Revolutionary Aircraft Engine

[UK_Widowmaker]

http://www.upworthy.com/they-spent-20-years-developing-a-new-aircraft-engine-could-it-change-the-future-of-aviation?c=ufb1

 

(just ignore the Veggie crap at the end)  :)

Edited July 10, 2016 by UK_Widowmaker

[MigBuster]

Have to take their words for it really because in terms of bypass ratio (given as 9:1 to 12:1 on specs ) it looks to have similar figures to other recent airliner engines. 

[RUSTYMORLEY]

Frankly I think the long-term future of propulsion systems will not involve burning fossil fuels but It will take some form of anti-gravity drive engine, which I believe is being worked on by NASA. It,s the type of energy which will allow your car to float on a magnetic field above the road surface, and use the same energy to drive you forward. Basically you won't need wheels and you wont have a big metal lump in the front of your car containing pistons - it will be a big magnetic coil \ ring underneath you and electricity will be used to excite \ activate it and provide lift. But this technology is a long, long way from being deployed.

 

A similar adaptation of this anti-gravity drive engine could also be used in the aviation industry. 

Edited July 10, 2016 by RUSTYMORLEY

[Toryu]

 

Have to take their words for it really because in terms of bypass ratio (given as 9:1 to 12:1 on specs ) it looks to have similar figures to other recent airliner engines. 

 

 

It's not the bypass-ratio itself, that makes GTFs a winner yet.

It's decoupling the fan-section from the LP-turbine's speed via a transmission that allows the turbine to spin a lot faster, while keeping the fan's blades speed in the subsonic/ transonic region.

 

You need that gear in-between the turbine and the fan, as you increase bypass-ratio (circumference of the fan, hence fan-tip speed), because at some time you'd have to run the turbine a ridiculously low speeds, in order to keep up with the fan-speed constraints.

 

Remember: P = M*w.

If 'w' goes down ('w'~RPM), the moment has to go up proportionally, in order to keep power-transmission at the same figure. 

 

(the 'w' is supposed to be a lower Omega [1/s] )

[ShrikeHawk]

Sounds very cool to me. What frustrates me is the 3,600 metric tons of carbon saved per plane. I'm thinking yeah per plane per what? Per flight? Per day? Per year? They were vague on that point so the advertising guys can put up some cool numbers. Still carbon emissions reduced is always good.