lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

So Boeing Is Just Waiting For An Engine For 737RS?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:29 am

I don't know if they are rumors, but I hear that Lockheed's QSST proposal is not using standard jet engines, that the combustion chamber is pulse-based, meaning they are not burning fuel all the time. This could translate into more range, more payload or less fuel costs.

I wonder if Boeing got a hold of that engine and derated it to subsonic flight, would 737RS rape 787 in terms of fuel efficiency? Think about it, if an engine was made to fly supersonic with much less fuel usage than previous generations, imagine what a subsonic variant could do...transition would be similar from SC to 787. Even changing the engines on 738/739's could be a 757 replacement in both range and payload (maybe just frieght not pax). This type of engine could allow for longhaul LCC's.

Or go the other way and have LCC's save almost half in fuel costs, the plane would just be lighter, maybe even add access to more airports. Possibilites are endless right?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23096
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: So Boeing Is Just Waiting For An Engine For 737RS?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:57 am

I believe "pulse detonation wave" engines are optimized for high mach numbers. Such engines are rumored to power the rumored "Aurora/SR-71RS".

Going from statements from Boeing, they do seem to want to wait to release Y1/737RS until a new class of 25-35K lb thrust powerplants are available that will provide significant fuel efficiency, noise abatement, and emissions control improvements over the current available powerplants.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: So Boeing Is Just Waiting For An Engine For 737RS?

Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:20 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I believe "pulse detonation wave" engines are optimized for high mach numbers. Such engines are rumored to power the rumored "Aurora/SR-71RS".

Just like there are many types of turbofans, there are many versions of pulse engines. I was talking about deflagration engines (subsonic burn like in a piston-cycle engine) not detonation engines (forced supersonic burn).

The only difference between a pulsejet and a ramjet is the fuel burn rate, ideally, since flow through the burn stage is not supersonic. The only difference between a ramjet and a jet engine is the turbo machinery of compressors and turbines. In otherwords the ramjet is just a flying combustion chamber, if you will. So exchange the pulsing fuel spray and igniter with the regular combustion chamber in a jet and voila: pulsed-tubojet. Add a bypass and we have a pulsed-turbofan.

I've done the math for a ideally practical senario involving a twin engined 100pax airplane for cruise at M0.75, I'm looking at a 52% fuel usage reduction than the verision with a traditional turbojet with BPR = 5. I think it's candidate for 737RS.

If you didn't understand something let me know.

[Edited 2006-09-01 21:21:49]
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ba319-131, carljanderson, David L, DC2002, flyinghighboy, LG777, N776AU, Phen, qf15, qf789, Revelation, Rmjhjr, slvrblt, usflyer msp, VS11, Yahoo [Bot] and 341 guests