BINGO! The battery VTOL fanboys can't figure this out. Battery VTOL is not a planet saver. Just another toy for the wealthy.

We could get into this and spend all night talking about it but this does depend on design and how well they are maintained.

Gas turbines are extremely reliable and very low maintenance.

Those old radials had a time between overhauls of 500-600 hours. A PT6 turboprop can go 3,000 hours between overhauls, and in those 3,000 hours you never have to change the oil, never have to change the plugs, never have to do anything other than periodic inspections. They just run, and run, and run. They’re expensive to buy, expensive to run, and expensive to fix on the rare occasion they break, but they’re extremely dependable.

@@singleproppilot That 3,000 hour overhaul is the kicker through. From what I understand, for the most part it's an inspection where they disassemble the engine, and in the US it's not mandatory. Although you would be insane not to have it done. I saw a KZfaq video where some clown recommended not doing it because it was to expensive. It might have been on Mojogrips channel.

Turbo shaft or did you mean turboprop?

Remember Graphine? Peperidge Farm remembers. It was supposed to change everything 20 years ago.

I definitely will follow up on hybrid vtols again, thanks for watching!

No bull shit - I have not yet to see a single good bearing that is 3D printed. let alone to say a jet engine 😁

@@Tech_Planet Aerospace engineer here: I was ready to dismiss this right off the bat until you mentioned Rolls Royce. If its those guys releasing information then there's a good chance they are actually FURTHER down the development path than they are saying. They were doing stuff back in the 1990s with engine development that was pretty amazing. What the 3-D printing does is allow the "amazing" to be made. Being honest I dismissed 3-D printing as a pile of hype. I WAS WRONG. There's some stuff in the 3-D printing world that's that just amazes me. I just saw a vid recently of the DMG Mori 3-d Printer/machining center. I point - can you please NOT make spurious AI claims. I know that every one wants to put AI into every tech story they do just to make it sound cool (or whatever), but 99% of its BULLSHlT. These so called generative AIs do NOT generate they AVERAGE. They're "stochastic engines" and the training is basically giving them massive amounts of data and when asked a question they AVERAGE OUT all of that data to give a response. What these new systems do is they give very complex answers back. In the past if we gave a statistics person a question they could give us set of numbers that describe the answer, but each question takes TIME to go and sort through the data. Systems like CHAT GPT have already sifted through all the data and can answer in complex questions in complex ways ALMOST instantly (and that ALMOST is very important). In basic terms they do what a team of researchers might do when asked a question. They just do it so fast it looks like a super intelligence is involved. If you want to discuss this let me know. Because in engineering we've had algorithms for several decades that effectively self learned how to run processes better. I mostly work in industrial control systems, automation and robotics and there have been products for many years that have stunned me time and again for what they could do. I first encountered self tuning software in the EARLY 1990s.

They term was created to separate piddly little FDM and resin machines(3d printing) from the very large and expensive SLS metal machines(addidive manufacturing). Additive manufacturing has been around since the 80s in the form of standard FDM and resin machines but the terms were changed and 3d printing forked off of additive manufacturing in 2010 or so when the patents became public, and the general public got them in their homes. To put it into perspective, one of the the first commercially available FDM machines came out in the mid 90s, cant do everything a $100 dollar machine now could do, and cost well over $100k to own.

It's one thing to print it making it reliable over the long term is a whole different story. These aren't close tolerance, forged parts that have been balanced and inspected. I certainly wouldn't risk my life on one.

A printed engine is not maintainable. One part fails and recycle the whole thing but if you get it right with air bearings and the advanced thermal management evident it could be a game changer.

yeah, I doubt you can make a quality ball bearing from a 3d printer.

They are dreaming and as far as a 'new engine', Frank Whittle would certainly recognise it.

Because the hardest part of designing a jet engine is the coupled turbine part. If you don't have spinning blades inside the jet stream, you can get much closer to stoichiometric, and not burn up. An electric impeller jet theoretically could have only one moving part, not including valves. That's a whole bunch of high-performance bearings and seals you don't need anymore. With an uncoupled impeller you also can "spool up" practically instantly. It essentially becomes impossible to flame out. That's just off the top of my head and I haven't watched the video yet.

Forget it. The generator, motor, and batteries are too heavy to fly and have terrible performance for aviation. And the simpler and cheaper a turbine is, generally the thirstier it is. So you save development and procurement costs only to raise your operating costs. Some rudimentary number crunching will tell you it’s a terrible idea. It’s like all these inventors forget that the engineers that designed existing aircraft are really, really smart. If hybrid propulsion was the way to go, they would have done it that way already.

@@singleproppilot cool story bro

Makes perfect sense. Electric motors are easier to control. Just look at a typical quadcopter drone. Also no need to waste fuel and time waiting for the engines to warm up. Just jump in and go. You only need a smallish battery pack for a few minutes flight.

Think of the electric part as a transmission. The ICE part can run at max on the power curve all the time while the electric motor can run at any speed >95% efficient all the way up. Electric motors work better for quadcopter configuration too, while ICE provides greater range.

But we are not there yet!

​@cionntsaile1606 Simplicity? What is he talking about Only people gaining any thing are the manufacturers Hybirds stink !

I need this kit as well heh

Inconel in PLA ? I'm sure enough of us ask eSun, they'll do it :) Might have to bake out the PLA to leave the metal behind.

Seems to be that way since 1850.

Same number of moving parts. If you ignore pumps, valves, and other support equipment most jet engines only have 1-5 moving parts as the simplest turbine jet engine has only one shaft with a compressor and turbine. Powerplant style engines need at least two shafts so that the compressor turbine can run at a diffrent speed from the gearbox turbine. The bearings are printed in. Even current day Turbines use air bearings. The bearing essentially pumps air in-between the housing wall and the axil for the entire assembly to float on. The 3d printed ones just print this assembly in place. I think this is probably a losing game though as engine servicing becomes impossible with print in place designs like this. So instead of just being cheaper than a modern engine it has to be cheaper than the overhaul of a modern engine. SInce instead of just doing repairs you need to buy a new one each time.

They can't be that efficient if the can't meet emission standards.

@@filonin2 Efficiency requires high temperatures, low NOx emission requires low temperatures of combustion.

i can see this in 1man quadcopters. they can serve the same purpose as micro helicopters (herding cattle or powerline inspections) but are much much easier and less tiring to fly. also much smaller package to store.

Yes! Quite the Opposite!!! When you speak of "The Government" and they would be against me, except for a different reason!!! I'd see magnetic levitation craft/vehicles that had piezo electric quartz crystal nodules in place of where the motor would be, and leave all the fossil fuel in the ground. Empress Mary of Temple Lemuria (Lost).

And maybe under $1,000 once they get going. So few people are following all this.

For sure, another thing is that I forgot to mention is that it could be used in UAV/drones

The Brayton (gas turbine) cycle is less efficient by a significant amount. So it isn't just the high speed shafts and noise that we're a problem. The Rankine (steam) cycle would be more appropriate. Higher efficiency, fully internal working fluid, lower noise, burn dozens of types of fuel. The biggest issue would be keeping the weight down, but that should be doable in the same foot print as the ICE. It wasn't well suited historically due to slow response times. But with hybrid electric that is addressed by having a battery.

This is true, definitely would have to consider power source for charging though. I think solid state batteries could just make pure evtols eventually, the 3d printed turbine maybe just a different direction for other types of aircraft?

yeah but electric airplanes are sh*t