Slashdot Mirror


Air Force Builds Quiet Mach 6 Wind Tunnel

An anonymous reader writes "To help design 'scramjets' -- vehicles that'll travel thousands of miles per hour as they leave the atmosphere and zip around the globe -- the U.S. Air Force has just funded a wind tunnel that operates quietly at Mach 6. To get a quiet flow, the throat of the Mach 6 nozzle must be polished to a near-perfect mirror finish, eliminating roughness that would trip the flow."

19 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Re:whee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wikipedia on Scramjets. AC to avoid karma whoring..

  2. "Quiet"? by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From reading the article, I gather "quiet" is being used here as a technical term which is roughly synonymous with laminar, or lack of turbulence (rather than "gee I wish my vacuum cleaner were quiet").

    Can anybody with the right background tell me whether that's the case?

    1. Re:"Quiet"? by slashdotnickname · · Score: 5, Funny

      From reading the article, I gather "quiet" is being used here as a technical term which is roughly synonymous with laminar, or lack of turbulence (rather than "gee I wish my vacuum cleaner were quiet").

      Can anybody with the right background tell me whether that's the case?


      You're correct, they mean "quiet" in a laminar sense. Mach 6 wind will sound pretty loud to human ears regardless of how turbulance-free it is, just because of the immense air pressure... but it won't be "noisy" loud.

      As far as my background, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

  3. ooo.. by User+956 · · Score: 5, Informative

    neat scramjet pictures here.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  4. I love being an undergrad... by metaomni · · Score: 5, Funny
    To help ensure this ultra-clean condition, engineers enlisted the help of an undergraduate student who is a spelunker. The slender student crawled through a 120-foot section of the wind tunnel, wearing a suit like those worn by technicians in clean rooms, and wiped down the inside of the stainless-steel pipe. The pipe is only 18 inches in diameter.

    We undergrads are the guineapigs of science, the people who do the things no one else wants to... all in exchange for $20. And we LIKE IT!

    1. Re:I love being an undergrad... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Could be worse though, the lecturers at my Uni would have turned on the airflow if it would have saved them twenty bucks.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  5. Re:18 inches by mickyflynn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they'll use a model, just like the used to before computers. Duh. a model is still "real" unless you take real to mean 1:1 scale with the final production model, or a "real" working aircraft. And they are not going to put all the work and money into building a fullsize or working one without having proven that the basic design is sound. and that can be done with a model.

  6. Another old one... by isny · · Score: 5, Funny

    Grad student 1: This job sucks.
    Grad student 2 (turning on wind tunnel): No, it blows!

    Thank you, I'll be here all day.

  7. Re:I loved the part where... by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Even if it didn't kill you, you'd certainly be exhausted.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  8. Some further comments by Xeirxes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It said in the article that having these surfaces would greatly reduce the amount of heat that an aircraft recieves when returning to the atmosphere. And I was thinking, does that mean that one small tear could rip the aircraft apart, like the Columbia? It seems like it might be more beneficial to build craft that don't rip up like the space shuttle did, than craft that are even lighter.

    1. Re:Some further comments by Moofie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Columbia broke up somewhere north of Mach 12, I believe.

      I'd be much, MUCH more concerned about an engine unstart than about a mechanical problem with the heat shielding system. So much so, that I'd be totally unwilling to fly aboard a scramjet-powered aircraft that had a pilot with a joystick in his hand.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:Some further comments by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Funny

      There will be two occupants in the cockpit of the future. A man and a dog. The man is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the man if he tries to touch anything.

    3. Re:Some further comments by Forbman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep. For those that don't know, there hopefully are archives of teh Skunkworks-L mail digest on the net, where several people who were associated with the SR-71 programs (USAF and NASA) have some great stories about this incredible aircraft, and how bad engine unstarts were when zipping along at Mach 3, with the typical reason being that the shock wave entered into the engine inlet faster than the inlet spike system could respond to it. IIRC, more than one SR71 was lost operationally because the restart didn't go well or the plane broke because of the violence of the yaw caused by the unstart.

  9. Re:I loved the part where... by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At mach 6 at least it would be a *very* fast death.

    At Mach 6, yes. But if the thing is turned on when the undergrad is inside, the air doesn't just suddenly jump to Mach 6 - no, it accelerates, and that takes time. It takes an especially long time if the pipe is clogged by a human body.

    What will happen is that the undergrad will get an overpressure against her feet or head, likely strong enough to eject her from the pipe. The pressure itself is unlikely to kill her, but injuries sustained when thrown out of the pipe might.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  10. Re:I loved the part where... by green1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    proper lockout/tagout procedures would involve the person doing the work personally putting a padlock on the circuit breaker (in the off position), one to which the only key is in the posession of the person working inside the device, along with a tag stating who he is, what he's working on, and when he expects to be done, after which he would personally test that the equipment is not capable of powering on before climbing inside.

    Removing a fuse is no more effective then turning off the switch if some idiot comes along and puts it back together (the same idiot who first tried the switch and found it didn't work) always LOCK it out.

    ok... so there's always some moron with bolt-cutters... but I'd love to see him claim THAT was an accident when he goes to trial...

  11. Gillette announces the Mach 7 by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Funny
    'Quiet' Mach 6 wind tunnel helps shape future aircraft

    Executives at Gillette have announced the Mach 7 in response to Purdue's Mach 6 wind tunnel. "We simply cannot be outdone on Mach numbers."

    When asked what the commercial for the Mach 7 will feature, the unnammed executive replied, "jet fighters, women, racecars, women, missiles, women, bullets...it will be more spectacular than watching the entire French airforce crash into a fireworks factory."

  12. No, it sucks. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Informative

    This tunnel works in a fashion opposite most wind tunnels. Instead of pressurizing one end, they create a vacuum at the other. That means they only get a run time of 8 seconds, but they use computers to get all the data they need in that short of a time frame.

    So, yeah, it really does suck.

  13. Re:Super Smooth vs. Dimples... by penguin121 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The reason that dimples work for a golf ball is exactly the same reason they would be counter productive for the wind tunnel. Basically the dimples induce a turbulent flow around the golf ball, which reduces the flow seperation at the rear of the ball as compared to that resulting from laminar flow over a smooth ball. By reducing the size of the flow separation region, the pressure drag on the ball is significantly reduced, allowing the ball to travel farther. Now in the case of the wind tunnel turbulent flow along the walls would generate noise that would interfere with the experiments, so they want as smooth a surface as possible to minimize turbulence at the tunnel walls, thereby minimizing the background noise.

  14. Re:ScramJet takeoffs by ddopson · · Score: 3, Informative
    (crap, no formatting... reposting) Yes, there is one of the major challenges of both RAMjets and SCRAMjets. There is actually a whole range of technologies designed for different speed and air density regimes

    Turbo-Props (propeller driven by jet like turbine power) is good up to a few hundred mph. Then the tips of the prop start going supersonic and cavitating. Highest efficiency

    Turbo-Fan (same turbo jet power like a turbo-prop, but with an enclosed fan rather than a prop. Most of thrust still comes from the air driven by the fan. think 747) is capable of working in a faster regime up to somewhere near sonic speed (~780mph). Used for most commercial aviation because it is still fairly efficient, but faster than turboprop.

    Turbo-Jet (same turbo jet power as turbo-prop, but little or no "bypass" air. The main purpose of the intake fan is now to pressurize air at intake for combustion with jet fuel. Thrust comes from) can provide substantial power at high velocites. TurboJets are the big muscular loud as hell engines used on fighter planes. They are several times less efficient than the TurboFans used in commercial airliners, but they produce many times more thrust and can run well in super-sonic regimes. More power + less efficiency = burns lots of fuel. Fighters can chew through thousands of gallons of jet fuel each hour just cruising. Temperature (melting point of metal) is a huge limit to the perf of these engines. Afterburners burn even more fuel in a way that isn't as temperature constrained, but is even less efficient. Modern fighters can burn through their fuel in something like a half hour of combat.

    RAMjets work by using a constriction at the intake (rather than a fan) to pressurize the air. RAMjets don't work at low speeds, and are better designed to operate at a single design point. They typically run in the low mach numbers, although to operate, the intake air must be slowed to subsonic speeds. They are fast and efficient, but not very flexible. Typically used on missiles (due to their tendancy to operate in a single regime).

    SCRAMjets are the same basic idea as a RAMjet, but the intake air remains supersonic.

    Rockets do not burn any atmospheric O2 at all. For this reason, they operate equally well (or poor) at all speeds and air densities, providing a consistent predictable thrust. Due to the need to carry O2 around (which is far heavier than most of the fuels), their efficiency is appalling when compared to air-breathing engines. The uber-efficient space shuttle engines (2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O) have a specific impulse of ~440s. Solid rockets are more like ~200s. Kerosene rockets are in between. Air-breathing engines are in the thousands.