V-4 Missile Possibilities

[robert arndt]

After reviewing the information provided on Unicraft's V-4 page, I
took a look at the dimensions of the missile and the ramjet engine,
which is definately not an Argus or Lorin type.
The Pabst ramjet, however, matches exactly in dimension and
configuration. It had been successfully tested as evidenced by this
1944 photo:

http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/5treib.jpg

The question is if the ramjet was good enough to be mounted on the
missile and production of a number of missiles could have occured in
the early months of 1945. The Pabst ramjet was to be used on the Fw
Triebflugel but that aircraft was never built, neither was the radical
Epps Omega Diskus which would have also used the ramjet.
However, the story of the threat to use this weapon against Sweden is
known. Ian Hogg mentions the V-4 briefly in his "German Secret Weapons
of the Second World War"... but gives no clear description of the
missile except to say it was generally thought to refer to the
Peenemunde A-9/A-10 ICBM project. Anyway, a Swedish diplomat claimed
to know all about the V-4 project in 1945 and when Hitler was
informed, he laughed and called the diplomat a conman. Hogg uses this
to discredit the entire project, implying it didn't exist if Hitler
wasn't aware of it.
But I disagree. Hitler is only claiming that the diplomat didn't know
what he was talking about when he claimed to know "all about the V-4".
Missile launch ramps constructed in Poland and the German diplomatic
warning to Stockholm over the V-4 threat contradict Hogg's beliefs.
Anyway, the Russians who captured the launch areas moved all the
German missile testing to N-II-88, Kaliningrad (former Konigsberg).
There, they tested the Wasserfall, Schmetterling, and other captured
missile technology.
It is interesting that a few years later Russia was building missiles
originating from these German designs and guidance systems, although
improved by captured German scientists. It is claimed that the V-4
missile was actually turned into a SAM- the Lavochkin La-219 (V-300).
Here is a pic of that 1949 missile:

http://libraryautomation.com/nymas/Lavochkinmissle.jpg

Of similar dimensions, minus ramjet propulsion. No conclusions there.
The only thing I can think of is that many of the postwar "Ghost
Rocket" sightings in the Baltic (coming from Peenemunde) might have
been either extended range V-1s or maybe appearances of the mysterious
V-4.

Rob

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

>
>After reviewing the information provided on Unicraft's V-4 page, I
>took a look at the dimensions of the missile and the ramjet engine,
>which is definately not an Argus or Lorin type.
>The Pabst ramjet, however, matches exactly in dimension and
>configuration. It had been successfully tested as evidenced by this
>1944 photo:
>
>http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/5treib.jpg
>

That photograph only proves a piece of apparatus that may or may not be a ram
jet test stand was built at some time and was photographed using poor quality
equipment. It doesn't seem to be a running engine of any kind. If memory serves
a ram jet needs at least 200 knots intake velocity. The "ram jet" in that
picture doesn't seem to be moving at all let alone at that velocity.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[steve gallacci]

B2431 wrote:
>
> >From: (robert arndt)
>
> >
> >After reviewing the information provided on Unicraft's V-4 page, I
> >took a look at the dimensions of the missile and the ramjet engine,
> >which is definately not an Argus or Lorin type.
> >The Pabst ramjet, however, matches exactly in dimension and
> >configuration. It had been successfully tested as evidenced by this
> >1944 photo:
> >
> >http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/5treib.jpg
> >
>
> That photograph only proves a piece of apparatus that may or may not be a ram
> jet test stand was built at some time and was photographed using poor quality
> equipment. It doesn't seem to be a running engine of any kind. If memory serves
> a ram jet needs at least 200 knots intake velocity. The "ram jet" in that
> picture doesn't seem to be moving at all let alone at that velocity.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

The thingy is in a windtunnel. I didn't think the "V-4" ramjet looked
all that much like a Pabst ramjet though. Still think it might have been
a Rheinbote like missile with a ramjet sustainer, which could have been
done with a minimum of effort.

[robert arndt]

steve gallacci > wrote in message >...
> B2431 wrote:
> >
> > >From: (robert arndt)
>
> > >
> > >After reviewing the information provided on Unicraft's V-4 page, I
> > >took a look at the dimensions of the missile and the ramjet engine,
> > >which is definately not an Argus or Lorin type.
> > >The Pabst ramjet, however, matches exactly in dimension and
> > >configuration. It had been successfully tested as evidenced by this
> > >1944 photo:
> > >
> > >http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/5treib.jpg
> > >
> >
> > That photograph only proves a piece of apparatus that may or may not be a ram
> > jet test stand was built at some time and was photographed using poor quality
> > equipment. It doesn't seem to be a running engine of any kind. If memory serves
> > a ram jet needs at least 200 knots intake velocity. The "ram jet" in that
> > picture doesn't seem to be moving at all let alone at that velocity.
> >
> > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
> The thingy is in a windtunnel.

First of all, it's not a "thingy". It is positively a Pabst ramjet as
evidenced by its connection to one of the Fw Triebflugel's wings seen
in the photo. And it is being windtunnel tested.

I didn't think the "V-4" ramjet looked
> all that much like a Pabst ramjet though.

Really? OK, here's a comparison of all the late-war ramjets available
to the Germans:

Lorin: http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Do17/Do-217.jpg
Argus 044: http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/img3/As-044_1.jpg
Pabst ramjet sketch:
http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/3trieb.jpg
Pabst ramjet for Fw Ta 283: http;//www.luft46.com/fw/fwta283.html

Still think it might have been
> a Rheinbote like missile with a ramjet sustainer, which could have been
> done with a minimum of effort.

On the Unicraft page the first depiction shows the V-4 missile with a
RATO unit slung underneath for catapult launch. Rhinebote was powered
by a rocket engine and launched off a SSM erector. The V-4 was
launched like the V-1:

V-1 catapult piston unit:
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg1260.jpg
V-1 launched off ramp, dropping piston unit:
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg1271.jpg

Compared to:

Rheinbote on erector:
http://www.worldwar.nl/secretweapons/rheinb_02.jpg

They are nothing alike. Rheinbote was a short range artillery missile
with a mere 40 kg warhead. The V-4, OTOH, was a long range flying bomb
designed to hit targets in Sweden from Misdroy (incidentally, where a
V-3 gun also was used to hit Luxembourg).

The two other depictions of the V-4 on the Unicraft page suggest
postwar research done by the Russians at N-II-88. The V-4 on top of
the V-2 looks remarkably similar to the Russian EKR concept, but in
that case the V-4 was replaced with a Sanger-looking missile.

Rob

[Alan Minyard]

On 6 Jan 2004 10:08:29 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>steve gallacci > wrote in message >...
>> B2431 wrote:
>> >
>> > >From: (robert arndt)
>>
>> > >
>> > >After reviewing the information provided on Unicraft's V-4 page, I
>> > >took a look at the dimensions of the missile and the ramjet engine,
>> > >which is definately not an Argus or Lorin type.
>> > >The Pabst ramjet, however, matches exactly in dimension and
>> > >configuration. It had been successfully tested as evidenced by this
>> > >1944 photo:
>> > >
>> > >http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/5treib.jpg
>> > >
>> >
>> > That photograph only proves a piece of apparatus that may or may not be a ram
>> > jet test stand was built at some time and was photographed using poor quality
>> > equipment. It doesn't seem to be a running engine of any kind. If memory serves
>> > a ram jet needs at least 200 knots intake velocity. The "ram jet" in that
>> > picture doesn't seem to be moving at all let alone at that velocity.
>> >
>> > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> The thingy is in a windtunnel.
>
>First of all, it's not a "thingy". It is positively a Pabst ramjet as
>evidenced by its connection to one of the Fw Triebflugel's wings seen
>in the photo. And it is being windtunnel tested.
>
> I didn't think the "V-4" ramjet looked
>> all that much like a Pabst ramjet though.
>
>Really? OK, here's a comparison of all the late-war ramjets available
>to the Germans:
>
>Lorin: http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Do17/Do-217.jpg
>Argus 044: http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/img3/As-044_1.jpg
>Pabst ramjet sketch:
>http://www.germanvtol.com/tribflugfolder/3trieb.jpg
>Pabst ramjet for Fw Ta 283: http;//www.luft46.com/fw/fwta283.html
>
> Still think it might have been
>> a Rheinbote like missile with a ramjet sustainer, which could have been
>> done with a minimum of effort.
>
>On the Unicraft page the first depiction shows the V-4 missile with a
>RATO unit slung underneath for catapult launch. Rhinebote was powered
>by a rocket engine and launched off a SSM erector. The V-4 was
>launched like the V-1:
>
>V-1 catapult piston unit:
>http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg1260.jpg
>V-1 launched off ramp, dropping piston unit:
>http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg1271.jpg
>
>Compared to:
>
>Rheinbote on erector:
>http://www.worldwar.nl/secretweapons/rheinb_02.jpg
>
>They are nothing alike. Rheinbote was a short range artillery missile
>with a mere 40 kg warhead. The V-4, OTOH, was a long range flying bomb
>designed to hit targets in Sweden from Misdroy (incidentally, where a
>V-3 gun also was used to hit Luxembourg).
>
>The two other depictions of the V-4 on the Unicraft page suggest
>postwar research done by the Russians at N-II-88. The V-4 on top of
>the V-2 looks remarkably similar to the Russian EKR concept, but in
>that case the V-4 was replaced with a Sanger-looking missile.
>
>Rob

Reality check time Rob, the Nazis lost, Hitler is dead, and the "V-4"
never flew. I know that all of these facts just break your little Nazi loving
heart, but they are facts.

Al Minyard

[steve gallacci]

> >First of all, it's not a "thingy". It is positively a Pabst ramjet as
> >evidenced by its connection to one of the Fw Triebflugel's wings seen
> >in the photo. And it is being windtunnel tested.

That, except for the Triebflg. wing (more likely a simple streamlined
strut)was what I was suggesting. The guy was being a dunderhead. Of
course it wasn't moving, it was a test article in a wind tunnel! Jeez.
> >
> > I didn't think the "V-4" ramjet looked
> >> all that much like a Pabst ramjet though.
> >
> >Really? OK, here's a comparison of all the late-war ramjets available
> >to the Germans:

The Pabst engines were usually proportionally shorter, but all in all,
that isn't all that important.

> > Still think it might have been
> >> a Rheinbote like missile with a ramjet sustainer, which could have been
> >> done with a minimum of effort.
> >
> >On the Unicraft page the first depiction shows the V-4 missile with a
> >RATO unit slung underneath for catapult launch. Rhinebote was powered
> >by a rocket engine and launched off a SSM erector. The V-4 was
> >launched like the V-1:

You're not thinking like an engineer. The Rheinbote was a dirt simple
rocket stack, a tube with fuel and fins. To rethink the function with a
ramjet instead of solids is almost a no-brainer. That makes the
development of the "V-4" more credible, even if it wasn't done by the
Rheinbote team, anyone with some ramjet R&D and even a hint of a notion
of V-1 or Rheinbote ops could easily put it together.

> >The two other depictions of the V-4 on the Unicraft page suggest
> >postwar research done by the Russians at N-II-88. The V-4 on top of
> >the V-2 looks remarkably similar to the Russian EKR concept, but in
> >that case the V-4 was replaced with a Sanger-looking missile.
> >

I suspect the "V-4" on top of an A-4 was little more than wishful
thinking at the time.

For that matter, the "V-4" was likely little more than a vaporware
threat rather than a credible piece of hardware.

[B2431]

>From: steve gallacci
>Date: 1/6/2004 6:08 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>> >First of all, it's not a "thingy". It is positively a Pabst ramjet as
>> >evidenced by its connection to one of the Fw Triebflugel's wings seen
>> >in the photo. And it is being windtunnel tested.
>
>That, except for the Triebflg. wing (more likely a simple streamlined
>strut)was what I was suggesting. The guy was being a dunderhead. Of
>course it wasn't moving, it was a test article in a wind tunnel! Jeez.
>> >

Teuton said it was a picture of a running ramjet. I simply said it wasn't
running in that picture and that apparatus could just as easily not been what
he said it was. It didn't prove his point. As the "dunderhead" in question I
felt the need to spell it out for you.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[robert arndt]

> Reality check time Rob, the Nazis lost, Hitler is dead, and the "V-4"
> never flew. I know that all of these facts just break your little Nazi loving
> heart, but they are facts.
>
> Al Minyard

Hey Al, take a trip to Misdroy... but don't trip on the remnants of
the launch catapults for the V-4, which are not pointing West. I guess
your logic suggests that the Germans were just firing missiles out
into the Baltic for practice and that the diplomatic threat to Sweden
in 1945 was just a ruse (ignoring the fact that Germany depended on
Sweden's iron ore for vital war production).
But that's you Al, in a nutshell... someone who prefers inaccurate
history book "official histories" as opposed to the truth.
Ignorance is bliss, so be happy :)

Rob

[steve gallacci]

B2431 wrote:
>
> >From: steve gallacci
> >Date: 1/6/2004 6:08 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >> >First of all, it's not a "thingy". It is positively a Pabst ramjet as
> >> >evidenced by its connection to one of the Fw Triebflugel's wings seen
> >> >in the photo. And it is being windtunnel tested.
> >
> >That, except for the Triebflg. wing (more likely a simple streamlined
> >strut)was what I was suggesting. The guy was being a dunderhead. Of
> >course it wasn't moving, it was a test article in a wind tunnel! Jeez.
> >> >
>
> Teuton said it was a picture of a running ramjet. I simply said it wasn't
> running in that picture and that apparatus could just as easily not been what
> he said it was. It didn't prove his point. As the "dunderhead" in question I
> felt the need to spell it out for you.
>
you're still acting dense. The photo was of a Pabst engine in a
windtunnel opening, which would have precluded the need for it to be
moving.(and as it spent a lot of time burning hydrogen, odds are that
even wide open, you might not be able to tell in a poor B&W that it was
working at all) That's what windtunnels are for. Moreover, there is
plenty of independent documentation of the engine being built and
tested. Just because you've got a hardon for this guy doesn't mean he's
always wrong. He still is a crackpot, since he was seeing a Triebflugel
wing instead of a test pylon.

[robert arndt]

steve gallacci > wrote in message >...
> > >First of all, it's not a "thingy". It is positively a Pabst ramjet as
> > >evidenced by its connection to one of the Fw Triebflugel's wings seen
> > >in the photo. And it is being windtunnel tested.
>
> That, except for the Triebflg. wing (more likely a simple streamlined
> strut)was what I was suggesting. The guy was being a dunderhead. Of
> course it wasn't moving, it was a test article in a wind tunnel! Jeez.

You're possibly correct on the wing except that other simlar test rigs
don't match the Triebflugels wing. Anyway the pic is from a
Triebflugel site.
> > >
> > > I didn't think the "V-4" ramjet looked
> > >> all that much like a Pabst ramjet though.
> > >
> > >Really? OK, here's a comparison of all the late-war ramjets available
> > >to the Germans:
>
> The Pabst engines were usually proportionally shorter, but all in all,
> that isn't all that important.

It is when compared to the two other available ramjet engines of which
we both agree CANNOT be the one depicted above the V-4. The Germans
didn't have any other types...
>
> > > Still think it might have been
> > >> a Rheinbote like missile with a ramjet sustainer, which could have been
> > >> done with a minimum of effort.
> > >
> > >On the Unicraft page the first depiction shows the V-4 missile with a
> > >RATO unit slung underneath for catapult launch. Rhinebote was powered
> > >by a rocket engine and launched off a SSM erector. The V-4 was
> > >launched like the V-1:
>
> You're not thinking like an engineer. The Rheinbote was a dirt simple
> rocket stack, a tube with fuel and fins. To rethink the function with a
> ramjet instead of solids is almost a no-brainer. That makes the
> development of the "V-4" more credible, even if it wasn't done by the
> Rheinbote team, anyone with some ramjet R&D and even a hint of a notion
> of V-1 or Rheinbote ops could easily put it together.

Not possible at all at that time. The V-1 (aka Fi-103, FZG-76) took
years to develop. Rheinbote was started in 1943. One is a short range
artillery rocket, the other a long range flying bomb meant to hit
Sweden. There's no comparison between the two other than you thinking
it is a derivative of the Rheinbote due to (I assume) general
appearance without the ramjet. BTW, an engineer cannot simply strap on
an experimental ramjet onto a Rheinbote-like missile, add wings, and
hope it makes it to Sweden. On Misdroy they had catapults aimed
towards Sweden, not the West. The ramps were for the V-4. Misdroy was
also the testing ground for the long-range V-3 weapon which fired
shells at Luxembourg. The Rheinbote, OTOH, was made by
Rheinmetall-Borsig and used to shell Antwerp in Nov '44- 220 being
fired. Its maximum range was 135 miles. No Rheinbote was on Misdroy.
Misdroy was the testing ground for long-range missiles and shells.
>
> > >The two other depictions of the V-4 on the Unicraft page suggest
> > >postwar research done by the Russians at N-II-88. The V-4 on top of
> > >the V-2 looks remarkably similar to the Russian EKR concept, but in
> > >that case the V-4 was replaced with a Sanger-looking missile.
> > >
>
> I suspect the "V-4" on top of an A-4 was little more than wishful
> thinking at the time.
>
> For that matter, the "V-4" was likely little more than a vaporware
> threat rather than a credible piece of hardware.

It wouldn't make any sense to threaten a neutral nation like Sweden
with a non-existant weapon in 1945 with the Allies closing in on
Germany. If you remember postwar it was Sweden that complained about
the "Ghost Rockets" coming from the same region. Most "Ghost Rockets"
were described as long cigar-shaped burning objects. These were
suspected of being Russian modified extended-body V-1s but looking at
the V-4... it looks like a strong possibility, especially if a Swede
saw it from below, the ramjet unseen burning above the body.

Rob

[steve gallacci]

> Not possible at all at that time. The V-1 (aka Fi-103, FZG-76) took
> years to develop. Rheinbote was started in 1943. One is a short range
> artillery rocket, the other a long range flying bomb meant to hit
> Sweden. There's no comparison between the two other than you thinking
> it is a derivative of the Rheinbote due to (I assume) general
> appearance without the ramjet. BTW, an engineer cannot simply strap on
> an experimental ramjet onto a Rheinbote-like missile, add wings, and
> hope it makes it to Sweden.

No, but they could strap on a ram jet and wings to see how much range
they could get, and develop from there. Considering how much impulse
they got out of the first stage of the Rheinbote, I'm suprised there
wasn't more R&D done with the system. Using a ramjet instead of another
stage or two(or three) would seem to be a logical growth direction. And
the arti guys were no entirely unaware of ramjets, with the R&D done
with ramjet shells and such.

But to have this "V-4" spring up out of nowhere, without any R&D trail
or name attached to its manufacture seems a bit iffy. If it was purpose
designed, then why not a better configuration? A better length/diameter
ratio or tapered rear fuselage would have been obvious. Now, a lack of
taper could be to accommodate a tail mounted rocket motor to supplement
the catapult and rato strap ons. But unless the was based on something
else, the length/diameter ratio seems off.

On Misdroy they had catapults aimed
> towards Sweden, not the West. The ramps were for the V-4. Misdroy was
> also the testing ground for the long-range V-3 weapon which fired
> shells at Luxembourg. The Rheinbote, OTOH, was made by
> Rheinmetall-Borsig and used to shell Antwerp in Nov '44- 220 being
> fired. Its maximum range was 135 miles. No Rheinbote was on Misdroy.
> Misdroy was the testing ground for long-range missiles and shells.

Where was "Misdroy"? My refs mention it too, but can't find it on a map.


> > For that matter, the "V-4" was likely little more than a vaporware
> > threat rather than a credible piece of hardware.
>
> It wouldn't make any sense to threaten a neutral nation like Sweden
> with a non-existant weapon in 1945 with the Allies closing in on
> Germany. If you remember postwar it was Sweden that complained about
> the "Ghost Rockets" coming from the same region. Most "Ghost Rockets"
> were described as long cigar-shaped burning objects. These were
> suspected of being Russian modified extended-body V-1s but looking at
> the V-4... it looks like a strong possibility, especially if a Swede
> saw it from below, the ramjet unseen burning above the body.
>
I don't know about "ghost rockets" but at least one A-4 ended up in that
direction. But in general, the whole threaten Sweden things soulds more
than a bit iffy, and given the nature of the time, Germany did have all
kinds of scary things so even a bluff would have had weight, on the one
hand, and on the other, the Swedes would have known that the German's
days were numbered and even a wonder weapon threat would have seemed a
bit toothless.
Even if some kind of launch rig was built, that doesn't mean there as
anything to launch, other than, perhaps, more V-1s.

[Alan Minyard]

On 6 Jan 2004 18:27:37 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>> Reality check time Rob, the Nazis lost, Hitler is dead, and the "V-4"
>> never flew. I know that all of these facts just break your little Nazi loving
>> heart, but they are facts.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Hey Al, take a trip to Misdroy... but don't trip on the remnants of
>the launch catapults for the V-4, which are not pointing West. I guess
>your logic suggests that the Germans were just firing missiles out
>into the Baltic for practice and that the diplomatic threat to Sweden
>in 1945 was just a ruse (ignoring the fact that Germany depended on
>Sweden's iron ore for vital war production).
>But that's you Al, in a nutshell... someone who prefers inaccurate
>history book "official histories" as opposed to the truth.
>Ignorance is bliss, so be happy :)
>
>Rob

The V4 was vapor ware. It never existed.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 6 Jan 2004 18:27:37 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>> Reality check time Rob, the Nazis lost, Hitler is dead, and the "V-4"
>> never flew. I know that all of these facts just break your little Nazi loving
>> heart, but they are facts.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Hey Al, take a trip to Misdroy... but don't trip on the remnants of
>the launch catapults for the V-4, which are not pointing West. I guess
>your logic suggests that the Germans were just firing missiles out
>into the Baltic for practice and that the diplomatic threat to Sweden
>in 1945 was just a ruse (ignoring the fact that Germany depended on
>Sweden's iron ore for vital war production).
>But that's you Al, in a nutshell... someone who prefers inaccurate
>history book "official histories" as opposed to the truth.
>Ignorance is bliss, so be happy :)
>
>Rob

You are a complete nazi loon.

Al Minyard

[JasiekS]

Uzytkownik "steve gallacci" > napisal w wiadomosci
...
[snip...]

> > No Rheinbote was on Misdroy.
> > Misdroy was the testing ground for long-range missiles and shells.
>
> Where was "Misdroy"? My refs mention it too, but can't find it on a map.

You cannot find this place if you didn't have BdV (Bund der Vertriebener)
approved maps. Try finding Miedzyzdroje (or better Miedzyzdroje), which is
proper Polish name for this city located on Wolin island East of Swinoujscie
(Swinemuende) and North of Szczecin (Stettin). If you are a little bit
nostalgic you can see a strange German-Polish site http://www.misdroy.de/ or
even buy pre-war photos
http://www.sammler-bonn.de/online-shop/ansichtskarten/laender/pommern/misdro
y/misdroy.htm.

[snip...]

Regards
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

[WaltBJ]

Eyeballing those pictures of the As044 and the Pabst ramjet - IMHO the
AS044 is a pulse jet (else why the square grilled inlet?) and the
Pabst ramjet is a neat way to convert fuel into smoke and noise. Its
specific fuel consumption (Kg fuel/newton/hr) must have been very high
indeed. I believe the ramjet fighter as pictured would have had a
range even less than that of the Me163b. (Little volume for fuel.)
Doubtless why it never made it off the sketch board.
Walt BJ

[robert arndt]

(WaltBJ) wrote in message >...
> Eyeballing those pictures of the As044 and the Pabst ramjet - IMHO the
> AS044 is a pulse jet (else why the square grilled inlet?) and the
> Pabst ramjet is a neat way to convert fuel into smoke and noise. Its
> specific fuel consumption (Kg fuel/newton/hr) must have been very high
> indeed. I believe the ramjet fighter as pictured would have had a
> range even less than that of the Me163b. (Little volume for fuel.)
> Doubtless why it never made it off the sketch board.
> Walt BJ

Walt,

A pulsejet is a form of ramjet except that the combustion is
intermittent rather than continuous. The pulsejet uses spring loaded
shutter valves that open and close for the imtermittent pulse... but
is still a ramjet that has to be launched into the air by some means
other than the engine for it to work.
The Germans had both the As044 and Jumo 226 pulsejets under
development at the end of the war- both were investigated by the
Russians from '45-'47.

Rob

[robert arndt]

(WaltBJ) wrote in message >...
> Eyeballing those pictures of the As044 and the Pabst ramjet - IMHO the
> AS044 is a pulse jet (else why the square grilled inlet?) and the
> Pabst ramjet is a neat way to convert fuel into smoke and noise. Its
> specific fuel consumption (Kg fuel/newton/hr) must have been very high
> indeed. I believe the ramjet fighter as pictured would have had a
> range even less than that of the Me163b. (Little volume for fuel.)
> Doubtless why it never made it off the sketch board.
> Walt BJ

Walt,

As for the Fw Ta 283 range question: the plane had enough fuel (1000+
liters) for 40 minutes of sustained flight. It's climb would have been
around 17,500 fpm using the Walter rocket motor in the tail plus the
two ramjets. So you would have less than two minutes of climb to get
over the bomber stream and then dive down for the attack. I doubt the
escort fighters would have been able to do anything about it until the
Ta 283 had to land. More of the aircraft would have probably been lost
to ground accidents as the Ta 283 had very narrow track landing gear.

Rob

[Alan Minyard]

On 16 Jan 2004 22:22:15 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

(WaltBJ) wrote in message >...
>> Eyeballing those pictures of the As044 and the Pabst ramjet - IMHO the
>> AS044 is a pulse jet (else why the square grilled inlet?) and the
>> Pabst ramjet is a neat way to convert fuel into smoke and noise. Its
>> specific fuel consumption (Kg fuel/newton/hr) must have been very high
>> indeed. I believe the ramjet fighter as pictured would have had a
>> range even less than that of the Me163b. (Little volume for fuel.)
>> Doubtless why it never made it off the sketch board.
>> Walt BJ
>
>Walt,
>
>As for the Fw Ta 283 range question: the plane had enough fuel (1000+
>liters) for 40 minutes of sustained flight. It's climb would have been
>around 17,500 fpm using the Walter rocket motor in the tail plus the
>two ramjets. So you would have less than two minutes of climb to get
>over the bomber stream and then dive down for the attack. I doubt the
>escort fighters would have been able to do anything about it until the
>Ta 283 had to land. More of the aircraft would have probably been lost
>to ground accidents as the Ta 283 had very narrow track landing gear.
>
>Rob

Well, the V-1 used the same type of pulse jet, and they were routinely
shot down. The pulse jet was a dead end technology.

And it is NOT a form of "ram jet".

Al Minyard

[robert arndt]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On 16 Jan 2004 22:22:15 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> (WaltBJ) wrote in message >...
> >> Eyeballing those pictures of the As044 and the Pabst ramjet - IMHO the
> >> AS044 is a pulse jet (else why the square grilled inlet?) and the
> >> Pabst ramjet is a neat way to convert fuel into smoke and noise. Its
> >> specific fuel consumption (Kg fuel/newton/hr) must have been very high
> >> indeed. I believe the ramjet fighter as pictured would have had a
> >> range even less than that of the Me163b. (Little volume for fuel.)
> >> Doubtless why it never made it off the sketch board.
> >> Walt BJ
> >
> >Walt,
> >
> >As for the Fw Ta 283 range question: the plane had enough fuel (1000+
> >liters) for 40 minutes of sustained flight. It's climb would have been
> >around 17,500 fpm using the Walter rocket motor in the tail plus the
> >two ramjets. So you would have less than two minutes of climb to get
> >over the bomber stream and then dive down for the attack. I doubt the
> >escort fighters would have been able to do anything about it until the
> >Ta 283 had to land. More of the aircraft would have probably been lost
> >to ground accidents as the Ta 283 had very narrow track landing gear.
> >
> >Rob
>
> Well, the V-1 used the same type of pulse jet, and they were routinely
> shot down. The pulse jet was a dead end technology.
>
> And it is NOT a form of "ram jet".
>
> Al Minyard

Al, you must be really stupid. The pulse jet isn't dead, ever heard of
the exotic PDW (Pulse Detonation Wave) engines that have been tested
in the '90s forward? Same operation except for the fuel being ignited
by timed pulse laser.
Second, the Fw TA 283 used both a Walter rocket motor in the tail and
two Pabst ramjets which were far superior to the As014 or As044
pulsejets.
Third, the pulsejet IS a form of ramjet, with intermittent combustion
vs continuous. It cannot operate until it reaches a certain airspeed.
In the Ta 283 this would be accomplished by the Walter rocket in the
tail.

Rob

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

> Third, the pulsejet IS a form of ramjet, with intermittent combustion
> vs continuous. It cannot operate until it reaches a certain airspeed.
> In the Ta 283 this would be accomplished by the Walter rocket in the
> tail.
>

This is incorrect

A pulsejet CAN work at zero airspeed as long as you provide
a good stream of air into the intake at lightup. The launch procedure
for the V-1 required the pulse jet to be started on the ground using
air from a fan or compressor

At least one company makes a scaled down copy of the Argus
engine for propelling model aircraft, the strating instructions
are as follows

"To start the engine a pulsed high voltage supply usually from a Ford T
coils is used to provide a constant stream of sparks at the spark plug and
compressed air from a tank or pump is fed to the air attachment on the
flowjector. Fuel is drawn into the head by the air stream which also opens
the valve and lets the fuel air mixture into the pipe. Here it encounters
the spark and burns in a sharp pop. This rapid increase in pressure closes
the valve. The expanding gas has only one place to go, out the back of the
pipe. The momentum of the gas leaving the pipe creates a less than
atmospheric pressure in the combustion chamber. ( In terms of the pressure
waves in the engine the compression wave produced by the combustion races
down the pipe, it hits the open end of the pipe and is reflected as a
rarefaction wave and travels back to the combustion chamber) Atmospheric
pressure pushes open the valves and a fresh fuel-air mixture enters the
combustion chamber. This is then ignited by residual combustion from the
first pulse and the process repeats. This repeats at 230 times a second and
makes the most incredible noise!!

The compressed air and spark source are disconnected and the engine roars
away on its own.

The extreme heat means that the plane should be moving very quickly, within
a few seconds of startup to get a good cooling airflow over the pipe ( also
helps cool the plane!!)."

Keith

[JasiekS]

Uzytkownik "robert arndt" > napisal w wiadomosci
om...
> (WaltBJ) wrote in message
>...
[snip...]

> A pulsejet is a form of ramjet except that the combustion is
> intermittent rather than continuous. The pulsejet uses spring loaded
> shutter valves that open and close for the imtermittent pulse... but
> is still a ramjet that has to be launched into the air by some means
> other than the engine for it to work.

No way! They have different thermodynamical cycles! A pulsejet uses constant
volume combustion cycle while ramjet uses constant pressure combustion
cycle. Since constant volume combustion cycle is a little bit more effective
(in thermodynamical terms) then exist some rocket motors using this cycle.
Are these rockets ramjets or pulse jets?

A pulsejet motor can be started at ZERO ground speed when you supply
sufficient airstream. Once started pusejet will wor fine when you cut this
additional airstream. You can start ramjet in the same way, but when you
stop auxillary airstream ramjet will cease to work. When in high school I
attended two semesters of aeroengines. I recall one lesson when we started a
pulse jet in the way described by Keith. It took 15 min to ignite the motor
but then it worked fine. What a noise!!!

> The Germans had both the As044 and Jumo 226 pulsejets under
> development at the end of the war- both were investigated by the
> Russians from '45-'47.
>
> Rob

Regards
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>...
> > On 16 Jan 2004 22:22:15 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
> >
> > (WaltBJ) wrote in message
>...
> > >> Eyeballing those pictures of the As044 and the Pabst ramjet - IMHO
the
> > >> AS044 is a pulse jet (else why the square grilled inlet?) and the
> > >> Pabst ramjet is a neat way to convert fuel into smoke and noise. Its
> > >> specific fuel consumption (Kg fuel/newton/hr) must have been very
high
> > >> indeed. I believe the ramjet fighter as pictured would have had a
> > >> range even less than that of the Me163b. (Little volume for fuel.)
> > >> Doubtless why it never made it off the sketch board.
> > >> Walt BJ
> > >
> > >Walt,
> > >
> > >As for the Fw Ta 283 range question: the plane had enough fuel (1000+
> > >liters) for 40 minutes of sustained flight. It's climb would have been
> > >around 17,500 fpm using the Walter rocket motor in the tail plus the
> > >two ramjets. So you would have less than two minutes of climb to get
> > >over the bomber stream and then dive down for the attack. I doubt the
> > >escort fighters would have been able to do anything about it until the
> > >Ta 283 had to land. More of the aircraft would have probably been lost
> > >to ground accidents as the Ta 283 had very narrow track landing gear.
> > >
> > >Rob
> >
> > Well, the V-1 used the same type of pulse jet, and they were routinely
> > shot down. The pulse jet was a dead end technology.
> >
> > And it is NOT a form of "ram jet".
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
<snip>

> Third, the pulsejet IS a form of ramjet, with intermittent combustion
> vs continuous. It cannot operate until it reaches a certain airspeed.
> In the Ta 283 this would be accomplished by the Walter rocket in the
> tail.

Not true. Pulse jets can begin operation at zero-airspeed. Interesting photo
of one doing so on this page:

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/

I'd be reluctant to call a pulse jet a "form of ramjet", being as the latter
DOES require tremendous forward airspeed and usually relies on no external
ignition source for the development of thrust other than the compression of
the airflow.

Brooks
>
> Rob

[Alan Minyard]

On 18 Jan 2004 01:13:30 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> On 16 Jan 2004 22:22:15 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>>
>> (WaltBJ) wrote in message >...
>> >> Eyeballing those pictures of the As044 and the Pabst ramjet - IMHO the
>> >> AS044 is a pulse jet (else why the square grilled inlet?) and the
>> >> Pabst ramjet is a neat way to convert fuel into smoke and noise. Its
>> >> specific fuel consumption (Kg fuel/newton/hr) must have been very high
>> >> indeed. I believe the ramjet fighter as pictured would have had a
>> >> range even less than that of the Me163b. (Little volume for fuel.)
>> >> Doubtless why it never made it off the sketch board.
>> >> Walt BJ
>> >
>> >Walt,
>> >
>> >As for the Fw Ta 283 range question: the plane had enough fuel (1000+
>> >liters) for 40 minutes of sustained flight. It's climb would have been
>> >around 17,500 fpm using the Walter rocket motor in the tail plus the
>> >two ramjets. So you would have less than two minutes of climb to get
>> >over the bomber stream and then dive down for the attack. I doubt the
>> >escort fighters would have been able to do anything about it until the
>> >Ta 283 had to land. More of the aircraft would have probably been lost
>> >to ground accidents as the Ta 283 had very narrow track landing gear.
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> Well, the V-1 used the same type of pulse jet, and they were routinely
>> shot down. The pulse jet was a dead end technology.
>>
>> And it is NOT a form of "ram jet".
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Al, you must be really stupid. The pulse jet isn't dead, ever heard of
>the exotic PDW (Pulse Detonation Wave) engines that have been tested
>in the '90s forward? Same operation except for the fuel being ignited
>by timed pulse laser.
>Second, the Fw TA 283 used both a Walter rocket motor in the tail and
>two Pabst ramjets which were far superior to the As014 or As044
>pulsejets.
>Third, the pulsejet IS a form of ramjet, with intermittent combustion
>vs continuous. It cannot operate until it reaches a certain airspeed.
>In the Ta 283 this would be accomplished by the Walter rocket in the
>tail.
>
>Rob

What current aircraft utilize a "pulse jet" engine??

A pulse jet is not, rpt not, a ram jet. look it up.

Sorry that your precious "ubermench" blew it. And your
dear fuhrer died.

Nazi jerk.

Al Minyard

[robert arndt]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Alan Minyard > wrote in message
> >...
> > > On 16 Jan 2004 22:22:15 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
> > >
> > > (WaltBJ) wrote in message
> >...
> > > >> Eyeballing those pictures of the As044 and the Pabst ramjet - IMHO
> the
> > > >> AS044 is a pulse jet (else why the square grilled inlet?) and the
> > > >> Pabst ramjet is a neat way to convert fuel into smoke and noise. Its
> > > >> specific fuel consumption (Kg fuel/newton/hr) must have been very
> high
> > > >> indeed. I believe the ramjet fighter as pictured would have had a
> > > >> range even less than that of the Me163b. (Little volume for fuel.)
> > > >> Doubtless why it never made it off the sketch board.
> > > >> Walt BJ
> > > >
> > > >Walt,
> > > >
> > > >As for the Fw Ta 283 range question: the plane had enough fuel (1000+
> > > >liters) for 40 minutes of sustained flight. It's climb would have been
> > > >around 17,500 fpm using the Walter rocket motor in the tail plus the
> > > >two ramjets. So you would have less than two minutes of climb to get
> > > >over the bomber stream and then dive down for the attack. I doubt the
> > > >escort fighters would have been able to do anything about it until the
> > > >Ta 283 had to land. More of the aircraft would have probably been lost
> > > >to ground accidents as the Ta 283 had very narrow track landing gear.
> > > >
> > > >Rob
> > >
> > > Well, the V-1 used the same type of pulse jet, and they were routinely
> > > shot down. The pulse jet was a dead end technology.
> > >
> > > And it is NOT a form of "ram jet".
> > >
> > > Al Minyard
> >
> <snip>
>
> > Third, the pulsejet IS a form of ramjet, with intermittent combustion
> > vs continuous. It cannot operate until it reaches a certain airspeed.
> > In the Ta 283 this would be accomplished by the Walter rocket in the
> > tail.
>
> Not true. Pulse jets can begin operation at zero-airspeed. Interesting photo
> of one doing so on this page:
>
> http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
>
> I'd be reluctant to call a pulse jet a "form of ramjet", being as the latter
> DOES require tremendous forward airspeed and usually relies on no external
> ignition source for the development of thrust other than the compression of
> the airflow.
>
> Brooks
> >
> > Rob

The Germans defined the ramjet as a propulsive duct or athodyd motor.
The As044 is defined as an intermittent propulsive duct motor
(translation: intermittent ramjet).

- from "Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War 2"

Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Alan Minyard > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > On 16 Jan 2004 22:22:15 -0800, (robert arndt)
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > (WaltBJ) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > >> Eyeballing those pictures of the As044 and the Pabst ramjet -
IMHO
> > the
> > > > >> AS044 is a pulse jet (else why the square grilled inlet?) and the
> > > > >> Pabst ramjet is a neat way to convert fuel into smoke and noise.
Its
> > > > >> specific fuel consumption (Kg fuel/newton/hr) must have been very
> > high
> > > > >> indeed. I believe the ramjet fighter as pictured would have had a
> > > > >> range even less than that of the Me163b. (Little volume for
fuel.)
> > > > >> Doubtless why it never made it off the sketch board.
> > > > >> Walt BJ
> > > > >
> > > > >Walt,
> > > > >
> > > > >As for the Fw Ta 283 range question: the plane had enough fuel
(1000+
> > > > >liters) for 40 minutes of sustained flight. It's climb would have
been
> > > > >around 17,500 fpm using the Walter rocket motor in the tail plus
the
> > > > >two ramjets. So you would have less than two minutes of climb to
get
> > > > >over the bomber stream and then dive down for the attack. I doubt
the
> > > > >escort fighters would have been able to do anything about it until
the
> > > > >Ta 283 had to land. More of the aircraft would have probably been
lost
> > > > >to ground accidents as the Ta 283 had very narrow track landing
gear.
> > > > >
> > > > >Rob
> > > >
> > > > Well, the V-1 used the same type of pulse jet, and they were
routinely
> > > > shot down. The pulse jet was a dead end technology.
> > > >
> > > > And it is NOT a form of "ram jet".
> > > >
> > > > Al Minyard
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Third, the pulsejet IS a form of ramjet, with intermittent combustion
> > > vs continuous. It cannot operate until it reaches a certain airspeed.
> > > In the Ta 283 this would be accomplished by the Walter rocket in the
> > > tail.
> >
> > Not true. Pulse jets can begin operation at zero-airspeed. Interesting
photo
> > of one doing so on this page:
> >
> > http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
> >
> > I'd be reluctant to call a pulse jet a "form of ramjet", being as the
latter
> > DOES require tremendous forward airspeed and usually relies on no
external
> > ignition source for the development of thrust other than the compression
of
> > the airflow.
> >
> > Brooks
> > >
> > > Rob
>
> The Germans defined the ramjet as a propulsive duct or athodyd motor.
> The As044 is defined as an intermittent propulsive duct motor
> (translation: intermittent ramjet).
>
> - from "Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War 2"

I guess all four folks who have corrected you are somehow wrong, eh? Who
gives a rat's ass what the Germans "defined the ramjet as"? You said the
pulse jet could not be operated "until it reaches a certain airspeed"...but
the run them on test stands without a continuous pressurized air feed. "A
pulse-jet engine delivers thrust at zero speed and can be started from
rest..." (conceptengine.tripod.com/conceptengine/id17.html ), but the ramjet
does indeed require a high inlet velocity for *both* startup and continuous
operation. The ramjet has no need for moving parts--the old German pulse
jets needed inlet and outlet valves (only later would the valveless pulse
jet be developed, with little practical purpose demonstrated thus far).
Oddly enough, the pulse jet can only operate up to around 600 mph; the
ramjet can generally only operate *above* that speed. The German pulse jets,
IIRC, required an ignition source; ramjets typically do not.

Now what are all those reasons that you decided the pulse jet is a ramjet?

Brooks

>
> Rob

[robert arndt]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Alan Minyard > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > On 16 Jan 2004 22:22:15 -0800, (robert arndt)
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > (WaltBJ) wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > >> Eyeballing those pictures of the As044 and the Pabst ramjet -
> IMHO
> the
> > > > > >> AS044 is a pulse jet (else why the square grilled inlet?) and the
> > > > > >> Pabst ramjet is a neat way to convert fuel into smoke and noise.
> Its
> > > > > >> specific fuel consumption (Kg fuel/newton/hr) must have been very
> high
> > > > > >> indeed. I believe the ramjet fighter as pictured would have had a
> > > > > >> range even less than that of the Me163b. (Little volume for
> fuel.)
> > > > > >> Doubtless why it never made it off the sketch board.
> > > > > >> Walt BJ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Walt,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >As for the Fw Ta 283 range question: the plane had enough fuel
> (1000+
> > > > > >liters) for 40 minutes of sustained flight. It's climb would have
> been
> > > > > >around 17,500 fpm using the Walter rocket motor in the tail plus
> the
> > > > > >two ramjets. So you would have less than two minutes of climb to
> get
> > > > > >over the bomber stream and then dive down for the attack. I doubt
> the
> > > > > >escort fighters would have been able to do anything about it until
> the
> > > > > >Ta 283 had to land. More of the aircraft would have probably been
> lost
> > > > > >to ground accidents as the Ta 283 had very narrow track landing
> gear.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Rob
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, the V-1 used the same type of pulse jet, and they were
> routinely
> > > > > shot down. The pulse jet was a dead end technology.
> > > > >
> > > > > And it is NOT a form of "ram jet".
> > > > >
> > > > > Al Minyard
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Third, the pulsejet IS a form of ramjet, with intermittent combustion
> > > > vs continuous. It cannot operate until it reaches a certain airspeed.
> > > > In the Ta 283 this would be accomplished by the Walter rocket in the
> > > > tail.
> > >
> > > Not true. Pulse jets can begin operation at zero-airspeed. Interesting
> photo
> > > of one doing so on this page:
> > >
> > > http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
> > >
> > > I'd be reluctant to call a pulse jet a "form of ramjet", being as the
> latter
> > > DOES require tremendous forward airspeed and usually relies on no
> external
> > > ignition source for the development of thrust other than the compression
> of
> > > the airflow.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> >
> > The Germans defined the ramjet as a propulsive duct or athodyd motor.
> > The As044 is defined as an intermittent propulsive duct motor
> > (translation: intermittent ramjet).
> >
> > - from "Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War 2"
>
> I guess all four folks who have corrected you are somehow wrong, eh? Who
> gives a rat's ass what the Germans "defined the ramjet as"? You said the
> pulse jet could not be operated "until it reaches a certain airspeed"...but
> the run them on test stands without a continuous pressurized air feed. "A
> pulse-jet engine delivers thrust at zero speed and can be started from
> rest..." (conceptengine.tripod.com/conceptengine/id17.html ), but the ramjet
> does indeed require a high inlet velocity for *both* startup and continuous
> operation. The ramjet has no need for moving parts--the old German pulse
> jets needed inlet and outlet valves (only later would the valveless pulse
> jet be developed, with little practical purpose demonstrated thus far).
> Oddly enough, the pulse jet can only operate up to around 600 mph; the
> ramjet can generally only operate *above* that speed. The German pulse jets,
> IIRC, required an ignition source; ramjets typically do not.
>
> Now what are all those reasons that you decided the pulse jet is a ramjet?
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Rob

1) I only said that the pulsejet was a FORM of ramjet (primitive at
that)
2) the pulsejet is an athodyd (aero-thermodynamic-duct) motor also
since it has no compressor nor turbine
3) the V-1 had to reach 250mph off the ramp for the pulsejet to
operate independently, the V-4 with Pabst ramjet also was
ramp-launched but with a rocket pod underneath the track to get it up
to operating speed
4) main difference is only intermittent combustion vs continous
combustion, otherwise they are two stovepipe engines
5) Valveless pulsejets were experimented with after the war, another
athodyd

Rob

[Alan Minyard]

On 18 Jan 2004 17:56:31 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
>> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > > On 16 Jan 2004 22:22:15 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > (WaltBJ) wrote in message
>> >...
>> > > >> Eyeballing those pictures of the As044 and the Pabst ramjet - IMHO
>> the
>> > > >> AS044 is a pulse jet (else why the square grilled inlet?) and the
>> > > >> Pabst ramjet is a neat way to convert fuel into smoke and noise. Its
>> > > >> specific fuel consumption (Kg fuel/newton/hr) must have been very
>> high
>> > > >> indeed. I believe the ramjet fighter as pictured would have had a
>> > > >> range even less than that of the Me163b. (Little volume for fuel.)
>> > > >> Doubtless why it never made it off the sketch board.
>> > > >> Walt BJ
>> > > >
>> > > >Walt,
>> > > >
>> > > >As for the Fw Ta 283 range question: the plane had enough fuel (1000+
>> > > >liters) for 40 minutes of sustained flight. It's climb would have been
>> > > >around 17,500 fpm using the Walter rocket motor in the tail plus the
>> > > >two ramjets. So you would have less than two minutes of climb to get
>> > > >over the bomber stream and then dive down for the attack. I doubt the
>> > > >escort fighters would have been able to do anything about it until the
>> > > >Ta 283 had to land. More of the aircraft would have probably been lost
>> > > >to ground accidents as the Ta 283 had very narrow track landing gear.
>> > > >
>> > > >Rob
>> > >
>> > > Well, the V-1 used the same type of pulse jet, and they were routinely
>> > > shot down. The pulse jet was a dead end technology.
>> > >
>> > > And it is NOT a form of "ram jet".
>> > >
>> > > Al Minyard
>> >
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Third, the pulsejet IS a form of ramjet, with intermittent combustion
>> > vs continuous. It cannot operate until it reaches a certain airspeed.
>> > In the Ta 283 this would be accomplished by the Walter rocket in the
>> > tail.
>>
>> Not true. Pulse jets can begin operation at zero-airspeed. Interesting photo
>> of one doing so on this page:
>>
>> http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/
>>
>> I'd be reluctant to call a pulse jet a "form of ramjet", being as the latter
>> DOES require tremendous forward airspeed and usually relies on no external
>> ignition source for the development of thrust other than the compression of
>> the airflow.
>>
>> Brooks
>> >
>> > Rob
>
>The Germans defined the ramjet as a propulsive duct or athodyd motor.
>The As044 is defined as an intermittent propulsive duct motor
>(translation: intermittent ramjet).
>
>- from "Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War 2"
>
>Rob

No one cares what the Nazis called it, they lost. It was not
a ram jet.

Al Minyard

[Bruce Simpson]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:15:02 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>What current aircraft utilize a "pulse jet" engine??
>
>A pulse jet is not, rpt not, a ram jet. look it up.

You are 100% correct. Pulsejets use a completely different operating
cycle to ramjets and have significantly different operating
characteristics.

Anyone seeking further clarification can check out these pages on my
website:

http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/ramjets.htm

and

http://aardvark.co.nz/howtheywork.shtml


--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/

[Bruce Simpson]

On 16 Jan 2004 22:11:46 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>A pulsejet is a form of ramjet except that the combustion is
>intermittent rather than continuous. The pulsejet uses spring loaded
>shutter valves that open and close for the imtermittent pulse... but
>is still a ramjet that has to be launched into the air by some means
>other than the engine for it to work.

Not true at all.

A properly designed pulsejet will run without forward movement through
the air and produce static thrust in the process.

The Argus V1 engine was designed to produce its maximum thrust at
around 380mph which meant that its static thrust was about half the
rated figure.

The diffuser intake system was optimized for high-speed use so the
engine was effectively somewhat choked at lower speeds.

The reason the V1 used a launch ramp was because it was a craft with a
decidedly poor power to weight ratio and a fairly high stall speed.
This was mainly due to the high fuel load required to feed that
gas-guzzling pulsejet engine.

With all that weight of fuel onboard, plus a ton of HE, there's no way
these things could have taken off under their own power in any
sensible length of runway -- and besides which, the task of keeping
them tracking straight during take-off would have required even more
complexity in their design.

A chemically powered launch ramp was a very practical solution to the
problem -- although, having said that, a goodly number of V1s crashed
reasonably close to the end of that ramp. I've got quite a bit of
interesting footage of such events.


--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/

[Bruce Simpson]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:20:55 +0100, "JasiekS"
> wrote:

>A pulsejet motor can be started at ZERO ground speed when you supply
>sufficient airstream. Once started pusejet will wor fine when you cut this
>additional airstream. You can start ramjet in the same way, but when you
>stop auxillary airstream ramjet will cease to work. When in high school I
>attended two semesters of aeroengines. I recall one lesson when we started a
>pulse jet in the way described by Keith. It took 15 min to ignite the motor
>but then it worked fine. What a noise!!!

You are correct -- but some pulsejets don't even require forced air to
start. You can see a video of my self-starting pulsejet on my website
by clicking on the link under all the flames at
http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/

--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/

[Bruce Simpson]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:20:36 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>Well, the V-1 used the same type of pulse jet, and they were routinely
>shot down. The pulse jet was a dead end technology.

It *was* a dead-end technology. Certainly the arrival of the
gas-turbine meant that the noisy, ineffecient pulsejet was relegated
to the scrap-heap for many years.

However, Ray Lockwood, while working at the HIller Corp in the 1960's
did quite a bit of R&D on a valveless pulsejet that the company touted
as a highly efficient lift engine for VTOL applications.
Unfortunately the noise and vibration problems persisted and it was
never actually used in practice.

Since then however, pulsejets have been used by various manufacturers
for powering low-cost (often disposable) unmanned vehicles such as
RPVs, UAVs and target drones.

More recently, a relation of the pulsejet (the Pulse Detonation
Engine) has attracted a lot of research funding and its proponents
claim it will be *the* jet engine of the future -- offering very high
efficiencies, supersonic capabilities and high power to weight/volume
ratios.

Unfortunately, although a number of cumbersome prototypes have been
demonstrated and actually do run, the efficiency potential has yet to
be even remotely realized.

In the meantime, I have been working on a type of pulsejet engine that
is almost a half-way house in terms of efficiency and performance.
It's documented at http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/xjet.shtml

No, it's never going to power a manned aircraft, and its efficiency
only matches that of a pure turbojet (but that's still 3 times better
than a regular pulsejet) -- yet it does have a very specific market in
which it represents an ideal powerplant. At a production cost of less
than 10% the price of the equivalent turbojet, it is ideal for
low-cost, high durabiity subsonic UAVs and RPVs.

So the pulsejet isn't dead -- it's just been relegated to a very
specific set of niches.
--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/

[Bruce Simpson]

On 18 Jan 2004 22:34:52 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>3) the V-1 had to reach 250mph off the ramp for the pulsejet to
>operate independently,

Sorry, take a look at the V1 launch videos (there are two) on this
page:

http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/argusv1.shtml

and you'll see that the engine is running while the craft is static,
long before it reaches launch speed.

The Argus V1 engine produced a *STATIC* thrust of around 500lbs and a
maximum thrust of around 900lbs at 350mph or so.

There is probably no engine more misunderstood than the humble
pulsejet.

--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/

[robert arndt]

Bruce Simpson > wrote in message >...
> On 18 Jan 2004 22:34:52 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >3) the V-1 had to reach 250mph off the ramp for the pulsejet to
> >operate independently,
>
> Sorry, take a look at the V1 launch videos (there are two) on this
> page:
>
> http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/argusv1.shtml
>
> and you'll see that the engine is running while the craft is static,
> long before it reaches launch speed.
>
> The initial engine run was done remotely with the purpose of running up to operational temperature. Had the V-1 been launched cold the As014 engine would not function as the operating temperature inside the tube had not been reached. The V-1 could not propel itself off the ramp either and the cycle could not run independently until the missile hit 250 mph.

Rob

[robert arndt]

Bruce Simpson > wrote in message >...
> On 18 Jan 2004 22:34:52 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >3) the V-1 had to reach 250mph off the ramp for the pulsejet to
> >operate independently,
>
> Sorry, take a look at the V1 launch videos (there are two) on this
> page:
>
> http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/argusv1.shtml
>
> and you'll see that the engine is running while the craft is static,
> long before it reaches launch speed.
>
> The Argus V1 engine produced a *STATIC* thrust of around 500lbs and a
> maximum thrust of around 900lbs at 350mph or so.
>
> There is probably no engine more misunderstood than the humble
> pulsejet.

As a follow-up I've read quite a few books on the V-1 launch sequence.
The photos or camera footage of V-1s running on the ramp do NOT mean
the pulsejet was functional.
The engine is being controlled remotely with compressed air and 75
octane fuel forced into the tube and ignited for exactly 7 seconds to
bring the tube up to operating temperature. This would be getting the
V-1 READY for launch. It took .5 seconds of accelleration at 16-17g to
get the missile up to 250mph and the As014 running independently.
If you look at all the other pulsejet aircraft projects they were all
intended to be:

a) launched from a ramp
b) take-off with aux. rockets/engines
c) be air-dropped/launched

Good examples are the Me-328 and Junkers EF 126 built in the USSR
postwar. The pulsejets could not function independently under 200 mph
just like the larger ramjets could not function below a certain speed.
That's exactly why the Germans considered them a "form" of ramjet with
intermittent combustion vs continous combustion. Hence also, the need
for some parts in the pulsejets vs LITTLE or no parts in the bigger
ramjets. There is a great misconception that all ramjets lack any
parts which is NOT true. From that view they consider a pulsejet
different from a ramjet... but they are both essentially just two
types of stovepipe engines.

Rob

p.s. I can see why most make that distinction but my posts were how
the Germans defined it since they were the ones who used them in
combat.

[Bruce Simpson]

On 21 Jan 2004 08:53:05 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>As a follow-up I've read quite a few books on the V-1 launch sequence.
>The photos or camera footage of V-1s running on the ramp do NOT mean
>the pulsejet was functional.

Sorry but you're dead wrong.

>The engine is being controlled remotely with compressed air and 75
>octane fuel forced into the tube and ignited for exactly 7 seconds to
>bring the tube up to operating temperature.

The engine was *started* using compressed air and, if you do a little
more research, you'll find that in colder weather they also used
acetylene because the gasoline was to hard to ignite at sub-zero
temperatures.

There's *no way* that the starting-air feeds to the Argus engine could
produce sufficient volume-flow to do anything other than start the
engine. If the Argus wasn't capable of running without forward
air-speed it simply would not run -- regardless of the relatively
small volume of compressed air used to start it.

As you can see in the videos on my website -- the engines were
definitely running in full pulsejet mode while stationary on the
launch ramps.

If, as you suggest, the engines required 250mph to operate, what kept
them going for the 5-seconds it took to go from rest to 250mph?

Just do some simple calculations on the amount of air that such an
engine consumes in 5 seconds and you'll see that, there's no way they
could carry that much compressed air onbard the craft. Indeed, the
air reservoirs could only hold a tiny fraction of that mount.

After WW2, the NACA tested a number of the Argus engines and ran them
statically (with no forced air) and at various simulated
ram-pressures. They determined that the engine produced 500lbs of
static thrust (with no forced air of any kind) and around 900lbs at
350mph.

>This would be getting the
>V-1 READY for launch. It took .5 seconds of accelleration at 16-17g to
>get the missile up to 250mph and the As014 running independently.
>If you look at all the other pulsejet aircraft projects they were all
>intended to be:
>
>a) launched from a ramp
>b) take-off with aux. rockets/engines
>c) be air-dropped/launched

This was necessary for the reasons I've outlined in a previous post --
ie: with a full fuel-load, the V1 was too heavy to take off without
either an extremely long runway (requiring extra guidance complexity
and a dolly or undercarriage) or by the use of the methods you
describe above. I had nothing to do with the engine requiring
forced-air to actually run.

>Good examples are the Me-328 and Junkers EF 126 built in the USSR
>postwar. The pulsejets could not function independently under 200 mph
>just like the larger ramjets could not function below a certain speed.

While they may have been optimized for higher-speed operation (like
most of the German pulsejet designs), they could operate and produce
static thrust. The reason most of these were relegated to the role of
parsitic fighters is due to their incredibly limited duration, brought
about by the heavy fuel consumption of the pulsejet engines. By
launching them from larger piston-engined craft, they could be flowin
into the battle theater and then released. Their limited range would
have made it impractical for them to fly any distance on their own.

>That's exactly why the Germans considered them a "form" of ramjet with
>intermittent combustion vs continous combustion. Hence also, the need
>for some parts in the pulsejets vs LITTLE or no parts in the bigger
>ramjets. There is a great misconception that all ramjets lack any
>parts which is NOT true. From that view they consider a pulsejet
>different from a ramjet... but they are both essentially just two
>types of stovepipe engines.

Just as a V12 Merlin and a turboprop are two types of propellor
engines -- so they must be the same right?

Sorry, but the physics and operating cycle of the pulsejet and ramjet
are as different as night and day. Indeed, a gas-turbine engine is
closer to a ramjet than a pulsejet is.

--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/

[Keith Willshaw]

"Bruce Simpson" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 Jan 2004 08:53:05 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>

>
> After WW2, the NACA tested a number of the Argus engines and ran them
> statically (with no forced air) and at various simulated
> ram-pressures. They determined that the engine produced 500lbs of
> static thrust (with no forced air of any kind) and around 900lbs at
> 350mph.
>

Those tests are available at

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-wr-e-269/naca-wr-e-269.pdf

Keith

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Bruce Simpson > writes:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:20:36 -0600, Alan Minyard
> > wrote:
>
>>Well, the V-1 used the same type of pulse jet, and they were routinely
>>shot down. The pulse jet was a dead end technology.
>
> It *was* a dead-end technology. Certainly the arrival of the
> gas-turbine meant that the noisy, ineffecient pulsejet was relegated
> to the scrap-heap for many years.

Hello, Bruce, I've been wondering what you were up to.
Ypur'e the only fellow I know of with real pulsejet experience, so
perhaps you can give me a hand with something that's been puzzling me,
with reference to the Hiller Hornet. (The little pulsejet powered
helicopter. For those who don't know, it's a really simple way to
make a helicopter - Basically, it's a rotor, with a pilsejet on each
blade tip, and a handle to tilt the rotor disk (And thus its lift)
anywhere you want it to go. There's no torque reaction to cancel out,
or complicated & cranky transmissions.)

It seems like a real sweet setup, as long as you're hovering. But
once you start moving, you'll be ramming more air into engine on the
advancing blade, and much less on the retreating blade, since the
rotational velocity of the rotor, and that of the helicoper moving
through the air will add. It seems to me that if you can't keep some
level of fine control on the jet's thrust levels, you're going to have
an awful time maintaining a steady (and proper) rotor speed.
How throttleable is a pulsejet? Is it throttleable at all? If you can
throttle it, how fast does it respond?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[robert arndt]

Bruce Simpson > wrote in message >...
> On 21 Jan 2004 08:53:05 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >As a follow-up I've read quite a few books on the V-1 launch sequence.
> >The photos or camera footage of V-1s running on the ramp do NOT mean
> >the pulsejet was functional.
>
> Sorry but you're dead wrong.
>
> >The engine is being controlled remotely with compressed air and 75
> >octane fuel forced into the tube and ignited for exactly 7 seconds to
> >bring the tube up to operating temperature.
>
> The engine was *started* using compressed air and, if you do a little
> more research, you'll find that in colder weather they also used
> acetylene because the gasoline was to hard to ignite at sub-zero
> temperatures.
>
> There's *no way* that the starting-air feeds to the Argus engine could
> produce sufficient volume-flow to do anything other than start the
> engine. If the Argus wasn't capable of running without forward
> air-speed it simply would not run -- regardless of the relatively
> small volume of compressed air used to start it.

The pulsejet isn't running off a small volume of compressed air. The
distributor unit left of the ramp is feeding it and controlling the 7
second burn up to operating temperature.
>
> As you can see in the videos on my website -- the engines were
> definitely running in full pulsejet mode while stationary on the
> launch ramps.

Remote controlled by the distributor unit.
>
> If, as you suggest, the engines required 250mph to operate, what kept
> them going for the 5-seconds it took to go from rest to 250mph?

That's a half-second or .5, not 5 seconds! Remember the 16-17g launch?
>

>
> >That's exactly why the Germans considered them a "form" of ramjet with
> >intermittent combustion vs continous combustion. Hence also, the need
> >for some parts in the pulsejets vs LITTLE or no parts in the bigger
> >ramjets. There is a great misconception that all ramjets lack any
> >parts which is NOT true. From that view they consider a pulsejet
> >different from a ramjet... but they are both essentially just two
> >types of stovepipe engines.
>
> Just as a V12 Merlin and a turboprop are two types of propellor
> engines -- so they must be the same right?
>
> Sorry, but the physics and operating cycle of the pulsejet and ramjet
> are as different as night and day.

We are talking As 014 here, an athodyd motor. One stovepipe vs another
except that to achieve pulse detonation some parts are needed in the
pulsejet. Boils down to simple intermittent combustion vs continous
combustion. Both a ramjet and pulsejet need close to 200 mph minimum
to operate independently. On a test rig you can FORCE feed air and
fuel to a pulsejet and even control ignition. But to use them in war
they had to be ramp-launched using a steam reaction piston or
air-dropped by parent aircraft.

Indeed, a gas-turbine engine is
> closer to a ramjet than a pulsejet is.

Not in any way since neither a ramjet nor pulsejet have a compressor
or turbine.

Rob

[Bruce Simpson]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:51:57 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>It seems like a real sweet setup, as long as you're hovering. But
>once you start moving, you'll be ramming more air into engine on the
>advancing blade, and much less on the retreating blade, since the
>rotational velocity of the rotor, and that of the helicoper moving
>through the air will add. It seems to me that if you can't keep some
>level of fine control on the jet's thrust levels, you're going to have
>an awful time maintaining a steady (and proper) rotor speed.
>How throttleable is a pulsejet? Is it throttleable at all? If you can
>throttle it, how fast does it respond?

Depending on the design, pulsejets can be throttled over more than 50%
of their power range.

The problems you describe would not be an issue -- any more than the
effects of forward flight on a conventional helicopter where the
leading blade would tend to produce more lift (by virtue of its higher
airspeed) if its pitch were not reduced.

A sensible pulsejet powered helicopter (that's an oxymoron :-) would
have the air intakes placed close to the root of the rotor blade so
that the variation in ram pressure due to the combination or rotation
and forward speed would be reduced.

In reality, this extra lift produced by the leading blade would
manifest itself, not as a roll, but as a pitching motion due to the
effects of gyroscopic progression.

--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/

[Bruce Simpson]

On 22 Jan 2004 08:46:18 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

>> There's *no way* that the starting-air feeds to the Argus engine could
>> produce sufficient volume-flow to do anything other than start the
>> engine. If the Argus wasn't capable of running without forward
>> air-speed it simply would not run -- regardless of the relatively
>> small volume of compressed air used to start it.
>
>The pulsejet isn't running off a small volume of compressed air. The
>distributor unit left of the ramp is feeding it and controlling the 7
>second burn up to operating temperature.

Based on some quick mental calculations the Argus requires something
like 1,500 cubic feet of air per minute when running. I'll leave you
to do the calculations but rest assured that there is *no* connection
to the Argus engine capable of supporting anything like that flow-rate
-- and I have a full set of plans here.

>> Sorry, but the physics and operating cycle of the pulsejet and ramjet
>> are as different as night and day.
>
>We are talking As 014 here, an athodyd motor. One stovepipe vs another
>except that to achieve pulse detonation some parts are needed in the
>pulsejet.

Sorry but there is *no* detonation in a pulsejet engine. Go do some
research on the difference between deflagration and detonation.

>Boils down to simple intermittent combustion vs continous
>combustion. Both a ramjet and pulsejet need close to 200 mph minimum
>to operate independently.

Go back and visit my website -- you'll see several videos of pulsejets
operating statically with absolutely *no* forced air. You'll even see
the video of my large pulsejet engine that starts simply by turning on
the gas and the spark with not a zephyr of forced air anywhere in the
vicinity.

> Indeed, a gas-turbine engine is
>> closer to a ramjet than a pulsejet is.
>
>Not in any way since neither a ramjet nor pulsejet have a compressor
>or turbine.

Incorrect -- a gas-turbine is a constant combustion device,like a
ramjet and whereas a turbine has a rotating compressor, the ramjet
achieves an increase in static pressure by using a diffuser (go read
up on Bernoulli's theorum to see how that works.

Note also that both the gast turbine and ramjet perform constant
pressure combustion whereas the pulsejet approximates constant volume
combustion.

There are indeed more similarities between a ramjet and a gas-turbine
than there are between a ramjet and a pulsejet -- but don't take my
word for it -- go do some reading.


--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/

[Eunometic]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> Bruce Simpson > wrote in message >...
> > On 21 Jan 2004 08:53:05 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
> >

I think you'll find that Paul Schmidt's valveless pulsejets (that were
superior to the valved Argus engies which he nevertheless assisted
Argus in designing) could resonate at zero velocity. I do recall
reading that a V1 engine required 26mph to opperate but I'm all open
on this. I imagine that the expulsion of hot gases out of the rear of
the Argus tube could by its own inertia continue moving and thereby
partialy void the combustion chambers and create sufficient vacuum to
draw in a fresh charge of air over the valves. Similar to the way
'extractor' exhausts work in cars. (I think the term is
Schwungaufladdung in German IC engine terminology)

Some of Schmidt's cruise missiles designes and engines had zero
frontal area for the intake. The intake was simply a 'cigar band'
mesh 2/3rds of the way along the missile. The resonating effect
drawing in air around the circumfrence. Very elegant.

Schmidts designes were more advanced, superior anbd actualy worked at
700kg thrust but I beleive they didn't get into the V1 because Schmidt
wanted to hang onto his patents which helped Argus advance faster into
production.

Bruce Simpson incidently has quite a lot of credibillity on these
matters as he was featured in Junkyard wars making pulsejet powered go
carts and featured in the news for his dersire to build a backyard
cruise missile.

[Eunometic]

Bruce Simpson > wrote in message >...
> On 22 Jan 2004 08:46:18 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>

>
SNIP
>
> Incorrect -- a gas-turbine is a constant combustion device,like a
> ramjet and whereas a turbine has a rotating compressor, the ramjet
> achieves an increase in static pressure by using a diffuser (go read
> up on Bernoulli's theorum to see how that works.
>

During the 1920s and 1930s a German engineer called Holzworth deigned
and built for the German railways several "constant volume combustion"
gas turbines.

Also von Ohain while working at Heinkel also inspired the construction
of a 60kg thrust constant volume combustion jet engine that produced
60kg thrust. It was damaged in testing and not pursued because of the
urgency of other war time work.

Holzworths gas turbine consisted of a large water jacketed chamber
that was filled with compressed air via a large hydraulically
opperated poppet valve. The Hydraulic poppet valve was then closed,
the mixture ignited and then a second hydraulicaly opperated poppet
valve was opened to exhaust the mixture over a large water cooled
power turbine.

The whole thing opperated at about 50 cycles a second. A pair of
chambers and tubines coupled to a common shaft was used to provide
smooth power. The advantage being that the device was much less
sensitive to turbine and compressor efficiency, the combustion was at
a higher temperature becuase the intermittant nature allowed cooling.

Holzworths engines worked quite well on gas, liquid fuels. They
worked quite well on powdered coal though the abrasion on the turbines
was fairly high.

At one point it seemed that constant volume combustion would win out
over constant pressure combustion. Several projects were looked at by
the Germans as they seemed superior at both generating thrust and gas.
Some used conventional compresseors and systems of poppet valves and
spark plugs that needed to be elaborately sequenced. (this
comblicated things)

Von Ohain engine relied upon a sort of rotating combustion chamber
consisting of blades which partitioned the chamber into sections.
von Ohains engine does have a name (after the town it was built in)
can't recall right now.

All covered in Anthony Kay's book "German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine
development 1930 to 1945"


A lot of these things are worth looking at again.

[Bruce Simpson]

On 22 Jan 2004 20:46:44 -0800, (Eunometic)
wrote:

>At one point it seemed that constant volume combustion would win out
>over constant pressure combustion. Several projects were looked at by
>the Germans as they seemed superior at both generating thrust and gas.
> Some used conventional compresseors and systems of poppet valves and
>spark plugs that needed to be elaborately sequenced. (this
>comblicated things)

Work is still being done on the application of pulsed combustion to
gas-turbine engines -- but there are many problems that have not yet
been overcome.

In theory, a pulsed combustor can be more efficient than a
steady-state combustor.

--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/