oblique wave detonation engine

[CBase]

Recently was in the news a report about a peer reviewed paper from UCF about some interesting breakthrough for jet engines:

https://newatlas.com/aircraft/oblique-wave-detonation-engine-hypersonic-ucf/

The precessor aka rotating detonation engine was only slightly discussed here before:

There is still for sure a lot of works ahead as currently they used oxygen and not air, but hey they actually benefitted from a supersonic reaction mixture flow and it looks promising to scale up to hypersonic speeds for a spaceplane.

And in some other article there was a statement about the Navy being interested, they would upgrade their turbines as the Isp of this is expected to be higher and therefore a lot of fuel to be saved. But if this really can be applied to ship turbines, any jet turbine could be upgraded for increased efficiency. And unlike scramjet engines this might be enough for jet engines to be useful at a broad range of air speed

 

 

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, CBase said:

Recently was in the news a report about a peer reviewed paper from UCF about some interesting breakthrough for jet engines:

https://newatlas.com/aircraft/oblique-wave-detonation-engine-hypersonic-ucf/

The precessor aka rotating detonation engine was only slightly discussed here before:

There is still for sure a lot of works ahead as currently they used oxygen and not air, but hey they actually benefitted from a supersonic reaction mixture flow and it looks promising to scale up to hypersonic speeds for a spaceplane.

And in some other article there was a statement about the Navy being interested, they would upgrade their turbines as the Isp of this is expected to be higher and therefore a lot of fuel to be saved. But if this really can be applied to ship turbines, any jet turbine could be upgraded for increased efficiency. And unlike scramjet engines this might be enough for jet engines to be useful at a broad range of air speed

My guess is that an gas turbine is much easier to  do fancy thing with than an jet engine,  intake air is always moving at an fixed speed and weight is less of an issue. 
IC engines are more efficient than gas turbines and having an gas turbine with IC efficiency would be nice. 

[DDE]

8 hours ago, magnemoe said:

My guess is that an gas turbine is much easier to  do fancy thing with than an jet engine,  intake air is always moving at an fixed speed and weight is less of an issue. 

On the flipside, missiles would be using a more strictly-defined fuel type, potentially JP-10. General-issue JP-4/JP-8 and JP-5 are notorious for their utterly unpredictable composition, leading to the splitting-off of RP-1 spacegrade fuel.

And that's before we consider commercial maritime diesel.

[mikegarrison]

7 hours ago, DDE said:

General-issue JP-4/JP-8 and JP-5 are notorious for their utterly unpredictable composition

This really overstates the matter. There are specs, and jet fuel is more standardized than many other types of fuel.