Re: Skylon SSTO



On Jan 29, 8:30 pm, "john hare" <rdnkt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Len" <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1170100963.671978.18800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I was unable to deter the mid-1960s Aerospace Plane debacle--nor the
1980s NASP debacle. I was not in a position to do anything but
shake
my head at the HOTOL promises. I suspect that a lot more money and
effort will go down the drain chasing the airbreathing-to-orbit
rainbow.
I suppose that's good in one way: it keeps some of the competition
busy pursuing a worthless approach.I will stay with my opinion that a launch assist platform can use profitably
use air breathing engines up to high subsonic speeds and moderately
high altitudes. I still consider your earlier papers on this to be
compelling.

OK, John, I stand by my earlier papers that suggested
that subsonic airbreathing carriers hold promise relative
to a lot of other concepts.

However, I feel that we have moved on from there. Our "kite
plane" concepts appear to offer significantly more promise than
our earlier, airbreathing, subsonic carrier concepts.

We do plan to use surplus JT8Ds in the basically rocket
powered "kite plane" carrier stage; however, this is for more
practical landing and ferry operations. The extreme altitude
range of the carrier--even at subsonic speeds--results in very
little benefit from the airbreathing engines beyond takeoff,
early climb and landing. The small benefit for takeoff and early
climb does seem to counter the extra mass of the landing
turbojets--partly because our staging mach number is now
down to mach 2, which desensitizes the carrier performance
to the extra mass of the landing engines.

The landing engines and crosswind landing gear are likely
to be helpful--perhaps necessary--when trying to get our
"huge ultralight" carrier back on the ground in gusty
conditions. (Note, a ground cart supports the flight
stages while on the runway at gross mass).

Again, I feel that the world is still in the early stages of
knowing how to get to orbit frequently, reliably and cheaply.
Accordingly, I find conceptual design to be the most
cost effective use of limited funds--much more so than
pursuing exotic or questionable new technology. Once
proven, new technolgy can be highly beneficial. But until
proven, an emphasis on conceptual design that
tries to use existing technology and engines in a
better total system seems to be the most cost-
effective use of limited resources. The government
should try it some time.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
x...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Effect of Graf Zeppelin if Operational?
    ... plane in landing pattern. ... In addition the narrow track of the gear made manoeuvring them on the ... Not good traits in carrier aircraft. ... Sea Mosquito ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Effect of Graf Zeppelin if Operational?
    ... plane in landing pattern. ... In addition the narrow track of the gear made manoeuvring them on the ... Not good traits in carrier aircraft. ... Sea Mosquito ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: New dive site in the Hudson River
    ... experience and skill he displayed would have delayed takeoff if he saw ... they made it up to 3200 ft before losing all the engines... ... It's about 10.5 miles from LGA to Teterboro (where ATC tried to get him ... If he didn't do it perfectly or if the landing gear would not come ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Ping: tscottme
    ... landing) reported that he had lost both engines. ... it's odd that BOTH engines would flame out at the same time. ... Do you think it was contaminated fuel ... ... Sad crash really. ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Re: TSR.2 Outside
    ... Christ's sake they had TSR2s FLYING when it was cancelled. ... prototype with new engines, but enough for naysayers to get an edge in. ... That meant that a landing either had ... Any plan where you lose you hat is a bad plan ...
    (rec.aviation.military)