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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:20:36 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote: Well, the V-1 used the same type of pulse jet, and they were routinely shot down. The pulse jet was a dead end technology. It *was* a dead-end technology. Certainly the arrival of the gas-turbine meant that the noisy, ineffecient pulsejet was relegated to the scrap-heap for many years. However, Ray Lockwood, while working at the HIller Corp in the 1960's did quite a bit of R&D on a valveless pulsejet that the company touted as a highly efficient lift engine for VTOL applications. Unfortunately the noise and vibration problems persisted and it was never actually used in practice. Since then however, pulsejets have been used by various manufacturers for powering low-cost (often disposable) unmanned vehicles such as RPVs, UAVs and target drones. More recently, a relation of the pulsejet (the Pulse Detonation Engine) has attracted a lot of research funding and its proponents claim it will be *the* jet engine of the future -- offering very high efficiencies, supersonic capabilities and high power to weight/volume ratios. Unfortunately, although a number of cumbersome prototypes have been demonstrated and actually do run, the efficiency potential has yet to be even remotely realized. In the meantime, I have been working on a type of pulsejet engine that is almost a half-way house in terms of efficiency and performance. It's documented at http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/xjet.shtml No, it's never going to power a manned aircraft, and its efficiency only matches that of a pure turbojet (but that's still 3 times better than a regular pulsejet) -- yet it does have a very specific market in which it represents an ideal powerplant. At a production cost of less than 10% the price of the equivalent turbojet, it is ideal for low-cost, high durabiity subsonic UAVs and RPVs. So the pulsejet isn't dead -- it's just been relegated to a very specific set of niches. -- you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/ |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Jan 2004 22:34:52 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
3) the V-1 had to reach 250mph off the ramp for the pulsejet to operate independently, Sorry, take a look at the V1 launch videos (there are two) on this page: http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/argusv1.shtml and you'll see that the engine is running while the craft is static, long before it reaches launch speed. The Argus V1 engine produced a *STATIC* thrust of around 500lbs and a maximum thrust of around 900lbs at 350mph or so. There is probably no engine more misunderstood than the humble pulsejet. -- you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Bruce Simpson wrote in message . ..
On 18 Jan 2004 22:34:52 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote: 3) the V-1 had to reach 250mph off the ramp for the pulsejet to operate independently, Sorry, take a look at the V1 launch videos (there are two) on this page: http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/argusv1.shtml and you'll see that the engine is running while the craft is static, long before it reaches launch speed. The initial engine run was done remotely with the purpose of running up to operational temperature. Had the V-1 been launched cold the As014 engine would not function as the operating temperature inside the tube had not been reached. The V-1 could not propel itself off the ramp either and the cycle could not run independently until the missile hit 250 mph. Rob |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Bruce Simpson wrote in message . ..
On 18 Jan 2004 22:34:52 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote: 3) the V-1 had to reach 250mph off the ramp for the pulsejet to operate independently, Sorry, take a look at the V1 launch videos (there are two) on this page: http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/argusv1.shtml and you'll see that the engine is running while the craft is static, long before it reaches launch speed. The Argus V1 engine produced a *STATIC* thrust of around 500lbs and a maximum thrust of around 900lbs at 350mph or so. There is probably no engine more misunderstood than the humble pulsejet. 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. 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. This would be getting the V-1 READY for launch. It took .5 seconds of accelleration at 16-17g to get the missile up to 250mph and the As014 running independently. If you look at all the other pulsejet aircraft projects they were all intended to be: a) launched from a ramp b) take-off with aux. rockets/engines c) be air-dropped/launched Good examples are the Me-328 and Junkers EF 126 built in the USSR postwar. The pulsejets could not function independently under 200 mph just like the larger ramjets could not function below a certain speed. 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. Rob p.s. I can see why most make that distinction but my posts were how the Germans defined it since they were the ones who used them in combat. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Bruce Simpson" wrote in message news On 21 Jan 2004 08:53:05 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote: After WW2, the NACA tested a number of the Argus engines and ran them statically (with no forced air) and at various simulated ram-pressures. They determined that the engine produced 500lbs of static thrust (with no forced air of any kind) and around 900lbs at 350mph. Those tests are available at http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/19...a-wr-e-269.pdf Keith |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Bruce Simpson writes: On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:20:36 -0600, Alan Minyard wrote: Well, the V-1 used the same type of pulse jet, and they were routinely shot down. The pulse jet was a dead end technology. It *was* a dead-end technology. Certainly the arrival of the gas-turbine meant that the noisy, ineffecient pulsejet was relegated to the scrap-heap for many years. Hello, Bruce, I've been wondering what you were up to. Ypur'e the only fellow I know of with real pulsejet experience, so perhaps you can give me a hand with something that's been puzzling me, with reference to the Hiller Hornet. (The little pulsejet powered helicopter. For those who don't know, it's a really simple way to make a helicopter - Basically, it's a rotor, with a pilsejet on each blade tip, and a handle to tilt the rotor disk (And thus its lift) anywhere you want it to go. There's no torque reaction to cancel out, or complicated & cranky transmissions.) It seems like a real sweet setup, as long as you're hovering. But once you start moving, you'll be ramming more air into engine on the advancing blade, and much less on the retreating blade, since the rotational velocity of the rotor, and that of the helicoper moving through the air will add. It seems to me that if you can't keep some level of fine control on the jet's thrust levels, you're going to have an awful time maintaining a steady (and proper) rotor speed. How throttleable is a pulsejet? Is it throttleable at all? If you can throttle it, how fast does it respond? -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:51:57 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote: It seems like a real sweet setup, as long as you're hovering. But once you start moving, you'll be ramming more air into engine on the advancing blade, and much less on the retreating blade, since the rotational velocity of the rotor, and that of the helicoper moving through the air will add. It seems to me that if you can't keep some level of fine control on the jet's thrust levels, you're going to have an awful time maintaining a steady (and proper) rotor speed. How throttleable is a pulsejet? Is it throttleable at all? If you can throttle it, how fast does it respond? Depending on the design, pulsejets can be throttled over more than 50% of their power range. The problems you describe would not be an issue -- any more than the effects of forward flight on a conventional helicopter where the leading blade would tend to produce more lift (by virtue of its higher airspeed) if its pitch were not reduced. A sensible pulsejet powered helicopter (that's an oxymoron :-) would have the air intakes placed close to the root of the rotor blade so that the variation in ram pressure due to the combination or rotation and forward speed would be reduced. In reality, this extra lift produced by the leading blade would manifest itself, not as a roll, but as a pitching motion due to the effects of gyroscopic progression. -- you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/ |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On 22 Jan 2004 08:46:18 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
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. Based on some quick mental calculations the Argus requires something like 1,500 cubic feet of air per minute when running. I'll leave you to do the calculations but rest assured that there is *no* connection to the Argus engine capable of supporting anything like that flow-rate -- and I have a full set of plans here. 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. Sorry but there is *no* detonation in a pulsejet engine. Go do some research on the difference between deflagration and detonation. Boils down to simple intermittent combustion vs continous combustion. Both a ramjet and pulsejet need close to 200 mph minimum to operate independently. Go back and visit my website -- you'll see several videos of pulsejets operating statically with absolutely *no* forced air. You'll even see the video of my large pulsejet engine that starts simply by turning on the gas and the spark with not a zephyr of forced air anywhere in the vicinity. 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. Incorrect -- a gas-turbine is a constant combustion device,like a ramjet and whereas a turbine has a rotating compressor, the ramjet achieves an increase in static pressure by using a diffuser (go read up on Bernoulli's theorum to see how that works. Note also that both the gast turbine and ramjet perform constant pressure combustion whereas the pulsejet approximates constant volume combustion. There are indeed more similarities between a ramjet and a gas-turbine than there are between a ramjet and a pulsejet -- but don't take my word for it -- go do some reading. -- you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia to participate in US missile defence program | David Bromage | Military Aviation | 40 | December 13th 03 01:52 PM |
AIM-54 Phoenix missile | Sujay Vijayendra | Military Aviation | 89 | November 3rd 03 09:47 PM |
Poland: French Missile Report Was Wrong | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 8 | October 7th 03 10:54 PM |
Surface to Air Missile threat | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 14th 03 02:13 PM |
Rafael's AIM-AIR IR Missile Countermeasure | JT | Military Aviation | 8 | July 13th 03 03:41 AM |