When you put energy into a mass of air you impart energy of 1/2 MV^2, the kinetic energy equation, which you can think of as the energy you're leaving in the air as it's accelerated to a given velocity on exhaust from the engine. The V^2 part is a killer. This does not translate directly into momentum at all and the most energy efficient way to gain momentum is with a large mass that's accelerated to a low velocity. You can actually see this with the wings which keep the plane itself up. The wings impart enough momentum to hold the weight of the aircraft up by moving a lot of air at relatively low velocity which sacrifices very little energy for the upwards momentum gained.
So engines in aircraft have been getting bigger and bigger as well as slower and slower. It's basic physics, aiming to move as high of a mass at as low of a practical velocity as possible. The 737 max issues were an example of adding giant engines to an airframe not originally built for them due to the drive to move as much air at as low of a velocity as possible while still keeping the plane moving forwards. Passenger aircraft have been getting slower over the years, the 747 was faster than the newer 787's because we're looking for efficiency above all else these days. Going open bladed makes a lot of sense as we go further down this path.
If you think about what a plane does to keep itself up, it sweeps through a curtain of air which ends up blowing downwards.
In a second it must blow down a large volume of air with enough speed to equal the impulse created by gravity in a second.
Basically m_air × v_down = m_plane × gravity × time
The energy you need to do this is the same quadratic, 1/2 m_air × v_down^2
A larger volume of air with a smaller v_down (a huge curtain of air of a fast plane with very wide wings) is more efficient then the smaller disk of air with high velocity of a helicopter.
But if the plane isn't moving forward the curtain has no volume and the plane stalls and falls. But helicopters have no trouble lifting off vertically.