Slashdot Mirror
Scramjet Success in Australia
glengyron writes "Australia's ABC reports today that a University of Queensland team have successfully tested a supersonic scramjet (air-breathing supersonic combustion ramjet engine). Read more here or here. Great to see after previous problems. Does the future of air travel still include those breakfast egg-roll things?"
A diagram of the difference in design between a ramjet and a scramjet engine can be found here.
For more information, check out the HyShot homepage.
OK first off, the abc.au news piece was an abomination of English:
"In South Australia's outback history has been made with a team from the University of Queensland successfully flight testing their supersonic air-breathing scramjet engine atop a rocket.
How about:
A University of Queensland team made history today when they launched their super-sonic airbreathing scramjet engine atop a rocket. The test was conducted in the outback and was the first successful one of it's kind.
Yech, even that one sucks, easier to read though.
Anyhow, on to the point. Later in the article, it said data was recorded from the descent. Is that descent back to earth or what? Was it controlled or did it just crash land? The other page has almost as little information too, unfortunately.
Sent from your iPad.
Successful scramjet tests, crazy Japanese rocket flops - I don't know what the refugees are complaining about, look at all the entertainment they get!
--- Why are you wearing that stupid bunny suit? | Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
First the Metal Storm, now this!
Soon Australians will be able to fly up to anyone, anywhere in the world, within minutes, and then cut them to ribbons.
I wish I was Australian.
Marc Siry || interactive media professional, motorcycle enthusiast ||
No goatse links, thanks.
I'd be interested in seeing what this implimentation of a scramjet looks like on the actual craft.
I've done the usual google search and found this (which was very nice, but is a little video, not a good image), and this,but was wondering if anyone has found anything more detailed.
Ryan Fenton
I doubt it.
The donuts on a rope phenomenon has, to the best of my knowledge, not been fully explainet yet (i.e., nobody is fessing up as to what plane is making those contrails).
The most plausible explanations I can see for it require some sort of pulsejet engine. I'd expect scramjet engines to generate contrails similar to ramjet engines, since the shift to supersonic speeds doesn't turn any other supersonic engine's contrails into donuts on a rope.
Well, considering the feat of testing was accomplished instead of the plane exploding and crashing on unaware kangaroos... one could say they had "successfully tested".
Looks like will have faster bombs, way before we have faster airliners ...
0 C: www.darpa.mil/body/NewsItems/pdf/hyfly.pdf+scramje t++Defense+Advanced+Research+Projects+&hl=en&ie=UT F-8
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:MKgyf6-JQS
- Sam
Mainly because last time, the rocket veered off course and crashed into the ground before the test could be conducted. This time, the rocked stayed on path, they received telemetry from the package, and nothing spectacular went wrong. It is still very possible for something non-spectacular to go wrong, and clearly they're avoiding talking before thinking (an increasingly rare occurrence).
There was a joint flight experiment between NASA and CIAM (Central Institute of Aviation Motors, Moscow), in 1998. There were three tests. they were launched on modified Russian SA5 missiles. One failed outright. One tested the engine in subsonic mode, and the third did not achieve supersonic combustion in the engine.
I think that the outcome from these experiments could be summarised as that no working scramjet was flown. As a note though, the main objective was to prove the Hypersonic flying laboratory, "Kholod", which is a package with fuel and telemetry to attach to a rocket so that any experiment can be easily flown on a rocket. This package was successfully tested (ie fuel, power and telemetry were provided to the model)
Depends that you mean by high fuel consumption. They go fast, and this creates drag, thus fuel must be expended. It you mean low efficiency, then you are half right: No scramjet achieves good fuel efficiency at the moment. However, since there are not really any working scramjets that should come as no particular surprise.
Generally, Scramjets should work in the range Mach 6 to 20. I've never seen an upper limit on pulse detonation engine operation, but I can't remember ever seeing one that worked over Mach 8, even in theory.
Another route to what would seem to be the right page is here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2002/07/item20020730140 728_1.htm
Firstly, it is not really useful for passenger aircraft. The high G to get up to speed is not really sellable.
The main use is as a secondary engine for rocket propulsion. Since atmospheric air is used, the scramjet theoretically can lift more payload for a given engine weight, and it is hoped that this will translate into launch cost savings for light payloads (I've seen one estimate that put the saving at a factor of 10 for a 1-10 tonne payload), however nothing really beats rockets for very large payloads.
The biggest advantage, in a launch to orbit is that, since the engine will be going sideways to pick up speed, the cost difference between a polar and equatorial orbit is negligible.
Until this morning no organisation, including NASA in the United States, has been able to successfully test fly a scramjet - an air-breathing supersonic engine.
Umm, I'm sorry, but in my humble opinion, heading straight down and digging a crater in the ground does not constitute "flying". Please be more accurate in your description.
"Donuts on a rope" are caused by shock waves in the stream of a jet engine; they'll show up in nearly any high-output jet engine, much less one meant for supersonic travel.
If you're thinking of the neat light display behind the engines of a SR-71 Blackhawk, those engines are indeed for supersonic flight -- but they aren't ramjets. They're turbofans. They are configurable, though; the cone on front adjusts the position of a shockwave that slows the air down to the point where it will work in that type of engine.
The difference is that a scramjet, having no turbine and only basic moving parts, can operate at a much higher velocity than a turbojet. The SR-71 was limited to the supersonic realm, while a scramjet-powered vehicle can reach hypersonic speeds, above Mach 10.
The hyperlink into Mama appears to be broken, try this one instead.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing