X-43A successful flight

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

I was visiting friends in Petaluma, California on Saturday. The local cable
channel showed video of the launch, and about 10 minutes of OO8 returning to
base. The video of 008 may have been live. I've seen her several times at
Edwards, but never airborne!


The X-43A flew this afternoon.

4780 miles per hour.

Not bad.

"Jdf4cheval" wrote in message
...
I was visiting friends in Petaluma, California on Saturday. The local
cable
channel showed video of the launch, and about 10 minutes of OO8 returning
to
base. The video of 008 may have been live. I've seen her several times at
Edwards, but never airborne!

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


The X-43A flew this afternoon.

4780 miles per hour.

Not bad.

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

"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.

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.



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?

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

"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 ?

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

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/Fa...-005-DFRC.html