This is just a guess, but I've always thought the spiral was for ground crew so they could see If the engine was idling or not. (to avoid sucking in luggage or himself!)
It's an amazingly powerful jet engine, two times more powerful than that of A380. Two GE90- 115 B produce thrust which is almost equivalent to those of 4 A380 engines. Who could believe it!!
for a TWIN ENGINE airliner prety big airplane when you see it parked at the gate but the Engines themselves Damn Freakin Huge! the dwarf the 747 engine have yet to fly on a 777 someday
How can she say unique shape of the fan blades?? GE copied swept fan technology off Rolls-Royce, we invented the swept fan and we have them on our new engines now, T900/1000/XWB all swept fan and all Rolls-Royce invention.
@FhjNelson which is why the 777 only has 2. but more economic than an aircraft with 4 of the old generation engines. and though Airbus a330s also have 2 engines as well, a330s are not as large as 777s..
This is what it takes to develop a modern engine. Years of development just for the engines. I love how when chine came out with their aircraft program, people were saying it was the end of boeing. Boeing is decades ahead of any country.
@Riechode Not everything Rolls does is great. They're the only maker of 3-shaft engines. GE and P&W use 2-shaft engines....something to be said for the simplicity of design of a 2-shaft engine.
@meccaturbo Yep, 2 shaft is simpler but the GE booster stages on the N1 shaft need to be a large diameter to get the blades to a decent speed to do anyhing, which results in a larger frontal area for a given bypass ratio.
3 shaft is also much more compact; Trents are tiny compared to GE-90, and much lighter.
But as you say, 2 shaft is more simple, cheaper to build and maintain.
GE and RR make fantastic engines, I was just saying RR patented the swept fan blade.
@Riechode Well the RR swept blade is no longer patented. Their triple-inflection leading edge was ruled "prior art" by supreme court. You will see more Pratt and GE engines take advantage of this and produce swept designs.
what im really excited about is knowing that engines of this size are only needed for large planes to carry hundreds of passengers. i saw that james bond stunt aircraft that used a jet engine that was 24"x12". thats like the size of a metal bucket. airplanes of small size use less materials than a family car. think about it. a jet engine does not need to be huge to power a family airplane and uses very little materials. if mass produced it would become so cheap for all.
@210482fmj they are mass produced enignes, and for a "family airplane" like maybe a CJ2($6mil), that can hold 5-7 or so comfortably, they cost 2 million each, and get replaced every 1,000 hours or so of flight time. a cessna 182, that hold 4 people and goes maybe 130 mph, costs 500,000 brand new and uses basicly a modified car engine. burns 13 gal an hour @ 5$ a gallon. $2-3K a year for FAA isnpections. so if you think we are anywhere near a "family aircraft" your wrong, unless your filthy rich
@CaptainBergs one day it will be on a mass scale though. perhaps one day fuel stations will be installed over the atlantic so people in family planes can refuel over the atlantic on there flights instead of having to go via iceland and greenland. if aviation reaches the popularity of the automobile then it will become cheaper im sure you'll agree in the future. maybe 200 years or so. An jet engine the size of an apu could power a small plane. imagine 4 apu sized engines
This is what boeing could have done utlized the GE -90 for 747-8s just use 2 for flight and other two for spare engines. This could have beated the A380 with four engines total two can be used in flight and all four inflight as well.
It's obvious there were no passengers. What did you think? They would pull off a stunt like that in mid air risking everyone's life and get away with it? No common sense? To top it off, it alone wasn't used during take off. There were 3 other engines (P&W and RR combined). They were switched off and just had the 115B running. Finally forget the fuel. It had the combined weight of 3 other turbines to take care of. I'am an Aviation Enthusiast and not just a guy who gets dazzled by spinning blades.
I flew twice on the 777. I love these take offs showing the inlet and condensation. I did some calculations on the GE90 engines for fan shaft power. I referenced an ihi.co.jp pdf paper on line. Speaking of the -94 and -115 versions respectively, the fans turn at 2850 and 2550 RPM, of diameters 123 and 128 inches, with fan shaft torque of 225,000 and 293,500 ft lb, and power level of 122,000 and 142,480 horsepower (includes LP compressor). The fan shaft is maraging steel of 55 Rc hardness!
@baileyjean1000 I wonder... I think the bottom line is no twin engine airliner will ever be as save (at least regarding an engine failure scenario) a a four engine one. Still, what happened to that A320 in NYC is, fortunatelly, a very unlucky and unlikely scenario. I'm only guessing, but I think it'll take more to damage both engines of a 777 (A330, 787, A350XWB...) that what it took with the A320 whose engines are considerably smaller.
xD I remember on an Air New Zealand flight from San Francisco to Auckland, I was in the front row of premium economy and I looked out the window and just behind it, I was like "WTF IS THAT!!! THAT THING IS BLOODY HUGE!!!"
@zakman246 Air New Zealand flight from SFO-AKL doesnt use this engine. I think they use RR. I flew that same flight nov 6. ANZ just got a new 777 with this engine. I think they fly it to LAX and LHR
@laurynas102 Yeah, but you have to think. It would have to withstand the temperatures of the atmosphere, if the engines diddn't melt, that would be a great idea.
Are the attachment stresses below the flow path rated as "prime reliable"? I thought that the FAA didn't allow composite materials to to be rated at 2X pull...I'll go with a Pratt or a Rolls titanium fan any day of the week.
how old is this video, I believe the Rolls Royce Trent is bigger and more powerful, but that's the nature of industry. One will beat the other from time to time.
This video may be a little old, but it will a long long time until Rols Royce or Trent or GP Engine Alliance make anything laregr than this beast (which is designed solely for the 777). Since there is really no passenger aircraft other than the 777 (not even the A380 or 748) that can handle an engine this large, you won't see anyhing larger for a very long time. The market for this engine is too small for others to enter. GE90-115B is also most powerful and holds the world record.
127,900lbs of thrust... this info is 3 years old now ...lol, they have far exceeded that now. The KING of Aircraft Engines... Pilots and Maintainers swear by them.
@grantourismo0109 nope I don't think its too expensive I think its the love and the dream to make really cool and innovative stuff is gown. Simply replaced by a heartless, soulless money driven business sense that we have today. Come on Concord is revolutionary even by today's standards and when was it built back in the late 60s. Now its the 21st century 2010 what has man made half as neat, we settle for substandard engineering calling it amazing
developing concord in 60 s were expensive there were no CAD
everything drawn by hand, and it really did burn alot more gas than
747-100. And the material used for concord in its day were really expensive
but like you said, i think with 2010 techonology it should nt be hard to build a plane that flies at mach 1.3 to 1.5 would be practical and ecnomocial too
@grantourismo0109 See at least we can agree that stuff should be better and that the old duds had less tools and still did amazing stuff. What I would like to ask you is why you think mark 2 (2 time the speed of sound) or above is such a bad idea when it comes to economy. To me at least the faster you can move goods from one spot to another providing maintenance n fuel are not too high others cost are offset so it could also be eco.n y is there no more smexy I thought engineers were also artist
@lightfdar yes we both agree on that. current airline like airbus 330 320, 767,747
really do not differ much from the late 70s plane apart from personal tv and less fuel cost engine however they are still doing 0.9 to 0.8 mach really not much break through.
the reason i think goin m2 is expensive well , this is what i pick up from history channel second thing is that current economy is not really stable.
@grantourismo0109 I really don't think expensive is a good reason since everything when initially started is expensive. What is needed is a will or motivation to move in that direction and prices will fall. To me from reading up on some history the reason Concord failed was because of hippies and legislation in the US that restricted its flight to only a few airports. There are new tech which would reduces the noise pollution or eliminate it. personally I rarely trust what comes out of the TV:)
but oil crisis in 70s made concord seems to be a problem on the sales
of the plane. and the airport facilities problem well if u look at airbus 380 only rich country who can afford to retrofit their airport can afford landing for 380 that is the reason i say the new supersonic jet must be compatible at current airport
do not require extra facility. 40 % part compatible with current jet is important just to cut down cost a real incentive for airplane buyer
@grantourismo0109 to your second message na I don't think swept wings are the way to go or should I say simple wept wings, variable-sweep wing might work but I still prefer delta wings(check it for yourself (/wiki/Delta_wing)) or its variations. All I'm saying is the base tech is there what needs to be done is improve fuel consumption, noise pollution, and get rid of those old laws n were back in business to no more 12 hour flight and above mark 2 speeds
@grantourismo0109 I can see your reasoning with the compatibility issues at lest just to make thing cheap enough to start, and yes I do think this engine might just do mark 1.3 that if other things like special air intake and exhaust valves where used for the engine along with better aerodynamics . With an engine that big where going to need a big plane...lol XD. Haa!! here's a good idea why not add me as one of your friends Light is my alias I am an Engineering student maybe we can talk ltr :D
@lightfdar yes, cheap cost is always a good incentive for buyers, just like we go to our supermarket. I think to start with a mack 1.3 with 250 passenger and range 10000 km is reasonable. How do I add you as frnd @@?
by the way I m not student anymore , I graduate with ..... SURPRSINGLY "ART DEGREE" :D
@grantourismo0109 Ya cheap is good until you can get competition willing to up the ante with bigger and better and alternate uses like cargo & lower atmosphere tourism. Dud the degree itself does not denote if one has intelligence. What is important is that your a human being capable of logical thought. Just because you have a Art degree does not mean you cannot understand science based knowledge nor does it mean you should restrict yourself to only tat :D. Now where is that friend button Ah!!
@grantourismo0109 Amazing there is nothing new to this engine nothing revolutionary to me its just a sub-sonic engine with allot of trust cause its well...big. I think the engineer of the past though the future would have been allot more what that word.. surreal, but it has been for the most part SO-SO and boring. By there expectation we should not even still be earth bound, but instead we jiz our pants for 60-80 year old porn......sad :(. When we should be striving for way better.
i was thinking of putting this on a wave peircing powerboat....then i realized it has over 100,000 HP by itself. then i also realized that 2 of these would equal almost the same horse power as a nimitz class aircraft carrier
whoever that flew the test platforms in for a real treat....I can't imagine how one could fly a jet designed to be balanced by 4 engines with only one, thankfully close to the fuselage...
@quangluu96 That's over 100,000 horsepower, not 1,000. Even small jets have a lot more than 1,000 hp. Cars don't even compare. And technically hp isn't used for jet engines b/c it can't be measured directly and it varies with airspeed and altitude. But when a jet is traveling at about 400 mph, 1 lb. of thrust equals 1 hp. So at that speed, this engine would have 127,900 hp. On the ground, it has even more horsepower than that. You would need more than 120 Veyrons to produce the same horsepower.
she is the business/program manager, so she spec'd the engine size, materials used, performance parameters, ceiling limit, etc. and the engineers take those spec and draw them up. engineers are the oompa loompas of GE.
@len0808 you understand nothing about design and development: in your head there is just buullshit. I am a senior design engineer of GE and I PERFECTLY KNOW WHAT i'M TALKING ABOUT. oompa loompas is your mother with a series of sexsual maniacal donkeys
GE appliances aren't even made by GE anymore. They only pay to put the GE meatball on them. PLUS the engines are heavily regulated by the FAA... so YES they perform much better than the appliances with 10 million flight hours- and no crashes.......
@aero481
This is just a guess, but I've always thought the spiral was for ground crew so they could see If the engine was idling or not. (to avoid sucking in luggage or himself!)
Staytheredoggy 5 days ago
hey i asked myself about the white spiral on the fan...is there a special purpose for this "design" ?
Aero481 6 days ago
Animal rights activists and vegans better not be boarding this plane considering bird carcasses were used to test those oversized poultry blenders!
Regemiteable 1 week ago
who is the hore?
kgsyed 3 weeks ago
A single G90 engine is capable of powering a Boeing 747. Oh my gosh!!!
paultvshow 3 weeks ago
It's an amazingly powerful jet engine, two times more powerful than that of A380. Two GE90- 115 B produce thrust which is almost equivalent to those of 4 A380 engines. Who could believe it!!
paultvshow 3 weeks ago
eu amo o 777, e este General Electric foi o motor perfeito para ele. impõe respeito hein..!
KrzLeandro 1 month ago
127900 lbs of thrust... come on that's just... really? My God! Absolutely epic
Foxx1981 1 month ago
Big, big fan of this enormously huge turbofan, but I must say, Robyn Brands rocks GE Aviation
Archie23rulz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@badboybilzer That's already a turbo, a 128in diameter turbo pushing 115,300lbs.
And you can't put it into a Honda, better put your Honda into the GE90-115BL1 lol.
AF401 1 month ago
Comment removed
AF401 1 month ago
Comment removed
TonyFirelli 1 month ago
for a TWIN ENGINE airliner prety big airplane when you see it parked at the gate but the Engines themselves Damn Freakin Huge! the dwarf the 747 engine have yet to fly on a 777 someday
ELSTARBREAKER 1 month ago
that 747 looks like nemo
c4fishfood 1 month ago
That is why 777's are my the most favorite aircraft ever ...! :)
glasswings21 2 months ago
Damn ! She's hot and smart
chambalane1 2 months ago
there's an ufo at the end of the video
BlueRice 2 months ago
Chuck Norris´s hair dryer...
Filo127 2 months ago 26
@Filo127 And it's also his vacuum cleaner.
AF401 1 month ago 2
Awesome bird blender :)
KarmaKahn 3 months ago
I own one to make coffee.
nielscarp 3 months ago 8
@badboybilzer actually its already turbocharged, physically.
HuhnK0t 3 months ago
@HuhnK0t ahhh i got that i was a gas systems tech in navy, it was a "yeah but can it blend " comments
and heck yeah it can blend
badboybilzer 3 months ago
is it ok to put my cock inside?
Wjboyz 3 months ago
bird carcasses.....
BatusaiJack 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It sucks in american money and spreads it all over the world, except America!!
mrobpmac 3 months ago
It sucks in american and spreads it all over the world, except America!!
mrobpmac 3 months ago
typical, rolls royce trent 1000, huge engine, typical yanks want big bigger
ellbeewindows 2 months ago
Rolls Royce is better
KatiushaVN4 3 months ago
My GE radio alarm clock was stereo!
1971SuperLead 3 months ago
With a thousand of this engines blowing in the same direction; we could stop earth rotation and make it spin backwards.
RDELAPLAZA 4 months ago
$21 million. Is that how much R&D cost or the price to buy one?
brightlights456X 4 months ago
How can she say unique shape of the fan blades?? GE copied swept fan technology off Rolls-Royce, we invented the swept fan and we have them on our new engines now, T900/1000/XWB all swept fan and all Rolls-Royce invention.
gcoochy 4 months ago
modern marvels
megagamer44 4 months ago
Yeah well my GE frig is awesome too..
JaxxBat 4 months ago
ACTUALLY IT CAN BLEND BECAUSE IT HAVE 999999999 RPM SPINNING ROTOR.
goktug123123 4 months ago
The question is, will it blend?
bumchickawowwow2 5 months ago
Yeah but what kind of
TheEvilCommenter 5 months ago
i farted. it smells.
fatkidinacan 5 months ago
It looks like the engine its self is pretty thin, but its just the main fan blade and engine cowling thats large.
101HeyNow 5 months ago
@101HeyNow It's called a "high bypass" engine, in that most of the air that goes in doesn't actually go through the main engine core.
Freeflyer91 4 months ago
@fanexpert Haha! On yahoo answers it says 17-20 million. Both VERY credible sources. LOL
pomrizzle09 5 months ago
@fanexpert $21 million
pomrizzle09 6 months ago
I wish I was a jet engine. Then people would fire frozen chickens into me.
Tomakak 6 months ago
@fanexpert Thats cheap, what im worried about is the bike seat a good one of those is pricy
callowaymotorcompany 6 months ago
Strap a bike seat and wheels on it and ill buy one.
callowaymotorcompany 6 months ago
BIEBER BLENDER!
15sdobbie 6 months ago 2
AND the engineers had an even better version but it's still not needed
Shankovich 6 months ago
Additional: The GE rep is hawt.
Fin.
lexichronicle2 6 months ago
It's not quite the same thing, but the Pratt and Whitney engines on the shuttle develop 400,000 lbs of thrust. Each.
They don't use a rotor, but they do use turbines to blow the fuel through the nozzles.
lexichronicle2 6 months ago
Comment removed
e081194eng 6 months ago
okay, it delievers an enormous amount of thrust, but is it economic?
FhjNelson 7 months ago
@FhjNelson which is why the 777 only has 2. but more economic than an aircraft with 4 of the old generation engines. and though Airbus a330s also have 2 engines as well, a330s are not as large as 777s..
cjpatz 6 months ago
how does these things stay attached to the plane :P Feels like with all that thrust it would tear itself from the wings
snelpiller 7 months ago
i my cars engines is upgraded to GE engines it runs at 1400km/h
4500intelx 7 months ago
This is what it takes to develop a modern engine. Years of development just for the engines. I love how when chine came out with their aircraft program, people were saying it was the end of boeing. Boeing is decades ahead of any country.
cesar333 7 months ago 2
LOL fan blades 'Unique shape'.... developed and patented by Rolls Royce ;-P
Riechode 7 months ago
@Riechode Not everything Rolls does is great. They're the only maker of 3-shaft engines. GE and P&W use 2-shaft engines....something to be said for the simplicity of design of a 2-shaft engine.
meccaturbo 6 months ago in playlist AVIÃO 2
@meccaturbo Yep, 2 shaft is simpler but the GE booster stages on the N1 shaft need to be a large diameter to get the blades to a decent speed to do anyhing, which results in a larger frontal area for a given bypass ratio.
3 shaft is also much more compact; Trents are tiny compared to GE-90, and much lighter.
But as you say, 2 shaft is more simple, cheaper to build and maintain.
GE and RR make fantastic engines, I was just saying RR patented the swept fan blade.
Riechode 6 months ago
@Riechode Well the RR swept blade is no longer patented. Their triple-inflection leading edge was ruled "prior art" by supreme court. You will see more Pratt and GE engines take advantage of this and produce swept designs.
hollows3 6 months ago
Will it blend?
Yeah, it will. It's blended a bird at high speed!
Awesome engineering.
snomimons 8 months ago
what im really excited about is knowing that engines of this size are only needed for large planes to carry hundreds of passengers. i saw that james bond stunt aircraft that used a jet engine that was 24"x12". thats like the size of a metal bucket. airplanes of small size use less materials than a family car. think about it. a jet engine does not need to be huge to power a family airplane and uses very little materials. if mass produced it would become so cheap for all.
210482fmj 8 months ago
@210482fmj they are mass produced enignes, and for a "family airplane" like maybe a CJ2($6mil), that can hold 5-7 or so comfortably, they cost 2 million each, and get replaced every 1,000 hours or so of flight time. a cessna 182, that hold 4 people and goes maybe 130 mph, costs 500,000 brand new and uses basicly a modified car engine. burns 13 gal an hour @ 5$ a gallon. $2-3K a year for FAA isnpections. so if you think we are anywhere near a "family aircraft" your wrong, unless your filthy rich
CaptainBergs 7 months ago
@CaptainBergs one day it will be on a mass scale though. perhaps one day fuel stations will be installed over the atlantic so people in family planes can refuel over the atlantic on there flights instead of having to go via iceland and greenland. if aviation reaches the popularity of the automobile then it will become cheaper im sure you'll agree in the future. maybe 200 years or so. An jet engine the size of an apu could power a small plane. imagine 4 apu sized engines
210482fmj 7 months ago
I bet it can't blow away Chuck Norris.
rb21122b 8 months ago
There is a ufo in front of the plane right before the video stops.
philip21786 8 months ago
can it lift up a a380?
metra0808 8 months ago
i don't get it you are going to need more fuel and its going to cost more.
metra0808 8 months ago
this would be great for a center-engine machine :D
197022007 8 months ago
This is what boeing could have done utlized the GE -90 for 747-8s just use 2 for flight and other two for spare engines. This could have beated the A380 with four engines total two can be used in flight and all four inflight as well.
Daniel2131990 8 months ago
I want a Boeing 777
DatMexicano57 8 months ago
shes hot.
stunner629 9 months ago
I saw this engine on a jet I was flying with... I thought wtf that's massive.
Scwirul 9 months ago
GE 90 - 115B... This one bastard is capable of flying a B 747 - 400... It generates a mighty blow of 115,000 pounds....
gfruy 9 months ago
@gfruy Thats only one Side of the Story, it had no Passengers and prob. barely Fuel
mazak 9 months ago
It's obvious there were no passengers. What did you think? They would pull off a stunt like that in mid air risking everyone's life and get away with it? No common sense? To top it off, it alone wasn't used during take off. There were 3 other engines (P&W and RR combined). They were switched off and just had the 115B running. Finally forget the fuel. It had the combined weight of 3 other turbines to take care of. I'am an Aviation Enthusiast and not just a guy who gets dazzled by spinning blades.
gfruy 9 months ago
GE 90 - 115BE... This one bastard is capable of flying a B 747 - 400... It generates a mighty blow of 115,000 pounds....
gfruy 9 months ago
this is chuck norris's cars turbo
teletubbykiller54 9 months ago
you didnt expect that engine to move 400 pound rocks when it generates 127,900 lbs of thrust? I thought you engineers were suppose to be smart.
gypsykingg 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
General Electric, go out of business already.
General Electric deathwatch starts now.
akirafactor 9 months ago
I flew twice on the 777. I love these take offs showing the inlet and condensation. I did some calculations on the GE90 engines for fan shaft power. I referenced an ihi.co.jp pdf paper on line. Speaking of the -94 and -115 versions respectively, the fans turn at 2850 and 2550 RPM, of diameters 123 and 128 inches, with fan shaft torque of 225,000 and 293,500 ft lb, and power level of 122,000 and 142,480 horsepower (includes LP compressor). The fan shaft is maraging steel of 55 Rc hardness!
springhill1958 9 months ago
She looks like a czech ex-pornstar called Lynn Stone
xaviqaz 9 months ago
sure, but will a flock of birds (remember the Hudson river landing?) still shut down both engines?
baileyjean1000 9 months ago
@baileyjean1000 I wonder... I think the bottom line is no twin engine airliner will ever be as save (at least regarding an engine failure scenario) a a four engine one. Still, what happened to that A320 in NYC is, fortunatelly, a very unlucky and unlikely scenario. I'm only guessing, but I think it'll take more to damage both engines of a 777 (A330, 787, A350XWB...) that what it took with the A320 whose engines are considerably smaller.
javiercaselli 9 months ago
She looks like Sandy Duncan. Grow that hair out and you may look a little hotter.
hollows3 9 months ago
Chuck Norris's hair dryer.
SirDeanosity 11 months ago 5
@SirDeanosity hahaha Chuck 4ever! :)
riesjedem 10 months ago
@riesjedem Idk, he's now the face of 'World of Warcraft'. He's just gone down, in my books.
JewDough1 1 month ago
hmmm interesting but, will it blend?
andyass3 11 months ago 18
@andyass3 oi
why not see if it will blend other things hahaha
GG
the end
:P
IAMDAVEAMI 11 months ago
@andyass3 everything blends...
Kinglevel 4 months ago
@andyass3 ..it will blend YOU!
KSCElite 4 months ago
@andyass3 yes, its will blend you with no problems!
mapukmapuk 4 months ago
which episode is this from?
PilotUTA 11 months ago
21 million dollar engine!!
OMFG!!!!
sam3d 11 months ago
xD I remember on an Air New Zealand flight from San Francisco to Auckland, I was in the front row of premium economy and I looked out the window and just behind it, I was like "WTF IS THAT!!! THAT THING IS BLOODY HUGE!!!"
zakman246 11 months ago
@zakman246 Air New Zealand flight from SFO-AKL doesnt use this engine. I think they use RR. I flew that same flight nov 6. ANZ just got a new 777 with this engine. I think they fly it to LAX and LHR
PInk77W1 10 months ago
Next step -warp drive.
Aslapacrosstheface 1 year ago
don't even wanna think about this monster's jet blast... it could probaly throw the heaviest of the trains about a mile away LOL XD
MultiMinigun 1 year ago
these engines should be used for space ships to lift off
laurynas102 1 year ago
@laurynas102 Yeah, but you have to think. It would have to withstand the temperatures of the atmosphere, if the engines diddn't melt, that would be a great idea.
Killzor420 1 year ago
chuck norris's hair dryer
nirob 1 year ago 44
@nirob lol
rimwydas44 5 months ago
awesome :)
technohead2222 1 year ago
awesome :)
technohead2222 1 year ago
Are the attachment stresses below the flow path rated as "prime reliable"? I thought that the FAA didn't allow composite materials to to be rated at 2X pull...I'll go with a Pratt or a Rolls titanium fan any day of the week.
hollows3 1 year ago
MODERN MARVELS!!!!
flyinportopotty 1 year ago
GE90 right?
futurepilot95 1 year ago
Take a dragon, make it mechanical, pop it on the side of an aeroplane. :D
zeptinune 1 year ago
this is my fan on my xbox 360
ShelbyGT500TT 1 year ago
how old is this video, I believe the Rolls Royce Trent is bigger and more powerful, but that's the nature of industry. One will beat the other from time to time.
k2kkoos 1 year ago
@k2kkoos
This video may be a little old, but it will a long long time until Rols Royce or Trent or GP Engine Alliance make anything laregr than this beast (which is designed solely for the 777). Since there is really no passenger aircraft other than the 777 (not even the A380 or 748) that can handle an engine this large, you won't see anyhing larger for a very long time. The market for this engine is too small for others to enter. GE90-115B is also most powerful and holds the world record.
onecunningfox 1 year ago
1:21
Is the 'how long does it take our engine to eat a giant Malteaser' test offically sanctioned, or is it one of General Electrics own?
PrivateCustard 1 year ago
127,900lbs of thrust... this info is 3 years old now ...lol, they have far exceeded that now. The KING of Aircraft Engines... Pilots and Maintainers swear by them.
PaganEgyptian 1 year ago
100,000 hp? mehh my push bike can produce more than that on its own.
bugsbunny159 1 year ago
The three little pigs will be stuffed if the big bad wolf were to have one of these.
narlzp 1 year ago
dam that thing is powerful
quingod22 1 year ago
with all that power wish it could go super sonic. Why does everyone seem t hate commercial supersonic flight (Concord) ... AHH!!
lightfdar 1 year ago
@lightfdar
too expensive going at mach 2
grantourismo0109 1 year ago
@grantourismo0109 nope I don't think its too expensive I think its the love and the dream to make really cool and innovative stuff is gown. Simply replaced by a heartless, soulless money driven business sense that we have today. Come on Concord is revolutionary even by today's standards and when was it built back in the late 60s. Now its the 21st century 2010 what has man made half as neat, we settle for substandard engineering calling it amazing
lightfdar 1 year ago
@lightfdar
developing concord in 60 s were expensive there were no CAD
everything drawn by hand, and it really did burn alot more gas than
747-100. And the material used for concord in its day were really expensive
but like you said, i think with 2010 techonology it should nt be hard to build a plane that flies at mach 1.3 to 1.5 would be practical and ecnomocial too
grantourismo0109 1 year ago
@grantourismo0109 See at least we can agree that stuff should be better and that the old duds had less tools and still did amazing stuff. What I would like to ask you is why you think mark 2 (2 time the speed of sound) or above is such a bad idea when it comes to economy. To me at least the faster you can move goods from one spot to another providing maintenance n fuel are not too high others cost are offset so it could also be eco.n y is there no more smexy I thought engineers were also artist
lightfdar 1 year ago
@lightfdar yes we both agree on that. current airline like airbus 330 320, 767,747
really do not differ much from the late 70s plane apart from personal tv and less fuel cost engine however they are still doing 0.9 to 0.8 mach really not much break through.
the reason i think goin m2 is expensive well , this is what i pick up from history channel second thing is that current economy is not really stable.
grantourismo0109 1 year ago
@lightfdar maybe if we make a plane that is more aerodynamic like swept wing
be able to carry 300 passenger travel up to 10000 km @mach 1.3
the plane part lets say 40% compatible to current airline and be able to operate in curreny airport , perhaps would be more appealing to airlines
coz we all dunt want spend 12 hours on a long flight :(
grantourismo0109 1 year ago
@grantourismo0109 I really don't think expensive is a good reason since everything when initially started is expensive. What is needed is a will or motivation to move in that direction and prices will fall. To me from reading up on some history the reason Concord failed was because of hippies and legislation in the US that restricted its flight to only a few airports. There are new tech which would reduces the noise pollution or eliminate it. personally I rarely trust what comes out of the TV:)
lightfdar 1 year ago
@lightfdar yes hippie was a reason
but oil crisis in 70s made concord seems to be a problem on the sales
of the plane. and the airport facilities problem well if u look at airbus 380 only rich country who can afford to retrofit their airport can afford landing for 380 that is the reason i say the new supersonic jet must be compatible at current airport
do not require extra facility. 40 % part compatible with current jet is important just to cut down cost a real incentive for airplane buyer
grantourismo0109 1 year ago
@grantourismo0109 to your second message na I don't think swept wings are the way to go or should I say simple wept wings, variable-sweep wing might work but I still prefer delta wings(check it for yourself (/wiki/Delta_wing)) or its variations. All I'm saying is the base tech is there what needs to be done is improve fuel consumption, noise pollution, and get rid of those old laws n were back in business to no more 12 hour flight and above mark 2 speeds
lightfdar 1 year ago
@lightfdar lol yes delta wing (confuse with swept wing) perhaps a small
pair of delta wing at fron to assist take of is more ideal like SAAB design their jet
variable swept would be a factor in logistic of the plane due to compexity.
I am fairly sure this jet in the video would be good for going at mach 1.3 if the plane is more aero dyanmic just a guessing :)
grantourismo0109 1 year ago
@grantourismo0109 I can see your reasoning with the compatibility issues at lest just to make thing cheap enough to start, and yes I do think this engine might just do mark 1.3 that if other things like special air intake and exhaust valves where used for the engine along with better aerodynamics . With an engine that big where going to need a big plane...lol XD. Haa!! here's a good idea why not add me as one of your friends Light is my alias I am an Engineering student maybe we can talk ltr :D
lightfdar 1 year ago
@lightfdar yes, cheap cost is always a good incentive for buyers, just like we go to our supermarket. I think to start with a mack 1.3 with 250 passenger and range 10000 km is reasonable. How do I add you as frnd @@?
by the way I m not student anymore , I graduate with ..... SURPRSINGLY "ART DEGREE" :D
grantourismo0109 1 year ago
@grantourismo0109 Ya cheap is good until you can get competition willing to up the ante with bigger and better and alternate uses like cargo & lower atmosphere tourism. Dud the degree itself does not denote if one has intelligence. What is important is that your a human being capable of logical thought. Just because you have a Art degree does not mean you cannot understand science based knowledge nor does it mean you should restrict yourself to only tat :D. Now where is that friend button Ah!!
lightfdar 1 year ago
@grantourismo0109 Amazing there is nothing new to this engine nothing revolutionary to me its just a sub-sonic engine with allot of trust cause its well...big. I think the engineer of the past though the future would have been allot more what that word.. surreal, but it has been for the most part SO-SO and boring. By there expectation we should not even still be earth bound, but instead we jiz our pants for 60-80 year old porn......sad :(. When we should be striving for way better.
lightfdar 1 year ago
i was thinking of putting this on a wave peircing powerboat....then i realized it has over 100,000 HP by itself. then i also realized that 2 of these would equal almost the same horse power as a nimitz class aircraft carrier
nunchuck19 1 year ago
General Electric Engine, isn't electric at all !!! (LOL)
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
dear santa...
aval1998 1 year ago 45
@aval1998 LOL
jdmk20aek 1 year ago
@aval1998 lolol :)
riesjedem 10 months ago
what a fantastic video
tharindu777 1 year ago
it's funny to look at the GE 747 test aircraft with a 777 engine
yoyoyoyoshua 1 year ago
whoever that flew the test platforms in for a real treat....I can't imagine how one could fly a jet designed to be balanced by 4 engines with only one, thankfully close to the fuselage...
R5H4D0W 1 year ago
o.O dam over a thousand horse power wahahha the vegron car got more than 1000hp
quangluu96 1 year ago
@quangluu96 she said over a 'hundred thousand' HP
smallstory 1 year ago
Comment removed
jetengine7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quangluu96 That's over 100,000 horsepower, not 1,000. Even small jets have a lot more than 1,000 hp. Cars don't even compare. And technically hp isn't used for jet engines b/c it can't be measured directly and it varies with airspeed and altitude. But when a jet is traveling at about 400 mph, 1 lb. of thrust equals 1 hp. So at that speed, this engine would have 127,900 hp. On the ground, it has even more horsepower than that. You would need more than 120 Veyrons to produce the same horsepower.
jetengine7 1 year ago
@quangluu96 over one hundred thousand dude. 2 of them can power an aircraft carrier
nunchuck19 1 year ago
You cannot equate the thrust to horse power. Probably she doesn't know the physics.
TheVirtouso 1 year ago
This engine is needed, for big planes like A380, to get al that food and fat assed of the ground !
barthoedemaker 1 year ago
stick one of these on a 737 and you've got yourself a supersonic transport!
(except you'd need super-long landing gear)
compdude100 1 year ago
127,900 lbs of thrust!!! thats a lot!!!!!!!!! :0
beastly engines :D
compdude100 1 year ago
@compdude100 yea 1million gallon per miles =0
quangluu96 1 year ago
If this new engine is successful, then they should have it installed on air forse 1.
motorspear9000 1 year ago
I want one!!!
prix86 1 year ago
slap a saddle and some control surfaces on that baby and you got yourself a literal crotch rocket.
detibry 1 year ago
Something about a lady talking about trust get me going. :)
wisanu99 1 year ago
@wisanu99 lol? you get turned on by a lady talking about Trust? hey dont get soft on me man.
zaphr89 1 year ago
got this on my car.
Xleptix 1 year ago 33
@Xleptix You think you are cool having it on your car... i got it on my house on wheels :P
GamePLayManiaX 1 year ago
@GamePLayManiaX lol
virustwin 1 year ago
@Xleptix u can mow ur lawn in a hurry with this sucker.
emperorvl 1 year ago
@Xleptix "got this on my car".... you got a mini cooper right?
f2004w 11 months ago
"blades" = "vanes?"
PowerInMN 1 year ago
American Exceptionalisum !
Auggie56 1 year ago
hundred thousand!
thatumoraes 1 year ago
$21mill... will it pay it self off?
tcmlr 1 year ago
Such engines are so powerful,almost scaring...
2112dim 1 year ago
i got that in my car
lolerdelol 1 year ago
She talked like she had designed, manufactured and assembled that wonderful motor... Engineers and workers did it remember!!!
plasticmanbob 1 year ago
she is the business/program manager, so she spec'd the engine size, materials used, performance parameters, ceiling limit, etc. and the engineers take those spec and draw them up. engineers are the oompa loompas of GE.
len0808 1 year ago
@len0808 you understand nothing about design and development: in your head there is just buullshit. I am a senior design engineer of GE and I PERFECTLY KNOW WHAT i'M TALKING ABOUT. oompa loompas is your mother with a series of sexsual maniacal donkeys
plasticmanbob 1 year ago
@len0808 she know materials, calculations for performance and so on like you know the female sexuality..
plasticmanbob 1 year ago
21 million dollar? just for an engine? wow
fireeyedb0y 1 year ago
I thought that was the program cost not the unit cost but anyway it's so expensive
vagos290189 1 year ago
thats with out installation
ArmyofSeaturtles 1 year ago
hey
TZMNorway 1 year ago
wow this is so awesome
fordsuckbigtime 1 year ago
GE appliances aren't even made by GE anymore. They only pay to put the GE meatball on them. PLUS the engines are heavily regulated by the FAA... so YES they perform much better than the appliances with 10 million flight hours- and no crashes.......
krissallae 1 year ago
hahaah 747 and 3 small engines and huge one :P
ryanair1313 1 year ago
I wonder GE''s jet engine breaks down as often as their home appliances. heir products are horirble and their customer service is even worst.
WeRateU 1 year ago
WOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!
0555596587 1 year ago
Comment removed
WeRateU 1 year ago