Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Supercharged Ejector Ramjet (SERJ)

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Supercharged Ejector Ramjet (SERJ)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 27th May 2011, 07:25
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Supercharged Ejector Ramjet (SERJ)

I've been doing some reading on Supercharged Ejector Ramjet (SERJ) engines, and from what I remember reading it used a series of ejector rockets to effectively entrain air and force additional air through the ramjet allowing it to function at low airspeeds with a fan added at the front of the engine, driven by a separate turbine at the front of the engine, to enhance the effect by drawing in air and compressing it prior to it going into the duct. Some designs to function at higher speeds had the means for the fan to rotate out of the duct.

The part I seem to have difficulty grasping is how they managed to keep the fuel consumption down -- rocket engines guzzle gas at unbelievably high rates which is why they aren't used in most aircraft designs -- unless they planned to shut the rockets down once they were flying fast enough to keep the ramjet running by itself.

While I'm at it, modern day they could use a pulse-detonation engine in lieu of the rockets correct?

Last edited by Jane-DoH; 28th May 2011 at 20:22.
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 29th May 2011, 17:44
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Rocket fuel consumption

Propulsion newbie here.

I always thought that rockets' primary drawback was their high consumption of oxidizer, which they have to carry around.
EEngr is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2011, 21:38
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I didn't know that... I thought they just burned fuel fast
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2011, 16:06
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
I didn't know that... I thought they just burned fuel fast
Partly true. The stereotypical rocket following a ballistic flight path is going to consume more fuel than a vehicle that can take advantage of aerodynamic lift*. But the stoichiometric oxygen/fuel mass ratio (for ethane) is about 3.5:1. So for every pound of fuel, you've got to carry 3.5 pounds of O2.

*The stereotypical rocket heading into orbit also suffers from having to pass through a broad range of airspeeds and altitudes quite rapidly. Designing an air-breathing propulsion system that could adapt quickly enough would be quite a challenge. For an airplane (SR-71 for example) that spends a considerable amount of time cruising within a smaller range of altitudes and speeds, its an easier problem to solve.
EEngr is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2011, 21:13
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ottawa
Age: 64
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe if you check the NASA webpage you will see that the space shuttle carries about 4 times the liquid oxygen as liquid hydrogen. Well, at least once more anyways.
TAAMGuy is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.