Author	[Modern View]
Thesmoothedeere 08-18-2012 19:49:12 69.171.171.147 Report to Moderator	I know your in a related feild Frank so i thought i'd ask you your thoughts on the SCRAM . After hearing of the latest failure i read up on it . It seems so hard to me to get the mixtures just right to operate it correctly. It even has to be at a certain alltitude to work ,although they are trying to widen that area up a bit. [Reply]   [No Email]
buickanddeere 08-20-2012 09:35:44 184.151.63.133 Report to Moderator	Re: Fit ? O.t. Your take on scram engine ? in reply to Thesmoothedeere, 08-18-2012 19:49:12   Could a large SCRAM platform be used as a re-usable 1st and 2 nd stage to take payloads part way to orbit? [Reply]  [No Email]
F-I-T 08-20-2012 10:23:43 184.6.240.123 Report to Moderator	Re: Fit ? O.t. Your take on scram engine ? in reply to buickanddeere, 08-20-2012 09:35:44   I think that that is the impetus. Sort of a SCRAM powered shuttle that could use small rocket motors once the SCRAM got the heavy lifting done. BUT, as it is right now, you 'bout have to lift the shuttle on the back of a large tug jet, then release it, so it can go fast and high until it runs out of air, then rockets a bit into LEO. [Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere 08-20-2012 15:20:18 209.240.120.143 Report to Moderator	Re: Fit ? O.t. Your take on scram engine ? in reply to F-I-T, 08-20-2012 10:23:43   For all that scram jet complexity and $$$. There could be a lot of rebuildable solid fuel boosters built and used to obtain orbit. [Reply]  [No Email]
F-I-T 08-20-2012 15:41:55 184.6.240.123 Report to Moderator	Re: Fit ? O.t. Your take on scram engine ? in reply to buickanddeere, 08-20-2012 15:20:18   Quoting Removed, click Modern View to see Of course SRB's were used to boost the shuttle, because they have more thrust to weight than liquid I believe. One of my good friends is project manager of the Delta 5 program, and that one can lift about everything they need in the way of satellite payloads, but we no longer have a BIG rocket like the Saturn series. [Reply]  [No Email]
F-I-T 08-19-2012 07:36:37 184.6.240.123 Report to Moderator	Re: Fit ? O.t. Your take on scram engine ? in reply to Thesmoothedeere, 08-18-2012 19:49:12   I never got close to any of that design, only working on turbojet and turbofan stuff. I knew some of the guys that were working on the scramjet in the DARPA program. They've got models up to Mach 5, but as you can see, the stabilizing fins and such have to be right, because you're going faster than any bullet that I know of. Over 4700 fps, right? [Reply]  [No Email]
Thesmoothedeere 08-19-2012 11:40:56 69.171.171.0 Report to Moderator	Re: Fit ? O.t. Your take on scram engine ? in reply to F-I-T, 08-19-2012 07:36:37   Theoretical projections place the top speed of a scramjet between Mach 12 (9,100 mph; 15,000 km/h) and Mach 24 (18,000 mph; 29,000 km/h)[not verified in body]. The fastest air-breathing aircraft is a SCRAM jet design, the NASA X-43A which reached Mach 9.6. For comparison, the second fastest[1] air-breathing aircraft, the manned SR-71 Blackbird, has a cruising speed of Mach 3.2 (2,100 mph). [Reply]  [No Email]
F-I-T 08-19-2012 11:51:08 184.6.240.123 Report to Moderator	Re: Fit ? O.t. Your take on scram engine ? in reply to Thesmoothedeere, 08-19-2012 11:40:56   Quoting Removed, click Modern View to see Yeah, the X-43A is the DARPA program I mentioned. I didn't know that is hit 9.6 Last I heard they had it up to Mach 5. The SR-71 crews squadron patch was a Blackbird silouette that said "3+" I built parts for J-58 engines used on the SR-71. They hid the prints and tooling and part numbers in other military engine programs so you didn't know what all was in the core. Sort of like seeing a turbocharger listed in a Model "A" parts list. [Reply]  [No Email]
Thesmoothedeere 08-19-2012 14:49:26 69.171.171.80 Report to Moderator	Re: Fit ? O.t. Your take on scram engine ? in reply to F-I-T, 08-19-2012 11:51:08   Neat stuff Frank. Too bad all this new found speed will probably be used for bad reasons anyway. Sending a warhead anywhere around the world in minutes. [Reply]  [No Email]
F-I-T 08-20-2012 07:08:16 184.6.240.123 Report to Moderator	Re: Fit ? O.t. Your take on scram engine ? in reply to Thesmoothedeere, 08-19-2012 14:49:26   Quoting Removed, click Modern View to see Well, we've pretty much been able to do that with ICBM's since I was a tot. It might be neat to exceed passenger travel speeds of the old Concord, but I think it would be a very limted commercial use for a long time. Now manned military could mean that you wouldn't have to deploy a lot of people at distant bases, sort of how they keep the B-2's in Missouri, then fly them a long out and back each mission. You could scramble and be on sight very quickly. [Reply]  [No Email]