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.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe