[AR] Re: Famous LR-101 (was: Arocket Pump Progress)

From: "Anthony Cesaroni" <acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:30:28 -0400

http://neverworld.net/truax/

Anthony J. Cesaroni

President/CEO

Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

<http://www.cesaronitech.com/> http://www.cesaronitech.com/

(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota

(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Anthony Cesaroni
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 6:25 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Famous LR-101 (was: Arocket Pump Progress)

It was the first Lox/kerosene bi-prop motor that was ignited and ran under
water apparently. Lots of bubbles, hence the moniker. Truax and Mason did it
under a Navy contract. I saved it. ;-)

Anthony J. Cesaroni

President/CEO

Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

<http://www.cesaronitech.com/> http://www.cesaronitech.com/

(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota

(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Randall Clague
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 6:15 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Famous LR-101 (was: Arocket Pump Progress)

I'll bite. How does an individual vernier engine become famous?

-R

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Anthony Cesaroni <acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

The SA-2 sustainer has the axial turbine in the middle with the hypergolic
propellant pumps on each end. One of the last unfired version sits in my board
room at the SRQ facility. ~200 shp. Pc is around 900 psi IIRC. A very famous
LR-101 known as “7-UP” is on the right.

Best.

Anthony J. Cesaroni

President/CEO

Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

http://www.cesaronitech.com/

(941) 360-3100 x101 <tel:%28941%29%20360-3100%20x101> Sarasota

(905) 887-2370 x222 <tel:%28905%29%20887-2370%20x222> Toronto

-----Original Message-----

From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On
Behalf Of Alexander Ponomarenko

Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 5:04 PM

To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: [AR] Re: Arocket Pump Progress

In case of closed impeller design, the distance between impeller and housing
should be rather large to minimize the friction losses. The hydraulic losses as
well as axial thrust are typically controlled by diameter of and clearance
between wearing or floating rings on both sides of the impeller.

In case of open design, the mentioned is applicable to the back

("closed") side of the impeller only, whereas the clearance between open blades
and pump housing should be as small as possible. This makes crucial both the
assembly precision and the balancing of the axial thrust.

The usage of double-suction impellers may indeed compensate the axial thrust,
but such design is impractical in case of small pumps because of too small
height of blades. Better to design the bi-prop single-shaft turbopump with such
location of the impellers that their axial thrusts compensate each other - at
least partially. Of course, this is applicable for bi-prop only.

Regards,

Alexander

On 07/12/2015 02:43 PM, Monroe L. King Jr. wrote:

I'd like to propose a question about the distance of the backside of

the impeller from the housing.

Is there an ideal distance on the backside of the impeller and should

that surface be smooth or ribbed?

Peter H. would you be interested in running CFD on this impeller

design? Also looking for FEA analysis if anyone's interested.

References:
- [AR] Famous LR-101 (was: Arocket Pump Progress)
  - From: Randall Clague
- [AR] Re: Famous LR-101 (was: Arocket Pump Progress)
  - From: Anthony Cesaroni

[AR] Re: Famous LR-101 (was: Arocket Pump Progress)

Other related posts: