NationStates Jolt Archive

Three things:
1.Could ion propulsion be used as an aircraft engine?

2.Could an environmentally friendly form of electricity (correct me if I’m wrong, hydrogen, oxygen and water as a power source for the electricity [as I said, correct me]) also be used as an aircraft engine?

3.Which out of these two would be most effective (in speed etc) AND environmentally friendly.



I’m asking this as the AAF is working on a new tactical defence fighter, the N1. This jet may require two of these of those engines in order too out-fly any other fighter.

Here are the possible stats:

Armament- x2 M61 Vulcan 20mm cannons with 3800 rounds and x20 (specially modelled) AIM7 Sparrows, with a length of 18” (like I said, specially modelled).
Length- 11m (36ft)
Speed-?????
Engine-?????
Crew-1 pilot.
Features- Built in VTOL thrusters for take of (main engines kick in shortly afterward). “Beta” Type radar, which is linked to a computer that identifies targets and friendly aircraft on the radar and a circular interface showing what you see dead-ahead of you except it tells which aircraft is on which side (using a sensor array, the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System [JTID System]), the view obviously is being transmitted from a camera.
Cost- £16.8 million

With any luck, the N1 may revolutionize the fighter industry, and inspire many more designs like it. (No picture available)

OOC: You cant say no ooc and expect people to critique and answer questions when you yourself didn't set up an IC setting to discuss them, therefore this will be an ooc post :-P

1. Ion propulsion is used in spacecraft to gain speed over long periods of time(read: months). If you mean some type of magnetic accelerator, maybe, but the power requirements to get any real thrust would be enormous(more than any conventional engine), bringing me to...

2. There are no environmentally friendly energy sources that can deliver the shear amount of eletricity you need. I'd also like to point out that fighter jets are not even close to the top of the list for environmental damage. You don't have as many fighter jets as cars, so pollution is a non-issue, especially when they need high performance. You can't have a Lambourghini with the fuel economy of a Civic.

3. To get high speed, practical engines, you have to stick with either jets, rockets, ramjets, scramjets, or any of the hundreds of variations between them. Electricity is not good for anything bigger than power windows.

And a few critiques on the airplane itself.......
3800 rounds is a very large amount, and having that much along with two cannons would take up more space than the A10s main gun. I have no clue how you can make 18" Sparrows, those would be smaller than some model rockets, and would have comparable payloads if the guidance system remained as good as the original......which was 11 ft 10 inches. Unless you mean 18 ft sparrows, in which case there is no way in hell a plane that size could carry them(36 ft plane, 18 ft missile = missile half as long as plane).

Also people prefer their prices in dollars so they don't have to look up exchange rates. Yours comes up as $30-31 million.

1: Yes they can, while not a fully matured technology working protoypes exist, unfortunatly they tend to only be of any use for long rnage fairly low speed aircraft like airships and blimps...

2: a bit confusing this one but perhaps we could simplify it for you: Use a hydrogen jet, they have been prototyped (IIRC) are very enviro freindly (burning hydrogen gives you water) with rahter impressive power outputs, unfortunatly you need a fairly big jet to hold enough fuel to get anywhere.
Why you would want to generate electricity to power the aircraft i have no idea but must planes IIRC use thier engines to provide electrical power (some mainly big planes like C-5s and hercs also have small jet turbines known as APUs that they use to supply power).

Specs:
2 vulcans? now that is just silly, the vulcan was designed so that you didn't need the large number of cannons of earlier fighters, nah just forget about the 20mm vulcan and use a decent hivelocity single barrel gun like the 25mm ADEN or 27mm mauser.

If you want a good fuel hydrogren is the way to go. It has around 2.5x better TSFC(Thurst specific fuel consmption) than normal jet fuel meaning that with the same power output you will go 2.5x further on the same amount of fuel.

This technology is still in it's infancy and thus costs a massive amount of money to produce.

There is a type of experimental engine using a technology called "pulse detonation". I'm not sure how it works exactly, but try looking it up. From what I know, it's meant to be VERY fast.

There is a type of experimental engine using a technology called "pulse detonation". I'm not sure how it works exactly, but try looking it up. From what I know, it's meant to be VERY fast.

The problem with pulse detonation that it burns all the fuel of each pulse at once in a tiny area. This leads the many problems:
1: The presure created by the fuel detonation stresses metal to levels well beyond other engine types of the same thrust class. This limites use power of the engines considerably.
2: Fuel consumption is high, about the same as a turbojet. But for military use it isn't considered too bad.
3: Unless there is a good airflow around the engine they overheat in no time at all, Thus again limiting power and areas it can be used.


They are good for use on cruise missile or unmanned craft but thats about it.

Currently the only working engine produce around 300lbs of thurst and can run for 6minutes max.

What the bloody hell is this OOC thing all you geeks us on here :?:

Anyway what the hell do you geeks talk about on here :?:

I don't suppose any of you geeks have heard of the GENERAL forum :!:

And I suppose all of you are obsessed with war and LOTR like Adaptus Astrates

Geeks = :shock:

With your geeky glasses which are probably all Australian and cost 125 quid.

All I have to say is Geeks rule the world, petty commoner...:lol: (j/k)

What the bloody hell is this OOC thing all you geeks us on here :?:

Anyway what the hell do you geeks talk about on here :?:

I don't suppose any of you geeks have heard of the GENERAL forum :!:

And I suppose all of you are obsessed with war and LOTR like Adaptus Astrates

Geeks = :shock:

With your geeky glasses which are probably all Australian and cost 125 quid.

Yeah dude, I remember when stereotypes were funny too. But I don't wear glasses. So what do you talk about in your spare time, Oh so cool person? Sports I guess? Hah. Dumbass.

There is a type of experimental engine using a technology called "pulse detonation". I'm not sure how it works exactly, but try looking it up. From what I know, it's meant to be VERY fast.

The problem with pulse detonation that it burns all the fuel of each pulse at once in a tiny area. This leads the many problems:
1: The presure created by the fuel detonation stresses metal to levels well beyond other engine types of the same thrust class. This limites use power of the engines considerably.
2: Fuel consumption is high, about the same as a turbojet. But for military use it isn't considered too bad.
3: Unless there is a good airflow around the engine they overheat in no time at all, Thus again limiting power and areas it can be used.


They are good for use on cruise missile or unmanned craft but thats about it.

Currently the only working engine produce around 300lbs of thurst and can run for 6minutes max.

Anyway :roll: apologies for reviving this thread, but thanks for that info. Like I said, I didnt know too much about it. Maybe though, they would be useful in low temperature environments such as extremely high altitudes? Could there be a way to switch from pulse detonation to conventional methods of propulsion at the flick of a switch? I'm assuming that they would need a specially designed engine system that would only work for pulse detonation though.