SimplyFly by Safran - episode 5: Open Rotor: what's new?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- Would you believe we explain the future-generation Open Rotor aircraft engine using a tutu and tectonics? Well, we do! And since we know that you’re curious about innovative concepts, we also know you won’t be able to resist watching this fifth video in the SimplyFly series to open your mind to the Open Rotor!
Great, creative video! Yes, a “prop-fan” engine was being tested on testbed aircraft in the 1980’s - MD-80/DC-9’s flying out of Long Beach. They seemed oddly noisy. Not sure why the concept was abandoned. But go Safran!!
I heard it was due to one of the high bypass turbofans being developed right at the same time, and it took hold faster than the unducted design. Plus the safety and noise was improved over the external blades
@@RCFlyBoy314 That makes great sense. Thx RC. 💛🙏🏽
Silly yet effective way of inprinting each sentence in my mind. Also short video and to the point. Great stuff, subscribed!
Any updates?
Yup ... seems they're working directly with GE and have several videos (this one ~a year old)
ruclips.net/video/CDA1mQjC8LE/видео.html
so it's kinda like a turbo prop
I like how you make these videos very explanatory and enjoyable at the same time
Why are people disliking innovative technology that really is helpfull?
Right wingers? Because he made some gay jokes with that dance.
Innovation is neutral in its potential. In the hands of these soulless capitalist bureaucracies, shit like this gets scrapped when fuel prices go down, because the consequences of engine inefficiency other than operational costs are externalities to them. This tech was trotted out back in 1988, but when fuel became less scarce (likely for war-related reasons) it became unprofitable for these people to implement. As to why an average person wouldn't like this, I suppose some homophobe could have seen the Socially Progressive™ stuff and disliked. But I think it's much more likely that they thought this promotional material was childish and jarring. For comparison, here's a predecessor of this video from 1984 (much new, very innovate, many future).
ruclips.net/video/APzO7OVGakw/видео.html
@@domcasmurro2417 Rent-free
Propfan tech is the basis for CFM's next generation RISE series engines, the successor to the LEAP series. While propfan demonstrators have been around for decades, technical issues have kept them from being practical. One of the main issues is how the propellers act in relation to the speed of sound. Our understanding of those physics is evident in commercial jets utilizing turbofans almost exclusively. With advances in computing power, we are able to model more complex propfan designs that overcome those limitations.
Content is good but not detailed. The worst thing is video's not being funny as if it is intended to do so. I think acoustic problem without nacelle is a concern. I learned the material is ceramic matrix, but the way to protect blades from external damage is another concern. Please add these concerns and possible solutions to the future videos.
Amazing form to spread knowledge
When engines look like that, I will quit flight simulation.
4 years later its down to 20% and fixed rear counter fan blades without the long nose (CFM Rise), good concept still, makes sense for rear engines. I just wonder how the noise will be. 2025 it is...
That's not a turbojet, that's a turbofan.
Interesting way😊
its important to understand why ducts are removed from these engines
its to allow larger fan blades
Fans operate at their highest efficiency when inside a duct, problem is we don't have the material technologies to make fans large enough whilst resisting expansion as they rotate, thus its not possible to put a duct around the fan as the blades expand too much as they rotate
Well if you have a full size model would like to see it running, would answer allot of these questions.
Thank you good laugh
What about noise levels?
capimcompoeira
capimcompoeira zdvv(544. Y
Depends on how fast the plane is flying. The Concorde was supersonic, I doubt it's going to be that loud. But good question, I would want an answer too.
It’s very quiet
So they are reinventing the open rotor from late 1970s ?
They should fire who ever wrote this.
Can you modify a 777 for rear engines? High tail and set back wing.
Maybe it could be a stretched version where they stretch the front and not the rear to get the CG right.
Probably needs a whole redesign. But I could see a sister working. It's a tube with wings after all.
737 would be a better candidate. Depending on how big the fan blades on this incredible machine are. The main problem with the 737neo 8 max are the larger engines changed the dynamics.
@BigGuy10Points I know better now. The reason the current twin jet standard design is what it is is because it's the cheapest. When you put the engines in the rear, you have to make changes to the "tube" design to support them, which increases cost and weight. So they're gonna stay on the wings for the time being.
Old concept, GE looked at this years ago, the unducted fan engine.
Even older than that, literally the first guy to look over the original jet engine came up with this design, however I think materials have finally caught up as the nacelle designs were more for structural rather than efficiency reasons.
Yes, but the technology, materials, ways of production like 3-d printing does you can make a very diffrent engine today than a decade ago. GEs catalyst turbo prop is based on old architecture but can be 20% more effective and more 10% powerful at highs altitude due higher compression. All types of engines are in a revolution that makes them more effective. So, old concepts becomes new in a way.
Safran and GE just announced they are working on the technology together in a 50/50 partnership, so there's that.
@@BuffMyRadius CFM is the JV since the 40s and the largest engine producer. Its nothing new.
How can doubling the weight of the engine be lighter than removing the casing?
Nowhere did the video mention that the engine weighted twice as much as classical engines. Only that it is twice as large.
It's much more powerful, so it's power density is better. So for example if you wanted the same amount of thrust with the other engine you might need to put 2 old engines there instead of using one of these. I don't necessarily think it's double the weight so let's say it produces 1.5x as much power but only weights 1.2x as much, you would still be 25% more efficient. It also has the added benefit that it requires less fuel to run, meaning it can perform longer flights with the same amount of fuel furthering the economic advantage of the engine
This engine technology is over 40 years old!!!
30%.
Noisy?
Güzel
It's basically just another turboprop, just with different propeller design which looks more like the ones found in turbofans. I'm curious how it sounds though, will it be as annoying as a turboprop or smooth like a turbofan?
It is not a turboprop. A turboprop uses a low-pressure combustion chamber which can't provide enough thrust to overcome the weight of the aircraft, but has enough power to drive a turbine at slower speed and in turn drive a propeller, which takes advantage of large diameter propellers for economical and relatively low altitude flights. A turbofan uses a high-pressure conbustion chamber that produces considerable thrust on its own but most of its power goes into driving a rapidly spinning fan with lots of blades that provides most of the thrust. This is ideal for high altitude flight. The open fan design is still a turbofan because it's a high-pressure engine, but the large diameter of the fan means it can spin slower and have less blades and still have the same performance curve of a traditional closed duct turbofan engine, while using less fuel.
@@elimalinsky7069 we might both be wrong though, Airbus doesn't call it "turbo-prop" nor "turbo-fan" either. They just call it "open fan".
@@HDJess Makes sense. It's a whole new design so it should really be considered its own thing.
Looks french to me
ha ha ha
id be embarrassed to work for this company if this is how they project their engineering team...
terrible terrible video
It's a real shame, it would have been incredible and interesting to travel on a plane with engines of this type, hopefully one day planes with this type of engine can be manufactured and enjoy traveling on them 🤔😔🤩😍🌎✈️🛫🛬🗺️🌐 🏝️🧳💺.
Wait for the CFM RISE, they seems really active about it.