Economical is not always the same as mission efficiency. It might be more economical to have turbo props, but that might choice comes at the cost of time enroute, hauling capacity, and overall maintenance.
BEST SOLUTION IS REDUCE HUMAN POPULATION FROM 8 BILLION NOW ON EARTH TO 2 BILLION.. AND STOP UNCONTROLLED CAPITALISM... AND LEAD SIMPLE LIFE AS CARETAKERS OF OUR EARTH.
But, this is not a turboprop as the turboprops only push air past the turbine, they do not have any thrust from the engine itself. This incorporates a jet engine with a propeller mounted on the front, along with a stationary propeller behind the first one to improve efficiency. It does use the thrust of the jet engine also, so it is not a turboprop.
The unmatched numbers of blades between the two rotors per engine and the bizarre scimitar blade shapes help to diminish the noise, but they're still extremely loud.
Love the technology. Yes, the focus is lower fuel consumption and to tame the noise issue. Language such as ‘carbon footprint’ and ‘sustainable’ is simply ideological fuzz wah. CO2 is not a pollutant and the pressure towards ‘net zero’ will simply reduce airliner range and availability to the public for air travel. Otherwise, this is encouraging.
This video is crap, nothing said about noise or the fact that open blades without a casing would do wonders to the rear of the. aircraft if ever one was dislodged. Plus its old tech. Been talked about 10 years ago.
I agree, a rotor breaking off weather it's wing mounted or aft mounted would multiply the catastrophe by striking the fuselage. It would be horrible to watch a plane split in two. Example - 2017 Marine Corp. KC-130 (Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 452 (VMGR-452), the aircrafts prop broke off and split the aircraft in two, killing all 16 on board.
It's basically a turbo-prop, with an increased chance of a bird strike and blades damaging or entering the fuselage than a jet engine. The upper speed limit will likely be 400 knots.
Even if this is TAS and my transatlantic flight takes 13 hours instead of 9 - if it's also significantly cheaper, and I know that the reduced speed means way less fuel burn, then I can most definitely live with that. Most people won't care about the second part as much - but they will about the first.
@@thomaskolar90 The fact that turbo-props already offer this option, possibly indicates that airlines have already costed the extra time of the aircraft and crew in the air, and have decided it offers no worthwhile advantage. The future of this new design therefore will depend on whether it can deliver better economics than conventional turbo-props.
Its not just the fact that the fans will be open, its the counter-rotating props that create the noise. Also its more than noise, they create ultrasonic vibrations in the air which creates a buzzing or vibrating which is felt more than heard and travels miles. If you ever seen or heard a TU-95 or its variants......you know what I'm talking about.
Jet engines go on the wing so that the wheels are behind them and can't kick objects into the fans. As with turboprops, the end of the blade sends big pressure waves towards the aircraft which sends noise into the aircraft. Noise cancelling perhaps works. However, loss of a propeller blade towards the fuselage will do incredible damage, possibly kill passengers and bring the aircraft down. The diameter of the fan means the engine must be mounted above the wing, or the wing raised to the top of the aircraft - which is less structurally efficient (heavier aircraft). For these reasons, the RISE engines are shown mounted at the rear - perhaps this will be solution with wheels getting guards to prevent objects on the runway and bits of blown tyre being kicked into rear propellers. Props have a poor reputation with customers. The advantages of RISE don't outweigh the negatives for single-aisle aircraft.
Doesn't explain the LARGE number of aircraft that have used jet engines pylon mounted on the back of the aircraft - like MOST BUSINESS JETS, and some iconic aircraft like the A-10, 727, and such.
@@bricefleckenstein9666 Apples and oranges. Turbofan engines in a cowl including fan containment shields, mounted high and with a much smaller frontal area vs a large and vulnerable prop are a different reality.
@@jonwatkins254 Then it's amazing how few prop failures commercial prop and turboprop airlines have had. By your logic, they should have been failing right left up down and sidewise and not let commercial aviation get off the ground.
The engine will be perhaps 1/2 as reliable as a turbofan engine. Flying turboprops for 40 years I have had far more problems with the prop part of the system verses the power part. Not to mention blade containment.
LOL I am very experienced in this field. Exposed rotor engines will never be as safe nor as quiet as current turbofans. FAR 14 CFR 33.94 is bypassed and "when" the exposed rotor loses a blade...it will chop through the cabin and sever anything in its way...welcome to the future! Someone high up will get paid off and this less safe and louder technology will be allowed.
So currently, if a fan blade lets go, "usually" it's contained within the engine cowling. Doesn't happen real often, but it does happen. Without the cowling...if a fan blade lets go, it can slice into the side of the aircraft body, maybe into the cargo compartment, or...maybe into the side of the passenger cabin, or through a cabin window. That's OK, as long as we save money.
There have been tests that placed small explosive charges at the base of each blade. When a blade breaks or departs, it and its opposite number are (explosively) released to keep the engine balanced. And the detonations are timed so that the pieces are thrown away from the aircraft.
So we come full circle with "new" fancy shaped blades/ propellers! Basically a turbo- prop with high tech propeller blades! There ain't nothing wrong with that , however wherever ever placed along the fuselage, it will require local an extra strengthening shield, in case of blade failure!
In the 1990s, Boeing investigated a design like that, with curved rotor blades placed behind the engine pod. They called it the Unducted Fan (UDF). It probably wasn't mature enough to use on a passenger jet, at that time.
Noise, maybe there is a remedy. My concern is catastrophic failure. If one of those blades breaks off, and strikes the fuselage or wing, wherever it's mounted, would be devastating. For example, a wing mounted open rotor, having a blade failure would put passengers sitting in the vicinity of that rotor in danger, where as turbofan engines have a shroud that would contain the damage, and at least give the pilot an opportunity to maintain flight and land. Open rotor, a blade breaking off with no containment can further exacerbate the situation by destroying another part of the aircraft. Metals and materials have always had a stress limit under constant use and load on aircraft, even after mandated component retirement, there still looms the non containment of rotor blades.
Just to advise you all, McDonellDouglas has tried out such an engine, called Open Rotor. But the noise emission was enormous and as well, the needed performance was not, as promised ! They used an MD80 Airframe and the tested engine with the best was an PW - Allison Open Rotor engine. GE has called it an unducted fan engine, but the wear and tire was to high. The small turbine driving this fan, was too small for such a fan and to keep enough power, the fuel consumption did not justify this kind of engine. Since airports in europe, are charging landing and take off fees, based on a noise emission, there is no benefit for such engines on airplanes above 5.7t
Antonow already used this technology back in the 1990ies on the An-70. So it's just "old wine in new bottles" as we say in Germany. But nonetheless this might become more interesting in the future when fuel costs are more important.
Exactly, removing the duct has another negative effect aside the one you mention, noise. I guess that is what happens, when people go nut on 'sustainable', they eventually go nuts in all aspects of life.
@@noreply5461 What is with this comical clown show of comments with people commenting about something they don't have a hint of a clue about. This is an entirely new design, incorporating a stationary AND a rotating blade system, which is totally different efficiency than a traditional turboprop. I guess this is what happens when unqualified clowns with engineering degrees from TikTok University start blabbering about something miles above their education and skill levels...
@@noreply5461 I look at the actual testing, and the efficiency of the new engines, along with the actual design which is different than anything produced before. I simply don't have enough time nor crayons to explain this on a level you will ever understand.
@@redbaron6805 Having a static blade, does not make it a new engine, it's still a turbo prop. And its not like there hasn't been similar tech, counter rotating propellers on a turboprop for instance. It is a new and improved turboprop, it's main advantage over older turboprops are its improved propellers. They are still propellers though.
They’re turbo prop engines. Biggest problem is speed is only good to 450 mph there about. Unless you can add jet thrust also, time for travel will increase.
According to comments it’s a wet dream project that will hardly ever reach maturity for large aircraft similar to electric propulsion. Safe time, don’t watch.
Last time I saw a UDF on a MD-80 they cancelled the project because they said passengers don't want to ride on a propeller aircraft. That sounds stupid but that is what they found out about what the average uneducated passengers thinks. Good luck Airbus!
The German Air Force has just commissioned the 50th of the new Airbus A400M which is a prop plane. Carrying its max. payload of 37000 kg it flies about 4000 km. I thing this proves the A400M is not a short haul plane.
In turbo fans, blades are enclosed for safety, exposed fan blades breaking can and will eventually create casualities.... but that point has...been forgotten
Well, in "actual reality," Airbus has been looking at ways to penetration-reinforce fuselage zones on the axes of the blades. Sadly many people got scared to death by various things as kids (usually by their horrible "families" and/or "parents") and thus spend their entire lives with "unconscious radar" constantly seeking something NEW to fear, in EVERY "story."
@@Ye-Olde-Veteran-FR In older propeller designs, this area was used for other purposes than passenger/crew seating.. This also will take a new wing placement design due to the largeness and required ground clearance. This additionally will require re-certification of any modified aircraft, thus will not be availed for years.
I'll fly on a plane utilising this technology after it have been proven safe for at least 20years. Great to push the boundaries, but what has already been pointed out in the comments, the blades are covered for a reason.
When I am studying aircraft Engineering around 1980 , Teacher said that Unducted fan engine will become popular in future. If fan blades are broken, what happen if fuselage is hit by broken blades.
The problem of a prop blade breaking free was so possible that the Locheed Electra and the Vickers Vangaurd ,would leave seats removed next to were the blades where rotating .These are just 2 examples . Also the big props made so much noise ,that in TCA / Air Canada Vangaurds the 1st class seating was in the rear of the cabin as that was the quietist location in the cabin . I also have a photo of a B-29 fuselage that was cut right in half when a blade broke loose .
In the sixties a German magazine forecast the return of tail-mounted propellers within a couple of years. The wrote noise is the biggest problem in this process.
I had a thought of putting the nacel in between a truss type wing enclosure. Sideways triangle? Lifting, sound deafening and structure could be beneficial. Just a thought. Drag and weight? Idk? Maybe airlines can add some costs to save money. If it doesn't work, BAILOUT! $$$$
When you have a look at the so called "jet"-engines and their development since the 60s its just a logical step to come to theese. For economical as well as ecological reasons they should have been already in use.
This design looks pretty vulnerable to me. Modern turbofan engines are encased in such a way as to protect the blades. I can just see ice forming on these exposed blades, or hailstones breaking them.
What about the tenth o thousands planes of today that have propellers on each wing. Do you live in a parallel universe (without turboprop/propeller planes)?
90% of comments come from characters who have no clue but have an opinion, 5% of comments come from characters who don't know the difference between turbofan/ new/old/turboprop / unducted fan / propfan / and this new engine
@@bricefleckenstein9666 they have, the first because they are in the game of high power; the second is a large reduction in revolutions and a large increase in torque
@@makantahi3731 The highest powered turboprop of all time is the most recent version of the engines on the Bear (the current "upgrading them to" NK-12-MSM version). It makes about *15 %* of the power of any GE-90 model, and about ONE THIRD the power of the old CFM-56 highest powered model.
Their blades are thinner than old-fashioned propellers . I can't see any of them standing up to a Canada Goose strike without a broken blade and resultant imbalance vibration . Possibly rear mounted with some sort of object deflector for large objectsahead of the engine ?
It looks like a simple turbo propeller to me, it exists with both the front and rear propeller. Maybe it uses new materials but I don't see anything new.
Wow! Open rotor technology is newly discovered? You mean something that wasn't used before jet engines? What did we use in WWII? It was called a propeller then.
Nothing can be more efficient than ducted, so this must be about weight transfer to the props by elimination of the cowling in favour of a bigger proper cross section. Everything a trade-off. I wonder what the birds will think about the innovation.
What was old is new. This tech was developed during WW2 and again in the 1970s during oil crisis. Russia has been using this tech in their bombers for decades.
Too much marketing bla-bla, too little facts.
Thanks for your feedback!
That was my first thought. Too much blather.
Yeah.
I like Boeing more than Airbus... but now.........................
@@Aviationousthanks for the video !
Wow! I have been hearing about these for 35 years!
This was big news in 1988, when the first prop-fan (GE36) was tested on a MD-80.
Have they solved the noise problem ?? The last time this was proposed, the problem was that the Engines were bloody loud as hell!!
That's what we used to call a turboprop. The new props are a bit different from the old ones. Turboprops always were more economical than pure jets.
Economical is not always the same as mission efficiency. It might be more economical to have turbo props, but that might choice comes at the cost of time enroute, hauling capacity, and overall maintenance.
@@blacquejacqueshellaque9180 Airlines will choose whatever type suits their routes ahd their budget, so there will be customers for both types.
BEST SOLUTION IS REDUCE HUMAN POPULATION FROM 8 BILLION NOW ON EARTH TO 2 BILLION.. AND STOP UNCONTROLLED CAPITALISM... AND LEAD SIMPLE LIFE AS CARETAKERS OF OUR EARTH.
But, this is not a turboprop as the turboprops only push air past the turbine, they do not have any thrust from the engine itself.
This incorporates a jet engine with a propeller mounted on the front, along with a stationary propeller behind the first one to improve efficiency.
It does use the thrust of the jet engine also, so it is not a turboprop.
@@redbaron6805 Rubbish!
They don't remember the Tupelov Bear and it's Airliner version. Loud as hell!
Because of sonic boom...
The unmatched numbers of blades between the two rotors per engine and the bizarre scimitar blade shapes help to diminish the noise, but they're still extremely loud.
Love the technology. Yes, the focus is lower fuel consumption and to tame the noise issue. Language such as ‘carbon footprint’ and ‘sustainable’ is simply ideological fuzz wah.
CO2 is not a pollutant and the pressure towards ‘net zero’ will simply reduce airliner range and availability to the public for air travel. Otherwise, this is encouraging.
This video is crap, nothing said about noise or the fact that open blades without a casing would do wonders to the rear of the. aircraft if ever one was dislodged. Plus its old tech. Been talked about 10 years ago.
I say - bring back biplanes.
Why are there so many clown aviation websites like this?
@@FredScuttle456
What have you got against tri-planes? The Baron’s Fokker was very impressive; imagine a wide-bodied tri-plane airliner?
@@mtkoslowski Eco-friendly. Constructed from renewables like wood and fabric.
I agree, a rotor breaking off weather it's wing mounted or aft mounted would multiply the catastrophe by striking the fuselage. It would be horrible to watch a plane split in two. Example - 2017 Marine Corp. KC-130 (Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 452 (VMGR-452), the aircrafts prop broke off and split the aircraft in two, killing all 16 on board.
It's basically a turbo-prop, with an increased chance of a bird strike and blades damaging or entering the fuselage than a jet engine. The upper speed limit will likely be 400 knots.
IAS or TAS ?
Even if this is TAS and my transatlantic flight takes 13 hours instead of 9 - if it's also significantly cheaper, and I know that the reduced speed means way less fuel burn, then I can most definitely live with that. Most people won't care about the second part as much - but they will about the first.
@@thomaskolar90 The fact that turbo-props already offer this option, possibly indicates that airlines have already costed the extra time of the aircraft and crew in the air, and have decided it offers no worthwhile advantage. The future of this new design therefore will depend on whether it can deliver better economics than conventional turbo-props.
The cheapest seats will be next to the blades.
Outside? 🤕
Its not just the fact that the fans will be open, its the counter-rotating props that create the noise. Also its more than noise, they create ultrasonic vibrations in the air which creates a buzzing or vibrating which is felt more than heard and travels miles. If you ever seen or heard a TU-95 or its variants......you know what I'm talking about.
Jet engines go on the wing so that the wheels are behind them and can't kick objects into the fans. As with turboprops, the end of the blade sends big pressure waves towards the aircraft which sends noise into the aircraft. Noise cancelling perhaps works. However, loss of a propeller blade towards the fuselage will do incredible damage, possibly kill passengers and bring the aircraft down. The diameter of the fan means the engine must be mounted above the wing, or the wing raised to the top of the aircraft - which is less structurally efficient (heavier aircraft). For these reasons, the RISE engines are shown mounted at the rear - perhaps this will be solution with wheels getting guards to prevent objects on the runway and bits of blown tyre being kicked into rear propellers. Props have a poor reputation with customers. The advantages of RISE don't outweigh the negatives for single-aisle aircraft.
Doesn't explain the LARGE number of aircraft that have used jet engines pylon mounted on the back of the aircraft - like MOST BUSINESS JETS, and some iconic aircraft like the A-10, 727, and such.
@@bricefleckenstein9666 Apples and oranges. Turbofan engines in a cowl including fan containment shields, mounted high and with a much smaller frontal area vs a large and vulnerable prop are a different reality.
@@jonwatkins254 Then it's amazing how few prop failures commercial prop and turboprop airlines have had.
By your logic, they should have been failing right left up down and sidewise and not let commercial aviation get off the ground.
is big noise in dash 8 q400
Airbus does not manufacture engines.
As stated (n+1) times in the video, these engines are developed by GE and Safran...
Airbus is doing it with CFM that is GE and Safran joint venture.
The engine will be perhaps 1/2 as reliable as a turbofan engine. Flying turboprops for 40 years I have had far more problems with the prop part of the system verses the power part. Not to mention blade containment.
LOL I am very experienced in this field. Exposed rotor engines will never be as safe nor as quiet as current turbofans. FAR 14 CFR 33.94 is bypassed and "when" the exposed rotor loses a blade...it will chop through the cabin and sever anything in its way...welcome to the future! Someone high up will get paid off and this less safe and louder technology will be allowed.
So currently, if a fan blade lets go, "usually" it's contained within the engine cowling. Doesn't happen real often, but it does happen. Without the cowling...if a fan blade lets go, it can slice into the side of the aircraft body, maybe into the cargo compartment, or...maybe into the side of the passenger cabin, or through a cabin window. That's OK, as long as we save money.
There have been tests that placed small explosive charges at the base of each blade. When a blade breaks or departs, it and its opposite number are (explosively) released to keep the engine balanced. And the detonations are timed so that the pieces are thrown away from the aircraft.
They have been teasing this for 35 years!
So we come full circle with "new" fancy shaped blades/ propellers! Basically a turbo- prop with high tech propeller blades! There ain't nothing wrong with that , however wherever ever placed along the fuselage, it will require local an extra strengthening shield, in case of blade failure!
Do you think that ordinary turbine case (motor gondola) is strong enough to protect fuselage in case of fan damage?
@@ПетяПетров-и7тYes, they are tested.
@@valrond motor gondola is a thin-walled construction same as a fuselage. The same material is used for it. It is same strength as a plane body.
@@ПетяПетров-и7т AFAIK most engine blade failures have been contained with no external damage.
@ because the blades are very durable. This passage shows the durability of blades. But it does not mean the turbine body is a same durable as blades.
First versions were called Unducted Fans. Serious problems with acoustic induced vibrations.
it is not it
In the 1990s, Boeing investigated a design like that, with curved rotor blades placed behind the engine pod. They called it the Unducted Fan (UDF). It probably wasn't mature enough to use on a passenger jet, at that time.
stop using robot (dead voice) narration. It kills every freaking video
Suddenly Tu95 started to make sense 😅
you have no clue
@@makantahi3731 Sounds like you are in the aviation business or a jack in all trades - and a master of none?
@@ludwigsamereier8204 I'm the first one and you're the second one, I guess
The battle between turbofan and turboprop.
Noise, maybe there is a remedy. My concern is catastrophic failure. If one of those blades breaks off, and strikes the fuselage or wing, wherever it's mounted, would be devastating. For example, a wing mounted open rotor, having a blade failure would put passengers sitting in the vicinity of that rotor in danger, where as turbofan engines have a shroud that would contain the damage, and at least give the pilot an opportunity to maintain flight and land. Open rotor, a blade breaking off with no containment can further exacerbate the situation by destroying another part of the aircraft. Metals and materials have always had a stress limit under constant use and load on aircraft, even after mandated component retirement, there still looms the non containment of rotor blades.
If this thing "destroy" the aviation industry, then destroy it before it can.
Just to advise you all, McDonellDouglas has tried out such an engine, called Open Rotor. But the noise emission was enormous and as well, the needed performance was not, as promised ! They used an MD80 Airframe and the tested engine with the best was an PW - Allison Open Rotor engine. GE has called it an unducted fan engine, but the wear and tire was to high. The small turbine driving this fan, was too small for such a fan and to keep enough power, the fuel consumption did not justify this kind of engine. Since airports in europe, are charging landing and take off fees, based on a noise emission, there is no benefit for such engines on airplanes above 5.7t
Birds are thrilled!
Antonow already used this technology back in the 1990ies on the An-70. So it's just "old wine in new bottles" as we say in Germany. But nonetheless this might become more interesting in the future when fuel costs are more important.
no
A prop is just a high bypass engine. It is a fact that a ducted fan is more efficient than an unducted fan.
Exactly, removing the duct has another negative effect aside the one you mention, noise. I guess that is what happens, when people go nut on 'sustainable', they eventually go nuts in all aspects of life.
@@noreply5461 What is with this comical clown show of comments with people commenting about something they don't have a hint of a clue about. This is an entirely new design, incorporating a stationary AND a rotating blade system, which is totally different efficiency than a traditional turboprop.
I guess this is what happens when unqualified clowns with engineering degrees from TikTok University start blabbering about something miles above their education and skill levels...
@@redbaron6805 Of course, just look at the emperor's new clothing, they are magnificent.
@@noreply5461 I look at the actual testing, and the efficiency of the new engines, along with the actual design which is different than anything produced before.
I simply don't have enough time nor crayons to explain this on a level you will ever understand.
@@redbaron6805 Having a static blade, does not make it a new engine, it's still a turbo prop. And its not like there hasn't been similar tech, counter rotating propellers on a turboprop for instance. It is a new and improved turboprop, it's main advantage over older turboprops are its improved propellers. They are still propellers though.
They’re turbo prop engines. Biggest problem is speed is only good to 450 mph there about. Unless you can add jet thrust also, time for travel will increase.
I think normal jet engines are better than those with blades outside
According to comments it’s a wet dream project that will hardly ever reach maturity for large aircraft similar to electric propulsion. Safe time, don’t watch.
This is not a new concept, a number of years ago this idea was shown in Popular Mechanics.
... and lost in history because of the poblems ist created.
Last time I saw a UDF on a MD-80 they cancelled the project because they said passengers don't want to ride on a propeller aircraft. That sounds stupid but that is what they found out about what the average uneducated passengers thinks.
Good luck Airbus!
You will not see a Long Range Widebody with those, unless is a wind designed aircraft, by year 2055 maybe. By the way, Engine is CFM, not Airbus
The German Air Force has just commissioned the 50th of the new Airbus A400M which is a prop plane. Carrying its max. payload of 37000 kg it flies about 4000 km. I thing this proves the A400M is not a short haul plane.
In turbo fans, blades are enclosed for safety, exposed fan blades breaking can and will eventually create casualities.... but that point has...been forgotten
Well, in "actual reality," Airbus has been looking at ways to penetration-reinforce fuselage zones on the axes of the blades. Sadly many people got scared to death by various things as kids (usually by their horrible "families" and/or "parents") and thus spend their entire lives with "unconscious radar" constantly seeking something NEW to fear, in EVERY "story."
what about regular props?...
@@Ye-Olde-Veteran-FR In older propeller designs, this area was used for other purposes than passenger/crew seating.. This also will take a new wing placement design due to the largeness and required ground clearance. This additionally will require re-certification of any modified aircraft, thus will not be availed for years.
The Tu 95 Bear has had these engines for 40 yrs.
Older jets were noisier. Rear mounting of engines less noisy. For the A-10, the engines went in the most protected position from ground attack.
I'll fly on a plane utilising this technology after it have been proven safe for at least 20years. Great to push the boundaries, but what has already been pointed out in the comments, the blades are covered for a reason.
Nothing beats a GE 90X on the planet.
Someone reinvented TU-95
jet noise the sound of freedom.
Sounds like an Airbus promotion rather than an objective look at this tech.
I've been reading about this enhines since the '80s. I'm almost next to the grave and they're still just dreams
Like apple unveiling new ideas that have been there for centuries.
Can’t wait for the rebound effect annihilating the initial gain …
"DESTROY The Aviation Industry!"
Well that's unfortunate.
No, it's just stupid.
When I am studying aircraft Engineering around 1980 , Teacher said that Unducted fan engine will become popular in future.
If fan blades are broken, what happen if fuselage is hit by broken blades.
The problem of a prop blade breaking free was so possible that the Locheed Electra and the Vickers Vangaurd ,would leave seats removed next to were the blades where rotating .These are just 2 examples . Also the big props made so much noise ,that in TCA / Air Canada Vangaurds the 1st class seating was in the rear of the cabin as that was the quietist location in the cabin . I also have a photo of a B-29 fuselage that was cut right in half when a blade broke loose .
In the sixties a German magazine forecast the return of tail-mounted propellers within a couple of years. The wrote noise is the biggest problem in this process.
Just imagine the noise that would come from that engine. I remember the old MU-2 Mitsubishi screaming when taxiing, it would shake your teeth loose.
I had a thought of putting the nacel in between a truss type wing enclosure. Sideways triangle? Lifting, sound deafening and structure could be beneficial. Just a thought. Drag and weight? Idk? Maybe airlines can add some costs to save money. If it doesn't work, BAILOUT! $$$$
When you have a look at the so called "jet"-engines and their development since the 60s its just a logical step to come to theese. For economical as well as ecological reasons they should have been already in use.
Can’t wait to hear one of these things.
A long time ago I saw (first I heard) the unducted fan Boeing 727 from my balcony in Renton WA.
A prop is way more noisy than a ducted fan. Have you flown in an ATR-72 or Saab? Noisy as all can be.
The quietest plane that I have ever been in is an MD 80/DC9 in first class. It is so quiet.
So a turbo prop with a new name. Regular people are going to call it a propeller plane and they’re going to consider it a downgrade from a “jet”.
This video looks and sounds like a mix of Airbus/CFM commercial and the Soviet newsreel of late 1970-s )))
Some videos shots showing Rolls-Royce factory and engines
How can a turboprop destroy the aviation industry?
Safran is a good company but their parts support is absolutely lousy
How can open-rotor engines ever be "jet engines"?
Cleaner quieter and more efficient….how about safer?? This can withstand bird strikes FAR better!!
A hybrid between turbofan and turboprop, then?
This design looks pretty vulnerable to me. Modern turbofan engines are encased in such a way as to protect the blades. I can just see ice forming on these exposed blades, or hailstones breaking them.
What is the difference between prop engine and rotor engine
No cowling to protect aircraft and passengers from a fractured fan blade. What could go wrong?
I would only book a seat that is NOT beside the engine. If a blade failed I might be all sliced up.
What about the tenth o thousands planes of today that have propellers on each wing. Do you live in a parallel universe (without turboprop/propeller planes)?
What happens with a bird strike ,blades going through fuselage?
90% of comments come from characters who have no clue but have an opinion, 5% of comments come from characters who don't know the difference between turbofan/ new/old/turboprop / unducted fan / propfan / and this new engine
We all waiting for the Unfannedduct (UFD)
How is an open rotor engine different from a turbo-prop engine?
Blades are a lot smaller diameter for the same thrust, and travel at higher RPMs.
There is SOME very basic similarity though.
and it has to have stronger gearbox because it reduces high rpm/low torque into low rpm and high torque, and that was problem , to not destroy gearbox
@@makantahi3731 Turboprops have to do the same thing.
They don't deal with QUITE as much torque though, even the ones on the Bear.
@@bricefleckenstein9666 they have, the first because they are in the game of high power; the second is a large reduction in revolutions and a large increase in torque
@@makantahi3731 The highest powered turboprop of all time is the most recent version of the engines on the Bear (the current "upgrading them to" NK-12-MSM version).
It makes about *15 %* of the power of any GE-90 model, and about ONE THIRD the power of the old CFM-56 highest powered model.
Their blades are thinner than old-fashioned propellers . I can't see any of them standing up to a Canada Goose strike without a broken blade and resultant imbalance vibration .
Possibly rear mounted with some sort of object deflector for large objectsahead of the engine ?
Have Websters redefined the word "destroyed" ?
3:38 no, just because gearbox
birds have a larger target
I have seen concepts of those engines at airshows for over a decade now. I think the engine still is in development.
It looks like a simple turbo propeller to me, it exists with both the front and rear propeller. Maybe it uses new materials but I don't see anything new.
Wow! Open rotor technology is newly discovered? You mean something that wasn't used before jet engines? What did we use in WWII? It was called a propeller then.
Russia has this concept since 70s
So, it's a counter-rotating turbo prop?
"A new engine" 1988 called and wants a word with you.
Nothing can be more efficient than ducted, so this must be about weight transfer to the props by elimination of the cowling in favour of a bigger proper cross section. Everything a trade-off. I wonder what the birds will think about the innovation.
Airplanes used to have things that look like that on them. They're called propellers.
Sounds like advertising more than fact based information.
Is this different from a propfan?
Just don't book seats adjacent to the props.
Ещё немного и получится двигатель НК-93 )
Slowing down the airline’s slower speeds
Updated turbo prop.
What was old is new. This tech was developed during WW2 and again in the 1970s during oil crisis. Russia has been using this tech in their bombers for decades.
How about using them on electric engines!!!
Something like TU95 Bear?
How is it different from a turboprop
No difference whatsoever, it’s a marketing ploy
Chem trail blender?!
ТВ7-117С, ТВ7-117СД
I thought they were called propellors.
I saw this type of engine in the Embraer 123 Vector prototype flying before the year 2000. The engine sound like a lawn mower 😅
We all know these glorified turboprop engines will NOT lower ticket prices.
bring back air ships problem solved.
Six minutes in and I haven't heard one technical detail.
So. They "invented" turboprop engine again and sell it as an innovation?
It will take at least 20 more years to see those engines working
With full respect, you have no idea.