Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Most Powerful Aircraft Powerplant Ever Designed?  
User currently offlineCF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16645 times:

Simple question... i apologize if it has been discussed before. I could not find anything in the search function so here is the simple question.

What is the most powerful jet engine/ turbofan every manufactured in aviation? I understand that the B1B , F-22. and 777/380 are way up there in rank, however lets throw come fascinating ones out here Smile

Thanks

67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2684 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16663 times:

The mighty GE90-115B? Definitely the most powerful turbofan in production and commercial use.


JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16623 times:

Quoting CF188A (Thread starter):
jet engine

I might be stretching it a bit, but if you consider a jet engine as a gas turbine, than that would include turboprops

I believe the most powerful turboprop is either the Kuznetsov NK-12 that powered the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear, or the Pratt & Whitney XC-15(?) [I can't think of the actual model designation], which the JT3 was based off of.

As for a turbofan, the GE90-115 would be my best guess


User currently offlineCF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 16612 times:

IF THIS THREAD CONTINUES.... if possible post thrust specifications and the whole works  Smile . Also lets narrow it down to turbofans and jets  Smile What comes fairly close to the GE90-115 ?

User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 16601 times:

Power = Force (Basically Thrust) X Velocity

GE90-115B, Boeing 777
115 klbs each engine @ 0.8M
(M = 295 m/s @ 40,000 ft)

Pratt and Whitney J58, Lockheed SR-71
32 klbs each engine @ 3.2M
(M = 298 m/s @ 80,000 ft)

I haven't touched these kind of calculations in about 4 years but knock yourselves out people......

PS - I wouldn't disagree with anyone who called the GE90-115B the most powerful engine in the world.



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2098 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 16593 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 4):
Pratt and Whitney J58, Lockheed SR-71
32 klbs each engine @ 3.2M
(M = 298 m/s @ 80,000 ft)

Gotta love that a 47 year old design is still in contention for most powerful engine ever on an airplane. Kelly and the Skunk Works, unbelievable.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 16585 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 4):
PS - I wouldn't disagree with anyone who called the GE90-115B the most powerful engine in the world.

No fair, the P&W J58 on the SR-71 operates as a ramjet at high speeds/altitudes, so its not a true jet engine  smile 


User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 16579 times:

Quoting CF188A (Thread starter):
Most Powerful Aircraft Powerplant Ever Designed?

I would have to say Project Pluto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 16555 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 6):
No fair, the P&W J58 on the SR-71 operates as a ramjet at high speeds/altitudes, so its not a true jet engine

It's a true jet engine (as are all ramjets).

It may not function as a typical turbine engine at higher speeds but the J58 is (without a doubt) a jet engine.


Main Entry: jet engine
Function: noun
: an engine that produces motion as a result of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid; specifically : an airplane engine that uses atmospheric oxygen to burn fuel and produces a rearward discharge of heated air and exhaust gases -- see AIRPLANE illustration

(www.m-w.com)



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offline3DPlanes From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 16461 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 4):
Pratt and Whitney J58, Lockheed SR-71
32 klbs each engine @ 3.2M
(M = 298 m/s @ 80,000 ft)

The new PW F135 engine for the F-35 series has made 40,000 lbs in full burner...

Took 'em long enough to make a better mouse trap, eh?



"Simplicate and add lightness." - Ed Heinemann
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 16439 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 8):

You are correct, but I was thinking of the engines that has moving mechanical parts (turbojet, turboprop, turbofan)

Has anyone mentioned that the most powerful turbojets were the GE (not sure of the model/numbers) that were to power the Boeing SST.


User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2684 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 16432 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 4):
Power = Force (Basically Thrust) X Velocity

I'm not too sure if power calculations based on the maximum velocity of the aircraft and the nominal maximum thrust of the engine are valid. At cruise speeds and altitude, the thrust of the GE90-115B is much less than 115K; with GE quoting 11,000lbs of thrust.

http://www.geae.com/education/engines101/

I would presume that a similar phenomenon may exist for the SR-71  Confused .

Regards, JetMech



JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineBoeingOnFinal From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 476 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 16419 times:

Which commercial aircraft has the best power-to-weight ratio at empty weight?


norwegianpilot.blogspot.com
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17003 posts, RR: 67
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 16414 times:

Quoting BoeingOnFinal (Reply 12):
Which commercial aircraft has the best power-to-weight ratio at empty weight?

Concorde?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBoeingOnFinal From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 476 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 16392 times:

I would assume that an aircraft that could hold alot of cargo and passengers, would have much more power to spare when Empty. And the Concorde doesn't have either of those qualities. Unless it has alot of power to spare when at MTOW.


norwegianpilot.blogspot.com
User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 16383 times:

Quoting JetMech (Reply 11):
I'm not too sure if power calculations based on the maximum velocity of the aircraft and the nominal maximum thrust of the engine are valid. At cruise speeds and altitude, the thrust of the GE90-115B is much less than 115K; with GE quoting 11,000lbs of thrust.

http://www.geae.com/education/engines101/

I would presume that a similar phenomenon may exist for the SR-71 .

Regards, JetMech

JetMech:

I've seen some of your other posts and it appears you are quite knowledgeable so I'm sure you're aware of the factors affecting thrust and engine performance. You certainly do point out a deficiency in my earlier post. I apologize if my post appeared to suggest that striaght multiplication of the numbers I listed (without altitude/airspeed/etc correction factors) would yield the effective power output of the engine/application pairings. This was not my intent but I can see how my post may have been misleading.

The effects you cite are why I didn't implement my example numbers in the basic equation that I cited (but provided them as parameters). It's also why I noted that I hadn't crunched the numbers since college and didn't feel like pulling out the old formulas  

The larger intent of my post was to make the FORCE vs POWER distinction and to note that the F x V formula will provide the amount of power being output by an engine(s)/application. Anyone interested can Google for "thrust vs altitude" or similar verbiage and probably find some nice explanations and/or graphs.

JetMech's observations are spot on.

Edit: Noted respect for JetMech for calling attention to my misleading post  whistleblower 

[Edited 2006-12-04 17:34:35]


Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6800 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 16352 times:

I'm guessing today's big turbofans can't compare with B-70/SST engines for actual power, tho they of course exceed their static thrust. But power is force times speed-- "static thrust" implies zero useful power.

This isn't conclusive, but: consider a 767 loaded to 150,000 kg take-off weight, with two 60000-lb engines. How long will it take to get to 9000 meters altitude, from a standing start on the runway? At least ten minutes, right?

But a B-1B set a time-to-climb record in the 150-tonne class: 9000 meters in less than four minutes. Yet its static thrust in afterburn is no greater than the 767's.

[Edited 2006-12-04 18:13:40]

User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 16328 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 4):
I wouldn't disagree with anyone who called the GE90-115B the most powerful engine in the world.

Maybe thats because it is... 

IIRC back when they were testing the -115B they took it up momentarily to 127K pounds of thrust.

We're talking about which engine makes the most thrust, right? Then it would have to be the GE-90 AFAIK

I wonder if GE is considering an afterburning GE-90 for the military... Now that would be raw power   

[Edited 2006-12-04 18:54:41]

User currently offline3DPlanes From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16221 times:

Quoting Timz (Reply 16):
But a B-1B set a time-to-climb record in the 150-tonne class: 9000 meters in less than four minutes. Yet its static thrust in afterburn is no greater than the 767's.

While the weights and thrust may be equal, and it makes an interesting comparison, I'd wager the shape of the airframes had more influence. When they do those time-to-climb record flights, the actual climb is usually the very last thing they do. The first part of that B-1 climb would be a low-level acceleration to some speed waaaaay past the 767s Vne, followed by a near-vertical climb to altitude.

And, to counter the old "no work is done" argument - remember that a LOT of air is being sucked in and accelerated backwards to a high velocity.

And maybe one of the aero folks here can correct me, but I've always assumed that static thrust is NOT the best these engines can do. They're spending an awful lot of energy just trying to breathe. There's got to be an optimum speed where ram effect makes the engine more efficient (and powerful?) than at static.



"Simplicate and add lightness." - Ed Heinemann
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17003 posts, RR: 67
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16216 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 17):
We're talking about which engine makes the most thrust, right? Then it would have to be the GE-90 AFAIK

Well, the topic says "powerful aircraft powerplant", not "most thrust".  Wink

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 17):
I wonder if GE is considering an afterburning GE-90 for the military... Now that would be raw power

Indeed, but if you want to use it for supersonic flight (why else would you need the burner) that fan would be sooo in the way.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSpeedracer1407 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16159 times:

Quoting Molykote (Reply 15):
The larger intent of my post was to make the FORCE vs POWER distinction and to note that the F x V formula will provide the amount of power being output by an engine(s)/application.

For reciprocating engines, power (Horsepower, specifically) is calculated by the following: Torque x RPM/5252 --
Thus, power is a calculation of both force and time: hence why a small, low-torque, high-revving engine can produce high horsepower without high force.

Is there a direct relationship between this (hopefully correct) understanding of recip force and power and the relationship between jet thrust and power? Why is velocity an element of power calculations of jet engines?

O



Dassault Mercure: the plane that has Boeing and Airbus shaking in their boots.
User currently offlineT prop From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1023 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16154 times:

This one.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Georg S.



User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 16122 times:

Quoting 3DPlanes (Reply 18):
And, to counter the old "no work is done" argument - remember that a LOT of air is being sucked in and accelerated backwards to a high velocity.

I understand your point and certainly agree that air is being (heavily worked) through the flowpath. However, under static conditions this does not represent useful power for an aircraft.

If my car engine block reaches a temperature of 200 degrees under operation, this represents a large amount of energy that is doing nothing to help propel my car down the road.

Regardless,
It is evident that you, I, and others in this thread are capable of making the distinctions required by physical definitions of work, energy, force, etc. This is all I wished to point out in my first post. I also did acknowledge that I have no problem associating thrust capability with "power".



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offlineFlametech21 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 16110 times:

If I remember correctly, there is a Trent variant that goes over 100,000lbs of thrust. Still doesn't even come close to the 115,000 of the GE90-115B, though.


They build them to a higher standard at Long Beach!
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16064 times:

GE90-115 with 115lbs of thrust.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
25 HAWK21M : GE90-115 with 115lbs of thrust. regds MEL
26 F14D4ever : Because power is an instantaneous rate of energy transfer; its units are [energy/unit time]. In a jet engine, energy conversion and transfer rates ar
27 DarkBlue : Thrust is nearly inversely proportional to altitude (or proportional to ambient pressure). This makes it quite easy to estimate top of climb thrust (
28 Areopagus : You can apply lifting force to a car with a jack. The energy put into it (work)is force (= the car's weight) times the distance lifted. The power is
29 CF188A : work = F DELTA D .. . force x displacement. work done and the force applied should not be mixed up... the proof of this is one is in Joules and one i
30 Post contains images Areopagus : CF188A, it sounds like you say I'm wrong, but then restate what I said. Just for the record, I will state that work is the integral of F dot dS, where
31 CF188A : It sounded like you made the work and the resultant force the same thing which is incorrect. You also did not state the term impulse which is the corr
32 Areopagus : Now I see that you were misled as to my meaning by a lack of parenthesization. Let me rewrite that sentence as: The energy put into it, or work, is {
33 Post contains images Jetlife2 : You two are "in violent agreement" as we say. Not to get dragged into power vs force definition discussions, which should now be clear, I will answer
34 Post contains links and images JetMech : G'day Techies , I've been having a think about this one, and I believe that there are currently three main schools of thought as to the interpretation
35 Areopagus : You've got the right idea, except that the English unit of mass is the slug; so mdot is in slugs/sec
36 Areopagus : Let's look at it this way. Suppose a 350,000 kg aircraft accelerates on its takeoff run to 150kt = 77m/s in 35 seconds. (I imagine these numbers are r
37 Post contains links and images JetMech : G'day Areopagus , I get the feeling that the engines would be delivering more than 20,000 horsepower each to the airframe, as there would also be con
38 Areopagus : True enough. One pound of thrust equals one horsepower when flying at 375mph. Scaling proportionally, 115klb thrust equals 145khp at 472 mph. But tha
39 Speedracer1407 : Firsly, I appologize for dumbing down the discussion, but I'm still a bit hung up on one thing. The above quotes seem to suggest that the amount of w
40 Post contains images Starlionblue : Don't hit me as I jump in, but as I understand the answers above pure thrust is not enough. To get a measure of the "power" of an engine you need to
41 Post contains images JetMech : G'day Speedracer  , This was the exact distinction I noted in my earlier post. When an aircraft is moving at a constant velocity under a certain set
42 Post contains images Starlionblue : Indeed. And there's the small fact that propellers are not reaction devices. They need a fluid to work in. Might be hard once you leave the atmospher
43 Post contains images JetMech : Erm.... Yes; I completely forgot to make mention of that small problem !
44 Starlionblue : You can make a prop or pure turbine airbreather first stage with a short lifespan. The second stage would be powered traditional rocket(s). This would
45 Xv408 : With apologies for getting the detail wrong in advance, the general principles of the jet are to generate thrust by changing the momentum of the gas p
46 Post contains images Sprout5199 : So:"Tory-IIC" was run for five minutes at full power, producing 513 megawatts . If 58MW = 78,000hp then 513MW= about 750,000hp.(que the 1.21 gigawatt
47 Speedracer1407 : Thanks, JetMech for your excellent explaination. I think my fundamental problem was using work and power interchangeably.
48 Post contains images JetMech : G'day Sprout5199 , Wikipedia states that the actual thrust output of the Tory-IIC is approximately 35,000 lbf (156kN). I believe that the Tory-IIC wa
49 Sprout5199 : Howdy JetMech, So true. Can you get static thrust from a ramjet? I remember seeing a show about the Tory-II on History or Discovery channel. They used
50 Post contains links and images JetMech : Hey Sprout5199  , I calculate the thrust horsepower of the Tory-II at Mach 3 at sea level to be around 156,000N * 3 * 340m/s, or 159.12 Mw. Other pos
51 RedFlyer : Got a question, a little off topic, re the GE90...I've just noticed when I fly on the 777 that the engines don't seem to spool up when taxiing. It app
52 Post contains images HaveBlue : JetMech thanks for the detailed explanation in Reply 41... as I was having trouble discerning the distinction between the 2 terms. And welcome to the
53 Post contains images ATCme : What about the GEnx? I'm assuming (you know what that does) that it has more power than the GE90, does anyone have numbers on it? As for commercial av
54 Post contains links Starlionblue : The GEnx is meant for 787, 747-8 and 350. Thus it will be a less powerful widget than the most powerful GE-90s. According to http://www.geae.com/engi
55 WSOY : The power needed to fly the airplane (level) has to be equal to its kinetic energy 0.5 mv^2 plus the drag & other losses. This naturally divided by th
56 HAWK21M : Whats the Bypass ratio on the GE90. regds MEL
57 Starlionblue : The GE90-115B has a bypass ratio of 9:1 and the compressor has a pressure ratio of 28:1.
58 RJ111 : Yes, the Trent 8104 which was tested up to 117klb but never made it onto 772LR and 773ER which RR were after.
59 Mrocktor : This is probably false. An engine in forward motion benefits from compression at the inlet (while in static condition all the compression is being do
60 Dougloid : I think you're right....if the inlet faces forward. If I recall correctly we had a ram recovery speed somewhere for TPE331s when the pressure differe
61 Post contains images Mrocktor : As far as I know the inlet is facing forward in all PT6 applications and benefits from ram recovery, though since the engine has "reverse flow" the i
62 N231YE : I believe they also have the benefit of putting the "hot" section up front-where maintainance is easier.
63 Dougloid : That's called making a virtue out of necessity. When you factor in what Pratt won't let you do out in the field it's a wash...no individually balance
64 DarkBlue : Actually this is very true. At sea level, from static to 0.25Mach (assuming constant corrected fan speed), thrust will decrease ~20%! Yes, total airf
65 F14D4ever : "Probably"? Are you guessing? Do you have some data to show us? Preferably some lapse rate data at increments of .05 Mach. The fact is, unless you ca
66 Mrocktor : No I didn't, I was just wrong. I stand corrected. Too much time since I studied my Performance 101 books I guess (and its only been 3 years!). I gues
67 F14D4ever : Don't worry, your place among my Respected Users is secure.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Most Powerful Aircraft Powerplant Ever Designed?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Most Powerful Engines posted Fri Nov 11 2005 16:35:22 by Aircanada333
Most Hated Aircraft Fluid? posted Fri Jan 28 2005 21:50:47 by Dl757md
What Is The Most Robust Aircraft? posted Tue Sep 7 2004 16:39:55 by Tobi3334
Best Engine Ever Designed & Manufactured? posted Fri Oct 24 2003 21:39:14 by BOEING747400
Has An Aircraft Just Ever Collapsed While Parked O posted Thu Jan 3 2002 03:01:59 by ATA L1011
Why Are Most Aircraft White In Colour? posted Wed Sep 10 2008 03:32:21 by N707jt
Aircraft With Multiple Powerplant Choices posted Tue Jun 10 2008 21:34:41 by Rigo
What's The Most Dangerous Part Of Aircraft Testing posted Tue Mar 13 2007 04:08:09 by CoolGuy
Most Suitable/efficient Low Fare Aircraft posted Mon Feb 6 2006 17:14:17 by Curious
The 757, The Most Flexible Performing Aircraft? posted Sat Nov 23 2002 22:52:23 by John

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format