Re: NASA 'Scramjet' Soars at Almost 7,000 Mph
From: Brian Allardice (dba_at_extraneous.uniserve.com)
Date: 11/23/04
- Next message: Tomasso: "Re: Article: Scientists get their own Google"
- Previous message: Morituri-Max: "Re: Time is a Property of Matter?"
- In reply to: Kevin Brooks: "Re: NASA 'Scramjet' Soars at Almost 7,000 Mph"
- Next in thread: Geoff Cashman: "Re: NASA 'Scramjet' Soars at Almost 7,000 Mph"
- Reply:(deleted message) Geoff Cashman: "Re: NASA 'Scramjet' Soars at Almost 7,000 Mph"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:05:19 GMT
In article <JoqdnQHwU5h3Tz_cRVn-jg@adelphia.com>, brooksvmi@notyahoo.com
says...
>
>
>"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> Name one of your myriad aircraft that actually operated at mach 2.7
>> plus in this time frame. SR-71 doesn't count as it was flying sieve
>> and not a prototype for a real airplane.
>
>LOL! It WAS an operational aircraft, as was the YF-12. I note that you chose
>only the highest figure you used--what happened to the M1.8 starting gate
>you established earlier? OK....care to guess what the maximum speed was for
>the F-106? M2.31. The F-104 was doing M2.2. The F-15 (McD-D won the design
>competition in 1969) is credited with M2.5+. The F-4 at M2.2+. And, of
>course, the XB-70 (which was resurrected for a while as a testebed for the
>SST program), which was hitting over M3.
Brooksie, old son, we are talking about a civil craft here. The three you
posit, Concorde, SR-71, XB-70 were all, how shall I put this, *failures*
As for planes going fast on unlimited budgets, we had the Arrow. The military
will pay for almost anything.....
Concorde was a beautiful plane but a failure
The YF-12-A was a failure - but hey, keep a few around as, well, a gift to the
contractors. It *was* a bloody sieve, and everybody knows it. No model for a
commercial SST. But call it an SR-71 and hey!
XB-70 was a failure.....
And why you should harp on about "glue" simply highlights your ignorance. You
think Rosie the Riveter builds these tings? The point is not that Boeing or
whoever could not design a supersonic plane, rather that they realised they
could not design, at the time, a commercially successful one. And quite right
they were.
Cheers,
dba
- Next message: Tomasso: "Re: Article: Scientists get their own Google"
- Previous message: Morituri-Max: "Re: Time is a Property of Matter?"
- In reply to: Kevin Brooks: "Re: NASA 'Scramjet' Soars at Almost 7,000 Mph"
- Next in thread: Geoff Cashman: "Re: NASA 'Scramjet' Soars at Almost 7,000 Mph"
- Reply:(deleted message) Geoff Cashman: "Re: NASA 'Scramjet' Soars at Almost 7,000 Mph"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|