Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Practicality of pulsejet made from turbo

  1. Nov 30, 2006 #1
    im finding a lot of relatively simple plans for jet and pulsejet engines using a turbocharger. what im wondering is how practical would one (or multiple jets) be in a small aircraft.

    the aircraft im building is a model jet im converting into a homebuilt uav. its about 14 feet long and weighs only a few hundred pounds. what i would like to know is if one of these engines is practical and what would i have to do to get enough power for the jet.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 30, 2006 #2

    Mech_Engineer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You're going to need a lot of thrust to get that thing flying, and I don't think a home-made turbo/pulse jet would fit the bill. I would look into a 4-stroke engine and prop.
     
  4. Nov 30, 2006 #3

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I agree with Mech. While it's certainly possible to build your own pulse-jet, it wouldn't likely be practical for your purposes. If you want the appearance of a jet, without the hassle, go with a ducted fan powered by the aforementioned 4-stroke. With the scale that you're looking at, it would be more efficient (and a lot quieter) than a 2-stroke.
    If you insist upon using a jet, check out jetzilla.com to see what's what.
     
  5. Nov 30, 2006 #4

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Pulse jets are finicky beasts. They're also loud as all get out. Granted, they are relatively simple, but I don't think they are practical for what you want to do. A few hundred pounds is an order of magnitude greater than you would most likely be able to produce in terms of thrust.
     
  6. Nov 30, 2006 #5

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Agree with Fred, the home made ones are crude, incredibly noisy (seriously) and the specific thrust is pretty crap compared with something proper.
     
  7. Nov 30, 2006 #6

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Noisy... yeah, in about the same context as the 'noisy cricket' gun that Will Smith used in 'Men In Black'. :biggrin:
    Think of lying around with your head in a 200hp wood-chipper. :surprised
     
  8. Nov 30, 2006 #7
    thanks for the help, every site i found on pulsejets never applied them to an actual vehicle. people just had them bolted into a metal frame for their own personal pyrotechnic pleasures.
     
  9. Nov 30, 2006 #8

    brewnog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I've seen pulsejets propelling things like shopping trolleys and go-karts, (and even some scary contraption which got a very brave man up to 70mph on a runway) but I really doubt the practicality of trying to get airborne with one.
     
  10. Nov 30, 2006 #9

    NateTG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Pulse jet and turbo don't belong in the same contraption, and quite possibly, not in the same sentence.

    The V-2 did fly with a pulse-jet engine, and had a ~500 lb payload or something like that. Pulse jets are also popular for model airplanes.
     
  11. Nov 30, 2006 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I had a buddy with a fairly large pulse jet - I would say about a foot in diameter and six feet long - and we took it up to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry for a demo. The museum received complaints about the noise from people living on the other side of the Columbia River!!! And yes, for all the noise and fury, the thrust was a joke. This was a resonance type with no moving parts.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2006
  12. Dec 1, 2006 #11
    V-1 was a Pulse jet buzz bomb, V-2 was rocket named the A-4

    I agree a pulse is not a turbo, as a turbo spins and a pulse uses a flap
    also a pulse need a running start as the flow at rest is = to zero

    V-1 used an air drop or RATO to get going
     
  13. Dec 1, 2006 #12

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think that you're confusing a pulse jet with a ram jet, ray. It doesn't need a running start because the combustion chamber is closed at the time of pressurization. The V-1's were launched from ramps resembling ski-jumps, and usually (AFAIK) started with a compressed air blast the same as some turbojets.
    An interesting side-note is that the pulse jets (at least the V-1 versions) actually drew something like 85-90% of the new intake charge in through the tailpipe rather than the valve box.
     
  14. Dec 1, 2006 #13
    as I understand the pulse jet is a kind of ram
    as there is no compresser to suck in air
    and unless they force air in [by moving] there is no power
    so ''As the pulsejet requires a high volume of incoming air for full thrust, the V-1 was launched from a ramp through the use of a chemical/steam catapult.''

    Operating speed: 375-400 mph
    Launching speed: 220 mph
    Range: 150 miles
    Operating altitude: 2,000 to 4,000 ft.

    now how they get air to flow in a tail pipe againts the open front vanes
    inflow at 390mph I do not understand some maybe but > 80%?
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2006
  15. Dec 1, 2006 #14

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I acknowledge that catapults were used, but for much the same reason that they are on an aircraft carrier. The V-1 simply couldn't build up enough speed in that distance to become airborne under its own power. The engine was already running at launch. As I said, most of the new intake came through the tailpipe, so forward speed wouldn't have too much to do with the power generation.
     
  16. Dec 1, 2006 #15

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It doesn't burn like a normal jet or rocket; it's actually a very rapid series of individual explosions, more like a car engine. As with any explosion, a vacuum is created inside the blast area as a result of the initial overpressure. The tailpipe has less resistance to airflow than the valve box does, so that's where it gets sucked in the most.
     
  17. Dec 1, 2006 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    [edit....looked into it] According to Wik:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_jet_engine

    I'm sure that's true, but I suspect that the pressure difference isn't enough to do much more than keep the engine running at low speed. I doubt most can produce much usable thust without a running start.

    Fred would be the expert, though...
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2006
  18. Dec 2, 2006 #17

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    We haven't studied pulse jets in my day. However, I have worked with some "old timers" that had played with them in the test cells. The ones that were run did use a compressor to provide the start conditions for the static tests. I can't say yeah or nay about the 80-90% flow through the tail pipe that Danger has mentioned. That seems like an awful lot of mass flow to be going against the inlet flow.

    I have seen video of the German launches of the V1 and come to think of it, I have not seen how they initiated a start. I have always just seen them launch from ramps on the coast. I have read that a lot of them were launched from He-111's.

    If anyone is interested, here's a pretty cut and dry theory for pulse jets: http://www.pulse-jets.com/count/pulse.php?ID=32
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2006
  19. Dec 2, 2006 #18
    while I see a danger is doughting Danger
    none of the on-line links say anything about high rear fill rates
    in fact the burn is not sparked after starting but steady depending on pulse/fuel ratio
    and it is hard to see how that works with a high % backflow
    in fact why use a front scoop and valves if 85% is coming in the back

    computer control of both air valve and fuel injection may get modern version to work better as would a form of stratifed or swirl
    fuel/air mix and timing

    other notes, the USA copys used the RATO launch not the germans
    but has any type of pulse jet been flown without a kick of some kind to start the event?
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Practicality of pulsejet made from turbo
  1. Successful M40 pulsejet (Replies: 12)

  2. Small pulsejet (Replies: 1)

Loading...