World's Largest Commercial Aircraft Engine Fired Up For The First Time (gizmag.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's Largest Commercial Aircraft Engine Fired Up For The First Time (gizmag.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @10:01PM from the world-record dept.

schwit1 quotes a report from Gizmag: With a front fan spreading a full 11 ft (3.35 m), the GE9X is a world record holder and generates thrust in the order of 100,000 lb. To accommodate the aeronautical behemoth, the Peebles facility was recently upgraded with a larger air intake, extra fuel tanks to feed the giant engine, and high temperature gear to deal with the hotter, more efficient design. GE says that the GE9X is currently undergoing its first Full Engine To Test (FETT). This is the next level of the test series, which began in 2011 at the component level, and marks the first test of the complete system, which comes only six months after the engine design was finalized. GE says that this relatively early testing was to ensure that the test data was available as soon as possible for the certification engines, which are scheduled to be installed in GE Aviation's flying test bed for certification of flight testing in 2018.

142 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Which airliners? by Noble713 · 2016-04-20 22:10 · Score: 2

Any word on what manufacturers are likely to employ this engine, and on what platforms? Maybe an upgrade for the giant Airbus A380 to keep it competitive?
1. Re:Which airliners? by Ginger+Unicorn · 2016-04-20 22:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  In the article is says the engine is designed for Boeing 777X's. Wikipedia says that the 777X won't have an option of engines from different manufacturers due to the expense and diminished efficiency of making a plane compatible with more than one engine, which possibly implies that this engine is bespoke to those planes and might not be as a good a fit for other platforms.
  
  --
  (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
2. Re:Which airliners? by fnj · 2016-04-20 22:21 · Score: 2
  
  Pretty sure four of these babies would be way too much thrust for any existing airliner. I'm pretty sure it's intended for the hipster gigantic two engine planes like the Boeing 777
3. Re:Which airliners? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-20 22:23 · Score: 0
  
  It's probably going to be used for larger twin-engine airliners, which tend to be more economical than four-engine airliners. My bet would be on a new long-haul airliner just slightly smaller than the 747, but whether it would be Boeing or Airbus I couldn't say.
4. Re:Which airliners? by Richard_at_work · 2016-04-20 22:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  GE won't put this engine on an Airbus aircraft, because they have a profit sharing stake in the Boeing 777 and 777X (literally, they funded some of the 777-300 and 777X development in order to have an engine monopoly on the type and a share of the profits of each one delivered) so they have a vested interest in not competing with themselves.
  Its been a sticking point for Airbus for several years - the A380 has an Engine Alliance engine option (which GE is part of), but EA have been extremely lackluster in moving that engine forward, to the point where their prestige customer (Emirates Airline) has defected to Rolls Royce with their latest orders.
  GE won't hang an engine off of the Airbus A350XWB either, because Airbus wants the entire series to be covered by any such engine option (originally, the A350XWB-800, -900 and -1000, now just the latter two as the -800 has been dropped) and GE wouldn't agree to that because the -1000 competes with the 777 and 777X.
  So the only manufacturer that will use this engine is Boeing.
5. Re:Which airliners? by Richard_at_work · 2016-04-20 22:58 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Wikipedia is wrong - the reason the 777X only has GE as a supplier is because GE and Boeing are carrying on their profit sharing investment agreement they started on the 777-300, giving GE a monopoly on the aircraft type in return for GE providing an investment and assuming some risk sharing on the aircraft itself, in addition to GE funding the engine development.
  The bits that are unique between different engine options on an aircraft are limited to:
  1. the pylon (although the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350XWB have common pylons for the engines, so thats not an issue any more)
  2. the design of the actual intake (some engines are designed around a shorter length intake, some are designed around longer length intakes - basically there's an optimal intake length for a given engine, but in actuality the engine intake design is often handed to the engine manufacturer which offers the better deal to the airframe manufacturer, so one engine will often be running at slightly less than optimal efficiency because its using an intake designed for its competitor).
  3. the engine control unit and engine management system code
  Beyond the above, an engine can be integrated onto another airframe easily enough - if you want to pay for the certification costs that is.
  The main thing which ties an engine type to a particular airframe however is the thrust rating - you want enough thrust for the airframe to do its job, but you don't want too much thrust ability in the engine as that costs weight (you need more or larger parts to move more air through the engine) - you can derate an engine, but that means the engine is not operating in its optimal efficiency band, so again you want a tweaked engine which does the job you are asking it to do.
6. Re:Which airliners? by Richard_at_work · 2016-04-20 23:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I will just add that a tweaked engine is just that, tweaked - it doesn't take all that much to take an engine intended for a thrust rating of 100K lb and tweak it to fit on an aircraft that needs a thrust rating of 95K lb, its not even the biggest job in hanging that engine off that new airframe.
7. Re:Which airliners? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-20 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  Thank God China is already testing copies.
  I know the Americans tried hard to close down RR and and EU jet engine concerns.
  Thankfully RR fixed the exploding engines - and is capable of tweaking sizes.
8. Re:Which airliners? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 00:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Would you care to explain how the 777 is hipster? Does it enjoy thick rimmed glasses, skinny jeans, american spirits and pbr?
9. Re:Which airliners? by Bongo · 2016-04-21 00:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Would you care to explain how the 777 is hipster? Does it enjoy thick rimmed glasses, skinny jeans, american spirits and pbr?
  Because the 777 is like the mainstream number of the beast 666 but with an ironically off by one error.
10. Re:Which airliners? by dangle · 2016-04-21 00:59 · Score: 2
  
  Are there other airframes in production or planned that would be a good match for performance but also provide the ground clearance under the wing to hang this engine?
11. Re: Which airliners? by Type44Q · 2016-04-21 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps he's suggesting that with two huge engines, it'll look rather goggle-eyed? Perhaps a bit like this. That's the best i could up with, at any rate...
12. Re:Which airliners? by Richard_at_work · 2016-04-21 01:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yes, the Airbus A350XWB-1000 (first flight later this year) and the currently-being-mused-about Airbus A350XWB-1100 would be ideal candidates for this engine, as would an A380 with a new engine option (again, currently being mused about for the 2020 or so time period - Rolls Royce will have an engine to hang off of a refreshed A380, GE don't want to put an engine on, and are blocking Pratt & Whitney from making an engine for the A380 because of the Engine Alliance partnership the two have signed).
13. Re:Which airliners? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  As the summary says, it is scheduled to be installed in a flying bed.
14. Re:Which airliners? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Hipsters are all liberal arts weenies who can't do math, and they don't realize that it's actually an off by 111 error.
15. Re:Which airliners? by jafiwam · 2016-04-21 01:55 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  777, Neighbor of the Beast, one block over?
16. Re:Which airliners? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  I do think he has a point. Boeing never had a 6XX line, did they ?
17. Re:Which airliners? by ravenshrike · 2016-04-21 02:33 · Score: 2
  
  There's no such thing as too much thrust, there is merely insufficient structural integrity.
18. Re:Which airliners? by aaarrrgggh · 2016-04-21 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  A380 only needs ~80k lbf; while the engine would physically fit it must be significantly over-dimensioned.
19. Re:Which airliners? by Richard_at_work · 2016-04-21 02:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As it currently stands, the Airbus A380 only needs a maximum of 76K lb of thrust, but Airbus are currently considering an airframe stretch which will increase the thrust requirement - and the engine can always be derated to a lower thrust rating to optimise it for the airframe, while still maintaining near 100% parts compatibility with the version that is hung on the 777X.
20. Re:Which airliners? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe an upgrade for the giant Airbus A380
  No one is developing major A380 upgrades. Airbus has admitted that it will never recoup the $25 billion development cost, so those built and the few remaining on order are likely to be the last as Airbus dances around the cancellation decision. At this point spending actual money to develop new engines for it would be laughable.
21. Re:Which airliners? by peragrin · 2016-04-21 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Since 666 isn't the number of the beast but 619 is due it being off by one in the originally written language it is even funnier.
  Ancient Hebrew numerical system left much to be desired and has opened up more cans of worms and confusion than Americans complaining about socialistic meteric system.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
22. Re:Which airliners? by Deadstick · 2016-04-21 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  They name their jetliners 7x7 to commemorate the 707, which was named after the cosine of the wing sweep angle,
23. Re:Which airliners? by AmiMoJo · 2016-04-21 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was the fax number of the beast. Hell still has faxes.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
24. Re:Which airliners? by Tough+Love · 2016-04-21 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Would it be too much for a volkswagen?
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
25. Re:Which airliners? by random+coward · 2016-04-21 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  "Since 666 isn't the number of the beast but 619 is due it being off by one in the originally written language it is even funnier.
  Ancient Hebrew numerical system left much to be desired and has opened up more cans of worms and confusion than Americans complaining about socialistic meteric system."
  How amusing. You know that the Book of Revelation was written in Greek and not in Aramean let alone Hebrew right?
26. Re:Which airliners? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  Boeing disagrees with your assessment. But, then, what would they know about why they gave their plane the 707 moniker.
27. Re:Which airliners? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  He claim's it's street legal, but I really would like to see the look on the tech's face when he brings it in every two years for its smog check.
28. Re:Which airliners? by cellocgw · 2016-04-21 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but, direct from Boeing Corp's own pages:
  http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2004/february/i_history.html
  "People who lean toward math and engineering are certain that 707 was chosen because it is the sine of the angle of wing sweep on a 707. It's not, since the wing sweep is 35 degrees and not 45. However, more people lean toward superstition and feel that the positive connotation of the number seven was the reason it was selected.
  The truth is a bit more mundane. Boeing has assigned sequential model numbers to its designs for decades, as have most aircraft manufacturers. Boeing commercial aircraft use their model number as their popular name: Model 40, Model 80, Model 247, Model 307 Stratoliner and Model 377 Stratocruiser."
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
29. Re:Which airliners? by Coren22 · 2016-04-22 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Having used fax machines, I would say that it would fit if the devil forced all correspondence through fax only.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
30. Re:Which airliners? by Coren22 · 2016-04-22 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  It can now reach speeds of at least 140mph and leaves a 50ft trail of flames in its wake.
  Somehow, I can't see how 50 ft flames would be street legal as it claimed in that article...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Burn those fossil fuels! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-20 22:21 · Score: -1

Bigger engines means more fossil fuels being burned. And that means more global warming. Why are we doing this?
1. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by lokedhs · 2016-04-20 22:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Bigger engines are more efficient, so this will actually reduce the amount of fuel burned.
2. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Viol8 · 2016-04-20 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  Hypermobility is where its at. Didn't you know its virtually a human right now for people to fly where they want, when they want at a moments notice? More aircraft, more flights, more pollution, just so long as people can go on that w/e break a thousand miles away its all worth it, screw the enviroment.
  [The above is sarcasm btw for the hard of understanding]
3. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Viol8 · 2016-04-20 22:37 · Score: 0
  
  Per passenger yes, but if larger planes means ever more passengers flying then its a rather pyrrhic victory.
4. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Richard_at_work · 2016-04-20 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  For who? More passengers carried means better economics for the airline - smaller planes increase the number of pilots needed to move the same number of people, less cargo, shorter distances.
5. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Viol8 · 2016-04-20 22:49 · Score: 0
  
  Stuff the airlines, I'm more concerned about the enviroment.
6. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by CeasedCaring · 2016-04-20 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  More passengers per flight means fewer total flights, so less fuel used.
7. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by tinkerton · 2016-04-20 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  Bigger engines mean a few percent more efficiency, so you can increase double the amount of miles flown without feeling guilty.
8. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Malc · 2016-04-20 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Smaller planes have the benefit of reducing expenses for some shitty airlines who are more likely to be hit up the EU's consumer friendly flight delay compensation regulations.
9. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by PsychoSlashDot · 2016-04-20 23:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Stuff the airlines, I'm more concerned about the enviroment.
  What's the point in a pristine environment if you can't fly there to enjoy it?
  
  Yes, I'm kidding. Mostly.
  
  --
  "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
10. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by CanadianMacFan · 2016-04-20 23:29 · Score: 2
  
  You say that as if there is a finite number of passengers. However as technology has allowed the cost of flying to come down it has only driven demand for travel up. There is nothing to suggest that this trend will reverse. Heck, even having the airlines think of passengers as cattle doesn't diminish the demand.
11. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-20 23:38 · Score: 0
  
  Per passenger yes, but if larger planes means ever more passengers flying then its a rather pyrrhic victory.
  If you really believe humans are bad for the Earth, drop the fucking hypocrisy and off yourself.
  Oh, what's that? It's all those OTHER humans who are bad, not precious look-at-how-much-better-than-you-I-am-because-I-care YOU?
12. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by lalleglad · 2016-04-20 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  "Heck, even having the airlines think of passengers as cattle doesn't diminish the demand."
  So, you have also tried flying with Ryan Air? ;-)
13. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by BlackPignouf · 2016-04-20 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, right.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
14. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 00:37 · Score: 0
  
  Bigger engines means more fossil fuels being burned. And that means more global warming. Why are we doing this?
  You breathing means more CO2. And that means more global warming. Why are you doing that?
15. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  Larger engines do not mean larger planes (2 100K engines push a smaller airframe than 4 75K engines).
  Larger planes do not mean more people flying - if anything, larger planes are less efficient in a business sense (higher % of empty seats / cargo space, on average), so cost to fly them is higher per passenger, a business fact reflected in the pricing of the routes they fly.
  The cost of airfare, independently and in relation to alternatives like fast trains, is what determines how many people fly. Cheap airlines like SouthWest that fly exclusively small, full planes do increase the number of people travelling.
  If a new, more efficient, airframe and engine are developed and deployed, it will increase air-travel's market share of the overall transportation market due to the lower cost to the customers - that's where the environment loses relative to "greener" modes of transport like fast trains. Start factoring the cost of relocating the world's coastal cities into the price of jet fuel and you'll see a shift away from air travel.
16. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  No, Ryan Air doesn't think of people as cattle. Cattle don't tend to have money to pay to use the bathroom or money for any of the 10's of other things Ryan Air wants to charge for. Cattle are cargo. Pre-paid ticket and no other charges. Packed in sure. But Southwest is probably a closer match for cattle...
17. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by 110010001000 · 2016-04-21 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  If you are concerned about the environment then why are you using the Internet for frivolity? It is one of the biggest users of electricity out there.
18. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 01:34 · Score: -1
  
  Are you seriously this stupid?
19. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by jcr · 2016-04-21 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't you go freeze in the dark?
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
20. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by aaarrrgggh · 2016-04-21 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  This engine is actually lower thrust than the previous generation, hence "greener." Likewise, the plane's passenger capacity isn't meaningfully higher than the previous generation...
21. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Alioth · 2016-04-21 02:59 · Score: 2
  
  Your concern is probably in the wrong place - aviation is only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions. Banning aviation altogether (all things remaining equal) wouldn't make a difference in our current trajectory.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
22. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Viol8 · 2016-04-21 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  Spare us your silly exaggerations. Got any half decent arguments or is shrieking like a silly teenager about it?
23. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by dj245 · 2016-04-21 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  To a point. Bigger engines weigh more. If you keep making the engine larger and larger, the engine is more efficient, but the plane is carrying around a lot of extra weight it doesn't need. Additionally, gas turbines have efficiency curves which usually have a peak somewhere between 30% and 95% load, depending on the design. If that peak isn't where the engine would usually operate on a given aircraft, the engine would not be a particularly good fit for that aircraft. When considering efficiency, there is an ideal engine size/weight for any given aircraft. Larger is not always better.
  
  --
  Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
24. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  "if anything, larger planes are less efficient in a business sense"
  To a point perhaps, but if that was a general rule we'd all still be flying on DC-3 size craft with about 25 other people instead of Boeing 777s with well over 300 passengers. The aircraft size limitations at the moment are the size of airports, the customers who could afford/utilize larger aircraft and/or the number of people society is willing to lose in a single aircraft crash (for some reason 300 seems quite acceptable, more than 500 not so much).
25. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by careysub · 2016-04-21 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Per passenger yes, but if larger planes means ever more passengers flying then its a rather pyrrhic victory.
  The aircraft that will be using these engines is the Boeing 777X. The 777X is a big airplane (maximum takeoff weight 351.5 tonnes), but smaller than the largest airplanes currently flying like the largest variant of the 747 (the 747-8, MTOW 448 tonnes), or the Airbus A380 (MTOW 590 tonnes). It is about the same size as the smaller 747 variants currently flying (MTOW 333-378 tonnes, depending on model).
  The difference is that all of these other aircraft have four engines, the 777X will only have two. Result: greater weight savings and increased efficiency.
  Larger planes aren't creating flight demand anyway, they are satisfying it - making it easier for limited airport space to handle more customers. It is reasonable to argue that airfares affect airline travel demand, but larger aircraft aren't driving airfares down - airlines do not cut flight prices when they buy bigger airplanes (if you think they do, please cite some evidence of this phenomenon).
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
26. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by careysub · 2016-04-21 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  You say that as if there is a finite number of passengers. However as technology has allowed the cost of flying to come down it has only driven demand for travel up. There is nothing to suggest that this trend will reverse. Heck, even having the airlines think of passengers as cattle doesn't diminish the demand.
  That would be because those "cattle flights" reduce airfare cost, and it is airfare cost, along with rising world-wide wealth (more people with money to fly), that drive air-travel demand. Why should we want to reverse these trends?
  Improved technology does help drive down airfare costs, largely by increasing fuel efficiency, but operational changes have been the major driver in reducing airfare costs since the 1970s ("cattle flights", but also simply leaner and more efficient airline operations with better scheduling and higher flight loads). It would be perverse to argue that we should keep airliners fuel-inefficient, burning more fuel per passenger-mile, in order to keep airfare costs up to reduce flight demand as... some sort of environmental protection measure? Less fuel per passenger-mile is an absolute good, economically, socially and environmentally, not an "on the other hand, its bad" thing.
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
27. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by random+coward · 2016-04-21 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  "You say that as if there is a finite number of passengers. "
  Are you suggesting there are an infinite number of people on Earth?
28. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by CanadianMacFan · 2016-04-21 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I never argued that we should keep less efficient planes. My point was that as more efficient planes, and operations as you pointed out, then the cost of flying goes down which opens the market to more people and we end up with more fossil fuels being used overall.
  We should be making all forms of transportation more efficient and looking at getting them off of fossil fuels. However there is a side effect that by making them more efficient that they might get used more overtaking the efficiency gains. It's been seen with air travel and with lighting (I know it's not travel but it's a good example).
29. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by delt0r · 2016-04-21 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  fuck the environment, I am going around the world for shits and giggles. It is not like your CO2 footprint is any better arsehole.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
30. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by delt0r · 2016-04-21 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  The consistently cheapest flights i can get from EU to NZ are almost always in A380s. So not sure what you mean by reflected in the price?
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
31. Re: Burn those fossil fuels! by WindBourne · 2016-04-21 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  Great. So you have solar on your home, you are off-grid, and you use your solar to charge your Tesla. Right?
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Imagine if engines got better by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-20 22:30 · Score: 0

at the same rate as say, computer storage capacity? We'd have billions of pounds of thrust compared to the first jet engines! ...oh but we don't, almost as if comparing the physical world with the information world yields no useful comparison.
1. Re:Imagine if engines got better by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-20 22:41 · Score: 0
  
  Fortunately engines must be way more reliable than your crappy computer.
Finally! by BlackPignouf · 2016-04-20 22:33 · Score: 1

Finally, here's the long-awaited technological breakthrough to fight against climate change and peak oil!
Size Doesn't Matter - Stop overcompensating! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-20 22:52 · Score: 5, Funny

"Ladies & gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. If you look out the right side of the aircraft, you'll notice flight 195 challenging us to a race. I've turned the fasten your seat belt sign back on because this shit is about to get real."
hmm... by Mr_Nitro · 2016-04-20 22:55 · Score: 0

I'd rather see fully electrical ones....hopefully these behemoths will be the last struggle of a dying hydrocarbon worldview...
1. Re:hmm... by ihtoit · 2016-04-20 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  so how do you charge the batteries?
  Off the grid, maybe?
  Which uses coal, oil, and gas?
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
2. Re:hmm... by YrWrstNtmr · 2016-04-20 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  Energy density. We are decades away from a fully electric airliner.
3. Re:hmm... by CanadianMacFan · 2016-04-20 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  Won't happen for a long time because you could never charge the batteries of an airliner fast enough even assuming that you could work out the issue with the weight of the batteries. A quick charge for your car is 20 or 30 minutes. Now imagine how long it would take a plane to charge even allowing for higher currents. The airlines don't want their planes on the ground because they don't make money when the planes are there.
4. Re: hmm... by JadeBurton · 2016-04-20 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  And I believe electric engines for jet-like aircraft currently require superconductors to keep the size practical. And that is a headache on its own.
5. Re: hmm... by afidel · 2016-04-20 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  You can make carbon neutral jet fuel, you make natural gas in a bioreactor and turn it into synthetic kerosene or you use algae to make it directly. Given the realities of air travel that's a lot more likely to be the path forward than efans, though those are being explored as well (though to be competitive they'd need a leap in battery tech that would already make the entire ground transportation sector move to batteries)
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
6. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 00:03 · Score: 0
  
  You are a fucking moron.
  I doubt there will ever be an electrical energy source as dense as Jet A
7. Re:hmm... by Thanshin · 2016-04-21 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  Won't happen for a long time because you could never charge the batteries of an airliner fast enough
  You can replace the spent batteries for charged ones.
  Remember that option every time you think about charging times.
8. Re:hmm... by Richard_at_work · 2016-04-21 00:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Not while you are flying you cannot - used batteries still carry a massive weight penalty, while used fuel does not. Aircraft efficiencies are built around getting ever lighter during their cruise, as many aircraft cannot climb to their optimum cruise altitude when at maximum takeoff weight, and only reach optimum after some time in the air - you cant do that with batteries, because the aircraft never gets lighter.
  So you will be carrying more weight for greater distances. That problem right there changes the entire airline industries view on battery powered aircraft, because it completely changes the way air travel needs to be handled.
9. Re: hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  He's a mac fan. They don't do removable batterys.
10. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Put a wind turbine motor in the propeller to return the energy back to the battery and a solar panel on the wing to power the in flight entertainment
11. Re:hmm... by Aqualung812 · 2016-04-21 01:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This is dead-on.
  I've had to explain this a few times to people that don't understand how it is cheaper and uses less fuel to go out of your way to stop in Alaska to refuel even when your airplane has the ability to fly from China to Tennessee without stopping.
  It seems counter-intuitive that 2 flights with more miles is more fuel efficient until you realize how heavy a fully fueled jumbo cargo jet is, and how much fuel you burn just to carry fuel.
  
  --
  Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
12. Re: hmm... by Type44Q · 2016-04-21 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  A rather long, high-voltage tether attached to a rather small autonomous vehicle that travels at high speed along an electrified track? That oughtta work...
13. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  first steps...
  http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/siemens-unveils-260-kw-electric-aircraft-motor
  '"We're convinced that the use of hybrid-electric drives in regional airliners with 50 to 100 passengers is a real medium-term possibility,"
14. Re:hmm... by michelcolman · 2016-04-21 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  A quick charge for your car is 20 or 30 minutes. Now imagine how long it would take a plane to charge even allowing for higher currents.
  20 to 30 minutes.
  Batteries can charge in parallel. You may need bigger cables, and more of them, but there's no reason why you can't charge them in the same amount of time.
  The only problem for electric planes is the weight of the batteries. It will take a few enormous breakthroughs in battery technology before they're light enough to power an airliner with.
15. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  The founders of Siemens are dead and what is left are too dumb for basic physical calculations.
  That's why Musk runs circles around these folks.
16. Re:hmm... by PPH · 2016-04-21 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Not going to happen for a long time for weight and recharge time reasons stated.
  However, hybrid systems can be a thing. A couple of jet fuel powered engines with lots of excess generator capacity feeding electric ducted fans placed optimally on the aircraft. The aircraft is no longer constrained by the necessity of having large diameter fans to get a certain fan area.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
17. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  That will work in combination with a DeMorgan Perpetuum Drive.
  My uncle sayz the Saudiz haf all the blueprintz for it locked in a safe.
18. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  All the designs I've seen for "electric" airliners were using fuel cells rather than batteries. The hydrocarbons stay.
19. Re: hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  Side note:
  It's hard to make that leap in battery tech, when the fossil fuel guys are buying up companies & patents in that area.
20. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  One could design batteries banks which are dropped as they are expended. The spent battery banks could have steerable parachutes and be dropped near airports and directed to battery recharging stations. After landing and recharging, they would be transported a short distance to the airport and installed in a plane that was taking off from that airport.
  This would of course require logistics support. ATC would have to keep track of all the battery banks drifting down near airports -- esp. if winds pick up or something so they get blown out of their (presumably) protected air space. When/where to drop a bank would be determined, in part, on the needs of each airport overflown and may even motivate some minor detours to get over an airport which has a battery bank deficit.
  Of course, none of this addresses the energy density delta between batteries and jet fuel. Although, by volume, it appears that human fat has almost the energy density of jet fuel. That leads to another thought - liposuction powered flights. Fat people actually pay less (and land with a lot less fat to drag around - a win-win).
21. Re:hmm... by trawg · 2016-04-21 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Question: aside from the obviously massively added complexity, could you even have an electric engine if you could just jettison the battery packs after take off?
  e.g., have some sort of external unit to the plane that simply falls off and flies itself to the ground (like a battery pack drone).
  Without knowing anything about it I imagine a significant chunk of power is required to take off and climb, but no idea how much would be required to stay in flight. So if you could periodically get rid of used packs it'd have the same benefit as burning off fuel.
  Although if you were super clever you could have these drones return to base, recharge, and then reconnect to planes in flight?!@#
22. Re:hmm... by dyslexicbunny · 2016-04-21 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  There are obvious limits though beyond the environmental feasibility of intermediate stops even if you redesigned the aircraft for shorter ranges. Cost (crew/maintenance/landing fees), intermediate airport noise/location/capacity, flight crew hour limits.
  Being that some routes (South America to Africa or Asia) largely lack feasible airports - you would either have to design two variants, a long range and a short range, to maintain those flights OR you could do more airport hopping with other flights. But one of the problems also is that many aircraft are owned by leasing companies and if you present the option of both a short and long range variant, would likely predominantly buy the long range variant to cover all customer needs.
  Additionally there are limits to any benefits in terms of aircraft design range. The 767 classes can still see benefits from intermediate stops but the 737 classes do not and those are the most flown aircraft in the fleet. Yes the larger guys use more fuel but unless you find ways to mitigate their fuel consumption, intermediate stops really don't matter when future growth is considered. So odds are that manufacturers and airlines will largely not bother with this strategy unless fuel prices become quite significant.
  Although the refreshed engines on many of the existing airframes will provide benefits, I had hoped Boeing was going to cleansheet the 737 but the A320 NEO kinda sucked the wind out of those sails and the 777 is obviously getting this engine in lieu of a 777/747 refresh. My hope is alternative fuels and operations research quickly finds more savings as the 30 year lifespan of aircraft limits what you can do in terms of improvements.
23. Re:hmm... by Aqualung812 · 2016-04-21 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  The point I was making is that not too long ago, DHL, FedEx, and UPS all did direct flights from China to the Midwest USA.
  One of them (I think it was UPS) discovered the Alaska stop saved them money, and within a short amount of time, all 3 were doing it.
  I don't think they'd be doing it if it cost more money. Sounds like even with all of the extra costs, the amount of fuel saved still makes up for it.
  
  --
  Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
24. Re:hmm... by dyslexicbunny · 2016-04-21 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't say they were cargo hauls. Very different considerations! I would expect them to do much better as you don't have to haul flight attendants (additional costs that pare down the savings pretty significantly). I would imagine you also make better money per pound with cargo than passengers.
  I did a lot of environmental research into the transportation side of things for range and speed reductions for aircraft. Never looked at cargo because of scope.
25. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 21:36 · Score: 0
  
  focused lasers can transfer power in flight rather than carrying batteries.
Just to clarify by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2016-04-20 22:57 · Score: 1

By "Worlds Largest" the summary appears to mean "Worlds Most Powerful" http://www.guinnessworldrecord...

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
1. Re:Just to clarify by Richard_at_work · 2016-04-20 23:21 · Score: 2
  
  No, its just the largest - the GEnx has a larger fan size than the GE90-115 (128 inches vs 133 inches) but produces less thrust (115,300 lb vs 105,000 lb).
  The GE9X has a higher bypass ratio with a lower core thrust, meaning more air is moved for less fuel consumed.
2. Re:Just to clarify by Richard_at_work · 2016-04-20 23:23 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, meant "the GE9X has a larger fan size...". Got the GENx on the brain atm.
Some of us work in metric now by ihtoit · 2016-04-20 23:13 · Score: 1

so me not being arsed with firing up the calculator, what's that in Newtons?

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
1. Re:Some of us work in metric now by Mouldy · 2016-04-20 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  100,000lbf = 444822.16N
2. Re:Some of us work in metric now by ihtoit · 2016-04-20 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  thanky :) considering the engines on the ME262A MK.I only generated 8.8kN apiece, that's mightily impressive.
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
3. Re:Some of us work in metric now by ThosLives · 2016-04-20 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's possible to find accurate info, but I'm guessing he weighed somewhere in the 150-200 lbf range, so something like 500-667 Newtons?
  
  --
  "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
4. Re:Some of us work in metric now by DNS-and-BIND · 2016-04-20 23:27 · Score: 1, Informative
  Claims technological superiority by using the metric system.
  Can't use a calculator or Google.com to find the answer to a straightforward question.
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
5. Re:Some of us work in metric now by Thanshin · 2016-04-21 00:27 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  444822.16N
  Which is completely useless. Only the first few Newtons will actually serve a purpose. After those, you've got hundreds of thousands of redundant Newtons hugely overqualified for almost any job. You're there like "I wanna Big Mac and a chocolate McFlurry" and the guy's like "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." and you're not sure he got your order, but it'be awkward to ask, so you just pull out a tenner and slowly push it over the counter.
6. Re: Some of us work in metric now by Type44Q · 2016-04-21 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  It certainly is; I believe the six engines on the XB-70 Valkyrie each put out less than a third as much thrust...
7. Re:Some of us work in metric now by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 01:54 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure how to convert pounds of thrust to delicious fig cookies. Do you mean their calories?
8. Re:Some of us work in metric now by Alioth · 2016-04-21 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  The Rolls-Royce Trent has been tested up to 115,000 lbs thrust (and I have to imagine this new GE engine will be tested to at least that, if not more).
  All 8 engines on a B52G produce 110,000 lbs thrust. You could convert a B-52 to a single engined aircraft with one of these GE engines impaled on the tail DC-10 style, and it would probably perform better than with the original 8 engines! Well, until the sole engine quit of course...
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
9. Re:Some of us work in metric now by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Worse than that, can't multiply 4.448 x 100,000 in his head. It's like the metric system makes you dumber. Most likely a high school student who just learned what a newton is and is trying to look smart.
10. Re:Some of us work in metric now by Richard_at_work · 2016-04-21 03:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The B-52s multiple engine configuration is one of its bonus points in actuality - they did a study about hanging four modern engines off the wings rather than eight, and they discovered that they lost so much command authority through asymmetrical thrust in a single-engine loss scenario that they would have to double the size of the rudder...
11. Re:Some of us work in metric now by drerwk · 2016-04-21 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Visualizing a 2x size rudder on a B-52 made me lol. Just got back from a trip to the Pima Air Museum and saw some great aircraft, but that would be great.
12. Re:Some of us work in metric now by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  Except of course that analysis was deliberately sabotaged. It's very common to pull the symmetric engine back in an engine out situation, and in fact many operating manuals direct the pilot to do so. Vmca would most certainly go up, but that was not a catastrophic problem given that the operational gross weight of the aircraft has been deliberately restricted due to worn out wing spars, and, with modern turbofans with greater thrust, the aircraft will still have better accelerate-stop and 3 engine takeoff performance. Additionally, and most importantly, they ignored the risk ratio between cretaceous era straight jets v.s. modern turbofans and the reduced takeoff weight reasonable given the immense increase in efficiency with a CFM-56 v.s. a TF-33. They also ignored the added survivability of a modern (cooler) turbofan v.s. an old (hot) turbojet against IR guided missiles.
The reason they get bigger but not too big... by cablepokerface · 2016-04-20 23:23 · Score: 4, Informative

explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1. Re:The reason they get bigger but not too big... by UnknowingFool · 2016-04-21 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Good video. I would also think that engineering wise there is also a point to where mounting larger and larger engines would cause more stress on the wings.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-20 23:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

Seriously, fuck off and die.
I've always said the environmentalists want us living in caves and scratching for nuts and berries.
You ACTUALLY want to restrict travel by aircraft? That is probably the one thing that could cripple the world's economy in one fell swoop.Next you'll want to ban cargo ships.
Fuck off you cunt.
1. Re:Fuck You by Viol8 · 2016-04-21 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  Aww, poppet, go have a lie down and calm yourself.
2. Re:Fuck You by Viol8 · 2016-04-21 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, incidentaly, if the enviroment goes belly up there won't be any economy to worry about.
3. Re:Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  So pretty much you admit you have fantasies of living in caves and wearing animal skins whilst eating bugs and twigs.
  Oh, wait, I bet YOU would be living in a home and regular clothes while the rest of us are in the caves. That's the way it goes with people like you.
4. Re:Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  Aww, poppet, go have a lie down and calm yourself.
  Lose the shallow-as-a-parking-lot-puddle-in-a-dilipidated-Florida-strip-mall-parking-lot, following-others, bog-standard misanthropy, you clueless twit.
5. Re:Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think there's much point getting all upset. I don't think aircraft are getting banned any time soon do you??
  Anyway, everyone's an environmentalist, it just depends on who's environment you're talking about. Are you ok with me building a toxic waste dump next door to where you live? No?? You fucking hippy! - hindering progress! Fuck off and die! (See what I did there?)
6. Re:Fuck You by jcr · 2016-04-21 01:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I've always said the environmentalists want us living in caves and scratching for nuts and berries.
  Well, what they want is for YOU to be living like a North Korean serf, while they fly around in private jets like Leonardo DiCaprio.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
7. Re: Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  Who kept you in a cave? You don't have to go back. Stop worrying about the caves man.
8. Re:Fuck You by Viol8 · 2016-04-21 03:03 · Score: -1
  
  Grow up sonny. When you're out of short trousers you might even have a clue what the adults are talking about here.
9. Re:Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  See what I did there?
  Built a straw man?
10. Re:Fuck You by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Generally, when people start making references to "Adult conversations" in discussions, it's because they can no longer sustain their position and need cheap and obvious way to leave the thread while convincing themselves they've "won".
undergoing its first Full Engine To Test (FETT) by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 00:02 · Score: 1

Presumably it has already passed its Burner Overthrust Bearing Adjustment (BOBA).
Oh, my God, that group photo. by OpenSourced · 2016-04-21 00:08 · Score: 1

You could take anybody out of that photo and put it in any (work related) group photo that I've ever been part of, and nobody would find anything amiss. It makes me shudder.

--
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
you 'FAIL it? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 00:21 · Score: -1

sling, return it to sure that I've BSD's codebase is busy 1nfighting I read the latest Series of debates Another charnel GNAA and support empire in decline, they're gone Came
Really big engines! by Fuzi719 · 2016-04-21 01:30 · Score: 3, Informative

Here's a 747 test bed with one of the previous generation GE90 engines (used on the current 777). You don't realize how big these are until you see them on another aircraft. http://www.turbokart.com/image...
Even better view by Fuzi719 · 2016-04-21 01:33 · Score: 4, Informative

Here is the older engine mounted on a 747 in action https://youtu.be/4B3gwMONxDQ
moG=d up by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 01:39 · Score: -1

problem stems anybody's guess All major surveys We get there with From the OpenBSD On my Pentium Pro has been 8y only it's going, balance is struck, OpenBSD wanker Theo
Ive never understood... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 02:27 · Score: 1

I've never understood why they haven't used air-breathing engines like this as a first stage of rockets... Strap a dozen of these to a Falcon 9 to get it moving off the launch pad and up to 40-50k feet, then carry on with rocket propulsion from there. From a power:weight ratio, it would seem to me that they're much more efficient within the atmosphere because they don't have to carry their own oxidizer - and I've always heard that a rocket uses a very disproportional amount of fuel to just get off the launch pad and started moving.
Plus - turbofan technology is so reliable, it'd be much less risky than a rocket-powered first stage even if you still need two additional stages to get to orbit.
Just my thoughts.
1. Re:Ive never understood... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Thrust for one, each Merlin 1D engine produces 30% more thrust than one of these. Weight for another, Merlin engines are only about 1,000 lbs, these engines are over 16,000 lbs. Finally they would only provide thrust for a very narrow window, I believe the first stage is only really in atmosphere for about 2 minutes. All in all it adds a lot of complexity, weight & cost for little if any savings. The SABRE engine may help with some of these issues, but I don't think it has the thrust for a vertically launched vehicle (air launch or horizontal takeoff only). I do wonder if anyone has tried to create a hybrid air/rocket engine. Not to decrease the amount of LOX needed but to simply increase the reaction mass. Basically put a ram scoop on the sides of the rocket and funnel air into an aerospike type "engine bell", the engine exhaust would heat the incoming air and add it to its reaction exhaust. This is one of the reasons why jet engines are so efficient, they only carry their energy source (fuel) and predominately use the atmosphere as reaction mass. Of course I don't know if the extra drag on the rocket from staying in the atmosphere longer to use it for reaction mass would result in any significant fuel savings.
2. Re:Ive never understood... by delt0r · 2016-04-21 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Thrust to weight ratio is terrible in gas turbines. Next is airspeed. At stage one burnout you going between 3-7x the speed of sound. Look at the blackbird to get an idea of just how hard it is to make an engine work at the speed. Rockets give you velocity and get you out of the atmosphere, and they are good at it. Jet engines give you cruise in the atmosphere. They do different jobs. "space planes" are a terrible fit for getting to space. Just as trains don't look like aircraft, we shouldn't expect space launch to look like aircraft either.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
But My Progressive Media by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 03:13 · Score: 0

...said this would be Historically Inevitable. Like the rule of the proles.
Don't say it is not true !!!!!!
High Wing by PPH · 2016-04-21 03:20 · Score: 1

Time to consider high wing passenger jets. Better ground clearance with large diameter engines.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Indeed Winboy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 03:24 · Score: 0

Enjoy all the shafting from mafia and big mafia.
Drones by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 03:48 · Score: 0

After the drone strike at Heathrow, pilots and aviation officials are concerned about the risk of having a drone strike and get sucked through an engine. As I look at the picture in the article, I wonder how spectacularly catastrophic it could be to suck a drone into that monster of a machine while it's running.
With 4 engines on a 747 or 3 engines on older 727 or DC-10 designs, there were at least two engines left if one failed, How well can modern 2-engine airplanes like 737, A320 or 777 fly on just one engine? Does it really work? Or does the plane need to limp along losing altitude?
1. Re:Drones by Xolotl · 2016-04-21 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  Very well, which is why they are allowed to fly on e.g. transatlantic flights. It is a requirement that these aircraft can fly at least 120 minutes one one engine, most can fly 180 minutes. See ETOPS.
2. Re:Drones by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  More than likely little to none. Baseball sized hail, sand, hundreds of gallons of water, large birds, etc are tossed into them during testing and most can be restarted no problem if the even happen to stall. I believe modern jet engines have to be engineered so that even if one of their blades completely breaks loose the housing will contain it. Compared to some of the abuse they have to be put through to get certified a flimsy little private drone would be a snack.
Hard to believe it has been 20+ years.. by TigerPlish · 2016-04-21 03:58 · Score: 1

Hard to believe the progenitor of this engine - the GE90 - and the airplane that uses it - 777 - are over 20 years old now.
It still boggles my mind that a single GE90 will make a 747 take off, cruise and land. GE has a 747 testbed, and the GE90 looks positively gargantuan next to the once-huge JT9s the 747 was born with. Yes, once upon a time the JT9 was the biggest fan. (note that the GE test bed uses GE CF6 fans, which are roughly analogous to the JT9, size-wise)
Thrust-wise, the GE90 and now this one are just ludicrous. So's the Trent from RR.
I miss the 707 with the JT3D. That's a proper airliner! ;o) The screaming bzzzz of the baby fan, and the whiiine of the old turbine leaving behind perfume of kerosene and four trails of smoke!

--
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Whispered the GE9X into the 777's ear by TigerPlish · 2016-04-21 04:09 · Score: 1

"I'm your biggest fan"

--
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Would look nice on a quadcopter by dsmatthews9379 · 2016-04-21 10:33 · Score: 1

A 747 sized drone. Sweet!
Rolls Royce by Anonymous Coward · 2016-04-21 16:36 · Score: 0

How long until RR puts out a lighter engine with more thrust ?
Oblig. metric whine by Caesar+Tjalbo · 2016-04-27 10:01 · Score: 1

With a front fan spreading a full 11 ft (3.35 m), the GE9X is a world record holder and generates thrust in the order of 100,000 lb.

445kN
They almost got the metric translation complete.

--
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."