Re: NASA 'Scramjet' Soars at Almost 7,000 Mph

From: Kevin Brooks (brooksvmi_at_notyahoo.com)
Date: 11/19/04 

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:47:57 -0500

"Jack Love" <jackxxloveyy@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lrqsp0t7uog63te267mjqvchn6ft096i0v@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:36:46 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> <brooksvmi@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:7164002b.0411190410.49881bb6@posting.google.com...
>>> Jack Love <jackxxloveyy@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:<amhqp0lftd2q4s9kjdm3coq6msq6dgnm99@4ax.com>...
>>>> On 18 Nov 2004 14:50:36 -0800, jacklinthicum@earthlink.net (Jack
>>>> Linthicum) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was actually because of 'SST program expense and environmental
>>>> effects"...as I was working around the program at the time, there was
>>>> no particular doubt that the plane could be built at Boeing, after all
>>>> the B-70 had already been built and flown successfully. The thing
>>>> was going to cost a fortune to build, and would have been
>>>> catastrophically expensive to operate AFTER the enormous oil price
>>>> increases which weren't anticipated then. It was planned to have
>>>> a 25% cost premium over the 747 which would have soared after the oil
>>>> crisis of the early 1970s.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know who you worked with at Boeing, I did a tour with a group
>>> in 1967 in which the demonstration included a walk-thru of the mock
>>> up, including a simulated landing, and discussions of the use of
>>> titanium in the construction and the reasons why Boeing was certain
>>> they could not build a usable SST.
>>
>>Bullpoopie. Please show any evidence to support your assertion that Boeing
>>was claiming that they could NOT build a "usable SST". FYI, the XB-70
>>(which
>>did some SST testbed duty) had been flying at even higher speeds than that
>>projected for the SST.
>>
>>They said they had to get about
>>> mach 2.7 but that the glues they used then
>>
>>"GLUES"??! You think they were gonna GLUE the danged SST together like a
>>balsawood model? For pete's sake...
>>
>>and anything available in
>>> the near future was inadequate.
>>
>>Odd that the Concorde managed to conduct successful operations...
>>
>>As to practicality they said they
>>> could fly two profiles, one where the fully loaded aircraft could get
>>> about halfway across the Atlantic, the other where the aircraft empty
>>> could fly a full mission.
>>
>>You got anything to back up this claim? I thought this was the preiod
>>where
>>you said you were doing spooky stuff at Camp Peary...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> >I would think 3
>>>> >or more times that velocity would create a heat buildup impossible to
>>>> >dissapate, either in the air or on the ground. I would imagine the
>>>> >mission for this device and its follow-ons is a long reach cruise
>>>> >missile with speed to avoid or negate tracking and intercept.
>>>>
>>>> That's why you plan on flying really high...the flight plans for
>>>> hypersonic transports have been around since the 1970s that I'm aware
>>>> of: you accelerate out of the atmosphere; engines shut down (no air)
>>>> and proceed in a fractional orbit to wherever you're going; where the
>>>> ram effect re-entering the atmosphere restarts your engines for you.
>>>
>>> Fly high as you like you still have to come down in the troposphere. I
>>> didn't hear anyone describe the fractional orbit, although the FOBS
>>> was an active operation at the time. I presume you have some way of
>>> restarting 1967 jet engines after shut down with enough certainty to
>>> satisfy the insurance company?
>>>>
>>>> The design teams at Boeing were pretty convinced that there was a
>>>> no-mans land between Mach 3+ and about Mach 8-10 (it was 30 years
>>>> ago). Mach 12ish was thought, again IIRC, was thought to be a sweet
>>>> spot where one could regain enough economic costs by coasting to make
>>>> it profitable.
>>>
>>>
>>> The no-man's land in 1967 was trying to get from mach 1.8 to mach 2.7
>>> where the economy of flight would engage. The problem of getting
>>> passengers on and off a hot airplane and servicing the same hot
>>> airplane was an important factor in their planning. It would take too
>>> long for the planned aircraft to cool to make it practical.
>>
>>Gee, how did the Concorde ever manage to make it at Mach 2.2 ....?
>
> Which used more or less ordinary aluminum; not the titanium leading
> edges that the 2707 expected to use.
>
>>Brooks
>>
>
> Mr Linthicum manufactures bullpoopie nearly every time he opens his
> mouth....other than when he copies things verbatim from other sources.

Can we be sure that he and Skelton are not one and the same character? Both
have something of a walter Mitty complex, both have proven quite willing to
strrrretch the truth, both like to imply extensive personal experience with
various and asundry subjects....

Brooks
>
>

Quantcast