What a Monster! GE9X with that high of bypass ratio,and quietness will be a joy to fly on! a higher ETOPS rating will come in time.Even at 330 minutes that is an excellent starting point for flying on 1 engine.
Goodfella, I 'm a Brit and would, as you would expect support RR but I have to admit that this engine is a bloody marvel. Lets hope the airlines order the 777-9x in enough quantities because the world of flying has changed.The A380 suffered because of this change, lets hope the 777--9x can overcome the economics. I know its two engined rather than the 4 of the A380 so lets hope it works out.I have nothing but praise for the scientists and engineers at GE- your MAIN problem is the management phyysocology. (i.e. 737 MAX8! )of Boeing
This engine deserves all the applause it can get. Its a modern engineering marvel which took over twenty years to develop.There should be a video on just this engine and its development
I always had to turn the volume higher just to listen to the audio of this youtube video but then again after finish watching it and went to open up other video, you will get sudden loud blast because you forgot and had to turn down the volume again. That's just annoying
For a non-geared turbofan GE pushes the boundaries of capability as far as anyone. Their CMC technology has kept them competitive with their geared counterparts with a simplified design. Looking to the printed component future combined with CMC and geared turbofans this technology seems cemented in our next 1/4 century and beyond.
Yes, that’s correct, it’s an American 777-200ER and they never had the GE90s, they had the RR trents. Only their 777-300ER have GE90s due to the lack of option.
Those are some impressive specs, more than twice the power of the JT9Ds that powered the early 747s. It's interesting to speculate, had Boeing decided to continue the development of the 747 family, to develop a new variant as a twinjet using the GE9X. Such an aircraft could appropriately be designated 747-9X.
Well I think one om the reasons why they made this aircraft a new generation 777 instead of 747 is because the name 747 implies 4 engines if we go by the original naming logic so it wouldn't make sense to have a twin 747.
Its not the longest plane in the world. The Antonov AN-225 Mriya comes in first, at 276’. The second maybe? The A380 comes in at 239’, 747-8i at 250’, the the 777x at 251’ 9”. So maybe the worlds longest passenger airplane?
The GE9X engine may get an ETOP certification of 650 -700 but there is a catch. It is powering an aircraft built by Boeing... the same company that built the 737MAX and the same company that scrapped the Starliner launch due to 'issues'
Too bad it will be so quiet. The GE90, Trent, and even the older PW helped make the 777 the ultimate beast. I've only taken a handful of 777 flights, but it was my favorite. Honorable mention to the 757, 767, and, the L-1011.
As I mentioned earlier ( I have said this all along) its mainly a Boeing / GE & Airbus / Rolls-Royce Relationship. Hope you understand this. Same as a Boeing 737 Family / GE & A320 Family / Rolls-Royce Relationship.
Re: ETOPS = 420 minutes for the RR engine. That's seven hours. So for a 14 hour flight over the open ocean (?), just carry on or turn around. It's getting close enough that it no longer matters. Actual real-world reliability will now be dominated by external factors.
That's the question-if you plot 420 minutes single-engine flight time away from all widebody capable airports, where on the globe is now off-limits to fly over outside of the poles?
The only 2 routes I know that might benefit from anything over ETOPS 330+ are Sydney to Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town, and no service exists for either.
It"s not RR Boeing should be worrying about...!!...but the 777X flight controls flaws and certification denied by the FAA...next one in 2024.....I doubt Airlines will wait this long for this baby to be certified and enter production ,if it ever does.....
@@hectorherbert6585 it would does, let wait what happens, we don't know yet, but talking about RR not selected by Boeing for the 777, it the same thing Airbus did at not selecting GE for the 350. It basically personal for the contriy and who does better, that how business works
Will this one also have malfunctioning software or exploding batteries rushed into production in a desperate attempt to keep up with Airbus, then be poorly tested and rubber-stamped by the FAA? If it's a Boeing I am not going.
If I were a CEO of an airline and was offered only one engine option I might have second thoughts if for no other reason than just because. Nothing like putting all your eggs in one basket in this age of way too close to the cutting edge.
@0m25s: "...110,000 pound-foot..." Nope. Pounds-FORCE. 110,000 pounds-(of)-force. Pound-Foot would be a unit for either torque or work (depending on the angle of your point of view, LOL).
@@yoyoyoyoshua that why it is the most common on the 787 which are kind more noisy and would probably be the reason for why people curse the 787. I don't understand how RR did very good on the trent for the 350, but not on the 787. I mean, an unforeseen event?
It's actually *NOT* the engine with the highest engine thrust designed for a commercial airliner. That honor goes to the GE90-115B, which is rated at 513.9 kilonewtons thrust. The GE9X-105B1A is only rated at 490 kilonewtons thrust, but it's certainly the biggest physical jet engine used on a commercial jet airliner. The 777-9 only needs 490 kN thrust because its superior wing design allows the 777-9 to get by with a lower engine thrust rating.
Let me guess. You're looking at the 115,000 pounds of thrust vs 105,000 or I think 110,000 that they recently changed it to for the GE9X. Either way they're talking about max thrust which was 127,000 for the GE90 and 134,000 for the GE9X.
Beautiful engine. Friggin huge... It amazes me how engineers have created such mechanical artistry. Now, that's good science!
GE90 is one of the best sounding engine ever, especially the start up
Wait til you hear the GEn9X!
@@MegaWingman7 well... not available to us small potatoes yet haha
Personally I think the CF6 and RB211s are the best sounding engines out there
It's unbelievable that a company which makes such an amazing engine still manages to build crappy kitchen appliances.
That isn't the same ge tho, ge aviation don't build kitchen appliances
The difference is the Price!!
It isn't the same GE. These engines were developed by GE and NASA
Kinda bad microwaves (because i have one and it’s kinda bad)
What a Monster! GE9X with that high of bypass ratio,and quietness will be a joy to fly on! a higher ETOPS rating will come in time.Even at 330 minutes that is an excellent starting point for flying on 1 engine.
I run the engine development program for the 777X, she’s a beast of an engine
Yea sure, and I’m bill nye the science guy
@@kingssuck06 hi bill, I’ve run the EDP on the 787, 747-8 and now the X
@@MegaWingman7 so are you the one who decided to remove those pretty chevrons? Big sad.
@@MegaWingman7 If you may please explain to us why is there no chevrons in the GE9X. Thank you, eh mate!
@@kingssuck06 You real?
Two vids in one day! Wow! Will u guys do this now on?
This is an amazing engine, powerful and quiet especially at the start up.
You know your engine is big when you can have a 737 strike
All your videos are set up in a different volume level !!! Thanks and excellent congent...
Looks amazing. Never take this amazing technology for granted. Think of the hard work and all the effort behind. Thank you GE and Boeing.
I’m long on GE. This engine is going to be a huge success and will contribute to company EPS and TSR.
Goodfella, I 'm a Brit and would, as you would expect support RR but I have to admit that this engine is a bloody marvel. Lets hope the airlines order the 777-9x in enough quantities
because the world of flying has changed.The A380 suffered because of this change, lets hope the 777--9x can overcome the economics. I know its two engined rather than the
4 of the A380 so lets hope it works out.I have nothing but praise for the scientists and engineers at GE- your MAIN problem is the management phyysocology. (i.e. 737 MAX8! )of Boeing
@@johnchristmas7522 good points, and nothing wrong with having pride and support for your national company (RR).
This engine deserves all the applause it can get. Its a modern engineering marvel which took over twenty years to develop.There should be a video on just this engine and its development
1:06 for KSP lovers this thrust is 596 kN !
I enjoy your channel but volume is too low on this one
This has been solved in upcoming vidoes. - TB
Hey Gavin, please be patient. The fix is coming in future videos, but given the time needed to make a video, it is not instant. - TB
@@SimpleFlyingNews We have same name? 😂
I always had to turn the volume higher just to listen to the audio of this youtube video but then again after finish watching it and went to open up other video, you will get sudden loud blast because you forgot and had to turn down the volume again. That's just annoying
@@SimpleFlyingNews Don't you people at least watch your own video and other people's video first and compare to make sure its been done correctly?
For a non-geared turbofan GE pushes the boundaries of capability as far as anyone. Their CMC technology has kept them competitive with their geared counterparts with a simplified design. Looking to the printed component future combined with CMC and geared turbofans this technology seems cemented in our next 1/4 century and beyond.
Andrew, this engine is a marvel but there is nothing simple about its technology-if it were simple it would not have taken twenty years to develop
Thumbnail makes it look so cool
Airbus should try sticking them on A350
No, Airbus is waiting for the new Rolls-Royce engines based on the _Advanced_ and _UltraFan_ technologies for future A350XWB variants.
Too big and too powerful
@@RocketMan907 It may lead to "max" problems....
@@smferreiro2610 GE have nothing to do which 737max, think and then talk
Finally somebody talks about plane engine performance
Even though im a P&W person the ge90 seems more well put-together than the ge9x
It's an engineering marvel, the 9X, I can't wait to see them on an aircraft near me soon....
I just want to hear it TOGA
in toga power i think the 777x will be able to take off from lukla too lol
66th like 459th viewer, not enough likes and views. This channel needs more attention!
2:18, not the GE 90... RR, right?
Yes, that’s correct, it’s an American 777-200ER and they never had the GE90s, they had the RR trents. Only their 777-300ER have GE90s due to the lack of option.
So it only has 16 blades. Will the newer engines have 12 blades then 10, 8, 6?
This video made me think I was experiencing instantaneous hearing loss 😂
If it is this huge already, imagine how big the geared turbofan version of it that GE is working on will be.
What makes an engine so big with so much power so quiet. It would be nice to see the difference in numbers how different GE90 and GE9X are.
The bypass ratio- the more the that flows around the combustion chamber softens the noise emitted when being released out of the back of the engine.
Those are some impressive specs, more than twice the power of the JT9Ds that powered the early 747s. It's interesting to speculate, had Boeing decided to continue the development of the 747 family, to develop a new variant as a twinjet using the GE9X. Such an aircraft could appropriately be designated 747-9X.
Wow.
Well I think one om the reasons why they made this aircraft a new generation 777 instead of 747 is because the name 747 implies 4 engines if we go by the original naming logic so it wouldn't make sense to have a twin 747.
2:18 Talks about GE90 - Shows Trent 892
Love that huge plane and engine
The fuselage of an original 737 would fit inside the GE9X, that's bonkers!
My favourite engine ❤️
I can’t wait to see that 777X in real life!
Fantastic engines.
That’s beyond crazy!😱
600 minutes ETOPS and best engine in world history,
Worlds biggest engine on the worlds longest passenger plane.
Will it be the longest? Didn’t know that!!
Its not the longest plane in the world. The Antonov AN-225 Mriya comes in first, at 276’. The second maybe? The A380 comes in at 239’, 747-8i at 250’, the the 777x at 251’ 9”. So maybe the worlds longest passenger airplane?
@@ashtongilbert r/hedidthemath lol
@@ashtongilbert he meant the world’s largest ‘’passenger’’ plane dumbass. Antonov is a cargo plane.
The GE9X engine may get an ETOP certification of 650 -700 but there is a catch. It is powering an aircraft built by Boeing... the same company that built the 737MAX and the same company that scrapped the Starliner launch due to 'issues'
Next generation 737: single aisle single engine. Possible?
the front of this engine (11 feet) is taller then my Mack dump truck (10'9") thats crazy
Too bad it will be so quiet. The GE90, Trent, and even the older PW helped make the 777 the ultimate beast. I've only taken a handful of 777 flights, but it was my favorite. Honorable mention to the 757, 767, and, the L-1011.
Nice
This engine could get an etop certification of probably 350 to 360. It probably won’t be too much more than the ge90
As I mentioned earlier ( I have said this all along) its mainly a Boeing / GE & Airbus / Rolls-Royce Relationship. Hope you understand this. Same as a Boeing 737 Family / GE & A320 Family / Rolls-Royce Relationship.
Re: ETOPS = 420 minutes for the RR engine. That's seven hours. So for a 14 hour flight over the open ocean (?), just carry on or turn around. It's getting close enough that it no longer matters. Actual real-world reliability will now be dominated by external factors.
That's the question-if you plot 420 minutes single-engine flight time away from all widebody capable airports, where on the globe is now off-limits to fly over outside of the poles?
2030 - the engine will be bigger than the aircraft itself 😨
ETOPS 420? How does that even make sense? You're 7 hours from any airport? I can't imagine where on the planet that would be.
The Pacific...
The only 2 routes I know that might benefit from anything over ETOPS 330+ are Sydney to Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town, and no service exists for either.
@@jp7585 well that's why they invented ETOPS 420, so that those routes can become a reality.
@@nicoroz6912 My point is that they had 747s, DC-10s, L1011s and A340s for a long time. They could have had service for 40+ years
Wait for the intro of the Eco fuel burning ultra fan
After the chaos that RR caused with the Trent 1000s. I’m not surprised Boeing didn’t give RR a chance to power the 777X
It"s not RR Boeing should be worrying about...!!...but the 777X flight controls flaws and certification denied by the FAA...next one in 2024.....I doubt Airlines will wait this long for this baby to be certified and enter production ,if it ever does.....
@@hectorherbert6585 it would does, let wait what happens, we don't know yet, but talking about RR not selected by Boeing for the 777, it the same thing Airbus did at not selecting GE for the 350. It basically personal for the contriy and who does better, that how business works
Impressing.
U suddenly upload 2 a day or u miss-uploaded?
Will this one also have malfunctioning software or exploding batteries rushed into production in a desperate attempt to keep up with Airbus, then be poorly tested and rubber-stamped by the FAA? If it's a Boeing I am not going.
To keep up with Airbus? mate...Airbus doesn't even have a plane in this sector, kinda hard to keep up if there is no current competition
Impressive engine. ETOPS will be 360 or better.
Now, I want a redesigned cf6-80 naming CF6-100 which has parts from the GE9X and will power the A330NEO
It’s a monster 👹
0:26 lbf is pound FORCE not pound foot! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)
Plot twist : General Electric uses B737 Fuselage to make the engine
cant we stick 4 of these on a slightly lrger (1.17X scale) 747-8i???
1.5x scale 747 that is double decker from nose to tail and has a third deck in its hump.
"..when GE Aviation obtained Federal Aviation Administration certification.." 😂
only the best for Boeing !!
If I were a CEO of an airline and was offered only one engine option I might have second thoughts if for no other reason than just because. Nothing like putting all your eggs in one basket in this age of way too close to the cutting edge.
Why not ultrafan
Because RR messed up the trent 1000
@@ethansaviation2672 thank you for the info
Are David and Alan Joyce related?
Hopefully the GE don’t have there ex-employees working at the FAA like Boeing does.
-115B not -11B
@0m25s: "...110,000 pound-foot..." Nope. Pounds-FORCE. 110,000 pounds-(of)-force.
Pound-Foot would be a unit for either torque or work (depending on the angle of your point of view, LOL).
this on the 737
Diesel engine? ⛽
Although B787 engine has higher ETOPS than B777-200ER’s engine, I feel they are less reliable...
Trent 1000's have issues but GENX powered 787's are plenty reliable.
@@yoyoyoyoshua that why it is the most common on the 787 which are kind more noisy and would probably be the reason for why people curse the 787. I don't understand how RR did very good on the trent for the 350, but not on the 787. I mean, an unforeseen event?
777x.
Fun Fact: It is less powerful than the GE90
No, more powerful at max power but lower operating power.
You say nothing on the problems the 9X had in 2019.
Looks like Rolls-Royce have to improve a bit. 😉
Definitely doesn't sound nearly as good as the GE90 spooling up
But now GE9x still lay dormant in her lair.
Good but not safe.
Qatar
The GE9X intake lip looks too thick, making the engine look bulkier and less aesthetically pleasing.
Don’t think there top priority was looks.
It wasn’t designed for your aesthetic pleasure
It's actually *NOT* the engine with the highest engine thrust designed for a commercial airliner. That honor goes to the GE90-115B, which is rated at 513.9 kilonewtons thrust. The GE9X-105B1A is only rated at 490 kilonewtons thrust, but it's certainly the biggest physical jet engine used on a commercial jet airliner. The 777-9 only needs 490 kN thrust because its superior wing design allows the 777-9 to get by with a lower engine thrust rating.
Let me guess. You're looking at the 115,000 pounds of thrust vs 105,000 or I think 110,000 that they recently changed it to for the GE9X. Either way they're talking about max thrust which was 127,000 for the GE90 and 134,000 for the GE9X.
Mistake
But this planes has nasty flaws and won't be certified before 2024...might not even be built...!!!