Scramjet Engines: The First Forty Years

JOURNAL OF PROPULSION AND POWER
Vol. 17, No. 6, November– December 2001
Scramjet Engines: The First Forty Years

Edward T. Curran¤
U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright– Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-7251
A general review of the emergence and maturing of supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) engine technologies
over the last 40 years is presented. The review is given in terms of the efforts completed or proceeding in the United
States, Russia, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, and other countries. A brief account of the challenges of
scramjet combustor development is given, and attention is directed toward other source references for more
detailed accounts of technology evolution. Two emerging scramjet applications are identi ed, namely, hydrogen-
fueled high-speed engines for access to space and hydrocarbon-fueled engines for hypersonic air-launched missiles.
Introduction technical hurdles facing scramjet development including fuel injec-

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE on April 1, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875
S OME 40 years ago, the hydrocarbon-fueledconventional ram- tion and mixing without severe shock losses,combustorgasdynamic
jet engine (CRJ) was under continuing developmentfor various phenomena, wall cooling and frictional losses, and nozzle perfor-
high-speed missile applications. In the United States, the Lockheed mance. Also discussedwas the need for a divergingcombustorshape
X-7 reusable ight-test vehicle was validating ramjet engine perfor- to avoid the limitations of heat addition in constant area ducts due
mance in the Mach 3 – 4 regime. Internationally, the ramjet engine to thermal choking and the introduction of an integral method to
was well explored, and there was continuing interest in the perfor- account for the wall pressure forces on such divergent ducts. Quite
mance of the CRJ at hypersonic ight speeds. clearly, the generic problems that needed to be addressedin scramjet
In the late 1950s, various papers1;2 were published reviewing research were outlined some 40 years ago.
the history of CRJ development and projecting various design ap- In 1957, Avery and Dugger at the Applied Physics Laboratory of
proaches to achieving increased ight speeds. Much of this early Johns Hopkins University initiated an analytical and experimental
material was later to be captured in the proceedings of the Fourth study of scramjet engines and their potential.Subsequently,in 1960,
AGARD Colloquium3 held in Milan. There was, however, a con- a well-documented study of the relative performances of kerosene-
siderable divergence of views on the practicability of extending the fueled CRJ and scramjet engines was published by Dugger.13 Only
performance of conventional ramjet engines to speeds in excess the constant area combustor was examined. The conclusions of this
of Mach 5.0 (for example, see the discussions of Mallinson4 and work were similar to those of Weber and MacKay,12 namely, that the
Hawkins and Fox5 ). performance of the scramjet engine would exceed that of the CRJ
Meanwhile, the feasibilityof a supersonic-combustion ramjet en- somewhere in the speed range Mach 6 – 8 and would be superior
gine was attracting attention. The possibility of adding heat directly at higher speeds. Also in this latter paper the deleterious effect on
to a supersonic stream, by means of a standing wave, had been engine performanceof nonequilibrium ow in the nozzle of the CRJ
proposed as early as 1946 by Roy.6 Later, in 1959, Nicholls et al.7 was underscored. (Interestingly, the possibility that a detonation
demonstrated stabilized detonation waves in supersonic hydrogen wave supersonic combustor might yield superior performance to a
airstreams. Similar studies were also reported later by Gross and scramjet engine was also raised.)
Chinitz.8 Also, there were various investigations in this time pe- Interest in the relative performances of the CRJ and scramjet
riod concerning heat addition to external ows around bodies to did continue but, unfortunately, the lack of demonstrated scramjet
generate both lifting and propulsive forces. In September 1958, the componentperformance,on the one hand, and the lack of test data on
First International Congress in the Aeronautical Sciences was held hypersonic CRJ engines, on the other hand, prevented substantive
in Madrid. At that conference, Ferri brie y outlined some work comparisons. Subsequently, the thrust of high-speed engine work
in progress at the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute and veri ed that was concentrated on the scramjet engine; CRJ work was to lay
steady combustion, without strong shocks, had been accomplished dormant until interest was rekindled due to the development of the
in a Mach 3.0 supersonic stream. This important news was reported integral rocket– ramjet engine.
in Ref. 9 and con rmed in Ref. 10; subsequently,Ferri was to emerge Today, the relative performances of the kerosene-fueledCRJ and
as the major leader in exploring scramjet technology in the United scramjetin the Mach 5 – 8 regionare again of key interest,as attention
States. shifts to air-launched missiles operating at these higher speeds.
Also in 1958, scramjet work was beginning at McGill University In a brief paper such as this, it is not possible to review, in detail,
in Montreal. Swithenbank11 reported some early work on inlets, the key technologicalachievements and emerging efforts in various
fuel injection and combustion, and exhaust nozzles for supersonic countries.Only a brief treatment of the most mature scramjet engine
combustion ramjet engines, focused on the high-speed range Mach hardware is given and, in particular,those effortsthat may proceedto
10– 25. ight test. Furthermore, only scramjet combustion technologywork
The publication in September 1958 of a foundational analysis is discussed; this area still remains the key development challenge
of scramjet engines, by Weber and MacKay,12 served as a focus for the scramjet engine. Also, space does not permit any discussion
for the emerging interest in such engines. This analysis examined of the various scramjet engine elements being developed by Aerojet
the relative performances of scramjet and CRJ engines (using hy- and Rocketdyne under the NASA-sponsored Rocket Based Com-
drogen fuel) over the speed range Mach 4 – 7 and pointed out the bined Cycle program14 Several reviews of scramjet technology are
potential superiority of the scramjet engine at speeds in excess of currently available in the literature,15– 17 and more detailed articles
Mach 7.0. This analysis also clearly anticipated some of the major have been published volume in the AIAA Progress in Astronautics
and Aeronautics series in 2001.18
Received 12 January 2001; revision received 4 June 2001; accepted for

Scramjet Technology in the United States
publication 5 June 2001. This material is declared a work of the U.S. Gov- The promising high-speed performance of the hydrogen-fueled
ernment and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. scramjet engine and speci cally its apparent potential for achieving
¤ Retired, Aero Propulsion and Power Directorate. Fellow AIAA.
near-orbital speeds, led to increasing attention on hypersoniccruise
1138
CURRAN 1139
missions and, in particular, on the elegant, but elusive, single-stage-

to-orbit (SSTO) aerospace plane concept. Of course, in the early
1960s, the increasing availability of funds for space-related stud-
ies, coupled with the sharp decline of resources for aeronautical
research, was a key factor in focusing hydrogen-fueled scramjet
work on SSTO concepts.In particular, the U.S. Air Force sponsored
scramjet work was in direct support of an aerospace plane concept.
The leading gure in the development of hydrogen fueled scram-
jet engines in the United States in these early years was unques-
tionably Ferri. His technical direction and leadership of the talented
teams at the Aerodynamics Laboratory of the Polytechnic Institute
of Brooklyn (PIBAL) and at General Applied Science Laboratories
(GASL) established a rm technology base for scramjet develop-
ment. His early work at PIBAL and GASL 19 was directed to the su-
personic diffusive combustion system. He elucidated the chemistry
of the hydrogen– air system, analyzedthe key turbulentmixing prob- Fig. 2 Low-speed xed geometry supersonic combustion ramjet.
lems, and identi ed the critical problems of matching heat release to
combustor shape to avoid strong shock generation. With these fun-
damentalsestablished,Ferri investigatedthe problemof maximizing variable geometry, but with an aerodynamic contraction ratio that
the performance of xed geometry scramjet engines and, in partic- varied with ight speed. This xed geometry engine utilized the
ular, the development of an engine with good performance over a Ferri approachof a closelyintegratedinlet– combustordesign,three-
wide speed range. Ferri considered that such high-performance re- dimensionalaerodynamics,tailored fuel injection,and thermal com-
quirements could be met, provided that three-dimensional engine pression effects. Various inlet and engine models were tested under
designs were used and coupled with wave compression effects pro- this program; the engine model shown in Fig. 2 was tested at a Mach
duced by combustion; this latter effect was termed thermal com- number of 7.4. (Note that the current French/Russian program on a
pression. These techniques are described by Ferri and Fox,20 and wide range scramjet is also aimed at operation over the speed range
much later were reviewed by Ferri.21 The validity of the perfor- Mach 3– 12. This engine concept, however, utilizes mechanically
mance gains claimed for the thermal compression approach was variable geometry).
vigorously debated. However, one independent analysis by Billig22 In these various engine designs, the vision of Ferri in creating
concluded that considerable performance gains were theoretically conceptsthat would tailor the aerothermodynamicsof fuel injection,
achievable at the lower ight Mach numbers, but pointed out the mixing, and combustion to the desired engineering features of the
practical dif culties of tailoring the fuel injection process to pro- engine was apparent.The dif culties of enginedesign with the avail-
duce the required regions of thermal compression. It is interesting able computational tools of that time period, together with the twin
to recall two engine programs executed by GASL in the 1960s. The challenges of assuring controlled heat release and avoiding inter-
rst of these was the ight test engine concept developed under nal ow separations,in a very demanding ground-test environment,
the U.S. Air Force funded Scramjet Incremental Flight Test Vehi- made the timely achievementof such an ambitious undertakingvery
cle (IFTV) program, which was initiated in April 1965. The IFTV dif cult indeed. Ferri inspired both United States and international
concept is shown in Fig. 1. Note that four hydrogen-fueledscramjet research on scramjet engines. Tretjakov et al.24 also noted that work
modules were located around the central vehicle body. The ight- in the former Soviet Union received impetus, following a meeting
test plan was to boost the vehicle to 5400 ft/s at 56,000-ft altitude in 1966 between academician Struminsky and Ferri at New York
and to demonstrate vehicle acceleration to at least 6000 ft/s. In the University.
ground-test program to develop the scramjet modules, considerable In addition to the engines devised at GASL, other scramjet en-
problems and delays were encountered due to inlet– combustor in- gines were developed under U.S. Air Force sponsorship and suc-
teractions. The overall ight-test program was a tightly planned cessfully ground tested. These included a United Aircraft Research
success-oriented effort and, in view of continuing technical dif - Laboratory variable geometry engine, a General Electric compo-
culties, the program was canceled in August 1967. A nonpowered nent integration model, and a Marquardt dual-mode engine. Short
ight-test vehicle was, however, launched in January 1967. descriptions of the features of these engines are available in the
The practicability of the modular scramjet design based on the literature.25
three-dimensionalthermal compressionapproachwas unfortunately In addition to U.S. Air Force sponsored scramjet work, both
not demonstratedin ight test.A very interestingreviewof the devel- NASA and the U.S. Navy funded signi cant engine programs. A
opment of one module for this IFTV vehicle is given by Peschke.23 major NASA effort was the Hypersonic Research Engine (HRE)
The IFTV program was canceled before the associated ground-test program,26 which began in 1964 and was aimed at ight testing a
program of the scramjet module was completed. One might spec- complete ightweight scramjet research engine on the X-15A-2 re-
ulate on how the development of the scramjet engine may have search airplane. Here again the opportunity to ight test an engine
evolved had this 1967 ight-test program been successful. was lost when the X-15 program was terminated in 1968. Following
Another interesting engine concept was developed at GASL un- this cancellation, emphasis shifted to ground test of two full-scale
der U.S. Air Force sponsorship in 1964– 1968. This engine was HRE models: a structural model known as the structures assembly
called the low-speed xed geometry supersonic combustion ramjet. model (SAM), which was tested in the NASA Langley Research
This was an engine designed to operate from Mach 3 to 12 without Center 8-Foot High Temperature Tunnel, at Mach 7 conditions,and
a model for demonstrating engine performance. This latter model,
known as the Aerothermodynamic Integration Model (AIM), was
ground tested at the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis
Field (Plum Brook) Hypersonic Test Facility at speeds correspond-
ing to ight Mach numbers of 5, 6, and 7. These engine models were
designed and fabricated by the AiResearch Manufacturing Com-
pany under the direction of Lopez. The HRE is shown in Fig. 3.
The results of the HRE testing were impressive. A ightweight
hydrogen-cooledstructure was developed for the SAM engine, and
this enginewas tested from 1971 to 1972. Many lessonswere learned
on cooling circuit design and fabrication. The AIM, however, was
Fig. 1 U.S. Air Force IFTV concept. a water-cooled,boilerplate engine design. At NASA John H. Glenn
1140 CURRAN
hypersonic technology base effort leading to a manned high-speed

researchvehiclecapableof ight speedsof aboutMach 8. This ying
test bed was called the National Hypersonic Flight Research Facil-
ity and was intended to ight demonstrate many candidate hyper-
sonic technologies and, in particular, engine– airframe integration.
Had this project been pursued, it would have provided a signi -
cant hypersonic ight research facility. However, this effort did not
come to fruition. An interesting and authoritativearticle on the need
for a ying test bed was written in 1976 by Hearth and Preyss.29
The later development of the airframe-integratedscramjet concept,
Fig. 3 NASA Hypersonic Research Engine. and the corresponding technology base efforts at NASA Langley
Research Center, are comprehensively described by Northam and
Anderson.30 Their work includes some 238 references. A further
update on the work at NASA Langley Research Center is given in
Ref. 31. The airframe-integratedengine con guration has also been
studied extensively in Russia and Japan. In general, the related in-
stream strut– fuel-injector technology has been the object of much
research. Overall, this class of modular scramjet con guration has
emerged as a preferred concept in recent years.
A distinctly different scramjet program, sponsored by the U.S.
Navy, was carried out at the Johns Hopkins University Applied

Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) in 1962– 1978. This program,
known as the Supersonic Combustion Ramjet Missile (SCRAM)
program, was oriented toward compact ship-launched missiles us-
ing storable reactive fuels such as the boranes and aluminum alkyls.
The nal con guration of the SCRAM weapon system is shown
in Fig. 5; the use of a modular Busemann inlet design should be
noted. The evolution of the program is well described by Billig.32
Fig. 4 NASA airframe-integrated engine con guration. Extensive tests were accomplished at JHU/APL on this engine con-
guration. Literally, several hundred tests were run using various
injection techniques, combustor geometries, and reactive fuels such
ResearchCenter,the AIM enginecheckoutbeganin September 1972 as HiCal– 3 – D and hydrocarbon– pentaborane blends. This test pro-
with the rst fuel-burningtests in October 1973. The programended gram was indeed a mother lode for scramjet technology and, in
in April 1974 after a total of some 52 tests were completed (almost particular, for developing combustor– inlet isolators to prevent ad-
2 h total running time). A comprehensivedatabaseon inlet and com- verse ow interactions (for example, see the basic work by Billig
bustor performances was obtained in the Mach 5– 7 range. It should et al.33 ). The SCRAM work also produced the classic modeling
also be noted that a two-dimensionalcombustor was built and tested approach based on the Crocco power-law relationship, which was
(at North American, Rockwell) to aid in the development of the an- most successfullyapplied to modeling the scramjet combustionpro-
nular HRE combustor. This combustor rig gave early insight into cess including wall shear and heat transfer and for the overall op-
the potential adverse effects of a diverging duct on combustor per- timization of scramjet engines, particularly dual-mode engines (for
formance and stimulated much debate on the relative contributions example, see Billig and Sullins34 ). Unfortunately, the use of reac-
of chemical kinetics and mixing to this loss in performance. tive fuels was not ultimately acceptable to the operationalcustomer,
The AIM programwas an impressiveaccomplishmentin the mid- and work at JHU/APL was redirected to the dual-combustor ramjet
1970s demonstrating1) high internal thrust performance,2) smooth (DCR) concept that can effectively utilize heavy hydrocarbonfuels.
transition from a supersonic to subsonic mode of combustion, 3) Note that JHU/APL also performed work on supersonic combus-
strong interactions between fuel injector stages, and 4) combustor tors using hydrogen fuel, under NASA sponsorship. Two excellent
design approaches, fuel autoignition, and torch ignition. Overall, sources describing the JHU/APL work are Refs. 35 and 36.
the AIM performance approached 70% of ideal performance and As already observed, the U.S. Air Force sponsored hydrogen-
demonstratedthe capability of the dual-mode engine over the Mach fueled scramjet work did not proceed into powered ight test, and
5 – 7 speed range. such work was largely neglected until the initiation of the Na-
The axisymmetric con guration of the HRE has proven popular. tional Aerospace Plane program. Fortunately, some limited work
The French ESOPE engine was a hydrogen-fueled, dual-mode ax- on endothermic- and hydrocarbon-fueledscramjet engines did con-
isymmetricenginealso testedin the early 1970s,and severalRussian tinue until the need emerged to concentrate resources solely on
engines have utilized this con guration. integral rocket ramjet systems.
In contrast to the axisymmetric HRE engine, NASA also focused The emergence of the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) pro-
on the rectangularairframe-integratedconceptshown in Fig. 4. Note gram from Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
that in additionto the verticalforebodycompression,the sidewallsof sponsored SSTO studies in the 1984/1986 time period gave fresh
the inlet give additionalhorizontalcompression.The in-streamstruts impetus to U.S. scramjet development. The NASP program was a
are a key feature of this conceptand providea housing for distributed national multiagency, multidisciplinary effort aimed at developing
fuel injectors.Note also that provisionis made for fuel to be injected, the X-30 experimental SSTO vehicle. The most critical technology
both normal and parallel to the stream in differing amounts; this in the NASP program was the development of a hydrogen-fueled
approach permits some tailoring of the heat release in the diverging scramjet to operate over the wide speed range from about Mach 4
combustor. The early work on the integrated-airframe concept is to Mach 15. The primary funded propulsion contractors, at rst,
well described by Henry and Anderson.27 This engine con guration were Pratt and Whitney and General Electric. Later, the two engine
went through several generationsof technologydevelopmentaimed contractors became Pratt and Whitney and Rocketdyne.
at improving the xed geometry inlet and the swept strut injector, A Joint Program Of ce (JPO) was established in 1986 to manage
and verifying overall subscale engine performance.28 the NASP program and was located at Wright– Patterson Air Force
It was soon realized by the U.S. Air Force and NASA that a hyper- Base. The subsequenthistory of the NASP programis well described
sonic research airplane was needed to ight demonstrate the hyper- by Chase and Tang.37 In addition to directing the contracted efforts,
sonic technologies emerging in the early 1970s. In December 1975, the JPO managed a Technology Maturation Program (TMP) that
a Joint Steering Committee was established to plan an extended was created to mature the essential technologies needed to develop
CURRAN 1141
Fig. 5 SCRAM engine con guration.
a viable engine from the program baseline proposal. The develop-

ment of this expanded technology base was principally performed
at NASA Langley Research Center and other NASA centers, the
JHU/APL, the U.S. Air Force Wright Laboratory, and the Naval Air
Development Center.
In 1990, at the initiative of the NASP JPO, a consolidated NASP
team was formed from the two engine contractors, the ve airframe
contractors, and the six federal laboratories participating in the pro-
gram.
Also, a Government Work Package (GWP) program, which, to-
gether with the national contractor team, was aimed at completing
the NASP technology development and preliminary design work
replaced the TMP program. Details of these management structures
are given by Waldman and Harsha.38 It had been anticipated that
a decision to build an X-30 experimental aircraft would be made
in 1993; however, at that time, the program was examined with the
object of reducing costs and technical risks. A series of hypersonic
ight experimentswas proposedunder a programnamed HYFLITE.
However, this program, in turn, was considered too expensive, and
an alternate program, HySTP, was originated to provide scramjet
data at high ight speeds. Unfortunately, funding for this program
was not forthcoming,and the NASP programwas terminated in Jan-
uary 1995. If the HySTP program had proceeded as planned,several
ight tests might have occurred in scal years 1997/1999.
Both the NASP contracted and TMP/GWP programs generated
an enormous amount of ramjet/scramjet engine research. Many of
the details of this work remain classi ed, but a good indication of
the overall scope and content of the engine test program is given by
Voland and Rock.39 The NASP con guration was a natural home Fig. 6 NASP concept demonstration engine.
for the class of rectangularairframe-integratedscramjetsin develop-
ment by NASA Langley Research Center. Fortunately, an extensive
component technology base for this class of engine had been de- 1993/1994. The rst model was a subscaleparametricengine,SXPE,
veloped, and several modular engines had been tested, namely, a that was tested in three con gurations at simulated Mach numbers
three-strut con guration, a parametric engine, which allowed for from 5 to 8. Some 142 tests were run on the three con gurations of
convenientvariation of geometry and injector locations, and a step- this engine. The other engine model was a larger scale (30%) ver-
strut design. Extensive testing had been performed in the Mach 4– 7 sion of the E22A, named the Concept Demonstrator Engine (Fig. 6)
regime. In addition, a novel two-dimensional reverse sweep inlet which was tested at simulated Mach numbers of 6.3 and 7.0 (at 60%
had been devised in which the leading edge of the central strut was of ight dynamic pressure).
swept in the opposite direction from the two sidewalls; this geome- During and subsequentto the NASP program,NASA Langley Re-
try offered an improved tradeoff between contractionratio and mass search Center maintained continuing emphasis on those hydrogen-
capture. fueled scramjet engines that have the potential and technological
During the NASP program, a large number of government and features for high performance at near-orbital speeds. The require-
contractor experimental engines were tested at NASA Langley Re- ment for very high-enthalpy test facilities for such high-speed en-
search Center. These included a government baseline engine, a gines led NASA to sponsor the development of pulse facilities and
JHU/APL B-1 engine, several Rocketdyne engines, and a Pratt and their associated instrumentation.The work of Paull and Stalker and
Whitney engine (designated the C engine) as described in Table 2 their colleaguesat the University of Queensland,under NASA spon-
of Ref. 39. Ultimately, two models of the de nitive NASP-team en- sorship, utilizing a re ected shock tunnel to produce ows simu-
gine, designated the E22A engine, were developedand tested during lating Mach 16 conditions is well known.40 NASA also created a
1142 CURRAN
search program has been carried out at many institutions including

the Central Institute of Aviation Motors (CIAM), the Central Aero-
hydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI), the Institute of Theoretical and
Applied Mechanics (ITAM), the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI),
and several design bureaus, such as Soyuz.
Several accounts of early Russian work on scramjets are now
appearing. According to Tretyakov,17 interest in supersonic com-
bustion began in the 1950s, and in April 1957, Shchetinkov applied
for a patent on a supersonic combustion ramjet engine. Tretyakov
also notes that Struminsky initiated research on small test models
in 1966 in Siberia.
It is apparent from the reports of early Russian researchers that
they sharedthe same common concernsabout scramjetenginesin re-
gard to the feasibility of ef cient combustion in a reasonable length,
thermal choking limitations, and inlet– combustor interactions as
American workers. The publication in 1973 of a foundationalpaper
by Shchetinkov45 on supersonic combustion and pseudoshock phe-
Fig. 7 NASA Hyper-X research vehicle.
nomena illustrated the early achievements of such research. Later,
additional publications showed that combustion-related phenom-
ena similar to those experienced in U.S. testing were encountered
new facility by installing a former NASA Langley expansion tube at
by Russian researchers. For example, the decrease in combustion

GASL in 1989; in its upgradedversion, this GASL facility is termed ef ciency in divergent ducts46 and the complex structure of pseu-
the HYPULSE facility. The ability to generate the test conditions doshocks: For the latter a major Russian database was generated
required for hypersonicengine and combustor studies is demanding (for example, see Penzin47 ). Overall, Russian research addressed,
and, in the United States can only be approachedby re ected shock in depth,the mixing and combustionprocessesoccurringin two- and
tunnelssuch as the LENS, NASA Ames ResearchCenter 16 in., Cal- three-dimensional ducts, with various fuels, fuel ignition systems,
ifornia Institute of Technology T5 facilities, and the HYPULSE 41 and ame stabilizationdevices for both scramjet and dual-mode en-
facility. The development and utilization of scramjet test facilities gines. Also, in common with U.S. researchers, much research was
is a vital part of a hypersonic propulsion enterprise; unfortunately, performed in notional engine con gurations to study overall inlet–
it is a vast topic that cannot be addressed in this paper. combustor performance.Two dual-mode scramjet classes are exten-
A major new initiative42 by NASA to explore the overall perfor- sively referencedin the CIAM literature,namely, a two-dimensional
mance of airframe-integrateddual-mode scramjet-powered X vehi- class of models and an axisymmetric class, using either hydrogen
cles is now underway. This initiative is termed Hyper-X. The rst or kerosene fuels. A xed-geometry two-dimensional model utiliz-
test vehicle, designated the X-43A, is a small hypersonic aircraft ing a three-shock inlet with a design Mach number of 6 has been
about 12 ft in length with a 5-ft wingspan, as shown in Fig. 7. The extensively tested at CIAM; the results have been documented by
vehicle will be air launched, with a booster stage, from a B-52 air- Vinogradov et al.48¡50 The axisymmetric class has also been tested
craft and is similar in launch concept to the X-7 series of vehicles. extensively using both hydrogen and kerosene fuels (see Albegov
Three X-43A ight tests are planned, according to Ref. 43. The et al.51 ). An interesting feature of these engine designs is the use of
rst vehicle is targeted for a Mach 7 demonstration of the scram- multiple cavity ame stabilizers. The axisymmetric model is remi-
jet in mid-2001 with about 5Cs of combustor burning time. The niscentof the NASA HRE and French ESOPE approachesbut differs
remaining two vehicles will be own at Mach 7 and 10. Signi - radically in the details of the internal combustor ow path.
cantly, the vehicle for the Mach 7 ight test has been tested at sim- An axisymmetric hydrogen-fueledengine was successfully ight
ulated ight conditions in the NASA Langley Research Center 8-ft tested in November 1991 and demonstrated operation in both the
High Temperature Wind Tunnel. A very interesting comparison of subsonic and supersonic combustion modes.52 The ight test con-
ground- and ight-test data should be possible. In regard to the cept utilized a HypersonicFlying Laboratory (HFL) named Kholod.
future of airbreathing hypersonic research, NASA has projected The engine and its support services were mounted on the nose of a
its vision43 for about the next 15 years, which outlines a series of modi ed SA-5 vehicleand remainedattachedto the HFL throughout
ight-test experiments, including a large-scale, reusable Mach 0– 7 the ight (see Fig. 8). A second, similar ight test was conducted in
vehicle. November 1992 with the support of ONERA; this engine operated
After the demise of the NASP program,the U.S. Air Force decided in the range M D 3.5– 5.35, again demonstrating both subsonic and
to focus its near-term hypersonic activities on hydrocarbon-fueled supersonic combustion modes. These successful ight tests were
scramjet engines for missile propulsion in the Mach 4 – 8 regime. a most signi cant achievement and a tribute to the dedicated and
This new effort was termed HyTech, and the current key engine persistent efforts of Russian scientists who have apparently pursued
technology thrust is known as the Air Force Hydrocarbon Scramjet the goal of scramjet- ight test since about 1970. A third ight test,
Engine Technology program.44 The engine, under development by also with French support, was carried out in March 1995, but the
Pratt and Whitney, is a two-dimensional, dual-mode engine, using engine did not operate because of HFL system problems.
a mixed-compression inlet, and a fuel-cooled structure for the in- In another associated internationalventure with the Kholod vehi-
ternal ow passage. The engine design has been integrated with a cle, NASA contracted with CIAM to extend the ight-test envelope
hypersonicmissile con guration.Although this rst effort is missile to demonstrate the full supersonic combustion mode to Mach 6.5.
oriented, the HyTECH program should, in the future, address vari- NASA and CIAM worked jointlyto analyzethe engine ow path per-
ous applications, such as high speed and transatmospheric vehicle formance and to assess the thermal loading on the Mach 6.5 engine,
propulsion. with particular concern for the cowl leading-edge environment.53
Some modi cations to the inlet and isolator/combustor of the en-
Scramjet Technology in Russia gine were required. The ight test was successfully launched on
In the former Soviet Union (FSU), a signi cant scramjet research 12 February 1998, and engine data were obtained in the speed range
and development program had been in progress for many decades. Mach 3.5– 6.4. The subsequent analysis of the ight data led to
In the past, visibility of this program had been restricted by the the preliminary conclusion that the engine operated as a dual-mode
limited availability of documentation in the English language. For- scramjet, but in the subsonic burning mode.54 Note that these ight-
tunately, many more details of the truly foundational work of FSU test engines were actively cooled with hydrogen. Currently, work is
scientists have become available during the 1990s due to their in- in progress to explore endothermic fuel cooling of model scramjet
creased participation in international conferences. The scramjet re- combustors.
CURRAN 1143
the ESOPE program was supported by a basic scramjet technology

program(for example, see the works of Leuchter59 and Hirsinger60 ).
Two ESOPE test series were reported.61 The rst series (1970)
demonstratedthe need for improvedfuel injectionand mixing. Mod-
i cations were made and in a second test series (1972), the engine
performance was much improved.
Unfortunately,and in parallel with U.S. experience,further work
on scramjet was largely terminated in favor of the development of
the integral rocket ramjet engine. Also, as in the United States, work
on the scramjet engine was to be revived in the late 1980s and a very
signi cant program, PREPHA, emerged in 1992.
The PREPHA program, most recently discussed by Sancho
et al.,62 began as an hypersonic research and technologies program
primarily focused on hydrogen-fueled scramjet technology, but in-
cluding studies of computational uid dynamics (CFD), materials,
vehicle systems, and test facilities. In addition to forebody, inlet,
and nozzle/afterbodystudies,two rectangularcombustionchambers
have been tested. The rst dual-mode chamber (100 £ 100 mm2 )
included a single-strut injector that was tested at ONERA at a sim-
ulated ight Mach number of 6. Two strut-injection concepts were
tested: One strut incorporated normal, angled, and base injection

sites. The other strut utilized a rear section composed of a series
of expansion and compression ramp injectors. The relative perfor-
mances are discussed by Scherrer et al.63 The second combustor
calledCHAMOIS (cross-sectionalarea about 0.05 m2 ) utilized three
injection struts and has been successfully tested by Aerospatiale, at
Bourges, at a nominal ight Mach number of 6: Further details are
given by Bouchez et al.64
This latter effort has demonstrated a sound methodology to in-
Fig. 8 Kholod HFL. vestigate scramjet combustion phenomena by use of CFD models
of varying sophisticationto obtain qualitative and quantitativemod-
A second generation hypersonic ying test bed, IGLA, has also els of the ow, for comparison with experimental measurements. In
been frequently discussed in the Russia literature.55 IGLA is a turn, such CFD models have provided a structured approach to ad-
winged gliding vehicle, mounted on top of a large booster rocket dressing typical engine problems in the areas of ignition, ame sta-
(RS-18), and accelerated to speeds of the order of Mach 16. Af- bilization,mixing and combustionef ciencies,total pressure losses,
ter separation, the vehicle glides down to lower speeds where the and unsteady ow phenomena. A particularly interesting aspect of
scramjet is started. The engine installation is shown as a three- this investigation was the determination of the point of origin of
module, rectangular, hydrogen-fueled scramjet engine with regen- the precombustion shock in the combustor. Clearly, various lev-
erative cooling. Two series of tests of a scaled module, consisting of els of CFD modeling including differing turbulence and kinetic
an inlet and combustor, have recently been reported,56 at Mach 2 – 6, models are providing signi cant tools to approach design optimiza-
and Mach 6 – 7.2 conditions, to determine inlet performance. The tion of scramjet engines. In general, it would be very desirable to
testing of this module will be extended to higher Mach numbers add simultaneous optical ow visualization to the existing tools of
and will include combustor operation with hydrogen and/or hydro- CFD modeling and physical measurements. One impressive prod-
carbon fuel. If this overall program is successfully accomplished, uct of the CHAMOIS testing described by Bouchez et al.65 has been
it will provide most valuable data on scramjet performance at the the development of a lightweight, carbon/carbon strut with a sharp
higher speeds. hydrogen-cooled leading edge (radius less than 2 mm) potentially
Further details of scramjettechnologyeffortsin Russia are emerg- capable of surviving Mach 12 conditions.
ing in various technicalmeetings. Three excellent source references One other interesting aspect of strut technology is the design and
are Refs. 16, 18, and 24. test of a hydrogen-cooledInconel 718 strut.66 This strut is designed
to withstand both leading-edge and sidewall thermal loads corre-
Scramjet Technology in France sponding to ight speeds up to Mach 7.5.
In France, work on supersonic combustion began in the early A related French– Russian program is the partnership formed be-
1960s and a valuable series of experiments was reported by Mestre tween Aerospatialeand the MAI to develop a Mach 3– 12 wide range
and Viaud57 in 1964. In these investigations, kerosene combustion ramjet (WRR) prototype.As noted earlier, in the United States, Ferri
in a constant-area duct was studied at Mach 2.5 entry conditions had pursued the goal of developing a Mach 3– 12 engine in the early
and shown to be practicable. The limitations of constant area heat 1960s by utilizing aerothermodynamic ow effects in a xed ge-
addition were encountered and, in addition to the usual wall pres- ometry duct. The WRR approach, described by Bouchez et al.,67
sure distributions, valuable measurements of stagnation pressure favors the more structured approach of using a variable geometry
losses were made; useful data were also obtained on the ignition combustor made up of movable panels, actuated under computer
of kerosene/airstreams. Ultimately in the French program, both control, to maximize performance. At lower speeds, the WRR op-
kerosene and hydrogen combustion were studied, and various injec- erates in a subsonic combustion mode using kerosene fuel, and at
tion schemes were tried, such as wall, strut, and slot con gurations. higher speeds, supersonic combustion with hydrogen fuel is used. It
Work was also extended to divergent duct geometries. is postulated that still higher speeds may be attained by utilizing an
Following this early work, a signi cant program, ESOPE, was oblique detonationwave mode. In the WRR con guration, it will be
launched in 1966. In general, this program sought to demonstrate possible to use a physical variable throat and avoid the sensitivities
a dual-mode scramjet concept proposed by Marguet and Huet.58 associated with the dual-mode scramjet that uses a xed geometry
Initially a Mach 7.0 ight-test program was envisaged, but here combustor operating with a thermal throat.
again the ESOPE program was to become a ground-test program Thus, in the WRR, the engineering challenge of developing a
due to resource limitations. mechanicallyvariable geometry combustor/nozzle system, for dual-
The overall design of ESOPE is an axisymmetric engine with an fuel operation, is squarely faced. The propulsion community will
annular combustor, similar to the NASA HRE. Also like the HRE, watch the evolution of the WRR engine with interest.
1144 CURRAN
Although the PREPHA program ended in 1999, two scramjet phenomena in the late 1960s. Supersonic combustion studies were
programs continue. The rst effort, an initial three-year program reported some 20 years ago; more recently a very capable ramjet test
under the sponsorship of the French Ministry of Defense is called facility was installed at the National Aerospace Laboratory,Kakuda
PROMETHEE 68 : Its main aim is to explore the feasibility of a Research Center (NAL-KRC). This facility, which became opera-
dual-mode hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet for an air-launched mis- tional in 1994, is able to simulate ight conditions correspondingto
sile. A generic missile has been de ned, and three engine con- Mach 4, 6, and 8 (with a facilityexit nozzlesize of 51 cm square). The
cepts have been explored; a unique rotating-cowl dual-mode en- facility has a stored clean-air capability utilizing a ceramic heater
gine has been selected for further work. The second effort is termed and also two separate vitiated air heaters for Mach 6 and 8 condi-
Joint Airbreathing Propulsion for HypersonicApplication Research tions. Signi cantly, it is possible to run Mach 6 test conditionsusing
(JAPHAR), which began in 1997. One focus of JAPHAR 69 is the either clean or vitiated air.75 An interesting comparison of Mach 6
evaluation of a hydrogen-fueled dual-mode scramjet to operate, testing with both clean and vitiated air is given by Mitani et al.76
potentially, over the speed range Mach 2 – 12. To evaluate the net Since 1994, an extensive series of tests has been performed on a
propulsive effect of the engine it is essential to integrate it with a two-dimensionalsubscale engine at simulated ight Mach numbers
suitable vehicle. To determine the design of such a vehicle, DLR, of 4, 6, and 8, using hydrogen fuel. The engine utilizes a sidewall
the German Aerospace Research Center, carried out studies of a wa- compression inlet similar to the NASA airframe-integratedscramjet
verider con guration, and ONERA evaluated a winged-body con- engine. The dimensions of the engine are 20 cm wide, 25 cm height,
guration.From these studiesa common vehicledesign was evolved with a length of 2.1 m. The combustor fuel injection system utilizes
that incorporated the best features of the two approaches. pilot fuel injectors (top wall and/or side wall) and main fuel injec-
This program can now proceed to develop a second-generation tors, which provide both perpendicular and parallel fuel injection
scramjet engine, building on the lessons learned from previous pro- sites. The parallel injection takes place at the base of a step in the
grams, and optimizing overall engine performance within the con- combustor sidewall with perpendicular injection just downstream
straints of integration in a realistic vehicle design. A de nitive en- of the step. The combustor has been run without struts, with a par-
gine design should emerge from this effort. tial strut spanning one- fth of the duct height, and a full-span strut;
however, in none of these cases has the strut been used as a fuel in-
jector. Rather, the strut has been used to give further compression of
Scramjet Technology in Germany
the ow. Additionally, shock-generating ramps have been inserted
Germany has a long tradition of excellence in gasdynamics, and in the ow path to attenuate inlet– combustor interactions. A sta-
many foundationalcontributions,both theoreticaland experimental, tus report on the technological evolution of these engines is given
have been made to explain supersonic heat addition phenomena (for by Yatsuyanagi and Chinzei,77 with more recent developments re-
example, see the many references in the work by Zierep70 ). In 1987, ported by Sato et al.78 and Tani et al.79 Reference 79 gives a very
a hypersonic technology readiness program addressing a reference informative discussion of the effects of varying the engine inter-
concept of a two-stage reusable space transportsystem (Sanger) was nal geometry (isolator, struts, and ramps) on internal aerodynamic
initiated, which, in turn, stimulated a revival of basic hypersonic performance. In addition to the existing heat sink and water-cooled
research at various German universities. This basic research effort versions of the test engine, it is planned to test a hydrogen-cooled
was terminated in December 1995, but fortunately some aspects of engine in the near future. There have also been detailed studies of the
this work have continued, as described by Koschel.71 relative performancesof various fuel injectionstruts using both nor-
Also, under the overall hypersonic program, a joint German– mal and parallel fuel injection in varying proportions.80 Although
Russian scramjet technology research and development effort was a central full-span strut ensures initial fuel distribution across the
initiated in 1993 with TsAGI and primarily MTU as the participants. height of the duct, its presence splits the ow into two smaller chan-
There has been an informativeseries of progress reports on this pro- nels. It also generates a bow shock that can cause boundary-layer
gram by Sabel’nikov et al.72 Extensive use has been made of the separation at the wall, adding further blockage to the already re-
TsAGI test facilities, and the experimental program has addressed duced ow area; furthermore, the re ected shock can interact with
connected-pipe testing of a versatile rectangular subscale combus- the fuel injection/ignition process. In addition to these broad studies
tor, as well as freejet testing of subscale scramjet engines. The com- of conventional fuel injection strut phenomenology, there has also
bustor consisted of four sections including an isolator, a rectangular been work on improving the strut injector performance by use of
divergent section in which a step con guration can be introduced, a innovative geometries.
variable geometry divergent section, and a diffuser section. At least Despite this strong background on strut injection phenomena,
three different injector types have been investigated: tube injectors, many of the engine tests at Mach 4, 6, and 8 (Ref. 81) reported
wall-mounted ramp injectors, and wedge-shaped n injectors, that in the literature have been basically without utilizing strut injec-
is, a partial span swept strut. Both single-point and staged-injection tion in the combustor design. These engines have utilized ignition
locations have been tested. Various combustor tests have been made plasma torches, and this technologyhas been extensivelyresearched
at Mach 6 conditions,adding valuable additional data to the current in Japan82 and elsewhere.
knowledge base, particularly on strut-class injectors. A new large-scale free-piston, high-enthalpy shock-tunnel,
The subscale rectangular scramjet engine was also tested at HEIST, was installed at NAL-KRC in 1997: It should be capable of
Mach 5 and 6 conditions. This engine consisted of a three-ramp testing scramjets in the speed range of Mach 8– 15.
inlet, an isolator, a divergent (or alternatively a step con guration)
combustor, and a divergent exhaust nozzle. At Mach 6 conditions,
Scramjet Technology in Australia
this engine exhibited strong couplingeffects between the combustor
and inlet. At Mach 5, there were reduced interactions. Full details As noted earlier, the work of Stalker and his colleagues at the
of the Mach 5 and 6 tests are given by Walther et al.73 Additional University of Queensland is well known. This work started in1981
testing of this engine at Mach 7.2 conditions is discussed in Ref. 74. with the T3 hypersonic impulse facility at the Australian National
Also, the possibility of ight testing a subscale engine, installed University,and in 1987 it transitionedto the T4 tunnel at the Univer-
on the Russian Raduga-D2, at Mach 6 conditionshas been explored. sity of Queensland: The T4 tunnel is capable of simulating orbital
The Raduga-D2 vehicle is typically air launched from a Tupolev ight conditions. Experimental work has evolved from the testing
TU-22M at supersonic speed and is powered by a rocket engine. of simple combustors to the testing of complete scramjet models,
As already noted, Germany and France are jointly working on a and net positive thrust has been demonstrated. A broad range of
dual-mode engine, under the JAPHAR program. technology efforts has been undertaken, primarily using hydrogen
fuel, including fuel mixing and combustion studies, the effects of
shocks on mixing and burning, skin-frictionmeasurements, and nu-
Scramjet Technology in Japan merous gasdynamic investigations. The continuing pursuit of im-
Japan has a long history of working technologies relevant to proved scramjet ef ciencies is well describedby Paull and Stalker.40
scramjet engines, including some signi cant work on pseudoshock A signi cant ight-test program, HyShot, is planned for mid-2001.
CURRAN 1145
Fig. 9 Dual-Combustor Ramjet.
Two scramjetvehiclesare to be launchedwith the objectof obtaining the wall pilot, the split-inlet pilot, and the catalytic pilot; these
the correlation between ight- and ground-test supersonic combus- schemes, and more general combustion concerns are extensively
tion data. discussed by Waltrup.91 More recently the use of cavity-based fuel
injector/stabilizer con gurations, combined with barbotage injec-
Other Scramjet Technology Efforts tion, have been successfully demonstrated with JP-7 fuel.92
Many other nations are embarking on supersonic combustion re- Another technology area that has received only limited attention
search. Experimental work on supersonic combustors in India has in the literature is active cooling of the hydrocarbon class of en-
been published,83 and both analyticaland experimental84 studies are gine. Much analysis has been done, and practical combustors have
reported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, People’s Republic advanced from early heat-sink approaches, through water-cooled,
of China. to actively cooled metal and composite structures. Active cooling
Additional work related to hypersonic propulsion is being pur- is greatly enhanced by the use of endothermic fuels. Although the
sued elsewherein Europe. Broadbent85 has compiled a usefulsurvey capabilities of these fuels are well known, there has been very little
of some work in the United Kingdom. Also, at Shef eld University, work published on the practicalengineeringof the overall endother-
Swithenbank et al.86 pursued extensive scramjet engine mixing and mic fuel cooling system. These systems requirecatalyticconversion,
combustion studies for many years. Another substantial university multiphase operation, and fast cold-start capabilities;active cooling
program was conducted by Cookson et al.87 at the College of Aero- will probably be essential for speeds exceeding about Mach 6.5 to
nautics, Cran eld, using both hydrogen and hydrocarbonfuels. One achieve thermal balance of the engine.
early scramjet combustor con guration tested by Rolls Royce and There has been some discussion on the ultimate speed capabili-
reported by Harper88 was a simple step combustor (with wall fuel ties of hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet engines. A recent analysis by
injectors upstream of the step and also injection from the base of Waltrup93 yields estimates that, for the axisymmetric missile class
the step). This combustor was tested at temperatures correspond- of vehicle the upper speed bound lies between Mach 9 and 10.
ing to Mach 5 – 7 with both hydrogen and methane fuels. The step
con guration gave stable operation and smooth transition between Conclusions
supersonic and subsonic combustion modes. The scramjet engine is the key to airbreathing hypersonic ight.
Because of the energy limitations of currently available fuels, the
Emerging Trends scramjet is unlikely to provide ef cient propulsion all of the way
Up to this point, most of the discussion has focused on the de- to orbital speeds. Furthermore, effective performance at the higher
velopment of hydrogen-fueledengine technologies. In general, this speeds will demand the highest component ef ciencies. Some po-
work has been aimed at providingengine technologyfor hypersonic tential improvement in high-speed performance may be anticipated
air vehicle concepts that include both two-stage-to-orbit and SSTO by liquid oxygen augmentation of the combustion system (for ex-
vehicles. The modular two-dimensional airframe-integratedscram- ample, see Roudokov’s discussion in Papers 4 and 9 of Ref. 16).
jet engine has emerged as the candidate of choice, as is evident in However, it is anticipated that the hydrogen-fueled scramjet will
the IGLA and JAPHAR vehicles. This con guration permits engine offer acceptable performance to about Mach 15.
development in reasonable size ground facilities and requires a rel- The early encouraging explorations of supersonic combustion
atively modest ight test vehicle for module testing. The relatively phenomena in the late 1950s/early1960s perhaps gave the impres-
large height of the engine determines many of the relevant techno- sion that the scramjet engine could be developed using the same
logicalfeatures,such as the use, primarily,of strut injectors.Also the structured and largely controlled approach appropriate to subsonic
associated inlet designs have driven extensive development of two- combustors, that is, fuel injection, distribution, mixing, ignition,
dimensional,sidewall compressionsystems and of two-dimensional stabilization by pilot zones, ame propagation, etc. However, in
isolators. the scramjet, the presence of supersonic/subsonic ows with cor-
However, in recent years, due to budget limitations, scramjet responding shock elds, coupled heat release/shock generation,
engine development has focused on relatively near-term missile shock/boundary-layer interactions, and thermal occlusion effects
propulsion efforts. In particular, the U.S. Air Force, as already very soon demonstrated that scramjet combustor development was
noted, is addressing hydrocarbon-fueled missile propulsion in the no simple endeavor. Once again, the pioneering work of Ferri in
Mach 4 – 8 regime under the HyTech Program89 ; similar work is addressing these problems, in complex three-dimensional engine
proceeding in France. In these missile engines, due to the basic con gurations, is noteworthy. Since that time, more tractable en-
dif culty of igniting and rapidly burning the heavy hydrocarbon gine ow path systems have been investigated. At present, two-
fuels, it is essential to prepare the fuel for effective combustion or, dimensional engine designs, with or without strut fuel injectors, are
alternatively,to add very energeticfuels or oxidizers.From an opera- beginning to emerge and should provide a common con guration
tional viewpoint, such energetic additions are usually unacceptable. on which the community could focus future research efforts and
Fortunately, over the long history of hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet resolve current ow path anomalies.
development, many combustor design approaches have been pro- The unexpectedcomplexitiesof scramjet combustion and, in par-
posed and investigated, such as the well-known DCR90 shown in ticular, combustor– inlet interactions,have frustrated progress in the
Fig. 9. In this design, two combustors are used, an initial subsonic past 40 years. Indeed, it has taken the propulsion community over
combustor, operating fuel-rich, and a coaxial supersonic burner to 30 years, since the conception of the engine, to achieve a success-
complete the combustionprocess. Other hydrocarbon-fueledengine ful ight test. Of course, the overall scramjet international effort
designs use various piloting techniques. Such techniques include has also not been consistently funded, and so there have been many
1146 CURRAN
dormant periods in research.However, signi cant progresshas been Supersonic Flow, Chemical Processes and Radiative Transfer, Macmillan,
made, but more substantive progress in developing improved un- New York, 1964, pp. 113– 136.
6 Roy, M. M., “Moteurs Thermiques,” Comptes rendus de l’ Academie des
derstanding of scramjet processes, leading to preferred scramjet
engine designs, is needed, so that effort can be focused on elim- Sciences, Vol. 222, No. 1, 1946; see also Royal Aircraft C Establishment
inating anomalies and re ning such designs. Furthermore, devel- Library Translation 112, 1946.
7 Nicholls, J. A., Dabora, E. K., and Gealev, R. L., “Studies in Connection
opment will be hastened if effort is concentrated on con gurations with Stabilized Detonation Waves,” Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium
that lend themselves to structured, standard engineeringapproaches on Combustion, Butterworths, London, 1959, pp. 766– 772.
that control the owpath phenomena. One such early proposal was 8 Gross, R. A., and Chinitz, W., “A Study of Supersonic Combustion,”
a multistep burner94 where a standard step burner element is used Journal of the Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 7, 1960, pp. 517– 524,
sequentially to spatially anchor heat release along the combustor, to 534.
9 Ferri, A., “Discussion on M. Roy’s Paper Propulsion Supersonique par
control heat release as a function of length. An actively controlled
system could optimize overall performance. Turboreacteurs et par Statoreacteurs,” Advances in Aeronautical Sciences,
As an observer of the work in progress, this writer is reminded Vol. 1, Pergamon, Oxford, England, U.K., 1959, pp. 79 – 112.
10
of Kuchemann’s comment in the prolegomena to his well known Ferri, A., Libby, P. A., and Zakkay, V., “Theoretical and Experimental
Investigations of Supersonic Combustion,” Proceedings of the International
book95 that it was Prandtl who introduced the concept of healthy
Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Third Congress, Stockholm, 1962,
ows: We are well advised to search for such healthy ow solu- Spartan, New York, 1964, pp. 1089– 1155.
tions for scramjet combustors. Let us hope that international efforts 11
Swithenbank, J., “Experimental Investigation of Hypersonic Ramjets,”
can succeed in developing engine con gurations in which healthy Proceedings of the InternationalCouncil of the Aeronautical Sciences, Third
combustor ows can be baselined, so that robust airbreathing hy- Congress, Stockholm, 1962, Spartan, New York, 1964, pp. 951– 977.
12 Weber, R. J., and MacKay, J. S., “An Analysis of Ramjet Engines using
personic propulsion can be con dently improved. Certainly, there
are no grounds for complacency with current published combustor Supersonic Combustion,” NACA TN 4386, Sept. 1958.
13 Dugger, G. L., “Comparison of Hypersonic Ramjet Engines with Sub-
performance levels.
With regardto hydrocarbonfueled systems,it is hoped that budget sonic and Supersonic Combustion,” High Mach Number Airbreathing En-
gines, Pergamon, Oxford, England, U.K., 1961, pp. 84– 110.
support will continue to enable explorationof such propulsion tech- 14 Hueter, U., “Rocket-Based Combined-Cycle PropulsionTechnology for
nologies to speeds of about Mach 8. This class of engine will almost Access-to-Space Applications,” AIAA Paper 99-4925, Nov. 1999.
certainlyplay a role in developingfuture hypersonicair vehicles and 15 Curran, E. T., Heiser, W. H., and Pratt, D. T., “Fluid Phenomena in
offers considerable scope for innovation and invention. Scramjet Combustion Systems,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol.
We have come to the 40th anniversary of scramjet engine re- 28, 1996, pp. 323– 360.
16 Sosounov, V., “Research and Development of Ram/Scramjets and Tur-
search; in the next few years it appears that major ight testing will
take place in the IGLA and Hyper-X programs. The possibility of bojets in Russia,” AGARD Lecture Ser. 194, AGARD, 1993.
17 Tretyakov, P. K., “The Study of Supersonic Combustion for a Scram-
additional ight testing by other nations has been raised in the lit-
erature. Thus, the current scramjet engine con gurations and their jet,” Experimentation, Modeling and Computation in Flow, Turbulence, and
Combustion, Vol. 1, edited by J. A. Désidéri, B. N. Chetverushkin, Y. A.
supportingtechnologieswill be put to the test of ightvalidation,and
Kuznetsov, J. Périaux, and B. Stouf et, Wiley, New York, 1996, Chap. 22,
further data regarding the future viability of scramjet powered hy- pp. 319– 336.
personic ight should soon be available.Indeed it is time for increas- 18 Curran, E .T., and Murthy, S. N. B. (eds.), Scramjet Propulsion, Progress
ing international collaboration on key technologicalscramjet issues in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2001.
through dedicated workshops. Although this remark is in the con- 19 Ferri, A., “Review of Problems in Application of Supersonic Combus-
text of scramjet combustor technology, it is obvious that dedicated tion,” Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Vol. 68, No. 645, 1964, pp.
workshops on other scramjet components (particularly inlets and 575– 597.
20 Ferri, A., and Fox, H., “Analysis of Fluid Dynamics of Supersonic
nozzles), CFD methods, and basic research problems are required.
Regarding future hypersonic propulsion, the potential of the Combustion Process Controlled by Mixing,” Proceedings of the Twelfth In-
oblique-detonation wave engine is under continuing investiga- ternational Symposium on Combustion, Combustion Inst., Pittsburgh, PA,
1968, pp. 1105– 1113.
tion.96;97 There are also emerging efforts to capitalize on the ma- 21 Ferri, A., “Mixing Controlled Supersonic Combustion,” Annual Review
nipulation of ionized ows to improve engine-vehicleperformance. of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 5, 1973, pp. 301– 338.
It should also be observed that over the last 40 years, we have come 22
Billig, F. S., “Two-Dimensional Model for Thermal Compression,”
to acceptthe airframe-integratedlifting body con gurationas a stan- Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 9, No. 9, 1972, pp. 702, 703.
dard vehicle con guration. Billig98 has recently pointed out that it 23
Peschke, W. O. T., “Approach to In Situ Analysis of Scramjet Combustor
would be prudent to examine the possibility of a radical change in Behavior,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 11, No. 5, 1995, pp. 943–
the engine ow path and, in turn, the overall vehicle con guration 949.
24 Tretjakov, P., Golovitchev, V. I., and Bruno, C., “Supersonic Combus-
to produce a more effective vehicle. Billig has presented con g-
urations based on a owpath derived from streamline tracing of tion: A Russian View, 1967– 1993,” Joint Meeting of the Italian and Span-
ish Sections of the Combustion Institute, Combustion Inst., Pittsburgh, PA,
inward turning ow elds that can potentially reduce drag and heat-
June– July 1993, pp. V111-1.1– V111-1.4.
ing loads. The design of the SCRAM engine mentioned earlier was 25 Waltrup, P. J., Stull, F. D., and Anderson, G. Y., “Supersonic Combustion
based on the use of similar techniques. Thus, despite the maturing Ramjet (Scramjet) Engine Development in the United States,” Proceedings
of the early scramjet engine technology base,99 fresh opportunities of the Third International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, Deutsche
exist to improve the robustness of hypersonic propulsion and avoid Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfarht, Germany, March 1976, pp. 835–
the marginality associated with orbital and suborbital missions. It 862.
26 Andrews, E. H., and Mackley, E. A., “Review of NASA’s Hypersonic
is anticipated that the truly mature scramjet engine will indeed rule
over a wide ight domain.100 Research Engine Project,” AIAA Paper 93-2323, 1993; also NASA TM
107759, Oct. 1994.
27 Henry, J. R., and Anderson, G. Y., “Design Considerations for the
References Airframe-Integrated Scramjet,” Proceedings of the First International Sym-
1 Dugger, G. L., “Recent Advances in Ramjet Combustion,” ARS Journal, posium on Air Breathing Engines, International Society for Airbreathing
Vol. 29, No. 11, 1959, pp. 819– 827. Engines, 1972; also NASA TM X-2895, 1973.
2 Weber, R. J., “A Survey of Hypersonic-Ramjet Concepts,” American 28 Guy, R.W., and Mackley, E. A., “Initial Wind Tunnel Tests at Mach 4
Rocket Society, Paper 875-59, 1959. and 7 of a Hydrogen-Burning, Airframe-Integrated Scramjet,” Proceedings
3 High Mach Number Airbreathing Engines, Pergamon, Oxford, England, of the Fourth International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE
U.K., 1961. Paper 79-7045, 1– 6 April 1979.
4 Mallinson, D. H., “Discussion on Hypersonic Ramjet Development,” 29 Hearth, D. P., and Preyss, A. E., “Hypersonic Technology—Approach
High Mach Number Airbreathing Engines, Pergamon, Oxford, England, to an Expanded Program,” Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 14, No. 12,
U.K., 1961, pp. 80– 83. 1976, pp. 20– 37.
5 Hawkins, R., and Fox, M. D., “An Investigation of Real Gas Effects 30 Northam, G. B., and Anderson, G. Y., “Supersonic Combustion Re-
Relevant to the Performance of a Kerosene Fueled Hypersonic Ramjet,” search at Langley,” AIAA Paper 86-0159, Jan. 1986.
CURRAN 1147
31 Rogers, R. C., Capriotti, D. P., and Guy, R. W., “Experimental Super- 57 Mestre, A., and Viaud, L., “Combustion Supersonique dans un Canal
sonic Combustion Research at NASA Langley, AIAA Paper 98-2506, June Cylindrique,” Supersonic Flow, Chemical Processes and Radiative Transfer,
1998. MacMillan, New York, 1964, pp. 93 – 111.
32 Billig, F. S., “SCRAM: A Supersonic Combustion Ramjet Missile,” 58 Marguet, R., and Huet, C., “Research of an Optimum Solution for a
AIAA Paper 93-2329, June 1993. Fixed Geometry Ramjet, in the Mach 3 – 7 Range, with Successively Subsonic
33 Billig, F. S., Dugger, G. L., and Waltrup, P. J., “Inlet-Combustor Inter- and Supersonic Combustion,” ONERA TP 656E, 1968.
face Problems in Scramjet Engines,” Proceedings of the First International 59 Leuchter, O., “Problems of Mixing and Supersonic Combustion of Hy-
Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, International Society for Airbreathing drogen in Hypersonic Ramjets,” ONERA TP 973, 1971.
Engines, June 1972. 60 Hirsinger, F., “Optimization Des Performances d’un Statoreacteur Su-
34 Billig, F. S., and Sullins, G. A., “Optimization of Combustor– Isolator personique: Etude Theorique et Experimentale,” Proceedings of the 1st In-
in Dual-Mode Ram Scramjets,” AIAA Paper 93-5154, Nov.– Dec. 1993. ternational Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, International Society for
35 Billig, F. S., “Research on Supersonic Combustion,” Journal of Propul- Airbreathing Engines, June 1972.
sion and Power, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1993, pp. 515– 521. 61 Contensou, P., Marguet, R., and Huet, C., “Etude Theorique et Ex-
36 Billig, F. S., “Combustion Processes in Supersonic Flow,” Journal of perimentale d’un Statoreacteur a Combustion Mixte (Domaine de vol Mach
Propulsion and Power, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1988, pp. 209– 216. 3/7), International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS Paper 72– 74,
37 Chase, R. L., and Tang, M. H., “A History of the NASP Program 1972; also ONERA TP 1121, 1972.
62
from the Formation of the Joint Program Of ce to the Termination of Sancho, M., Colin, Y., and Johnson,C., “Program Overview: The French
the HySTP Scramjet Performance Demonstration Program,” AIAA Paper Hypersonic Research Program PREPHA,” AIAA 7th International Space
95-6051, April 1995. Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Nov. 1996.
38 Waldman, B., and Harsha, P., “NASP—A Maturing Technology Base,” 63 Scherrer, D., Dessornes, O., Montmayeur, N., and Ferrandon, O., “In-
AIAA Paper 93-5173, Nov.– Dec. 1993. jection Studies in the French Hypersonic Technology Program,” AIAA Paper
39 95-6096, April 1995.
Voland, R., and Rock, K., “NASP Concept Demonstration Engine and
Subscale Parametric Engine Tests,” AIAA Paper 95-6055, April 1995. 64 Bouchez, M., Hachemin, J. V., Leboucher, C., Scherrer, D., and
40 Saucerau, D., “Scramjet Combustor Design in French PREPHA Program—
Paull, A., and Stalker, R. J., “Scramjet Testing in the T4 Impulse Facil-
ity,” AIAA Paper 98-1533, April 1998. Status in 1996,” AIAA Paper 96-4582-CP, Nov. 1996.
41 Bakos, R. J., Tsai, C.-Y., Rogers, R. C., and Shih, A. T, “The Mach 65 Bouchez, M., Saunier, E., Peres, P., and Lansalot, T., “Advanced Car-
10 Component of NASA’s Hyper-X Ground Test Program,” Proceedings of bon/Carbon Injection Strut for Actual Scramjet,” AIAA Paper 96-4567-CP,
the 14th International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper Nov. 1996.
66 Rene-Corail, M., Rothmund, Ch., Ferrandon, O., and Dessornes, O.,
99-7216, Sept. 1999.
42 Rausch, V., McClinton, C., and Sitz, J., “Hyper-X Program Overview,” “A Hydrogen Cooled Injection Strut Design for Scramjet,” AIAA Paper
Proceedings of the 14th InternationalSymposium on Air Breathing Engines, 96-4511-CP, Nov. 1996.
ISABE Paper 99-7213, Sept. 1999. 67 Bouchez, M., Levine, V., Davidenko, D., Avrashkov, D., and Genevieve,
43 McClinton, C. R., Hunt, J. L., Ricketts, R. H., Reukauf, P., and Peddie, P, “Airbreathing Space Launcher Interest of a Fully Variable Geometry
C. L., “Airbreathing Hypersonic Technology Vision Vehicles and Dreams,” Propulsion System and Corresponding French – Russian Partnership,” AIAA
AIAA Paper 99-4978, Nov. 1999. Paper 2000-3340, July 2000.
44 Faulkner, R. F., and Weber, J. W., “Hydrocarbon Scramjet Propul- 68 Falempin, F., and Serre, L., “The French PROMETHEE Program: Main
sion System Development, Demonstration and Application,” AIAA Paper Goals and Status in 1999,” AIAA Paper 99-4814, Nov. 1999.
99-4922, Nov. 1999. 69 Novelli, P., and Koschel, W., “JAPHAR—A Joint ONERA – DLR Re-
45 Shchetinkov,E. S., “Piecewise-One-Dimensional Models of Supersonic search Project on High Speed Airbreathing Propulsion,” 14th International
Combustion and Pseudo Shock in a Duct,” Fizika Goreniya i Vzryva, Vol. 9, Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 99-7091, Sept. 1999.
No. 4, 1973, pp. 473– 483. 70 Zierep, J., “Theory of Flows in Compressible Media with Heat Addi-
46 Meshcheryakov, E. A., and Sabel’nikov, V. A., “Reduced Heat Pro- tion,” AGARDograph 191, 1974.
71
duction Due to Mixing and Kinetic Factors in Supersonic Combustion of Koschel, W. W., “Basic Hypersonic Propulsion Research in German
Unmixed Gases in an Expanding Channel,” Fizika Goreniya i Vzryva, Vol. Universities,” AIAA Paper 98-1634, April 1998.
72
24, No. 5, 1988, pp. 23 – 32. Sabel’nikov, V. A., Voloschenko, O. V., Ostras, V. N., Sermanov, V. N.,
47 Penzin, V. I., “Pseudoshock and Separated Flows in Rectangular Chan- and Walther, R., “Gasdynamics of Hydrogen-FueledScramjet Combustors,”
nels,” Fluid Mechanics—Soviet Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1989, pp. 1– 12. AIAA Paper 93-2145, June 1993.
48 Vinogradov, V., Grachev, V., Petrov, M., and Sheechman, J., “Exper- 73 Walther, R., Sabelnikov, V., Koronstsvit, Y., Voloschenko, O., Ostras,
imental Investigation of 2-D Dual Mode Scramjet with Hydrogen Fuel at V., and Sermanov, V., “Progress in the Joint German – Russian Scramjet Tech-
Mach 4-6,” AIAA Paper 90-5269, Oct. 1990. nology Programme,” Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on
49 Vinogradov, V., Albegov, R. V., and Petrov, M. D., “Experimental In- Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 95-7121, Sept. 1995.
74 Walther, R., Koschel, W., Sabelnikov, V., Korontsvit, Y., and Ivanov, V.,
vestigation of Hydrogen Burning and Heat Transfer in Annular Duct at
Supersonic Velocity,” International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, “Investigations into the Aerothermodynamic Characteristics of Scramjet
ICAS Paper 92-3.4R2, Beijing, China, Sept. 1992. Components,” Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Air
50 Vinogradov, V., Kobyzhskii, S. A., and Petrov, M. D., “Organization Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 97-7085, Sept. 1997.
of Kerosene Combustion in a Model Hypersonic Ramjet Engine,” Fizika 75 Miyajima, H., Chinzei, N., Mitani, T., Wakamatsu, Y., and Maita, M.,
Goreniya i Vzryva, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1992, pp. 18 – 26. “Development Status of the NAL Ramjet EngineTest Facility and Sub-Scale,
51 Albegov, R. V., Vinogradov, V. A., Zhadan, G. G., and Kobyzhskii, Scramjet Engines,” AIAA Paper 92-5094, Dec. 1992.
76
S. A., “Experimental Investigation of Hydrogen Combustion and Supersonic Mitani, T., Hiraiwa, T., Sato, S., Tomioka, S., Kanda, T., and Tani,
Cooling in an Annular Channel,” Fizika Goreniya i Vzryva Vol. 27, No. 6, K., “Comparison of Scramjet Engine Performance in Mach 6 Vitiated and
1991, pp. 24– 29. Storage-Heated Air,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 13, No. 5, 1997,
52 Roudakov,A., Schickhman, Y., Semenov, V., Novelli, Ph., and Fourt,O., pp. 635– 642.
77 Yatsuyanagi, N., and Chinzei, N., “Status of Scramjet Research at NAL,”
“Flight Testing an Axisymmetric Scramjet: Russian Recent Advances,” In-
ternational Astronautical Federation, IAF Paper 93-S.4.485.44th,Oct. 1993. Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Space Technology and
53 McClinton, C., Roudakov, A., Semenov, V., and Kopehenov, V., “Com- Science, Paper 96-a-2-10, May 1996.
parative Flow Path Analysis and Design Assessment of an Axisymmetric 78 Sato, S., Izumikawa, M., Tomioka, S., and Mitani, T., “Scramjet Engine
Hydrogen Fueled Scramjet Flight Test Engine at a Mach Number of 6.5,” Test at Mach 6 Flight Condition,” AIAA Paper 97-3021, July 1997.
AIAA Paper 96-4571, 1996. 79 Tani, K., Kanda, T., Sunami, T., Hiraiwa, T., and Tomioka, S., “Geo-
54 Voland, R. T., Auslander, A. H., Smart, M. K., Roudakov, A. S., Se- metrical Effects to Aerodynamic Performance of Scramjet Engine,” AIAA
menov, V. L., and Kopchenov, V., “CIAM/NASA Mach 6.5 Scramjet Flight Paper 97-3018, July 1997.
and Ground Test,” AIAA Paper 99-4848, Nov. 1999. 80 Masuya, G., Komuro, T., Murakami, A., Shinozaki, N., Nakamura, A.,
55 Sosounov, V. A., Roudakov, A. S., Semenov, V. S., Kopchenov, V. I., Murayama, M., and Ohwaki, K., “Ignition and Combustion Performance of
Lanshin, A. I., and Romankov, O. N., “Two Generations of Russian Scram Scramjet Combustors with Fuel Injection Struts,” Journal of Propulsion and
Flying Test Beds. The Oriel Programme,” Proceedings of the 12th Interna- Power, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995, pp. 301– 307.
tional Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, Sept. 1995. 81 Kanda, T., Wakamatsu, Y., Ono, F., Kudo, K., Murakami, A., and Izu-
56 Goldfeld, M. A., Nestoulia, R. V., Starov, A. V., and Vinogradov, V. A., mikawa, M., “ Mach 8 Testing of a Scramjet Engine Model,” AIAA Paper
“Experimental Study of Scramjet Module,” Proceedings of the 14th Interna- 99-0617, Jan. 1999.
tional Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 99-7052, Sept. 82 Sato, Y., Sayama, M., Ohwaki, K., Masuya, G., Komuro, T., Kudou,
1999. K., Murakami, A., Tani, K., Wakamatsu, Y., Kanda, T., Chinzei, N., and
1148 CURRAN
Kimura, I., “Effectiveness of Plasma Torches for Ignition and Flameholding 91 Waltrup, P. J., “Hypersonic Air-Breathing Missile Propulsion,”AGARD
in Scramjet,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1992, pp. Conf. Future Aerospace Technology in the Service of the Alliance, Vol. 3:
883– 889. Sustained Hypersonic Flight Paper C3, April 1997.
83 Srikrishnan, A. R., Kurian, J., and Sriramula, V., “A Comparative Ex- 92 Mather, T., Lin, K. C., Kennedy, P., Gruber, M., Donbar, I. M., Jackson,
perimental Study of Supersonic Combustors,” Proceedings of the 14th Inter- T., and Billig, F., “Liquid JP-7 Combustion in a Scramjet Combustor,” AIAA
nationalSymposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 99-7055,Sept. Paper 2000-3581, July 2000.
93
1999. Waltrup, P. J., “Upper Bounds on the Flight Speed of Hydrocarbon-
84 Jian-guo, L., Gong, Y., Yue, Z., Ying, L., and Da-xin, Q., “Experimental Fueled Scramjet-Powered Vehicles,” Proceedings of the 14th International
Studies on Self-Ignition of Hydrogen/Air Supersonic Combustion,” Journal Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 99-7093, Sept. 1999.
94
of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1997, pp. 538– 542. Curran, E. T., “Step Cylinder Combustor,” U.S. Patent 3864907, Nov.
85 Broadbent, E. G., “Hypersonic Aerodynamics,” Philosophical Trans- 1975.
actions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Physical Sciences and 95 Kuchemann, D., The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft, Pergamon,
Engineering, Vol. 335, No. 1637, 1991, pp. 87 – 224. Oxford, England, U.K., 1978, Chap. 1, p. 22.
86 Swithenbank, J., Ewan, B. C. R., Chin, S. B., Shao, L., and Wu, Y., 96 Chinitz, W., “On the use of Shock-Induced Combustion in Hypersonic
“Mixing Power Concepts in Scramjet Combustor Design,” Major Research Engines,” AIAA Paper 96-4536, Nov. 1996.
Topics in Combustion, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992, pp. 531– 587. 97 Rubins, P. M., and Bauer, R. C., “Review of Shock-Induced Supersonic
87 Cookson, R. A., Flanagan, P., and Penny, G. S., “A Study of Free Jet Combustion Research and Hypersonic Applications,” Journal of Propulsion
and Enclosed Supersonic Diffusion Flames,” Proceedings of the Twelfth and Power, Vol. 10, No. 5, 1994, pp. 593– 601.
International Symposium on Combustion, Combustion Inst., Pittsburgh, PA, 98 Billig, F. S., “Overview of Propulsion Performance,” AGARD Conf.
1969, pp. 1125– 1139. on Future Aerospace Technology in the Service of the Alliance, Vol. 3:
88
Harper, L., “Discussion on Supersonic Combustion,”Proceedings of the Sustained Hypersonic Flight Paper C33, April 1997.
Twelfth International Symposium on Combustion, Combustion Inst., Pitts- 99 Waltrup, P. J., “ Liquid-Fueled Supersonic Combustion Ramjets: A
burgh, PA, 1969, pp. 1138, 1139. Research Perspective,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 3, No. 6,
89 Mercier, R. A., and Ronald, T. M. F., “Hypersonic Technology (HyTech) 1987, pp. 515– 524.
Program Overview,” AIAA Paper 98-1566, April 1998. 100 Townend, L. H., “The Domain of the Scramjet,” Philosophical Trans-
90 Waltrup, P. J., “Airbreathing Propulsion for Missile and Projectiles,” actions of the Royal Society of London,Series A: Mathematical and Physical
AGARD-CP-526, Paper 8, Sept. 1992. Sciences, Vol. 357, No. 1759, 1999, pp. 2317– 2334.

Scramjet Engines: The First Forty Years

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scramjet Engines: The First Forty Years

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scramjet Engines: The First Forty Years

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF PROPULSION AND POWER

Vol. 17, No. 6, November– December 2001