I worked in aviation, Navy & commercial for 45 years. The changes in everything - engines & airframes is AWESOME. I'm so proud to have been a part of it. To the younger kids out there, get into this field. It's growing faster than any weed in your front yard !

@billotto602

3 ай бұрын

@@aabbcc5154 dones will di ? Have you graduated 3rd grade yet ?

You started with one subject and without completing it you took us into another subject.. 😅😂

@gustarrezende

Ай бұрын

I notice that too.

I was a student at GE Engine school in 1987. This technology was already explored and their engines, the Unducted Fan engines were already in their in house museum in Evendale Ohio. Commercially unviable because of the inherent noise.

@boondockduane

10 ай бұрын

Indeed, I saw the NASA GE Boeing 727 inducted fan fly in the 80’s or should I say more than saw it we heard it. Extremely loud and we heard it long before it flew by

@jtjames79

10 ай бұрын

They're making a comeback because they mitigated the noise problem.

@chuckcawthon3370

10 ай бұрын

@@jtjames79 Good Luck. Only time will tell the story.

@ducha1454

10 ай бұрын

​ 😅

@imo8249

10 ай бұрын

If that mess is the only choice, I'm not flying.

Incredible! Thank you for the report.

If he stands right behind it it's going to change his complexion forever.

I spent 20yrs. working in aviation and have since retired. I miss being a part of the processes shown in this video. Its a different way of life, you have to perform at a higher level than your everyday Joe. Anyway, I least I can say I've done that. Shout out to my fellow A&P's....IYKYK.

@kunkeypander6293

4 ай бұрын

I’m just starting. Long way to go

@peirced8

3 ай бұрын

Yea me too

@brucemiller8109

3 ай бұрын

I retired from Useless airways as a A&P and FE after 21 years in 2001 after the Arabic flying club changed aviation.Went into healthcare as a RN, never looked back... the Airline Company and passengers became more savage in action and deed every year.

My late Dad was an Engineer on the CF6 in Evandale and it is wonderful to read these accolades. Thank you. Does anyone remember Myron (Mike) Petersen?

I don't think its about dethroning anyone, its about many things, weather robustness, reliability, economy and other factors only Airlines need to think about, never the less good film.

Regarding past attempts at this that had experienced too much noise/vibrations … were they using winglet type blade tips which both improve efficiency and greatly reduce the noise inducing tip vortex?

They have been working on the unducted fan engine for a long time. However this is one of the reasons why Boeing said that they would not be putting out a completely new design for a few years. Plus the wing designs are all over the place witch means a lot of expensive experiments to find speed and fuel efficiency.

It’s been 6 months and I’m still waiting for this engine to revolutionise aviation. What happened?

@robertcgage

3 ай бұрын

Yea, I bet it goes over like a brick.

I thought the factory was in Derby ?? But what do I know ... I'm Welsh 😂😂

@Mooocheropordis

4 ай бұрын

Pronunciation correct at least😂

Nice, How about Exptotic Alloys and Metals, and the machines that require them.Their cost and the expertise neccessary in their creation, also history of their discovery. May need multiple vids. Enjoying your vids, try to keep em short. I can never get enough interesting info.

Excellent vids.

GE has been flogging this since the 80’s

@wololo10

4 ай бұрын

GE is the owner of CFM

Would be interesting how much share the other manufacturers have. There are definitely more than PW, GE, RR and CFM. Despite in the video they amount 100%.

The city in the UK where the RR Trent XWB engines are made, is Derby. It's pronounced *_DAR-bee._*

@Mooocheropordis

4 ай бұрын

Ar rite m' duk 😅

@j.j.1064

4 ай бұрын

Tomatoes or tomatoes?

@leokimvideo

2 ай бұрын

You can't teach AI how to speak the Kings English

I thought I knew everything..but I didnt realise RR engines contained a Turban - nice to see diversity in action.

You say the second set of blades are fixed yet the footage definitely shows them rotating.

@chris22capt

10 ай бұрын

That is another engine. Keep in mind, no CFM RISE have been built yet currently.

@andiross8898

4 ай бұрын

I took from that ,was that the second set are fixed " pitch," not rotation.

@onefodderunit

3 ай бұрын

illustrated @1:08

As a life long Machinist this is sexy cool

We used to operate Boeing 747's with both the RR RB211 as well as the GE CF6. Hands down, the CF6 was quicker to start and far less complicated than the RR counterpart. We also had CF6 engines on our 767's which were nothing but fantastic- reliable and efficient in every way.

@eugeneoreilly9356

10 ай бұрын

The RR is a three spool,the CF6 is a simpler two spool.

@Completeaerogeek

10 ай бұрын

But the RB211 was more efficient with its 3 shaft design.

@stillebenfilm

8 ай бұрын

Maybe im a bit old, but to me Rolls-Royce will always stay as the hand build top of the line and best you can afford in the world. When I am boarding a craft and look at the RR on the engine, I get a felling of top safeness.

@thatflywelshguy9662

7 ай бұрын

There’s a reason you see tons of CF6’s all over the world. Great motors

@justing42

6 ай бұрын

@@eugeneoreilly9356and?

Excellent video commentary!

UHB, Ultra High Bypass was what they called these engines back in the 70's, it's nice to see that they have come full circle to fly soon.

The Rolls-Royce _UltraFan_ is more a technology demonstrator than anything else. The very fact it can be scaled down to a small, 25,000 thrust (111.2 kN) thrust engine means Rolls-Royce is looking at the possibility of a smaller engine that could be fitted to the Airbus A220 or Embraer E195-E2 airliners, essentially offering a second engine choice for these two airliner models. And Rolls-Royce might be thinking of offer the smaller _UltraFan_ engine for even the 737 MAX.

@dianapennepacker6854

9 ай бұрын

Yeah this technology was already explored yet noise pollution killed it.

@possle

4 ай бұрын

And how's the Ultra Fan going now 😉

What would be the sound noise level?

@ghost307

10 ай бұрын

Totally unlivable.

@vladimirassalukas6726

10 ай бұрын

Like TU-95 😂 new old technology

@yoog

8 ай бұрын

The noise is going to be horendus

@ghost307

8 ай бұрын

@@vladimirassalukas6726 Everything old is new again.

@mvjoshi

19 күн бұрын

@@vladimirassalukas6726 Exactly my thoughts😃

No mention of the GTF Pratt makes? Over 20% fuel reduction and over 70% noise reduction and already in use now.

@JishyFishy4106

3 ай бұрын

At the cost of repeated engine failures, the villain behind the failure of the Indian Career GO First (formerly GoAir). Even IndiGo is facing the same shit! CFM LEAP on the other hand, is a down-scaled GE-90, sharing the same qualities of this successful engine, with a few improvisations.

@michael-lj6zc

3 ай бұрын

@@JishyFishy4106 the GTF is not having “engine failures” their issue is a manufacturing process problem with materials. The engines are out of service for inspection related to that. I get it either way they’re out of service. However the engineering design is producing better results then anticipated and the leap, Also since it’s improvements are done without increasing the core temps like the leap it has a higher ceiling for even better improvements.

i had safran at my school yesterday we had the chance to see this big boi in AR

So aviation started in 1903 with a propellor turned by a small gasoline engine and the future of aviation is a propellor turned by a turbine. Got it.

@benjaminpersonsthevoidhermit

10 ай бұрын

Interesting how it seems we've gone into a full circle... h m m . . .

@heftosprod

9 ай бұрын

Not quite

@benjaminpersonsthevoidhermit

9 ай бұрын

@@heftosprod Looking back on this, yeah, yo can probably explain it better to some degree. But if I'm right, a propeller powered by a gas engine is a simple propeller, but a propeller powered by a turbine is a type of engine known as a Turboprop, if I'm right... feel free to correct me on this.

@heftosprod

9 ай бұрын

@@benjaminpersonsthevoidhermit turboprop engines have existed since just after WW2... Such as the Rolls Royce dart. This is more of a prop fan type I suppose.

@benjaminpersonsthevoidhermit

9 ай бұрын

@@heftosprodAlright, though we both can't really say for certain what this is until we get more official confirmation, right?

what about torroidal propellers? can this design be imporved by using torridal bladed propellers?

I would like to see an A350 neo with the ultrafan.

The fan duct, beside directing the airflow, protects the plane from blade separation and puncture of the cabin. These new engines will have no such protection.

@tomsherwood4650

10 ай бұрын

Propellers were on planes for a long time though.

@CrotalusHH

10 ай бұрын

@@tomsherwood4650 Propellers aren't this flimsy, even so, propellers have separated and brought the plane down numerous times.

@philliprobinson7724

10 ай бұрын

Quite right. P.R.

@elmersbalm5219

9 ай бұрын

If it’s made of carbon fibre then it shouldn’t be a problem. Adding extra reinforced walls on the fuselage where there can be a hit should be enough.

@philliprobinson7724

9 ай бұрын

@@elmersbalm5219 Hi Elmer. The term "should" isn't good enough for aero engine designers. The energy in a separated blade can be calculated exactly for any given engine speed, and the thickness of duralium needed to stop penetration also calculated. We no longer "fly by the seat of our pants". Even a partial penetration can result in an explosive decompression that can spread beyond the reinforced area. This is why having the engines buried in the wing roots (D.H. Comet, Tu 104) was phased out, and engines on pods under the wing well away from the fuselage favoured. If one Comet engine shed a blade, it had between 30%-50% chance of rupturing the fuselage, the same event in a 707, with the two engines closer to the fuselage (2 & 3), only had a 10% chance of causing a fuselage rupture. The outer engines (1 & 4) had about a 3% chance, based on dividing up the circle of where the blade might go. As engine reliability improved with advances in high temperature metallurgy, aircraft with engines close to, and even inside the fuselage became possible. (727, DC !0, VC 10, Lockheed L1011). It's all about the mathematics of engineering, and I'm sure you'll agree, "there's safety in numbers". All the best, Cheers, P.R.

Is every engine tested with the water and the freeze type of test, or is that type of testing done during development only?

This has been tried before. It was found that the noise from the counter-rotating fans was prohibitively loud....and at a very annoying frequency.

So pleased that they all need propellors!

UNBELIEVABLE!!! WOW

@wellsman77

10 ай бұрын

yes

The main problem is as a new generation is developed you learn new information throughout the process,where as a whole concept seems to appear from the development process,that in its self births a new dimension what also needs to be developed..round and round we go

They have to come up with an efficient way to de-ice the individual blades.

Interesting , Thank you . I hope they work

Those Fan blades looked as sharp as a Butter knife ,almost.

Awesome.

Are they quieter are they going to propel the aircraft or pull the aircraft?

Imagine a wait list on order. Specially on RR

Merci, en verifiant CFM je vient seulement d'apprendre ce que veux dire CFM ( moteur CF56 de GE + M56 de snecma = CFM) d'ailleurs aujourd'hui meme si SNECMA est devenu SAFRAN ça reste comme çà car ce sont des contractions de noms de produits. GE and SAFRAN seems to be 50/50 wich is fun to see franco-US motorists in aircraft competition. I am far from being a specialist is the RR ultrafan just larger than LEAPs ? Or is it technologically totaly"new" ?? ( I just understood larger) thx Of course because i am french i réd than CFM rise was design by SAFRAN in 2008 so it's french idea ?? Or not ? Thanks

No they don't do an explosive confinement test during the manuafacture process. They do it during the design process. 🤣"It can't be delivered just yet" If you do those destructive tests it will never get delivered lol.

How exactly would the first engine give the airframe ANY protection if or when one or more of the blades fail.

Very interesting video, but this title and the video sample was in reference to exactly 1m31s of this 10m11s video, with almost negligible information about the "engine that will change aviation forever."

U know government is too big when you have the people with the expertise having to get approval from bureaucrats with little to no knowledge of innovation

@ben3989

10 ай бұрын

Commercial aircraft regulation is great! You are alive because of it

@philliprobinson7724

10 ай бұрын

Hi. And you know government is too small when a plane falls out of the sky and all others of that model aren't immediately compelled to cease flying. "People with expertise" in the small picture can be totally out of touch in the bigger picture where we all live. Cheers, P.R.

This is my highschool science project back in 94...

*_futuristic alloy_* what kind of compound is that?

I believe the noise factor is the biggest drawback to unducted fan engines. Check out the 'Thunderschreech' X-plane with a supersonic propeller. It still holds the record for the loudest aircraft every flown!

@christophehubert7774

4 ай бұрын

that and lack of containment

It looks like a slice and dice machine!

Most of this video is on the XWB not the Safran engine. 2min on the RISE engine rest on XWB. misleading title.

@Stvescr

9 ай бұрын

Probably because it's the best engine in service on the planet.

Cool looking anyway!😎👍

What is the reduction in speed and altitude compared to a turbo fan. Maybe ok for short range Europe but not for international, Asia and US.

They tried this in the 1980's, times were different then, tech has improved, etc. Perhaps this can happen now.

@Pmooli

8 ай бұрын

A fools errand. TU 114 was tried in the 50s. Do you understand that there will be no much scientific advancement in the next 100 years! Electric cars were popular in 1900s, no new ideas since 1970s. We peaked bro! Realize that fact

@Ripper13F1V

8 ай бұрын

The same thing can be said of stories. You can split it, you change characters names, settings, bend genres, etc, but the core story problem has already been done. No new thinking, just repackaging.@@Pmooli

This was tried on the Beech Starship. Among other issues, the excessive noise from the supersonic prop tips ultimately doomed the concept The Starship was actually responsible for noise restrictions at airfields that previously didn’t have any

@philliprobinson7724

9 ай бұрын

Hi L.I.T.D. Quite right. Check out the Mc Donnell Douglas F101 Voodoo that had a supersonic propeller. Just one XF 101 was made because the noise levels made it a noise weapon in its own right without firing a single missile. This video on what should be well known "dead ends" reminds me of the well known proverb "He who doesn't learn the lessons of history is doomed to repeat them". Cheers, P.R.

@daemn42

8 ай бұрын

The big issue with the Starship, and the Piaggio P180 is simply dirty air in front of the props. It doesn't hurt efficiency much, but it's horribly noisy. This is true of pretty much all pusher designs at any scale. Small RC electric pusher wings are almost as noisy as gas engines. Even moreso for the counter-rotating fan engines. The noise comes all from the 2nd set of blades ingesting dirty air. What makes the CFM Rise special is the stators behind theb lades are not rotating which greatly reduces noise.

@knottyboy6086

8 ай бұрын

YEP. This will totally 100 percent fail. Total waste of money. A High school student can tell you this will not work.

@philliprobinson7724

8 ай бұрын

@@knottyboy6086 Hi K.B. The interesting question is WHY is this research taking place? The manufacturers must know of past results, and that turbo-props (which is what these engines are) lose efficiency rapidly over 25,000 feet. Jets, flying at 39,000 feet, use half the fuel of the turbo-prop due to thinner air and less drag. The ducted fan-jet also uses the ram-jet principle which is why they can go 2.5 miles higher into the thinner air without losing efficiency. Removing the duct is removing the article that makes turbofans so efficient. I suspect the main driver of this research is an over-generous tax write-off that allows 100% credits for anything spent on research, whether the project is a proven dud or not. That way they keep their valuable R.& D. people in continuous employment, and the company books remain in the black. And who knows, something of interest to the military may come of it. Cheers, P.R.

@rosomak8244

3 ай бұрын

@@philliprobinson7724 You heard it already in the intro "sustainable" "environment" "CO2". This is where the tax payer money is buried.

I also have a question about this technology,what amount of energy is involved at the by pass part of the engine, i ask because like most I am aware of how much heat is generated by a normal compressor. If the compressor was increased in size a little and made the purposely increase the air tempreture to a much higher rate then surely the bypass gases would contrubute more thrust without increasing the fuel consumption, after all, its what come out the back end that gives each engine its capability. The other part of the question is we are all aware that splitting water into the two seperate gases and then combining the two as a fuel generated a lot more temprature, is there not a way to improve the method of sepetating the two gases to a point where it is enought to run an engine Then the cost would certainly be a lot less plus tberecwould be no polusion what so ever, and as an added bonus the engine would give a completely clean burn taking a lot more care of the engine itself, plus it would mean there would be no flamable fuel at all possibly making planes a lot safer in the event of a forced landing. I am sure that the technology of hydro fuel cells has come a long way it just a question of developing a really efficient fuel cell that is notbtoo heavy.

@eugeneoreilly9356

8 ай бұрын

90 percent of the propulsion comes from the fan on the front.The other 10 is from jet efflux.

It's no new idea to use prop-fans. If only they find a solution for the noise they are creating

@ghost307

10 ай бұрын

The noise is the result of the blades going through the air, so it's not likely.

@bjrnbulhoff499

10 ай бұрын

@@ghost307 am aware about that. It's most likely the reason why it has so far not been used more.

@yoog

8 ай бұрын

When you think of the noise reduction we are currently at now with the A380, B787 and A350 compared to the B747 or B777 this thing would be a step backwards in time like 40 years in time

Counter rotating high speed machete-like blades. I ain't going anywhere near something like that! Nightmares.

What surprises me is if they don’t put a cowling around the fan. It should improve the efficiency even if it had a significant gap between blade tip and cowling

I imagine this will be EXTREMELY LOUD.

Does it come with bolts?

That engine looks like somethink from Ace Combat 7..

@Lozzie74

10 ай бұрын

Somethink? 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I’d like to take a moment to recognize our super computational computers, scientists, and AI overlords for bringing these new technologies to light.

1:16 - this is just a turboprop, the GE Catalyst (I worked on it recently)

@jgold2813

2 ай бұрын

no it's true jet I read about it in 1988 they add the very short blades BUT it made way way too much noise was not as fast did get better MPG but this old stuff over 30 years old all air craft co. turned it down over the noise they said it was so loud that theres was not 1 us airport that would let it take off from speed loss was also very close to the fuel gain there was a gain but 8 or 9 % was not the 24% + that was planed it did get this + 24% but when add in the speed loss it was less then 10% gain

This article mentioned shipping by truck/rail or if overseas by ship or by Beluga. What about the 747 with the 5th pylon for delivering an engine into remote locations? It's the only 747 with 5 engines. I believe it is still flying.

@jbrownjetmech-4783

8 ай бұрын

Is Antonov's big 225 still flying. I used to watch that beast on the deck at BNA Nashville and watch them load huge satellites into it. Watching it take off was watching an entire fleet leave the ground all at once. That was 20 plus years ago though, so.....

@Cds2000Channel

8 ай бұрын

Mirya An-225 got destroyed in the first days of the russian offansive against Ukraine.@@jbrownjetmech-4783

it will be good for tu95. surely it cant be louder than existing propellers... right?

Thanks.

What amazing pieces of engineering! Incredible!

@sclabhailordofnoplot2430

8 ай бұрын

Sound of silence sucks. Place holder comment.

NOW if we could just just figure out a way to keep fuselage plugs on the plane. Wouldn’t it be nice to have ALL the plane stay together on the flight.

The gear box is the big problem. No-one has managed to make a reliable gear box for counter-rotating duct-less fan engines.

@RepJock88

9 ай бұрын

Kuznetsov NK-12 from the 50s?

I loved always thoughts next-generation of

Why on the RISE is the second stage blade even there is the first place?

Se não me engano ja teve um motor desse com pás contra rotativa de um consórcio Brasil Argentina.

What a weird narration. It went from the new amazing CFM to regurgitating the Rolles Royce engine video that has been on You Tube for years.

" Sharp as a chefs knife" 😅 Eh no. The assembly engineers would have no fingers.

I remember hearing about this in the early 1990s and thinking, as a 9 year old, that’s lame. It failed. But maybe this one will work!?

DERBY....NOT DARBY. BUT IT IS PRONOUNCED LIKE DARBY.

@johnjephcote7636

10 ай бұрын

Well, this is an American voice and pronunciation to a European ear is always strange.

@TheRealSlimSteve

9 ай бұрын

@@johnjephcote7636 He pronounced it correctly, but was spelled wrongly in the video text.

I think the design could be improved if they added a turbo encabulator, preferably on a base-plate of prefabulated aluminite

Propfans have been in development for 40+ years now. That there isn't one operational serial built example shows the difficulties and complexities coming with it. If it comes at all I guess it will take another 5-10 more years.

So the video is mostly about how an engine is made with a brief mention of the CFM engine at the start...

Interesting, thank you. I would have thought, though, that in order for the prediction for the engine business worldwide to increase to come true, we'd need to avoid two things. The price of normal flights to be quite a bit lower than it is. Governments around the world being prohibited from banning (or very, very severely curtailing) international travel at the drop of a hat, with no discussion, in an alarmingly synchronized manner, when a virus (which we soon learn to be dramatically less damaging than is speculated) appears. I hope that we achieve those two necessary prerequisites for this business growth.

Whew till one of those bad boys throws a blade

It also makes Julienne fries.

I read about it in 1988 they add the very short blades BUT it made way way too much noise was not as fast did get better MPG but this old stuff over 30 years old all air craft co. turned it down over the noise they said it was so loud that theres was not 1 us airport that would let it take off from speed loss was also very close to the fuel gain there was a gain but 8 or 9 % was not the 24% + that was planed it did get this + 24% but when add in the speed loss it was less then 10% gain 2

You spelled Derby wrong.

What about the noise level. I remember a Russian model produced unbelievable noise.

@GowthamNatarajanAI

10 ай бұрын

The russian model used counter rotating blades. This does not. So no noise issue.

@wakimdavid2094

10 ай бұрын

Antonov 70, with 4 D27 engines

@wakimdavid2094

10 ай бұрын

@@GowthamNatarajanAI do you have some numbers? characteristics tables? sharing is caring!

@taylorh.3484

9 ай бұрын

You are thinking of the Tupolev TU-95 Bear, the reverse engineered Russian version of the B-52 Stratofortress, which is so astoundingly noisy, the US can track it via sonar from attack submarines. It’s that loud!

Appel pushes down pretty fast

great vid, but lol @ 'Darby'

Turbin blades instead of turbine blades... brilliant!

@michaelevans5953

3 ай бұрын

I thought he said turban blades

OK, hold up.... there's a problem with something said in this video that hopefully the 'propeller-beanied' among you can help to figure out: At 7:13 the Narrator says "They secure the engine with 50,000 pounds of thrust on two mounting brackets...." Say Watt??? OK, let's see: That statement can't be a reference to the engine itself (by stating it's propulsive thrust numbers) as the XWB produces >90,000 "pounds of thrust". So, is he referring to the amount of 'torque', measured in lb/ft, that is applied to the fasteners that secure the engine to the two mounting brackets? (If so, the term "thrust" has no business being used in that statement!) But 50,000 lb/ft of torque ??? That wrench and 'dog-bone' they are using is only about 5 ft. long! That would require them to apply 10,000 lbs. of weight to the end of that wrench to generate 50,000 lb/ft of torque! Something is off....🤔

Slightly misleading. CFM is jointly owned by the US GE and the French Safran Aircraft Engines in a 50-50 ownership so all engines produced by CFM are joint ventures of these two companies.

It comes down to to 3 things. 1) Politics, 2)Fuel efficiency, Net Thrust/fuel burn rate. 3)Serviceability (maintenance and reliability and safety). To win an engine manufacture needs to nail all of these so as to show an economic advantage to the Airline for there engine. Not much point producing the best plane or the best engine, in Russia or Brazil or Japan, if no one buys it due to politics.

Strut braced wings and unducted fans. Next technological breakthrough, the double stacked wing.

3:20… turbin??

The engine that will change aviation for ever is the one that utilizes the magnetic field of earth to move planes around and have zero emissions. Keep working.

Ok nice but what about explaining how the engine works?

If the true and complete cost of flying was reflected in the tickets we purchased, would we still want to fly?

They keep talking about the engine cost as soon as cost becomes a driver, speed of production comes into play and with speed comes mistakes.

All fan jet engines have to have a surround nacelle which can contain a fanblade failure from structural failure and foreign object ingestion. Any open fan design should also have such containment - if not then all types of jet can be altered to run without a nacelle and thus raise the by-pass ratio. All prop planes in civil use have strengthened fuselages to cope with ice being thrown off the prop and there have been a number of major incidents with blades breaking or coming loose. Should open fan jets have similar protection??