Will 2 GE90 Engines Work On The 747?
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 04. 2018
- A question which many people have been asking is why doesn't Boeing just fit the 747 with 2 GE90 engines? Surely it would make the plane more economical, right? Well, lets see! A truly fascinating topic in my opinion :)
Subscribe & hit the notification bell for more content on the aviation world! :)
CREDITS:
Note: All content used was copyright friendly and does not infringe or break any copyright rules and regulations.
Cool Vibes - Film Noire by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
KLM 747: www.google.co.uk/search?q=ge9...
"The Sky Is Our Home"
© Yaboinav Aviation 2018 Social Media:
Instagram: / navgeekavaviation
Facebook: / navgeekavaviation
Email: yaboinav@gmail.com
Navgeek Aviation: puts 2 GE90 engines on a 747
Me: puts 6
747: DONT STOP ME NOW
Queen reference :)
I will put 7
R.i.p fuel efficiency
I just want to say, no matter how old the 747 gets, it is still the queen of the skies
just me Call me old fashioned but I still like the security of having four engines, particularly when I’m half way over the Pacific Ocean and an engine fails. I’m flying SYD - SFO in a couple of weeks and I’m glad it’s in a Qantas 747-438.
Crosshead1 exactly! She is forever the queen!
+just me *A380 takes off* not so fast kiddo
dispatchnig vomitory funny cos A380 is 40 years younger than the 747.. sooooo if the A380 Still loses it might as well ground it self.
Pun intended
Long live the queen
Actually 4x GE90 s would be amazing come to think of it 😂
Yeah, that's the ticket. Imagine a plane that 4 GE90's would be necessary for. A 900+ pax plane that no airport could possibly ever service. lol But hey from what I see on CZcams Airliners fly on Free Energy no fuel needed anyway.!! 9/11 happened cos someone had a cigarette-lighter in their carry-on (and a hairspay aerosol).
Are you trying to fly to the moon with that kind of thrust? lol
Would be amazing to experience ,just a thought 😂
www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=365677
4 GE90, you are looking at an aircraft that similar size to An225 at least, the biggest plane in the world.
Maybe for military purpose, C 5 can get a ton of heavy loads, I'm not a expert on planes, just saying
2:24 5 A380s in a row
That's LAX for you
Ksmash Gamer And they're all different carriers
Thanks - I was wondering where the hell you would find so many different A380s in one place. Even thought it might be an edited picture. Wouldn't want to try to board economy in that terminal though!
Ksmash Gamer how??? I thought the only place that would happen in Dubai not only that they’re all different airlines
The 777 is the twin engine 747 with only difference being the lack of the upper deck cockpit which was really designed to be able to have a nose cargo door for oversized cargo.
While the 747 is an Icon of aviation, the 777 does what passenger airlines want with greater efficiency as proven by the lack of passenger orders for the 747-8. The nose cargo door option wasn’t important to airlines whose cargo business can be served under deck or by a freighter version of the 777.
The 777 is not a single deck 747. The 777 has a narrower fuselage, some 30cm narrower. It's a nine abreast aircraft, the 747 is a 10 abreast aircraft.
@@ashleymalamute The 777 is design in 10 abreast aircraft not nine,this is requested by Cathay Pacific during the working together program of 777 development.
Just make a triple deck, quad GE90. Lol.
Or a quad deck with 6 ge90s
With a streched body to 800 passengers.
@@followthegrow108 or 5 decks with like 4 or 6 ge9x
Or how about a triple deck trijet with GE90?
@@thecaynuck4694 imagine the prototype trijet just slams into the ground on landing due to Boeing not thinking about switching out the 727 design and going for the larger trijet designs
I love how everything you say is to the point and don't give absurdly long and boring introductions. Good job
I have wondered too whether a 747 could be re-engined to a twin. This video clearly explains the difficulties. But in a new design, it could be done.
Lloyd Blunden 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍 Agree if you look at airbus they are basically re-event the airbus 320 family and they start on their a330 too
I’ve been wondering about this for a while and now it’s been excellently address by you. Very thorough and nice work. Thank you.
Or could it be viable if they try this:
Merge a 777-300ER's wings and engine to a 747's body. Then they use 3 landing wheels by the wing (4-6-4) and try growing the control surfaces a small bit so it fits in airports
Sashin Gopaul 👍❤️👏 heat hear!!!!!!!!
Or just use an a 380 that's better
there have been 747s with taller fins like the SP (the small one) and the dreamlifter so it could be possible
or the extra fins on the nasa 747 that carries the shuttle
Maybe a 747sp will work with 2 engines
very plausible. market demands twin engine costs for greater frequency over medium range with a larger capacity
dj cats in da house Unfortunately, darn few SPs exist anymore, and the production line has changed too much to try to
Bring them back. I guess we’ll never know.
Perhaps the SP would be a good template for a complete double decker as well. Great concept to start from at least, because originally they were used for shorter haul flights where range was not as important, so that minor clash of concept would need some looking into, but I really like the idea.
Miles Hanna Surprisingly, the 747SP is used for what is now considered "ultra long range" routes. So, it should be taking on the A350 and the A380. 2-for-1 deal.
good idea
I had always wondered about this, great vid
I was thinking about this when the GE90X was in the b747. Thanks for the video which answer my question.
Nice video, I've always wondered what the answer to this question was! And WOW, you gained 400 subs in just 1 day!! Congrats!
That would be amazing!! Whether it would happen though is another question... Awesome video!!
That thumbnail 😂😂 can't unsee. Looks weirdly good.
This has been my fantasy since a long time.
Abhishek Ghatge my too I am writer hunting for new fantasy vehicles one is definitely two 747 shape aircraft!
Good video and idea. I too have thought about this before. I think that there can be a jet bigger than the A380 in tri-jet style, with 3 GE90's. That would be a huge fan to fin in the back, so the intake duct would need to be shaped around the top of the fuselage and the APU relocated entirely.
I forgot to mention I loved the photo shop of the KLM 74 twin it was cool looking. ..good video. .
Had the same thoughts about a twin engine 747. That aircraft is a work of art.
You bring up a lot of good points about stress issues. It would be easier to put the "hump" on a 777 probably.
Thanks for the image of the Nimrod 02:32, I live at Kinloss their base in Scotland and miss seeing them doing circuits and hearing the ground runs in the early hours of the morning :) interesting video though.
That's a very interesting topic, you raised a lot of conversation here!
Yet again, another great video mate. Keep up the good work.
I'm sure it could be done but why.. I prefer 4 engines on a bird that big.. The 747-8 is a work of art even though it is 45 years old it has been refined very well and is in my opinion the most beautiful commercial plane ever.
Im with you propeller head- I keep wanting to hear that some airline is ordering 50 747-8is. I was glad to see ups order the freighters, but to me its like an ex champion boxer getting a job mopping the gym. That plane is too beautiful and capable to disappear. The ball point is an old design too...
Yes, a 747 with 2 ge90 engines works. I would know, because I've been on one.
The 747-8 is the most beautiful plane ever, after Concorde
I feel like a double decker twin engine plane is possible. But the fuselage would probably have to be redesigned.
Well thought out video. Thanks!
Now that is a very interesting video of the 747-8 with just 2 engines.....
Clever
Well, Hell... That was 3 Minutes of my life that I can never get back...
It would look fabulous ! I miss seeing all those 747s as well as flying them :great look!
More daydreaming vids, please! How about a new megafreighter with four GE9X engines and a 650,000-lb cargo capacity?
The Lockheed C-5 SG, you mean?
I have always wondered the same.
Thank for clarifying.
Super content! I was always wondering if it would be possible. Thanks!
Excellent analysis; well-narrated. Thank you!
The need to put these on the B-52H 2 on each wing. Since the pylons are currently 2 nacelles per pylon now it should handle a single 90. That would give the B-52 awesome power, longer range & quicker take offs.
Magestic Hmmmmmmm
Agreed. Really, just about any modern turbofan engine would be better than what it has.
edit: Ooops - I misread your comment the first time.
Magestic well the B-52 is still slated for service until 2050 so there’s always a chance.
The high altitude performance of a fanjet is not likely to be comparable to the turbojets used on the B-52. If they could afford the loss in altitude the take off and climb performance, not to mention the cruise duration, would be greatly enhanced
David Paine well the B-52H uses turbofans not turbojets.
Just great idea! Didn't know the same wing is used on both 747 & which twin ? Look it up! Likely a real plan.
NOOOO KEEP THE 4!!!!!!! ☹️ it looks better
Flagstaff Rail Fan 55 yah it would look ugly without them
Sadly finacial incentives are more valuralble than looks im afraid, its a shame i only see vigrin atlantic 747 coming into manchester but its rare seeing 4 engines aircraft, fuel prices are so high its making it hard for airlines to consider using them any more D:
I saw a VA 747 at Vegas along with a 747SP, Also I’ve seen 2 at PHX.
Flagstaff Rail Fan 55 Keeping it with 4 engines isn't an option. Too inefficient these days. The options are letting it go extinct or figure out how to make it use just 2 engines
BizzarFish1 It's not only fuel prices. It's also maintenance costs for keeping 4 engines good to go. That makes it cost twice than a one with 2 engines
that idea would probably make the 747 the queen of the skies again
Perth Plane Spotting HD ❤️👍👏
It has never stopped being the queen of the skies. I mean the A-380 is bigger and more modern but came 20 years too late.
All hail to the JumboJet B747
she will always be the queen of the skies no matter what!
There already is a twin engine 747
747-8 is the 777X. With no upper deck =)
Word - Bro!
The 777 doesn't have the beam of the 747
B777 can carry max 396 passengers in a two class configurations. B747-400 can carry +/- 600 passengers.
In an engine failure, you now only have 1/2 the thrust instead of 3/4 the thrust the old way, but they're able to handle that on a 777, so I am sure it might be theoretically possible.
Very interesting concept. While I agree with the fellow that stated to leave it be due to the majesty of the aircraft, I can see the idea of lessening the overall weight and fuel usage. I appreciate your breaking it down such that it really wouldn't work.
I did a project in my airframe class about this. It can but the cost to retrofit was prohibitive.
This sounds like a video Swiss001 would do.
Well, I saw GE is testing her new GE9X engines using a 747, they said one single engine could generate enough thrust to keep a 747 flying (something essential to get the ETOPS certification for a bi-engine airliner).
Honestly, I think the only way to save the "Queen of the Skies" is to turning it into a bi-engine airliner. Otherwise, it would lose ground to more light weight airliners like the B-777X, the B-787 or the A-350.
Plus, a more efficient B-747 could KO the A-380 for good and win the battle of the Jumbo airplanes.
To be honest, I have a hard time seeing the B-747 slowly dying.
That's what has been said. Technically it's possible. But their 747 was a test bed, that will never fly fully loaded or have an emergency where it would be necessary to fly with a single engine. To perform all adjustments required in a regular 747, will need a new wing, new fuel tanks, new flaps, slats, tail, etc. The wing is one of the most expensive parts of an aircraft to design and produce, so it's not gonna happen (unfortunately).
Ok the 747 your speaking of is owned by GE. Its their private aircraft that is utilised for inflight testing of new engine designs.
As someone else said reconfiguring the 747 wing for one engine per-side would require a completely new wing which would require recertification of the entire aircraft. NO, the 747 was originally designed as a military transport aircraft. That's why it had the second story so that it could/can be loaded straight on from the front. Boeing lost out to the Lockheed C5A and as a secondary effort to recoup their investment in the development of the new plane they gave it a name, 747, and added seats. Originally Boeing had the upstairs set up for the flight crews but Juan Tripp of Pan American who had agreed that if Boeing built it, he would buy it said the upstair seats were now first class seats for revenue.
The thing is Boeing figured if they could sell a 100 747's then they'd make their money back and perhaps some profit. That was as far as Boeing figured it would go. That was in what 1970-75. The only airliner I know that's been in production longer is the 737 in all its various forms.
SO sadly yes production of the 747 will be coming to and end. That will be decided by the customers when their no longer buying any.
Everything has a life cycle, planets, countries, people, and airplanes!
The 747 will continue for possibly decades as a cargo hauler. It was designed to be a cargo hauler as well, unlike the A-380 whose production will end soon and has been commercially unsuccessful.
@@solid1378 I don't get why people say the a380 was unsuccessful. Airbus got their money back from the design. It was never an airplane designed to sell by thousands like an A320. The super jumbo market doesn't work like that. And let's not forget that there are a lot of 747 built because the 747 is from the 70's. On the other side the a380 has been in production for little over then 10 years.
@TRAviation There are so many articles that show that Airbus will never recoup its investments in the A380 program. They just have not sold enough of the planes as anticipated. It came too late and was doomed by advances in jet engine technology, end of the HUB System and ETOPS. The 747 design has been around since the 1970s, and while passenger service is ending now, it will continue for decades after as a cargo hauler. If not for Emirates, the A380 program would have shut down much sooner. It is predicted that when Airbus fulfills the most recent Emirates order the A380 program will shut down in favor of the A330 and A350 programs. Unlike the 747, the A380 was never designed to be a cargo hauler, so it will most likely be the final end of the program.
The wing would have to be redesigned and given the cost of retrofitting a new wing as well as new engines, it would probably not be economically feasible. I firmly believe that Boeing saw "the writing on the wall" regarding the future of the 747 and decided that the new 777X would be the best compromise for carriers who wanted to have almost as many seats as in a 747 but in a totally modern plane.
The Boeing 777 is not as modern as the Airbus A350 airplane.
In ideal conditions two GE90 engines can easily power a 747. However, when a 747 currently loses an engine, it still produces thrust to offset yawing on that wing.
Also, most people assume losing an engine on a twin will reduce its performance by 50%, that's incorrect. The drag now caused by the inoperable engine relates to a more hefty 70% simulated loss.
That means that all is well until an engine fails at a critical point in flight, ie: VR @ MTOW.
The GE90 powered 747 in that situation would likely be unable to climb or hold wings level and crash.
With 4 engines. The likelihood of two engines failing is 200% less than that of a twin which would cause the same scenario outcome and that's why even though Boeing has considered it, would never take it further.
Safety.
Very good points raised. Excellent ideas. But practically impossible from an engineering viewpoint.
Well explained while keeping the video short.
I have this crazy idea of a 747 trijet in my head.
The main problem is engine out performance. You would be severely limited on takeoff weight to ensure that your single engine performance is great enough for a safe departure.
Hell yeah!!! Still looks great.
Interesting topic. I'm sure that Boeing considered a two-engine option when they worked on the 747-8, because the ETOPS increases that killed the market for quads occurred in the 90s and so Boeing had a decade to watch the market shrivel up.
By the way, I like your channel and subscribed yesterday. I hope you keep making interesting videos and start getting more views and subscribers. Don't be discouraged by the low views on your channel so far!! 👍
Nav has doubled his sub count in the past week or so. He just got his channel off the ground, and has an impressive climb rate so far.
That thumbnail is exactly when Boeing 747 and A330 had a baby, it is the Boeing 330 XD
They are Talking about the 777
nice one bruva
That would look so great!
It's already been done. Boeing used a 747-100 to test the GE90 when it was in developement. Theres a video in CZcams but can't seem to find it at the moment.
You'd definitely need to beef up the structure. At my old job, we had a PW4000 in the #2 position on a 747SP. There was more thrust bracing inboard of that engine (installed well before i worked there), but i honestly don't recall there being any extra structure for the weight of the engine. I could be wrong. The PW4000 was definitely close to the ground too.
What about 3 engine 747?
Great video
It is beautiful!!! The world's greatest plane could've been created but they stuck with 4 engines on the 747-8 even though they overhauled the wing design anyway
Ge tested the Genx engine on the wing of a 747 and yes the one engine did fly the plane at altitude !!!
I actually asked this on youtube 10 years ago. An aeronautical engineer explained that you would have to re-engineer the lower belly of the plane because of a change in aerodynamics. I believe the angle of attack would be very fragile to maintain, maybe larger rear rudder, because no drag is present on the out board wings. Physics plays a major role in designing an aircraft. Not only parasitic drag and other airflow inducing effects, power thrust, but weight distribution as well. Aircraft MUST burn off fuel prior to landing to prevent airframe fracturing, or worse destruction. Two larger engines will probably weigh more, fuel consumption might be an issue because of the drag of the rest of the plane will make maintaining thrust unorthodox than if it had all 4 engines. Also, politics involved with keeping jobs and fuel consumption. Redesign of the plane to handle the thrust power and weight of the plane carrying two engines will be probably the most important consideration to take when inducing something like this. Also, the cost to re-engineer and re-engine the plane makes it pointless, unless you're Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Donald Trump or Richard Branson.
Considering GE and Boeing have already mounted a GE90 to their 747-400 testbed and flown it with the other 3 CF6s shut down, Id say that the fuel flow, ground clearance, and thrust asymmetry is all within the envelope of what the 747 can deliver. Wing loading/airframe stress is really the only question.
to be honest unless we are talking about retrofitting old 747s its not worth it the 777-9 basically meets almost all the 747-8 specs in passenger transport but its much more efficient
Are 4 GE90 engines enough for an Antonov AN225?
Im Pretty Sure that 3 GE90s Would be enough to Power the AN-225 Mriya
Well how did they mount the ge9x one the 747
After talking to the pilot who flew that plane during the tests he said they would work just fine. They had trouble getting to 100% thrust on the test engine with both engines on the other side at full throttle. The "at altitude" performance is far superior vs the older engines. The fuel flow was substantially less. He also mentioned they talked about the retrofit but as mentioned in this video the wing would have to restructured for commercial service. Fine on anything in production but not cost effective for anything already flying
When the GE90 was going through its testing phase, Boeing mounted GE90's on a 747 and it was able to fly for over 3 Hours on just one engine.(I think this was the ETOPs testing).
Can it power enough even fully fueled loaded with passangers to the max in hot climates ?
The 747 testbed used for the GE-90 flew for several hours using ONLY the one GE-90 prototype.
I actually asked this a long time ago when there was a video showing a 747 using one large engine and blowing chunks of the runway off. An aeronautical engineer said that you'd have to redesign structural support for the belly of the plane to handle the difference in center of gravity with two larger, and probably heavier, engines. He also mentioned that it's just too costly and a lot of re-engineering is involved. Great idea, but too expensive. They might make enough thrust to use little fuel to keep the plane afloat but you have to worry about structural rigidity like fatigue over time. Aircraft have to go through a procedure where they're put on jacks and I think their frames are balanced in certain areas. I think it's called reframing? They almost gut the entire aircraft and it takes months to do but it's for hours on the air frames.
Vertical tail is sized for 2 engine failures on the same side for 4-engined aircraft
Agent Anderson yer and thrust asymmetry will be less? as the thrust is closer to body.
Is it not possible to use this to a different advantage ? like having 4 engines and use only 2 when you need them and then cut the other two off for the rest of the flight . Whether you have two and two or four the same . I'm I going the wrong way with this ?? Then you eliminate allot of the 4 engines and reduce cost of use of regular 4 engine use . Also isn't the 747-8 easier in use than the a380 ?
Thanks
The 777 I don’t think it could be stretched past the -300 line ,it is already a very long plane. The 747 with new designed wing with only 2 large engine built new. Could have a large cost savings, in not having to redesign the main fuselage and tail assembly along with the landing gear ,a/c ,electrical systems, and the many other systems found in the fuselage. The retired 747 (2 engine)after passenger service can be used as cargo aircraft ,where as the A380 would take a major redesign to have front opening nose door added.
There was an early attempt to re-engine the 727 for 2 larger, more efficient turbo-fan engines, redo the tail without the upper intake and eliminate the 3rd engine, but Boeing would not provide the technical info to the company that wanted to do the modification. Boeing wanted to instead sell newer 2 engine 737, 757, 767, etc. A redesigned and more fuel efficient 727 would have been unwanted competition.
Jane D Redding could be hope
Would it work for that 747sp?
Take a look at the 747 located at the Top Gear test track. It has 4 egnines but they are placed in pares on the inner pylon on each wing. Outer pylon has some sort of tanks I think
O men great idea 👍
Slap the 777X wings on it, up-rate the GE9X since we know we can, and boom, done.
Pretty good explanation. But there's one thing that you left out, which is how the aircraft would handle in flight. Boeing had looked at going to a 3 engine configuration some time ago, mounting the third in the tail similar to the L-1011 or DC-10/MD11. Their conclusion was that it was both impractical, due to the cost of redesigning the structure of the fuselage and wings, but also because it would have made the aircraft handle much differently.
Boeing saw both challenges as impracticable, due to the obvious increase in the cost of the aircraft but also the cost airlines would incur to retrain flight crews. And determined that both together would have off set the savings of reduced maintenance costs and fuel savings.
But as you said, its always fun to think of what if's, and look at what could or would happen.
But here's another idea to look at. Instead of re-engining the 747, what if we added the extra landing gear to the 777, to increase its max weight rating, making it more attractive as a heavy hauler?
Imagine a Boeing 747 with 4 of those lovely sounding GE 90's
How about six 4360 corn cob radials on the old bird? It sure would be fun to watch the startup and the sound would be nice as well lol.
I remember they tested the original GE90's on a 747, they said the one engine pulled the plane by itself
Back in the 70's I saw a 747 land and taxi in Honolulu it was transporting externally a spare engine capped front and rear
More importantly can we due this to a B-52?
This really makes me think about what they did with the 737 max, trying to put a new engines on what is basically the same aircraft .
Very interesting, but wouldn't be possible because of weight distribution of two huge engines on the wings. Sure would like to see it happen.
I already had this idea for a private plane. 747 SP with 2 GE-90 engines capable of flying 12,500 miles non stop. The landing gear would need to be taller. A complete redesign would be required. Definitely doable.
I think it should have 1 big prop on the nose.. that'd make it look perfect!
nice video
The 747 wouldn't have a problem with the change.
I think it is a great idea and need some exploration!
I find the outside appearance of the 747 200 the most pleasing, and there might be an advantage as far as weight given just a little sacrifice of capacity. Get the impression they were trying to squeeze too much into it with the following models rather than, heaven forbid, going to a larger-still jet platform.
I was thinking that Boeing Should use that 777x engine on it 747.
Can four GE-90s drive an antonov an-225?
What would the range be?
I remember this moment in ksp when thrust not enough😇😌
The 747 has a character all its own. There’s an excitement to it’s appearance and anticipation of a voyage of adventure to be had.
I’ve flown on every jetliner Boeing has ever made but, unfortunately, never on the Queen of the skies.
I've thought about this for a while now....i figured building a completely new 747-9 with completely redesigned wings....set up for two GE-90x... wouldn't be as costly as a completely new aircraft....If you've watched Top Gear Uk....you will notice a modified 747...with 2 engines on a single engine pilon..like a B-52...parked on the runway....in the background...cant see that being much different than a single larger GE-90X....other than ground clearance to runway...i could see this keeping the 747 fuel efficient and viable for another 30 years...
Didn't they test the Ge9x on the 747 in Mojave? They had one on it and 3 normal engines.
The biggest advantage of the 747 is it’s high ETOPS rating. If it were to transition to 2 engines, the 747 would then have to re-prove itself to re-earn a higher ETOPS rating.
I'd like to know what kind of engine design would be needed to fly an A380 with only 2.
You, the author of this bring up a lot of great points why it would not be viable to convert a 747 airframe to 2 engines.
On the other hand, it's just laughable with some of the comments being made about two extra smaller engines, etc. I have no engineering background but was a flight instructor for ten years and have read much about aviation technology. I think a lot of these comments are coming from very young and naiive posters. Hey! They have every right to post but I try not to post comments or recommendations where I'm not qualified to do so.
My understanding there is a big surge on converting 747-400 And 300 series into cargo aircraft because of the increased capacity demand-which would all but negate the possibility of converting the 747 into a twin jet anyway.
Random question, did you study engineering at uni?
That begs the question, why didn't they try to design the 747-8 with a 2-engine solution, since fuel efficiency is becoming such a squeeze on all the 4-engine aircraft? They reworked so much of the plane that they should have done it then, if they had any chance to make that work at all.