The Biggest Jet Engines in History Are Finally Ready to Power Boeing's Biggest Plane

[FlyXLsa]

Boeing is set to debut its biggest plane ever next month, and the 777X has finally been paired with the gargantuan GE9X engine that will propel its flight.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1794x1090/dwfxombu8aaknml_59aee438478e43b338f2b34dce5ade5e1281cd33.jpg


https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a25749178/boeing-ge9x-777x-photos/

[DaveReidUK]

I think we might have known that already. :O

[tdracer]

Boeing is reportedly planning to roll it out in the next month or two, which I suspect many don't know.

[FlyXLsa]

I think we might have known that already. :O

Yeah but the PICTURE impressed me. :)

[Imagegear]

Ahhh yes, the folding wingtip version :eek:

I don't care what the brochure says, that alone will keep me off the jet. At least the 787 gets there, even if it is with a numbum.

IG

[tdracer]

Ahhh yes, the folding wingtip version :eek:

I don't care what the brochure says, that alone will keep me off the jet. At least the 787 gets there, even if it is with a numbum.

IG

Better stay off those with retractable landing gear and moveable flaps too. You know what deathtraps those have proven to be.

[DaveReidUK]

Better stay off those with retractable landing gear and moveable flaps too. You know what deathtraps those have proven to be.

I think there's a fairly crucial distinction between bits that are intended to move in flight and those that aren't meant to. :O

[ironbutt57]

I think there's a fairly crucial distinction between bits that are intended to move in flight and those that aren't meant to. :O


but these are "meant to be"

[DaveReidUK]

but these are "meant to be"

Yes, but the comparison was between those and folding wingtips, that aren't.

Do try to keep up. :O

[tdracer]

It's a lot easier to keep things from moving in flight that aren't supposed to move, than to keep things moving in flight from moving when they're not supposed (or moving contrary to how they're supposed to)

[tartare]

The SLUF and 'toom flew with wings folded.
The Tomcat could fly with asymmetric sweep.
So even in the event of pilot error, or some type of mechanical failure, surely there's no in flight worries about the new triple 7's last three metres on each side?
I'd be more concerned about the person sitting in Seat 0A forgetting to fold `em coming into the gate, and trading paint with someone or something else.
And no doubt there'd be all sorts of alarms and things to stop that happening...

[Photonic]

I think there's a fairly crucial distinction between bits that are intended to move in flight and those that aren't meant to. :O
C'mon, the USN was flying fighters with folding wings off carriers in WW2. I think they've probably worked out the kinks by now! :)

[EEngr]

Ahhh yes, the folding wingtip version :eek:
Folding wings? That's just some sort of crazy science fiction.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1351/2004_l_00265_394fbc6e29f860fcb8bafce6ed1f1951d0185ea2.jpg

[Vernand]

Awesome engine, its so big it probably creates lift at certain angles.

[tartare]

Don't get too close though... :sad:

[lomapaseo]

Awesome engine, its so big it probably creates lift at certain angles.

hope so, it helps to know which way the loads are on the pylon when something breaks

[Capn Bloggs]

Nice cap...

Awesome engine, its so big it probably creates lift at certain angles.
Ouch!! :) :)

[kristofera]

The folding wingtip thing makes me wonder: will we at some point see large aircraft with tandem wings?

What would be the disadvantages with a forward mounted tandem wing instead of extending the wingspan?

More structural parts needed to mount the wings, more drag, forward wing possibly interfering with airflow to engines at certain AoA, what else...? Any advantages that could make it happen?

[porch monkey]

EEngr. Great picture. What a magnificent machine. I've never seen that photo before. You got any more?

[DHC4]

Composite fan blades on a metal tube, what will they think of next.

[CurtainTwitcher]

EEngr. Great picture. What a magnificent machine. I've never seen that photo before. You got any more?
Try this google reverse image search link HERE (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZivuM8mYfoN4xnR0RrojrPNcWP3gL3ax2etjiFCZw F7FgOOyb4ufkwcP8I2Ntf-tAimaAfL8mo-HjxtO3sKxwJ6qO115elDRohaG5wnxZA00Wg7Auo9heFMDLSwsisXtgcyvw2O DvBy4J0CI5cboOL-bTwkYcT85E2bHSnhYOZs-qYLtt2lvt94v4d_1ic28XdFd4m6FgtsX1QE3MYeeyVmKHHdlHabMtEIGsl5G ImDFFtjoX9kbW-1qB8ACBM1R4ClMmfyP6cDi2IxienJKiI7CzFotHQhPW30hWDHxPX39Fjd7Jo LihrXm2PnaS_1MfAociKW5-3&hl=en-AU) for more photo's.

[HowardB]

Maybe the drawing FlyXKsa posted is a hint from Boeing about the design of their new 797. It is to be powered by a de-rated single GE90 built into the fuselage..... after all if Cirus can do it, why not Boeing? We can look forward to the videos of their giant airframe parachute system being tested.
Happy New Year to all Ppruners from a member of the SLF team

[DaveReidUK]

C'mon, the USN was flying fighters with folding wings off carriers in WW2. I think they've probably worked out the kinks by now!

Well most of the time. :O

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/278x259/yccbm6sgf6nhnqiiht9les8x1fimookhzrtsm9sgzos_580919dfa8f70d90 e55c1335a68244ec87e6c776.jpg

[BluSdUp]

Wiffy says ": Ah , just another thing that can go wrong!"
And she is an Domestic Engineer.

Oh and Boeing, do us a favor , connect it to the TakeOff Config Warning
Just in case.
Gone fishing
Watching the Eagles
Cpt B

[cattletruck]

The original B777 prototype had folding wings tips. I believe it was meant to be an optional extra, not sure if anyone ordered it. I guess it will just serve to further complicate all that line graffiti around the terminal area.

And yes, that is an impressively big engine.

[Una Due Tfc]

Slightly less powerful (and far more efficient) than it's predecessor is it not?

[hans brinker]

Awesome engine, its so big it probably creates lift at certain angles.


mcas......................

[GS-Alpha]

Ahhh yes, the folding wingtip version https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif

I don't care what the brochure says, that alone will keep me off the jet. At least the 787 gets there, even if it is with a numbum.

Better avoid anything with reverse thrust too, just to be sure.

[tdracer]

Slightly less powerful (and far more efficient) than it's predecessor is it not?

Yes, around 105k lbs. max thrust vs. around 115k for the GE90-115B. In spite of the larger aircraft, they think the improved fuel burn will mean carrying less fuel and a lower MTO than the -300ER for the same range. Hence less Max TO thrust required.

Cattletruck, the original 777 had folding wings as an option, but no one ever ordered it and no flyable 777s were ever built with the feature. I suspect there were some structural provisions in the early build wings, but those were quietly removed to save weight as it became apparent no one was going to order the folding wings. The original folding wing was far more complex than what is being used for the 777X - the original folded where there were still flaps and such (and hence hydraulics) outboard of the fold point. On the 777X, the folding portion is outboard of any movable aerodynamic surfaces - hence no hydraulics outboard, just some electrical wiring for the collision lights and such.
IIRC, the original 777 folding wing was to get the 777 into the same gate size as a 767. The 777X folding wing is simply to get the X into the same gate size as the 777-300ER.

[theNotoriousPIC]

Yes, around 105k lbs. max thrust vs. around 115k for the GE90-115B. In spite of the larger aircraft, they think the improved fuel burn will mean carrying less fuel and a lower MTO than the -300ER for the same range. Hence less Max TO thrust required.


That is fascinating, and a true testament to progress. It's not about making it bigger, but making it better.

[ATCO1962]

How could Popular Mechanics get their base info about the 777X so wrong? This aircraft isn't even close to Boeing's biggest aircraft.

[casablanca]

How could Popular Mechanics get their base info about the 777X so wrong? This aircraft isn't even close to Boeing's biggest aircraft.
I understand it too mean the biggest engines( not biggest jet)....but then reread and it says biggest( maybe longest but not biggest)

[DaveReidUK]

I understand it too mean the biggest engines (not biggest jet)....but then reread and it says biggest (maybe longest but not biggest)

To be fair, the article does qualify the statement by saying subsequently that it's Boeing's largest twin, which it obviously is.

That said, the 777X's length, span and (with the exception of the 747SP) height are all greater than any previous Boeing jet airliner.

[IBMJunkman]

What speed are the fan blade tips traveling at full power?

[NWA SLF]

tdracer - I see the max takeoff weights are the same for 777-300ER and 777-9. I didn't find published takeoff distance under standard conditions for the 777-9 - I assume they need to be confirmed by testing. With the same max weight and 10,000 pounds less thrust, shouldn't the takeoff distance be longer or does the large wing factor in with reduced takeoff speed? Boeing's video showing the first engine being mounted shows an airframe lacking a lot of missing parts. As a Boeing stockholder should I be concerned?

[lomapaseo]

Boeing's video showing the first engine being mounted shows an airframe lacking a lot of missing parts. As a Boeing stockholder should I be concerned?

NO, only as a passenger on the first flight

Think of it as more of a progress photo to calm the investors

[DaveReidUK]

What speed are the fan blade tips traveling at full power?

We're told that the GE9x has a higher tip speed than its predecessors, thanks to the redesigned blades and lower blade count.

Assuming a typical 2400 rpm at 100% N1, the tips of a 134" fan will be travelling at around 430 m/s (apologies for the mixed units).

[WHBM]

the original 777 had folding wings as an option, but no one ever ordered it and no flyable 777s were ever built with the feature. I suspect there were some structural provisions in the early build wings, but those were quietly removed to save weight as it became apparent no one was going to order the folding wings....IIRC, the original 777 folding wing was to get the 777 into the same gate size as a 767.
As I recall it from the early 1990s, the original 777 folding wingtips were specifically to get it into the domestic gates at Chicago O'Hare. Possibly elsewhere but that was the critical design driver. The idea was to fit where the DC-10/L-1011 fitted, on domestic flights from there to California, Florida, etc, of American, United, TWA and the others. The gates had been arranged to just about fit these types when originally introduced.

In just a few years that followed widebodies disappeared altogether from US domestic flights, initially from mid-Continent points like Chicago, and afterwards even from coast-to-coast flights. I don't think any 777s were ever configured and deployed wholly on US domestic flights. The requirements and mission of aircraft types do change notably over time, and particular features for particular markets do have a habit of not working out long term.

[IBMJunkman]

We're told that the GE9x has a higher tip speed than its predecessors, thanks to the redesigned blades and lower blade count.

Assuming a typical 2400 rpm at 100% N1, the tips of a 134" fan will be travelling at around 430 m/s (apologies for the mixed units).

So 961 mph or 1.24 Mach. That be fast!

[Buster15]

What speed are the fan blade tips traveling at full power?

Less than sonic you can be sure of that.

[Volume]

That's just some sort of crazy science fiction.
From 1938 actually....
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/882x648/d30waku04_a6a47f4ec69337dd1f756cb31f82a44e6fb24db4.jpg

And although the engine is the biggest, it is not the most powerful one.

[DaveReidUK]

Less than sonic you can be sure of that.

If you put money on that, you'd lose your bet.

[lomapaseo]

Less than sonic you can be sure of that.


More like a bull whip where just the tip goes sonic but the innards are moving more slowly

I was in a western act once as the dummy where the cowboy snapped the whip several times for effect and then lashed out at me and wrapped it around my body before the sonic tip finished up the wrap now much slower

[GordonR_Cape]

This article popped up on my newsfeed. Seems the GE9X engines are not quite ready yet. The logistics of moving them back to the factory are a story in itself: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ge-recalls-777x-turbofans-to-address-compressor-issu-460379/
GE Aviation is recalling four GE9X powerplants from Boeing to address a previously disclosed engine compressor issue that already forced Boeing to delay the 777X's first flight.

News of the recall surfaced in a 19 August regulatory filing with the US Department of Transportation (DOT) by Russia's Volga-Dnepr Airlines, which has applied for rights to fly the engines from Washington state to Ohio.

[atakacs]

Interesting that in this day and age they contracted the job with the "Russian" Antonov (vs Ukrainian).

[RTM Boy]

I fully appreciate the complexities of modern aviation manufacturing and production, but phrases like 'more haste, less speed' and 'it looks like carelessness' keep popping into my head. GE has already told investors that having already faced a US$600 million cashflow hit so far, it could face a further US$800 million hit if the MAX remains grounded and faces further exposure through its aircraft leasing unit.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/31/ge-warns-of-cash-flow-hit-from-grounded-boeing-737-max.html

The GE9X problems pushing the first 777X flight into 2020 and deliveries perhaps into 2021 is not helpful to Boeing or GE cashflow, given the other problems. With 150 777Xs on order Emirates won't be pleased either.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ge9x-engine-issue-pushes-777x-first-flight-to-2020-459877/

I don't know why people are wary of folding wing tips. After all we have seen how Boeing takes as long as necessary to thoroughly test all aspects of new models and ensures crews are fully aware of and trained in all aspects of the monitoring, dynamics and control systems are thoroughly documented in every detail (including simulator training for all) with sensors that are multiply redundant, ensuring no unexpected malfunctions or system faults could arise to confuse crews or cause accidents, because safety comes first. I have every confidence that the folding wing tips will have been developed, tested and documented with training to be provided to the same high standards.

https://www.airlineratings.com/wp-content/uploads/uploads/67727574_2366540173422069_2198953247585075200_n.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting that in this day and age they contracted the job with the "Russian" Antonov (vs Ukrainian).

Perhaps their (Volga-Dnepr's) bid was cheaper than Antonov Airlines'.

[Turbine D]

Perhaps their bid was cheaper.
US-based airlines are unable to transport the massive GE9Xs, which ship on a stand measuring roughly 8 x 4 x 4m (26 x 14 x 13ft) and weighing 36,000lb (16,300kg). GE had used Antonov aircraft before to transport GE90s to Boeing in the early stages of the GE90 powered 777 program.

[WHBM]

US-based airlines are unable to transport the massive GE9Xs, which ship on a stand measuring roughly 8 x 4 x 4m (26 x 14 x 13ft) and weighing 36,000lb (16,300kg). GE had used Antonov aircraft before to transport GE90s to Boeing in the early stages of the GE90 powered 777 program.
What a good thing then the US in the Cold War had a longstanding political mutual-destruction standoff with the Soviets. The Antonov 124 heavy lifter was designed principally to move ICBMs around the country, to airfields where the comparably gargantuan Mil-12 helicopter would move individual ones to deployment sites in the forest. Incidentally, the An124 (first flight 1982) seems to have a wingspan actually greater than the 777X :)

[Turbine D]

Original post by RTM Boy:
I fully appreciate the complexities of modern aviation manufacturing and production, but phrases like 'more haste, less speed' and 'it looks like carelessness' keep popping into my head. GE has already told investors that having already faced a US$600 million cashflow hit so far, it could face a further US$800 million hit if the MAX remains grounded and faces further exposure through its aircraft leasing unit.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/31/ge-w...g-737-max.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/31/ge-warns-of-cash-flow-hit-from-grounded-boeing-737-max.html)

The GE9X problems pushing the first 777X flight into 2020 and deliveries perhaps into 2021 is not helpful to Boeing or GE cashflow, given the other problems. With 150 777Xs on order Emirates won't be pleased either.
The testing of engines on a test stand doesn't necessarily find all the problems that might exist in engines in the air. So GE identified a durability problem with a compressor stator vane that could have been a problem in certification testing or airline service during flight testing on GE's 747 test aircraft prior to the start Boeing's aircraft certification process. I don't consider that "carelessness" at all. I am sure Emirates is disappointed with the introduction delay, but pleased the problem was found before receiving and flying engines with this defective compressor vane.

I bet you Rolls Royce wishes they would discovered the sulfidation/corrosion problem on the Trent 1000 engine in the early stages of certification before having so many engines in revenue service with various airlines.

[The AvgasDinosaur]

US-based airlines are unable to transport the massive GE9Xs, which ship on a stand measuring roughly 8 x 4 x 4m (26 x 14 x 13ft) and weighing 36,000lb (16,300kg). GE had used Antonov aircraft before to transport GE90s to Boeing in the early stages of the GE90 powered 777 program.
May I suggest Boeing’s own B.744F derivative the ‘Boeing Dreamlifter’
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter
In house, designed and built by highly reputable company, verified by globally trusted Authority!
Be lucky
David

[Turbine D]

May I suggest Boeing’s own B.744F derivative the ‘Boeing Dreamlifter’
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter
In house, designed and built by highly reputable company, verified by globally trusted Authority!
Be lucky
David
Yes, but according to the article you posted:
It is an extensively modified Boeing 747-400 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400) that is used exclusively for transporting Boeing 787 Dreamliner (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner) aircraft components to Boeing's assembly plants from suppliers around the world.
No mention of the ability of transporting GE90 engines...

[4runner]

Merika has been folding wingtips since before World War II.

[atakacs]

Perhaps their (Volga-Dnepr's) bid was cheaper than Antonov Airlines'.
I guessed along those lines... But with the current feud going on between Ukraine and Russia and Antonov making their outmost to have the Volga Dnepr fleet grounded I am still surprised to see a US company contracting with them to fly within the US. Anyway a bit of a thread drift 🤔

[tdracer]

Turbine, I don't know about the GE9X, but you can transport a GE90 (or GEnx) in a 747F - the catch being you need to remove the fan module and ship it as two pieces. That's actually fairly easy with a GEnx due to the modular design, somewhat more involved with a GE90.
Boeing looked at making the Large Cargo Freighter - aka the 'Dreamlifter' - available 'for hire' for transporting outsized cargo. Two things killed that - first off it would have complicated the certification and operation of the LCF relative to having it dedicated to moving 787 bits (read more time and money). However the real show stopper was that the four LCFs are already booked pretty solid simply supporting 787 production. In fact, if one gets pranged (or worse) and is out of service for any length of time, it'll affect the 787 production rate.
I was in a meeting many moons ago where it was proposed that they contract to build a fifth LCF while the tooling and expertise was still available - where it was pointed out that only have four would be seriously limiting (especially if one got damaged). They got turned down because upper management didn't want to spend the money.

[Speed of Sound]

I was in a meeting many moons ago where it was proposed that they contract to build a fifth LCF while the tooling and expertise was still available - where it was pointed out that only have four would be seriously limiting (especially if one got damaged). They got turned down because upper management didn't want to spend the money.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I heard somewhere that Airbus’s Beluga fleet is hired out when not shuttling between Hamburg, Broughton, Toulouse and Madrid and that this contract work pretty much pays for their own movements.

Speculate to accumulate.

[Turbine D]

Here is a video that depicts shipping a GE9X engine from Victorville to Peebles, GE's outdoor testing facility in Ohio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PMJg-N0ICI&feature=youtu.be

[SeenItAll]

Given that GE manufactures these engines (to my knowledge) in Ohio, can someone tell me how are GE is planning on shipping them to Washington State for installation in 777X's when production actually gets going? I doubt it will be via AN-124s.

[DaveReidUK]

Given that GE manufactures these engines (to my knowledge) in Ohio, can someone tell me how are GE is planning on shipping them to Washington State for installation in 777X's when production actually gets going? I doubt it will be via AN-124s.

By road. At night.

[Turbine D]

Given that GE manufactures these engines (to my knowledge) in Ohio, can someone tell me how are GE is planning on shipping them to Washington State for installation in 777X's when production actually gets going? I doubt it will be via AN-124s.
It will be mainly by truck using the interstate highway system or other roads where clearances have been thoroughly checked out, day or night. If need be, engines can be shipped by heavy lift aircraft, e.g., AN-124s. This was done in the early days of the GE90 production to support Boeing's 777 aircraft schedules at the time.

[slacktide]

Boeing looked at making the Large Cargo Freighter - aka the 'Dreamlifter' - available 'for hire' for transporting outsized cargo. Two things killed that - first off it would have complicated the certification and operation of the LCF relative to having it dedicated to moving 787 bits (read more time and money).

I'm sure that you know this, but most people do not - the LCF has a restricted type certificate. Only cargo that supports Boeing business can be transported, and only the specific cargo that is documented in the FAA approved W&B manual may be carried. Engines most likely could not be approved to be carried because they contain flammable fluids, and the LCF does not have a main-deck cargo fire suppression system. Ref TCDS A20WE, section XIV. TCDS A20WE Rev 60 Boeing Company, The (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/B0676DA9B8B3349A86258412004798B6?OpenDocument)

Point of note, I personally detest that nickname "Dreamlifter". If the 747 is "Queen of the Sky", then the LCF is "Drag Queen of the Sky."

[SeenItAll]

It will be mainly by truck using the interstate highway system or other roads where clearances have been thoroughly checked out, day or night. If need be, engines can be shipped by heavy lift aircraft, e.g., AN-124s. This was done in the early days of the GE90 production to support Boeing's 777 aircraft schedules at the time.

A post above says that their carrier is 14 feet wide and 13 feet tall. While the 14 feet wide can be handled as special wide-load transport, 13 feet tall plus about 2 feet of truck bed height gives you a need for at least 15 feet of clearance. I don't know what interstates they travel on, but the ones that I travel on have a lot of bridges that don't exceed 14-some feet of clearance. It must end up being a pretty convoluted route.

See https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/data/tools/bridgeclearance/?feet=15&inches=&route=&include-non-mainline=false for the final push through Washington State.

[etudiant]

A post above says that their carrier is 14 feet wide and 13 feet tall. While the 14 feet wide can be handled as special wide-load transport, 13 feet tall plus about 2 feet of truck bed height gives you a need for at least 15 feet of clearance. I don't know what interstates they travel on, but the ones that I travel on have a lot of bridges that don't exceed 14-some feet of clearance. It must end up being a pretty convoluted route.

See https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/data/tools/bridgeclearance/?feet=15&inches=&route=&include-non-mainline=false for the final push through Washington State.

You are entirely correct, routing this kind of truly outsized cargo is a major effort and the Interstates are not useful generally, because they were designed with insufficient bridge clearance.
Often the convoy creeps through the countryside at very low speeds in the wee small hours, over some weeks. So leasing an An 124 is massively more efficient.
I think the airship delusion gets reinvigorated every time one of these big lumps must get moved from A to B.

[JLWSanDiego]

Rail? That's how they get the 737 fueselage from spirit

[Lord Farringdon]

Rail? That's how they get the 737 fuselage from spirit
Same problem as Interstate but even more restrictive as to gauge. eg tunnels, bridges, catenary systems. While 737 fuses might move this way (by the way, didn't they have a few come off the rails recently and go down an embankment nearly into a river?) the 737 fuse is a lot smaller in diameter than the G90. Just take a look at the picture that starts this thread.

[Water pilot]

It might not make it through the tunnels through the Cascades, which are already woefully inadequate for modern shipping needs. (US infrastructure lags the rest of the world, but I digress.) I suppose it is possible that they plan to ship it through the Panama Canal, that might end up being cost effective

[runner1021]

Surely you could squeeze a 9x into a C-5, no?

[atakacs]

You guys are quite funny.

Seriously is the C5 up for corporate chartering?

[tdracer]

You guys are quite funny.

Seriously in the C5 up for corporate chartering?

I don't think so. Maybe Boeing should have hung on to one of those last C-17s.
Educated guess is that they might ship the production GE9x as two modules (the fan module separate). The plan was to use a similar modular design to the GEnx, so it wouldn't add that much work to attach the fan to the rest after it arrived at final assembly. Certainly cheaper than charting an A124 for every single engine delivery.

[Winemaker]

Winemaker,

The two principle railroad tunnels are unsuitable (Stampede) and marginal at best (Cascade/Stevens Pass). The latter has been slightly enlarged but clearances are still quite close. I don't recall if the snow sheds on Snoqualmie would be limiting at all for this type of load.

There are no longer any snow sheds on Snoqualmie. It's now three lane through the pass, although, of course, there is always road work going on.

[Sevarg]

I guess an AIRBUS BELUGA is not PC for the job. I'm sure they would be only too pleased to do the job for Boeing.;)

[Smythe]

Winemaker, there is no rail through Snoq Pass any longer... the main rail line goes to Easton, then turns South through Lester...

the fuselage train goes through Stevens Pass..

Remember this?
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/580x326/1404609865000_boeingplane1_15b641c31b89d291defa0b6d377c8ead7 81b336c.jpg


Here is the route:

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1315x596/k5tyks_59a46180df33e3b58b7075f25fc4cf471e3eb953.png

[JimNtexas]

Well most of the time. :O

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/278x259/yccbm6sgf6nhnqiiht9les8x1fimookhzrtsm9sgzos_580919dfa8f70d90 e55c1335a68244ec87e6c776.jpg

A friend took off in an F-4 with one wing unlocked. The jet crashed just out the base. Fortunately both guys got out, but had a lot of explaining to do.