Would the GE9X be able to fly the 747


#21

What an intelligent and well though-out response, mate! I’ve not followed you much in the past, but I’ll definitely do so in the future. You certainly have some well-garnered aviation knowledge. Thank you for sharing!


#22

He is an airline pilot on, I beleive, the 777. So in other words he is one of the best sources for information.


#23

For sure. Nice to have even more in this community!


#24

Think of it like this. For reference, one of the shortest airports in pre global IF was 59CA in San Francisco. This airport was about 2/3 747s long, and I could get a 747 out of there empty with no issue whatsoever.
That’s basically the 747 with 4 GE9X engines.


#25

Really comes down to weight. I think it could be possible.


#26

Thats the spirit! I hope one dat we see the queen of the sky’s take of with just two engines🛫


#27

I believe GE did a test or simulation, and it should (theoretically) be able to run on two GE90 engines. I would assume it could work with GE9X as well.


#28

Well the airline be like

Imagine losing a but ton of money


#29

#30

I saw a BA 744 take off of RWY 27 at BOS once! Imagine a fully loaded 744 with 7 hours worth of fuel taking off a runway thats just 7000ft long!


#31

Love this vid watcht it so many times!😀


#32

Don’t forget the venerable 747 was launched in an era of cheap oil and a requirement to have more than 2 engines for trans-atlantic operations. It was competing, in it’s time, with the tri-jets and other 4 engined aircraft.

The advent of extremely reliable jet engines, engineering and aero systems heralded in the era of the big twin with it’s ETOPS (Extended Twin OPerations) ratings. This was only possible due to massive step changes in both materials and engineering practices. Not to forget the increase in available ETOPS 120 and 180 diversionary airfields!

The most obvious of these advancements can be seen in the huge difference between the MTOW of the two aircraft (744 & 773) for the same payload. Fuel burn is hugely different as well with a large amount of that MTOW being the extra fuel carried to burn in 4 engines. If I recall correctly the 744 burns around 8-9T (2-2.25T per hour per engine) per hour whereas the 773 burns just over 6T per hour. (3T per hour per engine)

So nostalgic as it may be to see a 744 or 748 ‘twinjet’ it would never realistically happen. The A350-1000 and the B777X will both have better passenger capabilities and freight capabilities than the Queen of the Skies with extended ranges, lower pavement classifications and a much lower fuel burn.


#33

It would not most likely. If one engine lost power, it would have half the power it needs, rather than a quarter. Would not be good.


#34

Actually the GE testbed was able to fly at cruise on only one GE90-115B engine during testing. As stated by @Yuan_Tugo the problem is climb out.


#35

747-4X? I would love to see it.


#36

Or the 747-X 🤷🏼‍♂️ The 747-8 exists already!


#37

I know, but what if the Jumbo had all GE9x’s on its wings? Would be amazing!


#38

@Nate_Schneller look What @PlaneCrazy posted earlyer


#39

And I saw that. Thanks!


#40

Just found this!