Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 744 With 2 GE 90-115 Engines  
User currently offlineBOEING747400 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 319 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12096 times:

I wondered whether or not 2 GE 90-115 engines (same ones on the Boeing 773 Long Range) could really power a Boeing 744 because the total thrust is around 230,000 lbs. which pretty much equals 4 engines with 57,500 lbs. thrust? But it'd be impossible to fit those huge engines under the wings of a Boeing 744 so they'd have to increase the space between the ground and the wings to do it? What do you think? Thanks.

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2396 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12066 times:

Here's a 747 classic with a GE90 in the #2 position:
http://www.air-and-space.com/salval99/747%20ge90%20al.jpg


User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 12057 times:

There has been - in the past - considerations to fit airplanes with other engines (even in numbers) for airplanes, I remember people considering to replace the 4 engines of DC8s with 2 engines of equivalent total thrust...
I doubt that it will ever be achieved... I flew the 707 for many years, which was an outstanding airplane for its size, and considerations were made to retrofit the JT3D engines for CFM-56s... like it was done with the DC8s...
But, Mr. Boeing wanted to sell new airplanes (good marketing strategy)... By all means dont help to keep the old airplanes flying... The 707-700 series with CFM-56 flew as a prototype... the KC-135s (707 tankers) got these CFM-56s, but all the 707s got their ticket for retirement in the deserts, or as restaurants near airports... I doubt any 747 will ever be re-engined, into a twin engine aircraft... as you say the ground clearance would be a problem.
The original 747, at a weight of 710,000 lbs flew with 4 engines of 43,500 lbs of thrust... it is correct to say that 2 engines providing equivalent thrust could be considered... well, actually that is not even true...
Aircraft certification (FAR/JAR 25) require certain gradient of climb (second segment) for an engine failure after V1... with a 4 engine aircraft, the gradient required is 3.0%... with the loss of 1 engine... 25% of power loss...
With a twin engine aircraft the gradient required is 2.4% with the loss of one engine after V1... with 50% power loss... it would take quite powerful engines to achieve that performance level on a "twin engine" 747...
I am a notorious opponent of "twin engine ETOPS" operations, because I am convinced that there will be a ditching of a twin jet one day in high seas, I hope with no casualties... then everybody will say, "is this flight with a 747 rather than a 767 or 777...?"
I had an acquaintance of mine, 767 captain, who had to drag his airplane to Keflavik, Iceland on one engine... and perform an ILS with minimum visibility... As far as I am concerned, I love my old 747 beasts with 4 engine redundancy when I cross the Atlantic Ocean 6 or 8 times a month...
(s) Skipper



User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 6035 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 12042 times:

AJ: That is one huuuge engine!

I seem to recall that when 747's are stripped, they usually hang a few blocks of concrete in as a replacement so the weight won't shift towards the rear.

IF a 747 was to be equipped with two GE90-115 instead of 4, say, RB211-524's, won't that have a impact on the weight distribution?


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 11840 times:

The trouble with the two-engine 747 is that you have to factor in performance with one engine out.

Currently, while a 747 has 240,000 pounds of thrust, with an engine out, it still has 180,000 pounds of thrust, with only 60,000 pounds asymetrical.

Steve


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 11812 times:

As has been said in other threads, the problem is not
really the reduction of engine redundancy.

The problem is the possibility of engine failure on takeoff. The 777 is more overpowered than the 747 for this reason. It has to be able to at least maintain altitude(even climb?) should one engine quit on takeoff. You need less extra thrust for this if you have 4 engines then if you have two.

So even if the 777 is equivalent in total thrust to a 747, you are not done yet. You have to compensate somehow for having 1/2 power rather than 3/4 on an engine out takeoff.
You need even more thrust.

At least that is what I understand from what I've read.


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 11775 times:

Cloudy;

I forget the specific engine out minima, but be assured that there is no jetliner operating today that cannot climb with an engine out  Smile

Steve


User currently offlineMarcus From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1808 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11643 times:

I am a notorious opponent of "twin engine ETOPS" operations, because I am convinced that there will be a ditching of a twin jet one day in high seas, I hope with no casualties
****************************
If the Azores islands were not close to them, that Canadian A330 would have been the first.



Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
User currently offlineJetsetter From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11616 times:

Yeah, but both engines went out on that aircraft, not just one, due to a fuel leak I think. Same thing could have happened with a 4 engined aircraft.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11581 times:

B747skipper...have I got one for you....

The original proposal for the E-3 by Boeing was to use 8 General Electric TF-34 engines. They would have been slung two to a pod just like on the B-52.

Apparently Boeing thought that they could squeeze more range out of the 707 by going to the eight engine configuration but the proposal later was changed to keep the normal TF33's



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11102 times:

My dream would be to fit the AN-225 with 3 GE-90-115 engines... Wink

User currently offline3MilesToWRO From Poland, joined Mar 2006, 281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11079 times:

...on each side  Wink

(I've been warned this message was too short, but I hope it won't get cancelled  Wink )


User currently offlineQantasHeavy From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 379 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 11048 times:

Reminds me of the urban legend of that great "famous ATC transcripts" email that surfaces every few months...

something to the effect of...

An F16 declares an emergency and requests priority landing is told by the tower he'll have to get behind an inbound B-52 which had already declared an emergency... for one engine out... to which the Falcon driver repsonds... "Oh no, of course, give priority to the 52 on the dreaded 7 engine approach!".

That whole email is a great one... lots of good SR-71 humor as well.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11041 times:

3M, I calculated the preformance of 3 GE-90-115 and it would be similar to the current 6 engines...

User currently offlineQantasHeavy From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 379 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11039 times:

There is a great photo on a.net in the altered images section of a KLM 747-400 with two GE-90s on it. Someone did a great job photoshopping it... looks real!

User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8461 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting BOEING747400 (Thread starter):
Posted Wed Aug 7 2002 18:00:41 your local time (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago)

Wow, I have seen old threads resurrected but this takes the prize! I didn't look at the age of the thread until I saw B747Skipper had posted  Smile



After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3574 posts, RR: 67
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10889 times:



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 5):
It has to be able to at least maintain altitude(even climb?) should one engine quit on takeoff. You need less extra thrust for this if you have 4 engines then if you have two.



Quoting Sllevin (Reply 6):
I forget the specific engine out minima, but be assured that there is no jetliner operating today that cannot climb with an engine out

For second segment takeoff climb (gear up to 400' AGL or higher) with one engine inoperative, the minimum climb gradient for a twin is 2.4% and a quad is 3.0%.

As others have stated, this is why the all engine thrust to weight ratio for a twin must be higher than than a quad.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10802 times:



Quoting QantasHeavy (Reply 14):
There is a great photo on a.net in the altered images section of a KLM 747-400 with two GE-90s on it. Someone did a great job photoshopping it... looks real!

Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Robert Fall
Template © Daniel & Robert Fall

One good thing about this photoshop is that it can give you a rough impression of how double-slotted flaps on the upcoming 747-8 could look like.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7033 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10703 times:



Quoting Marcus (Reply 7):
If the Azores islands were not close to them, that Canadian A330 would have been the first.

If the Canadian A330 had had 20 engines the result would have been the same. No matter how many engines you have they will all stop if you run completely out of fuel.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10698 times:



Quoting BOEING747400 (Thread starter):
I wondered whether or not 2 GE 90-115 engines (same ones on the Boeing 773 Long Range) could really power a Boeing 744 because the total thrust is around 230,000 lbs. w

Because:

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 4):
Currently, while a 747 has 240,000 pounds of thrust, with an engine out, it still has 180,000 pounds of thrust, with only 60,000 pounds asymetrical.

Exactly. Calculations are made with one engine out regardless of the number of engines. With an engine out, a 744 still has around 180k lb thrust. So a twin engine 744 would need engines with 180k lb of thrust. That's way beyond the state of the art today.

Quoting Marcus (Reply 7):
I am a notorious opponent of "twin engine ETOPS" operations, because I am convinced that there will be a ditching of a twin jet one day in high seas, I hope with no casualties

There might well be one someday. But ETOPS has been around for a while now. Don't you think it's "proven itself"? There will always be risk in any flying. Don't you think there are other things to worry about that deserve more of our focus?

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
Quoting Marcus (Reply 7):
If the Azores islands were not close to them, that Canadian A330 would have been the first.

If the Canadian A330 had had 20 engines the result would have been the same. No matter how many engines you have they will all stop if you run completely out of fuel.

Damned straight.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7033 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10676 times:



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 19):
There will always be risk in any flying. Don't you think there are other things to worry about that deserve more of our focus?

In fact, with the current state of reliability of jet engines, I suspect the chances of an uncontained failure leading to structural damage and a subsequent crash is higher than the chances of two unrelated engine failures, so it could be argued that twins are in fact safer than quads, as there are only two chances for an uncontained failure on a twin as opposed to four on a quad. Look at the El Al crash in Amsterdam; an engine fell off, which should have been survivable, but in doing so it struck the other one on that side knocking it off as well and extensively damaging the leading edge of the wing, which is what actually caused the loss of control and subsequent crash. Had it been a twin it would undoubtedly have landed safely.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineLitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10607 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 17):

One good thing about this photoshop is that it can give you a rough impression of how double-slotted flaps on the upcoming 747-8 could look like.

Note the plane from nosewheel to mlg ... those engines just about touch - if not break - that plane.

Shows how low slung they'd really be ... maybe the bottom of the nacelle needs to be flattened 737-style!

- litz


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10515 times:



Quoting Litz (Reply 21):
Note the plane from nosewheel to mlg ... those engines just about touch - if not break - that plane.

Interesting. I didn't really notice that until you said it.

Quoting Litz (Reply 21):
Shows how low slung they'd really be ... maybe the bottom of the nacelle needs to be flattened 737-style!

What about the landing gear? Wouldn't it also need to be heavily re-designed to help with ground clearance issues in a hypothetical 747 with GE90s?


User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1030 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10490 times:

Just build an airplane with 1 engine, and that engine ge-90-115

User currently offlineFlyingClrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10293 times:



Quoting Marcus (Reply 7):

If the Azores islands were not close to them, that Canadian A330 would have been the first.

But the fuel problems that caused it to lose two engines would have also caused it to lose four engines. Either way it was lucky that the plane was close to the Azores. The fact that the Airbus A330 wing is optimized for takeoff and climbing probably made it a better glider.


25 SEPilot : Another similar incident was the BA 747 that flew through a volcanic cloud and lost all 4 engines. Fortunately they were able to restart after they e
26 Post contains links and images Viscount724 : Or the equally reliable P&W Canada PT6. View Large View MediumPhoto © Daniel J. Evans
27 Rwessel : A minor variable is that the same fuel leak on a quad would likely have been somewhat slower, since the high pressure fuel pump pushing the fuel out
28 Tdscanuck : Not really. The high pressure fuel pumps are on the engine...the pump that was dumping fuel overboard in this case was the low pressure boost pump th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing 744 With 2 GE 90-115 Engines
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...
Boeing 744 With RR Trent 556 Engines posted Sun Aug 4 2002 03:28:04 by BOEING747400
773ER With GE-90-115b Engines posted Thu Jun 28 2001 14:20:38 by Cobra27
QF 744 With GE Engines posted Mon Feb 5 2001 03:56:21 by 9V-SPJ
Speed Of Air Out Of The GE-90-115's Back End posted Sun Sep 10 2006 01:47:24 by UAL747
AirTran Boeing 717 With BR715-C1-30 Engines? posted Sun Sep 14 2003 04:06:57 by BR715-A1-30
BA 777 W/GE-90 And Trent 800 Engines - Route Ques? posted Mon Dec 13 2004 17:48:29 by Philhyde
GE 90 Emergency AD posted Mon Oct 2 2006 08:40:01 by Zeke
Boeing 777 With PW4090s posted Tue Jun 13 2006 01:34:20 by AirxLiban
Help With Project On Aircraft Engines posted Wed Sep 21 2005 19:35:38 by Pyrex
Replacing Existing Engines With "ng" Engines posted Thu Jan 20 2005 00:04:52 by Boeing nut
Plan To Power The Second AN 225 With GE 90? posted Sun Mar 14 2010 19:41:57 by 747400sp
Speed Of Air Out Of The GE-90-115's Back End posted Sun Sep 10 2006 01:47:24 by UAL747
AirTran Boeing 717 With BR715-C1-30 Engines? posted Sun Sep 14 2003 04:06:57 by BR715-A1-30
Boeing 744 Flying With Biofuel posted Tue Dec 30 2008 05:12:58 by Gonzalo
BA 777 W/GE-90 And Trent 800 Engines - Route Ques? posted Mon Dec 13 2004 17:48:29 by Philhyde
If Boeing Stayed With The 727 Original Design? posted Wed Apr 7 2010 15:01:20 by 747400sp
Is The GE 90-115B Still The Most Powerful? posted Mon Mar 23 2009 17:36:16 by Nitepilot79
Boeing 744 Flying With Biofuel posted Tue Dec 30 2008 05:12:58 by Gonzalo
BA 777 W/GE-90 And Trent 800 Engines - Route Ques? posted Mon Dec 13 2004 17:48:29 by Philhyde
GE-90 Questions posted Mon Dec 5 2011 09:02:43 by Thrust
If Boeing Stayed With The 727 Original Design? posted Wed Apr 7 2010 15:01:20 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format