X-43 - Has anyone else done it?

[Franz Geff]

Has any other country had success with a Ramjet or Scramjet??? France tried
Hypersonics in the 50s and failed I believe (wasn't it called the Griffon
Aircraft). I have been following many new aerospace developments for a
number of years (namely scramjets and aerospike rocket engines).

A few things that came to mind ...

Why was the X-43 important? Firstly it is a PROOF OF CONCEPT. Hypersonic
Aircraft via Scramjet is possible. Secondly it gives the MILITARY the
ability to make advanced CRUISE missiles that can get to a target quickly.
If anyone listed to the interview with the scientist on Friday (NPR/PRI),
they said that if this test was successful, military applications would be
the FIRST application.

I think Space Shuttles and Commercial applications are still at least 20
years out. Military apps may see the light of day in about 5-10 years, if
needed they could be rushed out. The example used by the scientist was the
Bin Laden sticking his head out of a hole and todays technology only able to
hit the target in about 3-4 hours. With Hypersonic missiles, targets become
much more targetable ... hmmm

This missile was allowed to glide into the Pacific. Strangely enough this
missile could be retrieved by the a foreign government (Russia, China or
France).

It was publicly stated that NASA would NOT even try and recover the jet for
budgetary reasons and would abondon it, it would give anyone retrieving the
X-43 the following information (at the very least):
- The materials neccessary for hypersonic flight (titanium, composites, etc)
- The aerodynamic design
- The engine design
- Some of the onboard computer information if it is retrievable

Thus MANY of the details of how to REPEAT this experiment can be GLEANED
from simply retrieve the X-43 from the Ocean bed. This would be well worth
the risk to any foreign power. So I think that was not the wisest idea ...

The X-43 though is way cool, but I am trying to understand if using such an
engine will enable an aircraft to enter space or even reach escape velocity
.... someone help me out ...

[NoHoverStop]

Franz Geff wrote:
> Has any other country had success with a Ramjet or Scramjet???

Depends what you mean by "success"; no-one's flying them commercially
yet. However: http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/hyshot/default.htm

[Frode Hansen]

NoHoverStop > wrote in message >...
> Franz Geff wrote:
> > Has any other country had success with a Ramjet or Scramjet???
>
> Depends what you mean by "success"; no-one's flying them commercially
> yet. However: http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/hyshot/default.htm

The story that they succesfully flight tested a scramjet seems to be
well accepted, but are the test data peer rewieved and the scientific
community in agreement with this conclusion?

I am also wondering if there exist any conseptual ideas for useful
application of such an engine . I imagine one would need considerable
boosting just to get a vehicle from 'runay mode' and into 'working
mode', and that the prices of the once so impressive Concorde flights
would be dwarfed by orders of magnitude if passenger/payload traffic
is considered.

I like it though. No moving parts :-)

..fh

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Franz
Geff" > wrote:

>

>
> Thus MANY of the details of how to REPEAT this experiment can be GLEANED
> from simply retrieve the X-43 from the Ocean bed. This would be well
> worth
> the risk to any foreign power. So I think that was not the wisest idea

Many of the details of how to repeat the experiments at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki could be gleaned from the remnants. It would be especially
difficult, however, to glean the details of how to put the mushroom
cloud back into the nice shiny metal ball.
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Franz Geff" > wrote in message
. com...

> This missile was allowed to glide into the Pacific. Strangely enough this
> missile could be retrieved by the a foreign government (Russia, China or
> France).
>
> It was publicly stated that NASA would NOT even try and recover the jet
for
> budgetary reasons and would abondon it, it would give anyone retrieving
the
> X-43 the following information (at the very least):
> - The materials neccessary for hypersonic flight (titanium, composites,
etc)
> - The aerodynamic design
> - The engine design
> - Some of the onboard computer information if it is retrievable
>
> Thus MANY of the details of how to REPEAT this experiment can be GLEANED
> from simply retrieve the X-43 from the Ocean bed. This would be well worth
> the risk to any foreign power. So I think that was not the wisest idea ...
>

Lets try and provide you with a a clue

1) The Pacific is BIG

2) The Pacific is DEEP

3) The missile is SMALL

Review the efforts the USA had to make when they tried
to raise a Soviet Submarine from the Pacific and then bear
in mind they knew pretty much where to look and the thing they
were looking for was MUCH bigger.

Keith

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 06:24:58 GMT, "Franz Geff" >
wrote:

>Has any other country had success with a Ramjet or Scramjet??? France tried
>Hypersonics in the 50s and failed I believe (wasn't it called the Griffon
>Aircraft). I have been following many new aerospace developments for a
>number of years (namely scramjets and aerospike rocket engines).

Russia and France supposedly launched one on the nose of an SA-5.

Russia supposedly flew a scramjet powered RV on a Topal a month or two
ago.






>
>A few things that came to mind ...
>
>Why was the X-43 important? Firstly it is a PROOF OF CONCEPT. Hypersonic
>Aircraft via Scramjet is possible. Secondly it gives the MILITARY the
>ability to make advanced CRUISE missiles that can get to a target quickly.

Hardly. The military is already going a different route with
scramjets. The X-43A uses hydrogen fuel. The stuff the military
wants to use uses hydrocarbon fuel (don't know if it's regular jet
fuel) and uses it to cool the airframe and uses the airframe heat to
breakdown the fuel molecules before feeding them into the engine.
It's already been tested albeit in a wind tunnel. Not only that the
X-43A's engine ran for a grand total of about seven seconds. That and
the need for a big ass booster to get it to speed so the scramjet
could start up makes it completely useless as a weapon.





>If anyone listed to the interview with the scientist on Friday (NPR/PRI),
>they said that if this test was successful, military applications would be
>the FIRST application.
>
>I think Space Shuttles and Commercial applications are still at least 20
>years out.

At the rate they're going I'd guess more like 30 to 40 years. Hell it
will be 20 before a Shuttle replacement is flying. And that dinky
space plane proposal they have out there is not a Shuttle replacement.



>Military apps may see the light of day in about 5-10 years, if
>needed they could be rushed out. The example used by the scientist was the
>Bin Laden sticking his head out of a hole and todays technology only able to
>hit the target in about 3-4 hours. With Hypersonic missiles, targets become
>much more targetable ... hmmm
>
>This missile was allowed to glide into the Pacific. Strangely enough this
>missile could be retrieved by the a foreign government (Russia, China or
>France).

I doubt they'd bother. I'd be surprised if there were anything on the
vehicle in the way of materials or geometry that isn't already well
known and publicly available.





>The X-43 though is way cool, but I am trying to understand if using such an
>engine will enable an aircraft to enter space or even reach escape velocity
>... someone help me out ...

If you could make materials or come up with a way of cooling that
would allow you to run up to orbital or escape velocity while in the
atmosphere with enough extra for the coast out then sure. With the
X-30 they were trying a lot of active cooling with LH2 and in the end
they still figured they'd need a rocket to give it the final boost
into orbit. They never specified how they were going to get to
scramjet speeds in the first place with it. Look up "strut jet" if
you want to see something that will get you from the ground to space
with one engine. In theory anyway :-)

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:14:07 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"Franz Geff" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>> This missile was allowed to glide into the Pacific. Strangely enough this
>> missile could be retrieved by the a foreign government (Russia, China or
>> France).
>>
>> It was publicly stated that NASA would NOT even try and recover the jet
>for
>> budgetary reasons and would abondon it, it would give anyone retrieving
>the
>> X-43 the following information (at the very least):
>> - The materials neccessary for hypersonic flight (titanium, composites,
>etc)
>> - The aerodynamic design
>> - The engine design
>> - Some of the onboard computer information if it is retrievable
>>
>> Thus MANY of the details of how to REPEAT this experiment can be GLEANED
>> from simply retrieve the X-43 from the Ocean bed. This would be well worth
>> the risk to any foreign power. So I think that was not the wisest idea ...
>>
>
>Lets try and provide you with a a clue
>
>1) The Pacific is BIG
>
>2) The Pacific is DEEP
>
>3) The missile is SMALL
>
>Review the efforts the USA had to make when they tried
>to raise a Soviet Submarine from the Pacific and then bear
>in mind they knew pretty much where to look and the thing they
>were looking for was MUCH bigger.
>
>Keith
>

They *did* manage to find four MK28 bombs though, though I don't
recall if it was in the Atlantic or Med.

[Kulvinder Singh Matharu]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 06:24:58 GMT, "Franz Geff" >
wrote:

>Has any other country had success with a Ramjet or Scramjet??? France tried
>Hypersonics in the 50s and failed I believe (wasn't it called the Griffon
>Aircraft). I have been following many new aerospace developments for a
>number of years (namely scramjets and aerospike rocket engines).

Interesting article...

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail?assetid=14779

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

[Keith Willshaw]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:14:07 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>

>
> They *did* manage to find four MK28 bombs though, though I don't
> recall if it was in the Atlantic or Med.
>

It was at Palomares Spain and 3 of the weapons came down on land.

The fourth came down just offshore, the location of the accident
was well known and it was in shallow coastal waters and the
USN deployed a large recovery force.

It still took take the best part of 3 MONTHS to find that
one weapon. A number of weapons have been lost
in mid ocean incidents involving B-36 and B-47 aircraft
and none were recovered.

Keith

[Michael Zaharis]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:14:07 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>They *did* manage to find four MK28 bombs though, though I don't
>>recall if it was in the Atlantic or Med.
>>
>
>
> It was at Palomares Spain and 3 of the weapons came down on land.
>
> The fourth came down just offshore, the location of the accident
> was well known and it was in shallow coastal waters and the
> USN deployed a large recovery force.
>
> It still took take the best part of 3 MONTHS to find that
> one weapon. A number of weapons have been lost
> in mid ocean incidents involving B-36 and B-47 aircraft
> and none were recovered.
>
> Keith
>
>


I also remember in the late '70s when they lost an F-14 overboard from a
carrier. They were even more worried about the Phoenix getting into
Soviet hands (they didn't yet know that it would happen a couple of
years later with the downfall of the Shah). They had to find both the
F-14 and the Phoenix, which separated from the aircraft. Both were
found, but only after a massive search that used both surface-based
sonar (sidescan?) and the NR-1 and Alvin.

[Garrison Hilliard]

"Franz Geff" > wrote in message >...
> Has any other country had success with a Ramjet or Scramjet??? France tried
> Hypersonics in the 50s and failed I believe (wasn't it called the Griffon
> Aircraft). I have been following many new aerospace developments for a
> number of years (namely scramjets and aerospike rocket engines).

From about a year ago...


"Garrison Hilliard" > wrote in message
...

> This airplane looked a lot like a hypodermic syringe
> and was powered by a huge ramjet... does anyone know of this
> plane and have any details?

There were a number of rather weird prototypes in the 1950s,
but I think you must be referring to the ramjet aircraft designed
by Rene Leduc. He built a number of types, numbered 0.10, 0.16,
0.21 and 0.22. The 0.22 had an auxiliary jet engine to allow
a normal take-off and was intended as an operational Mach 2
interceptor; the others all had to be air-launched to start the
ramjet engine.

There are good illustrations on
http://jnpassieux.chez.tiscali.fr/html/Leduc021.php and
http://jnpassieux.chez.tiscali.fr/html/Leduc010.php

The Leduc aircraft were little more than huge ramjets. The pilot's
cockpit was in an inner fuselage, which was surrounded by burners;
an outer fuselage shell completed the engine. Tiny tail surfaces and
landing gear were another characteristic. The programme is claimed
to have been reasonably successful, but in 1957 the testing of the 0.22
was halted in a budget round.

--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet.be
Flying Guns Page:
http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/

[Jim Herring]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> The fourth came down just offshore, the location of the accident
> was well known and it was in shallow coastal waters and the
> USN deployed a large recovery force.
>
> It still took take the best part of 3 MONTHS to find that
> one weapon. A number of weapons have been lost
> in mid ocean incidents involving B-36 and B-47 aircraft
> and none were recovered.

A local fisherman told the USN that the bomb went down "there". The
admiral in charge of the recovery told the fisherman to bugger off,
"we'll find it". After several weeks of searching guess where the USN
found the bomb. :)



--
Jim

carry on




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[B2431]

>From: "Keith Willshaw"

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:14:07 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> They *did* manage to find four MK28 bombs though, though I don't
>> recall if it was in the Atlantic or Med.
>>
>
>It was at Palomares Spain and 3 of the weapons came down on land.
>
>The fourth came down just offshore, the location of the accident
>was well known and it was in shallow coastal waters and the
>USN deployed a large recovery force.
>
>It still took take the best part of 3 MONTHS to find that
>one weapon. A number of weapons have been lost
>in mid ocean incidents involving B-36 and B-47 aircraft
>and none were recovered.
>
>Keith
>
>
A fisherman had seen that bomb come down. He took noted landmarks which helped
in the search.

Bear in mind the Titanic hit the bottom miles from where it sank. The deeper
the water the bigger the search area. Currents and cross currents make
predictions difficult at best.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John Keeney]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Franz Geff" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > This missile was allowed to glide into the Pacific. Strangely enough
this
> > missile could be retrieved by the a foreign government (Russia, China or
> > France).
> >
> > It was publicly stated that NASA would NOT even try and recover the jet
> for
> > budgetary reasons and would abondon it, it would give anyone retrieving
> the
> > X-43 the following information (at the very least):
> > - The materials neccessary for hypersonic flight (titanium, composites,
> etc)
> > - The aerodynamic design
> > - The engine design
> > - Some of the onboard computer information if it is retrievable
> >
> > Thus MANY of the details of how to REPEAT this experiment can be GLEANED
> > from simply retrieve the X-43 from the Ocean bed. This would be well
worth
> > the risk to any foreign power. So I think that was not the wisest idea
....
> >
>
> Lets try and provide you with a a clue
>
> 1) The Pacific is BIG
>
> 2) The Pacific is DEEP
>
> 3) The missile is SMALL

The X-43 would have hit the water at a fair clip and likely been
bent and torn apart. The shaping is all important, to pretty tight
tolerances and probably can not be determined from the remains
of the X-43. If it could be determined, it would tell them the
shape for a missile 12 foot long, scaling is not obviously linear.

[John Keeney]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Franz Geff" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > This missile was allowed to glide into the Pacific. Strangely enough
this
> > missile could be retrieved by the a foreign government (Russia, China or
> > France).
> >
> > It was publicly stated that NASA would NOT even try and recover the jet
> for
> > budgetary reasons and would abondon it, it would give anyone retrieving
> the
> > X-43 the following information (at the very least):
> > - The materials neccessary for hypersonic flight (titanium, composites,
> etc)
> > - The aerodynamic design
> > - The engine design
> > - Some of the onboard computer information if it is retrievable
> >
> > Thus MANY of the details of how to REPEAT this experiment can be GLEANED
> > from simply retrieve the X-43 from the Ocean bed. This would be well
worth
> > the risk to any foreign power. So I think that was not the wisest idea
....
> >
>
> Lets try and provide you with a a clue
>
> 1) The Pacific is BIG
>
> 2) The Pacific is DEEP
>
> 3) The missile is SMALL

The X-43 would have hit the water at a fair clip and likely been
bent and torn apart. The shaping is all important, to pretty tight
tolerances and probably can not be determined from the remains
of the X-43. If it could be determined, it would tell them the
shape for a missile 12 foot long, scaling is not obviously linear.

[John Keeney]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Franz Geff" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > This missile was allowed to glide into the Pacific. Strangely enough
this
> > missile could be retrieved by the a foreign government (Russia, China or
> > France).
> >
> > It was publicly stated that NASA would NOT even try and recover the jet
> for
> > budgetary reasons and would abondon it, it would give anyone retrieving
> the
> > X-43 the following information (at the very least):
> > - The materials neccessary for hypersonic flight (titanium, composites,
> etc)
> > - The aerodynamic design
> > - The engine design
> > - Some of the onboard computer information if it is retrievable
> >
> > Thus MANY of the details of how to REPEAT this experiment can be GLEANED
> > from simply retrieve the X-43 from the Ocean bed. This would be well
worth
> > the risk to any foreign power. So I think that was not the wisest idea
....
> >
>
> Lets try and provide you with a a clue
>
> 1) The Pacific is BIG
>
> 2) The Pacific is DEEP
>
> 3) The missile is SMALL

The X-43 would have hit the water at a fair clip and likely been
bent and torn apart. The shaping is all important, to pretty tight
tolerances and probably can not be determined from the remains
of the X-43. If it could be determined, it would tell them the
shape for a missile 12 foot long, scaling is not obviously linear.

[John Keeney]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Franz Geff" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > This missile was allowed to glide into the Pacific. Strangely enough
this
> > missile could be retrieved by the a foreign government (Russia, China or
> > France).
> >
> > It was publicly stated that NASA would NOT even try and recover the jet
> for
> > budgetary reasons and would abondon it, it would give anyone retrieving
> the
> > X-43 the following information (at the very least):
> > - The materials neccessary for hypersonic flight (titanium, composites,
> etc)
> > - The aerodynamic design
> > - The engine design
> > - Some of the onboard computer information if it is retrievable
> >
> > Thus MANY of the details of how to REPEAT this experiment can be GLEANED
> > from simply retrieve the X-43 from the Ocean bed. This would be well
worth
> > the risk to any foreign power. So I think that was not the wisest idea
....
> >
>
> Lets try and provide you with a a clue
>
> 1) The Pacific is BIG
>
> 2) The Pacific is DEEP
>
> 3) The missile is SMALL

The X-43 would have hit the water at a fair clip and likely been
bent and torn apart. The shaping is all important, to pretty tight
tolerances and probably can not be determined from the remains
of the X-43. If it could be determined, it would tell them the
shape for a missile 12 foot long, scaling is not obviously linear.

[TJ]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 06:24:58 GMT, "Franz Geff" >
> wrote:
>
> >Has any other country had success with a Ramjet or Scramjet??? France tried
> >Hypersonics in the 50s and failed I believe (wasn't it called the Griffon
> >Aircraft). I have been following many new aerospace developments for a
> >number of years (namely scramjets and aerospike rocket engines).
>
> Russia and France supposedly launched one on the nose of an SA-5.
>
> Russia supposedly flew a scramjet powered RV on a Topal a month or two
> ago.

Not from a Topal, but from the SS-19.

Reference the Russia/France joint IGLA project:

The following papers including the project IGLA (AIAA-2003-5250), can
be found at the following website:

11th AIAA / AAAF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies

AIAA-2002-5250

http://hypersonic2002.aaaf.asso.fr/received.html

http://hypersonic2002.aaaf.asso.fr/papers/17_5250.pdf

Some very interesting papers also appear on the website on the subject
of hypersonic vehicles.

TJ

[Eunometic]

(Frode Hansen) wrote in message >...
> NoHoverStop > wrote in message >...
> > Franz Geff wrote:
> > > Has any other country had success with a Ramjet or Scramjet???
> >
> > Depends what you mean by "success"; no-one's flying them commercially
> > yet. However: http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/hyshot/default.htm
>
> The story that they succesfully flight tested a scramjet seems to be
> well accepted, but are the test data peer rewieved and the scientific
> community in agreement with this conclusion?
>
> I am also wondering if there exist any conseptual ideas for useful
> application of such an engine . I imagine one would need considerable
> boosting just to get a vehicle from 'runay mode' and into 'working
> mode', and that the prices of the once so impressive Concorde flights
> would be dwarfed by orders of magnitude if passenger/payload traffic
> is considered.
>
> I like it though. No moving parts :-)
>
> .fh

Most of the schemes rely on the device opperating as a ramjet and then
changing the Geometry from ramjet to scramjet mode as speed excedes
about Mach 4.5 -Mach 5.5.

There is a type of ramjet called an inductor ramjet. This has a small
rocket motor in the central supersonic diffuser spike. Below
opperating speed the rocket fires producing a small amount of thrust
but also inducing an airflow sufficient to opperate as a ramjet at
zero speed. Specific impulse when the Germans tested it in the
1930/1940 is about 800 which is about twice that of a LOH/LOX rocket
but half that of a turbofan with reheat. (At that time they were
interested in rockets to get started and coal dust as fuel)

These tests seem to be have an redculouse aura of PR hype. Everything
from the synthetic and hysterionic whooping in the control center to
the schmaltzy hypersonic airliners cartoons. The only use for this
will be putting loads into orbit.

X43 is trying to do a few other things. It is trying to integrate the
forbody of the vehicle as part of the scramjet intake i.e
precompression and the afterbody of the vehicle as the engine nozzle
while also making the body a lifting body. It's all tall order to
integrate all three but they have to be integrated because scramjets
just don't work well enough on their own. The wedge shapped nose has
to be agressively cooled by hydrogen.

Personaly I think a two stage to orbit vehicle with a 100% reusable
flyback booster is a better direction to go.

[Henry J Cobb]

Eunometic wrote:
> X43 is trying to do a few other things. It is trying to integrate the
> forbody of the vehicle as part of the scramjet intake i.e
> precompression and the afterbody of the vehicle as the engine nozzle
> while also making the body a lifting body. It's all tall order to
> integrate all three but they have to be integrated because scramjets
> just don't work well enough on their own. The wedge shapped nose has
> to be agressively cooled by hydrogen.

The problem with hydrogen is that it isn't very dense so you can't carry
much fuel and the problem with hydrocarbons is that the air flows
through the scramjet engine too quickly for these fuels to burn.

The X-43C will use hydrocarbon fuel for cooling and the heat breaks the
fuel down so it can burn quickly enough to provide thrust in the engine.

-HJC

[Eunometic]

Henry J Cobb > wrote in message >...
> Eunometic wrote:
> > X43 is trying to do a few other things. It is trying to integrate the
> > forbody of the vehicle as part of the scramjet intake i.e
> > precompression and the afterbody of the vehicle as the engine nozzle
> > while also making the body a lifting body. It's all tall order to
> > integrate all three but they have to be integrated because scramjets
> > just don't work well enough on their own. The wedge shapped nose has
> > to be agressively cooled by hydrogen.
>
> The problem with hydrogen is that it isn't very dense so you can't carry
> much fuel and the problem with hydrocarbons is that the air flows
> through the scramjet engine too quickly for these fuels to burn.
>
> The X-43C will use hydrocarbon fuel for cooling and the heat breaks the
> fuel down so it can burn quickly enough to provide thrust in the engine.
>
> -HJC

Thanks, presumably that was the X-43A we just saw. What I don't
understand is how they will prevent coking and pyrolising of the fuel.
I can understand hydrocarbones breaking down into hydrogen but carbon
vapour?

The concept is a little reminiscent of an inductor ramjet the Germans
tested in the 1930s/40s which instead of using a central rocket engine
to induce the airflow in the main body of the ramjet used a heat
exchanger wrapped around the body of the ramjet to produce a high
pressure vapour. The high pressure vapour was injected to provide
stationary thrust and induce and airfow:- it was hot enought to self
ignite. ( a fired vaporiser was used to start the process up)

The X-43C seems similar however it recovers the heat not of combustion
but of hypersonic heating the forebody of the vehicle

[Steve Hix]

> Henry J Cobb > wrote in message
> >...
> > Eunometic wrote:
> > > X43 is trying to do a few other things. It is trying to integrate the
> > > forbody of the vehicle as part of the scramjet intake i.e
> > > precompression and the afterbody of the vehicle as the engine nozzle
> > > while also making the body a lifting body. It's all tall order to
> > > integrate all three but they have to be integrated because scramjets
> > > just don't work well enough on their own. The wedge shapped nose has
> > > to be agressively cooled by hydrogen.
> >
> > The problem with hydrogen is that it isn't very dense so you can't carry
> > much fuel and the problem with hydrocarbons is that the air flows
> > through the scramjet engine too quickly for these fuels to burn.
> >
> > The X-43C will use hydrocarbon fuel for cooling and the heat breaks the
> > fuel down so it can burn quickly enough to provide thrust in the engine.

Unfortunately, the X-43C was recently cancelled.

[Henry J Cobb]

Steve Hix wrote:
>>Henry J Cobb > wrote in message
>>>The X-43C will use hydrocarbon fuel for cooling and the heat breaks the
>>>fuel down so it can burn quickly enough to provide thrust in the engine.
>
> Unfortunately, the X-43C was recently cancelled.

Ouch, just last month.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/eng03194.xml

-HJC