I think a Rolls-Royce engine based on _UltraFan_ technology could be announced within the next few years. There will be two variants, one rated between 100,000 to 115,000 lb (444.8 kN to 511.5 kN) thrust for application on future A350 (and possibly 777X) airliners and one rated at 73,000 to 79,000 lb (324.7 kN to 351.4 kN) thrust as an engine upgrade for the A380.
If I was CEO of an airline, I would chose the engine that makes the least noise. Complaint number one of people living around or near airports is the noise. The RR Trent engines already come closer. I live directly under the approachroute to runway 06 of AMS (Schiphol). The noise of 737's and their ceo's is deafening. Their engines produce lowpitched, thunderous noise. But when I hear a neo-plane from Airbus coming over, the difference in soundlevel is remarkable. The Trent engines produce a highpitched noise, no longer thunderous, much more bearable.
00:11 "Boeing 737 nano-gram" Cannot you guys even proof-read your script, correct obvious points where voicing software might fail, before continuing production? It is getting ridiculous how often lazy and/or cheap producers trot out poorly voiced scripts. AI is not the answer to a human announcer!
No one ever seems to factor in the cost of making hydrogen fuel. Ditto bio-ethanol. But but but, the feels. Ducting the fan directs the flow vectors. Unducted "propellers" lose a huge amount of air off the tips, much of which ends up as noise energy against the fuselage. The Piaggio180 is an interesting use of a bladed turboprop which works because the blades are well behind the passenger cabin and the exhaust helps with de-icing.
8:20 completely wrong and misleading. You are getting the engine certification process mixed up with standard production testing. The production engines *DO NOT* undergo all the tests mentioned here.
1:35 "The industry has explored designs such as unducted fan engines, which efficiently move large amounts of air..." ...and more luggage carts, and more ramp workers...
Requiring so much technical complexity for only 20% more efficiency? Ever tought that the hot jet stream leaving the engine bears huge amount of lost caloric energy? Without recovery significant volumes of that energy, progress of jet engine performance will be very limited.
@@hans-verhoeven You missed out on some excellent stock footage of someone soldering on a very small board that had nothing to do with what was going on in the narration at that point!😀
After all the effort that has gone into making ducted fan engines safer I cannot believe the industry would step backwards and build an engine that's going to kill people and possibly bring down an airplane when a blade breaks off. How do the promoters of these unducted fan engines rationalise this?
"737 Nanogram" Way to show your viewers that a channel about civil aviation doesn't know the name of one of the largest families of passenger aircraft on the planet. A single human being with a minimum amount of interest in the names of aircraft families could've caught and corrected this error
Boeing Super Duper Max will have one on the top of the fuselage with twin tails so they dont melt. Downward passenger ejection seat s allow for quicker turnarounds.
Too bad the flight speed remains the same for 70 years! About 900 km/h. The last revolution happened when the industry switched from the turboprop engine to the jet engine. The flight speed basically tripled from about 300 km/h to 900 km/h. That was in 1949 with de Havilland's "Comet". Since then nothing. 1960s came and went, 1970s came and went, 1980s, 90s, 2000s. There is no revolution in air travel. When the flying speed doubles to about 1800 km/h it will be another revolution.
Just a small correction, the 1960s came & Concorde arrived with it, with some airlines, manufacturers, Governments, and press, successfully destroying its future. It was here until 2003, then passengers had no supersonic airliner, and commercial aircraft regressed back to speeds associated with the 1950s, as you describe. So there was a revolution in air travel, but it was ahead of its day........
@@artrandy Concorde was to expensive to operate, and the supersonic boom was a real issue. All we can do now is making our current engine even more fuel efficient
@@young-j731 Concorde existed, it was there in the 1970s, 80s, & 90s until it was retired in 2003. That is a fact, and why I corrected the original comment that denied its very existence. (inadvertantly, I assume) It was the passenger's choice of almost all who flew it, eventhough those passengers paid premium first class for the privilege. It was killed off by politics, because it wasn't American, but that's another story. However, out of the ashes of the Anglo-French agreement to build Concorde, came Airbus, so at least the programme wasn't in vain altogether.........
@@artrandy Concorde was only for the rich people. Supersonic travel never became mainstream. A ticket for Concorde cost 10,000 US dollars. It was crazy. Rich people and only rich people were able to fly that thing. There are better technologies, better than jet engines. For example "dipolar force field propulsion" system. Patented in the 1970s. Systems that allow cursing at supersonic speeds without sonic booms. If you go and read "Scientific American" magazine. Issues from the mid-1950s. You notice that the terms anti-gravity and manipulation of gravity were mentioned. Articles about how Boeing and Lockheed were working on it. But since the 1960s the term "anti-gravity" has completely disappeared from the scientific literature. People at Skunk Works(Lockheed) and Phantom Works(Boeing) really discovered something. Something way better than a jet engine, but for some reason, this technology was boxed up and is used secretly only by the military. The public is stuck with jet engines and 800 - 900 km/h travel. That's it. Every few years we get only a bit more efficient engines. A bit more and a bit more, just a bit more. The jet engine was invented in the early 1940s it's really an old technology.
@@oldi184 The jet engine was patented by Sir Frank Whittle in 1930. If you can't get this simple but important fact correct, why should I even read all that cut and paste technical stuff you've produced. Concorde was a very small aircraft, but its success would have led to larger aircraft & supersonic flight for the masses. Its success was stymied however. The DC-3 was small, but it led to the DC-6 and DC-7. The Boeing 707 was relatively small, but led to the B747. Get it, get it now.........?
yes... we do it all the time... propeller planes are things we still use to this day. there is no difference in that sense. Both Boeing and Airbus are investing in this new engine and are expected to be used.
@@Klote3241 Take a look at a turbofan engine with its fan blades rotating much MUCH faster than any propeller and you’ll know why they spend millions encasing the fan in an impenetrable shroud. There is much more energy in a turbofan than in any propeller. Remember jets go fast. They’re investing in the concept to better understand if it could ever be used safely. It’s called research, and they do it all the time on concepts they know are inadequate at the current state of development.
