Chinese Claim to Have Flown Regeneratively Cooled Scramjet at Hypersonic Speeds in October

a reply to: frostie

Every hypersonic aircraft the US has flown, that has successfully ignited the engine, and has flown for longer than a couple of minutes has failed at some point between 8 and 9 minutes. None have successfully hit 9 minutes yet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

8 minutes at Mach 10? That's 960 miles. I'll take that for an antiship missile.

I'd even take 8 minutes at Mach 5 if it came out of a VLS cell.

a reply to: anzha

It's not an issue for missiles. But if you want a manned or UAV platform capable of hypersonic flight they need to find a way around it.

a reply to: Barnalby

I cant believe your brain was thinking the exact same thing as mine.

Ive always been miffed as to why these engines are so short compared to the speeds involved.

The time for something to happen between entry into the engine and exit from the engine is so incredibly fast.

What if the engine was 100 feet or 200 feet long???? Lots more time to do something with the air.

a reply to: BigTrain

If it was 100-200 feet long you'd have an aircraft that couldn't leave the ground because of its own weight.

The F119 engine is 16' 11" long, and weighs 3900 pounds. That's approximately 229.4 pounds per foot of engine. That means a 100 foot long engine would weigh over 22,000 pounds.

Now if you're talking a 100-200 foot long intake, why? There's plenty of technology available to slow the air entering the engine now, before it hits the turbines.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The SR-71's JT11D-20 is worse with having ~6,000 lbs and being 17 ft 10 inches giving 336 lbs/ft.

Do we have any figures for the weight of the SJY61?

a reply to: anzha

Not that I've been able to find. Lots on the X-51, almost nothing on the engine.

a reply to: Zaphod58

i think i heard some engineer type say that keeping the engine lit is like keeping a match going in a tornado