Difference between revisions of "Talk:CR-7 R.A.P.I.E.R. Engine"
m (stressed my mediocre skillz dood) |
Lone Starr (talk | contribs) (→correction of ISP stats: new section) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
An Aeris 3A with an FL-400 fuel tank in place of one of the fuel tanks and a ram air intake mounted on the top with a tailpiece is capable of suborbital flight, exceeding those of the Aeris 4A (with my mediocre skill), up to 150km.<small>— Preceding [[w:Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thompcan|Thompcan]] ([[User talk:Thompcan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thompcan|contribs]]) 15:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)</small> | An Aeris 3A with an FL-400 fuel tank in place of one of the fuel tanks and a ram air intake mounted on the top with a tailpiece is capable of suborbital flight, exceeding those of the Aeris 4A (with my mediocre skill), up to 150km.<small>— Preceding [[w:Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thompcan|Thompcan]] ([[User talk:Thompcan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thompcan|contribs]]) 15:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)</small> | ||
:The [[Aeris 4A]] is orbit capable so a suborbital flight won't exceed the capabilities of the Aeris 4A. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 16:23, 15 May 2014 (CDT) | :The [[Aeris 4A]] is orbit capable so a suborbital flight won't exceed the capabilities of the Aeris 4A. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 16:23, 15 May 2014 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == correction of ISP stats == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I mounted a Rapier and a Turbojet on the same plane to compare their Isp-height behaviour. As far as I could see on several runs, they behave exactly the same, i.e. 800 at sea level, about 2500 peak at 5000 m and about 1200 at 35000 m. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Furthermore I created a stationary test-stand to check for air consumption. Not surprisingly both engines take exactly the same ammount of air for the same amount of fuel. Having the same Isp-curve in mind, they both take the same ammount of air for the same generated thrust. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The power up / down curve also is identical. | ||
| + | |||
| + | After all, the Rapier is just a bit weaker Turbojet (190 vs. 225 KN) with the same weight, thus having a slightly worse TWR, otherwise the '''exact same characteristics'''. Therefore it generates the thrust of about six Rockomax 48-7s in rocket mode while having a slightly better Isp (360 vs 350), meaning that a spaceplane with the same Air / rocket thrust is lighter with the Rapier than with the Turbojet / 78-7s combinaton. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The main disatvantage is the missing power generation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | P.S.: This is my first Wiki edit,so please be lenient towards me... | ||
Revision as of 18:29, 2 December 2014
Suborbital capabilities
An Aeris 3A with an FL-400 fuel tank in place of one of the fuel tanks and a ram air intake mounted on the top with a tailpiece is capable of suborbital flight, exceeding those of the Aeris 4A (with my mediocre skill), up to 150km.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompcan (talk • contribs) 15:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Aeris 4A is orbit capable so a suborbital flight won't exceed the capabilities of the Aeris 4A. — xZise [talk] 16:23, 15 May 2014 (CDT)
correction of ISP stats
I mounted a Rapier and a Turbojet on the same plane to compare their Isp-height behaviour. As far as I could see on several runs, they behave exactly the same, i.e. 800 at sea level, about 2500 peak at 5000 m and about 1200 at 35000 m.
Furthermore I created a stationary test-stand to check for air consumption. Not surprisingly both engines take exactly the same ammount of air for the same amount of fuel. Having the same Isp-curve in mind, they both take the same ammount of air for the same generated thrust.
The power up / down curve also is identical.
After all, the Rapier is just a bit weaker Turbojet (190 vs. 225 KN) with the same weight, thus having a slightly worse TWR, otherwise the exact same characteristics. Therefore it generates the thrust of about six Rockomax 48-7s in rocket mode while having a slightly better Isp (360 vs 350), meaning that a spaceplane with the same Air / rocket thrust is lighter with the Rapier than with the Turbojet / 78-7s combinaton.
The main disatvantage is the missing power generation.
P.S.: This is my first Wiki edit,so please be lenient towards me...
