Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive

Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection

1991-09

Design and testing of a caseless solid-fuel

integral-rocket ramjet engine for use in small tactical missiles.

Fruge, Keith J.
Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School

http://hdl.handle.net/10945/28115
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
Monterey, California

THESIS
DESIGN AND TESTING OF A CASELESS
SOLID-FUEL INTEGRAL-ROCKET RAMJET ENGINE
FOR USE IN SMALL TACTICAL MISSILES

by

Keith J. Fruge

September, 1991

Thesis Advisor: D. W. Netzer

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

T259726
 1

Unclassified
Security Classification of this page

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

la Report Security Classification Unclassified 1 b Restrictive Markings
2a Security Classification Authority 3 Distribution Availability of Report
2b Declassification/Downgrading Schedule Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
4 Performing Organization Report Number(s) 5 Monitoring Organization Report Numbcr(s)
6aName of Performing Organization 6b Office Symbol 7a Name of Monitoring Organization
Naval Postgraduate School (If Applicable) 67 Naval Postgraduate School
6c Address (city, state, and ZIP code) 7 b Address (city, slate, and ZIP code)
Monterey, CA 93943-5000 Monterey, CA 93943-5000
Name of Funding/Sponsoring Organization 8b Office Symbol 9 Procurement Instrument Identification Number
Naval Postgraduate School (If Applicable)
8c Address (city, state, and ZIP code) 1 Source of Funding Numbers
Program Element Number | Project No I Task No Work Unit Accession No
1 Title (Include Security Classification) DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF AN UNMANNED AIR VEHICLE TELEMETRY SYSTEM
12 Personal Author(s) FfUge Keith J.

13a Type of Report 13b Time Covered 14 Date of Report (year, month.day) 1 5 Page Count
Master's Thesis From To 1991, September 25 60
16 Supplementary Notation The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official
policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
17 Cosati Codes 1 8 Subject Terms (continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
Field Group Subgroup Solid-fuel integral-rocket ramjets, Air-to-ground missiles.

1 9 Abstract (continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number

An investigation was conducted
to determine the feasibility of a low-cost, caseless, solid-fuel integral-rocket
ramjet (IRSFRJ) that has no ejecta. Analytical design of a ramjet powered air-to-ground missile capable of being
fired from a remotely piloted vehicle or helicopter was accomplished using current JANNAF and Air Force
computer codes. The results showed that an IRSFRJ powered missile can exceed the velocity and range of
current systems by more than a two to one ratio, without an increase in missile length and weight. caseless A
IRSFRJ with a non-ejecting port cover was designed and tested. The experimental results of the static tests
showed that a low-cost, caseless IRSFRJ with a non-ejectable port cover is a viable design. Rocket-ramjet
transition was demonstrated and ramjet ignition was found to be insensitive to the booster tail-off to air-injection
timing sequence.

20 Distribution/Availability of Abstract 21 Abstract Security Classification

(X) unclassified/unlimited ( ) same as report ( ) DTIC users Unclassified

22a Name of Responsible Individual 22b Telephone (Include Area code) 22c Office Symbol
Dave W. Netzer (408) 646-2980 AA/Nt
DD FORM 1473, 84 MAR 83 APR edition may be used until exhausted security classification of this pag e
 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Design and Testing of a Caseless

Solid-Fuel Integral-Rocket Ramjet Engine

for use in Small Tactical Missiles

by

Keith J. Fruge
Captain, United States Army
B.S., United States Military Academy, 1981

Submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

from the

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

September, 1991

Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 ABSTRACT

An investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of a low-cost, caseless,

solid-fuel integral-rocket ramjet (IRSFRJ) that has no ejecta. Analytical design of a ramjet

powered air-to-ground missile capable of being fired from a remotely piloted vehicle or

helicopter was accomplished using current JANNAF and Air Force computer codes. The

results showed that an IRSFRJ powered missile can exceed the velocity and range of

current systems by more than a two to one ratio, without an increase in missile length and

weight. A caseless IRSFRJ with a non-ejecting port cover was designed and tested. The

experimental results of the static tests showed that a low-cost, caseless IRSFRJ with a non-

ejecting port cover is a viable design. Rocket-ramjet transition was demonstrated and

ramjet ignition was found to be insensitive to the booster tail-off to air-injection timing

sequence.

in
 6J

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

n. DESIGN METHODOLOGY 6

HI. METHOD OF ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION 7

IV. EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE 9

V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 22

A. THEORETICAL STUDY 22

B. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 27

VI. CONCLUSIONS 33

LIST OF REFERENCES 34

APPENDIX A - MISSILE DATA 35

IV
APPENDIX B - PERFORMANCE CURVES 48

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 51

 LIST OF TABLES

1. CURRENT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE CHARACTERISTICS 2

2. MISSILE FLIGHT PROFILES 22

3. MISSILE SPECIFIC OUTPUT DATA 23

4. FUEL COMPARISON WITH CONSTANT REGRESSION RATES 26

5. FUEL COMPARISON WITH CONSTANT FUEL-AIR RATIO 26

6. VARIABLE DEFINITIONS 35

VI
 LIST OF FIGURES

1. Theoretical performance envelopes 4

2. Solid propellant rocket powered missile 5

3. Solid-fuel integral-rocket ramjet powered missile 5

4. Apparatus for testing an IRSFRJ engine design 11

5. Non-ejectable port cover apparatus in the closed position 12

6. Non-ejectable port cover apparatus in the open position 13

7. Port cover retaining pin and retracting mechanism 15

8. Caseless booster and sustainer grain configuration 17

9a. Photograph of the IRSFRJ test apparatus and static test stand 20

9b. Photograph of the IRSFRJ test apparatus 21

10. Chamber pressure-time trace for the caseless IRSFRJ feasibility test 30

11. Chamber pressure-time trace of the boost-phase of the IRSFRJ test

apparatus 31

12. Chamber pressure-time trace for the full transition test 32

13. Engine station definitions (including bypass air) 35

14. Jet specific impulse variation with fuel-air ratio 48

15. Specific thrust variation with fuel-air ratio 49

16. Fuel specific impulse variation with fuel-air ratio 50

vn
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I cannot fully express the thanks and appreciation deserved by Professor Dave

Netzer. His quest for knowledge and his honest concern for his students were the

inspiration which started me in this project and guided me to its completion. I would also

like to thank the propulsion team of Mr. Pat Hickey, Mr. Don Harvey and Mr. Harry

Conner for their hard work and technical assistance in the construction of the solid-fuel

integral-rocket ramjet apparatus. Most of all, I wish to thank my wife Karen for her care

and understanding during this time period.

Vlll
 I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using a solid-fuel

integral-rocket ramjet engine (IRSFRJ) to power an air-to-ground missile capable of being

launched from a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) or a helicopter. The general design goal

for the missile was to double the range and velocity of current missile systems while not

exceeding the current size and weight of these systems.

There are several reasons for wanting to extend the range and velocities of current

air-to-ground missiles capable of being fired from RPV's and helicopter platforms. Target

detection capabilities of RPV's and attack helicopters are rapidly increasing and in the

near future, systems will be fielded which can acquire and track targets 10 to 20 miles

in distance. Additionally, the capabilities of missile seekers and for autonomous missile

operation are advanced enough for a missile to be launched in the general direction of

enemy targets and automatically acquire, select, and engage these targets. Consequently,

the ability of potential foes to engage our systems at extended ranges will also be

increasing. Thus, a missile with extended range for standoff purposes and high velocity

to overcome enemy attempts of electronic or physical evasion and enhance penetration

abilities is a valid requirement for the near term.

Historically, air-to-ground missiles have been powered by solid propellant rocket

motors. These motors are simple, reliable and inexpensive and have been quite capable

of performing up to the level required for the missile's mission. However, the relatively
low L of these motors prevents the range or velocities to be increased significantly

without incurring too great a penalty in weight gain to be used in missiles fired from RPV

or helicopter platforms. Additionally, a large part of the missile's flight path occurs after

engine burn out, thus the missile generally is coasting during the final engagement phase,

which enhances the enemy's ability to evade being hit. Table 1 below describes

representative air-to-ground missiles in use today. Additionally, the AIM-9 Sidewinder

is listed for comparison purposes since the ERSFRJ is quite capable of powering an air

to air missile of this performance level and size.

TABLE 1

CURRENT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE CHARACTERISTICS

MISSILE LENGTH DIAMETER WEIGHT VELOCITY RANGE

NAME (IN) (IN) (LBS) (M4CH) (NMI)

TOW II 55 6 47.4 <1 2.3

BGM-71

HELLFIRE 64 7 100 1.1 <10

AGM-114

SIDEWINDER 120 5 180 2.5 9-11

AIM-9L

Although no current U.S. RPV's carry a weapons payload, the new generation of RPV's

will have the payload capacity to carry at least a limited amount of ordinance.

The IRSFRJ has several attractive features which makes it a very desirable device

for powering an air-to-ground missile of the type under consideration. Typically, one can

expect an increase in range of 200 - 400 % over a comparable size and weight solid

propellant rocket motor [Ref. l:p. 1]. This characteristic of the IRSFRJ is due to it being
an air breathing device, thus the IRSFRJ's specific impulse (1^) is significantly higher

than for a solid propellant rocket as is shown in Figure 1. Simplicity of construction and

little need for esoteric materials allows the IRSFRJ to compete cost-wise very favorably

with solid rockets. They are easily tailored for rugged handling and are readily storable

with long shelf lives. Additionally, the self-throttling with air flow variations capability

allows the IRSFRJ to have a relatively wide operating envelope. Figure 2 depicts a

typical solid propellant rocket powered tactical missile and Figure 3 depicts a typical

IRSFRJ powered missile.

 2.0 3.0 4.0 50
FLIGHT MACH NUMBER

Figure 1. Theoretical performance envelopes.

[Adapted from Ref. 2:p. 144]
 LEGEND
A Proximity Fuse
Impact Fuse
Guidance Section
Warhead
Motor
Control Actuation System
Laser Guidance Receiver

Figure 2. Solid propellant rocket powered missile.

[Adapted from Ref. 3:p. 5]

Distributed air injector Solid fuel grain .-Thermal protection system

Port cover Mixing devices /-Nozzleless booster propellant

Air induction A Boost igniter-7

system —'
Ramjet nozzle

Figure 3. Solid-fuel integral-rocket ramjet powered missile.

[Adapted from Ref. 4:p. 39]
 II. DESIGN METHODOLOGY

The goal of this study was to determine the feasibility of using a small, low cost

IRSFRJ suitable for powering air-to-ground missiles which are capable of being launched

from RPV's or helicopters. Several additional requirements were also placed upon the

design with the emphasis placed on the RPV mission. There were to be no ejectables and

the outside diameter was not to exceed 5 inches. The range requirement was 10 - 20

nautical miles with the launch velocity at Mach 0.3 and the cruise velocity between Mach

2.0 - 2.5. The missile would nominally be launched from and cruise at an altitude of

20,000 ft. The length and weight were to be kept to a minimum while still meeting the

performance requirements.

A two level approach was used to solve this design problem. Initially, an analytical

approach based on SFRJ cycle analysis was used to obtain a missile configuration which

met the design criteria. Concurrent with and following the analytical design, a IRSFRJ

engine was designed and manufactured for evaluation on a test stand. Additionally, static

firings were conducted to determine the feasibility of using an IRSFRJ design with no

ejectables, where the solid ramjet fuel also functioned as the engine casing, in an attempt

to minimize engine weight and cost and maximize manufacturing simplicity.

 III. METHOD OF ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION

Current JANNAF and Air Force computer codes were used to produce a conceptual

design for the IRSFRJ powered missile. A missile with a 5 inch outside diameter was

selected as a good compromise between warhead effectiveness against armored targets

and missile size and drag characteristics. Typically, a shaped charge is used as the

warhead on air-to-ground missiles and its penetrating ability is related to the diameter of

the shaped charge. To insure the missile's ability to penetrate modern armored vehicles

with its above the target attack trajectory, it was determined that a minimum warhead

diameter of 5 inches was adequate. A forward-twin cheek-mounted, two dimensional inlet

was selected because it afforded low drag and weight with good performance and

compatibility with the non-ejectable port cover IRSFRJ engine being developed for this

study. To maintain simplicity of design and to minimize weight and cost, a non-bypass

engine was chosen. Although this prevented the design from achieving the highest

possible combustion efficiencies attainable, it was deemed that an acceptable level of

performance would result from the non-bypass configuration.

The booster chosen for the IRSFRJ engine was of a nozzleless design, utilizing a

reduced smoke composite propellant. The reduced smoke characteristic of the booster

enhances the non-detection of both the launch vehicle and the missile itself. The

nozzleless booster design was chosen to meet the requirement for no missile ejectables.

Although the nozzleless design degrades the Isp of the booster by 20-25%, several
 '.

:
"
- : i
'
'.
1 ~C

'

~ .-. --'.--:--:- -t: ::'t f -

>
._

'.'.''.
r*r :.-:

boron. .:.-. ~-.~~ -~c~;t :

" " - : -
r: :~ :~r.: r_ — ::.

combustion pnlwiiiance characteristics calculated _s:=g fee Kava

OsTWQ Propellant Evaluation Progra.- NEWPEP [Ref. 6].

-
 IV. EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE

The main thrust of the experimental aspect of the missile design was to test the

feasibility of using a non-ejectable port cover. This port cover design must be simple and

inexpensive to manufacture, rugged and capable of being sized for a small diameter

missile. The second major thrust of the design was to test the feasibility of a caseless

engine design by having the solid ramjet fuel also function as the outer casing of the

engine. This requires the use of a fuel which is rigid and which has good structural

characteristics. To minimize volume and provide high performance, a fuel with a high

energy density is also desired. Another desired aspect of the fuel is that it be opaque in

order to prevent subsurface heating by radiation effects from the flame and to reduce the

visible signature. This opaque characteristic is especially critical in low light conditions,

since there is no outer casing to block the visible or infrared emissions of the combustion

process. In addition, it is required that the fuel pyrolysis temperature be high enough to

prevent significant external erosion due to aerodynamic heating.

A potential candidate for a fuel which can meet these requirements is one which

combines Plexiglas with a high energy metal. The Plexiglas would function as the fuel

binder and provide the required structural strength and stiffness. To enhance the energy

output of the fuel, particles of a high energy metal, such as aluminum or boron would be

combined with the Plexiglas. Plexiglas contains 32 % oxygen by weight. The oxidizer

should enhance surface ignition of the boron and provide improved combustion efficiency.
To enhance the structural strength of the fuel, nylon fibers or other appropriate fibers

could possibly be added in small amounts without significantly affecting the combustion

characteristics of the fuel.

To test the feasibility of having the IRSFRJ fuel also function as the outer casing

of the motor, a simulated solid-fuel integral-rocket ramjet motor case was constructed for

use on a test stand. Figure 4 describes this apparatus. The fuel grain consisted of a

cylinder of Plexiglas and a metalized (4.7 % aluminum) composite propellant with a

burning rate of 0.673 in/sec at 500 psi was used for the booster. Because of the limited

propellant available an end-burning booster grain design was utilized, and the exhaust

nozzle was sized to provide a nominal chamber pressure of 500 psi versus 1000 - 1500

psi in an actual motor design. The propellant was ignited using a pyrotechnic and a

pressure-time trace of the run was recorded on an analog recorder. This test was

conducted to determine the behavior of the Plexiglas when exposed to the high

temperature propellant combustion products.

The non-ejectable port cover apparatus was constructed of stainless steel and was

mounted on a static ramjet test stand. A schematic of the apparatus with the port cover

closed is shown in Figure 5 while Figure 6 shows the port cover in the open position.

The overall design of the port cover apparatus was uncomplicated and rugged, with

emphasis placed on reliability and reproducibility of operation. A center dump design

was utilized and the air flows from the twin inlets of the test stand were joined together

at 45 degrees, upstream of the dump inlet.

10
 CD

Figure 4. Apparatus for testing an IRSFRJ engine design.

11
Fuel Grain Housing

Figure 5. Non-ejectable port cover apparatus in the closed position.

12
Figure 6. Non-ejectable port cover apparatus in the open position.

13
 A sliding cylinder functioned as the port cover. Opening of the port cover, to allow

for transition from the boost-phase to the sustain-phase, was activated by loss of boost

pressure in the combustion chamber. The port cover was held in the closed position by

a steel pin which could be retracted by a pneumatic device as shown in Figure 7. Port

cover actuation was accomplished by withdrawing the pin and permitting the pressurized

piston chamber to pull the port cover rearward. High temperature O-rings were used

throughout the apparatus to withstand the high operating temperatures of the booster and

sustainer and high inlet temperatures encountered at Mach 2.5.

Initial functional testing of the apparatus consisted of mounting it to the test stand

and attaching a sealed fuel grain. The ability of the apparatus to maintain prescribed inlet

pressures without leakage into the motor cavity was validated using pressurized air. The

sealed fuel grain was then replaced with an open grain to allow for testing the proper

mechanical operation of the apparatus with air flowing through the system. Controlling

of the test sequence and of the actuating port cover was handled by a Hewlett Packard

automatic data acquisition and control system. Repeated tests were conducted using cold

air to properly sequence the opening of the port cover and related functions and to insure

consistent and correct operation of the apparatus before conducting an actual test firing.

The goal of next phase of the testing of the apparatus was to determine the chamber

pressure characteristics of the boost-phase. Limitations of the test facility and the

available propellants prevented the casting of a propellent grain of a true nozzleless

booster design. A nozzleless booster design allows for a propellant grain geometry which

provides initial high booster chamber pressures, though the pressure drops off rapidly.

14
 Pneumatic Pin Retractor

Poii Cover Retaining Pin

Figure 7. Port cover retaining pin and retracting mechanism.

15
It also makes it physically possible to use a single exhaust nozzle sized for the lower

chamber pressures encountered during sustainer operation, without having to use an

ejectable booster nozzle. Two modifications were made to simulate a nozzleless booster

design in this situation. First, the operating chamber pressures of the booster and the

sustainer phases were closely matched. Secondly, the nozzle was constructed of Plexiglas

and was designed to erode during the booster phase. This allowed the nozzle to be

initially sized for proper rocket motor booster-phase pressure and then increase in area

enough to allow for correct chamber pressure and high enough flow rates during operation

of the ramjet sustainer.

The boost propellant grain was a centered-perforated design and measured 2 inches

in length with a web of 0.25 inches. A 0.25 in deep and 0.25 in length sliver of the

Plexiglas fuel grain was removed from a recess at the forward end of the combustor, and

the vacated space was filled with propellant. This was done to insure that once the

booster propellant grain was consumed and the port cover was opened, that there would

still be some propellant burning in the chamber to assist in the ignition of the sustainer

fuel. The propellant was bonded to the Plexiglas fuel grain with RTV. Figure 8 shows

the booster and sustainer grain configuration. A test run was conducted by igniting the

solid propellant with a pyrotechnic and recording the chamber pressure trace on an analog

recorder. The behavior of the eroding Plexiglas nozzle was also to be recorded. With

this knowledge, the proper sequencing of the port cover opening was determined and

preparations were made to perform the full transition test run.

16
Figure 8. Caseless booster and sustainer grain configuration.

17
 To perform the full transition run, inlet air conditions were simulated for a missile

velocity of Mach 2.5 at an altitude of 20,000 ft. The inlet air was allowed to rest against

the side of the closed port cover and an upstream bypass valve on the test stand allowed

the hot, high pressure air to be vented to the atmosphere until the port cover was opened.

The geometry of the fuel and propellant grains and the nozzle were kept the same as in

the earlier boost-only run. The Hewlett Packard automated data acquisition and control

system was programmed to monitor the inlet air temperature and pressure and the

combustion chamber pressure. The system also controlled the operation of the bypass

valve and port cover. Pre-run activities involved the calibration of pressure transducers

and thermocouples and setting the correct flow rates of air, heater fuel and make up

oxygen. The nominal mass flow rate of the air was set for 0.25 lbm/sec and the

temperature of the air was set at 1020 degrees Rankine. The air mass flux (G) in the

2
chamber port was expected to be 0.142 lbm/in sec and the fuel-air ratio at these

conditions was to be 0.054. The initial boost pressure was designed to be 170 psi with

progressive burning tempered by the effects of the eroding exhaust nozzle throat area.

The initial sustainer chamber pressure was designed to be 150 psi.

The full transition test began by initiating the program which controlled the

operation of the Hewlett Packard data acquisition and control system. The ignition of the

boost propellant was accomplished manually. The data acquisition and control system

monitored the chamber pressure rise, and upon reaching 90 psi, the system then began

monitoring for a pressure drop down to 75 psi. At this pressure, the commands were

given by the control system to extract the port cover retaining pin, and simultaneously

18
close the bypass valve. The hot air entering the combustion chamber, in combination

with the small sliver of propellant still burning, was to ignite the Plexiglas and enable the

initiation of the sustainer phase of the run. After a short sustainer run time, the

combustion process was halted by opening the bypass valve and purging the combustion

chamber with nitrogen. Figure 9a and 9b show photographs of the test apparatus

complete with the fuel grain connected to the static test stand.

19
 test stand
Figure 9a. Photograph of the IRSFRJ test apparatus and static

20
Figure 9b. Photograph of the IRSFRJ test apparatus

21
 V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

A. THEORETICAL STUDY

A total of six final missile configurations were generated. Three flight mission

profiles were considered and missiles using the two types of fuel available in the software

were generated for each flight profile. Table 2 below describes the three flight profiles.

TABLE 2

MISSILE FLIGHT PROFILES

FLIGHT ALT LAUNCH CRUISE RANGE PURPOSE

PROFILE (FT) (MACH) (MACH) (NMI)

1 20,000 0.3 2.3 20 High Altitude, RPV

Mission

2 10,000 0.3 2.3 20 Mid Altitude, RPV Mis-

sion

3 2,000 0.3 2.2 12 Helicopter Mission

For each missile considered, the design software generates nine different engine

configurations based on the input data. The selection criteria used to choose one of these

nine configurations was to minimize missile weight with a fixed range restraint.

Appendix A contains the complete printout of the results for the six missile configurations

and Figure 13 shows engine station definitions.

22
 Some of the characteristics common to all of the generated missiles are listed

below:

o Nonpropulsion Weight - 22.5 lbs

2
o Wing Planform Area - 0.50 ft

2
o Tail Planform Area - 0.25 ft

o Nose Shape - Tan Ogive

o Inlet - Twin 2-D Cheek Mounted-Forward

Certain characteristics specific to each missile are shown in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3

MISSILE SPECIFIC OUTPUT DATA

MISSILE 1 2 3 4 5 6

FUEL TYPE Boron Boron Boron H/C H/C H/C

RANGE (NMI) 20.6 20.2 12.2 20.2 20.2 12.2

ALTITUDE (FT) 20K 10K 2K 20K 10K 2K

LENGTH (IN) 52.5 63.2 57.2 58.9 74.1 67.6

WEIGHT (LBS) 76.9 87.4 81.5 77.2 87.5 84.3

TAKE-OVER 2.17 2.13 2.00 2.17 2.16 2.07

MACH
CRUISE MACH 2.25 2.20 2.15 2.30 2.30 2.20

ISP (SUSTAIN) 999 935 798 1088 1011 895

PROPULSION 54.4 64.9 59.0 54.7 65.0 61.8

WT (LBS)
CASE WT (LBS) 6.15 8.20 7.05 7.35 10.21 9.00

23
 The results indicated clearly that the design goals of the missile were met. In all

cases, the boron based fuel provided equal missile performance with the hydrocarbon

based fuel, but with less fuel required and a reduced fuel grain length, which consequent-

ly, reduces the overall length of the missile. One item to note is the weight of the

required motor case. The case weight for all configurations was approximately 10 % of

the total missile weight. Elimination of this motor casing by utilizing a caseless design

would reduce the overall weight of the missile.

The comparison of the boron and HTPB based fuels utilized in the missile design

software and the proposed caseless fuel composed of Plexiglas and boron was based on

the grain geometry generated for missile number one detailed above. Comparisons were

made for three performance parameters; jet specific impulse, net fuel specific impulse

and specific thrust. Curves for each parameter, as it varied with the fuel-air ratio, were

produced and the results for the two fuels were overlaid onto each other. The resulting

graphs are contained in Appendix B. The jet specific impulse is defined by:

FJBt^K u e^ u e
(1)
m e m e gc gc

This value is obtained directly from PEPCODE. Figure 14, Appendix B shows the

24
variation of jet specific impulse with changing fuel-air ratio. The fuel-air ratio is defined

as:

fuel
f (2)

The specific thrust is defined by:

Ffiet = (l+f) Hl-^2 (3)

mo 9C 9 C

The result is shown varying with the fuel-air ratio in Figure 15, Appendix B. The last

performance parameter to be analyzed was the net fuel specific impulse. This is obtained

by dividing the specific thrust by the fuel-air ratio and is given by:

j = Fnet (4)
'"fuel

The change in fuel specific impulse with the fuel-air ratio is shown in Figure 16,

Appendix B.

The first performance comparison between the fuels was made by assuming the

grain geometries, as defined in missile one above, were the same for both fuels and the

regression rates for both fuels were also equal. The fuel-air ratio was 0.131 for the

boron/HTPB fuel but changed to 0.160 for the boron/Plexiglass fuel and the fuel

regression rate for both was taken as 0.0153 in/sec. The results for the three performance

parameters described above are shown below in Table 4.

25
 TABLE 4

FUEL COMPARISON WITH CONSTANT REGRESSION RATES

FUEL TYPE JET SPECIFIC SPECIFIC FUEL SPECIFIC

IMPULSE (sec) THRUST (sec) IMPULSE (sec)
BORON/HTPB 183 130 1,000

BORON/PLEXIGLAS 184 135 950

In this case, the fuels performed quite similarly with the boron/Plexiglas fuel providing

slightly better specific thrust. The boron/HTPB fuel had an advantage in the range

parameter of fuel specific impulse. The more dense boron/Plexiglas fuel would cause a

1.7 lb increase in fuel weight.

In the second performance comparison, the fuel grain geometry and the fuel-air ratio

were kept the same for both fuels. This results in a different fuel regression rate and burn

time for the two fuels. The burn time increased from 50.7 seconds for the boron/HTPB

fuel to 62.2 seconds for the boron/Plexiglas fuel, about a 23 % increase. The

performance parameters also changed and are shown below in Table 5.

TABLE 5

FUEL COMPARISON WITH CONSTANT FUEL-AIR RATIO

FUEL TYPE JET SPECIFIC SPECIFIC FUEL SPECIFIC

IMPULSE (sec) THRUST (sec) IMPULSE(sec)

BORON/HTPB 183 130 1,000

BORON/PLEXIGLAS 185 132 1,020

26
Once again, the values of the performance parameters of the two fuels were closely

matched. If the regression rate, thus burn time of the two fuels were also kept the same,

then the use of the boron (Plexiglas fuel would allow the fuel grain length to be reduced

by 16.5 7c while maintaining the same performance level as the boron/HTPB fuel.

One possible problem area involved in using a caseless fuel grain with Plexiglas as

a major ingredient, is that its pyrolysis temperature is relatively low (600-650 degrees

Kelvin). At a flight regime of Mach 2.5 at an altitude of 20,000 feet, the missile would

experience a stagnation temperature of 559 degrees Kelvin. Thus, at these flight

conditions, external erosion of the fuel grain due to aerodynamic heating should not be

a problem. One possible solution for higher Mach number or lower altitude conditions

would be to bond a light-weight insulator to the outside of the fuel grain. This would add

very little to the weight of the missile, while only slightly increasing the cost and

complexity of producing the missile.

The above calculations have shown that a 60 Tr boron and 40 9r Plexiglas fuel grain

should be able to provide the needed performance while also providing adequate material

properties for a caseless motor design. Of course, the latter will have to be substantiated

with structural testing.

B. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The initial test to determine the compatibility with the booster combustion product

gases was successful. One test firing was made and Figure 10 shows the chamber

pressure-time trace. Peak pressure reached approximately 550 psi and the total burn time

27
was about one second. Examination of the Plexiglas fuel grain after the test firing

showed that the structural integrity of the grain was maintained and very little ablation

of the Plexiglas occurred when exposed to the high temperature propellant combustion

products.

The next series of test firings was made to determine the chamber pressure

characteristics of the booster propellant grain and to determine the required sequence for

full transition to ramjet combustion. Two test firings were conducted. Figure 11 shows

the chamber pressure-time trace for one of the runs. The pressure-time trace showed that

the sliver of propellant, which was design to enhance ignition of the sustainer fuel grain

following the boost-phase, probably was consumed during booster tail-off. However,

visual study of the test firing with the aid of a video camera showed that the Plexiglas

grain remained very hot for several seconds after booster burnout. The results of the two

firings also showed that the reproducibility of the chamber pressure characteristics was

very good. The performance of the Plexiglas nozzle was as expected, with the nozzle

area increasing approximately 30 % during the booster operation. Thus, the final

sequencing of the port cover opening and related test stand activities could be made with

a high confidence level in the proper functioning of the apparatus.

The full transition test firing was successful and the chamber pressure-time trace

results are shown in Figure 12. The transition between the boost-phase and the sustain-

phase occurred as anticipated. The initial bump in the chamber pressure during the

sustainer phase can be attributed to the sliver of boost propellant still burning and/or to

the rapid combustion of a hot, fluid layer of Plexiglas along the combustion chamber

28
surface formed during the boost-phase. The regressive ramjet chamber pressure

characteristic was due to the increasing exhaust nozzle throat area caused by the burning

of the Plexiglas nozzle. One very encouraging result was that the booster-sustainer

transition sequence was not critical. Booster chamber pressure completely decayed before

the air was introduced, and yet no difficulties were observed for ignition of the hot

Plexiglas grain surface. The integrity of the Plexiglas fuel grain and nozzle was

maintained throughout the run. Lack of time prevented additional test runs to be

conducted, but all indications seem to show that a high reproducibility of the results

would be expected.

29
 CD
CD

LTD
C 2

CD

_ CD QJ

CD

CD
CD

UD

(isd) ajnssajj J9qiueq3

Figure 10. Chamber pressure-time trace for the caseless IRSFRJ feasibility test.

30
 C5
cv?

lO

— "^
o
CD
00

<1>

.
in

CZ5

(isd) ajnssajj ^qiueq;)

Figure 11. Chamber pressure-time trace of the boost-phase of the IRSFRJ test

apparatus.

31
 C=3
-r

CO

C )

CV?

O
c\i

o
CO

m
E

IT3

O
C3

(;sd) ajnssajj J9quieq3

Figure 12. Chamber pressure-time trace for the full transition test.

32
 VI. CONCLUSIONS

The results of both the analytical study and the experimental investigation appeared

to validate the feasibility of using a solid-fuel integral-rocket ramjet to power a light-

weight air-to-ground missile. Excellent booster-sustainer transition characteristics were

obtained. Obviously, more detailed design and testing are required to validate the

concept, especially concerning the structural capabilities of a caseless grain design which

must operate at high booster pressures. However, it appears that a small, low cost, solid-

fuel ramjet powered missile without ejecta can be designed and built which would provide

a significant performance increase over current small air-to-ground missiles capable of

being fired from RPV's or helicopters.

33
 LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Myers, T. D., "Special Problems of Ramjet with Solid Fuel", AGARD Lecture Series
136, Ramjet and Ramrocket Propulsion Systems for Missiles, 1984.

2. Billing, Federick S., Tactical Missile Design Concepts, Vol. 4, Johns Hopkins APL
Technical Digest, November 3, 1983.

3. General Dynamics Corporation, Ponoma Division, The World's Missile Systems,

Eighth Edition, August 1988.

4. United Technologies Corporation, Chemical Systems Division, The Pocket Ramjet

Reader, 1978.

5. Procinsky, I. M. and McHale, Catherine A., Nozzeless Boosters for Integral-Rocket-

Ramjet Missile Systems, J. Spacecraft Vol. 18, No. 3, May - June 1981.

6. Cruise, D. R., Theoretical Computations of Equilibrium Compositions, Thermodynam-

ic Properties, and Performance Characteristics of Propellant Systems, Naval Weapons
Center Report NWC TP 6037, April 1979.

34
 APPENDIX A - MISSILE DATA

TABLE 6

VARIABLE DEFINITIONS

VARIABLE DEFINITION UNITS

NAME
CT5 Sustain Thrust Coefficient

WF Sustainer Fuel Flow Rate Ibm/sec

CD Drag Coefficient

<s TT^I

<s
2 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6

Figure 13. Engine station definitions (including bypass air).

35
 * * MISSILE
* l**i
SOLID FUEL RAMJET
* '

* RANGE OBJECTIVE= 2 *
MISSILE SELECTION CRITERIA IS MIN WEIGHT
MISSILE PARAMETERS:
WEIGHT= 76.9 LENGTH= 52 50 DIAMETER= 5.00 RANGE= 2 0.2 (NMI)
LAUNCH MACH= .3 LAUNCH ALT= 20000.0
CRUISE MACH=2 .3 CRUISE ALT= 20000.0
EOB VELOCITY=2 712.6 AVG. VELOCITY=2284.3
TAIL CHASE RANGE= 2 0.06 (NMI) MAX F-POLE=17.5(NMI)

MISSILE COMPONENTS:

COMPONENT LENGTH (IN) WEIGHT (LBS)

NONPROPULSION 15.0 22.5
PROPULSION ( 37.5) ( 54.4)
IRR COMBUSTOR + NOZZLE 35.0 9.1
INLET+AFT FAIRING ( 42.5) 5.5
MISCELLANEOUS 5.0
PLENUM 2.5 1.4
PROPELLANT 24.2
FUEL 9.1

TOTAL 52.5 76.9

NOSE CONTROL SURFACES

SHAPE= TAN OGIVE WING PLANFORM AREA= .400(FT2)

FINENESS RATIO=2.5
BLUNTNESS RATIO= .22 00 TAIL PLANFORM AREA= .250(FT2)

PROPULSION:

BOOSTER

NOZZLELESS BURN TIME= 3.20

THRUST= 15 87. 8 (LBS) ATHROAT= .76(IN2)
ISP= 209.9(SEC) RANGE= 80 (NMI)

SUSTAINER ENGINE CHARACTERISTICS AREAS IN (IN2)

AC= 8.154 ACA3= .4360
A5= 13.090 A5A3= .7000
A6= 19.635 A6A3= 1.0500
A3= 18.700 A2A3= .6000

SUSTAINER PERFORMANCE

AT MTO= 2.167 AT MDES= 2.250 AT MCR= 2.25

CT5 .6170 .5530 .5530

CD .3428 .3514 .3514
WF .1735 .1735 .1735
ISP 1034.0510 999.2504 999.2504
COMB, ,EFF .8500 .8500 .8500
SUSTAIN BURN TIME= 50.66 (SEC) SUSTAIN RANGE= 19. 44 (NMI)

36
 SUSTAIN DRAG COMPONENTS AT CRUISE MACH= 2.250
SREF= .1364(FT2)

TOTAL= .3540
INCLUDES 1.1 FACTOR FOR PROTUBERANCES ETC
,

BOOST CD= .3096 V=3500 FPS

37
 * * MISSILE 2 * *
* >

SOLID FUEL RAMJET

* '

* RANGE OBJECTIVE= 2 *
MISSILE SELECTION CRITERIA IS MIN WEIGHT
MISSILE PARAMETERS:
WEIGHT= 87.4 LENGTH= 6 3 21 DIAMETER= 5.00 RANGE= 2 0.2 (NMI)
LAUNCH MACH= .2 LAUNCH ALT= 100 00.0
CRUISE MACH=2.2 CRUISE ALT= 10000.0
EOB VELCCITY=2567 .2 AVG. VELOCITY=2 3 04.3
TAIL CHASE RANGE= 2 0.05(NMI) MAX F-POLE=18.3(NMI)

MISSILE COMPONENTS:
COMPONENT LENGTH (IN) WEIGHT(LBS)

NONPROPULSION 15.0 22.5

PROPULSION ( 48.2) ( 64.9)
IRR COMBUSTOR + NOZZLE 45.7 11
INLET+AFT FAIRING ( 53.2) 5
MISCELLANEOUS 5
PLENUM 2.5 1
PROPELLANT 27
FUEL 13

TOTAL 63.2 87.4

NOSE CONTROL SURFACES

SHAPE= TAN OGIVE WING PLANFORM AREA= .400(FT2)

FINENESS RATIO=2.5
BLUNTNESS RATIO= .22 00 TAIL PLANFORM AREA= .250(FT2)

PROPULSION:

BOOSTER
NOZZLELESS BURN TIME= 3.41
THRUST= 166 6. 8 (LBS) ATHROAT= 79(IN2).

ISP= 204.0(SEC) RANGE= .78 (NMI)

SUSTAINER ENGINE CHARACTERISTICS AREAS IN (IN2)

AC= 7.888 ACA3= .4218
A5= 13.090 A5A3= .7000
A6= 19.635 A6A3= 1.0500
A3= 18.700 A2A3= .6000

SUSTAINER PERFORMANCE

AT MTO= 2.133 AT MDES= 2.200 AT MCR= 2.200

CT5 .6141 .5623 .5623

CD .3412 .3484 .3484
WF .2696 .2696 .2696
ISP 960.0958 934.9776 934.9776
COMB.EFF 8500 .8500 .8500

SUSTAIN BURN TIME= 49. 94 (SEC) SUSTAIN RANGE= 19. 44 (NMI)

38
 SUSTAIN DRAG COMPONENTS AT CRUISE MACH= 2.200
SREF= .1364(FT2)
TOTAL CD= .3384
INCLUDES 1.1 FACTOR FOR PROTUBERANCES, ETC

BOOST CD= .3037 V=3500 FPS

39
 * MISSILE 3 * * *
* *
SOLID FUEL RAMJET *
*
* RANGE OBJECTIVE= 12.0 *
MISSILE SELECTION CRITERIA IS MIN WEIGHT
MISSILE PARAMETERS:
WEIGHT= 81.5 LENGTH= 57.23 DIAMETER= 5.00 RANGE= 12.2(NMI)
LAUNCH MACH= .2 LAUNCH ALT= 2 000.0
CRUISE MACH=2.2 CRUISE ALT= 2000.0
EOB VELOCITY=2546.5 AVG. VELOCITY=22 83 .

TAIL CHASE RANGE= 12.07 (NMI) MAX F-POLE=ll (NMI .

MISSILE COMPONENTS:
COMPONENT LENGTH (IN) WEIGHT (LBS)

NONPROPULSION 15.0 22.5

PROPULSION (
42.2) ( 59.0)
IRR COMBUSTOR + NOZZLE 39.7 10.0
INLET+AFT FAIRING ( 47.2) 4
MISCELLANEOUS 5
PLENUM 2.5 1
PROPELLANT 26
FUEL 11

TOTAL 57.2 81.5

NOSE CONTROL SURFACES

SHAPE= TAN OGIVE WING PLANFORM AREA= .400(FT2)

FINENESS RATIO=2.5
BLUNTNESS RATIO= .2200 TAIL PLANFORM AREA= .250 (FT2)

PROPULSION:

BOOSTER
NOZZLELESS BURN TIME= 3.24
THRUST= 1635. 5 (LBS) ATHROAT= .78(IN2)
ISP= 199.1(SEC) RANGE= .74 (NMI)

SUSTAINER ENGINE CHARACTERISTICS AREAS IN (IN2)

AC= 6.724 ACA3 = .3596
A5= 13.090 A5A3 = .7000
A6= 19.635 A6A3 = 1.0500
A3= 18.700 A2A3 = .6000

SUSTAINER PERFORMANCE

AT MTO= 2.000 AT MDES= 2.150 AT MCR= 2.150

CT5 .6181 .5129 .5129

CD .3434 .3373 .3373
WF .3719 .3719 .3719
ISP 832 .4511 798.1639 798.1639
COMB .EFF .8500 .8500 .8500

SUSTAIN BURN TIME= 29. 18 (SEC) SUSTAIN RANGE= 11. 44 (NMI)

40
 SUSTAIN DRAG COMPONENTS AT CRUISE MACH= 2.150
SREF= .1364(FT2)
TOTAL CD= .3357
INCLUDES 1.1 FACTOR FOR PROTUBERANCES ETC
,

BOOST CD= .2891 V=3500 FPS

41
 * * MISSILE 4 * * *
*
SOLID FUEL RAMJET *
*
* RANGE OBJECTIVE= 2 0.0 *
MISSILE SELECTION CRITERIA IS MIN WEIGHT
MISSILE PARAMETERS:
WEIGHT= 77.2 LENGTH= 58.93 DIAMETER= 5.00 RANGE= 2 0.2(NMI)
LAUNCH MACH= .3 LAUNCH ALT= 2 0000.0
CRUISE MACH=2 .3 CRUISE ALT= 20000.0
EOB VELOCITY=26 7 6.5 AVG. VELOCITY=2 3 06 .8
TAIL CHASE RANGE= 2 0.05(NMI) MAX F-POLE=17.5(NMI)

MISSILE COMPONENTS:

COMPONENT LENGTH (IN) WEIGHT(LBS)

NONPROPULSION 15.0 22.5

PROPULSION (
43.9) ( 54.7)
IRR COMBUSTOR + NOZZLE 41.4 10
INLET+AFT FAIRING ( 48.9) 5
MISCELLANEOUS 5
PLENUM 2.5 1

PROPELLANT 24.0
FUEL 8.4

TOTAL 58.9 77.2

NOSE CONTROL SURFACES

SHAPE= TAN OGIVE WING PLANFORM AREA= .500(FT2)

FINENESS RATIO=2.5
BLUNTNESS RATIO= .2200 TAIL PLANFORM AREA= .250 (FT2)

PROPULSION:

BOOSTER
NOZZLELESS BURN TIME= 3.2
THRUST= 157 8.6 (LBS) ATHROAT= 75(IN2)
.

ISP= 209.9(SEC) RANGE= ,79(NMI)

SUSTAINER ENGINE CHARACTERISTICS AREAS IN (IN2)

AC= 7.992 ACA3= .4274
A5= 13.090 A5A3= .7000
A6= 19.635 A6A3= 1.0500
A3= 18.700 A2A3= .6000

SUSTAINER PERFORMANCE

AT MTO= 2.167 AT MDES= 2.250 AT MCR= 2.300

CT5 .6390 5757 5406

CD .3550 3633 3588
WF .16 2 9 1629 1629
ISP 1140.7050 1108 7260 1087 9210
COMB.EFF .929 5 9307 9313

SUSTAIN BURN TIME= 50.11 (SEC) SUSTAIN RANGE= 19.44(NMI)

42
 SUSTAIN DRAG COMPONENTS AT CRUISE MACH= 2.300
SREF= .1364(FT2)

TOTAL CD= .3567

INCLUDES 1.1 FACTOR FOR PROTUBERANCES ETC
,

BOOST CD= .3192 V=3500 FPS

43
 * * MISSILE 5 * * *
*
SOLID FUEL RAMJET *
*
* RANGE OBJECTIVE= 2 0.0 *
MISSILE SELECTION CRITERIA IS MIN WEIGHT
MISSILE PARAMETERS:
WEIGHT= 87.5 LENGTH= 74.13 DIAMETER= 5.00 RANGE= 2 0.2(NMI)
LAUNCH MACH= .3 LAUNCH ALT= 10000.0
CRUISE MACH=2.3 CRUISE ALT= 10000.0
EOB VELOCITY=2542.1 AVG. VELOCITY=2 391.8
TAIL CHASE RANGE= 2 0.04(NMI) MAX F-POLE=17.5(NMI)

MISSILE COMPONENTS:
COMPONENT LENGTH (IN) WEIGHT (LBS)

NONPROPULS I ON 15.0 22.5

PROPULSION ( 59.1) ( 65.0)
IRR COMBUSTOR + NOZZLE 56.6 13.1
INLET+AFT FAIRING ( 6 4.1) 6.0
MISCELLANEOUS 5.0
PLENUM 2 . 1.4
PROPELLANT 26.7
FUEL 12.7

TOTAL 74.1 87.5

NOSE CONTROL SURFACES

SHAPE= TAN OGIVE WING PLANFORM AREA= .500(FT2)

FINENESS RATIO=2.5
BLUNTNESS RATIO= .2200 TAIL PLANFORM AREA= .250 (FT2)

PROPULSION:

BOOSTER
NOZZLELESS BURN TIME= 3.2 6
THRUST= 1669. 7 (LBS) ATHROAT= 80(IN2)
.

ISP= 204.0(SEC) RANGE= .77(NMI)

SUSTAINER ENGINE CHARACTERISTICS AREAS IN (IN2)

AC= 8.066 ACA3= .4313
A5= 13.090 A5A3= .7000
A6= 19.635 A6A3= 1.0500
A3= 18.700 A2A3= .6000

SUSTAINER PERFORMANCE

AT MTO= 2 167 AT MDES= 2.250 AT MCR= 2.300

CT5 .6299 .5662 .5310

CD .3499 .3583 .3539
WF .2572 .2572 .2572
ISP 1064.8560 1032.5740 1011.8540
COMB .EFF .9213 .9223 .9228

SUSTAIN BURN TIME= 48 . 1 1 ( SEC SUSTAIN RANGE= 19.44(NMI)

44
 SUSTAIN DRAG COMPONENTS AT CRUISE MACH= 2.300
SREF= .1364(FT2)

TOTAL CD= .3384

INCLUDES 1.1 FACTOR FOR PROTUBERANCES ETC
,

BOOST CD= .3110 V=3500 FPS

45
 * * MISSILE 6 * * *
*
SOLID FUEL RAMJET *
*
* RANGE OBJECTIVE= 12.0 *
MISSILE SELECTION CRITERIA IS MIN WEIGHT
MISSILE PARAMETERS:
WEIGHT= 84.3 LENGTH= 67.55 DIAMETER^ 5.00 RANGE= 12.2(NMI)
LAUNCH MACH= .2 LAUNCH ALT= 2 00
CRUISE MACH=2.2 CRUISE ALT= 2000
EOB VELOCITY=2 517.6 AVG VELOCITY=2 308 .

TAIL CHASE RANGE= 12.09(NMI) MAX F-POLE=ll O(NMI) .

MISSILE COMPONENTS:
COMPONENT LENGTH (IN) WEIGHT(LBS)

NONPROPULSION 15.0 22 5
PROPULSION ( 52.5) 61 8)
IRR COMBUSTOR + NOZZLE 50.0 11 9
INLET+AFT FAIRING ( 57.5) 5 2
MISCELLANEOUS 5
PLENUM 2.5 1 4
PROPELLANT 27 4
FUEL 10 9

TOTAL 67.5 14.3

NOSE CONTROL SURFACES

SHAPE= TAN OGIVE WING PLANFORM AREA= .500(FT2)

FINENESS RATIO=2.5
BLUNTNESS RATIO= .2200 TAIL PLANFORM AREA= .250(FT2)

PROPULSION

BOOSTER
NOZZLELESS BURN TIME= 3.33
THRUST= 1636.1 (LBS) ATHROAT= .78(IN2)
ISP= 199.1(SEC) RANGE= .75(NMI)

SUSTAINER ENGINE CHARACTERISTICS AREAS IN (IN2)

AC= 7.109 ACA3= .3802
A5= 13.090 A5A3 = .7000
A6= 19.635 A6A3= 1.0500
A3= 18.700 A2A3= .6000

SUSTAINER PERFORMANCE

AT MTO= 2.067 AT MDES= 2.100 AT MCR= 2.2 00

CT5 .6421 .6154 .5412

CD .3567 .3605 .3447
WF .3666 .3666 .3666
ISP 936.6643 927.0051 894.6385
COMB.EFF 8999 .9005 .9021

SUSTAIN BURN TIME= 28. 77 (SEC) SUSTAIN RANGE= 11.44(NMI)

46
 SUSTAIN DRAG COMPONENTS AT CRUISE MACH= 2.2 00
SREF= .1364(FT2)

TOTAL= .3364
INCLUDES 1.1 FACTOR FOR PROTUBERANCES ETC
,

BOOST CD= .3091 V=3500 FPS

47
 APPENDIX B - PERFORMANCE CURVES

190.0

180.0

Oo
LL

h
CO i
1700

111

160.0

a Boron/HTPB
Boron/PMM

150.0 i l
r

0.053 0.073 0.093 0.113 0.133 0.153 0.173

FUEL-AIR RATIO

Figure 14. Jet specific impulse variation with fuel-air ratio.

48
 140.0

130.0

C/)

^ 120.0
X
oS
jl^ 110.0

o
LU
CL
CO
100.0

90.0

0.053 0.073 0.093 0.113 0.133 0.153 0.173

FUEL-AIR RATIO

Figure 15. Specific thrust variation with fuel-air ratio.

49
 1900.0

1800.0

o
LJL^

LU ©

CO
LU
-J CO
HI -J
DD
U.Q-

LU

900.0

800.0

700.0

0.053 0.073 0.093 0.113 0.133 0.153 0.173

FUEL-AIR RATIO

Figure 16. Fuel specific impulse variation with fuel-air ratio.

50
 INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

1. Defense Technical Information Center

Cameron Station
Alexandria, Virginia 22304-6145

2. Naval Weapons Center

China Lake, California 93555-6001
F. Zarlingo, Code 32403

3. Library, Code 0142

Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California 93943-5000

4. Department Chairman, Code AA

Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California 93943-5000

5. Professor D. W. Netzer, Code AA/Nt

Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California 93943-5000

6. Dr. Benveniste Natan

Faculty of Aerospace Engineering
Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
Haifa 3200, Israel

7. CPT Keith J. Fruge

314 Madrid Drive
Universal City, Texas 78148

51
 Thesis
F89747 Fruge
c.l Design and testing of a
caseless solid-fuel
integral-rocket ramjet
engine for use in small
tactical missiles.

Thesis
F89747 Fruge
c.l Design and testing of
caseless solid-fuel
integral-rocket ramjet
engine for use in small
tactical missiles.