Enjoy 10% OFF on all Hoverpens and free shipping to most countries with code MENTOUR:
North America & other countries: bit.ly/novium_mentour
UK & Europe: bit.ly/noviumeu_mentour
---------------------------------------------------
Who, or WHAT is the biggest threat to Airbus right now? With Boeing, in… quite some trouble, you would think that Airbus is sitting back, relaxed, making and selling planes as fast as possible. No need to worry about any “challengers”. Right?
Well actually, that’s NOT true, because Airbus and Boeing have another looming crisis to think about - a crisis that isn’t waiting for anyone. And as it turns out, behind closed doors, Airbus ARE working on a brand new aircraft design, to deal with it
Stay tuned!
-----------------------------------------------------
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward!
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
Our Connections:
👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: mentour-crew.creator-spring.c...
👉🏻 Our other channel: / mentourpilotaviation
👉🏻 Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot
👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets
Social:
👉🏻 Facebook: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Instagram: / mentour_pilot
👉🏻 Twitter: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Discord server: / discord
Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the lastest aviation content
👉🏻 www.mentourpilot.com/apps/
-----------------------------------------------------
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.
• This is a time to be l...
• Highlights 2023 - Comm...
• Airbus’ most popular a...
• Airbus' A319neo takes ...
• Spirit Offers IAM-Repr...
• A321LR First Flight fr... v
• Delta Air Lines A220 t...
• Boeing's 777X | The GE...
• Brace Yourself for TTB...
• US-EU trade dispute he...
• Airbus' Blue Condor: F...
• Airbus x Neste - A Pio...
Enjoy 10% OFF on all Hoverpens and free shipping to most countries with code MENTOUR: North America & other countries: bit.ly/novium_mentour UK & Europe: bit.ly/noviumeu_mentour
Team no background music
Antiwhite hate DEI is killing Boeing.
Screw the efficiency. We DON'T need bring back the propeller!
You are very informed but Hydrogen will never work. It's far, far, far too dangerous.
my instinct tells me that hydrogen will need to prove itself in the cargo aircraft arena before passenger aircraft operators and passengers warm up to the concept and adopt it full scale
Boeing knows that the US government won't let them go out of business - it's too much of a strategic risk to lose domestic production of aircraft. Boeing has taken that complacency to heart.
Thanks for your support!
Too connected to fail.
.....to the detriments of the consumers with unsafe aircraft...
Same with Airbus, though. Boeing is particularly messed up beyond government subsidization.
Also military projects. Mcd should have been military and Boeing civilian. Coulda woulda shoulda
Airbus has a new methodology called "tightening the bolts" which puts them several years ahead of Boeing.
I think this needs to become an expression. Like, when a company appears to do something really great, but in reality they're really just doing the bare minimum and it's our expectations that are in the gutter. "Apple has started shipping a charging cable with their new iPhones, they're really tightening those bolts."
Airbus has had their share of design and quality control issues too… Today’s 24 hour “media” magnifies everything that they “report” on, saturating the minds of the viewers… Yes, Boeing has recent quality control problems, but they have produced good quality aircraft, overall… I have over 25,000 hours of flight time as a Captain on the 727, 737 and 747, including many different models of those aircraft, I’ve never had anything more than minor mechanical issues with any of them… Yes, I DO think that since Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas they have engaged in way too much cost cutting and now we can see the effects, their main focus on their stock price and “shareholder value” instead of focusing on quality control… The shareholders and customers really need to demand a complete overhaul of Boeing management, and flush out all of the McDonnell Douglas management AND their ideas…
Boeing management decided to copy and adapt the Chinese Tofu Dreg methodology to their aircraft, or rather ground craft since they are not really meant to fly
😂 years ahead in your dreams.
@@Trancial-x-tion atleast it flies 🎉🎉🎉
The main obstacle facing both Airbus and Boeing is gravity.
Bolts for Boeing
actually it would be lack of ressources for propelent but yes you are right :)
Just Boeing at the Moment.
Nah, that's such a twentieth century way of thinking. To put it another way if they both need to worry about it than neither needs to worry about it and can instead focus on the most efficient way of moving money into the hands of private equity holding the stock and let gravity take care of itself. That's how MBAs think at any rate and more specifically it's how Executives have been told to run their companies ever since Jack Welch said that the least important part of running a company that does "x" is whatever "x" is. The only imperative is putting money into shareholders hands. Full Stop. Look at every sector and it's more about being big enough to dominate or concentrate an industry down into so few competitors they can fix prices and wages with literal nods and winks. Under these parameters any (BIG) business is a license to print money with nowhere else to squeeze any more for the demanded quarterly improvements on what would be quite lucrative at a third of their take except from the customer, worker and community at large. Never the owners. Prior to Welch the Fiduciary Responsibility to shareholders we are so familiar with today was only about third or fourth on the list of priorities in good corporate governance behind (*)taking care of the employees, customers and community which shouldn't be so shocking as corporations are chartered by the government _for the betterment of the Public Good._ They exist to benefit everyone through serving a public need not just the Bentley owners to the exclusion of everyone else. (*)Of course this presupposes a healthy and well run company *otherwise* it would only be able to deliver on at most one or two of those things as is true of almost every large company dominating nearly every sector today.
The problem with most companies, especially big American companies is they are all about Wallstreet instead of making the best product possible.
It really depends on the company and the board of directors which change over time, after all airbus is a public company as well. Does seem to be a growing problem though where a seemingly moderate event causes a minor loss of market share which then triggers cost saving measures that hurt quality.
The Detroit big 3 ran into trouble like this. They just kept pumping out the same old cars and were making money off of financing. Someone says it was Detroit selling cars like razor blades. In the process, they forgot to invent the next generation of vehicles and then wondered why no one was buying their cars.
What models in which years were reproduced?
This is why experts say that if one wants to buy a car and own it for more than 5 years there is only Honda or Toyota as a valid option. But as long they fall to the completely inadequate standards like LG I guess all is good.
@juergenpaton5004 yea and those Hondas or Toyatas are built in the US. Also Kia has 10 year 100k mile warranty. Ford maverick hybrid has a 10y 100k mile power train warranty as well.
Airbus CEO just said last week that they are working on the A320 successor.
And here it is!!
The A220-500.......
No. When asked about Airbus' future what he really said was "Success, sir!"
@@alexocean9196 No the A220-500 its not a real A320 replacement they need a bigger plane than the A220 to replace the current A321.
I'd like to see how they solve the safety issue of blade failure causing cabin depressurization and bird strikes being slung off towards the cabin as well.
This is the American way. Outsource everything, cut costs, cheap out, until the company goes bankrupt due to no one buying its substandard products, then take your golden parachute and move on to the next huge American manufacturer and do it again.
I wouldn't even call it necessarily American. That's the point of capitalism. Make something as cheaply as possible, with as close to slave wages as you possibly can, and sell it for as much as you can get away with. Nestlé/Hershey is a good example of that too.
@@Zyo117 You are confusing capitalism with some form of corporatism. Capitalism means choice. I can choose to purchase a gallon of factory milk for $2.50/gallon, or I can choose to purchase fresh milk for $7/gallon from a farmer. I can choose to purchase cheap factory farm veggies loaded with glyphosate, or pay more for veggies raised without gmos and chemicals. The market decides. I have a choice. What sucks is when government intervenes and either subsidizes or creates regulations / restrictions against competition. True: safe products must exist, but regulators seem to line their pockets / get good cushy corporate jobs when they retire - as some regulations only seem to benefit the corporations. This was especially evident during the plandemic, where some governments completely shut down small businesses (even arresting / fining business owners) while large corporations were allowed to stay open and make massive profits. How did they determine who was an "essential business"? ($$$ maybe?) Now many of those small businesses are gone, because they were not allowed to compete. This is not capitalism.
@@ChurchOfTheHolyMho Yes, right in front of your eyes. This is what capitalism aspires to.
@@ChurchOfTheHolyMhoIt's Capitalism. Joint-stock companies have been doing this since they first existed. Government regulations on companies were created in response to the ills of free-market capitalism, not the other way around. Finally, companies fail. It's part of how capitalist markets function and is certainly not, as you suggest, a creation of the Covid pandemic.
@@Zyo117 We can disagree. I don't believe this is what capitalism aspires to be. We have a regional grocer that opted to invest in many regional brands that were having difficulty. I have the option to purchase a local brand (bread, dairy, etc) or a national brand where possible. If the grocer had aspired to greed, they would've saved their money, not invested in our community, and simply try to undersell Aldis and keep the profits. They didn't.
I worked at McDonnell Douglas back in the 80s and the exposed fan (open rotor) engine concept was being put forth on the MD-80 at the time. It made sense on the MD-80 because the very dangerous fan blades were high off the ground, away from maintainers or other ground staff. It was felt that the noise and potential danger of a blade out event without any containment was deemed unfeasible. We'll see what happens with this latest attempt.
It’s more than likely that the NGSA would have a much higher ground clearance (probably closer to that of Airbus’s widebodies) for the CFM RISE engines to fit on the wing. I’m sure the safety aspect of it will be scrutinised. (Probably in a similar approach like with turboprops such as the ATR-72 and the DHC-8.)
Plenty of turboprop airliners seem to cope?
Sure! I had the same thought. Seems to make the chance of an uncontained engine failure higher.
Blade out failure is a thing, and not having a containment ring around it is actually terrifying.
Very good point about the lack of containment, Paul. I’m also skeptical of hydrogen powered jets. Unless I’m missing something doesn’t the production of hydrogen involve a much costlier process than the production of traditional jet fuel? How far along is “green” hydrogen? In what volumes can it be produced and a what cost? Most airlines operate with razor thin margins.
Well (under)wing engine placement offers the following benefits: - since wings create lift, if you hang engines directly off them, you dont need to add extra material, to support and connect the weight of engines to the wing -> hence lighter aircraft (like the video said) - engine in front of the wing is in clean air - that is not all swirly and stuff due to wing hutting it, as it has not YET reached the wing). When you have nice laminar flow propellers work more efficiently - When air leaving the engine is hitting the wing (like with the setup seen in the video) you will get air (the air pushed by the engine) that moves faster than usual, thus generates more lift than usual. Downside of the last point is that the fan blades also make the air all swirly, so right behind them wing is a tad bit less efficient. However main benefit of last point is more lift at slow speeds, as engine pushes air over said part of the wing very fast even when aircraft has just slowly started rolling during takeoff. Thus you get extra lift at slow speed, helping reduce takeoff distance.
Alas imho. the "lets start conservatively experimenting with longer wings" is result of the 2015 Prandtl-D results. Ground infrastructure simply doesn't exist to accomodate aircraft built to fully utilize bell shaped lift distribution (pure flying wings, that dont need differential airbreaking to compensate for lack of tail, like setup seen in the new US stealth strategic bomber) Still even with more traditional airframes some gains could be had in reducing lift induced drag, even if its in the low double digits. Thing is that, the idea works by having longer wings with wing end not creating lift, thus vortices created further inboard, not at wingtips and thus can be harnessed for creating useful forces on the aircraft.
It's really important for airbus to dedicate to ultrafan aircraft developement, as we've seen, when companies relax, stagnate, a company can fall apart (see: boeing vs airbus for the a320 neo, or intel vs amd with ryzen), and very fast, really good oversight on airbus's end to keep growing and great summary by the mentour team!
If ultrafan is a good design in the first place. As far as I remember, tests were showing that the ultrafan is extremely noisy
The UltraFan is still in infancy in its development. Rolls Royce has said that the technology won’t be ready for real-world use until the next decade. I’m inclined to believe that the UF technology will first see commercial use with potentially a neo variant of the A350 in the future (possible stretch + to compete more closely with the 777-9X). I’m sure it could the closest (even though it won’t be that close) thing to fulfilling the A380’s role.
@@CoSmicGoesRacingAnd RR is still trying to get their gear working so maybe 2045 🤔
Except...none of the companies in your examples have fallen apart.
It often boils down to how much money has to be taken from RD to feed the subsidies and dividendes. As soon as rewarding shareholders takes more than RD, the company is doomed to slowly die.
There's another important reason to put the fans in front of the wings that I think you missed. If you put the fans behind the wings, the tip vortices from the fan blades interact with the vortex sheet coming off the back of the wing, which is impressively loud, just ask the Piaggio Avanti. The fans probably need to be in front to comply with noise regulations. The flexible wingtips for load alleviation are so cool. it's something birds do. Now that we really know composites for commercial use better, I wouldn't be surprised if they also use a fancy layup for the wings that'll reduce the angle of attack on the outer portions of the wing as it flexes up to take the load alleviation a step farther. Would just need to design it so the flaps stiffen the whole wing when they're extended to keep the flex lower and AoA higher for takeoff and landing.
There is one more reason for the engines placement - weight distribution
Even then propfans are much noisier than the modern turbofans, aren't they?
The Avanti do not have contra rotating blades, maybe that can make a difference in noise?
@@tonylam9548RISE engine doesnt have contra rotating blades either, the second stage of blades is only adjusted on pitch but does not rotate. The very typical sound of the Piaggio Avanti is really linked to the blades passing through the airflow coming out of the wing. However, on an rear-mounted engines airliners, engines would be much further aft which would limit a bit this issue. But in any cases, open fan engine represents a noise issue.
Also, when ice falls off the wings (which should not happen, but it did in the past), it won't be sucked into the engines and potentially damage them. There are a lot of good reasons to leave the engines under/in front of the wings I think.
Wish he still had the dogs wandering randomly through the video.
And before he shaved his arms lol
Where are you from?
The only dogs in the videos now are the Boeing aircraft.
@@kw8757 uffda
I used to work for an Airbus startup. Airbus is a wonderful company. To answer your question, yes, and they're not hiding it. You can find the answers in their new air traffic control system.... ;)
Even between doupoly, where no competitors exist, it is proven that innovation fetches profits, and there's no shortcut to success for innovation. Good work, Airbus!
Saw you at PilotExpo today! Sadly the queue for you was kilometers long so i didn't get to talk to you. But i said hy from the distance anyway 😅
Awww! You should have stayed around. It got shorter
Maybe there should be a VIP line for Super Duper Subscribers 🤣@@MentourNow
@@MentourNowit always gets shorter. Patience is the key (and a virtue).
I really love this channel. As an aviation enthusiast and private pilot I find the coverage of a variety of topics fascinating both on this channel and the other one. Really good job of the videos too and accurate information from an experienced pilot...thanks
Hi Mentour pura vida! Good hearing from these aircraft news from u again!🇨🇷
Boeing's gamble for Wall Street Wealth kinda Backfired
You have taught me so much about flying, planes, policy, maintenance, and so much more. I'm not a pilot but you follow my same train of thought with no filler. Also, you don't have an American English or UK English accent which is refreshing.
He has a mix between American English and English English and the all famous (or infamous) 'Swinglish'.
Ignoring some of the UK’s regional dialects (which are numerous) does “UK English” have an accent?
@@normanlazarus1836 What the heck is UK English? It's either English (as spoken by the English) or Scottish or Welsh. In each country you have regional dialects and accents. Over 40 different ones in England, which kind of make sense since the English spawned the language.
@@eriklarsson3188 If you look at my reply I used “UK English” in quotation marks because I was repeating the words of the original comment. I would only use ‘English’ to describe my language (& I am from the UK).
The American accent? Texan accent or Wisconsin accent? They are both Americans, but when you hear them, you immediately know the difference. And yes, given my name I am French. Ah yes otherwise... Even the British consider themselves "next to Europe". 🤣
Thank you very much for this very interesting and informative Inside in new Aircraft Development Strategies, especially from Airbus.👍 Another aspect Airbus are not facing today and in the next years, but definetely during the next decade (and Boeing of course as well): the competition by China and its Comac Aircraft Production Company: Airbus must be better because Comac will definetely be cheaper. That is probably another very important reason why Airbus puts so much Money and Attention onto a really new designed Single-Aisle-Aircraft.
I can add that, we are seeing more and more ads around Montreal, QC to recruit new Airbus Canada employees. This could possibly be linked to some futur ambitions for the A220 program
It's great to hear some good news from there! I really wanted the C-series to succeed, and was so frustrated by some decisions Bombardier made, and so sad when it looked like the dream had collapsed.
Yeah @@j_taylor, I agree! I actually also work at Airbus on the A220 program and things do seem to be going in the right direction 😁
They should move all A220 production there, as american production is on the nose, especially southern states.
The main improvements needed on the 320 line are well known. First, it needs more wing area. A bigger, modern, more efficient wing that allows for more fuel load is essential. The current fuselage size is perfect. Keep it high off the ground like it is now to allow for different engine options. The main problems with the unducted fan engines are still there; uncontained blade failure, FOD susceptibility, danger to ground personnel, etc. So I’m not convinced about that concept yet. It will be fascinating to see what Airbus comes up with. Congrats on another great video!
Isn't noise a problem as well. Why aren't they using a high wing? This avoids pitch up torque at high thrust. It just seems like fanatical means. All elements pushed to the limit for 1 or 2% fuel economy. Same garbage with electric cars.
Noise was always a huge issue . That thing sounds hellish.
@@PeacefulRallyCar-pw3cs High wing means reinforced higher fuselage to hold the wing, complexity for the landing gear, a central wing where you would like to put passengers. As of today, the balance is not good for high wings for airliners.
@@renaudcharlet and stall and crash is preferable..?
@PeacefulRallyCar-pw3cs keep the goals of the airline industry in mind... They want efficiency above all, the high wing is dead, it cant be done without making the plane x amount heavier. The added weight needs to be compensated with efficiency, flying characteristics are not as important for airliners especially not for a airbus. Blade failure would be bad, but turboprop cope fine for centuries, bigger problems would be the maintenance of such a prop, they need careful x raying and i dont think that the airlines would like that proposal...
Could you make a video about Embraer and how they fit into the Boeing/Airbus situation?
This would really be appreciated!🙂👍
Will Embraer be able to take advantage of the Airbus delays and Boeing chaos?
Focus: fuel efficiency, reduction of "altitude" pressure in the cabin to reduce fatigue, composite materials to decrease weight and increase structural integrity, increase in payloads, speed of aircraft and of course adaptation to alternative fuel resources. Great video.
Why increase speed?
1:57 it's amazing how much even the fuselage of composites flexes.
Boeing is a military producer with some customer airplane production to fill the gaps, Airbus is a customer plane producer with a few military contracts. As long as Boeing is paid for by the US taxpayer, no matter what, they do not see a huge problem.
Boeing Segment Breakdown: Revenue: Defense, Space & Security, 39%; Commercial Airplanes, 32%; Global Services, 29%; and Operating Earnings: Global Services, 98%; and Boeing Capital 2%
Boeing is also struggling with their military orders delivery schedule. It's a mess.
Airbus has an option to purchase additional land in Mirabel. The problem is going to be, as it is today - is the supply chain.
I went down a rabbit hole this weekend learning all the history of the Mirabel airport. Wild ride.
@@IainShepherd1 You watched Simon, huh? lol
Novium is the first ad I haven’t skipped through in awhile.
yes it is essential to continue to innovate while simultaneously deliver quality planes today. Love the pursuit of higher efficiency engines rather than the folly of thinking electric planes are the imminent future.
Big Fan of your content Sir!! I am seeing so much of your content that I sometimes feel like I am the Pilot myself 😂😂😂 All those Aviation jargon come in my head whenever I am at an Airport and see a plane. Like those are wings where the fuel is, that’s flaps that come down when needed, altitude, FL34 ie 34000 feet, Bank angle, lift, Thrust, Papi lights, pushback, center line, VOR or ILS approach, auto brakes, TOGA, tailwind, Windsheer, My Controls, Airbus/Boeing, Yo stick, rudder, turbulence, glide scope, Aviate-Navigate-Communicate, glide scope, TCAS….😅😅😅😅😅 Sometimes I hallucinate that I will be flying as a passenger and there will be an issue with both Pilots unable to fly and Crew announces via PA that if anyone has any flying experience and I will raise my hand 😂like a Hero to save everyone and landing safely!! 😂😂😂😂😂 I hope that never happens 😂 All the best Sir from India.
😃👍
Regarding the open fan design, we have seen several occurrences of fan-blades detaching or experiencing failures which the engine cowling contains. With no cowling, what is to prevent such occurrences from penetrating the body of the aircraft? Additionally, since they are also larger in diameter, it would stand to reason that they are traveling at a higher velocity at the same RPM as the enclosed design.
Well, you know that Turboprops exist, right? I mean, they are very similar in the end. How many Turboprobs do you know that had a propblade seperation?
the larger fan is probably geared somehow to a lower RPM than the core because it actually has to keep the tip speed slightly lower than a traditional engine so the tips don't go supersonic. As for preventing fan blade issues, you probably just require a higher safety factor on the blades. not sure how it would deal with bird strikes though.
Not mentioned in the other replies is that they also armor the fuselage where the blades might strike.
@@shi01 I know of that C 130 which completely sheared off the forward cabin from a blade separation.
Geared Turboprops also have far higher fatigue life requirements(Weight & expense) unlike turbofans. Since there is no shroud, the open fan would have to meet the propeller standards and not the fan standards. Would not surprise me if the weight of a larger cowling would be easier and same weight. @@shi01
Frankly, Airbus (or anyone) saying they're going to have a hydrogen-powered airliner by next decade is just saying what the green crowd wants to hear in hopes of staving off more laws and regulations. Hydrogen power is very interesting, but it has a very large number of problems that have remained unsolved for the several decades that we've been using hydrogen combustion engines. Hydrogen does *not* like to be in liquid form at anything remotely resembling the normal conditions of Earth's atmosphere. Its hobbies include converting to gaseous form, leaking through even the smallest of holes (think very microscopic, molecule-sized holes that exist in nearly all materials,) and, the most fun one, combining with oxygen to combust. The latter is great when that combustion is in a place where you want it to be (think: engine core,) but otherwise not so great (think: Hindenburg.) Containing hydrogen fuel in a way that will not resemble Hindenburg in the event of a crash or emergency landing at 150+ kt is, shall we say, an open problem. If you had something like, say, Asiana 214 but with hydrogen tanks aft of the tail exist, the ending would have been very different and not in a good way. Of course, as previously mentioned, we've been using hydrogen as a fuel in aerospace for several decades. The Space Shuttle used it, for example. So, how have rocket designers solved this problem of making survivable hydrogen-powered vehicles? Simple: By accepting that a crash will kill everyone onboard and also destroy the vehicle and anything that happens to be nearby at the time. Getting the airline industry and its regulators to accept that, however, will prove a bit more challenging. This is not to say that solving these problems isn't possible. It's likely that there will eventually be decent solutions. But for an airliner in production and airline service in the 2030s? I wouldn't hold my breath, regardless of what Airbus executives (or anyone else) might "commit to."
I recall reading about the development of the Blackbird SR71. Early designs proposed using hydrogen, until the fuel tank volume requirement was calculated. The size of the aircraft to carry enough hydrogen fuel put an end to that proposal.
Cannot imagine Airbus going after the Hydrogen hoax. Consider volumetric energy density is 5 Mj/liter for Hydrogen at 700 bar vs 35 Mj/liter for JP4 fuel making the tanks 7 times larger in volume than normal tanks but making it worse is a tank that can hold 700 bar would weigh 5 to 10 times more than the Hydrogen in the tank making the aircraft massively heavy to say nothing of handling one of the most difficult elements to control; its small size causing embrittlement to any metal is touches. This also assumes the energy content of the Hydrogen can be efficiently used either by burning it which is troublesome or by using a fuel cell which would run electric motors which is max 25% efficient. Apart from gobbling up government’s misguided investments, there is no clear path to Hydrogen ever being used in aviation. This is not about tech becoming better but rather the physics of Hydrogen that will not change. Then consider the cost of creating Hydroge that is easily double that of JP4. Don’t even consider liquification which requires cryogenic storage a few degrees above absolute zero. Even then the volume problem is not improved much. Putting Hydrogen to rest would be a great video since the real story is I believe it’s promotion by Fossil Fuel interests that know it’s a dead end and will take funding away from BEVs.
Physics of Hydrogen says it’s impossible due to its density that cannot change. See my comment.
Thanks, Petter 👍
I'm curious about the open blade concept. I work for an airline and we have bird strikes and ramp accidents that damage the cowls. How would the blades handle the increased birdstrikes and potential accidents on the ground? Otherwise, I'm down for new green engines!
I guess they handle it about the same as turboprop propellers. Bad
Ouch, RAMP RASH ON THE PROPELLER. Very good point, also if ground equipment hits a cowling and somehow it doesn’t get reported it is probably easily to see on a walk-around, but if the same thing happens on a prop, does the pilot closely check each blade and can they even do that. Does an open fan windmill on the ground or does the gearbox hinder that? Could it windmill into something and not be noticed. Looks like the devil is in the details. On a fan jet it is mostly a maintenance issue, on an open fan it could be a safety issue.
Ground cowling strikes(rare) happen since they refuse to simply add PAINT to the ground in which ground vehicles are NOT allowed. Bird strikes will not be any different other than slightly larger diameter hitting more birds.
@@w8stralhaving watch ground crew in action for 40 plus years I can assure you they will find away to drive into the aircraft.
Ultra high ratio contra-rotating GTF designs like the NK-93 would be a good foundation to start from
interesting, thank you. One feature of these ultra high bypass engines that intrigues me is the absence of any cowl around the blade tips. Looking back into history, radial piston engines acquired an external cowl partly because it enhanced cooling but mainly because it reduced drag. I was going to add - blade loss and un-containment but GE have never had a carbon fan blade separate on its 777 and 787 engines in 140 million flight hours and Dowty who make composite props for Saab 340 likewise have never lost a composite blade - as far as I can tell all blade failures inside turbofan engines or on the propellers of turboprops [like on the grounded C130H] have been on metal blades.
I don't think the blade tips will make any significant difference due to the availability of high bypass ratio, which should provide much bigger gains than aerodynamic losses. What will be interesting to see is probably how they're going to address noise, as I'm sure the naked tips will make a lot more noise than an engine with a cowling. Whatever the issues could be, this will be something to look forward to from a technical standpoint.
The other thing is composite blade failures in an open fan engine are less hazardous than they look. Firstly, being geared they are running at a fraction of the speed of the core's blades, which makes breakage less likely. Secondly, they are short, hollow and EXTREMELY light - which means a broken blade has a lot less energy than you'd think. It's not like an uncontained HP turbine failure.
Put the entry door aft of first class - like a 757- or a bit further - faster deplaning when people stall in the aisles pulling bags down. Nice video - thank you
If every aisle got it's own door it would be even faster!
When I watched a video on open rotor engines years ago, they were mentioning putting the engines on the tail since there isn't a cowling to contain the blades in the even of a failure.
Yeah, the GE UDF.
Can't imagine this design would make it into production. Ground crew objections alone could stop it. Let alone the likelihood of increased FOD to those props. Will be interesting to see if they bring it to market.
Its not more dangerous to ground crew than any other engine. Engines are not supposed to be spinning when crew is around. And it ends the same way if people get too close to eitheir type of running engine. Same for FOD, why would it be more subject to FOD? If the engine sucks something in, a open rotor has more chances to get the FOD away from the engine.
Prop aircraft are already around ground crew all the time in smaller airports
Thanks Peter for the awesome content firstly! You know how to properly crate good videos with great content! 🤩 I think these new advances are awesome, but I got curious about one thing regarding the engines. These days the blades and the engine itself is enclosed, so in case it breaks the damage won’t spread, but now it seems we are going to have blades as big as the ones from engines like the GE9X without any enclosure. I think that’s a security risk that is going to be interesting to see how airplane makers will solve. And also the how to storage hydrogen. Looking forward for it! 🤩
If the engine is as wide as the aircraft body, it is better to put the reinforced parts for damage containment around the body than around the engine.
As always great video very complete and clear! Hopefully Airbus will not fall with same mistakes as Boeing. Concerning subsides from governments, as far as they push to cleaner aviation regulation they need to help industries to evolve.
I have to wonder what happens when those blades take a bird strike, or develop cracks in the hub assembly. What is going to constrain those blades?
If they are lightweight, not much.
@wallacegrommet9343 yeah I'm thinking the fuselage will need to be armored/reinforced to protect passengers and flight systems if one of those blades comes apart in flight.
Instead of reinforcing the outer shell of the engine, they can do the same with the part of the fuselage that will be hit in such an event.
Those RISE engines just creep me out. There's a kind of 'monstrous' character to their design, for me.
My only question about them is whether they provide the same propulsionforce as the current jetengines do. And if they are much quieter. Should be.
Definitely not elegant!
They have a whiff of "Designed by Indiana Jones set design company"
If there was a cowling around them like in jetengines, I don't think they would creep you out.
Sadly I don't hear any mention of serial hybrid technology which can really help in takeoff and climb phases, as well as to mitigate engine failure with electric cross feed from the working engine. There is also no mention of electric rolling power (electric power on nose gear for taxi). This is very significant at large airports where aircrafts sometimes spend 30min for taxi. Having the large batteries necessary to power all this will also allow for engines to stay off while the batteries power the air conditioning. It might also just be enough to get rid of the APU.(I guess this depends on battery energy density) Both these can give probably a further 5% improvement. Let's see if Airbus uses the results of their ongoing project and adds some kind of distributed electric propulsion and maybe a boundary layer thruster. If they do all these they might get a 50% improvement on fuel burn, I guess.
English man living in Sweden here. Watched loads of your vids and it never occured to me that you were Swedish until the sambo overheard you and said 'Han är nog Svensk va?' No I think he's Irish was my reply. We looked it up and you are Swedish. Would never have guessed it.
I thought Petter was Welsh at first because of his intonation. But he is blessed with a lovely clear speaking voice (probably very clear in Swedish too) which no doubt also helps his day job dealing with ATCs and trainee pilots from around the world.
How in hell does an English guy think this guy is Irish... Or Welsh? Its unfathomable... Ha, ha.... 🤠 Seriously that makes no sense to me....
@@martinda7446 It was just an intial impression and I am (thank goodness) neither English nor American.
@@kenoliver8913🤠You are excused!
Haha dunno. I’ve not lived in the UK now for over 18 years so I must be losing the ear for the twang.
Imagine a tail strike on a Hydrogen plane and that plane blows up like a mini atomic bomb.
Yeah that's not how hydrogen bombs work..
It would be more of a Whoosh than a "Bang!" For all it's human cost and impressive pyrotechnics the majority of the Hindenburg's passengers and crew actually survived. Something like your scenario might produce what would _look_ like a mini mushroom cloud IF there is a major fuel release but only because all that burning fuel would be rising away from the airframe rather than spraying all over it and sticking as burning jet fuel tends to do.
If only cold fusion was that trivial to pull off.
Who could have thought that the main competition for airliners would be such an old mode of transport as the train
At first, the UltraFan seemed to basically be a dusting off of some rather older designs and in some ways, it is. With the twist of variable pitch. Initially, I was confused as to the lack of an outer ring to both duct and spread out stresses, but the variable pitch would render that idea impractical. Then, I pondered stresses involved and the next item listed was gear reduction, lowering RPM's and hence, those stresses. So, overall, intriguing designs and may result in the reintroduction of gull wing designs as well. A greater advantage is, now we've got excellent computer modeling, which was impossible when such things were briefly experimented with in the past. And given we've gotten a helicopter to fly on Mars, this should be much easier!
Airbus is without a doubt the best,
I wish the best to both Airbus and Boeing.
Actually love it more, when you talk about piloting stories than economic marketing of companies.
I always thought the A220 was sort of doomed to fail, because it was too big to be small like the CRJ and E series, but too small to be a main line narrow body like the 737 and 320. But a long stretch variant may really work in its favor.
is there no issue with placing tanks in the tail due to shifting center of gravity?
There you go, using logical thought again.
Possibly not. The hydrogen fuel itself would be remarkably lightweight (depending on pressure) and would probably not make the gradual shift in weight significant enough to need more than the existing autotrim.
@@flagmichael Nonsense. Hydrogen has to be stored at pressures between 2500 and 10000 psi, so the tanks would be thick-walled.
(gravimetric) energy density of hydrogen is less than 3 times higher than gasoline and kerosene, so to carry the same energy as an a321 it would still carry about 10 tons of hydrogen
Airbus is a great company producing very good aircraft. However they shouldn't get complacent, but should keep on their toes.
They produce a lot of satellites also. My son works for them and enjoys his job. After working on lynx helicopters he likes not getting his hands dirty!
Great show as always.Very informative.
Its the coolest looking bird shredder we have seen in a minute.
I like the video editing. You've used only real footages here without those fake footages with random actors playing pilots and engineers.
Open rotor is incredibly noisy, that will be a big challenge. Personally i would look at a scaled down ultrafan as the best real option
Progress always continues with Aero space technology. Thanks for your presentation! 🤔👍
I have always loved gullwing designs such as the Lysander or the Berliljew seaplanes. Pure elegance!
21:38 Both jet fuel and hydrogene can or cannot be made carbon neutral. If I need big tanks for hydrogene which reduce the capacity of an airplane the better (still extremely bad) efficiency to produce hydrogene from electricity may be countervailed.
Cannot imagine Airbus going after the Hydrogen hoax. Consider volumetric energy density is 5 Mj/liter for Hydrogen at 700 bar vs 35 Mj/liter for JP4 fuel making the tanks 7 times larger in volume than normal tanks but making it worse is a tank that can hold 700 bar would weigh 5 to 10 times more than the Hydrogen in the tank making the aircraft massively heavy to say nothing of handling one of the most difficult elements to control; its small size causing embrittlement to any metal is touches. This also assumes the energy content of the Hydrogen can be efficiently used either by burning it which is troublesome or by using a fuel cell which would run electric motors which is max 25% efficient. Apart from gobbling up government’s misguided investments, there is no clear path to Hydrogen ever being used in aviation. This is not about tech becoming better but rather the physics of Hydrogen that will not change. Then consider the cost of creating Hydroge that is easily double that of JP4. Don’t even consider liquification which requires cryogenic storage a few degrees above absolute zero. Even then the volume problem is not improved much. Putting Hydrogen to rest would be a great video since the real story is I believe it’s promotion by Fossil Fuel interests that know it’s a dead end and will take funding away from BEVs.
SAF seems more plausible than hydrogen. It's only twice the price of kerosene I understand, which bodes well for it reaching price parity, maybe in a decade or two, as it develops and scales.
I don't see hydrogen as plausible, the tanks to store it at high pressure will be huge and heavy, and it burns in practically any concentration in air with a clear flame, with a slight blue tinge; assuming the tanks don't rupture causing an explosion. Plus all the fun of generating it and handling it at the airport.
"Green" production of hydrogen contains a lot of water which leads to chemical instability both in the fuel & in the containing structures, plus hydrogen itself embrittles many materials leading to huge maintenance costs & redesigns. There are many solutions to the water problem but none are cheap.
@@axelBr1perhaps as ammonia?
their is two things with anything. when it comes to aircrafts. weight and volyme. thats the big problems with hydrogen.
@@alanhat5252 There's no problem removing the water from produced hydrogen. Hydrogen embrittlement of steels is an effect, but hydrogen is used extensively in oil refining, so the materials and procedures are well developed.
I have no background in aviation whatsoever and mainly stumbled into the sector due to magazines I read for space stuff also covering it. have been binging your videos for a few days now, they're easy to understand, easy and fascinating. Thank you for that. That said, no matter how stupid I know that is, part of me looks at the trade war and goes "Airbus got the A220 out of it, so it wasn't too bad". I just hope Airbus keeps up its game, no one needs a monopoly. Germany of all places having QA issues hurts, but well, at least we apparently caught them in time.^
Boeing was looking at a propfan powered aircraft under the designation 7J7 in the early 1980s. McDD too looked at it and both flew test beds using a 727 and a MD80. They had this "bee in a bottle" sound probably made worse by being pusher engines. The troubled A400 Atlas has engines of similar configuration to those on the artist's impression. Lot of experience gained that might be useful to avoid the gearbox problems of A400's engines. However the new engine will need to be at least double the power. But what of future airliners? If carbon fuels are off the table in the name of net zero, the future of air travel goes back the 1950s or earlier. Whatever fuel replaces carbon it will be more expensive and less efficient. Which must drive up air fares. To which must be added the capital cost of creating a new global fuel distribution system because the tanks that contain jet fuel cannot hold liquid hydrogen, for example. But even if "net zero" means jet fuel in exchange pensioners going without heating, the cost of acquiring the credits is going to impact on air fares. So it is back to the 1950s as air travel again becomes the preserve of the rich and everyone else is on electric trains. Not a bad thing but it ends overseas travel for the bulk of today's air travellers. No Americas to Europe or Asia, no Australia to anywhere else in the world. It will be just like in the 1950s when BOAC had a twice daily LHR-JFK service.
What about their secret VTOL development?
if it was secret, you wouldn't know about it.
nothings ever a 100% complete secret, the gross details are often quite well known.
It’s useless
Look at the osprey's maintenance nightmare, it will take some time before VTOL commercial air travel is normalised.
That’s why Tesla is doing so well. It is an engineering company with an engineer as it’s CEO.
@MentourNow Embraer, has its Energia concepts to explore smaller planes run and on hydrogen cell and SAF-Electric Hybrids. They're also exploring how to make the huge Pratt ane Whittney geared turbofan of their E2 line into an engine that could run on full SAF and also want to introduce in the 2030s a version of their E2 using SAF Hydrogen Cell hybrid, the E2 already got a 2 digit fuel efficiency increase with just the higher aspect ration wings and the massive P&W Geared Turbofans, each nearly the diameter of their cabin. Embraer also is partner with Boeing, Airbus and the Brazilian Government on a joint research center for new fuel and propulsion technologies.
As a German I hate to see that Airbus is only associated with France.
Don'cha worry, southern neighbor, people like sausages and good beer better than snails and sour grape-squeeze anyway 😉
I'm French and I don't associate Airbus with France. I've actually seen parts made in Germany myself, and even before that I considered Airbus as a European endeavor.
Previous videos talk about how important it is that if a blade comes off the fan, it must not get past the cowling. Sounds like it would be good to avoid the rows lined up with the external blades. Maybe these new blades are so good that they could never fail.
I was designing a concept plane after studying the 737 max issues and ironically the gull won't design was what i believe to be the better compromise for fitting the larger engines instead of the current configuration
Great sneak peak. experience. Thanks!
Battery electric for shorthaul with small planes, gaseous hydrogen for medium haul and liquid hydrogen for long haul flights makes a lot of sense. Will be interesting to see how the economics plays out
Cannot imagine Airbus going after the Hydrogen hoax. Consider volumetric energy density is 5 Mj/liter for Hydrogen at 700 bar vs 35 Mj/liter for JP4 fuel making the tanks 7 times larger in volume than normal tanks but making it worse is a tank that can hold 700 bar would weigh 5 to 10 times more than the Hydrogen in the tank making the aircraft massively heavy to say nothing of handling one of the most difficult elements to control; its small size causing embrittlement to any metal is touches. This also assumes the energy content of the Hydrogen can be efficiently used either by burning it which is troublesome or by using a fuel cell which would run electric motors which is max 25% efficient. Apart from gobbling up government’s misguided investments, there is no clear path to Hydrogen ever being used in aviation. This is not about tech becoming better but rather the physics of Hydrogen that will not change. Then consider the cost of creating Hydroge that is easily double that of JP4. Don’t even consider liquification which requires cryogenic storage a few degrees above absolute zero. Even then the volume problem is not improved much. Putting Hydrogen to rest would be a great video since the real story is I believe it’s promotion by Fossil Fuel interests that know it’s a dead end and will take funding away from BEVs..
@@colingenge9999 Batteries can't service longer flights though. Yes the volumetric energy density of H2 is less than kerosene, but fuel cells are 60% efficient, compared to 20-30% for combustion so they do make back some of the difference there. Embrittlement is definitely something they'll have to sort out. My understanding is using a small nickel coating helps form a passivation layer of nickel hydride
@@armwrestlingprofessor Stated differently, BE aircraft already work for short flights and probably never for long haul but will Hydrogen ever be practical for flights of any duration? yes, 60% fuel cell efficiency, but then we must buffer the cell’s output with a battery to give quick throttle response and to facilitate peak power for take-off which will lose us 10% then electric motor which will lose another 10% say yielding 49% say. If we compare electric energy inputs the EV will yield 80% say whereas electrolysis will cost us another 30% in losses putting the H plane at 34% net vs 80% for BE. I looked into this years ago for my boat and was stunned at the hardware cost for electrolysis, 3 stage compressor, fuel cell, storage, battery buffer to say nothing of maintenance nightmare making me believe it will never happen.
@@colingenge9999 yeah I think full well to wheels efficiency of making, compressing and then running H2 through a fuel cell is around 30%. Even less if you're liquifying it which would be needed for long haul flights. Fingers crossed it is viable, because biofuels.are even less efficient and we can't keep putting more CO2 in the atmosphere
Fantastic video! Thanks a lot for your amazing work
This sounds very logical as it is the good old industry leadership: counter cycle development. Don't develop something new at the time of desperate need (as Boing has to) but when you are in full prosperity so you can allow to visionize. What will the aviation industry is going to look like in 10, 15, 20 years? What can we reach in the conventional way like aerodynamics, wings and engines? Where do we need paradigm changes. It is fantastic to see if who that good entrepreneurs ship works when you look only with one eye on Wallstreet then with both. Maybe this is going to change the whole industry(not only aviation) back to more entrepreneurment
I dont understand. This could be a smaller civilian version of Airbuses development program of their air force m4000 cargo transport surely even down to the turbo prop designs ? The eye to the future would be a 737 300 competitor with hybrid engine technologies from RR ? The immediate indicators are that electric or hybrid technologies have restricted ranges making them only suitable for short haul. Perhaps a two engine high wing will come our of the M4000 project for multi roll use by airlines with the new RR ultra fan ? Perhaps quantas would like to also see such a design ?
If you want to make aviation 'carbon neutral', expect ticket prices to probably quadruple. And you can forget battery electric airliners.
Very good analysis and content. Your production quality is top level. Thank you.
also as our group design project in 2021, we at cranfield did a converstion of the cranfield at13 airliner into a hydrogen version witha ll the fun systems stuff to do with that as well asteh tank changes. this stuff is not new andhas been in design for pver 13 years mminimum. happy to discus if you want.
The A220 is owned by Airbus Canada LP (formerly CSALP). Airbus owns 75% of Airbus Canada LP and the Québec government owns 25%. Remember that Airbus got 50% of it for $0, with conditions imposed by the Québec government. The Alabama plant can only produce aircraft sold to US airlines, and Mirabel *must* produce for the rest of the world. Opening new assembly plants is out of question. To save the project Québec invested $1.3b in CSALP to gain 40% ownership. This share was halved when Airbus got 50% for free. It went up to 25% and airbus 75% when Bombardier sold its 30% share in project because it couldn't afford to continue to be part of it. Completing project required further investment by Québec which is now around $1.7b for what are now 25% shares in project. The goal is for the Québec government to be able to sell its shares for at least same value as it invested in, except now, it needs to do this with only 25% ownership instead of the 40% it got with that original investment. With the programme still losing money, this is not likely to happen anytime soon. However, there is a date limit of January 2026 where if Québec still onws its shares, Airbus will buy them "at market value". (so Québec will end up losing mucho money). So until January 2026, don't expect Airbus to announce anything for the A220 because doing so would require Québec also invest its 25% share in the capital needed to launch a new plane, and that is an investment that would never pay back. Also important to note that the A220 does not have any cockpit commonality with the 320 family and bigger.
Thank you for not putting annoying elevator music in the background. So much nicer to hear his voice without that unwanted distraction. Edit: Oh it's there in the second part... Jesus why do KZheadrs do this?! Please just let me listen to a soothing human voice without all the BS! 😭
So true. I also love KZhead channels that are simply talking facts without any unnecessary distraction - no elevator background music, no unnecessary graphics that explain it for Dummies, just a guy that simply knows what he's talking about. 👍
I don't care for aviation. I am here for the background elevator music.
If that's sarcasm I was looking for it, if it's not, be glad you weren't using decent earphones.
Absolutely.
There are definitively aspects of distracting background music and sound effects in this video. I do support the idea of cutting that out completely.
Excellent, that was really interesting, three cheers to you ooo thanks
Always grateful for your informative, thought-provoking, inspirational, and well researched videos on both of your channels. They have no match, and I always look forward to weekends for new episodes here in Kenya. The word RATIO should be pronounced as RASHIO you may consider this
I was more concerned he didn't choose to pronounce NGSA like Inge
Love airbus using rc models to test concepts.
Thank you for the great content Petter
Unfortunately the un ducted fan of the RISE engines will produce a lot of noise. Passenger comfort will be compromised for sure.
Great Thanks! Superb ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Reportage
Your native language may not be English; however, you speak it very well, and the good thing is that you have a good and wide range when it comes to lexicon and diction, which makes of your programs so entertaining and easily understood. Well done aviator!
In the concept drawing, a significant portion of the wing is in the rotor wash. Presumably that will add to lift, so less wing overall is needed. Although it will make it more complicated if one engine fails.
I love that they're finally moving forward with this "new" engine design. My biggest concern would be the increased cost of pod strikes, and the potential decreased safety during a pod strike if the blades separate and get flung into the cabin.
What's a pod strike?
@@petep.2092 When the engine cowling hits the ground.
Early on in the video I suspected the gist might be getting toward carbon-neutral airliners. It took a while, but what a quite fascinating journey it was. Thank you.
Those engines look like they could vaporize a bird pretty easily and keep going without a problem 🕊️
What a fantastic presentation. Many thanks
what happened to the concept of windowless aircraft, using led screens instead of window structures to lighten the aircraft?
1:22 Boeing can lobby for tariffs on the grounds that it's unfair competition because Airbus arrive at their destination with the same number of parts they set off with and don't randomly dive into fields. And that yoorpans are big mean sosherlusts.
Vought used the gull wing in WW2 for its Corsair fighter which had a 12 foot diameter propellor so the droop in the wing profile helped the land ing gear do its job without being over sized and heavy.
No point in using hydrogen as jetfuel as long as dirty hydrogen for the chemical industry hasn't been replaced with green/purple hydrogen yet. The chemical industry is using much more of it and already has the infrastructure to transport hydrogen and thus making the transition much more easy and efficient.
Cannot imagine Airbus going after the Hydrogen hoax. 5 times the volume and double the weight due to 700 bar tanks. Double the costs with more CO2 released. Consider volumetric energy density is 5 Mj/liter for Hydrogen at 700 bar vs 35 Mj/liter for JP4 fuel making the tanks 7 times larger in volume than normal tanks but making it worse is a tank that can hold 700 bar would weigh 5 to 10 times more than the Hydrogen in the tank making the aircraft massively heavy to say nothing of handling one of the most difficult elements to control; its small size causing embrittlement to any metal is touches. This also assumes the energy content of the Hydrogen can be efficiently used either by burning it which is troublesome or by using a fuel cell which would run electric motors which is max 25% efficient. Apart from gobbling up government’s misguided investments, there is no clear path to Hydrogen ever being used in aviation. This is not about tech becoming better but rather the physics of Hydrogen that will not change. Then consider the cost of creating Hydroge that is easily double that of JP4.
@@colingenge9999Yep many people forget about doing some math nowadays. Some really sound ideas which attract a lot of investment money are doomed to fail because of simple math/physics... Facts beat opinions every single time. It's always better to know than to just believe. I mean in a lot of cases it's possible to do the calculations to be sure.
@@frankindabank agreed. People regularly comment on how hydrated is the future for everything, but not based on one single fact. Except maybe it’s the most abundant element in the universe, which of course is meaningless then they are all the conspiracy stories about someone who created a car that drove across the United Statesrunning on water and was never seen again.
The Bombardier a220 could not have been given to a nicer Boeing competitor.
As someone who works in the rendering and viz industry, I have to say that 'concept' aircraft looks a lot like an AI generated image. The giveaways for me are the shape of one wing being kinda bent, and the fan blades melting together in a weird way. I enjoy the tech deductions though!
I am interested to hear what the RISE engines sound like. as a motorhead, having a pleasing engine noise is important to me.
Passion creates the desire for more and action fuelled by passion creates a future.
I have lost track of how many 'open fan props' version of current types.