Slashdot Mirror

← 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 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.

29 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Which airliners? by Noble713 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 Richard_at_work · · 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.

    4. Re:Which airliners? by Richard_at_work · · 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.

    5. Re:Which airliners? by Richard_at_work · · 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.

    6. Re:Which airliners? by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    7. Re:Which airliners? by Bongo · · 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.

    8. Re:Which airliners? by dangle · · 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?

    9. Re:Which airliners? by Richard_at_work · · 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).

    10. Re:Which airliners? by jafiwam · · Score: 3, Funny

      777, Neighbor of the Beast, one block over?

    11. Re:Which airliners? by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

      There's no such thing as too much thrust, there is merely insufficient structural integrity.

    12. Re:Which airliners? by Richard_at_work · · 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.

  2. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by lokedhs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bigger engines are more efficient, so this will actually reduce the amount of fuel burned.

  3. Size Doesn't Matter - Stop overcompensating! by Anonymous Coward · · 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."

  4. Re:Just to clarify by Richard_at_work · · 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.

  5. Re:Just to clarify by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

    Sorry, meant "the GE9X has a larger fan size...". Got the GENx on the brain atm.

  6. The reason they get bigger but not too big... by cablepokerface · · Score: 4, Informative

    explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  7. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by PsychoSlashDot · · 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."
  8. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by CanadianMacFan · · 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.

  9. Re:hmm... by Richard_at_work · · 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.

  10. Re:Some of us work in metric now by Thanshin · · 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.

  11. Re:hmm... by Aqualung812 · · 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. Really big engines! by Fuzi719 · · 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...

  13. Even better view by Fuzi719 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is the older engine mounted on a 747 in action https://youtu.be/4B3gwMONxDQ

  14. Re:Fuck You by jcr · · 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."
  15. Re:Burn those fossil fuels! by Alioth · · 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
  16. Re:Some of us work in metric now by Richard_at_work · · 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...

  17. Re:Drones by Xolotl · · 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.