3 ms·
"the heat that accumulated at Mach 8 was up to 30% less than at Mach 5." while the original paper says "Actually the thermal flux during Mach 8 flight is show
by gopalv 11y ago
"the heat that accumulated at Mach 8 was up to 30% less than at Mach 5."
while the original paper says
"Actually the thermal flux during Mach 8 flight is shown to be only 25 to 35% higher than at Mach 5. On top of this, the
reduced flight times at Mach 8 yields a 20 to 25%
reduction of the overall integrated heat load to the
fuselage with respect to the Mach 5 cruise."
The combined effect seems to be that the shorter the flight (& faster), the lower the impact of the heating for people inside.
- Gravityloss 11y agoActive cooling: If you put the extra heat into fuel, you have a higher fuel flow per second at the faster speed so you can indeed cope with the higher heat flux and enjoy the lower total heat quantity. Passive cooling: If you have to radiate the heat away , then the surfaces will reach a steady state relatively quickly and you have to deal with the flux. If you burn up in two minutes it doesn't help you that the flight would only last two hours. You can't carry heavy heat sinks in an aircraft.