Air Travel is FINALLY Changing... Thanks to NASA?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 май 2024
- Truss Braced Wing: Check out the World Class Renogy Power Station Today! geni.us/RenogyPower
Aviation is a passion of mine, but I can't help but feel that so little ever changes. Airplanes have more or less, looked the same for decades, and for good reason. Qualifying a new airplane to ensure safety is no small feat. But NASA has teamed up with Boeing to work on a new airframe that reduces fuel costs by 30% and be a total game changer. From lower carbon emissions to cheaper plane tickets, the truss braced wing is a game-changer. But how does it work, and is it actually going to be something you'll fly in one day? Let's find out! Air Travel is FINALLY Changing... Thanks to NASA?
》》》SUPPORT THE SHOW!《《《
In-Depth Content @ www.twobitdavinci.com
Become a Patron! twobit.link/Patreon
Become a RUclips Member! geni.us/TwoBitMember
One Time Donation: geni.us/PaypalMe
》》》GOING SOLAR?《《《
Save 50% on Solar Inverters ⟫ geni.us/Inverters
Drone Quotes for Solar ⟫ geni.us/DroneQuote
》》》COMPANY OUTREACH 《《《
Sponsor A Video! sponsors@twobit.media
》》》CONNECT WITH US 《《《
Twitter 》 / twobitdavinci
Facebook 》 / twobitdavinci
Instagram 》 / twobitdavinci
Chapters
0:00 - Introduction
1:10 - Efficiency
2:06 - Truss Braced Wing
3:05 - The Numbers
5:47 - Carbon Emissions
6;16 - Other Benefits
6:48 - The Keys
8:06 - The Cons
10:00 - Fun Facts
10:40 - NASAs Role
11:41 - New Engines
13:15 - Context
16:00 - Conclusions
#NASA
#Boeing
#TransonicTrussBracedWings
#Airplanes
#AerospaceEngineering
#FutureOfFlight
#AviationTechnology
#CommercialAirlines
#AircraftDesign
#InnovativeEngineering
what we'll cover
two bit da vinci,boeing,nasa,truss braced wing,transonic truss braced wing,transonic truss braced wing design,transonic truss braced wing airplane,transonic truss braced wing concept,transonic truss braced wing boeing,aircraft with a transonic truss-braced wing,truss-braced wing,truss-braced wing design,truss-braced wing advantages,truss-braced wing nasa,Why Your Next Flight Might Be Inspired By NASA!,nasa truss braced wing,truss wing, This GENIUS NASA Design Will CRUSH Travel Costs - But How? 
Наука
Check out the World Class Renogy Power Station Today! geni.us/RenogyPower
Dude just confused metric ton which is 1 ton with million ton which is a million tons. Now have to wonder why not just use ton instead of metric ton.
Metric is what every nation uses you don't call it out like that. It's like fish calling out it's in water everytime it swims. Maybe the analogy could be better, but you get the point.
Thank you for the video, but from the point of view of a passenger, it's hardly a change. The speed stays the same, doesn't it? It means the time of the flight will remain the same.
When they FINALLY double the speed to about 1700 km/h from the current ~850 km/h, I will call it a real change. This will cut the travel time by half.
A 4-hour flight will become a 2-hour flight. A 10-hour flight will last 5 hours. This will be a REAL CHANGE.
You talk about carbon emissions, but there is no climate crisis.
14:08 the high capacity for a car is 5 people and its roughly equivalent to 40 people on a bus (bus high capacity) how is that better efficiency?
No matter how much reduction in operating costs a new design gives an airliner, they aren't going to be dropping prices. Instead, they'll be pitching to the investors how adopting this new tech will increase profit margins.
Great! Then we can petition our representatives to correspondingly reduce or eliminate the subsidies the airlines are currently getting! After all, we don’t want them to become dependent on those government handouts.
@@DaivG Good point!
Airlines compete based on ticket price. This lets the guys with the new plane to price their tickets lower and still make money.
@@danharold3087 except that the airline industry is a oligopoly and therefore they can charge whatever they want
@@tracehorrocks1857 I would agree with you pre deregulation. But now I am not so sure that is true. If there were not competition we would not see airlines churning. The big players at the top seem fairly secure but past that we see a slow but steady stream of new failed and mergers. I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
3:19 Where did you get the values for the 777-9 and A350 efficiency? According to Wikipedia, the 777-9 has 52,136 US Gal, and the A350-1000 has 42,000 US gal. The 777-9 has a range of 7,285 nmi and the A350 a range of 8,700 nmi. So the airbus has 24% less fuel but 19% more range. It's true that depending on the configuration, the 777 can carry more passengers, but the difference in efficiency regarding fuel and range, goes to the airbus and probably per passenger as well, since the difference is not that great. Edit: I just checked another source (simpleFlying): Quoting them: "the A350s burn per seat is 0.09 lb per nautical mile. The 777-9, in comparison, comes out at 0.11 lb per seat per nautical mile."
A350 is definitely more efficient than 777-9
he is comparing the 777-X, which is still a concept (in the sense of still not flying commercially).
it is a comparison between a plane that has been fllying for 3-5 years and one that has been in design and preparation of production for the last almost decade, has a (supposedly) revolutionary engine specifically designed for it and is still at least a couple fo years away...
so comparing two aircraft that are a minimum of 8 years between them in design...
between the currently available flying aircraft, the a350 is the most efficient one and it is proving very profitable for airbus as such
@@pasmas3217 And that's on top of the data Boeing has released which says it's not as efficient as the airbus. I mean, I don't think there is much comparison here. That's why it's so weird he said the Boeing is more efficient than the A350
TRUE, I don't know where he got his numbers. Maximum fuel carried by A350-1000 is different compared to the data Airbus provided.
Im calling it, this video is bull crap. First calling the 737 max the most efficient jetliner, when the a220 is 5-10% more efficient, then calling the 777-9 more efficient than the a350? His data is just made up...
Another great 2-Bit video. As an ex-NASA engineer, I love seeing the positive results in NASA spin-off technologies. Thanks Ricky!
Do you know when NASA will start producing craft using tech from crashed UFOs? That will save everyone all this trouble of truss braced wings and all this legacy tech.
They should call the truss a strut. It's a strut. See Cessna and any number of brands of airplanes that are high wing. Also, you could have shown a modern sailplane, the ultimate in high aspect ratio wings.
yes good point, we discussed gliders but it was very brief and could've a bit more.
A strut is a single triangle. There are additional braces. It's called a truss braced wing because the extra perpendicular braces form a truss.
Notice the A looking brace in the models. A sesna just has the > and not the perpendicular brasing of the A
A
@@viewer-of-content Thank you Viewer and thank you
@Steven Bukosky for taking the time to explain this. I was asking myself why they called it truss-braced wings. This is the type of respectful discussion that adds value to Two Bit's videos and makes me want to keep on reading comments. Not like some people who try their hand at making pointless wisecracks about things they don't seem to understand.
I thought it can't be a truss because it doesn't consist entirely of two-force members
It’s funny that we spend millions on shaving pounds off a commercial airliner, while the average passenger weight skyrockets…
Maybe pay by the pound is coming soon.
OMG! This is such a relevant comment!! I never thought of that.
That's why they are doing it, with the way things are going the wings will fold up soon 😂
You pay for luggage by weight, why not just pay for seat + total load per passenger. That's fair even if its not PC
@@hedleypepper1838 might be fair but also bad PR. This is the reason concert tickets are not sold at market price.
I knew the biplane would eventually make a comeback 😀
Was privy to witness a Red Baron fly backwards through the pattern at SLC #2 in '91. I was gobsmacked
I once flew in a DeHavilland Dragon. With a bit of luck a ride in one of these is on the bucket list.
@@jimgraham6722 I don't have a bucket list, but my fack it list is a mile long.... 😆
Fyi, this design doesn’t make it a biplane. Biplane means the plane has 2 sets of wings, whereas this design only has one set. The “wing” below is just a truss to support the upper, actual wing.
Something that you haven't mentioned about top mounted wings in general is cargo capacity. Most heavy lift air frames use top mounted wings because they have a much easier time carrying heavier loads. Also having the wings higher off the ground lets them use much bigger engines and that makes them more efficient yet again.
The most obvious answer to explain why NASA pays is: the second A in NASA means Aeronautics.
It's the first A (but the second letter): National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
I really enjoy your presentations! Well spoken, well written, consistent video to the subject being covered, editing, etc. Clearly a lot of work and consideration goes into your videos! Kudos!
Very interesting technology, thank you for the details. Thinking somewhere, there are biplane designers feeling vindicated. 😉
very true lol
What's best to pair with a pizza delivery?
A Two Bit da Vinci video about flying stuff.
That when I know it's gonna be a great day!
@@clusterstage lol. Awesome!
You made my day… but the real question is deep dish, thin crust, or tradition?
@@TwoBitDaVinci just traditional basic hawaiian 🍕🍕🍕
Being a A-P mechanic in the industry for 39 years ,seeing the planes change thru time I can’t wait to see the next big leap
The CFM Leap is pretty big... lol
it would be really interesting to see what kind of savings could be made by combining this with the newly discovered propeller designs
You are incredible at taking tons of information and elaborating on it in less than an 18 min window.
I used to commute to work a couple times a month in a 737-400. The flight was 631 miles and with a full airplane the pilot told me it uses a little more than 7 gallons per passenger. I used more gas getting to and from the airport over 70 miles away.
Great video. You have a knack of providing tech info into an easy to understand presentation.
Just got into your channel and I wanted to thank you! I'm looking into Renergy for my cabin and never had that thought before.
NASA needs more funding. They have given us so many technologies.
Unfortunately NASA shot themselves in the foot with gross inefficiencies.
@christianhorner1732 it's no different than any other government agency. In the broad scheme, NASAs total funding is less than some agency's fiscal inefficiencies.
What about using electric motors on the landing gear to assist take offs?
Interesting idea. I wonder if the added weight from the motors wouldn't eat up any gains in fuel consumption on takeoff. In any case, it would probably be best for shorter routes since the longer you have to transport those motors as dead weight, the more fuel is lost overall.
The benefit of wheel motor units comes from planes at airports with long taxis and short hop routes with frequent take off and landing.
Thank you for converting both train, bus, and plane to Passenger Miles Per Gallon, which is a very interesting perspective. Just doing the math in my head (30mpg x 5 passengers = 150 passenger miles per gallon for a car. a Bus only gets 5 mpg but it can hold 60 people. So a potential of 300 passenger miles per gallon. Car pooling should really get more emphasis, as should small emobility connecting to mass transit.
I wonder if the fuel cost savings will actually be passed along to the passengers?
That's always an issue. I don't think incumbents will ever pass cost savings down to their clients unless forced to. But this type of cost savings opens the door to new companies that can compete in terms of price with the incumbents. If that happens, the latter will eventually be forced to bring their prices down if the new companies start eating their market share. On the other hand, the airline industry is one of the industries with the highest barriers to entry, so it'll be pretty tough to challenge the incumbents like American Airlines, BA or Emirates. But everything is possible!!
@@julialerner3322 Competition between airlines is what drives pricing. Lowering airline costs allows them to go lower.
7:54. A modern glider should probably have been used as an example of high aspect ratio as gliders in the 1920's had mediocre ratios in today's terms. Modern gliders provide a clear demonstration of what it means to have a high aspect ratio between span and cord.
This is so awesome. Hope it goes well. Great video Two Bit!
Ps. Thanks for having promoted ads that are interesting and useful.
Love the fast and direct information. Really enjoyed this, thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it.
The problem with starship calculation is assuming it uses all the fuel, and we know that would not work for propulsively landed rockets.
I would love to see the oval concept for the fuselage being incorporated. Wider body and you can easily get a double aisle with additional seats. Faster loading and more seats would increase the efficiency of plane to passenger.
I doubt they will lower the price. They don’t seem to lower prices unless forced now.
Doing anything positive for their employees or customers would damage their profits.
@@djmir4 100% It is patriotisms for us to make less work more but not for them to pay more etc. Ever notice that being greedy is celebrated. They don't say you know it hurts america if you don't pay the people making you money a good wage. So they then can spend money creating other small businesses which creates a robust stable economy that doesn't crash every 5 minutes.Go see a movie enjoy life. No it is patriotic to work yourself to death but sharing in the profits you created then its Meritocracy. I saw the guy from starbucks and a republican said you are the reason starbucks makes billions. Basically it was all him not the workers why should they get paid. We all know howard is making all the coffees across the country coming up with new drinks all by himself. We all need to go on strike the same day they will never pay us till we flex that without us they don't make money but lose it.
Part of a conventional shrouded fan engine's function, is to protect the cabin occupants from a fan blade failure. This containment function is a safety consideration that seems missing on the "open fan" engine. You would not want to be in the row of seats in line with the prop/fan if there were to be a blade failure, which eventually there would be, just as they are with current turbofan engines due to fatigue cracks.
They will strengthen the cabin
@@ameunier41 Exactly. Reinforcements in the fuselage and probably the windows next to the props. I think that's standard in all open fan engines including turbofans
I’d give it a few years before implementing anything currently considered to be cutting edge design/technology, these are the final days of human design we could well be more of a hindrance to AGI.
Great, thanks for helping me see useful adaptation which I hadn't heard of before.
I can't thank you enough for breaking things down the way you do! Keep doing what you are doing! Please?
Enjoyed this, cheers.
Be interesting to see whether the wing could be thicker over the hull to enable that section to carry fuel.
Nice presentation, especially as you cover both the pros and cons. Gives people the possibility of doing some mental gymnastics on their own. There are few simple engineering solutions. Well done.
At a scale and operationalised, like with airlines and airports, some of the problems could be avoided
1. all travel checks done on shore
2. use hyperloop transport to the launch site
3. only a single rocket is on lauch prep, so 1000 passengers directly board, so no milling around, so very quick and efficient
4. multi-level lifts are very efficient at moving lots of people
5. launch checks occur prior/during passenger embarking (since this happens in planes)
6. fuel tends not to self-ignite, so if proven safe, would occur prior to passenger embarking, and pad-based cryo
7. emergency escape from pad is possible, but would be a helter skelter style escape shute which disengages on launch
real problems
- is how to move multiple rockets/ships and prep a launch complex to handle 10's of flight takeoff's and landing per day, unless turnaround time and re-use is similar to airplanes and airports (hundreds of flights with no maintenance and 2-3 hours turnaround from landing to takeoff)
- G's remain an issue - unfortunate health problems arising during high-G (even 2-3Gs) maneuvers would be a PR nightmare
for high numbers of flights it's the PR issues which I think will be the most difficult to overcome
My first question when I saw this design is: "Where does the fuel go?" You mentioned it doesn't go in the wings, but didn't say where it would go.
It looks as though the engine exhaust plume would play on the strut. In the configuration of the new wing it would appear to offer benefits to fit above the wing engine positioning.
Great overview!
Great video! So well put together and interesting.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Lower airfare! LOL! That's funny!
I don't know if you can do it, but when you talk about efficiency and consumption, could you add some text at the bottom like in linus tech tips figures, explaining if higher is better or lower is better. (FPS = higher the better, computationnal time : lower the better)
When talking about transportation efficiency this is especially confusing because in europe, we are used to talk about L/100km (basically how much fuel per 100km) meaning that the lower the better (you consume less to move 100km) whereas in US you are talking about miles per gallon which is higher is the better.
This is a bit confusing and to be honnest you didn't cover it enough orally what the unit was explaining, and speaking about how much per passenger per distance is... just adding more confusion overall, especially since if you get more passenger the efficiency should increase... I'm pretty sure your numbers were meant "higher the better" but i'm not sure at all.
Thank you in advance.
Thank you that was really good.
If you make the braces an airfoil too, you might not need as long wings, and thus not need the folding mecanism.
Like a double decker with an lower wing with lot of dihedral....
that wing design reminds me of that new boat propeller design, I wonder if it could be used
Great explanation, thanks
Great video. I'd love to fly in this.
Me too!
You and me both!
The ideal wing folding scheme would be the same type that was used on WW2 naval aircraft that had their wings pivot back, à la the Hellcat, along the fuselage.
With regards to the figures for mpge for starship, your calculations assumed that you would need to use the entire 105000 gallons of gasoline for the trip and while I don't know the exact figures myself I'm of the opinion that it would take much less fuel to manouver around the planet than it would take to reach escape valocity? So I would expect a much higher efficiency than stated here?
Awesome improvements!
Agreed! Cheers!
Other improvements are the move to turbofans and wide body design. Drive by wire was also a jump since the 747.
@15:10 - I think your math is off on Starship. The first and second stages use 755,556 + 266,667 = 1,022,222 kg of liquid methane. Multiply by 2.2 to get lbs. Divide by 3.88 to get gallons. Multiply by 0.666 to get Gallons of Gasoline Equivalent (GGE). The correct figure should be 386,021 GGE. Let's say the average trip is 24,901/3 = 8,300 miles (one-third of the circumference of the Earth). With the 1000 passengers-per-flight assumption you arrive at a value of 21.5 passenger-miles-per-GGE. Then you have to do a similar calculation for the 3,577,778 kgs of liquid oxygen (which is not free). I suspect that you'll end up with maybe 10 passenger-miles-per-GGE after you factor in the fully-considered energy cost of making the LOX. Starship would be the worst-performing of the listed transportation technologies by far.
Would love to see the wind tunnel results of putting golf ball like dimples on the bottom or top of the wings.
You have to remember, 0.5 to 1 percent improvement doesn't seem like much, but that equates to millions in the airline world. Similarly you don't have to put dimples, there are other technologies that do something similar like "riblets".
@@ChrisParayno I was once told they use a paint that isn't smooth to get a similar effect. That is on a microscopic level I guess, would love to see the effect on a larger scale of dimples/riblets.
@@Muuip Aerodynamics is such a complex science, isn't it? I guess what's covered in this video also explains why big wind turbine blades also have a very high aspect ratio.
@@Israel_Two_Bit yes, it's the reason most BS aero engineering degrees take normally 5 years due to the shear amount of classes
Dimples only work under very narrow range of airflow. Golf ball dimples are designed for 80-90 mph. It has been considered for wings, racing cars etc, but the downside is bigger than the upside. Don't have a reference for this, sorry, but did investigate when I was motor racing.
Really appreciate your video
This is already quite close to my mental airplane designs.
A little more in the direction of a biplane and a flexible curvature
at the end of the of the lower wing and they have found the optimum.
I'd love to see circular-wing airliners. THAT would be something to see!!
Have you seen new figure 8 boat propeller 1/2 again more thrust,it's being looked into for propeller aircraft.
video coming soon! you read our minds
I am wondering how much effect this will have on the industry as there are a lot of compromises that could affect the viability of the design in the current market.
To make the wing more efficient they are basically increasing the aspect ratio and bracing it in a lighter weight, as the aircraft total weight and aerofoil efficiency haven't changed the wingspan must be significantly increased. Besides the affect at airport gates, what about manufacturing and maintenance, for large commercial aircraft it is likely that current buildings aren't large enough in most places to accommodate them.
As the wing is thinner and more flexible, would safety be compromised in event of strike or failure?
Thinner wings cannot store as much or any fuel, so even though it is more efficient more fuel would need to be added elsewhere. This also makes balancing the aircraft for trim harder as fuel taken from wing tanks have a lower centre of mass change when emptied due to the wings close proximity to the CG.
For larger aircraft, as materials are generally a lot stronger in tension compared to compression (especially when thin enough to buckle), the wings have to be high mounted. Besides problems checking the wing condition when doing a walk around and accessing the wing, it forces the landing gears to be stored in the fuselage alone instead of the wing root box, can be done but might increase landing gear complexity and mass to ensure you have enough wheels far enough appart sideways.
Due to the thin wings, are they going to have as much sweep as current aircraft? If so, how are they counteracting the larger twisting motion. If not, how much slower will the aircraft be to stay below the critical and drag divergence mach numbers?
Also comparing the aircraft to starship makes no sense as it assumes that you can actually bring 1000 people with all their luggage, the seating volume and mass for them, and the life support within 150 tonnes. That the time is anywhere close to what they claim given travel to launch facility and the g-forces required to reach that time. And most importantly ignoring the fact that they are essentially controlled bombs that have a failure rate between 4-10%.
Worth considering the bounce back effect, often using the aviation industry as the example.
As efficiency increases, per tonne mile decreases in carbon intensity, but the drop in price opens access to new market.
Increased demand increases emissions on net and the gains in efficiency can be swallowed by the increase in adoption.
CORSIA will present a challenge to this ever growing emissions with demand, but to say efficiency = less carbon is not always as straightforward
How much additional lift will the truss assembly itself contribute to the overall design?
Nacelle engines were not only dictated by ease of service. It was also the possibility to drop a faulty engine in flight to prevent a fire from spreading to the wing tanks.
This is no longer straightforward with a truss reinforced wing design.
Although eletric cars are very efficient, they just don't last, they're sorta like phones, meant to be replaced, once we can fix that and stop using lithium and cobalt, eletric cars will be overpowered
This plane is very promising, i have worries for long term though, where the verticle and horizontal trusses meet looks thin and i worry after repeated landing, especially with any significant amount of fuel left it might stress fracture, and shear while flying, possibly ripping a wing off since it's now not rated for that weight
Thanks Ricky, you have a knack for explaining complex topics in easy to understand layman's tems! Everytime I try to mansplain something to my wife, her eyes glaze over, she starts to yawn, and she's out like a light 🤣 Next time, I'll find one of your videos and just let her watch that 😆🤓!
wow now that is a compliment! haha I'm sure you're better than you think! we are all our worst critics i've learned :)
I bet those struts and wings would still carry a lot of batteries in the future! It’s getting better all the time!🌞
Yeah. ePlanes will need to be redesigned just like EVs were. The battery will end up being a structural component of the fuselage/wings. I wonder if there is an aerodynamic advantage to making the wing heavier with batteries. Also, I would imagine that traveling at Mach 0.80 and 40,000 feet would make battery thermal management a lot easier than on a Tesla.
The combined overall volume of the wings plus the truss seems roughly the same as conventional wings = same fuel/battery capacity.
Put propellers behind engines so improving laminar air flow over lifting surfaces.
I hope this has an effect on the cost of flight tickets in the future, increased efficiency and lower overall costs for the airlines will hopefully trickle down to consumers. Great vid!
That’s my hope as well!
Ha,ha.... Good one!
The problem is this increased push for efficiency is mainly a reaction to an increase in fuel prices, so unless the fuel used is different things will probably get more expensive. In theory electric aircraft could bring the price down but there will probably be a large transition period where the prices of tickets just keep going up
Wat about the with front to back of the wing,this could accommodate a single pin flap,
Any sign of the blended wing type plane design?
Imagine an electric powered passenger aircraft with a combination of batteries and capacitors but not enough for a long flight time. At each passenger seat would be a pedal powered generator connected to the energy storage system.
Pedal assisted flights would require passengers to pedal, but wouldn't that be healthy.
Flintstones, meet the Flintstones and have a yabba dabba doo time, a yabba dabba doo time….
We can make all the technical improvements to increase equipment efficiency will not help until and unless airline greed especially its executives and Wall Street ends. Good luck in bringing the ticket prices down and improving/ giving additional facility to the traveling public.
Cool! So a two-seat Aptera with an mpge number of 337, times the two seats when highly occupied, out-numbers the best electric trains by more than ten percent in efficiency.
Something to note is that most flights don't fully fuel the a/c so the fuel savings won't look exactly as you have calculated. More fuel means more weight and results in reduced takeoff performance and fuel efficiency during the whole flight. So the operators only fuel the a/c for what they need, with some level of margin. While we fully fuel cars and fully charge our phones, we do not do the same thing with a/c.
This video deals with the topic of the wing quite well, except the explanation of how important the fuel saving is. That is rather arcane and incomprehensible
I really want to get the feel of how this handles so bad...
An oversized high wing! Reminds me of the Italian aircraft design ingenuity.
Very good assessment thank you. We are in a crucial time to invent and create more efficiency for the population demands. And we are also in a wonderous technological age at the same moment. Hopefully we can use the synergy to combine innovation with more green technology inside commercial environments so we can change our Karma for the sake of our planet and all species, From a 26 year veteran USAF engineer, thank you. Please do your best to do more in promoting greener and more efficient technology. I am very happy to give my tax dollars to NASA for these developments and honestly their budget is so small it should be much more. As a society we need more awareness of how much NASA has actually helped us day to day historically. We need to appreciate and fund them even more they are doing very important things in R&D.
I doubt there will be any decrease in overall carbon emissions, cheaper flights mean more people fly more.
This wing design will actually improve manuverability
I'm sure the "slim" margins plays a part, but the biggest part at least for the last 4 decades have been shareholder returns.
Will flyes be cheaper or just more profitable for the company?
Take a guess...
Same profitability but more expensive due to fuel price increase probably 😂
I’m not trying to be an ass but did you say operate on a small margins? I mean I guess 4.5 billion is a small part of the cost but they took gov money then layoffs were done and we saw what happened? They bought back stock etc. I get what you mean. They want to have 1 pilot now since billions is not enough in profits they need more. We can’t give them credit. Business will go carbon neutral if they make money at it if not not. It’s all about money.
So what happens in a Bird Strike situation which causes a blade to detach on one of these new Engines? This is a compulsory test on a ducted fan, to show that the housing contains the blade.
The side of the hull next to the blades is reinforced. I think that's standard on all inducted engines, but I'm no specialist
@13:38 - 140 PMGGe for the 737-8-200 is not much lower than the new design getting 154 PMGGe (10% higher). 10% is 10%, but I was hoping for more.
Not sure Nasa/Boeing came claim all the firsts. Frank Whittle (UK) inventer of the turbo-jet. Dehaviland Comet(UK) first commercial jetliner. Gloster Meteor (Rolls Royce UK), the first turbo-prop fighter. Hawker Sidley Harrier (UK), the first VTOL and of course Concorde (UK/France), first commercial supersonic airliner.
How does the nasa design accommodate ever taller engines thats now causing problems fitting ultra bypass turbofans. This excludes the concept turboprop cfm engines plus the cfm engine has up till now been designed for smaller planes like regional jets vs long haul/ocean crossing.
more room for the new motors also
The excellent 🦅 birds, their safety is critical in this design. Avoidance vibrations. Keeping them safe from blades.
4:41 what happened to eco flow?
They look the same year after year because the physics of flight mechanics hasn't changed. However, the aircraft industry has largely missed the Prandtl bell lift curve despite that it was published in 1933. It was a single double sided sheet that everyone but the Hortons missed till long after WW2 it would seem, though NASSA obviously got their hands on it. So the industry has stuck with the elliptical lift distribution. The difference is the design constraint. If the design constraint, is wingspan, then the optimal spanwise lift distribution is elliptical. However, if the design constraint is the root bending moment (the real constraint BTW), then the optimal spanwise lift distribution is a bell curve AKA the Prandtl wing. This extends the span out to the zero lift point at the tips & creates a provers yaw reaction to aileron control. This was all solved by Prandtl in 1933 yet is still not well known in the 2020s. Which means that the aircraft industry is practically 100 years out of date. Sigh!
The Biplane making a comeback baby!
A ton of interesting info, thanks!
14:40 Will Starship need all 105,000 gallons of fuel (that it can hold) to go halfway around the planet?
15:42 Go Tesla Model Y with 491 PMPGe !
Good even at the national average ridership of 1.5 = 147 PMPGe !
My Model 3 performance has a 107 HWY MPGe * 5 = 535 PMPGe !!
I think the Model 3 RWD has a combined 132 MPGe, so * 5 = 660 PMPGe !!!
more on starship coming soon. PmPGe is such an underrated measurement imo
I think the propellant is only spent in the liftoff burn and then in the slow-down/skydiver belly-flop landing maneuver. The part in between happens in outer space so it probably won't consume any more or less propellant to go 1,000 miles or 10,000 miles. At least that's what I think, but I'm not exactly a rocket scientist,lol
14:35. Starship requires a Heavy Booster for each suborbital point-to-point flight. This means that the entire Starship + Booster combo holds 4,600t of methalox and you *have* to include the oxygen in calculations as it is carried and burned as onboard fuel, just like the methane. The oxygen counts as extra methane mass and that's why rockets quote a total "propellant" mass, not just a fuel mass.
Even if we modify the upper-stage Starship to have a lower fuel capacity and higher passenger capacity for suborbital flights, we'll still need about 4,000 metric tons of propellant per flight, which is equivalent to 1,680,000 gallons of gasoline. This is still a strained equivalency as heat content is not an accurate measure of rocket thrust and we never operate at a stoichiometric ratio, but let's use this number anyway.
Such a Starship is very unlikely to carry 1,000 passengers (see below), but even if we cram that many people aboard we still come up with 7.4 PMGGe for a 12,400-mile equatorial flight. Not 118 by a long shot.
Rockets are *insanely* inefficient ways to travel because you must carry your oxygen with you, which is often ignored when calculating the energy content of various fuels. Expanding gas out the back to push a vehicle is also quite inefficient.
I'm not claiming that point-to-point Starships are impossible as there could be a demand for such flights, but the seats will have to cost a lot more than standard airline seats and there's no way to comfortably cram 1,000 people into a Starship.
Even if we *double* the current payload volume for a dedicated passenger version, Starship would offer only 2,000m³. That's about the same as a 777-9, which is expected to carry 426 passengers. This volume has to include cargo space for luggage, redundant life support, high-g seats, and comfortable methods for ingress and egress with vertical takeoff and landing. If we assume a still-optimistic 500 passengers, we get 3.7 PMGGe. The result is terrible no matter we slice it.
In short, Starship will never be even remotely competitive with other transportation options in terms of efficiency, so it would have to compete as a relatively expensive, very fast, very risky form of long-distance travel.
I see way too many tight corners to really like this design. The joint of the strut to the wing seems like a huge air trap at any but the most perfect angle of attack. the same for the body of the engine coming close to the strut.
And PLEASE, don't state induced drag as equivalent with wing tip vortices. induced drag is generated over the whole span of the wing. Yes, high span is the way to decrease induced drag, but wing tip vortices are not the only contributors. Next we'll have somebody propose a ring wing design, as it "gets rid of wing tip vortices"....
What about whale fin shape inspired wing design combined with that new NASA stuff?
The wings hold all the fuel, which is safer than in the fuselage. Where is it stored with much thinner wings?
So cool!
Sources in description would be great
Thanks, great information. Question, how can we speed the development up? Use, Sandy Munro. Two years faster would be paid for in less pollution.
Wow. The amount of believe I have to suspend in order to enjoy this video is astounding!
How are open fan engines like CFM Rise considered safe compared to closed fan engines? In the event of a blade failure, the closed fans are lined with high strength materials to try to contain the blade. There are still accidents where the fan blades escape and slice through the fuselage, but these will increase in probability and severity with an open fan design.
The fuselage is armored. It doesn't take much since the area in danger is limited.
Great video, my question is “why is development for this plane take so long”. The 747 took less than 3 years from concept to certification. Aviation design and development goes a such a snail’s pace. I would love to actually fly in this plane, by 2040 I’ll be too old to want to go anywhere.
I hope if it’s successful you get to fly on it one day!
@@niamhc7369 I can't begin to tell you how much I loved your comment. I had written an entire reply about how important it was for the FAA to take its time and blah blah blah, but then I read your message and just deleted the whole thing.
I hope someday everyone learns to be as empathetic as you.
Bro what if the truss structure is a wing on itself?
This design will benefit anyone who flies frequently by reducing the price of tickets, and for those of us who do not fly frequently we get better air quality, so it’s a win.
Airlines won’t pass along the savings to customers unless they have a price war.
HAhaha...you think they are going to reduce ticket prices.
That is hilarious.