Re: Proposals for air breathing hypersonic craft. V


There were three other proposals for air breathing hypersonic
> propulsion I, II, and III I made, and then there was a fourth under
> the title "Could we just circulate the air in scramjet propulsion?"
> I'll refer to that fourth one as "Proposals for air breathing
> hypersonic craft. IV". Then this next one will be "Proposals for air
> breathing hypersonic craft. V".
> Suppose we made the intake path for the supersonic, hypersonic air be
> in the form of a J-bend pipe. Then the incoming air would first
> initially be moving backwards with respect to the craft at high Mach
> speed but the J-bend would direct this air forward so that with
> respect to the craft it is now moving at zero relative velocity.
Huh?
That's like saying the top of a wheel or caterpillar track
stops relative to the vehicle. In fact it moves forward
at twice the speed of the vehicle relative to the ground.
Don't give up your day job.
Reply to
Androcles
Loading thread data ...
Dear Robert Clark:
Can you stop proposing spending great scads of time consuming oxygen and releassing ozone-destroying water vapor in/near our ozone layer, and leave the rest of us alone?
Rockets, catapults, or elevators are the ways to go.
David A. Smith
Reply to
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
[snip]
[snip crap]
Christ's blood on a Saltine cracker. Direct shock waves to converge at the craft's rear into walls of an elongated afterburner. There ya go, stooopid - self-containment, no walls to melt, and lots of time to burn fuel at small local velocities without sacrificing the large ground velocity.
1) Look at the problem. 2) Think real hard. 3) Write down the answer.
It's called "intelligence", and it works. Nothing works better no matter how many Diversity hires you have banging on typewriters (or "safely" stowed in management).
Reply to
Uncle Al
You might as well just have a long combustion chamber. ========================================== Hey Clark! Any idea what an afterburner IS?
formatting link
surprise... it's a long combustion chamber.
Reply to
Androcles
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
The point is having a long combustion chamber, long enough for combustion to complete, would make the engine impractically heavy.
Bob Clark
Reply to
Robert Clark
The point is having a long combustion chamber, long enough for combustion to complete, would make the engine impractically heavy.
Bob Clark =========================================== Funny how all those impractical afterburners are fitted to so many impractical aircraft but a j-tube wouldn't be impractically heavy (or even work). Don't give up your day job.
Reply to
Androcles

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.