The Future of Airliners? - Aurora D8
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 03. 2017
- Get 10% off Squarespace by following this link: squarespace.com/realengineering
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: store.dftba.com/collections/r...
Why Are Plane Wings Angled Backwards?:
• Why Are Airplane Wings...
Why Are The Dreamliner's Windows So Big?:
• Why Are The Dreamliner...
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=282505...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ fiosracht
Website:
www.RealEngineering.net
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, darth patron, Zoltan Gramantik, Josh Levent, Henning Basma, Karl Andersson, Mark Govea, Mershal Alshammari, Hank Green, Tony Kuchta, Sam Stockdale, Jason A. Diegmueller, Chris Plays Games, Peter Hogan-De Paul, William Leu, Frejden Jarrett, Vincent Mooney & Ian Dundore
SimScale Simulations:
goo.gl/y4DTHi
Once again thank you to Maeson for his amazing music. Check out his soundcloud here: / tracks - Věda a technologie
Had to make a small change to the video. I don't have my mic with me though so couldn't fix the "plane windows angled backwards" problem. Anywho....yeah thanks to squarespace.com/realengineering for supporting the channel. Please check them out or consider supporting the channel over on www.patreon.com/realengineering.
Your support has allowed me to make my first part-time hire!
Maybe electric turbines are just the answer to taking advantage of boundary layer air as they can be small but yet still efficient reducing the variance in air velocity coming into the turbine . Would love to see Tesla do the Masterplan 1 equivalent for the air, high priced low volume fancy supersonic VTOL electric private plane taking advantage of our record wealth disparity and then going slowly towards the Model 3 of the air.
I was about to post a good comment when I changed tabs...ugh. So I shall make this short
1. I loved your video, but disagree with a few points
2. disclaimer: i work at an aviation museum and I am a student pilot
3 the MD-11 has a small tail for efficency. This makes it hard to fly and forces pilots to choose on landing between
a) coming in slowly for a short landing, while sacrificing some of their pitch control
b) come in fast with good pitch control, but risk bouncing the plane and overshooting the runway
4 Long wingspans are not good at large airports
a) they make planes hard to taxi
b) the D-8 might not fit within smaller stands/gates designed for the B737/a320
Real Engineering hi I really love your videos there is clearly a lot of work involved and I have learned a lot. I was wondering would it be possible to make a video of the concord in the future? thanks and again love your videos
Real Engineering ur doing great stuff .. thank u for your awesome work
i got the answer to the rear engines, Make them small, electric and not that strong that they are a major source of thrust but enough that they help with the drag and give a little thrust, making them a useful backup motor for failed engine to land but not replacing the wing motors for daily fight.
"continual rise of fuel prices." watched when their are on the lowest points :D
Negative prices ftw
When fuel efficiency stops mattering
@@mykeprior3436
Better yet. This video is only 4 years old and totally out of date already. It's all but certain now that the next major generational shift will be hydrogen fueled planes. Boeing and Airbus are already hinting that no new major conventionally fueled planes will be developed.
"Increase in air traffic", well that was made before air traffic basically stopped being a thing.
5:55: "If you don't understand this, go ahead and watch my video "Why are plane windows angled backwards""
Fairly sure it's the wings that are angled backwards? Hehehe
noticed it too
Seon-Ho, I didn't notice it.
I made this entire video, excluding the script, in two days. I'm ready to pass out from exhuastion. Didn't have my mic with me so couldn't fix it :(
Maybe you can remove the "ow" from the sound so it sounds almost like "wings".
edit: I didn't even notice it, and after watching this one I finally subscribed. Good job.
Don't stress out over it, small mistakes give it a nice personal touch :)
It is obvious that this video was made before the major flaws of the 737 Max became public due to the tragic and preventable loss of life
Very preventable. Thanks to Boeing. If only that preventability was taken advantage of.
remember kids, dont cut corners for your aviation company.
TFW 6 months after this video Boeing bought Aurora... Boeing who literally tried to cover up their failure in the 737 Max, before they got caught for fraud and were forced to pay only $3 Billion. 384 people died thanks to Boeing's criminal behavior. I'm not normally the kind of guy to want to boycott companies, but the fact that Boeing still exists with no change in their decision making process makes me very scared of flying on any 737's ever.
That awkward moment when you watch a video praising the upcoming 737 Max. If only we'd known back then just how badly designed its engine retrofit was going to be.
Uhhhh...? The new LEAP engines weren't the reason why the MAX got grounded.
@@shchorss if they hadn’t upgraded the engines, then the planes wouldn’t need mcas and wouldn’t have crashed
@@punnequraq More like if they didn't use MCAS as a copout and just bit the bullet redesigning the aircraft with taller landing gear and shit
@@boymahina123 You can't redesign the aircraft with taller landing gear. In the 737, the main landing gear are already up against each other when they're folded, and their hinge points are as wide apart as they can safely be.
To get a higher ground clearance, you'd have to design a whole new plane from the ground, up.
Money comes above safety…
I have to take issue with your comment on the "failed Concorde".
Concorde was in service for 27 years, and suffered only one accident; its safety record was excellent. The one accident it suffered was due to debris on the runway.
It was retired due to a reported slump in passengers and maintenance costs. In fact, if not for this apathy, Concorde could have been updated and still be flying today.
Very far from being a failure, Concorde was a roaring success.
Sureshot 71 it whas a great plane but still it costed alot of money and the 747 hase had more history an hase been more suscesfull then the concorde
Sureshot 71 it was an economic failure because it lost 3x more money than it made
economic wise
It was a vanity project for British and French Engineering, it was always subsidised to keep it afloat and made no money, and the only people that used it were Hollywood actors, CEO's and Stock Brokers...so yes it kinda was a failure, but the world of aviation learned a great lesson from it at the cost of British pride!
An aircraft that doesn't break even in its development cost is a failure.
I my exam tomorrow, I need to study German, and here I am, learning about airplanes!
Manas Sarpatwar
Viel Glück :-)
max mustermann that means good luck right
***** yay, I've always wanted to learn German
German class is a tremendous "fuck you" in comparison to other language classes.
Buena suerte.
Sincerely,
The easier and more used language known as Spanish
It's amazing how fast aircrafts developed, in less than 50 years since the first flight, there were all sorts of different airliners including jet powered ones.
Яасирь Шахидь because of war.
2:41, things that didn’t age well
I dont get it lol
@@pixlitol
There were several crashes of the 737 MAX which grounded of that plane model. Thought I didnt followed those news so I dont know the state of the 737 MAX now.
@@Legendendear it's in service now, but was violently overtaken by a320 in sales. The situation got so bad that this year boing needed a $ 60 billion bailout from the US government to not open bankruptcy
@@afonsoabreu5144 that’s probably in combo with COVID tho. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s purely due to 737 MAX
@@dariusti974 the bailout was given in February last year
Fascinating to see how aerospace engineers are working to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of airliners.
okrajoe while airline companies squeeze every last millimeter out of the airplane toilets 😂😂
i am suprised they even care about effeciency, because the oil is so so abundant and will last forever etc.
they clearly do not care, we burn and waste most of it anyway, in f1 racing, leisure flying, private jets, meaningless travel, tractor pulls, nascar etc etc. heavy german v8 cars.
It's to do with cost savings. Yes it's abundant, but you still have to pay to use it. Use it less, and it will cost less to fly an airplane.
@@alanssnack1192 no wonder you support Trump, you dense fuck.
I'm pretty certain he's being sarcastic.
The 737 max 8 deathliner
I hear NoseDive Airways just placed a huge order for the 737 Max 8
Nothing wrong with the plane, just the pilots weren't told about a certain software.
737 coffin carrier
Boeing: makes a big mistake for the first time in decades leading to deaths
People: *WE MUST NOT SHUT UP!!*
ok
This is yet another great video, that any current or future aerospace engineer or enthusiast could enjoy. Again, your research on the history of the subject, plus your moving blueprint style graphics, really help to explain the subject at hand. -Cheers!
If they don't call it the Blue Whale I'm going to be disappointed
Why don't airliners have drag-reducing textures like golf ball dimples or shark scales?
There are several reasons I can think of. First, and most importantly, consider the following plot of drag vs reynolds number: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Drag_sphere_nasa.svg/673px-Drag_sphere_nasa.svg.png. Golf balls have Reynolds numbers around 10^5, so they benefit from having tough skin, but with the higher Reynolds number of planes they receive no benefit. This is because the dimples are meant to cause the onset of turbulence to happen earlier, when this happens you get a reduction in drag. But this onset will still happen at some point no matter what if you're going fast enough (which planes are) so it provides no benefit to trip it earlier as long as you go fast. Also, you want airflow over the wings and control surfaces to be as laminar as possible, so causing extra turbulence would not be very beneficial. Finally, at the speeds most commercial airlines fly at, the dimples might be liable to create shocks in the flow, causing very bad things to happen.
actually many planes do if you fly on a 737 and notice there is a row of fins on the wing those do basically the same thing as golf ball dimples.
True. But their purpose is not to decrease drag. They are located on the upper surface of the wing to induce vortices which allows the air to stick to the wing at higher angles of attack.
There have been several tests of companies like 3M that tried a tape with Riblet-Structures on it (like the skin of a shark). Unfortunately the tests failed as the conditions are too harsh (high air friction, incredible thermal differences, ...). As far as I know there is a lot of research going on about structuring the coating itself. So as you can see, engineers came up with that idea a long time ago but its not as easy as it seems
This is actually a pretty quirky topic, aerodynamically speaking. So to start off, you might want to pause the video at 8:20. What you see here is something called "flow separation", this occurs when the boundary layer, which is in this case still in a state of laminar flow, detaches from the wing. This happens because a boundary layer in laminar flow has relatively low kinetic energy. This region of separated flow is a low-pressure zone which sucks the wing backwards, which we experience as drag.
A golf ball has this same problem: the flow over the surface detaches and created a region of separated flow. In order to counteract this, dimples are scattered over the surface. These dimples disturb the flow, triggering its transition to turbulent flow. Turbulent flow has more kinetic energy and thus stays attached to the surface of the golf ball for a longer distance. This reduces the size of the area of separated flow, which in turn reduces the drag.
Because an aeroplane doesn't have these sudden transitions from a large cross-sectional area to a smaller one the flow will not separate, under small angles of attack at least. Adding dimples in this scenario would disturb the flow over the wing, triggering the transition to turbulent flow earlier, which increases the drag. In situations with high angles of attack flow separation can occur, and to combat this, many devices have been created, like for example vortex generators: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_generator . These work basically on the same principle as the dimples, by increasing the momentum of the flow, it is less likely to detach.
If anything I've said is unclear, don't hesitate to ask, as it is my fault for not explaining in enough detail.
R.I.P 737 MAX 8....... OOF
@@botfinder1437 The Engines were put too far forward which results in the software always having to compensate for this issue. Its a major design flaw not just a software issue.
Lots of wannabe engineers spring up on the internet...all claiming the ddsign of the 737 MAX is bad but never giving any REAL explanation, just vague statements that the audience must somehow trace back to some basic law of physics or aerodynamics even though there aren’t any such logical links that are apparent. I’ve known airplanes to fly quite well with the engines all the way in the back (MD-11, B727, VC-10) and all the way in the front (Cessna Skyhawk, Beech Bonanza, Piper Cherokee) and anywhere in-between. So I thought I’d finally ask for an explanation: How EXACTLY is the forward location of the 737 MAX engines a problem?
@@petep.2092 It isn't. It was a Boeing Bureaucratic Problem. New engines could not fit on existing design, so the mounting had to change .
All it does is change the flight behavior of the plane. Traditionally change in flight behavior requires retraining of pilots.
MCAS only exists because Boeing wanted the MAX series to be attractive in not requiring retraining of pilots.
The engine configuration itself was never the problem outside of the corporation inserting MCAS, claiming no retraining is required - and causing a software problem which killed lives.
So yeah - the engines were never the problem. The plane itself flies fine. Nothing related to any other part of the plane has a problem. It just flies a little different.
This is not the first time planes had a rough start - and once the software problems are solved - I'll bet the MAX will go on to live long lives, just like every model of the 737 before them since the late 60s.
I'm no engineer - but I do believe I have never seen a single engineer blame the plane's design in any way, they only noted what has changed.
MCAS, and Faulty sensors are to blame - but Boeing themselves are even more to blame for not even including it in any manuals.
Just watch Wendover's video on the matter.....OOF!
@@botfinder1437 It is not the software it IS A MAJOR DESIGN FLAW
To counteract the flow reversal it may require to reduce the bypass ratio of the engine so a higher percentage of the incoming air is traveling through the turbine without it being too fuel inefficient, or if that doesn't work it might be good to try adjusting the pitch of the turbine blades to reduce resistance. This may require there to be more turbines in tandem. Maybe this won't work either, so the engine may just have to be redesigned completely.
It’s interesting to watch this video now given the big issues with the 737 max now
Why are plane windows angled backwards?
Less drag at high speeds
It was a typo. He said windows instead of wings...
Because they look cool :)
Reduces drag by having the air sweep by instead of smashing into it. Help with stability and efficiency of flight.
EEqualsMC Hammer you're thinking of wings
they can reduce the speed to 10knots as well. it is called a sailboat and moves around with no fuel.
Boundary-Layer Ingestion can be solved by inlet adjustable stationary blades redirecting the intake flow. Steam turbines also have had similar problems with what is called partial throttling which steam is directed on part of the arc 1/8 or 1/4 around the circle as flow increases to reduce throttling losses. Some studies on adjustable stationary blades were looked into to reduce cycling fatigue though never implemented because the cost would not benefit turbine efficiency increases. In aircraft, I think it could pay for itself especially with modern controls that are much more sophisticated than what we had in the 1990s.
your idea is probably much simpler than my idea. I was thinking of a pre jet turbine tha would blend the high and low pressures before they got to the jet engine.
Your videos are amazing. Keep up the good work!
Thank you Gabriel. Have no intention in stopping :)
Real Engineering Could you please do a video about the differences between Boeing and Airbus?
Most don't have that intention. Then they meet Mr Grim Reaper. :-p I like engineering though. Its unintended cumulative effort will cut short the time humans will have to suffer their own existence on the silly little rock we all call Earth. Most of them don't even realise this, which is quite hilarious.
What do you mean? In terms of engineering, they are addressing the same challenges, but making quite different new planes. So not easily comparable, unless you fixate on one model, e.g. Dreamliner v A330?
5:57 Reduce, Reduce, Reduce...
The new motto of Real Engineering.
Hi, fellow engineer here (mechanical). I really enjoy these videos, this is my favorite engineering channel on CZcams by a large margin. I have a question: would you ever consider taking suggestions from the community on what topics to cover in your videos? I know it must be difficult to choose a subject sometimes, and having the community provide some potential topics could help with that. Thanks again for all that you do! Cheers.
Fighter jets have been using intakes that manage boundary airflow for over 40 years!
Yeah, but they duct the air to the engines. And use vanes to mix and stabilize the inflow. But an airliner needs to have the fan visible for.... Reasons. So having a long stabilizing duct along the back of the fuselage wouldn't work.
I was thinking the same thing. Like... "um... Just, duct the intake."
@@Bearthedancingman "Reasons" are because the fan itself is a major thrust contributor.
Real Engineering: I REALLY love your videos. I'm not an engineer, just a curious amateur, so you make things very clear for people like me. Keep 'em coming! :-)
Yes, that was so interesting. Eagerly awaiting the next one in this series.
I could listen to this guy talk about planes all day. Great voice over and I appreciate the video. Good Irish voice for it :)
One of the clearest, most organized videos I've seen on CZcams
7:56 I wonder if there could be a preturbine that could blend the high and low pressures before it arrives at the jet engine as a way to minimize the high and low pressure extremes?
I've been thinking about this issue since this video originally came out, and I think the issue has been solved in the past... Specifically on the SR-71. I think the solution is to route the boundary layer air into bypasses that dump the air after the last combustion cycle. The SR-71 did this to enable ramjet operation of the engines.
I think it solves all the problems that were mentioned in the video
@@dominiclobue sounds legit. What I think the actual problem is, is that this plane won't fit on current runways due to increased width.
Or simply it is not economical to build and run/does not fit into portfolio of manufacturers/airlines.
I wonder about using ducting like many combat jets use. They allow air in, and some have fins that first mix, then stabilize the airflow. It would take up space, which is the biggest problem. But I'm sure they've considered it.
My question on compressor stall is that why are the engines aimed in that specific way, couldn't the engine be attached in a way that matches the linear flow of air?
The Centalist the problem lays in having linear airflow entering the engine at all
The problem is that the air is entering the engine slightly slower on the side of the engine nearer to the aircraft, so each blade experiences a cycling load each time it rotates. Because the engine runs at different speeds during its operation (eg take-off, climb, cruise, descent, taxi) it will need to pass through a speed where the blade resonates in tune with this cycle. It is very difficult to design a blade that can cope with this, without making it very heavy.
bimblinghill I heard about some tries to eliminate laminar airflow over wings by either sucking the laminar layer into slits running across the wing or blowing air out of them to accellerate the laminar layer. The whole thing is of course way to complicated, expensive and prone to failure, but I wonder if it would be possible to use in front of the engines at a smaller scale
And maybe some vertical fences like on mig17 wings
I've heard of those blown systems too, but I don't know much about them (I do engines, not airframes). Agree with your analysis, maybe it could work very locally. The Mig17 fences were to delay sonic shocks across the wings but various similar looking things crop up around airframes to deal with vortices etc (eg winglets and those little vanes you sometimes see at the 10 & 2 o'clock positions on the engine nacelles), so I suspect any solution will incorporate something like that.
The "D" in "D8" stands for Drela, Mark Drela, a Polish-American MIT professor who has introduced and tested many novel ideas in aeronautics. For example, his aerodynamic and structural work revolutionised model aircraft design around 2000, especially gliders, and showed that with the addition of some carbon fibre and kevlar elements, classic wooden construction could be just as strong as moulded composite wings, withstanding the crazy launching forces R/C glider contestants place on their ships using high power electric winches. His TED lectures explain the D8 and other concepts of future airliners very well.
Quite awesome that you are mentioned in Wikipedia & there was a link to this video.
Keep up the good work ! :)
I love engineering! It took me 30 years to realize it.
The NASA D8 plane looks like a whale
Animatrix I wonder why. Maybe because whales are already really good at going through liquids?
Animatrix, maybe they should nickname it sky whale.
Ionlymadethistoleavecoments Ah I thought it was because whales were good at flying 😜
Mohammed Raheem Definitely
So does your mom
You da man REAL! so much enjoyment from your vids. Keep up the great work.
I honestly don't even know how i got here but honestly, this channel is absolutely wonderful and so entertaining! Planes have always been my passion and to learn about them is so nice along many other topics!!
5:54. I had to watch that four times just to make sure I wasn't hearing things.
"Why are plane windows angled backwards?"
The concord wasn't a failed design...it just got basically banned from the air after a crash that was not caused by anything related to a concord
Mason Paulsen yes true and it was very dumd
Concorde was a permanent loss-maker.
The crash provided a good excuse to scrap the project.
Tidal Yacht
FAX. Man people don’t know money at all
The concorde did not fail because of the crash. Yes, it did scare people, but the crash was related to an even more unreliable plane (which still flies today), the DC-10. The reason the concorde failed was because of skyrocketing fuel prices and therefore seat costs.
You're joking right? It's own design flaw resulted in the fuel tank bursting. Sounds like something directly related to the Concord. When it ran over the metal piece left on the runway by a DC-10 it's tire burst, sending pieces of rubber into the bottom of the tank which burst. Keep in mind the plane was overfilled as well and the pilot still took off. It wasn't the DC-10's fault, though it contributed, it was the design of the aircraft it's self.
In 2019 737-800 max is not the best one !!
Bolting a huge modern engine onto a 50 year old airframe that doesn't have enough ground clearance.
What could possibly go wrong?
These poorly trained pilots are equally to blame.
@@Robert-jz7hq
Just racist crap on your part...obviously a Trump voter.
@@charlesharper2357 "poorly trained pilots" equates to racism?. Anybody who even tries to deceive, manipulate, contort, and twist that into a legitimate claim is mentally challenged in the highest degree. Your a prime example of hyperpoliticism in todays world. And people like you are the reason President Trump will be re-elected. Have a good day.
@@platinumpokitaru
Highly experienced WHITE AMERICAN pilots who knew of the problem and how to correct it were unable to save the aircraft when flying the simulator.
Newbie on the channel. This video covers something I know about pretty well, and you've explained it excellently!
To say “failed Concorde” is just an outright heresy.
I mean i did work but the avionics were outdated fast
then why isn’t it still flying?
@@punnequraq Because commercial supersonic flights weren't sustainable from a business perspective, and yet the Concorde still managed to go on uninterruptedly from '69 to '03. If it was still flying today it would be more than 50 years old. I would go as far as saying that it was as successful as a commercial supersonic flight could be for the time, and maybe still for today standards.
Omg! Aurora D8 is THUNDERBIRD 2!!
Great minds discuss great ideas.
thank you very much. keep going.
Love your videos! Always interesting and always worth watching.
D8 has a whale shape when looked at from sideways.
I am by no means an expert in fluid mechanics, but could some sort of asymetric nozzle before the compressor work to avoid the stress concentration in the Aurora's turbine blades? If not, why not?
Harry Flashman
I thought the same
You mean like the one found in the SR-71 Black Bird? It won't help, you need to find a way to make air flow even.
Kahlil Hernández The Blackbird's nozzles were designed to redirect the bow shocks from those deliberately ridiculously prominent spikes so that the air would flow into the ramjet section better. This was coupled with bleeding air from the "compressor" and venting it around the engine into the afterburner.
However, using similar techniques to reduce the pressure differential would definitely be something to look in to. Given that the D8 is designed by MIT, I'm sure they've already started work on that problem lol.
I also think that could work.
Presumably it doesn't work though if MIT's finest haven't cracked it yet.
TRIVIA - The first 727 (Not a prototype. Testing was conducted with a production plane destined for United.) "popped and surged" during it's very first take-off. The center engine in the tail experienced compressor stall because of the curved/S-duct combined with the boundary layer effects. The addition of vortex tabs inside the S-duct resolved the problem.
Yo I swear!! Your intro soundd like the clip of the broken tornado alarm in chicago. Scared me lol
Hello! Can you tell me what type of animation software you use for those 'blueprint-type' drawings in your videos?
Thanks!
Interesting concept. Maybe we will have algae based jetfuel by the time boundary layer engines are perfected. This could make efficiency less important and I hope it will hapen, because I really want supersonic commercial flight having a comeback. :D
I know it might be a brazilian thing but, why does everyone forget about Santos Dumont in the airplane history? He crated the first plane that doesn't needs a catapult and lands smoothly
Sei lá, ele foi realmente o primeiro criador de aviões e não os irmãos sla oq
When old planes were mentioned I expected something about Santos Dumont would be said. Expectation frustrated, but good video.
Your videos are brilliant!! Keep up the good work lad ;)
Go raibh maith agat mo chara
What program do you use to make the blueprint animations?
firefox
2:20 that was the best landing ever 10 out of 10 smoothness
It is good to know about newer technological upgrades to aircraft becoming more efficient and eventually making the switch to biofuels and ultimately electric airplane.
thats a smartass lepricon
Tакi Somebody might get offended unless you spell it Leprechaun. Thank you spell check!
said the little black man
@@alanssnack1192
Are black people not allowed to say things online?
@@janeappleseed2154 calling an Irish person a leprechaun is similar to saying the n word to a black person
@@neonblueapocalypse
No it isn't, you idiot. I demand conclusive proof of such a fable.
What would hapen if the engine gets a cone like on a blackbird. Could that mybe spread the air around and reduce low pressure zones
The rear stab on a modern jetliner generates a neutral or positive lift since the C.G. is behind the main wing cord.
The engines can use four smaller turbines compressor inlets. The ducking of the inlets can be oval closer to the boundary layer. It's more efficient for a propeller to pull on air already moving forward.
That thing kinda reminds me of Thunderbird 2 from Thunderbirds. It has a similar silhouette.
Feel like Wendover Productions wishes he made this video..
Tom Hanks i think they should team up
Nah he is sponsored by Boeing
bendover?
I also watch Wendoverprodutions. I watch mustard half as interesting real engineering and wendover production
What if the engine intake went all the way around the fuselage? Then it would intake the boundary layer all the way around
Making that work structurally is the least of the problems, having to secure the tail to the fuselage while allowing for intakes all around and incorporating engine mountings in that nest. I assume you're also saying we should have one enormous engine at the back instead of two smaller ones (because there would still be portions of each of a twin engine design that would not see boundary layer ingestion), which increases maintenance and is also a safety concern. You can keep flying a twin when you lose an engine, which you can't do on a single - and good luck getting ETOPS certification. And then you have all the FOD in ground ops being ingested in the lower parts of your circumferential intake, especially if your gear kicks up something during high-speed taxi or takeoff roll.
@@SamnissArandeen jees that was a lot to read
I would like to see breakthrough that would make seaplanes possible again!
Amazing An original Hatfield design as part of the first studies for Air Bus
This is not a revolutionary new idea that has the potential to catch the big 2 by surprise and force them to innovate. They experimented with the idea of having such a hull design when they started designing the Airbus A380, but they threw out the idea because it had too many disadvantages. You can see it in certain documentaries about the A380, when they show a whole bunch of weird hull designs that were considered and tested before they went back to the more conventional final shape.
I think one of the unmentioned "disadvantages" is public appeal. People are honestly untrusting of anything that looks "unusual". Heck, I know people who wouldn't ride with me when I offered to rent a Piper Cherokee 150 simply because it has a propeller and not a jet engine.
@@Bearthedancingman Yeah, but: www.inquirer.com/philly/business/law/Defect-charged-in-midair-breakups.html
@@sub08Angstrom that's actually interesting. And rather terrifying. Did not know that to be honest. I have over 120 hrs in three different Cherokees.
But the people I know that wouldn't fly with me were scared of the propeller. If the breaking up thing was known, they'd have been even more scared.
The Concorde wasn't actually a failure. The fleet was grinded down by mismanagement and for nefarious reasons.
Andrew K. Fuel costs were so high it wasn’t really profitable... reliability of the engines at low speed wasn’t great which made the program suffer a lot. At Mach 2 the Concorde wasn’t like any other normal plane. It was like incredibly fast, which factured in with the others things I listed is detrimental to the fall of the amazing achievement Concorde. Although the speed wasn’t really that hard of a problem it was hard for the engineers to make the body correct for most efficient flight at low and high speeds
It was an economic failure (thanks to noise which restricted where it could be flown) and an engineering triumph.
Dude I miss this intro song
You have an incredible channel. Congratulations!
do they not realize that D8 is the terrified face you make right before your death?
The day emots kill us all.
I have not yet studied fluid mechanics, so I might be off here, but couldn't you use some kind of non circular shock cone as engine inlets to pre-compress the air and then let it into a larger chamber in front of the turbine in such a way that it distributes evenly? i realize this would not work at low speeds, and that it would need a system which opens up for more air on take off and landing/is variable to accommodate for differences in pressure, but if viable it should decrease the stress while cruising/climbing/going sufficiently fast at constant velocity right?
That sounds like a supersonic design like the Blackbird, as in subsonic flow putting it through a constricting duct actually accelerates it and reduces pressure (so long as it constricts smoothly), but some kind of intake design to even out flow ahead of the engine sounds like a good idea. However as I understand it part of the goal is for the boundary layer to be directly accelerated by the engine fan, which makes ingesting slow air a requirement.
yeah, I didn't mean to go all blackbird on it (although the word shock cone paints that picture pretty nicely), just some kind of funneling to first compress and then let the air into a larger area were it slows down and distributes evenly to get rid of the differing speeds of a direct intake.
Not to be rude or anything, but i did state it would have to open up for more flow at low speeds... :P
scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17309369_1297434353645863_9052039122746610670_n.jpg?oh=a74cb8cf7bb59a20d73d9ebd78aac1ae&oe=595C62DB
This is rough, but something of the sort :)
A big problem is that you are trading one difference for another. Compressible fluids has a property known as "total pressure", and it can be viewed as a measure of total energy in the fluid. It has a static and dynamic component. Around an airplane, the static pressure is equal, and what most people would call air pressure. The dynamic component comes from the kinetic enegy (i.e velocity), and is varying in the boundary layer. In all nozzles, the static pressure is increased by slowing down the fluid, essentially trading dynamic pressure for static. Now you will instead have a static pressure gradient, which will force air to flow from high, to low pressure zones. These flows might wreck all kinds of havock, I am pretty sure they would cause a lot of vorticies in the intake, basically leaving you in the same situation as before, but with a varying flow pattern.
Also, you need to go over Mach 1 for shock cones to work, below Mach 1, a blackbirds cones will actually decrease pressure. To compress at subsonic speeds, the design needs to be inverted, because fluid mechanics are weird as hell. Try searching for "deLaval nozzle" at wikipedia for more info on that
I love music by Maeson... Also Dekobe, Lakey Inspired, Engelwood, Poldoore, Tom Misch, Llindecis. My go to travelling music, couldn't live without it!
0:21 This was just the first flight. Remember, they had no pilot training before this flight, and the right flyer was THE hardest plane to fly that has ever been designed.
Later that same day the brothers performed several more much longer flights. The longest, I believe, was nearly an hour.
How do fighter jet engines handle the problem with the asymmetric air intake boundary layer flow thingy?
Keith Planer they don't handle it at all. Fighter jets have channels usually under it or the wings that direct airflow into the engines and the high speeds they fly at means there's a shitload of air going into the engine at all times. They fly much faster than a commercial airliner also btw
Gamefreak Then how they fly at low speed without stalling?
james Fra There's still air going into the engines, just not as much as when they're going mach or something
Keith Planer they don't use turbines they just burn a assload of fuel to be propelled which is extremely inefficient
That's a very good question. Most fighter jets don't deal with the boundary layer at all, since the inlet is especially designed to avoid ingesting the boundary layer. However, in the case of the plane shown in the video, it is impossible to avoid ingesting boundary layer air at that location. The intention is to actually ingest the boundary layer.
However, the inlet of those engines can be better designed to deal with the irregular boundary layer flow. It would probably require a longer duct, some guide vanes/flow control devices. and lots of optimization. Those inlets you see in fighter jets have been carefully designed and optimized by spending millions in research. However, I presume that such funding might not yet be available for the plane in this video, since everything is still at a very early stage and big changes could be made to the design. Maybe there's some work out there (research papers) on those inlets, you might want to check if you're interested.
1. Make them faster
2. Make them faster
3. Just make them faster
As you approach the sound barrier. Drag increases exponentially. Above the sound barrier, there are noise and heating problems. It would cost an awful lot more, and only saves people a few hours.
@@kevinrdunnphs Saving a few hours on flight time can greatly increase the amount of flights an airline can run each day.
@@jaffacalling53 In addition, shorter flight times reduce passenger fatigue. For more information please refer to Podcasting On A Plane: Concorde Week, wherever you get your podcasts
It's very simple. Making subsonic flight even faster as it is already is not possible due to physics. Well you could but no airline will buy it. Already happened. (Look up Corvair 990)
I kinda just wanted to make a joke, but the info is useful, yeah that plane was a fail too.
Could you do a video about the history of jet engines? I'm particularly interested in why they went from thin long engines (like the first 737, and the embedded engines of the Comet 4C) to wider shorter engines.
I think it was efficiency and noise which lead to turbofan.
I just listened to this after a while and the old intro is nostalgic.
reducing speed by 10% adds an hour and a quarter to my flight home.
L
Could you make a video on SpaceX? History is being writen guys :)
2:15 now thats what i called a *butter* landing
@08:34 - This is precisely why we are working on installing a series of segmented canards in the area to angle a part of the slow moving air towards the top of the blades. Kind of like a spoiler in the car that splits the air, this has enabled us to achieve a better air distribution.
One of our main challenges is ensuring the wrapping around the tail compressor is strong enough to not break off, we are currently using a composite plastic enriched with carbon fibre laid on top of an aluminium alloy (cannot disclose the exact alloy).
PS- I work at Boeing. :)
How would an engine like that react to ice forming on the fuselage of the plane and getting into the engine?
Aurora D8 flys by
MAM A FLYING WHALE
10 hours to get from Europe to America is just too much. We need something like Concorde again
Nope, too much noise and air pollution
Ondrej Saniga Transoceanic Hyperloop.
A catapult.
Doesn't burn fossil fuels, and no other noise than the distant sound of a terrified traveller yelling at the top of his lungs.
No airport taxes either.
Trebuchet?
Teleporter?
if you have a way to get this idea to the engineers, my thoughts on the turbulent flow entering the engine are as follows.
if you introduce an intake manifold in front of the engine that takes the boundary layer that wants to stick to the airplane because of the increased static pressure of the air pushing down on it and have that air flow up a ramp and into a swirl frame that allows for both the static and the dynamically flowing air to be mixed prior to engine ingestion. you could then control the angle of the air flowing into the compressor section and disperse the air uniformly effectively destroying the pressure gradient felt by the axial fan assembly.
That's amazing concept.
1:36 that's an Embraer, not a 737
5:23 I find it quite interesting that the new design resembles a whale. Our current airplanes look more like dolphins at the front.
Fasteroid that's cuz nature is amazingly designed and humans have learned a lot from it
Don't know if this has been mentioned before but the winglets on both Boeing and Airbus aircraft were designed to reduce parasitic drag, not induced drag. Induced drag comes from aircraft operation, such as, the flaps, ailerons, and the elevator, these 'induce' drag to change the behavior of the aircraft. Parasitic drag comes from the very act of moving a body through the air. The winglets were installed to move the wing tip vorticies up and away from the main lifting area of the wing reducing parasitic drag.
Real Engineering: This plane could be making its way to an an airport near you sooner than you think.
Covid-19: Hold my BEER!
longest April's fool's day video I watched today
I wouldn't call the concord a failed plane..lets count how many fell from the sky due to engineering issues and revisit that one.
I thought the crash was due to FOD on the departure surface and not an design or engendering failure..If it was design, fair, So, Lets take the single crash aside... I have a different measure of Failure here.. I look at a few factors,. like; What air frame has replaced its service? How many air frames could or do offer 7 New Years ever celebrations in 24 hours? What other aircraft now or then offers access to the literal 10,000 mile journey to the "Other side of the world" and opposite hemisphere, in less than 18 hours with no layovers or even seat departures, i mean, that's including the two 45 min stops for fuel? I dunno.. Cost is subjective to some degree. Yeah, that cost of 14 "Civilian" aircraft, is one thing, I couldn't find the government contract info, . I see development as separate from operating cost though,.The cost was a drop in the bucket compared to the American bailouts that continue to this very day though.. I see that as a failure because 2500 aircraft are subsidized to the tune of tens of Billions every year. Not sure about the win on either by that measure. Based on all that, (admittingly ignoring golden parachutes and executive gains) Concords a winner that got counted out a little too early in my opinion. I understand it was aging but, Given 10 more years or rather into today, I think the technology and spreading wealth would welcome and improve upon it, Possibly leaving the door open for a competitive M2+ replacement platform. Or, Maybe, it would have been around long enough to see UAAV tech wipe it out any way. Dunno. I just miss seeing that aircraft around I guess.
That airflow issue... sounds to me that all they need is a simple buffer with backfeeding. Air is fluid in terms of dynamics. Take inspiration from industrial mixers (the continously fed/drained kind). And add a small pressure relief valve that feeds the compressed air partially back into that "mixer" to prevent backfires (briefly at the cost of engine power) and you're all set.
they have to use vanes to fix that airflow
1) stabilize turnulence
2) even out the pressure
As you pointed out they can not run an engine with varying loads across the circle
9:20 According to wikipedia "...[the D8] could be in test service by 2027 at the earliest and 2035 at the latest."
That's not all that soon.
5:25
The Aurora looks like a whale from the side on!
I like the fact the engines could be a changeable pod just switch out at tbo time. Does it depend on a ram from boundry? If not gather from the bottom too
hey real enginerring, i just had a question. to fix the problem of nonuniform air due to boundary layer air getting pulled into the boundary layer engine, why not put a small engine that pulls in only the boundary layer air to speed it up so there isnt any non-uniformity in air currents being pulled into the engine? has this been looked into at all? are there any hidden problems with this design?
thanks for your answer, i love your videos. theyre super informative, keep up the good work!!
737 max. That sounds familiar in 2019
I notice he accidentaly said "why are airplane WINDOWS aingled backwards"
I'm only at 3:09, so maybe you covered it later. But one of the reasons Boeing hasn't changed the basic airframe, is that FAA restrictions force a commercial pilot to only be licensed for one kind of aircraft. Maintaining the same airframe makes it cheaper and easier 4 Boeing and airline companies. Also for pilots.
The Wright flyer, when it was brought over to France, blew everyone away. They'd never seen a flying machine that was completely controlled by its pilot. Until then, machines had flown, but the pilots were pretty much along for the ride as they were barely controllable. The Wiright flyer literally flew circles around its peers.