|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:08:12 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote: Wouldn't that look great in the Smithsonian Air & Space museum with their X-15 on the pylon? ....Probably if they just used the wing, it wouldn't be too bad a fit. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Gordon Tisher wrote: Are you sure they weren't Seabird Seekers? http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/iraq/aac.htm They look sorta the same if you squint hard enough. You caught me- they were indeed Seabird Seekers. You know, that almost looks like a landbased derivative of the Seabee; did somebody rip off the design? Pat |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
OM wrote: ...Probably if they just used the wing, it wouldn't be too bad a fit. I had a more radical idea; split the B-52 in half vertically down its centerline, so that people can see the whole innards of the aircraft from one side, and then hang the X-15 from the starboard wing pylon- with one of the engine nacelles dissected so that you can see all the inner workings of the turbojets. The high pressure air driven electrical power system of the aircraft would be fascinating to see, and you could even hang a little something nasty in the bomb bay- say one of these: http://mt.sopris.net/mpc/military/v/...omb.mark17.jpg Pat |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I had a more radical idea; split the B-52 in half vertically down its centerline, so that people can see the whole innards of the aircraft from one side, and then hang the X-15 from the starboard wing pylon- with one of the engine nacelles dissected so that you can see all the inner workings of the turbojets. The high pressure air driven electrical power system of the aircraft would be fascinating to see, and you could even hang a little something nasty in the bomb bay- say one of these: http://mt.sopris.net/mpc/military/v/...omb.mark17.jpg What, no grafitti written on the bomb? "Hi There" "Dear John" |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ink.net... rk wrote: NASA 'Scramjet' Launched on Mach 10 Try LOS ANGELES (AP) - A tiny unmanned NASA "scramjet" soared above the Pacific Ocean Tuesday at nearly 10 times the speed of sound, or almost 7,000 mph, in a successful demonstration of a radical new engine technology Heard a news report saying something about this technology might be used in commercial aviation. But if the SST bombed (expensive and a fuel hog) how would this scramjet airliner "fly"? A ticket can't cost more than regular airfare plus maybe, as an upper limit, $30 an hour of time saved by getting there faster. $30 being what the average business travler's time would be worth. It probably isn't for the average business traveler, but for the high-priced one. Remember that the labor cost is not just salary, but includes fringe etc. If the traveler is billing for hours, it also includes overhead. A contracting consultant engineer often costs $100 or more per hour. I recently flew out to California for a three hour meeting. I ended up putting about 13 hours of travel time in, plus a hotel stay. With a flight time across the atlantic of a little over an hour, the scramjet allows you to schedule same-day meetings, which avoids jet lag (mostly.) One of the problems with the SST was that it just wasn't that much faster than a conventional jet. The scramjet is. As a scenario, suppose that you need an overseas meeting over two days and that being there in person is a must. With the scramjet, you have maybe four hours of extra travel time, so you lose at most a half-day of work. (Assuming that you charge travel and don't end up working extra hours.) With a conventional jet you end up with two extra days of "work" on the plane. That's $1600 right there. Another issue is that probably all the seats on the Scramjet will be full fare. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Neil Gerace" writes: There were some DC-3s still in RAAF service in the late 1990s. I don't know how old they were though. NASA still has at least 1 DC-3. All this summer there's been sume sort of joint NASA/NOAA project flying out of Pease International Tradeport (Formerly Pease AFB) up t' Portsmouth, NH. The main mission aircraft are a DC-8 and a P-3, with a King Air and a DC-3 for logistical support. -- Pete Stickney Without data, all you have are opinions |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development | vthokie | Policy | 62 | March 30th 04 04:51 AM |
Requirements / process to become a shuttle astronaut? | Dan Huizenga | Space Shuttle | 11 | November 14th 03 07:33 AM |
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 10th 03 04:39 PM |
NASA and "Oil" Culture burned Cops + Astronauts to death | inventor84 | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 2nd 03 11:41 PM |
NASA, Carnegie Mellon Inspire Future Robotics Engineers | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 16th 03 10:04 PM |