I would love to see a scaling analysis of modern electric driven pumps and
where their advantage is lost to GG cycle,kind of like the expander cycle
is ~ 20KLbF,
i.e. the RL-10. I'm assuming the Merlin will never be replaced by electrics
because it's above this trade off limit.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:54 PM Ben Brockert <wikkit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is one of the things that I wonder about with Boom, Hermeus, and
the other new supersonic passenger jet programs. While I have little
sympathy for people who buy house near airports and then complain
about the jet noise, there is a big difference between modern high
bypass turbofans and the kinds of engines you need on a supersonic
jet. Boom says that the final plane will use medium-bypass turbofans,
but their subscale model is pure turbojets. Even if they can take off
without afterburner they're still going to be comparatively loud.
But for rockets there's sill a large space of easy return in pumps,
it's not "so expensive" comparatively. Mediocre pumps are still better
than pressure fed or solid. Electric pumps are much easier to develop
than turbopumps, and if you use them in more creative cycles you can
do interesting things like a really easily throttled gas generator
cycle that doesn't require starting gas, or a full flow gas generator,
or a variety of other clever approaches. Gas turbines are extensively
developed, expander cycles certainly aren't. An all-aluminum expander
engine is practical, no single crystal regeneratively cooled micro EDM
tungsten cowhide blisk needed.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:25 PM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
description sadly. The link may wrap.
So cool, so expensive. Almost anything turbo seems to fit that
https://pwgtf.com/?utm_campaign=gtfnocomparison&utm_source=aviationweek&utm_medium=enews&utm_term=awthisweek_april3-10&utm_content=300x250
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
