X-43A successful flight

The X-43A flew this afternoon.

4780 miles per hour.

Not bad.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:

The X-43A flew this afternoon.

4780 miles per hour.

Not bad.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Rough landing, though.

Bob McKellar

Bob McKellar wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:



The X-43A flew this afternoon.

4780 miles per hour.

Not bad.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.



Rough landing, though.

Bob McKellar



Post-flight Report:

Velocity: achieved desired parameters
Amphibious landing capability: still needs work

Chad Irby wrote:

The X-43A flew this afternoon.

4780 miles per hour.

Not bad.

Especially for a 12 foot length/4 ft wingspan!

Makes it tough to get a ride though.


SMH

From: Stephen Harding
Date: 3/28/2004 8:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Chad Irby wrote:

The X-43A flew this afternoon.

4780 miles per hour.

Not bad.

Especially for a 12 foot length/4 ft wingspan!

Makes it tough to get a ride though.


SMH

I don't want a ride unless it has cup holders.

The passenger version uses midget stewardesses.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

B2431 wrote:

From: Stephen Harding
Date: 3/28/2004 8:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Chad Irby wrote:


The X-43A flew this afternoon.

4780 miles per hour.

Not bad.

Especially for a 12 foot length/4 ft wingspan!

Makes it tough to get a ride though.

I don't want a ride unless it has cup holders.

The passenger version uses midget stewardesses.

Actually, I believe it has a 5 foot wingspan, so
there may be room for cupholders after all.

I think drinking is safe at 5000 mph as long as
there are no changes in direction!


SMH

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Chad Irby wrote:

The X-43A flew this afternoon.

4780 miles per hour.

Not bad.

Especially for a 12 foot length/4 ft wingspan!

Makes it tough to get a ride though.

Two pounds of fuel for an eleven second run, at that
rate we're talking 650+ pounds per hour. That's for a
12 foot aircraft.
I wonder what that would scale to for a fighter or
executive transport sized aircraft; I wonder about a
bomber sized aircraft...

In article ,
"John Keeney" wrote:

Two pounds of fuel for an eleven second run, at that
rate we're talking 650+ pounds per hour. That's for a
12 foot aircraft.
I wonder what that would scale to for a fighter or
executive transport sized aircraft; I wonder about a
bomber sized aircraft...

Well, considering that a 747 goes through a gallon of fuel in less than
its own *length*...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Chad Irby wrote:

The X-43A flew this afternoon.

4780 miles per hour.

Not bad.

Especially for a 12 foot length/4 ft wingspan!

Makes it tough to get a ride though.

Right, but it's a good size for a raft. Ya know, they got a bunch of
beach balls and a go-kart to Mars, you'd think they could have put
water wings on the flying surfboard.

Suppose someone made an airliner capable of zooming from London to Tokyo
with a top speed of 5,000 mph. Would would be the minimum realistic G
forces that the passengers would experience going up, and coming down?

Also, wouldn't the vehicle be rather hot once it landed?

Cheers

--mike

Stephen Harding wrote:
Chad Irby wrote:

The X-43A flew this afternoon.

4780 miles per hour.

Not bad.


Especially for a 12 foot length/4 ft wingspan!

Makes it tough to get a ride though.


SMH