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 identiŽ ed, namely, hydrogen-
fueled high-speed engines for access to space and hydrocarbon-fueled engines for hypersonic air-launched missiles.
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

Introduction technical hurdles facing scramjet development including fuel injec-

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

publication 5 June 2001. This material is declared a work of the U.S. Gov-
ernment and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
¤ Retired, Aero Propulsion and Power Directorate. Fellow AIAA.
1138
Scramjet Technology in the United States
The promising high-speed performance of the hydrogen-fueled
scramjet engine and speciŽ cally its apparent potential for achieving
near-orbital speeds, led to increasing attention on hypersoniccruise
 CURRAN
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 Ž 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 Ž 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-
lems, and identiŽ ed the critical problems of matching heat release to
combustor shape to avoid strong shock generation. With these fun-
damentalsestablished,Ferri investigatedthe problemof maximizing
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875
the performance of Ž xed geometry scramjet engines and, in partic-
ular, the development of an engine with good performance over a
wide speed range. Ferri considered that such high-performance re-
quirements could be met, provided that three-dimensional engine
designs were used and coupled with wave compression effects pro-
duced by combustion; this latter effect was termed thermal com-
pression. These techniques are described by Ferri and Fox,20 and
much later were reviewed by Ferri.21 The validity of the perfor-
mance gains claimed for the thermal compression approach was
vigorously debated. However, one independent analysis by Billig22
concluded that considerable performance gains were theoretically
achievable at the lower  ight Mach numbers, but pointed out the
practical difŽ culties of tailoring the fuel injection process to pro-
duce the required regions of thermal compression. It is interesting
to recall two engine programs executed by GASL in the 1960s. The
Ž rst of these was the  ight test engine concept developed under
the U.S. Air Force funded Scramjet Incremental Flight Test Vehi-
cle (IFTV) program, which was initiated in April 1965. The IFTV
concept is shown in Fig. 1. Note that four hydrogen-fueledscramjet
modules were located around the central vehicle body. The  ight-
test plan was to boost the vehicle to 5400 ft/s at 56,000-ft altitude
and to demonstrate vehicle acceleration to at least 6000 ft/s. In the
ground-test program to develop the scramjet modules, considerable
problems and delays were encountered due to inlet– combustor in-
teractions. The overall  ight-test program was a tightly planned
success-oriented effort and, in view of continuing technical difŽ -
culties, the program was canceled in August 1967. A nonpowered
 ight-test vehicle was, however, launched in January 1967.
The practicability of the modular scramjet design based on the
three-dimensionalthermal compressionapproachwas unfortunately
not demonstratedin  ight test.A very interestingreviewof the devel-
opment of one module for this IFTV vehicle is given by Peschke.23
The IFTV program was canceled before the associated ground-test
program of the scramjet module was completed. One might spec-
ulate on how the development of the scramjet engine may have
evolved had this 1967  ight-test program been successful.
Another interesting engine concept was developed at GASL un-
der U.S. Air Force sponsorship in 1964– 1968. This engine was
called the low-speed Ž xed geometry supersonic combustion ramjet.
This was an engine designed to operate from Mach 3 to 12 without
Fig. 1 U.S. Air Force IFTV concept.
1139
Fig. 2 Low-speed Ž xed geometry supersonic combustion ramjet.
variable geometry, but with an aerodynamic contraction ratio that
varied with  ight speed. This Ž xed geometry engine utilized the
Ferri approachof a closelyintegratedinlet– combustordesign,three-
dimensionalaerodynamics,tailored fuel injection,and thermal com-
pression effects. Various inlet and engine models were tested under
this program; the engine model shown in Fig. 2 was tested at a Mach
number of 7.4. (Note that the current French/Russian program on a
wide range scramjet is also aimed at operation over the speed range
Mach 3– 12. This engine concept, however, utilizes mechanically
variable geometry).
In these various engine designs, the vision of Ferri in creating
conceptsthat would tailor the aerothermodynamicsof fuel injection,
mixing, and combustion to the desired engineering features of the
engine was apparent.The difŽ culties of enginedesign with the avail-
able computational tools of that time period, together with the twin
challenges of assuring controlled heat release and avoiding inter-
nal  ow separations,in a very demanding ground-test environment,
made the timely achievementof such an ambitious undertakingvery
difŽ cult indeed. Ferri inspired both United States and international
research on scramjet engines. Tretjakov et al.24 also noted that work
in the former Soviet Union received impetus, following a meeting
in 1966 between academician Struminsky and Ferri at New York
University.
In addition to the engines devised at GASL, other scramjet en-
gines were developed under U.S. Air Force sponsorship and suc-
cessfully ground tested. These included a United Aircraft Research
Laboratory variable geometry engine, a General Electric compo-
nent integration model, and a Marquardt dual-mode engine. Short
descriptions of the features of these engines are available in the
literature.25
In addition to U.S. Air Force sponsored scramjet work, both
NASA and the U.S. Navy funded signiŽ cant engine programs. A
major NASA effort was the Hypersonic Research Engine (HRE)
program,26 which began in 1964 and was aimed at  ight testing a
complete  ightweight scramjet research engine on the X-15A-2 re-
search airplane. Here again the opportunity to  ight test an engine
was lost when the X-15 program was terminated in 1968. Following
this cancellation, emphasis shifted to ground test of two full-scale
HRE models: a structural model known as the structures assembly
model (SAM), which was tested in the NASA Langley Research
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
a water-cooled,boilerplate engine design. At NASA John H. Glenn
 1140
Fig. 3 NASA Hypersonic Research Engine.
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875
Fig. 4 NASA airframe-integrated engine conŽ guration.
ResearchCenter,the AIM enginecheckoutbeganin September 1972
with the Ž rst fuel-burningtests in October 1973. The programended
in April 1974 after a total of some 52 tests were completed (almost
2 h total running time). A comprehensivedatabaseon inlet and com-
bustor performances was obtained in the Mach 5– 7 range. It should
also be noted that a two-dimensionalcombustor was built and tested
(at North American, Rockwell) to aid in the development of the an-
nular HRE combustor. This combustor rig gave early insight into
the potential adverse effects of a diverging duct on combustor per-
formance and stimulated much debate on the relative contributions
of chemical kinetics and mixing to this loss in performance.
The AIM programwas an impressiveaccomplishmentin the mid-
1970s demonstrating1) high internal thrust performance,2) smooth
transition from a supersonic to subsonic mode of combustion, 3)
strong interactions between fuel injector stages, and 4) combustor
design approaches, fuel autoignition, and torch ignition. Overall,
the AIM performance approached 70% of ideal performance and
demonstratedthe capability of the dual-mode engine over the Mach
5 – 7 speed range.
The axisymmetric conŽ guration of the HRE has proven popular.
The French ESOPE engine was a hydrogen-fueled, dual-mode ax-
isymmetricenginealso testedin the early 1970s,and severalRussian
engines have utilized this conŽ guration.
In contrast to the axisymmetric HRE engine, NASA also focused
on the rectangularairframe-integratedconceptshown in Fig. 4. Note
that in additionto the verticalforebodycompression,the sidewallsof
the inlet give additionalhorizontalcompression.The in-streamstruts
are a key feature of this conceptand providea housing for distributed
fuel injectors.Note also that provisionis made for fuel to be injected,
both normal and parallel to the stream in differing amounts; this
approach permits some tailoring of the heat release in the diverging
combustor. The early work on the integrated-airframe concept is
well described by Henry and Anderson.27 This engine conŽ guration
went through several generationsof technologydevelopmentaimed
at improving the Ž xed geometry inlet and the swept strut injector,
and verifying overall subscale engine performance.28
It was soon realized by the U.S. Air Force and NASA that a hyper-
sonic research airplane was needed to  ight demonstrate the hyper-
sonic technologies emerging in the early 1970s. In December 1975,
a Joint Steering Committee was established to plan an extended
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 signiŽ -
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,
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 conŽ 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 conŽ 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 Ž nal conŽ 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
Extensive tests were accomplished at JHU/APL on this engine con-
Ž guration. Literally, several hundred tests were run using various
injection techniques, combustor geometries, and reactive fuels such
as HiCal– 3 – D and hydrocarbon– pentaborane blends. This test pro-
gram was indeed a mother lode for scramjet technology and, in
particular, for developing combustor– inlet isolators to prevent ad-
verse  ow interactions (for example, see the basic work by Billig
et al.33 ). The SCRAM work also produced the classic modeling
approach based on the Crocco power-law relationship, which was
most successfullyapplied to modeling the scramjet combustionpro-
cess including wall shear and heat transfer and for the overall op-
timization of scramjet engines, particularly dual-mode engines (for
example, see Billig and Sullins34 ). Unfortunately, the use of reac-
tive fuels was not ultimately acceptable to the operationalcustomer,
and work at JHU/APL was redirected to the dual-combustor ramjet
(DCR) concept that can effectively utilize heavy hydrocarbonfuels.
Note that JHU/APL also performed work on supersonic combus-
tors using hydrogen fuel, under NASA sponsorship. Two excellent
sources describing the JHU/APL work are Refs. 35 and 36.
As already observed, the U.S. Air Force sponsored hydrogen-
fueled scramjet work did not proceed into powered  ight test, and
such work was largely neglected until the initiation of the Na-
tional Aerospace Plane program. Fortunately, some limited work
on endothermic- and hydrocarbon-fueledscramjet engines did con-
tinue until the need emerged to concentrate resources solely on
integral rocket ramjet systems.
The emergence of the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) pro-
gram from Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
sponsored SSTO studies in the 1984/1986 time period gave fresh
impetus to U.S. scramjet development. The NASP program was a
national multiagency, multidisciplinary effort aimed at developing
the X-30 experimental SSTO vehicle. The most critical technology
in the NASP program was the development of a hydrogen-fueled
scramjet to operate over the wide speed range from about Mach 4
to Mach 15. The primary funded propulsion contractors, at Ž rst,
were Pratt and Whitney and General Electric. Later, the two engine
contractors became Pratt and Whitney and Rocketdyne.
A Joint Program OfŽ ce (JPO) was established in 1986 to manage
the NASP program and was located at Wright– Patterson Air Force
Base. The subsequenthistory of the NASP programis well described
by Chase and Tang.37 In addition to directing the contracted efforts,
the JPO managed a Technology Maturation Program (TMP) that
was created to mature the essential technologies needed to develop
 CURRAN 1141
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

Fig. 5 SCRAM engine conŽ 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 Ž 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 Ž 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 classiŽ 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 conŽ 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 Ž rst model was a subscaleparametricengine,SXPE,
veloped, and several modular engines had been tested, namely, a that was tested in three conŽ gurations at simulated Mach numbers
three-strut conŽ guration, a parametric engine, which allowed for from 5 to 8. Some 142 tests were run on the three conŽ 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 deŽ 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
Fig. 7 NASA Hyper-X research vehicle.
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875
new facility by installing a former NASA Langley expansion tube at
GASL in 1989; in its upgradedversion, this GASL facility is termed
the HYPULSE facility. The ability to generate the test conditions
required for hypersonicengine and combustor studies is demanding
and, in the United States can only be approachedby re ected shock
tunnelssuch as the LENS, NASA Ames ResearchCenter 16 in., Cal-
ifornia Institute of Technology T5 facilities, and the HYPULSE 41
facility. The development and utilization of scramjet test facilities
is a vital part of a hypersonic propulsion enterprise; unfortunately,
it is a vast topic that cannot be addressed in this paper.
A major new initiative42 by NASA to explore the overall perfor-
mance of airframe-integrateddual-mode scramjet-powered X vehi-
cles is now underway. This initiative is termed Hyper-X. The Ž rst
test vehicle, designated the X-43A, is a small hypersonic aircraft
about 12 ft in length with a 5-ft wingspan, as shown in Fig. 7. The
vehicle will be air launched, with a booster stage, from a B-52 air-
craft and is similar in launch concept to the X-7 series of vehicles.
Three X-43A  ight tests are planned, according to Ref. 43. The
Ž rst vehicle is targeted for a Mach 7 demonstration of the scram-
jet in mid-2001 with about 5Cs of combustor burning time. The
remaining two vehicles will be  own at Mach 7 and 10. SigniŽ -
cantly, the vehicle for the Mach 7  ight test has been tested at sim-
ulated  ight conditions in the NASA Langley Research Center 8-ft
High Temperature Wind Tunnel. A very interesting comparison of
ground- and  ight-test data should be possible. In regard to the
future of airbreathing hypersonic research, NASA has projected
its vision43 for about the next 15 years, which outlines a series of
 ight-test experiments, including a large-scale, reusable Mach 0– 7
vehicle.
After the demise of the NASP program,the U.S. Air Force decided
to focus its near-term hypersonic activities on hydrocarbon-fueled
scramjet engines for missile propulsion in the Mach 4 – 8 regime.
This new effort was termed HyTech, and the current key engine
technology thrust is known as the Air Force Hydrocarbon Scramjet
Engine Technology program.44 The engine, under development by
Pratt and Whitney, is a two-dimensional, dual-mode engine, using
a mixed-compression inlet, and a fuel-cooled structure for the in-
ternal  ow passage. The engine design has been integrated with a
hypersonicmissile conŽ guration.Although this Ž rst effort is missile
oriented, the HyTECH program should, in the future, address vari-
ous applications, such as high speed and transatmospheric vehicle
propulsion.
Scramjet Technology in Russia
In the former Soviet Union (FSU), a signiŽ cant scramjet research
and development program had been in progress for many decades.
In the past, visibility of this program had been restricted by the
limited availability of documentation in the English language. For-
tunately, many more details of the truly foundational work of FSU
scientists have become available during the 1990s due to their in-
creased participation in international conferences. The scramjet re-
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 efŽ 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-
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
by Russian researchers. For example, the decrease in combustion
efŽ ciency in divergent ducts46 and the complex structure of pseu-
doshocks: For the latter a major Russian database was generated
(for example, see Penzin47 ). Overall, Russian research addressed,
in depth,the mixing and combustionprocessesoccurringin two- and
three-dimensional ducts, with various fuels, fuel ignition systems,
and  ame stabilizationdevices for both scramjet and dual-mode en-
gines. Also, in common with U.S. researchers, much research was
performed in notional engine conŽ gurations to study overall inlet–
combustor performance.Two dual-mode scramjet classes are exten-
sively referencedin the CIAM literature,namely, a two-dimensional
class of models and an axisymmetric class, using either hydrogen
or kerosene fuels. A Ž xed-geometry two-dimensional model utiliz-
ing a three-shock inlet with a design Mach number of 6 has been
extensively tested at CIAM; the results have been documented by
Vinogradov et al.48¡50 The axisymmetric class has also been tested
extensively using both hydrogen and kerosene fuels (see Albegov
et al.51 ). An interesting feature of these engine designs is the use of
multiple cavity  ame stabilizers. The axisymmetric model is remi-
niscentof the NASA HRE and French ESOPE approachesbut differs
radically in the details of the internal combustor  ow path.
An axisymmetric hydrogen-fueledengine was successfully  ight
tested in November 1991 and demonstrated operation in both the
subsonic and supersonic combustion modes.52 The  ight test con-
cept utilized a HypersonicFlying Laboratory (HFL) named Kholod.
The engine and its support services were mounted on the nose of a
modiŽ ed SA-5 vehicleand remainedattachedto the HFL throughout
the  ight (see Fig. 8). A second, similar  ight test was conducted in
November 1992 with the support of ONERA; this engine operated
in the range M D 3.5– 5.35, again demonstrating both subsonic and
supersonic combustion modes. These successful  ight tests were
a most signiŽ cant achievement and a tribute to the dedicated and
persistent efforts of Russian scientists who have apparently pursued
the goal of scramjet- ight test since about 1970. A third  ight test,
also with French support, was carried out in March 1995, but the
engine did not operate because of HFL system problems.
In another associated internationalventure with the Kholod vehi-
cle, NASA contracted with CIAM to extend the  ight-test envelope
to demonstrate the full supersonic combustion mode to Mach 6.5.
NASA and CIAM worked jointlyto analyzethe engine ow path per-
formance and to assess the thermal loading on the Mach 6.5 engine,
with particular concern for the cowl leading-edge environment.53
Some modiŽ cations to the inlet and isolator/combustor of the en-
gine were required. The  ight test was successfully launched on
12 February 1998, and engine data were obtained in the speed range
Mach 3.5– 6.4. The subsequent analysis of the  ight data led to
the preliminary conclusion that the engine operated as a dual-mode
scramjet, but in the subsonic burning mode.54 Note that these  ight-
test engines were actively cooled with hydrogen. Currently, work is
in progress to explore endothermic fuel cooling of model scramjet
combustors.
 CURRAN
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875
Fig. 8 Kholod HFL.
A second generation hypersonic  ying test bed, IGLA, has also
been frequently discussed in the Russia literature.55 IGLA is a
winged gliding vehicle, mounted on top of a large booster rocket
(RS-18), and accelerated to speeds of the order of Mach 16. Af-
ter separation, the vehicle glides down to lower speeds where the
scramjet is started. The engine installation is shown as a three-
module, rectangular, hydrogen-fueled scramjet engine with regen-
erative cooling. Two series of tests of a scaled module, consisting of
an inlet and combustor, have recently been reported,56 at Mach 2 – 6,
and Mach 6 – 7.2 conditions, to determine inlet performance. The
testing of this module will be extended to higher Mach numbers
and will include combustor operation with hydrogen and/or hydro-
carbon fuel. If this overall program is successfully accomplished,
it will provide most valuable data on scramjet performance at the
higher speeds.
Further details of scramjettechnologyeffortsin Russia are emerg-
ing in various technicalmeetings. Three excellent source references
are Refs. 16, 18, and 24.
Scramjet Technology in France
In France, work on supersonic combustion began in the early
1960s and a valuable series of experiments was reported by Mestre
and Viaud57 in 1964. In these investigations, kerosene combustion
in a constant-area duct was studied at Mach 2.5 entry conditions
and shown to be practicable. The limitations of constant area heat
addition were encountered and, in addition to the usual wall pres-
sure distributions, valuable measurements of stagnation pressure
losses were made; useful data were also obtained on the ignition
of kerosene/airstreams. Ultimately in the French program, both
kerosene and hydrogen combustion were studied, and various injec-
tion schemes were tried, such as wall, strut, and slot conŽ gurations.
Work was also extended to divergent duct geometries.
Following this early work, a signiŽ cant program, ESOPE, was
launched in 1966. In general, this program sought to demonstrate
a dual-mode scramjet concept proposed by Marguet and Huet.58
Initially a Mach 7.0  ight-test program was envisaged, but here
again the ESOPE program was to become a ground-test program
due to resource limitations.
The overall design of ESOPE is an axisymmetric engine with an
annular combustor, similar to the NASA HRE. Also like the HRE,
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 Ž rst series (1970)
demonstratedthe need for improvedfuel injectionand mixing. Mod-
iŽ 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
signiŽ 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 Ž 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-
vestigate scramjet combustion phenomena by use of CFD models
of varying sophisticationto obtain qualitative and quantitativemod-
els of the  ow, for comparison with experimental measurements. In
turn, such CFD models have provided a structured approach to ad-
dressing typical engine problems in the areas of ignition,  ame sta-
bilization,mixing and combustionefŽ ciencies,total pressure losses,
and unsteady  ow phenomena. A particularly interesting aspect of
this investigation was the determination of the point of origin of
the precombustion shock in the combustor. Clearly, various lev-
els of CFD modeling including differing turbulence and kinetic
models are providing signiŽ cant tools to approach design optimiza-
tion of scramjet engines. In general, it would be very desirable to
add simultaneous optical  ow visualization to the existing tools of
CFD modeling and physical measurements. One impressive prod-
uct of the CHAMOIS testing described by Bouchez et al.65 has been
the development of a lightweight, carbon/carbon strut with a sharp
hydrogen-cooled leading edge (radius less than 2 mm) potentially
capable of surviving Mach 12 conditions.
One other interesting aspect of strut technology is the design and
test of a hydrogen-cooledInconel 718 strut.66 This strut is designed
to withstand both leading-edge and sidewall thermal loads corre-
sponding to  ight speeds up to Mach 7.5.
A related French– Russian program is the partnership formed be-
tween Aerospatialeand the MAI to develop a Mach 3– 12 wide range
ramjet (WRR) prototype.As noted earlier, in the United States, Ferri
had pursued the goal of developing a Mach 3– 12 engine in the early
1960s by utilizing aerothermodynamic  ow effects in a Ž xed ge-
ometry duct. The WRR approach, described by Bouchez et al.,67
favors the more structured approach of using a variable geometry
combustor made up of movable panels, actuated under computer
control, to maximize performance. At lower speeds, the WRR op-
erates in a subsonic combustion mode using kerosene fuel, and at
higher speeds, supersonic combustion with hydrogen fuel is used. It
is postulated that still higher speeds may be attained by utilizing an
oblique detonationwave mode. In the WRR conŽ guration, it will be
possible to use a physical variable throat and avoid the sensitivities
associated with the dual-mode scramjet that uses a Ž xed geometry
combustor operating with a thermal throat.
Thus, in the WRR, the engineering challenge of developing a
mechanicallyvariable geometry combustor/nozzle system, for dual-
fuel operation, is squarely faced. The propulsion community will
watch the evolution of the WRR engine with interest.
 1144 CURRAN
Although the PREPHA program ended in 1999, two scramjet
programs continue. The Ž rst effort, an initial three-year program
under the sponsorship of the French Ministry of Defense is called
PROMETHEE 68 : Its main aim is to explore the feasibility of a
dual-mode hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet for an air-launched mis-
sile. A generic missile has been deŽ ned, and three engine con-
cepts have been explored; a unique rotating-cowl dual-mode en-
gine has been selected for further work. The second effort is termed
Joint Airbreathing Propulsion for HypersonicApplication Research
(JAPHAR), which began in 1997. One focus of JAPHAR 69 is the
evaluation of a hydrogen-fueled dual-mode scramjet to operate,
potentially, over the speed range Mach 2 – 12. To evaluate the net
propulsive effect of the engine it is essential to integrate it with a
suitable vehicle. To determine the design of such a vehicle, DLR,
the German Aerospace Research Center, carried out studies of a wa-
verider conŽ guration, and ONERA evaluated a winged-body con-
Ž guration.From these studiesa common vehicledesign was evolved
that incorporated the best features of the two approaches.
This program can now proceed to develop a second-generation
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875
scramjet engine, building on the lessons learned from previous pro-
grams, and optimizing overall engine performance within the con-
straints of integration in a realistic vehicle design. A deŽ nitive en-
gine design should emerge from this effort.
Scramjet Technology in Germany
Germany has a long tradition of excellence in gasdynamics, and
many foundationalcontributions,both theoreticaland experimental,
have been made to explain supersonic heat addition phenomena (for
example, see the many references in the work by Zierep70 ). In 1987,
a hypersonic technology readiness program addressing a reference
concept of a two-stage reusable space transportsystem (Sanger) was
initiated, which, in turn, stimulated a revival of basic hypersonic
research at various German universities. This basic research effort
was terminated in December 1995, but fortunately some aspects of
this work have continued, as described by Koschel.71
Also, under the overall hypersonic program, a joint German–
Russian scramjet technology research and development effort was
initiated in 1993 with TsAGI and primarily MTU as the participants.
There has been an informativeseries of progress reports on this pro-
gram by Sabel’nikov et al.72 Extensive use has been made of the
TsAGI test facilities, and the experimental program has addressed
connected-pipe testing of a versatile rectangular subscale combus-
tor, as well as freejet testing of subscale scramjet engines. The com-
bustor consisted of four sections including an isolator, a rectangular
divergent section in which a step conŽ guration can be introduced, a
variable geometry divergent section, and a diffuser section. At least
three different injector types have been investigated: tube injectors,
wall-mounted ramp injectors, and wedge-shaped Ž n injectors, that
is, a partial span swept strut. Both single-point and staged-injection
locations have been tested. Various combustor tests have been made
at Mach 6 conditions,adding valuable additional data to the current
knowledge base, particularly on strut-class injectors.
The subscale rectangular scramjet engine was also tested at
Mach 5 and 6 conditions. This engine consisted of a three-ramp
inlet, an isolator, a divergent (or alternatively a step conŽ guration)
combustor, and a divergent exhaust nozzle. At Mach 6 conditions,
this engine exhibited strong couplingeffects between the combustor
and inlet. At Mach 5, there were reduced interactions. Full details
of the Mach 5 and 6 tests are given by Walther et al.73 Additional
testing of this engine at Mach 7.2 conditions is discussed in Ref. 74.
Also, the possibility of  ight testing a subscale engine, installed
on the Russian Raduga-D2, at Mach 6 conditionshas been explored.
The Raduga-D2 vehicle is typically air launched from a Tupolev
TU-22M at supersonic speed and is powered by a rocket engine.
As already noted, Germany and France are jointly working on a
dual-mode engine, under the JAPHAR program.
Scramjet Technology in Japan
Japan has a long history of working technologies relevant to
scramjet engines, including some signiŽ cant work on pseudoshock
phenomena in the late 1960s. Supersonic combustion studies were
reported some 20 years ago; more recently a very capable ramjet test
facility was installed at the National Aerospace Laboratory,Kakuda
Research Center (NAL-KRC). This facility, which became opera-
tional in 1994, is able to simulate  ight conditions correspondingto
Mach 4, 6, and 8 (with a facilityexit nozzlesize of 51 cm square). The
facility has a stored clean-air capability utilizing a ceramic heater
and also two separate vitiated air heaters for Mach 6 and 8 condi-
tions. SigniŽ cantly, it is possible to run Mach 6 test conditionsusing
either clean or vitiated air.75 An interesting comparison of Mach 6
testing with both clean and vitiated air is given by Mitani et al.76
Since 1994, an extensive series of tests has been performed on a
two-dimensionalsubscale engine at simulated  ight Mach numbers
of 4, 6, and 8, using hydrogen fuel. The engine utilizes a sidewall
compression inlet similar to the NASA airframe-integratedscramjet
engine. The dimensions of the engine are 20 cm wide, 25 cm height,
with a length of 2.1 m. The combustor fuel injection system utilizes
pilot fuel injectors (top wall and/or side wall) and main fuel injec-
tors, which provide both perpendicular and parallel fuel injection
sites. The parallel injection takes place at the base of a step in the
combustor sidewall with perpendicular injection just downstream
of the step. The combustor has been run without struts, with a par-
tial strut spanning one-Ž 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
the  ow. Additionally, shock-generating ramps have been inserted
in the  ow path to attenuate inlet– combustor interactions. A sta-
tus report on the technological evolution of these engines is given
by Yatsuyanagi and Chinzei,77 with more recent developments re-
ported by Sato et al.78 and Tani et al.79 Reference 79 gives a very
informative discussion of the effects of varying the engine inter-
nal geometry (isolator, struts, and ramps) on internal aerodynamic
performance. In addition to the existing heat sink and water-cooled
versions of the test engine, it is planned to test a hydrogen-cooled
engine in the near future. There have also been detailed studies of the
relative performancesof various fuel injectionstruts using both nor-
mal and parallel fuel injection in varying proportions.80 Although
a central full-span strut ensures initial fuel distribution across the
height of the duct, its presence splits the  ow into two smaller chan-
nels. It also generates a bow shock that can cause boundary-layer
separation at the wall, adding further blockage to the already re-
duced  ow area; furthermore, the re ected shock can interact with
the fuel injection/ignition process. In addition to these broad studies
of conventional fuel injection strut phenomenology, there has also
been work on improving the strut injector performance by use of
innovative geometries.
Despite this strong background on strut injection phenomena,
many of the engine tests at Mach 4, 6, and 8 (Ref. 81) reported
in the literature have been basically without utilizing strut injec-
tion in the combustor design. These engines have utilized ignition
plasma torches, and this technologyhas been extensivelyresearched
in Japan82 and elsewhere.
A new large-scale free-piston, high-enthalpy shock-tunnel,
HEIST, was installed at NAL-KRC in 1997: It should be capable of
testing scramjets in the speed range of Mach 8– 15.
Scramjet Technology in Australia
As noted earlier, the work of Stalker and his colleagues at the
University of Queensland is well known. This work started in1981
with the T3 hypersonic impulse facility at the Australian National
University,and in 1987 it transitionedto the T4 tunnel at the Univer-
sity of Queensland: The T4 tunnel is capable of simulating orbital
 ight conditions. Experimental work has evolved from the testing
of simple combustors to the testing of complete scramjet models,
and net positive thrust has been demonstrated. A broad range of
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-
merous gasdynamic investigations. The continuing pursuit of im-
proved scramjet efŽ ciencies is well describedby Paull and Stalker.40
A signiŽ cant  ight-test program, HyShot, is planned for mid-2001.
 CURRAN
Fig. 9 Dual-Combustor Ramjet.
Two scramjetvehiclesare to be launchedwith the objectof obtaining
the correlation between  ight- and ground-test supersonic combus-
tion data.
Other Scramjet Technology Efforts
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875
Many other nations are embarking on supersonic combustion re-
search. Experimental work on supersonic combustors in India has
been published,83 and both analyticaland experimental84 studies are
reported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, People’s Republic
of China.
Additional work related to hypersonic propulsion is being pur-
sued elsewherein Europe. Broadbent85 has compiled a usefulsurvey
of some work in the United Kingdom. Also, at ShefŽ eld University,
Swithenbank et al.86 pursued extensive scramjet engine mixing and
combustion studies for many years. Another substantial university
program was conducted by Cookson et al.87 at the College of Aero-
nautics, CranŽ eld, using both hydrogen and hydrocarbonfuels. One
early scramjet combustor conŽ guration tested by Rolls Royce and
reported by Harper88 was a simple step combustor (with wall fuel
injectors upstream of the step and also injection from the base of
the step). This combustor was tested at temperatures correspond-
ing to Mach 5 – 7 with both hydrogen and methane fuels. The step
conŽ guration gave stable operation and smooth transition between
supersonic and subsonic combustion modes.
Emerging Trends
Up to this point, most of the discussion has focused on the de-
velopment of hydrogen-fueledengine technologies. In general, this
work has been aimed at providingengine technologyfor hypersonic
air vehicle concepts that include both two-stage-to-orbit and SSTO
vehicles. The modular two-dimensional airframe-integratedscram-
jet engine has emerged as the candidate of choice, as is evident in
the IGLA and JAPHAR vehicles. This conŽ guration permits engine
development in reasonable size ground facilities and requires a rel-
atively modest  ight test vehicle for module testing. The relatively
large height of the engine determines many of the relevant techno-
logicalfeatures,such as the use, primarily,of strut injectors.Also the
associated inlet designs have driven extensive development of two-
dimensional,sidewall compressionsystems and of two-dimensional
isolators.
However, in recent years, due to budget limitations, scramjet
engine development has focused on relatively near-term missile
propulsion efforts. In particular, the U.S. Air Force, as already
noted, is addressing hydrocarbon-fueled missile propulsion in the
Mach 4 – 8 regime under the HyTech Program89 ; similar work is
proceeding in France. In these missile engines, due to the basic
difŽ culty of igniting and rapidly burning the heavy hydrocarbon
fuels, it is essential to prepare the fuel for effective combustion or,
alternatively,to add very energeticfuels or oxidizers.From an opera-
tional viewpoint, such energetic additions are usually unacceptable.
Fortunately, over the long history of hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet
development, many combustor design approaches have been pro-
posed and investigated, such as the well-known DCR90 shown in
Fig. 9. In this design, two combustors are used, an initial subsonic
combustor, operating fuel-rich, and a coaxial supersonic burner to
complete the combustionprocess. Other hydrocarbon-fueledengine
designs use various piloting techniques. Such techniques include
1145
the wall pilot, the split-inlet pilot, and the catalytic pilot; these
schemes, and more general combustion concerns are extensively
discussed by Waltrup.91 More recently the use of cavity-based fuel
injector/stabilizer conŽ gurations, combined with barbotage injec-
tion, have been successfully demonstrated with JP-7 fuel.92
Another technology area that has received only limited attention
in the literature is active cooling of the hydrocarbon class of en-
gine. Much analysis has been done, and practical combustors have
advanced from early heat-sink approaches, through water-cooled,
to actively cooled metal and composite structures. Active cooling
is greatly enhanced by the use of endothermic fuels. Although the
capabilities of these fuels are well known, there has been very little
work published on the practicalengineeringof the overall endother-
mic fuel cooling system. These systems requirecatalyticconversion,
multiphase operation, and fast cold-start capabilities;active cooling
will probably be essential for speeds exceeding about Mach 6.5 to
achieve thermal balance of the engine.
There has been some discussion on the ultimate speed capabili-
ties of hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet engines. A recent analysis by
Waltrup93 yields estimates that, for the axisymmetric missile class
of vehicle the upper speed bound lies between Mach 9 and 10.
Conclusions
The scramjet engine is the key to airbreathing hypersonic  ight.
Because of the energy limitations of currently available fuels, the
scramjet is unlikely to provide efŽ cient propulsion all of the way
to orbital speeds. Furthermore, effective performance at the higher
speeds will demand the highest component efŽ ciencies. Some po-
tential improvement in high-speed performance may be anticipated
by liquid oxygen augmentation of the combustion system (for ex-
ample, see Roudokov’s discussion in Papers 4 and 9 of Ref. 16).
However, it is anticipated that the hydrogen-fueled scramjet will
offer acceptable performance to about Mach 15.
The early encouraging explorations of supersonic combustion
phenomena in the late 1950s/early1960s perhaps gave the impres-
sion that the scramjet engine could be developed using the same
structured and largely controlled approach appropriate to subsonic
combustors, that is, fuel injection, distribution, mixing, ignition,
stabilization by pilot zones,  ame propagation, etc. However, in
the scramjet, the presence of supersonic/subsonic  ows with cor-
responding shock Ž elds, coupled heat release/shock generation,
shock/boundary-layer interactions, and thermal occlusion effects
very soon demonstrated that scramjet combustor development was
no simple endeavor. Once again, the pioneering work of Ferri in
addressing these problems, in complex three-dimensional engine
conŽ gurations, is noteworthy. Since that time, more tractable en-
gine  ow path systems have been investigated. At present, two-
dimensional engine designs, with or without strut fuel injectors, are
beginning to emerge and should provide a common conŽ guration
on which the community could focus future research efforts and
resolve current  ow path anomalies.
The unexpectedcomplexitiesof scramjet combustion and, in par-
ticular, combustor– inlet interactions,have frustrated progress in the
past 40 years. Indeed, it has taken the propulsion community over
30 years, since the conception of the engine, to achieve a success-
ful  ight test. Of course, the overall scramjet international effort
has also not been consistently funded, and so there have been many
 1146
dormant periods in research.However, signiŽ cant progresshas been
made, but more substantive progress in developing improved un-
derstanding of scramjet processes, leading to preferred scramjet
engine designs, is needed, so that effort can be focused on elim-
inating anomalies and reŽ ning such designs. Furthermore, devel-
opment will be hastened if effort is concentrated on conŽ gurations
that lend themselves to structured, standard engineeringapproaches
that control the  owpath phenomena. One such early proposal was
a multistep burner94 where a standard step burner element is used
sequentially to spatially anchor heat release along the combustor, to
control heat release as a function of length. An actively controlled
system could optimize overall performance.
As an observer of the work in progress, this writer is reminded
of Kuchemann’s comment in the prolegomena to his well known
book95 that it was Prandtl who introduced the concept of healthy
 ows: We are well advised to search for such healthy  ow solu-
tions for scramjet combustors. Let us hope that international efforts
can succeed in developing engine conŽ gurations in which healthy
combustor  ows can be baselined, so that robust airbreathing hy-
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875
personic propulsion can be conŽ dently improved. Certainly, there
are no grounds for complacency with current published combustor
performance levels.
With regardto hydrocarbonfueled systems,it is hoped that budget
support will continue to enable explorationof such propulsion tech-
nologies to speeds of about Mach 8. This class of engine will almost
certainlyplay a role in developingfuture hypersonicair vehicles and
offers considerable scope for innovation and invention.
We have come to the 40th anniversary of scramjet engine re-
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
additional  ight testing by other nations has been raised in the lit-
erature. Thus, the current scramjet engine conŽ gurations and their
supportingtechnologieswill be put to the test of  ightvalidation,and
further data regarding the future viability of scramjet powered hy-
personic ight should soon be available.Indeed it is time for increas-
ing international collaboration on key technologicalscramjet issues
through dedicated workshops. Although this remark is in the con-
text of scramjet combustor technology, it is obvious that dedicated
workshops on other scramjet components (particularly inlets and
nozzles), CFD methods, and basic research problems are required.
Regarding future hypersonic propulsion, the potential of the
oblique-detonation wave engine is under continuing investiga-
tion.96;97 There are also emerging efforts to capitalize on the ma-
nipulation of ionized  ows to improve engine-vehicleperformance.
It should also be observed that over the last 40 years, we have come
to acceptthe airframe-integratedlifting body conŽ gurationas a stan-
dard vehicle conŽ guration. Billig98 has recently pointed out that it
would be prudent to examine the possibility of a radical change in
the engine  ow path and, in turn, the overall vehicle conŽ guration
to produce a more effective vehicle. Billig has presented conŽ g-
urations based on a  owpath derived from streamline tracing of
inward turning  owŽ elds that can potentially reduce drag and heat-
ing loads. The design of the SCRAM engine mentioned earlier was
based on the use of similar techniques. Thus, despite the maturing
of the early scramjet engine technology base,99 fresh opportunities
exist to improve the robustness of hypersonic propulsion and avoid
the marginality associated with orbital and suborbital missions. It
is anticipated that the truly mature scramjet engine will indeed rule
over a wide  ight domain.100
References
1 Dugger, G. L., “Recent Advances in Ramjet Combustion,” ARS Journal,
Vol. 29, No. 11, 1959, pp. 819– 827.
2 Weber, R. J., “A Survey of Hypersonic-Ramjet Concepts,” American
Rocket Society, Paper 875-59, 1959.
3 High Mach Number Airbreathing Engines, Pergamon, Oxford, England,
U.K., 1961.
4 Mallinson, D. H., “Discussion on Hypersonic Ramjet Development,”
High Mach Number Airbreathing Engines, Pergamon, Oxford, England,
U.K., 1961, pp. 80– 83.
5 Hawkins, R., and Fox, M. D., “An Investigation of Real Gas Effects
Relevant to the Performance of a Kerosene Fueled Hypersonic Ramjet,”
CURRAN
Supersonic Flow, Chemical Processes and Radiative Transfer, Macmillan,
New York, 1964, pp. 113– 136.
6 Roy, M. M., “Moteurs Thermiques,” Comptes rendus de l’ Academie des
Sciences, Vol. 222, No. 1, 1946; see also Royal Aircraft C Establishment
Library Translation 112, 1946.
7 Nicholls, J. A., Dabora, E. K., and Gealev, R. L., “Studies in Connection
with Stabilized Detonation Waves,” Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium
on Combustion, Butterworths, London, 1959, pp. 766– 772.
8 Gross, R. A., and Chinitz, W., “A Study of Supersonic Combustion,”
Journal of the Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 7, 1960, pp. 517– 524,
534.
9 Ferri, A., “Discussion on M. Roy’s Paper Propulsion Supersonique par
Turboreacteurs et par Statoreacteurs,” Advances in Aeronautical Sciences,
Vol. 1, Pergamon, Oxford, England, U.K., 1959, pp. 79 – 112.
10
Ferri, A., Libby, P. A., and Zakkay, V., “Theoretical and Experimental
Investigations of Supersonic Combustion,” Proceedings of the International
Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Third Congress, Stockholm, 1962,
Spartan, New York, 1964, pp. 1089– 1155.
11
Swithenbank, J., “Experimental Investigation of Hypersonic Ramjets,”
Proceedings of the InternationalCouncil of the Aeronautical Sciences, Third
Congress, Stockholm, 1962, Spartan, New York, 1964, pp. 951– 977.
12 Weber, R. J., and MacKay, J. S., “An Analysis of Ramjet Engines using
Supersonic Combustion,” NACA TN 4386, Sept. 1958.
13 Dugger, G. L., “Comparison of Hypersonic Ramjet Engines with Sub-
sonic and Supersonic Combustion,” High Mach Number Airbreathing En-
gines, Pergamon, Oxford, England, U.K., 1961, pp. 84– 110.
14 Hueter, U., “Rocket-Based Combined-Cycle PropulsionTechnology for
Access-to-Space Applications,” AIAA Paper 99-4925, Nov. 1999.
15 Curran, E. T., Heiser, W. H., and Pratt, D. T., “Fluid Phenomena in
Scramjet Combustion Systems,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol.
28, 1996, pp. 323– 360.
16 Sosounov, V., “Research and Development of Ram/Scramjets and Tur-
bojets in Russia,” AGARD Lecture Ser. 194, AGARD, 1993.
17 Tretyakov, P. K., “The Study of Supersonic Combustion for a Scram-
jet,” Experimentation, Modeling and Computation in Flow, Turbulence, and
Combustion, Vol. 1, edited by J. A. Désidéri, B. N. Chetverushkin, Y. A.
Kuznetsov, J. Périaux, and B. Stouf et, Wiley, New York, 1996, Chap. 22,
pp. 319– 336.
18 Curran, E .T., and Murthy, S. N. B. (eds.), Scramjet Propulsion, Progress
in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, Washington, DC, 2001.
19 Ferri, A., “Review of Problems in Application of Supersonic Combus-
tion,” Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Vol. 68, No. 645, 1964, pp.
575– 597.
20 Ferri, A., and Fox, H., “Analysis of Fluid Dynamics of Supersonic
Combustion Process Controlled by Mixing,” Proceedings of the Twelfth In-
ternational Symposium on Combustion, Combustion Inst., Pittsburgh, PA,
1968, pp. 1105– 1113.
21 Ferri, A., “Mixing Controlled Supersonic Combustion,” Annual Review
of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 5, 1973, pp. 301– 338.
22
Billig, F. S., “Two-Dimensional Model for Thermal Compression,”
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 9, No. 9, 1972, pp. 702, 703.
23
Peschke, W. O. T., “Approach to In Situ Analysis of Scramjet Combustor
Behavior,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 11, No. 5, 1995, pp. 943–
949.
24 Tretjakov, P., Golovitchev, V. I., and Bruno, C., “Supersonic Combus-
tion: A Russian View, 1967– 1993,” Joint Meeting of the Italian and Span-
ish Sections of the Combustion Institute, Combustion Inst., Pittsburgh, PA,
June– July 1993, pp. V111-1.1– V111-1.4.
25 Waltrup, P. J., Stull, F. D., and Anderson, G. Y., “Supersonic Combustion
Ramjet (Scramjet) Engine Development in the United States,” Proceedings
of the Third International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfarht, Germany, March 1976, pp. 835–
862.
26 Andrews, E. H., and Mackley, E. A., “Review of NASA’s Hypersonic
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
Airframe-Integrated Scramjet,” Proceedings of the First International Sym-
posium on Air Breathing Engines, International Society for Airbreathing
Engines, 1972; also NASA TM X-2895, 1973.
28 Guy, R.W., and Mackley, E. A., “Initial Wind Tunnel Tests at Mach 4
and 7 of a Hydrogen-Burning, Airframe-Integrated Scramjet,” Proceedings
of the Fourth International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE
Paper 79-7045, 1– 6 April 1979.
29 Hearth, D. P., and Preyss, A. E., “Hypersonic Technology—Approach
to an Expanded Program,” Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 14, No. 12,
1976, pp. 20– 37.
30 Northam, G. B., and Anderson, G. Y., “Supersonic Combustion Re-
search at Langley,” AIAA Paper 86-0159, Jan. 1986.
 CURRAN
31 Rogers, R. C., Capriotti, D. P., and Guy, R. W., “Experimental Super-
sonic Combustion Research at NASA Langley, AIAA Paper 98-2506, June
1998.
32 Billig, F. S., “SCRAM: A Supersonic Combustion Ramjet Missile,”
AIAA Paper 93-2329, June 1993.
33 Billig, F. S., Dugger, G. L., and Waltrup, P. J., “Inlet-Combustor Inter-
face Problems in Scramjet Engines,” Proceedings of the First International
Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, International Society for Airbreathing
Engines, June 1972.
34 Billig, F. S., and Sullins, G. A., “Optimization of Combustor– Isolator
in Dual-Mode Ram Scramjets,” AIAA Paper 93-5154, Nov.– Dec. 1993.
35 Billig, F. S., “Research on Supersonic Combustion,” Journal of Propul-
sion and Power, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1993, pp. 515– 521.
36 Billig, F. S., “Combustion Processes in Supersonic Flow,” Journal of
Propulsion and Power, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1988, pp. 209– 216.
37 Chase, R. L., and Tang, M. H., “A History of the NASP Program
from the Formation of the Joint Program OfŽ ce to the Termination of
the HySTP Scramjet Performance Demonstration Program,” AIAA Paper
95-6051, April 1995.
38 Waldman, B., and Harsha, P., “NASP—A Maturing Technology Base,”
AIAA Paper 93-5173, Nov.– Dec. 1993.
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875
39
Voland, R., and Rock, K., “NASP Concept Demonstration Engine and
Subscale Parametric Engine Tests,” AIAA Paper 95-6055, April 1995.
40
Paull, A., and Stalker, R. J., “Scramjet Testing in the T4 Impulse Facil-
ity,” AIAA Paper 98-1533, April 1998.
41 Bakos, R. J., Tsai, C.-Y., Rogers, R. C., and Shih, A. T, “The Mach
10 Component of NASA’s Hyper-X Ground Test Program,” Proceedings of
the 14th International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper
99-7216, Sept. 1999.
42 Rausch, V., McClinton, C., and Sitz, J., “Hyper-X Program Overview,”
Proceedings of the 14th InternationalSymposium on Air Breathing Engines,
ISABE Paper 99-7213, Sept. 1999.
43 McClinton, C. R., Hunt, J. L., Ricketts, R. H., Reukauf, P., and Peddie,
C. L., “Airbreathing Hypersonic Technology Vision Vehicles and Dreams,”
AIAA Paper 99-4978, Nov. 1999.
44 Faulkner, R. F., and Weber, J. W., “Hydrocarbon Scramjet Propul-
sion System Development, Demonstration and Application,” AIAA Paper
99-4922, Nov. 1999.
45 Shchetinkov,E. S., “Piecewise-One-Dimensional Models of Supersonic
Combustion and Pseudo Shock in a Duct,” Fizika Goreniya i Vzryva, Vol. 9,
No. 4, 1973, pp. 473– 483.
46 Meshcheryakov, E. A., and Sabel’nikov, V. A., “Reduced Heat Pro-
duction Due to Mixing and Kinetic Factors in Supersonic Combustion of
Unmixed Gases in an Expanding Channel,” Fizika Goreniya i Vzryva, Vol.
24, No. 5, 1988, pp. 23 – 32.
47 Penzin, V. I., “Pseudoshock and Separated Flows in Rectangular Chan-
nels,” Fluid Mechanics—Soviet Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1989, pp. 1– 12.
48 Vinogradov, V., Grachev, V., Petrov, M., and Sheechman, J., “Exper-
imental Investigation of 2-D Dual Mode Scramjet with Hydrogen Fuel at
Mach 4-6,” AIAA Paper 90-5269, Oct. 1990.
49 Vinogradov, V., Albegov, R. V., and Petrov, M. D., “Experimental In-
vestigation of Hydrogen Burning and Heat Transfer in Annular Duct at
Supersonic Velocity,” International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences,
ICAS Paper 92-3.4R2, Beijing, China, Sept. 1992.
50 Vinogradov, V., Kobyzhskii, S. A., and Petrov, M. D., “Organization
of Kerosene Combustion in a Model Hypersonic Ramjet Engine,” Fizika
Goreniya i Vzryva, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1992, pp. 18 – 26.
51 Albegov, R. V., Vinogradov, V. A., Zhadan, G. G., and Kobyzhskii,
S. A., “Experimental Investigation of Hydrogen Combustion and Supersonic
Cooling in an Annular Channel,” Fizika Goreniya i Vzryva Vol. 27, No. 6,
1991, pp. 24– 29.
52 Roudakov,A., Schickhman, Y., Semenov, V., Novelli, Ph., and Fourt,O.,
“Flight Testing an Axisymmetric Scramjet: Russian Recent Advances,” In-
ternational Astronautical Federation, IAF Paper 93-S.4.485.44th,Oct. 1993.
53 McClinton, C., Roudakov, A., Semenov, V., and Kopehenov, V., “Com-
parative Flow Path Analysis and Design Assessment of an Axisymmetric
Hydrogen Fueled Scramjet Flight Test Engine at a Mach Number of 6.5,”
AIAA Paper 96-4571, 1996.
54 Voland, R. T., Auslander, A. H., Smart, M. K., Roudakov, A. S., Se-
menov, V. L., and Kopchenov, V., “CIAM/NASA Mach 6.5 Scramjet Flight
and Ground Test,” AIAA Paper 99-4848, Nov. 1999.
55 Sosounov, V. A., Roudakov, A. S., Semenov, V. S., Kopchenov, V. I.,
Lanshin, A. I., and Romankov, O. N., “Two Generations of Russian Scram
Flying Test Beds. The Oriel Programme,” Proceedings of the 12th Interna-
tional Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, Sept. 1995.
56 Goldfeld, M. A., Nestoulia, R. V., Starov, A. V., and Vinogradov, V. A.,
“Experimental Study of Scramjet Module,” Proceedings of the 14th Interna-
tional Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 99-7052, Sept.
1999.
1147
57 Mestre, A., and Viaud, L., “Combustion Supersonique dans un Canal
Cylindrique,” Supersonic Flow, Chemical Processes and Radiative Transfer,
MacMillan, New York, 1964, pp. 93 – 111.
58 Marguet, R., and Huet, C., “Research of an Optimum Solution for a
Fixed Geometry Ramjet, in the Mach 3 – 7 Range, with Successively Subsonic
and Supersonic Combustion,” ONERA TP 656E, 1968.
59 Leuchter, O., “Problems of Mixing and Supersonic Combustion of Hy-
drogen in Hypersonic Ramjets,” ONERA TP 973, 1971.
60 Hirsinger, F., “Optimization Des Performances d’un Statoreacteur Su-
personique: Etude Theorique et Experimentale,” Proceedings of the 1st In-
ternational Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, International Society for
Airbreathing Engines, June 1972.
61 Contensou, P., Marguet, R., and Huet, C., “Etude Theorique et Ex-
perimentale d’un Statoreacteur a Combustion Mixte (Domaine de vol Mach
3/7), International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS Paper 72– 74,
1972; also ONERA TP 1121, 1972.
62
Sancho, M., Colin, Y., and Johnson,C., “Program Overview: The French
Hypersonic Research Program PREPHA,” AIAA 7th International Space
Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Nov. 1996.
63 Scherrer, D., Dessornes, O., Montmayeur, N., and Ferrandon, O., “In-
jection Studies in the French Hypersonic Technology Program,” AIAA Paper
95-6096, April 1995.
64 Bouchez, M., Hachemin, J. V., Leboucher, C., Scherrer, D., and
Saucerau, D., “Scramjet Combustor Design in French PREPHA Program—
Status in 1996,” AIAA Paper 96-4582-CP, Nov. 1996.
65 Bouchez, M., Saunier, E., Peres, P., and Lansalot, T., “Advanced Car-
bon/Carbon Injection Strut for Actual Scramjet,” AIAA Paper 96-4567-CP,
Nov. 1996.
66 Rene-Corail, M., Rothmund, Ch., Ferrandon, O., and Dessornes, O.,
“A Hydrogen Cooled Injection Strut Design for Scramjet,” AIAA Paper
96-4511-CP, Nov. 1996.
67 Bouchez, M., Levine, V., Davidenko, D., Avrashkov, D., and Genevieve,
P, “Airbreathing Space Launcher Interest of a Fully Variable Geometry
Propulsion System and Corresponding French – Russian Partnership,” AIAA
Paper 2000-3340, July 2000.
68 Falempin, F., and Serre, L., “The French PROMETHEE Program: Main
Goals and Status in 1999,” AIAA Paper 99-4814, Nov. 1999.
69 Novelli, P., and Koschel, W., “JAPHAR—A Joint ONERA – DLR Re-
search Project on High Speed Airbreathing Propulsion,” 14th International
Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 99-7091, Sept. 1999.
70 Zierep, J., “Theory of Flows in Compressible Media with Heat Addi-
tion,” AGARDograph 191, 1974.
71
Koschel, W. W., “Basic Hypersonic Propulsion Research in German
Universities,” AIAA Paper 98-1634, April 1998.
72
Sabel’nikov, V. A., Voloschenko, O. V., Ostras, V. N., Sermanov, V. N.,
and Walther, R., “Gasdynamics of Hydrogen-FueledScramjet Combustors,”
AIAA Paper 93-2145, June 1993.
73 Walther, R., Sabelnikov, V., Koronstsvit, Y., Voloschenko, O., Ostras,
V., and Sermanov, V., “Progress in the Joint German – Russian Scramjet Tech-
nology Programme,” Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on
Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 95-7121, Sept. 1995.
74 Walther, R., Koschel, W., Sabelnikov, V., Korontsvit, Y., and Ivanov, V.,
“Investigations into the Aerothermodynamic Characteristics of Scramjet
Components,” Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Air
Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 97-7085, Sept. 1997.
75 Miyajima, H., Chinzei, N., Mitani, T., Wakamatsu, Y., and Maita, M.,
“Development Status of the NAL Ramjet EngineTest Facility and Sub-Scale,
Scramjet Engines,” AIAA Paper 92-5094, Dec. 1992.
76
Mitani, T., Hiraiwa, T., Sato, S., Tomioka, S., Kanda, T., and Tani,
K., “Comparison of Scramjet Engine Performance in Mach 6 Vitiated and
Storage-Heated Air,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 13, No. 5, 1997,
pp. 635– 642.
77 Yatsuyanagi, N., and Chinzei, N., “Status of Scramjet Research at NAL,”
Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Space Technology and
Science, Paper 96-a-2-10, May 1996.
78 Sato, S., Izumikawa, M., Tomioka, S., and Mitani, T., “Scramjet Engine
Test at Mach 6 Flight Condition,” AIAA Paper 97-3021, July 1997.
79 Tani, K., Kanda, T., Sunami, T., Hiraiwa, T., and Tomioka, S., “Geo-
metrical Effects to Aerodynamic Performance of Scramjet Engine,” AIAA
Paper 97-3018, July 1997.
80 Masuya, G., Komuro, T., Murakami, A., Shinozaki, N., Nakamura, A.,
Murayama, M., and Ohwaki, K., “Ignition and Combustion Performance of
Scramjet Combustors with Fuel Injection Struts,” Journal of Propulsion and
Power, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995, pp. 301– 307.
81 Kanda, T., Wakamatsu, Y., Ono, F., Kudo, K., Murakami, A., and Izu-
mikawa, M., “ Mach 8 Testing of a Scramjet Engine Model,” AIAA Paper
99-0617, Jan. 1999.
82 Sato, Y., Sayama, M., Ohwaki, K., Masuya, G., Komuro, T., Kudou,
K., Murakami, A., Tani, K., Wakamatsu, Y., Kanda, T., Chinzei, N., and
 1148
Kimura, I., “Effectiveness of Plasma Torches for Ignition and Flameholding
in Scramjet,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1992, pp.
883– 889.
83 Srikrishnan, A. R., Kurian, J., and Sriramula, V., “A Comparative Ex-
perimental Study of Supersonic Combustors,” Proceedings of the 14th Inter-
nationalSymposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 99-7055,Sept.
1999.
84 Jian-guo, L., Gong, Y., Yue, Z., Ying, L., and Da-xin, Q., “Experimental
Studies on Self-Ignition of Hydrogen/Air Supersonic Combustion,” Journal
of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1997, pp. 538– 542.
85 Broadbent, E. G., “Hypersonic Aerodynamics,” Philosophical Trans-
actions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Physical Sciences and
Engineering, Vol. 335, No. 1637, 1991, pp. 87 – 224.
86 Swithenbank, J., Ewan, B. C. R., Chin, S. B., Shao, L., and Wu, Y.,
“Mixing Power Concepts in Scramjet Combustor Design,” Major Research
Topics in Combustion, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992, pp. 531– 587.
87 Cookson, R. A., Flanagan, P., and Penny, G. S., “A Study of Free Jet
and Enclosed Supersonic Diffusion Flames,” Proceedings of the Twelfth
International Symposium on Combustion, Combustion Inst., Pittsburgh, PA,
1969, pp. 1125– 1139.
88
Harper, L., “Discussion on Supersonic Combustion,”Proceedings of the
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875
Twelfth International Symposium on Combustion, Combustion Inst., Pitts-
burgh, PA, 1969, pp. 1138, 1139.
89 Mercier, R. A., and Ronald, T. M. F., “Hypersonic Technology (HyTech)
Program Overview,” AIAA Paper 98-1566, April 1998.
90 Waltrup, P. J., “Airbreathing Propulsion for Missile and Projectiles,”
AGARD-CP-526, Paper 8, Sept. 1992.
CURRAN
91 Waltrup, P. J., “Hypersonic Air-Breathing Missile Propulsion,”AGARD
Conf. Future Aerospace Technology in the Service of the Alliance, Vol. 3:
Sustained Hypersonic Flight Paper C3, April 1997.
92 Mather, T., Lin, K. C., Kennedy, P., Gruber, M., Donbar, I. M., Jackson,
T., and Billig, F., “Liquid JP-7 Combustion in a Scramjet Combustor,” AIAA
Paper 2000-3581, July 2000.
93
Waltrup, P. J., “Upper Bounds on the Flight Speed of Hydrocarbon-
Fueled Scramjet-Powered Vehicles,” Proceedings of the 14th International
Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 99-7093, Sept. 1999.
94
Curran, E. T., “Step Cylinder Combustor,” U.S. Patent 3864907, Nov.
1975.
95 Kuchemann, D., The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft, Pergamon,
Oxford, England, U.K., 1978, Chap. 1, p. 22.
96 Chinitz, W., “On the use of Shock-Induced Combustion in Hypersonic
Engines,” AIAA Paper 96-4536, Nov. 1996.
97 Rubins, P. M., and Bauer, R. C., “Review of Shock-Induced Supersonic
Combustion Research and Hypersonic Applications,” Journal of Propulsion
and Power, Vol. 10, No. 5, 1994, pp. 593– 601.
98 Billig, F. S., “Overview of Propulsion Performance,” AGARD Conf.
on Future Aerospace Technology in the Service of the Alliance, Vol. 3:
Sustained Hypersonic Flight Paper C33, April 1997.
99 Waltrup, P. J., “ Liquid-Fueled Supersonic Combustion Ramjets: A
Research Perspective,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 3, No. 6,
1987, pp. 515– 524.
100 Townend, L. H., “The Domain of the Scramjet,” Philosophical Trans-
actions of the Royal Society of London,Series A: Mathematical and Physical
Sciences, Vol. 357, No. 1759, 1999, pp. 2317– 2334.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Xiaojie Li, Xiaobin Huang, Hong Liu, Jianke Du. 2020. Fuel reactivity controlled self-starting and propulsion
performance of a scramjet: A model investigation. Energy 195, 116920. [Crossref]
2. Juan R. Llobet, Gouji Yamada, Pierpaolo Toniato. Quasi-0D-Model Mapping of Reflected Shock Tunnel Operating
Conditions. AIAA Journal, ahead of print1-13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
3. Bo Li, Dayuan Zhang, Qiang Gao, Zhongshan Li. 2020. One-dimensional full-range mixture fraction measurements
with femtosecond laser-induced plasma spectroscopy. Experiments in Fluids 61:2. . [Crossref]
4. Tiantian Zhang, Zhenguo Wang, Wei Huang, Derek Ingham, Lin Ma, Mohamed Porkashanian. 2020. An analysis
tool of the rocket-based combined cycle engine and its application in the two-stage-to-orbit mission. Energy 193,
116709. [Crossref]
5. Donggang Cao, Dan Michaels. Confinement and Heat-Release Effects on the Mixing Region Development in a
Scramjet. AIAA Journal, ahead of print1-15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

6. Lakka Suneetha, Pitambar R. Randive, Krishna Murari Pandey. A Comparative Evaluation of Combustion
Characteristics of Strut and Wall Injection Technique in a Cavity-Based Scramjet Combustor 823-833. [Crossref]
7. Leon Vanstone, Alex Bosco, Yousef Saleh, Maruthi Akella, Noel T. Clemens, Sivaram Gogineni. 2020. Closed-
Loop Control of Unstart in a Mach 1.8 Isolator. Journal of Propulsion and Power 36:1, 153-157. [Citation] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
8. Vatsalya Sharma, Vinayak Eswaran, Debasis Chakraborty. 2020. Effect of location of a transverse sonic jet on shock
augmented mixing in a SCRAMJET engine. Aerospace Science and Technology 96, 105535. [Crossref]
9. Zheng Lv, Jinglei Xu, Kaikai Yu, Guangtao Song. 2020. Experimental and numerical investigations of a scramjet
nozzle at various operations. Aerospace Science and Technology 96, 105536. [Crossref]
10. Min-zhou Dong, Jun Liao, Gautam Choubey, Wei Huang. 2019. Influence of the secondary flow control on the
transverse gaseous injection flow field properties in a supersonic flow. Acta Astronautica 165, 150-157. [Crossref]
11. Zun Cai, Taiyu Wang, Mingbo Sun. 2019. Review of cavity ignition in supersonic flows. Acta Astronautica 165,
268-286. [Crossref]
12. Qiongyao Qin, Ramesh Agarwal, Xiaobing Zhang. 2019. A novel method for flame stabilization in a strut-based
scramjet combustor. Combustion and Flame 210, 292-301. [Crossref]
13. Joseph J. S. Shang. 2019. Landmarks and new frontiers of computational fluid dynamics. Advances in Aerodynamics
1:1. . [Crossref]
14. Jianqin Zhu, Kaihang Tao, Zhi Tao, Lu Qiu. 2019. Heat transfer degradation of buoyancy involved convective RP-3
hydrocarbon fuel in vertical tubes with various diameters under supercritical pressure. Applied Thermal Engineering
163, 114392. [Crossref]
15. Jorge A. Ahumada-Lazo, Fangjun Shu, Ruey-Hung Chen. 2019. Characterization of recirculating structures in the
near field of underexpanded swirling jets. Experiments in Fluids 60:12. . [Crossref]
16. Zhao-bo Du, Wei Huang, Li Yan, Min-zhou Dong. 2019. Impacts of jet angle and jet-to-crossflow pressure ratio on
the mixing augmentation mechanism in a shcramjet engine. Aerospace Science and Technology 94, 105385. [Crossref]
17. Yang Liu, Yonggang Gao, Zexin Chai, Zhichao Dong, Chunbo Hu, Xiaojing Yu. 2019. Mixing and heat release
characteristics in the combustor of solid-fuel rocket scramjet based on DES. Aerospace Science and Technology 94,
105391. [Crossref]
18. Gao Yonggang, Liu Yang, Chai Zexin, Li Xiaocong, Hu Chunbo, Yu Xiaojing. 2019. Influence of lobe geometry
on mixing and heat release characteristics of solid fuel rocket scramjet combustor. Acta Astronautica 164, 212-229.
[Crossref]
19. E A Maslov, V V Faraponov, I K Zharova, A S Zhukov, E A Kozlov, N V Savkina, N P Skibina, N R Gimayeva.
2019. Experimental study of the control agent flow parameters in the channel, simulating the ramjet air flow duct.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1382, 012090. [Crossref]
20. Yuguang Jiang, Jiang Qin, Khaled Chetehouna, Nicolas Gascoin, Wen Bao. 2019. Effect of geometry parameters on
the hydrocarbon fuel flow rate distribution in pyrolysis zone of SCRamjet cooling channels. International Journal
of Heat and Mass Transfer 141, 1114-1130. [Crossref]
 21. Zifei Ji, Huiqiang Zhang, Bing Wang. 2019. Thrust control strategy based on the minimum combustor inlet Mach
number to enhance the overall performance of a scramjet engine. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering 233:13, 4810-4824. [Crossref]
22. Tristan Vanyai, Sam Grieve, Oliver Street, Zachary Denman, Timothy McIntyre, Ananthanarayanan Veeraragavan,
Vincent Wheatley, Michael Smart. 2019. Fundamental Scramjet Combustion Experiments Using Hydrocarbon Fuel.
Journal of Propulsion and Power 35:5, 953-963. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
23. Pascal Marquardt, Michael Klaas, Wolfgang Schröder. 2019. Experimental Investigation of Isoenergetic Film-
Cooling Flows with Shock Interaction. AIAA Journal 57:9, 3910-3923. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
24. Magesh Ravindran, Mathew Bricalli, Adrian Pudsey, Hideaki Ogawa. 2019. Mixing characteristics of cracked gaseous
hydrocarbon fuels in a scramjet combustor. Acta Astronautica 162, 168-184. [Crossref]
25. Shen Zhang, Qing Wang, Ge Yang, Minjie Zhang. 2019. Anti-disturbance backstepping control for air-breathing
hypersonic vehicles based on extended state observer. ISA Transactions 92, 84-93. [Crossref]
26. Giulio Riva, Giambattista Daminelli, Luciano Galfetti, Filippo Maggi, Giovanni Colombo, Stefania Carlotti,
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

Christian Paravan, Stefano Dossi, Riccardo Bisin, Valerio Gaioni. Experimental data from ramjet/scramjet
combustion and numerical validation perspectives . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
27. Guangming Guo, Qin Luo. 2019. Flowfield structure characteristics of the hypersonic flow over a cavity: From the
continuum to the transition flow regimes. Acta Astronautica 161, 87-100. [Crossref]
28. Zhi TAO, Liangwei LI, Jianqin ZHU, Xizhuo HU, Longyun WANG, Lu QIU. 2019. Numerical investigation
on flow and heat transfer characteristics of supercritical RP-3 in inclined pipe. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 32:8,
1885-1894. [Crossref]
29. Wei Huang, Zhao-bo Du, Li Yan, Zhi-xun Xia. 2019. Supersonic mixing in airbreathing propulsion systems for
hypersonic flights. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109, 100545. [Crossref]
30. Lukas Lesniak, Juana Salas, Jake Burner, Malick Diedhiou, Maxi A Burgos Paci, Andras Bodi, Paul M Mayer.
2019. Trifluoroacetic Acid and Trifluoroacetic Anhydride Radical Cations Dissociate near the Ionization Limit. The
Journal of Physical Chemistry A 123:29, 6313-6318. [Crossref]
31. H. Najmi, N. Gascoin, K. Chetehouna, E. El-Tabach, S. Akridiss. 2019. Transient and Spatial Evolution of
Clogging of Porous Material by Filtrating Particles. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 58:27, 12261-12271.
[Crossref]
32. Victor Chernov. 2019. Experimental Investigation of a Solid Fuel Scramjet Using an Arc Heater. Journal of Propulsion
and Power 35:4, 879-882. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
33. Majie Zhao, Qinling Li, Taohong Ye. 2019. Investigation of the mixing characteristics in a transverse hydrogen
injection combustor with an inlet compression ramp. Acta Astronautica 160, 479-488. [Crossref]
34. Majie Zhao, Taohong Ye. 2019. URANS study of pulsed hydrogen jet characteristics and mixing enhancement in
supersonic crossflow. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 44:36, 20493-20503. [Crossref]
35. Tao Cui, Yang Ou. 2019. Modeling of Scramjet Combustors Based on Model Migration and Process Similarity.
Energies 12:13, 2516. [Crossref]
36. Scott J. Peltier, David Peterson, Ez Hassan, Campbell D. Carter. Hybrid RANS/LES and kHz-Rate PIV of a
Reacting Cavity Flameholder at Mach 3 . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
37. Nitesh K. Sinha, Rajesh G, Badal Modi. Viscous Corrections for Hypersonic Air Intake Using CFD Simulations .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
38. Junlong Zhang, Juntao Chang, Huimin Tian, Ji Li, Wen Bao. 2019. Flame Interaction Characteristics in Scramjet
Combustor Equipped with Strut/Wall Combined Fuel Injectors. Combustion Science and Technology 14, 1-24.
[Crossref]
39. Rangesh Jagannathan, W. Schuyler Hinman, Craig Johansen. 2019. Performance assessment of supersonic and
hypersonic intake systems with nano-particle injection. Acta Astronautica 159, 609-621. [Crossref]
40. Xiliang Song, Hongbo Wang, Mingbo Sun, Zun Cai, Chaoyang Liu, Jiangfei Yu. 2019. Mixing and combustion
characteristics in a cavity-based supersonic combustor with different injection schemes. Acta Astronautica 159,
584-592. [Crossref]
 41. Xiaobin Zhu, Zun Cai, Jianjun Wu, Yuqiang Cheng, Qiang Huang. 2019. Convolutional neural network based
combustion mode classification for condition monitoring in the supersonic combustor. Acta Astronautica 159,
349-357. [Crossref]
42. R K Seleznev. 2019. Numerical study of the flow structure in the supersonic inlet-isolator with mechanical throttle.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1250, 012004. [Crossref]
43. Chao Han, Zhen Liu, Jianqiang Yi. 2019. Immersion and invariance adaptive finite-time control of air-breathing
hypersonic vehicles. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering
233:7, 2626-2641. [Crossref]
44. Andreas K. Flock, Ali Gülhan. 2019. Modified Kantrowitz Starting Criteria for Mixed Compression Supersonic
Intakes. AIAA Journal 57:5, 2011-2016. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
45. Nan Li, Juntao Chang, Kejing Xu, Daren Yu, Yanping Song. 2019. Closed-loop control of shock train in inlet-
isolator with incident shocks. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 103, 355-363. [Crossref]
46. Gautam Choubey, Yuvarajan Devarajan, Wei Huang, Kulmani Mehar, Manvendra Tiwari, K.M. Pandey. 2019.
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

Recent advances in cavity-based scramjet engine- a brief review. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 44:26,
13895-13909. [Crossref]
47. Lang-quan Li, Wei Huang, Ming Fang, Yi-lei Shi, Zhi-hui Li, Ao-ping Peng. 2019. Investigation on three mixing
enhancement strategies in transverse gaseous injection flow fields: A numerical study. International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer 132, 484-497. [Crossref]
48. R.K. Seleznev, S.T. Surzhikov, J.S. Shang. 2019. A review of the scramjet experimental data base. Progress in
Aerospace Sciences 106, 43-70. [Crossref]
49. Feng-Yuan Zuo, Sannu Mölder. 2019. Hypersonic wavecatcher intakes and variable-geometry turbine based
combined cycle engines. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 106, 108-144. [Crossref]
50. Jianqi Lai, Hua Li, Zhengyu Tian, Ye Zhang. 2019. A Multi-GPU Parallel Algorithm in Hypersonic Flow
Computations. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2019, 1-15. [Crossref]
51. Andrew R. Mizener, Frank K. Lu, Patrick E. Rodi. 2019. Performance Sensitivities of Rotating Detonation Engines
Installed onto Waverider Forebodies. Journal of Propulsion and Power 35:2, 289-302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
52. L. Taddeo, N. Gascoin, K. Chetehouna, A. Ingenito, F. Stella, M. Bouchez, B. Le Naour. 2019. Experimental study
of pyrolysis-combustion coupling in a regeneratively cooled combustor: Heat transfer and coke formation. Fuel 239,
1091-1101. [Crossref]
53. S. Aravind, Rajiv Kumar. 2019. Supersonic combustion of hydrogen using an improved strut injection scheme.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 44:12, 6257-6270. [Crossref]
54. Yanan Wang, Zhenguo Wang, Mingbo Sun, Hongbo Wang, Zun Cai. 2019. Effects of fueling distance on
combustion stabilization modes in a cavity-based scramjet combustor. Acta Astronautica 155, 23-32. [Crossref]
55. Sufen Li, Yuning Wang, Ming Dong, Hang Pu, Si Jiao, Yan Shang. 2019. Experimental investigation on flow and
heat transfer instabilities of RP-3 aviation kerosene in a vertical miniature tube under supercritical pressures. Applied
Thermal Engineering 149, 73-84. [Crossref]
56. Clayton M. Geipel, Andrew D. Cutler, Robert D. Rockwell, Harsha K. Chelliah. Characterization of Flame Front
Structure in a Dual-Mode Scramjet Combustor with OH-PLIF . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
57. Leon Vanstone, Alex Bosco, Yousef Saleh, Maruthi R. Akella, Noel T. Clemens, Sivaram P. Gogineni. Closed-Loop
Control of Unstart in a Mach 1.8 Isolator . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
58. Cao Donggang, Dan Michaels. Investigation of Confinement and Heat Release Effects on Fluid Dynamics in a
Scramjet Using IDDES . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
59. Mingbo Sun, Hongbo Wang, Feng Xiao. Introduction 1-25. [Crossref]
60. Lang-quan Li, Wei Huang, Li Yan, Zhao-bo Du, Ming Fang. 2019. Numerical investigation and optimization on
the micro-ramp vortex generator within scramjet combustors with the transverse hydrogen jet. Aerospace Science
and Technology 84, 570-584. [Crossref]
61. N. N. Fedorova, O. S. Vankova, Yu. V. Zakharova. Simulation of hydrogen mixing and supersonic combustion under
condition of hot-shot aerodynamic facility 030080. [Crossref]
 62. Siyuan Zhao, Xiaobing Li. 2019. Prescribed Performance Fault Tolerant Control for Hypersonic Flight Vehicles
With Actuator Failures. IEEE Access 7, 100187-100204. [Crossref]
63. P. D. Toktaliev, I. O. Galitskiy, S. I. Martynenko, A. V. Volokhov, E. S. Amosova, V. M. Volokhov, L. S. Yanovskiy.
2019. On the numerical simulation of thermal decomposition of hydrocarbon mixtures in channels of cooling
systems of high-speed vehicles. Optimization of the fuel composition. Thermophysics and Aeromechanics 26:1, 89-101.
[Crossref]
64. Zun Cai, Jiajian Zhu, Mingbo Sun, Zhenguo Wang, Xue-Song Bai. 2018. Laser-Induced Plasma Ignition in a
Cavity-Based Scramjet Combustor. AIAA Journal 56:12, 4884-4892. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
[Supplementary Material]
65. Yanan Wang, Zhenguo Wang, Mingbo Sun, Hongbo Wang. 2018. Effects of auto-ignition on combustion
characteristics in a hydrogen-fueled dual-mode scramjet combustor. Acta Astronautica 153, 154-158. [Crossref]
66. Andrew Ridgway, Ashish Sam, Apostolos Pesyridis. 2018. Modelling a Hypersonic Single Expansion Ramp Nozzle
of a Hypersonic Aircraft through Parametric Studies. Energies 11:12, 3449. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

67. Leon Vanstone, Joe Lingren, Noel T. Clemens. 2018. Simple Physics-Based Model for the Prediction of Shock-
Train Location. Journal of Propulsion and Power 34:6, 1428-1441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
68. Yanan Wang, Zhenguo Wang, Mingbo Sun, Hongbo Wang. 2018. Combustion stabilization modes in a hydrogen-
fueled scramjet combustor at high stagnation temperature. Acta Astronautica 152, 112-122. [Crossref]
69. Zhao-bo Du, Wei Huang, Li Yan. 2018. Investigation on gaseous jet in forebody/inlet for shock-induced combustion
ramjet (shcramjet) engines. Acta Astronautica 152, 262-274. [Crossref]
70. Obula Reddy Kummitha, Krishna Murari Pandey, Rajat Gupta. 2018. Optimization of scramjet performance with
different fuel injection techniques and flame holder cavities. Acta Astronautica 152, 908-919. [Crossref]
71. Xin Liu, Yuming Xing, Ma Ma, Liang Zhao. 2018. Numerical investigation of effect of hydrogen injection frequency
on supersonic reactive flow. Acta Astronautica 152, 880-890. [Crossref]
72. Juntao Chang, Junlong Zhang, Wen Bao, Daren Yu. 2018. Research progress on strut-equipped supersonic
combustors for scramjet application. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 103, 1-30. [Crossref]
73. Yuguang Jiang, Jiang Qin, Khaled Chetehouna, Nicolas Gascoin, Wen Bao. 2018. Parametric study on the
hydrocarbon fuel flow rate distribution and cooling effect in non-uniformly heated parallel cooling channels.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 126, 267-276. [Crossref]
74. Yinhai ZHU, Wei PENG, Ruina XU, Peixue JIANG. 2018. Review on active thermal protection and its heat transfer
for airbreathing hypersonic vehicles. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 31:10, 1929-1953. [Crossref]
75. Sasha Veeran, Apostolos Pesyridis, Lionel Ganippa. 2018. Ramjet Compression System for a Hypersonic Air
Transportation Vehicle Combined Cycle Engine. Energies 11:10, 2558. [Crossref]
76. Kunlin Cheng, Duo Zhang, Jiang Qin, Silong Zhang, Wen Bao. 2018. Performance evaluation and comparison of
electricity generation systems based on single- and two-stage thermoelectric generator for hypersonic vehicles. Acta
Astronautica 151, 15-21. [Crossref]
77. Xiliang Song, Hongbo Wang, Mingbo Sun, Yanxiang Zhang. 2018. Experimental study of near-blowoff
characteristics in a cavity-based supersonic combustor. Acta Astronautica 151, 37-43. [Crossref]
78. Magesh R. Ravindran, Mathew Bricalli, Adrian Pudsey, Hideaki Ogawa. Mixing Characteristics Of Cracked Gaseous
Hydrocarbon Fuels In Scramjets . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
79. Alessandro Mogavero, Richard E. Brown. 2018. Modular, Fast Model for Design and Optimization of Hypersonic
Vehicle Propulsion Systems. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 55:5, 1261-1281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
80. Lang-quan Li, Wei Huang, Li Yan, Shi-bin Li, Lei Liao. 2018. Mixing improvement induced by the combination
of a micro-ramp with an air porthole in the transverse gaseous injection flow field. International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer 124, 109-123. [Crossref]
81. Zun Cai, Xiaobin Zhu, Mingbo Sun, Zhenguo Wang. 2018. Experimental Study on the Combustion Process in
a Scramjet Combustor with a Rear-Wall-Expansion Geometry. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 31:5, 04018077.
[Crossref]
 82. Kunlin Cheng, Jiang Qin, Yuguang Jiang, Silong Zhang, Wen Bao. 2018. Performance comparison of single- and
multi-stage onboard thermoelectric generators and stage number optimization at a large temperature difference.
Applied Thermal Engineering 141, 456-466. [Crossref]
83. Wei Huang, Zhao-bo Du, Li Yan, R. Moradi. 2018. Flame propagation and stabilization in dual-mode scramjet
combustors: A survey. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 101, 13-30. [Crossref]
84. Kunlin Cheng, Jiang Qin, Chaolei Dang, Chuanwen Lv, Silong Zhang, Wen Bao. 2018. Thermodynamic analysis
for high-power electricity generation systems based on closed-Brayton-cycle with finite cold source on hypersonic
vehicles. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 43:31, 14762-14774. [Crossref]
85. Guoyan Zhao, Mingbo Sun, Hongbo Wang, Hao Ouyang. 2018. Investigation of combustion characteristics in a
scramjet combustor using a modified flamelet model. Acta Astronautica 148, 32-40. [Crossref]
86. Yuguang Jiang, Yaxing Xu, Jiang Qin, Silong Zhang, Khaled Chetehouna, Nicolas Gascoin, Wen Bao. 2018. The
flow rate distribution of hydrocarbon fuel in parallel channels with different cross section shapes. Applied Thermal
Engineering 137, 173-183. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

87. Lei Liao, Li Yan, Wei Huang, Lang-quan Li. 2018. Mode transition process in a typical strut-based scramjet
combustor based on a parametric study. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A 19:6, 431-451. [Crossref]
88. Zhi Tao, Zeyuan Cheng, Jianqin Zhu, Dasen Lin, Hongwei Wu. 2018. Large eddy simulation of supercritical heat
transfer to hydrocarbon fuel. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 121, 1251-1263. [Crossref]
89. G. Huang, Y. H. Zhu, P. X. Jiang, Z. Huang. 2018. Investigation of Inclined Porous Transpiration-Cooled Struts.
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 55:3, 660-668. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
90. Leon Vanstone, Kelley E. Hashemi, Joe Lingren, Maruthi R. Akella, Noel T. Clemens, Jeffrey Donbar, Sivaram
Gogineni. 2018. Closed-Loop Control of Shock-Train Location in a Combusting Scramjet. Journal of Propulsion
and Power 34:3, 660-667. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
91. Gautam Choubey, K.M. Pandey. 2018. Effect of different wall injection schemes on the flow-field of hydrogen
fuelled strut-based scramjet combustor. Acta Astronautica 145, 93-104. [Crossref]
92. Li Yan, Lei Liao, Wei Huang, Lang-quan Li. 2018. Nonlinear process in the mode transition in typical strut-based
and cavity-strut based scramjet combustors. Acta Astronautica 145, 250-262. [Crossref]
93. Wei Huang. 2018. Mixing enhancement strategies and their mechanisms in supersonic flows: A brief review. Acta
Astronautica 145, 492-500. [Crossref]
94. Zeyuan Cheng, Zhi Tao, Jianqin Zhu, Hongwei Wu. 2018. Diameter effect on the heat transfer of supercritical
hydrocarbon fuel in horizontal tubes under turbulent conditions. Applied Thermal Engineering 134, 39-53. [Crossref]
95. Zun Cai, Jiajian Zhu, Mingbo Sun, Zhenguo Wang. 2018. Spark-enhanced ignition and flame stabilization in an
ethylene-fueled scramjet combustor with a rear-wall-expansion geometry. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science
92, 306-313. [Crossref]
96. Gautam Choubey, K.M. Pandey. 2018. Effect of variation of inlet boundary conditions on the combustion flow-field
of a typical double cavity scramjet combustor. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 43:16, 8139-8151. [Crossref]
97. Yu Feng, Shuyuan Liu, Jiang Qin, Yong Cao, Yuguang Jiang, Silong Zhang. 2018. Numerical study on the influence
of turbulence on the pyrolysis of hydrocarbon fuel in mini-channel. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
119, 768-776. [Crossref]
98. Shengbo Yang, Tao Cui, Xinyue Hao, Daren Yu. 2018. Ideal Heat Release and Ideal Inner Configuration of
Supersonic Combustor. Journal of Propulsion and Power 34:2, 374-383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
99. Hidemi Takahashi, Toshihiko Munakata, Shigeru Sato. 2018. Thrust Augmentation by Airframe-Integrated
Linear-Spike Nozzle Concept for High-Speed Aircraft. Aerospace 5:1, 19. [Crossref]
100. Yan-Xiang Zhang, Zhen-Guo Wang, Ming-Bo Sun, Yi-Xin Yang, Hong-Bo Wang. 2018. Hydrogen jet combustion
in a scramjet combustor with the rearwall-expansion cavity. Acta Astronautica 144, 181-192. [Crossref]
101. Yu-Chun Cheng, Kuo-Long Pan. Simulation and Design of A Scramjet Combustor Enhanced by A Porous Cylinder
Burner . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
102. Niklas Zettervall, Christer Fureby. A Computational Study of Ramjet, Scramjet and Dual-mode Ramjet
Combustion in Combustor with a Cavity Flameholder . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
103. Leon Vanstone, Joe Lingren, Noel T. Clemens. Supersonic Isolator Shock-Train Dynamics: Simple Physics-Based
Model for Closed-Loop Control of Shock-Train Location . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 104. Jorge Arturo Ahumada Lazo, Mario De La Torre Terrazas, Ruey-Hung Chen, Fangjun Shu. Experimental Study
of an Underexpanded Supersonic Jet under Non-Swirling and Swirling Conditions . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
105. N. N. Fedorova, M. A. Goldfeld, S. A. Valger. Influence of gas molecular weight on jet penetration and mixing in
supersonic transverse air flow in channel 030140. [Crossref]
106. Kun Wu, Wei Yao, Xuejun Fan. 2017. Development and Fidelity Evaluation of a Skeletal Ethylene Mechanism under
Scramjet-Relevant Conditions. Energy & Fuels 31:12, 14296-14305. [Crossref]
107. Bin Yu, Weixing Zhou, Jiang Qin, Wen Bao. 2017. Dynamic characteristics of hydrocarbon fuel within the channel
at supercritical and pyrolysis condition. Journal of Thermal Science 26:6, 560-569. [Crossref]
108. Ruoyu Deng, Heuy Dong Kim. 2017. CFD study on inlet unstart prediction of dual-mode scramjet. Journal of
Mechanical Science and Technology 31:11, 5311-5318. [Crossref]
109. Shengjun Ju, Chao Yan, Xiaoyong Wang, Yupei Qin, Zhifei Ye. 2017. Optimization design of energy deposition on
single expansion ramp nozzle. Acta Astronautica 140, 351-361. [Crossref]
110. Shengjun Ju, Chao Yan, Xiaoyong Wang, Yupei Qin, Zhifei Ye. 2017. Effect of energy addition parameters upon
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

scramjet nozzle performances based on the variance analysis method. Aerospace Science and Technology 70, 511-519.
[Crossref]
111. Yuguang Jiang, Yaxing Xu, Silong Zhang, Khaled Chetehouna, Nicolas Gascoin, Jiang Qin, Wen Bao. 2017.
Parametric study on the distribution of flow rate and heat sink utilization in cooling channels of advanced aero-
engines. Energy 138, 1056-1068. [Crossref]
112. Xiaoxiang Hu, Bin Xu, Xiaosheng Si, Changhua Hu. 2017. Nonlinear adaptive tracking control of non-minimum
phase hypersonic flight vehicles with unknown input nonlinearity. Nonlinear Dynamics 90:2, 1151-1163. [Crossref]
113. Malsur Dharavath, Pulinbehari Manna, Debasis Chakraborty. 2017. Numerical Simulation of Hydrogen Air
Supersonic Coaxial Jet. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C 98:5, 575-585. [Crossref]
114. Lang-quan Li, Wei Huang, Li Yan, Shi-bin Li. 2017. Parametric effect on the mixing of the combination of a
hydrogen porthole with an air porthole in transverse gaseous injection flow fields. Acta Astronautica 139, 435-448.
[Crossref]
115. Konrad Makowka, Nils C. Dröske, Jens von Wolfersdorf, Thomas Sattelmayer. 2017. Hybrid RANS/LES of a
supersonic combustor. Aerospace Science and Technology 69, 563-573. [Crossref]
116. Zun Cai, Xiaobin Zhu, Mingbo Sun, Zhenguo Wang. 2017. Experiments on flame stabilization in a scramjet
combustor with a rear-wall-expansion cavity. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42:43, 26752-26761.
[Crossref]
117. Nikunj Rathi, P. A. Ramakrishna. 2017. Attaining Hypersonic Flight with Aluminum-Based Fuel-Rich Propellant.
Journal of Propulsion and Power 33:5, 1207-1217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
118. Lang-quan Li, Wei Huang, Li Yan. 2017. Mixing augmentation induced by a vortex generator located upstream of
the transverse gaseous jet in supersonic flows. Aerospace Science and Technology 68, 77-89. [Crossref]
119. Xiao Liu, Zun Cai, Yiheng Tong, Hongtao Zheng. 2017. Investigation of transient ignition process in a cavity based
scramjet combustor using combined ethylene injectors. Acta Astronautica 137, 1-7. [Crossref]
120. Shengbo Yang, Tao Cui, Xinyue Hao, Daren Yu. 2017. Trajectory optimization for a ramjet-powered vehicle in
ascent phase via the Gauss pseudospectral method. Aerospace Science and Technology 67, 88-95. [Crossref]
121. L. Taddeo, N. Gascoin, K. Chetehouna, A. Ingenito, F. Stella, M. Bouchez, B. Le Naour. 2017. Experimental study
of pyrolysis–combustion coupling in a regeneratively cooled combustor: System dynamics analysis. Aerospace Science
and Technology 67, 473-483. [Crossref]
122. K.M. Pandey, Gautam Choubey, Fayez Ahmed, Dilbahar Hussain Laskar, Pushpdeep Ramnani. 2017. Effect of
variation of hydrogen injection pressure and inlet air temperature on the flow-field of a typical double cavity scramjet
combustor. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42:32, 20824-20834. [Crossref]
123. Lin Zhang, Qianghong Chen. Optimization and numerical investigation on curved compression surface with Mach
number two-stage linear distribution . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
124. Vishnu Natarajan, Manikandan S, Jegannath M, Thangavel K, Sathyan Padmanabhan, VR Sanal Kumar,
Mohammed N. Nejaamtheen, Pavithra Murugesh. Diagnostic Investigation of Reacting Flow Characteristics of a
Cavity Based Scramjet with Multiple Bumps . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 125. Kunlin Cheng, Yu Feng, Yuguang Jiang, Silong Zhang, Jiang Qin, Duo Zhang, Wen Bao. 2017. Thermodynamic
analysis for recuperation in a scramjet nozzle with wall cooling. Applied Thermal Engineering 121, 153-162. [Crossref]
126. Junlong Gao, Ruyi Yuan, Jianqiang Yi, Chengdong Li. 2017. Indirect Adaptive Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sliding Mode
Controller Design for Flexible Air-breathing Hypersonic Vehicles. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50:1, 3007-3013. [Crossref]
127. Weixin DENG, Jialing LE, Shunhua YANG, Wanzhou ZHANG, Ye TIAN. 2017. Experimental research of air-
throttling ignition for a scramjet at Ma 6.5. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 30:3, 932-938. [Crossref]
128. Pei-Xue Jiang, Gan Huang, Yinhai Zhu, Zhiyuan Liao, Zheng Huang. 2017. Experimental investigation of combined
transpiration and film cooling for sintered metal porous struts. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
108, 232-243. [Crossref]
129. Gautam Choubey, K.M. Pandey. 2017. Effect of different strut + wall injection techniques on the performance of
two-strut scramjet combustor. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42:18, 13259-13275. [Crossref]
130. Chaofang Hu, Na Yang, Yanli Ren. 2017. Polytopic linear parameter varying model-based tube model predictive
control for hypersonic vehicles. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 14:3, 172988141771439. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

131. K. M. Kiran Babu, N. L. Narasimha Reddy, P. Manivannan. Computational study of SCRAM Jet combustor with
a co-axial strut fuel injector 1010-1013. [Crossref]
132. Fengyi Wang, Zhixiong Huang, Yang Liu, Yunxia Li. 2017. Novel cardanol-containing boron-modified phenolic
resin composites. High Performance Polymers 29:3, 279-288. [Crossref]
133. , , , , , . 2017. Performance Evaluation of Waste Heat Recovery Systems Based on Semiconductor Thermoelectric
Generators for Hypersonic Vehicles. Energies 10:4, 570. [Crossref]
134. Lucio Taddeo, Nicolas Gascoin, Khaled Chetehouna, Antonella Ingenito, Fulvio Stella, Marc Bouchez, Bruno Le
Naour. Experimental Investigation of a Fuel Cooled Combustor: Cooling Efficiency and Coke Formation . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
135. Yanhua Wang, Wenyan Song, Qiang Fu, Deyong Shi, Yu-hang Wang. Experimental Study of Hysteresis
Phenomenon for kerosene fueled Supersonic Combustor . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
136. Min Ou, Li Yan, Jing-feng Tang, Wei Huang, Xiao-qian Chen. 2017. Thermodynamic performance analysis of
ramjet engine at wide working conditions. Acta Astronautica 132, 1-12. [Crossref]
137. Ruoyu Deng, Yingzi Jin, Heuy Dong Kim. 2017. Optimization study on the isolator length of dual-mode scramjet.
Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 31:2, 697-703. [Crossref]
138. Ruoyu Deng, Yingzi Jin, Heuy Dong Kim. 2017. Numerical simulation of the unstart process of dual-mode scramjet.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 105, 394-400. [Crossref]
139. Damiano Baccarella, Qili Liu, Tonghun Lee, Stephen D. Hammack, Hyungrok Do. The Supersonic Combustion
Facility ACT-2 . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
140. Guilhem Lacaze, Zachary Vane, Joseph C. Oefelein. Large Eddy Simulation of the HIFiRE Direct Connect Rig
Scramjet Combustor . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
141. Jae Won Kim, Oh Joon Kwon. Numerical Simulation about Mixing Characteristics of an Inlet-Fueled Scramjet
Engine . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
142. A. Govinda, Manoj Kumar K. Devaraj, Yogendra Singh, Nimesh Thakor, Venkat Rao Kulkarni, S. N. Omkar,
Gopalan Jagadeesh. Design of Optimized Two-Dimensional Scramjet Nozzle Contour for Hypersonic Vehicle Using
Evolutionary Algorithms 119-124. [Crossref]
143. Fei Xing, Can Ruan, Yue Huang, Xiaoyuan Fang, Yufeng Yao. 2017. Numerical investigation on shock train control
and applications in a scramjet engine. Aerospace Science and Technology 60, 162-171. [Crossref]
144. Joseph D. Miller, Scott J. Peltier, Mikhail N. Slipchenko, Jason G. Mance, Timothy M. Ombrello, James R.
Gord, Campbell D. Carter. 2017. Investigation of transient ignition processes in a model scramjet pilot cavity
using simultaneous 100 kHz formaldehyde planar laser-induced fluorescence and CH* chemiluminescence imaging.
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 36:2, 2865-2872. [Crossref]
145. Natalya Fedorova, Marat Goldfeld. 2017. Numerical and experimental study of supersonic combustion chamber at
entrance Mach number 4. Part 1: Non-reacting flow. MATEC Web of Conferences 115, 03005. [Crossref]
146. Qingchun Yang, Hongxin Wang, Khaled Chetehouna, Nicolas Gascoin. A predication model for combustion modes
of the scramjet-powered aerospace vehicle based on the nonlinear features of the isolator flow field 020175. [Crossref]
 147. Dedong Huang, Xiaoxiang Hu, Xunliang Yan. 2017. Adaptive variable structure control of input delay non-
minimum phase hypersonic flight vehicles. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 14:1, 172988141668561.
[Crossref]
148. Chao Han, Zhen Liu, Xiangmin Tan, Jianqiang Yi. Adaptive immersion and invariance continuous finite-time
control of hypersonic vehicles 1239-1244. [Crossref]
149. Zachary J. Denman, Wilson Y. K. Chan, Stefan Brieschenk, Ananthanarayanan Veeraragavan, Vincent Wheatley,
Michael K. Smart. 2016. Ignition Experiments of Hydrocarbons in a Mach 8 Shape-Transitioning Scramjet Engine.
Journal of Propulsion and Power 32:6, 1462-1471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
150. Malsur Dharavath, P. Manna, Debasis Chakraborty. 2016. Tip-to-tail numerical simulation of a hypersonic air-
breathing engine with ethylene fuel. Acta Astronautica 128, 107-118. [Crossref]
151. Jiang Qin, Kunlin Cheng, Silong Zhang, Duo Zhang, Wen Bao, Jiecai Han. 2016. Analysis of energy cascade
utilization in a chemically recuperated scramjet with indirect combustion. Energy 114, 1100-1106. [Crossref]
152. Fengyi Wang, Zhixiong Huang, Yan Qin, Yunxia Li. 2016. Thermal behavior of phenolic-based ceramizable
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

composites modified by nano-aluminum oxide. High Performance Polymers 28:9, 1096-1101. [Crossref]
153. Zhi Tao, Zeyuan Cheng, Jianqin Zhu, Haiwang Li. 2016. Effect of turbulence models on predicting convective heat
transfer to hydrocarbon fuel at supercritical pressure. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 29:5, 1247-1261. [Crossref]
154. Zun Cai, Xiao Liu, Cheng Gong, Mingbo Sun, Zhenguo Wang, Xue-Song Bai. 2016. Large Eddy Simulation of
the fuel transport and mixing process in a scramjet combustor with rearwall-expansion cavity. Acta Astronautica
126, 375-381. [Crossref]
155. Lucio Taddeo, Nicolas Gascoin, Khaled Chetehouna, Antonella Ingenito, Fausto Gamma, Marc Bouchez, Bruno Le
Naour. Experimental Investigation of Fuel Cooled Combustor . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
156. Yuguang Jiang, Silong Zhang, Yu Feng, Jie Cao, Jiang Qin, Wen Bao. 2016. A control method for flow rate
distribution of cracked hydrocarbon fuel in parallel channels. Applied Thermal Engineering 105, 531-536. [Crossref]
157. Na Wang, Hao Lu, Lei Guo. Robust coupling-observer-based H<inf>∞</inf> control for flexible air-breathing
hypersonic vehicles 10807-10813. [Crossref]
158. Zun Cai, Yixin Yang, Mingbo Sun, Zhenguo Wang. 2016. Experimental investigation on ignition schemes of a
supersonic combustor with the rearwall-expansion cavity. Acta Astronautica 123, 181-187. [Crossref]
159. Zun Cai, Mingbo Sun, Hongbo Wang, Zhenguo Wang. 2016. Experimental investigation on ignition schemes of
partially covered cavities in a supersonic flow. Acta Astronautica 121, 88-94. [Crossref]
160. Donggang Cao, Guoqiang He, Fei Qin, Xianggeng Wei, Bing Liu, Zhiwei Huang. 2016. Investigation of Shear
Layer Growth Influenced by Shock Waves in a Scramjet. AIAA Journal 54:3, 1140-1145. [Citation] [Full Text]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
161. Wei Huang. 2016. Transverse jet in supersonic crossflows. Aerospace Science and Technology 50, 183-195. [Crossref]
162. Malsur Dharavath, P. Manna, P. K. Sinha, Debasis Chakraborty. 2016. Numerical Analysis of a Kerosene-Fueled
Scramjet Combustor. Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications 8:1. . [Crossref]
163. Lu Tian, Li-Hong Chen, Qiang Chen, Feng-Quan Zhong, Xin-Yu Chang. 2016. Engine performance analysis and
optimization of a dual-mode scramjet with varied inlet conditions. Acta Mechanica Sinica 32:1, 75-82. [Crossref]
164. Kuo-Long Pan, Chang-Gang Guo. PIV Measurement for Diffusion Flame in A Porous Cylindrical Burner .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
165. Fei Xing, Yue Huang, Can Ruan, Xiaoyuan Fang, Yufeng Yao. Numerical Investigation on Two Streamline-Traced
Busemann Inlet-Isolators . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
166. Ahmed F. El-Sayed. Pulsejet, Ramjet, and Scramjet Engines 315-401. [Crossref]
167. Yixin Yang, Zhenguo Wang, Mingbo Sun, Hongbo Wang. 2016. Numerical simulation on ignition transients of
hydrogen flame in a supersonic combustor with dual-cavity. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 41:1, 690-703.
[Crossref]
168. Yixin Yang, Zhenguo Wang, Mingbo Sun, Hongbo Wang, Li Li. 2015. Numerical and experimental study on flame
structure characteristics in a supersonic combustor with dual-cavity. Acta Astronautica 117, 376-389. [Crossref]
169. Jiang Qin, Yuguang Jiang, Yu Feng, Xiaojie Li, Haowei Li, Yaxing Xu, Wen Bao, Silong Zhang, Jiecai Han. 2015.
Flow rate distribution of cracked hydrocarbon fuel in parallel pipes. Fuel 161, 105-112. [Crossref]
 170. Cong Zhang, Jiang Qin, Qingchun Yang, Silong Zhang, Juntao Chang, Wen Bao. 2015. Indirect measurement
method of inner wall temperature of scramjet with a state observer. Acta Astronautica 115, 330-337. [Crossref]
171. Malsur Dharavath, P. Manna, Debasis Chakraborty. 2015. Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation of Tip-to-
Tail for Hypersonic Test Vehicle. Journal of Propulsion and Power 31:5, 1370-1379. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
172. Liwei Zhang, Jeong Yeol Choi, Vigor Yang. 2015. Supersonic Combustion and Flame Stabilization of Coflow
Ethylene and Air with Splitter Plate. Journal of Propulsion and Power 31:5, 1242-1255. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
173. Ruifeng Cao, Juntao Chang, Jingfeng Tang, Wen Bao, Daren Yu, Zhongqi Wang. 2015. Switching control of thrust
regulation and inlet unstart protection for scramjet engine based on strategy of integral initial values resetting.
Aerospace Science and Technology 45, 484-489. [Crossref]
174. Zun Cai, Zhen-Guo Wang, Ming-Bo Sun, Qing Li, Hong-Bo Wang. 2015. Numerical investigation on ignition and
flame propagation process of partially covered cavity in a supersonic flow. Modern Physics Letters B 29:23, 1550132.
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

[Crossref]
175. David E. Gildfind, Chris M. James, Pierpaolo Toniato, Richard G. Morgan. 2015. Performance considerations for
expansion tube operation with a shock-heated secondary driver. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 777, 364-407. [Crossref]
176. Tao Cui, Yong Wang, Kai Liu, Jianren Jin. 2015. Classification of Combustor–Inlet Interactions for Airbreathing
Ramjet Propulsion. AIAA Journal 53:8, 2237-2255. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
177. Chenlin Zhang, Juntao Chang, Wen Shi, Wen Bao. Influence factor analysis of performance parameter for a strut/
cavity supersonic combustor . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
178. Sivabalan Mani, VR Sanal Kumar. 3D Flow Visualization and Geometry Optimization of Cavity based Scramjet
Combustors using k-ω Model . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
179. Roman Seleznev, Sergey Surzhikov. Quasi-One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Numerical Simulation of
Scramjet Combustors . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
180. Logan P. Riley, Datta V. Gaitonde, Jeffrey Donbar. Preliminary Investigation of Unstart-Related Transients in a
Dual-Mode Scramjet . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
181. James E. Barth, Dylan J. Wise, Vincent Wheatley, Michael K. Smart. Tailored Fuel Injection for Performance
Enhancement in a Mach 12 Scramjet Engine . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
182. Donggang Cao, Guoqiang He, Fei Qin, Xianggeng Wei, Bing Liu, Zhiwei Huang. Numerical Investigation of the
Shear Layer Growth Influenced by Shock Waves in a Model Scramjet Engine . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
183. Lucio Taddeo, Nicolas Gascoin, Ivan Fedioun, Khaled Chetehouna, Ludovic Lamoot, Guillaume Fau. High-End
Experiments on Regenerative Cooling: Test Bench Design . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
184. Alessandro Mogavero, Richard E. Brown. An improved engine analysis and optimization tool for hypersonic
combined cycle engines . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
185. Mathew G. Bricalli, Laurie M. Brown, Russell R. Boyce. 2015. Numerical Investigation into the Combustion
Behavior of an Inlet-Fueled Thermal-Compression-Like Scramjet. AIAA Journal 53:7, 1740-1760. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
186. Jinho Lee, Kuo-Cheng Lin, Dean Eklund. 2015. Challenges in Fuel Injection for High-Speed Propulsion Systems.
AIAA Journal 53:6, 1405-1423. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
187. L. Taddeo, N. Gascoin, I. Fedioun, K. Chetehouna, L. Lamoot, G. Fau. 2015. Dimensioning of automated
regenerative cooling: Setting of high-end experiment. Aerospace Science and Technology 43, 350-359. [Crossref]
188. Cong Zhang, Qingchun Yang, Juntao Chang, Jingfeng Tang, Wen Bao. 2015. Nonlinear characteristics and detection
of combustion modes for a hydrocarbon fueled scramjet. Acta Astronautica 110, 89-98. [Crossref]
189. Qingchun Yang, Wen Bao, Youhai Zong, Juntao Chang, Jichao Hu, Meng Wu. 2015. Combustion characteristics
of a dual-mode scramjet injecting liquid kerosene by multiple struts. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering 229:6, 983-992. [Crossref]
190. Rajarshi Das, Jeong Soo Kim, Heuy Dong Kim. 2015. Supersonic cavity based combustion with kerosene/hydrogen
fuel. Journal of Thermal Science 24:2, 164-172. [Crossref]
191. Jian Teng, Huacheng Yuan. 2015. Variable geometry cowl sidewall for improving rectangular hypersonic inlet
performance. Aerospace Science and Technology 42, 128-135. [Crossref]
 192. Jong-Ryul Byun, Chul Park, Oh Joon Kwon, Joongki Ahn. 2015. Experimental Study of Combustor–Isolator
Interactions in a Dual-Combustion Ramjet. Journal of Propulsion and Power 31:2, 592-603. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
193. Konstantin V. Savelkin, Dmitry A. Yarantsev, Igor V. Adamovich, Sergey B. Leonov. 2015. Ignition and flameholding
in a supersonic combustor by an electrical discharge combined with a fuel injector. Combustion and Flame 162:3,
825-835. [Crossref]
194. Qingchun Yang, Jichao Hu, Juntao chang, Youhai Zong, Wen Bao. 2015. Experimental study on combustion mode
transition effects in a strut-based scramjet combustor. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G:
Journal of Aerospace Engineering 229:4, 764-771. [Crossref]
195. Xiaoxiang Hu, Changhua Hu, Ligang Wu, Huijun Gao. 2015. Output Tracking Control for Nonminimum Phase
Flexible Air-Breathing Hypersonic Vehicle Models. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 28:2, 04014063. [Crossref]
196. Zhuqiang Yang, Qincheng Bi, Zhaohui Liu, Yong Guo, Jianguo Yan. 2015. Heat transfer to supercritical pressure
hydrocarbons flowing in a horizontal short tube. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 61, 144-152. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

197. Kuo-Long Pan, Shao-Syuan Chen. Oxygen-rich Combustion of A Porous Cylindrical Burner . [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
198. Scott Peltier, Campbell D. Carter. Response of a Mach 3 Cavity Flameholder to a Shock-Induced Distortion .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
199. Ruifeng Cao, Juntao Chang, Jingfeng Tang, Wen Bao, Daren Yu, Zhongqi Wang. 2015. Switching control of thrust
regulation and inlet unstart protection for scramjet engine based on Min strategy. Aerospace Science and Technology
40, 96-103. [Crossref]
200. Changhua Zhang, Bin Li, Fan Rao, Ping Li, Xiangyuan Li. 2015. A shock tube study of the autoignition
characteristics of RP-3 jet fuel. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 35:3, 3151-3158. [Crossref]
201. Na Wang, Xiu-Ming Yao, Wen-Shuo Li. 2015. Nonlinear Disturbance-Observer-Based Sliding Mode Control for
Flexible Air-Breathing Hypersonic Vehicles. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2015, 1-15. [Crossref]
202. Youhai Zong, Wen Bao, Juntao Chang, Jichao Hu, Qingchun Yang, Jian Song, Meng Wu. 2015. Effect of Fuel
Injection Allocation on the Combustion Characteristics of a Cavity-Strut Model Scramjet. Journal of Aerospace
Engineering 28:1, 04014050. [Crossref]
203. Qingchun Yang, Juntao Chang, Wen Bao. 2014. Relative Time scale analysis for pressure propagation during ignition
process of a scramjet. Aerospace Science and Technology 39, 206-210. [Crossref]
204. Xinzhi Wang, Yurong He, Yan Zheng, Junjun Ma, H. Inaki Schlaberg. 2014. Analytic estimation and numerical
modeling of actively cooled thermal protection systems with nickel alloys. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 27:6,
1401-1412. [Crossref]
205. Xiaoyuan Zhang, Lizi Qin, Hong Chen, Xuzhao He, Yu Liu. 2014. Radical recombination in a hydrocarbon-fueled
scramjet nozzle. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 27:6, 1413-1420. [Crossref]
206. Zhenguo Wang, Hongbo Wang, Mingbo Sun. 2014. Review of cavity-stabilized combustion for scramjet
applications. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering 228:14,
2718-2735. [Crossref]
207. Ian A. Schultz, Christopher S. Goldenstein, R. Mitchell Spearrin, Jay B. Jeffries, Ronald K. Hanson, Robert D.
Rockwell, Christopher P. Goyne. 2014. Multispecies Midinfrared Absorption Measurements in a Hydrocarbon-
Fueled Scramjet Combustor. Journal of Propulsion and Power 30:6, 1595-1604. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
208. Na Wang, Huai-Ning Wu, Lei Guo. 2014. Coupling-observer-based nonlinear control for flexible air-breathing
hypersonic vehicles. Nonlinear Dynamics 78:3, 2141-2159. [Crossref]
209. Ann R. Karagozian. 2014. The jet in crossflow. Physics of Fluids 26:10, 101303. [Crossref]
210. Hamid Reza Karimi, Xiaoxiang Hu, Yang Guo, Ligang Wu. 2014. Model predictive control-based non-linear
fault tolerant control for air-breathing hypersonic vehicles. IET Control Theory & Applications 8:13, 1147-1153.
[Crossref]
211. Xiaoxiang Hu, Ligang Wu, Changhua Hu, Zhaoqiang Wang, Huijun Gao. 2014. Dynamic output feedback control
of a flexible air-breathing hypersonic vehicle via T–S fuzzy approach. International Journal of Systems Science 45:8,
1740-1756. [Crossref]
 212. Mathew G. Bricalli, Laurie M. Brown, Russell R. Boyce. 2014. Supersonic Combustion Processes in a Premixed
Three-Dimensional Nonuniform-Compression Scramjet Engine. AIAA Journal 52:8, 1670-1685. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
213. Wen Bao, Youhai Zong, Juntao Chang, Daren Yu. 2014. Effect of structural factors on maximum aerodynamic heat
flux of strut leading surface. Applied Thermal Engineering 69:1-2, 188-198. [Crossref]
214. Wei Liu. Combustion characteristics of single-component liquid hydrocarbon in a scramjet combustor . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
215. Sasitharan Ambicapathy, P. Sivaraj, A. Rakesh, Krithika Vysaprasad, N. D. Hemasai, VR Sanal Kumar. Diagnostic
Investigation of Flow field Characteristics of Cavity based Scramjet Combustors . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
216. Sergey Surzhikov, Roman Seleznev, Pavel Tretjakov, Vasilii Zabaykin. Unsteady Thermo-Gasdynamic Processes in
Scramjet Combustion Chamber with Periodical Input of Cold Air . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
217. Xinyue Hao, Juntao Chang, Wen Bao, Linhui Zhao. Preliminary design for coordinated control of airbreathing
hypersonic vehicle and scramjet engine 909-914. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

218. Sharath Nagaraja, Liwei Zhang, Vigor Yang. Nanosecond Plasma Enhanced Ignition of Transverse Hydrogen Jet
Injected into Supersonic Oxygen Crossflow . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
219. Alessandro Mogavero, Ian Taylor, Richard E. Brown. Hybrid Propulsion Parametric and Modular Model: a novel
engine analysis tool conceived for design optimization . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
220. M. Tugrul Akpolat, K. Atilgan Toker, Mustafa Serdar Genc. Design and Optimization of a Notional Scramjet by
Means of Stream Thrust Analysis and Design of Experiments . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
221. Pradeep K. Yadav, Raj K. Yadav, Gopal Gupta. Computational design of a concept helicopter’s fuselage . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
222. Craig T. Johansen, Colin D. McRae, Paul M. Danehy, Emanuela C. A. Gallo, Luca M. L. Cantu, Gaetano Magnotti,
Andrew D. Cutler, Robert D. Rockwell, Chris P. Goyne, James C. McDaniel. 2014. OH PLIF visualization of the
UVa supersonic combustion experiment: configuration A. Journal of Visualization 17:2, 131-141. [Crossref]
223. Yu Feng, Jiang Qin, Wen Bao, Qinchun Yang, Hongyan Huang, Zhongqi Wang. 2014. Numerical analysis of
convective heat transfer characteristics of supercritical hydrocarbon fuel in cooling panel with local flow blockage
structure. The Journal of Supercritical Fluids 88, 8-16. [Crossref]
224. Jian Li, Liwei Zhang, Jeong Yeol Choi, Vigor Yang, Kuo-Cheng Lin. 2014. Ignition Transients in a Scramjet Engine
with Air Throttling Part 1: Nonreacting Flow. Journal of Propulsion and Power 30:2, 438-448. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
225. J. Philip Drummond. 2014. Methods for Prediction of High-Speed Reacting Flows in Aerospace Propulsion. AIAA
Journal 52:3, 465-485. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
226. Xiaoyuan Zhang, Lizi Qin, Hong Chen, Xuzhao He, Yu Liu. 2014. WITHDRAWN: Radical recombination in
hydrocarbon fueled scramjet nozzle. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics . [Crossref]
227. Wei Huang, Zhen-Guo Wang, Li Yan, Shi-Bin Li, Derek B Ingham. 2014. Variation of inlet boundary conditions
on the combustion characteristics of a typical cavity-based scramjet combustor. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering 228:4, 627-638. [Crossref]
228. Sergey B. Leonov, Axel Vincent-Randonnier, Vladimir Sabelnikov, Alexander A. Firsov, Dmitry Yarantsev. Plasma-
assisted combustion in supersonic airflow: optimization of electrical discharge geometry . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
229. Ali Gülhan, Frank Siebe, Thomas Thiele, Dominik Neeb, John Turner, Josef Ettl. 2014. Sharp Edge Flight
Experiment-II Instrumentation Challenges and Selected Flight Data. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 51:1, 175-186.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
230. David E. Gildfind, Richard G. Morgan, Peter A. Jacobs, Matthew McGilvray. 2014. Production of High-Mach-
Number Scramjet Flow Conditions in an Expansion Tube. AIAA Journal 52:1, 162-177. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
231. Qingchun Yang, Juntao Chang, Wen Bao. 2014. Richtmyer-Meshkov Instability Induced Mixing Enhancement in
the Scramjet Combustor with a Central Strut. Advances in Mechanical Engineering 6, 614189. [Crossref]
232. Ren Zhao-Xin, Wang Bing. 2014. A LES Study on Passive Mixing in Supersonic Shear Layer Flows Considering
Effects of Baffle Configuration. Advances in Mechanical Engineering 6, 836146. [Crossref]
 233. Xiaoxiang Hu, Ligang Wu, Changhua Hu, Huijun Gao. 2013. Adaptive Fuzzy Integral Sliding Mode Control for
Flexible Air-Breathing Hypersonic Vehicles Subject to Input Nonlinearity. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 26:4,
721-734. [Crossref]
234. Yuxuan Xin, Sydnie Lieb, Hai Wang, Chung K. Law. 2013. Kinetics of Catalytic Oxidation of Methane over
Palladium Oxide by Wire Microcalorimetry. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 117:38, 19499-19507. [Crossref]
235. Wen Bao, Qingchun Yang, Juntao Chang, Youhai Zong, Jichao Hu. 2013. Dynamic Characteristics of Combustion
Mode Transitions in a Strut-Based Scramjet Combustor Model. Journal of Propulsion and Power 29:5, 1244-1248.
[Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
236. Scott Peltier, Justin W. Kirik, Christopher P. Goyne, Campbell D. Carter. Response of a Ramped Cavity to Shock-
Induced Distortions in a Mach 3 Freestream . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
237. Fei Li, Xi-long Yu, Ying-gang Tong, Yan Shen, Jian Chen, Li-hong Chen, Xin-yu Chang. 2013. Plasma-assisted
ignition for a kerosene fueled scramjet at Mach 1.8. Aerospace Science and Technology 28:1, 72-78. [Crossref]
238. V. G. Gainutdinov. 2013. Computer-aided design analysis of hypersonic aircraft air intake geometry. Russian
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

Aeronautics (Iz VUZ) 56:3, 274-279. [Crossref]

239. Sergey Surzhikov, Joseph J. Shang, Richard Rivir. Numerical prediction of convective and radiative heating of
Scramjet combustion chamber with hydrocarbon fuels . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
240. P. Manna, Malsur Dharavath, P.K. Sinha, Debasis Chakraborty. 2013. Optimization of a flight-worthy scramjet
combustor through CFD. Aerospace Science and Technology 27:1, 138-146. [Crossref]
241. Jiang Qin, Silong Zhang, Wen Bao, Zhenjian Jia, Bin Yu, Weixing Zhou. 2013. Experimental study on the
performance of recooling cycle of hydrocarbon fueled scramjet engine. Fuel 108, 334-340. [Crossref]
242. Rongpei Jiang, Guozhu Liu, Xiangwen Zhang. 2013. Thermal Cracking of Hydrocarbon Aviation Fuels in
Regenerative Cooling Microchannels. Energy & Fuels 27:5, 2563-2577. [Crossref]
243. Wei Huang, Zhen-guo Wang, Derek B. Ingham, Lin Ma, Mohamed Pourkashanian. 2013. Design exploration for
a single expansion ramp nozzle (SERN) using data mining. Acta Astronautica 83, 10-17. [Crossref]
244. . Transient Operation of an Ethylene-Fueled Scramjet Engine with Fuel Staging . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
245. Zhan Li, Zehao Zhang, Tong Peng, Xiaoxiang Hu. 2013. Sampled-data switched control for flexible air-breathing
hypersonic vehicles. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control
Engineering 227:1, 110-120. [Crossref]
246. Hyun Jin Yoon, Kun Woo Ku, Jun Hee Kim, Jung Goo Hong, Cheol Woo Park, Choong Won Lee. 2013.
Combustion and Spray Characteristics of Jet in Crossflow in High-Velocity and High-Temperature Crossflow
Conditions. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers B 37:1, 67-74. [Crossref]
247. Jiang Qin, Wen Bao, SiLong Zhang, YuFei Song, DaRen Yu. 2012. Thermodynamic analysis for a chemically
recuperated scramjet. Science China Technological Sciences 55:11, 3204-3212. [Crossref]
248. Wei Huang, Zhen-guo Wang, Li Yan, Wei-dong Liu. 2012. Numerical validation and parametric investigation on
the cold flow field of a typical cavity-based scramjet combustor. Acta Astronautica 80, 132-140. [Crossref]
249. Jiang Qin, Wen Bao, Silong Zhang, Weixing Zhou. 2012. Comparison During a Scramjet Regenerative Cooling
and Recooling Cycle. Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer 26:4, 612-618. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
250. Mathew Bricalli, Russell Boyce, Laurie Brown. Supersonic Combustion Processes in a Premixed 3D Non-Uniform-
Compression Scramjet Engine . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
251. Ali Guelhan, Frank Siebe, Thomas Thiele, Dominik Neeb, John Turner, Josef Ettl. Instrumentation of the
SHEFEX-II Flight Experiment and Selected Flight Data . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
252. Chen Dong, Tao Chao, Song-yan Wang, Ming Yang. Rapid Three-Dimensional Constrained Trajectory Generation
for Near Space Hypersonic Vehicles . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
253. David Gildfind, Richard Morgan, Mathew McGilvray, Peter Jacobs. Simulation of High Mach Number Scramjet
Flow Conditions using the X2 Expansion Tube . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
254. Wen ZENG, Zhizhong TONG, Songjing LI, Hongzhou LI, Liang ZHANG. 2012. Thermodynamic Characteristic
Study of a High-temperature Flow-rate Control Valve for Fuel Supply of Scramjet Engines. Chinese Journal of
Aeronautics 25:4, 559-565. [Crossref]
 255. Lin Zhang, Kunyuan Zhang, Lei Wang, Yuan Liu. Numerical Investigation of Hypersonic Curved Shock Two-
Dimensional Inlet Designed on the Wall Constant Mach Number Gradient . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
256. M S R Chandra Murty, D Chakraborty. 2012. Numerical simulation of angular injection of hydrogen fuel in
scramjet combustor. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering
226:7, 861-872. [Crossref]
257. Rahul Ingle, Debasis Chakraborty. 2012. Numerical Simulation of Dual-Mode Scramjet Combustor with Significant
Upstream Interaction. International Journal of Manufacturing, Materials, and Mechanical Engineering 2:3, 60-74.
[Crossref]
258. Craig Johansen, Colin McRae, Paul Danehy, Emanuela Gallo, Luca Cantu, Robert Rockwell, Christopher Goyne,
J. McDaniel. OH PLIF Visualization of the UVa Supersonic Combustion Experiment: Configuration A . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
259. Hyun-Jin Yoon, Jung-Goo Hong, Cheol-Woo Park, Choong-Won Lee. 2012. Spray Characteristics of Single
and Double Liquid Jets in Crossflow. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers B 36:5, 495-501.
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

[Crossref]
260. Giulio Riva, Adolfo Reggiori, Giambattista Daminelli. 2012. Performance Evaluation of a Ramjet Model in a Pulse
Facility at Mach 4.5. Journal of Propulsion and Power 28:3, 466-476. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
261. Yu Feng, Hongyan Huang, Tao Li, Duo Zhang, Zhongqi Wang. 2012. Flow field and heat transfer analysis of local
structure for regenerative cooling panel. Journal of Thermal Science 21:2, 172-178. [Crossref]
262. W Bao, Y Zong, J Chang, T Cui. 2012. Effects of strut swept angle on the drag of scramjet. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering 226:4, 455-466. [Crossref]
263. Xiaoxiang Hu, Ligang Wu, Changhua Hu, Huijun Gao. 2012. Adaptive sliding mode tracking control for a flexible
air-breathing hypersonic vehicle. Journal of the Franklin Institute 349:2, 559-577. [Crossref]
264. Fei Xing, Shuai Zhang, Yufeng Yao. Numerical Simulation of Shock-Induced-Combustion in Three-Dimensional
HyShot Scramjet Model . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
265. F. J. Costa, D. Romanelli Pinto, T. V. C. Marcos, M. A. S. Minucci, P. G. P. Toro, E. P. Mergulhão Dias. External
and Internal Configurations of the 14-X Hypersonic Aerospace Vehicle 293-299. [Crossref]
266. T. V. C. Marcos, D. Romanelli Pinto, G. S. Moura, A. C. Oliveira, J. B. Chanes, P. G. P. Toro, M. A. S. Minucci.
Supersonic Combustion Flow Visualization at Hypersonic Flow 1041-1047. [Crossref]
267. D. Romanelli Pinto, T. V. C. Marcos, R. L. M. Alcaide, A. C. Oliveira, J. B. Chanes, P. G. P. Toro, M. A. S. Minucci.
Supersonic Combustion Experimental Investigation at T2 Hypersonic Shock Tunnel 1049-1055. [Crossref]
268. Fei Li, XiLong Yu, Hongbin Gu, Zhi Li, Yan Zhao, Lin Ma, Lihong Chen, Xinyu Chang. 2011. Simultaneous
measurements of multiple flow parameters for scramjet characterization using tunable diode-laser sensors. Applied
Optics 50:36, 6697. [Crossref]
269. Yu Pan, Jian-Guo Tan, Jian-Han Liang, Wei-Dong Liu, Zhen-Guo Wang. 2011. Experimental investigation of
combustion mechanisms of kerosene-fueled scramjet engines with double-cavity flameholders. Acta Mechanica Sinica
27:6, 891-897. [Crossref]
270. Gianluca Iaccarino, Rene Pecnik, James Glimm, David Sharp. 2011. A QMU approach for characterizing the
operability limits of air-breathing hypersonic vehicles. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 96:9, 1150-1160.
[Crossref]
271. Wen Zeng, Zhizhong Tong, Jicheng Bai, Liang Zhang, Songjing Li. Dynamic characteristics research of a high
temperature flow-rate control valve 450-455. [Crossref]
272. P. Gokulakrishnan, C. Fuller, M. Klassen, H. Huang. Kinetic Modeling of Thermal and Catalytic Cracking of
Paraffinic Surrogate Fuels Relevant to Hypersonic Applications . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
273. Gregory Abraham, Nicolas Gascoin, Philippe Gillard, Marc Bouchez. 2011. Real-time method for the identification
and quantification of hydrocarbon pyrolysis products: Part I. Development and validation of the infra red technique.
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 91:2, 368-376. [Crossref]
274. Nicolas Gascoin, Gregory Abraham, Philippe Gillard, Marc Bouchez. 2011. Real-time method for the identification
and quantification of hydrocarbon pyrolysis products: Part II. Application to transient pyrolysis and validation by
numerical simulation. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 91:2, 377-387. [Crossref]
 275. YingJia Zhang, ZuoHua Huang, JinHua Wang, ShengLi Xu. 2011. Shock tube study on auto-ignition characteristics
of kerosene/air mixtures. Chinese Science Bulletin 56:13, 1399-1406. [Crossref]
276. Hongyi Li, Yulin Si, Ligang Wu, Xiaoxiang Hu, Huijun Gao. 2011. Guaranteed cost control with poles assignment
for a flexible air-breathing hypersonic vehicle. International Journal of Systems Science 42:5, 863-876. [Crossref]
277. Patrick Gruhn, Ali Gülhan. 2011. Experimental Investigation of a Hypersonic Inlet with and Without Sidewall
Compression. Journal of Propulsion and Power 27:3, 718-729. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
278. John Hutzel, Douglas Decker, Jeffrey Donbar. Scramjet Isolator Shock-Train Leading-Edge Location Modeling .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
279. Atul Kelkar, Jerald Vogel, Christopher Whitmer, Denny Chaussee, Chris Ford. Design Tool for Control-Centric
Modeling, Analysis, and Trade Studies for Hypersonic Vehicles . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
280. Wen Bao, Jiang Qin, WeiXing Zhou, Duo Zhang, DaRen Yu. 2011. Power generation and heat sink improvement
characteristics of recooling cycle for thermal cracked hydrocarbon fueled scramjet. Science China Technological
Sciences 54:4, 955-963. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

281. . Hypersonic Air-Breathing Propulsion 51-74. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

282. C. Kim, K. Sung, I.-S. Jeung, B. Choi, T. Kouchi, G. Masuya. 2010. Flowfield characteristics on a vent slot mixer
in supersonic flow. Shock Waves 20:6, 559-569. [Crossref]
283. Ann R. Karagozian. 2010. Transverse jets and their control. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 36:5, 531-553.
[Crossref]
284. H Li, L Wu, Y Si, H Gao, X Hu. 2010. Multi-Objective Fault-Tolerant Output Tracking Control of a Flexible
Air-Breathing Hypersonic Vehicle. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems
and Control Engineering 224:6, 647-667. [Crossref]
285. Christopher Whitmer, Atul Kelkar, Jerald Vogel, D. Chaussee, Christopher Ford. Control Centric Parametric Trade
Studies for Scramjet-Powered Hypersonic Vehicles . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
286. Matthew McGilvray, Richard G. Morgan, Peter A. Jacobs. 2010. Scramjet Experiments in an Expansion Tunnel:
Evaluated Using a Quasi-Steady Analysis Technique. AIAA Journal 48:8, 1635-1646. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
287. Matthew McGilvray, Rainer Kirchhartz, Thomas Jazra. 2010. Comparison of Mach 10 Scramjet Measurements
from Different Impulse Facilities. AIAA Journal 48:8, 1647-1651. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
288. V. N. Avrashkov, E. S. Metelkina, D. V. Meshcheryakov. 2010. Investigation of High-Speed Ramjet Engines.
Combustion, Explosion, and Shock Waves 46:4, 400-407. [Crossref]
289. GEORGIOS MATHEOU, ARISTIDES M. BONANOS, CARLOS PANTANO, PAUL E. DIMOTAKIS. 2010.
Large-eddy simulation of mixing in a recirculating shear flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 646, 375-414. [Crossref]
290. M. Berglund, E. Fedina, C. Fureby, J. Tegnér, V. Sabel'nikov. 2010. Finite Rate Chemistry Large-Eddy Simulation
of Self-Ignition in Supersonic Combustion Ramjet. AIAA Journal 48:3, 540-550. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
291. Debasis Chakraborty. 2010. Numerical Simulation of Liquid Fueled SCRAMJET Combustor Flow Fields.
International Journal of Hypersonics 1:1, 13-30. [Crossref]
292. N. Vermaak, L. Valdevit, A. G. Evans. 2010. Influence of Configuration on Materials Selection for Actively Cooled
Combustors. Journal of Propulsion and Power 26:2, 295-302. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
293. Vigor Yang, Jian Li, Jeong Yeol Choi, Kuo-Cheng Lin. Ignition Transient in an Ethylene Fueled Scramjet Engine
with Air Throttling Part I: Non-Reacting flow Development and Mixing . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
294. K. M. Pandey, T. Sivasakthivel. 2010. Recent Advances in Scramjet Fuel Injection - A Review. International Journal
of Chemical Engineering and Applications 294-301. [Crossref]
295. Daniel Kliche, Christian Mundt. Combustor Modelling for Multidisciplinary Analysis and Evaluation of Supersonic
Combustion Ramjets . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
296. Obaid Ur Rehman, Baris Fidan, Ian Petersen. Minimax LQR Control Design for a Hypersonic Flight Vehicle .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
297. Atul Kelkar, Jerald Vogel, George Inger, Christopher Whitmer, Alan Sidlinger, C. Ford. Modeling and Analysis
Framework for Early Stage Trade-off Studies for Scramjet-Powered Hypersonic Vehicles . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
 298. J Vogel, A Kelkar, C Whitmer, A Sidlinger. Hypersonic Vehicle Control Augmentation and Health Monitoring
using Fads Technology . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
299. Matthew McGilvray, Richard Morgan, Peter Jacobs. Scramjet Experiments in an Expansion Tunnel: Evaluated
Using a Quasi-Steady Analysis Technique . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
300. Matthew McGilvray, Rainer Kirchhartz, Thomas Jazra. Comparison of Mach 10 Scramjet Measurements from
Different Impulse Facilities . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
301. J. S. Shang. 2009. Computational fluid dynamics application to aerospace science. The Aeronautical Journal 113:1148,
619-632. [Crossref]
302. Timothy Barber, Brian Maicke, Joseph Majdalani. Current State of High Speed Propulsion: Gaps, Obstacles and
Technological Challenges in Hypersonic Applications . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
303. C. Fureby. 2009. Large eddy simulation modelling of combustion for propulsion applications. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 367:1899, 2957-2969. [Crossref]
304. Epaminondas Mastorakos. 2009. Ignition of turbulent non-premixed flames. Progress in Energy and Combustion
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

Science 35:1, 57-97. [Crossref]

305. Kristen Roberts, Donald Wilson. Analysis and Design of a Hypersonic Scramjet Engine with a Transition Mach
Number of 4.00 . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
306. Nicolas Gascoin, Philippe Gillard, Stéphane Bernard, Marc Bouchez. 2008. Characterisation of coking activity during
supercritical hydrocarbon pyrolysis. Fuel Processing Technology 89:12, 1416-1428. [Crossref]
307. C. Tao, Y. Daren, B. Wen. 2008. Distributed parameter control arithmetic for an axisymmetrical dual-mode
scramjet. The Aeronautical Journal 112:1135, 557-565. [Crossref]
308. Matthew Kuipers, Petros Ioannou, Baris Fidan, Majdedin Mirmirani. Robust Adaptive Multiple Model Controller
Design for an Airbreathing Hypersonic Vehicle Model . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
309. Antonella Ingenito, Claudio Bruno. Mixing and Combustion in Supersonic Reactive Flows . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
310. Yen Wang, Jean Sislian. Numerical Investigation of Methane and Air Mixing in a Shcramjet Inlet . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
311. Daniel Kliche, Michael Strohal, Christian Mundt. Multidisciplinary Analysis and Evaluation of Supersonic
Combustion Ramjets . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
312. Joseph Shang. Some Flow-Structure Features of Scramjet Isolator . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
313. Subith S. Vasu, David F. Davidson, Ronald K. Hanson. 2008. Jet fuel ignition delay times: Shock tube experiments
over wide conditions and surrogate model predictions. Combustion and Flame 152:1-2, 125-143. [Crossref]
314. Y. Daren, C. Tao, B. Wen. 2007. An idea of distributed parameter control for scramjet engines. The Aeronautical
Journal 111:1126, 787-796. [Crossref]
315. M. Smart. 2007. Scramjets. The Aeronautical Journal 111:1124, 605-619. [Crossref]
316. Nathan Luetke, Taj Mohieldin, Surendra Tiwari. Numerical Optimization of a Rocket Based Combined Cycle .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
317. Jason Doster, Paul King, Mark Gruber, Raymond Maple. Pylon Fuel Injector Design for a Scramjet Combustor .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
318. M. R. Tetlow, C. J. Doolan. 2007. Comparison of Hydrogen and Hydrocarbon-Fueled Scramjet Engines for Orbital
Insertion. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 44:2, 365-373. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
319. Con J. Doolan. 2007. Hypersonic Missile Performance and Sensitivity Analysis. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets
44:1, 81-87. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
320. Nicolas Gascoin, Philippe Gillard, Emmanuel Dufour, Youssoufi Touré. 2007. Validation of Transient Cooling
Modeling for Hypersonic Application. Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer 21:1, 86-94. [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
321. Edward A. Fletcher. 2007. Scramjets and Surfboards: Some Forgotten History. Journal of Propulsion and Power
23:1, 15-20. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
322. D. Sanders, W. O'Brien, J. Schetz. An Investigation of Controlled Oscillations in a Plasma Torch for Combustion
Enhancement . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 323. Baris Fidan, Matthew Kuipers, Petros Ioannou, Maj Mirmirani. Longitudinal Motion Control of Air-Breathing
Hypersonic Vehicles Based on Time-Varying Models . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
324. D. Scott Stewart, Aslan R. Kasimov. 2006. State of Detonation Stability Theory and Its Application to Propulsion.
Journal of Propulsion and Power 22:6, 1230-1244. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
325. Michael K. Smart, Neal E. Hass, Allan Paull. 2006. Flight Data Analysis of the HyShot 2 Scramjet Flight
Experiment. AIAA Journal 44:10, 2366-2375. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
326. Cui Tao, Yu Daren, Bao Wen. Distributed Parameter Control Method for Dual-Mode Scramjets . [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
327. Bing Chen, Xu Xu, Guobiao Cai. Single- and Multi-Objective Optimization of Scramjet Components Using Genetic
Algorithms Based on a Parabolized Navier-Stokes Solver . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
328. Andrew Clark, Chivey Wu, Maj Mirmirani, Sang Bum Choi, Matthew Kuipers. Development of an Airframe-
Propulsion Integrated Hypersonic Vehicle Model . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
329. Con Doolan. An Air-Launched Hypersonic Vehicle Performance Study . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875

330. Jonathan T. C. Liu, Gregory B. Rieker, Jay B. Jeffries, Mark R. Gruber, Campbell D. Carter, Tarun Mathur, Ronald
K. Hanson. 2005. Near-infrared diode laser absorption diagnostic for temperature and water vapor in a scramjet
combustor. Applied Optics 44:31, 6701. [Crossref]
331. Eric L Petersen, Matthew J A Rickard, Mark W Crofton, Erin D Abbey, Matthew J Traum, Danielle M
Kalitan. 2005. A facility for gas- and condensed-phase measurements behind shock waves. Measurement Science and
Technology 16:9, 1716-1729. [Crossref]
332. Maj Mirmirani, Chivey Wu, Andrew Clark, Sang Bum Choi, Richard Colgren. Modeling for Control of a Generic
Airbreathing Hypersonic Vehicle . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
333. Xu Xu, Xu Dajun, Cai Guobiao. 2005. Optimization design for scramjet and analysis of its operation performance.
Acta Astronautica 57:2-8, 390-403. [Crossref]
334. Neal Hass, Michael Smart, Allan Paull. Flight Data Analysis of the HYSHOT 2 . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
335. Matthew Billingsley, Darius Sanders, Walter O'Brien, Joseph Schetz. Improved Plasma Torches for Appication in
Supersonic Combustion . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
336. Abel I. Fernandez, A.A. Viggiano, A.I. Maergoiz, J. Troe, V.G. Ushakov. 2005. Thermal decomposition of
ethylbenzene cations (C8H10+): experiments and modeling of falloff curves. International Journal of Mass
Spectrometry 241:2-3, 305-313. [Crossref]
337. M. J. Robinson, D. J. Mee. Performance measurements in a shock tunnel of a fuelled scramjet vehicle generating
lift, thrust and pitching moment 885-890. [Crossref]
338. G. Yu, J.G. Li, J.R. Zhao, L.J. Yue, X.Y. Chang, C.-J. Sung. 2005. An experimental study of kerosene combustion
in a supersonic model combustor using effervescent atomization. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2,
2859-2866. [Crossref]
339. M. Boccanera, D. Lentini. 2004. Thermochemical closure for high-speed flows. Acta Astronautica 55:12, 965-976.
[Crossref]
340. Hideyuki Horisawa, Shuhei Tsuchiya, Junya Negishi, Yoko Okawa, Itsuro Kimura. 2004. Effects of a focused laser
pulse for combustion augmentation characteristics in supersonic airstreams. Vacuum 73:3-4, 439-447. [Crossref]
341. Baris Fidan, Maj Mirmirani, Petros Ioannou. Flight Dynamics and Control of Air-Breathing Hypersonic Vehicles:
Review and New Directions . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
342. Raffaele Savino, Giuseppe Pezzella. 2003. Numerical analysis of supersonic combustion ramjet with upstream fuel
injection. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 43:2, 165-181. [Crossref]
343. Shuhei Tsuchiya, Jyunya Negishi, Yoko Ohkawa, Hideyuki Horisawa, Itsuro Kimura. Ignition Characteristics of
Laser-Induced Plasmas in Supersonic Combustion . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
344. Ann R. Karagozian, K.-S. Charles Wang, Owen I. Smith. Jets Injected Normally into Compressible Crossflow
25-37. [Crossref]
345. Gong Yu, J. G. Li, X. Y. Zhang, Chih-Jen Sung. Investigation of Liquid Hydrocarbon Combustion in Supersonic
Flows using Effervescent Atomization . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 346. Dan Marren, Mark Lewis, Lourdes Q. Maurice. 2001. Experimentation, Test, and Evaluation Requirements for
Future Airbreathing Hypersonic Systems. Journal of Propulsion and Power 17:6, 1361-1365. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
Downloaded by INST TEC DE AERONAUTICA (ITA) on February 23, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.5875