On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> We can hope. But am I reading the report right that,
> for the system as proposed (reflecting the shock wave
> from the wing with a Mach 4 stream underneath the
> wing), it'd still let over 90% of the shock wave
> through to the ground...
The long-term hope is something close to 0%. This system isn't fully
developed by any means.
> ...Also, wouldn't whatever generates the
> reflecting stream generate its own shock wave (which
> it itself could not reflect)?
Yes and no. If it has a sharp leading edge, and its undersurface is
parallel to the airstream, you get very nearly no shock wave generated
below it. (There is one above it -- the thing has to have some thickness
somewhere, so *both* surfaces can't be parallel to the air! -- but that
one's heading back up toward the wing where it can be dealt with.) This
probably won't be perfect, but the stream generator can be a relatively
small object which doesn't generate a big shock wave.
It occurred to me a few years ago that, if you add a bit of energy to the
reflecting stream by injecting fuel into it in the stream generator, this
scheme gets rid of the wing's shock wave by using... smoke and mirrors!
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
