(Randall has responded very nicely to most of Ken's points before I got
to it, but I'll comment on this one...)
On Tue, 27 May 2003, Ken Doyle wrote:
> I'm partial to VTVL designs as well...
> Not everyone is comfortable with a landing method that happens so quickly
> and is so critical that the only competent pilot will be a computer. Some
> people had concerns with Rotary's hypersonic helicopter landing method.
> What people generally do have experience and trust in are winged landings on
> runways.
You left out a word in that last sentence: "powered".
I too would have a lot more confidence in a *powered* winged landing on
a runway.
When it's a glide landing... especially if it's a vehicle with a high wing
loading and a lousy L/D... I am a whole lot less sure which I prefer. The
apparent familiarity and trustworthiness of the winged landing is largely
illusory in this case, in my opinion. Investigation of the past art for
power-off landings in vehicles like *that* -- e.g., the Starfighter --
tends to reveal words which add up to "unless everything is just right and
you're the next Chuck Yeager, point the falling missile somewhere harmless
and eject".
If I'm required to place absolute trust in something, with only one chance
to get it right and slim margins against disaster, I would much rather
trust engineering than the atmosphere.
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
