Jet Submarine of 1949

hesham

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
26 May 2006
Messages
32,647
Reaction score
11,833
Hi,

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/jet-sub-fires-underwater-rockets/
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    657.4 KB · Views: 534
Fascibating.

I mentions Aerojet. They were subsequently involved in the Polaris missile and also in SDVs for the US Navy. The SDV Mk.8 and SDV Mk.9 are largely their designs.
 
covert_shores said:
Fascibating.

I mentions Aerojet. They were subsequently involved in the Polaris missile and also in SDVs for the US Navy. The SDV Mk.8 and SDV Mk.9 are largely their designs.
Click to expand...

Hi Covert,

this propulsion looks like in the movie; The Hunt for Red October .
 
AIP submarines of that time used chemical reactions to create motive force, but then drove a propeller. E.g. HTP.

There was at least one chemical engine tested on a Royal Navy minisub in 1960s. Again it didn't function like a jet engine.

Aerojet scientists were very credible so this cannot be completely nonsensical, from a science perspective, but I cannot imagine why they needed the intake to be jet like. There's more than enough water for the reaction?
 
i Pasted the Submarine painting (center is missing in raw data)
art work by Frank Tinsley 1949
 

Attachments

  • jetsub.jpg
    jetsub.jpg
    192.3 KB · Views: 391
Under jet engine

A 1940s under water jet engine.Fritz Zwicky invented an underwater jet, ramjet working with fluid medium, under the US patent 2,461,79
I read that it was tested but it left a tail of gas bubbles.they said to have made few experimental units.
 

Attachments

  • jestsub_1.jpg
    jestsub_1.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 298
  • jestsub_2.jpg
    jestsub_2.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 276
  • jestsub_3.jpg
    jestsub_3.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 247
  • jestsub_4.jpg
    jestsub_4.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 90
Re: Under jet engine

The patent is attached.

Its basically a gas generator and a reaction chamber. The chemicals proposed as the fuel for this system are pretty exotic, stuff like lithium borohydride LiBH4 or molten magnesium. Mechanix Illustrated notwithstanding, this system would have made much more sense as a propulsion system in weapon than a submarine. And even there, I have my doubts. It looks very hard to get right, compared to other options.

Zwicky was much better known as an astronomer than as a propulsion engineer, probably for good reason.
 

Attachments

  • US2461797A.pdf
    321.3 KB · Views: 28
Wonder how it compared to a much later proposed underwater ramjet for a supercavitating torpedo:

http://www.k26.com/supercavitation/html/scientific_american.html
 
I don't think there's much similarity, aside from the basic chemistry of aluminum oxidation in water. Zwicky was basically using an underwater version of spray bars in the combustion chamber. The vortex combustor seems to be a different approach. And interestingly, the folks working on it seemed to think that using the combustor as a gas generator to drive a turbine that in turn drives a propeller is actually more effective than just using the gas as a rocket.

BTW: The full text of the Scientific America article, which includes the "ramjet" you mentioned, is not at that link. It's buried behind a paywall. But I found it here:

http://www.signallake.com/innovation/UnderwaterWarpDriveSCIAMMay2001.pdf
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom