Short Duration Propulsion Test and Evaluation (Hy-V) Program

Goyne, Christopher P.; Cresci, Daniel; Fetterhoff, Thomas

doi:10.1260/1759-3107.1.2.77

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That program involved the ground testing of two different engine geometries, referred to as flowpaths A and B, which were designed for a possible flight experiment [8]. The geometries for the two flowpaths were based on a dual-mode scramjet (DMSJ), which has been the subject of extensive long duration testing in the direct-connect configuration using the University of Virginia Supersonic Combustion Facility (UVASCF).…”

Section: Experimental Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…1. As discussed in [8], it is a rectangular hydrogen-fueled, dual-mode scramjet with ramp fuel injection. As can be seen in the flight or freejet configuration in Fig.…”

Section: Experimental Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…To further reduce the possibility of unstart and also increase the operational range of the engine, a 15.2 cm (6 in.) isolator extension was incorporated into the SDPTE (Hy-V) flowpath design compared with that of the original UVA DMSJ flowpath mentioned earlier [8]. Thus, in total, the isolator extends 41.8 cm (16.5 in.)…”

Section: Experimental Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…were operated side by side and shared the same forebody. However, as described elsewhere [8], the flight design located the flowpaths on separate sides of the payload with separate forebodies. Returning to TBIV, at the exit of the flowpaths, the flow exhausts through the diffuser and into a vacuum sphere.…”

Section: Experimental Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…These were, in part, the objectives of the Short Duration Propulsion Test and Evaluation (SDPTE) program [8], under the auspices of which the data presented in this paper were collected. Although scramjet development programs have a long history of using both direct-connect and freejet testing to validate engine geometry [9][10][11], often the data are only referenced in a compendium of the test campaign, or if comparisons are presented, they are generally very brief.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comparison of a Direct-Connect and Freejet Dual-Mode Scramjet

Steva

Goyne

Rockwell

et al. 2015

Journal of Propulsion and Power

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing of identical dual-mode scramjet flowpath geometries in the freejet and direct-connect configurations was conducted in two separate facilities. These tests enabled a comparison study between the two configurations, which was directed toward the determination of the effects of inlet distortion and backpressure on the performance and operability of a dual-mode scramjet. Bulk flow conditions were matched between the two facilities at the isolator entrance plane to simulate Mach 4.8 flight, and a series of metrics were established to quantify similarities and differences. The effects of flowpath backpressure in the direct-connect case were seen to be isolated to regions close to the exhaust. An approximate 10% decrease in combustor pressure rise and consequently integrated pressure force were observed in the freejet configuration; shock train length, however, remained the same. Mode transition was delayed from an equivalence ratio of ∼0.5 in the direct-connect case to ∼0.7 in the freejet configuration. Further, ignition difficulties were experienced in the freejet tests which were not encountered in those of direct-connect tests, limiting the scope of comparable test points. This work represents the first attempt at a quantitative comparison in the literature of an identical direct-connect and freejet dual-mode scramjet. Nomenclature A = cross-sectional area D = isolator duct height F = integrated pressure force H = fuel injector ramp normal height L = shock train length M 0 = freestream Mach number M u = Mach number at shock train leading edge M c = Mach number at combustor entrance _ m TBIVmc = predicted freejet flowpath mass capture _ m TBIVnom = nominal freejet facility mass flow rate _ m test = as tested facility mass flow rate (direct connect or freejet) P s = static pressure P 0 = total pressure p d ∕p u = peak static pressure/static pressure at leading edge of shock train Re u = unit Reynolds number, m −1 Re θ = Reynolds number based on boundary-layer momentum thickness T s = static temperature T 0 = total temperature x = axial distance θ = boundary-layer momentum thickness at the leading edge of shock train ϕ = angle of flowpath divergence from the horizontal φ = fuel equivalence ratio

show abstract

Section: Experimental Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…1. As discussed in [8], it is a rectangular hydrogen-fueled, dual-mode scramjet with ramp fuel injection. As can be seen in the flight or freejet configuration in Fig.…”

Section: Experimental Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experimental Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experimental Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%