WGP guy2 wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Are you just making the engine or is it gona be mounted on something? Depends on how much thrust it makes.  I'm not completely sure, the only calculations I've done were to make sure it wasn't going to melt.

damn, just fix it to a go cart and drive... ok maybe not

WGP guy2 wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: WGP guy2 wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Are you just making the engine or is it gona be mounted on something? Depends on how much thrust it makes.  I'm not completely sure, the only calculations I've done were to make sure it wasn't going to melt. damn, just fix it to a go cart and drive... ok maybe not Well at the moment it has to be hooked up to a blower (shop vac at the moment) to provide the air for it.  However that will be replaced with the compressor and turbine later.  Maybe then I will put it on a go-kart frame.  And if it doesn't make enough thrust, I can always put an afterburner on can't I?

Make a ramjet, plenty of thrust... lol

How are you planning on making the turbine?

Wouldn't the turbine eliminate the need for a compressor?

Afterburner would be cool but I really dont know what would be involved. Sounds like you'd just be increasing the number of things that could go horribly wrong.

I have no idea what's going on, but I now want to build one...

I demand vids of it when it's finished.

WGP guy2 wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Make a ramjet, plenty of thrust... lol How are you planning on making the turbine? Wouldn't the turbine eliminate the need for a compressor? Afterburner would be cool but I really dont know what would be involved. Sounds like you'd just be increasing the number of things that could go horribly wrong. A ramjet requires an auxillary source of air, so either I would have to keep the shop vac on there or have another way of moving the engine at a considerable speed before it could be lit, plus adding a compressor and turbine isn't that hard. The ramjet was a joke. I know you would need extreme speed to get it to work. The shop vac wouldn't be enough to work I don't think No, a turbine does not eliminate the need for a compressor, the compressor brings air into the engine, the turbine simply uses the force generated by the burner to run the compressor. Yeah, damn forgot basic jet engine mechanics lol. No, an afterburner does not add to complexity, it would, in fact, be the most simple thing on there.  All an afterburner is is throwing more fuel into the exhaust, which ignites it making more thrust. ok, but I think if you were to actually mount it on something like a go-cart chassis, safety could come into play I already have the compressor/turbine, but it won't be installed until I'm sure the burner functions how I would like it to.

And chronic future, think of it as more of a basic jet engine.

Anyone interested but has no clue what's going on should do some research, look up ramjet engines and their relation to turbojet engines. It's actually very simple if you find a good source.

i think that if you sucessfully made a very stable and safe version, this could have huge applications to larger-scale rc aircraft.

Okies, to demonstrate that I'm not a total newb, I have had an interest in rocketry for a while now (say, 13 out of my 18 years of life...), and would like to move beyond Estes.

Do you think this model can be lightened enough, or enough thrust be produced from this model to escape Earth's gravity? Maybe just enough duration to get a few hundred feet would impress me...

A reusable, liquid-fueled rocket. Mmmm...
But I'd probably need a more combustable source of fuel than gasoline, wouldn't I?

DeTrevni wrote: Okies, to demonstrate that I'm not a total newb, I have had an interest in rocketry for a while now (say, 13 out of my 18 years of life...), and would like to move beyond Estes. Do you think this model can be lightened enough, or enough thrust be produced from this model to escape Earth's gravity? Maybe just enough duration to get a few hundred feet would impress me... A reusable, liquid-fueled rocket. Mmmm... But I'd probably need a more combustable source of fuel than gasoline, wouldn't I?

I can't answer the second part, he probably can

Once again, not a rocket

This is really, a basic jet engine.

Correct, but it's almost the same principle as a rocket engine. Well, right now at least. Where the jet uses a turbine, the rocket uses a conical exhaust system to create thrust.

If this generates decent power, I wouldn't have to go far to reengineer it into a rocket engine.

DeTrevni wrote: Correct, but it's almost the same principle as a rocket engine. Well, right now at least. Where the jet uses a turbine, the rocket uses a conical exhaust system to create thrust. If this generates decent power, I wouldn't have to go far to reengineer it into a rocket engine.

I don't know much about rockets so coffect me if I'm wrong but...

A jet engine needs air to burn but.... doesn't a rocket use a chemical reaction? So therefore the rocket would not need a compression method?

Also, correct me if i'm wrong but... the turbine is not used to create thrust, but to power the compressor?

I could see it being close to the same principle if he was making an engine based on a ram-jet design. (which I know would not really work) But what makes it actually function is the compressor and turbine.

I guess you're kinda right. The main assembly of WGP's I'm concerned with is the body, the fuel deliverance system, and the combustion chamber. Everything else would probably be null and void.

A rocket needs to burn in a zero-o2 environment, so it needs to deliver a constant flow of fuel to keep it burning. Usually hydrogen and oxygen. The engine combusts the fuel in a chamber, and routes the exhaust through a nozzel, creating thrust. It's like when you put your thumb over a garden hose; the water seems to have more power.

Here's a simple rocket layout:

From what I see in a jet engine, it's not much different. I don't know much about jets though.

It seems the turbine is used to create/deliver/distribute thrust somehow.

The turbine powers the compressor. The compressor compresses the air, which is shoved together and ignited with the fuel to move the engine. (basic application of newton's third law)

In essence, the one you have shown (first pic) seems to be like a ramjet engine with a compressed oxygen tank attached (probably isin't actually but it's a good way to explain it)

This would basically be a simple form of a jet engine as shown in your second pic but instead of just having limited fuel, you would also have limited air.

ramjet:

explanation of ramjet: Basically, instead of having a compressor and turbine to compress the air, the ramjet uses the allready fast moving air (you have to be travelling EXTREMELY fast) which compresses and mixes with the fuel. This is the most basic type of jet engine, and is the most powerfull.

Well, yes, that is pretty much what a rocket engine is, except a rocket engine is designed to deliver continual fuel, and an alternative oxidizer to the combustion chamber. There is no air where a rocket is designed to work.

Also, take into consideration rockets came about WAY before jets, so even the simple ramjet was inspired from a rocket motor.

chronic future wrote: forum rocket build off?

Yes.

WGP guy2 wrote: Furthermore, I do not think this would be very practical for a device for a machine that would rely on the thrust of the engine to provide its lift (a rocket).  What I have now weighs about 15 pounds.  With the whole assembly put together (including electronics and fuel source) it will most likely weigh in excess of 40 pounds.  Therefore it would barely have enough thrust to life itself, not to mention something else.

Well pewp.

WGP guy2 wrote: Carl define extremely fast....  I think you misunderstand that part. The speed required to start the ramjet would be proportional to its size, and also keep in mind that ramjets cannot operate at a speed faster than Mach 1 (which is what I would consider "extremely fast").  The shop vac is, in fact, good enough to make it work.  Did I not explain earlier that the burner will be tested using a shop vac to give it air?  You also realize that what I have is basically a ramjet, just without  a nicely constucted intake and nozzle? Furthermore, I do not think this would be very practical for a device for a machine that would rely on the thrust of the engine to provide its lift (a rocket).  What I have now weighs about 15 pounds.  With the whole assembly put together (including electronics and fuel source) it will most likely weigh in excess of 40 pounds.  Therefore it would barely have enough thrust to life itself, not to mention something else.

I thought you said you were also using a turbine, therefore not a ramjet?

can't comment on the second part, i'm not making it, just gotta take your word for it.

WGP guy2 wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: WGP guy2 wrote: Carl define extremely fast....  I think you misunderstand that part. The speed required to start the ramjet would be proportional to its size, and also keep in mind that ramjets cannot operate at a speed faster than Mach 1 (which is what I would consider "extremely fast").  The shop vac is, in fact, good enough to make it work.  Did I not explain earlier that the burner will be tested using a shop vac to give it air?  You also realize that what I have is basically a ramjet, just without  a nicely constucted intake and nozzle? Furthermore, I do not think this would be very practical for a device for a machine that would rely on the thrust of the engine to provide its lift (a rocket).  What I have now weighs about 15 pounds.  With the whole assembly put together (including electronics and fuel source) it will most likely weigh in excess of 40 pounds.  Therefore it would barely have enough thrust to life itself, not to mention something else. By extremely fast, I meant faster than you could probably get the engine that you are making going. i also stated that you could also provide an outside source of air. I thought you said you were also using a turbine, therefore not a ramjet? can't comment on the second part, i'm not making it, just gotta take your word for it.   You realize that a ramjet is essentially a turbojet without the compressor or turbine right?  What do you think it is that I have now...a burner, without a comrpessor or turbine.  If I added an efficient inlet and nozzle, I would have myself a ramjet.  I add an inlet, compressor, turbine, and nozzle and I have a turbojet.

Exactly what i'm saying.

I don't know how you keep misunderstanding what i'm saying.

Hades wrote: Looks like drug paraphernalia...

Crack pipe?