User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 9:45:08 AM EDT
[#1]
Lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 9:46:38 AM EDT
[#2]
Sooooo they hacked an aero space companies server, stole the blueprints, and now get an award for it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 9:46:46 AM EDT
[#3]
We should copy it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 9:49:08 AM EDT
[#4]
Why don't they just stick the fan from the Mach 9 wind tunnel on a plane?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 9:51:09 AM EDT
[#5]
I would not say LOL.
It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 9:51:47 AM EDT
[#6]
Leave it to the Chinese....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 9:53:03 AM EDT
[#7]
They gave themselves an award. That's nice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 9:53:36 AM EDT
[#8]
We must not allow a wind tunnel gap!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 9:54:54 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why don't they just stick the fan from the Mach 9 wind tunnel on a plane? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 9:56:29 AM EDT
[#10]
Ho Lee Fuk
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 9:59:47 AM EDT
[#11]
Chinese jet engines... They're still buying all their jet engines from Russia for a reason... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:00:36 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We should copy it. And then sub-contract out its construction to the Chinese. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:00:53 AM EDT
[#13]
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about the technical issues with pratically harnessing sc/ramjets for propulsion. But just because a technology is experimented with and dropped in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's not viable - it may be that there are other hurdles that simply can't be cleared, making the tech 'ahead of its time', much like electric cars or flying wings (or, hopefully, fusion powerplants). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:03:21 AM EDT
[#14]
we mock and ignore china at our own peril
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:08:32 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about the technical issues with pratically harnessing sc/ramjets for propulsion. But just because a technology is experimented with and dropped in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's not viable - it may be that there are other hurdles that simply can't be cleared, making the tech 'ahead of its time', much like electric cars or flying wings (or, hopefully, fusion powerplants). Quote HistoryQuoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? Quoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about the technical issues with pratically harnessing sc/ramjets for propulsion. But just because a technology is experimented with and dropped in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's not viable - it may be that there are other hurdles that simply can't be cleared, making the tech 'ahead of its time', much like electric cars or flying wings (or, hopefully, fusion powerplants). Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:11:11 AM EDT
[#16]
Certainly has some interesting applications for single stage to orbit and suborbital delivery of all sorts of stuff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:11:17 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
we mock and ignore china at our own peril Yup. They are catching up fast. There have a billion more people than we do, they are smart and coming here to be educated. Jokes on us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:11:27 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? Quoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about the technical issues with pratically harnessing sc/ramjets for propulsion. But just because a technology is experimented with and dropped in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's not viable - it may be that there are other hurdles that simply can't be cleared, making the tech 'ahead of its time', much like electric cars or flying wings (or, hopefully, fusion powerplants). Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:12:17 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. They are catching up fast. There have a billion more people than we do, they are smart and coming here to be educated. Jokes on us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
we mock and ignore china at our own peril Yup. They are catching up fast. There have a billion more people than we do, they are smart and coming here to be educated. Jokes on us. And they still can't figure out how to feed and pacify their own population. A pity, that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:16:25 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? Quoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about the technical issues with pratically harnessing sc/ramjets for propulsion. But just because a technology is experimented with and dropped in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's not viable - it may be that there are other hurdles that simply can't be cleared, making the tech 'ahead of its time', much like electric cars or flying wings (or, hopefully, fusion powerplants). Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. We have come a long way since then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:17:26 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. You're saying we can't have supercharged ejector ramjets? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:19:26 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have come a long way since then. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? Quoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about the technical issues with pratically harnessing sc/ramjets for propulsion. But just because a technology is experimented with and dropped in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's not viable - it may be that there are other hurdles that simply can't be cleared, making the tech 'ahead of its time', much like electric cars or flying wings (or, hopefully, fusion powerplants). Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. We have come a long way since then. In some ways, yes -- but have we really? Our fastest flying aircraft flies Mach 2.25 (or so they so, who knows what the exact number is). I suspect it's more a tradeoff -- there's just no reason to build something that flies above Mach 3 because of all the issues that brings. The X-15 was a cool plane, but how long could it burn its rocket motor, and it had to be carried to altitude to fly at all, because it couldn't take off because of the design tradeoffs that had to be made to get it usable at its max speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:19:59 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? ). Quote HistoryQuoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? Quoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. ). The school I went to had a hypersonic wind tunnel. I think it compressed air in a tank then it blew out a scored metal diaphragm into the wind tunnel. It only provides a brief period of airflow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:22:20 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: China starts flying at Mach 5 In September 2015, Professor Wang received an award from the Chinese Society for Aeronautics and Astronautics (CSAA) for the successful development of China's first scramjet engine over the past decade. Please let his nickname from now on be "high speed". "Who's that?" "It's HighSpeed Wang!" "HighSpeed Wang?" "HighSpeed Wang!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:37:28 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
K lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? Quoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about the technical issues with pratically harnessing sc/ramjets for propulsion. But just because a technology is experimented with and dropped in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's not viable - it may be that there are other hurdles that simply can't be cleared, making the tech 'ahead of its time', much like electric cars or flying wings (or, hopefully, fusion powerplants). Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. K lol Wish I could find the 1980-ish press release from Lockheed about flying a manned aircraft at over 3,000mph. Mach 5, 30 to 35 years ago. Wonder what's happened since? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:40:32 AM EDT
[#26]
I'll be shocked if they can actually build a production model. They still outsource most of their jet engines to be manufactured in Russia.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:40:50 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wish I could find the 1980-ish press release from Lockheed about flying a manned aircraft at over 3,000mph. Mach 5, 30 to 35 years ago. Wonder what's happened since? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? Quoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about the technical issues with pratically harnessing sc/ramjets for propulsion. But just because a technology is experimented with and dropped in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's not viable - it may be that there are other hurdles that simply can't be cleared, making the tech 'ahead of its time', much like electric cars or flying wings (or, hopefully, fusion powerplants). Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. K lol Wish I could find the 1980-ish press release from Lockheed about flying a manned aircraft at over 3,000mph. Mach 5, 30 to 35 years ago. Wonder what's happened since? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:43:46 AM EDT
[#28]
Meh, fuck them.
Bring back project Pluto, I think it is time |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:49:33 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In some ways, yes -- but have we really? Our fastest flying aircraft flies Mach 2.25 (or so they so, who knows what the exact number is). I suspect it's more a tradeoff -- there's just no reason to build something that flies above Mach 3 because of all the issues that brings. The X-15 was a cool plane, but how long could it burn its rocket motor, and it had to be carried to altitude to fly at all, because it couldn't take off because of the design tradeoffs that had to be made to get it usable at its max speed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? Quoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about the technical issues with pratically harnessing sc/ramjets for propulsion. But just because a technology is experimented with and dropped in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's not viable - it may be that there are other hurdles that simply can't be cleared, making the tech 'ahead of its time', much like electric cars or flying wings (or, hopefully, fusion powerplants). Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. We have come a long way since then. In some ways, yes -- but have we really? Our fastest flying aircraft flies Mach 2.25 (or so they so, who knows what the exact number is). I suspect it's more a tradeoff -- there's just no reason to build something that flies above Mach 3 because of all the issues that brings. The X-15 was a cool plane, but how long could it burn its rocket motor, and it had to be carried to altitude to fly at all, because it couldn't take off because of the design tradeoffs that had to be made to get it usable at its max speed. You're confusing the fact that spaced based systems are more economical with the idea that the technology doesn't exist to do it in the atmosphere. The space shuttle produced a revolution in thermal management that wasn't available to Kelly Johnson. Carbon materials have produced a revolution in manufacturing and computer based prototyping has changed how project visions are looked at and tested. The SR-71 was an absolute stroke of genius and innovation that still makes heads spin today, but to think, even for a moment, that it's the pinnacle is myopic. If we never again see a leap forward in high speed in-atmosphere flight it will be only because space based systems make it unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:07:32 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wish I could find the 1980-ish press release from Lockheed about flying a manned aircraft at over 3,000mph. Mach 5, 30 to 35 years ago. Wonder what's happened since? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? Quoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about the technical issues with pratically harnessing sc/ramjets for propulsion. But just because a technology is experimented with and dropped in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's not viable - it may be that there are other hurdles that simply can't be cleared, making the tech 'ahead of its time', much like electric cars or flying wings (or, hopefully, fusion powerplants). Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. K lol Wish I could find the 1980-ish press release from Lockheed about flying a manned aircraft at over 3,000mph. Mach 5, 30 to 35 years ago. Wonder what's happened since? Probably the X-15, but it was a rocket carried to altitude by a B-52 because it couldn't take off. It was a test platform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:09:11 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably the X-15, but it was a rocket carried to altitude by a B-52 because it couldn't take off. It was a test platform. It did not breathe air, the ramjet/scramjet does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:26:55 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And they still can't figure out how to feed and pacify their own population. A pity, that. Recent starvation in China? Mass population uprisings? The Chinese government is pretty stable from all appearances. Especially considering the financial events of the last year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:28:01 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And they still can't figure out how to feed and pacify their own population. A pity, that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
we mock and ignore china at our own peril Yup. They are catching up fast. There have a billion more people than we do, they are smart and coming here to be educated. Jokes on us. And they still can't figure out how to feed and pacify their own population. A pity, that. at least they are trying to be more service oriented with their economy than mfg/industrial oriented. Maybe that can get them up to 2nd world from 3rd world. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:29:13 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Recent starvation in China? Mass population uprisings? The Chinese government is pretty stable from all appearances. Especially considering the financial events of the last year. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And they still can't figure out how to feed and pacify their own population. A pity, that. Recent starvation in China? Mass population uprisings? The Chinese government is pretty stable from all appearances. Especially considering the financial events of the last year. The financial events weren't anything really big, A share markets are still up YoY. They are still growing. They are valuing the remembi better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:30:33 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. You're right, it's not like we've launched any hypersonic vehicles from a Pegasus in recent years or anything....oh wait. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:32:00 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Recent starvation in China? Mass population uprisings? The Chinese government is pretty stable from all appearances. Especially considering the financial events of the last year. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And they still can't figure out how to feed and pacify their own population. A pity, that. Recent starvation in China? Mass population uprisings? The Chinese government is pretty stable from all appearances. Especially considering the financial events of the last year. Hong Kong protests? 85% of their military oriented to population control? Mass import of calories to support their population? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:34:00 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
we mach and ignore china at our own peril |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:34:24 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? Quoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about the technical issues with pratically harnessing sc/ramjets for propulsion. But just because a technology is experimented with and dropped in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's not viable - it may be that there are other hurdles that simply can't be cleared, making the tech 'ahead of its time', much like electric cars or flying wings (or, hopefully, fusion powerplants). Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. The Mach 6+ X-15 may disagree with your number, though to be fair it did use an ablative coating. The tiles used on the shuttle may provide some insights into how deal with the heat. There have already been hypersonic vehicles launched, most recently from a Pegasus missile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:36:31 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Probably the X-15, but it was a rocket carried to altitude by a B-52 because it couldn't take off. It was a test platform. it was a rocket powered airplane. Wings, stick and rudder. or are we going to argue that the power plant is the only deciding factor into what is or is not an airplane? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:37:28 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Mach 6+ X-15 may disagree with your number, though to be fair it did use an ablative coating. The tiles used on the shuttle may provide some insights into how deal with the heat. There have already been hypersonic vehicles launched, most recently from a Pegasus missile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What mechanisms are used to make a mach 9 wind tunnel? Quoted:
I would not say LOL. It is impressive R&D. However, it's only R&D at this point. Also, it probably useful only to guided missile tech and not manned flight or even reusable drone flight; if ram or scramjets were the next frontier, we would have continued our own R&D back in the 60s and 70s. Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about the technical issues with pratically harnessing sc/ramjets for propulsion. But just because a technology is experimented with and dropped in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's not viable - it may be that there are other hurdles that simply can't be cleared, making the tech 'ahead of its time', much like electric cars or flying wings (or, hopefully, fusion powerplants). Mach 3.x was about the limit we could get materials to handle in an aircraft. The SR-71 was cherry-red hot when it landed, and frequently took hours to cool to the point the pilot could get out of it. It probably still is the limit, you'll note we haven't built anything faster since. Missile tech obviously may be different. If they can get this down to size to fly a missile, they may have something. Then again, that presumes China can build a jet engine worth a fuck. Which they haven't managed to do so far. The Mach 6+ X-15 may disagree with your number, though to be fair it did use an ablative coating. The tiles used on the shuttle may provide some insights into how deal with the heat. There have already been hypersonic vehicles launched, most recently from a Pegasus missile I've already pointed out the X-15, which was a rocket that had to be launched at altitude by a B52. Not really the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:40:07 AM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:40:19 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
it was a rocket powered airplane. Wings, stick and rudder. or are we going to argue that the power plant is the only deciding factor into what is or is not an airplane? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably the X-15, but it was a rocket carried to altitude by a B-52 because it couldn't take off. It was a test platform. it was a rocket powered airplane. Wings, stick and rudder. or are we going to argue that the power plant is the only deciding factor into what is or is not an airplane? See edit. Irrespective of any other factors, the engine did not breathe air, as do the ramjet/scramjet powerplants. Call the vehicle anything you wish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:40:58 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
it was a rocket powered airplane. Wings, stick and rudder. or are we going to argue that the power plant is the only deciding factor into what is or is not an airplane? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably the X-15, but it was a rocket carried to altitude by a B-52 because it couldn't take off. It was a test platform. it was a rocket powered airplane. Wings, stick and rudder. or are we going to argue that the power plant is the only deciding factor into what is or is not an airplane? Rocket propulsion and mothership launch put it in a completely different class of air vehicle. Call it what you want, but it's nothing like anything being discussed here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:42:46 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hong Kong protests? 85% of their military oriented to population control? Mass import of calories to support their population? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And they still can't figure out how to feed and pacify their own population. A pity, that. Recent starvation in China? Mass population uprisings? The Chinese government is pretty stable from all appearances. Especially considering the financial events of the last year. Hong Kong protests? 85% of their military oriented to population control? Mass import of calories to support their population? They certainly have their problems but it would be ridiculous to think they can never overcome them at least enough to pose a very serious threat. Regardless, their immediate goal isn't really military but rather economic. They are trying to create their own economic sphere of influence separate from that of the US. They are already trying to remove the dollar as the medium for oil exchanges. There are plenty of countries worldwide that would love to deal with them rather than us and not have to deal with things like economic sanctions over human rights violations. A world bank for dictators would have plenty of takers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:46:36 AM EDT
[#45]
I still say rockets dawg.
Imagine the space shuttle with fuel in the payload bay feeding the main engines. Hear me roar. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:50:40 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I still say rockets dawg. Imagine the space shuttle with fuel in the payload bay feeding the main engines. I did that in KSP and landed it on the Mun. "Landed" being a somewhat loose euphemism for strewing a collection of shuttle parts across miles of Munscape. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:51:28 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
See edit. Irrespective of any other factors, the engine did not breathe air, as do the ramjet/scramjet powerplants. Call the vehicle anything you wish. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably the X-15, but it was a rocket carried to altitude by a B-52 because it couldn't take off. It was a test platform. it was a rocket powered airplane. Wings, stick and rudder. or are we going to argue that the power plant is the only deciding factor into what is or is not an airplane? See edit. Irrespective of any other factors, the engine did not breathe air, as do the ramjet/scramjet powerplants. Call the vehicle anything you wish. we are building an launching Scramjet powered vehicles. Orbital Sciences is heavily involved. the X-15 and the Shuttle (as well as other programs) paved the way for developing the hypersonic missiles and possible future aircraft. there were two trains of thought in this thread, one sticking to the original premise dealing with scramjet / ramjet technology, the other with no aircraft going any faster than the SR-71. I've have commented on both - with the references to the hypersonic research vehicles that use a scramjet, and with the X-15 that was an aircraft that exceeded mach 6. Two related but different concepts. The X-15 (and the shuttle) are relevant, because they lay waste to the claim that we don't know how to make an aircraft that can exceed mach 3+. The hypersonic research vehicle lays waste to the claim that we abandoned hypersonic and scramjet/ramjet research in the 60's an 70's. The X-15 is useful because we gained a lot of insight on how the aerodynamic forces behave. You will notice that the current research vehicles don't look much like the X-15. We actually learned stuff and are actually applying what we know. We really need to spend a lot more money on this, in my opinion. Speed is better than stealth and currently harder to defeat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:52:10 AM EDT
[#48]
Telemetry software powered by Volkswagen
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:53:45 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
we mock and ignore china at our own peril I think there is truth in this statement...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:56:33 AM EDT
[#50]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
