Popular Mechanics: NASA has a new plane design concept
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Programs: AA Gold. UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt (Lifetime Diamond downgraded to Explorist)
Posts: 6,776
Popular Mechanics: NASA has a new plane design concept
https://www.popularmechanics.com/fli...ocialflowFBPOP
Interesting stuff. Smaller wing engines with generators connected to power a rear electric engine to streamline wind flow.
Interesting stuff. Smaller wing engines with generators connected to power a rear electric engine to streamline wind flow.
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: GE, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 15,486
Since the back engine creates most of the thrust, are there any reliability concerns? Or would the smaller engines on the wings still be able to get the plane on the ground safely?
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Programs: AA Gold. UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt (Lifetime Diamond downgraded to Explorist)
Posts: 6,776
A legitimate concern. I'd imagine they'd be held to a regulation that the plane would have to be able to operate and land under a 2 engine situation but takeoff might be a stretch for a requirement but probably a production mandate to satisfy clients.
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 30,959
I would assume the same requirements/design parameters about flying with one engine non-operational would hold.
In fact, designing an engine that can fly with 2/3 of the engines working would save even more weight/size than designing an engine that has to fly with 1/2 of the engines working, as they are today.
In fact, designing an engine that can fly with 2/3 of the engines working would save even more weight/size than designing an engine that has to fly with 1/2 of the engines working, as they are today.
#5
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brooklyn
Programs: Bolt Bus Rewards
Posts: 1,274
I would assume the same requirements/design parameters about flying with one engine non-operational would hold.
In fact, designing an engine that can fly with 2/3 of the engines working would save even more weight/size than designing an engine that has to fly with 1/2 of the engines working, as they are today.
In fact, designing an engine that can fly with 2/3 of the engines working would save even more weight/size than designing an engine that has to fly with 1/2 of the engines working, as they are today.
#6
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Matre-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
STARC-ABL, "Single-aisle Turboelectric Aircraft with an Aft Boundary-Layer propulsor, sounds like pie in the sky if you look at ETOPS requirements.
I was recently on a modern cruise ship where all eight engines (propulsion and power generators) went out simultaneously for ~three hours. The emergency generator powered emergency lighting, navaids, comms, and little else. If we had been in the Greenland - Labrador crossing wed made prior, itd have been dicey.
A MIA - CDG STARC-ABL with the loss of one engine might theoretically find itself in similar circumstances., depending g on the interdependence of these dissimilar engines.
I was recently on a modern cruise ship where all eight engines (propulsion and power generators) went out simultaneously for ~three hours. The emergency generator powered emergency lighting, navaids, comms, and little else. If we had been in the Greenland - Labrador crossing wed made prior, itd have been dicey.
A MIA - CDG STARC-ABL with the loss of one engine might theoretically find itself in similar circumstances., depending g on the interdependence of these dissimilar engines.