i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Review

A review on hydrogen industrial aerospace

applications

D. Cecere a,*, E. Giacomazzi a, A. Ingenito b

a
Sustainable Combustion Laboratory, ENEA, Rome, Italy
b
University Sapienza, Rome, Italy

article info abstract

Article history: This article depicts the scenario in which hydrogen appears as the best candidate fuel for
Received 13 February 2014 long range transportation with potentially zero emissions. Main characteristics of
Received in revised form hydrogen that make it appealing and exploitable in applications are described and
11 April 2014 compared to those of other common fuels. A historical journey through aerospace industry
Accepted 18 April 2014 applications of hydrogen since its discovery is provided, considering turbojet, ramjet,
Available online 2 June 2014 scramjet and rocket engines. Current and future technology levels are reported.
Copyright ª 2014, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
Keywords: reserved.
Hydrogen combustion
Turbojets
Ramjets
Rockets

fossil fuels is characterized by products that may cause

Introduction
Nowadays, more than 85% of the global energy system is
based on the utilization of fossil fuel such as oil, natural gas
and coal, but they are expected to be exhausted by this cen-
tury. Besides this, economies of emerging countries will make
fossil fuel price more volatile in the next future [1]. Hence, it is
required to limit the dependency on fossil fuels and find
alternative energy sources. Such a scenario is going to affect
the aerospace industry in the next future. Today another de-
cision making issue is pollution. Combustion of conventional
environmental pollution and climate changes: carbon dioxide,
water vapor, NOx, unburnt hydrocarbon (UHC), carbon mon-
oxide, particulate and SOx. At present, civil air traffic contri-
bution to the total anthropogenic emissions is about 3% for
NOx and 2.6% for CO2 [2]. These values may change due to the
expected growth of the global air traffic in the near future. It is
not demonstrated that the consequent increase of greenhouse
gases could be compensated by simply improving aircraft
propulsion systems [3].
All these considerations are strong drivers for the devel-
opment and research of alternative fuels. Hydrogen is the best

Abbreviations: ISP, specific impulse; NOx, oxides of nitrogen; SOx, sulphur oxides; CO, carbon-monoxide; CO2, carbon-dioxide; LOX,
liquid oxygen; LH2, liquid hydrogen; LDI, lean direct injection; APU, auxiliary power unit; RBCC, rocket-based combined cycles; TBCC,
turbine-based combined cycles; LHV, lower heating value; SCRJ, scramjet; LES, large eddy simulation; SABRE, synergistic air-breathing
rocket engine; GTO, geosynchronous transfer orbit.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: donato.cecere@enea.it (D. Cecere).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.04.126
0360-3199/Copyright ª 2014, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
10732 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7

candidate alternative energy source for aerospace propulsion
and future hypersonic air-breathing launchers and trans-
atmospheric aircrafts.
The paper is organized as follows. In Hydrogen Choice
Motivation Section the main features of hydrogen as fuel are
presented. In History of Hydrogen as Propellant Section the
history of hydrogen as propellant in aeronautic and rocket
propulsion applications is described. Hydrogen Fueled
Engines Section presents the state of the art technologies for
hydrogen fueled gas turbines and hypersonic engines.
Hydrogen choice motivation
Hydrogen is the most abundant element on earth and it can be
produced in different ways. Nearly the 50% of the global
hydrogen demand is currently generated via steam reforming
of natural gas, 30% by oil/naphtha reforming, 18% by coal
gasification, 3.9% by water electrolysis and 0.1% from other
sources [4e6]. Energy required in these processes can come
from green energy sources like renewable energy (wind, solar,
biomass), nuclear energy, and energy derived from recovery
(e.g., landfill gas, industrial heat recovery, etc.).
Main properties of hydrogen are summarized in Table 1,
where they are also compared with those of other common
fuels. It is observed that hydrogen has an energy release much
higher than common and long chain hydrocarbons (119.96 MJ/
kg vs ¢42.8 MJ/kg, respectively) [7]. It has wide flammability
limits and a very short ignition time [8]. Its high diffusivity is
another important feature for mixing. Its thermal conductiv-
ity, the highest among all gases, its high heat capacity and its
very low dynamic viscosity provide superior cooling proper-
ties for operation at high flight speeds and at combustor high
temperatures. Furthermore, its low molecular weight makes it
the fuel with the higher specific impulse (ISP), w450 s: this
means that burning 1 kg/s of hydrogen with oxygen produces
a thrust of 450 kgforce.
Recently, its feature of not producing any harmful pollut-
ants and particulate matter promoted hydrogen as fuel in the
public transportation industry. However, NOx formation when
burning hydrogen with air is still an issue. NOx is produced via
an endothermic mechanism, especially above 1800 K [9]. It may
be controlled by operating at lean or very lean equivalence
ratios (thanks to the wider flammability limits of the hydrogen-
air flames compared to kerosene-air flames), or reducing the
combustor length (thanks to the higher flame speed of
hydrogen compared to other fuels) [10]. In particular, when 1 kg
of kerosene is burnt with air at stoichiometric conditions, the
combustion process produces 1.24 kg of H2O, 3.16 kg of CO2, 1 g
of NOx and 1 O 2.5 g of CO [11]. The same energy is contained in
0.36 kg of liquid hydrogen and its combustion with air produces
3.21 kg of H2O and some NOx [12].
The water vapor, as a primary product of H2/Air combus-
tion, impacts the environment contributing to the formation
of contrails (condensation trails), whose radiative force is
greater than that of CO2 (20 mW/m2 vs 18 mW/m2) [14]. The
global warming effect of water vapor can be eliminated by
cruise optimization, since this effect is decreasing with alti-
tude [15]. The NOx impact on ozone depletion is critical above
18,000 m of altitude [11], i.e., in the ozonosphere layer,
therefore, LH2 fueled supersonic aircrafts should be used
below 12,000 m.
The major drawback when using hydrogen as fuel in
aerospace vehicles is its storage volume requirement. In fact,
at standard pressure and temperature, H2 has a density of only
0.09 kg/m3 while gasoline and JP-8 have 750 kg/m3, and 800 kg/
m3 respectively. This is why hydrogen is typically stored
under cryogenic conditions (20.46 K) as liquid hydrogen. At
this state, for a given amount of energy, a 4 times bigger vol-
ume is necessary with respect to kerosene.
Despite this, Brewer [13] in his studies concluded that
liquid hydrogen fueled aircrafts are more efficient and still
remain advantageous from the point of view of weight with
respect to kerosene fueled aircrafts, hence implying lower
direct operating costs.
Corchero et al. [16] reported performance analysis of the
BR710-48 turbofan, on a Tupolev Tu-324/414 jet regional
aircraft, fueled by hydrogen and kerosene. This comparison
showed that the specific fuel consumption of the hydrogen
fueled aircraft is, at the same conditions, 11.273 kg/(kN s), 2.8
times lower than that of the kerosene based aircraft. At the
same time, the turbine inlet temperature in hydrogen fueled
engine was 37 K lower than that of kerosene, thus increasing
engine life.
Verstraete evaluated the potential of hydrogen as fuel for
long range transport aircrafts at current technology levels.

Table 1 e Fuels properties: * At normal boiling point; NTP [ normal temperature and pressure [7].
H2 CH4 Jet-A JP-4
Molecular weight 2.016 16.04 w168 w132
Heat of combustion (low), [kJ g
1] 119.96 50.0 42.8 42.8
Liquid density, [g cm
3] 0.071* 0.423* w0.811 w0.774
Boiling point, at 1 atm [K] 20.27 112 440 to 539 333 to 519
ISP Fuel/O2 vacuum [s] 450 300 290 270
Heat capacity [J g
1 K
1] 9.69 3.50 1.98 2.04
Heat of vaporation, [J g
1] 446 510 360 344
Diffusion vel. in NTP air [ms
1] 2.00 0.51 <0.17 <0.17
Flammability limits in air, vol % 4.0 to 75.0 5.3 to 15.0 0.6 to 4.7 0.8 to 5.8
Min. ignition energy in air [mJ] 0.02 0.29 0.25 0.25
Autoignition Temp., [K] 858 813 >500 >500
Burning vel. in NTP air, [cm s
1] 265 to 325 37 to 45 18 381
Min. ignition energy in air, [mJ] 0.02 0.29 0.25 0.25
Flame temp. in air (f ¼ 1), [K] 2318 2148 2200 2200
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7
Since it is convenient to store liquid hydrogen in the fuselage
rather than in wings to minimize the surface/volume ratio
and heat losses, the conclusion is that the wing size is not
restricted by fuel storage capacity. Therefore, the aircrafts
may be designed with a 31% reduction in wing area. Further-
more, despite the smaller wing, the reduction of aerodynamic
efficiency due to bigger fuselage is compensated by the lower
block fuel weight, leading to an 11% reduction in energy uti-
lization [17].
Nowadays, hydrogen is also used in space propulsion,
mainly for upper stage engines in space launchers. It is also
foreseen to be a challenge to boost future hypersonic com-
mercial aircrafts employing supersonic ramjets (SCRAMJET),
due to its high energy content, rapid mixing and fast kinetics
(fuel and air must mix and react in less than one ms).
History of hydrogen as propellant
This section provides a brief historical overview of hydrogen
applications in aeronautics and space sectors, reporting the
main steps since its discovery until our days.
Aeronautic applications
Hydrogen was identified for the first time as a distinct element
by the British scientist Henry Cavendish in 1766 through a
reaction between zinc metal and hydrochloric acid. French
chemist Antoine Lavoisier gave hydrogen its name, derived
from the Greek words “hydro” and “genes”, meaning “water”
and “born of”.
In 1783, Jacques Alexander Cesar Charles, a french physi-
cist, launched the first hydrogen balloon flight. The un-
manned balloon, known as “Charliere”, flew to an altitude of
3 km [18]. In 1900 the flight of the first rigid airship known as
Zeppelin and flying with hydrogen, took place in Germany
based on the project of Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin (1893).
In 1937 Hans von Ohain produced a simple gas turbine
prototype operated with hydrogen gas supplied by an external
pressurized source. The resulting Heinkel-Strahltriebwerk 1
(HeS 1), German name for Heinkel Jet Engine 1, was tested in a
rig and exhibited a thrust of 250 lb [19].
In the fall 1955, the Wright Field power plant laboratory
planned an experiment to determine the feasibility of flying
an airplane fueled with liquid hydrogen. The airplane selected
for the project was the B-57B twin-engine bomber powered by
Curtiss Wright J-65 turbojet engines. The basic plan consisted
in equipping the airplane with a hydrogen fuel system, inde-
pendent of its regular fuel system, and modifying one engine
to operate with hydrogen as well as its regular fuel, which was
JP-4 (kerosene). The airplane took off and climbed on its reg-
ular fuel. After reaching level flight at about 16,400 m, the fuel
on one engine was switched from JP-4 to hydrogen. The
hydrogen fuel tank on the left wing of the airplane was 6.2 m
long with a volume of 1.7 m3. The stainless steel tank was
designed for a pressure of 3.4 atm and insulated by a 0.05 m
coat of plastic foam, covered by aluminum foil and encased in
a fiberglass covering. On the opposite wing there was the he-
lium supply consisting of 24 fiberglass spheres charged to
200 atm. The helium was used for pressurizing the hydrogen
10733
tank and for purging. A heat exchanger for vaporizing the
liquid hydrogen, a flow regulator, and a manifold for feeding
gaseous hydrogen to the engine comprised the rest of the
hydrogen system [7,20].
Since then, the US has been starting several other projects,
such as the CL-400 airplane. It had a fuselage diameter of 3 m
and a length of 49 m to accommodate 9740 kg of liquid
hydrogen. The engines, supplied by Pratt & Whitney, each
weighed 2850 kg, provided 42 kN at sea-level, and 27 kN at
Ma ¼ 2.5 and 29,000 m of altitude [21].
In 1988, the Soviet Union Tupolev Design Bereau success-
fully converted a 164-passenger TU-154 commercial jet to
operate one of its three engines with liquid hydrogen. The
maiden flight lasted 21 min [22].
Since 1991, two design projects for subsonic cryoplane
aircraft on the basis of an existing Airbus A310 were developed
by the NASA-Langley Research Centre and the Russian-
German Cooperative venture. The first adopted spherical
tanks for liquid hydrogen, increasing the thermal insulation
due to the reduced surface to volume ratio. The second was
designed with hydrogen tanks on top of the fuselage, thus
reducing the wing areas [23]. In 2000 the European Commis-
sion funded the CRYOPLANE project, a consortium of 35
partners from aviation sector, to cover all aspects relevant for
assessing the technical feasibility, safety, environmental
compatibility and economic viability of using Liquid Hydrogen
as fuel in aviation [24].
On 14 September 2013, Boeing’s liquid hydrogen-powered
Phantom Eye demonstrator successfully completed its fifth
flight reaching an altitude of 28,000 ft and a speed of 115 km/h
for nearly four and a half hours. Each of the two propulsion
systems consisted of a modified Ford 2.3 L engine, tuned to
operate with hydrogen, a reduction gearbox, and a 4-blade
propeller. The engines were originally designed for use with
some models of the petrol-burning Ford Fusion car. In order to
operate in the rarefied atmosphere at 65,000 ft, the engines
adopted a multiple turbocharger system that compressed the
low density air and provided 150 horsepower at sea level [25].
At present, Airbus is planning to test a new way to make its
planes more fuel-efficient. The idea consists in powering non-
propulsion systems (basically everything requiring electricity
in the plane) by a hydrogen fuel-cell, thus decreasing the load
of plane’s engines. This allows the engines to be kept off for
longer when the plane is on the ground and once in the air, the
fuel-cell can produce electricity more efficiently than the en-
gines. Furthermore, if the hydrogen that powers it comes from
a clean source, a compounding of the environmental benefits
is got. A 90 kW hydrogen fuel cell will be installed into an A320
owned by the German Aerospace Center with the aim of
commencing test flights by 2015 [26].
The development of hypersonic flight vehicles (Ma > 5) for
long-range passengers’ transportation or launch vehicles for
space applications requires the development of efficient pro-
pulsion systems, and liquid hydrogen has no competitors as
fuel in this field (see Fig. 1). One of the recent successful
hydrogen-fueled scramjet flight test is the X-43A launched on
27 March 2004 [27]. The X-43A is part of NASA’s Hyper-X
program to develop new air-breathing propulsion systems
for hypersonic flights [28]. Apart from flying at Mach 9.6 it also
flew autonomously under its own power and achieved
10734 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7

Fig. 1 e Specific impulse of various jet engines.

positive acceleration while climbing at Mach 7 for approxi-
mately 10 s.
One of the most recent hydrogen fueled experiments is
Australia’s scramjet HyShot (see Fig. 2). HyShot is a research
experiment of the University of Queensland. The goal of the
research program was to demonstrate the feasibility of
igniting and maintaining supersonic combustion under real-
istic flight conditions, and to compare results gathered from
observed flight with similar shock tunnel experiments [29].
The HyShot launches used a two stage Terrier-Orion Mk70
rocket to boost the payload and the empty Orion motor to an
apogee of approximately 330 km; as the spent motor and its
attached payload falls back to Earth, the vehicle is then
accelerated. The trajectory is designed so that between 23 km
and 35 km, the flight Mach number is 7.6. EU also funded a
project “LAPCAT II” [30] to study the feasibility of a long range
hypersonic commercial transport flying from Bruxelles to
Sydney using hydrogen as fuel.
Companies analyzed more than 1100 different combinations
of propellants researching those with the best ignition capa-
bility. After 1945, other countries worked on the same goal, but
their attention focused only on a small number of fuels and
oxidants [54]. The US, URSS, Europe, Japan, China and India,
trained an important technological effort to search for the
most performing liquid propellants; more than 1800 fuels and
about 2000 bipropellant combinations were analyzed in labo-
ratories. Only a few hundred were bench tested with small
thrust chambers and about only 40 different combinations
flew at least once [56]. Such an effort, so economically
wasteful involved many organizations, including obviously
companies producing liquid propellant rockets, and also
various oil and chemical companies. Among all the investi-
gated propellants combinations, the unique with high release
of energy that was immediately accepted and extensively

Rocket propulsion applications

Since the beginning of liquid rocket propulsion [55,56], a large

number of propellant combinations were investigated
focusing on various properties, such as energy content, den-
sity, volatility, corrosively and reactivity, to evaluate those
potentially suitable to become the effective propellants for
space propulsion [57e59]. The analytical assessments and
experimental testing were centered on several critical points:
the determination for physical and chemical properties,
storability, high power performance, flammability limits,
cooling efficiency, low freezing point and high boiling tem-
perature to adapt to the mission operative limits; also stability
during storage, not dangerousness and toxicity of the exhaust
gas at environmental level were accounted for. Before and Fig. 2 e HyShot scramjet experiment developed by
during the Second World War (1935e1945), several German University of Queensland.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7
used internationally was that of liquid oxygen and liquid
hydrogen (LO2/LH2).
This section reports main programs related to hydrogen
fueled rockets in different nations. This historical journey
shows that the US reached high and significant technical
achievements. In fact, the US first used a hydrogen fueled
cryogenic engine in 1963, followed by Japan in 1977, France in
1979, China in 1984, Russia in 1987 and India in January 2014.
This brief excursus on hydrogen worldwide applications
points out that the interest of hydrogen in space application is
alive and in continuos progress.
The United States
In the United States, different companies (Aerojet, Rockedyne,
Pratt & Whitney, Marshall Space Flight Center) started studies
on liquid hydrogen fueled engines. Aerojet’s first studies on
liquid hydrogen date back to sixties; the focus was on the
demonstration of the largest and most powerful rocket engine
to be designed, the M-1 [31,32]. This liquid hydrogen-fueled
engine exhibited a thrust of 6.67  103 kN, and was an
upgraded version of the F-1 engine, i.e., the engine that pow-
ered the first stage of the Saturn V rocket to the moon.
The first operational rocket to use hydrogen as fuel was the
RL10 Centaur’s upper stage [33,34] in 1963. This rocket devel-
oped by the Marshall Space Flight Center and Pratt & Whitney
produced 64.7e110 kN of thrust in vacuum, and a vacuum
specific impulse of 373e470 s, with a mass ranging from 131 to
317 kg. The RL10 family engines were and are still used in
many known launchers, as the S-IV second stage of the Saturn
I rocket (RL10A-3); these are still used in the Centaur upper
stages of the Atlas V and Titan rockets (RL10A-4-2) and in the
upper stage of the Delta IV rockets (RL10-B-2).
In the same years, due to the incomparable high perfor-
mance of hydrogen, the US Rocketdyne began to develop the J-
2 high-energy rocket engine [35], fueled by liquid oxygen and
hydrogen. In 1966, this engine flew on NASA’s SII second stage
of the Saturn V launch vehicle and the SIVB upper stage of
both SaturnIB and Saturn V. These engines produced 1033 kN
of thrust in vacuum, a vacuum specific impulse of 421 s, with a
mass of approximately 1788 kg. The J-2 engines were Amer-
ica’s largest production liquid hydrogen fueled rocket engine
before the RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine [36]. An upgraded
version of the J2 engine, the J-2X [37], is now under develop-
ment for use on the Earth Departure Stage of NASA’s Space
Shuttle replacement, the Space Launch System.
Due to the success of hydrogen fueled engines, in 1969
NASA awarded contracts to General Dynamics, Lockheed,
McDonnell Douglas and North American Rockwell to start the
development of the Space Shuttle [38]. The RS-25, a liquid-
fuel cryogenic rocket engine, otherwise known as the Space
Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) flew for the first time in 1981.
This engine produced 1859 kN of thrust at liftoff with a spe-
cific impulse of 453 s in vacuum and it was capable of
throttling between 67% and 111% of its rated power level in
one-percent increments. The RS-25 operated between
extreme temperatures: the liquid hydrogen fuel was stored at

250  C while the temperature in the combustion chamber
reached 3315  C.
In the US, the use of hydrogen was also proposed for the
DC-X vertical take off and landing craft [39] and the Lockheed
10735
Martin’s Venture Star airplane-like landing vehicle [40], but
these programs were soon canceled.
Recently, the Blue Origin US private company, started to
develop hydrogen fueled engines for an orbital human
spacecraft based on the DC-X design. A number of test flights
began in 2005; in October 2012, the seventh full-power test of
the thrust chamber for the Blue Origin BE-3 liquid oxygen/
liquid hydrogen rocket engine achieved a full thrust of about
440 kN [41]. In January 2013, the BE-3 [42] new LH2/LOX cryo-
genic engine was successfully tested demonstrating extraor-
dinary good performance. In fact, the engine produced 490 kN
of thrust at full power, and was throttled down to 110 kN for
use in controlled vertical landings.
Japan
In Japan, hydrogen was chosen as fuel for the upper stage
propulsion system of the H-I and H-II series launch vehicles
[43,44]. The Mitsubishi LE-5 liquid rocket engine flew the first
time as third stage engine for the H-I launch vehicle in 1977:
this is a fairly small engine, both in size and thrust output,
being in the range of 89e130 kN thrust class. The LE-7, instead,
was designed to be a medium-sized engine for the H-II.
Europe
In Europe, hydrogen found its application in the HM7 cryo-
genic rocket engine [45]. This engine flew in 1979, powering
the third stage of the Ariane 1. The evolved HM7B, with higher
specific impulse, powered the third stage of Ariane 2, 3 and 4.
It was also used in the Ariane 5 in 2005 and, currently, it
powers the upper stage of the Ariane 5 ECA, ESC-A. In 1988,
hydrogen was also considered for the Vulcain cryogenic en-
gine [46], to be used on the Ariane 5 first stage. This engine
flew for the first time 1996; the updated version of the engine,
the Vulcain 2 engine, first successfully flew in 2005 [47]. The
European Space Agency is still continuing its research and
development on hydrogen fueled rockets. In particular, the
Vinci engine is designed to power the new upper stage of
Ariane 5, ESC-B, and to be the first European re-ignitable
cryogenic upper stage engine, raising the launcher’s GTO
performances to 12 t [48].
China
In the early 80s China [49] started studies on the YF-73 LH2/
LOX fueled cryogenic engine, that successfully flew the first
time in 1984. Studies on hydrogen continued with the upgra-
ded version of the YF-73, i.e., the YF-75 and the YF-77. The
development of the YF-75 China’s second generation of
cryogenic gimballed engine began in the early 90s and its first
flight was in 1994. The YF-77 development began in 2000, with
testing directed by the China National Space Administration
(CNSA) commenced in 2005 and first flight in 2007. This engine
produced a thrust of 78.45 kN and a specific impulse of 437 s.
Russia
Although the Soviet Companies focused their expertise on
hydrocarbon fuel space applications, three LH2/LOX rockets of
particular interest were also developed in the URSS. In the
early 60s, the RD-56 engine (7.5 tforce thrust level) was devel-
oped by Khrunichev State Research and Production Space
Center (KBKhM). At the same time, the RD-57 (40 tforce thrust
10736 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7
level) was developed in the Saturn Design Bureau. Both en-
gines were developed for the URSS Moon program. During the
70s, the RD-0120 hydrogen engine was designed by KBKhA for
the core stage of the giant Energia booster. A cluster of four
RD-0120 engines performed flawlessly during two launches of
the Energia rocket in 1987 and 1988. However, the program
was canceled due to the economic collapse in the 90s. At the
same time, the Russian government managed to secure a
contract with India to supply a modified version of the RD-56
engine for the upper stage of nation’s GSLV launch vehicle.
The KVD-1 hydrogen-powered engine successfully debuted on
an Indian rocket, thus preserving Russia’s potential in devel-
opment of such technology. All these Soviet LH2 engines
employed the staged combustion cycle, while the American
RL-10 engine remained the only upper stage engine using the
expander cycle. In 1997, Khrunichev enterprise, the manu-
facturer of the Proton rocket, assigned KBKhA to develop a
LH2/LOX RD-0146 engine [52] with a thrust of 10 tons and
equipped with a nozzle extension for best performance at
high altitude. The vehicle was conceived as the most powerful
upper stage of advanced launch veichles and oxygen/
hydrogen booster units (Proton-M, Angara family, Soyuz 2e3).
This engine was the first Russian rocket engine without a gas
generator, equipped with extendable nozzle and without a
cooling system; it was capable of multiple firings and thrust
control in two planes. The first firing of RD-0146D took place
successfully on November 20, 2013 [53].
India
India started its studies on liquid hydrogen for space appli-
cations in the early 90s, planning to use the Russian-built
hydrogen/oxygen cryogenic engines and technical know-
how [50]. Due to the US authorities sanctions on Glavkos-
mos, the Russian company providing technology to India, the
Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre, a subsidiary of ISRO (Indian
Space Research Organisation), decided to start developing an
indigenous hydrogen fueled engine, the CE-20. This engine
was developed to power the upper stage of the Geosynchro-
nous Satellite Launch Vehicle III. After ten years, ISRO suc-
cessfully launched the GSLV-D5 rocket (powered by an
indigenous hydrogen fueled cryogenic engine) from the Satish
Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota on 5th January 2014 [51].
Seventeen minutes after lift-off, the rocket successfully
injected the GSAT-14 communication satellite into geosyn-
chronous transfer orbit. The combustion chamber burnt
liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen at 6 MPa with 5.05 engine
mixture ratio, producing a nominal thrust of 200 kN, a thrust-
to-weight ratio of 34.7 and a specific impulse of 444 s in
vacuum.
Liquid hydrogen performance for rocket propulsion
Nevertheless the disadvantages associated to the low density,
the hydrogen/oxygen extraordinary performance dominated
and still dominates some rocket applications. The LO2/LH2
combination is preferred particularly for upper stages of
launchers, as in the case of the US Pratt & Whitney RL-10
[60,61] or the Rocketdyne J-2 [35]. In fact, the reason that
hydrogen is still not more widely used in space missions is due
to the difficulty in storing and transporting it, particularly for
extended periods of time, as well as to problems meeting
volumetric constraints [63e65]. Instead, for launch vehicle
applications, the fuel can be loaded into the launch vehicle
very shortly before take off and it is burnt up in rocket in a
comparatively short time, before boil off becomes a serious
problem.
In order to estimate the hydrogen benefit with respect to
conventional rocket propellants, a comparison based on the
specific impulse is shown. These calculations were performed
by means of the NASA CEA code [68], assuming a chamber
pressure pc ¼ 10 MPa, an oxidant to fuel mass ratio O/F ¼ 1e8
and a nozzle pressure expansion ratio pc/pe ¼ 30. Fig. 3 shows
that for the same engine conditions, the combination LH2/LO2
has an Isp about 34% higher than RP-1/LO2, confirming
hydrogen has a specific impulse remarkably higher than all
other classic propellant combinations. The hydrogen/oxygen
propellant combination reaches the highest specific impulse,
361.8 s, at O/F ¼ 4.5. Increasing the expansion ratio by 33.3%,
i.e., from pc/pe ¼ 30 to 40, the specific impulse increases from
361.8 s to 372.2 s, i.e., by about 2.8%. As for the RP-1/O2 com-
bination, this reaches its maximum Isp of 292 s at O/F ¼ 2.5.
Nevertheless the lower specific impulse with respect to liquid
hydrogen, the RP-1 propellant has been extensively used over
the years, due to its high density, low vapor pressure, eco-
nomicity, storability and stability at ambient temperature (the
first stages of Titan I, Saturn I and Saturn V launchers).
The same analysis with the LH2/LF2 combination, not re-
ported here, shows that fluorine allows reaching a still higher
specific impulse, about 401.7 s. However, the high toxicity of
LH2/LF2 exhausts, the dangerousness to handle and store
fluorine, made this combination not applicable.
Among the various propellant combinations, also hydra-
zine (N2H4), or mono-methyl hydrazine (MMH) with nitrogen
tetroxide NTO (N2O4), or nitric acid (HNO3) are highly used for
space propulsion, in particular for orbital maneuvering and
satellite attitude control systems. Fig. 3 shows that for the
same engine conditions (pc ¼ 10 MPa, O/F ¼ 1e8, pc/pe ¼ 30), the
maximum specific impulse of the MMH/N2O4 combination is
Fig. 3 e Specific impulse vs equivalence ratio of different
fuels.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7 10737

liquid oxygen were calculated assuming O2 at its NBP (90 K)

and fuels at either 298 K or their NBP; performance with H2O2
as oxidizer were calculated assuming H2O2 at 298 K and fuels
at their NBP or 298 K. The oxidizers density is of 1440 kg/m3 for
both.
With propellants at their normal boiling point (or at 25  C
for those storable without excessive pressure, see Table 2),
there are 4 propellant combinations (bold) with liquid oxygen
that give a payload capability 10% higher than the classic
combination of RP-1 and LO2. As for the LH2/LO2 combination,
it has the highest Vacuum specific Impulse, i.e., about 125% of
the classic RP-1/LO2, whereas, the payload capability is 54%.
Therefore, this combination performs well in systems which
are not volume limited, while assuming a constant size
vehicle for all propellants it presents the minimum payload. A
32% increase of the payload for LH2/LO2 may be obtained by
increasing the density by means of pre-chilling before loading.
As for the RP-1 and H2O2, eight propellant combinations give
better performance in term of payload capability at the given
Fig. 4 e Volumetric impulse vs equivalence ratio of
MR (mixture ratio). This said, hydrogen production and stor-
different fuels.
age (large volume requirement) still remain critical issues for
its successful application.

284 s at O/F ¼ 2. The comparison of the volumetric specific

impulses (r*Isp) in Fig. 4 shows that depending on the oxidizer
to fuel ratio, the RP-1/O2 and MMH/N2O4 fuels have similar
behavior. Below O/F ¼ 2.5, the combination MMH/N2O4 has a
volumetric specific impulse 15.5% higher than the other pro-
pellants; above O/F ¼ 3.5, LH2/LO2 still remains the most per-
forming propellant combination.
In Table 2, a summary of propellant properties and per-
formance is reported [62]. The density value in column three is
calculated at NBP (Normal Boiling Point), or for those pro-
pellants which are liquid, at near-ambient conditions, i.e.,
298 K (bold). RP-1 has no defined NBP: the density 820 kg/m3 is
that at 298 K. The last four columns show performances of
these propellants with Liquid Oxygen and with Hydrogen
Peroxide at a given mass mixture ratio (MR). Performance with
Hydrogen fueled engines
Hydrogen in low Mach number flights
When hydrogen is burnt in aero gas turbines several issues
need to be solved. In fact, in addition to systems for evapo-
ration of hydrogen (which is stored in tanks in a liquid state),
it is necessary to redesign the combustor to exploit the
considerable physical properties of hydrogen (high flame
speed, large diffusivity, large range of flammability) and thus
increase the efficiency of the combustion chamber. A
combustor suitable for burning conventional fuels, having a
limited number of fuel injectors, does not allow the complete
mixing of hydrogen and air. When this happens, high

Table 2 e Propellant properties and performance when burning hydrogen with LO2 and H2O2.
Fuel DH+f TNBP rNBP MR Isp Payload
[kJ/mol] [K] [kg m
3] [e] [s] [Tons]
LO2 H2O2 LO2 H2O2 LO2 H2O2
Hydrogen (H2)
9.00 20 70 6 15 469.1 384.1 9.35 3.81
Methane (CH4)
89.54 112 423 3.5 8.4 386.4 345.8 12.78 5.32
Ethane (C2H6)
99.16 184 544 3.2 7.8 384.3 346.1 15.29 7.24
Propane (C3H8)
98.74 231 582 3.1 7.7 382.2 345.6 15.21 7.42
Butane (C4H10)
141.7 273 573 3 7.5 374.1 345.4 14.32 7.13
RP-1 (..CH2..)
23.85 NA 820 2.4 7.2 375.9 343.7 16.64 8.48
O-xylene (C8H10) 18.99 418 875 2.6 6.7 372 343.2 15.51 8.65
Furfural alcohol (C8H10)
218.40 443 1126 1.5 3.8 356.9 337.3 10.62 6.03
Ethylene (C2H4) 33.89 169 569 2.6 7 388.4 351.1 16.56 9.81
Propylene (C3H6) 19.66 225 611 2.7 7.2 385.7 349.5 16.8 9.73
1,2-Butadiene (C4H6) 140.7 284 645 2.6 6.7 387.1 351.4 18.21 10.92
1,3-Butadiene (C4H6) 88.7 269 614 2.5 6.8 382.9 348.9 15.16 9.15
1,3-Cyclopentadiene (C5H6) 132.63 314 796 2.4 6.6 378.8 347.6 17.27 10.41
Cyclopropane (C3H6) 54.39 240 698 2.6 7.1 388.8 351.5 20.36 11.91
UDMH (C2H8N2) 49.79 336 786 1.8 4.5 385.4 349 19.32 9.85
Methykacetylene (C3H4) 166.52 250 671 2.3 6.4 391.1 349.2 20.17 9.86
Propargyl alcohol (C3H4O) 42.2 387 944 1.6 4.1 378.1 349.8 18.8 11.83
10738 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7

Fig. 5 e Hydrogen injectors tested: (a) NASA N1 injector; (b) Configuration C1; Configuration C2 (c); (d) Configuration C3-C4;
(eef) Details of hydrogen injectors assembly [70]; reprinted by permission of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics Inc.

temperature stoichiometric layers are formed in the com-

bustion chamber (due to large diffusive scales and fast ki-
netics) with consequent large formation rates of NO
pollutants [66].
For H2 combustion, thermal NO production is the most
contributing mechanism to the total NOx pollutants. The
thermal NO formation process is an endothermic mechanism
and it has high kinetic rate at temperature above 1850 K [67]. In
order to reduce NOx emissions, the attention is focused on
both the reduction of the flame temperature and the residence
time of the reactive mixture within the combustion chamber.
It is also possible to modify the fuel-air ratio toward leaner
combustion regimes, at all engine load conditions, because of
the wider flammability range of H2 (with respect to kerosene)
without blowout [69]. Furthermore, the higher H2 flame speed
results in a shorter combustion chamber, thus reducing the
residence time of combustion process and cooling re- Fig. 6 e NOx ppm for all configurations at p [ 100 psi, inlet
quirements. Another advantage is that the injected H2 is not combustor air T [ 426.7  C, Dp/p [ 4% [70]; reprinted by
liquid as kerosene, hence the formation of local stoichiometric permission of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
high temperature fuel/air region close to the evaporating fuel Astronautics, Inc. The chemical kinetics used in the well
drop is avoided. stirred reactor is from Ref. [73].
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7
Substantially two burner concepts were developed in the
last years, the Micro-Mix concept [10], based on non-premixed
combustion, and the Lean Direct Injection (LDI) [70], based on
premixed combustion. Both concepts increase the Hydrogen/
Air mixing to avoid large diffusion flames and reduce the
flame length. To achieve these goals several investigations on
H2 injection systems were performed [10,69,70].
Marek et al. [70] investigated the combustion performances
of different hydrogen Lean Direct Injection systems with
several air temperature inlet conditions (from 315 to 537  C),
pressure (from 60 to 200 psi) and lean equivalence ratio up to
0.48.
The NASA Glenn LDI N1 injector, shown in Fig. 5a, uses two
opposing hydrogen jets in the mixing tube. The jet penetration
and mixing were designed using H2 in cross flow injection that
results in very short area of premixing at the exit of the main
elements. In this configuration, air flows through 25 injection
elements with side injection of gaseous hydrogen located at
two positions 180 apart (see Fig. 5f). The air elements are
0.0635 m in diameter, and the hydrogen injection holes are
0.508 mm in diameter. Different configurations were tested.
Configuration C1, shown in Fig. 5b, is based on designed rocket
injection technology with a center cross hydrogen jet that
mixes with air flowing through eight angled jets. In order to
maximize the packaging of the air flow area elements of the
N1 injector design, the configuration C2, shown in Fig. 5c,
adopts triangular holes with hydrogen normal injection on
each edge of the triangle. Configuration C3, shown in Fig. 5d, is
a configuration with a single central hydrogen nozzle at the
center of each hole with a large amount of counter swirl to
produce mixing. Configuration C4 is based on C3, with the
Fig. 7 e Micromix system: a) H2 ring with air guiding panel; b) Particular of the microinjection H2/air holes; c)
Microcombustor system scheme [74].
10739
central hole replaced by four small radial hydrogen jets per
injection point and no air swirl in order to reduce pressure
losses.
Fig. 6 shows NOx concentration in the experiments per-
formed at the NASA GRC RCL-23 for all H2 injector configura-
tions at a pressure of 100 psi, inlet combustor air temperature
of 426.7  C and compared with Jet-A fuel. No flashback or
autoignition phenomena were encountered in the experi-
ments. C1 and C2 LDI concepts showed the best results in
terms of NOx reduction, more than a half of Jet-A. Adopting as
choice criteria the injector complexity, the durability and low
NOx, the configuration C4 performed the best at equivalence
ratios lower than 0.3. The potential of C2 and C3 LDI injectors
may be improved with advanced manufacturing and cooling
techniques. They may be implemented in high power turbine
combustors.
Premixing has the drawback of autoignition and flashback
danger. Various H2/Air burner concepts, employing the prin-
ciple of lean non-premixed Micro-Mix combustion, were
developed and tested in recent years [10,69], demonstrating
safe combustion and minimizing NOx formation. The Micro-
Mix combustor consists of a very large number of diffusion
flames uniformly distributed across the burner’s main cross
section. The aim is to minimize the scales of mixing, thus
increasing the mixing intensity [10] and shrinking the geo-
metric size of combustion zone. The maximization of mixing
intensity is limited by the pressure loss (providing energy for
the dissipative turbulent mixing process) condition of modern
gas turbine combustors, where the losses should not exceed
4% [71]. Anyway, because of the higher flame speed and faster
kinetic rate of H2 than other fuels, the possibility of
10740 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7
Fig. 8 e Comparison of NOx emissions in Micro-Mix and
non-Micro-Mix burners: ( ) original combustor nozzle with
H2 injection; ( ) original combustor with kerosene; ( )
Micro-Mix H2 combustor, inverse diffusive combustion; ( )
Micro-Mix H2 combustor, regular diffusive combustion [71].
miniaturization of H2/Air diffusion flames exceeds those of
other fuels [66,69]. An example of a Micro-Mix burning system
is shown in Fig. 7a [74]. Each H2 micro-injector is coupled with
a correspondent air guiding panel gate. So, every combination
of gate and injection hole is an independent jet in cross-flow
(Fig. 7b, c).
A Micro-Mix hydrogen combustor was designed, manu-
factured and tested for demonstration of further NOx reduc-
tion capabilities. It was installed in an auxiliary power unit
(APU) GTCP 36-300 on different aircrafts, such as Airbus A320,
for providing electrical and pneumatic power to the aircraft
[10]. Dahl and Suttrop [10] showed a substantial reduction of
NOx formation with respect to conventional combustors and
fuels as kerosene. The results (see Fig. 8), showed that avoid-
ing stoichiometric conditions by means of rapid mixing of
hydrogen with air, may reduce by an order of magnitude NOx
pollutants at all engine power operations [71,72].
Fig. 9 e Schematic of a TBCC scramjet [100].
Hydrogen in high Mach number flights
The importance of mastering hypersonics lies in applying it to
space launchers and trans-atmospheric commercial vehicles.
Within the development of engines for supersonic civil
transport with Mach numbers ranging from 4 to 8, classical
turbo-jet engines need to be replaced by advanced air-
breathing propulsion concepts. Two types of air-breathing
engines for high-speed aircrafts have so far been success-
fully developed: the turbojet and the ramjet.
The turbojet, based on active compression, has reached a
high level of development in the mid 40s. Supersonic appli-
cations (without use of hydrogen) of turbojets in commercial
aviation are the well-known Olympus 593 engine of Snecma/
Rolls-Royce used for the Concorde and the P&W J58 turbojet
of the Blackbird SR-71 aircraft which has an afterburner fed in
part by air coming from the compressor. Thermal aspects
limit the flight Mach number for both air-breathing types as
well as the flight duration. However, even at moderate pres-
sure ratios, turbojets become impractical beyond Mach 3
when using conventional materials and classical thermody-
namic cycles [75].
Ramjet engines, in which the incoming air flow speed is
decreased to subsonic speed relative to the engine, can be
efficiently used for Ma ¼ 3e5 flight regimes. However, ramjets
are considered feasible up to Mach 7. Beyond this, the
increasing stagnation enthalpy prohibits further acceleration
of the jet flow due to endothermic dissociation of the com-
bustion products. The consequence is a high loss of energy in
the exhaust due to a large amount of unreacted species.
Thermal limits for ramjets are alleviated by keeping super-
sonic flow conditions (Ma w 2e4) in the combustion chamber
(scramjets, i.e., supersonic combustion ramjets) with corre-
sponding lower static temperature. Propulsion systems using
external air, like ramjets and scramjets, can save a large
fraction of the weight (and bulk) of carrying on-board liquid
oxygen (LOX) and may reduce orbiting costs by about an order
of magnitude with respect to rockets [76,77].
The main drawback of ramjets is that they require an in-
tegrated accelerator to reach their minimum working speed,
whilst turbojets are able to accelerate a vehicle from zero up to
its cruise speed. Hence, an air-breathing (non-turbojet) pro-
pulsion system will be a combined cycle operating from take-
off to high-speed cruise. Two combined cycle systems
currently available are the turbo-rockets, i.e., rocket-based
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7 10741

Fig. 10 e a) Hyshot schematic, in blue a portion of the combustion chamber; b) Instantaneous snapshot of the Mach number
in the Hyshot II scramjet engine: symmetry injector plane [81]. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 11 e Instantaneous stoichiometric flame surface colored by temperature and section views of numerical results of the
HyShot II scramjet [81].
10742 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7
combined cycles (RBCC), and the turbo-ramjets, i.e., turbine-
based combined cycles (TBCC).
A turborocket is a type of aircraft engine combining ele-
ments of a jet engine and a rocket. It typically comprises a
multi-stage fan driven by a turbine, which is driven by the hot
gases exhausting from a series of small rocket-like motors
mounted around the turbine inlet. The turbine exhaust gases
mix with the fan discharge air, and burn with the air from the
compressor before exhausting through a convergent-
divergent propelling nozzle.
The air turboramjet engine is a combined cycle engine that
merges aspects of turbojet and ramjet engines. Air passes
through an inlet and is then compressed by an axial
compressor. That compressor is driven by a turbine, which is
powered by hot, high pressure gas from a combustion cham-
ber. These initial aspects are very similar to how a turbojet
operates, however, there are several differences. The first is
that the combustor in the turboramjet is often separated from
the main air flow. Instead of combining air from the
compressor with fuel to burn, the turboramjet combustor may
use hydrogen and oxygen, carried on the aircraft. The air
compressed by the compressor bypasses the combustor and
turbine section of the engine, then it is mixed with the turbine
exhaust. The turbine exhaust can be designed to be fuel-rich
(i.e., the combustor does not burn all the fuel) which, when
mixed with the compressed air, creates a hot fuel-air mixture
which is ready to burn again. Additional fuel is also typically
injected. The exhaust is ejected through a propelling nozzle,
generating thrust.
Here, attention is posed on TBCC. In the TBCC design
concepts, sketched in Fig. 9, the turbine flowpath is located
parallel to and above the high-speed ramjet/scramjet flow-
path and is closed off after ramjet take-over. The process of
transitioning from the low-speed turbine flowpath to the
high-speed flowpath is the first critical combined cycle mode
transition. The acceleration through the ramjet mode to the
scramjet mode represents the second critical transition, the
dual-mode. Examples of TBCC engines are the J58 engine of
the SR-71 (USA), the proposed engine for the Sänger first stage
(Germany) and the “S-engine” precooled turbojet using
hydrogen as fuel and coolant of the hypersonic experimental
Fig. 12 e LAPCAT A2 vehicle with 4 scimitar engines wing-
mounted [96].
Fig. 13 e Schematic of the scimitar engine [97].
turbojet vehicle HYTEX (JAPAN Aerospace Exploration
Agency) [78,79].
Hyshot II: an example of scramjet
The flow field within the combustor of scramjet engines is
very complex and poses a considerable challenge in design
and development of a supersonic combustor with an opti-
mized geometry. This is why the study of mixing and com-
bustion in supersonic flows is the topic of an on-going
research. Scramjet combustors shall promote sufficient mix-
ing of fuel and air so that the desired chemical reactions and
thus heat release can occur within a short residence time
(w1 ms) [80].
The complex phenomenon of supersonic combustion in-
volves turbulent mixing, shock interaction and heat release in
supersonic flows. Hyshot II scramjet, first introduced in
Aeronautic Applications Section, is a practical example of
such an engine. The HyShot scramjet geometry consists of a
rectangular air intake 305 mm long and 100 mm wide, a
combustor 300 mm long and 75 mm wide, and a thrust plate
200 mm long  75 mm wide. The intake is a 17 inclined wedge
compressing the incoming hypersonic flow (see Fig. 10a). The
combustor is 300 mm long and has a constant rectangular
area, 9.8 mm high and 75 mm wide. The H2 is injected at sonic
speed in cross flow with respect to the incoming supersonic
air stream by means of four 2 mm diameter injectors located
40 mm downstream of the combustor inner surface leading
edge. With this injection configuration, the fuel acts as an
obstruction to the cross flow and produces a strong shock
wave. This shock interacts with the boundary layer on the
wall to form a complex flow system, in which supersonic and
subsonic pressure regions co-exist near the injector (see
Fig. 10b as an example).
The HyShot II model scramjet has been the subject of many
studies. Experimentally, both flight [83,82] and ground [84,85]
measurements have provided useful data on the operation
of highspeed air-breathing vehicles. However, many critical
aspects of the combustion processes are not directly acces-
sible to experimental measurements. Computations are
therefore a useful complement for physical understanding,
design, and failure analysis purposes. This explains the large
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7
number of computational studies on the HyShot II system,
ranging from quasi-one-dimensional models to, more
recently, large-eddy simulations (LES) [86e88].
Theoretical work by these authors [89] showed that mixing
can be accelerated by increasing streamwise vorticity. Looking
at vorticity transport equation, this may be achieved by
intensifying the baroclinic term, i.e., by favoring the formation
of pressure and density gradients. This can be obtained by
means of different injector designs, such as transverse in-
jectors [90], swirl injectors [91,92], strut injectors [93], wall
injectors [94], swept ramp injectors [95] or exploiting the
physical features of the fuel, such as its low density. Numer-
ical simulations [81] showed that in the region near fuel in-
jection the baroclinic source term for methane and kerosene
would be eight and eighty times smaller than that of hydrogen
(density equal to w0.24 kg/m3 and w2.251 kg/m3 for methane
and kerosene, respectively) [81], at the same conditions of
pressure and temperature. This explains mixing enhance-
ment in supersonic combustion due to H2/Air fuel choice,
combustor geometry and injectors configuration. The combi-
nation of H2/Air features and cross flow injection configura-
tion enables high mixing within a short combustor.
Numerical results [81,87,88] confirmed hydrogen as the
best candidate for SCRJ engines. LES simulations of Hyshot II
combustor showed the flame anchoring upstream of the flow
injection (see Fig. 11), within the recirculation zone between
the bow shock and the fuel orifices (see Fig. 10b). Due to this,
H2/Air combustion was predicted very fast and efficient, e.g.,
with a combustion efficiency of 87.65%.
Scimitar: an example of air-turbo rocket engine
Since the early 90s, Reaction Engines Limited (REL) has been
designing the Skylon single stage to orbit spaceplane to pro-
vide a more economic access to space employing hydrogen as
fuel. This spaceplane employs the SABRE (Synergistic Air-
Breathing Rocket Engine) engine having a dual mode capa-
bility. This means that it is able to switch from air-breating to
rocket mode. In rocket mode, the engine works as a closed
cycle H2/O2 high specific impulse rocket. Since the air-
breathing mode operates on a turbomachinery based cycle,
the engine is also capable of generating static thrust (unlike
Fig. 14 e Scimitar basic cycle engine [97].
10743
ramjets). Engine development can therefore take place on
open test based facilities. In air-breathing mode, from take-off
to Ma ¼ 5, air is used instead of oxygen, increasing the
installed specific impulse 3e6 times. Optimum transition from
air-breathing to rocket mode with this type of power system
would occur at around Ma ¼ 5 and 26 km, after which the
vehicle climbs steeply out of the atmosphere to minimize drag
losses.
Since 2005, REL has been developing the Scimitar engine,
an upgrade of the high efficiency hydrogen fueled SABRE en-
gine supported by the European project LAPCAT having the
goal to investigate the feasibility of a Ma ¼ 5 vehicle for high
capacity passengers’ transportation. The Scimitar engine is
designed to propel the Ma ¼ 5 A2 LAPCAT vehicle (see Fig. 12)
having the exceptional range of 20,000 km to cover the dis-
tance from Bruxelles to Sydney in about 4e5 h (compared to a
nearly complete day of travel with a standard aircraft).
The Scimitar engine (powered by a variable cycle engine
that combines a turbofan based cycle with an air turbo-rocket
cycle) is designed for sustained Ma ¼ 5 cruise and for much
longer life than SABRE engine, designed instead for space ac-
cess. Other design requirements are that it must also fly with
acceptable efficiency at Mach 0.9 during overland flight path
segments to eliminate sonic boom, and be sufficiently quiet at
take-off to satisfy international noise regulations.
A scheme of the Scimitar engine is depicted in Fig. 13 [96]. A
block-scheme of the whole cycle is shown in Fig. 14. The inlet
cone employs a three-shock intake to slow down the air to
subsonic speeds. The fluid flow is entirely subsonic while
passing through the cycle, being supersonic only in the intake
and nozzle. The hot compressed air contributes to two flows:
the main core flow and the bypass flow.
The core flow downstream of the intake is pre-cooled down
to 635 K [97] by lightweight heat exchangers so that the
decelerated inlet air can be compressed and managed through
combustion by relatively conventional turbo-machinery. The
air pre-cooler consists of six segments and it adopts helium as
working fluid. Hydrogen is not used in the pre-cooling section
to avoid embrittlement of material due to the large tempera-
ture difference between hot compressed air and hydrogen it-
self. After the pre-cooling section, the core flow air passes
10744 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7

The helium, after pre-heating hydrogen, goes through a

Table 3 e Scimitar engine flight phases [98].
compressor. Then, part of it turns back to an intermediate
Mach Regime Mode Bypass Bypass section of the air pre-cooler, while the rest of it is heated by
range burner nozzle
the hot flue gases downstream of the pre-burner. This latter
0e0.9 Subsonic Turbofan On Open reheated part of helium goes through the turbine that drives
acceleration
the air compressor. Then, the expanded helium goes through
0.9 Subsonic cruise Turbofan Off Fully open
the regenerator heat exchangers and circulators (arranged
0.9e2.5 Supersonic Turbofan On Open
acceleration around the compressor) where hydrogen is firstly pre-heated.
2.5e5.0 Supersonic Ramjet þ ATR On Open The cryogenic liquid hydrogen, before entering the pre-
acceleration burner, is heated again in another heat exchanger by the
5.0 Supersonic cruise ATR Off Closed heated helium coming from the air pre-cooler.
This engine is able to achieve high-speed air-breathing
flight (twice that of a jet engine). The loop forms a self-starting
through a compressor driven by a helium stator-less counter
Brayton cycle, cooling critical parts of the engine and power-
rotating turbine. The compressor is a counter-rotating two
ing turbines. The cryogenic hydrogen flowing through the
spool machine with an overall pressure ratio of 4.07. It is
regenerator is the heat sink of the helium loop. The cycle ex-
observed that, contrarily to conventional turbojet engines, the
ploits the unique thermodynamic properties of liquid
air compressor and turbine are not coupled by the same
hydrogen, especially its high heat capacity, by using it as a
working fluid. Hence, the turbine efficiency is maintained near
heat sink to lower the temperature of the decelerated inlet air
the optimum point independently of the flight condition. After
so that it can be compressed and managed through combus-
passing through the compressor, the core air flows into the
tion by relatively conventional turbo-machinery.
pre-burner where a portion of the hydrogen is burnt. It is
The turbofan based cycle operates from take-off up to
observed that the pre-burner is switched on at flight speeds
Ma ¼ 2.5. Between Ma ¼ 2.5 and Ma ¼ 5 the engine has the dual
below the cruise at Ma ¼ 5, since the enthalpy of the incoming
operation of an air turbo-rocket with a ramjet burner in the
air is not sufficient to power the air compressor. Another
bypass. During cruise at Ma ¼ 5 the bypass is closed and the
portion of hydrogen goes to the bypass burner and nozzle, and
thrust is solely provided by the engine core, which operates as
to the core burner and nozzle. The bypass burner is switched
an air turbo-rocket.
on to increase thrust during acceleration phases, and it is
In 2012, Reaction Engines LTD [99] completed successfully
switched off during the subsonic cruise at Ma ¼ 0.9.
critical tests on the key pre-cooler technology of the SABRE
A portion of combustion products coming from the pre-
and Scimitar engines. The pre-cooler, shown in Fig. 15, has
burner goes to the core burner and nozzle. Another part ex-
tubes around 1 mm in diameter with wall thickness of 27 mm.
pands in a turbine that drives the bypass fan. Then, the latter
Over 100 test runs, undertaken at Reaction Engines Ltd’s fa-
expanded combustion products mix with the compressed
cility in Oxfordshire, integrated the ground-breaking flight-
bypass air flow before entering into the bypass burner and
weight cooling technology and frost control system with a jet
then into the bypass nozzle, thus exhausting around the core
engine and a novel helium cooling loop. These tests demon-
jet. The speed of the bypass fan is brought down as the bypass
strated the new technologies in the SABRE-Scimitar engine at
nozzle is progressively closed during operation. The bypass
the base of its highly innovative and efficient thermodynamic
nozzle has a petal arrangement (shown in yellow in Fig. 13)
cycle. Recent tests proved that the cooling technology is frost-
enabling its area to be varied over a wide range with
free at the crucial low temperature of
150  C. This success
maximum opening at take-off to fully closed [97]. The
adds to a series of other technology demonstrations under-
switching on/off of devices during different flight phases are
taken by the company including counter-rotating turbines,
summarized in Table 3 [98,97].
combustion chambers, rocket nozzles, and air intakes.

Conclusions

Hydrogen is the fuel of the future with regard to the envi-

Fig. 15 e Scimitar engine’s precooler unit [99].
ronmental problems and the sources of supply. When burnt
with air, the only products are NOx and water vapor. Water
vapor can contribute to global warming, but its effects can be
mitigated by reducing altitudes. In order to reduce NOx
emissions, hydrogen can be burnt with oxygen (as in space
transportation), or permanently at lean conditions and
reducing the residence time in the combustion chamber
(scramjet engines). Besides, it is possible to use advanced
methods, such as LDI or micro-combustion, which increase
the local mixing rate also at low equivalence ratios, thus
avoiding the formation of hot temperature spots, primarily
responsible for the NOx formation.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7
The article highlighted hydrogen as the best candidate for
long range transportation with potentially zero emissions.
Besides the positive features of hydrogen, its use also poses
several technical challenges, such as the development of
tanks for cryogenic liquid storage, the development of effi-
cient heat exchange systems for cooling the air entering into
the combustion chamber (hypersonic applications), and the
development of strategies to limit and control the effects of
strong thermal stresses in the structural parts. Although these
difficulties, various applications of hydrogen fueled engines
have been successfully used for civilian transport and others
are under development. These were reported in the article.
references
[1] Airbus SAS. Global market forecast 2012e2031: navigating
the future. Airbus; 2012.
[2] Kesgin U. Aircraft emissions at Turkish airport. Energy
2006;31:372e84.
[3] Lee JJ. Can we accelerate the improvement of energy
efficiency in aircraft systems? Energy Convers Manag
2010;51:189e96.
[4] Schnieder H, McKay D. Global energy resources and
hydrogen supply costs. Task final report 8.4-1. CRYOPLANE
project; 2001.
[5] Muradov NZ, Veziroglu TN. From hydrocarbon to hydrogen-
carbon to hydrogen economy. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2005;30:225e37.
[6] Dincer I. Green methods for hydrogen production. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2013;37:1954e71.
[7] Winter CJ. Hydrogen in high speed air transportation. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 1990;15:579e95.
[8] Contreras A. Hydrogen as aviation fuel: a comparison with
hydrocarbon fuels. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1997;22:1053e60.
[9] Singh R. Gas turbine generated pollutant emissions. Gas
turbine combustors. Cranfield, UK: School of Engineering,
Cranfield University.
[10] Dahl G, Suttrop F. Engine control and low e NOx combustion
for hydrogen fuelled aircraft gas turbines. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 1998;23:695e704.
[11] Nojoumi H, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Greenhouse gas emissions
assessment of hydrogen and kerosene-fueled aircraft
propulsion. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:1363e9.
[12] Yilmaz I, Ilbas M, Tastan M, Tarhana C. Investigation of
hydrogen usage in aviation industry. Energy Convers Manag
2012;63:63e9.
[13] Brewer GD. The prospects for liquid hydrogen fuelled
aircraft. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1982;7:21e41.
[14] Haglind F, Hasselrot A, Singh R. Potential of reducing the
environmental impact of aviation by using hydrogen.
Aeronaut J 2006;110:535e65.
[15] Sevensson F, Hasselrot A, Moldanova J. Reduced
environmental impact by lowering cruise altitude for liquid
hydrogen fuelled aircraft. Aerosp Sci Technol
2004;8:307e20.
[16] Corchero G, Montanes JL. An approach to the use of
hydrogen for commercial aircraft engines. Proc IMechE Part
G J Aerosp Eng 2005;219:35e44.
[17] Verstraete D. Long range transport aircraft using hydrogen
fuel. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38:14824e31.
[18] Brewer GD. Hydrogen aircraft technology. CRC Press; 1991.
[19] Conner M. Hans Von Ohain: elegance in flight. General
publishing series. American Institute for Aeronautics and
Astronautics; 2001.
10745
[20] Available at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4404/
ch6-4.html.
[21] Rich BR. Lockheed CL-400 liquid hydrogen fueled Mach 2.5
reconnaissance vehicle. In: Symposium on hydrogen fueled
aircraft; 15e16 May, 1973.
[22] Tupolev AA. Utilization of liquid hydrogen or liquid natural
gas as an aviation fuel. In: Conference proceedings, project
energy, International Academy of Sciences; 1994.
[23] Price RO. Liquid hydrogen alternative aviation fuel.
Automot Eng 1991;2:33.
[24] Westenberger A. Liquid hydrogen fuelled aircraft-ystem
analysis. Final technical report (publishable version),
Cryoplane project; 2003.
[25] Boeing’s phantom eye ford fusion powered stratocraft.
Register. 2010-07-13. Retrieved 2010-07-14.
[26] Available at: http://www.airbus.com/innovation/future-by-
airbus/fuel-sources-of-tomorrow/fuel-cells/.
[27] Moses PL, Rausch VL, Nguyen NT, Hill JR. NASA hypersonic
flight demonstrators-overview, status, and future plans.
Acta Astronaut 2004;55:619e30.
[28] Available at: http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-
main.html.
[29] Gardner T. Hyshot scramjet testing in the HEG [Ph.D.
thesis]. Brisbane, Australia: The University of Queensland;
2004.
[30] Available at: http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Space_Engineering/.
[31] Price D, Moise J. The M-1 rocket engine. SAE Technical Paper
630200, doi:10.4271/630200; 1963.
[32] Report 2555-M-1-F Development of a 1,500,000-lb-thrust
(nominal vacuum) liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen engine.,
http://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space_Engines/1967_M-1_
Final_Report.pdf; August 1967.
[33] Committee on Air Force and Department of Defense
Aerospace Propulsion Needs, National Research Council. A
review of United States Air Force and Department of
Defense Aerospace Propulsion Needs. The National
Academies Press; 2006, ISBN 9780309102476. http://www.
nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id¼1178Ø.
[34] Dawson VP. Taming liquid hydrogen: the centaur upper
stage rocket, 1958e2002. NASA-SP-2004-4230; 2004.
[35] J-2 Engine fact sheet, Saturn V news reference. NASA;
1968.http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/
499245mainJ2Enginefs.pdf.
[36] Wilhelm WF. Space shuttle orbiter main engine design.
Society of Automotive Engineers Transactions, 81; 1972.
Paper 72 0807.
[37] The J-2X Engine, NASA’s new upper stage engine fact sheet,
NASA FS-2011-11-083-MSFC 8-516900.http://www.nasa.gov/
pdf/528269main_J-2X_Facts2Ø11.pdf; 2011.
[38] Jenkins DR. Space shuttle: the history of the national space
transportation system: the first 100 missions. Specialty
Press; 2001, ISBN 0963397451.
[39] Dornheim MA. DC-X holds promise; big questions remain.
Aviat Week Space Technol 1995;143:9.
[40] Dale Reed R, Lister D. Wingless flight: the lifting body
story. NASA history series SP-4220. Books Express
Publishing; 2011.
[41] Morring F, Norris G. Blue origin tests new engine. Aviat
Week Space Technol 2013;177:43.
[42] Cowing K. Blue origin tests 100 k lb LOX/LH2 engine in
commercial crew program. NewSpace Watch. 2012-10-16,
http://archive.is/XtDg5; 2012.
[43] Sekigawa E, Mecham M. Mitsubishi advances LE-5 design as
H2 goes commercial. Aviat Week Space Technol 1996;145:3.
[44] Negoro N, Ogawara A, Onga T, Manako H, Kurosu A,
Yamanishi N, et al. Next booster engine LE-X in Japan. In:
43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference &
exhibit, AIAA paper; 2007. pp. 2007e5490.
10746 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7
[45] Pouliquen M, Gill GS. Performance characteristics of the
HM7 rocket engine for the Ariane launcher. J Spacecr
Rockets 1979;16:367e72.
[46] Kindermann R. Vulcain 2-A new thrust chamber for Ariane
5. Ind Diam Rev 2004;64:45e7.
[47] Chopinet JN, Lassoudière F, Fiorentino C, Alliot P,
Guedron S, Supié P, et al. Results of the Vulcain X
technological demonstration. In: 62nd international
astronautical congress, 8; 2011. pp. 6289e98.
[48] Alliot P, Dalbies E, Delange JF. Development status of the
VINCI engine for the Ariane 5 upper stage. doi:10.2514/
6.IAC-04-S.1.01. In: 55th international astronautical
congress of the International Astronautical Federation;
2004.
[49] Tan YH. Research on large thrust liquid rocket engine.
Yuhang Xuebao/J Astronaut 2013;34:1303e8.
[50] Kasturirangan K. Indian space programme. Acta Astronaut
2004;54:841e4.
[51] Lele A. GSLV-D5 success: a major booster to India’s space
program. The space review, http://www.thespacereview.
com/article/2428/1; 2006.
[52] Rachuk V, Titkov N. The first Russian LOX e LH2 expander
cycle LRE: RD0146. In: 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint
propulsion conference & exhibit, AIAA 2006-4904,
Sacramento, California; 2006.
[53] Remishevsky V, Belousov I, Troshchenko S. Main directions
of rocket propulsion development in Russia through 2015.
In: AIAA Paper 2006-5261, 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint
propulsion conference & exhibit, California; 2006.
[54] Peterson C, Hill P. Mechanics and thermodynamics of
propulsion. 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley; 1992.
[55] Sutton GP, Biblarz O. Rocket propulsion elements. 8th ed.
John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
[56] Sutton GP. History of liquid propellant rocket engines.
AIAA-Library of Flight Series; 2006.
[57] Edwards T. Liquid fuels and propellants for aerospace
propulsion: 1903e2003. J Propuls Power 2003;19:1089e107.
[58] Clark JD. Ignition. Rutgers University Press; 1972.
[59] Morgan O, Meinhardt D. Monopropellant selection criteria-
hydrazine and other options. AIAA Paper; 1995.
[60] Tucker SJE. The history of the RL 10 upper-stage rocket
engine 1956e1980, history of liquid rocket engine
development in the United States 1955e1980, Stephen E.
Doyle. AAS Hist Ser 1992;13:123e51.
[61] Mulready D. Advanced engine development at Pratt &
Whitney: the inside story of eight special projects
1946e1971. Warrrendale, PA: Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc.; 2001.
[62] Dunn B. Alternate propellants for SSTO launchers. In:
Adapted from a presentation at: space access 96, Phoenix
Arizona. http://archive.is/4ejd9; April 25e27, 1996.
[63] Friedlander A, Zubrin R, Hardy TL. Benefits of slush
hydrogen for space missions. NASA TM 104503; October
1991.
[64] Hardy TL, Margaret VW. Technology issues associated with
using densified hydrogen for space vehicles, NASA TM
105642. In: AIAA 92-3079, AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 28th joint
propulsion conference. Nashville, TN; July 1992.
[65] Mueller P, Durrant TC. Cryogenic propellant production,
liquefaction, and storage for a precursor to a Human Mars
Mission. In: ISRU III Technical Interchange Meeting,
Lockheed-Martin, Denver, CO, 1998, also Cryogenics 39;
1999. pp. 1021e8.
[66] Haglind F, Singh R. Design of aero gas turbines using
hydrogen. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2004;128:754e64.
[67] Lefebvre AH. Gas turbine combustion. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor:
Edwards Brothers; 1998.
[68] http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/CEAWeb.
[69] Ziemann J, Shum F, Moore M, Kluyskens D, Thomaier D,
Zarzalis N, et al. Low-NOx combustors for hydrogen fueled
aero engine. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1998;23:281e8.
[70] Marek CJ, Smith JD, Kundu K. Low emission hydrogen
combustors for gas turbines using lean direct injection. In:
41th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference and
exhibit, AIAA-2005-3776; 2005.
[71] Khandelwal B, Karakurt A, Sekaran PR, Sethi V, Singh R.
Hydrogen powered aircraft: the future of air transport. Prog
Aerosp Sci 2013;60:45e59.
[72] Dahl G, Suttrop F. Combustion chamber and emissions, the
micro mix hydrogen combustor technology. Task technical
report 4.4-5A. Cryoplane Project.
[73] Miller JA, Bowman CT. Mechanism and modeling of
nitrogen chemistry in combustion. Prog Energy Combust Sci
1989;15:287.
[74] Boerner S, Funke HHW, Hendrick P, Recker E, Elsing R.
Development and integration of a scalable low NOx
combustion chamber for a hydrogen-fuelled aerogas
turbine. Prog Propuls Phys 2013;4:357e72.
[75] Steelant J. LAPCAT: high-speed propulsion technology.
Advances on propulsion technology for hygh-speed aircraft.
Educational Notes RTO-EN-AVT-150, Paper 12; 2008.
pp. 12e38.
[76] Townend LH. Domain of the Scramjet. J Propuls Power
2001;17:2317e34.
[77] Fry RS. A century of ramjet propulsion technology
evolution. J Propuls Power 2004;20:27e58.
[78] Sato T, Taguchi H, Kobayashi H, Kojima T, Fukiba K,
Masaki D, et al. Development study of a precooled turbojet
engine. Acta Astronaut 2010;66:1169e76.
[79] Tsuchiya T, Takenaka Y, Taguchi H. Multidisciplinary
design optimization for hypersonic experimental vehicle.
AIAA J 2007;45:3021e3.
[80] Papamoschou D, Roshko A. Observation of supersonic free
shear lyers. AIAA Paper; 1986. 86-0162.
[81] Cecere D, Ingenito A, Giacomazzi E, Romagnosi L, Bruno C.
Hydrogen/air supersonic combustion for future hypersonic
vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36:11969e84.
[82] Mass NE, Smart MK, Paull A. Flight data analysis of HyShot
2. In: A collection of technical papers e 13th AIAA/CIRA
International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and
Technologies conference, 2; 2005. pp. 1429e45.
[83] Smart MK, Hass NE, Paull A. Flight data analysis of the
HyShot 2 scramjet flight experiment. AIAA J
2006;44:2366e75.
[84] Frost M, Paull A, Alesi H. Report on the Hyshot scramjet
experiments in the T4 shock tunnel. Report NAG-1-2113.
Australia: The Centre for Hypersonics, The University of
Queensland; 2001.
[85] Laurence SJ, Schramm JM, Karl S, Hannemann K. An
experimental investigation of steady and unsteady
combustion phenomena in the HyShot II combustor. In:
17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic
Systems and Technologies conference; 2011.
[86] Ingenito A, Cecere D, Giacomazzi E. Large Eddy simulation
of turbulent hydrogen-fuelled supersonic combustion in an
air cross-flow. Shock Waves 2013;23:481e94.
[87] Chapuis M, Fedina E, Fureby C, Hannemann K, Karl S,
Martinez SJ. A computational study of the HyShot II combustor
performance. Proc Combust Inst 2013;34(2):2101e9.
[88] Larsson J. Large Eddy simulation of the Hyshot II scramjet
combust or using a supersonic flame let model. In: 48th
AIAA/ASME/ASEE joint propulsion conference & exhibit, 30
July Atlanta, Georgia; 2012.
[89] Ingenito A, Bruno C, Cecere D. LES of the HyShot scramjet
combustor. In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and
exhibit. Orlando, Florida, AIAA-2010-758; 4e7 January 2010.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 9 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 0 7 3 1 e1 0 7 4 7
[90] Marzouk YM, Ghoniem AF. Mechanism of streamwise
vorticity formation in Transverse Jets. In: 40th AIAA
aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA
Paper; 2002. 2002e1063.
[91] Fox JS, Gastony MJ, Houwing AFP, Danehy PM.
Comparison of hypermixing injectors using a mixture-
fraction-sensitive imaging techinique. In: 13th
Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia; 1998.
[92] Doerner SE, Cutler AD. Effects of jet swirl on mixing of a
light gas jet in a supersonic airstream. NASA CR-1999-
209842; Dec. 1999.
[93] Gerlinger P, Stollb P, Kindler M, Schneider F, Aigner M.
Numerical investigation of mixing and combustion
enhancement in supersonic combustors by strut induced
streamwise vorticity. Aerosp Sci Technol 2008;12:159e68.
10747
[94] Schetz JA, Maddalena L, Throckmorton R. Complex wall
injector array for high-speed combustors. J Propuls Power
2008;24(4):673e80.
[95] Hartfield RJ, Hollo SD, McDaniel JC. Experimental
investigation of a supersonic swept ramp injector using laser
induced iodine fluorescence. J Propuls Power 1994;10:129e35.
[96] http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/mach5cruise.html.
[97] Jivraj F, Varvill R, Bond A, Paniagua G. The scimitar
precooled Mach 5 engine. In: 2nd European Conference for
Aerospace Sciences (EUCASS), Belgium; 2007.
[98] Fernandez Villace V, Paniagua G. Numerical model of a
variable-combined-cycle engine for dual subsonic and
supersonic cruise. Energies 2013;6:839e70.
[99] Reaction Engines LTD, http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/
newsy_updates.html.
[100] http://hypersonicpropulsioncenter.us/about/background/.