If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Scram Jets
Anyone know the slowest speed at which a scram jet would likely be able to
start? It seems NASA is using a rocket booster to get to speed, which would make me think this idea is a bit less than practical for civilian use. Can't see the Concorde crowd signing up for a rocket powered plane, though I could be wrong. It would be neat if it worked at a low enough Mach that you could build a workable SST. OTOH using one for a cruise missile would be neat. Picture a third world dictator about to go on live TV. By the time the sycophant finishes the introduction, the missile will have left CONUS in time to blast the podium before the "general and president for life" is finished blaming the US for everything bad in his little banana republic! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dude wrote:
Anyone know the slowest speed at which a scram jet would likely be able to start? It seems NASA is using a rocket booster to get to speed, which would make me think this idea is a bit less than practical for civilian use. Can't see the Concorde crowd signing up for a rocket powered plane, though I could be wrong. It would be neat if it worked at a low enough Mach that you could build a workable SST. OTOH using one for a cruise missile would be neat. Picture a third world dictator about to go on live TV. By the time the sycophant finishes the introduction, the missile will have left CONUS in time to blast the podium before the "general and president for life" is finished blaming the US for everything bad in his little banana republic! IIRC they only get going at around mach 5 or so. Rockets are used at the moment but eventually the idea is to use a hybrid engine with a conventional engine to get it up to ramjet speeds (mach 1.5-3.5), then the ramjet to 3.5 or so and then fire up the scramjet. Each of these engine phases will have defined altitudes as well of course. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
1.5 seems a low enough number.
Do you have any links about hybrids? I was thinking you would have seperate engines. "gerrcoin" wrote in message ... Dude wrote: Anyone know the slowest speed at which a scram jet would likely be able to start? It seems NASA is using a rocket booster to get to speed, which would make me think this idea is a bit less than practical for civilian use. Can't see the Concorde crowd signing up for a rocket powered plane, though I could be wrong. It would be neat if it worked at a low enough Mach that you could build a workable SST. OTOH using one for a cruise missile would be neat. Picture a third world dictator about to go on live TV. By the time the sycophant finishes the introduction, the missile will have left CONUS in time to blast the podium before the "general and president for life" is finished blaming the US for everything bad in his little banana republic! IIRC they only get going at around mach 5 or so. Rockets are used at the moment but eventually the idea is to use a hybrid engine with a conventional engine to get it up to ramjet speeds (mach 1.5-3.5), then the ramjet to 3.5 or so and then fire up the scramjet. Each of these engine phases will have defined altitudes as well of course. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHOHOHOHOHOHHEEHEEEHEEHEEHEE!!SCRA MJETSFORCIVILIANUSE!!!HHHA
AHHAHAA.... sorry...just lost control there for a second.... All this **** about scramjets and hypersonics has been going on for a lot longer than I've been alive, and I haven't seen anything yet that tells me that there is any really significant progress towards anything that might even remotely be construed as "practical". A guy I used to work with is the chief on that Hyper-X project. He's just spent like 25 years of his career for 11 seconds of data. "Dude" wrote in message ... It seems NASA is using a rocket booster to get to speed, which would make me think this idea is a bit less than practical for civilian use. Can't see |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dude wrote:
1.5 seems a low enough number. Do you have any links about hybrids? I was thinking you would have seperate engines. "gerrcoin" wrote in message ... Dude wrote: Anyone know the slowest speed at which a scram jet would likely be able to start? It seems NASA is using a rocket booster to get to speed, which would make me think this idea is a bit less than practical for civilian use. Can't see the Concorde crowd signing up for a rocket powered plane, though I could be wrong. It would be neat if it worked at a low enough Mach that you could build a workable SST. OTOH using one for a cruise missile would be neat. Picture a third world dictator about to go on live TV. By the time the sycophant finishes the introduction, the missile will have left CONUS in time to blast the podium before the "general and president for life" is finished blaming the US for everything bad in his little banana republic! IIRC they only get going at around mach 5 or so. Rockets are used at the moment but eventually the idea is to use a hybrid engine with a conventional engine to get it up to ramjet speeds (mach 1.5-3.5), then the ramjet to 3.5 or so and then fire up the scramjet. Each of these engine phases will have defined altitudes as well of course. That's only where the ramjet or rocket picks up. The scramjet itself cannot fire up below about mach 5 and needs to be in the upper atmosphere. I can't find much info on hybrid engines, mainly because they don't exist yet-it's all just theory so far. Try these though. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/AERO/base/pdet.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/hypersonic-plane.htm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bummer
"Pete Schaefer" wrote in message news:HHK6d.392182$8_6.17841@attbi_s04... BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHOHOHOHOHOHHEEHEEEHEEHEEHEE!!SCRA MJETSFORCIVILIANUSE!!!HHHA AHHAHAA.... sorry...just lost control there for a second.... All this **** about scramjets and hypersonics has been going on for a lot longer than I've been alive, and I haven't seen anything yet that tells me that there is any really significant progress towards anything that might even remotely be construed as "practical". A guy I used to work with is the chief on that Hyper-X project. He's just spent like 25 years of his career for 11 seconds of data. "Dude" wrote in message ... It seems NASA is using a rocket booster to get to speed, which would make me think this idea is a bit less than practical for civilian use. Can't see |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hair on the palm of my hand; was Jets: Takeoff performance questions | pac plyer | Home Built | 1 | July 2nd 03 02:14 PM |