Military Review

The first flight tests of the largest aircraft engine GE9X took place in the USA

53
On the pages of the information resource Defense Aerospace announces the start of flight tests in the United States of the world's largest aviation turbofan engine (TVRD). We are talking about a jet power plant GE9X, which was installed on the so-called flying laboratory, created on the basis of the aircraft Boeing 747.


The plane took off from the Victorville airfield in the state of California. In total, the flight with the use of a new aircraft engine lasted almost 4 hours.

The first flight tests of the largest aircraft engine GE9X took place in the USA


Development of this aviation The US powerplant has been operated by GE Aviation for more than five years.

The overall overall characteristics of the GE9X are: the diameter of the fan is 3,4 m, the diameter of the air intake is 4,5 m. This is quite comparable with the diameter of the fuselage of the airliners.



The developer notes that the design and the implemented technologies allow maintaining high power rates with a reduced level of fuel consumption in comparison with other aircraft engines.

It is planned that the new TVRD will be installed on airliners Boeing 777X. The maximum take-off weight of these twin-engine American aircraft, for which the option of folding (for placement in the hangar) wings is provided, is more than 351 tons. The flight range of the Boeing 777X is up to 16,1 thousand km.
Photos used:
Facebook
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Theodore
    Theodore 17 March 2018 06: 41
    +6
    Nuuu! The bird is good!
    1. Safevi
      Safevi 17 March 2018 10: 55
      +18
      Do you think the engineers who designed this engine are so stupid? If this engine would be Russian, then it seems to me, you would sing praises. What kind of people they are, they regard technology as their enemies. Just like in Stalin's time- "bourgeois pseudoscience-cybernetics"
      1. Infinity
        Infinity 17 March 2018 14: 42
        +7
        Well, about the praise, I agree. If our development is direct, God himself did. If not ours - g ** but on a stick. And they are very fond of saying now: “Having no analogues”, “unique”, etc., and not only about military equipment. Although any (ANY) Techniques have pros and cons. And sometimes there is a mountain of minuses behind a really steep plus. And yes, the engine described in the article also has them. But this is not going anywhere. It just infuriates such politicization (if I may say so) of opinions.
        1. floyder
          floyder 17 March 2018 21: 27
          +2
          I have nothing against the fact that someone experienced a BIG new engine. And what? I understand that developments on this engine can be applied on smaller engines (although the question is). But in fact, this engine is designed only in one niche. Where and so the engines of the West dominate. Flag in hand !!! In Russia, they are betting on the PD-14, God forbid, they will launch it in a series. You have to start somewhere. And then, you see, atomic or pulsed engines will go into a series .... Who knows, who will win. The one who relied on conventional engines, or who swung at a completely new one. Notice, I do not give priority to either side, the strongest will win (and there who knows, who is the strongest! ().
        2. nickname7
          nickname7 18 March 2018 07: 18
          0
          then for people, they treat technology as their enemies. Just like in Stalin's time- "bourgeois pseudoscience-cybernetics"

          Well, about the praise, I agree. If our development is direct, God himself did. If not ours - g ** but on a stick.

          Look at the book, see the fig, the article is written in a neutral tone, just news.
      2. Theodore
        Theodore 17 March 2018 17: 53
        0
        And where am I saying something about Western engineers !? Or voiced the wrong problem? bully
        1. Kasym
          Kasym 17 March 2018 23: 14
          +2
          Very similar to NK-93. He even put on a flying laboratory, IL-76. In order to grow. widebody would fit. "Last Pride of the Empire", etc. epithets were written out by journalists about him. In the weekly "Arguments of the Week" the fate of this engine was monitored and accused of all kinds of bureaucrats who put sticks in wheels. NK-93 something about 18t. thrust issued. And now the French and Americans are already testing their competitors. I think that bureaucrats will rush when the analogues of NK-93 begin to plow the sky. At least, NK-93 experts and journalists praised. hi
      3. gippernano
        gippernano 18 March 2018 11: 48
        0
        You teach your stupid pin_do_sov and other hohlolokh to live, and we will figure out how and what to do.
  2. tap
    tap 17 March 2018 06: 56
    +19
    Commendable. It would also be called PS 9x, and was tested in Perm ...
    1. Pingo
      Pingo 17 March 2018 07: 24
      +3
      The diameter of the Tu-95 propeller is twice as large. The gearbox of the low-speed NK-12 is more complicated. For large blades, there are materials for a long time.
      1. sabotage
        sabotage 17 March 2018 08: 14
        +15
        Quote: Pingo
        The diameter of the Tu-95 propeller is twice as large. The gearbox of the low-speed NK-12 is more complicated. For large blades, there are materials for a long time.

        That is, you would have done the same, but once)))
        1. Pingo
          Pingo 17 March 2018 09: 02
          +2
          that is, after the appearance of these materials, there has long been no problem
          1. sabotage
            sabotage 17 March 2018 11: 13
            +7
            Quote: Pingo
            that is, after the appearance of these materials, there has long been no problem

            You’re just like our director)))) That is, you do not need to formulate the terms of reference, you do not need to develop a design documentation, you do not need to develop a technology for manufacturing parts of such sizes with the necessary accuracy and cleanliness, you do not need to fit into budgets and deadlines. There is material - a file in hands and forward.
            1. Pingo
              Pingo 18 March 2018 06: 07
              0
              as if all this was not in the development of the NK-12 in the 50s, I already feel sorry for him
      2. midivan
        midivan 17 March 2018 08: 18
        +6
        Quote: Pingo
        The diameter of the Tu-95 propeller is twice as large.

        You are talking about a turboprop, but here they write for another smile turbofan small differs and propellers in particular yes PS clarifying questions are not necessary, I myself in this matter fool laughing
        1. Pingo
          Pingo 17 March 2018 09: 04
          +4
          a clarifying answer - the turbofan gearbox is simpler, but about the propellers it was already.
      3. Professor
        Professor 17 March 2018 09: 21
        +10
        Quote: Pingo
        The diameter of the Tu-95 propeller is twice as large.

        And the tiltrotor propeller is even larger, just what is the connection?
        1. dauria
          dauria 17 March 2018 13: 17
          +5
          And the tiltrotor propeller is even larger, just what is the connection?


          Well, the question is not as simple as it seems. And there is a connection. Two extremes of dual-circuit - turboprop and single-circuit turbojet engine. With the same available power, with increasing diameter (and a decrease in speed, of course), thrust and efficiency increase. Reducing the number of blades with increasing diameter is the same effect.
          And with modern turbofan engines with an increase in the bypass ratio, gearboxes, rotation in opposite directions, it will soon be possible to say - yes, it is "a turboprop with a screw in the tunnel."
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 17 March 2018 09: 24
      +5
      again returned to the kindergartens of Perm, Rybinsk and Ufa, Samara - there 10-20 years ago the power of our future new engines was laid.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
  3. lance
    lance 17 March 2018 07: 00
    +2
    such an engine is in operation ?! and 16 thousand at 900km / h. who flew to Australia will understand. if this fan fails, there is no chance.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 17 March 2018 07: 09
      +19
      For your information, BOEING designs all of its twin-engine cars, starting from at least 737, so that they can continue flying, and even with climb, on one engine. Now, if both die, then kirdyk, and even that was the case, though with Airbus, when both dvigels were covered on takeoff (collision with a flock of geese), but the pilot managed to land on the river. Everyone survived except the geese.
      1. Herculesic
        Herculesic 17 March 2018 07: 20
        +3
        Geese even the 911 service did not save? wassat In your programs about this service you have to listen to them, so they even successfully carry out resuscitation for small molecules, and they take delivery at the ciliates-shoes belay
      2. lance
        lance 17 March 2018 07: 34
        0
        apparently you are not a pilot. dvigun thrust, size and weight of the aircraft. that 95m can also on one. that's just how many pilots will repeat it.
        1. sabotage
          sabotage 17 March 2018 08: 16
          +1
          Quote: Lance
          apparently you are not a pilot. dvigun thrust, size and weight of the aircraft. that 95m can also on one. that's just how many pilots will repeat it.

          Autopilot and automation will not know about such modes?
          1. lance
            lance 17 March 2018 10: 54
            0
            with a more or less large crosswind boarded the Boeing? easy wiggle and wiggle is an automatic machine. with a four-engine this is not even mentioned on three engines
      3. dzvero
        dzvero 17 March 2018 08: 34
        +2
        After WWII, only four-engine vehicles were allowed for passenger traffic over the open sea. With the development of technology, American aircraft manufacturers and air carriers have extended the access of twin-engine machines, citing the high reliability of the new turbojet engines to piston and first-generation turbojet engines. In principle, they were right, since since then there have been practically no disasters over the sea due to engine breakdowns. Nevertheless, where economy is not in the first place, four-engine aircraft are built and used.
        1. lance
          lance 17 March 2018 10: 57
          0
          Look at the statistics for the last ten years only twin-engine and disappear over the seas.
          1. dzvero
            dzvero 17 March 2018 12: 18
            +1
            Four-engine is now small in comparison with twin-engine. And in most cases, the reason - they refuel, poor maintenance, pilot errors. Caususes also happened from four-engine engines - volcanic ash, fires, but four is better than two smile What has been repeatedly proved not only in aviation, but also on the roads, and even after a pleasant pastime on all fours is sometimes somehow more stable smile
    2. K.A.S.
      K.A.S. 17 March 2018 07: 45
      +5
      Why are there no trenches? Aircraft can continue flying on a second engine. The main power, and these engines it will obviously be no less than the previous ones. And according to the rules of aviation, a plane must continue flying on one engine!
      And well done Americans!
      1. lance
        lance 17 March 2018 07: 48
        +1
        Well done, yes. but since 2000, 4 engines are always more reliable than two, especially in civil aviation.
        1. K.A.S.
          K.A.S. 17 March 2018 09: 21
          0
          why does the aircraft need 4 such engines, if two are in excess? with 4 engines, then he should weigh twice as much and carry passengers twice as much!
      2. lance
        lance 17 March 2018 07: 52
        0
        previous GE-90 traction 59 tons, but less economical and scale
    3. Topgun
      Topgun 17 March 2018 11: 01
      +3
      you have already been told that modern aircraft can very well fly with a 1m engine, and here is a video showing excessive thrust-to-weight ratio
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYbM-3E11Qo
      4 engines from a technical point of view are more economical if you make an airplane with the expectation of flying without a 1st engine, but as practice has shown even such a giant as the A380 4 engines lose 2m - it's all about the service, 2 engines are 2 times more economical to maintain than 4 .. .
      Modern 4 engine only A380 and things are not very precisely because of the fact that he has 4 engines ...
      1. Kurare
        Kurare 17 March 2018 14: 02
        +4
        Quote: Topgun
        Modern 4 engine only A380 and things are not very precisely because of the fact that he has 4 engines ...

        The A380 has problems because of its super-capacity. The need for such giants is quite limited, and underfilling is extremely sensitive from an economic point of view.
        A big plus for 4 engine cars, they can fly along any routes, i.e. far from the coast. For example, when flying from Europe to South America, they, unlike 2-engine ones, do not have to “cling” to the coast, but fly directly through the Atlantic.
        1. Abalon
          Abalon 17 March 2018 15: 39
          +1
          This is why 2-engine aircraft are pressed to the shore? Open the flytradar and see how they fly. In the same way as 4-engine ones.
          1. Kurare
            Kurare 18 March 2018 11: 52
            +2
            That's just the point, that is not so. I don’t remember exactly, but within a few hours they should go to the alternate aerodrome when one of the engines stops working. For 4 engine cars, these restrictions are not.
  4. Herculesic
    Herculesic 17 March 2018 07: 18
    +4
    None of its characteristics are given, but a pity. For modern airliners, it is painfully large, let's see what they want to put it on! Like a mega-giant plane, with 3000 passengers on board, a swimming pool, a tennis court, a garage for 100 cars, and with all this ..... on board the plane also has to fly! wassat
    1. lance
      lance 17 March 2018 07: 39
      +3
      45.36 tons of jet thrust. design characteristics in the internet.
      1. san4es
        san4es 17 March 2018 14: 25
        +2
        Quote: Lance
        45.36 tons of jet thrust. design specifications.

        The GE9X engine climbed March 13 under the wing of the GE Aviation 747 flying test bench in Victorville, California, for its first flight test.
        GE Aviation
        Posted by: 15 mar. 2018 hi
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 March 2018 08: 38
      +3
      Put on a Boeing 777 9X
    3. san4es
      san4es 17 March 2018 14: 20
      +4
      Quote: Herkulesich
      Its characteristics are not given, but it is a pity ...

      hi Vitalievich:
      One such engine costs $ 29 million. As for the first tests, they take place in the vicinity of the town of Peebles, Ohio, USA. The diameter of the GE9X blade is 3,5 meters, and the inlet in dimensions is 5,5 mx 3,7 m. One engine will be able to produce a jet thrust of 45,36 tons.

      hi
  5. AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 17 March 2018 09: 19
    +2
    Well what to say. It is solid. The dimensions, of course, are frightening, but, apparently, this is the level of today.
    1. lance
      lance 17 March 2018 10: 47
      +3
      if you believe that pd35 the size is more modest, more pulling and more economical. wait.
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 17 March 2018 13: 10
        +1
        Quote: Lance
        PD35 is more modest in size
        It is 20% less.
        And in terms of parameters, too.
      2. exo
        exo 17 March 2018 21: 26
        +3
        If you are very lucky, then the PD-35 will be able to repeat the CF6-80C, manufactured in 1987. Moreover, the matter is not in the figures of fuel consumption, traction and bypass ratio. The trouble of our (Soviet) engines: a small resource, a terrible amount of restrictions, for example: on nicks on the blades, etc.
        For example: some Boeings 767-300, flying off in one large a / c, 7 years +, left with the engines with which they came to lease. At the same time, they have never been removed.
  6. prosto_rgb
    prosto_rgb 17 March 2018 14: 39
    0
    interesting
    with such engines can the 747th be cut into a 2-engine version?
    1. KERMET
      KERMET 17 March 2018 14: 51
      +1
      And our NK-93 could fly back in the 90s ....
      As they say were ahead of the planet ..
      1. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 17 March 2018 16: 54
        0
        agree
        for NK-93 is especially sad
  7. soldatt22
    soldatt22 17 March 2018 16: 48
    0
    God forbid to gape about such a working engine ......
  8. exo
    exo 17 March 2018 18: 56
    +3
    Chic engine. Competitors from Russia and the Middle Kingdom will not be there for a long time. Even according to the characteristics. Not to mention the resource and reliability.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 March 2018 23: 43
      0
      Our PD 35 and forced versions, based on it, will appear after 2025
  9. doxtop
    doxtop 18 March 2018 12: 33
    0
    :) The largest in the world does not yet mean “the best” / “with the highest traction” / “the most reliable”, etc. etc.
    The engine is good! I see. However, what will it be in practice ... we'll see. In the meantime, the article is simply a statement of fact. Neither characteristics nor praises towards innovation. In general ... we will see.
    In the meantime, “the most powerful,” and a priori means “big”))) for me, this is the RollsRoyce Trent 970 with its 311 Kilo Newtons thrust.
    1. MelkorAintGood
      MelkorAintGood 19 March 2018 17: 53
      0
      GE90-115B - 547 kN. That was a beast, not an engine)