Russian Aerospace Firm Develops Mach 7.5 SCRAMJET engine

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Everyone that has tried sustained hypersonic flight has found the same thing. It's incredibly hard. This program has had many dates it was going to be ready by.

a reply to: Zaphod58

you sound like your not worried. why I don't know. our fastest aircraft in the inventory is like what the f22 or f15?

how are we supposed to keep up with some mach 7 Russian maurader?

i just don't understand why we can't build something at least as good. why are we so far behind? why can't we build something that will sustain hypersonic velocities?

i just want to see the USA take some initiative for once with the high speed aircraft arena. it's like all we do is worry about stealth.

i wish we built something fast like these Russian scram..scramjet? did i say that right?

maybe some day huh.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Because you haven't followed hypersonic testing. I have. Very closely. Just because someone says they're building something doesn't mean it will work, either at all or well.

originally posted by: intrptr
Wonder what the turn radius is at such speed?

"Amazing-looking ship though. Looks like a fish, moves like a fish, steers like a cow."
Douglas Adams (re: The 'Heart of Gold' in Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy)

We're practically past the 10th anniversary of the X-43, the first modern CFD-designed scramjet prototype to be seen in the white world, and its unceremonious series of spontaneous disintegrations and 1-point landings.

This stuff IS hard, really, really hard, and that's when you have tons of money and the world's best fabrication abilities.

a reply to: Barnalby

They have yet to figure out the 8 minute barrier. Until someone figures that out, we won't see sustained, powered hypersonic flight.

a reply to: Zaphod58

i understand. just sad we don't have something similar and that were so far behind in the technology. i heard even the UK has a new scramjet called the sword or something. but we don't have anything.

what do you think the biggest hurdles are for the development of hypersonic flight?

is it the materials? i heard titanium works well can't we use that? it's good at absorbing heat. whitch is importatant. i heard the higher up you fly the hotter it gets cause your not as protected by the atmosphere from the sun.

or is it the engines. is it that hard to build a engine that goes faster than mach 3?

I'm worried our hypersonic program will end up like the American automotive industry. i want to see a hypersonic airplane one day.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

We're behind? Well damn, I must have imagined those recent YEARS of us flight testing hypersonic aircraft. I guess I just dreamed all that.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Because you haven't followed hypersonic testing. I have. Very closely. Just because someone says they're building something doesn't mean it will work, either at all or well.

I think scramjets are still destined to only get as far as a UAV in the next decade. The testing required for sustained hypersonic is a bitch. The system requires super heated air just to tunnel test and requires a pretty serious conventional jet to get it to firing speed in flight. Add reduced wing surfaces, a serious altitude window (too high no oxygen,too low high friction) and sustained manned flight is years away IMO.

a reply to: howmuch4another

We're a long way from true hypersonic flight for anything until someone figures out a way to get past 8 minutes.

a reply to: Zaphod58

yeah but at 8 minutes that's all you have. where can you go from there. but the Russians goes to 11. and they won't even let us look at it.


I'm not buying that the plane in the picture is what it really looks like either. why woukd they give away the plane's shape or secrets if they have a advantage with hypersonic flight? this to me tells me that they have something even more advanced if they are letting us look at this plane.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Bass, your sense of sarcasm is getting lost in here. lol.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

but the Russians goes to 11. and they won't even let us look at it.

props for working in a Spinal Tap reference..

a reply to: Zaphod58

Could you please, briefly, expound on "a way to get past 8 minutes"? What is this threshold in relation to? I guess what I am asking is, what are you talking about when you mention getting past 8 minutes? Thanks in advance.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Isnt the plane in the OP a PAK-FA? Or are you seeing a different aircraft? The PAK-FA won't be getting this engine.

a reply to: Sammamishman

Friggen sarcasm.

As to beef, I'm pretty sure all the waverider (x51?)
test aircraft broke up around 8 mins, without much indication as to why.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm convinced that Scramjets are right up there with Tokamaks and laser fusion on the "never gonna happen in *my* lifetime" scale.

The only real advantage they offer over conventional rockets is the old "it doesn't look like an ICBM on radar" one, and even that is pretty tenuous most of the time. Turbo-ramjets and conventional ramjets are more than capable of hitting mach 4 or even 5, and rockets make too much sense, are way too proven, and honestly have no equal for any speed above mach 6.

My feeling is that the old HOTOL-derived idea of pre-cooling air and feeding it into a turbopump, while more complex at face value, will end up being to the scramjet what the CANDU was to the PWR/BWR (at least for power generation). A "more expensive and complex" design from the Commonwealth that solved many of the major problems of it's simpler, sexier american cousin, and has the potential to become a far superior product, but will probably just wither on the vine because of the whole "not developed here" bit.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Every test flight that successfully ignited the engine and went supersonic terminated somewhere between 8 and 9 minutes. Two went out of control after shedding more skin than expected and the flight computer couldn't keep them under control. One just stopped sending telemetry. At least one just went out of control and the range safety system terminated it IIRC. All at 8 minutes.

a reply to: howmuch4another

i would never do that, im not crazy.

so this 8 minute Mark that's where the plane runs out of fuel? i don't get it.

as for samammish just cause you guys know a lot about this stuff doesn't mean you can mock my lack of knowledge on the subject by calling it "sarcasm "

on a side note the vending machine is out of pepsi again!! all i want is a fricken pepsi.

More I think , since decade hypersonic demonstrator are not going well may be there is no solution to go mach 7 in the air the law of physics except no mercy with the airframe, the solution may be, is more going in orbit like a x-37 b like vehicle able to make mission in orbit instead of something going mach 7 in the air with no chance of return ( in my opinion ). I would love to see a SR-72 in the real world but in fact this type of vehicle is out of reach with actual technology.