inside contacts. Par for the course for Splappy.

I have been around enough B-52s to recognize the tall tail, so I can't
blame
my mistake on someone else.

Yes, John. We pretty much associate you with the Tall Tail. If you know
what I mean.

Since the short tail B-52 has no ailerons and uses spoilers in their place,
I would have thought you would associate me with the "H". After all, it is
the airplane that puts the lie to Mazor's clueless troll, no matter how cute
the nickname is.

Suppose someone made an airliner capable of zooming from London to Tokyo
with a top speed of 5,000 mph. Would would be the minimum realistic G
forces that the passengers would experience going up, and coming down?

Also, wouldn't the vehicle be rather hot once it landed?

Cheers

--mike

Stephen Harding wrote:
Chad Irby wrote:

The X-43A flew this afternoon.

4780 miles per hour.

Not bad.


Especially for a 12 foot length/4 ft wingspan!

Makes it tough to get a ride though.


SMH

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:56:14 -0500, Michael Zaharis
wrote:

BTW, how has the -H been deveoped? I remember some dire warnings early
on when that aircraft was added to the fleet that it would not be able
to fulfill all of the roles that the old -Bs do. Have they been able to
work around that?

It was modified to carry some vehicles, but it still can't carry all
of them. I've forgotten what the limit is. Weight, maybe. So the
way we're dealing with it is to keep the NB-52B flying for another
year or so. I assume this is how long the vehicle that the H can't
carry should be flying, although I understand the H is scheduled for
further modifications down the road.

Will they eventually retire the final -B carrier and rely fully on the -H?

I don't understand what you mean by "the final -B" here. There is
only one NB-52B, 008. Its predecessor, 006, was the NB-52A and it's
at Davis-Monthan now.

In any even, yes, we will eventually retire 008 and rely on the new
NB-52H.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"AbsolutelyCertain" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
isi.com...
Limey Dave wrote:

"JL Grasso" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:03:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

wrote:


"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...


Tarver Engineering wrote:

It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.

Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale,
indicating
that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space...al.02.nasa.jpg

You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H
would
be
flying the payload and I am wrong.

As per . . .

Extremely UNusual on the other hand........for him to acknowledge
it.

Yeah, but notice he blamed it on someone else and tried to impress
with
his alleged inside contacts. Par for the course for Splappy.

I have been around enough B-52s to recognize the tall tail, so I can't
blame
my mistake on someone else.

Yes, John. We pretty much associate you with the Tall Tail. If you know
what I mean.

Since the short tail B-52 has no ailerons and uses spoilers in their place,
I would have thought you would associate me with the "H".

no john you are only associated with the "splap" and thunderbird.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 22:06:07 GMT, "Limey Dave"
wrote:


"JL Grasso" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:03:38 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...


Tarver Engineering wrote:
It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.

Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale, indicating
that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space...al.02.nasa.jpg

You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H would be
flying the payload and I am wrong.

As per . . .


Extremely UNusual on the other hand........for him to acknowledge it.

So UNusual in fact that it is worth archiving. Where did the original
post come from, Jerry? ram?


Phil
--
Great Tarverisms #1

The Air Speed Indicator (ASI) shows

You made that up, didn't you?

The IAS indicator says IAS, not ASI.

Why do you come here pretending to know something
when you don't even know the words?

John

Mary Shafer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:56:14 -0500, Michael Zaharis
wrote:
Will they eventually retire the final -B carrier and rely fully on the -H?


I don't understand what you mean by "the final -B" here. There is
only one NB-52B, 008. Its predecessor, 006, was the NB-52A and it's
at Davis-Monthan now.

In any even, yes, we will eventually retire 008 and rely on the new
NB-52H.

Mary

I was referring to 008. I hadn't remembered the first NB-52 was an -A.
I thought that they were both -B's.

Actually, I was down at the Pima Air Museum a few weeks ago, showing the
NB-52A, among other aircraft, to my wife and sons. The older son, who
is 3, was thoroughly unimpressed, other than repeatedly uttering the
words "Big airplane!".

In article peqac.41666$JO3.31503@attbi_s04, Mike Dargan
wrote:

Suppose someone made an airliner capable of zooming from London to Tokyo
with a top speed of 5,000 mph. Would would be the minimum realistic G
forces that the passengers would experience going up, and coming down?

Also, wouldn't the vehicle be rather hot once it landed?

The G forces going up depend entirely on what type engines the craft uses to
get to the starting speed of the SCRAMJET engine(s). It's possible (and likely)
that it could be no different than a typical commercial flight now, due to
passenger concerns. Once at speed, normal 1 G and glidedown also no
different than commercial flights, except a lot longer.

As for the heat, if the post touchdown taxi is anything like it is at LAX,
the vehicle will be stone cold by the time it gets to the gate.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...


Tarver Engineering wrote:
It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.

Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale, indicating
that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space...al.02.nasa.jpg

You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H would be
flying the payload and I am wrong.


Liar, you dont have any friends.

BTW congrats on your first ever known admission of an error. or is
this a forged post ?

(running with scissors)
Date: 3/31/2004 2:10 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...


Tarver Engineering wrote:
It is a new B-52, so you didn't see what you thought.

Wrong. It was one of the older B-52s. Note the tall tale, indicating
that it is not the new H- model that NASA recently converted.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/space...al.02.nasa.jpg

You are correct. My friends at Dryden had assured me that the H would be
flying the payload and I am wrong.


Liar, you dont have any friends.

BTW congrats on your first ever known admission of an error. or is
this a forged post ?

It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never wrong and
will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:
It has to be a fake. Tarver is a legend in his own mind, is never wrong and
will NEVER say he is. Just ask him.

I think you are wrong this time Dan, Tarver has on rare occasions admitted to
mis-speaking as opposed to another individual who NEVER makes or ADMITS a
mistake or is it misteak?

Rick
MFE