It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

5 top thrust turbojet engine

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I have been considering that engone was fitted on An-225 is a biggest thrust turbojet of course. But I just read a book said that engine equiped on Boeing 777 is top thrust. The engine equiped on An225 is name by Russia so I have no way to type Russia to search google. who can tell me this knowledge as topic?




posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   
The GE90-115B engine for the 777 was ground tested at a sustained 127,900 pounds of thrust. The D-18T engines on the AN-225 are only rated at 51,590 pounds per engine. The 777 uses the most powerful engine on the market by far.

The current 777 engines and thrust ratings:


Pratt & Whitney 4077
77,000 lb

Rolls-Royce Trent 877
76,000 lb

General Electric GE90-77B
77,000 lb
Pratt & Whitney 4090
90,000 lb

Rolls-Royce Trent 895
93,400 lb

General Electric 90-94B
93,700 lb

www.boeing.com...

The GE90-115B entered service with Air France in April of 2004.


[edit on 2/18/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   
emile, the An-225's D-13 engines produce about 50-52,000lbs thrust but the Rolls Royce Trent and its equivalents from P&W and GE are already in the 90-100,000lb thrus bracket so it is actually a long way short of being the most powerful engine.

[edit on 18-2-2006 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Big thrust numbers are interesting as far as seeing what the current max is goes but here's a side to it that will become more and more relevant as time goes by......cleanliness.

I notice RR are claiming -

The Trent 900 is the world’s cleanest high-thrust engine, measured by emissions per pound of thrust.

www.rolls-royce.com...

Now, without turning this into the usual boring pissing contest, I would be interested to see how this compares.

I can well remember those in my family in the RAF commenting that US jets were at times very visible because they were so smokey, I expect things have improved markedly where they really need to militarily but it would be interesting to see a formal comparison with the civil jets in this regard.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I don't have exact figures, but it's improved significantly all around. One of the big reasons the early jets smoked was because they used water injection for more power, which created huge smoke trails.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I cant back this up at all, but many a moon ago, back when the Trent series were just about to go into service i worked at RR, on the civil engine testbeds.

After a engine was completed, we would give it a service run, under a strict set of tests, ground idle, flight idle, take off , max power, slamming the throttles to the stops and back again, basically give them hell for several hours, in all my time doing that i never once saw a engine not De tuned, We would add blocks/locks to the throttle control levers, every engine i saw easily added 15~20% on its quoted levels, same went for the fuel consumption it always bettered the sales book figures.

We had two different sets of test beds, one for R&D and the PTF(production test fact) i routinely would go for walk abouts to the R&D testbeds and i know for a fact the early Trent's were blasted past there quoted figures.

I would guess that goes the same for the newest versions which may in fact be nearer the 120,lbs + mark.

Of course it maybe the same for P&W and GE.



[edit on 18-2-2006 by yeehaa]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I knew about water injection but I am sure I recall it as being said to be a more general and visible in-flight characteristic, cerrtainly compared to the British jets......which is unusual seeing as how several of the then US jets (1950 - 1970's) were directly based on British designs.

Interesting that stuff about the 777 story.

It provoked a version of the Trent in the same class of output as the GE90-115B.

A case of what might have been?
Maybe if another requirement appears it might re-emerge for something else?


Trent 8104
Originally designed for the 777-200LR and 777-300ER (both part of the 777X project), this engine comes in two thrust ratings, 104,000 and 114,000 lbf (463 to 507 kN), and has been tested up to 117,000 lbf (520 kN).

Rolls-Royce offered the 8104 to Boeing earlier than other manufacturers. Boeing had a requirement that the participating engine developer assume a risk-sharing role on the overall 777X project. Rolls-Royce was unwilling to do so, and thus Boeing chose advanced developments of the GE90, the GE90-110B and GE90-115B. This relegated the 8104 to the role of demonstrator engine. It featured swept-back fan blades and a host of new technologies such as contra-rotating spools.

en.wikipedia.org...

(looks like you were right yeehaa
)


[edit on 18-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   
This probably has a lot to do with the difference in smoke trails in earlier jets.


In 1944 the US published specification AN-F-32 for JP-1, a -60C freezing point kerosene. The freezing point so limited availability that is was soon superseded by various wide cut fuels; JP-2 (1945), JP-3 (1947) and JP-4 (1951 - avtag, NATO F-40). These wide cut fuels are mixtures of naphtha and kerosene which greatly increase availability. The first British jet engine fuel specification, RDE/F/KER (Provisional), was introduced by the end of World War II and covered what was virtually an illuminating kerosene. After a few amendments, RDE/F/KER was superseded in 1947 by D.Eng.RD. (DERD) 2482 and this was in turn reissued from time to time with increasingly stringent requirements.

This specification became obsolete in 1965 when it was replaced by D.Eng.RD 2494, the predecessor to current commercial (Defence Standard 91-91 and British military (Defence Standard 91-87) specifications. Even though the first US jet engines were direct copies of early British designs, these pioneering jet fuel specifications differed significantly in volatility, freezing point, specific gravity, sulfur and aromatic limits. The US specification was most likely derived from the aviation gasoline specification, while the British specification reflected the properties of illuminating kerosene.

www.airbp.com...

[edit on 2/18/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
So the huge A380 used still are not a top thrust engine, why they dont choose the biggist one? Why America and Europe don't built a Cargo bigger than An225 to equipe 8 Trent 895 or GE90? You can build as big as you can image? Do you considered that supersonic Cargo is a trend not only for big?



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
One reason the 777 uses that engine is because it loads a huge amount of weight, and flies farther than any other plane built. They recently flew the first 777-200LR from Hong Kong to London non-stop. The GE90-115B was built for the 777-300LR version of it.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Thanks for that Zaphod58, nice find.


Emile, as far the A380 goes I think you might consider there are far more important considerations than using what is, marginally, the current top thrust motor.

Fuel consumption, cost, weight, maintenance intervals and costs, the whole design 'fit' (bearing in mind that many new designs integrate the engines on a much deeper level than before) and above all the overal specification requirement are far more important things than a mere 'headline' max output figure.

As for enormous supersonic cargo planes?
What for and what that big would need to be moved so fast at such huge expense?



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
The B777 needs such powerful engines because it only has 2. A B777-300 holds the same amount of passengers as an old Boeing 747 100/200. In fact that plane was made to replace the 'vintage' Jumbos. The 773 is a jumbo with 2 engines thus why the Ge90 are so powerful.

On the other hand the A-380 has 4 engines, which means that they could use less powerful engines and save weight, reduce strain from the wings and so on. Engines are developed with different purposes in mind.

For example the new Ge Engine the GeNX, is set to produce 53,000-72,000 lbs. of thrust.
Not the most powerful but the most efficient. It burns 15% less fuel and has 30% less parts.





Engine Overview
Designed around customers' needs, the GEnx represents a giant leap forward in propulsion technology. The engine will use the latest generation materials and design processes to reduce weight, improve performance and lower maintenance.

The GEnx will deliver 15 percent better specific fuel consumption than the engines it replaces, helping operators save whenever they fly. It is designed to stay on wing 30 percent longer, while using 30 percent fewer parts, greatly reducing maintenance. The GEnx's emissions will be as much as 95 percent below current regulatory limits, ensuring clean compliance for years to come, and it will be the quietest, most passenger-friendly commercial engine ever produced.

All of the these improvements are thanks to the incorporation of advanced and proven technologies from other engine families and on-going R&D programs. Like lightweight, durable composite materials and specialized coatings. An innovative, clean-burning combustor, a counter-rotating architecture, and a fan module that's virtually maintenance free.

It is a low-risk, high-value solution to the challenges our customers face everyday. It is the GEnx.


Source



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

I can well remember those in my family in the RAF commenting that US jets were at times very visible because they were so smokey, I expect things have improved markedly where they really need to militarily but it would be interesting to see a formal comparison with the civil jets in this regard.


I'd be interested if those comments (about US jets being smokey) were made based on the F-4. The reason I say this is they left a very visible smoke trail out of their exhaust when not using afterburners.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   
A lot of it actually has to do with the TF33 and J57 model engines on the KC-135/B-52s and the J79 engines that were in the Phantom. The TF33 still leaves a nice trail you can follow for miles.

My father was a crew chief on B-52s for a long time, and he said the old water burners would take off during an ORI, and by the time the third one was gone you couldn't see anything until they were climbing out.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   
The DC-8 was so smoky they had to fly with a fireman at the ready with a fire extinguisher at all times, just in case.


(DC-8 first flight, 30/5/1958)


(er, your guess is as good as mine)




[edit on 19-2-2006 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I'd be interested if those comments (about US jets being smokey) were made based on the F-4.


- Like I said AMM, it was coming from military observations made during the 1950's and 1960's so undoubtedly F4's would have been part of that (this person went to the US on exercise several times and would have seen a lot of US planes).

I know it was also a generalisation based on much US kit from the time.
It's no surprise given Zaphod's link to diferent fuels being used (Presumably they have standardised all of that now.......wasn't that a 1960's-70's NATO requirement?).

Waynos' pic of a civillian jet, whilst maybe an extreme on a particular day at particular air pressures/temps, refers to 'the other side of the fence'.
The 707 did similar (but used water on take-off too).

Those days are over, clearly (
)
but
going back to my original point, I am wondering if there is a recognised and available 'performance figure' for the 'cleanliness' of particular jet engine types, bearing in mind the RR claim I posted earlier?



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I remember that MD-11 also use a powerful engine but I've never seen it



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   
The MD-11 engines....



Powerplant Options

General Electric

CF6-80C2D1F


273.7kN 61,500lbt


Pratt & Whitney

PW4460


257kN 60,000lbt


Pratt & Whitney

PW4462


275.9kN 62,000lbt


www.freightersonline.com...

Looks like 60-62,000 pounds of thrust per engine for the MD-11.

[edit on 2/19/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Then, according to the articles I read, the YF-GE-120 is the most powerful engine fighter used in today's world. More amazing is that even use variable-cycled bypass technique again after the engine fitted on SR-71. But I am confused that what's kind of variable-cycle bypass it used? is it same as JT11D? who can give a cutaway to explain it to me?



new topics




 
0

log in

join