From 1938 actually....
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4e6fb24db4.jpg

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

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

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

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/ar...r-issu-460379/

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

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/ar...o-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-co...85075200_n.jpg

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

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 :)

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.

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.

Shipping The GE9X Engine
 

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=4PMJ...ature=youtu.be

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.

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.

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

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."

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/...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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.;)

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....ad781b336c.jpg


Here is the route:

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....471e3eb953.png