
GE’s new turbofan engine is as wide as a Boeing 737 fuselage - jonbaer
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/ge-turbofan-huge-jet-engine/
======
throwanem
So, the GE9x is a super-high-bypass turbofan that makes unusually heavy use of
composites and additive manufacturing techniques, and gains about 10.5 inches
in fan diameter (and might shed some pounds) over the GE90 parent design
currently used on most 777s. I don't know where Wired is getting the 148in
figure - duct or nacelle diameter, maybe. It's right for a 737's fuselage, so
maybe the writer took a metaphorical statement as literal. But that's not an
unusual size for an engine on a 777, and if you've seen one of these big
widebody twins alongside its narrowbody elder cousin - or, better yet,
superimposed, as in [1] - you know that it's not really a surprise to hear
that the engines of the former are comparable in diameter to the fuselage of
the latter.

Wired's really gone down the clickbait hole in the last few years - not that
it was ever as substantial as it liked to make itself out, but still
disappointing to see.

[1]
[http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/2/0/5/0881502....](http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/2/0/5/0881502.jpg?v=v40)

~~~
neurotech1
GE9x has a 133in fan [0] compared to 128in fan for a GE90-110 series. 148in is
the Nacelle width.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90#GE9X](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90#GE9X)

~~~
throwanem
Fair point. I was looking at the spec for earlier versions of the same engine,
which used a fan five inches narrower.

------
altvisual
I watched a documentary on GE not that long ago, it wasn't anything new,
probably 10 year old or so. Anyway, one of the things that really stood out to
me was that GE has a command center where they are able to monitor the
performance of all their engines in near real time, as they are flying
throughout the world. All of their (newer, I assume) engines have build in
data links that call home to the control center. This obviously allows them to
see issues really quickly and solve problems nearly before they happen.

It just struck me as one of those things that makes perfect sense, but I never
really thought that much about it before seeing it.

I'm surprised I haven't seen more of this in automobiles these days, (maybe
Tesla?) but I can't imagine it will be long before it's common place. There
would of course be privacy concerns, but it's something that I could live with
in order prevent break downs or things of that nature.

~~~
snowwrestler
Rolls Royce does this too for their aircraft engines.

The big difference vs automobiles is that most airlines buy their planes but
only lease the engines. GE and Rolls Royce monitor the engines at all times
because the own them and are responsible for them at all times.

~~~
mrpippy
Known as "power by the hour", or maybe TaaS ("thrust as a service") would be
more appropriate for HN

------
Animats
It's embarrassing that Boeing is still making 737 variants. The first flight
of a 737 was over 50 years ago. Yes, most of the systems have been upgraded,
but it still has the same small fuselage diameter. Patrick Smith, who's flown
both and writes "Ask the Pilot", complains that Boeing discontinued the 757
and continued the 737 instead of developing something better. [1] From his
perspective, the 737 is underpowered, has too-high takeoff and landing speeds,
and doesn't fly as well as the more modern aircraft. Boeing says they need to
make at least 1500 aircraft of a new model to break even, and don't think they
can sell that many of something in 737 size.

[1]
[http://www.askthepilot.com/757-v-737/](http://www.askthepilot.com/757-v-737/)

~~~
ubernostrum
It's embarrassing that manufacturers are still making computers with silicon
chips in them. The first silicon chip was over 50 years ago. Yes, most of the
components and surrounding systems have been upgraded, but it still has the
same basic material.

(etc., etc. -- "old" does not mean "bad"; the 757 is a perennial example of
people claiming to want something they don't really want; and the 737 is a
proven, successful design, so there's absolutely _no_ "embarrassment" in the
fact that it's still being manufactured and flown)

~~~
CharlesW
> _It 's embarrassing that manufacturers are still making computers with
> silicon chips in them._

You might even zoom out a bit more and go with, "It's embarrassing that
manufacturers are still making ATX cases". Just as ATX cases have been able to
accommodate several generations of computing, modern 737s are effectively
different aircraft than early 737s even though they share common properties.

------
zenkat
Interesting to see 3-D printing being used in a high-end precision industrial
application like this one. Cobalt-chrome sintered powder, neat!

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Here are some actual numbers [http://m.aviationweek.com/blog/engine-fan-
diameters-creeping...](http://m.aviationweek.com/blog/engine-fan-diameters-
creeping-past-fuselage-widths)

------
tim333
Some pics:

[http://www.newequipment.com/sites/newequipment.com/files/ge9...](http://www.newequipment.com/sites/newequipment.com/files/ge9x-stats-
graphic.jpg)

[https://www.aviationcv.com/aviation-blog/2016/worlds-
biggest...](https://www.aviationcv.com/aviation-blog/2016/worlds-biggest-jet-
engine-first-testing)

------
johansch
When I first flew the 777 about seven years ago I was totally awestruck by the
size of the engines.

I flew with Qatar Airways, and in Doha they had a mobile staircase plus a bus,
and with business class the entrance was just a few meters ahead of the
engine. Or at at least it felt that way.

Seems like the diameter of the 777X engine is just a tiny bit larger than the
old 777 engine: 339 cm vs 325 cm.

~~~
cyberferret
From my old flying days, I remember everyone talking about how the engine
nacelles on the original model 777's were almost exactly the same diameter as
the fuselage barrel on a 737.

That one fact really brought home to me what a huge beast the 777 was...

~~~
cyberferret
Another standout from my chat with the engineers that day, was the fact that
each individual fan blade on the 777 engine was worth far more than my car...
I think it was almost the equivalent cost of 24 Porsches spinning around that
initial stage of the engine - let alone all the compressor and turbine stage
blades behind that!

------
davidf18
This is a very impressive piece of technology. Coupled with a 777-9, a 2
engine plane can have nearly the same number of passengers as the 4 engine
747.

A GE exec told me that 80% of this technology makes up the electric power
generators and that one of these units can power 300,000 homes.

~~~
waqf
The two-engine A330 has been carrying the same number of passengers as the
four-engine A340 for decades :).

------
okket
Great that they make such fancy and efficient engines, but can we please do
something about the ~20% fuel waste during taxiing?

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920911...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920911000198)

------
WalterBright
The fan is just a propeller in a shroud, and large diameter propellers are
commonplace on large aircraft.

------
Lukas_Skywalker
This related video shows the inner workings and assembly of the engine. Truly
amazing feat of engineering:
[https://youtu.be/DMqRsBOihIM](https://youtu.be/DMqRsBOihIM)

~~~
Apofis
They locked that poor guy in there at 1:41.

------
UnoriginalGuy
Misleading title. Boeing doesn't make aircraft engines. This is a GE Aviation
design.

Which happens to first see service in the Boeing 777X, but there's no reason
to assume it couldn't go into other airframes or even other manufacturer's
aircraft.

To attribute it to Boeing like that makes no rational sense. More information
on GE's site:

[https://www.geaviation.com/commercial/engines/ge9x-commercia...](https://www.geaviation.com/commercial/engines/ge9x-commercial-
aircraft-engine)

~~~
rayiner
Reading NYT coverage of any subject you know about is like having a toddler
explain to you what she did today.

~~~
tptacek
The NYT has done reasonably, if not perfectly, on surveillance and
cryptography topics I know a great deal about. It's substantially better than
The Guardian. Also: the quality of the NYT's _reporting_ is far better than
any other news outlet: an NYT story is likely to have better sourcing than any
competing story.

~~~
davidf18
As a long-time NYT reader, I can't speak to whether they are better than other
new sources, but in areas that I know well, they generally get it wrong, at
times leaving vital information out. At other times, they have done well, when
they have jouralnsts who are also specialist write articles. For example, some
of the articles on nuclear power are co-written by a PhD in physics, but oddly
it seems like he is not a contributor on all articles about nuclear power.

Many of the medical articles are not full of complete information or an
understanding of healthcare and public health.

Also, many stories on Israel are lacking context and completeness perhaps in
some attempts to be "balanced." For example, the NYT does not discuss that the
current Fatah Palestinian administration names childrens schools and streets
after terrorists. They don't bring up enough that Fatah pays money to the
families of terrorists, both dead and those in Israeli jails. That money they
use to pay for terrorists comes from American taxpayers.

~~~
tptacek
Can you provide an example of a story in which those details are relevant?

~~~
davidf18
Well, for example, many claim that Israel is not ready for peace, but the
reality is that since Fatah is still naming children's schoolhouses and
streets after terrorists (including the mastermind of the Munich Olympics
Massacre (see Spielberg's Munich) and that they are using US funds to pay for
families of terrorists in prison they clearly back terror instead of being
against it. Until the Palestinians demonstrate their steadfastness against
terror, there can be no peace. Also American don't want their tax money
funding terrorists.

~~~
tptacek
That's a reason why it's important to you that the Palestinians not openly
support terrorism. But that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking: can you show us
an example of an NYT story about the conflict (or any other aspect of
Palestine/Israeli relations) in which those details were needed but absent? It
would help to have an idea of what those absent details do to a specific
story.

