We know from aero engine failures that things like that always destroy the engine. Sometimes not right away; you may get a minute or two.
The reason is that the crankshaft is not strong enough to carry on rotating while smashing the remains of a conrod into the crankcase and gradually destroying it.
Maybe in an old marine engine there is enough room for half a conrod to spin around, but in an aero engine you can barely get an 8mm endoscope through the gaps between the rotating parts and the crankcase (I have tried, with a cylinder removed). Any debris jams the whole thing. And any modern car engine is the same.
I have just spoken to a guy who rebuilds car engines all day and he says “non collision” engines (where a camshaft stoppage does not smash the pistons into the valves) no longer exist in new cars. The last ones were built by Toyota, apparently.
Active boundary layer control. Wasn’t that used already
As in the Blackburn Buccaneer?
Peter wrote:
I have just spoken to a guy who rebuilds car engines all day and he says “non collision” engines (where a camshaft stoppage does not smash the pistons into the valves) no longer exist in new cars. The last ones were built by Toyota, apparently.
This is because car engine engines have largely reverted to cam chains versus belts, the latter of which will break in service unless replaced occasionally. Cam chains rarely break in half, they instead wear and have tensioner problems, get noisy and require effort to replace. Gears are best, which is why aircraft engines use them.
So, we agree, what the celera website claims is a load of shite, and the question is what else is as well, such as some of the performance figures.
For investors, this is a project where you can make a small fortune.
Out of a big one ^^
Hmmm, not sure about that. Based on what I have seen, the ground floor investors usually do just fine. And the proprietor does just fine too, getting kids educated at private schools along the way, etc. It is the ones who come in at the second or subsequent financing rounds, who see an “opportunity” valued at say 50M, who are told that for 1M they can own 2% of it, who lose the money 
I once owned 0.1% of what became a potentially 1BN $ “opportunity” 
EuroFlyer wrote:
So, we agree, what the celera website claims is a load of shite, and the question is what else is as well, such as some of the performance figures.
But at least it can fly!
At 65000ft, the pressurization will suck quite a lot of power from the engine, won’t it ?
Only when it leaks. It’s composite hence airtight and with no windows where would the pressure escape?
Clipperstorch wrote:
with no windows where would the pressure escape?
The passenger version is planned to have windows. At least on their pictures.
Re the engine question, I am assuming the powerplant has two separate crankshafts which can be instantaneously decoupled in the event of failure on one side.
Buckerfan wrote:
I am assuming the powerplant has two separate crankshafts which can be instantaneously decoupled in the event of failure on one side.
