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.

  • bonenode@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 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?

  • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 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.

  • Melonpoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 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.

    • AllzeitBereit@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

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

  • potatopotato@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 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