Breakthrough Aerospace ENGINE Is GAME-CHANGING

The RBCC, or strutjet as it is sometimes called, is a combination propulsion system that consists of a ramjet, scramjet, and ducted rocket, where all three systems use a shared flow path. It can lead to both hypersonic flight and space acces!
Sources & Credits:
/ @venusaerospace
/ @hermeus
/ @reactionengines2361

[@jtjames79]

The rotating detonation engine was solved with a and old analog solution. The Tesla valveless valve.

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

This man was like 200 years ahead of everyone.

[@Pleiades721]

I'm so excited to see it being put into application. Since rotating detonation engines have been shown to be demonstrable and not just theory, I see no reason massive R&D shouldn't be flooded into it. Awesome!

[@Tech_Planet]

I agree! I am really curious about this "dual mode" ramjet, I think if they can incorporate rotating detonation it will have a quite a bit wider operating range!

[@Pleiades721]

@@Tech_Planet Precisely! If we can build a single-package aircraft that can hit all the way up to ramjet capabilities, we've solved massive hurdles in aeroplane engineering. Rotating detonation + aerospike = innovation. Always a pleasure to see your videos, good sir. Take care.

[@markfischer3626]

Sandboxx described an engine being developed by GE in collaboration with DARPA and US Air Force Labs. It combines a turbifan for low speeds, a RAMJET, SCRAMJET, and rotary detonation combustion chamber. Rotary detonation is more efficient extending range and power for a given quantity of fuel compared to deflagration, the method currently in use. The rotary detonation combustion chamber can be retrofitted to existing turbofan engines. The combination would provide a smooth transition from 0 to at least Mach 10 and back to 0. The transition from ramjet to scramjet is made by varying the geometry of the intake manifold. Subsonic air flow for Ramjet, supersonic for scramjet. This looks promising for NGAD and FA/XX.

[@MF-og1ct]

I can see this being used for very specific aircraft, but not airliners. Noise levels would be a significant problem. Concord was an extremely loud aircraft with 4 low bypass engines, so I see noise as being a problem with this.

[@StevenMatson]

This is an achievable goal, the secret is to use different fuel types for each stage to achieve the needed thrust performance along with YAG based combustion liners for material integrity at each step...

[@StevenMatson]

Another possibility is to use turbo fans with blades extending inside from an outer ring, rather than blades extending out from a central shaft. This would enable blades that could retract as stages move up, preventing blades from erosion in high stages, as they could fold back and the central shaft isn't needed elsewhere in the design.

[@aspendell209]

We have had a multi-mach ramjet (with afterburners) flying fuel tank for over 60 years. Lockheed did pretty exhaustive R&D on engines before they came up with the pinnacle SR-71 Blackbird. I didn't see anything in this presentation that was new since then.

[@Bill-f9k1x]

Lockheed did not manufacture the PrattAndWhitney J58. Robert Abernethy developed the design for PW. It was not intended to be a RamJet engine. Abernethy modified his engine with High pressure bypass ducts to cure a "Ram Choke" which tended to partially "Compressor Stall" the engine at high Mach one values.. Clearing the gas path of this ram Choke enabled M3 velocities...

[@timothyblazer1749]

Efficiency. A rotating wave engine is a lot more efficient than a traditional ram jet.

[@KnightTheKnight]

I don't know about anything; I'm just saying random stuff; heat; basically, put engine in the center of rocket, make the wing basically radiators with multiple layers with spacing in between the layers, and a high heat conduit metal around the engine, then add a type of coolant, and put motors/pumps inside of these thin layers to make the liquid in the layers travel to the wing and back to the engine, then the air pressure will strip the heat off the wing's holes and possibly cool it and send it back to the engine. thou it has to be thin the layers, it has to have a solid build; and making the end tip of the wings of each layer basically very thin as if it was a scapple to cut threw air more effective and push the air into the internal layers, so it can bunce around and rapidly cool the radiators wings.

[@ChrisErickson-iz5sf]

Right over my head

[@michaeldanmosley4169]

Rocket 🚀 engines SHOULD be -- OVER our heads !! 😂

[@TheInsaneupsdriver]

Plasma? it's the only thing i could think off that can get the temps up high enough fast enough, but the challenge is to not have it blown out by the airflow but if it could be done there wouldn't be any fuel, or atleast not much and only used to supplement the thrust.

[@JimFeig]

Yes everything in software magically works the same in real life.

[@BrandonHampton-k6o]

Not sure I know anything but I believe that a removable fan slides in and out of the chamber could take off from the ground and in the air the fan will be mechanically slipped out slipped out the side and then they can ignite the Ramjet

[@jimwinchester339]

So... the bottom-line is that not much has changed since the P&W J58's used on the A12 and SR71. Only the spectre of adding a rocket motor seems new. And you'd need a LOT of volume for oxidizer in the fueselage of the aircraft to get to LEO.

[@OldCaliboy]

If possible, I would love to finally see a Rocketeer like rocket and then.... we can scale it up or down 😏 🤔. Let's go!

[@mikeconnery4652]

Nice video

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

So it's the material science again, that we are waiting for. Designing the hull for high speeds and atmospheric reentry is next. These heat tiles are not the optimum solution, unless we make a giant ceramic pot;• ehhm, a ceramic hull from one piece. But there could be much simpler propulsion solutions, if we had the neccessary alloys, where the pilot does not sit in a fuel tank with windows. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@Tillersweep]

Solving this is on my list right after coming up with a successful washer/dryer in the same box.

[@Tech_Planet]

Hah, I have yet to find one.

[@linyenchin6773]

Speeds is ONLY a verb, speed is its own single and plural state, the plural of speed is just speed.

[@eastindiaV]

Operating range: Hypertension to dislocation

[@tapashnandy3594]

Slightly unrelated...what do you think is the future of electrical turbine?

[@Tech_Planet]

I like it but I think it's too power demanding for now.

[@ecash00]

2 points... The higher you go, the farther you have to travel compared to Sea level. Higher you go you need to bring Oxygen, MORE and MORE.. At 100,000 feet, you are traveling 19 miles Which equals at sea level 1 mile. 40,000 feet is 7.5 miles, equal to 1 mile at sea level.. 200 mph at 40,000 will take ABOUT 2.5 minutes. And only get you 1 mile at sea level.

[@simonlau1294]

Fact finding to confirm.

[@wayne29rl]

Let's see how the merely Supersonic Business Jet does its ICAO4 departure. This certainly will not, leaving the tech in ICAO14 : an EIS for an all new remote facility status.

[@jamesloghry8083]

Scrap jet

[@AnInterestedObserver]

Why the awful music over voice? It's not a song contest. It's annoying and distracting. It's unwatchable. I'm off.

[@timothyblazer1749]

SSTO? It's really unnecessary. Fuel cost is a very small percentage of a launch. The added complexity and weight of an air breathing engine and control surfaces makes payload capacity less as well. A two stage with a returning jet stage might make sense though, for small payloads. The aerodynamics would be nasty, but it could be fully reusable. And could launch from nearly anywhere.

[@Handles_are_good_for_holding]

Just put some Hellcat engines in there.

[@robertmiller6868]

Aerospike

[@McCadebountyhunter]

This was so disappointing! I thought that someone had invented warp drive! 😞

[@Armand79th]

"Breakthrough"....? This is old news.

[@P13586]

SSTO is fools gold.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

We'll see who remains fool.

[@davidwebber9511]

Just stupid video games they play. So much propaganda. Lie after lie

[@r5a773]

По русски говори!!!

[@mikemckenna6418]

…ALL SIZZLE, NO STEAK…JUST A BUNCH OF WORDS, NO INFORMATION, SO SPECIFICATIONS…

[@davidwebber9511]

I find all of this rubbish because if they have the technology why not try it now and not in 30 years time. If you don't try don't achieve.

[@paulpower3766]

Cost and commercialisation. No big manufacturer is going to spend the 500m to 1b on development costs without an airframe committed to fit the engine to. It's building something without a customer or any business plan hence why we still incrementally improve gas turbines.

[@stevejeffryes5086]

"Comprised of" is poor grammar. "Comprise" is a transitive verb. In general, the whole comprises the components. This places the whole in the subjective position.. Alternatively, the whole is composed of the components, placing the whole in the objective position.

[@lilysceeliljeaniemoonlight]

Arghhhh, Really? KZbin grammar police? But I suppose his inner English would be thanking you! I actually get annoyed myself when in proper English is used. If you corrected every misuse of the language you would never be done

[@lilysceeliljeaniemoonlight]

Like the spelling of Jeffrey's without the commer it's pronounced fries not frees!

[@Pleiades721]

Oh, dear. How adorably misguided your attempt is! Let’s try to clean up this little grammar faux pas, shall we? First, "comprised of" is indeed incorrect-congratulations for stumbling upon that part! But your explanation is, let's say, wobbly at best. You see, "comprise" is indeed a transitive verb, but what you meant to say is that it directly takes an object. So, the whole comprises (not "is comprised of") the parts. Let’s clear up your shaky terms while we're at it: the “subjective position” isn’t quite a thing. Here’s how a more articulate version would look: "Comprised of" is incorrect because "comprise" is a transitive verb that should directly take an object. The whole comprises the parts, not the other way around, and certainly not “is comprised of.” If you insist on being passive, say that the whole "is composed of" the parts. Try to remember: the whole comprises, while the parts compose. Better luck next time!

[@barkmaker]

A lot of flatulence huffers up in here.

[@AlterLynx]

So it's composed of