• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

GE's new jet engine

Article gives some good details. Commercial engine for 777. 777 is a big plane that needs a lot of thrust. Two engines vice four mean reduced drag and saved fuel. It all comes down to economy for the airlines.
 
jamnww said:
Military application? Why an engine this large?
Click to expand...


The only service I can see using something that big is the USAF in their airlift mission or for a new long-range bomber (the former moreso than the latter).

The Navy/Marine Corps has no use for something that big.

As far as civilian aviation, if one of those things can fly a 747, I can see passenger aircraft gettin really bleeping big and going really bleeping far. Dunno what it would do for fuel cost. But flying non-stop halfway around the world does have its advantages.
 
SteveG75 said:
Article gives some good details. Commercial engine for 777. 777 is a big plane that needs a lot of thrust. Two engines vice four mean reduced drag and saved fuel. It all comes down to economy for the airlines.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can see that now...the reduction of teh number of engines would reduce the interference drag which would therefore reduce the required thrust and therefore the required fuel flow required...
 
I've heard of this engine...
the Fan blades are curved as opposed to straight to in crease airflow into the engine...

Maybe they can make blades like those for their smaller engines like the F404s or F414s
but then again, I'm not an engineer, I'm just thinking out loud here...
 
Blutonski816 said:
I've heard of this engine...
the Fan blades are curved as opposed to straight to in crease airflow into the engine...

Maybe they can make blades like those for their smaller engines like the F404s or F414s
but then again, I'm not an engineer, I'm just thinking out loud here...
Click to expand...

We got anyone on here who can discuss the possibility of converting this for application in engines that might someday replace the props / rotors on the MV-22 Osprey? Or maybe just helo engines in general...?
 
jamnww said:
We got anyone on here who can discuss the possibility of converting this for application in engines that might someday replace the props / rotors on the MV-22 Osprey? Or maybe just helo engines in general...?
Click to expand...

I doubt they'd ever need anything that large.
 
Pags said:
I doubt they'd ever need anything that large.
Click to expand...


True as it may be, you also have to look at the technology... Yes, something that large is impractical in most military airframes (save USAF cargo planes). However, the technology used in the engine... i.e. the curved fan blades on the intake that make the engine more efficient, can be scaled down and use in smaller engines that may be practical for military aviation.

I think the real value in this engine isn't just its size or power, but also the technological advances it encompasses that can be scaled down for use on smaller aircraft.

-More of Bubba's $0.02
 
TheBubba said:
The only service I can see using something that big is the USAF in their airlift mission or for a new long-range bomber (the former moreso than the latter).
Click to expand...

Perhaps as an option to re-engine the B-52. There was talk in the past of doing so with a commercial engine.
 
Re-engine the B-52... that's a good use for it. Would cut the number of engines from 8 to 4, maybe possibly 2? I can see that happening. Less fuel + longer range + less engines = better aircraft.

But alas, that would make sense, and we all know that if the military did anything that made sense, it's instantaneously mink out of existance and be replaced by something even more bizzare and inexplicable... (does anyone get the reference?)
 
I'm just jumping in here for some expert advice from someone out there. I believe one of the big reasons for the blades being forward swept on the ends is to reduce the tip velocities. Seeing as how each blade is probably about 4 ft. long, the ends of them can probably see near supersonic speeds and the forward sweep of the blade can somehow reduce this? Would something like this be efficient for an engine that is much smaller with a smaller diameter?
 
TheBubba said:
Re-engine the B-52... that's a good use for it. Would cut the number of engines from 8 to 4, maybe possibly 2? I can see that happening. Less fuel + longer range + less engines = better aircraft.

But alas, that would make sense, and we all know that if the military did anything that made sense, it's instantaneously mink out of existance and be replaced by something even more bizzare and inexplicable... (does anyone get the reference?)
Click to expand...

There has been a grassroots push to re-engine the BUFF since the early 80's. But the airforce has made it very clear that its priority is in a brand new fighter not a 50+ year old bomber that does do its job well enough as it stands. So priority wise I could see this in the far more then forseeable future.
 
Pags said:
I doubt they'd ever need anything that large.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of a scaled down version that would provide enough thrust to more effectively life the Osprey than the props as normal...
 
Lawman said:
There has been a grassroots push to re-engine the BUFF since the early 80's. But the airforce has made it very clear that its priority is in a brand new fighter not a 50+ year old bomber that does do its job well enough as it stands. So priority wise I could see this in the far more then forseeable future.
Click to expand...

Bombers aren't sexy. New fighters and wide-screen TVs are.

B-52, gotta be one of the, if not THE, most successful aircraft of all time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top