Open rotor turbines are more efficient, and placing them up out of harm's way makes sense.

Still, there's something in his expression that says, "I'm not comfortable fondling this thing."

...you should see the way he looks at his wife.

No, you dummies. It's not for hamsters... It's a model! Duh.

@Windhawk

Actually I think it's his "Hell I love this plane, I'll make tons of money with it"-Expression, just botoxed.

Anyways, this plane will be the ultimate trial of courage for passing birds.

I don't think I like the way he's touching that planes rear end!

Open rotors mounted on pylons outside the plane's body to make for easier bird strikes and easier icing during thunderstorms or snowstorms? A slower cruise speed so ensure you spend as much time in the air as you do during layovers? Giant man in orange shirt outside the port window? ...wow, what's not to love? :)

we're getting reports that ear 2 has just been hit

So who's making this thing? Stop me if I'm wrong, but EasyJet fly planes, they don't make planes.

no they make the people smaller. like on the magic school bus.

@thewevel:

Delightfully Devilish. Kudos to you sirah!

I am also amused by the concept that people are concerned about increased risks of using open rotors. Ever hear of a propeller? Flying machines used to work fine with them, completely exposed, and they managed to work with great success for Supermarine.

OR

They pay a giant orange man to carry the plane from one destination to the next.

@thewevel:
funniest comment i have seen in a while!

@yt53708:
second funniest comment.

The technology has been around for more than a couple of decades. They have been known as Unducted Fans, PropFans, and Ultra High Bypass Fans. NASA worked with Pratt Whitney on one such engine and fan while GE worked on one themselves. They PROVED that the engines were reliable, quiet enough, and very fuel efficient.

The only reason Boeing and McDonnel Douglas did not adopt them was because fuel prices went through a dramatic decline. Public perception was another fear.

EasyJet is simply trying to bring attention to this concept back to center stage. One of the reasons the 787 has been so successful (before one plane is even delivered to an airline) is because it is extremely fuel efficient.

However the question remains whether a major manufacturer would move forward on something like this. Boeing has only designed two completely new planes within the last decade, the 777 and 787. The 737 is about to undergo a major upgrade, so I don't see them starting a totally new design that can take advantage of the technology.

Airbus is preparing a new design, but they are nearly through the design phase and would have to start over to allow for this engine.

Re-engineering an existing airframe would pose some major challenges. You are moving the engines from the wing to the emphanage. That is a major change of forces on the airframe. As of right now, only aircraft with rear mounted engines like the MD-80 (out of production since the 90's) can be quickly redesigned and re-certified for this kind of engine.

Its a good idea, I just don't see it happening unless one of the smaller airline manufacturers decides to take the risk. The major manufacturers simply have their resources committed elsewhere.

Maybe Lockheed should consider re-entering the airliner market.

@Promethh: I agree who wants a slower jet that flies only short distances? I think we use cars for those trips.

@commentmaster:

Hey, some of us live on islands. Big islands, but islands none the less. And I don't want to have to put my car on a train to Lisle every single time I want to go anywhere.

>> They pay a giant orange man to carry the plane
>> from one destination to the next.

no no no. look at the second photo mr, they pay the giant man to throw the plane.

A slow jet with a shorter range would be fine for connecting flights. When I fly to Miami, I always have to stop in Atlanta or Houston, then take a short flight the rest of the way.

Something like this would be ideal for that. I wouldn't want it for flying NY to LA, but for a 2 hour flight, why not?

Am I the only one concerned that the most discounty of discount airlines is actually designing their own planes now?

I am an aerospace engineer by training, and I was part of a design group for an aircraft similar to this EcoJet for our group project and I must say, the numbers were pretty impressive. Fuel savings were very significant, and the only issue that we did have was the noise, but with research being made as it is by the big engine manufacturers, I see no reason why this concept shouldn't be flying in the next 7-8 years.

Besides, its about time that there was some small form of deviation from the norm with regards to Aviation (the 787 I believe is the beginning of the change)

The requirement for an aircraft that can possibly take off and land from less-than-perfect airfields could actually be beneficial to all the rural area s in developing countries. More people can travel. The direct operating costs are lower - lesser time on ground.

Also, to some of the skeptics, the cruising speed is not that much slower than say an A320. The A320's cruise speed is around Mach 0.79-0.8 whereas an aircraft powered with "open-rotor" engines would probably cruise at around 0.78-0.77.

Not much of a difference is there?

If the picture is to scale, I'd be a little concerned about the proximity of the two rotors. They seem awfully close to one another. Could it be possible for the struts to have enough flex that the rotors would hit each other?

@strangepork:

Actually, we all live on islands. North America is an island. Just a really, really big one.

That being said, I can't wait to drive my new horse around town! It'll be awesome! Plus zero carbon footprint.

@SgtBeavis:

I think Airbus and Boeing are the wrong manufacturers for something like this anyway. Someone like Bombardier or Embraer would fit the mould perfectly, since they already produce large volumes of regional, narrow body jets, including rear-mounted engine planes like the Learjet.

Burns: Now, to the plant! We'll take the Spruce Moose! Hop in!
Smithers: But sir...
Burns: (pointing gun at Smithers) I said hop in.

I've flown Easy Jet . . It was the third most scary landing, next to Royal Jordanian and Zig Zag Airways . . . This plane doesn't look like it would make it any less scary, and may just bump Zig Zag airways out of first place.

@thewevel: good one... guess that one slipped most or there'd be complaints.

And am I the only one concerned about having a transmission between the engine and props? Just seems like a great place to have problems, whereas usually aircraft have been direct drive. Just wait till the co-pilot misses fourth gear as he's just about to pull up.

not all propeller driven aircraft have been direct drive, although admittedly, the ones that have had transmissions have had more problems than those that have not. the way to do it is just have a section of the engine freewheel so that it can be spun by the passing air going to the compressor and burner stages behind it but turn these larger outer blades with that energy. you just have the blades in this section of the engine at a lower angle so it will spin slower than the rest of the engine. this is basically how fan jets already work.

Based on the arrangement of the engines on the tail section, I'd say we're one step closer to boldy going where no one has gone before.

TeslaJet anyone?

Looks like something out of Thunderbirds (the 60's TV show)... the 'Fireflash' I think

@SgtBeavis:
You're right I saw the "egg beater" jets before from NASA.

On another note... "carbon footprint"?
God!... Not Al Gore speaking again... Carbon footprint is a load of crap.
You either burn fossil fuel or you don't.
How much you burn does not make you "greener" you are just more efficient at burning it. The less you burn the better.

Nuclear power is better, providing you can dispose of the nuclear residue safely. Storing nuclear waste in Yuka Valley only postpones the problem momentarily and leaves our kids a mess to clean up.
Buying the now so called "carbon credits" is big business and ultimately releaves your guilt as you polute and dump you filth somewere else.
What a joke......

The "heading for his ear" quip was brilliant. I think some tea went straight through my nose with that one.

What is this, a plane for hamsters? It's got to be at least 3 times this big!

Guys, if you haven't realized it yet, EasyJet's a European airline, so all the stupid comments about driving those distances, being on islands, etc. (I'm looking at you, commentmaster) are just retarded. In Europe, it's cheaper to fly than drive medium distances by far, and taking a few more minutes (say 5 on a 40 minute flight) won't drastically change your travel time. So if you can save fuel and fly cheaper, this makes sense.

If Airbus knows what's good for them they'll consider these suggestions for their A350(?) Dreamliner competitor while it's still in the design phase.

fuel prices are becoming a HUGE problem for the airlines. airlines like southwest, that were once able to subsidize 100% of their fuel costs, are now barely able to get a price lock on 50% of their required fuel.

expect some tremendous focus on fuel efficiency over the next decade.

@drewdraws2:

If you had read my "retarded" island comment a little more closely, you'd know that I'm well bloody aware that EasyJet is a European airline; they fly over my house about 10 times a day. My point was that many of us couldn't just drive everywhere even if we wanted to...so, yes, fuel-efficient planes like this are indeed useful. Next time I'll just spell it out.

Are those tear-drop windows ?

Those engines must be heavy 'cause that wing is awful far back on the fuselage.

Unless they are forward swept?