Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
GE-90 Questions  
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6354 times:

I just figured I'd ask this because quite potentially, with an engine capable of producing 115,000 pounds of thrust, we could potentially build a jet much bigger than the A380. I realize that certain penalties are carried with the GE-90: weight and fuel efficiency being among them. I remember reading somewhere that compared to the Trent 500, the GE-90 burns much more fuel. I'm also slightly curious as to why the GE-90 is so noisy from the perspective of a passenger, yet so quiet on the outside. That's something I've never really understood. Its noise range seems to be narrow, but up close it's deafening, especially at startup and on takeoff.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6324 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The "critics consensus" is that the next likely step-change in capacity will be Blended Wing Bodies (BWB) and many of the artist conceptions of such a vehicle show three large high-bypass turbofans in the class of the GE90 / Trent 900 / GP7000.

As to the noise of the GE90, it's pretty loud on the outside at takeoff thrust.   At takeoff power, the blade tips are moving at around Mach 1.2, which is quite high and likely accounts for a not-insignificant amount of noise.

This thread has some good info on the GE90: RPM Of Jet Engines During Take-off (by MerlinIIIB Jun 9 2006 in Tech Ops)


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6174 times:

I was just saying that relative to the average spotter, it's not that loud. For example, it's not anywhere close to as loud as the 747 classics, DC-10s, or L-1011 engines, and not nearly as loud as the turbojets. The sound just doesn't trail behind it. You only really hear it if you're up close to it.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4331 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6159 times:

Quoting Thrust (Reply 2):
I was just saying that relative to the average spotter, it's not that loud. For example, it's not anywhere close to as loud as the 747 classics, DC-10s, or L-1011 engines, and not nearly as loud as the turbojets. The sound just doesn't trail behind it. You only really hear it if you're up close to it.

Well, those other planes you list do have more engines than the 777, and I believe the 777 is the only plane that uses the GE90, so perhaps that explains the difference in noise levels?



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineloggat From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6092 times:

It would be louder than the older engines except for the technology improvements in noise control. This is done by adjusting the design of the tailcone to mix the core air and the fan air in such a way that the sound frequencies cancel each other out to make the overall noise less. A muffler effect, if you will. This is how it was explained to me in Jet engine school anyway. Someone can feel free to correct me.


There are 3 types of people in this world, those that can count, and those that can't.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6056 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The "critics consensus" is that the next likely step-change in capacity will be Blended Wing Bodies (BWB) and many of the artist conceptions of such a vehicle show three large high-bypass turbofans in the class of the GE90 / Trent 900 / GP7000.

The reason for the three engines is that the original study was done by McDonnell Douglas.

Then again, three engines is a great number if you don't have deal with pesky tail engine mounting like on the L-1011 or DC-10. One less than four, meaning less complexity, but 2/3 of thrust left in an engine out situation.

Quoting Thrust (Thread starter):
I just figured I'd ask this because quite potentially, with an engine capable of producing 115,000 pounds of thrust, we could potentially build a jet much bigger than the A380.

Sure, it is possible. But as mentioned such a large airliner might well not be a tube with wings. And just because something is possible doesn't mean it makes sense to build.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6026 times:

Quoting Thrust (Thread starter):
I realize that certain penalties are carried with the GE-90: weight and fuel efficiency being among them.

Until the Trent1000/GeNX came along, I believe the GE90 had the best TSFC in the game. You don't pay a fuel efficiency penalty to use it.

Quoting Thrust (Thread starter):
I remember reading somewhere that compared to the Trent 500, the GE-90 burns much more fuel.

Of course it does, it's significantly larger. That's why you use TSFC, not fuel flow, to compare differently sized engines.

Tom.


User currently offlinecobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1014 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5945 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 6):

Until the Trent1000/GeNX came along, I believe the GE90 had the best TSFC in the game. You don't pay a fuel efficiency penalty to use it.

The A380 engines both RR and GP7200 have around 4 % better SFC

Quoting Thrust (Thread starter):
m. I remember reading somewhere that compared to the Trent 500, the GE-90 burns much more fuel.

Its only normal since it develops almost twice as much thrust.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5863 times:

Quoting cobra27 (Reply 7):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 6):

Until the Trent1000/GeNX came along, I believe the GE90 had the best TSFC in the game. You don't pay a fuel efficiency penalty to use it.

The A380 engines both RR and GP7200 have around 4 % better SFC

Good data. That still fits with the chronology, since the Trent 900 and GP7200 were developed after the GE90.
Can anyone confirm if, at the time the GE90 was developed, it was the top of the TSFC pile?

Tom.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 67
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5849 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
Can anyone confirm if, at the time the GE90 was developed, it was the top of the TSFC pile?

True at the introduction of the GE90. The -115B is slightly worse than the -94B as it has a lower bypass ratio.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5524 times:

This is from an AVNews interview with GEs Brisken from 2006, thus the GEnx data is Boeing target I assume:

In fact, GEnx will achieve a 15.4% cut in SFC over the CF6-80C2B6F, the powerplant of the 767-300ER, Brisken says. GEnx also should have a 6.9% SFC advantage over the GE90-94B, which powers the 777-200ER.

Now the actual cruise TSFC of these engines are closly guarded but I have the following:

PianoX original 2005 description of 788: GEnx/T1000 0.5279 lb/hr/lbf (this should then be the Boeing target TSFC I assume)

There are others floating around internet but they are for other versions of CF6 like:

CF6-80C2B1F 0.605 for the 747

The above should put the GE90-94B around 0.56 lg/hr/lb.


As the TXWB shall be 2% better then the T1000 we can assume this to be somewhere at 0.517



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5347 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 10):
The above should put the GE90-94B around 0.56 lb/hr/lb.

For Thrusts benefit, the way you use such a figure is to multiply it with the cruise thrust in lb and then you get consumption in lb/hr.

Please understand that cruise thrust is VERY different to the 94000 lb that is the engines max take-off rating. In practice an airliner like the 777 need something like 10000-15000 lb per engine to keep M0.84 at typical cruise heights of 40 000 feet, so you end up with a consumption something like 10-20000 lb /hour depending on actual weight of the frame in the instant that you measure fuel burn.



Non French in France
User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6605 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5337 times:

The answer from the office is that the GE90, much like the GeNx on the 748 growls during engine start because of 'bowed rotors'.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5332 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 12):
The answer from the office is that the GE90, much like the GeNx on the 748 growls during engine start because of 'bowed rotors'.

At what point in the start are you talking about? The bowed rotor logic in the EEC, at least on the GEnX, will take out the bow before you accelerate up to idle.

Tom.


User currently offlinehal9213 From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5227 times:

Quoting Thrust (Thread starter):
I'm also slightly curious as to why the GE-90 is so noisy from the perspective of a passenger, yet so quiet on the outside.

I think by pure engine noise, it is the loudest engine I have ever heard. All other older planes (as somebody mentioned) have louder exhaust stream noise, but considering the actual engine -not counting airflow noise-, GE90 is by far the loudest.
Actually, when a 77W flies over you at 5k feet, you can clearly hear the GE90 sound, whereas on many other planes you only hear the "general exhaust stream noise". An exception would also be the typical A320 noise, which again is nacelle airflow noise, and trent engine "vibration noise" which is by far harder to recognise.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 12):
The answer from the office is that the GE90, much like the GeNx on the 748 growls during engine start because of 'bowed rotors'.

Can you elaborate more on the startup growling? I always found that sound very interesting and was wondering, where that (technically) comes from.


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4628 times:

Are any engines with more power than the GE-90 being considered at this time? My simple point on this is that four GE-90s open up the possibility for us to possibly develop an aircraft on a scale of incomprehensible size.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4504 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Thrust (Reply 15):
Are any engines with more power than the GE-90 being considered at this time?

Not seriously (as in anything other then computer modeling).


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4503 times:

Quoting Thrust (Reply 15):
Are any engines with more power than the GE-90 being considered at this time?

If they are, the OEM's aren't talking about it. I'm not sure there'd be any market for it even if they built one, except maybe stationary power generation.

Quoting Thrust (Reply 15):
My simple point on this is that four GE-90s open up the possibility for us to possibly develop an aircraft on a scale of incomprehensible size.

When you get to that size, engines are not the problem.

Tom.


User currently offlineGRZ-AIR From Austria, joined Apr 2001, 574 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4422 times:

The reason for the loud grumbling of the GE-90 during engine start is due to the large diameter of the moving parts inside. Heat rises, so after a 2hour turn around, the temperature inside the engine is lower at the bottom than at the top. This leads to imbalance which causes vibration/rumbling. As soon as things heat up (after a few seconds), vibration decreases.
As said, this only applies to the starting phase.

regds, G



When I joined A.net it was still free, haha ;).
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic GE-90 Questions
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...
Plan To Power The Second AN 225 With GE 90? posted Sun Mar 14 2010 19:41:57 by 747400sp
Is The GE 90-115B Still The Most Powerful? posted Mon Mar 23 2009 17:36:16 by Nitepilot79
Tid-bit On The 777 GE 90 Engine posted Thu Mar 5 2009 18:07:48 by Richiemo
What Who It Take To Build An Ge 90 Powrered Trijet posted Tue Mar 11 2008 11:08:05 by 747400sp
GE 90 Emergency AD posted Mon Oct 2 2006 08:40:01 by Zeke
Speed Of Air Out Of The GE-90-115's Back End posted Sun Sep 10 2006 01:47:24 by UAL747
BA 777 W/GE-90 And Trent 800 Engines - Route Ques? posted Mon Dec 13 2004 17:48:29 by Philhyde
777 GE-90 "dome" Combustion posted Mon Mar 22 2004 05:42:45 by QANTAS747-438
The GE-90 posted Fri Dec 12 2003 22:04:50 by Thrust
Spare GE 90 Can Earn Some Revenue posted Thu Mar 27 2003 06:28:07 by Jayp8890

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format