Brits To Crash Test a Scramjet

hywel_ap_ieuan writes "The BBC is reporting that a the "Hyshot consortium" will be testing a scramjet called Hyshot III in Australia on Friday. The fun part: "If everything goes to plan, the experiment will begin at a height of 35 km. As the engine continues its downward path the fuel in the scramjet is expected to automatically ignite. The scientists will then have just six seconds to monitor its performance before the £1m engine eventually crashes into the ground.""

you know...

[heatdeath]

i realize everyone thinks they're cute by making cracks about how we don't want to test planes by crashing them, but it's actually pretty awesome that we're to the point where we can get all of the info we need about in-flight stuff in just 6 seconds, and that we don't have to worry about making the plane able to land in order to test the engine. it should speed up development time, and who knows, maybe a plane flight to tokyo won't put you in danger of deep vein thrombosis. =p

good job, brits.

Not a bad idea

[MiniMike]

It's probably cheaper than _not_ making it crash. They would have to add skids, a parachute, or something else to it for any type of landing, and that would add mass and cost, and probably make the test less accurate. They would also have to test these additional components. This way they won't have to pay for disposal or storage when they're done with it.

Of course, those savings would be negated if they somehow hit something 'expensive'...

-M

Re:you know...

[Dunbal]

a plane flight to tokyo won't put you in danger of deep vein thrombosis.

      Sure blame the plane flight for DVTs. I mean, forget about the fact you weight 300 lbs (around the same as your cholesterol level), smoke, take birth control pills and are diabetic. It's the plane trip that caused it...

Re:not the right way to start

[gjuk]

To be fair - the Comet was revolutionary in many ways - especially being the first commercial jet airliner. The metal fatigue which caused it to crash was not known about until the crashes. First mover disadvantage. Because the British investigated the crashes so thoroughly, subsequent airliners could ensure they weren't prone to the issue. A great shame that DeHavilland did all the work and a bunch of people died for Boeing to benefit.

Re:It would have seemed more logical...

[jayteedee]

I'd have thought that getting as much data as humanly possible would be worth almost any additional effort.

Ah....This ending pretty much explains the whole comment. You must be a physicist....certainly NOT an engineer. There is always diminishing returns on investment. You must pick a price point evaluate what you will get out of any test. More data is almost always better, but somebody has to pay out in the real (non-university) world.

Other errors:
There are solid state data recorders specifically made for high speed impacts. On the order of 100,000 G's. Place one in the back behind something heavy/solid and you shouldn't have any problem.

Wireless can hit 10,000,000 bits/second with one channel. Throw a couple of S-band channels and you have a stout communication line to the ground. Plus the hardware (Rx stations) is already in place at most ranges.

I assume they are doing the burn on the way down because they couldn't afford a rocket big enough to accelerate up to M=7.6 in a dense atmosphere. Plus they don't have to deal with all the heating issues while they are accelerating. Take a nice gentle ride at speeds up to M=3 or 4 and then use gravity to assist you up to the desired speed for the test. As an ENGINEER, I like their simple, low-cost solution to their test.

Dee You See Tee

[onkelonkel]

The word you want is DUCT as in DUCT tape. Of course there is a company called "Duck" that makes "Duck Tape" which is actually duct tape, which no doubt adds to the confusion.

Yes, Duct tape can contain nucular explosions. Duct tape can be used for anything*!


* except taping ducts; it's no good at all for that.

Re:Dee You See Tee

[Rei]

Actually, it was initially called Duck Tape (as in, "quack quack", because it was a waterproof seal for ammo casings), back in the 40s. After the war people started using it on ducts, so they renamed it.

Only on Slashdot

[MadHakish]

do you see someone notice something like that...

Re:I know nothing about this stuff

[ChrisA90278]

"couldn't they build it to survive impact into the ocean, and then retrieve it?"

Why spend the money to land it safely and retreive it? What would you do with it? There is no need to fly it again they already did the test. There are no plans to fly a second test with the same hardware they will do that with other hardware. Also, and more importently an aircraft that can fly at both hypersonic and slower speeds is _much_ more complex then one that can fly at only one speed

Re:Why crash it?

[stinkytoe]

Admittably, IANAAE (i am not an aeronautical engineer), but lack of wings maybe?

Re:not the right way to start

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...

According to this poster, Babbage never happened. And the claim that Ford made the car 'practical' is rubbish - there was a whole auto industry in existence well before Ford. America has no claim whatsoever in this area.

The minute I hear someone talking about "the first 'real' ... or the first 'practical' ...", I know that it's an American trying to claim credit for someone else's invention.

The most famous example is the Wright Brothers. Ignoring the massive contributions by George Cayley, Wenham, Santos-Dumont and the rest, the Americans pretend that the Wrights somehow
invented flying out of nothing.

The joke is that the Wrights invention was a dead end in aerodynamic terms. The Flyer's design was unstable, not scaleable, very difficult to rig, and had no influence at all on later developments. Europe led in all the early work. The only lasting contribution the Wrights made was to close American aircraft design down with patent wars, so that when WW1 started the US was forced to buy French aircraft.

Knowing this, I have difficulties suppressing laughter every time I read another American web site claiming that air travel is an all-American invention.

Americans did invent some things, though vastly fewer that they claim. Why isn't more made of the transistor? Though knowing how Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley fought about that perhaps it's best that they keep it quiet!