The 100/10/1 Rule.

john hare wrote:

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
Craig Fink wrote:

...I bring up "Fluid
Variable Intakes" which fits nicely with his engine and invalidating
certain assumptions of his trade study. His study just swung in a
different
direction.

I don't believe you explained what "Fluid Variable Intakes" are. *It's
not a term I'm familiar with either, although I don't keep up with the
current fads :-) on the airbreathing side.

I don't keep up with the fads to much either. To be honest, I just made the
term up. I thought it best described what it was, a "Fluid Variable
Intake", sounds good to me. If it's not really a physical cooler (cooling
really just a bonus) and not really a physical inlet, and it's variable,
what is it? The concept, I made that up too. It also sounded good to me, it
would essentially let a slightly modified jet aircraft fly straight up exit
the atmosphere at Mach 5, winning the X-Prize. But, like I said, it's hard
to find a good used engine/supersonic "non-government developed" aircraft
these days.

If you have a better name, or know of a different name that it goes by, let
me know. It would be fun reading about it.

It would have needed negative mass to counteract the engine weight
to a degree necessary to match pure rocket stage performance.
I lost interest somewhat in supersonic intakes when it became
clear that there could not be a cost advantage to them.

Someone's selling tickets for short zero gee trips in a modified commercial
airliner for probably $1000, someone else is selling tickets in supersonic
aircraft for $10,000-$20,000, and someone else will soon be selling long
zero gee trips in custom designed rocket planes for $200,000. There is a
whole lot of room between $1000-$20,000 and $200,000 to sell tickets for
long zero gee trips in turbojet/rocket powered aircraft.