Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

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

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

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

Old 5th Jan 2019, 07:20
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 446
Originally Posted by porch monkey View Post
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 for more photo's.
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 09:09
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Doha
Posts: 14
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
HowardB is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 09:14
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by Photonic View Post
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.

DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 11:02
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 54
Posts: 643
Folding wings

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
BluSdUp is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 11:43
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 1,132
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.
cattletruck is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 11:53
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 1,137
Slightly less powerful (and far more efficient) than it's predecessor is it not?
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 15:36
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by Vernand View Post
Awesome engine, its so big it probably creates lift at certain angles.

mcas......................
hans brinker is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 20:47
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 528
Ahhh yes, the folding wingtip version

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.
GS-Alpha is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 20:55
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,928
Originally Posted by Una Due Tfc View Post
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.
tdracer is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 11:55
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
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.
theNotoriousPIC is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 17:35
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Middle East
Posts: 269
How could Popular Mechanics get their base info about the 777X so wrong? This aircraft isn't even close to Boeing's biggest aircraft.
ATCO1962 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 18:19
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Doha, Qatar
Age: 49
Posts: 391
Originally Posted by ATCO1962 View Post
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)
casablanca is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 18:39
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by casablanca View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 19:18
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: CA >>> NV
Posts: 138
What speed are the fan blade tips traveling at full power?
IBMJunkman is online now  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 19:20
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 73
Posts: 79
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?
NWA SLF is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 20:25
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,929
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
lomapaseo is online now  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 20:32
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 9,137
Originally Posted by IBMJunkman View Post
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).
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 20:50
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,019
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
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.
WHBM is online now  
Old 7th Jan 2019, 12:21
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: CA >>> NV
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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!
IBMJunkman is online now  
Old 7th Jan 2019, 13:36
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by IBMJunkman View Post
What speed are the fan blade tips traveling at full power?
Less than sonic you can be sure of that.
Buster15 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.