Bruce Simpson wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jan 2004 08:53:05 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

As a follow-up I've read quite a few books on the V-1 launch sequence.
The photos or camera footage of V-1s running on the ramp do NOT mean
the pulsejet was functional.

Sorry but you're dead wrong.

The engine is being controlled remotely with compressed air and 75
octane fuel forced into the tube and ignited for exactly 7 seconds to
bring the tube up to operating temperature.

The engine was *started* using compressed air and, if you do a little
more research, you'll find that in colder weather they also used
acetylene because the gasoline was to hard to ignite at sub-zero
temperatures.

There's *no way* that the starting-air feeds to the Argus engine could
produce sufficient volume-flow to do anything other than start the
engine. If the Argus wasn't capable of running without forward
air-speed it simply would not run -- regardless of the relatively
small volume of compressed air used to start it.

The pulsejet isn't running off a small volume of compressed air. The
distributor unit left of the ramp is feeding it and controlling the 7
second burn up to operating temperature.

As you can see in the videos on my website -- the engines were
definitely running in full pulsejet mode while stationary on the
launch ramps.

Remote controlled by the distributor unit.

If, as you suggest, the engines required 250mph to operate, what kept
them going for the 5-seconds it took to go from rest to 250mph?

That's a half-second or .5, not 5 seconds! Remember the 16-17g launch?



That's exactly why the Germans considered them a "form" of ramjet with
intermittent combustion vs continous combustion. Hence also, the need
for some parts in the pulsejets vs LITTLE or no parts in the bigger
ramjets. There is a great misconception that all ramjets lack any
parts which is NOT true. From that view they consider a pulsejet
different from a ramjet... but they are both essentially just two
types of stovepipe engines.

Just as a V12 Merlin and a turboprop are two types of propellor
engines -- so they must be the same right?

Sorry, but the physics and operating cycle of the pulsejet and ramjet
are as different as night and day.

We are talking As 014 here, an athodyd motor. One stovepipe vs another
except that to achieve pulse detonation some parts are needed in the
pulsejet. Boils down to simple intermittent combustion vs continous
combustion. Both a ramjet and pulsejet need close to 200 mph minimum
to operate independently. On a test rig you can FORCE feed air and
fuel to a pulsejet and even control ignition. But to use them in war
they had to be ramp-launched using a steam reaction piston or
air-dropped by parent aircraft.

Indeed, a gas-turbine engine is
closer to a ramjet than a pulsejet is.

Not in any way since neither a ramjet nor pulsejet have a compressor
or turbine.

Rob