Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 2, 2022 at 12:59 answer added Peter Kämpf timeline score: 2
Oct 2, 2022 at 8:34 answer added Max Power timeline score: 1
Dec 1, 2018 at 0:00 history tweeted twitter.com/StackAviation/status/1068655924271874048
Nov 30, 2018 at 2:00 history bumped CommunityBot This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
Oct 31, 2018 at 13:32 comment added Electric Pilot I think the U-2 comparison is good. Not a modern high bypass design, but it gives some ideas, that to fly very high even at relatively slow speed of 0.7 Mach, with MTOM of only 18 tonnes, with very low wing loading, you will need lots of thrust. For example, the U-2 and Embraer ERJ145 have similar total thrust, but the ERJ145 is 30% heavier than the U-2.
Oct 31, 2018 at 1:39 comment added user3528438 At that altitude high bypass turbofan doesn't make much sense anymore. To make then engine run at all, you really want to use all the turbine's power to drive as big of a compressor as possible and don't have any power left to drive a fan to generate meaningful amount of thrust out of such thin air.
Oct 30, 2018 at 18:35 comment added M28 @kevin I addressed both in my answer.
Oct 30, 2018 at 15:47 comment added kevin I see two questions here: "what will happen if we take a turbofan to 80,000 feet", and "is it possible to design a turbofan to function at 80,000 feet". If my understanding is wrong, you may want to edit to clarify. If you do want to ask two questions I'd suggest asking them separately, since they are fairly different.
Oct 30, 2018 at 15:26 comment added Federico @zymhan but it was not using a high-bypass engine as the question requires.
Oct 30, 2018 at 15:18 comment added zymhan This is a very vague and broad question with no specific answer. Clearly though, we have air-breathing engines that function at ~80,000 ft, e.g the U-2.
Oct 30, 2018 at 15:09 history asked Electric Pilot CC BY-SA 4.0