New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Supersonic Pulse Power

Nazi-era weapons lead to fuel-stingy aircraft engines

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For nearly a year after Nazi Germany unleashed its V-1 flying bomb in June 1944, the early, crude cruise missile plagued English and Belgian cities and countrysides with its terrifying buzzing sound before raining down random death and destruction. Engineers are now refining the pulse jet, the simple but noisy and fuel-wasting power plant that propelled the buzz bomb, into a lightweight and powerful engine that relies on repeated shock wave–driven combustion cycles to produce thrust efficiently. In a decade or two, such pulse detonation engines could power many types of aircraft.

Pulse jets rank among the simplest of engines, explains Narendra Joshi, leader of a research group at General Electric in Niskayuna, N.Y. In many ways, the device resembles a combustion cylinder in a standard automobile engine, though without a piston. The basic recipe: Take a short metal tube and place injector valves at one end that can rapidly meter pressurized fuel and air into the tube on command. Then squirt in small amounts of fuel and air to create a flammable mixture and light it off with a spark plug. The resulting conventional fuel burn will generate expanding combustion gases that whoosh out the other end of the pipe, creating thrust. Now do it again—and again, 50 times a second (a frequency that produces the engine’s infamous buzzing sound). Although the pulse jet is a simple and effective propulsion system, it consumes fuel comparatively slowly and incompletely, making the combustion process inefficient.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe