Is THIS Really The Future of Jet Engines?!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 сен 2024
- Get an Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ nordvpn.com/me... It's completely risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee! ✌
-----------------------------------------------------
The CFM RISE is an exciting, VERY promising way to bring such a new generation of cleaner aircraft into our airports, and today, I’m going to answer some of YOUR questions about how it works and… I will look at WHY Boeing now seem a bit… unsure if the CFM RISE is the right choice for their next airliner.
-----------------------------------------------------
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward!
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
Our Connections:
👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: mentour-crew.c...
👉🏻 Our other channel: / mentournow
👉🏻 Amazon: www.amazon.com...
👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: boseaviation-e...
Social:
👉🏻 Facebook: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Instagram: / mentour_pilot
👉🏻 Twitter: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Discord server: / discord
Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the latest aviation content
👉🏻 www.mentourpil...
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.
SOURCES
-----------------------------------------------------
• How CFM & Airbus conti...
• Gas Shortage Lines in ...
• Menzies Aviation - Fue...
• Song of the Clouds - A...
• ATR 72-600 Prototype -...
• Meet the Embraer E145
• Boeing completes first...
• Airbus #ZEROe Series t...
• Watch NASA and Boeing ...
• X-66A-ferry-flight fro...
• Countdown to #ZEROe: E...
• 25 years of carbon fib...
• In the Making: First #...
• #CFM50Years - The jou...
• LEAP-1B First Engine T...
• The Engine People The ...
• CFM RISE program Tech ...
• How Jet Engines Work
• CFM56: the world’s bes...
• Replay: GE Aviation an...
• How Does a Turbofan En...
• Blast From the Past: T...
• A380 and A400M in form...
• GE Aviation’s Catalyst...
• Avio Aero and the Open...
• Focus on the RISE demo...
• 3D Printing the Innova...
• GTF Advantage Airbus A...
• StandardAero Fleetland...
• PW-Allison 578-DX Propfan
• How Jet Engines Work
• LEAP engine: how are m...
• GE Aerospace's history...
• Plane passengers see f...
• CFM RISE Program, Airf...
• The Beauty of Boeing’s...
• How does a CFM56-7B wo...
#Mentourpilot #pilot #aircraft
Get an Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ nordvpn.com/mentournow It's completely risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee! ✌
please make video four hindi four make equalitee all humanitarians. i from rajasthan india. i speak xcelent four english but many my familee wanting four enjoi youre video. but very very difficultee four language only enlgish my dear. i wait four you remember martin luther king dreams, and I pray four you make video four all societee.
For sure, new battery technology, in 5, 10, 15 years from now, will be much lighter and more energy storage, allowing very thin airplane wings (no need for fuel tanks inside them). Aircraft manufacturers should at least start to plan totally new designs for aircrafts based on electric engines (propellers?). Electric engines requires no maintenance, they are not noisy, weigh much less, and you can put many engines on a wing. Actually one possible design is that whole fuselage shape is used to push air.
@@hayleyxyz i have wife.
@@hayleyxyz वह खुशहाल शादीशुदा है।
@@RanjakarPatelUh Petter doesn't speak Hindi so I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.....
HI, Mentour. I retired as a senior engineer. Over the course of my career, I’ve given many PowerPoint presentations in front of audiences from a dozen to hundreds. I want to pass along that I find today’s video to be a truly outstanding paradigm of how to break down complex technological issues into digestible pieces where you start with the basics and work your way up. You should patent your style of presentation. *Bravo!*
Totally agreed! It shows he puts a lot of energy in the research and also production itself. He, obviously, has a good team behind him.
One other thing, at my eyes, at least, he is constantly improving.
I've used PowerPoint and have sat at PP driven presentations, and after the first one, the rest for the most part were dull and boring. A good presenter doesn't need PP.
Death by PowerPoint. Thanks.
You can't patent a style of presentation.
Wouldn't the rise engine be a great substitute for the traditional turbo prop? I more than likely missed that point of why it isn't but it seems like the best opportunity for it to at least be more than a concept
I’m neither an engineer nor a pilot, just a fascinated lay person. Your detailed explanation of technicalities are so good, I understand them. Thanks Petter 🙏🏻
As a former P&W engineer, thanks - this was fantastic!
Thank you, too! Glad you enjoyed it!
@@MentourNow Yeah it's not rocket science... but.... adjacent.
@@marhawkman303 🤣
ok, so how does removing the ducting make it more efficient?
@@danisyx5804 Think about the difference between a jet and a turbofan engine. The bypass air on the turbofan that doesn't make it to the core is what actually produces the majority of the thrust (which is why turbofans are more efficient than true jets). Now, remove the casing from turbofan. You'll have even more "bypass" air, that flows at lower velocity (increasing total thrust), and you'll also gain back some losses due to case drag. All for the same roughly the same fuel burn, allowing you to use smaller engines and less fuel for the same loads.
I absolutely have no idea why RUclips recommended this to me, but I'm absolutely in love with the content. Seriously, what a great video. It literally made me want to pay attention to aircraft engines every flight I take from now on 😂
8:17 I think Petter's personal mission is to find the fastest possible way to say "anyway" without losing intelligibility, and he's doing an impressive job so far.
I’m always trying to improve!
@@MentourNowyour English pronunciation has improved to the point that you sound like you've lived in Southern California since you were 16 years old. I worked with people from all over the world and the Swiss Germans sound like you, but their pronunciation wasn't nearly as good as yours.
Oh I remember the videos from his living room, first time I heard him say "jaw" it took me a minute to realize he was saying "yaw"
Pronunciations have come such a long way since then
@@jillcrowe2626 That's because he's Swedish: the Germanic language root plus the coolness of the Swiss, but without the mess of Danish, nor the oil of the Norweigans.
I like his accent. It's pleasant.
As an aircraft mechanic, I really enjoyed the GTF vs. LEAP LPC/HPC/LPT/HPT break down. NOT nerdy at all, it is very interesting and the animations were excellent!
Thanks for the video. My first job as an aircraft technician was on Learjet 23, 24 25 aircraft in St Louis, Missouri in 1986. The engines were GE CJ610s and burned 2,000/lbs/hr first hour fuel burn. They were straight jets (no bypass) and were deafening on takeoff. The acceleration on takeoff is legendary for a civilian aircraft. One of our aircraft was serial number number 23-010, which was the 10th Learjet made in the 60s. It was N500BF which was originally owned by Broyhill Furniture. Good memories.
lol I got lost near the end and was thinking how did a furniture company get into building jet engines.
Those engines are so loud that they're not allowed to fly in the USA anymore. My A&P school has a Lear 25 that was donated to it because the installation of new engines would have been cost prohibitive to the last owner. Technology sure has come quite a long way.
@@noah4987 That’s correct. Even in the late-80s, Lear 20-series aircraft were being sold to buyers in South America. My company sold a beautiful Lear 24D to someone in South America for $245k. Two years after my first job I
transferred to Jet Corp which had Lear 35s. First hour fuel burn was 1,500/lbs/hr and much quieter and more reliable.
@@SevenCostanza What's the point of commenting this u NPC smooth brain pleb? I care.
Distributed propulsion with electric motors should be a good option for jet engines. Jets should be used to generate electricity. Laminar flow and lighter stronger materials are better than more powerful jet engines. I fly electric flying wings with autopilots. I was an engineer on the SR71.
Fun thing about modern turboprop planes, you can't put oxygen in the blade strike zone. Which isn't usually a problem since even if you have a tank you usually put it elsewhere. But in the case of the A400M that limits the area able to be used for medical transport units (at least in normal operation, in wartime they would likely just ignore it if necessary) since the units have independent oxygen tanks.
I don't know if we'll ever have the ultimate perfect engine: fuel efficient quiet high thrust and not expensive all in one package.
In one size, suitable for all type of aircraft - from J3Cub to 787 - and reparable in the garage for low cost.
Cheap, efficient, high thrust - you can only have 2 of the 3.
Let us substitute “reliable” for “cheap” as cheap is not what is going to give us efficient and efficient is not negotiable.
Why did it say you posted this 3 days ago and the video was uploaded 3 hours ago today?
On a long enough timeline all technology will become perfect. I'm sure the guys designing radial engines never considered the existence of the the massive turbofans and their monocrytaline or composite blades.
3:50 - I worked for a company that vended a real-time UNIX machine to P&W to support simulation of the PW4000 high-bypass turbofan targeting the 777 test flight and production. It was the first engine approved for a test flight entirely upon simulation results. The machine emulated the Hamilton Standard electronic engine control by running the FORTRAN codes that would run in the HS in a commercial machine in a separate rack. Happy to see the PWxxxx name applied to a new generation.
I had a conversation with one of the leads of the JT9D program (ie, 1st gen 747…late 1960s) and he admitted his department- the engine control system - was responsible for the first commercial 747 flight being delayed. The control system was apparently a total Rube Goldberg setup, with hydraulics and solenoids and relays at every turn. It also didn’t help that Boeing made the mounting struts for the engines too wimpy and that lead to all sorts of trouble with engine casing flex.
As an aerodynamics and performance engineer, my CS friends are always surprised when i tell them 80% of the codes i work with are written in FORTRAN. Even currently maintained/updated programs, although thankfully the newest ones are no longer fixed format
@@o0SingingInTheRain0o Nothing wrong at all with Fortran. It still dominates the compiled scientific & mathematical application space (with Python ruling interpreted code). Fortran has been modernised over the decades. Fixed format has been obsolete for over 40 years though. That's some _old code_ mang!
Another excellent video. The 777X looks a good replacement for the 747, but the various delays in certifying it mean the design is now quite old and you wonder how much more life it has in it if yet another delay in entry into service takes place. A 350neo could soon be announced. Bob Allen
12:00 "Get a little bit nerdy"? Hooray!
Yeah, it's cute that he kind of apologises for that when, on the contrary, that's the part of the video we look forward to.
yeah, nerdy is good :-)
‘ De-swirl’
@@Juan-qv5nc
Like Weird Al says in his song "I am white and nerdy" LOL so bring on the nerdy!..... I do enjoy how Mentour gets into the nerd area, with out going to deep making it for a select few high level understanding. He gets nerdy but keeps it so just about anyone can understand.
I’ve been hearing about this for FOURTY YEARS!!!
I actually got to see the UDF of the late '80's fly back in my days as a skydiver.
In fact one of our jump pilots was a GE Test Pilot at the time.
It was as loud as it was efficient. We all agreed.
Was the noise due to the contra-rotating blades though?
Yes, the sound was like a P51 Mustang.
We've been hearing about unducted turbofans, ultra-high bypass turbofans, etc... for decades. It's definitely in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category for me at this point.
Next version will be all electric with power stored in supercapacitors an recharge on descent and slowing for landing. If they slow down enough from enough height they will have more energy when they land than when they started and can immediately take off again.
@@ASDasdSDsadASD-nc7lf That doesn't even make sense
@@BedrockWarriorGames only because you forgot about the nuclear power plant powering it with a large extension cord.
@@ASDasdSDsadASD-nc7lfPerpetual motion machines do not exist brother
There are 2 AN-70's in service with the Ukrainian air force powered by D-70 unducted turbofans with a pair each of contrarotating fan blades. The design dates to the 80's. It really isn't anything new. Just a compromise between a turboprop and a turbofan.
I hope RR gets the ultrafan done, so maybe we can see a comeback of the super heavies in a 2 engine configuration, imagine a return of the Queen!
I have a video on a 2-engine 747, based on exactly this idea, if you want to look it up!
Would a 2 engine 747 still really be a 747 though?
@@tin2001 The airframe makes it a "747" Not the number of engines..
@@MentourNowBut is not the 777 the Queen without the hump? In terms of carrying pax. With 2 engines.
Uh, that "queen" hump is why it ain't the queen anymore. It wasn't the 4 engines which made it fuel inefficient or costly to operate buddy.
I absolutely love it when you get technical and "nerdy" - more of that please, I like the technical details c:
I really appreciate the technical depth of this video. The brief but insightful footage in the first half added significant value. Thanks for sharing!
Awesome, thank you!
@@MentourNow I think you nailed it, without going too nerdy for us aviation enthusiasts
One thing I’ve seen in my lifetime which spans the launch of the A300 to the A350 is that airliners tend to remain conventional, unconventional ideas and concepts help improve the conventional but almost never make it into passenger carrying production, the most radical concept that became reality was split scimitar winglets but everything else has been developments of conventional technology and designs and I don’t think that will change, we may see radical designs in production in the distant future but we will get there in slow increments of conventional developments.
Increasing pressure from legislation can change that....maybe?
GE90 composite fan blades were not conventional and made it onto production aircraft. Launch customer was British Airways.
Legislation rarely fixes it and causes prices to sky rocket. New tech takes money to develop Aand time to get working. Non of which bureaucrats understand or even care to!@oadka
@@oadka Difficult because of the time and cost from design to mass rollout and existing fleet sizes.
the combination of those truss-braced wings and RISE open fan engines give me a sort of nostalgia because of how it resembles to aircraft a century ago.
neat video! this was a great watch
Reject modern design, embrace the aviation pioneer aesthetic.
It's funny how they go backwards in order to go forwards, isn't it? You gotta wonder.... 🤔
@@Alex462047It all depends on how you define forward. Is flying slower and lower really moving forward?
@@LTVoyager I don't know, mate. To tell you the truth, I'm finding it all a bit boring, really. Slower, lower, more eco friendly. 😒 They sell us shit and try to convince us it's gold.
Did anybody try making Concorde more efficient? Or was the Paris crash just their way to make flying more beige. That plane was so marvellous that you didn't even have to fly on it to be inspired by it, it was enough simply to know that it existed. I don't see anything like that these days, nothing really inspiring, despite Petter's best efforts, God bless him!
@@LTVoyager My thoughts too.
8:57 Ship design suffer pretty much the same issue with their propellers :
Cavitation on the leading edges from high rotation speeds.
Which is logical, as both water and air are effectively following fluid dynamics.
Also easy to change with more blades (even more propellors if neccessary) to keep trust the same and slower rotation speeds (at the tips of the propellor).
Only negativ side...You'll never get your ship faster than to the speed that the blades can push water...However we can also go around this....(at higher costs of course)
Also better efficiency with steg turbine systems (engine upgrading? ) in a ship.
Sorry. link in German language.
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-und-Dampf-Kombikraftwerk
@@reiniernn9071 I doubt that the GuD would be able to adjust quickliy enough to varying engine loads, as they appear on ships. Shore based powerplants can simply run at their ideal load, which isn´t achievable on ships.
@@gustavgans8278 I'm sure that no turbine system can adjust quickly.
But , like diesel electric trains...or submarines...it is easy to adjust power when you use that powerplant for producing the needed energy and electric engines for drivetrain...This allows for sudden changes in engine loads.
I told it would be costly to do it good...but not impossible.
(Electric alternator efficiency is up to 98%...an electric engine also. And if needed an engine controller...at least 95% efficiency...)
Indeed, but we should differentiate between the two as we can compare the flows in liquids to supersonic flows in gasses, with some caveats. Cavitation can be sort of translated into the shockwaves in gas flows, yet they differ in compressability. So it's a good but complex comparison.
I do like the sound of a turbojet, but I don't think I'd want to listen to it full time.
what I've learned about airplane engines from these videos, is that the more air you can push backwards in proportion to heat produced, the more efficient your engine is, and the biggest limitation on that is your blade efficiency falls off a cliff when the tips approach Mach 1. therefore the design goal is to have as much surface area of blade, at the optimum angle to generate as much blade loading as the structural integrity of the blade allows, as you can get; while having the overall engine structure designed to minimize air being pushed in directions other than backwards in normal operation. (of course, thrust reversers are there to do the opposite of that)
I would have 2 primary questions:
first, the animations showed both engines rotating in the same direction, but wouldn't it be better for the handling of the aircraft to have them counterrotating? or are the airflow and gyroscopic characteristics negligible in that size range?
second, wouldn't it be a boost in efficiency and noise reduction to put a duct around the RISE engine?
the other question would be if there is an engineering reason they would go with the gullwing, instead of mounting the engine above the wing? I can see design reasons and maintenance reasons why a below wing mount would be preferred; and I recall your explanation that putting the engines inside the wing root made it impractical to upgrade from turbojet engines to turbofan engines. but I'm curious if it affects the structure and stability to simply move the engine from below the wing to above.
Put a duct around it? Like maybe a ducted turbofan?
Gyroscopic concerns are non-negligible, but small enough that the cost of a reversing gearbox and the asymmetrical parts production is rarely considered worth the cost. One of the few examples where it is is the V-22, because such large rotors, only half with a wing behind them, are extremely dependent on flow direction.
And while ducts do reduce noise, generally, they are not actually an efficiency gain - though this depends on the specifics. For most engines they are an efficiency loss, but gain in ability to approach the sound barrier - which for engines heavily biased towards jet thrust, means a gain in the operational efficiency that can make it worthwhile. Rise is attempting to cross the gap, but that means sacrificing the duct to allow higher efficiency, and having to find other optimisations to approach the sound barrier instead.
@@iskierka8399 lol whatever. It's a contra rotating turboprop.
@iskierka8399 rather than a reversing gearbox, i would expect the entire engine to be mirrored.
This "summary" is awesome. I learned more from reading that than my entire 37 years alive on the same topic
19:29 What are Boeing worried about? How long have you got?
@MentorNow On the issue of engine mounting, can you do a video on the reason why above wing engine nacelles are rare? For example, the P-3 Orion uses the same engines as the C-130 Hercules. The Hercules has a high mounted wing with engine nacelles hung below the wing, while the P-3 Orion has a low mounted wing with the engine nacelles above the wing. If aircraft manufacturers are considering new designs for the CFM RISE engines, rather than build a gull wing design, why not move the nacelle from the bottom of the wing to the top of the wing? That way, the wing box can stay where it is, but the centre of the engine is moved significantly higher off the ground (allowing the larger blades).
One of the major reasons is maintenance, as under-wing engines are accessible on foot, with no additional height required (for most parts). Granted some of this is lost when the parts to maintain are not mounted in a large duct, and so high off the ground anyway. There will probably be evaluation of other ways to access the engine, such as designing the wing to be walkable so crew could access via the aircraft, but there is a good reason almost all aircraft tended towards the under-wing design over the past half-century.
Another reason is that the upper surface of the wing is much more important from an aerodynamic efficiency point of view. So in general you want to minimize disturbance over the top surface.
1 issue is servicing on the wing. airlines like it cheap, thus the engines need to be easily accessible, so as close to ground level as possible is prefered. the blade size on the CFM necitates that they will need more ground clearence, hence the gull wing, but they if placed above the wing maintainence crews would need to be on the wing itself, this is best avoided
@@krmould
The Boeing YC-14, saw that fly at an air show at NASA AMES once. That aircraft had some impressive performance. So the concept has been proven with real flying hardware.
See “Coandă effect”. Unfortunately this configuration had 7% higher drag.
If the mounting pylon fails, a bottom-of-the wing engine tends to start dropping at the front, so when it falls off completely, it's initially pulling itself to the ground, and not into other parts of the aircraft. An engine mounted above the wing could damage the wing and/or empennage, as the front of the engine would start to go up. While there haven't been any pylon failures since the DC-10 with improper maintenance, but I'm guessing the 777X thrust struts failing could cause an engine departure if both struts failed.
I think a big thing that you completely glossed over is that these engines have prop pitch control which means they'll operate more efficiently at slower speeds which means better climb performance (including single engine climb speed). To take advantage of that, you'll need planes specifically designed with those engines in mind. This is a long term evolution project, not a quick "let's wring 2% more range out of a 737" kind of thing.
The GE36 UDF demonstrator engine was based on the F404. It used the low pressure turbine of the F404 plus an additional counter-rotating stage to drive the two propellers, eliminating the need for a gearbox. It was substantially quieter and produced more thrust than the Pratt & Whitney/Allison 578DX which used a gear driven counter-rotating fan on the back of a modified Allison T701 turboshaft engine.
Nerd alert 😂
Me again
I just saw the ATR 72 that lost no.1 on short final.
Everything worked out great until they stopped and started evacuation.
People were taking hand luggage, refusing to drop the 1.5M from the ATR to the ground.
Passengers walking around. Passengers walking through the stopped fan blade arc.
I think it’s time you do the “Surviving a plane crash”
How to get off a 7700 landing. Walk to the place directed or to the edge of the run / taxi way.
Plug doors (not an …. The self opening in flight model).
Helping others.
Keeping your belt on during the entire flight.
What to do if you are down and you are only survivor .
There is half your script filling in the blanks and you will have another brilliant video from Mentor Pilot.
Re old turbjets/DC8s making '...a lovely sound in my ears." ... Air Canada had a small number of DC-8-40s with RR Conway turbojets which employed Very Aggressive noise abatement techniques towards the end of their service lives. This comprised a full thrust takeoff and maximum! climb (whoopee) to 1,000 feet, followed by an immediate bunt-over and engine thrust reduction to almost idle (in the cabin it sounded like a 4 engine flameout). Then it flew a level flight segment at this low power until clear of the noise sensitive zone. It will be fascinating to see what the future holds.
The Conways were bypass engines. Still loud though
The basics: The air velocity over a fan blade is basically the vector addition of the air speed entering the fan in the direction of travel of the aircraft and the fans tangential speed. These two vectors are at rightangles, so for example (unducted fan), if the aircraft is travelling at Mach 0.7 and the fan pitch is 45 degrees then the fan velocity will be Mach 0.7 and the air velocity over the fan blade will be (square root of (0.7^2 + 0.7^2)) = 0.989949. The above assumes the fan is on a zero angle of attack and producing no thrust. When the fan is producing thrust the Mach number would exceed 1.0 and shock waves would exist reducing efficiency.
Ducted fan: The duct around a fan changes the environment the fan operates in. Before the fan the duct forms a diffuser (expanding duct) this slows the air velocity entering the fan, increases the air pressure and temperature and therefore it reduces the mach number. Because the air entering the fan is at a lower Mach number the fan can do more work on the air without forming shock wave. After the fan and straightener vanes the duct forms a nozzle which accelerates the air, reduces the pressure and temperature.
Unducted fan: The fan must operate with air entering at the aircrafts velocity, which means it must operate at higher Mach numbers than the ducted fan or at very high pitch angles. This means the fan cannot do as much work on the air before shock waves are formed. Very high pitch angles tend to produce more swirling of the air rather than thrust.
Conclusion: To fly with an unducted fan would require the aircraft to fly slower. What is the fastest a propeller driven aircraft can fly at in level flight (much slower than a Jet). An unducted fan is only a multi-bladed propeller. How's that for geek?
Ask your mom
While I would never have been able to articulate “why” as well as this, my intuition has been saying this inside my head, that ultimately the un ducted fan and its problems bring more problems to the table, and ultimately I wonder if the market is willing to withstand these limitations (limiting engine choices, slower speeds, etc. ) something tells me this may not all play out for the unducted fan. I can see it on shorter hop medium sized planes perhaps. But ultimately it’s a bit “niche “. Boeing for example is in a pinch already time wise, and I’m wondering if financially they can wait for this to play out. They are not in a place where they can guess right now.
Exactly what I thought.
The unducted fan seems to have a bigger core than traditional turboprops. Maybe in high altitude, high mach regime, the gear would further slow down the fan while the core picks up the slack meaning more speed. In the low alt regime (below fl250) it would have the efficiency of a turboprop and above FL 250 it would be as efficient as the PW gtf
Great geek comment. Geeks rule the world!
My opinion. 60 Year old pilots like Pure Jet Engines. 50 Year old pilot's accept low bypass engines. 40 Year old pilots like High -bypass engines. But ...30 Year old pilots like a Huge, Jet powered, propeller engine. But 20 year old pilots are Scared of a Cesna 172.
Lol
I'm so glad this guy is a trainer as he reminds me of a great teacher I had at school. He can take difficult and complex information and present it in a simple way. More than that, he clearly has a passion for what he does, which is one of the best ways to encourage the next generation.
These videos are so interesting and actually make me less scared of flying, something that hundreds of flights hasn't achieved!
I’m sure you must be an excellent pilot…but I have no doubts you are one of the best, if not the best, narrator and presenter on RUclips.
Has trouble saying "ratio" which I'm sure is his Swede mother tongue peeking through. It's endearing as he's such a nice dude.
my father was a pilot for the military. wanted to fly all his life just like my great granddad, who also flew for the military. we're not close anymore- he wasn't a very good father. i've always loved technical engineering sorts of things like this. he never saw that, because he never cared about his children more than he cared about his interests. i wonder if he watches you, too. it seems like something he would do. maybe in another life, if he paid attention, i'd be working on these engine designs.
i absolutely loved this video. i hope to see more like it. i wonder if my father even knows how much i love his interests.
I am not an expert on any of this, but I have followed hydrodynamic design, specifically propulsion units, more specifically submarine propulsion units (thanks, Sean Connery😂), and I have questions. The move in ship building has been away from open propeller designs to use shrouded designs, since they control pressure differential spillage over the ends of the propeller blades better. To that end, it would seem to me that similar inefficiencies would exist in open fan designs, and I wonder what issues the designers of the CFM engine have run into, regarding this question.
Incidentally, I can entirely relate to high speed inefficiencies. Classic bladed ship propellers are very prone to cavitation (water boiling on the low pressure side of the blade, then that steam bubble collapses loudly as it rolls off the blade). The solution submarine designers came up with in the 1980s was a shrouded water pump, the "propellor" of which looks more like the elongated compressor blades of a combustion engine turbo or turbine in a hydroelectric power plant. The aim of the game was not to shovel the water through, but to more gently accelerate it down the slower-moving vanes, using the shroud to hold the water in the pump, which removes the low pressure issues of a classic propeller spinning at high speed, while generating even higher thrust. The principle of operation is almost crudely simple, but highly effective, very quiet and actually very energy efficient. It's only because of the legendary secrecy of the submarine community that this technology isn't better known, though it is, by now, already for a long time not a secret.
Interesting observations. To get answers to your questions would require the company releasing more information.
@@Mentaculus42 Yes, I suppose it would. The trouble is, of course, that this is new technology, and still in development, so they won't be saying much just now, I would think. We'll probably hear all about it in approximately a decade or so.
6:45: God knows that when even Boeing has reservations about something, we all should worry
?
Ohhhh 😂😂😂😂 ture
😂😂
The fuel efficiency vs speed trade off always leads to some interesting math. As crews are usually paid by the hour, reducing flight time saves on labor costs, which can offset some higher fuel burn. (Long travel times and hourly crew wages is also why Amtrak is not competitive on long haul routes. An airline needs to pay their crew for a few hours to go from Chicago to LA; Amtrak needs to pay for two and a half days of labor for the same route.)
First, transition to high speed rail. Second, fuel burn isn't just the price per litre you pay, there are external costs to the planet that need to be taken into account.
Sounds like Amtrak will be introducing robots to reduce crew costs.
@@TheCatLady65 stronger individual property rights, environmental protections, and requirements for community consent can present significant challenges for high speed rail. High-speed rail projects in the US are likely to create significant legal work
On the other hand, a train can carry a couple of thousand passengers at a time, while a plane can handle a few hundred.
Thats my take, crew wages against millions in pounds a train can handle vs a plane that's a tough math question.
Years ago I had a job where I traveled often by airlines across the US and Canada. During those times a topic among frequent flyers was the type of aircraft being flown. One of the main topics was whether their flight was on an airplane with turboprops rather than turbofans. Many believed that turboprops were noisy and uncomfortable. Many flyers would make extra efforts to schedule non-turboprop aircraft whenever possible. Turboprops were often seen as old-fashioned or outdated for modern air travel. I think these beliefs had a big influence on the rise of the regional jet's use rather than more efficient turboprops on many routes.
I suspect this belief may still be prevalent today. Boeing may be factoring this into the equation. Most travelers do not understand the concept of the ducted fan and the open fan engine is an extension of the high bypass turbofan engines. Many flyers will see these open fan engines as just a newer form of turboprops. If the open fan engine does enter usage many customers may not have an option to avoid them, but they may not accept them. Many may view them as a throwback to the past to generate higher airline profits at the expense of passenger comfort, much like the constant declining seat pitch.
Thats absolutely true!! Its not all about technical issues. The beliefs of (ordinary) people , ( doesen´t matter if they are true or not) play a major role. Since the 60s when they see a propeller they think of old obsolete technique. Lets see how long they will take to learn a little bit more about it.
:30 Boeing is skeptical about it because they finally got an engineer in charge😂.
That A400M with half contrsrotating props is just gorgeous.
We made a fighter with a supersonic prop, all reports say that it was just awful to be around. Ground crew reported becoming ill from being in the vicinity.
From Wikipedia: The Republic XF-84H "Thunderscreech" was an American experimental turboprop aircraft derived from the F-84F Thunderstreak.
The TU-114 apparently was horribly loud for that reason.
@@Rasta8889 The Tu-95, which is a strategic bomber the Tu-114 is based on is even louder. That also has supersonic prop tips like the Thunderscreech. But they are the fastest turboprop aircraft out there, being very nearly as fast as passenger jets.
I had the pleasure of bumping into a Dresmliner pilot on layover a few weeks back and got to talk with them about their work in their own language thanks to the content you and similar producers make. Was fantastic to demonstrate my insight and connect with their passion for their work. Thanks!
That gearbox is pretty much the same as a hub planetery drive in truck or in my case for the lower gears in unimog, very good way to transfer power
I loved this "nerdy" video more than many others! I learned so much about the new engine technology under development in very little time. Thank you 😊
Would be nice to see how they can reduce the size of the core of the engine to get a higher bypass ratio
That is one thing they Are working on
AND yet when when a design increases the “COMPRESSOR RATIO” for higher efficiency the volume of the core decreases (and thus size) BUT the “ENERGY DENSITY & MAXIMUM SUSTAINED TEMPERATURE WITHIN THE HOT SECTION INCREASES”. As it is the reduction of the core size vs increased power output have been significantly diverging with each new engine generation. In addition to higher temperatures in smaller spaces, numerous efficiency losses do not scale advantageously with more compact cores (blade tip losses, etc). So as is usually the case, it is complicated and full of compromises. Generally speaking, more compact cores are already a design and reliability problem.
Basically the GTF core is already the size of a business jet engine.
For the huge RR ultrafan there were studies to use a BR725 core (Gulfstream 650) with just one additional LP turbine stage.
Just add a chain drive like the 1903 Wright Flyer. Move the engine out of the way of the fan entirely.
(:
9:08 - I'm havin' flashbacks to the "Ear Banger".
AKA, *The loudest frackin' plane ever made*
By the time it is certified, it will have been through so many safety checks of course I'd travel in an aircraft with them.
I will trust in Petter's vetting of them down the road.
MCAS says hi
@@StefanoBorini This has nothing to do with the mcas
Please keep it nerdy & technical because this is what the viewers of this channel are looking for here.
Precise, technical and accurate everytime ! Love it so much ! 🥰😍
Well - two things (I live near Germanys DLR)
- they had a plane with some kind of rise design. It was dropped since it made an incredible amount of noise - like a table saw.
- During a open house at DLR some scientists (in conjunction with water propulsion) were talking about benefits of that "mantle" around the prop. This leads me to the bypass engine design. What I would like to know from developers is, why they "stuck" with some 12% of bypass while they talking about much higher numbers at Rise engines.
My recollection, at the start of the video, is that something like this was tried a few decades ago, and it was abandoned for being exceptionally loud. Ducting your fans allows you to avoid blade-tip problems.
The graphic starting at 14:20 has both engines high pressure turbine stages labeled as compressor stages.
My wife and I were plane spotting (taking stills and video) at the local airport on the weekend, and it was really noticeable how much quieter the A220-300 Pratt & Whitney geared turbofan was compared to the CFM56 on the 737 and A320, or the CF34 on the E190. Given how loud turboprops like the Dash-8 are in comparison (at least to a passenger in flight), I'm really dubious about the propfan meeting noise abatement requirements.
12:18 “Gearbox strong enough to handle a lot of thrust” → “a lot of torque”. Gears handle the torque, bearings handle the unbalanced thrust. But then again, a gearbox has bearings, but those thrust bearings would be similar to the thrust bearings in a non-gearbox version of a turbofan.
Embraer is on it. A 300 person, 3x3 seating arrangement, 32" isle, 3 bathroom model... Only Coach class. With Huge turboprops that are jet powered. Ok. Sounds fun !!!
It's funny, I've grown up listening to ONLY turbo-fans.
All of the 1980s and 90s common airliner ones, love them.
And then there's the Bristol-Siddeley Pegasus in the beloved Harrier Jump-Jet.
I love the sound of the Pegasus starting up.
The core of the Pegasus was the Bristol-Siddeley Orpheus Turbojet.
Its big brother, the BS.100 used the core from an Olympus. With the equivalent of afterburners in the front ducts it had up to 35000 lbs of thrust.
@@paulqueripel3493
Was that for the supersonic harrier?
My dad spent a large portion of his career on Invincible so I grew up around harriers, great fun.
@@MostlyPennyCat yes, the P.1154.
This is layman-technical. And we want more of it. Truly nerdy would be to see the thermodynamics equations and efficiency graphs of the engines described.
I am a CFM56 mechanic, and I am very sceptical to the Rise Engine. More sound, more likely for birdstrike, more dangerouse for ground crew and not able to adjust speed exept by tuneing Rpm. The future will be Geared TF with adustable exhaust or Hybrid El Jet. Just wait and see.
It has pitch control
@@MooRhy Easyer to have a calibrated duct.
It's crazy to think that aircraft engines are going through the same evolution that naval engines went through in the interwar to WWII period. Direct->Turbo->Turbine->G.Turbine. I'm looking forward to geared diesel-electric or geared thermo-electric as the next generation.
While we're on the topic of abbreviations, LEAP actually stands for Leading Edge Aviation Propulsion. Very nifty marketing on part of CFM.
One needs really good marketing when your engineering is poor.
@@roderickcampbell2105 To their credit, CFM engines have typically been more robust than the competition.
@@roberts9095 I don't why I said that. CFM engines are fine. Something must have been on my mind. Sorry.
I think that the video needed to have an explanation of 'propulsive efficiency'. This is not the best explanation, but it should suffice to introduce the topic.
Automotive engines connected to drivetrains that roll without slipping (most of the time) only need to consider the thermal efficiency of how the engine converts fuel to motive power, but aircraft have to deal with the efficiency of converting thrust to airspeed. Both the B-52 and the YB-60 used the same type and number of engines, but the B-52 could fly further on the same fuel load, because of its higher propulsive efficiency.
The propulsive efficiency is the forward airspeed of the aircraft divided by the rearward speed of the outflow of the engine.
The thrust is proportional to the difference between the rearward speed of the outflow from the engine and the forward airspeed of the aircraft.
The first takeaway from this is that the thrust is zero when the propulsive efficiency is 100%
The YB-60, being a B-36 with all jet power and a swept wing had more drag than a B-52, so the YB-60 cruised at a lower speed, with a commensurately lower propulsive efficiency than the B-52. Therefore, the faster B-52 went further for the same fuel as the YB-60. Similarly, the initial age of jetliners all used turbojets, so the only way to improve fuel economy was to improve the aerodynamics, so that the aircraft flew faster. Turboprops have the inbuilt ability to make some trade-off between the swept area of the blades and the speed of the rearward flow, which can be used to enhance the propulsive efficiency at the desired cruising speed.
Turbofans allowed a blend of the potential propulsive efficiency of turboprop engines with the speed and simplicity of turbojet engines. As the bypass ratios improved, airliners slowed down, but got much higher propulsive efficiencies, in return. The unducted fan is where extreme bypass ratio turbofans meet high speed turboprops
I think I speak for the majority of the regulars of your channel when I say that WE WANT MORE NERDY CONTENT N
I envy the way you explain the technical stuff. I lecture at a university and always examine how information is transferred to the audience.
The new animations are so helpful.
Although I am not from the aviation industry, I find it a very interesting subject, both technologically and economically.
14:20
The slide is written incorrectly, but we know what you meant 👍🏻
I clicked "like" just for seeing you play with the toy plane. 😅😆But I'm glad that I'm starting to learn, just a little bit, how is it that an airplane engine works. I'm a homemaker that finds your videos fascinating.
The GE36 UDF engine had a bypass ratio of 30:1 and was developed in the early 1980's and was being tested on a stand in 1985 and an MD-80 testbed with two UDF engines flew transatlantic from Edwards AFB to the Farnborough Airshow in 1988. If an unducted fan engine does become reality maybe PW Canada will take note and increase the number fan blades on their turboprops, slowing the fan speed, increasing power, and decreasing noise. Imagine a TBM, PC12, Caravan, with a UDF.
I can't wait to see these next gen engines make their way into my MRO over the next few years.
When my dad was on B-29s, stationed at Randolph, they were all lined up and running up in preparation for an extended training mission (he ended up on B-50s in England at the beginning of the nuclear readiness age). From his window, he saw the hatch open on the plane to the right and the pilot dropped out, took a left and walked right into the #2 prop. Of course, he disappeared in a mist.
Ducted fans have been around for a minute now but the idea of open air fans turning at jet speeds is, at least, worth a careful weighing of safety issues. You already have ground inductions of personnel with ducted engines.
the nerdier the better
As a turboprop tech its kinda funny that we might end up with all turbo props in the end. Working on the PW127M is quite nice
Each of your videos is a true work of art that brings joy and inspiration!🤗🍾🌠
Thank you! 💕💕
As you said, this sort of engine was experimented with decades ago. There were 2 main problems, 1 real and 1 pax perception. The real issue was noise. At the time these experiments were happening back in the 80s, even the then-new and rather big high-bypass turbofans on things like DC-10s were VERY loud, right up there with most turboprops of the day with Garret engines. And yet these open fans were even louder. All this noise imposed noise-abatement regulations and take-off and procedures we're still stuck with 40 years later. Also, the noise was a symptom of vibration that accelerated fatigue on the airframe. Thus, even while fuel efficiency was upped, the downside was too much.
The pax perception issue, at least in the US, was with replacing cleanly cowled jet engines with external prop blades. This was seen amongst the pax public as a retrograde step in the jet age. I mean, turboprop airliners were a thing in the US from the 50s into the 90s but were replaced by regional jets, even if less efficient, because turboprops were perceived as inherently slower, louder, less comfortable, and less "cool", etc. I imagine the same perception would prevail if open fan engines were tried today.
Of course, the airlines could tell customers to suck it up. I mean, they've already done this on the vast reduction in interior space for both pax and carry-on bags since the 80s, before regional jets started flying routes previously flown by DC-9s/MD-80s and such, and the replacement of wide-bodies on domestic routes with 737s and A320s. It's like, "OK pax, we know you hate this downgrade in space but it's either that or we go bust and you're back to riding trains cross-country. Oh, but wait, you can't do that anymore because air travel killed most passenger trains. You don't want to have to drive there yourself, do you? Didn't think so. So shut up, sit down, and buckle your seatbelt."
Don't hold your breath for anything involving NASA.
Petter was quite right in not mentioning it to avoid overcomplicating the story, but there's an alternative engine architecture favoured by Rolls Royce since the '80s to help make the compromise between needing high turbine and compressor speeds and low fan speed, that is to build a 3-shaft engine, so there's a high pressure (HP) turbine driving a HP compressor, an intermediate (IP) turbine driving an IP compressor and finally a LP turbine driving just the fan. It doesn't completely solve the issue, but it does allow the IP compressor to be much smaller than if you were driving it off an LP turbine. The RR XWB engine family are probably the ultimate expression of this layout, but as mentioned RR are now working on the geared Ultrafan, so it looks like that concept has run out of road.
A high-bypass turbo-fan engine is, essentially, a turbine driven ducted fan.
I find it odd that going back to an un-ducted fan would result in increased efficiency.
It's more efficient since the amount of air moved is much larger.
Kinetic energy (fuel use) is =.5mv² while moment while moment (thrust) is =mv so the larger the mass of air l accelerated and the less the exhaust velocity v the more efficient it gets.
@@leonfa259 That's a question of bypass ratio, not whether it is ducted or not.
In general a ducted fan is more efficient since less air is lost to the sides.
A turbofan has a nozzle at the back for both hot and cold sides, a ducted prop does not. These do not behave the same way.
@@Rasta8889 Yes, that's pretty much the definition of the two.
What's your point?
@@christianellegaard7120 That a high bypass turbofan is not essentially a turbine driven ducted fan like you said. One has got EPR, the other doesn't.
Simply the visuals of an open fan design like the RISE would take some getting used to for sure!!!
I saw your "interview" on the thing with the thing. It was good!!!
Thank you! Glad you liked the “thing”
Wait where was this interview on this "thing"? Interested people would like to know.....🤔
@@alexdhall I'm assuming they meant the recent Veritasium video.
@@MentourNow Veritasium. Hahaha. All joking aside, thank you for your videos.
The nerdier the better in my opinion.
Would enjoy more about the Boeing transonic thrust brace wing demonstrator.
Oooh Boy... If you think this got Nerdy then you haven't done any Multi-Stage Compressor Turbines with Intercoolers type Mathematics.
I remember doing calculations longer than a few pages. Nightmares!! XD
did you get those in your 3rd year ?
Replying to your reply on my last superchat regarding hybrids: you can apply TONS of torque to the outer fan blade instantly. Not only will this produce instant thrust, but it will increase the performance of the jet engine very quickly.
The performance increase would be akin to an afterburner.
You would build the electric motor assembly directly into the rotating parts of the jet engine.
Once you had taken off, gone around, performed a terrain escape maneuver, or similar - the same coils and magnets would apply load to the engine to recharge batteries.
And I say batteries - but honestly super capacitors might be a better fit. The goal is to provide a burst of power on short notice.
By doing this, you can decrease the maximum thrust of the jet portion of the engine. You can optimize for cruise, since your TOGA thrust comes from the electric component.
Maybe a more robust APU plays a part of this.
But electric motors are the exact inverse of turbines - instant torque. It just feels like a good pairing.
You know it's gonna be a huge success if Boeing is sceptical about it haha
15:00 thank you for using the phrase "downhill from here" correctly. it means it's easier/better from here yet people keep using it to mean getting worse
I think a good way to put it is jet engines need a gearbox just as a car does. Without one you'd need an absolutely enormous engine to have both the torque to pull from a stop and the power to drive at highway speed.
Well not exactly, here the gearbox is not changing the gear ratio. It is a fixed gear reduction mechanism.
@@MentourNow More like that on an EV
This idea was abandoned 35 years ago for mainly two reasons. There is the problem of not containing a broken blade, turbofan engines have a strengthened shroud around the fan area to contain the blade. Second and most troubling is the noise. An open rotor could not meet the noise criteria.
They have been talking about UDF technology for 30+ years. Yes they are efficient, but the problem has always been NOISE.
They have solved that now
Lol, I will believe that when I see it.
One problem you didn't mention with the earlier unducted fan designs was the large increase in noise and vibration induced in the cabin. The vibration even added extra stress to the cabin.
The graphic has both CFM Rise engines rotating in the same direction. Wouldn't it be more efficient to have them rotating in opposite directions, like the old Lockheed Lightning? Would that be an unnecessary complication?
The Rise has has an adjustable stator behind the rotor. And the reason is simplicity, yeah.
Cost!
“A lovely sound in my ears”. Music to mine. I lived under the takeoff path on most days at Dulles Airport in VA in the 1980’s. The Concorde. What a sound! A low frequency roar that would stir the intestines. But I loved it! We would always run out to see that magnificent delta winged aircraft go right over us. Even the awesome SR-71 went over. I think I creamed my jeans with that one. Wow! There were still turbojet or very low bypass powered turbofans then. Loved the sound. Still do, when I’m near a military base like Pax River in southern MD. The soundtrack to my life since 1962. Yes, I’m am old geezer. But I still get goosebumps listening to that awesome low bypass roar. Thanks for your channel. You’re the boss.
14:42 i think there is a typo here " 8 high pressure compressor stages and 2 high pressure compressor stages"
You're right!
Also incorrect on the LEAP-1A.
Engineering is compromise. And the more sophisticated the engineering, the trickier the compromise and balance will be. Excellent vídeo.
Hey Petter, I hope you don't mind me for saying this but you repeated "Ratio" incorrectly.
"Ratio" is pronounced ray-shee-ow in both American and British English translations.
I’m glad I’m not the only person who noticed this. It sounds like he’s saying ray-THEE-oh but I’m used to pronouncing it ray-SHEE-oh. I’m thinking maybe that’s just how some people say it.
Another big one that always drives me nuts is "STAB-alized" instead of "STAY-balized."
If you could understand someone without any trouble and you're not their English teacher, "correcting" someone's speech is so f___ing rude.
@@mack.attack I disagree.
If I could ignore it I would but unfortunately I couldn't and that is because it's incorrect and it's something that a professional wouldn't willingly do had they known or been told about it.
@@camtonyray666 Totally agree! Everything he says sounds fine to me, but when he said "ratio" it thew me off; it just sounded so out of place, like he was saying just that word with a lisp.
This video reminds me of being in tech school. We were taught that a ducted turbo fan vs a prop was to control the airflow and allow for higher speeds of the fan by directing the flow and now allowing air to flow off the tips of the blades. Basically you get more thrust similar to how winglets control wing tip vortices to improve lift. But this was also back in 2009 and at least boeing is working on the extended wing design over winglets for the 777x so I guess the rise engine is a similar concept. It does make me think of a high blade turbo prob with sort of stubby blades, but the deswirl device behind the blades is an interesting idea.
As for the weight penalty for a high wing design, why not make a landing gear system similar to the C-130 that uses a screw system or a hybrid system it would maximize the use of the required extra structure. Maybe Lockheed can get back in the game of comercial aircraft. Could there be a wide body roughly based off the C-130 in the future 🤔
If the landing gear is on the bottom of the aircraft hull with a high wing configuration, the hull has to be strengthened and thus heavier than a low wing configuration.
@Mentaculus42 the C-130 uses a jack screw that runs up the side of the side of the body and uses the structure that attaches the wings to the floor. It would still have a somewhat beefed up structure but as much as is required for a fully folding landing gear
@@BradsFishroom
That makes sense, as the landing / wheel loads have to get transferred between the high wings. The C-130 has very important requirements that require a high wing that are not necessary for commercial aircraft. And as you point out, no matter what, a high wing configuration will be heavier. Just as a rear engined aircraft will be heavier, but it is all really about what the efficiency penalty is for each configuration. Considering that the orthodox configuration seems to be low wing, then it must be important. There are a few aircraft that have high wing configurations with outboard long landing gear, but that also seems to introduce significant disadvantages.
Sorry not an expert but these still seem like fancy turboprops...
Turbo props with fancy gearboxes, to be more precise 😂
That's because that's what they are.
That video you made a year and a half ago about RISE was so good. Was waiting for this video very patiently. Thanks!
Switch to Airbus if its Boeing I'm not going
Dad was an Acoustics and Vibration engineer at MDC. He worked on the MD-80 UHB project (and the S-IVB on the Saturn V, but that's another story). They were doing some flight testing out of LGB. Dad's recollection of testing was it was too noisy, and the pilot banged a wing tip on the ground one landing.
As a military engineer who had a hand in the MRTT and A400M, I love the nerdy bits! 😊😊
Lovely video, really well done. I love this kind of air technology videos where a little bit of theory, physics and practical engineering implications are put together. Really well done!
Dude is so thorough and pleasant with his presentation I dont even fast forward thru the ad spots. Very informative and fascinating program sir.
I will drop this here. Recently we've had lithium iron improve to 500w/kg or whatever the measurement is. This means it's only 12 times worse for storing energy than fossil fuels. Previously it was 30-50 times less energy dense.
Drop the passenger count down by a bit and reduce the range to cover regional and we will be seeing electric planes in about 5-8 years I reckon depending on how fast manufactuers move.
They'll have less range and less weight capacity, BUT fuel costs will be massively reduced and emissions will collapse over night. It's something very exciting.
Expect to see spontaneous plane combustions though while the technology is being worked on.
Verry verry well put together video. I love the fact that you lay out all this information in a way it's easy to understand for everybody, while still including a good number of details in it. Great stuff as always!
I mostly fly in the southwest so typically fly in a Boeing 737 variety. Recently flew in a Delta Airbus A321 and was surprised when the pilots actually spooled down the engines a bit after takeoff 😊