This ENGINE Can Make The Twin-Engine 747 POSSIBLE!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 мар 2024
- The Boeing 747 became the first wide-body aircraft from Boeing when it was introduced with Pan Am in January 1970.
Being a wide-body aircraft in the early 70s usually meant the use of three or four engines to generate sufficient power. And the Boeing 747 jumbo jet was no different with its four engine slots.
But what if we told you that there is an engine so powerful that it could make a twin-engine 747 possible and even allow the aircraft to make a return to the production lines? Let’s get into it.
Business : 4fancyedit@gmail.com 
Авто/Мото
Never going to happen. Boeing has been clear that if a larger aircraft is needed, they will stretch the 777-9X to accommodate 450+ passengers in a 777-10X. This won’t happen unless Airbus does a stretch of the A350-1000 that Boeing needs to compete with.
The A350-1100 wouldn't be bigger than the 777-9X.
Or demand arises from airlines
@@GeoStreber bigger by what metric? The 9x is only 9 feet longer than a 1000, so by a minimal 2 row stretch the 1100 would be bigger.
But my point was if either does a stretch (10x or 1100) so will the other in order to keep up.
@@GeoStreberWill the 777-10x ever be certified???
Yea fr thx for explaining
Sorry, but it doesn't make sense to do this (former airliner engineer who was involved in a re-engine effort which did make sense). Thrust equivalence is only a small piece of what's involved. The wing structure would have to be redone due to totally different load paths and modal response, the landing gear lengthened, and several billion dollars spent... all to create an uncompetitive and overweight throwback offering, chock full of outdated technology and engineering. Who in their right mind would buy even one, much less the several hundred needed for the program to be profitable?
A modernized 747 twinjet is simply a fun mental exercise, versus something to seriously consider.
The 747-8 already has the ground clearance for the GE9X and the Rolls Royce Ultrafan. The issue is not clearance. The 747 has flown with one GE90 or GE9X at full power. The wing took the load. The rework is not as extensive as you make it out to be. I was always a bit sad the 747-8 didn’t get the composite wings like the 777X did. Both aircraft put new wings on the original wingbox. Both wings were using technology developed on the 787 Dreamliner wing, which was fashioned on the albatross the world’s greatest soaring bird. I always wondered if the 747-8 did get a composite folding wing and the GE9X would it have outsold the A380? It certainly would have been a bit more efficient. But the 747-8 is still one of the best looking airliners ever
@@andrewday3206 I've done landing gear ground clearance work. Test flights and operational certification requirements aren't the same thing. Likewise for structural loads, failure load paths etc. And there's no way in hell (I say this for emphasis rather than out of disrespect) that even a minor airframe maker would base their wing planform on a bird, marketing materials or quotes notwithstanding. They fly in totally different aerodynamics regimes (something called Reynolds number). A higher aspect ratio does minimize overall drag in either case (until into the small model airplane size range), but that's about where the similarity ends. Everything else is about meeting one design requirement after another, whether structural, aerodynamic, certification, or operation.
The rework would actually be more extensive than I make it out, and again for an overall inferior product offering. Though I'm generalizing from my particular airliner engineering knowledge, when this came up a year ago at the Mentour channel a 747-8 structural engineer confirmed that a 747 twin with the big engines doesn't make engineering sense (to which I add not economic sense either).
@@marcmcreynolds2827
I would suggest you look into interviews with the people at Boeing. They absolutely studied the albatross and as they put it learned aerodynamic lessons from it airfoil. My point is the 747 has flow on one giant engine in order to test the engine. They used the inboard and ran it at full power. I never said it was certification worthy, just the capability was there. Don’t add words to my statement
@@andrewday3206 I was more trying to add context to your statement than reword it. Sure you can test a bigger engine on something which was designed for a much smaller engine and nothing bad will happen -- the structural margins required for things like fatigue life see to that (airliners are built with roughly double the empty weight they would need for a single flight). But a test series has no relevance to what's involved in getting "EXPERIMENTAL" removed from above the entrance door -- roughly five billion dollars in this case, and by the time it finally entered service it would be even more out of date.
If someone wants to talk about how they got inspiration from a bird or a sunset or whatever that's fine. Mazda talks that way about their cars, for example. But anyone with a professional-level knowledge of aerodynamics understands it's really just talk -- the Reynolds number regimes are wildly different -- and in this case a digression from the actual subject of hanging new engines on a 55-year-old design which isn't built for them in one way after another. The 747-8 did help stem sales of a competitor, but was neither popular nor profitable. Good luck finding a single airline who is saying "Please give us a 747 twinjet proposal to look at."
@@marcmcreynolds2827
The winglets according the people who designed them were inspired by the albatross. They looked at the world’s greatest soaring bird to learn from a billion years of trial and error. The wingers of this bird is what stood out to them. Before you go all superior on me and get condescending try actually learning what I’m talking about. You haven’t taught me a single thing with everything you blew my way. Try researching what I was talking about. The wing design engineers actually looked to nature and found something new to them to try. I am not new to aircraft or the flightline.
Boeing scrapped to dust all tooling for the 747; it's not coming back... I was there.
The "I was there" makes me imagine an order 66 like purge of 747 machines.
@@DirectorBird That would be an accurate description of the carnage 😞I retired after 1574 was delivered.
Put the engineers back in charge, and it could work....leave the bean-counters in charge?....no way.
As if Boeing don't have enough problems!
Especially MAX.
Almost entirely homemade problems. That's what happens when you replace an engineering leadership culture with Wallstreet types.
Agree.@@user-ni1gi8gr9d
Yeah, rich executives that are sociopaths that put the 20 of them getting 2% richer over the planets lives.
Humans are the problem. You don’t fix that.
I'm sorry to say this (not really) American build quality has always been suspect. Just look at their auto industry.. I'll stick with Airbus every time
4 x GE90 on the 747, make it a rocket
$$$$$$$
That's what I say. To hell with the bean counters'...
Small problem that wings not strong enough... Changing 4 engine to 2 engine needs new wings. Also imagine the massive asymmetric thrust with one of two engines out.
@@chrissmith2114 not 2, we want 4 GE90 on the 747. Oh and also, 777 must face the assymetric thrust issue too, as does any twin engine aircraft
@@unggrabb Would need a complete wing redesign, not worth it considering the age of airframes. There are better planes around now than 747 which is still OK for freight...
Some information here regarding the 747's inception is missing. the 747 was originally designed as a freighter and a competitor to the LM C-5 Galaxy. the C-5 won and the 747 was later adapted to be a passenger plane. That's where Airbus and the A380 failed, they designed it as a passenger plane first, making it near impossible to retrofit the now retiring A380s into freighters, with that highly important hinged nose.
Why do people FORGET that the 747 was NOT this wonderful idea that Boeing had it WAS, as you say, THE LOSING DESIGN to the Lockheed C-5. Boeing had an airframe and took the gamble, Right Place, Right Time pure serendipity.
@@trevorhart545 And we're neglect the act, in true fashion, Lockheed oversold and underdelivered with the C-5, requiring extensive rework and modifications, mostly to the wings, as deficiencies quickly arose after they won (there's some good videos on the history of the C-5). And they continue that proud trend with the F-35, the LCS-1 class, etc.
There's already a twin engine 747...it's called the 777X.
Jump to 09:57 a skip the non related info.
Thank you! I was about to say the same thing ! What a waste of time
Thank you.
That's a fair criticism.
It's a phenomenon that's occurring more frequent by the day: content creators who make it a sprot of stretching their videos.
Dont they realize that they're going to bomb their channels by keeping this up?
Fortunately there's (still) the skip function.
Maybe for the airbus 380
Same thought
Airbus has no place to do such a thing. They’ve retrofitted their former A380 facility for the A320 Neo.
The 747 wing isn't high enough off the ground to mount the 777 engines.
They have the amazing MCAS for that….
GE has one on a 747 as a test bed.
The reason why aircraft had three or four engines wasn't for the power, it was for certification for operation over open water. It was a long time before engine reliability allowed twin engine airplanes to receive ETOPS certification. The DC-10 and L-1011 had three engines only because at the time more than two engines were required for certification for extended operation over open water (like the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.)
If Boeing goes with this configuration but upsets the aero dynamics as has happened with the 737, they best be careful with the software (MCAS) and the single point of failure (sensor) the 737 max experienced
The GE90 would be a nice upgrade for the A380 as a Neo Variant... it still may need 4 engines but at a lower output.. could save alot of fuel
How about the Rolls-Royce Ultra Fan or the GE9X for the 747 which would have to back into production?
No... The reason is the 787 and a350! Those aircrafts have been doing what the 747 used to do... They are much more economic in every aspect, they can have similar passager capacity depending on the aircraft configuration, the range is superior and the final and main reason is the passager demand! Both the a350 and 787 can make profit from flights with less then 200 passagers, while the 747 would just make the airlines waste money... The a380 suffers from this same issue! Giant and 4 engine aircrafts like the ones that I mentioned, need to fly almost full to make profit... With the pandemic, the demand went down and it's not fully recovered yet! Not to mention that a 747 was not made to place only 2 engines... It would take at least more then a decade to get that out of the "paper"
In the end of the day, u can hope for the 777-9x or a future 10x
You can't put a price on lives you will save in case one engine fails while in flight... 1 in 4 is way better odds than 1 in 2...
@@alexeimscruz2893 good facts, but the a330, an aircraft from the 90's, has already prove the contrary on some aspects! There was an air transat flight in the Atlantic, long ago and this a330 was able to fly hours with no power in the engines! Trust me, that "4 engine = more safety" makes no more sense! The aviation and especially this new aircrafts, have been prepared for every possible engine failure aspect
@@asap_lee The 787 is not a competitor to the a350, the 787 is in competition with the a330 neo.
The airbus a350 is a much bigger airplane that has a higher passenger capacity, higher takeoff weight and much longer range.
The a350 competes with the 777 not the 787.
Greetings: Bring the old 4s back. I loved those places. Thx 4 the share.
6:49 notice that jal 123 in the background
Nice goin. That went over my head like a 747-450 twin engine wide bod. Loved the brief glimpse of Trans Australia [707(?], later to become TAA! I just get on one and go to The Philippines for my hikidays, and hope the 'f'ers don't stop and I have to take a swim without a beach. 9:50in loved the jet danglin its dunlops tryin to slow down for tip 7 big bros landin Thanks m8, hope you and yours had a good Easter.
I would ask current pilots who fly the 747 AND the 777 if the flight characteristics of the 747 make it worth the effort to retrofit. If so make a test prototype first. It needs to be able to fly on one engine. Fed Ex might like such an aircraft.
They need to let this go.
The title of the video should read: "How a paper towel idea of an engineer becomes a boring 20 minute video by a youtuber."
That would be like a 747 Max. Not what the world needs.
A better idea is to put 4 GE-90B engines on an Antonov AN-225 equivalent if Ukraine plans to replace the old one. The old 225 had 6 engines. Just one had 51,300 lbs of thrust. All 6 together generated a total thrust of 307,800 lbs. Just ONE GE-90B by itself pumps out 115,500 lbs of thrust, and 4 would make 462,000! This would make an Antonov 225 replacement more powerful, faster, lighter and more fuel efficient. As for the Boeing 747, it's gone. The 777X is replacing it.
That would be great… The 747 is a great looking plane!!!
It would! But a 747 with 2 engines is out of question! U can only hope for a 777-10x at the most
I still believe that the 747 is the King of the sky. The majestic look of the bubble and its general appearance are unlike any other. Hate see them go. Boeing can build a great airplane. They need to go back to quality. Profits will follow.
At this point Boeing will just make a 797 instead of a 747 twinjet
1:23 ~ 26 Nationalities on display. Very neat! I was correct on guessing the U.S. lady in the middle. I believe the cut of the jib is Eastern Airlines.
Thanks for the good idea, I will do it 😂
same type rating ?
Leave it to Airbus to make A380 with twin engine.
yep, and make the 2 outboard engine pylons for extral fuel tanks.
The A380 is out of production
At 9:12 is the 747-284 at the legendary Hellinikon airport . The SX OAB OLYMPIC EAGLE
I travelled with Panam 747-100, Air France 747-200 and 747-300 at the beginning of the 80’s
The twin engined 747 exists, its called 777.
The only reason the cockpit was on a second deck, was to enable a front cargo door that was rarely used. So no reason to keep that.
The A300 was actually a Boeing design that Airbus bought when Boeing decided not to pursue this widebody twin engine at that time. This explains why the A300 has a yoke and no flight control computer system.
It would be fantastic for the cargo as it's unequaled.
Never going to happen.
Ive been on several 777 planes with the GE90X and i know the power they are capable of ,That being said id trust them on a 747..
Two FEWER engines... But an interesting doco, thanks
i would rather see an upgrade of the a380 to an a380 neo with the two inner engines being upgraded to an ultrafan with a bypass ratio of about 12:1 and reducing the fuel on the outer older engines by 20...50%. this way, the old engines last longer while the new engines produce more peak power and are more efficient.
and with a new wing design, they could save a bit of weight and get more efficient as well.
All of the naysayers... Probably right, but, as a former long haul business traveller, often in economy, like so many of the "proletarian" workers (global R&D, Application Engineers), I still mourn having to step into any of the "A-3xx" aircraft, I've never found them as comfortable, yes, even the "old tech" cabin air seemed better controlled...the 747 just seemed to tick the right boxes.
But, economy, carbon, profits...
All that technology of adopting a twin engine layout for the 747 is well and good but there is one thing that should be considered above everything else more than economy of operation: SAFETY OF EVERYONE ON BOARD...
Two engines may be economical to run and operate, but FOUR is safer in case one fail...
Especially if the plane is flying long distances and across oceans. But then on again twin engines are getting certified for longer ETOPS ratings. However things can and do go wrong with even modern turbine engines nowadays, even though they are proving to be reliable. Like active cleareance control going wrong, maintenance not checking blades on fan and compressor all the time and it getting thrown, flaws in metallurgy causing failure. Etc etc etc. even ice in fuel system. Systems are getting more complicated too room for failure. So ya one engine out having 3 left gives more range and if you're way out over the ocean better. And if a problem affects one engine whos to say the other engines don't have problems either. 4 engines are good sometimes
Maybe airlines will finally accept that long range over water needs planes twice the size as short range along the coast. So same engines on twins as on 747/380 . It is only weird to fly A380 from FRA to DBA .
How many airlines crashes are from engine failure as opposed to say corporate misconduct or other causes ?
What's a kilo newton?
From a thrust perspective, it's feasible. Looking at the 777-300ER for instance with a maximum takeoff weight of 775,000 pounds. So, it certainly can power a 747-100 with a maximum takeoff weight of 750,000 pounds. I read that the reason such engines aren't used is because the wings aren't strong enough to hold such powerful engines because of the amount of force such engines produce like the GE-90 115b.
Bring it on!!
I have said this a long time ago. Re-engineer the wings with a lighter body frame. There would be no match for this plane. Hot seller.
It’s not just “re-engineer” the wing. Because of weight distribution issues going from 4 to 2 engines they would need an entirely new wing. Why do that when the 777-9X is basically stretch ready (per Boeing) to a 777-10X at considerably lower program cost. And unless Airbus stretches the A350-1000, there really is no need for such an aircraft.
Boeing ran weight reduction programs on the 747-8 for its final production. They changed to a lighter aluminum and made structural modifications. They saved many tens of thousands of pounds in weight. The next step would have been the composite folding wing technology utilized for the 777X. This would have saved weight and improved the wing lift to drag efficiency beyond what the 747-8 had achieved. But that price would have been excessive for an aircraft with such low production numbers. I would have loved that too, but economics killed it. If it had been built the A380 would have sold far less aircraft as it would have been for more efficient and cost less per seat mile.
its a great idea
Once the 777X 10 goes into production , there really won’t be any more need for a 747 passenger version regardless of engine configuration .. Maybe a twin engined Cargo version if it proves to be more fuel efficient and cheaper to maintain 🤷♂️
Tripple 7s are here
The two-engine '747' model is a non-starter if the largest engine available is the GE-110B / -113B / -115B at 513.9 kN thrust rating.
Either MCGTOW will have to be reduced far below the current 987,000 lb at which the 747-8i is certificated or the 'two-engine 747' will not meet the engine-out performance requirements of PANSOPS SPECS.
The 747-8i meets there specs with 4 engines where the two-engine 747' (with only two engines) will not.
This because when the four-engine 747-8 loses an engine, it only loses 25% of gross thrust, whereas when the 'two-engine 747' loses an engine, it will lose 50% of its gross thrust.
Boeing needs to do something to recapture its old glory.
I’m not gambling my life on “modern” Boeing planes.
THIS IS A VERY PROMISING INNOVATION WHICH BOEING SHOULD PURSUE, Its changes to the 747 will make it recover from losses to Airbus but create savings in a lot of ways for the airline 😊industry.
Nope. structure torsional limits won't allow single engines...
I can see there is quite a bit of spirited discussion here already. As much as I would like to see this idea prototyped, I think I'll just leave it alone. LOL --gary
11:01 I praise the photoshop artist for this doctored photo of a 747 with 2 big engines. It looks very real yet so weird and strange at the same time.
Boeing can’t even manage to keep the doors on its airplanes anymore.
Could be the saving of Boeing
Airbus specifically built the A340 and A330 to cope with either two or four engine configurations, using essentially the same plane, right from the beginning of the design, and look how that went. It was a very inefficent plane in both configurations. Look at how badly Boeing has done with the 737 Max, even just replacing the engines with ones with a larger diameter, meaning they had to moved up and forward of where the engines were on the 737 NG for ground clearance issues. Look at how the B52's eight engines are being replaced with eight new engines of the same diameter and how much testing is involved in this almost like for like change.
Woof, woof, woof. Get to the point, half way thru and little reference to the engines, we all know what a 747 is.
A twin engine A380 should be possible then?
The A380 has those wings which try to reach over the inner engine. With only one engine this could be mounted slightly outboard on the top of that arc.
Twin engine aircraft weren't allowed to cross large oceans in the 1970s, irrespective of engine power or duration.
None of what you said matters. The only thing that matters is this. Can the bird keep in the sky with one engine a light? Thats the two engine requirement. Can you or cant you? Im not saying either way but that's the rule. If it can do it like any other two engine plane then who cares? Its just that!
why dont they just put 2 GE9X that powered 777-9X into 747? it would be easier
Did Boeing scrap the 747 and 757 tooling?
there may be a legal limit to numbers carried on an aircraft in case of a possible fatal crash.
How about going the opposite way - For the 747, 8 rolls royce engines developed for B52? one flames out, still have seven left turning and burning and the performance drop probably would be hardly noticeable.
If it were to happen it would be the GE9X engine, which produces 110,000 pounds of thrust. Yes the GE90 can achieve 115,000 pounds of rated thrust but it is 10% less fuel efficient. The 747-8 can carry 409,455 pounds of fuel. The 747-8 burns about 24,200 pounds of fuel per hour! A 12 hour flight will burn about 290,000 pounds of jet fuel. Using the older GE90 the 747-8 would burn 322,000 pounds in 12 hours. Not burning 32,000 pounds of fuel burn for every 12 hour flight is a huge monetary savings!
Wah ini bisa juga diterapkan di a 380.. keren
The A380 weighs too much for any 2 jet engines ever made.
If 2 GE-90 engines are not enough it could be a trijet with 3 GE-90s
I don’t think this option would have redundancy in an emergency
This could have been done alreddy in 1997...eith a ge90 engine and a 747-100 fuselage.
Boeing doesn’t have the money to develop a new aircraft at the moment, either a new 747 twin or much else. Selling only one or two hundred new 747 twins would be wasted funds in development & higher risk. A stretched 777, already fitting into that existing program is what would happen. A better return would be to spend development funds on a 737 replacement with thousands of potential sales. This is something the management should have done 10 or 20 years ago.
The airframe is just too outdated to make it competitive even with only two engines.
Wings of the current Jumbo have been designed with more emphasis on speed than efficiency, and redesign has to take place not only for the different loads of two mounting points but also to create a more efficient wing.
This means less wing sweep which alters the center of gravity.
So creating a new plane or updating a more modern type like the 777 is a better solution, I think a 777 with a shorter but double deck fuselage and enlarged wings is possible, or even a wider body cross section in the form of a lying oval could be done, adding one or 2 seats per row.
I have read Boeing but 747 tooling in storage, so maybe it could hsppen
The 747 is an excellent aircraft
Fly on one engine ?
We are the governing body of aviation people do not wish and do not want a two engine 747 ever!!!! there is only one way to make a 747 and that is with four engines!!! Got It!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes! 3 Spool Engines are better for Boeing 747 - 800.
This is about as likely as the Boeing 314 Clipper production line being started up and the Clipper being given a pair of turboprops.
This is a silly nostalgia bait article with absolutely no content that’s not available on any coverage of the 747 plus some idiot speculation.
Better off putting these more powerfull engins on the A380, a newer airframe etc.
Why not put four of them on? Four engines are much more reliable than two. If one of four fails three can easily do the job. If one of two fail it's much more difficult and less safe to fly on one engine.
Yeah right. Tell you something folks let's put bigger engines in a frame with not enough clearance from the ground but just a little bit forward so we don't change anything and we don't have to train the pilots and then try to correct everything with dodgy rushed sensors and software, push the production line by removing quality controll and cost cutting to insane levels using inexperienced contractors instead of designing and building a new modern and safe aircraft.
How does that sound to everyone??
Nonsense.
In order for the engine from a 777 to fit under the wing of a 747, the landing gear must be extended.
In order for longer landing gear to fit into the wing, the landing gear wells must be widened.
To expand the landing gear niches, it is necessary to move the wing framework elements (ribs and spars).
For what?
To make the plane look more fashionable.
Even if Boeing did put 2 engines onaB747, if an engine fails in flight, 1 engine won't be able to hold all that weight in the air.
Just quadruple the size of the rudder. Add a IYAS. Ignore Yaw Augmentation System (tell no one about it)
This obviously AI generated storyline is really annoying and repetitive.
Wouldn't they have to redesign the wing? U can't just pop two engines on a wing designed for four!
Just remove the outer engines and redo the CFD simulation there. Fill the gaps in the flaps.
@ArneChristianRosenfeldt
I read that the reason why the "new" B-52 was still having 8 engines is because the wing was designed for 8, and shoving 4 more powerful engines would've involved redesigning the wing. But you've made it sound east!
@@oxcart4172 I read that the engines are so far outboard that jaw is impossible to compensate if one engine fails.
who the hell wrote the script for this AI commentator ?
747’s gone from production, let her sleep bro.
I never will flight in these Airplanes 😂😂😂
As somebody told, Boeing has enough problems.
Anyway, a 747 remodeled to compete with the 777 has not sense.
What makes something sense is to modernize the 4 engine planes targeting to a freighter airplane.
The old design of 747 is more adapted to todays freighter needs.
IT WILL BE CRIMINAL RE POWER THE 747 WITH ANY ENGINE. GO AND MAKE A NEW AIRPLANE BOEING. SALUDOS
why not simply substitute carbon fibre to the aluminum for the body...
More like MD 747
Would'nt be worth it, not a simple case of slapping 2 engines on.. Pretty sure the wing would have to be re-designed and so on.. Just be a new plane with the same capacity as the 747 but with 2 engines... Like the 777x 10...
Not likely. The 777 is almost in the same class.
You mean the 777X Killer.
747 landing gear was designed for earlier runways, newer aircraft use tri axle bogies.
777X is the replacement for 747s
Why so restrained ? Stick to 4 of those super suckers and double the fuselage size. Clear the tarmac for the Boeing Pelican.
It would be cool, but it's less likely it would happen.
I don’t think you really understand how the aviation industry works buddy
Its already made. its called the 777.