Under the initiative, either Singapore Changi Airport (SIN) or Seletar Airport (XSP) will be used as a testbed to co-develop what CAAS describes as a “comprehensive readiness framework” for integrating open-fan engines and next-generation aircraft into existing airport operations. The work will cover aircraft and engine design considerations, airport infrastructure modifications, changes to operational procedures, safety standards and regulatory processes.

all 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 13 points 6 months ago (1 child)

Think of how easily those things can be hosed down after they shred a whole flock of seagulls.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    And how much more easily they could survive it. Conventional turbofans get the birds stuck inside and fail. These could effectively bounce them off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    Turbofans are tested by shooting a standardized frozen turkey into them. The engine must survive to be qualified.

    I'm sure a bad luck event can have birds stuck inside, but in most cases they go all the way through.

    Edit: found this reference: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-33/subpart-E/section-33.76

    And this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBHJvSJoX4k Not sure if it's the right thing, some comments say it's a blade separation test, which is much more violent than bird ingestion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    standardized frozen turkey

    NIST frozen turkeys must cost as much as a house.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    The amount of people in here that are complaining about non-issues as if they don't know that exposed props have existed for centuries now is baffling.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    They're claiming 20% more fuel efficiency which would be huge, but at the expense of a metric fuck load of moving parts. Also who the fuck knows that happens if you have to make a gear up landing with these things

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    How many more moving parts than a conventional turbofan? Maybe four gears and a rotor?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Loud. There, an actual complaint that would be applicable to this design.

    Regular turbofans will kill geese at basically the same rate as this and would be just about as dangerous as well. But moving parts outside of shielding will be louder, as more sound energy will make it to the fuselage.

  • source
  • [+] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)