Hypersonics Overhype

From: h (Rand Simberg)
hypersonic combustion is hypersonic combustion. Sounds like scramjet
in flight to me.

There's a difference between mere combustion (while falling to the
ground) and actual flight. Several people before the Wright brothers
achieved internal combustion with propelleration, but the Wright
brothers were the first to achieve actual flight with an internal
combustion engine coupled to a propeller. It sounds to me like NASA
with the X-43A were the first to not only achieve hypersonic combustion
but actual flight with such.

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 11:21:59 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

From: h (Rand Simberg)
hypersonic combustion is hypersonic combustion. Sounds like scramjet
in flight to me.

There's a difference between mere combustion (while falling to the
ground) and actual flight. Several people before the Wright brothers
achieved internal combustion with propelleration, but the Wright
brothers were the first to achieve actual flight with an internal
combustion engine coupled to a propeller. It sounds to me like NASA
with the X-43A were the first to not only achieve hypersonic combustion
but actual flight with such.

Which is what my column said.

In article , wrote:
There's a difference between mere combustion (while falling to the
ground) and actual flight. Several people before the Wright brothers
achieved internal combustion with propelleration, but the Wright
brothers were the first to achieve actual flight with an internal
combustion engine coupled to a propeller...

And a pilot aboard. If I recall correctly, Langley flew an *unmanned*
internal-combustion powered aircraft quite successfully a few years
earlier. (His better-remembered failure came when trying to scale that
design up to a manned version without properly understanding either the
structural issues or the stability issues.)

(Similarly, the first supersonic flight was done by Wernher von Braun's
crew at Peenemuende, not by Chuck Yeager. In fact, they also beat Scott
Crossfield's Skyrocket to Mach 2, Mel Apt's X-2 to Mach 3, and Bob White's
X-15 to Mach 4 and probably Mach 5. But who gets to be in the record
books depends a whole lot on exact definitions...)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:45:26 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article , wrote:
There's a difference between mere combustion (while falling to the
ground) and actual flight. Several people before the Wright brothers
achieved internal combustion with propelleration, but the Wright
brothers were the first to achieve actual flight with an internal
combustion engine coupled to a propeller...

And a pilot aboard. If I recall correctly, Langley flew an *unmanned*
internal-combustion powered aircraft quite successfully a few years
earlier. (His better-remembered failure came when trying to scale that
design up to a manned version without properly understanding either the
structural issues or the stability issues.)

I'm not sure that Langley's models were particularly controllable.

Henry Spencer wrote:

And a pilot aboard. If I recall correctly, Langley flew an *unmanned*
internal-combustion powered aircraft quite successfully a few years
earlier.

Assuming you are referring to Aerodrome Number 5, it was powered by a
steam engine.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

And a pilot aboard. If I recall correctly, Langley flew an
*unmanned* internal-combustion powered aircraft quite
successfully a few years earlier.

Assuming you are referring to Aerodrome Number 5, it was powered
by a steam engine.

He's referring to Langley's 1/4-scale aerodrome which was internal-
combustion engine powered and flew on August 8, 1901. The earlier
aerodromes 5 and 6, which were steam powered, flew in 1896.

Jim Davis

Jim Davis wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:



And a pilot aboard. If I recall correctly, Langley flew an
*unmanned* internal-combustion powered aircraft quite
successfully a few years earlier.



Assuming you are referring to Aerodrome Number 5, it was powered
by a steam engine.



He's referring to Langley's 1/4-scale aerodrome which was internal-
combustion engine powered and flew on August 8, 1901. The earlier
aerodromes 5 and 6, which were steam powered, flew in 1896.


I assumed he was refering to the number 5 or 6, as both flew more
succesfully than the 1/4 scale internal combustion powered one; Number 5
flew twice on May 6, 1896; in the first it flew 3,300 feet, in the
second it covered 2,300 feet.
The next day Number 6 flew 4,790 feet. In contrast, the 1/4 scale one
only covered 1000 feet in its longest flight:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...ft/langley.htm

Pat