# World's biggest jet engine takes off



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 16, 2018)

footage has revealed the moment that the world's biggest jet engine took to the skies for the first time, ahead of its planned maiden commercial flight in 2020.

The huge GE9X powerplant, which is as wide and tall as the fuselage of a Boeing 737, is being built for the latest version of the firm's long-haul 777, the 777X 'megaplane'.

General Electric has now begun flight trials of the prototype, after delays caused by technical problems stopped tests originally planned for late last year.

The GE9X was attached to the plane alongside smaller engines to allow engineers to put it through the motions of flight without risking the safety of passengers onboard.

It features a massive fan stretching 134 inches in diameter, more than 11 feet, and fits into a 14-and-a-half-foot nacelle. 



A special Boeing 747 test aircraft flew from Victorville, California, for four hours with the new GE9X engine mounted under its left wing, dwarfing the plane's three other engines.






The engine will eventually power the 777X, a plane that will have the widest wingspan of any aircraft: 235 feet, five inches (71.8 metres), making it wider than four 53-foot (16-metre) semi-truck trailers parked end to end.

It is so big, Boeing has developed hinges on its wingtips. The hinges will fold up, allowing the plane to shorten its wingspan when it's rolling across airport taxiways, the first design of its kind on any commercial airliner.

The hinged wingtips will measure 12 feet, and locking pins will prevent them from folding during flight, Boeing told CNN.

Inside, the 777-9X will seat at least 400 passengers, 34 more than the 777-9X's competitor - the Airbus A350-1000.

The 777-9X cabin will be 16 inches (40 centimeters) wider than the A350-1000, Boeing says, allowing economy-class seat widths up to 18 inches (46 centimeters).










Boeing asked General Electric to develop an engine strong enough to power its 777X aircraft family, a new version of the 777 'mini-jumbo' with up to 406 seats.

It will have the largest front fan in the world, GE says, at 134 inches (11 feet) in diameter, while its inlet duct measures 18 feet (215 inches) by 12 feet (145 inches).  

Ultra heat-resistant materials known as ceramic matrix composites (CMC) in the combustor and turbine can operate at temperatures up to 1,300°C (2,400°F).






This allows the firm's engineers to keep the heat higher inside the engine, without having to burn through fuel or emissions. 

The advancement in 3D printing has also contributed to this cutting-edge engine, by allowing engineers to create more complex shapes, which were once impossible - including 3D printed fuel nozzles. 

The new GE9X engine has 16 fourth-generation carbon-fibre fan blades at the front of the engine and feed air to the 11-stage high-pressure compressor. According to the firm, no other commercial engine has a pressure ration (27:1) that's higher.

Engineers also installed a fourth fuel tank to keep the engine from going thirsty.

Although GE9X has an impressive thrust generator of 100,000, the engine's predecessor, the GE90-115B, holds the record of 127,500 pounds.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 16, 2018)

You could drive a bus into that engine, I believe!


----------



## Divide Overflow (Mar 16, 2018)

I can imagine the pilot doing donuts on taxi tests.


----------



## natr0n (Mar 16, 2018)

It's like the plane only worksout its left bicep.


----------



## INSTG8R (Mar 16, 2018)

natr0n said:


> It's like the plane only worksout its left bicep.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 16, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> You could drive a bus into that engine, I believe!



. Its front fan spans a full 11 feet in diameter (3.35 meters), a world record. The engine also has 3D printed fuel nozzles and the most extensive use of parts made from lightweight and ultra heat-resistant materials called ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) 

The engine also includes fourth-generation carbon-fibre fan blades at the front of the engine that feed air into an 11-stage high-pressure compressor with a 27:1 pressure ratio, which also boosts the engine’s efficiency. No other commercial engine in service has a pressure ratio that’s higher.


----------



## Flogger23m (Mar 17, 2018)

The 777X series will also use folding wingtips, a first in commercial aviation. This is in order to keep the wingspan within a certain classification. I suppose if it was bigger it would fit into the same class as an A380? 

Boeing is also going to get to work on the 797, a spiritual 767 and 757 replacement. After that it seems like in the 2020s they will get to work to (finally!) replace the 737 series. Boeing an GE will sure be busy. 

Rolls Royce... well I suppose they better fix their blade cracking and disintegrating engines!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 17, 2018)

I can't stop laughing at those pictures.  It's so wrong.

That said, I wonder if GE has long term plans to install these on the 747.  Airlines have complained that they can't install bigger, more efficient engines on the platform.  GE maybe created the solution.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Mar 17, 2018)

Flogger23m said:


> Rolls Royce... well I suppose they better fix their blade cracking and disintegrating engines!


The metallurgy required to create those blades is incredible and the new ones are basically a single crystal grown to that shape, so when there's the slightest flaw, the cracking is a real problem


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 17, 2018)

Nuckles56 said:


> basically a single crystal grown to that shape,




link please


----------



## Xzibit (Mar 17, 2018)

Okay, I have to ask even if its stupid. If they had to 





> Engineers also installed a fourth fuel tank to keep the engine from going thirsty.


 for a 4hr test flight with just one. Wont they have to re-work the plane platform design


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 17, 2018)

Im sitting here hoping they went to 110 % on that one and shut the other 3 down.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Mar 17, 2018)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> link please


When I get to my desktop I'll find one for you


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 17, 2018)

Can you imagine four of those monsters on a 747?


----------



## RejZoR (Mar 17, 2018)

[ANTONOV LAUGHS IN CYRILLIC]


----------



## qubit (Mar 17, 2018)

That is one big mf engine. 

Notice how it's pointing upwards a bit? I reckon they've done that to stop it scraping the ground due to its size. I presume the 777x wings sit higher so won't need to do this.

These engines really are enormous. I stood next to a Trent 800 or Trent 1000 in a museum a while back - huge engines. Awesomely impressive.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 17, 2018)

looks like these idiots will have a harder time doing stupid things with this plane taking off...or will atleast have to start wearing life vests


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 17, 2018)

Is this what people ment when saying one of my engines is bigger than yours.

I need 3 of then for my car. One on root anf one on both sides


----------



## Norton (Mar 17, 2018)

Testing what a low quality post sign looks like in this thread

Stick to the subject folks...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 17, 2018)

lets not make work for the mods please guys, im sure they are all trying to enjoy the qualifying session for Motogp just like me and could do without the distraction.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Mar 17, 2018)

@CAPSLOCKSTUCK Here you go, and I have to apologise, they aren't grown as a single crystal, they're cast as one instead. Engines have been using them for actually a lot longer that one might expect.
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-single-crystal-turbine-blade/
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/each-blade-a-single-crystal


----------



## repman244 (Mar 17, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I can't stop laughing at those pictures.  It's so wrong.
> 
> That said, I wonder if GE has long term plans to install these on the 747.  Airlines have complained that they can't install bigger, more efficient engines on the platform.  GE maybe created the solution.



The way I see it, a lot of airlines are moving away from 4 engined aicrafts, and at the current production rate for the 747-800 the production may stop in 4 years due to no orders.
The point of having 4 engines is that you have no ETOPS limit - so I doubt anyone will aim for a twin engine 747 if you have 777 with huge amount of orders.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 17, 2018)

repman244 said:


> The way I see it, a lot of airlines are moving away from 4 engined aicrafts, and at the current production rate for the 747-800 the production may stop in 4 years due to no orders.
> The point of having 4 engines is that you have no ETOPS limit - so I doubt anyone will aim for a twin engine 747 if you have 777 with huge amount of orders.


On top of that, most of the worlds airlines are ending their use.  Most of U.S. airlines already have quietly had their last 747 flights.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 17, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> On top of that, most of the worlds airlines are ending their use.  Most of U.S. airlines already have quietly had their last 747 flights.



The last US based one ceased operating on 3 Jan 2018

plenty of operators still fly them though


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 17, 2018)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> plenty of operators still fly them though


Yeah, but the dodo is rearing his head.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 17, 2018)

i dont know how many still fly in total but these at least will  use them for a while.



British Airways still operates 36 of the 747-400, but plans to retire the jumbo jet by 2024. It flies to several US cities, including on the busy London Heathrow–New York-JFK route. 

KLM has announced plans to retire its 747-400 fleet, there's no publically-announced timeline. The airline still flies the plane on a few routes, including Los Angeles–Amsterdam. 

Air China flies two variations of the 747: the -400, and the newer -8. Catch it to Beijing from US cities including New York and San Francisco. 

Asiana operates several 747s on its routes, including a few to the US 

El Al operates six 747-400s, servicing cities including New York, London, and Paris. 

Lufthansa's 747-400 and 747-8 fly between Frankfurt and cities including Orlando, Seattle, Denver, Boston, Houston, and New York's Newark airport. 

Korean Air flies the 747-400 and 747-8 on some of its US routes, although many are serviced by the A380. The 747 operates on some flights from Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and occasionally New York.

Qantas is in the process of retiring its 747 fleet to make way for Boeing 787 Dreamliners


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 18, 2018)

repman244 said:


> The way I see it, a lot of airlines are moving away from 4 engined aicrafts, and at the current production rate for the 747-800 the production may stop in 4 years due to no orders.
> The point of having 4 engines is that you have no ETOPS limit - so I doubt anyone will aim for a twin engine 747 if you have 777 with huge amount of orders.


The 777 is so much more efficient than the 747.  Remember, fuel consumption is the main cost (outside of aircraft purchase price) airlines incur.  You can likely operate two or three 777s for the price of one 747.

The problem with upgrading the 747 is that the engines are too close to the ground to install bigger, more efficient engines.  777, on the other hand, was designed for massive engines from the start.

If Boeing could reasonably fit bigger engines on 747 they could introduce a new version of it and court new orders.  Then again, it might make more economical sense to go completely back to the drawing board and make a new aircraft altogether.  I don't think this seems likely though because orders for the A380 are dwindling too (apparently it isn't profitable for Airbus):
https://airwaysmag.com/industry/a-l...airbus-a380-and-boeing-747-orders-deliveries/


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 18, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The problem with upgrading the 747 is that the engines are too close to the ground to install bigger, more efficient engines.


I think this very article, and the flight it depicted, has proven otherwise.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Mar 18, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> I think this very article, and the flight it depicted, has proven otherwise.


For permanent usage, I think the engine would be too close to the ground and as a result have too high a risk of FOD


----------



## lexluthermiester (Mar 18, 2018)

Nuckles56 said:


> and as a result have too high a risk of FOD


FOD?


----------



## lZKoce (Mar 18, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> FOD?



Foreign object debris, I think. It is anything that has fallen on the tarmak: suitcase lock, zipper, lighter , anything. Guys working on the airport has a constant duty when walking/driving if they see something like this to pick it up and get it out of the tarmak.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 18, 2018)

The Meds i'm on when taken in conjunction with Alcohol give me weird dreams

here is a weird Idea
Variable Pitch Moter mounts (hear me Out )

Mount upgraded Engines as that picture shows
+ Points Reduces Foreign Object Debris ingestion FOD
Increase's Downward thrust for Shorter take off's
Engine Mounts adjust Pitch for Normal Level flight and increase level thrust
Should not be that Hard to retro engineer ( and before you knock the idea think back to concorde's nose ).


----------



## repman244 (Mar 18, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The 777 is so much more efficient than the 747.  Remember, fuel consumption is the main cost (outside of aircraft purchase price) airlines incur.  You can likely operate two or three 777s for the price of one 747.
> 
> The problem with upgrading the 747 is that the engines are too close to the ground to install bigger, more efficient engines.  777, on the other hand, was designed for massive engines from the start.
> 
> ...



Looking at fuel cost/consumption alone the 777 is NOT more efficient. The -300ER burns around 7,3 tons of fuel per hour which comes down to around $10500 per hour (~$28 per seat).
The 747-8i/F burns around 8,8 tons of fuel resulting to around $25 per seat of fuel burn.

But that is only a small part of the story - since when you factor in the costs of operating and most importantly - maintenance costs it quite often looses against the 777.
It also comes down to routes/airports it's being operated at - which is the main factor why 4 engine aircrafts still exist.

There are however still many many more factors that come into play (ever noticed that not all 747-800 have winglets? Yes it's an option and it does NOT bring profit to everyone like general public thinks it does - there are downsides as well) which you get to know if you work in aviation. The amount of manpower and paperwork that keeps these things in the air is just mind boggling.


----------



## yotano211 (Mar 18, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> You could drive a bus into that engine, I believe!


Not if the engine is on, I hope.


----------

