Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by Darkpr0
Does the USAF intend this to be a UAV/UCAV or will it be manned?
The OP clearly says UCAV.
How many pilots you know that can stand Mach 10 
|
Originally posted by zorgon
[
How many pilots you know that can stand Mach 10
Mach 10 is cake. Shuttle crews encounter Mach 10 all the time... even higher than that.
Now... G forces are a different thing altogether.... 
|
|
Originally posted by RFBurns
...the SR-71 still has classified data on its absolute top speed and altitude.
First post here so, hello!
Ah yes, top speed and altitude. Well, as someone else pointed out, Mr Shul and Mr Watson got M3.5(ish) due to particularly favourable atmospheric
conditions. As you go past that, the Mach cone (shock wave) from the nose becomes more acute. Eventually, somewhere between M3.6 and 3.8, it impinges
on the inlets and boths donks unstart. Thats why hypersonic vehicles don't have bits (like wings and engines) sticking out. 
Your mission will require you to be at certain places at certain times, due to RV's, payload operation (click click click), sun angles, enemy
response times, etc. So flying higher means flying faster to cover the same ground. There you go. 
S
|
Originally posted by zorgon
How many pilots you know that can stand Mach 10
Hello Zorgon. Have enjoyed reading your posts while lurking. Top stuff.
But, speed doesn't matter (unless you have to step outside). It's rate of acceleration that worries our little pink bodies. Newtons laws and all
that.
Regards.
S
|
Does anybody know what this thing sounds like in flight? Is there maybe a sound clip somewhere i can get?
[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]
|
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
The Aurora is old news. It's already been built and works great.
It uses ramjet engines and goes Mach 6.
I'm pretty sure the Aurora utilized Pulse Detonation Engines. PDE's can get it up to Mach 6 from 0...
|
Originally posted by Titus7
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
The Aurora is old news. It's already been built and works great.
It uses ramjet engines and goes Mach 6.
I'm pretty sure the Aurora utilized Pulse Detonation Engines. PDE's can get it up to Mach 6 from 0...
There is no solid evidence that the Aurora (the top secret mach 6 capable aircraft) actually existed. But, that's beside the point. If there is a
mach 6 capable (or faster) plane being developed, it probably wouldn't use PDE's as they are one of the most inefficient types of engines out there.
And if you do your research (especially on military aircraft) half the battle is about making them as efficient as possible.
|
reply to post by sealteamsix
Hi sealteamsix,
I agree with you in that I don't believe that the Aurora existed, I also believe that any short term hypersonic aircraft will be using combined cycle
engines, as Intelgurl has pointed out with the P&W press release (nice one Intelgurl).
However, where do you get your data about PDE's? I think you are confusing PDE's with pulsejet engines? PDE are amongst the most efficient engines
due to their mechanical simplicity and thermodynamic efficiency.
Whilst pulsejets use a similar principle, they work via deflagration (burning) of fuel, whereas Pulse Detonation Engines........PDE's......actually
detonate the mixture.
It's a bit like comparing gun powder to plastic explosive, one burns very fast, the other detonates via a shockwave and releases much more energy for
a given mass.
I would say that should PDE's ever be developed to run smoothly and reliably, then they will be more efficient than combined cycle engines, and much
cheaper to produce. (but bloody loud!)
Cheers
Robbie
|
reply to post by stratsys-sws
Ah, you're correct stratsys-sws. I was referring to Pulsjet engines, not PDE's! I will have to read more carefully next time.
|
