|WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft||(Rated C-class)|
Hey, what about a decent picture of the thing? one where it's shown fully and at a relatively short distance?
Anyone know if the X-43 was a waverider as describe in waverider. The page claims that the Valkyrie was the only aircraft to have used the principle but it seems to me that the X-43A would also fit the description. Perhas a more knowledgeable person can enlighten us.
I removed the following table, as it seemed to add nothing but a sense of incompleteness:
there is a much less developed page at hyper x ~~
I would recommend removing the hyper x page altogether- it gives no further infromation.
This item should be titled the "NASA X-43", not Boeing X-43. Boeing was a major contributor but was, in fact, not the prime contractor. The prime contractor for X-43 is Alliant Techsystems (ATK).
Ramjet vs. Scramjet
I changed the first 'scramjet' in the description of the X-43b to ramjet as it was listed twice and scramjets are not efficient under Mach 5 or 6 --JPredham 00:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of the external links on this page are broken. I just thought somebody might want to know. -Kanerix —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Yes, this title *SHOULD* be changed. While Boeing had a hand in the X-43 research vehicle "RV" it was not the prime contractor, a company called MicroCraft, which later became park of Alliant Tech (ATK) in Tullahoma, TN was the prime on on the Research Vechile. The Launch Vehicle "LV" was a pegasus rocket by Orbital Sciences (prime on the LV). Since there were two "primes contractors," NASA acted as the integrator or "lead prime" organization. Typically credit is given to the company/agency that acts as the top level integrator for the vehicle. Further, it was NASA's design. While Boeing was involved, they were a sub to the RV contractor (MicroCraft). It would be like calling it the Goodyear Corvette (since they make the tires for it). For those of us that worked on the project giving Boeing the top billing for this is offensive.
- "The first flight in June 2001 failed when the stack spun out of control about 11 seconds after the drop from the B-52 carrier plane."
- "NASA's first X-43A test on June 2, 2001 failed because the Pegasus booster lost control about 13 seconds after it was released from the B-52 carrier."
I don't like the way the speeds are presented, it seems ~uncomfortbalke~. The opening description lists "7000 miles per hour (10,461 km/h)" The then the first line in development mentions " speeds greater than Mach 9.8 (6,600 mph; 11,000 km/h)" So, the conversion done by hand in the intro has a higher mph number and lower kmh number, where as the inline conversion for the development has a lower mph number but a higher kmh one. I'd like to use the inline conversion in all places, using the input to be the what is mentioned in the source material. Reference 2 page 277 of http://wayback.archive.org/web/20130115025043/http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/NASASP2007-4232Hypersonics.pdf , actually lists the top speed as Mach 9.8. Article states 9.65. I'm uncomfortable making changes now, as it would be increasing the max speed it was seen at which I'm sure somebody will contradict with. Explosive Cornflake (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)