It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian Aerospace Firm Develops Mach 7.5 SCRAMJET engine

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
sputniknews.com...


"For rig tests, the Institute has designed a module of a hydrogen supersonic combusting ramjet. During tests under simulated flight conditions at speeds of Mach 7.4, the engine delivered forward thrust," the Institute explained.


A new Russian hypersonic engine capable of propelling an aircraft up to 9,000 kmh will be unveiled during the MAKS-2015 air show in Zhukovsky, outside Moscow.

evidently the display won't be an aircraft but a static display engine on a stand?




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

They've been working towards a test article similar to the X-51 the Air Force tested, called the GLL-AP-02 but money and other issues kept getting in the way. This is the next step. They may fly it by 2019.

They also are part of a joint program with Australia and the EU for a hypersonic aircraft.
edit on 8/29/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   
we better get going, then.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Wonder what the turn radius is at such speed?

Do they plan on manning an aircraft with it or just making a faster than attack drone or slower than ICBM cruise missile?

Maybe its just to drive America's knee jerk defense spending response?



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
we better get going, then.


Methinks USA is already there if what we read in all these threads turn out to be true. My only concern is can russia build and sustain an airframe with a mach 7 engine that wont fall apart ? Along different lines maybe, the UK has been developing the sabre engine but I have no idea where they are up to now



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: nelloh62

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
we better get going, then.


Methinks USA is already there if what we read in all these threads turn out to be true. My only concern is can russia build and sustain an airframe with a mach 7 engine that wont fall apart ? Along different lines maybe, the UK has been developing the sabre engine but I have no idea where they are up to now
thats for big ol' honking 3 semi truck/ trailer long space planes though



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Just curious, but can human pilots even handle those speeds? Or is this for a drone?



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Why couldn't they? It's just like in your car, where you're accelerated with the vehicle.

Sorry, that sounded sarcastic and really wasn't meant to.
edit on 8/29/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: nelloh62

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
we better get going, then.


Methinks USA is already there if what we read in all these threads turn out to be true. My only concern is can russia build and sustain an airframe with a mach 7 engine that wont fall apart ? Along different lines maybe, the UK has been developing the sabre engine but I have no idea where they are up to now


Just about everyone uses FEA (Finite Element Analysis) software these days. That allows for components to be designed and tested for resonant frequencies. The biggest obstacle to designing anything these days is getting the funding. Everything else from design software to manufacturing systems is already there.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Why couldn't they? It's just like in your car, where you're accelerated with the vehicle.

Sorry, that sounded sarcastic and really wasn't meant to.


LOL Yeah it did sound kind of mean.


I was wondering because of the problems pilots were having before with fighter jets at higher speeds. I know things like space shuttles go much faster than this, but I was thinking along the lines of this going in a fighter jet. I don't keep up with this stuff, hence my question.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

This type of engine will be for fast relatively straight line flight. It won't be able to maneuver like a fighter jet at mach 7.
The issue with G-forces only come into play when something tries to turn hard while at high speeds or accelerates/decelerates too quickly for the human body to handle.
edit on 29-8-2015 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I hadn't had my morning caffeine yet. I don't deal well with people this early. Heh.

The biggest problems they've had have been altitude, not speed. They're accelerating with the aircraft add it does so there's no problem with speed. Altitude and Gs from turning will give them trouble.

Something with this kind of speed isn't going to pull a lot of Gs so that's not a problem, and will fly so high they'll wear pressure suits for the altitude.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: enlightenedservant

This type of engine will be for fast relatively straight line flight. It won't be able to maneuver like a fighter jet at mach 7.
The issue with G-forces only come into play when something tries to turn hard while at high speeds or accelerates/decelerates too quickly for the human body to handle.

Thanks. My younger brother & his friends are deep into this stuff (defense contractors & most are former military). But I never really got into it. So I usually just ignore them when they start talking about specs.


originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I hadn't had my morning caffeine yet. I don't deal well with people this early. Heh.

The biggest problems they've had have been altitude, not speed. They're accelerating with the aircraft add it does so there's no problem with speed. Altitude and Gs from turning will give them trouble.

Something with this kind of speed isn't going to pull a lot of Gs so that's not a problem, and will fly so high they'll wear pressure suits for the altitude.


It's no problem. Most of my posts are meant to be taken in a lighthearted way, but they end up sounding way more serious or harsh than I expected. The few times I actually get angry on ATS, I usually just stop posting.

So, it's mostly the turns & altitude at that speed that can cause problems. Makes sense. I asked because I vaguely remembered something about the F-22 or F-35 pilots having problems temporarily passing out during test flights, and thought it was because of the speed. But that was years ago & I haven't looked into any follow up info.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The F-22 pilots were having hypoxia type events related to the altitude the aircraft flies at. I don't remember the technical name for it, but nodules in their lungs were collapsing, and because they weren't taking enough time between flights for them to recover, they were seeing hypoxia type events. They changed the pressure suit, and the oxygen generator system, and that seems to have corrected the problem.

Interestingly U-2 pilots have been found to have 4 times the volume, and 3 times the frequency of brain lesions as non-pilots. The only factor that is common is the high altitude flights they perform. Since 2006, when flight duration and frequency increased, the number of lesions and pilots with them has increased significantly.

www.medscape.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Mig25s were an interceptor that flew up to Mach4 but limited fuel gave them duration problems.Maneuverability suffers at high speed until you throw in gravity reducing technologies"cough" plasma "cough".



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Actually it was Mach 3, and it wasn't fuel as much as it was the engines. Any time they went supersonic they had to remove them and rebuild them. Viktor Belenko said that if they went too long anywhere over about Mach 2, the engines were in danger of damaging themselves so badly they'd come apart in flight. The top speed was Mach 3.2, but they were limited to no more than Mach 2.8 if it was continuous. The fuel wasn't great, but they had a 744nm range at low altitude.

Even at low speed it was found to be almost incapable of any kind of dogfighting. It was heavy, and slow to accelerate, and bled energy like nobodies business. The sensors were also found to be horrible for just about anything. Max G loading was between 2.2 (full fuel tanks) and 4.5Gs. One aircraft inadvertently pulled 11.5Gs and was damaged beyond repair.



edit on 8/29/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/29/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/29/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Aaahh thanks Zaph.

What is it with Soviet engines?



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell
Yes, and despite that its surprising how many fatigue induced failures of equipment and structures you still get. I was only looking at a couple of well known problems on CF-6 engines last night and they are relatively straight forward issues that could be solved for a very prolific engine. And those are just one or two of the many dozens I could think of in the commercial world with all the huge production numbers and vast number of operational hour experience.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger
Mostly its materials and production techniques thereof BF. There designs and ideas are simply let down by them.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaph?...
. ... I'm worried. This engine will be ready by 2019?

What about the USA? We only have the blackbird and she tops out at like only Mach 3.2 or something.

I know we're working on a solution but they say it won't be ready until 2030. This concerns me. We're going to loose any military advantage we have if that happens.

Do you think well be able to coach up to the Russians with hypersonic technology someday? And why have we dropped the ball on hypersonics since the blackbird 50 years ago?

Distressed and worried from Los Angeles



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join