Blackbird's thrust question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ontario
Age: 74
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Brian helped us out earlier saying the J58 behaved like a partial ramjet at about M2 and above due to the 20% of its inlet flow having 4 stages of work and then bypassed straight to the afterburner.
From a pedants POV, can we consider a TF30, for example, at M2 with 50%? of its inlet flow having 3 stages of work and then bypassed straight to the afterburner also behaving like a partial ramjet? If not, why not?
Thanks
PK
Brian helped us out earlier saying the J58 behaved like a partial ramjet at about M2 and above due to the 20% of its inlet flow having 4 stages of work and then bypassed straight to the afterburner.
From a pedants POV, can we consider a TF30, for example, at M2 with 50%? of its inlet flow having 3 stages of work and then bypassed straight to the afterburner also behaving like a partial ramjet? If not, why not?
Thanks
PK
When this thread started I was hoping for an interesting discussion about supersonic propulsion. Instead three pages are devoted to a heated discussion about who called what and why, debates about names when (it seems) the principles are not really understood.
Moving on...
Moving on...
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi peter
Abernethy claims a twenty percent plus increase in thrust from the bleeds scheme. This augmentation is not only purposeful, but the system, by his desription, allows the engine to travel at 3M when it was essentially paying out at 1.7. So the engine, functionally, has two separate modes.
His lead in to the description of the challenge claims the problem was ram air, causing high temperatures and choking (blocking) of the inlet area. Now ram air is without doubt a precursor to a Ram System of propulsion, and the problems he describes present a possibility of utilizing this "problem" to accomplish ignition and sustenance for a true RamJet.
He also describes a Turbo Ramjet solution to the problem. For this, he proposes a true bypass around the core, not just bleeds, but dismisses the possibility as heavy and not workable.
I wonder if he was dismissive too early?
Are you aware of any work done to pursue this?
Your post above is compelling. When is a cucumber a pickle? At what point does Abernethy's "PARTIAL RAMJET" become a true RJ engine?
Abernethy claims a twenty percent plus increase in thrust from the bleeds scheme. This augmentation is not only purposeful, but the system, by his desription, allows the engine to travel at 3M when it was essentially paying out at 1.7. So the engine, functionally, has two separate modes.
His lead in to the description of the challenge claims the problem was ram air, causing high temperatures and choking (blocking) of the inlet area. Now ram air is without doubt a precursor to a Ram System of propulsion, and the problems he describes present a possibility of utilizing this "problem" to accomplish ignition and sustenance for a true RamJet.
He also describes a Turbo Ramjet solution to the problem. For this, he proposes a true bypass around the core, not just bleeds, but dismisses the possibility as heavy and not workable.
I wonder if he was dismissive too early?
Are you aware of any work done to pursue this?
Your post above is compelling. When is a cucumber a pickle? At what point does Abernethy's "PARTIAL RAMJET" become a true RJ engine?
Last edited by Lyman; 31st Jan 2013 at 14:26.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bristol
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter,
I shouldn't have done that. I had hoped to give Lyman pause to check his mass of verbiage for errors, contradictions, non sequiturs, pointless metaphors, et al. Instead I have unlocked another floodgate. I'm off.
Dick
I shouldn't have done that. I had hoped to give Lyman pause to check his mass of verbiage for errors, contradictions, non sequiturs, pointless metaphors, et al. Instead I have unlocked another floodgate. I'm off.
Dick
Psychophysiological entity
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had hoped to give Lyman pause to check his mass of verbiage for errors, contradictions, non sequiturs, pointless metaphors, et al.
Don't succumb to our resident concern troll.
Simply add them to your ignore list!
Through your User Control Panel: User CP, Settings & Options, Edit Ignore List. Then, type their name into the empty text box and click 'Okay'.
Moderator
Folks, we appear to be getting off track just a little here. Please do keep in mind that the aim is to play the ball, not the player.
If one or more of our number adopt (a) hardline position(s) in respect of any particular point that should be noted .. and then we should move on.
Little in the way of useful outcome is achieved by belabouring such points.
If one or more of our number adopt (a) hardline position(s) in respect of any particular point that should be noted .. and then we should move on.
Little in the way of useful outcome is achieved by belabouring such points.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beg the indulgence of the forum if I took umbrage at Lymans continued insistence that
I felt that once we could get Lyman to stop banging on with a fallacious argument the discussion could return to matters of fact, and teasing out why things might be as they are. I have a question of my own to follow.
peter kent provided the proof at post #12 that it is a "partial ramjet", and I pointed out that fact in my post #14. That particular posters are unable to accept iron clad proof I can only say they need to check their level of comprehension.
peter, re the 20 to 40% bleed figure. I came across the figure in a number of places, in particular one by Colonel Graham, so I give it some credence. Seems logical if you think about it, 20% when the bleed first opens at about Mach 2, increasing to 40% in the cruise as the increasing needs of the "ramjet" are met. I'll need to go back over the thread to tease out your other question/s that remain to be answered.
peter, edited to add re reduction in fuel flow with increasing speed.
Specific impulse is a way to describe the efficiency of rocket and jet engine. It represents the force with respect to the amount of propellant used per unit time. The higher the specific impulse the greater the efficiency. From the following ramjet formula you can see that the specific impulse (Isp) is directly proportional to Mach (Mo).
post #52 the J58 is not a Ramjet, not a Turbo Ramjet, and not a Partial Ramjet...
peter kent provided the proof at post #12 that it is a "partial ramjet", and I pointed out that fact in my post #14. That particular posters are unable to accept iron clad proof I can only say they need to check their level of comprehension.
peter, re the 20 to 40% bleed figure. I came across the figure in a number of places, in particular one by Colonel Graham, so I give it some credence. Seems logical if you think about it, 20% when the bleed first opens at about Mach 2, increasing to 40% in the cruise as the increasing needs of the "ramjet" are met. I'll need to go back over the thread to tease out your other question/s that remain to be answered.
peter, edited to add re reduction in fuel flow with increasing speed.
Specific impulse is a way to describe the efficiency of rocket and jet engine. It represents the force with respect to the amount of propellant used per unit time. The higher the specific impulse the greater the efficiency. From the following ramjet formula you can see that the specific impulse (Isp) is directly proportional to Mach (Mo).
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 1st Feb 2013 at 01:05.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyman please check your "facts" before posting. Both here and the post you made in the general section as to why the 787 needs batteries are factually wrong.
You clearly are no specialist in aviation related matters which in itself is fine but accept the fact that others know more than you instead of arguing the toss
You clearly are no specialist in aviation related matters which in itself is fine but accept the fact that others know more than you instead of arguing the toss
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ontario
Age: 74
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Lyman,
I have to quantify partial ramjet in some more concrete terms just for myself first.
I would choose to focus on the rapidly diminishing but still remaining residual contribution of the compressor to the overall installation Pressure ratio.
For the SR-71 at cruise, Intake PR 38.8, engine PR 2.9, overall PR 112. Numbers from Peter Law's presentations on AEHS website.
The engine contribution still remaining is only 2.6% of the overall. It's almost a ramjet, unless the ramjet had not yet been invented in which case it's a turbojet at very high Mach number.
This definition also applies to the XB-70, for example. It must also be a partial ramjet.
This definition is, I think, intimated by Col Graham "the faster you flew, the more it became a ramjet, utilising the high mach air to augment the thrust of the engines."
However, since the generally accepted term, partial ramjet, applies only to the SR71 I have to, for my own piece of mind, try and understand the definition given by Bob Abernethy. I think it basically revolves around the same criterion, ie diminishing involvement of the compressor. But, instead of a gradual diminution from the compressor with rising flight speed, as in the above definition, we have a sudden diminution when the bleed is opened, but not because the pressure ratio contribution has suddenly dropped. Instead the flow has suddenly increased (see the patent maps) from bypassing some of the compressor. This map shows no significant change in PR and if it was significant to the story I'm sure it would have been highlighted as have all the other effects.
Using the term partial ramjet does not necessarily add value to the picture. After all, if the ramjet had not yet been invented we would say "it is an afterburning turbojet with bypass bleed" and it, by definition, behaves like one.
Since the ramjet has been invented and due to it's perceived extreme simplicity, it can be an aid to understanding and, I believe, that's why the term is so widely used. It's taken me a long time to come to this conclusion but at last have piece of mind. I am no longer irritated with the term.
Brian
20% is the right number because Bob Abernethy was quoting all his stuff at the design point. In the definitive memo, which really deserves framing on the wall (well mine anyway), he says "...at both Mach3 and Mach3.5 with 20% bleed." Not wishing to dismiss the 40% I would be interested in more details.
The Flight Manual information,I believe, shows just a 2 position Bleed, closed or open. Thus when open it was a fixed orifice and as such controls to pretty much a fixed percentage irregardless of the actual mass flows.
At what point does Abernethy's "PARTIAL RAMJET" become a true RJ engine?
I would choose to focus on the rapidly diminishing but still remaining residual contribution of the compressor to the overall installation Pressure ratio.
For the SR-71 at cruise, Intake PR 38.8, engine PR 2.9, overall PR 112. Numbers from Peter Law's presentations on AEHS website.
The engine contribution still remaining is only 2.6% of the overall. It's almost a ramjet, unless the ramjet had not yet been invented in which case it's a turbojet at very high Mach number.
This definition also applies to the XB-70, for example. It must also be a partial ramjet.
This definition is, I think, intimated by Col Graham "the faster you flew, the more it became a ramjet, utilising the high mach air to augment the thrust of the engines."
However, since the generally accepted term, partial ramjet, applies only to the SR71 I have to, for my own piece of mind, try and understand the definition given by Bob Abernethy. I think it basically revolves around the same criterion, ie diminishing involvement of the compressor. But, instead of a gradual diminution from the compressor with rising flight speed, as in the above definition, we have a sudden diminution when the bleed is opened, but not because the pressure ratio contribution has suddenly dropped. Instead the flow has suddenly increased (see the patent maps) from bypassing some of the compressor. This map shows no significant change in PR and if it was significant to the story I'm sure it would have been highlighted as have all the other effects.
Using the term partial ramjet does not necessarily add value to the picture. After all, if the ramjet had not yet been invented we would say "it is an afterburning turbojet with bypass bleed" and it, by definition, behaves like one.
Since the ramjet has been invented and due to it's perceived extreme simplicity, it can be an aid to understanding and, I believe, that's why the term is so widely used. It's taken me a long time to come to this conclusion but at last have piece of mind. I am no longer irritated with the term.
Brian
re the 20 to 40% bleed figure
The Flight Manual information,I believe, shows just a 2 position Bleed, closed or open. Thus when open it was a fixed orifice and as such controls to pretty much a fixed percentage irregardless of the actual mass flows.
Last edited by peter kent; 1st Feb 2013 at 21:55. Reason: add words
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi peter...
Thanks for your response. I too had the wish to understand the inventor's explanation. The part on which I fixed was in his 'descriptions' and 'claims'. My takeaway was his solution to the problem as he stated it: 1) ram air caused excessive temps, and choked the compressor, functionally limiting its performance to mach 2 (or so). 2) bleeds that removed flow from the core reduced these unwanted temps, and in unblocking the compressor, ennabled the engine to increase its potential (his claim was twenty per cent, as you state)
I am unnable to copy the patent here, so please check my perceptions of the document?
You have read his claim that the bleed, escaping the rest of the core, (and combustion) was "cool, and utilized to cool the afterburner, and liner"?
My expertise is not technical; I have never tried to portray my skills as anything they are not. So I am remaindered in logic, reading, and a license to fly, which is in itself a license to learn.....
In his description of the invention, do you not see where a person might conclude that the inventor who has identified 'Ram' Air as a distinct 'problem' to solve would not likely then claim that he had invented a way to turn a Turbojet into an RJ? I did, so especially when he claimed cooling instead of heating, and flow, rather than compression, it seemed that a conclusion of "Ram Jet" was not in order.
I am in your debt, for your patience, and intellect shown in your response....
and your restraint, in limiting your post to single color, and consistent font....
Thanks for your response. I too had the wish to understand the inventor's explanation. The part on which I fixed was in his 'descriptions' and 'claims'. My takeaway was his solution to the problem as he stated it: 1) ram air caused excessive temps, and choked the compressor, functionally limiting its performance to mach 2 (or so). 2) bleeds that removed flow from the core reduced these unwanted temps, and in unblocking the compressor, ennabled the engine to increase its potential (his claim was twenty per cent, as you state)
I am unnable to copy the patent here, so please check my perceptions of the document?
You have read his claim that the bleed, escaping the rest of the core, (and combustion) was "cool, and utilized to cool the afterburner, and liner"?
My expertise is not technical; I have never tried to portray my skills as anything they are not. So I am remaindered in logic, reading, and a license to fly, which is in itself a license to learn.....
In his description of the invention, do you not see where a person might conclude that the inventor who has identified 'Ram' Air as a distinct 'problem' to solve would not likely then claim that he had invented a way to turn a Turbojet into an RJ? I did, so especially when he claimed cooling instead of heating, and flow, rather than compression, it seemed that a conclusion of "Ram Jet" was not in order.
I am in your debt, for your patience, and intellect shown in your response....
and your restraint, in limiting your post to single color, and consistent font....
Last edited by Lyman; 1st Feb 2013 at 14:50.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter,
I wasn't going to say anything whilst that stupid semantics argument was raging, but responding to Brian's plea to get back to teasing out a factual explanation of what might be going on and also returning to your original question that related, IIRC, to the effect of afterburner on the secondary induced flow I can offer a explanation based on the Concorde flow set up which, when you look at it closely, is virtually identical to the J58 set up i.e. the intake throat (trap ) bleed flow is passed over the engine as cooling air and then exhausted as an annulus around the primary convergent jet.
I'm no expert on the J58, but I cannot see any reason why the two flows should differ substantially.
For efficiency the secondary flow must be accelerated to supersonic conditions by the time it gets to the final nozzle exit. To my eyes the diagram of the J58 looks to be simplistic in this area because on Concorde at least there wasn't any appreciable mixing of the two flows.
Because it has to be accelerated to supersonic velocity the secondary air must pass through its own aerodynamic 'throat' formed by the expanded primary jet and the solid nozzle surface. The local Mach number at this point will of course be 1.0 and the secondary mass flow will be controlled by the available area at this point. This area will depend on how fast the primary jet expands and this is turn will depend on the pressure ratio between primary and secondary flows at the primary nozzle exit.
The net result (at least for us) was that there was a definite relationship between the corrected secondary mass flow (Ws.sqrt Ts) and the primary jet equivalent Wj.sqrt Tj. as shown on the diagram.
If I have it right, when you light up the afterburner keeping the primary jet exit area the same, the primary jet pressure doesn't change, the mass flow is increased slightly (5% ish?) by the addition of fuel, and the temperature rises substantially. On the cooling side the pressure doesn't change and the temperature will rise a bit because of the hotter jet pipe.
Taken together this means that the corrected mass flow ratio doesn't change much if at all, but because of the increased Tj the secondary mass flow will be increased. I think this is what you were getting at?
OK, if you want to be pedantic the secondary pressure at the nozzle will drop a bit because the starting pressure (intake bleed pressure)and temperature are unchanged but there will be a greater pressure drop through the engine bay as a result of the increased velocity.
If you want to be even more pedantic, when you get to Mach 3 with the spike shock on the lip the total intake capture will be frozen, so any increase in induced cooling flow will be accompanied by a reduction in flow through the engine, so Wj will drop and therefore Ws must drop etc. etc.
I wasn't going to say anything whilst that stupid semantics argument was raging, but responding to Brian's plea to get back to teasing out a factual explanation of what might be going on and also returning to your original question that related, IIRC, to the effect of afterburner on the secondary induced flow I can offer a explanation based on the Concorde flow set up which, when you look at it closely, is virtually identical to the J58 set up i.e. the intake throat (trap ) bleed flow is passed over the engine as cooling air and then exhausted as an annulus around the primary convergent jet.
I'm no expert on the J58, but I cannot see any reason why the two flows should differ substantially.
For efficiency the secondary flow must be accelerated to supersonic conditions by the time it gets to the final nozzle exit. To my eyes the diagram of the J58 looks to be simplistic in this area because on Concorde at least there wasn't any appreciable mixing of the two flows.
Because it has to be accelerated to supersonic velocity the secondary air must pass through its own aerodynamic 'throat' formed by the expanded primary jet and the solid nozzle surface. The local Mach number at this point will of course be 1.0 and the secondary mass flow will be controlled by the available area at this point. This area will depend on how fast the primary jet expands and this is turn will depend on the pressure ratio between primary and secondary flows at the primary nozzle exit.
The net result (at least for us) was that there was a definite relationship between the corrected secondary mass flow (Ws.sqrt Ts) and the primary jet equivalent Wj.sqrt Tj. as shown on the diagram.
If I have it right, when you light up the afterburner keeping the primary jet exit area the same, the primary jet pressure doesn't change, the mass flow is increased slightly (5% ish?) by the addition of fuel, and the temperature rises substantially. On the cooling side the pressure doesn't change and the temperature will rise a bit because of the hotter jet pipe.
Taken together this means that the corrected mass flow ratio doesn't change much if at all, but because of the increased Tj the secondary mass flow will be increased. I think this is what you were getting at?
OK, if you want to be pedantic the secondary pressure at the nozzle will drop a bit because the starting pressure (intake bleed pressure)and temperature are unchanged but there will be a greater pressure drop through the engine bay as a result of the increased velocity.
If you want to be even more pedantic, when you get to Mach 3 with the spike shock on the lip the total intake capture will be frozen, so any increase in induced cooling flow will be accompanied by a reduction in flow through the engine, so Wj will drop and therefore Ws must drop etc. etc.
Last edited by CliveL; 1st Feb 2013 at 15:44.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can it be inferred that each discrete flow can be associated with ram effect, and turbo effect? Hopefully not a dumb question.
As to the primary flow I'm not going down that road again
So I think the answer to your question is "No"
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologize, and thanks for the reply. I wish I hadn't been such a stubborn fool, I am starting to get what the inventor had in mind, and it intrigues me.
Thank you sir,
One last question CliveL?
I promise to stay away from primary flow. My picture is of two discrete zones, bound by streamline, in the nozzle? One, the primary, a circular section, bounded by a ring of secondary flow adjacent the Nozzle liner?
If they are discrete, and do not mix, can we call the secondary flow Ram Effect?
Also, since there is no fuel added to the Ram effect, and therefore no Ignition, can we actually call it a RamJet, partial or otherwise? If CliveL is busy, peter kent, can you help?
Thank you sir,
One last question CliveL?
I promise to stay away from primary flow. My picture is of two discrete zones, bound by streamline, in the nozzle? One, the primary, a circular section, bounded by a ring of secondary flow adjacent the Nozzle liner?
If they are discrete, and do not mix, can we call the secondary flow Ram Effect?
Also, since there is no fuel added to the Ram effect, and therefore no Ignition, can we actually call it a RamJet, partial or otherwise? If CliveL is busy, peter kent, can you help?
Last edited by Lyman; 1st Feb 2013 at 19:22.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ontario
Age: 74
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyman, my only J58 understanding comes from what I read. I can only learn from what other people offer in terms of explanations as well as questions.
I believe, although I can't find it, that it would say something more like "..reduced the effects of these unwanted temperatures" ie the compressor inlet temp was still the same.
This is only half the story. There are 2 distinct aspects to the bleed. It was required to sort out the debilitating way a compressor responds to high inlet temperatures ( the XB70 compressor used variable stators to do the same thing, I believe). Once taken it could not be allowed to go to waste so it was put back upstream of the afterburner. "without the afterburner the bleed air could not be heated to the energy level of the airflow and most of the increase in thrust would have been lost".
I couldn't find this.
bleeds that removed flow from the core reduced these unwanted temps
You have read his claim that the bleed, escaping the rest of the core, (and combustion) was "cool, and utilized to cool the afterburner, and liner"?
when he claimed cooling instead of heating
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 88
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they are discrete, and do not mix, can we call the secondary flow Ram Effect?
Also, since there is no fuel added to the Ram effect, and therefore no Ignition, can we actually call it a RamJet, partial or otherwise? If CliveL is busy, peter kent, can you help?
Also, since there is no fuel added to the Ram effect, and therefore no Ignition, can we actually call it a RamJet, partial or otherwise? If CliveL is busy, peter kent, can you help?
No way the bleed flow can be regarded as any form of ramjet.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peter thanks for your time...
this: "Quote: when he claimed cooling instead of heating"
is an interpretation of his text where he claims the bleed air, being cooler, serves to cool the nozzle liner, and the afterburner section.
So I will go in to the patent, and locate by page and paragraph this part of the text.
I am using a google page of the original, it is an archaic font and jumps around when I sweep my screen.
My understanding of the device is that it is at least twofold, serving to "unchoke" the compressor, by relieving the compressor of the "block" and reduced compressor created temps. That is as far as I have gotten.
So you know, it is from that "understanding" that I derive an opinion, so both may easily be incorrect.
I'll be back, thanks for your help.
Also, having written patent language, for myself, (with my Attorneys) I am thankful for TurbineD's caution that Patent domain is tricky, one must explain enough to differentiate one's work from other similar work (known as prior art),
to prove "novelty", yet refrain from divulging data that makes one's proposal too "complete". Mystery is important. That is why Abernethy chose his title carefully.
Had he chosen "Ramjet Engine", he is open to rejection since it is not actually a Ramjet engne, and "Partial Ramjet" may not satisfy "novelty".
Also, as explained to me by my Attorney, a patent does NOT have to function to qualify for protection....or be in any way useful.
this: "Quote: when he claimed cooling instead of heating"
is an interpretation of his text where he claims the bleed air, being cooler, serves to cool the nozzle liner, and the afterburner section.
So I will go in to the patent, and locate by page and paragraph this part of the text.
I am using a google page of the original, it is an archaic font and jumps around when I sweep my screen.
My understanding of the device is that it is at least twofold, serving to "unchoke" the compressor, by relieving the compressor of the "block" and reduced compressor created temps. That is as far as I have gotten.
So you know, it is from that "understanding" that I derive an opinion, so both may easily be incorrect.
I'll be back, thanks for your help.
Also, having written patent language, for myself, (with my Attorneys) I am thankful for TurbineD's caution that Patent domain is tricky, one must explain enough to differentiate one's work from other similar work (known as prior art),
to prove "novelty", yet refrain from divulging data that makes one's proposal too "complete". Mystery is important. That is why Abernethy chose his title carefully.
Had he chosen "Ramjet Engine", he is open to rejection since it is not actually a Ramjet engne, and "Partial Ramjet" may not satisfy "novelty".
Also, as explained to me by my Attorney, a patent does NOT have to function to qualify for protection....or be in any way useful.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello CliveL
thank you for the response. I was hesitant to discuss Primary Flow. Since you brought it up, I can ask a question back?
you say..."No way the bleed flow can be regarded as any form of ramjet."
I do not expect to be excused, I behaved badly relative to nomenclature.
However, that is the point I was trying desperately to make. The bleed scheme is not Ramjet, nor does it create one, even partially.
I do not want to be a pest, so for now, I'll pause.
thank you again
thank you for the response. I was hesitant to discuss Primary Flow. Since you brought it up, I can ask a question back?
you say..."No way the bleed flow can be regarded as any form of ramjet."
I do not expect to be excused, I behaved badly relative to nomenclature.
However, that is the point I was trying desperately to make. The bleed scheme is not Ramjet, nor does it create one, even partially.
I do not want to be a pest, so for now, I'll pause.
thank you again