A real fast aircraft off our coast today...

Guest Discussion
1

NASA to try second test of hypersonic jet

CTV.ca News Staff

NASA has scheduled Saturday as the day for the second flight of its experimental X-43A research vehicle.

The unpiloted four-metre-long vehicle, part aircraft and part spacecraft, will be dropped from the wing of a B-52 aircraft flying at 100-thousand feet.

The X-43A - a 2,800-pound, wedge-shaped object - will be released over the Pacific Ocean to briefly fly under its own power at seven times the speed of sound, almost 8,000 kilometres-per-hour.

The flight is part of the Hyper-X programme, a research effort designed to demonstrate alternate propulsion technologies for access to space and high-speed flight within the atmosphere.

It will provide unique flight data on hypersonic air-breathing engine technologies.

No vehicle has ever flown at hypersonic speeds powered by an air-breathing ‘scramjet’ engine.

In a scramjet (supersonic-combustion ramjet), the flow of air through the engine remains supersonic, or greater than the speed of sound, for optimum engine efficiency and vehicle speed.

There are few moving parts. After a series of successful wind tunnel tests, NASA hopes to prove that air-breathing scramjets work in flight.

This will mark the first time a non-rocket, air-breathing scramjet engine has powered a vehicle in flight at hypersonic speeds, defined as speeds above Mach 5 or five times the speed of sound.

Some researchers believe these technologies may someday offer more airplane-like operations and other benefits compared to traditional rocket systems.

Rockets provide limited throttle control and must carry heavy tanks filled with liquid oxygen, necessary for combustion of fuel.

An air-breathing engine, like that on the X-43A, scoops oxygen from the air as it flies. The weight savings could be used to increase payload capacity, increase range or reduce vehicle size for the same payload.

The X-43A will fly in the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division Sea Range, over the Pacific Ocean off the coast of southern California.

This will be the second flight in the X-43A project.

On June 2, 2001, the first X-43A vehicle was lost moments after release from the wing of the B-52.

Following booster ignition, the combined booster and X-43A vehicle deviated from its flight path and was deliberately destroyed.

Investigation into the mishap showed that there was no single contributing factor, but the root cause of the problem was identified as the control system of the booster.

2

In reply to:

…will be dropped from the wing of a B-52 aircraft flying at 100-thousand feet.

Interesting,

I did not know that a B-52 could fly at 100,000 feet.[;)] It’s excusable; the reporter is Canadian.[;)][;)] I read an article on this a few days ago, and the project seems like a great step forward toward future hypersonic flight.

After the National Aero-Space Plane research was put on terminal hold, I was wondering how well high-speed flight technology would move forward, so it has been nice to see a reorganized effort in recent years to push the envelope.

Maybe X-43A and follow-on technology can be incorporated into the Cirrus SR22-G143.[:)]

3

The B-52 was at 39,999’. As the pilot said, “Hard to get closer than that”. The flight launched at 5:00 EST (actually my clock said 4:59) and appears successful. Briefing is at 7PM EST.

4

In reply to:

…100,000 feet…

i didn’t see that when I pasted the article…The B52 could make it to 100K - but it’d have to fire off the scramjet without releasing it[;)]…that’s typical for a reporter…just can’t quite get the facts right. …they are right up there with used airplane salesmen in my book…[;)][;)]

I was taking a nap…otherwise I’d have gone out to listen for it…[:)]

5

In reply to:

The B-52 was at 39,999’. As the pilot said, “Hard to get closer than that”. The flight launched at 5:00 EST (actually my clock said 4:59) and appears successful. Briefing is at 7PM EST.

Paul,
Thanks for the heads-up. I am looking forward to the briefing! Where the reporter screwed-up is that it was widely reported that the B-52 would launch the X-43A at 40,000 feet and the X-43A would reach 100,000 feet during its flight.[:)]

6

In reply to:

The B52 could make it to 100K - but it’d have to fire off the scramjet without releasing it

Clif,

That’s a good one.[:D]

7

NASA’s 5,000-Mph Jet Makes First Flight

Email this Story

Mar 27, 6:21 PM (ET)

By ROBERT JABLON

(AP) NASA announces the experimental X-43A scramjet aircraft at a news conference Wednesday, March 24,…
Full Image

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Three years after its first test flight ended in an explosion, NASA on Saturday successfully launched an experimental jet designed to reach speeds approaching 5,000 mph.

The unpiloted X-43A made a 10-second powered flight, then went through some twists and turns during a six-minute glide before plunging into the Pacific Ocean about 400 miles off the California coast.

“Everything worked according to plan. It’s been wonderful,” NASA spokeswoman Leslie Williams said. “I actually thought it was the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen. We’ve been waiting a few years.”

It wasn’t immediately clear what speed the needle-nosed jet achieved after it was boosted to about 3,500 mph by a rocket, Williams said.

The first X-43A flight ended in failure June 2, 2001, after the modified Pegasus rocket used to accelerate the plane veered off course and was detonated. An investigation board found preflight analyses failed to predict how the rocket would perform, leaving its control system unable to maintain stable flight.

NASA built the X-43A under a $250 million program to develop and test an exotic type of engine called a supersonic-combustion ramjet, or scramjet.

In theory, the air-breathing engine could propel an airplane to speeds of Mach 7 or faster, enabling around-the-world flights that would take several hours. The Department of Defense also is working on the technology, which it’s eyeing for use in bombers that quickly could reach targets anywhere on the globe.

The 2,800-pound X-43A was mounted on a Pegasus rocket booster and carried to an altitude of 40,000 feet by a modified B-52 bomber, which took off from Edwards Air Force Base in the high desert.

A few seconds after the craft was dropped, the rocket flared, sending the jet skyward on a streak of flame and light. At about 100,000 feet, the rocket dropped away.

(AP) NASA’s X-43A, a single-use 12-foot unmanned jet, is displayed during ground testing in this…
Full Image

The scramjet took over, using up about two pounds of gaseous hydrogen fuel before gliding. Applause rang out in the control center at Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards.

Technological hurdles mean it will be decades before such a plane could enter service. And NASA’s role in developing the technology remains in doubt, as the agency recently cut funding for more advanced versions of the X-43A.

Engineers have pursued scramjet technology because it could allow rocket-speed travel but with considerable savings in weight. Rockets must carry their own oxygen to combust the fuel they carry aboard; scramjets can scoop it out of the atmosphere.

In scramjets, oxygen is rammed into a combustion chamber where it mixes with fuel and spontaneously ignites. To work, the engine must be traveling at about five times the speed of sound - requiring an initial boost that only a rocket can provide.

A third X-43A could fly as early as the fall.

8

In reply to:

In reply to:
The B-52 was at 39,999’. As the pilot said, “Hard to get closer than that”. The flight launched at 5:00 EST (actually my clock said 4:59) and appears successful. Briefing is at 7PM EST.
Paul,
Thanks for the heads-up. I am looking forward to the briefing! Where the reporter screwed-up is that it was widely reported that the B-52 would launch the X-43A at 40,000 feet and the X-43A would reach 100,000 feet during its flight.

I was at 95,000 feet in my cirrus. I thought I saw something blink really fast on skywatch. damn scramjets get’n in my way constantly. almost as bad as those 172s.

9

In reply to:

Technological hurdles mean it will be decades before such a plane could enter service.

I was way off predicting the SR22-G143 would be hypersonic. If this technology could be applied to general aviation in 50 years, we could be flying hypersonic with the SR22-G17. Then the '22 would really live up to that other aircraft that starts with SR and ends with 71.

10

In reply to:

I was way off predicting the SR22-G143 would be hypersonic. If this technology could be applied to general aviation in 50 years, we could be flying hypersonic with the SR22-G17. Then the '22 would really live up to that other aircraft that starts with SR and ends with 71.

Hmmmm. Let’s see, according to my math, we have 24 more iterations of the SR22 before we get to an SR70 (assuming Cirrus continues to use even numbers only). So, we do have the time. Well, OK, maybe my 5-year old’s children have the time. It makes you wonder if this isn’t in the grand scheme of things, I mean, they did pick SR as the first two letters of the model designation[:)].
Last Thanksgiving weekend, my son and I made a day trip down to the Air Force Museum in Macon, GA to see the SR71 on display. By my son’s reaction when he saw it, you would have thought we had reached Mecca. Even better, they actually let him touch it!

11

In reply to:

…5 year old’s…Mecca…

I know exactly how he feels: I am a 45 year old 5 year old…still haven’t lost the passion four decades later…count your blessings - my 7 year old daughter “likes airplanes - especially the cute ones when they put curtains and flowers in the windows”…[:P] I probably need to have a firm talk with mom about this heretical attitude…[;)]

All is not lost, though, I can see that my 18 month old son will “love airplanes” in all of their mechanical glory…[:)]…you don’t think I am misreading this do you?

1-82396-DSC00010c.JPG
1-82396-DSC00010c.JPG561×693 79.5 KB

12

In reply to:

It makes you wonder if this isn’t in the grand scheme of things, I mean, they did pick SR as the first two letters of the model designation

Greg,

We can only hope that Cirrus plans to outpace the SR71 by the time they release the SR72. What kind of airplane would the SR72 be if it could not fly faster than the SR71? Cirrus might as well offer a high-altitude recon camera option as well to expand their market.[:)]

In reply to:

By my son’s reaction when he saw it, you would have thought we had reached Mecca. Even better, they actually let him touch it!

That is great! It is always neat hearing about kids who are already infatuated with airplanes at such a young age. I’ve been this way for as long as I can remember, and there are no signs of it changing. Has your son been to Oshkosh yet? I was about 5 years old when I first went, and it was complete sensory overload—in a good way.[:)]

13

Clif,

At least your daughter likes the cute ones. My eight year old daughter asked santa for frequent flyer miles for Christmas so that we could “go commercial.” At least she still prefers to fly in the Cirrus rather than sitting in a car for any length of time.

14

In reply to:

my 7 year old daughter "likes airplanes - especially the cute ones when they put curtains and flowers in the windows

Clif,

You mean a little like this one?

Hey, whatever it takes to get girly girls involved in flying, or even to like it. This is one demographic where aviation is seriously lacking right now—at least in my experience. We need more women in aviation (especially fun ones), and if we need to put curtains and flowers in the windows to make it happen…then we also need to attract more gay guys (get in line behind the Canadians to take shots at me) that would not be opposed to having this done to their airplanes.[;)]

Seriously, I think it is great when girls adopt aviation into their world of sugar, spice & everything nice because it sets a positive pattern for when they get older. Even if they choose not to be pilots themselves, maybe they will at least be supportive of aviation in general. That support is important now, and it will be absolutely crucial in the future battles that will be fought to keep general aviation healthy.

15

In reply to:

We can only hope that Cirrus plans to outpace the SR71 by the time they release the SR72.

Well, there is one way the SRxx could surpass the SR71…in flight weather!!! Oh no! I did not say that. Subject for yet another thread.

In reply to:

That is great! It is always neat hearing about kids who are already infatuated with airplanes at such a young age. I’ve been this way for as long as I can remember, and there are no signs of it changing. Has your son been to Oshkosh yet? I was about 5 years old when I first went, and it was complete sensory overload—in a good way.

If Microsoft could issue pilot’s licenses based on Flight Simulator performance, Mason would have an ATP by now. He gets a little ticked if I don’t look up and tune in the localizer frequency for him when he is landing the Lear 45. I hope I don’t ever have to be his copilot, wait, I guess I am his copilot, already.

Regarding the Oshkosh trip, even I haven’t been able to make that trip yet. My Dad and I have been pretty regular attendees at Sun-N-Fun, but I have had to cancel the past two years due to business pressures. I think a typical day at Sun-N-Fun would be a bit much for him right now, but I think next year will be about the right time. I am going to test his endurance soon with a long day trip to see the Blue Angels.

Yesterday afternoon, I was leaving to get a BFR and IPC. I told my son that I had to go fly with an instructor for a short flight so he could test me to see if I still knew how to fly the plane ‘the right way’. He said “Have fun flying with the test pilot!” I drove away thinking… ‘he’s watching a little too much on the Wings channel’.

16

In reply to:

At least she still prefers to fly in the Cirrus rather than sitting in a car for any length of time.

Stuart,

Back when I was in my late teens, I often tried to convince my mom to let us take a club-plane on vacation rather than flying commercially or, heaven forbid, driving.[:)] My dad’s a pilot, so I never had to twist his arm, but my mom would choose the car over the Cherokee any day of the week. Last year, however, I did finally convince her to let me take them out to visit my grandparents for a couple of days in Delaware (near Columbus), OH. It was a lot easier to convince her with the relative comfort of the Cirrus. The 8-hour drive was only a 1.75 hour flight!

17

In reply to:

Well, there is one way the SRxx could surpass the SR71…in flight weather!!! Oh no! I did not say that. Subject for yet another thread.

Greg,
DonÂ’t worry, itÂ’s hard not to take an occasional swipe.[:)]

In reply to:

Regarding the Oshkosh trip, even I haven’t been able to make that trip yet. My Dad and I have been pretty regular attendees at Sun-N-Fun, but I have had to cancel the past two years due to business pressures. I think a typical day at Sun-N-Fun would be a bit much for him right now, but I think next year will be about the right time. I am going to test his endurance soon with a long day trip to see the Blue Angels.

One thing about being 5 years old is that an airshow is an airshow whether it’s in Oshkosh or anywhere else. If fact, in some ways it can be better other places when the military flight demonstration teams (Thunderbirds, Blue Angels) are involved. It sounds like a good idea to build up your son’s “airshow endurance.” For yourself, you will be in absolute awe when, down the road, you are finally able to tread the hallowed ground that is Wittman Field and better known as “OSH.”

In reply to:

He said “Have fun flying with the test pilot!” I drove away thinking… ‘he’s watching a little too much on the Wings channel’.

Since I have already breached words such as “adorable” and “cute” (what’s happening to me?) on this forum, I guess I can admit that this falls into one of those categories.[;)]

18

I asked my 3 year old if she wanted to be a pilot like Daddy. She said “No, I want to be a pilot like Mommy!” That’s what I get for getting my wife into flying.

1-82664-R0011877_cropped.jpg
1-82664-R0011877_cropped.jpg408×663 61 KB

19

That reminds me of the old story about the teacher who asked a young girl if she knew what a yellow traffic light meant. She replied, “Mommy slow down, Daddy speed up.”

Your little girl is adorable.

-Mike

20

In reply to:

That’s what I get for getting my wife into flying.

Paul,
You say that like it is a bad thing.[;)] Maybe what has happened with some of the female pilots I know is that they do not have mommy pilots to look up to, so they have patterned themselves after their daddy pilots. Not that it’s a bad thing, it just maybe dampens the spirit a bit that makes girls and women so great. I know as much about psychology as I do about endodontists (which I mainly just know how to spell after looking it up), but hereÂ’s to mommy pilots anyway!
By the way, what’s with all the—here comes a big one—adorably cute kids (boys and girls) that you guys have. After seeing a lot of your 65x75 pixel pictures, I realize that this must be due in very large part to the women you married. Just kidding, of course. That statement has absolutely no basis in reality. At the risk of going overboard, let me say that you are a very good looking group of guys.
Anyway, back to the point. Is this a pilot gene thing? Maybe all of the vibrations from years of flying create a good gene mix. LetÂ’s see, if I have been flying for twelve years now, I should be doing pretty well.
If I know a little about psychology, I know even less about genetic science. However, maybe I will skip the 6-Point engine mount on the next Cirrus I fly just to be safe. I wouldnÂ’t want an ultra smooth engine-mount to mess things up. The smooth 4-point engine-mount on 4AG may already be putting my genes in jeopardy.[;)]
Edited to mention that I actually resisted going back and adding a hyphen to the first mention of “engine mount”[:)]