The Most ADVANCED Aircraft Engine Ever Made Has A GIANT Problem
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 май 2024
- US Testing World’s Most Advanced Aircraft Engines Ever Made, the CFM RISE, a revolutionary aircraft engine that promises to push the limits of aerospace travel moving forward. Let's explore exactly what happens when American and European expertise combine to evolve an industry beyond what we once thought possible.
The development of aircraft engines traces back to the Wright Brothers' pioneering flights in the early 1900s, using inline piston engines that evolved into radial designs for increased reliability and power. The 1940s saw the advent of jet engines, revolutionizing aviation with higher speeds and efficiencies, laying the groundwork for modern propulsion systems like turbojets and turbofans. Over time, jet engines grew larger to generate more thrust, despite the challenge of increased weight and drag.
In the 1980s, open rotor engines, known as propfans, were explored as a potential advancement. General Electric and Safran worked on innovative designs like the GE36, aiming to enhance efficiency and reduce noise. However, the project faced challenges due to excessive noise levels and shifting priorities due to lower oil prices, leading to a loss in interest.
Recently, renewed focus on fuel efficiency, Safran's advancements in noise reduction and improvements in fan blade and general open rotor engine technology sparked a revival of interest in the designs and has culminated in the CFM Rise engine, boasting a higher bypass ratio and significant fuel efficiency gains.
The CFM Rise engine represents a huge leap in engine design, addressing past challenges while embracing new technologies to meet the demands of a more efficient aviation future. Ground and flight tests planned for the near future are set to demonstrate the engine's capabilities and pave the way for incredible evolution in the aviation industry.
Join this 'Paper Pilot Club' to get access to the perks:
/ @beyondfacts
SUBSCRIBE: www.bit.ly/beyondFactsSUB
#aviation
#engine
#beyondfacts
This video is just so much waffle.
While the Narration is pretty good the supporting archival video synchronization is often very misleading.
Bird Strike Blender on a stick - I mean aircraft.
The length of this video could have been cut considerably and still give some valuable information.
Yup. That's why the Rpublic "Thunderscreech" (same priciple) was shelved.
Forget the first 4' 30" unless you want a potted history of aircraft engines since the Wright brothers.
They don't get on topic until 11:00 AND THERE IS NO BIG PROBLEM as asserted in the bullshit title. I'll look for this lying creepy stupid scamming video providers name as videos to never watch. UP YOUR'S RUclips for permitting and profiting from such shit.
You savr me 4min thanks
You can jump to 7 minutes & not miss a thing.
@@MomolosZtips thanks but its already seen
BS. There is no real info
At ~ 12:40 "Hydrogen as a Fuel Source, Does not Cause any Greenhouse gas Emissions".... Really?
What do you think Clouds Are Made From, if Not Water Vapor! And They are a Quite Large "Blanket" Keeping the Heat in, for example, on a Cloudy Night!
Technically correct, however in reality total BS, because completely negligible. Look at the *proportions* of anthropogenic H2O added through a few thousand flights a day compared to the 12.9 trillion metric tonnes of "natural" water the atmosphere typically contains in the form of water droplets / clouds / H2O gas.
Secondly, cloud cover is generally seen as countering a global heating effect, while gaseous H20 technically works similar to a "greenhouse gas" - a fact that nicely illustrates the absurdity of the currently fashionable CO2 hysteria.
What a load of BS. The rotary aircraft engine was in common use in WW1, which was some years before the 1930's. Hydrogen is not a viable fuel source for general automotive use, trials in the US are being discontinued. As for aircraft, the same issues would exist. However, I would love to watch safely from the ground the maiden flight of the Boeing Hindenburg. I'm sure there is a used car lot somewhere looking for staff, I think you should apply.
In addition to all the other misleading waffle, the rotary engine fell out of favour in the late 19-Teens, early 19-Twenties in favour of the radial engine. Love the illustration of an inline engine while stating that the aircraft had rotary in it. Also it's not an Open Rotor - it's still an Unducted Fan and the CAD illustrations were lifted straight from Safran.
Absolute and utter lack of research going on here. No new or real information at all.
Turboprop engines are very noisy.
Extremely f****** noisy
Pierce flew before the Wright's,in New Zealand
The only way to reduce noise with any sort of fan is to reduce the rotation speed of the fan blades. The faster they rotate, the louder. So, if you want a quiet turboprop, you have to have a lower thrust turboprop.
These are like the cutting edge engines already in use on the airbus.The TP400 engine for the Airbus A400M.
Propeller aircraft cannot go faster than about 350mph, in any efficient manner. Depending on the propeller design, the compressibility zone losses start to rise exponentially. This technology was heavily investigated after WW2, and modern turboprops are very fuel efficient. The Russians use dual rotors now on their old bombers, and these can fly twice as far on the same fuel load as a KC135. Old testing, using props and jets together, resulted in dramatic failures of airframes, and test pilot deaths. Lets not reinvent failed technology again, deja-vu all over again.
People will gladly put up with noise if the safety, reliability, and economics make sense. One of the iterations hinted at using laminar air flow via a stator prop. Sure would like to know more about that.
Yup, people will gladly put up with a significant loss in healthy life years and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and an increased risk of early-onset dementia. Because these are epidemiological consequences of an increased noise exposure. Some figures from the EU: every year, about one million healthy life years are lost to noise exposure, most of which comes from transportation. And this is only the risk from one environmental stressor. Add another one like particles, VOCs, vibration, and the figures are even worse. Our (EU) "efficiency fetish" at the expense of safety and health already has a huge negative impact on the general population, so we can certainly do with a bit more noise.
They’re wasting resources on this. Passengers are past riding on turboprops. Blade separation will be disastrous.
You guys know Pan Am went out of business -- like back around the time Custer lost to Julius Caesar at Appomattox -- don't you?
Or is it that the fact they're out of business means you don't have to pay for the film clips?
Hydrogen will never be commercially viable in Airliners.
Totally disagree hydrogen's to fuel airplane engines would work better
@@jamesmonahan3904 you disagree because you have limited knowledge of handling and producing hydrogen.
It burns green. You can't produce it in a green manner
@@larrydugan1441 And as I understand converting electricity to hydrogen is only about 30% efficcient meaning 70% of the energy is lost before you even have the hydrogen if using the electrolysis method wich is the only clean way to produce hydrogen by splitting water and that is true only if the electricity used in the process is also clean and not generated with say fossil fuel power stations. The only other existing way to produce hydrogen is by splitting natural gas wich releases HUGE amounts of CO2 so that is not an environmentally friendly option.
@@jamesmonahan3904 watch a video of the hidenberg
No use info is it fake ?
Talk about explosive fuel! Hydrogen would be hard to store, I’m guessing it would be liquified and under high pressure!
They glossed over the blade containment and noise problems. Carrying hydrogen in an aircraft also involves heavy high pressure gas bottles. Essentially a big bomb.
Wrap those blades up. Exposed rotating blades is a recipe for significant ground crew injuries. It will create jobs for doctors and lawyers though.
Dumb comment , no more dangerous than a propeller
Cut to the chase!! What a waste of time!!
Não pode ser, o ruído é imenso.
drag it out for more ads
Until I stand outside an aircraft with a CFM RISE engine, I won't be convinced on CFM's "quite" claim.
Standing next to a Piaggio, the closest design I've found, due to its pusher turboprop --- is damn loud.
Big pic, the video is cool..
but the AI generated video, photos selected, and voice need work.
Mistakes, but on the whole, a solid generic video.
If you know the difference between a piston engine and a jet just jump to 7 minutes. You missed nothing ! Still a lot of yakety-yak, but it covers the ground ... with only a few errors and mismatched video/audio sections.
Informative!
I like
Thay could turn the engen to a higher speed so the wine is hier than the humen hearing range
Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean it won't cause tissue damage.
You sure love to hear yourself talk
Another example of AI babble.
Hydrogen as a fuel source around an Aluminum framed aircraft? . . . . . . . Hindenburg anyone?
For UCAV only.
When they start using antigravidic engene thar won't be a need for oil
This system will not work. The power and torque requirements to rotate such a big fan with such an aggressive pitch angle for each blade would be very large. The fuel consumption will not be good and heat generation will be an issue to solve. And the "Blade Out" condition will cause structural to be very rigid and heavy. I am not sure this is worth spending time on. The Blade Out condition was one of the reasons that 7J7 (open fan 727) was cancelled.
Bro does NOT know how to animate 💀
"Aerospace"? are we talking about airplanes flying through air or space?
The Russians have been using this type of engine for decades 😲
I can’t stand everyone using the same AI voice
At 01:00
Where did you get this stupid animation?
This is not how a six-cylinder engine works.
It is if it's an inline engine and not a V6 as the video clearly indicates.
Yeah, it looked like the firing order was all over the place. Normally an i6 is 1-5-3-6-2-4 or 1-2-4-6-5-3, I honestly couldn’t tell what it was in the animation and, they made it seem like they would flood the cylinders with water to cool it lol
didnt work in 90s wont work now
Too much History
Gas turbines can burn more fuel than a piston engine and it is fuel that creates the power. Bla bla bla😝
Not "Real Facts"
So much bull shit in this video
worst animation of internal combustion engine operation youtube has ever seen
Video sucks: filled with redundant, off-main-topic info and images. Takes 12 minutes to get to the 1 minute point.
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
The multiverse is total wan&, MCU is wan&, Disney has destroyed it, time to move on fellas