Rethinking the Jet Engine

by Richard T. Stuebi

Since their discovery and invention in the early 1940s, jet engines have experienced dramatic improvements in thrust, reliability, emissions and efficiency. However, the basic turbofan engine design has remained largely unchanged since the late 1960s, when they were developed to enable the emergence of wide-body passenger jets. As the design has matured, the improvements have become more incremental.

As reported in the September 4 issue of The Economist, a start-up firm called R-Jet Engineering is exploring a pretty significant departure from the conventional turbofan. R-Jet is pioneering the use of an orbiting combustion nozzle (OCN), wherein the combustion process in the center of the engine occurs in rotating vortex, rather than in a straight line, as it flows through the engine. R-Jet claims that this combustion approach would reduce fuel burn by at least 25%, and reduce emissions by about 75%.

From an environmental standpoint, it would be great to see this kind of improvement spread widely throughout the aviation market, as it represents one of the fastest growing segments of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. However, don’t expect to see this OCN-jet technology under a wing anytime soon. In addition to the normal technology development hurdles that any company faces in commercializing a new technology, a huge challenge for R-Jet will be gaining customer adoption.

It’s essentially impossible for a venture like R-Jet to sell directly to aircraft manufacturers like Boeing (NYSE: BA) or Airbus – they are too risk-averse to use an unproven technology critical to their product’s saleability from a company with such a small balance sheet.

So, R-Jet will probably need to partner with, sell through, or sell to jet engine manufacturers with sufficient wherewithal and brand to back a breakthrough innovation to aircraft manufacturers – and there are really only three: General Electric (NYSE: GE), Pratt & Whitney of United Technologies (NYSE: UTX), and Rolls-Royce (LSE: RR). In turn, these companies will present significant challenges for R-Jet – first in paying attention to them and taking them seriously (i.e., the “not-invented-here” syndrome), secondly in working at the speed an entrepreneurial venture requires to stay afloat, and lastly exerting so much relative muscle that the corporation captures most of the value.

This is a common problem facing the cleantech innovation sector. In energy, the industry is massive, the products/technologies are typically very capital intensive, and most of the key players (potential customers, research collaborators or channel partners) are correspondingly huge corporations. It is not easy for small ventures like R-Jet – as shown conclusively by Clayton Christensen in The Innovator’s Dilemma to be the type of company much more likely to develop disruptive technologies than big incumbents – to succeed in such an ecosystem.

Richard T. Stuebi is a founding principal of NorTech Energy Enterprise, the advanced energy initiative at NorTech, where he is on loan from The Cleveland Foundation as its Fellow of Energy and Environmental Advancement. He is also a Managing Director in charge of cleantech investment activities at Early Stage Partners, a Cleveland-based venture capital firm.

5 replies
  1. Niebylski
    Niebylski says:

    I'm curious – are there characteristics about the OCN configuration that make it unattractive for turbines in power generation? Does the design depend on the massive inflows of air that airplane turbines have or can it deal with lower volumes/mass flow rates?The hurdles associated with getting an aircraft turbine outfitted with an OCN turbine are understandably high – but perhaps less so for aeroderivative turbine applications for electrical generation / combined heat and power.Small turbines (less than 3 or 4 MW) don't generally operate at more than 27 or 28% efficiency – a 25% efficiency boost would put them on par with lower-end reciprocating engines.

  2. Derek
    Derek says:

    Dr. Derek Zupancic • HH2 HydroLectric Power LLC does have a solution for existing vehicles and internal combustion engines, the HH2 Hydrogen Clean Air Combustion System .WWW.HH2.USRetrofit water based systems that extend vehicle MPG, increase engine power and drastically reduce toxic emissions and lower the carbon footprint often 50 to 90% in some vehicles.IRS tax credits make the HH2 installation almost painless and payback is very rapid.Does not affect manufacturers warranties, fits vehicles for 1900 thru 2011 and has the California Air Resources board permit under executive order D-643.World wide opportunities are available under license (patent pending) to manufacture, distribute or sell the HH2 systems.Works with gasoline, diesel, bio-diesel, ethanol, alcohol, E-85, LPG, Propane and CNG fuels, results within minutes when the unit is installed and energized. Instant smog reductions using the HH2 Water Fuel Cell system. No moving parts, no check engine light, works off of the vehicle battery system.Dr. Derek Zupancic CEO

  3. claire
    claire says:

    But, in the beginning, aren't all technologies disruptive? Nothing is really an overnight success–one company will take the leap, and if it gets results, others will follow. That being said, if this is seen more as a specialized take on a traditional item–ie the Dyson vacuum vs a regular Hoover–then its chances of achieving more than niche success are definitely smaller.

  4. wrumbley
    wrumbley says:

    They do say that they will chase the distributed generation market first. Here's a quote from their Mission statement: " R-Jet plans to gradually reach sales of 2500-5000 OCN based 500-1200 kW turbo-generators per annum by 2022."Probably, these units would be more cost-effective than current technologies in gas peaker plants.

  5. Jet Man
    Jet Man says:

    Interesting article. I have worked on a variety of jet engines, and really the basic style hasn't changed much over the past 50 years. While the claims to be more environmentally friendly seem to be possible, unless it is cycling through a filtration system, I don't see how in one end and out the other makes any difference just by creating a vortex. Except for the reduction in fuel, which ultimately decreases emissions anyway. Sounds like an interesting technology to watch.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply