CFM's BIG Plans For RISE Engines Just SHOCKED Everyone! Here's Why
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июн 2024
- Aircraft manufacturers have been investing in ecologically-friendly materials but especially in more efficient engines. And it looks like they might be about to hit an efficiency goldmine because the new engine technology from CFM is set to change the aviation industry forever.
As long as it's safe, I'm on board
Noise was unacceptable. Worse was the vibration problem which, if I remember correctly, caused cracks in the engine mount and fuselage.
They've made a lot of progress in that regard I believe.
The Antonov An-70 is the Largest turbo prop plane in the world, its bigger than the Airbus A400.
How about just using A400 and make it multi-deck. It’s cruise is already mark 0.75 using old tech..?.
Close, the AN-22 made by the same manufacturer decades earlier is sand still is the largest, nearly the same size as an A330-200 wide body airliner (193 ft)!
How about an innovation that retains efficiency and flies faster. Outside the Concorde we’ve made no progress in cruise speed in 65 years. I don’t want to go even slower to save a few dollars. The noise will always be an issue and blade failures would be disastrous.
I so agree, we need faster cruise speeds
Faster doesn't make a lot of sense, because we're at 85% of the speed of sound with commercial aircraft today. Increasing this just a bit significantly increases air resistance, which isn't worth it.
@@GeoStreber Im aware of that, im a Av Geek, im just saying in general we need to go faster, of course the means of that would be a new clean sheet desgin of a super sonic airliner, and having it use SAF Fuel would be profitable enough for airline companys. Boom overture is working on one right now, and NASA is testing their X59 for quiet super sonic speeds, there are a few more companys working on supersonic flight.. I dont think these companies would be investing billions and billions of dollars if they thought its not worth going faster.
The Boom Overture will never fly commercially making a profit. Mark my words. @@Star-bp5jj
I was surprised to hear the comparrison with the older CFM56 now that the LEAP and the P&W GTF are the current choices.
But even they could well be considered to be older technology before RISE can enter service, by which time we may be seing scaled down versions of the RR Ultrafan, and no doubt competing engines from the other manufacturers.
This could well make any of the current comparisons invalid.
While reinforcing the fuselage may be a solution to one of the issues, you have to wonder what mererials will need to be used along with how extensive that protection needs to be, as well as what the weight penalty will be.
Even now, on very short journeys where relatively little time is spent in efficient cruise, the older but lighter CFM56 equipped A320s burn less fuel than their heavier A320neo replacement. (Source someone who worked at an airline operating both types)
My guess is that the notoriously difficult and expensive to repair carbon fibre will not be suitable.
I suspect that the noise issue may be one of the lesser ones to overcome.
LOL they came out with this thing 30 years ago, and stopped it.
McDonnell Douglas was decades ahead of the industry on this as far back as 1988. They were flying an MD-80 testbed aircraft with a General Electric GE36 Unducted Fan (UDF) Engine. The project was considered a success....but NONE of the airlines showed interest.
No it was not considered a success. To many issues with it. And no MD was not ahead of industry. It was simply a test aircraft that GE used since it was an obvious choice since they need rear mount. MD had almost most nothing to do with
@@johniii8147 Not according to the McDonnell Douglas book I have.
@@lorenjackson8961 one of the key reasons MD failed is they stopped innovating in the mid 70s or so in commercial planes. It was just warmed over versions of the DC -9 and DC-10.. they didn’t develop twin engine wide body etc. meanwhile Boeing developed the 757/767/777 prior to the merger and continued evolving the 737 with new wing s etc. Airbus was the final nail in the coffin
So time will come to Bid Goodbye to the Jet Blast of the Turbofan Engines..
The Russian Bear Bomber uses this type of engine and can fly approximately mach 1
nah. mach one is around 650mph, the Bear does around 550.
This is the engine concept Barnes Wallace was working on in the 1960s.
the Open Router engine would have to be big but instead of making them bigger, do a 4 engine configeration like the Airbus A340 and put 4 of the open router engine on it.
More engines mean more maintenance. Recent airliner designs are two-engined for a reason - four engine designs are very expensive to run due to maintenance.
Toroidal Open Fans?
I doubt that the open rotor concept will have success due to noise. The US submarines have closed propellers because of reduced noise. Similarly, I remember the Cessna 210 which made a lot of noise in the propeller plane during take off whereas it was much quieter before and after that. So I assume that the solution will be a large geared fan.
The Russian Tu-95 bomber with its counter-rotating propellers is only slightly slower than the B-52 but is said to have a better reach.
How loud is it?
I guess seriously loud. When one of our A400M at FL300 passes my home town there is so much noise, that it is not to believe that this plane is at FL300.
The other planes like B777 or A-350 are nearly not to hear at that altitude.
@@MisterIvyMike This may be the limiting factor for the application of these engines. Noise abatement is a real thing. I think that noise is what is killing KTM?!?!
So loud that Ella FitzGerald shattered. Badda boom
Will never happen. This was tested before, if you have a blade failure it will bring down the aircraft.
I doubt it. Previous open rotors sounded like loud buzz saws, and not because developers were stupid. It is not so much that the airlines were not impressed with efficiency gains, but obvious that the awful noise could not be overcome. Nobody is saying why these should be quiet enough, but that the efficiency will be hard to pass up in spite of noisy operation. We have very high bypass turbofans on wing with 737-Max and A-320 family, and although the new fans are "deeper" they are not huge compared to the previous engines. The place where we have nothing usable is in the 45,000 to 50,000 pound range necessary for something like a 757 re-engine or wholesale model replacement. These do not need giant fans, deeper, but gears and smaller cores. The lack of discussion regarding noise gives rise to the suspicion of an elephant in the room.
You are very wrong about RISE noise level. It has been one of primary considerations when deciding on whether to dedicate resources and awful lot of money for its developement. What do you thik is the function of the 2nd stage static fan vanes in RISE?
Antonov An-70 is a Ukrainian aircraft of the Ukrainian design bureau and is operated only by the armed forces of Ukraine. it's a pity that you don't check the information(
Not likely. Ever!
I don't who would shock in the industry. It's been worked on for decades. Unlikely to go anywhere. Too many issues.
I'm voting for rocket engines. Flying will be much faster.
Agreed. But anyone living with 50 miles of the airport would complain about the noise.
@@Crazyuncle1 Why would you care when you are away faster than the speed of sound? 🤣😂
However
It seems like a backward idea, you can’t get as high of altitude with props then can with jet engines, the higher an airplane flies it uses less fuel. Also jet engines have much more power.
Thats right. I think with the airbus introducing NEO type is a huge steps to reduce fuel usage for aircraft
Naaahh....
This type of engine doesn't strike me as innovative or revolutionary at all!! Besides of the awkward look of the engine itself, it won't compliment the modern day aircraft design. Such engines look better "aesthetically" on older planes, not today's futuristic appearances.....(whatever those may be)