On Saturday 22 June 2002 17:57, Mark Bock wrote:
> >on 6/22/02 2:57 PM, Karel Jansens at kareljansens_at_tiscalinet.be wrote:
> >> The "yet" is a bit too much. The Nazis had manned test versions of
> >> the V1, which was propelled by a pulse-jet aka ramjet. Rumour has it
> >> they were a little bit easier to fly than a brick...
>
> The V1's pulse jet isn't a true ramjet. The concept is similar, but a
> true ramjet requires supersonic speeds to operate. The SR-71's
> engines become quasi-ramjets at cruising speed (something like 80% of
> the thrust is created by the inlet design at that speed). But there
> are no manned aircraft (that have been acknowledged) with a true
> ramjet engine.
>
Um, IANAE but... I don't think the SR-71's jets ever operate as ramjets.
The huge cones (which are adjustable) serve to keep the air intake speed
below mach 1. It is true that the compressors don't do much compressiong
anymore at cruise speed, but they keep churning...
Technically I'd say the V1's engine is a ramjet because it gets all its
compression from the air itself but, because it operates at low speed (way
below mach 1), it needed mechanical aids to achieve that compression, i.c.
the valves in the combustion chamber.
Isn't a supersonic ramjet called a 'scramjet'?
> >Were not these things "kamikaze"-type things? I remember seeing photos
> > of them, and thinking how morbid...
>
> You're probably thinking of the Japanese variant, which was indeed
> descended from the V1 and intended for kamikaze missions. Not many of
> them were used.
Oh yeah.
I forgot those cute things.
-- Karel Jansens."Ceteris censeo Fenestras delendas." (Cato - de Terrore Portarum)
-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.guns-media.com/mirrors/newton/faq/ This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Jul 03 2002 - 14:02:55 EDT