Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
More informations about this italian bird are welcome!!!
2
Missile Projects / Re: Sea Slug
« Last post by CJGibson on Today at 08:21:27 am »
There may be a number of reasons for using wrap-around boosts.

1) No single boost rocket motor with sufficient power, so need more than one. (see early test vehicles with up to eight BRMs)

2) With wrap-around boosts your missile can be as big as you like, just add BRMS,

3) Asymmetric thrust if one BRM fails? No problem, cant the nozzles so the thrust lines pass through the missile CoG. This may also make the missile easier to control in the boost phase, should you want to.

Chris
3
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Curtiss-Wright CW-32
« Last post by hesham on Today at 08:09:57 am »
From Decollage 6/1947.
4
From Decollage 6/1947.
5
The model has a pusher prop just behind the trailing edge. The drawing, to my opinion, is
just a generic sketch to show the function of the foreplane.

Thank you my dear Jemiba.
6
The model has a pusher prop just behind the trailing edge. The drawing, to my opinion, is
just a generic sketch to show the function of the foreplane.
7
Space Projects / Re: Stratolaunch
« Last post by martinbayer on Today at 07:16:55 am »
I do think that air launch could potentially make just enough difference (90% PMF vs. 94% - the STS ET had a PMF of 96%) to make a single stage orbiter a la Interim Hotol feasible.

No, because a tank/vehicle is going to have a much lower PMF due to the difference in loads for horizontal launch

Once more, it comes down to the specific numbers of an eventual design, i.e. whether the difference between the required 90% PMF and the ET like 96% PMF allows to integrate all required additional systems, modifications and load conditions plus a meaningful orbital payload. For concrete related analyses, I recommend the AIAA Papers 1979-879, "Utility of High Bypass Turbofans for a Two-Stage Space Transport", by Len Cormier (formerly of North American Aviation, where he was project engineer for space transportation systems at the Los Angeles Division for several years), and 1991-5006, "The An-225/Interim Hotol Launch Vehicle", by Robert Parkinson (who started his career working on propulsion systems for rocket engines and missiles at the Rocket Propulsion Establishment, Westcott, before moving to industry and at the time working as an aerospace engineer on numerous European space projects, including HOTOL, at British Aerospace Space & Communications Ltd., Stevenage), for two examples of concept studies for reusable delta winged orbiters with cryogenic rocket propulsion and subsonic air launch separation at Mach 0.8 and about 9 - 10 kilometers altitude. Both designs had an orbiter air launch mass of 250 metric tons, which exactly (and perhaps not coincidentally) corresponds to the Stratolaunch 'Roc' payload lift capacity, and both studies projected a corresponding orbital payload capability of around 7 metric tons to LEO.
8
Space Projects / Re: Stratolaunch
« Last post by martinbayer on Today at 06:50:10 am »
after all, it worked well for a number of experimental rocket planes, including the X-15.

Which of those went into orbit?

None, but for a fully reusable orbiter air launch just might make all the difference between being able to achieve LEO with a meaningful payload or not without the use of any expendable components.

not really.

It comes down to the actual final numbers - that's why I said "might".
9
Naval Projects / Re: Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts
« Last post by TomS on Today at 06:21:00 am »
https://news.usni.org/2019/01/22/navy-squeezing-costs-ffgx-program-requirements-solidify

Embedded in this story is a slide deck showing the combat system requirements for FFG(X).



10
Missile Projects / Re: Sea Slug
« Last post by zen on Today at 04:32:38 am »
Perhaps we should also consider Long Shot which was supposedly a previous SAM and AAM effort and was two stage.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10