I worked in aviation, Navy & commercial for 45 years. The changes in everything - engines & airframes is AWESOME. I'm so proud to have been a part of it. To the younger kids out there, get into this field. It's growing faster than any weed in your front yard !
I was a student at GE Engine school in 1987. This technology was already explored and their engines, the Unducted Fan engines were already in their in house museum in Evendale Ohio. Commercially unviable because of the inherent noise.
Indeed, I saw the NASA GE Boeing 727 inducted fan fly in the 80’s or should I say more than saw it we heard it. Extremely loud and we heard it long before it flew by
I spent 20yrs. working in aviation and have since retired. I miss being a part of the processes shown in this video. Its a different way of life, you have to perform at a higher level than your everyday Joe. Anyway, I least I can say I've done that. Shout out to my fellow A&P's....IYKYK.
I retired from Useless airways as a A&P and FE after 21 years in 2001 after the Arabic flying club changed aviation.Went into healthcare as a RN, never looked back... the Airline Company and passengers became more savage in action and deed every year.
I don't think its about dethroning anyone, its about many things, weather robustness, reliability, economy and other factors only Airlines need to think about, never the less good film.
They have been working on the unducted fan engine for a long time. However this is one of the reasons why Boeing said that they would not be putting out a completely new design for a few years. Plus the wing designs are all over the place witch means a lot of expensive experiments to find speed and fuel efficiency.
The Rolls-Royce _UltraFan_ is more a technology demonstrator than anything else. The very fact it can be scaled down to a small, 25,000 thrust (111.2 kN) thrust engine means Rolls-Royce is looking at the possibility of a smaller engine that could be fitted to the Airbus A220 or Embraer E195-E2 airliners, essentially offering a second engine choice for these two airliner models. And Rolls-Royce might be thinking of offer the smaller _UltraFan_ engine for even the 737 MAX.
The fan duct, beside directing the airflow, protects the plane from blade separation and puncture of the cabin. These new engines will have no such protection.
@@elmersbalm5219 Hi Elmer. The term "should" isn't good enough for aero engine designers. The energy in a separated blade can be calculated exactly for any given engine speed, and the thickness of duralium needed to stop penetration also calculated. We no longer "fly by the seat of our pants". Even a partial penetration can result in an explosive decompression that can spread beyond the reinforced area. This is why having the engines buried in the wing roots (D.H. Comet, Tu 104) was phased out, and engines on pods under the wing well away from the fuselage favoured. If one Comet engine shed a blade, it had between 30%-50% chance of rupturing the fuselage, the same event in a 707, with the two engines closer to the fuselage (2 & 3), only had a 10% chance of causing a fuselage rupture. The outer engines (1 & 4) had about a 3% chance, based on dividing up the circle of where the blade might go. As engine reliability improved with advances in high temperature metallurgy, aircraft with engines close to, and even inside the fuselage became possible. (727, DC !0, VC 10, Lockheed L1011). It's all about the mathematics of engineering, and I'm sure you'll agree, "there's safety in numbers". All the best, Cheers, P.R.
Regarding past attempts at this that had experienced too much noise/vibrations … were they using winglet type blade tips which both improve efficiency and greatly reduce the noise inducing tip vortex?
@@heftosprod Looking back on this, yeah, yo can probably explain it better to some degree. But if I'm right, a propeller powered by a gas engine is a simple propeller, but a propeller powered by a turbine is a type of engine known as a Turboprop, if I'm right... feel free to correct me on this.
@@benjaminpersonsthevoidhermit turboprop engines have existed since just after WW2... Such as the Rolls Royce dart. This is more of a prop fan type I suppose.
U know government is too big when you have the people with the expertise having to get approval from bureaucrats with little to no knowledge of innovation
Hi. And you know government is too small when a plane falls out of the sky and all others of that model aren't immediately compelled to cease flying. "People with expertise" in the small picture can be totally out of touch in the bigger picture where we all live. Cheers, P.R.
No they don't do an explosive confinement test during the manuafacture process. They do it during the design process. 🤣"It can't be delivered just yet" If you do those destructive tests it will never get delivered lol.
When you think of the noise reduction we are currently at now with the A380, B787 and A350 compared to the B747 or B777 this thing would be a step backwards in time like 40 years in time
A fools errand. TU 114 was tried in the 50s. Do you understand that there will be no much scientific advancement in the next 100 years! Electric cars were popular in 1900s, no new ideas since 1970s. We peaked bro! Realize that fact
The same thing can be said of stories. You can split it, you change characters names, settings, bend genres, etc, but the core story problem has already been done. No new thinking, just repackaging.@@Heegooat
Would be interesting how much share the other manufacturers have. There are definitely more than PW, GE, RR and CFM. Despite in the video they amount 100%.
What surprises me is if they don’t put a cowling around the fan. It should improve the efficiency even if it had a significant gap between blade tip and cowling
no it's true jet I read about it in 1988 they add the very short blades BUT it made way way too much noise was not as fast did get better MPG but this old stuff over 30 years old all air craft co. turned it down over the noise they said it was so loud that theres was not 1 us airport that would let it take off from speed loss was also very close to the fuel gain there was a gain but 8 or 9 % was not the 24% + that was planed it did get this + 24% but when add in the speed loss it was less then 10% gain
You are thinking of the Tupolev TU-95 Bear, the reverse engineered Russian version of the B-52 Stratofortress, which is so astoundingly noisy, the US can track it via sonar from attack submarines. It’s that loud!
I read about it in 1988 they add the very short blades BUT it made way way too much noise was not as fast did get better MPG but this old stuff over 30 years old all air craft co. turned it down over the noise they said it was so loud that theres was not 1 us airport that would let it take off from speed loss was also very close to the fuel gain there was a gain but 8 or 9 % was not the 24% + that was planed it did get this + 24% but when add in the speed loss it was less then 10% gain 2
The engine that will change aviation for ever is the one that utilizes the magnetic field of earth to move planes around and have zero emissions. Keep working.
Interesting, thank you. I would have thought, though, that in order for the prediction for the engine business worldwide to increase to come true, we'd need to avoid two things. The price of normal flights to be quite a bit lower than it is. Governments around the world being prohibited from banning (or very, very severely curtailing) international travel at the drop of a hat, with no discussion, in an alarmingly synchronized manner, when a virus (which we soon learn to be dramatically less damaging than is speculated) appears. I hope that we achieve those two necessary prerequisites for this business growth.
Slightly misleading. CFM is jointly owned by the US GE and the French Safran Aircraft Engines in a 50-50 ownership so all engines produced by CFM are joint ventures of these two companies.
It comes down to to 3 things. 1) Politics, 2)Fuel efficiency, Net Thrust/fuel burn rate. 3)Serviceability (maintenance and reliability and safety). To win an engine manufacture needs to nail all of these so as to show an economic advantage to the Airline for there engine. Not much point producing the best plane or the best engine, in Russia or Brazil or Japan, if no one buys it due to politics.
OK, hold up.... there's a problem with something said in this video that hopefully the 'propeller-beanied' among you can help to figure out: At 7:13 the Narrator says "They secure the engine with 50,000 pounds of thrust on two mounting brackets...." Say Watt??? OK, let's see: That statement can't be a reference to the engine itself (by stating it's propulsive thrust numbers) as the XWB produces >90,000 "pounds of thrust". So, is he referring to the amount of 'torque', measured in lb/ft, that is applied to the fasteners that secure the engine to the two mounting brackets? (If so, the term "thrust" has no business being used in that statement!) But 50,000 lb/ft of torque ??? That wrench and 'dog-bone' they are using is only about 5 ft. long! That would require them to apply 10,000 lbs. of weight to the end of that wrench to generate 50,000 lb/ft of torque! Something is off....🤔
The main problem is as a new generation is developed you learn new information throughout the process,where as a whole concept seems to appear from the development process,that in its self births a new dimension what also needs to be developed..round and round we go
Propfans have been in development for 40+ years now. That there isn't one operational serial built example shows the difficulties and complexities coming with it. If it comes at all I guess it will take another 5-10 more years.
I believe the noise factor is the biggest drawback to unducted fan engines. Check out the 'Thunderschreech' X-plane with a supersonic propeller. It still holds the record for the loudest aircraft every flown!
I don't think that they take all the engines they produce throughout all those rigorous tests. I think that they test one of those engines, then build the rest of them with the specifications they extracted from those tests.
Very interesting video, but this title and the video sample was in reference to exactly 1m31s of this 10m11s video, with almost negligible information about the "engine that will change aviation forever."
All fan jet engines have to have a surround nacelle which can contain a fanblade failure from structural failure and foreign object ingestion. Any open fan design should also have such containment - if not then all types of jet can be altered to run without a nacelle and thus raise the by-pass ratio. All prop planes in civil use have strengthened fuselages to cope with ice being thrown off the prop and there have been a number of major incidents with blades breaking or coming loose. Should open fan jets have similar protection??
So whats going to contain those blades of the engine in the beginning, if one of them decides to fly off. Second no, the turbo fan blades are not as sharp as a chefs knife. If they were mechanics wouldn't be able to handle them for install. Anyways this tech is old news. I want to know about the secret new stuff they're doing.
This article mentioned shipping by truck/rail or if overseas by ship or by Beluga. What about the 747 with the 5th pylon for delivering an engine into remote locations? It's the only 747 with 5 engines. I believe it is still flying.
Is Antonov's big 225 still flying. I used to watch that beast on the deck at BNA Nashville and watch them load huge satellites into it. Watching it take off was watching an entire fleet leave the ground all at once. That was 20 plus years ago though, so.....
I worked in aviation, Navy & commercial for 45 years. The changes in everything - engines & airframes is AWESOME. I'm so proud to have been a part of it. To the younger kids out there, get into this field. It's growing faster than any weed in your front yard !
@@aabbcc5154 dones will di ? Have you graduated 3rd grade yet ?
You started with one subject and without completing it you took us into another subject.. 😅😂
I notice that too.
I was a student at GE Engine school in 1987. This technology was already explored and their engines, the Unducted Fan engines were already in their in house museum in Evendale Ohio. Commercially unviable because of the inherent noise.
Indeed, I saw the NASA GE Boeing 727 inducted fan fly in the 80’s or should I say more than saw it we heard it. Extremely loud and we heard it long before it flew by
They're making a comeback because they mitigated the noise problem.
@@jtjames79 Good Luck. Only time will tell the story.
😅
If that mess is the only choice, I'm not flying.
I spent 20yrs. working in aviation and have since retired. I miss being a part of the processes shown in this video. Its a different way of life, you have to perform at a higher level than your everyday Joe. Anyway, I least I can say I've done that. Shout out to my fellow A&P's....IYKYK.
I’m just starting. Long way to go
Yea me too
I retired from Useless airways as a A&P and FE after 21 years in 2001 after the Arabic flying club changed aviation.Went into healthcare as a RN, never looked back... the Airline Company and passengers became more savage in action and deed every year.
I don't think its about dethroning anyone, its about many things, weather robustness, reliability, economy and other factors only Airlines need to think about, never the less good film.
It’s been 6 months and I’m still waiting for this engine to revolutionise aviation. What happened?
Yea, I bet it goes over like a brick.
You say the second set of blades are fixed yet the footage definitely shows them rotating.
That is another engine. Keep in mind, no CFM RISE have been built yet currently.
I took from that ,was that the second set are fixed " pitch," not rotation.
illustrated @1:08
They have been working on the unducted fan engine for a long time. However this is one of the reasons why Boeing said that they would not be putting out a completely new design for a few years. Plus the wing designs are all over the place witch means a lot of expensive experiments to find speed and fuel efficiency.
What would be the sound noise level?
Totally unlivable.
Like TU-95 😂 new old technology
The noise is going to be horendus
@@vladimirassalukas6726 Everything old is new again.
@@vladimirassalukas6726 Exactly my thoughts😃
The city in the UK where the RR Trent XWB engines are made, is Derby. It's pronounced *_DAR-bee._*
Ar rite m' duk 😅
Tomatoes or tomatoes?
You can't teach AI how to speak the Kings English
Der Bee
I thought the factory was in Derby ?? But what do I know ... I'm Welsh 😂😂
Pronunciation correct at least😂
My late Dad was an Engineer on the CF6 in Evandale and it is wonderful to read these accolades. Thank you. Does anyone remember Myron (Mike) Petersen?
As a life long Machinist this is sexy cool
I thought I knew everything..but I didnt realise RR engines contained a Turban - nice to see diversity in action.
If he stands right behind it it's going to change his complexion forever.
Excellent vids.
The Rolls-Royce _UltraFan_ is more a technology demonstrator than anything else. The very fact it can be scaled down to a small, 25,000 thrust (111.2 kN) thrust engine means Rolls-Royce is looking at the possibility of a smaller engine that could be fitted to the Airbus A220 or Embraer E195-E2 airliners, essentially offering a second engine choice for these two airliner models. And Rolls-Royce might be thinking of offer the smaller _UltraFan_ engine for even the 737 MAX.
Yeah this technology was already explored yet noise pollution killed it.
And how's the Ultra Fan going now 😉
Most of this video is on the XWB not the Safran engine. 2min on the RISE engine rest on XWB. misleading title.
Probably because it's the best engine in service on the planet.
Incredible!
Thank you for the report.
The fan duct, beside directing the airflow, protects the plane from blade separation and puncture of the cabin. These new engines will have no such protection.
Propellers were on planes for a long time though.
@@tomsherwood4650 Propellers aren't this flimsy, even so, propellers have separated and brought the plane down numerous times.
Quite right. P.R.
If it’s made of carbon fibre then it shouldn’t be a problem. Adding extra reinforced walls on the fuselage where there can be a hit should be enough.
@@elmersbalm5219 Hi Elmer. The term "should" isn't good enough for aero engine designers. The energy in a separated blade can be calculated exactly for any given engine speed, and the thickness of duralium needed to stop penetration also calculated. We no longer "fly by the seat of our pants".
Even a partial penetration can result in an explosive decompression that can spread beyond the reinforced area. This is why having the engines buried in the wing roots (D.H. Comet, Tu 104) was phased out, and engines on pods under the wing well away from the fuselage favoured. If one Comet engine shed a blade, it had between 30%-50% chance of rupturing the fuselage, the same event in a 707, with the two engines closer to the fuselage (2 & 3), only had a 10% chance of causing a fuselage rupture. The outer engines (1 & 4) had about a 3% chance, based on dividing up the circle of where the blade might go.
As engine reliability improved with advances in high temperature metallurgy, aircraft with engines close to, and even inside the fuselage became possible. (727, DC !0, VC 10, Lockheed L1011). It's all about the mathematics of engineering, and I'm sure you'll agree, "there's safety in numbers". All the best, Cheers, P.R.
Regarding past attempts at this that had experienced too much noise/vibrations … were they using winglet type blade tips which both improve efficiency and greatly reduce the noise inducing tip vortex?
GE has been flogging this since the 80’s
GE is the owner of CFM
UHB, Ultra High Bypass was what they called these engines back in the 70's, it's nice to see that they have come full circle to fly soon.
I would like to see an A350 neo with the ultrafan.
So aviation started in 1903 with a propellor turned by a small gasoline engine and the future of aviation is a propellor turned by a turbine.
Got it.
Interesting how it seems we've gone into a full circle... h m m . . .
Not quite
@@heftosprod Looking back on this, yeah, yo can probably explain it better to some degree. But if I'm right, a propeller powered by a gas engine is a simple propeller, but a propeller powered by a turbine is a type of engine known as a Turboprop, if I'm right... feel free to correct me on this.
@@benjaminpersonsthevoidhermit turboprop engines have existed since just after WW2... Such as the Rolls Royce dart. This is more of a prop fan type I suppose.
@@heftosprodAlright, though we both can't really say for certain what this is until we get more official confirmation, right?
So pleased that they all need propellors!
U know government is too big when you have the people with the expertise having to get approval from bureaucrats with little to no knowledge of innovation
Commercial aircraft regulation is great! You are alive because of it
Hi. And you know government is too small when a plane falls out of the sky and all others of that model aren't immediately compelled to cease flying. "People with expertise" in the small picture can be totally out of touch in the bigger picture where we all live. Cheers, P.R.
No they don't do an explosive confinement test during the manuafacture process. They do it during the design process. 🤣"It can't be delivered just yet" If you do those destructive tests it will never get delivered lol.
It's no new idea to use prop-fans. If only they find a solution for the noise they are creating
The noise is the result of the blades going through the air, so it's not likely.
@@ghost307 am aware about that. It's most likely the reason why it has so far not been used more.
When you think of the noise reduction we are currently at now with the A380, B787 and A350 compared to the B747 or B777 this thing would be a step backwards in time like 40 years in time
if the second stage blades are fixed stop using visuals with the second stage moving
They tried this in the 1980's, times were different then, tech has improved, etc. Perhaps this can happen now.
A fools errand. TU 114 was tried in the 50s. Do you understand that there will be no much scientific advancement in the next 100 years! Electric cars were popular in 1900s, no new ideas since 1970s. We peaked bro! Realize that fact
The same thing can be said of stories. You can split it, you change characters names, settings, bend genres, etc, but the core story problem has already been done. No new thinking, just repackaging.@@Heegooat
Would be interesting how much share the other manufacturers have. There are definitely more than PW, GE, RR and CFM. Despite in the video they amount 100%.
That engine looks like somethink from Ace Combat 7..
Somethink? 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
What surprises me is if they don’t put a cowling around the fan. It should improve the efficiency even if it had a significant gap between blade tip and cowling
Turbin blades instead of turbine blades... brilliant!
I thought he said turban blades
What a weird narration. It went from the new amazing CFM to regurgitating the Rolles Royce engine video that has been on You Tube for years.
Interesting , Thank you . I hope they work
1:16 - this is just a turboprop, the GE Catalyst (I worked on it recently)
no it's true jet I read about it in 1988 they add the very short blades BUT it made way way too much noise was not as fast did get better MPG but this old stuff over 30 years old all air craft co. turned it down over the noise they said it was so loud that theres was not 1 us airport that would let it take off from speed loss was also very close to the fuel gain there was a gain but 8 or 9 % was not the 24% + that was planed it did get this + 24% but when add in the speed loss it was less then 10% gain
DERBY....NOT DARBY. BUT IT IS PRONOUNCED LIKE DARBY.
Well, this is an American voice and pronunciation to a European ear is always strange.
@@johnjephcote7636 He pronounced it correctly, but was spelled wrongly in the video text.
So the video is mostly about how an engine is made with a brief mention of the CFM engine at the start...
The gear box is the big problem. No-one has managed to make a reliable gear box for counter-rotating duct-less fan engines.
Kuznetsov NK-12 from the 50s?
3:20… turbin??
What about the noise level. I remember a Russian model produced unbelievable noise.
The russian model used counter rotating blades. This does not. So no noise issue.
Antonov 70, with 4 D27 engines
@@GowthamNatarajanAI do you have some numbers? characteristics tables? sharing is caring!
You are thinking of the Tupolev TU-95 Bear, the reverse engineered Russian version of the B-52 Stratofortress, which is so astoundingly noisy, the US can track it via sonar from attack submarines. It’s that loud!
You spelled Derby wrong.
This is my highschool science project back in 94...
I read about it in 1988 they add the very short blades BUT it made way way too much noise was not as fast did get better MPG but this old stuff over 30 years old all air craft co. turned it down over the noise they said it was so loud that theres was not 1 us airport that would let it take off from speed loss was also very close to the fuel gain there was a gain but 8 or 9 % was not the 24% + that was planed it did get this + 24% but when add in the speed loss it was less then 10% gain
2
I’d like to take a moment to recognize our super computational computers, scientists, and AI overlords for bringing these new technologies to light.
Thanks.
The engine that will change aviation for ever is the one that utilizes the magnetic field of earth to move planes around and have zero emissions. Keep working.
The fixed rotor section was used by Charles Parsons in his steam turbines, it is nothing new....
Cool looking anyway!😎👍
Interesting, thank you.
I would have thought, though, that in order for the prediction for the engine business worldwide to increase to come true, we'd need to avoid two things.
The price of normal flights to be quite a bit lower than it is.
Governments around the world being prohibited from banning (or very, very severely curtailing) international travel at the drop of a hat, with no discussion, in an alarmingly synchronized manner, when a virus (which we soon learn to be dramatically less damaging than is speculated) appears.
I hope that we achieve those two necessary prerequisites for this business growth.
العمل والنشاطات والخبرات والتدريب والعمل والنشاطات
Slightly misleading. CFM is jointly owned by the US GE and the French Safran Aircraft Engines in a 50-50 ownership so all engines produced by CFM are joint ventures of these two companies.
i had safran at my school yesterday we had the chance to see this big boi in AR
They have to come up with an efficient way to de-ice the individual blades.
I remember hearing about this in the early 1990s and thinking, as a 9 year old, that’s lame. It failed.
But maybe this one will work!?
It also makes Julienne fries.
It looks like a slice and dice machine!
It comes down to to 3 things. 1) Politics, 2)Fuel efficiency, Net Thrust/fuel burn rate. 3)Serviceability (maintenance and reliability and safety). To win an engine manufacture needs to nail all of these so as to show an economic advantage to the Airline for there engine. Not much point producing the best plane or the best engine, in Russia or Brazil or Japan, if no one buys it due to politics.
I loved always thoughts next-generation of
Imagine a wait list on order. Specially on RR
It’s Derby not Darby ! So many basic errors in this video
There is no reason NOT to use props. Commercial planes fly subsonic.
Yes bit the props themselves can break the sound barrier at the tips
NOW if we could just just figure out a way to keep fuselage plugs on the plane. Wouldn’t it be nice to have ALL the plane stay together on the flight.
OK, hold up.... there's a problem with something said in this video that hopefully the 'propeller-beanied' among you can help to figure out: At 7:13 the Narrator says "They secure the engine with 50,000 pounds of thrust on two mounting brackets...." Say Watt??? OK, let's see: That statement can't be a reference to the engine itself (by stating it's propulsive thrust numbers) as the XWB produces >90,000 "pounds of thrust". So, is he referring to the amount of 'torque', measured in lb/ft, that is applied to the fasteners that secure the engine to the two mounting brackets? (If so, the term "thrust" has no business being used in that statement!) But 50,000 lb/ft of torque ??? That wrench and 'dog-bone' they are using is only about 5 ft. long! That would require them to apply 10,000 lbs. of weight to the end of that wrench to generate 50,000 lb/ft of torque! Something is off....🤔
Counter rotating high speed machete-like blades. I ain't going anywhere near something like that! Nightmares.
ITS A TURBO PROP, BEEN AROUND FOR 71 YEARS, THEY PLACE THE REDUCTION GEARBOX MID ENGINE.
The main problem is as a new generation is developed you learn new information throughout the process,where as a whole concept seems to appear from the development process,that in its self births a new dimension what also needs to be developed..round and round we go
$32,000,000? That’s $2000 a pound! Do these ever get stolen?
Ho hum, a old 80's idea that just keeps getting the spin. It's never going to happen
This isn't the 1980's today's technology is much different.
@@charliefoxtrot5001 Yeah by now it's 10 times more expensive
@@leokimvideo That's also wrong, given how cheap carbon composites and advanced ceramics are.
Hello from “Darbyshire”
I think the design could be improved if they added a turbo encabulator, preferably on a base-plate of prefabulated aluminite
Will change aviation history, mabey
This was supposed to be about the external blade motor instead it’s about the Airbus Trent engine
UNBELIEVABLE!!! WOW
yes
I can't think of another company that makes such excellent quality of engine, besides Ferrari, but Ferrari doesn't make plane engines.
" Sharp as a chefs knife" 😅 Eh no. The assembly engineers would have no fingers.
Darby? :)
*_futuristic alloy_*
what kind of compound is that?
They keep talking about the engine cost as soon as cost becomes a driver, speed of production comes into play and with speed comes mistakes.
Awesome.
Why not make 4 or 4 propeller assembly?
Propfans have been in development for 40+ years now. That there isn't one operational serial built example shows the difficulties and complexities coming with it. If it comes at all I guess it will take another 5-10 more years.
I believe the noise factor is the biggest drawback to unducted fan engines. Check out the 'Thunderschreech' X-plane with a supersonic propeller. It still holds the record for the loudest aircraft every flown!
that and lack of containment
I don't think that they take all the engines they produce throughout all those rigorous tests. I think that they test one of those engines, then build the rest of them with the specifications they extracted from those tests.
I hope it's rad.
How is this not just a retread of the unducted propfan engine from four decades ago?
The first engine shown in your lineup is remarkable but they are very noisy.
How exactly would the first engine give the airframe ANY protection if or when one or more of the blades fail.
How does any airframe protected from a turbo prop blade failure?
Are they quieter are they going to propel the aircraft or pull the aircraft?
Strut braced wings and unducted fans.
Next technological breakthrough, the double stacked wing.
Appel pushes down pretty fast
Very interesting video, but this title and the video sample was in reference to exactly 1m31s of this 10m11s video, with almost negligible information about the "engine that will change aviation forever."
All fan jet engines have to have a surround nacelle which can contain a fanblade failure from structural failure and foreign object ingestion. Any open fan design should also have such containment - if not then all types of jet can be altered to run without a nacelle and thus raise the by-pass ratio. All prop planes in civil use have strengthened fuselages to cope with ice being thrown off the prop and there have been a number of major incidents with blades breaking or coming loose. Should open fan jets have similar protection??
Whew till one of those bad boys throws a blade
So whats going to contain those blades of the engine in the beginning, if one of them decides to fly off. Second no, the turbo fan blades are not as sharp as a chefs knife. If they were mechanics wouldn't be able to handle them for install. Anyways this tech is old news. I want to know about the secret new stuff they're doing.
Reading about this since early '80s... Come on ..
This article mentioned shipping by truck/rail or if overseas by ship or by Beluga. What about the 747 with the 5th pylon for delivering an engine into remote locations? It's the only 747 with 5 engines. I believe it is still flying.
Is Antonov's big 225 still flying. I used to watch that beast on the deck at BNA Nashville and watch them load huge satellites into it. Watching it take off was watching an entire fleet leave the ground all at once. That was 20 plus years ago though, so.....
Mirya An-225 got destroyed in the first days of the russian offansive against Ukraine.@@jbrownjetmech-4783
What is the reduction in speed and altitude compared to a turbo fan. Maybe ok for short range Europe but not for international, Asia and US.