US and Europe Testing World’s Most Advanced Aircraft Engines Ever Made
2024 ж. 14 Ақп.
1 909 962 Рет қаралды
Welcome back to the Fluctus Channel to explore the incredible technology used to develop what could be the future of aviation engines and propulsion.
Fluctus is a website and KZhead channel dedicated to sea geeks. Whenever you are curious or an incorrigible lover of this mysterious world, our videos are made for you !
We publish 3 videos a week on our KZhead channel and many more articles on our website.
Feel free to subscribe to not miss any of our updates and visit our website to discover additional content.
Don’t forget to follow us on twitter:
/ fluctusofficial
Please keep the comments section respectful. Any spam, insults or troll will be deleted.
To contact us, make sure to use our email in the about section of this channel.
This technology has been around since the 1980’s, but the issue has always been that they’re insanely loud and break noise ordinances for residential areas near airports..
Yep, I thought the old Noordyne Norseman was loud, with it's ungeared 3 blade propeller. These are a lot more powerful. WOW!
Most of these KZhead video creators are going for clicks, NOT facts. Never let the reality of the facts get in the way of $. 😉
And not shrouded with pieces hitting fuselage on failure (bird strike or other)
@@LSmiata No, mere flesh, doesn't survive the Ginsu treatment well, at all, generally it's the compressor section inside, that gets trashed by bird strikes. The blades are waaay thinner, and brittle.
Right, I think it was the show "Beyond Tomorrow" back in the 80 that showed this and multiple working flying cars prototypes.
GE and Pratt were testing the same type of engine in the mid 1980s, nearly 40 YEARS AGO. But I suspect this guy wasn't born then.
Correct but this first UDF (Un Ducted Fan ) tech by NASA and GE was put on the backburner in the 80's. The prove of concept worked, but at that time do the higher noiselevel, extreme high production costs and low fuel costs made the UDF financial uneconomical and political unwanted. Due to modern composites, new tech and high fuelcosts GE, P&W and Safran/CFM work togheter for the the 2nd generation UDF. The 2nd gen UDF makes now less noise then a "regular' ducted fan due to the fact that one set of blades is stationary instead of counter rotating in the original UDF. This Makes this low fuelburn/noise engine a sustainable option for "regional" jets. Point to point travel did explode so the demand for economic to operate "regional" jets has drastic increased. The term regional has been watered down today. The baby Airbus the A318's with luxury seatings is operated by British Airways as an intercontinental aircraft on the London to New York route!. Smaller aircraft more departures in a day. And budget/holidaycharter airlines use f.e 737's in cattletruck seat configuration for the low and medium routes.
The new concept uses a stator section rather than counter rotating. Very different from the old ones you refer to. Noise reduction is the idea.
@@deanhoman1958 Correct i mentioned that when i mentioned a set of stationary blades (they have pitch control) "The 2nd gen UDF makes now less noise then a "regular' ducted fan due to the fact that one set of blades is stationary instead of counter rotating in the original UDF." Modern computers and software made that improvement possible on the 80's UDF.
This technology is long overdue. I wonder why they are still not ready to use this technology. 2035? What?? In more than 10 years?? They´re probably joking or don`t have the guts. Something is not right there.@@obelic71
Lol stealing the Bear bombers engine and adding extra tech
An Aerospace Major watching this all the way from Nigeria and just wishing I could participate in bringing any of these engines to life.
😅😂😅😂😅😂
turboprops are a 1940's technology
Apply to Safran.
@@itskyansaroturbojet and turbo fan core concept is ancient too. That does not mean there hasn't been significant developments and improvements made. I think a lot of people underestimate just how complex modern aircraft engines are. There's a reason there's only a handful of companies in the world who can make them.
Incredible Technology 😍
Bahahaha the udf project was scrapped due to noise. I was lucky enough to know the lead engineer on the project. He was a good friend and mentor.
Yeah, surprised that minor detail wasn't mentioned. =)
@@williamhumber5890 NEGATIVE details are always not shown... ONLY the positive sides. And after the argument will be, well the airports were here first. And then came scopulos developers who built near airports.
I love technology.
I kept thinking how cool it would be if the Wright brothers could see this.😁
If the Wright Brothers could fly business class on Emirates like I do, they'd either be mind blown with the ability to sit and eat a full meal, the ability to get alcohol from a BAR on the plane or the ability to take stand up showers.
Truth
The CFM _Rise_ demonstrator shows the lessons learned from the GE Aerospace UDF36 program. With ten blades on a single propeller spinner and ten fixed blades behind it, it eliminates the noise that was the downfall of the earlier propfan designs.
I thought, although reduced, the noise was still an unsolvable problem especialy after more restrictive noise reduction policies especialy in the EU. It is a general issue if you have some blade system rotating near some kind of edges. Be it second blade system, rotating or not, fins, or other kind of aerodynamicly acting edges and surcases. You know this kind of problem by pusher props as well. If you've noticed they've avoided talking about the noise issue for this system entirely.
It's slow, maybe 400 knot's. Cruise speed never mentioned.
The steam turbine for ships invented by Parsons in 1890's had rotating and fixed blades - so why is this different
@@starfighterusscv-6693 That alone would make the aircraft more efficient. The slower you go, the less drag. Drag increases logarithmically with speed.
@@apterachallenge- PARASITE drag does, induced drag decreases.
This newer unducted fan, I wonder how it compares to the unducted fan mounted on an MD81 in 1988? Any improvements in the noise level? They look very similar.
About 30 years ago, NASA and GE developed the GE-36, an Ultra High By-pass Un-ducted Fan, that is capable of producing 10,000-15,000 hp! They couldn't figure out how to mount it to commercial aircrafts without ripping off the airframe during flight.
Duct tape
@@DinoNucci скотч не выдержит , для этого есть синяя изолента , на все случаи жизни )))
70 лет назад изобрели 15000 л. С. Нк-12😂
Very interesting and high tech. 😊😊😊❤❤❤
The Open Rotor exist since 1988 on a demonstrator (MD81) so very modern today ;-)
Waste of money and time, they should use more efficient open rotor electric motors which are muuuuch more simpler.
Perhaps better technology can improve
That's like saying a tesla is nothing new since electric cars have existed for like 130 years
Testing this since the 60s
A couple of engineering points to consider- Open turbines, without a nacelle are significantly louder. Really loud. The ceramic components allow leaner burn, using less fuel, but a significant increase in NOX emissions. Not good for acid rain.
What the so called " jetengines" make loud, ist the turbo-jet component, which is ptretty much dimmed by the sheath current caused by the propeller/fan/ rotor. I experienced the early jets like DC 9, Caravelle, Boeing 727 and so on starting. They were defenitely at least 3 times as loud as contemporary turboprops for example.
What happens if a blade fails on the open fan design? It will cut through the fuselage like a hot knife through butter.
You are correct. Turbine blades can and do separate on occasion. I can't see the FAA certifying this design without major regulation changes.
@@cgirl111 Why wouldn't they certify it with the exact same process and standards that all of the other turboprops have been certified with?
@@DHEFDAWG Because the current regulation is that a failed fan blade must be contained inside the nacelle. I don't know what the difference is between the a standard turbo prop and this engine is but I will start looking into it. It looks to me that the only difference between a high bypass jet engine and a turbo prop is the nacelle and containment. There has to be a regulatory difference but I haven't looked for it yet.
@@cgirl111 Depends on what regulation you're talking about. For propellors, look at 14 CFR Part 25.905(d) Design precautions must be taken to minimize the hazards to the airplane in the event of a propellor blade fails or is released by a hub failure. Hazards that must be contained include damage to structure or vital systems due to failed blade and the unbalance created by such failure. For turbofans, 14 CFR Part 25.903(d)(1) Design precautions must be taken to minimize hazards to the airplane in the event of rotor failure or fire within the engine which burns through the case. Interestingly enough, as stated in FAA AC 25.905-1 Section 5.a. states that amendment 25-45 to 14 CFR Part 15 in 1978 added to Part 25.571 "(e) the airplane must be capable of completing a flight during which structural damage occurs as a result of ... (2) propellor and uncontained fan blade impact. So there used to be a distinction between props and "uncontained fans"... but now the legal definition of propeller from 14 CFR Part 1.1 is "Propellor means a device for propelling an aircraft that has blades on an engine-driven shaft and that, when rotated, produces by its action on the air, a thrust approximately perpendicular to its plane of rotation..." Which encompasses the "uncontained fan" - it's really just a bunch of fancy propellor blades. I guess what I am getting at by throwing all of this FAA policy at you (which I had to research to make this comment, nobody memorizes that stuff lol) is that there isn't really a specific reg that the blade has to be contained today as far as I could find (at least in FAA)
@@DHEFDAWG Because this fan blade has much higher energy than an ordinary turboprop fan. It turns faster rpm. So it's more dangerous has any break occurs.
The open rotor drive is actually nothing but a cross between turbofan and turboprop. So you combine the advantages of both engine variants.
Pratt & Whitney was testing a prototype of this engine 40 years ago.
Not a new idea. UDF or Unducted Fan was experimented with in the late 80s
This is the stuff adds value to mankind and society...
And don't forget war tool's. Those could remove all value from everything in "wrong hands"..
nice video, The technology will become more sophisticated every year
Amazing....!!!!!!
I wonder how they are going to fit these on the next b737?
Good one. Made me smile
Totally unexpected! This is more intriguing than expected.
Hopefully open rotor technology knows the real fuel consumption of jets.
What about generated noise levels and what happens in case of a blade failure or bird strike?
The propfand have no blade containment if a blade breaks, as well as being very noisy.
not very noisy
They can armour plate the fuselage section next to the blade
Weve been seeing this design since the early 80's
I think the open blade technology engine could be advantageous but am wondering if it gets considered a turbo prop or not and would it somehow have to demonstrate blade containment like regular jet engines in accordance with 14 CFR 33.94
The fan motor is very noisy and this is the main problem. The second problem is the large dimensions of the fan. So far, the best thing that has come out of such engines is the Russian NK-93. But it is also suitable only for overhead planes. Moreover, the collapse of the Soviet Union did not allow him to go to the series.
THIS is the type of stuff our nation needs to be worried about
For more than 30 years, motors the GE36 and NK96 have existed, they were discarded because they were not silent and because of the vibrations they produced.
New generation bird shredders!
it is like going back to propellers
Why don't you test a new type of airport, that isn't a hassle to get thru with security checks....baggage costs...and delays and cancellations
Like the way they showed a smokey old Trent XWB - I expected a zoom in on a coal scuttle
Fantastic ! 🌟
Great video 👍🏻
Thank you ! 👍
Badi meherbani 👍🏻
Awesome Video 😊
I was hoping to see the CFM Risa engine the open rotor engine.
A lot of the fuel-saving advantages of these come from the ability to change the pitch of the big fan blades so that the engine is more efficient over a wider range of power, altitude and rpm settings. The Pratt and Whitney geared turbofan designs are providing similar benefits.
How do we know if it's the most advanced when it's a prototype?
The open fan design was invented decades ago, but it was found that such engine was simply too loud. That's what I know.
Looks like Tu 95 engines, in service since the 50s
How is this different from a fancy turbo prop?
I saw a similar engine from Kuznetsov! I think it was called the KN 93 and was meant to power IL-96, but then was discontinued!
The hard part is gearing the fan blade(s) to spin slower than the turbine
Will any of these engines withstand a flock of Canadian geese flying through them over the Hudson?🫢🤔
NO
A big fan engine, has a containment casing. ‘Nuff said.
The true danger comes from the fast spinning heavy discs in the core, which is still contained.
@@thorwaldjohanson2526 you admit you know nothing. If the turbine discs are contained, where’s the danger? Which discs are you talking about, the LP turbine for the fan? These big blades AREN’T contained, which is my point.
@@johnnunn8688 the prop / fan blades ar geared and spin slower. The most dangerous part is the disc holding the high pressure turbine. This disc (or 2 discs) spin thr fastest and are very heavy, as they have to withstand very high centrifugal forces at high temperatures. I'm sure that Cfm and airbus are considering the failure modes. Now this might just be an educated guess, but I suspect that a broken prop blade could cause pressure hull breach, but it would not slice right through thr aircraft and cut electrical / hydraulic lines like a failed disc would. In aircraft design you have to reach a 10^-6 chance per flight hour chance of a catastrophic failure. I'm sure they can achieve that.
Faz um vídeo sobre o KC 390 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
I'll wait for the video where the test engine is spun up to max power and then gets a goose carcass tossed at those great big fan blades.
Tupolev Tu-95 has twin propellers on a turbo fan ,,.. interesting tech, don't see how this is much different aside from the propellers
How much time do you have to read a detailed description of the differences?
Look at the demonstrator (MD80/83?) With such open Rotor engine... that was very modern in the 90s 😅
@@Colorado_Native He has a point there. Some of the major chalanges are the same - noise. As well as the benefits - efficency. You can try to express the major difference in some aspects.
Yes, you are right. I was stationed at Kadena Air Base at Okinawa, Japan. I had gone home for lunch right outside Gate 4. On the way back on my bicycle I heard a very distinct and different sound. I looked up and saw a Tu-95 bomber flying up Hwy. 58 maybe 100 feet AGL. You could easily read the markings on the aircraft. I waved and could make out them waving back. That A/C was very loud and you could definitely feel it as it flew over. Respect for the crews that can fly those and still function. Thanks for the reply.
@@Colorado_Native sounds like you fell asleep and had some very unrealistic dream.
The steam turbine for ships invented by Parsons in 1890's had rotating and fixed blades - so why is this different
I’ve always felt like I had it in me to create a better payload delivery system.
bird strikes might get messy
Human capacity is looking limitless!
This “un-shrouded” blade or propeller design was created in the 70s (due to the Oil Crisis) and tested in the 80s; but, never put in use
these engines have existed since the 1980s and always had problems with being way to loud
UDF engines are very fuel efficient
I've seen videos of tests in which the engine case hold debris in case of bird collision and/or something breaks from the engine, specially the blades. I wonder what would happen with that open fan engine.
escape the matrix trust me (I'm sure you've heard of that many times, only once is it true) come this way you'll get it when you get it when you get it, pray for us all as all of us who get it do it for the rest hurry
Realy I like it
Ive thought about sharpening the blades on my radiator just to help the motor and the berrings out, but i can hold off for now
Old tech, been around since the 80's and it's huge problems have never been sorted out
The problem with jet engines is they are all "Complex, Sophisticated Process, and Advanced Manufacturing Processes" which complicates the troubleshooting and repair of the engine. When broke replace it at double the cost
Do jet engine mfg. still use the frozen goose test by tossing it into the engines
J'espère que ce RISE va fonctionner il semble qu'ils ont résolu le problème majeur pour le civil...LE BRUIT...encore une idée française !! Et une collaboration réussie avec GE depuis longtemps
Isn’t this just a fancy turboprop?
Shrouds......long known.
Reminds me of battlefield earth .
They developed a propeller engine! Someone should tell them about the 1910's.
YES, And very sophicated high performance propeller engine towards end of WWII
Ca ressemble beaucoup à de turbopropulseur de TU 95 des années 50. Rattrapage ?
Nice diversity. Great companies to work.
What happen to Pratt & Whitney Engines. .?
Birdstrikes are going to be brutal
...and Rolls-Royce is laughing at all of them 😆
The RR Ultrafan rules OK 👍
What contains a fanblade detachment?
Well, now Americans and Europeans admit that the Russian design for airplane engines was a good idea.
A bold faced dales pitch!
Yes. Yes it is. …I think.
Hell yeah I agree here ❤️👍
15 Feb 2024 11 :33 pm😮😢
Ducted versus not is, according to what I have watched recently, NOT a settled debate.
Concord switched from compressor to ram mode at supersonic speeds.
Safran is a French highly advanced aircraft engine technology company which is part of Airbus, so in effect Airbus are making their own engines. As for the Ramjet, that was invented by another French guy !
SO BASICALLY, we're going BACK TO PROPELLERS...
I remember sound issues with these external fans. Anyone?
7:17 , next gen EZ Bake Oven.
What are the aircraft flying @8:30 can someone tell me please ?
That is an X-15 with a T-38 chase plane. That is it's shadow on the bottom.
@@johnarnold893Thank you. I was watching on a phone and the shadow had me perplexed.
Far be it from me to question the science, but damn open fan is so aesthetically archaic compared to the clean modern high bypass closed designs on current jets. It's gonna be really weird looking at what _looks_ like little 'prop' engines on new airliners in coming decades🤔
Mehr Menschenrechte wäre viel wichtiger!
welcome Jatt Angel...... Russian airplane airport very strong superpower....... ❤️❤️❤️💖💖💖💖💘💘💘💘💘💘💘💘💘💘💘💘💘💘
Single aisle aircraft ???
Open rotor Fan bypass ratio=7billion to one lol
Pls note, none of video relates to the subject. Best part was the clip of milling the old 4 cylinder engine block,
You have got 737 max which has led to many disastrous crashes. It is not only reduction in fuel but even in lives.
Population Reduction (ie, Bill Gates, George Soros, NWO dictators, ...)
Back to oldie loud fan noise😅
Why don’t they try winglets on the tips of the fan blades. They have been proven to increase efficiency with airfoils.
Поздравляю с освоением технологии СССР 1970 года по изготовлению полых лопаток турбин.
Which both the US and UK developed in the 1950s. Nice try, comrade.
Tu-95 quiet edition
I sometimes read the comments on new technology just for a laugh. KZhead is full of know-nothing technology armchair experts.
Как называется музыка, играющая на видео в интервале с 11:27 до 12:35?
I believe Boeing played with these in the ‘80’s as part of the 7J7 project ment to replace 727 and 737. It wasn’t successful thus we have 737 Max.