High Speed Air Breathing Propulsion Technical Committee (AIAA)

[Mr London 24/7]

Homepage:

https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/HSABPTC/default.aspx

Including a few fairly interesting Presentations picturing a nice Single-Tailed Hypersonic I don't recognise (?), plus what is described as a model of the 'HFV' from MAKS 2009 (couldn't find in Search but I'm thinking I've seen it before here).

https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/HSABPTC/Public%20Documents/HIGH%20SPEED%20AIR%20BREATHING%20PROPULSION_2010.pdf
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/HSABPTC/Public%20Documents/The%20AIAA%20HSABPTC%20.pdf

Prof. Cycsz on the board, this one has a picture of FDL-7MC:

https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/HSABPTC/Public%20Documents/IAF_Bremen_Bruno_and_Czy.ppt#6

 

[DSE]

https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/HSABPTC/Public%20Documents/HIGH%20SPEED%20AIR%20BREATHING%20PROPULSION_2010.pdf

Unfortunately the above referenced article perpetuates the inaccuracy of describing the initial X-51 flight as "hypersonic (generally accepted as > Mach 5)," even though this issue has been brought forth publicly in other forums and acknowledged by Charlie Brink. Also, while the X-51 represents the first HC fueled sustained scramjet flight, it is not the first HC fueled scramjet flight. That I believe goes to HyFly, which though did not achieve sustained flight, was HC fueled and definitely in scramjet mode given the reduced fuel flow rate.

 

[DSE]

Latest article in Dec 2011 Aerospace America, extended version on the AiAA web site https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/HSABPTC/Public%20Documents/High%20Speed%20Air%20Breathing%20Propulsion_2011%20Year%20in%20Review.pdf

I have to take issue with the following statement:
"In developing new hypersonic propulsion concepts like the hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet, all test flights are deemed successful in the sense that every attempt is an opportunity to find anomalies that need to be addressed before the next flight. We agree with Mr. Charlie Brink, the Air Force Research Laboratory’s X-51A program manager, who once said “Every time we test this new and exciting technology we get that much closer to success.” What a cop out, imo. Seems to be approaching the "everyone's special point of view" fostered on children today. I'm sorry there are real winners and real losers. This does nothing to foster excellence in the discipline, imo.

Unfortunately, it would also appear accuracy still isn't this TC's forte. This X-51 related image in their image library on the site attributes the X-51 to NASA. If they can't get this simple attribution correct, what can they be trusted with presenting correctly?