some comments on this video are filtered out by RUclips ( Google ) so sorry if you see that. It's not me.. so please comment and I'll do what I can to post the comment. I'd guess that Google classes some comments as potentially terrorist since the scramjet is the next wave of tech to be used on American drones. This would of course make them mostly invisible to radar and so fast they couldn't be stopped
6:15 that model looks to me like a ramjet not a scramjet. I am no expert just what i learned from your video. I mean the geometry looks exactly like a ramjet.
You are looking at the aerospike on the front of the engine unit and mistaking it for a ramjet intake. A ramjet intake must be movable in order to adjust the intake flow of air so as to allow proper compression just before the combustion stage. That aerospike is there to reduce drag and help push the flow of supersonic air into the intake. There are 6 scramjet engine units arrayed around the aerospike - all with no moving parts... which is the defining factor of a scramjet. What I'ld like to see is if we could possibly create a scramjet from super-high temperature ceramic components, accellerate it to operating speeds with a rocket, and power a launch vehicle into space from a ground launch .... it would be a 1-time use launch vehicle concept, but if it's powerful enough it could put the shuttle or other reusable space vehicles into orbit much more cheaply.
Makes sense...delete replies and just leave the video. That's what I'd do if i didn't want the public to know my shit. Like posting your nudes on a billboard and only stopping news people from broadcasting it so no one will see it. I am so smart. S-M-R-T - Homer J. Simpson
Let's not forget turbofan engines. They have another set of fan blades. Let's say there are 10 sets before fuel is added to the compressed air to create thrust. In a turbofan engine, another set is added - to make 11. Just that set is routed around the other 10 and added at the end for additional thrust.
@Harry M turbojet engines is the broad terminology, high bypass and low bypass(used on fighters) turbofan engines are all types of turbojets, even turboprops are a type of turbojet engine
What interested me the most was the fact that while Queensland University has done so much work on this concept. The actual state of scramjet research is buried in the depths of "Classified" information probably in Russia and the United States.
All I'm saying is look at the Blackbird. That thing is a mechanical marvel and was built during the cold war. Rockets however made putting those engines on planes obsolete. Why spend hundreds of billions if not trillions putting it on a plane when you can build a rocket for a fraction of that and shoot said plane out of the sky Or destroy the entire air base that launched the plane in minutes and hours? I would love to see what every nation really has at least just from a curiosity stand point.
@Wai too Low anything in front of it is history for the first minute or so of combat. Could you imagine reloading every individual metal storm barrel full of all those rounds every time you want a couple second burst? Autocannons will always be a better alternative.
They're still around, they just went insolvent. Only a few companies ended up buying all their patents and technology, so the teams are still together.
@Didddin duuu nufffin Wakanda enn shiiieet no one uses miles feet or inches, except a world superpower, the entire aviation industry, and many more lol
you really should look at the Sr-71 engine diagrams, the are normal turbine jet engines but with 6 bypass tubes moving air from the leading cone to the exhaust making them ramjets. As well as being able to keep the perfect pressure/speed mix by varying the cone distance.
Doodley - I seem to recall that the inlet spike ("cone") was positioned to trap and diffuse the normal shockwave inside the engine air inlet. An "un-start" is when the shockwave popped out the front of the air-inlet, and in the early (pre-computer) days of the SR-71 program, an un-start was a serious hazard. Later computer controls all but eliminated the problem.
I don't know why, but for some reason RUclips has been recommending a lot of videos about aerospace engineering and the SR-71 to me lately so I was also thinking about the turbo-ramjet of the SR-71.
I don't know why, but for some reason RUclips has been recommending a lot of videos about aerospace engineering and the SR-71 to me lately so I was also thinking about the turbo-ramjet of the SR-71.
Good lecture. I’ve worked over 40 years for the US Department of defense in the acquisition of weapon systems and one rule in certain, stealth is cheaper than speed
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle I have worked for the missile defense agency since 2006 and the Air Force since 1982. My view on hypersonic weapons is they are limited in use and over hyped by both sides. The vast majority of ground targets costs far less the the hypersonic weapons that targets them.
Excellent video. May I suggest that when talking about speed in general you also keep in mind that most "proper" Engineers who work in an International environment find the use of the French "MKS" or Meters, Kilograms, Seconds to be an abomination. Especially the use of Kilometres when it comes to speed. I suggest "miles per hour" is far more widely used and by some of us less hated as a cause of confusion and errors. The quality of your video makes it worthy of an International audience beyond the narrow (but very lovely) confines of Queensland, Australia. Party on.
I know very little about jet engines period and came here as a novice. Fully understood your description so within that paradigm, well done. Aussie Aussie Aussie!
Excellent lesson and presentation, Edwin, thank you. Question: How dense is the H2 and plasma (protons and electrons) above the mesosphere? I'm thinking a scramjet for this stage would only need an oxidizer, if the fuel around it is sufficient.
Excellent presentation. He made it easy to understand. It will be challenging for the material engineers to come up with materials to handle the extreme heat issues.
how do people put a thumbs down to a video that is talking about a concept that was tested and verified? just shows that no matter what, theres always haters out there.
Ummm. The only application is military. The kinetic energy gained is going to be lost by atmospheric work at the end. The Saturn 5 rockets used multi-story buildings of fuel. When the mission was over and back on earth all of that potential energy had been lost. Economically there is no business reason for that wastage. therefore what is the reason for such high speeds....slingshot into low orbit... Or sneaking up on some third world country?
oldhoboman L “The only application is military.” You sure about that? You could use this as a launch platform for sending satellites into space (military or commercial). This technology can not only help beam you more data (ex. your stupid Instagram feed) but also keep your dumb ass safe from shitheads around the world
As a teenager growing up in Folsom Ca. Right next door to Arojet rocket plant, you could hear them testing rocket motors ( normally solid fule ) some liquid motors, All the time. But for a couple of years they were doing development work for Boing aircraft on a Hybrid Scram jet motor, that ran on liquid hydrogen. They were trying to develop a commercial plane that would replace the Concorde. They were shooting for N.Y. to Tokyo in 60 minutes @ Mock 7. Every time they fired it up there was NO Mistaking the noise it made, + The duration of run time... the longest run time of Rockets was 30 seconds, most under 15 seconds, But that Scram-jet was in the several minute range. Usually 2 to 4 minutes, and the closest description of it's sound was that Horrible t.v. show Air Wolf when they hit the turbo button and went Super Sonic .... Never will forget that sound...
Sintesi: ottima spiegazione della differenza tra turbojet e autoreattore in pochi minuti. Chiari i concetti espressi con linguaggio appropriato. Livello accademico.
When he said a jet engine can get you up to 1 KM a second, it really put the speed into perspective. A person running at full speed can do that in maybe 5-6 minutes. A car on the highway does that in about 1 minute. By the time you finished reading my comment that plane would have already flown about 20 KM.
As long as the projectile course of a rocket is in an atmosphere, the use of alternate methods of propulsion for a rocket is a possible option because the use of jet, ram, and scramjet technology increases the potential to reduce the material requirements needed to accomplish whatever task you are shooting for when utilizing a rocket.
Notice that it's actually dynamic pressure that counts for thrust, not static pressure. So it pays to take advantage of synergetic motion of the exhaust gases, and the mechanics of supersonic fluid flow.
This professor explain these super interesting subjects so well that I fell like I am a genious. Then I stop the video and fell like I'm the dumbest guy on earth again.
The forcing cone on the SR71 was automatically adjusted forward or backward in relation to speed. The engines of the SR71 were made from materials not found in service jets. More so, the fuel consumption was reduced as the speed was increased. He uses a lot of facts to disinform what we’re capable of. We have vehicles that can exceed Mach 14.
Performance specs for an MD F-15 and F-18 are mach 2.5 and 1.8, respectively. Are these speeds achievable only at high altitudes for these aircrafts? How fast would you estimate their top speeds to be at sea level?
Thankyou so much this was the fist time I understood the design and working properly .. now i can make a super sonic jet into hyper just by adding a part .. oo wao i love my ideas.. then it can really make a scramjet go from 0-12 /// awesome thankyou
Supposing a ramjet were attached to the nose of a projectile fired from an electromagnetic cannon? As the projectile were moving through the air, the ramjet would detach and continue via its own power to Mach 6. Upon reaching Mach 6, a scramjet attached to the nose of the ramjet would detach and continue via its own power to Mach 10+. Sounds like a good idea!
engines of the SR-71 are a bit like this concept - with bypass technology - but I'm sure the concept can be taken much further. I'd welcome an aircraft that entered orbit and reached England from Australia in a few hours rather than the grind of a 30 hour flight as now :)
You could stack planes like stages of a rocket: first, a big turbojet starting from nothing and picking some height and speed. Once its fast enough for a ramjet, it disconnect affirm the turbine first stage and does his part, then the scramjet gets going, disconnects and continues on! First and second stages return to the airport. On the other end of the trip a ramjet awaits, scramjet "lands" on it, then the combination is met by a turbojet who's like a flying aircraft carrier for faster jets! Everything lands together, people come out and go to the hotel. Or maybe they can be dumped into the ocean cause to land is a drag and its too much fun to fly around combining and separating in the air! That huge tubojet can be refuelled in thecsir and so the whole thing never need to touch the ground! Wow. I wish I was 30 years younger and could go to QU and become a rocketman!
Dude you should be working for the DoD, move to Long Island and get a job at a DoD aerospace company. This is a lot of information for a lot of countries that don’t have the knowledge
Edwin Henry Blachford - What an EXCELLENT presentation . Correct me if I'm incorrect , but the ram jet / scram jet technology of the 60s' - 70s' was considered to be relatively "low tech" compared to jet engines . I worked for a company which manufactured experimental ram jet / scram jet engines . From what I came to understand - The fuselage of missiles and aircraft at the time couldn't structurally withstand the G forces generated by Mach 4 and above ... neither could a pilot . The structural integrity of missile and aircraft components has obviously improved with modern materials and many countries are returning to scramjet technologies . All the best to you Mr. Blachford and Thanks once again .
yes, engine development is just one piece of the puzzle. Deceptively simple indeed. Sustained flight at Mach 8+ requires special technology. Perhaps the solution has been to divert hypersonic airflow to prevent it from contacting surfaces internal and external, thus avoiding the need for shielding and expensive materials.
Thanks for your reply Mr. Blachford . Yes ... modern carbon fiber and ceramics have been the answer .Not much research into an ionized atmosphere which precedes the control surfaces . Similar , but quite different to hydrodynamics and torpedo technology in which a torpedo "flies " within its' own created atmosphere which precedes it . The velocity of the craft is measured and simultaneously ... servos control the intake of ambient air / oxygen to the engine . A "swirl pre warmer " using a parabolic curve and that focal point for the engine intake might help . As far as external control surfaces , have no idea . Titanium or tungsten lead surfaces + ceramics as used in a space shuttle .
I can think of some other tech (already out there) that when combined with this ..would certainly tickle Mach 14 and possibly beyond :) Congratulation to all involved. Stay on that leading edge of technology, I truly respect people like this. Bravo!
Great clip, nicely explained for a non technical person like me. Perhaps we need to look at different ideas of propulsion. Electro-mag, gravity, who knows but rockets are old tech. Somewhere, I suspect some military contractor must be looking at some really interesting forms of propulsion.
what about the shockwave inside the nacelle ? if it moves too much aft , it might flame out the engine . just as it happened when the sr71 tried to reach m3.5
How fast would you say the SR71 flew ? We may never know. I am sure the thrust was at least 30 % higher at the end of the program over the 45K starting thrust.
This video got me wondering that too. Though the scramjet diagram is very different than the ramjet engine, it probably could be done. Use a plane body like the scramjet, but use a ramjet compression cone that can vary in size & width, all the way down to nearly nothing (get it out of the way, somehow). I think a turbine engine could be set up to 'move away' from the airflow in much the same way. But, all this adds complexity, which increases chances to break, along with costs to maintain, and nobody wants to do that unless the payoff is worth it. I still think it's possible
Curious as well, but seems unlikely because they were struggling to make a scramjet to even produce enough thrust to overcome drag. This leads me to believe that a scramjet is extremely picky in regards to the shape. Extremely so. As in any deviation from a design that is dedicated to just being anything other then a scramjet is likely to fail. However would be badass if we could get ramjets to work as scram jets.
Three intake passages, a deep one with compressors, a ram with shock cone, and a scram bypass for highest speeds. The shock cone could be used as the faucet, directing flow into the desired channel or as the inner wall of the scramjet bypass.
Thankyou for the excellent technical bteakdown Sir....fascinating stuff. Now I understand why at ADELAIDE INTERNATIONAL RACEWAY....back in the 1990's .. the "F4 Phantom" powered JETCARS were doing "quarter mile" runs under 1 second !!!!
Much as i want to believe you, no. As far as I am aware, the fastest rocket powered dragcars never broke the sub 3 second quarter mile barrier. Additionally, whatever powered the F4 was a turbojet, which is not what this video is covering. And top fuel dragsters, despite ridiculous acceleration, do not come close to sub 3 second runs either. So, not entirely sure what you saw all those years ago.
Where do Pulsejets, like the V-1 fit in here? Can a rocket be used to cross the Ramjet/Scramjet interface in real aircraft (not just research vehicles)?How about directing the air from one chamber (like a revolver with or without moving parts)?Maybe one inlet that divides up and the side shape restricts till the cylinders are synced like a multi-engine airplane, but firing in sequence like a V-8 car engine?
Theoretically, could we drop something from orbit (maybe similar to the lifting body escape things on the ISS), and actually test scramjets from orbital velocity, or would we have issues starting from the peak and working down
Scary stuff. Torpedos flying at mac 10-14 means that people could be murdered in massive scale without seeing what hit them. I believe that starting with ramjets there is no way to intercept them due to their speed.
I got a question, scramjet cannot be self-started I heard. But if the fuel is burned by supplying compress air or by providing a spark plug, the trust blowing off the tail wouldn't produce air sucked-in into the engine? To me it looks like the inlet of the engine would suck in air as the same amount of force that ejects off the exhaust, even if the plane doesn't move, am I wrong?
Since Ramjets and Scramjets operate at Mach >3 , how are the supersonic flow speeds achieved on aircrafts fitted with such engines ? I believe such engines operate in standby mode until the aircraft reaches speeds of Mach 3 and activated after exceeding Mach 3.
Hmm, I guess the goal would be a seamless transition from turbojet concepts to rocket concepts all in one engine. In which the traditional turbojet is fitted with a scramjet bypass as a function of the afterburner, in which of itself contains the rocket mechanisms for outer space travel. An engine that adapts to it’s environment, though quite complex due to the integration of the three systems at once, if not compounding the cooling issues and the limits of the combustion process
the concept at the moment is rocket launch to Mach8, initiate Scramjet. Suitable for missiles mainly and vg for such due to the extended range resulting from no oxidiser required/this is where development is at. Then next a composite engine is the Nirvana, logically turbojet to Mach3.5/close compressor/into Ramjet mode (eg SR71)/get to Mach8/into Scramjet mode/get to Mach14. Such a vehicle will be the way most spacecraft would be launched.. piggybacked onto the Scramjet composite. The main barrier is heat at hypersonic speed/most metals melt/most sacrificial surface systems haven't worked. The Queensland Uni is developing the laminar/isentropic flow technology that overcomes this which is why the US Govt has bought into the program. It only takes one idea to make things work then everyone else can develop the crap out of it
Наука
some comments on this video are filtered out by RUclips ( Google ) so sorry if you see that. It's not me.. so please comment and I'll do what I can to post the comment. I'd guess that Google classes some comments as potentially terrorist since the scramjet is the next wave of tech to be used on American drones. This would of course make them mostly invisible to radar and so fast they couldn't be stopped
6:15 that model looks to me like a ramjet not a scramjet. I am no expert just what i learned from your video. I mean the geometry looks exactly like a ramjet.
You are looking at the aerospike on the front of the engine unit and mistaking it for a ramjet intake. A ramjet intake must be movable in order to adjust the intake flow of air so as to allow proper compression just before the combustion stage.
That aerospike is there to reduce drag and help push the flow of supersonic air into the intake. There are 6 scramjet engine units arrayed around the aerospike - all with no moving parts... which is the defining factor of a scramjet.
What I'ld like to see is if we could possibly create a scramjet from super-high temperature ceramic components, accellerate it to operating speeds with a rocket, and power a launch vehicle into space from a ground launch .... it would be a 1-time use launch vehicle concept, but if it's powerful enough it could put the shuttle or other reusable space vehicles into orbit much more cheaply.
This is a top notch vid, mate. Don't change it. Screw YT.
Makes sense...delete replies and just leave the video. That's what I'd do if i didn't want the public to know my shit.
Like posting your nudes on a billboard and only stopping news people from broadcasting it so no one will see it.
I am so smart. S-M-R-T - Homer J. Simpson
Quite ridiculous to hide information from little users, who can't possibly have the capital to produce this tech, unlike governments/corps.
interesting that "normal" jet-engines are actually the most complicated design of the three!
"Turbojet"
Let's not forget turbofan engines. They have another set of fan blades. Let's say there are 10 sets before fuel is added to the compressed air to create thrust. In a turbofan engine, another set is added - to make 11. Just that set is routed around the other 10 and added at the end for additional thrust.
But the most perfected over time, can't wait for these technologies to evolve!
And pulsejet...
@Harry M turbojet engines is the broad terminology, high bypass and low bypass(used on fighters) turbofan engines are all types of turbojets, even turboprops are a type of turbojet engine
Terrific explanation for us non engineers.
Well explained and presented.
I could listen to this bloke talk all day, reminds of the science VHS tapes in high school.
Here after Top Gun: Maverick. Great explanation.
What interested me the most was the fact that while Queensland University has done so much work on this concept. The actual state of scramjet research is buried in the depths of "Classified" information probably in Russia and the United States.
All I'm saying is look at the Blackbird. That thing is a mechanical marvel and was built during the cold war. Rockets however made putting those engines on planes obsolete. Why spend hundreds of billions if not trillions putting it on a plane when you can build a rocket for a fraction of that and shoot said plane out of the sky Or destroy the entire air base that launched the plane in minutes and hours?
I would love to see what every nation really has at least just from a curiosity stand point.
Who's here after Top Gun Maverick?
Never saw it. Can’t stand that guy. Maybe if Goose hadn’t been killed…
Australia has a long history of amazing inventions mysteriously being bought out and never appearing again. Remember Metal Storm? Where is is now?
Metal Storm has no real world application
@Wai too Low anything in front of it is history for the first minute or so of combat. Could you imagine reloading every individual metal storm barrel full of all those rounds every time you want a couple second burst? Autocannons will always be a better alternative.
@@Wangpi3ce With metal storm you are not reloading individual barrels. You are replacing the entire pack which is preloaded at the factory.
They're still around, they just went insolvent.
Only a few companies ended up buying all their patents and technology, so the teams are still together.
@@Nick_fb Of course it does. Crowd control.
"90 [mph]!!? Why in tarnations would you be in such a hurry?" ~ 19th century engineer from Back to the Future III
@Didddin duuu nufffin Wakanda enn shiiieet it's a reference to a film, moron.
wtf is your pfp
@Didddin duuu nufffin Wakanda enn shiiieet Plenty of the world's most successful aerospace firms still use English Engineering units.
@Didddin duuu nufffin Wakanda enn shiiieet no one uses miles feet or inches, except a world superpower, the entire aviation industry, and many more lol
Steven N pt
I have not paid this much attention to anything in months, and this is information I really dont need for anything in my life
you really should look at the Sr-71 engine diagrams, the are normal turbine jet engines but with 6 bypass tubes moving air from the leading cone to the exhaust making them ramjets. As well as being able to keep the perfect pressure/speed mix by varying the cone distance.
Doodley - I seem to recall that the inlet spike ("cone") was positioned to trap and diffuse the normal shockwave inside the engine air inlet. An "un-start" is when the shockwave popped out the front of the air-inlet, and in the early (pre-computer) days of the SR-71 program, an un-start was a serious hazard. Later computer controls all but eliminated the problem.
i thought of those sr 71 engines 😁🤘
I don't know why, but for some reason RUclips has been recommending a lot of videos about aerospace engineering and the SR-71 to me lately so I was also thinking about the turbo-ramjet of the SR-71.
I don't know why, but for some reason RUclips has been recommending a lot of videos about aerospace engineering and the SR-71 to me lately so I was also thinking about the turbo-ramjet of the SR-71.
I've been on an SR-71 marathon lately everything about that plane was perfect and without the technology of today
Good lecture. I’ve worked over 40 years for the US Department of defense in the acquisition of weapon systems and one rule in certain, stealth is cheaper than speed
If you really work for DoD, what is your opinion on the DF-17 and MD-22?
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle I have worked for the missile defense agency since 2006 and the Air Force since 1982. My view on hypersonic weapons is they are limited in use and over hyped by both sides. The vast majority of ground targets costs far less the the hypersonic weapons that targets them.
@@joemama6906 So you think an SM-3 can intercept a DF-ZF or YJ-21 with capabilities intended to outmaneuver and outrun interceptors? 🤔
Wish all the lessons I've had in my life were taught this way
Excellent video. May I suggest that when talking about speed in general you also keep in mind that most "proper" Engineers who work in an International environment find the use of the French "MKS" or Meters, Kilograms, Seconds to be an abomination. Especially the use of Kilometres when it comes to speed. I suggest "miles per hour" is far more widely used and by some of us less hated as a cause of confusion and errors. The quality of your video makes it worthy of an International audience beyond the narrow (but very lovely) confines of Queensland, Australia. Party on.
Extremely clear and highly informative presentation. Well done!
That was a really, really good video. So well explained.
Excellent and clear explanations. Such a complicated concept explained this easy is amazing. Thank You
We can always learn something new. It makes life so much richer. Thanks for a video that even I can understand!
i've watched this so many times; its just brilliantly easy the way he explains it, pity this guy wasn't my lecturer in college :- (
I know very little about jet engines period and came here as a novice.
Fully understood your description so within that paradigm, well done.
Aussie Aussie Aussie!
Good video! Here after watching Top Gun: Maverick.
Thank you professor , it's well explained !
Really informative and entertaining. Well done!
I JUST LOVE WATCHING THESE MACH 10 DOCUMENTRYS ON THE POTTY! im able to exit the bathroom at mach 2.
Oh good lord. I happen to be ‘on the pot’ right now.
The Maverick Package is awesome in the MSFS! Which brought me here.
Excellent lesson and presentation, Edwin, thank you. Question: How dense is the H2 and plasma (protons and electrons) above the mesosphere? I'm thinking a scramjet for this stage would only need an oxidizer, if the fuel around it is sufficient.
very nice, clear description of engines. Good job !!!
Good, clear explanation!! Thank you.
Wow! So educational and relaxing at the same time
Fascinating! Where's the beginning and the followup lectures?
Its on Edx Hyperosonics course!
Excellent presentation. He made it easy to understand. It will be challenging for the material engineers to come up with materials to handle the extreme heat issues.
there are no materials that can. we are at the thermal limit
how do people put a thumbs down to a video that is talking about a concept that was tested and verified? just shows that no matter what, theres always haters out there.
Ummm. The only application is military. The kinetic energy gained is going to be lost by atmospheric work at the end. The Saturn 5 rockets used multi-story buildings of fuel. When the mission was over and back on earth all of that potential energy had been lost. Economically there is no business reason for that wastage. therefore what is the reason for such high speeds....slingshot into low orbit... Or sneaking up on some third world country?
oldhoboman L by your understanding airplanes are bad cause when they are going to land they will loose ALL of their potential energy
Science denying liberals. ;-)
Not really haters but who are dumber than rocks
oldhoboman L
“The only application is military.”
You sure about that?
You could use this as a launch platform for sending satellites into space (military or commercial).
This technology can not only help beam you more data (ex. your stupid Instagram feed) but also keep your dumb ass safe from shitheads around the world
I learnt a lot in this video. Thank you :-)
As a teenager growing up in Folsom Ca. Right next door to Arojet rocket plant, you could hear them testing rocket motors ( normally solid fule ) some liquid motors, All the time. But for a couple of years they were doing development work for Boing aircraft on a Hybrid Scram jet motor, that ran on liquid hydrogen. They were trying to develop a commercial plane that would replace the Concorde. They were shooting for N.Y. to Tokyo in 60 minutes @ Mock 7. Every time they fired it up there was NO Mistaking the noise it made, + The duration of run time... the longest run time of Rockets was 30 seconds, most under 15 seconds, But that Scram-jet was in the several minute range. Usually 2 to 4 minutes, and the closest description of it's sound was that Horrible t.v. show Air Wolf when they hit the turbo button and went Super Sonic .... Never will forget that sound...
donald Master Bud boing boing boing
donald Master Bud and dont Mock too much
Sad seeing them go, thanks CA.
best video on this topic
thank you!
Sintesi: ottima spiegazione della differenza tra turbojet e autoreattore in pochi minuti. Chiari i concetti espressi con linguaggio appropriato. Livello accademico.
Lucid explanation.. Great work👍
Very clear understandable explanation, thank you!
great presentation and voice clarity
When he said a jet engine can get you up to 1 KM a second, it really put the speed into perspective. A person running at full speed can do that in maybe 5-6 minutes. A car on the highway does that in about 1 minute. By the time you finished reading my comment that plane would have already flown about 20 KM.
Absolutely no idea why this showed up in my recommendations but it was really interesting.
Thank you very instructive. I shared it in our facebook group Colonize The Moon.
Enough thrust to overcome it's drag. Wow!
As long as the projectile course of a rocket is in an atmosphere, the use of alternate methods of propulsion for a rocket is a possible option because the use of jet, ram, and scramjet technology increases the potential to reduce the material requirements needed to accomplish whatever task you are shooting for when utilizing a rocket.
The perfect channel for plane guys...
Notice that it's actually dynamic pressure that counts for thrust, not static pressure. So it pays to take advantage of synergetic motion of the exhaust gases, and the mechanics of supersonic fluid flow.
This professor explain these super interesting subjects so well that I fell like I am a genious. Then I stop the video and fell like I'm the dumbest guy on earth again.
The forcing cone on the SR71 was automatically adjusted forward or backward in relation to speed. The engines of the SR71 were made from materials not found in service jets. More so, the fuel consumption was reduced as the speed was increased. He uses a lot of facts to disinform what we’re capable of. We have vehicles that can exceed Mach 14.
Those vehicles can't reach that speed without rockets though can they?
Performance specs for an MD F-15 and F-18 are mach 2.5 and 1.8, respectively. Are these speeds achievable only at high altitudes for these aircrafts? How fast would you estimate their top speeds to be at sea level?
Back in the 60s I saw a Cartoon about the guy who flew one of these. His name was Roger a Ramjet hero of our Nation.....
What a wonderful way of explaining things you have !!!
Thankyou so much this was the fist time I understood the design and working properly .. now i can make a super sonic jet into hyper just by adding a part .. oo wao i love my ideas.. then it can really make a scramjet go from 0-12 /// awesome thankyou
Supposing a ramjet were attached to the nose of a projectile fired from an electromagnetic cannon? As the projectile were moving through the air, the ramjet would detach and continue via its own power to Mach 6. Upon reaching Mach 6, a scramjet attached to the nose of the ramjet would detach and continue via its own power to Mach 10+. Sounds like a good idea!
engines of the SR-71 are a bit like this concept - with bypass technology - but I'm sure the concept can be taken much further. I'd welcome an aircraft that entered orbit and reached England from Australia in a few hours rather than the grind of a 30 hour flight as now :)
great thinking....!
You could stack planes like stages of a rocket: first, a big turbojet starting from nothing and picking some height and speed. Once its fast enough for a ramjet, it disconnect affirm the turbine first stage and does his part, then the scramjet gets going, disconnects and continues on! First and second stages return to the airport. On the other end of the trip a ramjet awaits, scramjet "lands" on it, then the combination is met by a turbojet who's like a flying aircraft carrier for faster jets! Everything lands together, people come out and go to the hotel. Or maybe they can be dumped into the ocean cause to land is a drag and its too much fun to fly around combining and separating in the air! That huge tubojet can be refuelled in thecsir and so the whole thing never need to touch the ground! Wow. I wish I was 30 years younger and could go to QU and become a rocketman!
Kevin Thomas and
It should work, but what would be the point?
Now just imagine when/if we start using other propulsion methods entirely, leaving combustion/fire behind....
Dude you should be working for the DoD, move to Long Island and get a job at a DoD aerospace company. This is a lot of information for a lot of countries that don’t have the knowledge
Absolutely clear explanation.
Edwin Henry Blachford - What an EXCELLENT presentation . Correct me if I'm incorrect , but the ram jet / scram jet technology of the 60s' - 70s' was considered to be relatively "low tech" compared to jet engines . I worked for a company which manufactured experimental ram jet / scram jet engines .
From what I came to understand - The fuselage of missiles and aircraft at the time couldn't structurally withstand the G forces generated by Mach 4 and above ... neither could a pilot .
The structural integrity of missile and aircraft components has obviously improved with modern materials and many countries are returning to scramjet technologies . All the best to you Mr. Blachford and Thanks once again .
yes, engine development is just one piece of the puzzle. Deceptively simple indeed. Sustained flight at Mach 8+ requires special technology. Perhaps the solution has been to divert hypersonic airflow to prevent it from contacting surfaces internal and external, thus avoiding the need for shielding and expensive materials.
Thanks for your reply Mr. Blachford . Yes ... modern carbon fiber and ceramics have been the answer .Not much research into an ionized atmosphere which precedes the control surfaces . Similar , but quite different to hydrodynamics and torpedo technology in which a torpedo "flies " within its' own created atmosphere which precedes it .
The velocity of the craft is measured and simultaneously ... servos control the intake of ambient air / oxygen to the engine . A "swirl pre warmer " using a parabolic curve and that focal point for the engine intake might help . As far as external control surfaces , have no idea . Titanium or tungsten lead surfaces + ceramics as used in a space shuttle .
thank you sir for this very informative :)
I can think of some other tech (already out there) that when combined with this ..would certainly tickle Mach 14 and possibly beyond :)
Congratulation to all involved. Stay on that leading edge of technology, I truly respect people like this. Bravo!
Perfect explanation.
Great explanations mate
How do you get from zero speed to scramjet minimum? Do they use other forms of engine?
This dude just successfully taught some rocket science to my high-school diploma having ass. He's good
How fast would a typical sized aircraft have to travel to enter orbit? What's the maximum cruising altitude of a scram?
Great clip, nicely explained for a non technical person like me. Perhaps we need to look at different ideas of propulsion. Electro-mag, gravity, who knows but rockets are old tech. Somewhere, I suspect some military contractor must be looking at some really interesting forms of propulsion.
So in practical use, would a ground based aircraft need all three types of engines to get from hangar to Mach 10?
Cool! I learned a lot
where can i find the full course?
7:09 Talking about the Darkstar plane from TopGun six years early
Great video, thank you
Wonderful video sir, very informative and interesting.
what about the shockwave inside the nacelle ? if it moves too much aft , it might flame out the engine . just as it happened when the sr71 tried to reach m3.5
Nash . Needs someone with the knowledge having been there too.
Thanks.
So do we need an 'vehicle' with 4 types of engine to achieve the goal of taking off from a runway all the way to space?
thank you great to see just how the technologies have gone ... Scramjets are very interesting indeed !
Scramjets are ancient technology. Pulse detonated scramjets hit mach 25 easily and have been around for decades
What a great presentation
How fast would you say the SR71 flew ? We may never know. I am sure the thrust was at least 30 % higher at the end of the program over the 45K starting thrust.
Would it be possible to have deformable engines that can work as ramjet and scramjet interchangeably?
This video got me wondering that too. Though the scramjet diagram is very different than the ramjet engine, it probably could be done. Use a plane body like the scramjet, but use a ramjet compression cone that can vary in size & width, all the way down to nearly nothing (get it out of the way, somehow). I think a turbine engine could be set up to 'move away' from the airflow in much the same way.
But, all this adds complexity, which increases chances to break, along with costs to maintain, and nobody wants to do that unless the payoff is worth it. I still think it's possible
Curious as well, but seems unlikely because they were struggling to make a scramjet to even produce enough thrust to overcome drag. This leads me to believe that a scramjet is extremely picky in regards to the shape. Extremely so.
As in any deviation from a design that is dedicated to just being anything other then a scramjet is likely to fail.
However would be badass if we could get ramjets to work as scram jets.
Three intake passages, a deep one with compressors, a ram with shock cone, and a scram bypass for highest speeds. The shock cone could be used as the faucet, directing flow into the desired channel or as the inner wall of the scramjet bypass.
Like the J58 turboramjet I suppose ?
I was thinking a step further... what if oxygen is injected when the scramjet reaches its limits ?
will it be possible to invoke scramjet or ramjet at ground level?
Very helpful video. Thank you very much
Thankyou for the excellent technical bteakdown Sir....fascinating stuff. Now I understand why at ADELAIDE INTERNATIONAL RACEWAY....back in the 1990's .. the "F4 Phantom" powered JETCARS were doing "quarter mile" runs under 1 second !!!!
Oh dear, all those poor dead jet car drivers...
Much as i want to believe you, no. As far as I am aware, the fastest rocket powered dragcars never broke the sub 3 second quarter mile barrier. Additionally, whatever powered the F4 was a turbojet, which is not what this video is covering. And top fuel dragsters, despite ridiculous acceleration, do not come close to sub 3 second runs either. So, not entirely sure what you saw all those years ago.
Fantastic presentation
I had a question about the scram jet, will you take and answer sir ?
my ford F150 is giving me some starting problems...shall I gat a new battery or do a complete tune-up....
Nice vid.
Would it be possible to combine a normal jet engine with a ramjet and scram jet engine?
Where do Pulsejets, like the V-1 fit in here? Can a rocket be used to cross the Ramjet/Scramjet interface in real aircraft (not just research vehicles)?How about directing the air from one chamber (like a revolver with or without moving parts)?Maybe one inlet that divides up and the side shape restricts till the cylinders are synced like a multi-engine airplane, but firing in sequence like a V-8 car engine?
Theoretically, could we drop something from orbit (maybe similar to the lifting body escape things on the ISS), and actually test scramjets from orbital velocity, or would we have issues starting from the peak and working down
Scary stuff. Torpedos flying at mac 10-14 means that people could be murdered in massive scale without seeing what hit them. I believe that starting with ramjets there is no way to intercept them due to their speed.
Lasers bro, lasers. Speed of light is king baby
RUclips algorithm, good job.
Can the jets be arranged along the centerline in order of speed for efficiency?
M
shall I use synthetic oil or regular in my 67 mustang
No no no!!! U need a Mach 14 scramjet for ur stang!
12000 mph !!!!🤣😂😁
Synthetic all the way man! so much better
Full synthetic is better
Very interesting. But where's part 2 of the Course (about Isentropic Flow)?
I got a question, scramjet cannot be self-started I heard. But if the fuel is burned by supplying compress air or by providing a spark plug, the trust blowing off the tail wouldn't produce air sucked-in into the engine? To me it looks like the inlet of the engine would suck in air as the same amount of force that ejects off the exhaust, even if the plane doesn't move, am I wrong?
Excellent presentation.
Built my first ramjet and finally perfected it. Runs awesome 👍
I would like to know where did you got this video and who are this guy.
It is a good material for i use on my undergraduate thesis.
thaks
Since Ramjets and Scramjets operate at Mach >3 , how are the supersonic flow speeds achieved on aircrafts fitted with such engines ? I believe such engines operate in standby mode until the aircraft reaches speeds of Mach 3 and activated after exceeding Mach 3.
Hmm, I guess the goal would be a seamless transition from turbojet concepts to rocket concepts all in one engine.
In which the traditional turbojet is fitted with a scramjet bypass as a function of the afterburner, in which of itself contains the rocket mechanisms for outer space travel.
An engine that adapts to it’s environment, though quite complex due to the integration of the three systems at once, if not compounding the cooling issues and the limits of the combustion process
the concept at the moment is rocket launch to Mach8, initiate Scramjet. Suitable for missiles mainly and vg for such due to the extended range resulting from no oxidiser required/this is where development is at. Then next a composite engine is the Nirvana, logically turbojet to Mach3.5/close compressor/into Ramjet mode (eg SR71)/get to Mach8/into Scramjet mode/get to Mach14. Such a vehicle will be the way most spacecraft would be launched.. piggybacked onto the Scramjet composite. The main barrier is heat at hypersonic speed/most metals melt/most sacrificial surface systems haven't worked. The Queensland Uni is developing the laminar/isentropic flow technology that overcomes this which is why the US Govt has bought into the program. It only takes one idea to make things work then everyone else can develop the crap out of it