Racket, let's talk turbine type

[Mike Everman]

I'm just contemplating that there's very little difference between an impulse turbine and a reaction turbine. I find it faascinating how a partial vacuum forms in preparation for the pulse, for obvious benefits.

I suppose the downside of the reaction turbine is skin drag in the duct, but not if its part of the duct. Just noodling. Maybe trying to justify a little easier path.

Easier to get high torque at lower rpm.
The ducts are blade spars, and heck, you could so easily do a single bladed prop. Bit of balancing, bit of sealing, all good fun!

[Mike Everman]

Something like this, but single bladed.

[paul skinner]

Something like this, but single bladed.

I like it. But.

How the heck do you balance something so unstable acting as a rotor :)

[Mike Everman]

Well actually, there'll be a joint back there before the spinny part, with a labyrinth face seal. Nothing too complicated about balancing a single bladed prop, but still some bearing heat issues I think I have an answer for. I want the CC stationary to start, but I'm working on configurations the use the spin in that area. Initially, I want to keep CC spin and tail spin seperate problems.

[larry cottrill]

Though he never built a really successful pulsejet, the late great Dr Robert H Goddard had exactly this idea for aircraft propellers. He never tried it experimentally, though, as far as I can recall.

L Cottrill

[thecheat]

just go one step further and bend the tail pipes into blade shapes like that one gluey I saw, then not only do you have the propulsion you also have the lift.