If they are really serious about MIPCC, then they have a slight chance, at least on the engine side. It is a rather smart trick yet relatively straightforward. Most importantly it allows the use of a "classic" military turbofan with the usual Mach 2 speed; and then a not-too-complicated trick raise the speed to Mach 4 - something.

MIPCC is a chemical trick, not a mecanical one.

Now the airframe, that's something else entirely... titanium is difficult and expensive as frack, aluminum and composites would be toasted so - STEEL ? superalloys too but they might be expensive... although TBH, my humble knowledge stops circa 1975 with the end of the D-21 drone.
Note that back in 1998 NASA made damn interesting studies of pushing a D-21 to Mach 4 with a brand new engine.
 
Is that all stainless steel? I don't see any primer or paint.

Might well be. They talk here about using mostly Inconel 718 and titanium. It's a little vague on when they are talking about the airframe and when they are talking about the engine, but either way, lots of corrosion-resistant materials in use.

 
Last edited:
Grandiose announcements and a millimetric pace forward (now a prototype for high speed rolling & praying!).

Quarterhorse Mk 1 is an uncrewed, remotely piloted aircraft powered by a GE J85 engine. Its primary mission is to demonstrate high-speed takeoff and landing – a key enabling capability unique to future hypersonic aircraft on the company’s roadmap. Flight tests will take place at Edwards Air Force Base.

I wasn't aware that a Quarterhorse was in fact a millipede...

licensed-image

Quarterhorse galloping


Notice also that the Mk2, as rendered, has some dubious stability characteristics.
 
Last edited:
Grandiose announcements and a millimetric pace forward (now a prototype for high speed rolling & praying!).



I wasn't aware that a Quarterhorse was in fact a millipede...

licensed-image

Quarterhorse galloping


Notice also that the Mk2, as rendered, has some dubious stability characteristics.

Maybe they fail. I’m still interested in the technology - or rather reinventing an old arrangement. I think the fact the turbine-ramjet has not been explored more is a mistake, even if it turns out this particular company is a pump and dump.
 
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has just put out a new video concerning the Hermeus:


Atlanta-based Hermeus has been making rapid progress toward fielding the world's first reusable, air-breathing hypersonic aircraft in their Quarterhorse technology demonstrator. Last month, the company revealed Quarterhorse Mk 1, the company's first flying prototype.
Let's talk about what that means, and why it's hard not to draw parallels between Hermeus today, and another legendary aircraft manufacturer.
 
New video, that interestingly show the cluster f*** that is their facility where engineer might have the concentration time to focus on a single problem as short as a quantum physics event.
Notice also that there is no natural lights, something that is often against local regulations for stationary work stations.

You´ll notice also the strange protruding bolt heads, the thick wing and elevator section (I don´t say airfoil as it doesn´t look like they are shaped according to any), not really built for any speed above that of a Cessna with, for the former, a weird intrados opening on a void depleted of any stringers to brace it.

But , oh yes, the references to aerospace History and other´s achievements are plentiful.

Feel free to commit yourself into it.

View: https://youtu.be/jdKUN2V0PMM?si=LMgrGW2YJzqtbzIJ
 
Last edited:
Hypersonics and scramjets are a waste of time, except perhaps for super duper missiles. Why not just go ballistic / suborbital instead, on plain old rocket power ? and out of the atmosphere, so much less thermal nightmare.

I will die on that hill: for point-to-point ultrafast transportation, hypersonics (= LAPCAT) has a big, unsolved sonic boom issue... that don't exist for suborbital. Except perhaps briefly during ascent and landing.

Plus it is far easier to hit any speed between Mach 4 and Mach 25 (= orbit) with rocket thrust.
 
Last edited:
Hypersonics and scramjets are a waste of time, except perhaps for super duper missiles. Why not just go ballistic / suborbital instead, on plain old rocket power ? and out of the atmosphere, so much less thermal nightmare.

I will die on that hill: for point-to-point ultrafast transportation, hypersonics (= LAPCAT) has a big, unsolved sonic boom issue... that don't exist for suborbital. Except perhaps briefly during ascent and landing.

Plus it is far easier to hit any speed between Mach 4 and Mach 25 (= orbit) with rocket thrust.
Fully reusable CTOL spaceplanes dropping out conventional, guided MaRVs in large numbers are where it's at.
 
Hypersonics and scramjets are a waste of time, except perhaps for super duper missiles. Why not just go ballistic / suborbital instead, on plain old rocket power ? and out of the atmosphere, so much less thermal nightmare.

Not sure why you feel scramjets are a waste, unless you think they will be too costly? I think the USAF intends to buy HACM quite prolifically. And I do not see a reason why something like HACM could not be produced for reasonable cost. The airframe does not really require any special materials outside of the nose tip (X-51 was basically aluminum, steel, and titanium with some space shuttle tiles on the nose). The solid rocket booster only has to be something in the size and power class of a Mk72-ish. The engine is entirely 3D printed with no moving parts. I do not see why this could not be a ~ $5 million dollar mass produced missile not to far off from SM-6 or LRASM in price. Furthermore, the relatively lower speed compared to boost gliders and RVs should make the use of a terminal radar homing sensor relatively easy to engineer. There are already radomes that have to survive Mach 5 for short periods of times; this would just extend that requirement out to five minutes instead of just seconds. Alternatively ventral mounting on the compression ramp would probably take the worst of the heat stress off the sensor window, since the tip basically acts as an aerospike for the airframe. Alternatively the sensor could just have a cover that released as weapon slowed for its dive onto the target.

It seems to me there would be a very large target set for such a missile.
 
Not sure why you feel scramjets are a waste, unless you think they will be too costly? I think the USAF intends to buy HACM quite prolifically. And I do not see a reason why something like HACM could not be produced for reasonable cost. The airframe does not really require any special materials outside of the nose tip (X-51 was basically aluminum, steel, and titanium with some space shuttle tiles on the nose). The solid rocket booster only has to be something in the size and power class of a Mk72-ish. The engine is entirely 3D printed with no moving parts. I do not see why this could not be a ~ $5 million dollar mass produced missile not to far off from SM-6 or LRASM in price. Furthermore, the relatively lower speed compared to boost gliders and RVs should make the use of a terminal radar homing sensor relatively easy to engineer. There are already radomes that have to survive Mach 5 for short periods of times; this would just extend that requirement out to five minutes instead of just seconds. Alternatively ventral mounting on the compression ramp would probably take the worst of the heat stress off the sensor window, since the tip basically acts as an aerospike for the airframe. Alternatively the sensor could just have a cover that released as weapon slowed for its dive onto the target.

It seems to me there would be a very large target set for such a missile.

This is the super duper missile I mentioned.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom