World’s Largest Jet Engine Makes Maiden Flight

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
GE Aviation began testing the GE9X at an airstrip this week in Victorville, California. It is currently the world’s largest jet engine and is destined for the Boeing 777X, the company’s next-generation wide-body passenger jet. The engine incorporates a 134-inch fan and can push 100,000 pounds of thrust.

GE Aviation says it has over 700 orders on the books for the GE9X from customers that include Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Lufthansa, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways. Currently, the company is working on the backup electrical system for the 777X while the GE9X continues with several more months of flight tests to determine altitude performance as well as during other flight phases.
 
M76 said:
That is really a monster. 314cm fan diameter. Damn.
Click to expand...

It is, but it is less powerful than the most powerful variant (115B) of the GE90 series that it is derived from.
 
Interesting.

So, looking at the numbers, they are

GE90 (-110B1/-113B/-115B)
  • Takeoff Thrust: 110,760 lbf / 113,530 lbf / 115,540 lbf
  • Weight: 8,762kg
  • Bypass Ratio: 9:1
  • Pressure ratio: 42:1
  • Thrust-to-weight ratio: 5.98
GE9X
  • Takeoff Thrust: 105,000 lbf
  • Weight: ???
  • Bypass Ratio: 10:1
  • Pressure ratio: 60:1
  • Thrust-to-weight ratio: ???
  • 10% more efficient than GE90

No weight listed, but claims of it being 'light'.
I am guessing it's lighter than it looks, but probably not as light as the PR department hoped it would be.
Alternatively, the weight isn't finalized and the lawyers don't want to give any specific numbers just yet.
 
Saw that picture and wondered if they could replace the four engines on a 747 with 2 of those monsters. Quick research shows 2 large engine have less thrust then 4 normal engines but might be a near wash if 1 large weighs enough less then 2 normal and/or has less overall drag.
 
If you know an ENT needing a new place to practice, sounds like Victorville will be a good place to set up shop (and yeah I lived there a year once when I was a kid, no desire to go back).
 
Dead Parrot said:
Saw that picture and wondered if they could replace the four engines on a 747 with 2 of those monsters. Quick research shows 2 large engine have less thrust then 4 normal engines but might be a near wash if 1 large weighs enough less then 2 normal and/or has less overall drag.
Click to expand...

777 houses the previous large GE engine(2x) and it's almost the 747 replacement (Almost)
If sitting on a 777 sit as fucking far as you can from those engines, I had a flight to tokyo from Heathrow London next to one of those noisemakers and I tried bose noise cancellation, earplugs and what not and it was absolutely horrible.
 
Mega6 said:
Yes, there is always room for an Afterburner. :happy:
Click to expand...

Somebody should've called me. I'd only volunteer if I get free burritos.
hqdefault.jpg
 
ole-m said:
777 houses the previous large GE engine(2x) and it's almost the 747 replacement (Almost)
If sitting on a 777 sit as fucking far as you can from those engines, I had a flight to tokyo from Heathrow London next to one of those noisemakers and I tried bose noise cancellation, earplugs and what not and it was absolutely horrible.
Click to expand...
I was in the back 1/4 section of a 777 flying from Washington D.C. to Beijing and back. I didn't get any sleep at all.
 
Over 16,000kms projected travel distance for the 777X... I could fly from here in Calgary to Perth without a layover! :jawdrop:
 
Dead Parrot said:
Saw that picture and wondered if they could replace the four engines on a 747 with 2 of those monsters. Quick research shows 2 large engine have less thrust then 4 normal engines but might be a near wash if 1 large weighs enough less then 2 normal and/or has less overall drag.
Click to expand...

Even if they could, there's the issue that certain use cases demand a 4 engine plane for redundancy reasons.

lazz said:
Over 16,000kms projected travel distance for the 777X... I could fly from here in Calgary to Perth without a layover! :jawdrop:
Click to expand...

And that's what should have been a use case for a Concord replacement. Go the first 1,000kms sub-sonic while over land and then let it rip the rest of the way.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Saw that picture and wondered if they could replace the four engines on a 747 with 2 of those monsters. Quick research shows 2 large engine have less thrust then 4 normal engines but might be a near wash if 1 large weighs enough less then 2 normal and/or has less overall drag.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a redesign of the entire wing would be needed, which simply wouldn't be worth the cost. Better off just selling a brand new plane with 2 engines.
 
MrDeaf said:
Interesting.

So, looking at the numbers, they are

GE90 (-110B1/-113B/-115B)
  • Takeoff Thrust: 110,760 lbf / 113,530 lbf / 115,540 lbf
  • Weight: 8,762kg
  • Bypass Ratio: 9:1
  • Pressure ratio: 42:1
  • Thrust-to-weight ratio: 5.98
GE9X
  • Takeoff Thrust: 105,000 lbf
  • Weight: ???
  • Bypass Ratio: 10:1
  • Pressure ratio: 60:1
  • Thrust-to-weight ratio: ???
  • 10% more efficient than GE90

No weight listed, but claims of it being 'light'.
I am guessing it's lighter than it looks, but probably not as light as the PR department hoped it would be.
Alternatively, the weight isn't finalized and the lawyers don't want to give any specific numbers just yet.
Click to expand...

The bigger you make the fan, the greater the air mixing, and less the losses due to jet wash. Jet wash is the effect of jet thrust pushing air out of the way because of the pressure differential. When you lower the overall pressure differential and increase the area your overall thrust is the same, but it's more efficient because you're pushing against a large surface mass of air versus a tiny one with a higher pressure.

Thrust = delta P * cross area
 
Ihaveworms said:
I was in the back 1/4 section of a 777 flying from Washington D.C. to Beijing and back. I didn't get any sleep at all.
Click to expand...
Quite puzzling that you are experiencing this. Usually the larger the engine and less pressure differential, the quieter it gets.
 
Teenyman45 said:
Even if they could, there's the issue that certain use cases demand a 4 engine plane for redundancy reasons.
Click to expand...

General rule is you have to be able to make a safe takeoff and landing with 1/2 your engines gone once you get past the abort point.
 
lazz said:
Over 16,000kms projected travel distance for the 777X... I could fly from here in Calgary to Perth without a layover! :jawdrop:
Click to expand...

That distance is effectively ferry range. There might be London-AU flights in light density configurations with the 777-800LR but I personally doubt it. If there is, expect it to got cost more than a 1 stop first class ticket.
 
Teenyman45 said:
Even if they could, there's the issue that certain use cases demand a 4 engine plane for redundancy reasons.
Click to expand...

There is basically no commercially viable flight path that cannot be handled by current ETOPS rules with twin engine planes. And considering the fact that 4 engine planes now operate under the ETOPS regime, there is no difference.
 
Teenyman45 said:
And that's what should have been a use case for a Concord replacement. Go the first 1,000kms sub-sonic while over land and then let it rip the rest of the way.
Click to expand...


It's very hard to design a plane that is optimal for both subsonic and supersonic flight, the aerodynamic requirements are quite different
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top