Search NASASearch

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “RAMJET ENGINE”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 127 records · Page 7

The X-43A Flight Research Program: Lessons Learned on the Road to Mach 10

During an aerospace engineer's undergraduate studies, he or she will attend classes in aerodynamics, thermodynamics, structures, stability and control, dynamics, design, propulsion, and computer science, along with the related courses in mathematics, physics, statistics, and chemistry required to understand the material. Upon graduation, the new engineer will have acquired a basic knowledge of how to build an aerospace vehicle. What only comes through experience, however, is the understanding of the inevitable imperfect process through which an aerospace vehicle is built. This is the adventure of turning a basic concept into functional hardware. Engineers working on a project must often deal with ambiguous situations. They are routinely asked by management to provide risk assessments of a project, yet even after careful analysis uncertainties remain. The project must be accomplished within finite limits of time and money. The question an engineer answers is whether the solution to potential problem is worth the cost and schedule delay, or if the solution might actually be worse than the problem it is meant to solve. Review protocols are established to ensure that an unknown has not been overlooked. But these cannot protect against an unknown unknown. Examples of these situations can be found in the history of the X-43A Hyper-X (Hypersonic Experiment) program. In this NASA project, a supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) engine was flight tested on a subscale vehicle. The X-43A Hyper-X Research Vehicle (HXRV) was launched from a B-52B mothership, then boosted to the test speed by a modified Pegasus rocket first stage, called the Hyper-X Launch Vehicle (HXLV). Once at the proper speed and altitude, the X-43A separated from the booster, stabilized itself, and then the engine test began. Although wind-tunnel scramjet engine tests had begun in the late 1950s, before the Hyper-X program there had never been an actual in-flight test of such an engine integrated with an appropriate airframe. Thus, while the scramjet had successfully operated in the artificial airflow of wind tunnels, the concept had yet to be proven in real air. These conditions meant changes in density and temperature, as well as changes in angle of attack and sideslip of a free-flying vehicle. A wind tunnel is limited in its ability to simulate these subtle factures, which have a major impact on almost any vehicle, but especially that of a scramjet's performance. The Hyper-X project was to provide a real-world benchmark of the ground test data. The full scale X-43A engine would be operated in the wind tunnel, and then flown, and the data from its operation would then be compared with projections. If these matched, the wind tunnel data would be considered a reliable design tool for future scramjet. If there were significant differences, the reasons for these would have to be identified. Until such information was available, scramjets would lack the technological maturity to be considered for future space launch or high-speed atmospheric flight vehicles.

Peebles, Curtis

CFD Study of Turbo-Ramjet Interactions in Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion System

Advanced airbreathing propulsion systems used in Mach 4-6 mission scenarios, usually involve turbo-ramjet configurations. As the engines transition from turbojet to ramjet, there is an operational envelope where both engines operate simultaneously. In the first phase of our study, an over/under nozzle configuration was analyzed. The two plumes from the turbojet and ramjet interact at the end of a common 2-D cowl, where they both reach an approximate Mach 3.0 condition and then jointly expand to Mach 3.6 at the common nozzle exit plane. For the problem analyzed, the turbojet engine operates at a higher nozzle pressure ratio than the ramjet, causes the turbojet plume overpowers the ramjet plume, deflecting it approximately 12 degrees downward and in turn the turbojet plume is deflected 6 degrees upward. In the process, shocks were formed at the deflections and a shear layer formed at the confluence of the two jets. This particular case was experimentally tested and the data were used to compare with a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study using the PARC2D code. The CFD results were in good agreement with both static pressure distributions on the cowl separator and on nozzle walls. The thrust coefficients were also in reasonable agreement. In addition, inviscid relationships were developed around the confluence point, where the two exhaust jets meet, and these results compared favorably with the CFD results. In the second phase of our study, a 3-D CFD solution was generated to compare with the 2-D solution. The major difference between the 2-D and 3-D solutions was the interaction of the shock waves, generated by the plume interactions, on the sidewall. When a shock wave interacts with a sidewall and sidewall boundary layer, it is called a glancing shock sidewall interaction. These interactions entrain boundary layer flow down the shockline into a vortical flow pattern. The 3-D plots show the streamlines being entrained down the shockline. The pressure of the flow also decreases slightly as the sidewall is approached. Other difference between the 2-D and 3-D solutions were a lowering of the nozzle thrust coefficient value from 0.9850 (2-D) to 0.9807 (3-D), where the experimental value was 0.9790. In the third phase of our study, a different turbo-ramjet configuration was analyzed. The confluence of a supersonic turbojet and a subsonic ramjet in the turbine based combined-cycle (TBCC) propulsion system was studied by a 2-D CFD code. In the analysis, Mach 1.4 primary turbojet was mixed with the subsonic ramjet secondary flow in an ejector mode operation. Reasonable agreements were obtained with the supplied I-D TBCC solutions. For low downstream backpressure, the Fabri choke condition (Break-Point condition) was observed in the secondary flow within mixing zone. For sufficient high downstream backpressure, the Fabri choke no longer exist, the ramjet flow was reduced and the ejector flow became backpressure dependent. Highly non-uniform flow at ejector exit were observed, indicated that for smooth downstream combustion, the mixing of the two streams probably required some physical devices.

Chang, Ing

The Scramjet

Operating conditions of diffuser and combustion chamber in ramjet and scramjet

DIFFUSER

Combustion

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

RAMJET ENGINE