Just thought you might all be interested in the latest press release from reaction engines http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/press_release.html.Alan Bond is going to concentrate on being Chief Engineer and pass the reigns of Managing Director to a new appointee.Maybe they are anticipating tougher competition ahead?
The fact that they've hired the former Chief Engineer for Technology and Future Programmes with Rolls-Royce Civil Large Engines to be the new MD seems to me to be very positive news. And importantly an addition that potential investors would welcome.
Mark Thomas, CEng, FRAeSMark is Chief Engineer for Technology and Future Programmes in the Rolls-Royce Civil Large Engines Business. He leads the Engineering teams responsible for the exploration and concept design of next generation propulsion systems; also the execution of system level demonstrators to deliver innovative technologies meeting future product requirements.In 2014 Mark will celebrate 25 years with Rolls-Royce, joining the Company in 1989 as a sponsored Undergraduate trainee before completing an Engineering degree at Queens’ College, Cambridge University.Mark’s career started in the Rolls-Royce Defence Aerospace Business and he has completed a variety of Engineering and Management roles located in the UK and Germany.Notable roles have included Chief Development Engineer for the EJ200 (Typhoon) Engine, Programme Executive for UK Defence Research and Technology, Chief Engineer for the EJ200 (Typhoon), RB199 (Tornado) & Adour (Hawk/Jaguar) engine programmes, and Technical Director of the Eurojet Turbo GmbH consortium based in Munich. As a Chief Engineer in Defence, Mark was responsible for the support of around 3,000 engines worldwide with 25 Military Operators ranging from the US Navy to Royal Australian Air Force.In 2009 Mark moved to the Civil Aerospace Business in Derby to take up the role of Chief Engineer for the Trent 900 (Airbus A380), leading the team during an especially challenging three year period for the programme, working closely with Airbus and Airline Customers.Mark is a Chartered Engineer, Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society and also a Governor of a flourishing Engineering Academy. He mentors a number of engineers in Rolls-Royce and is a key member of the Rolls-Royce Senior Engineering Leadership team.Mark is married with two teenage sons and one daughter and lives in Leicestershire. Outside work he enjoys skiing, travel and reading.- See more at: http://aerosociety.com/Events/Event-List/1577/Rolls-Royce-future-developments-in-engine-technology#sthash.Zx2ceu45.dpuf
I think this answers rather handily the questions of whether REL is a serious concern and whether there is anyone with real experience working there.
Quote from: lkm on 03/20/2015 10:22 pmI think this answers rather handily the questions of whether REL is a serious concern and whether there is anyone with real experience working there.In theory yes, in practice no. Skeptics will note that no one would walk away from a 25 year career with a company without substantial motivation to do so.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 03/21/2015 12:12 amQuote from: lkm on 03/20/2015 10:22 pmI think this answers rather handily the questions of whether REL is a serious concern and whether there is anyone with real experience working there.In theory yes, in practice no. Skeptics will note that no one would walk away from a 25 year career with a company without substantial motivation to do so. They can't question the experience though. Another interesting possibility struck me: I used to work for a big Finnish phone maker and when a fairly high up executive arrived from a competitor to become CEO it was a prelude to a takeover. ..... :-)
Quote from: t43562 on 03/21/2015 01:02 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 03/21/2015 12:12 amQuote from: lkm on 03/20/2015 10:22 pmI think this answers rather handily the questions of whether REL is a serious concern and whether there is anyone with real experience working there.In theory yes, in practice no. Skeptics will note that no one would walk away from a 25 year career with a company without substantial motivation to do so. They can't question the experience though. Another interesting possibility struck me: I used to work for a big Finnish phone maker and when a fairly high up executive arrived from a competitor to become CEO it was a prelude to a takeover. ..... :-)I used to think RR might take REL over at some point, but now I just wonder why they haven't already. Given the number of ex RR employees at REL from the top down it's effectively a RR spinoff anyway. At this point in time REL has basically proved their major engine innovation and everything to come over the next 3-4 years is engine integration work that could benefit greatly from the massive resources of RR as well as RR's great experience negotiating ITAR and being a major US defence contractor. I'm sure REL's IP could be worth many the cost of the company to RR when applied across RR's product line.
Quote from: lkm on 03/21/2015 03:45 pmQuote from: t43562 on 03/21/2015 01:02 pmI used to think RR might take REL over at some point, but now I just wonder why they haven't already. .....Be interesting to see if a takeover by RR is in the offing, I'm almost surprised this hasn't already happened. Perhaps they are waiting for the AFRL to report back to find out if there is the possibility of a valuable future customer for the technology.....
Quote from: t43562 on 03/21/2015 01:02 pmI used to think RR might take REL over at some point, but now I just wonder why they haven't already. .....
Their long term worries, according to the speaker (John Whurr), are that distributed propulsion will make it more sensible for the airframer to also build the engines, since they will be so intricately integrated, and that there wont' be the option of buying from a range of engine manufacturers. i.e. that their raison d'etre will disappear.
So SABRE seems like rather a diversion to me.....but.... he did mention that they do some degree research into cryogenic engines, hydrogen as a fuel (my terminology is probably all wrong). Anyhow I pricked my ears up because that sounded a little like SABRE.To me it seems more logical that RR might have an interest in using precoolers for engines other than SABRE. It would certainly be a trick that others might find hard to copy.
Quote from: t43562 on 03/21/2015 08:39 pmTheir long term worries, according to the speaker (John Whurr), are that distributed propulsion will make it more sensible for the airframer to also build the engines, since they will be so intricately integrated, and that there wont' be the option of buying from a range of engine manufacturers. i.e. that their raison d'etre will disappear."Distributed propulsion"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_propulsionWhat specifically did he mean by the term?
Quote from: t43562 on 03/21/2015 08:39 pmSo SABRE seems like rather a diversion to me.....but.... he did mention that they do some degree research into cryogenic engines, hydrogen as a fuel (my terminology is probably all wrong). Anyhow I pricked my ears up because that sounded a little like SABRE.To me it seems more logical that RR might have an interest in using precoolers for engines other than SABRE. It would certainly be a trick that others might find hard to copy. Then you'd be talking about REL's work on the EU funded LAPCAT project for M5 airliners.
Other market applications for the technologies that we have been developing include but are not limited to improving the efficiency of ground-based heat engine cycles for power production, reducing infra-red signatures in engine exhausts, increasing the performance of automotive engines through improved waste heat recovery, higher performing air-conditioning and refrigeration systems for civil and industrial applications such as for LPG shipping, and increasing the efficiency of cooling for electrical and nuclear power systems.
As I understood him, it meant all sorts of combinations of propulsors, engines and batteries ranging from engines with mechanical transmission to their distributed propulsors to fully electric aircraft with lots of battery storage.
It seems odd that something could help the efficiency of ground based automotive engines but have no value to aircraft engines at all, at least in theory if weight was not a problem and cost could be reduced.
So I am wondering if Mach 5 Lapcat isn't a sort of distraction from some other more conventional use for precoolers?
I'm going to a talk entitled "Precooled propulsion – key to 21st century spaceflight" by Richard Varvill of REL tomorrow. I will try and either record audio or make notes to post here, but does anyone have any burning questions that I might attempt to put to him?