7000+mph

[deliverance]

are you on cra*k? Do you have any idea how much fuel/energy it takes to push a vehicle that fast?

as far as the fuel tanks go yes it might take some pretty good sized tanks, but i am a mechanic, and it takes a fine spray or mist like when using a windex bottle it sprays a fine mist out of the bottle, the same goes for engines. now this is a turbine engine and the thrust comes from the turbine spinning ince th turbine is spinning in circular motion there just has to be enough pressure to keep the turbine spinning, which is not much.

[Polska]

as far as the fuel tanks go yes it might take some pretty good sized tanks, but i am a mechanic, and it takes a fine spray or mist like when using a windex bottle it sprays a fine mist out of the bottle, the same goes for engines. now this is a turbine engine and the thrust comes from the turbine spinning ince th turbine is spinning in circular motion there just has to be enough pressure to keep the turbine spinning, which is not much.

I dont care about the mechanics of it, to push a plane to mach 10 for a sustained period would require a shitload of fuel! And with the price of oil unless they engineer an alternatively fueled mach 10 jet this will never be a standard form of transportation unless you are Bill Gates.

[Jenseno9]

I dont care about the mechanics of it, to push a plane to mach 10 for a sustained period would require a shitload of fuel! And with the price of oil unless they engineer an alternatively fueled mach 10 jet this will never be a standard form of transportation unless you are Bill Gates.

haha yeah but wouldn't it be good to afford that. There are more people out there that piss away millions of dollars a yr.

the thread starter was just showing us some new technology. 10 years from now or sooner maybe some of this technology will help us common folk airplanes travel faster.

[Kratos]

as far as the fuel tanks go yes it might take some pretty good sized tanks, but i am a mechanic, and it takes a fine spray or mist like when using a windex bottle it sprays a fine mist out of the bottle, the same goes for engines. now this is a turbine engine and the thrust comes from the turbine spinning ince th turbine is spinning in circular motion there just has to be enough pressure to keep the turbine spinning, which is not much.

Do you think before you type at all? it's a scram jet, there are no turbine blades. It's basically a tube you dump fuel into, almost no moving parts at all.

[FallenWyvern]

Do you think before you type at all? it's a scram jet, there are no turbine blades. It's basically a tube you dump fuel into, almost no moving parts at all.

Nice sig, is that new, or have I been asleep.


Back on topic, this is a remote control airplane!

[deliverance]

[QUOTE=FallenWyvern;4210169]Nice sig, is that new, or have I been asleep.


Back on topic, this is a remote control airplane![/QUOT

i know it is a remote plane, but everything started somewere it is the starter you cant buil the actual size for testing, it always is scaled down.



as far as the fuel goes how fast does the concord travel bro, how big is the plane, how fast does it get from london to the states...in a matter of hours...once again not a 747 but it is big enough not that expensive...well it costs alittle bit but thata is not the point...if we are breaking barriers like this then imagine what we will be doing in the future of areo technology...this si the statement that is meant...and yes everyone at one point or another will be able to fly to their destinations fast as hell....i myself have to take a 14 hour flight from were i am at to get back to the states and that is only with one layover for maybe an hour so i spend about 15 hours traveling one way.

[deliverance]

Do you think before you type at all? it's a scram jet, there are no turbine blades. It's basically a tube you dump fuel into, almost no moving parts at all.

have you worked on a turbine engine before hotshot?...i do everyday...they dont fly but they sit inside an M1A1...that would be a big fu..ing tank...and there is very minimal difference between that engine in a plane and the one in the tank...and yes it does dump fuel but not like you think...and smart guy...there is something called a fuel rod that is used in these turbine engines...and what ever fuel is not being consummed by the engine in itself...gets dumped back into the tank...now as far as the rest of the statement i was trying to make sense for those that dont work on engines in cars or anyother moving object with an engine....

[Kratos]

have you worked on a turbine engine before hotshot?...i do everyday...they dont fly but they sit inside an M1A1...that would be a big fu..ing tank...and there is very minimal difference between that engine in a plane and the one in the tank...and yes it does dump fuel but not like you think...and smart guy...there is something called a fuel rod that is used in these turbine engines...and what ever fuel is not being consummed by the engine in itself...gets dumped back into the tank...now as far as the rest of the statement i was trying to make sense for those that dont work on engines in cars or anyother moving object with an engine....

sometimes I post drunk and can be a little bit abrasive but this isn't the same type of engine you work on...not at all. A turbine engine would not work at these speeds.

http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-4/p24.html


and what you posted above makes no sense to me, it's like saying you use the same amout of fuel weather you drive on the highway at 60 or 100mph. There are substantial forces to overcome to reach these speeds. It will never translate to public use, not in our lifetime. Nasa isn't working on scram jet technology because they are thinking of propelling a 747 to Mach 10 either so you can have lunch in paris. In will most likely end up pushing a missle and they are looking at it as a possible more efficent method of putting a spacecraft into orbit.

btw, m1a1 isn't going to win any fuel efficency awards any time soon.

[deliverance]

sometimes I post drunk and can be a little bit abrasive but this isn't the same type of engine you work on...not at all. A turbine engine would not work at these speeds.

http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-4/p24.html


and what you posted above makes no sense to me, it's like saying you use the same amout of fuel weather you drive on the highway at 60 or 100mph. There are substantial forces to overcome to reach these speeds. It will never translate to public use, not in our lifetime. Nasa isn't working on scram jet technology because they are thinking of propelling a 747 to Mach 10 either so you can have lunch in paris. In will most likely end up pushing a missle and they are looking at it as a possible more efficent method of putting a spacecraft into orbit.

btw, m1a1 isn't going to win any fuel efficency awards any time soon.

ok in reading the link you sent me, it specifically says it needs two types of engines to be a scamjet....here is the info within the link you sent...so yes it will need a turbine in the actual engine itself if that makes sense.........

An air-breathing hypersonic vehicle requires several types of engine operations to reach scramjet speeds. The vehicle may utilize one of several propulsion systems to accelerate from takeoff to Mach 3. Two examples are a bank of gas-turbine engines in the vehicle, or the use of rockets, either internal or external to the engine. At Mach 3–4, a scramjet transitions from low-speed propulsion to a situation in which the shock system has sufficient strength to create a region(s) of subsonic flow at the entrance to the combustor. In a conventional ramjet, the inlet and diffuser decelerate the air to low subsonic speeds by increasing the diffuser area, which ensures complete combustion at subsonic speeds. A converging– diverging nozzle behind the combustor creates a physical throat and generates the desired engine thrust. The required choking in a scramjet, however, is provided within the combustor by means of a thermal throat, which needs no physical narrowing of the nozzle. This choke is created by the right combination of area distribution, fuel–air mixing, and heat release.

now they are not going to use rockets cause of the high octain fuel and the level of fuel that is actually dumped in to the engine itself....besides that they are trying to accomplish take off and landing within this...so a rocket propelled engine will be out the question, the only thing left is a turbine...but that was so great info though bro seriously...no sarcasim there whatsoever.

[Kratos]

now they are not going to use rockets cause of the high octain fuel and the level of fuel that is actually dumped in to the engine itself....besides that they are trying to accomplish take off and landing within this...so a rocket propelled engine will be out the question, the only thing left is a turbine...but that was so great info though bro seriously...no sarcasim there whatsoever.

from my undersanding, at least in this x plane they drop it from a B-52, then use a rocket to shoot it to supersonic, then the scram jet takes over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zndZw8N_vqs

But, yeah that's one problem with the engine, you need to basically tow the airplaine up to speed by some other means before it's really functional because it uses the supersonic air entering the engine rather than compressor blades.

In time they will reduce the functional speed of SCRAM jets to make a combo Ram/Scram jet. But for today's ram jets, you still need to get them up to 400 mph or something like that.