At 12.30 you mention hydrogen fuel. Everyone wants hydrogen fuel. Why don't they use ammonia instead? Ammonia is much easier to liquefy and it does not make metals brittle and yes, I know it is highly toxic. Why don't they have a large duct around those blades to reduce noise. Why don't they have variable pitch in bypass engines instead of going back to the 1950s
They don't get on topic until 11:00 AND THERE IS NO BIG PROBLEM as asserted in the bullshit title. I'll look for this lying creepy stupid scamming video providers name as videos to never watch. UP YOUR'S UA-cam for permitting and profiting from such shit.
So you call the aviation industry ignoring this engine concept? No, it just takes awhile for all the issues to be resolved. In the case of the open rotor, it's noise. Working on the concept since the 80s is hardly ignoring it.
What a load of BS. The rotary aircraft engine was in common use in WW1, which was some years before the 1930's. Hydrogen is not a viable fuel source for general automotive use, trials in the US are being discontinued. As for aircraft, the same issues would exist. However, I would love to watch safely from the ground the maiden flight of the Boeing Hindenburg. I'm sure there is a used car lot somewhere looking for staff, I think you should apply.
In addition to all the other misleading waffle, the rotary engine fell out of favour in the late 19-Teens, early 19-Twenties in favour of the radial engine. Love the illustration of an inline engine while stating that the aircraft had rotary in it. Also it's not an Open Rotor - it's still an Unducted Fan and the CAD illustrations were lifted straight from Safran. Absolute and utter lack of research going on here. No new or real information at all.
The only way to reduce noise with any sort of fan is to reduce the rotation speed of the fan blades. The faster they rotate, the louder. So, if you want a quiet turboprop, you have to have a lower thrust turboprop.
@@jamesmonahan3904 you disagree because you have limited knowledge of handling and producing hydrogen. It burns green. You can't produce it in a green manner
@@larrydugan1441 And as I understand converting electricity to hydrogen is only about 30% efficcient meaning 70% of the energy is lost before you even have the hydrogen if using the electrolysis method wich is the only clean way to produce hydrogen by splitting water and that is true only if the electricity used in the process is also clean and not generated with say fossil fuel power stations. The only other existing way to produce hydrogen is by splitting natural gas wich releases HUGE amounts of CO2 so that is not an environmentally friendly option.
This system will not work. The power and torque requirements to rotate such a big fan with such an aggressive pitch angle for each blade would be very large. The fuel consumption will not be good and heat generation will be an issue to solve. And the "Blade Out" condition will cause structural to be very rigid and heavy. I am not sure this is worth spending time on. The Blade Out condition was one of the reasons that 7J7 (open fan 727) was cancelled.
They glossed over the blade containment and noise problems. Carrying hydrogen in an aircraft also involves heavy high pressure gas bottles. Essentially a big bomb.
Unducted turbofans was tried out back in the early 80's. No good came out of it. Geared turbofan is way better. Increase diameter of the fan. With less RPM. Turbine rotate with higher RPM
Jetengines real jetengines in the past were loud as hell, several times louder as turboporops. They became calmer and calmer by getting more and more like a turboprop!!
If you know the difference between a piston engine and a jet just jump to 7 minutes. You missed nothing ! Still a lot of yakety-yak, but it covers the ground ... with only a few errors and mismatched video/audio sections.
Until I stand outside an aircraft with a CFM RISE engine, I won't be convinced on CFM's "quite" claim. Standing next to a Piaggio, the closest design I've found, due to its pusher turboprop --- is damn loud. Big pic, the video is cool.. but the AI generated video, photos selected, and voice need work. Mistakes, but on the whole, a solid generic video.
Do you know how hard it is to contain hydrogen? It leaks through the metal. Not to mention boil off. Of course I wouldn't need to call the fire department for a fuel spill.
Propeller aircraft cannot go faster than about 350mph, in any efficient manner. Depending on the propeller design, the compressibility zone losses start to rise exponentially. This technology was heavily investigated after WW2, and modern turboprops are very fuel efficient. The Russians use dual rotors now on their old bombers, and these can fly twice as far on the same fuel load as a KC135. Old testing, using props and jets together, resulted in dramatic failures of airframes, and test pilot deaths. Lets not reinvent failed technology again, deja-vu all over again.
Based on your intro sentences of the video alone. I knew there wasn't actually going to be a giant problem. So let's talk about the CFM Leap.... The 1900's, halfway through and no CFM Leap. Just title this presentation as Aircraft Engines Developing Throughout the Years. And there's the end of the video and not a single GIANT Problem said.
At ~ 12:40 "Hydrogen as a Fuel Source, Does not Cause any Greenhouse gas Emissions".... Really? What do you think Clouds Are Made From, if Not Water Vapor! And They are a Quite Large "Blanket" Keeping the Heat in, for example, on a Cloudy Night!
Technically correct, however in reality total BS, because completely negligible. Look at the *proportions* of anthropogenic H2O added through a few thousand flights a day compared to the 12.9 trillion metric tonnes of "natural" water the atmosphere typically contains in the form of water droplets / clouds / H2O gas. Secondly, cloud cover is generally seen as countering a global heating effect, while gaseous H20 technically works similar to a "greenhouse gas" - a fact that nicely illustrates the absurdity of the currently fashionable CO2 hysteria.
Counter rotation helices makes the air exceed the sound speed close to the tips, producing too loud noise. See the TU-95 from Russia ! NOT recommendable ! That's why they were not implemented so far, except the russians.., but they can deal with !
People will gladly put up with noise if the safety, reliability, and economics make sense. One of the iterations hinted at using laminar air flow via a stator prop. Sure would like to know more about that.
Yup, people will gladly put up with a significant loss in healthy life years and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and an increased risk of early-onset dementia. Because these are epidemiological consequences of an increased noise exposure. Some figures from the EU: every year, about one million healthy life years are lost to noise exposure, most of which comes from transportation. And this is only the risk from one environmental stressor. Add another one like particles, VOCs, vibration, and the figures are even worse. Our (EU) "efficiency fetish" at the expense of safety and health already has a huge negative impact on the general population, so we can certainly do with a bit more noise.
Hydrogen fuel is not going to work, it's not economically viable at this time, the storage of hydrogen requires either extreme low temperatures or extreme pressure to contain it.
Yeah, it looked like the firing order was all over the place. Normally an i6 is 1-5-3-6-2-4 or 1-2-4-6-5-3, I honestly couldn’t tell what it was in the animation and, they made it seem like they would flood the cylinders with water to cool it lol
Talking about jet fuel prices, while a Russian tanker train loaded with ... methanol rolls through. Please pay _some_ attention to the stock footage you pick, mkay?
Just another AI voiced waste of time. Want to quiet tip noise? then enclose the props in a duct or attach the duct directly to the tips and let it turn with them.
You guys know Pan Am went out of business -- like back around the time Custer lost to Julius Caesar at Appomattox -- don't you? Or is it that the fact they're out of business means you don't have to pay for the film clips?
The length of this video could have been cut considerably and still give some valuable information.
Agreed. 90% history lesson
This video is just so much waffle.
I want to comment but let me first introduce you what's comment and its history😂
At 12.30 you mention hydrogen fuel. Everyone wants hydrogen fuel. Why don't they use ammonia instead? Ammonia is much easier to liquefy and it does not make metals brittle and yes, I know it is highly toxic. Why don't they have a large duct around those blades to reduce noise. Why don't they have variable pitch in bypass engines instead of going back to the 1950s
Yup. That's why the Rpublic "Thunderscreech" (same priciple) was shelved.
Bird Strike Blender on a stick - I mean aircraft.
Forget the first 4' 30" unless you want a potted history of aircraft engines since the Wright brothers.
They don't get on topic until 11:00 AND THERE IS NO BIG PROBLEM as asserted in the bullshit title. I'll look for this lying creepy stupid scamming video providers name as videos to never watch. UP YOUR'S UA-cam for permitting and profiting from such shit.
You savr me 4min thanks
You can jump to 7 minutes & not miss a thing.
@@MomolosZtips thanks but its already seen
So you call the aviation industry ignoring this engine concept? No, it just takes awhile for all the issues to be resolved. In the case of the open rotor, it's noise. Working on the concept since the 80s is hardly ignoring it.
BS. There is no real info
Early jet engines had *very* short maintenance intervals.
The ME-262's engine overhaul interval was less than 100 hours as I recall.
The Wrights did not build the engine themselves - it was built by Charlie Taylor
Fellow a&p?
And they were not the first fly. That’s Yank history for you. Same for breaking the sound barrier.
While the Narration is pretty good the supporting archival video synchronization is often very misleading.
What a load of BS. The rotary aircraft engine was in common use in WW1, which was some years before the 1930's. Hydrogen is not a viable fuel source for general automotive use, trials in the US are being discontinued. As for aircraft, the same issues would exist. However, I would love to watch safely from the ground the maiden flight of the Boeing Hindenburg. I'm sure there is a used car lot somewhere looking for staff, I think you should apply.
In addition to all the other misleading waffle, the rotary engine fell out of favour in the late 19-Teens, early 19-Twenties in favour of the radial engine. Love the illustration of an inline engine while stating that the aircraft had rotary in it. Also it's not an Open Rotor - it's still an Unducted Fan and the CAD illustrations were lifted straight from Safran.
Absolute and utter lack of research going on here. No new or real information at all.
These are like the cutting edge engines already in use on the airbus.The TP400 engine for the Airbus A400M.
The only way to reduce noise with any sort of fan is to reduce the rotation speed of the fan blades. The faster they rotate, the louder. So, if you want a quiet turboprop, you have to have a lower thrust turboprop.
Variable pitch propellers have been common since the late 1930s.
Hydrogen will never be commercially viable in Airliners.
Totally disagree hydrogen's to fuel airplane engines would work better
@@jamesmonahan3904 you disagree because you have limited knowledge of handling and producing hydrogen.
It burns green. You can't produce it in a green manner
@@larrydugan1441 And as I understand converting electricity to hydrogen is only about 30% efficcient meaning 70% of the energy is lost before you even have the hydrogen if using the electrolysis method wich is the only clean way to produce hydrogen by splitting water and that is true only if the electricity used in the process is also clean and not generated with say fossil fuel power stations. The only other existing way to produce hydrogen is by splitting natural gas wich releases HUGE amounts of CO2 so that is not an environmentally friendly option.
@@jamesmonahan3904 watch a video of the hidenberg
This engine has no chance against the New ROLLS ROYCE Ultra fan coming in the near future.
They’re wasting resources on this. Passengers are past riding on turboprops. Blade separation will be disastrous.
H2O is considered a "greenhouse gas". I would like to hear this running at full power. I suspect it's inherently noisy.
This system will not work. The power and torque requirements to rotate such a big fan with such an aggressive pitch angle for each blade would be very large. The fuel consumption will not be good and heat generation will be an issue to solve. And the "Blade Out" condition will cause structural to be very rigid and heavy. I am not sure this is worth spending time on. The Blade Out condition was one of the reasons that 7J7 (open fan 727) was cancelled.
They glossed over the blade containment and noise problems. Carrying hydrogen in an aircraft also involves heavy high pressure gas bottles. Essentially a big bomb.
Unducted turbofans was tried out back in the early 80's. No good came out of it. Geared turbofan is way better. Increase diameter of the fan. With less RPM. Turbine rotate with higher RPM
Bro does NOT know how to animate 💀
Bro used the free trial for an AI
Turboprop engines are very noisy.
Extremely f****** noisy
Jetengines real jetengines in the past were loud as hell, several times louder as turboporops. They became calmer and calmer by getting more and more like a turboprop!!
If you know the difference between a piston engine and a jet just jump to 7 minutes. You missed nothing ! Still a lot of yakety-yak, but it covers the ground ... with only a few errors and mismatched video/audio sections.
Hydrogen worked good for the Hindenburg blimp.. good enough for future aircraft designs
Liquid hydrogen is lighter than jet fuel ,good concept, I like 😊
Talk about explosive fuel! Hydrogen would be hard to store, I’m guessing it would be liquified and under high pressure!
Wrap those blades up. Exposed rotating blades is a recipe for significant ground crew injuries. It will create jobs for doctors and lawyers though.
Dumb comment , no more dangerous than a propeller
@@fredbugden6935 exactly
Photos do not match the narratives . . . . and too much fluffy talking with little technical worth !
Until I stand outside an aircraft with a CFM RISE engine, I won't be convinced on CFM's "quite" claim.
Standing next to a Piaggio, the closest design I've found, due to its pusher turboprop --- is damn loud.
Big pic, the video is cool..
but the AI generated video, photos selected, and voice need work.
Mistakes, but on the whole, a solid generic video.
Do you know how hard it is to contain hydrogen? It leaks through the metal. Not to mention boil off. Of course I wouldn't need to call the fire department for a fuel spill.
Another example of AI babble.
some Russian planes been using contra-rotation prop engines decades ago
Cut to the chase!! What a waste of time!!
Propeller aircraft cannot go faster than about 350mph, in any efficient manner. Depending on the propeller design, the compressibility zone losses start to rise exponentially. This technology was heavily investigated after WW2, and modern turboprops are very fuel efficient. The Russians use dual rotors now on their old bombers, and these can fly twice as far on the same fuel load as a KC135. Old testing, using props and jets together, resulted in dramatic failures of airframes, and test pilot deaths. Lets not reinvent failed technology again, deja-vu all over again.
Clement Ader did fly before the Bros...
Video starts at 7 mins. The intro is just fluff
TU-95 Bear bomber First flight 1952 Introduced to the Russian air force in 1956 Still in use predominantly as missile launch platform. Noisy as hell.
U.S. fighter pilots intercepting them could actually hear those props over their own jet engines and their cockpit canopies
No use info is it fake ?
Based on your intro sentences of the video alone. I knew there wasn't actually going to be a giant problem.
So let's talk about the CFM Leap.... The 1900's, halfway through and no CFM Leap.
Just title this presentation as Aircraft Engines Developing Throughout the Years.
And there's the end of the video and not a single GIANT Problem said.
Pierce flew before the Wright's,in New Zealand
Why is it that every video about the RISE engine is about everything except the RISE engine........
drag it out for more ads
So much bull shit in this video
At ~ 12:40 "Hydrogen as a Fuel Source, Does not Cause any Greenhouse gas Emissions".... Really?
What do you think Clouds Are Made From, if Not Water Vapor! And They are a Quite Large "Blanket" Keeping the Heat in, for example, on a Cloudy Night!
Technically correct, however in reality total BS, because completely negligible. Look at the *proportions* of anthropogenic H2O added through a few thousand flights a day compared to the 12.9 trillion metric tonnes of "natural" water the atmosphere typically contains in the form of water droplets / clouds / H2O gas.
Secondly, cloud cover is generally seen as countering a global heating effect, while gaseous H20 technically works similar to a "greenhouse gas" - a fact that nicely illustrates the absurdity of the currently fashionable CO2 hysteria.
yeah jump about images and not much info - gave up half way through - prob better to watch tbh
The Russians have been using this type of engine for decades 😲
anyone remember the Hindenburg?
So, what ist the "GIANT problem"?
Counter rotation helices makes the air exceed the sound speed close to the tips, producing too loud noise. See the TU-95 from Russia ! NOT recommendable ! That's why they were not implemented so far, except the russians.., but they can deal with !
Hydrogen as a fuel source around an Aluminum framed aircraft? . . . . . . . Hindenburg anyone?
People will gladly put up with noise if the safety, reliability, and economics make sense. One of the iterations hinted at using laminar air flow via a stator prop. Sure would like to know more about that.
Yup, people will gladly put up with a significant loss in healthy life years and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and an increased risk of early-onset dementia. Because these are epidemiological consequences of an increased noise exposure. Some figures from the EU: every year, about one million healthy life years are lost to noise exposure, most of which comes from transportation. And this is only the risk from one environmental stressor. Add another one like particles, VOCs, vibration, and the figures are even worse. Our (EU) "efficiency fetish" at the expense of safety and health already has a huge negative impact on the general population, so we can certainly do with a bit more noise.
"Aerospace"? are we talking about airplanes flying through air or space?
Não pode ser, o ruído é imenso.
You sure love to hear yourself talk
Hydrogen fuel is not going to work, it's not economically viable at this time, the storage of hydrogen requires either extreme low temperatures or extreme pressure to contain it.
For UCAV only.
I like
Thay could turn the engen to a higher speed so the wine is hier than the humen hearing range
Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean it won't cause tissue damage.
didnt work in 90s wont work now
Wow. I have never seen nor heard so much inaccurate information in one video. Please stop.
Gas turbines can burn more fuel than a piston engine and it is fuel that creates the power. Bla bla bla😝
At 01:00
Where did you get this stupid animation?
This is not how a six-cylinder engine works.
It is if it's an inline engine and not a V6 as the video clearly indicates.
Yeah, it looked like the firing order was all over the place. Normally an i6 is 1-5-3-6-2-4 or 1-2-4-6-5-3, I honestly couldn’t tell what it was in the animation and, they made it seem like they would flood the cylinders with water to cool it lol
Talking about jet fuel prices, while a Russian tanker train loaded with ... methanol rolls through. Please pay _some_ attention to the stock footage you pick, mkay?
Video sucks: filled with redundant, off-main-topic info and images. Takes 12 minutes to get to the 1 minute point.
Informative!
I can’t stand everyone using the same AI voice
It doesent look right tho
Too much History
worst animation of internal combustion engine operation youtube has ever seen
Just another AI voiced waste of time. Want to quiet tip noise? then enclose the props in a duct or attach the duct directly to the tips and let it turn with them.
Not "Real Facts"
WOW , what a POOR bland non info video....just skip to end.....
nothing new
The multiverse is total wan&, MCU is wan&, Disney has destroyed it, time to move on fellas
what a bunch of blah, blah, blahhh!
Why do we get a picture of a Russian aircraft when talking about the ME262?
The russian already useing this engine on there bommer jet.
You guys know Pan Am went out of business -- like back around the time Custer lost to Julius Caesar at Appomattox -- don't you?
Or is it that the fact they're out of business means you don't have to pay for the film clips?
When they start using antigravidic engene thar won't be a need for oil