Boeing's New Pulsejet Concept May Revolutionize Military/Commercial Flight

[rodsky]

Introducing the Boing PETA Engine.

Watch.

‪Boeing Pulse Jet Concept Video‬‏ - YouTube

If this gets applied to current military cargo/bomber/fighter aircraft, and eventually to commercial airliners, then the (literal) shape of modern flight will change. We shall see a new breed of aircraft, rather strangely shaped, in the skies. We might not even need long runways anymore.

-RODION

[cptn_star]

Those jets need some considerable space on the airframe sir rodz. They seem bulky.

[rodsky]

Those jets need some considerable space on the airframe sir rodz. They seem bulky.

Which is why I said "...then the (literal) shape of modern flight will change." Because it will.

Remember that when the first low-wing monoplanes came out in the 1920's, those who first saw them said "What an ungainly design--that will never fly--only ONE layer of wings, and it's even heavier!" These remarks are from people that have gotten used to biplanes and triplanes and that "more wingplanes are good!" mentality...and thus the low-wing, metal skinned, enclosed cockpit monoplane was a paradigm shift in flying...

...and I don't have to tell you about what JETS did to aviation...

...so now...time for another paradigm shift.

-RODION

[Deadstring67]

Add lang ko for more info.

Boeing’s Millennium Falcon Floats Using Nazi Technology



Boeing is working on a new flat plane that would be able to take off and land vertically using dozens of new pulse jets they call Pulse-Ejector-Thrust-Augmentors. Of course, these things were originally created by Nazis.
While a primitive working pulse jet was patented by Russian engineer V.V. Karavodin, it was German engineers Georg Madelung and Paul Schmidt who actually made the first efficient design, which was apt for flying.

The design was adopted by Goering's Luftwaffe for the V-1 bombs that terrorized England during WW2. Fortunately, their bloody Buzz Bomb's engine was inefficient, noisy, prone to failure and had a very low life expectancy—not to mention that they were slow enough to be shot down by British interceptors—unlike the ballistic rocket-based V-2 created by another Nazi, the father of the Saturn rocket Wernher von Braun.

Boeing claims that their PETA technology doesn't have any of the inconveniences of Madelung and Schmidt's design. The design seems so solid that the Pentagon is actually contemplating the possibility of using them to build a large flat VTOL aircraft capable of transporting tanks and troops with ease. A prototype may soon see the light of day.

Better than current VTOL designs
Unlike turbofans, the pulse jet engine has no moving parts at all. Its core—situated at the top of the engine—generates shockwaves via a subsonic combustion of fuel. Each shockwave forces hot exhaust air out of the tube, creating a pressure differential that fills the engine with cold air. New fuel then mixes with that air through computer-controlled injection similar to the technology used in cars, starting a new shockwave. This process is repeated at very high speeds, providing with the thrust needed to lift the aircraft from the ground.


The PETA cell is encased in a thrust augmenting duct that channels more air into the flow, increasing its power. Every cell is independently controlled and can be grouped on the belly of any aircraft. And since each cell has its own direction controls, you can basically maneuver the ship while taking off or landing in any way you want—even if it's basically a large flat brick like the Millennium Falcon. Then, when the ship is in the air, horizontal thrust engines take over.

Unlike other VTOL designs, like the Harrier, Osprey or the VTOL version of the F-35 Lightning II, the pulse jet cell technology seems a lot simpler and efficient. It doesn't mix the vertical and horizontal thrust, so the PETA-based airplane designs would be a lot easier and cheaper.

And Boeing claims that, since PETA cells have no moving parts, they are easy to maintain and have very low failure rates. They say they are very inexpensive to build and they are insensitive to turbulence and debris. Not only that, but they can be part of the frame of the aircraft itself—reducing weigh—and be distributed in such a way that they are redundant and tolerant to battle damage.

Source: Boeing's Millennium Falcon Floats Using Nazi Technology

[observer]

I guess that's one positive role for the military: They get to adopt and test the new technologies first.

VTOL for a commercial airliner would be revolutionary...granted that it can be made commercially viable. I don't know how a vertical take-off can be more economical than a conventional take-off that uses aerodynamic lift. One needs to fight gravity directly while the other makes use of airflow and wing orientation to create lift. I can see why the military would be interested. The ability to take off and land without need of large airfields is useful for certain missions. And profitability is not the primary concern for the military. But it's worth following up on this development...especially when it has Nazi intrigues surrounding it...hehe.

[rodsky]

I don't know how a vertical take-off can be more economical than a conventional take-off that uses aerodynamic lift.

Airports take up LOTS of space. If V/STOL tech can be married with large-lift capacity, think of the great opportunities in this country alone, to haul exotic, high-demand goods from remote locations (i.e. fresh lobsters from Tawi-tawi) that don't have airports, or ferrying a large amount of people from areas previous without the benefit of airport-friendly topography (i.e. mountainous regions of the Philippines) on a regular basis. This will be a paradigm shift--new opportunities await, and this will shape the future of economies. The sad thing is, yes, it would still basically depend on petroleum-based fuel, but at least it's a break from the lull of absolute ZERO development after the invention of the modern-day airliner.

-RODION

[hitch22]

^^ Agree.

There are lots of things that are unprecedented with this technology. For one, the absence of moving parts means increased safety; there'd be no need to worry about birds flying into turbine engines. Secondly, because PETA engines are modular, they can be integrated into the structural design...allowing for bigger space for cargo. And lastly, like you said, a reliable VTOL aircraft would certainly be a boost to commercial activities in remote, under-developed places that lack the regulation-sized airstrips.

Come to think of it, a PETA-based craft can enjoy economies of scale, because I think you can build huge cargo planes (bigger than conventional ones) with this design. Even if we assume that a vertical take-off might consume more fuel, that process takes only about a short period of time. I think its overall efficiency would compensate for it in a long trip and you'll perhaps end up with a better fuel economy.

I think this has a huge chance of becoming mainstream in the future.

[rodsky]

^^ Agree.

There are lots of things that are unprecedented with this technology. For one, the absence of moving parts means increased safety; there'd be no need to worry about birds flying into turbine engines. Secondly, because PETA engines are modular, they can be integrated into the structural design...allowing for bigger space for cargo. And lastly, like you said, a reliable VTOL aircraft would certainly be a boost to commercial activities in remote, under-developed places that lack the regulation-sized airstrips.

Come to think of it, a PETA-based craft can enjoy economies of scale, because I think you can build huge cargo planes (bigger than conventional ones) with this design. Even if we assume that a vertical take-off might consume more fuel, that process takes only about a short period of time. I think its overall efficiency would compensate for it in a long trip and you'll perhaps end up with a better fuel economy.

I think this has a huge chance of becoming mainstream in the future.

Aside from the obvious engineering challenges of a new aircraft system, new and never-foreseen air traffic management issues could arise. Right now, air traffic controllers rely on a system designed primarily for aircraft that require runways, and aircraft that are negotiating take off and landing to and from airports are "stacked" according to a specific arrangement/priority that has been developed through the years largely due to the fact that airplanes have to take off and land in a specific direction horizontally. Although ATC does handle vertical/rotor craft (helicopters etc.), I still think a major overhaul in how ATC controls the airspace has to happen once a majority of heavy aircraft start to have vertical/short takeoff capability, particularly in and around airports (which at that time, could be considerably smaller than the present-day airports).

-RODION

[chairmankaga]

This reminds me of a certain Aircraft that uses Pulse Detonation Engine, that is, supposedly, being developed at Edwards Air Force Base.

[breinrules]

Not bad, but its still a concept, a working prototype would be good