Why flying lawn mowers instead of just a pulsejet flying bomb? It isn`t more expensive or complicate to built.
>>64959645Props are more efficient offering greater range from the same amount of fuel.
>>64959645Reasons below>Heat increase>Noise increase>Price increase>Harder to manufacture>Fuel increase
>>64959887>>Price increase>>Harder to manufactureI doubt that, pulsejet don`t require precision manufacturing. Much looser tolerance and machining time.
>>64959645Pulsejets need forward movement to start. You'd have to launch it with a rail. I bet there's a way to make them economical, though. If you mass produce simple pulsejets, because of the lack of moving parts, it's probably cheaper than a current Shahed. You can convert an old muffler factory into a pulsejet factory.
Since early cruise missiles like the Regulus and Matador already transitioned to turbojet engines, pulsejet engines likely had many problems and limited potential for improvement.
>>64959645250 km vs 1500 km range.Now open map.
>>64963777Jet fuel is expensive gasoline is much cheaper
>>64959645Pulsejets are ridiculously inefficient and make almost no thrust.
>>64965449pulsejets can burn any gas, guzzoline, methane, fucking acetone if you have it, it don't matter
>>64965427You know a modern pulse yet wouldn't have the same range as the V1.
>>64965660Yeah. Only ten times as fast. Face it bro ww2 tech is universally obsolete.
>>64965863I like them because they make so much noise and because I dream of an evolved variant that can transition to ram (perhaps by using an afterburner to give it some kick) and then to SCRAMoh and if you tune them properly and use a thrust ring they're not all that bad fuel-wise
>>64963777Pulsejet has horrible fuel efficiency and bad thrust to weight. It is worse than a naturally aspirated gasoline engine with a propeller.
>>64959645More complicated launching procedures, mostly. A propeller plane produces more thrust at takeoff, pulsejets get more thrust as speeds increase, so you either oversize the pulsejet and make it climb high, or might need a rocket or catapult for that initial boost.>>64965427250km was the range they settled on to cross the channel, the exact same airframe and engine was modified to reach 400 km as the allies advanced and by that point navigation was the main limitation (simple wing leveller autopilot with no gps, no ins, no radio guidance and no way to see what it was hitting). And even then, the sheer results it got in ww2 showed how cruise missiles (especially since the tomahawk entered service) and now drones dominate.>>64966232There is absolutely no need to dream on an evolved variant, regular pulsejets are already ramjets that do produce some thrust at zero airspeed. The argus pulsejet on the V-1 was speed limited because the exhaust section of had a fixed size, and wasn't capable of contracting to increase chamber pressure, matching ram air pressure. With variable nozzles and intakes ramjets will go as fast as the temperature the materials can stand.
>>64966252>It is worse than a naturally aspirated gasoline engine with a propeller.Pulse jets are inefficient fuel hogs, that's true. But they're dirt cheap and simple to make. And they're still jet engines with enough thrust and exhaust velocity to outrun all but the fastest piston-engined prop-driven aircraft.V1s were janky as fuck, despite this, the allies only had a few models of planes fast enough to catch up with these things and take them down, and most of those planes were specially modified to achieve maximum top speed, sacrificing a bunch of features just to go faster.
Logically there should be three kinds of strike drone: (1) long range prop powered drones that are built with wood and lawnmower engines, that are GPS guided and can be mass launched for dirt cheap against strategic targets, (2) more expensive long range jet drones that have more advanced active guidance (ie basically cruise missiles) and used with the above in combination against strategic targets, and 3) Pulse jet drones that are shorter ranged, have active guidance (perhaps even AI terminal guidance), but are cheap enough to be used as a tactical weapon closer to the front line. Also, loud and hot enough to be used as a decoy for the shorter-ranged strategic drone strikes.
>>64966634so if drone interceptors become other piston drones, pulse jets drones might beat the piston interceptors?
>>64963777Economies of scale. You can buy lawnmower parts off the open market but pulsejets would need to be specially manufactured.
>>64967965Those are special light weight engines, they aren`t cheap given they have a higher power-to-weight ratio. You aren`t buy from Alibaba. While Pulsejet can be produce in any shop.
