-
Hey Guest!
British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Credible Sport a TopSecret project
- Thread starter Basil
- Start date
Share this page
OP
Offline
This happened before I knew him, but he talked about it later when I knew him. He's a retired AF Major and was a Flight Test Engineer.
Offline
Cool stuff, thanks for posting! 1400 ft runway requirement reduced to 350 feet - 40 ton aircraft. I do not know any of the specifics, but a basic understanding of physics suggests that is darn awesome!!
And I feel for the person who fired the rocket too early (boy is that a metaphor): given only 350 ft to land, the rockets need to fire on first bounce, not later. Assuming 100 mph landing speed (a guess, I have no clue about specifics), 350 feet is covered in just over two seconds!
And I feel for the person who fired the rocket too early (boy is that a metaphor): given only 350 ft to land, the rockets need to fire on first bounce, not later. Assuming 100 mph landing speed (a guess, I have no clue about specifics), 350 feet is covered in just over two seconds!
