IC engine has its rotating parts. and Rockets are coming in ramjet or scramjet category which is known to me.brewnog said:Well a normal reciprocating engine doesn't have a compressor or turbine, but still has rotating components (crankshaft etc). A 2 stroke radial engine would minimise rotating components, but you've still got the prop shaft which needs to rotate. A rocket engine doesn't have any rotating components.
What are you trying to do?
brewnog said:None that I know of, but you should look at how a radial engine works, there's a nice distinction between that and a normal reciprocating engine at the crankshaft.
Why do you ask?
P.Ramesh said:it is better to go for an aeroengine without any such moving parts.
brewnog said:That's a pretty bold statement to assert, particularly given the fact that all aeronautical vehicles actually use engines with rotating components!
What's your idea, we might be able to help you understand any limitations of it.
Panda said:Without revealing the patent that will put you alongside Whittle, what is your means of thrust. You seem to be implying that you are not using a rotating prop to pull the aircraft through the air, or a gas thrust to push it. Apart from flapping wings I'm not aware of any other methods.
Give us a peek under the tarpaulin, I'm sure I'm not the only one intrigued.
brewnog said:That's a pretty bold statement to assert, particularly given the fact that all aeronautical vehicles actually use engines with rotating components!
What's your idea, we might be able to help you understand any limitations of it.
russ_watters said:Well, it sounds like a ramjet. We did have someone here once try to eliminate the compression stage of a jet engine, though. I hope that isn't what you are trying to do...
Russ, I thought of exactly the same thread!russ_watters said:We did have someone here once try to eliminate the compression stage of a jet engine, though.
That isn't true! Yikes!P.Ramesh said:May be similar but its not ramjet alone. because ramjet just receives ram-air as is without compressing it before entering into combustion chamber.
FredGarvin said:I cringed when I saw the hint of an ejector on this. I know where this is going...
Under research and feasible are two totally different worlds. Ejectors have been around a long time. Also, most of the ejectors I have ever seen are, like Panda already mentioned, attached to pulse jets for thrust augmentation. The SR-71 had an ejector set up to give more thrust. What would be different in your application? Also, in regards to something else Panda mentioned, when we manufacture an engine, vibrations are not the biggest concern with a properly operating engine. We have our overall levels down quite a bit and they are nowhere near a recip engine's. Noise is also improved dramatically with various mixing schemes and materials.P.Ramesh said:Its good that you got something from hint. Is it feasible? Yes it is. because NASA is also into similar (not the same of mine) kind of system which is under experiment.
FredGarvin said:Under research and feasible are two totally different worlds. Ejectors have been around a long time. Also, most of the ejectors I have ever seen are, like Panda already mentioned, attached to pulse jets for thrust augmentation. The SR-71 had an ejector set up to give more thrust. What would be different in your application? Also, in regards to something else Panda mentioned, when we manufacture an engine, vibrations are not the biggest concern with a properly operating engine. We have our overall levels down quite a bit and they are nowhere near a recip engine's. Noise is also improved dramatically with various mixing schemes and materials.
Panda said:We are getting somewhere now, you have a jet with a non-rotary compressor that does not rely on forward thrust to provide compression.
So in answer to your question, yes I have heard of such a system, it's the pulse jet, although it does not provide continuous thrust.
The power to weight ration of modern gas turbines are pretty high so I'm not sure you would be able to gain that much by removing the incredibly well balanced low friction moving parts of a commercial engine. Unless you are trying to achieve hypersonic speeds without using RAM and SCRAM technology.
An aero engine without gas turbine is a propulsion system used in aircraft that does not rely on combustion of fuel and air in a gas turbine. Instead, it uses alternative technologies such as electric motors or rotary engines to generate thrust.
An aero engine without gas turbine works by using alternative technologies to generate thrust. For example, electric motors use electrical energy to power a propeller or fan, while rotary engines use a rotating motion to produce thrust.
The main advantage of using an aero engine without gas turbine is its potential for lower emissions. Since it does not rely on combustion, it can reduce the amount of pollutants released into the air. It also has the potential for quieter operation and increased fuel efficiency.
One potential disadvantage of using an aero engine without gas turbine is the limited range and power capability compared to traditional gas turbine engines. Additionally, the technology is still in its early stages and may require further development and testing before it can be widely used in commercial aircraft.
Yes, there is ongoing research and development for aero engines without gas turbine. Many aerospace companies and research institutions are investing in this technology to improve its capabilities and overcome any limitations. It is also being explored as a potential solution for reducing the environmental impact of air travel.