ObituaryPegasus
ObituaryPegasus t1_j5hkktw wrote
Reply to comment by slowslownotbad in Seattle-based Jetoptera is developing a vertical takeoff aircraft that can travel at almost 1,000 km/h with a radically simplified new type of engine. With almost no moving parts, it uses super-compressed air to create vortexes for thrust. by lughnasadh
Most aircraft don't have the space for more fuel tanks to carry 30% more fuel so there's a big issue with that right off the bat. Also that increases the weight of the aircraft, not just from the fuel itself as the airframe will have to be strengthened to carry the extra weight. Weight is by far the most important limiting factor when it comes to range so if youre looking to fly very far at all. Carrying 30% more fuel is a huge issue for most types of aircraft and is not gonna cut it.
ObituaryPegasus t1_j5hhgne wrote
Reply to comment by slowslownotbad in Seattle-based Jetoptera is developing a vertical takeoff aircraft that can travel at almost 1,000 km/h with a radically simplified new type of engine. With almost no moving parts, it uses super-compressed air to create vortexes for thrust. by lughnasadh
It's not a good title at all. A gas turbine is not some "new type of engine" and they definitely aren't "bladeless" so I don't know why you think that.
30% less energy dense is a hell of a lot since range is always a limiting factor in aircraft. I don't see that becoming a commonly used fuel in the industry.
ObituaryPegasus t1_j5hfvzi wrote
Reply to comment by yunghellenic in Seattle-based Jetoptera is developing a vertical takeoff aircraft that can travel at almost 1,000 km/h with a radically simplified new type of engine. With almost no moving parts, it uses super-compressed air to create vortexes for thrust. by lughnasadh
I agree, turbines are simple compared to piston engines. They aren't "almost no moving parts" simple though. My point was that the title of the post was misleading about the power source, as if they'd invented a new type of engine or something, which isn't the case. I am fully aware of how reliable turbines are I was just disappointed once I read the article based on the title.
ObituaryPegasus t1_j5hdnqk wrote
Reply to comment by slowslownotbad in Seattle-based Jetoptera is developing a vertical takeoff aircraft that can travel at almost 1,000 km/h with a radically simplified new type of engine. With almost no moving parts, it uses super-compressed air to create vortexes for thrust. by lughnasadh
My point was that the title of the post is incredibly misleading. I'm not saying that it's not a good idea or that it won't work. Just that it's not some magical solution.
ObituaryPegasus t1_j5gm6ol wrote
Reply to Seattle-based Jetoptera is developing a vertical takeoff aircraft that can travel at almost 1,000 km/h with a radically simplified new type of engine. With almost no moving parts, it uses super-compressed air to create vortexes for thrust. by lughnasadh
This title is super click-baity and almost a blatant lie. If you read the article, its still powered by a regular old gas turbine (aka jet engine, which are far from simple and definitely have moving parts) but the thrust is directed by something similar to what you see on a Dyson fan, instead of a traditional nozzle like most aircraft.
ObituaryPegasus t1_j5ig6ta wrote
Reply to comment by MadTrapper84 in Seattle-based Jetoptera is developing a vertical takeoff aircraft that can travel at almost 1,000 km/h with a radically simplified new type of engine. With almost no moving parts, it uses super-compressed air to create vortexes for thrust. by lughnasadh
I'm not arguing the rationale that there are plenty of routes where this is possible. What I'm saying is that there is a huge penalty in the max range of the aircraft, and that makes them much less versatile, limits their route options, and are much less attractive to airlines. You're much more likely to see alternative fuels such as compressed hydrogen used (Rolls-Royce has already run an engine on hydrogen) than you are to see something used that would result in such a huge range penalty.