Singapore is turning its airports into real-world test environments for future aircraft engines, a move that could shape how the next generation of commercial jets is certified and operated worldwide. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, CFM International, and Airbus have signed an agreement to study and validate advanced propulsion systems in active airport operations, rather than in isolated test facilities.
The focus is on CFM’s Open Fan engine, a design expected to power future single-aisle aircraft entering service in the mid-2030s. Open Fan engines differ fundamentally from today’s turbofans. By removing the outer nacelle and using a much larger fan, the design improves efficiency and is expected to cut fuel burn and carbon emissions by more than 20%. However, the open architecture also raises practical questions for airports, including noise behavior, ground safety, aircraft parking clearances, maintenance procedures, and emergency response.
Under the agreement, these issues will be examined using Changi Airport and potentially Seletar Airport as live test sites. The work will cover the full aircraft cycle, from arrival and taxi to ground handling and departure, allowing regulators and operators to understand how the engines interact with existing airport systems. The aim is to develop a global readiness framework that other countries can use when next-generation engines enter service.
This framework will address aircraft design assumptions, airport infrastructure requirements, operating procedures, and certification pathways, reducing the risk of delays once new aircraft are introduced. CFM International, a 50:50 joint venture between GE Aerospace and Safran Aircraft Engines, sees the program as a step toward proving that Open Fan technology can work not just in flight, but in everyday airline operations. Airbus is closely involved as it studies its next-generation narrow-body aircraft, widely expected to be the first to use the new engine architecture.
Singapore’s role is driven by its dense and complex airport environment, where high-frequency regional flights, long-haul
services, cargo operations, and business aviation operate side by side. That mix makes it a practical test case for how future engines will perform under real-world conditions. “By preparing airports early, we can support the safe introduction of
new propulsion technologies globally,” CAAS Director-General Han Kok Juan said.
This type of engine was already tested at Mojave many decades ago by GE, I think, on their airborne test bed aircraft. They found that the noise, vibration and structural stress induced was unacceptable. Has physics changed in that time?
Wondering the same thing. It was supposed to revolutionize efficiency for aircraft.
No, but it is possible that engineering has.
No, but our understanding of physics, our ability to apply physics, materials science, computational fluid dynamics, finite element analysis, and a whole host of other engineering concepts has advanced tremendously since then. Mentour Now did a couple of great videos exploring the promise of new fan engines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojVNOj-q3SQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ek7vsyV1Eg
The UDF was ~40 years ago. Maybe composite technology and blade design have advanced enough since then that the solution is now viable?
Physics have not changed. How to handle physics has. How to maximize physics has changed considerably. C8 Corvette Z06 makes 670 normally aspirated hp out of 335 cubic inches, with 12.5 to 1 compression ratio, running on 91 octane pump gas. 40 years ago, impossible. 10 years ago, only in a race car for short duration. Today, 5 year/60k warranty, 25 mpg highway, 0-60 mph at 2.6 seconds, mid-ten second quarter mile time, 204 mph top end… in a production car… built in Bowling Green, KY by Americans. If anyone has $140k chop’s, they can put one in their garage. Certainly , an engineering marvel. But if the Chinese builds it????
Larry…Can we say some foreign predjudices might be involved in your comment “This type of engine was already tested at Mojave many decades ago by GE, I think, on their airborne test bed aircraft. They found that the noise, vibration and structural stress induced was unacceptable. Has physics changed in that time?”.?
The most efficient propeller, rotor, or fan is a single blade but then there is a balance issue. As more blades are added you lose efficiency as each blade moves through the turbulence of the previous blades. Adding more blades has its advantages but efficiency is not one of them. I fail to see how CFM’s open fan will fare any better than GE’s unducted fan project.
A single bladed prop may be a few percent more efficient than a double bladed prop, but the double is starting with twice the blade area – and you need blade area to produce thrust just as you need wing area to produce lift. More blades also allows for a smaller blade diameter, a significant consideration. Finding the right number of blades mat be counterintuitive – from Wiki’s article on the GE36, referencing the blade count on the two counter-rotating fans: