Chinese Engine Development

I wonder said:

I am interested in RDE tech. From what I have learned watching YouTube videos it seems to be a very fragile technology which no one has mastered yet. The Japanese have tested detonation for a few seconds on a suborbital rocket. I haven’t seen anything from NASA or the Air Force where they are experimenting with a real RDE on a real rocket. My assumption is that it would be much harder to get an RDE working on an aeroplane with just air with an unknown composition as the oxidiser. I thought scientists were still using supercomputers to figure out how to get RDEs to work.
There are articles on SCMP which sound very interesting where they interview some person from a Chinese University and then something gets mentioned that seems to defy the laws of physics and then I think I am being intentionally strung along.

Click to expand...

So you studied RDE from shitty sources like Youtube and SCMP who made claims that you thought are against physical laws, then You concluded to dismiss RDE being based on physical law? That is what we engineers call "shit in and shit out". The fault is not RDE, nor specifically this RDE engine, it is the faulty input you got and your lack of knowledge.

I wonder said:

I am beginning to wonder if that original Su34 RDE video is just burning propellant and there is no detonation. If an RDE is not working properly it just defaults to burning fuel like any other combustion engine invented in the last 100 odd years.

Click to expand...

If you actually did some study, you should know that there is nothing for RDE to default to. It either detonate or not burn at all.

I wonder said:

If I could see other videos with RDEs on aeroplanes that I could trust then I might change my mind.
I’ve just done a quick search using google on sinodefenceforum.com looking for RDE and I get hardly any hits which tells me that SU34 RDE video needs more validation.

Click to expand...

Your search is tooooooo quick that you missed all knowledgeble posts in this forum regarding RDE. Those posts have quoted many research papers. Search harder, don't waste others time, learn to be self-critical before being critical.

There is one thing that I am curious about this particular RDE engine, it's inlet and its "cold" section. Although the engine's nozzle is revealed, its inlet is delibrately blurred.

Although RDE can start at zero inlet speed and produce thrust, it is slower to rampup thrust than conventional jet engine because it lacks compressor. Besides "pure" RDE design which is just a pipe, there is hybrid design that has a simplified compressor stage like conventional jet engine, but replacing the conventional (subsonic deflagrative) combustion chamber with a supersonic detonative combustion chamber. This hybrid would have equivlant performance (to conventional jet) at low speed, but much better performance in higher speed (up to a RAM jet), but not ideal for hyper sonic as SCRAM jet because of the central block.

This means that, RDE engines can be devided into two catagories, the pure RDE for supersonic to hypersonic flight (mach 1 and beyond), the other (hybrid) for aircraft from 0 to mach 5. It is the second type that is interesting for jet aircraft.

Back to this engine, I wonder if it is a hybrid.

I’m actually more interested in PDE than RDE, it’s a cheaper detonation engine yet much more efficient than a PJ, which makes it the ideal engine for cruise missiles and loitering munitions, and the tech is much easier

Philister said:

I’m actually more interested in PDE than RDE, it’s a cheaper detonation engine yet much more efficient than a PJ, which makes it the ideal engine for cruise missiles and loitering munitions, and the tech is much easier

Click to expand...

How is it cheaper than RDE? In what sense?

By PJ, do you mean pulse jet? PDE is the same thing as pulse jet. The process is, ingest air and fuel -> detonation -> purge. Only detonation phase produces thrust which is about 55% time of the full cycle. While RDE has 100% time producing thrust because there are many simultaneous detonations along the circular combustion chamber. In essense PDE is like an one stroke ICE, RDE is like a X stroke ICE where X is determined by number of the circules. The advantage of RDE is obvious, higher torque in ICE sense.

Yes, in a PDE the gas expand in the same direction of the flight which is more efficient than forcing gas to change directions, same princile as thrust lost of TVC nozzle, but PDE is more difficult to realize sustained combustion due to its working cycle, the realization machenism may be more complicated and expensive than RDE.

I think the reason that we are seeing many RDE research bing put into near real life test is because after decades research, most scientists have realized that RDE is more realistic than PDE.

continue #8,132
The hybrids,
b) RDE RAM
c) RDE Turbojet

I wonder said:

Taxiya, you call yourself an engineer. Are you a good engineer or a terrible engineer?
Good engineers would be so confident in their own knowledge that they wouldn’t need to insult someone to win a debate.
Good engineers would realise that they can’t do everything by themselves and they would invest a lot to make sure the team is functioning well. Having manners and learning how to be polite would go a long way towards being a good engineer.
Good engineers learn humility when they realise that there are other engineers smarter than they are.
Don’t bother replying unless you can apologise

Click to expand...

You entered this thread as someone quoting from bad sources with a dubious knowledge base.

Taxiya was actually being very generous to you in his reply.
Based on the quality of what you posted, you should be somewhat more humble and accepting of your lack of knowledge, and that if you want others to respect what you are posting, then to do some research and check its quality first.


Which is to say, you actually do not deserve an apology, and if anything you should be apologizing to everyone in the thread for choosing to post what you did to begin with. If you are new to the topic, that is fine, but then you should be learning to avoid posting for a few years and read and observe for a while first.

I wonder said:

Taxiya, you call yourself an engineer. Are you a good engineer or a terrible engineer?
Good engineers would be so confident in their own knowledge that they wouldn’t need to insult someone to win a debate.
Good engineers would realise that they can’t do everything by themselves and they would invest a lot to make sure the team is functioning well. Having manners and learning how to be polite would go a long way towards being a good engineer.
Good engineers learn humility when they realise that there are other engineers smarter than they are.
Don’t bother replying unless you can apologise

Click to expand...

No, I have never insulted any engineers who have proper education, training and working experience, and I will never do so.

Only people who are presumptuous and ignorant enough to question something that is beyond their knowledge would feel insulted by my post.

My humility is enough for me to recognize 4 people (out of hundreds) smarter than me in my professional life. But it is probably not enough to tolerate ignorance.

BTW, I have apologized to posters in this forum after being corrected in the past, but that won't include you.

I wonder said:

Taxiya, you call yourself an engineer. Are you a good engineer or a terrible engineer?
Good engineers would be so confident in their own knowledge that they wouldn’t need to insult someone to win a debate.
Good engineers would realise that they can’t do everything by themselves and they would invest a lot to make sure the team is functioning well. Having manners and learning how to be polite would go a long way towards being a good engineer.
Good engineers learn humility when they realise that there are other engineers smarter than they are.
Don’t bother replying unless you can apologise

Click to expand...

Good engineers who are nice often bite their tongue and secretly eyeroll at people who talk beyond their expertise (I have been on the other side of these interactions before when I knew less and was still working on building up my knowledge). Most good engineers know enough to know what they don’t know. Word of advice on this is if you can’t explain how something works in a way that reflects understanding of actual physical mechanics, especially to a level that can reproduce the basic function and operation of the technology you’re trying to observe, you probably don’t know enough to separate out what is insightful and what is BS.

I wonder said:

Taxiya, you call yourself an engineer. Are you a good engineer or a terrible engineer?
Good engineers would be so confident in their own knowledge that they wouldn’t need to insult someone to win a debate.
Good engineers would realise that they can’t do everything by themselves and they would invest a lot to make sure the team is functioning well. Having manners and learning how to be polite would go a long way towards being a good engineer.
Good engineers learn humility when they realise that there are other engineers smarter than they are.
Don’t bother replying unless you can apologise

Click to expand...

Actually, in contrast to that fantasy world you are describing, you would find that the vast majority of engineers in the real world have a very low tolerance of bullshit.

Thus, relatively to engineers that I know, taxiya has actually been considerably kind and polite towards you. If it was me talking to the engineers I know with the same way you are talking, I would be thankful enough if all I got was a certain 2-word expletive as a response

Would RDE work with rocket fuels and oxidizers, maybe replacing traditional liquid rocket engine in future?

Is RDE being investigated partly because of reducing improvement in turbine blade technology breakthroughs?