New 08 Hayabusa just released

[scrivy]

F@rk!! What a weapon!!!!

How do I hide that in the sidecar??

[sprag]

argh hate to get a bird fly into the front of it LOL

[Tank]

I could be wrong, but there is a possibility that this pic has been photoshopped. By a 5 year old. On Crack.

[scrivy]

Buggar!!! I guess I'll have to ring up the nice man that talked me into putting a deposit on one!! Now, where did I put his Nigerian phone number?? :slap:

[Tank]

Buggar!!! I guess I'll have to ring up the nice man that talked me into putting a deposit on one!! Now, where did I put his Nigerian phone number?? :slap:

0900 CASH4TANK

[TRAINING WHEELS]

Thats just UGLY ..... may have only been 3year old although im sure some 3year olds can do better....

[The Pastor]

woah dude look at the ram air intake on that!

[Mikkel]

woah dude look at the ram air intake on that!

I seriously hope it isn't a ramjet:

Ramjets have been run from as low as 45 m/s (100 mph)[1] upwards. Below about Mach 0.5 they give little thrust and are highly inefficient due to their low pressure ratios.

Above this speed, given sufficient initial flight velocity, a ramjet will be self-sustaining. Indeed, unless the vehicle drag is extremely high, the engine/airframe combination will tend to accelerate to higher and higher flight speeds, substantially increasing the air intake temperature. As this could have a detrimental effect on the integrity of the engine and/or airframe, the fuel control system must reduce engine fuel flow to stabilize the flight Mach number and, thereby, air intake temperature to sensible levels.

Due to the stoichiometric combustion temperature, efficiency is usually good at high speeds (Mach 2-3), whereas at low speeds the relatively poor compression ratio means that ramjets are outperformed by turbojets or even rockets.

[marty]

WTF does wiki know about ramjets?

At high supersonic speed, everyone knows that the Scramjet is the preferred motive force, as the combustion air does not need to be slowed to sub-sonic speeds before ignition.

Afterburning of turbojet engines is still the most realistic and convenient way of sustaining low (1-3 mach) supersonic speeds, plus the ability to have a single type of engine/s for all phases of flight.

[Mikkel]

My point was that you'd have to get it up to ~160 km/h before the engine would work. Would hate to have to push start the bike.

Besides I don't think EVERYONE knows what a scramjet is. But you're right for hypersonic speeds the scramjet is a better approach than the ramjet. Albeit, you'll get into trouble eventually and would then prefer a rocket.

[Finn]

The official launch is at Holeshot on Barry's Point Road tonight... so I heard. It's probably there now...

[marty]

The problem with a rocket is that they are severely limited by their fuel use/carriage ability. That and they have a tendency to go BANG at inopportune times.....

The scramjet is extradinarily economical and reliable by comparison, and is still good for speeds of M10.0 (that's roughly 100 miles a minute or 1 mile/3.6 seconds....!)

[Mikkel]

The problem with a rocket is that they are severely limited by their fuel use/carriage ability. That and they have a tendency to go BANG at inopportune times.....

The scramjet is extradinarily economical and reliable by comparison, and is still good for speeds of M10.0 (that's roughly 100 miles a minute or 1 mile/3.6 seconds....!)

Yeah, it is impressive. Still, they haven't found any commercial applications yet I believe. And the weapon industry's money is still on rockets for most long distance delivery systems - cruise missiles being a notable exception with a few of them utilising ramjets.

The stratospheric "bounce" passengerliner contemplated by boeing (I believe) is also still a fair way out in the future...