Go to curiositystream.thld.co/mentournow_0123 and use code MENTOURNOW to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.

@haylieg2780

Жыл бұрын

I am amazed at how quiet the CFM Leap engines I versus the CFM 56 engines. That is even a big difference. And since the only airline I fly is Southwest I get a Lotta time in 737s.

@typxxilps

Жыл бұрын

What does Boeing and Airbus have updated the engine mean in reality, only new planes or are they even upgrading older engines ? I have no clue if those jet engines are swapped like in tanks or heavy trucks or ships or if the jet turbines are only refurbished . I think I have seen an Airbus engine swap during a major inspection but that had been a Luftwaffe / Airforce airbus where things might be different. I was wondering if the airplane manufacturer also offer a kind of technical upgrade packages like the interior updates that these plane usually get, but in this case on the technical side. Maybe a topic for another video about the life circle of a plane from its delivery over maintenance and second / third hand to final destination as a standby reserve in the desert, scrapyard or spare part donator and also how the manufacturers do upgrade the airplaines for a longer life and therefore higher sustainability. Can not remember to have heard about except all the mandatory upgrades if the FAA forces the manufacturer to replace parts or change things. Maybe too much for 1 video so maybe a mini series but I have not seen a full life cycle video and especially how long such planes are used that we do not see anymore but are still used in third world countries - and of cause the effort to update a plane. We went from 0 and ground in spring of 2020 to back to a full speed ahead and some of the retired planes also have returned like A380 which had been considered to unefficient back then. Sorry, just a bloody amateur and hobby glider.

@dimitri1515

Жыл бұрын

No way will open fan blade engines will ever be safer than the encased engines.

@Wannes_

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't be surprised if this engine ended up on the Boeing/NASA high braced wing "demonstrator"

@alielabdimarras7965

Жыл бұрын

@@dimitri1515 How often is a blade off event happening and chance of hitting fuselage is also what ? 15%?? I sat a few times in the line of flight of a blade in ATRs and chances are bigger I get overrun on my bike or motorbike than a blade shaving me. Just asses your life risks right, and if you smoke or are overweight don't even make the effort to consider this.

Even if you could find a former Tu-95 pilot to ask him what that plane was like to fly, he wouldn't be able to hear you asking the question . . .

@GasPipeJimmy

Жыл бұрын

Yes, unfortunately nobody here gets the reference. The Tu-95 was the loudest production aircraft ever built as its propeller tips were almost always supersonic.

@DavidSmith-vr1nb

Жыл бұрын

@@GasPipeJimmy Well, we get it now because you have conveniently explained it for us.

@Raminagrobisfr

Жыл бұрын

@@GasPipeJimmy yet it was modified into an airliner (Tu-114)

@MartinMizner

Жыл бұрын

I think Americans also had modified Thunderstreak named thunderscreech with propeller and it was also very noisy

@godfreypoon5148

Жыл бұрын

This problem is easily solved by giving the question in written form. 🤓

I am a retired Boeing engineer here who worked on 7J7 program when I first hired into the company in 1985. This is a good summary of what happened. But one thing which is left out is the generally unforeseen business success of the 737-300 using the CFM-56 engine and the use of hub-and-spoke. With both low fuel prices and the success of the 737-300, there was not need for the technology of the 7J7 to meet the requirement of Delta's RFP for a 150 passenger aircraft. There was quite a bit of government and industry focus on fuel efficiency in the 1970s due to the oil crisis. Methods of design and certification of advanced composite materials, which would have been used on the 7J7, were initial researched during this time as part of NASA's effort to reduce fuel use. The use of composite materials in primary structure on 7J7 was pursued in fact to address the high sonic environment of the unducted fan. One other reminder is that the cruise speed of the 737 Classic family of aircraft (737-300, -400, and -500) is between M = 0.74 - 0.78. So the lower cruise speed of a CFM RISE engine is not that out-of-the-ordinary in comparison.

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

Thanks! That’s great insight

@w8stral

Жыл бұрын

Yea, your memory is a bit faulty: What killed the ultra fan was... the ultra fan and its abysmally LOW mach speed required. Who is going to pay $$$ to fly in a Mach 0.6 aircraft instead of Mach 0.82-->0.85? No one. Noise was just the nail in its coffin.

@jeffberner8206

Жыл бұрын

@@w8stral I might not have known about any findings from flight test as this was not my engineering discipline, but the 7J7 was most certainly designed to be a Mach 0.83 airplane.

@jimmygee3219

Жыл бұрын

@@w8straldid…. did you really just try to tell an engineer who worked on that aircraft he’s wrong?

@Dirk-van-den-Berg

Жыл бұрын

Dear mr Berner, are you saying effectively that Boeing chose the short term commercial profits over developing a modelengine for years when oilprices would go up?

It’s worth noting that the US tried their hand out at supersonic propellers as well with the XF-84 “Thunderscreech”. That plane was also ridiculously loud

@easy_eight2810

Жыл бұрын

We're gonna devolve back to noisy flying after just finding the perfect sweetspot between cost/noise reduction

@StrikeWyvern

5 ай бұрын

FUCK YES I WANNA SEE THUNDERSCREECH 2.0

25 years ago I discussed why the Propfan didn't get any traction with a dear friend who was a professor at a aviation college. He said the biggest thing that killed the Propfan wasn't only the noise. It was the marketing focus groups. The public was turned off by the appearance of the open fan blades which made the aircraft looked like the one that that parents and grandparents flew in. I remember at the time there were designs floated around that had a massive duct around the fan with the core of the out in front for underwing widebody plane i.e. the 747 to give Propfans a more "jetlike" look.

@IxnayMalarkavitch

Жыл бұрын

Yea. I’m not an aviation person. The engine in the video looks frightening.

@ProctorsGamble

10 ай бұрын

The public wants planes ✈️ that go whoosh 💨 and not buzz 🐝 and don’t want to see things moving 😆

@jackstheraptor2791

7 ай бұрын

For me it's not about the look but that open fan blade design. It's dangerous even with those reinforcements. the reliability cannot be 99.99% but 100%. A simple fan blade hit during the flight can rip the plane apart, while the same failure in modern engines may not even notice by some passengers! Its a huge gamble IMO.

@MrCJHamill

7 ай бұрын

I can see how that might be the case. I personally feel that traditional jet engines do look much better cosmetically speaking. Though I also reckon the turbo props on a Beechcraft King Air for example look quite amazing as well.

@therandomytchannel4318

6 ай бұрын

Prop Jet technology has come quite a ways since that zombified 727 with that experimental prop jet engine on it, I remember it sounding pretty much like a flying weed wacker 😂

I never really had an interest in flying, but I'm an engineer who has spent more than 30 years solving problems - it's my passion - so I have always loved videos about aircraft accident investigations, so I started watching your videos, and now I am fascinated by the airline industry as a whole, which is my round-about way of saying that your videos are fantastic - Thank You - and are so good that you have converted someone who had no interest, and no intention of becoming interested, in the topics you discuss. That's how brilliant your videos are... Keep up the great work!

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

Wow! That’s really nice to hear Phil 💕

@abhishek9354682116

Жыл бұрын

@@MentourNow Expecting video on crash in Nepal.

@hs5632

Жыл бұрын

Exact same for me. Engineer with no interest in flying but I love the Mentour analytical videos and look forward to new ones.

@jlgood89

Жыл бұрын

same story here, just not an engineer!

@gaetanguimond7213

Жыл бұрын

Hi, you should have a look at Samson switchblade flying car or Samson motors. You will probably like it.

I didn't know the Tupelov Tu-95 Bears were noisy because of the tip speed, I always thought it was a straight fluid dynamics issue. After the end of the cold war, the American Navy admitted they could identify them with submarines in the Arctic Ocean with Sonar microphones. An aircraft so loud they could hear it at cruising altitude from below sea ice.

@davidlindburg1921

Жыл бұрын

That makes sense: the achilles heal of the world's fastest turboprop aircraft! 👍🤭

@johniii8147

Жыл бұрын

The Russians ( USSR) were never able to match the US in technology. That's no surprise.

@statinskill

Жыл бұрын

@@johniii8147 You do realize that these planes laumch state of the art hypersonic nuclear-tipped cruise missile? Weapons we have no real defense against. Nearly every cruise missile on those planes will hit and destroy its target.

@johniii8147

Жыл бұрын

@@statinskill Not really worried. They can't even take down Ukraine at this point. We have plenty of defense against them since they are clearly spotted coming. And they may 10 of those missiles actually active.

@grizzlygrizzle

Жыл бұрын

Maybe some complementary research should be done on acoustic isolation for fuselages. That would make flights quieter for passengers, if not for neighbors of airports.

Around three decades ago I was a student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. We were shown a video of the "un-ducted fan engine" and it sounded promising. I always wondered what happened to it. Now I know. Thanks for this video.

@Juanxlink

Жыл бұрын

Was about to say, distincly remember reading way back when about it, propfan 727 no less.

@ErvinandMFantasyFootball

Жыл бұрын

This is why I love YT and the internet. Incredible.

@Jaxon987

Жыл бұрын

I just got accepted to embry!! Im doing astronautics

@kevinmahoney9205

Жыл бұрын

@@Jaxon987 I wish you the best! ERAU is very expensive, so make sure you do your best.

@markortiz1506

Жыл бұрын

I worked on it directly back in 85-86. My memory was that, as expected, there were tech challenges but the deal killer was the precipitous drop to $10/barrel oil. This was much more expensive of an engine than normal engines (2.5 X) and the value prop fell through. The value was fuel savings. With ultra cheap fuel, it didn't make sense. Tech was compelling. Business case wasn't.

About 40 years ago, when I was 10, I came up with a design for a fan engine with about 75 percent bypass. Maybe one day I should 3D model that. I called it the CLM.

This episode hits home! In 2013-2014, I worked on the design of the engine mount system for that Safran SAGE2 open rotor engine demonstrator under Cleansky EU initiative. I learned a lot as a younger Aerospace Stress Engineer. Proud to have been part of it 🙂

@EzaneeGires

Жыл бұрын

Fellow Clean Sky grunt here. Good to see you

2 things not mentioned here: 1- The casing also adds drag. 2- These new-generation open rotor engines moved the rotor to the front (they are puller rather than pusher). Pusher propellers (or rotors in this case) are much noiser because they encounter uneven "dirty" air. Uneven because the engine must be supported somehow and that creates an area of "shadow". And dirty because they are in the wake of turbulent boundary layers at least from the engine and from the pylon. Puller props on the other hand receive a very even flat and laminar profile of oncoming air, which makes them less noisy. 1 thing mentioned here wrong: Turboprops are not required to keep a severed prop blade from penetrating the fuselage. And they don't. In every instance where a prop blade separated at operating RPMs and flew in the direction of the fuselage, they penetrated the fuselage, sometimes killing people, some times damaging critical systems (like control cables or hydraulic lines), and sometimes even exiting the fuselage at the opposite wall.

@Hikari_Sakurai

Жыл бұрын

maybe the solution could be to increase structural strenght in those areas so they wouldn't get penetrated in such scenario.

@MattyEngland

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, uncontained blades make as much sense as electric cars, where you have to drive 80,000 miles just to break even with a petrol car

@hydra70

Жыл бұрын

@@Hikari_Sakurai That's not necessarily possible. Everything in an aircraft design is balanced against weight. You can only add so much weight in reinforcement and it might not be enough.

@Hikari_Sakurai

Жыл бұрын

@@hydra70 actually you're wrong. he mentioned it in the video that some of those aircraft had reinforcement in the areas close to the rotors. I wasn't that far in the video when I commented on it.

@miscbits6399

Жыл бұрын

@@Hikari_Sakurai the reinforcing is there for ice protection. Chunks thrown off the blades can penetrate the fuesleage otherwise

As a young engineering working at Pratt & Whitney Aircraft back in the late 1980's & early 1990's, I sat in a presentation from the President & CEO of P&W revealing how the engineering efforts were going to be totally dedicated to developing the counter rotating fan engines. Extensive work had already been done on blade and gearbox development. It was an exciting time to be working on the projects to support this effort. The Applied Mechanics lab an experimental engine development was running wide open and the test cells were always running full scale tests around the clock. However, world economics (as mentioned) and the Desert Storm conflict brought all the development (and the commercial aircraft industry in general) to an abrupt halt. It amazed me to observe how this effort disappeared almost overnight. Flight testing was well underway and there were talks about achieving FAA certifications and establishing goals to meet them. Great video!

I love, LOVE how quiet the leap engines are. So I hope things just continue to become quieter.

@michaeld5888

Жыл бұрын

Is the name because they leap out in front of the wings of those old time expired Boeing airframe designs?

@jsmariani4180

8 ай бұрын

Unducted fans are going to be noisy.

@tuank624

8 ай бұрын

@@michaeld5888of course not

@jackstheraptor2791

7 ай бұрын

Why quieter? Do you really want to hear burps and farts? To me, the leap amount of quiet is quiet enough :)

@davecrupel2817

3 ай бұрын

Not if they pursue this glorified propeller.

Being an engineer I give you kudos for saying “0.xx”. Whether written or spoken it is a good example of minimizing potential errors. Well done.

@john_hind

Жыл бұрын

But then he spoils it by saying 'zero point twenty-two', for example. I would always say 'zero point two two'. Trouble is, how do you say 0.03? If you say 'zero point three' it sounds less than 'zero point twenty-two' and could easily be heard as '0.3' or '0.30'.

@subtropicalken1362

Жыл бұрын

@@john_hind can’t speak to pilot speak but I would say zero point zero three for 0.03.

@john_hind

Жыл бұрын

@@subtropicalken1362 Sensible, but I guess you'd also say 'zero point two two' not 'zero point twenty-two'?

@subtropicalken1362

Жыл бұрын

@@john_hind agreed!

@freshname

Жыл бұрын

@@john_hind in other languages it's ta"zero point (coma in some languages) thirty three" or "zero point zero three". I don't know how pilots say, it's just how everyday people say it on the street because that's how it is taught in schools in 4th grade when different fractions are in focus. Whatsoever it doesn't constitute a problem. Everybody understands the difference between "zero point thirty three" and "zero point three" and "zero point zero three".

I'm proud to be an employee of Safran. It's great working for such an innovative group of companies.

@pizzablender

Жыл бұрын

The French always have these beautiful company names. I guess it is Societe Anonyme Francaise Auerto Nautique or something like that?

@sjorsangevare

Жыл бұрын

@@pizzablender When I heard the name "Snecma" in this video I almost burst out laughing, that one is definitely an exception to beautiful French names 😂

@CountingStars333

Жыл бұрын

@@pizzablender Satanic France. Sa Fran

@avroarchitect1793

Жыл бұрын

ok can you explain to me how this is any different than a turbofan that just spins faster than normal?

@JoeHamelin

Жыл бұрын

@@avroarchitect1793 Nope. I'm in IT.

The Russian "Bear" bomber is exceptionally loud, but is also a really cool looking aircraft. When I was stationed on the USS Carl Vinson in the early to mid 80s we had to intercept a Bear bomber with F-14s and "escort" them around the fleet. They were allowed to pass close by, but not directly over the fleet, so they were quite close and easy to see from the flightdeck.

@ShadeAKAhayate

Жыл бұрын

Literally any flyable aircraft is cool-looking. At least in its way :)

I remember sitting through my A&P classes learning about the inducted fan design and thinking about how much further along most companies are in their R&D than their current products would indicate. It's interesting to learn what factors ultimately decide if and when those new technologies and techniques get introduced to the market. Thank you for your video!

I saw this propeller design in the mid-late 80s, probably in Popular Mechanics. I've thought about it many times. It's been a long wait to see it in action.

@miscbits6399

Жыл бұрын

As mentioned, it was REALLY FRICKING LOUD The gearless blades were directly attached to turbines and spun at very high speed because that's the only way to efficiently extract work from the exhaust airflow. The bigger problem was simply that nobody wanted the 7J7(*) and the DC9/MD80 was "good enough" as-was for the kind of routes it was flying (*) Remember this was when deregulation happened. Traditional airlines had mostly been happy to run fleets of differing aircraft but the only thing that 737 budget airlines wanted was "more 737s" - anything else needed pilots and maintenance crew qualified to fly them (expensive)

@CaveJohnsonAperture

Жыл бұрын

Yup I was thinking of that exact issue that also said in only a few years these would be on every airliner. Propfans etc. are super cool but remains to be seen

@Mantek430

Жыл бұрын

I had similar feeling that it's relatively old design.I first saw it on soviet aircraft and thought that such idea started in USSR. It also looks similar to Kamov principle on few russian helicopters.

@CaveJohnsonAperture

Жыл бұрын

@@Mantek430 The principle of contra rotating props alone isn't what a duct fan necessarily is limited to

Hey Mentour. Lifetime airhead, here. I've enjoyed most of your videos on crash investigation, and still will, if you continue with these, I'm sure. However, I must really give you kudos for your new line of videos, where you explore technologies and the business, in general. Highly instructive, even for an armchair expert, like me ;-) Thank you and keep the blue side up, as the other guy would have it

@Dirk-van-den-Berg

Жыл бұрын

I watch Kelsey's videos too. Too bad he dismissed Petters reaching out to him.

@seriouscat2231

Жыл бұрын

@@Dirk-van-den-Berg, what happened? Or where can I see the story? I've been watching both but been too busy lately.

Terrific video. Clear and enjoyable. A great combo. Thank you.

This is really fascinating and exciting to see, with a beautiful new design and significant improvements in fuel efficiency. btw. watch out for Scott Manley who it branching out from space into aviation. I think there is space for both of you excellent producers!

this just keeps reminding me of the Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech. which had the honor of turning a lot of fuel into a lot of noise. It was so loud it allegedly caused people on the ground to get sick. It also could not fly without the Ram Air Turbine extended IIRC.

@srinitaaigaura

Жыл бұрын

Thunderscreech.... It must have been something special to get such a name.

@andrewtaylor940

Жыл бұрын

@@srinitaaigaura Just starting it up would physically incapacitate the ground crew out to a radius of several hundred feet. Vertigo, Nausea, etc. Ear protection did nothing. It's viewed as the loudest airplane ever built.

@nate0765

Жыл бұрын

@@srinitaaigaura Its interesting to read about, the supersonic propeller it used produced continuous sonic booms. The plane could be heard 25 miles away and it made people nearby sick, an engineer even suffered a seizure.

@aredub1847

Жыл бұрын

@@nate0765 Thats like Warhammer 40k stuff. delicious.

@TianarTruegard

Жыл бұрын

There's gotta be a way to use some sort of noise cancelation effect on the props, or in the way the props are designed to allow for supersonic props without as much noise.

I’m glad you brought up the historical developments of this tech. I saw the thumbnail and recalled from decades ago these external fan developments.

Fantastic video. Great history, great explanations. Thanks a ton!

I work for the ge composites plant that makes parts for the leap and 9x engines. This is very interesting to see and I wonder if our plant will make something for the RISE. Very cool

At 2:32, the plane is flying out of the Albuquerque, NM airport. GE had an engine production facility in ABQ and the test plane was at the airport for a number of months. I lived near the airport and my house was less than a mile from the end of runway 17-35 (now closed), directly under the flight path. I will personally guarantee that the noise from the unducted fan on the test plane was not "exaggerated."

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

Ah, thank you.

@buckhorncortez

Жыл бұрын

@@MentourNow I told my wife about this comment on the engine's noise, and she reminded me that the plane could be tracked on its landing path to the airport by the car alarms being set off as the plane passed overhead.

@YouScroob

Жыл бұрын

I owned a tool and die shop in the late 80s and actually built some bond fixtures for GE's carbon-fiber parts. GE-ABQ was the research plant for carbon -fiber tech. As I recall, most parts were nacelle pieces and fan blades.

@buckhorncortez

Жыл бұрын

I'll give a relative noise level. At that time, the NM Air National Guard ("The Tacos") flew F4 Phantoms. Some days they would be practicing touch-and-go maneuvers on runway 17-35. The joke was we could stand on the backyard deck and wave at the pilots and sometimes they'd see us and wave back. The F4s did not set off the car alarms...

I was flying in a UK E3-D, with CFM-56s, in 1994. On take off we had multiple birdstrikes to the port wing and engines 1 & 2 suffered uncontrolled destruction, with blades flying in all directions. I was sitting right next to engine 2. None of the fragments hit the fuselage, but both cowlings were trashed. When those engines are at takeoff power there is a vast amount of energy. How I'm still here is a miracle.

@mjmulenga3

Жыл бұрын

Did the aircraft take off successfully?

@tyrotrainer765

Жыл бұрын

@@mjmulenga3 Hi, yes, just! We were Max all-up weight and were lucky to have the best pilot in the fleet as Pilot Flying. He had to actually bank slightly in order to clear a church steeple a few miles from base. It took us 20 minutes to reach 1500ft, very tense to say the least!

@bryanbryan2968

Жыл бұрын

@@tyrotrainer765Umm wow! Your airplane incident sounds very similar to what happened in the movie, ‘Flight’, with Denzel Washington and John Goodman. Perhaps ‘Flight’ was based upon the incident you described and experienced.

@tyrotrainer765

Жыл бұрын

@@bryanbryan2968Hehehe well, our Captain wasn't drunk, and we never went inverted!

@bryanbryan2968

Жыл бұрын

@@tyrotrainer765 Heh, interesting. Was your flight well known to the public? Glad no one was hurt.

Very impressive, can't wait to see one flying. Thanks for the great presentation!

My main concern about this type of engine is blade containment - or lack there-of. In the 1990s I was heavily involved in fan blade containment tests at Rolls-Royce when we were testing the use of a Kevlar bandage as a lighter alternative to a metallic casing. It was successful but the destructive potential of a free blade (which we blew off with an explosive charge at the appropriate speed and position for the high speed film cameras to capture) was chilling to watch. I wrote the s/w and designed the electronic h/w that controlled the test. I was also involved in the design of the h/w and s/w to measure blade untwist which needed probes fitted in the casing. Presumably these blades untwist under load too but positioning the probes might be a challenge :) My only aviation interest after retirement is model aircraft. It's considered that fewer blades in a propeller are the most efficient (in fact speed control line models have single blades with a balance weight). I wonder how that affects the oddly shaped blades on these engines.

@MikeRodent

4 ай бұрын

Haha. Yes, those seats in the cabin level with the blades will be cheaper: problem solved.

Great information. In the 1980's I was in the USAF as a 316X3 (instrumentation mechanic). Most of us worked in AF systems command that was the R&D department of the USAF and at that time there was a lot of talk about propfans. Then it just ended with the noise issue being the reason given. Thanks

Very informative. It'd be "interesting" to sit by a window beside one of those beasts.

@mbryson2899

Жыл бұрын

It's odd that I don't think twice about sitting next to a turbofan prop but this new design gives me the jitters. Most likely it's because standard props have been around so long that they seem totally normal so I don't even notice them.

@cosmicinsane516

Жыл бұрын

Considering we still have uncontained failures of both turbofans and turboprops I try to make it a point never to sit beside the engines on any flight.

@mbryson2899

Жыл бұрын

@@cosmicinsane516 I do the same. I trust all machinery only so far.

@marcellkovacs5452

Жыл бұрын

I flew on an ATR 72 directly next to the propeller, it was not an experience I would like to repeat. It doesn't matter if it's rational or not, the fear is the same.

@Cynsham

Жыл бұрын

@@cosmicinsane516 It doesn't matter how robustly you design a system or how many space-age special alloys and forging techniques you use for the materials during construction, It is fundamentally impossible to design ANY system that is absolutely foolproof and incapable of failure, especially on such a complicated mechanical structure as in a modern turbofan engine. That being said, modern aircraft engines are extremely robust and extremely reliable, the incidence rate of engine failures on modern aircraft is about 1 in 100,000 flight hours, which makes it beyond extremely rare.

You are always extremely well-informed - including visuals - and always smiling, because you love airplanes! I like your shows.

4:45 Gotta love that design with the Center stick and and FMC just below the PFD. Someone with experience in making FS mods needs to create this! 😁

@michaelkugler8620

10 ай бұрын

My first job while at Pratt & Whitney was in the Project Materials Control department. We were the liaisons between Engineering, & Experimental Test/Assembly. I was the person who wrote the work order to begin the development of the "Fly By Wire" Engine Controls, to be developed by the P&W Willgoos Engine Controls Development lab. Back in 1986 the initial budget was $1.5 million.

@leebee1100

2 ай бұрын

@@michaelkugler8620that’s incredible! Thank you for that

It is also worthy to mention An_70 as one of few propfan aircraft built and tested.

@PasleyAviationPhotography

Жыл бұрын

I was surprised this wasn't mentioned, glad I'm not the only one who thought this as well.

@Sajuuk

Жыл бұрын

Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦😁

@constantinosschinas4503

Жыл бұрын

Mentour pilot is a known boeing fanboy. Even supporting the company after the criminal MAX accidents.

@bombappetit

Жыл бұрын

It's unfortunate that An70 did not get much fanfare or orders. It is an awesome aircraft.

@mrvwbug4423

Жыл бұрын

Bizarre sounding engines too, also quite loud if I recall. Hopefully Ukraine was able to get the prototypes out of Ukraine to avoid the same fate as the AN-225

Great video! I remember reading about open fan engines in Popular Science in the 80's. Thanks for including the history of these designs.

As a cooperative engineering student, I worked at Allison Gas Turbine during the time when they were developing this technology with Pratt and Whitney. I think it was around 86 through 88.

Amazing presentation and nice seeing these UDFs coming back. The design of the blades is crucial too to become a "supercritical airfoil" at high tip speeds - Hopefully reducing the sonic "clatter" that makes props so noisy as well as wave drag. CFD modeling has come a long way, not to mention engine core design.

Excellent video. You answered all my questions. Mainly the blade out one, which was the most obvious concern. Also the size and fitting under a low wing.

Glad you addressed the question of turboprop vs open fan... the similarity is getting impossible to ignore.

Always an excellent presentation. Thank you

Worked for MDC in Long Beach as one of the Licensed Aircraft Dispatchers and the UHB was one of the programs we supported in Flight Test / Production. The UHB was based in Long Beach initially, then went toYuma AZ continuing the flight test program. Main pilot on that program was Captain Phil Battaglia. Great pilot.

Very interesting developments. Lots of clever aerodynamics going on to permit a tipped fan blade to derive thrust at mach 0.8 without punishing noise problems...

I saw these engines premiered on a 727 on an episode of That’s Incredible in 1981. Amazing that they’re back after 4 + decades.

I worked at Hamilton Standard (later Hamilton Sundstrand, later Collins, now Raytheon) and served as the FAA DMIR on the Pratt project. The system was only a bit noisier than a turbofan, but the pitch was quite annoying. I grew up in Chicago, and the noise was significantly quieter than the old turboprops flying into Midway.

Great Work! Thank you for sharing.

Saw the UDF engines fly at the Farnborough air show on a trade day. It sure had a distinctive sound.

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

I can imagine!

@chrissmith2114

Жыл бұрын

Sound normally means wasted energy.... The vortices around the end of blades waste energy and produce noise,

@TheGecko213

Жыл бұрын

Maybe they should take a leaf out of Nuclear Submarine propellar technology which has resulted in a soundless propulsion.

@alexlo7708

Жыл бұрын

@@chrissmith2114 But why it has less fuel zipped than the less noise turbofan.

@johnarnold893

Жыл бұрын

@@TheGecko213 Modern Nuclear Subs use pump jets almost like modern day Turbo fans but since they turn much much slower they obviously make less noise. Still, a sub has to slow it's engines if it wants to be quiet, not something you can do with a jet plane.

Thanks for this update. I followed the UDF/Propfan saga back in the day when I was a regular reader of Flight International. It's interesting to see the concept being revived for a new generation.

I had the pleasure of touring their Evansville plant some years ago, they had a display of the GE engine

I thought the UDF concept was just an oddity from the 80s but now it springs up as a likely future candidate. Interesting to see the latest designs have a stationary row behind the rotating blades. Must be a lot of energy in the airflow spiralling off the front blades but a lot simpler than contra rotating blades. The Russian Bear aircraft were unique for their mode of operation where they were in a steep pitch close to a feather position which was why they could fly so fast. Quite a talking point at the time.

@ArneChristianRosenfeldt

10 ай бұрын

I wonder if the shroud could be more minimalistic and made of moveable blades similar to the static row. So depending on speed they would form a more concave or convex duct ( or each segment variable to account for angle of attack). Apparently, we don't care much about tipp losses or gaps anyways. Then the propeller tips could reach through the aft-loaded low-velocity part of the shroud wings.

I like it. Good content, good analysis, nice presentation. Thanks for the update, I've been away from aircraft design for a while, but still interested.

I'm union labor for a company that casts aerospace/turbine blades and vanes, etc. We occasionally trial-run casting blueprint changes for LEAP, so learning about LEAP and CFM RISE, etc is really helping add context and understanding for where the things I help make end up, and what they do.

@shawnbottom4769

Жыл бұрын

@@daveymcc1421 Apparently it has to do with triggering you. Lighten up a little.

@jordanlarson6488

Жыл бұрын

@@daveymcc1421 Union labor builds the parts/airplanes you trust and rely on, that's what.

@psalm2forliberty577

Жыл бұрын

I would imagine that casting process & the Quality Control is very very demanding, considering the high stress loads upon those fans & vanes in operation.

@godfreypoon5148

Жыл бұрын

@@jordanlarson6488 I think I'll take the train next time.

@misterserious3522

Жыл бұрын

@@daveymcc1421 Raising costs for everyone, like always.

Really fantastic video; thanks for sharing.

My dad did work on the GE36. That design always fascinated me.

Thanks for this timely episode, as I've been curious as to your take on this design since you teased it during the future plans for Boeing episode, as you referenced in this one. I find all of this quite fascinating, the journey should be interesting.

I think the CFM Rise design brings some clever aero dynamics, by incorporating what I think is a Goldschmeid drag reduction feature. The bulbous housing after the stators might seem counter productive, but it likely has a lower air pressure on the leading side relative to the trailing side where the general body of air collapses around the housing induced in part by the engine exhaust higher velocity flow, and the collapsing higher pressure on the housing squeezes the engine forward cancelling some leading end drag. It’s pretty clever. Engineers have been trying to incorporate this feature for decades with only a few successes.

@MattyEngland

Жыл бұрын

With nothing to contain the blades in the event of failure.

@freetrade8830

Жыл бұрын

That sounds almost like getting something for nothing. Making the housing extra bulbous should come with a drag penalty, it seems.

@MattyEngland

Жыл бұрын

@@freetrade8830 This is 2023, we don't have critical thinking or questions here, we just blindly accept what autistic children and the WEF tell us. Now be a good boy and keep taking those booster shots 😉

@freetrade8830

Жыл бұрын

@@MattyEngland Shut up

@MattyEngland

Жыл бұрын

@@freetrade8830 The truth hurts? 🤣

I lived in Long Beach California in the 1980’s, and the city’s airport was home to McDonnell-Douglas. A DC-9 was being used as testbed for a prop-fan engine, (blades were aft on the power plant). And one always knew when it was taking off because it was noisy and had a sound specific to it.

Thanks for the primer on the UDF. I wondered where the promising technology went.

Always so informative and easy for us laymen to understand! Thanks P

Very fascinating stuff. You do such a great job of explaining issues of the past, and future solutions.

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

That’s what we are trying to do! Glad you liked it!

@thetowndrunk988

Жыл бұрын

@@MentourNow I’d love to see high efficiency engines burning hydrogen. I think it’ll open up some interesting ideas going forward.

I was working near CVG in the 1980s and happened to see the plane with the GE-36 engine. It wasn't much louder than regular jets. It had a different sounds than jet or standard prop plane. If that is the same plane, I was told that prop flew off and hit ground in Indiana somewhere and that stopped the program. TY for the video.

Great content- although for FWIW, as a turboprop mechanic you don’t get much in the way of “blade out” protection. What you pointed out on that ATR72 at 14:37 is an ice plate. Common on most turboprops, just a sacrificial layer to absorb ice being flung off. I’ve replaced them on the ATR and they are literally just a chunk of additional aluminum double sided taped to the fuselage. Will in no way stop a blade from coming through.

WHat's the difference between an unducted turbofan and a turboprop? Isn't it basically the same idea?

My father worked for the props division for Hamilton Standard and worked on this project as more than likely HS would have supplied the propellers. The issues were noise, speed and a bit more discomfort inside the cabin versus a turbofan. Both my father and brother helped design the A-400M euro transport shown in your video as well. Point being, HS - now Raytheon- played a huge role in the development of the counter-rotating prop effort and would be worth a look if one is really interested in this topic or propellers in general.

@douglascunningham6319

Жыл бұрын

You sound like a person to ask or point out. If 2nd set of blades doesn't move but seems to channel air flow. Wouldn't a partial or solid ring at blade tips help better direct thrust?

@AmBush2048

Жыл бұрын

That's interesting that they needed props of engines like that

@operator8014

Жыл бұрын

My uncle worked in the props department of universal studios. Doesn't mean he knows anything about airplane stuff. Stay in your lane, sir.

@chrisn7188

Жыл бұрын

@@operator8014 in my lane? My father worked on the design of the propellers used in the counter rotating prop effort? Which lane do you speak of?

@sir_vix

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisn7188 Nathan Lane

Fascinating, thank you.

amazing videos,very well done.

I’m a big fan of your channel, and I look forward to every new video! I’m also an employee of GE Aviation here in Cincinnati, so I love hearing you talk about “us”! We’ve definitely got some great things going! Can’t wait for the next one!

@Zach-td5mb

Жыл бұрын

Can I ask how you got on their? I’m graduating from Miami next year in ME, and I was looking to intern there this past year but it said you needed previous GE experience to be considered.

@jimiraybeckton

Жыл бұрын

@@Zach-td5mb hmmm…I’ve never personally heard of that policy. It’s a really big place though, so it’s certainly possible that those policies differ from one area to another. It usually just comes down to being around at the right time. When they’re looking for someone that does what you do. My best advice would be to be a little flexible, because there’s a lot of movement internally, so get yourself in the door and then maneuver to get exactly what you’re looking for! Good luck!

@ShauriePvs

2 ай бұрын

You mean ultra fan of this channel😅

I am not an aeronautical engineer, nor even an engineer of any kind, but it makes me happy to see that there are brilliant people working on problems that I didn't know existed. I find this sort of thing fascinating, and you really explain it well.

Think you for this great presentation of what is new and c😅me in next few years for a/c engine

I always find your shows excellent --- thanks for a great job ---- AND I have and love Curiosity Stream --- a real bargain.

Dad worked on the UHB project at McDonnell Douglas. He was an acoustics and vibration engineer. Plenty of acoustics to monitor on that MD-81 testbed. He said they had one oops returning to LGB after a test flight. Pilot banged a wingtip on the runway. Apparently the MD-81 handled a bit different with a unducted fan donk hanging off one side.

🤣 I'm still watching but just from the thumbnail, I said to myself I remember engineers working on counter-rotating unducted fans 20 or 30 years ago. First thing I hear in your video... "almost had it 30 years ago".... you're really on top of your game Mentour.👍

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

I have a great team! 💕👍🏻👍🏻

@chrisworthen1538

Жыл бұрын

I remember the Pratt & Whitney program from my time in the aero engine industry. Thirty years ago sounds about right.

aight - great informative video - Thanks !! (subbed)

Thanks for the video

I thought one of the reasons everyone ditched turboprops was because of maintenance. I was in a patrol squadron many years ago and the mechanics worked on the prop’s system more than working on anything in the engine core itself.

Man, it'd be interesting to see a commuter plane with the RISE, and how that might effect the flight range.

Really cool video. Thank you 😎😎👍🏻👍🏻

The big problem, as I see it, is blade separation during flight. Since, this does happen in the current ducted nacelles as a result of various things that can happen in flight.

@BruceCarbonLakeriver

Жыл бұрын

Well that issue also is a thing on todays "regular" turbo prop aircrafts. And it doesn't seem like an issue.

@ryanaegis3544

Жыл бұрын

What was that Southwest flight a few years ago that flung a blade into the cabin? A passenger got sucked up against the hole, plugging it with their body? I think they died like two weeks later? I worked on Rolls Royce engine casings at the time, and it caused quite a stir. No matter how well you can protect people from the engine, you still need openings at the back and front to let air through.

@tommytwotacos8106

5 ай бұрын

IIRC, this is also why we'll likely never see miniature turbines offered as power plants in commercial automobiles, despite the potential for amazingly long engine life. Again relying on my memory, the turbo lag issue was solved by the inclusion of a small electric motor to give the wheels an initial kick while the turbine would spin up.

Yes, more engine/tech videos, captain! Thank you for your content and all the efforts that come with it Peter! Two tumbs up from me Your two chanels, Practical Engineering and a few Ukraine chanels provide THE BEST content on youtube. **12:46 sneaky, non-intrusive and quite funny. Love ya!

thanks for the GREAT Video , Jetoptera ideas combined with the CFM Rise Engine would really make a more efficient aircraft

Had Safran people advertise this when i was in engineer school. Seemed so far away, and still seems. Nice video thank you !

I was in Long Beach CA when MD was flight testing the MD- 80 with the open prop-fan on one engine. The noise was tremendous, kinda like 1000 chainsaws gone wild. Would never pass any noise restrictions. Maybe next time.

@freeculture

Жыл бұрын

That's long in the past, these new things are much quieter, same as other current jet engines. The first plane designed and manufactured to take advantage of this engine is going to change the industry (Is it the Embraer?). It may be more practical to go back to rear mounted engines, even if its not strictly needed, i can see the benefits of having more ground clearance during ground operations and take off landing.

You teach very well. Thank you

That's my prop I worked at Hamilton Standard and I was on the project to build the props...

Glad to finally see someone address the "Isn't this just a turboprop?" question. It's faster than most existing turboprops, but I don't see that as redefining anything, just a faster turboprop. Really the only major technical difference is the stator vanes, which no turboprop has ever had (though I believe I've heard of some ships having something similar behind their propellers). Ultimately I think of it mostly as marketing, "turboprop" sounds old-fashioned and slow. But perhaps, with that in mind, the speed does justify the different term, as even if it is by all definitions technically a turboprop, from a practical and operational standpoint, for anything airlines and passengers (hell, even air traffic controllers) care about, it's completely different from existing turboprops because it has the speed of a jet. While it might be a turboprop from a technical perspective, it serves the function of a jet, making it different from any existing turboprop. I could even say that the engine really is a turboprop, but the aircraft it is attached to isn't, for practical purposes, a turboprop airplane. But that could be just a transitional term, as this would redefine what a turboprop engine and aircraft is or could be, so 20 years later we'll just say "turboprop," that no longer meaning slow or outdated. Just like how I believe the Lockheed L-188 Electra was originally called a "prop-jet."

There was a GE 36 (I think) setting in the proving grounds at the GE facility in Ohio when I was there in 09, I was also told that other than the noise issue, the pusher blades were not contained in the event of catastrophic failure/blade out, they may enter the fuselage, so the FAA frowned on this design at that time. Just what I was told. Throwing the E-6 in there was nice.

@MVargic

Жыл бұрын

What if the engines were located at the back of the plane where the blades cannot hit any passengers, like in 727?

@madman671000

Жыл бұрын

@@MVargic It was still an issue with compromising structural integrity and flight safety, this is why all engines now are required to have a very strong FWD fan case in the event of a blade out, the fan case must protect the fuselage. These were tests that we ran at the GE proving grounds for the GENX engine development.

This is most definitely an extremely exciting and important project! I see the bypass ratio may approach around 20:1 and that the Rolls Royce Ultrafan may approach something like 15:1. I'm wondering which type will ultimately dominate? Given the CFM RISE open rotor engines are a fair bit slower than high bypass ratio geared turbofans. Though the 20:1 bypass ratio is going to be tough to beat.

I am also super excited to see what the new fighter jet engines would be able to do.

We had a Bear visit as part of an air show maybe 25 years ago. I remember being outside when it flew over at about 200 mph (a total guess). I heard it coming and told my friends that, whatever it was sounded just plain weird. The I saw the swept wings with props. Dang! These days, nearly all of us carry a camera with our phones. Wish I had it back then. How often do you see a Soviet warplane flying low over WA state? But, yes, noisy, even at low speed. These engines seem like they are going to be very nice? Whodda thunk a prop plane would be the efficiency booster of the early part of the 21st century? Not even Duck Dodgers (in the 24th and a half century) would have been onboard with that one.....

That old Soviet aircraft’s engines towards the end really seems like the open-air design they were testing in the 80s, but more primitive. Really impressive design for its time.

@SJR_Media_Group

Жыл бұрын

The Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Strategic Bomber has used this blade arrangement since 1956. It is one of the fastest propeller driven aircraft in history.

@agentcrm

Жыл бұрын

@@SJR_Media_Group Contra-rotating propellers where used in WW2. A quick check reveals it was patented in 1907.

@SJR_Media_Group

Жыл бұрын

@@agentcrm Thanks for correction, I always mess that one up.

@kenoliver8913

Жыл бұрын

The British Fairey Gannet was an even earlier successful design of a contra-rotating turboprop. As a carrier-borne search plane loiter time mattered, so efficiency was much more important than top speed. You could actually turn off and feather one of those props to loiter longer.

@agentcrm

Жыл бұрын

@@SJR_Media_Group All good. The Tu-95 is the most well known of the early turboprops. But the contra rotating props where used on a few piston aircraft earlier.

I worked in Palmdale in the 80s (not on the project, the B1) when GE was testing the original engine on an MD80 (I think it was an MD80). The called it the UDF, un-ducted fan. Really cool sound, sounded like a P-51 flying by.

@keithfreitas2983

Жыл бұрын

Worked for MDC in Long Beach. The air raft was based out of Yuma AZ during flight testing.

@seriouscat2231

Жыл бұрын

In a Mad Max style future we might see ab-ducted fans. That is, it does not matter what it looks like and how it performs, because in a world winding down you simply use what you can steal.

very interesting things to come then!

As always Mentor, you’re killing it with an excellent and well researched topic. Q: Would the function of the stator vanes be to redirect the helicoidal flow coming off the main rotor? This would represent a significant gain in effective trust. Thanks. Jacques an avid listener of your channel.

@RichyRichTu

Жыл бұрын

great question! I was wondering the same thing ...

@BelieveInYeshua

Жыл бұрын

Yes. The lower speeds require a shallower blade angle to get the air and vehicle moving. This means the rotational air flow is more perpendicular to the intended direction of the aircraft at lower speeds. Consequently, the stator blades cannot be too close to straight at lower speeds, otherwise, the rotating prop wash will smack them, causing turbulence. Directional flow correction provided by the stator blades is accomplished by mirroring the angle of the propeller blades in relation to the axis. Both sets of blades will get increasingly straight-looking as air speed increases. This genius concept is the moment we’ve been waiting for!

@jacquesparadis6756

Жыл бұрын

@@BelieveInYeshua Brilliant explanation! Thank you! I understand from your explanation that tying to fully compensate (redirect) the helicoidal air flow at lower speed would be detrimental to performance. The stator vanes would absorb to much energy bringing the ship to yaw. Counter rotating engines could solve the yaw factor but at the cost of loosing dynamic efficiency.

@BelieveInYeshua

Жыл бұрын

Thank you! My guess is the stators maintain around a 15 degree greater pitch angle relative to whatever is the propeller blades’ angle. The stators just auto adjust at this 15 greater angle of attack to improve the straightness of flow. Although not complicated, it’s hilarious that it took over a century of aviation for anyone to think of this. I certainly didn’t. Face palm.

@jacquesparadis6756

Жыл бұрын

@@BelieveInYeshua Sometimes, when things are to obvious, we go right pass them without noticing ;-) Thanks for the exchanges...🙂

I saw the udf flying and it was insanely loud. But it was the same blade count and the shock waves from the primary prop slamming into the second prop leading edge. Reducing secondary blade count fixed the issue. I had a talk with willis hawkins about this and he agreed but he and lockheed were not involved in any of this. Willis hawkins was an inlaw and a lot of fun to talk to at the few family gatherings we both attended.

@mrvwbug4423

Жыл бұрын

If I recall there was a fighter tested in the late 40s called the Thunderscreech that was so loud that it could generate lethal shock waves within a certain distance of the props and those same shockwaves were destroying test equipment and damaging the aircraft. Like the TU-95, counter rotating props with supersonic tip speeds.

@waynep343

Жыл бұрын

@@mrvwbug4423 i laughed so hard reading that air and space magazine. X15s coming in for landings at edwards use to leave echoing sonic booms in lockwood valley in the 60s when i grew up there.

Very interesting Development. Nice Video about it. And killer Segway into making us like and subscribe :)

Nice video, thanks :)

The Soviets even turned that Tubroprop bomber into a civilian airliner and had it fly from Murmansk to Cuba. Imagine being on a cruise ship somewhere in the Atlantic and that incredibly loud thing would fly over. That must have been a bizarre experience.

@awuma

Жыл бұрын

The Tu-114 was both successful and had a good safety record (unlike a number of Soviet aircraft). It was succeeded by the Il-62, a Soviet take on the VC-10, with a bad safety record (Polish Airlines LOT lost two around Warsaw in the 1980's due to uncontained engine break-ups).

@thisaccounthasbeensuspended

Жыл бұрын

@@awuma it wasn't a take on the vc-10. Both Vickers and Ilyushin had similar design tasks so they just happened to make the most fitting configuration

@Skyfighter64

Жыл бұрын

Considering that most jets of the time were Turbojets, I would actually guess the Bear bomber, and subsequent developments of it, were actually very much on the quiet side of 1960's-1970's large aircraft.

Problem with the "unducted" Fans, just like the piston and turboprop engines, is propeller "slap" where the air coming off of the tips impacts ("Slaps") the fuselage of the airplane. In fact in the heyday of large propeller driven aircraft, First Class was in the rear of the airplane to be far as possible from the "slap"!

@ericpaul4575

Жыл бұрын

I wonder if some kind of active noise canceling could be used.

@timengineman2nd714

Жыл бұрын

@@ericpaul4575That's why several of the designs had them mounted at the rear of the plane as pushers! (Even a Beechcraft turboprop called "Starship" had it's turboprops back there and as pushers!)

@martinwilliams9866

Жыл бұрын

What if the blades had bent tips like some wings have?

@timengineman2nd714

Жыл бұрын

@@martinwilliams9866 Perhaps something like how some 1920's planes had a ring around their radial engines, but not a true cowling. This helps with the. thrust of underwater propellers as well as reduce propeller noise... Don't see why it wouldn't work for aircraft propellers.

Interesting video. Thanks.

These high efficiency engines might go well it’s the upcoming Truss-Braced Wing airliner design that Boeing is currently developing… I hope mentor talks about these at some point… Scott Manley recently did a good video about them but would like to see Mentor Pilot add to this…😊

@kentslocum

Жыл бұрын

And now he has!

If you ever want to know what happens when you push propeller tips past mach 1, look up the XF-84H "thunderscreach". the propwash hits the ground and the supersonics turn into subsonic waves and they would cause everything from ground crew to pass out, soil themselves, and have instinctual fear caused by it, along with cracking glass and concrete. Someone did a re-creation of what one would sound like at 17,000ft and it would still be 101 db at the ground, as a howling screech. It had a top speed somewhere been 520mph and 670mph... with a single prop.... it's basically a war crime with wings at that volume...

@347Jimmy

Жыл бұрын

Provided your troops had ear protection, training to get used to it and a heads up, that would make for the greatest air support ever

@joeh8784

Жыл бұрын

@@347Jimmy Ear protection would not be enough. That level of subsonic waves vibrates bodies as a whole, shaking internal organs and the rest of the body.

@347Jimmy

Жыл бұрын

@@joeh8784 that's what you would train for The ear protection is just there to keep from going deaf

@joeh8784

Жыл бұрын

@@347Jimmy That kind of subsonics is not something you can train for

@347Jimmy

Жыл бұрын

@@joeh8784 whatever you say 🤣