Talk:Air-augmented rocket

message: somebody oughta put a nice article stub for "Ramrocket; Please See
"Air Augmented Rocket."
Prometheuspan 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've removed the reference to integral rocket/ramjets and ducted rockets from the "also known as" list at the start of this article.
The integral part of integral rocket/ramjet refers to the fact that the solid-propellant booster is integrated within the ramjet combustion chamber. Otherwise it's just a normal ramjet. This is a more efficient packaging solution than external tandem (e.g. Sea Dart) or wraparound (e.g. Bloodhound) boosters.
A ducted rocket is just a type of solid propellant ramjet. A solid propellant gas generator exhausts a hot fuel-rich gas through a nozzle into the ramcombustor where it burns in the compressed air from the intakes. The gas generator exhaust is fairly low velocity and does not produce enough thrust by itself to operate as a rocket. A ducted rocket produces little or no thrust statically or in a vacuum. A throttleable ducted rocket, sometimes known as a variable flow ducted rocket, is the propulsion system on the European BVRAAM Meteor, which recently began flight tests. 
I admit that the nomenclature is somewhat confusing as the air augmented rocket, or ejector ramjet, is effectively a rocket in a duct.
:I think that it would be better if the differences between these engines was covered here, it presumably isn't covered elsewhere. So are you saying that integral rocket/ramjets don't choke on the main nozzle at low airspeeds, and hence give negligible thrust? So far as I am concerned this article should talk about all airbreathing jet engines with supersonic combustors, but YMMV.WolfKeeper 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ducted rocket 

message: This entire section needs to be rewritten with references and support. I lack the time presently to complain as thoroughly as I did for downsides, but the section is just as bad. Tirgaya 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Effectiveness

message: This statement regarding Gnom makes the large part of this section - does anyone actually have any SOLID references for the details regarding this? Firsty, I ask out of interest as verifiable information regarding this design would be invaluable to me. But more importantly, one internet web site which is referenced basically by any mention of this technology on the internet (as far as I can make out) is hardly sufficient as a source, at least as strongly worded as this section is. I know that the website in question seems to be reasonably well informed and supposedly referenced but as I can not seem to find the reading materials he points to I really can't take it with anything more than a pinch of salt. If no-one objects to this or counters it in the near future I will probably alter the wording of this a little to reflect the less-than-verifiable details. AJC 152.78.62.182 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gnom was never flown, according to astronautix.com.  If you're going to get into unbuilt projects, then the first design draft of the Convair XF-92 had a ducted rocket powered by nitromethane, around 1945 or 1946. DonPMitchell (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I was looking at a new type of engine being developed (pulse dentonation engine) and I was wondering...
Would it work for an air argumented rocket?
Are there any benfits of using PDE over jet?
Found out there is a design for a Pulse Dentonation Rocket (Patent given in 1992) that makes use of oxygen in the atmosphere as well as LOX contained in a tank aboard the rocket.
Would like to add a description to this page next week (08/10) unless there any disagrements  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.236.250 (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDE 

message: The article gives all its focus to a solid rocket with a surrounding ejector/nozzle thing that intakes air, is compressed/heated, and then expanded along with the normal rocket thrust. But it doesn't seem to consider liquid rockets in place of the solid core. This is possible right? And wouldn't it give even higher Isp? DrZygote214 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liquid rockets instead?