amazing that something seemingly so simple can be so powerful! reminds me of an old Vega we had, for every 10 gallons of fuel put in, you would get 20 gallons of smoke and belch out the exhaust pipe.
The Scramjet is a pretty frustrating concept when one thinks of it in terms of intercontinental travel ie London to Sydney in a couple of hours etc - due to the sheer expense and energy required to achieve operational speed. Its applications in the near future are likely to be solely military and earth-orbit deliveries launched mid air. There might be some scope for a solid rocket-plane hybrid that can take off from a runway to get the Scram up to speed
The crucial thing is that the vehicle would need the bulk its on-board fuel supply for the acceleration phase at optimum altitude. We are trying to think of ways to launch the craft without using tons of that fuel just to leave the run-way.
This is a... VERY... old comment. But if you do read this I would like to add, we dont necessarily need to keep a jet in mind. The thrust and efficiency is unrivaled to rocket, so why not have a jet strapped to a rocket. Launch vertically to get to speed, then once the scrams kick in come off the rocket stage and accelerate?
I'm pretty sure a scramjet can achieve a GROSS thrust superior to a rocket, but can it achieve a superior NET thrust, so it can accelerate more economically?
+ROGER FANCHER scramjets or ramjets can't be used such as a rocket, because they use the oxygen from the intake as oxidizer, whereas the rockets have a tank filled with oxidizer. E.g. some liquid fuel (hydrogen) reacts with liquid oxygen
Good idea. maybe something that works off massive steam pressure like on AC carriers. coupled with something that initially feeds massive doses of oxygen through the front intake of the jet.
Water is the problem with that unless it pure u could separate the hydrogen and oxygen and run this on just water ?? Unless I’m mistaken 😂😂. It doesn’t use high air volume just higher pressures . Hotter the oxygen less fuel u need.
The silicon tiles on the bottom of space shuttles, can't they use that as a material, well the tiles probably did survive more heat and friction the scram-jet would need to survive when reentering earth's atmosphere so yea. Or it would be too heavy even if the scram-jet engine can provide a huge load of thrust?
The fuel is still ignited through "normal" means of ignition. The purpose of a scramjet is to allow absurdly high velocities. Scramjets and ramjets both work on the same principle; they compress the incoming air through the natural forward motion of the vehicle. As air moves quickly through the chamber it reaches the necessary compression point to be mixed with the fuel so it can be burned to create a highly volatile exhaust. Ramjets and scramjets are basically the same, but scramjets allow for supersonic flight. This is due to the construction of the inlet chambers and compression chambers. Ramjets slow the inlet air down to subsonic, while with scramjets the air is supersonic the whole way. It is self sustaining as long as there is fuel present. These are wildly different from typical turbojet engines because there are no moving parts. It is essentially a solid-state engine. The issues with these engines is they only become self-sustaining when they hit about Mach 5. It is possible to accelerate a plane to that speed using a normal turbojet but it will burn a LOT of fuel.
Your missing the point. Ramjets were invented in 1913, its old. The scramjet is using 1913 technology, whats hi-tech is the sonic wave ride, hence no wings & minimal air resistance. It has to reach Mach 5 before the ramjet kicks in. These planes cannot become airbourne on their own, no wings & air too dense at sea level. UK was building ramjet fighters in the 50s they were scrapped as too fuel inefficient. These scram jets can only serve military purpose.The HOTOL concept is civilian way forward
Are you to still discussing the concept of using a scramjet for conventional travel London to Sydney ? Although inspiring, catapults. rocket boosters, railguns or what ever else your considering. I think you may have over looked your commuting passenger who isnt really experienced in the 1g to 8g in under 2 seconds for take off. I can foresee that false teeth of a passenger in 1st class being firmly embedded into the skull of some poor dude in economy class 30 seats back =@#
