28
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by 0xebfe@lemmy.today to c/aviation@lemmy.world

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.

top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 13 points 5 days ago

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

[-] AllzeitBereit@feddit.uk 5 points 5 days ago

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

[-] tomiant@piefed.social 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Sure, a few seagulls would survive but that is something that could easily be fixed in another version.

[-] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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.

[-] tomiant@piefed.social 2 points 4 days ago

It makes sense, at that altitude birds are frozen solid.

[-] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 1 points 4 days ago

Hehe, I expect they're thawed before the test, but who knows!

The GE9x is shown being tested by launching a block of solid ice at the fan, and it shreds the ice!

standardized frozen turkey

NIST frozen turkeys must cost as much as a house.

[-] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 2 points 4 days ago

That's why plane tickets are so expensive...

Makes sense. The peanut butter jar alone is over $1,200. Imagine what a battery of frozen turkeys would cost.

[-] Melonpoly@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days 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.

[-] discocactus@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago
[-] AllzeitBereit@feddit.uk 9 points 5 days ago

Is it any worse than what would happen to birds with conventional turbofans?

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

My friends a goose and I asked him what he thought about this design. Completely unphased by it, infact I'm not even sure he understood me.

[-] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago
[-] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

Not after going through a turbo fan. More like pâté.

[-] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Mmmm, pâté. Didn't even need a funnel or corn!

[-] potatopotato@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 days ago

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

[-] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 days ago

Tarmac will definitely be closed for a while

[-] AllzeitBereit@feddit.uk 7 points 5 days ago

There would probably be less damage than from a conventional turbofan hitting it - the blades would shatter rather than the cowling digging in.

[-] itsathursday@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Metal confetti to celebrate

[-] AllzeitBereit@feddit.uk 11 points 5 days ago

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

[-] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 4 points 5 days ago

This thing looks like it has less moving paths than a normal turbofan... Look at cutouts of the CFM56, easily available online.

[-] potatopotato@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

Uh all of those blades, including the fixed ones, are variable pitch. Every single blade has several precision moving parts

[-] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days 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.

[-] bonenode@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago

Uhm, that does not look safe. I mean, maybe it is, but looks dangerous to have it be open like that. What if one ofnthe blades comes off? In a closed one it won't accidentally cut into the passenger area? Maybe it would, not sure about the forces here. Can they not at least put a mesh around it for the illusion of saftey?

[-] tomiant@piefed.social 12 points 5 days ago

You never flew in a propeller plane?

[-] bonenode@piefed.social 6 points 5 days ago

Fair. Didn't think of those to be honest.

[-] tomiant@piefed.social 4 points 4 days ago

Still tho... ArrrQ3XfhQSCGY8.png

this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
28 points (91.2% liked)

Aviation

581 readers
2 users here now

Anything related to aircraft, airplanes, aviation and flying. Helicopters & rotorcraft, airships, balloons, paragliders, winged suits and anything that sustains you in the air is acceptable to post here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS