My Dad helped design Fan Blades for the Compressor of the GE - 90he also did the same for the C-5A those are just a couple of many that he was involved in with General Electric. He also worked with the French SNECMA
But in terms of market competition and comtemporary technology 787 competes with a350 not a330 neo. A330 neo is simply a330 fuselage and wing design with new engines. In terms of personnel accomodation, yes a350 is slightly larger.
Your argument is only taking into account the capacity comparison of the xwb and 777 but not the carbon composite use in the fuselage of both the dreamliner and xwb. That's how the two modern planes compare.
What sets jet engines apart from other engines isn't necessarily the higher level of sophistication, but rather the development testing and certification requirements, and that's especially true of commercial turbofans. The other bit worth noting is that the GE90 features composite fan blades. It is follow-on GE Aviation engines - GEnx, CFM LEAP and GE9X that make use of ceramic matrix composites - CMC's - to deliver higher core temperatures and weight savings, while still using composite fan blades to deliver weight savings and greater durability.
@@vxzrt The Progress D18T is an impressive achievement with its triple-spool architecture. It isn't that I think the GE90 is a better design than the D18T - it just is. It's newer, and far more advanced. But the GE90 and D18T are two entirely different class of engines - one for the world's largest class of twin jet airliners, the other for the world's largest class of airlifters. A more appropriate comparison with the D18T is the Rolls Royce RB211-524G/T, a triple-spool powering the 747-400, as well as the General Electric CF6-80C2, also on the 747-400. Comparing the D18T to the RB211 and CF6, we see that the Western engines have superior fuel economy, and that is reflected in the 747-400F's greater range than either the An-124 or the sole An-225 with a 100 tonne payload. This gap is further extended by the GEnx-2B67 on the 747-8F. The GEnx-2B67 is a slightly more powerful class of engine than the D18T. In closing, it should be noted that the 747's engines are more efficient than the An-124's - and the C-5 Galaxy's - because the emphasis in commercial aviation is efficiency and reliability.
@@vxzrt I hope The Ukrainians will be able to assemble a flying Mriya from that second frame they have stored in Kyiv. I think their biggest headache at this point is sourcing wings - the portion outboard of the An-225 superstructure carrying engines 3 & 4 is common to the An-124, but I'm not sure if there's customisation for the An-225. I think new engines for the An-225 would add significant cost to the restoration. If they do change engines, they'll probably fly a version of GE's CF6, as the USAF did with the C-5M Galaxy.
Didn't realize the PW4000 was that old! But it still makes good thrust against other engines on planes other than the 777 which everyone is freaking about the ge90
I am surprised the thrust to weight ratios of these engines has not really improved much in 50 years. They are stuck in the 5.4 to 6.2 range. I wonder what the fuel consumption improvements per unit of thrust look like. Hopefully we have seen considerable improvement there.
The improvement is all there. The ratio is affected by the fact that the engines get bigger and bigger for a higher bypass ratio, which helps with efficiency.
@@JohnDoe-yq9ml Not smoking anything. Just surprised the weight to bypass ratio has stayed pretty much the same. I know fuel burn, emissions and noise has improved considerably. It’s those improvements that are driving the introduction of new models of airplanes.
@@americanrambler4972 no you didn’t. That’s not what you said. You said “thrust to weight ratios”. Those were your words. Stop lying and trying to change what you said so you don’t look stupid, which makes you look even more stupid. Just stop. Good try.
Even a small high-bypass turbofan engine like the CMF-56 from the 737 can easily pick up a truck and throw it like paper under 75% throttle. The GE-90 can probably break apart a massive building under full throttle. Don't look at us tiny things when comparing such power.
I used to checkout the GE 90 fitted On the PIA B777 300 ER / B777 200 while on the ramp at Heathrow it’s a quick start up engine which made Our job to remove the tow bar from nose gear fast 😮
well, this list is just for fun, and folks working for the big three shouldn't be too upset about it. if you really want to argue, you can add JT9D7R4G2/H, and split the PW4000 into PW4000-94inch (62K lf), 100inch (71K lf) and 112inch.
There's allways space for improvment, But, only because we're back in the cold war so, this means upgrade millitary equipement such as hyper boosted engins!!
It's a difficult comparison to make interestingly enough. If you go by pure net thrust, the NK-32 that powers the Tu-160 (Blackjack) bomber, though perhaps not strictly a 'fighter' engine, is the most powerful at 55,000 lbf with full afterburner. If you're strict about the definition of fighter, then it's the P&W F135, the F-35A variant, which has 43,000 lbf with afterburner. If you compare them on Thrust-to-Weight ratio (but discounting STOL and VTOL engines), then it's the EJ200, with a T-W ratio of 9.17. So it highly depends on how strict you are with your definition, is it fighter or military, thrust or thrust to weight, and with or without afterburners.
Your info is out of date, GE9X was rated at 134,000 lbs of thrust in 2019, although it’s derated to 110, 000. GE90 is rated to 127,000 but derated to 115,000.
Do remember, there is a whole world of non native english speakers creating content. Trust me its easier to write a decent script, than reading it with a good accent. A computer does a decent work ...
RR were running variants of their Trent 800 beyond 110k lbs thrust in the late 90s with a view to hitting the 115k + required for the 777-300ER - however Boeing went with GE exclusivity so this was abandoned. Shame not to have had both engines right at the top end - it would dispel any idea phaps held by some that GE produce the most powerful engine simply because only they are capable of doing so.
And yet the two engines that powered the fastest aircraft ever built, the Mach 3.5 Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, were Pratt & Whitney J58 (JT11D-20)'s and the four engines that powered the fastest civil aircraft ever built, the Mach 2.02 Aerospatiale BAC Concorde, were Bristol/Rolls Royce Olympus 593-610's.
Neither the Blackbird's J58 nor Concorde's Olympus 593 produce more than 40,000 lbf - less powerful, in fact, than the first JT9D on Boeing's legendary 747-100 -- but they are mighty impressive engines. Without watching past halfway, the only jet engines missing from this list are probably the Tupolev Tu-160's Samara NK-321 (55,000 lbf), General Electric's mighty GE4 prototype for Boeing's 2707 SST. The single-spool GE4 ran at around 70,000 lbf - easily the most powerful engine in its class. Also missing here is the prototype Rolls Royce Trent 8100 for the 777-300ER, which ran at 102,000 lbf. Of course, the GE9X for the 777x is the current most powerful engine.
@@PauloSergioMDC The point of my post was to say that the two fastest aircraft ever, both military and civil, did not need the most powerful engines to make them the fastest. Sheer thrust is not everything when it comes to aircraft speed! I never claimed that the P&W J58 or the Olympus 593 should have been on the list here. They clearly shouldn't if the only criteria for selection is power output.
@@Patmofar I never said what you're implying, rather commenting that both the J58 and the Olympus 593 are hugely impressive achievements, namely: the J58 turboramjet design that was more efficient at higher speeds, and Concorde's Olympus 593 which allowed for supercruise and Mach 2.0 with unmatched range potential amongst all other supersonic aircraft to this day. The afterburners on the Olympus 593 were there to save climb time, thus saving fuel.
@Mr. Cool What I pointed out was that the P&W J58 and the Bristol/Rolls Royce 593 engines powered the fastest aircraft ever, the two aircraft that hold all the speed and altitude records for both civil and military aircraft, the aircraft that hold those records in spades and will continue to do so for many more years to come. Unbeaten and unmatched over fifty years since they first flew. And, by the way the Bristol/Rolls Royce Olympus 593 was actually a commercial engine powering a commercial aircraft despite your claim otherwise.
@@Patmofar we are with you thank you for the powerful truth. The other engines will not even operate at the cruising altitudes of the SR71 and the Concorde. The older technology never equalled or exceeded.. Acrossed the Decades of Time
@@emmasatherley3324 It was in 1977 that the highest current altitude record achieved by a manned air-breathing jet engine propelled aircraft was set, when Alexandr Fedotov flew to a height of 123,520 ft in a Mikoyan Gurevitch E-266M.
GE9X is NOT more powerful than GE90 although it has larger fan diameter. However, it is expected to give more fuel efficiency (around 10%). Please, do correct me if I am wrong.
not true.alot other can do them ,its just that selling aircraft is a strategic priority for big players.thats why Boeing sells aiplanes for contracts negociated by Uncle Sam for exemple
You got a lot wrong here. Starting off with propulsion type .. steam engines use water vapor pressure as its method.. everything else is an internal combustion engine
I am not bothered about the most powerful engine , when I board a plane I like to see two things , ....a RR emblem on the engines ...and a pilot that looks old enough to have been around the block a few times ,
Just to compare apples to oranges, the Raptor rocket engine, used on the Space X Starship, weighs about 1/6 of the GE9x and puts out 5 times the thrust. Of course it burns through fuel and oxidizer like nobody's business.
What is it in pounds weight?? ( Lbs ) short for libre...which is pounds in Latin... 4 metres. = 13 feet.... NM X 0.737 = ft / lbs..... KG X 2.2 = lbs...
Because it is. R-R kinda ran out of numbers for the Trent family. They had already used 500, 700, 800, and 900. There was supposed to be a 600 for a B747 variant that never got built. When the B787 was launched they probably just thought 1000 sounded cool.
This video is not 100% authentic as the GE-9X produced 134,900 lbs of thrust establishing a new world record, and snatching the crown from the GE-90 in vanquishing fashion.
As a consumer I feel like if you had given a fuel efficiency for reference we will have all the info, I was gonna order a GE90 but having second thoughts amazon says stock arriving soon but with supply chain issues could be a while... 2nd engine the PW4000 is an older engine seems inefficient and raw power. Guess the RR Trent XWB is my best option, Have a Rolls Royce 5% off coupon from the other day. will use that.
I am one of the oldest subscribers of your channel and I love your videos ! As I pilot I would like to tell you keep rocking!
Name
China is great country 🇨🇳❣️👍
Spend a lot of time flying your PlayStation?
My Dad helped design Fan Blades for the Compressor of the GE - 90he also did the same for the C-5A those are just a couple of many that he was involved in with General Electric. He also worked with the French SNECMA
Pratt and Whitney 😍😍
the A350XWB wasn't built as a direct competitor to the 787, but rather the 777. The director competitor to the 787 would be the A330neo.
But in terms of market competition and comtemporary technology 787 competes with a350 not a330 neo. A330 neo is simply a330 fuselage and wing design with new engines. In terms of personnel accomodation, yes a350 is slightly larger.
@@konforzone most aircraft are bought on range and mission/payload requirements hence 787 vs a330neo
@@konforzone Then even the A220/C Series is more of a 787 competitor than A330neo is??
Yes. People state this all the time and it annoys me lol. Can't wait for the new 777 to start commercial service
Your argument is only taking into account the capacity comparison of the xwb and 777 but not the carbon composite use in the fuselage of both the dreamliner and xwb. That's how the two modern planes compare.
FYI, in certain configurations, the GE90 can actually be rated at as much as 129,000 lbs of thrust!! Blows my mind, ha. 🤯🤯
also the trent 800 (895-17b) achieves 106,087lbs thrust. WR before the GE90-115 you mention
D18 t : hold my vodka gasoline
And the GE9x while rated at 110,000lbs, it set the record at 134,000lbs!! Just insane.
This channel is unabashed comfort food.
Top 10 most powerful SAM's please. I really love your channel
Thank you
What sets jet engines apart from other engines isn't necessarily the higher level of sophistication, but rather the development testing and certification requirements, and that's especially true of commercial turbofans. The other bit worth noting is that the GE90 features composite fan blades. It is follow-on GE Aviation engines - GEnx, CFM LEAP and GE9X that make use of ceramic matrix composites - CMC's - to deliver higher core temperatures and weight savings, while still using composite fan blades to deliver weight savings and greater durability.
You think GE90 is better than the legendary d18t?
@@vxzrt The Progress D18T is an impressive achievement with its triple-spool architecture. It isn't that I think the GE90 is a better design than the D18T - it just is. It's newer, and far more advanced.
But the GE90 and D18T are two entirely different class of engines - one for the world's largest class of twin jet airliners, the other for the world's largest class of airlifters.
A more appropriate comparison with the D18T is the Rolls Royce RB211-524G/T, a triple-spool powering the 747-400, as well as the General Electric CF6-80C2, also on the 747-400.
Comparing the D18T to the RB211 and CF6, we see that the Western engines have superior fuel economy, and that is reflected in the 747-400F's greater range than either the An-124 or the sole An-225 with a 100 tonne payload. This gap is further extended by the GEnx-2B67 on the 747-8F. The GEnx-2B67 is a slightly more powerful class of engine than the D18T.
In closing, it should be noted that the 747's engines are more efficient than the An-124's - and the C-5 Galaxy's - because the emphasis in commercial aviation is efficiency and reliability.
@@PauloSergioMDC and with little destrucción of the an225 the 2 engines were lost you thibk they are going to make a New gen engine?
@@PauloSergioMDC so is imposible to put a ge90 in the an225?
@@vxzrt I hope The Ukrainians will be able to assemble a flying Mriya from that second frame they have stored in Kyiv. I think their biggest headache at this point is sourcing wings - the portion outboard of the An-225 superstructure carrying engines 3 & 4 is common to the An-124, but I'm not sure if there's customisation for the An-225. I think new engines for the An-225 would add significant cost to the restoration. If they do change engines, they'll probably fly a version of GE's CF6, as the USAF did with the C-5M Galaxy.
Thanks for the flight engine lesson.
They forgot the Trent 800 used on the 777.
What a horrible engine that was
Where's the Trent 800 on this video 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🥸
@@SeanCouzens good question
@@golfsito737 The Sound of the GE90? Indeed
@skyler9277 the most powerful & reliable engine
Xièxiè, dòjeh delightful narrator! You are excellence! 💛🙏🏽
The Americans and The British make the best jet engines, in general!! No doubt!!
Don't forget saffron in France.
Didn't realize the PW4000 was that old! But it still makes good thrust against other engines on planes other than the 777 which everyone is freaking about the ge90
U missed:
Trent 500 : thrust 275KN MAX
Trent 800 : Thrust 413KN MAX
Trent 7000: Thrust 324KN MAX
The trent 895-17b achieved 106,087 lbs thrust in testing, a WR before the second gen GE90 (-115) came along
also yes the trent 556 should be on there
Can there be any engines which can use the tesla turbine principle for propulsion.
No.
Possibly, but it might not be practical
Amazing. Thanks for your information about engine.
i do love good rolls-royce RB211 use on good old boeing 757
same here
Link for GE90 in Amazon ? Thanks
great description
I am surprised the thrust to weight ratios of these engines has not really improved much in 50 years. They are stuck in the 5.4 to 6.2 range. I wonder what the fuel consumption improvements per unit of thrust look like. Hopefully we have seen considerable improvement there.
The improvement is all there. The ratio is affected by the fact that the engines get bigger and bigger for a higher bypass ratio, which helps with efficiency.
Critical Radius at its peak
They have improved massively. What are you smoking????
@@JohnDoe-yq9ml Not smoking anything. Just surprised the weight to bypass ratio has stayed pretty much the same. I know fuel burn, emissions and noise has improved considerably. It’s those improvements that are driving the introduction of new models of airplanes.
@@americanrambler4972 no you didn’t. That’s not what you said. You said “thrust to weight ratios”. Those were your words. Stop lying and trying to change what you said so you don’t look stupid, which makes you look even more stupid. Just stop. Good try.
Why wasn't the GE9X included?
I'm wondering the same
Man, can you imagine being right in back of the 777 -300er engine fully spewed up? All of that thrust wow.
Even a small high-bypass turbofan engine like the CMF-56 from the 737 can easily pick up a truck and throw it like paper under 75% throttle. The GE-90 can probably break apart a massive building under full throttle. Don't look at us tiny things when comparing such power.
@@ejkk9513 Oh yeah!! The 737 NG are very sharp!! Those engines scream when racing down the runway powerfully. But the max? No way, never😊
GE wins and saves the day
Because, you know, nobody else makes big jet engines. Worst-researched video ever.
super well done.
Great aircraft engines!
*GE-9X can reach 134,300 lb or 60,917 kg of Thrust*
GE-9X and GE-90 are pretty much similar
Can reach Unreliable reach.
When put thing to limit -> Uncontained engine failure.
Not rated that high. One pump chump.
Being used now
@@shamanbhattacharyya9285 GE9X is larger !!!
I already knew what would be #1 even before she got to the end, GE 90
could've been GEnX or GE9X but they didn't include these
@@busofmauritius8306 It stated in the heading the GE9X was THE most powerful !!!
I used to checkout the GE 90 fitted
On the PIA B777 300 ER / B777 200 while on the ramp at Heathrow it’s
a quick start up engine which made
Our job to remove the tow bar from nose gear fast 😮
Мені сподобалось, широкий вибір.
It would be nice a Top 10 best MANPADS
A380 which eng is used ?
well, this list is just for fun, and folks working for the big three shouldn't be too upset about it. if you really want to argue, you can add JT9D7R4G2/H, and split the PW4000 into PW4000-94inch (62K lf), 100inch (71K lf) and 112inch.
Where’s the RR Trent 800?
Please make a video for reliable aircraft engine.. Thank you
Looking forward to the next generation of jet engines: lighter, smaller, cheaper and more thrust.
There's allways space for improvment,
But, only because we're back in the cold war so, this means upgrade millitary equipement such as hyper boosted engins!!
Most powerful engines used in fighter aircraft's , plz
We have already published
I like that list
ua-cam.com/video/N8u_zHZxej0/v-deo.html👈
EE Lighting
Where is the engine of antonov an 225 mriya ......??????
Number 10 used in Antonov an 225
An 225 have D18, same whis An 124
great😊
Amazing info. Incredible works of engineering.
I was hoping to see the most powerful fighter jet engines. Perhaps you can cover those another time.
It's a difficult comparison to make interestingly enough. If you go by pure net thrust, the NK-32 that powers the Tu-160 (Blackjack) bomber, though perhaps not strictly a 'fighter' engine, is the most powerful at 55,000 lbf with full afterburner. If you're strict about the definition of fighter, then it's the P&W F135, the F-35A variant, which has 43,000 lbf with afterburner. If you compare them on Thrust-to-Weight ratio (but discounting STOL and VTOL engines), then it's the EJ200, with a T-W ratio of 9.17. So it highly depends on how strict you are with your definition, is it fighter or military, thrust or thrust to weight, and with or without afterburners.
สุดยอดความรู้ดีๆครับ จากช่องส่งเสริมการลงทุนสินทรัพย์ดิจิตอลน้องใหม่ แนวขำๆครับ SAysui Family Channel
I loved it
The fan blades of the GE90 work at a higher temperature?? LOOL
the ge9x is used on the 777x.that literally has more power and a better thrust to weight ratio than the ge90
Introduce my FUTURE engine to!!!
Your info is out of date, GE9X was rated at 134,000 lbs of thrust in 2019, although it’s derated to 110, 000. GE90 is rated to 127,000 but derated to 115,000.
I'd rather have a human being doing the commentary.
Got a problem with "com - Pose - it"?
There’s nothing wrong with this.
@@josef596 It's stilted and doesn't have the naturalness of human speech.
They cost money
Do remember, there is a whole world of non native english speakers creating content. Trust me its easier to write a decent script, than reading it with a good accent.
A computer does a decent work ...
0:38 : Steam powered aircraft engines? Please show one...
Well...there is / was such a thing as water injection for jet engines.
Hi JayZ big fan of your's! And seeing you comment in this channel is a big oh no moment 😆 keep it up!
The aircraft engines ranking should be based on thrust-to-weight ratio not on the size nor the total ouput.
RR were running variants of their Trent 800 beyond 110k lbs thrust in the late 90s with a view to hitting the 115k + required for the 777-300ER - however Boeing went with GE exclusivity so this was abandoned. Shame not to have had both engines right at the top end - it would dispel any idea phaps held by some that GE produce the most powerful engine simply because only they are capable of doing so.
The engines for the 777-200 are also very powerful.
And yet the two engines that powered the fastest aircraft ever built, the Mach 3.5 Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, were Pratt & Whitney J58 (JT11D-20)'s and the four engines that powered the fastest civil aircraft ever built, the Mach 2.02 Aerospatiale BAC Concorde, were Bristol/Rolls Royce Olympus 593-610's.
Neither the Blackbird's J58 nor Concorde's Olympus 593 produce more than 40,000 lbf - less powerful, in fact, than the first JT9D on Boeing's legendary 747-100 -- but they are mighty impressive engines. Without watching past halfway, the only jet engines missing from this list are probably the Tupolev Tu-160's Samara NK-321 (55,000 lbf), General Electric's mighty GE4 prototype for Boeing's 2707 SST. The single-spool GE4 ran at around 70,000 lbf - easily the most powerful engine in its class. Also missing here is the prototype Rolls Royce Trent 8100 for the 777-300ER, which ran at 102,000 lbf. Of course, the GE9X for the 777x is the current most powerful engine.
@@PauloSergioMDC The point of my post was to say that the two fastest aircraft ever, both military and civil, did not need the most powerful engines to make them the fastest. Sheer thrust is not everything when it comes to aircraft speed! I never claimed that the P&W J58 or the Olympus 593 should have been on the list here. They clearly shouldn't if the only criteria for selection is power output.
@@Patmofar I never said what you're implying, rather commenting that both the J58 and the Olympus 593 are hugely impressive achievements, namely: the J58 turboramjet design that was more efficient at higher speeds, and Concorde's Olympus 593 which allowed for supercruise and Mach 2.0 with unmatched range potential amongst all other supersonic aircraft to this day. The afterburners on the Olympus 593 were there to save climb time, thus saving fuel.
@Mr. Cool What I pointed out was that the P&W J58 and the Bristol/Rolls Royce 593 engines powered the fastest aircraft ever, the two aircraft that hold all the speed and altitude records for both civil and military aircraft, the aircraft that hold those records in spades and will continue to do so for many more years to come. Unbeaten and unmatched over fifty years since they first flew. And, by the way the Bristol/Rolls Royce Olympus 593 was actually a commercial engine powering a commercial aircraft despite your claim otherwise.
@@Patmofar we are with you thank you for the powerful truth.
The other engines will not even operate at the cruising altitudes of the SR71
and the Concorde.
The older technology never equalled or exceeded..
Acrossed the Decades of Time
Yes, metric units
1st viewer first like first comment 🤣🤣🤣
How you edit videos pls tell me bro
Mouse across to the right to the "3 dots" symbol and left-click on it. You should see an option to Edit.
Scissors and sticky tape, cut and splice.
No mention of the engines that powered the SR71 Blackbird?
That was overtaken by The English Electric Lightening and flew even higher, RR engines powered.
@@emmasatherley3324
It was in 1977 that the highest current altitude record achieved by a manned air-breathing jet engine propelled aircraft was set, when Alexandr Fedotov flew to a height of 123,520 ft in a Mikoyan Gurevitch E-266M.
@@Skyprince27 Saw that, the Amuricuns hate being beating.
@@emmasatherley3324
Don’t they though! 🇨🇦😂🇨🇦!!!
@@Skyprince27 CA? UK or USA?
You really forgot GE9X which is more powerful than the GE90…So it should be at the first
True. It is being built for the latest 777s.
@@stephenlogsdon8266 The Boeing 777X…
GE9X is NOT more powerful than GE90 although it has larger fan diameter. However, it is expected to give more fuel efficiency (around 10%). Please, do correct me if I am wrong.
@@shubhamduttasd Right
good.
One of the toughest jobs in the world is to make an aircraft engine. That's way only 4-5 countries make them.
not true.alot other can do them ,its just that selling aircraft is a strategic priority for big players.thats why Boeing sells aiplanes for contracts negociated by Uncle Sam for exemple
@@mirceapintelie361 nonsense
RIP Antonov
Pratt and Whitney JT9D was the first of the most powerful.
Dinosaur of an engine today
doesn't matter how powerful aircraft engines are. When they go out, it's bye bye world.
Not necessarily.
You got a lot wrong here. Starting off with propulsion type .. steam engines use water vapor pressure as its method.. everything else is an internal combustion engine
THE BUZZ ... SPECIFIED
I am not bothered about the most powerful engine , when I board a plane I like to see two things , ....a RR emblem on the engines ...and a pilot that looks old enough to have been around the block a few times ,
Where’s the ge9x
where is the GE9X?
What about the world most powerful commercial jet engine the GE9X
The first working internal combustion engine for aircraft was built in 1903, WW1 wasn't unit 1914.
Just to compare apples to oranges, the Raptor rocket engine, used on the Space X Starship, weighs about 1/6 of the GE9x and puts out 5 times the thrust. Of course it burns through fuel and oxidizer like nobody's business.
Please, we need a Top 10 about figthers jet engines.
Not up to date with GE Engines... ;-(
Voice over be over please
What if the General Electric GE9X, the newest 777 engine built will be the new strongest engine in the world.
"during WWI, the first working internal combustion engine for use in an aircraft..." Um, how about Wright Brothers, 1905?
I caught that as well, ha. 👍👍
1903*
@@BillWogan Yes, well, I wasn't there personally. Thank you for correction.
Pratt & Whitney and General Electric are the best 🇺🇸
Shouldn't the SABRE ENGINE be on this list?
never understand the relations between pounds of thrust and horse power.
What is it in pounds weight?? ( Lbs ) short for libre...which is pounds in Latin...
4 metres. = 13 feet....
NM X 0.737 = ft / lbs.....
KG X 2.2 = lbs...
ฉันสนใจที่จะพัฒนาเครื่องยนต์ไอพ่นพลังงานที่เอามาใช้ขับเคลื่อนมันยังสิ้นเปลืองพลังงานจริงๆแค่ครึ่งเดียวเท่านั้นที่เราใช้อีก 50% เป็นของปล่อยทิ้ง
No CFM leap?
Progress D 8 un tea???
Is it not D eighteen T?
please make a video on india's future aircraft again please
Yall think an Afterburner onthe GE90 would make it faster?
I was expecting somd CFM stuff
CFM? The most powerful CFM has just 33,000lbf, compared to the others on the list.
Bro forgot GE9X
Rolls-Royce Trent 800 is more powerful than the XWB but is somehow not on the list. The most powerful variant had 110,000lb of thrust
Your voice is sooo cute baby 😍
Computer voice 😂😂
@@jonhs898 🤣🤣 computer voice is sweet
@@_rathore_jayant_singh_7773
LOL
@@jonhs898 L lgg gye kya🤣🤣🤣
@@jonhs898 🤣🤣
How come the trent 900 is more powerful than the trent1000?
Because it is. R-R kinda ran out of numbers for the Trent family. They had already used 500, 700, 800, and 900. There was supposed to be a 600 for a B747 variant that never got built. When the B787 was launched they probably just thought 1000 sounded cool.
@@harveyschofield4619 🤣💪
What's your name
Donald Trump
@@peacedude-gy3zl 🤣🤣😂😂
Katrina Kaif 🤣🤣
@@arindam0007 really 😂😂
@@FactkingAnkush.... 🤣
This video is not 100% authentic as the GE-9X produced 134,900 lbs of thrust establishing a new world record, and snatching the crown from the GE-90 in vanquishing fashion.
Upload new an engine's videos
As a consumer I feel like if you had given a fuel efficiency for reference we will have all the info, I was gonna order a GE90 but having second thoughts amazon says stock arriving soon but with supply chain issues could be a while... 2nd engine the PW4000 is an older engine seems inefficient and raw power. Guess the RR Trent XWB is my best option, Have a Rolls Royce 5% off coupon from the other day. will use that.
No AN-225 anymore
The F-135 almost makes it on
😊👍
Good video?
RR 👍👍👍
The Anglosphere rules the world!
Anglo power.