Weird California sighting

a reply to: Bornsecrets
Thanks, i suppose this is the correct number too.
With the hypersonic capability this bird has, i think the recent announcement made from DARPA about AFRE engines is a way of turning something black into some shade of gray.
Advanced Full Range Engine

a reply to: Fastmover

That's somewhat disappointing actually, they have a bias for two-engine one-inlet approach, instead of the more interesting "figure out some advanced tricks to do it all in one engine."

Based on ongoing research and
development activities across the Government and industry hypersonic research and
development community, DARPA believes that a dual flowpath engine such as a Turbine
Based Combined Cycle (TBCC) system offers the best solution for a future hypersonic air
vehicle. A TBCC system combines a turbine engine for low-speed operations with a dual
mode ramjet (DMRJ) for high-speed operations via a common inlet and nozzle serving
both the low-speed and high-speed flowpaths. This design concept is enabled by advances
made in the previous AFRL/DARPA funded X-51 scramjet engine flight demonstration
program and the DARPA Falcon Combined-cycle Engine Technology (FaCET) program.
A recent DARPA study and industry IRAD efforts have shown promise in lowering the
Mach number operating range of the high-speed portion of the engine (the DMRJ). This
last development facilitates integration of the high- and low-speed flow paths and enables
a near term, affordable demonstration with existing turbine engine technology.

While the Government believes the TBCC offers the best approach for achieving
program objectives, proposers may propose alternative propulsion system concepts,
provided those concepts have the technical maturity to support the proposed demonstration
schedule and adequate performance margin to support future hypersonic air vehicle
applications. Successful proposers will propose robust AFRE conceptual designs that
could be modified and integrated into multiple aircraft designs versus a single point aircraft
solution.

a reply to: mbkennel

a reply to: Fastmover

That's somewhat disappointing actually, they have a bias for two-engine one-inlet approach, instead of the more interesting "figure out some advanced tricks to do it all in one engine."

Yes, there are more elegant solutions if they work.
MHD turbojet

a reply to: Fastmover

You know what ive always wondered.

That by pass system you refer to on the surface looks like it would be only useful for high speed applications.

But what about for range and loiter. Fuel efficiency.

It would seem the rig is dependent on a high volume of air ploughing through a annular set up. You know for the electrons.

But why not just run your hall along the upper fuselage surface and get your volume of air and striped electrons that way. Would also slow air and add more lift no? So subsonic aircraft. Higher altitude, range and lift than percieved? Same sorta rig but different setup?

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Fastmover

That's somewhat disappointing actually, they have a bias for two-engine one-inlet approach, instead of the more interesting "figure out some advanced tricks to do it all in one engine."

That's because losing design goes white.

a reply to: mbkennel

It's called redundancy and well proven. When you're flying where Angels fear to tread that's a good thing.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

For subsonic you need great volumes with low speed, so in this application i would expect the plasma generation span-wise and not confined in small volumes.

The problem i see is the generation of MW electrically in an efficient way.

Nice was wondering when X51 tech would filter down into the real world..

a reply to: Blackfinger

MAYBE when they found their way around that pesky 8 minutes barrier that Zaphod said

originally posted by: Fastmover
a reply to: BASSPLYR

For subsonic you need great volumes with low speed, so in this application i would expect the plasma generation span-wise and not confined in small volumes.

The problem i see is the generation of MW electrically in an efficient way.

===


I you want that, I have a some "Interesting Source" information
about some new very long-loiter time drone systems using fuel-cell
based jet engines.

An interesting aircraft project I am aware of
is the use of compressed methane (CH4) and
an on-board oxidiser to power a high performance
electric fuel cell system which then powers a linear
induction and/or a circular induction system for the
compressor stage of a jet engine.

The oxidiser and methane are injected into
the fuel system (seems to be a thin ceramic
porous membrane similar to a Ballard Fuel Cell)
where the oxidizer and methane separated
by the porous membrane try to re-combine
to form water and a powerful electric current.
The resulting electric current gets sent to a
fancy new electric jet engine that uses linear
or circular-oriented induction to move the
compressor-stage fan blades.

The outer part of the fan blades get pulled
in a specific direction by electric pulses
coming from coils embedded into the
outer jacket of the compressor stage
and induction plates embedded into
the titanium fan blades.

This is basically a NO COMBUSTION system
since the incoming air is rammed into a
high-pressure storage chamber by the
fan blades in the compressor stage and
then expelled out of the exhaust ports
in what seems a pulsed manner.

Air compression which heats the
incoming air is modulated by expansion
at the narrow exhaust port(s) and
larger expansion nozzles which will
COOL the expelled air. The narrow
nozzle and large expansion chamber
basically allow a pulse of cool but
quickly expanding upper-atmosphere
gas (i.e. air) to propel the aircraft
as sub-sonic speeds between
250 to 350 MPH. It's slow but
long-winded!

I am not sure what they do with the warm
water that comes from the fuel cell reaction
but I will assume they inject it into the
outgoiing exhaust for further cooling.

While the thrust-to-weight ratio is currently
poor against modern combusition-based jet
engines, the range obtained seems quite
considerably improved over similar sized
aircraft using conventional combustion processes.

I believe the oxidiser is carried aboard in a
separate tank because at the altitudes I have
been quoted (90,000+ feet), there is insufficient
aircraft speed to allow enough oxygen to be obtained
via intakes from the upper atmosphere to provide a
regulated and continuous feed for the fuel-cell
hydrogen/oxygen re-combination process.

I also believe that range and loiter time and not speed
is the PRIMARY mission goal of being a long-range/long
loiter-time Theatre-specific communications relay platform
and centralized command and control data distribution centre
(basically it's a flying DSL/Cable Internet Gateway/Router and Multi-Port Switch!)

This is NOT a public DARPA/NASA program but
definitely on the more secretive side. It is also
NOT a USAF program but rather another branch
of the DOD/intelligence apparatus.....!!!!!

I believe it is fully autonomous and
LARGER than the Global Hawk drone!

originally posted by: Fastmover

The problem i see is the generation of MW electrically in an efficient way.

You got a jet engine. You got moving ionized exhaust.

Add a big magnet, voila.

If you have a MHD 'nozzelator' in the engine design, you just trade incoming air control for plasma system power.

At one time, there was a big very active yet seldom seen bit of research into active skin that had lots o' tiny golf ball pits with little silicon plasma emitters in. Gives you very precise control, reduces 'sling out'. Lots of redundancy fall back modes. One emitter along the leading edge is so 90s.

a reply to: Bornsecrets

You're only partially correct on that one..The bird that uses the JP7 is not directly responsible for the so called skyquakes, but is related, and it's not a Northrop bird, although they were involved in the project..Not related to the Green Lady whatsoever..

a reply to: EBJet

I heard for that project several corporations were knee deep in it. Northrop for their lift abilites. Just what i understood though. As usual i could be wrong.

I have two ideas as to what the mission was. Neither ill discuss.

My little two cents. The only place where I heard even rumors about refueling with JP-7 since OEF started were out of Edwards AFB and Ganci AFB (later renamed Manas AFB and later still Transit Center at Manas). Manas rumors were from before 2007 and Edwards always has secret squirrel rumors going around.

a reply to: Pyle

Edwards gets a lot of the fun toys. Their KC works with Groom sometimes, and the flight test guys get to play with some of the neat toys too.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Always made me sad that I wasn't one of the lucky ones that got to spend some time TDY there, well until I remember how terribly hot it is there most of the year.

a reply to: Pyle

We visited the base early in the C-17 days. A friend of the family was one of the program managers so he took us around the base, and gave us a tour of the first C-17. They had a classified article in the BAF undergoing EM testing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The Benefield facility there?

Double post😕