HN Reader

It's part of the tradeoff between momentum and energy that you should aim to move as high of a mass of air at as low of a speed as possible for efficiency.

When you put energy into a mass of air you impart energy of 1/2 MV^2, the kinetic energy equation, which you can think of as the energy you're leaving in the air as it's accelerated to a given velocity on exhaust from the engine. The V^2 part is a killer. This does not translate directly into momentum at all and the most energy efficient way to gain momentum is with a large mass that's accelerated to a low velocity. You can actually see this with the wings which keep the plane itself up. The wings impart enough momentum to hold the weight of the aircraft up by moving a lot of air at relatively low velocity which sacrifices very little energy for the upwards momentum gained.

So engines in aircraft have been getting bigger and bigger as well as slower and slower. It's basic physics, aiming to move as high of a mass at as low of a practical velocity as possible. The 737 max issues were an example of adding giant engines to an airframe not originally built for them due to the drive to move as much air at as low of a velocity as possible while still keeping the plane moving forwards. Passenger aircraft have been getting slower over the years, the 747 was faster than the newer 787's because we're looking for efficiency above all else these days. Going open bladed makes a lot of sense as we go further down this path.

Isn't this like turboprops (already very efficient) with bigger propellors? I couldn't tell from the article, but quite possibly missed something.

Russia has also just modernized their IL-114s and got an order from India.

Not clear to me from the article - what's the different between an 'open rotor' engine and a turboprop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop)? At face value, both seem to be jet engines with propellers used on single-aisle planes?

> Airbus is also assessing shielding the area of the fuselage closest to the engines to minimize the risk of a blade off — one or more composite blades breaking, which could dent or puncture the fuselage and, in the worst-case scenario, strike a passenger.

sightly terrifying

Won’t this be absurdly loud?

I knew I had seen this before growing up as a child, Popular Science, 1985:

https://books.google.com/books?id=rgAAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA69&dq=t...

I am assuming the target market for this is European short haul flights?

On something like a New York <-> Los Angeles flight I cannot imagine the turboprop beats a 737 in any performance or comfort category.

The Antonov An-70 has been in service with "open rotor" engines for 30+ years. It's superior to its western counterparts in every way. i.e. greater speed and payload with less fuel consumption than a C-130 or A400M.

Interesting - I'm curious to learn how ETOPS ratings apply to open rotor engines. Any experts can chime in?

I cannot stop thinking about the fact that air travel wastes so much energy, just to float. Buoyancy is free.

It is insane that we are not doing materials research on how to capture vacuum in thin cavities.

Is this not... a propeller? A turboprop engine?

Like a lot of people I think I hold a mental image of "jet" which is actually not helpful for a modern engine. All modern jets seem to have this massive rotational component, the turbine, and the fan outside the turbine chamber. so does a turboprop. And the basic propeller before that. Oh, the "fan" has more blades. Pshaw! a spitfire went from 3 blades to 5 across it's lifetime. post-spitfire engines had contra rotating props with many more blades. It can't just be about the NUMBER of blades can it?

So, there is the turbine. Is that directly coupled to the "fan" bit? If not, it's probably a turboprop, but even then I am unsure all visible fans on modern jets on the spool couple directly to the turbine.

The "jet" part is the combustion chamber. Everything else, you might as well consider turbines and propellers as "the same kind of thing" but then you're in a pub arguing which details make one a prop and the other a fan.

If you like Roger ramjet you're in the other kind of Jet: the one which is more like a rocket. Also, if you work in government service how are you passing the drug test with those proton energy pills?

Frank Whittle's biography is a great read. He had some hair raising moments. things OSHA would not be happy about.

Making aircraft slower would make it more efficient.

Big slow props, biplane wings, take twice as long, serve better coffee, give me somewhere to plug in my laptop charger.

I'll even wear a nice suit. Make flying An Occasion again.

Everything old is new again... McDonnell Douglas looked into the propfan thing. Boeing looked into the propfan thing. Now it's Airbus' turn. IIRC the technology has been ready for years but the passengers are freaked out by it.

Then we can duct it.