Simple Flying, you left a lot on the table here. Which engine has the better fuel economy? What about initial cost? Do the innovative carbon fan blades of the GE-NX warrant discussion? What grounded the Trent engines? What did they do to fix it? These all would be more interesting to me than how much rated thrust the engines have.
Completely agree with your comment, though I would like to just offer an explanation as to why these numbers aren't exactly easy to compare, and to try and give you answers to as much as possible without giving away sensitive information. First off, fuel economy. This one is actually a very difficult question to answer, and much like a lot of things, the short answer is that it depends. How you choose to operate the aircraft for example, if your pilots choose to do a rapid climb without stepping, or they choose the highest throttle setting on TO regardless of payload, also where the airline is based makes a difference, so are the routes in hot or cold regions, low-lying airports, etc. All of it makes a difference to the TSFC. But a few things to note from publicly available information are that the T1000 has a lower OPR than the GEnx does, but also has a higher bypass ratio. That means that they are probably very close in terms of TSFC to each other in simple terms, but they arrive there via different means. The T1000 is a 3-spool design, which means the engine has a greater range of 'optimum' off-design steady state conditions, since the LP shaft can operate independently of the majority of the compressors, allowing high OPR's at a wider range of thrust settings. The GEnx is a 2-spool design, which means the LP compressor speed (and therefore a significant portion of the OPR) is directly linked to thrust, meaning the GEnx has to work harder on the HP spool than the T1000 to get to the same TSFC, which it does. But each solution comes with their own compromise in terms of design. Higher OPR means lower fuel use, but cooling hurts more in the HPT. There are a myriad of other details of course, but overall, it would be safe to say they achieve roughly the same TSFC overall. Initial cost. Well, that's a tricky one, because of the respective business models. But I'd wager the initial cost of the GEnx was slightly lower because of the more simple design, again, because of the differences in architecture and design philosophies. The composite fan blades are an interesting one. In terms of discussion though, I suppose I'd ask, what is there to discuss? They were first deployed on the GE90 in GE's large engine product line, so they have good experience using them, and they offer numerous advantages (lower fan assembly and fan case masses, good fatigue and fouling resistance, etc) , but also some disadvantages too (sudden failure modes, hard to repair, etc), which were costly to overcome. RR has delayed composite fan systems for a number of reasons, but the UltraFan incorporates them. So the T1000, what happened? Well, it's complicated, so bear with me here. The issue in the basic sense was caused by aerodynamically induced vibration modes in the first and second stage IP compressor at certain flight phases. In a nutshell, the vibration modes weren't spotted during the initial design phases because it happens at a very specific (and narrow) flight phase during flight that's difficult to recreate using models or even flight testing unless you were really focusing on that area in detail. This vibration caused fatigue in the stage 1 and 2 blade roots, leading to gradual blade cracking at the root. The solution was to replace the affected blades in the Pack B and Pack C variants with a blade that moved the centre of mass of the blades rearwards slightly, effectively damping the oscillations that caused it. But it cost them dearly of course, billions spent to fix it and a rather hefty dent in their otherwise excellent reputation. But it just highlights the complexity of these engines in my view, it's nothing short of a miracle that they work at all, let alone so reliably! COmment me back if you want any more info, and I'll try to get back to you.
I miss the days when long haul aircraft had GE, RR and PW options. Now it’s either an airbus with RR or a Boeing with GE. I guess the 787 was the last long haul aircraft with engine options.
It's a simple economic issue. Too expensive to develop engines for wide bodies now that it makes financial sense to have exclusivity on an airframe to justify the billions it costs to develop the engine.
@@johniii8147 Yeah, I know. It's still sad nonetheless because great things have come from European/american collabs. The a300 and 757 are good examples. Even though those aren't long haul aircraft but you get my point.
Maximum thrust isn’t even the biggest factor in modern airliner engines. I feel like this video has provided almost no useful information. It should have talked about price (initial and maintenance), fuel efficiency, reliability, etc
collaboration breeds innovation, not competition. capitalistic competition only breeds innovation if a financial profit can be made from it. imagine the innovations if the engineers from these companies came together, without the need to turn a profit, and started building something truly amazing. this is the reason why so many inventions were made during WW1 and WW2, because turning a profit simply didn't matter. abolish capitalism.
@@klnsbl wait so there was no competition between engineer groups during wwII? Lmao you are such a fool. Competition between nations was the reason behind the innovation. If capitalism was holding back innovation why was the west superior in technology to the USSR?
The biggest difference between a Rolls-Royce and a GE? Direction of rotation. Viewed from the front, a GE appears to rotate counterclockwise, like the propellor of most airplanes. A Rolls will appear to rotate clockwise, or the opposite direction. I've flown Rolls-Royce engines on 757's and they are way more powerful than the Pratt & Whitney alternative. The 767 I fly now has GE engines. Both are very reliable motors, so take your pick-
@@carlosandleon I'm sure you could, but why would you want to? That is just going to cost a ton of extra money and I doubt the FAA would go along with it.
Honestly, it doesnt matter to me whether Rolls Royce or GE so long the plane can fly me safely to my intended destination by experienced pilots on board 👌👍😎
Amen to that. It ain't like you're gonna be able to book a Flight, then choose what Engine Brand you want to fly with. You get the Frame assigned to that particular Time Slot, whether it has GE or RR squirrel cages slung under the wings.
'do you have a fav engine manufacturer?' yeah, i really like rolls royce engine, i always told the airline to always use rolls royce whenever im using their flight
But they're prominent on narrow bodies (A32N family, A220 and E2). And my goodness, their geared turbofans are phenomenal. Not only in performance but efficiency and noise.
@@mattromanes Exactly, and they could use their amazing engine technology and build an engine that could compete with the GE9X. And of course get a bigger market share.
By lack of numbers on fuel consumption, MTBF, maintenance hours / distance flown / noise production, I choose the Rolls-Royce just because they produced the most important air plane engine of all time: the Merlin.
Yes I have more than 32500 flight hours, and more than 10000 on the A330 covering all engine types. By far the Trent 700 leaves the others for dead, the Pratt gives up the ghost in the heat, the CF-6 is OK but coughs and farts weekly when thrust is required. The Roller covers every scenario, it’s climb is amazing, then great fuel flows. I know engineers will say the Pratt is simple, but they don’t fly our aircraft, the roller is fantastic.
both all nippon and air new zealand said a few years ago that they would be switching from rolls royce to ge and and all nippon took delivery of there first two ge 787s recently
787 8 Jetstar going to Sydney and 787 9 scoot going to Singapore both take off over my house. The rolls Royce are about 20% quieter although being on a smaller plane going a short distance. Inside both models the rolls Royce are also quieter.
But I heard from an aeronautical engineer that GEnx has overheating issues and when taking it apart heat damage is very apparent. I also felt the poor cooling of GE engines while flying the flight factor 767. When I used the GE CF6 it gets overheat warning then engine fire whenever I use TOGA thrust, but when I switched to the RB211, during my first flight I left the thrust at TOGA and forgot about it, nothing happened throughout the entire flight. I however do feel RR's engines to be slightly weaker
Yes my favorite would be Rolls Royce as it is a three-shaft engine and is shorter, it is interesting that on the airbus A.350 only the Rolls Royce Engine is chosen and on the Boeing 777 X They have chosen General Electric. both Engines have had their problems as it appears to me that when you raise the turbine heat to try and squeeze more economy out of the Engine you can have more breakdowns but recently these appear to have been overcome, I also not that Rolls Royce is developing a new Utra Fan Engine for the future to compete with the very big American Engines.
One more thing about B787 is that you can swap the Genx for RR Trent 1000 although it carries the risk of repeating AA191 disaster if done incorrectly. Commenting in 2022
For those that blame Boeing for engine issues, how come the GE powered 787s weren't grounded when the RR powered ones were? How come the GE/RR powered 777s aren't grounded when the PW powered ones are? And how come the LEAP powered A320NEOs weren't grounded when the PW powered ones were? And how come you see RR logos on the RR powered 787s? The engine maker is the one that deserves both credit and blame for their engines.
787s are facing issues because of the structure of the fuselage. last I know RR does not design that. not to mention 787s have been grounded in the past for battery issues. afaik also not designed by RR. there is complete lack of oversight in the engineering process of Boeing and is only meant to showcase flashy designs to investors and low fuel cost numbers to airlines. the company should have been completely dissolved after the 737 MAX incident.
Your first point, I don`t think RR powered B787`s were at anytime `grounded`. The issues with Trent-1000 were known & inspections carried out until all the engines were permanently fixed. RR took the cost of this work & replacement aircraft with the minimum of disruption to Boeing. PW B777`s are grounded because of a couple of engine issues until they are satisfactorily addressed. If these issues appeared on RR or GE, the same would apply! If an airline wants an RR logo they get one, the same goes for GE, you see them both on B787 if you looked. Finally on the last point there was a major issue with the PW engine on A320 that warranted grounding, when there wasn`t with LEAP. Not sure were you`re coming from but you sure are anti RR, & you conveniently forget to mention early problems with GEnx which also impacted some airlines. Do your research, at the end of which you`ll understand that as of last summer B787`s come with two very equally matched & highly reliable turbofans.
manufacture logos displayed depending on if the airline wants it or not, UPS for examble are know not to display any manufacture logos or lettering on their planes
I have my own favourite. It is the Trent 1000. It is much quieter than the GE 90 that powered the Boeing 777, that I travelled on immediately before the Boeing 787 that had the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines. 3:05
Its obvious that special interests are at play here which are not those of airlines. American Boeing plane manufacturer deliberately makes use of American GE engines, while Airbus of the EU countries makes use of Rolls Royce engines. Even if airlines prefer to choose what is best for their aircrafts, their choice will be disregarded unfortunately if it is outside that of the plane manufacturer...
Unfortunately, this complicates logistics for airlines who have engine preference over the plane. Great examples are Qantas and Philippine Airlines. Qantas almost always go for Rolls-Royce engines, regardless if they're Boeing or Airbus. On the other hand, Philippine Airlines almost always go for GE despite having an Airbus-biased fleet.
@@artrandy what about Australia they went with General Electric on there 787s and so did Lufthansa and several others it isn’t your nationality it’s the decision you make
Boeing initially didn't want to give engine options for 787. Only after customers protested did Boeing relent. A350 doesn't have an engine options because GE doesn't want to supply engines for the aircraft. Strange but true.
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 Boeing and GE seems to prefer exclusive deals. Another example is B737 and CFM (which is a joint venture between GE and Safran). Airbus seems to prefer giving engine options.
@@ajqkit7gt For the native A320neo yes but no longer with widebodies since A340 as they also did another exclusive deal with RR in 2015 after Boeing gave GE exclusive on 777X the year prior. The 787 is the last widebody with 2 choices at least and I’m not really expecting that to change even in a 787 re engine as I believe there’s a 50 to 60% chance GE will get an exclusive deal and P&W will still remain out the widebody market
Huge omission: whenever comparing market share, the numbers should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt...GE not only makes the engine, but also is a major lessor, and thus effectively both a major supplier and customer. If more planes have GE this doesn't necessarily mean the engine is technically better or superior, it's simply two branches of the same company looking out for each other. Take GECAS out of the question, and we would probably have much much percentage figures for the 787 engine marketshare.
Also, there are GE/P&W collabs (the Engine Alliance GP7200 series), Safran has their finger in a lot of engines (including the JV with GE called CFM), and even a GE/Honda JV (GHAE HF-120), and many smaller suppliers make bits for literally all large turbofans. That being said, go GE! As my day job is assisting FAA/EASA certification of those, I am biased!
@Alfred Weber Not anymore. GE has basically sold off or spun off everything to other other companies to focus on making engines and the power and medical divisions. They are now a fraction of their former size>. It's not the banking or finance business and hasn't been for some time now. Got sold off long time ago now. Basically the GE that once was has been broken up and sold off. The US conglomerate model is now outdated.
Can the A380 be retrofitted with a newer engine option to improve efficiency and, perhaps, keep it flying ? There, we got some A380 discussion into the story.
The A380 is done. The plane is not profitable and because of the design, it can not be easily transformed into an air freighter like the 747. You are seeing them in the bone yards. There is a video on youtube of one being scrapped. It feels like the A380 just came out last year and they are already being decommissioned.
Competition breeds innovation, but what about when the engine developer only sees 400 planes in the future for their engine type. Those costs have to be passed on to the buyers, and ultimately to the passenger.
I think your forgetting that a single engine can have multiple different variations for future times tho. For example, the first GE90 variants were the least successful engine variant for the classic 777 i.e 777-200/200ER/300 with not even 250 of them using GE engines. They weren't as good as Trent 800 or PW4000 and a flopped program. However GE upgraded their GE90, made it more powerful, modern and efficient which resulted in GE90-115/110B that won the battle to be the exclusive engine over whatever new engine RR and PW were bringing for the wildly successful 777NG series i.e 777-200LR/300ER/F. This has resulted in GE90-115/110B being seen on more than 1000 air frames world wide and being the exclusive engine of the most successful wide body variant in history of aviation i.e 77W. This here was an example of a direct upgrade to an existing engine, GE90. However, even on a new engine the developments and research done that were done on an older engine are very useful. For example Trent 7000 shares the same architecture as Trent 1000 TEN and many technologies from Trent XWB.
This isn’t like a RUclips video where both parties basically just need to show up. There are SO many problems that would result from a collaboration, and very few benefits. decision making during design, intellectual property ownership, who gets to sell maintenance, who actually produces it, what about future revisions, the list goes on. While it would be pretty cool, there are just too many issues, and not very many benefits to a colab
Could you please use the unit kN to indicate thrust next time as this is the international SI unit. This would make the understanding of these figures much easier :)
Haven`t Lufty gone for T-1000? That`s what I heard, but yes Emirates is interesting, they are so equal in performance, fuel & reliability ( RR issues resolved 18 months ago ) that I guess it`ll be down to best deal & or service agreement arrangements.
I'm guessing Emirates will go with the trents for the 787-9 considering they ordered the a350-900 instead of the 787-10 due to performance issues. Lufthansa also ordered the trent-1000 for their 787 fleet. Rolls Royce announced it. Bamboo airways and Arik air ordered GE engines. Ruili airlines and Okay airways are currently unknown about the engines
The GE for the 777 produces 115,000 pounds of thrust vs each B-52 engine that produces 10,000 lbs. So all 8 B-52 engines make less thrust than one 777 engine. Roll Royce is at 54,000 lbs.
@@sls12III Yup as the 787 is lower to the ground than the 777 is hence why it was able to in the X 3rd generation use it . The 777 is one of the twin widebodies with the highest ground clearance
A missed opportunity to talk about how a 787 can actually swap engine types as they have a common engine pylon and interface and thus can swap engine types, something that is harder on other types
Neither of these are geared turbo fans which seems to be the immediate future due to the efficiency. PW seems to be spearheading their development and debugging
GE90 N series ? Never heard of it ? GE CF6 was superseded by the GE90 85b first seen on the 777 launch aircraft with British Airways, then came updated models including the 90b & now the 115b. The GEnx was then the one of two engine options on the Dreamliner as discussed then fitted to the 747-8 & 8F. Since then we have seen the new GE 9x on the planned 777-9. GE rarely get an exclusive deal to supply engines like Rolls Royce do, as mentioned, all A350 XWB aircraft come with RR Trent XWB engines & whilst the A330 ceo had a GE CF6 option the new A330neo comes only with RR Trent 7000s.
@Alfred Weber 777X is still in it’s design phase so you can discount that for a start. The 777s have always been multi engine option between GE, RR & PW, you can!t count variant sub models ! GE have had no exclusive engine deal with an Airbus model, The Lockheed L1011 was a RR exclusive & although the 757 did have an engine option the mass of them were flown with the RR RB211. 747-8s are such a small seller they are not worth counting. GE only have their market share due to both Boeing & GE being US companies.
When I get on an aircraft I want to feel safe. I live in Derby in the UK so I prefer a Rolls Royce engine made by people in my community. I prefer Airbus because it comes from Europe with jobs in my country. It comes back to my first point, I want to feel safe and in the end I choose to fly the airline that suits my holiday plans and is accepted as safe.
I love the GE engines. I was on a flight with RR engines and seem to come apart in flight on an L1011 many years ago. I know they are better now, but it did scare the heck out of me.
@@hodb3906 Emirates is sorta expected to go with GE as the the Boeing 777’s, the only Boeing aircraft in their fleet they use GE (not by choice though) whilst the Airbus fleet excluding 88 of the 121 A380’s (which use P&W and GE’s Engine Alliance joint venture company GP7200 engine by choice) is to be RR powered because it’s the only engine on A350
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I wish this video talked about weight and price, in addition to fuel burn. Please show the numbers at the same time. Too hard to memorize it.
Simple Flying, you left a lot on the table here. Which engine has the better fuel economy? What about initial cost? Do the innovative carbon fan blades of the GE-NX warrant discussion? What grounded the Trent engines? What did they do to fix it? These all would be more interesting to me than how much rated thrust the engines have.
This!
True. Jet engines are very powerful that max thrust is meaningless.
Completely agree with your comment, though I would like to just offer an explanation as to why these numbers aren't exactly easy to compare, and to try and give you answers to as much as possible without giving away sensitive information.
First off, fuel economy. This one is actually a very difficult question to answer, and much like a lot of things, the short answer is that it depends. How you choose to operate the aircraft for example, if your pilots choose to do a rapid climb without stepping, or they choose the highest throttle setting on TO regardless of payload, also where the airline is based makes a difference, so are the routes in hot or cold regions, low-lying airports, etc. All of it makes a difference to the TSFC. But a few things to note from publicly available information are that the T1000 has a lower OPR than the GEnx does, but also has a higher bypass ratio. That means that they are probably very close in terms of TSFC to each other in simple terms, but they arrive there via different means. The T1000 is a 3-spool design, which means the engine has a greater range of 'optimum' off-design steady state conditions, since the LP shaft can operate independently of the majority of the compressors, allowing high OPR's at a wider range of thrust settings. The GEnx is a 2-spool design, which means the LP compressor speed (and therefore a significant portion of the OPR) is directly linked to thrust, meaning the GEnx has to work harder on the HP spool than the T1000 to get to the same TSFC, which it does. But each solution comes with their own compromise in terms of design. Higher OPR means lower fuel use, but cooling hurts more in the HPT. There are a myriad of other details of course, but overall, it would be safe to say they achieve roughly the same TSFC overall.
Initial cost. Well, that's a tricky one, because of the respective business models. But I'd wager the initial cost of the GEnx was slightly lower because of the more simple design, again, because of the differences in architecture and design philosophies.
The composite fan blades are an interesting one. In terms of discussion though, I suppose I'd ask, what is there to discuss? They were first deployed on the GE90 in GE's large engine product line, so they have good experience using them, and they offer numerous advantages (lower fan assembly and fan case masses, good fatigue and fouling resistance, etc) , but also some disadvantages too (sudden failure modes, hard to repair, etc), which were costly to overcome. RR has delayed composite fan systems for a number of reasons, but the UltraFan incorporates them.
So the T1000, what happened? Well, it's complicated, so bear with me here. The issue in the basic sense was caused by aerodynamically induced vibration modes in the first and second stage IP compressor at certain flight phases. In a nutshell, the vibration modes weren't spotted during the initial design phases because it happens at a very specific (and narrow) flight phase during flight that's difficult to recreate using models or even flight testing unless you were really focusing on that area in detail. This vibration caused fatigue in the stage 1 and 2 blade roots, leading to gradual blade cracking at the root. The solution was to replace the affected blades in the Pack B and Pack C variants with a blade that moved the centre of mass of the blades rearwards slightly, effectively damping the oscillations that caused it. But it cost them dearly of course, billions spent to fix it and a rather hefty dent in their otherwise excellent reputation. But it just highlights the complexity of these engines in my view, it's nothing short of a miracle that they work at all, let alone so reliably!
COmment me back if you want any more info, and I'll try to get back to you.
Completely agree!
@@onetrickhorse your the smartest person ive read in the comment section of any video ive watched
I miss the days when long haul aircraft had GE, RR and PW options. Now it’s either an airbus with RR or a Boeing with GE. I guess the 787 was the last long haul aircraft with engine options.
It's a simple economic issue. Too expensive to develop engines for wide bodies now that it makes financial sense to have exclusivity on an airframe to justify the billions it costs to develop the engine.
@@johniii8147 Yeah, I know. It's still sad nonetheless because great things have come from European/american collabs. The a300 and 757 are good examples. Even though those aren't long haul aircraft but you get my point.
And the first Long Haul widebody was powered by PW. Where are they now?
@@interstellaraviator6437 In museums I guess?
Hope a day Japan could enter the engine game, or better:"THE PLANE GAME"
Would of be more interesting to cover some of the more technical specifications of the engines, such as fuel efficiency, unique features, etc.
Maximum thrust isn’t even the biggest factor in modern airliner engines. I feel like this video has provided almost no useful information. It should have talked about price (initial and maintenance), fuel efficiency, reliability, etc
That's too complicated when it's easy enough to compile a bunch of press releases and copy it onto a script
Two great engine brands. Competition breeds innovation.
Indeed
collaboration breeds innovation, not competition. capitalistic competition only breeds innovation if a financial profit can be made from it. imagine the innovations if the engineers from these companies came together, without the need to turn a profit, and started building something truly amazing.
this is the reason why so many inventions were made during WW1 and WW2, because turning a profit simply didn't matter.
abolish capitalism.
@@klnsbl hey comrade, lack of competition leads to complacency and even more corruption than in a capitalist system. See: CCP and USSR. Nice try tho.
More like, problems
@@klnsbl wait so there was no competition between engineer groups during wwII? Lmao you are such a fool. Competition between nations was the reason behind the innovation. If capitalism was holding back innovation why was the west superior in technology to the USSR?
Just gimme an engine that's reliable !
Your going for the RR
That would be the GE engines.
Usually engine is reliable..but it is the design that can be trouble..and eventually break th engine
Just get a Celica...
Contact Toyota
So we have this details:
Rolls-Royce Trent 1000
1000-E ==> 62,264 lbf take-off/58,866 lbf continuous
1000-R ==> 81,028 lbf take-off/72,691 lbf continuous
General Electric GEnx
GEnx01B54/P2 ==> 57,400 lbf take-off/56,300 lbf continuous
GEnx01B78/P2 ==> 80,400 lbf take-off/68,800 lbf continuous
My choice remains with GE.
Powa!
Rolls Royce clearly more powerfull, but GE probably is more economical!
@@HermesLegall More reliable overall except in it’s first 2 years (includes the smaller engine variant on 747-8)
Pratt and Whitney
@@Imbreadtt Not really.. GE is master
As a RR worker, it's no surprise that I think the Trent 1000 is the engine of choice here.
Even tho the GE is clearly better childish
@@jackholman5008 your biased comment is childish
@@ant2312 not based everybody knows ge is top dog,you cant expect an employee of a company to bad mouth it
The biggest difference between a Rolls-Royce and a GE?
Direction of rotation. Viewed from the front, a GE appears to rotate counterclockwise, like the propellor of most airplanes. A Rolls will appear to rotate clockwise, or the opposite direction.
I've flown Rolls-Royce engines on 757's and they are way more powerful than the Pratt & Whitney alternative. The 767 I fly now has GE engines. Both are very reliable motors, so take your pick-
why not both? for a contra rotating solution
@@carlosandleon I'm sure you could, but why would you want to? That is just going to cost a ton of extra money and I doubt the FAA would go along with it.
@@Flies2FLL why not?
The biggest difference is GE is two shaft while RR is three shaft... Differences don't get bigger than that :)
@@carlosandleon What would be the advantage? And you would have to stock additional parts, thus increasing costs.
Air New Zealand has RR on its 787-9’s but after the very expensive groundings has selected GE for its -10’s
I'm a bigger Rolls Royce Engine Fan 💯💯💯
If they both do the job then it's down to Life Cycle Cost.
Honestly, it doesnt matter to me whether Rolls Royce or GE so long the plane can fly me safely to my intended destination by experienced pilots on board 👌👍😎
Agree
Amen to that. It ain't like you're gonna be able to book a Flight, then choose what Engine Brand you want to fly with. You get the Frame assigned to that particular Time Slot, whether it has GE or RR squirrel cages slung under the wings.
You are not a very good aviation nerd then lol
It does matter. If one of the engines is less efficient your plane ticket will cost more
The Trent 1000 problems are very well-documented. I prefer the GE engines. If it's on the 747 - 8 it's probably one of the best engines in the sky.
the Trent 1000 issues were sorted out a long time ago, you forget to put that in your comment as an attempt to diss Rolls Royce
Done maintenance on both. RR engines are much easier for maintenance due to the gearbox layout.
'do you have a fav engine manufacturer?' yeah, i really like rolls royce engine, i always told the airline to always use rolls royce whenever im using their flight
Silly question, right? Lol 😂
GE! Worked for them and it's by far the best big company I worked for...
you havent worked for many big companies then
Sad how Pratt & Whitney has disappeared from new big planes :(
Hopefully they will be back!
But they're prominent on narrow bodies (A32N family, A220 and E2). And my goodness, their geared turbofans are phenomenal. Not only in performance but efficiency and noise.
@@mattromanes Exactly, and they could use their amazing engine technology and build an engine that could compete with the GE9X. And of course get a bigger market share.
@@mattromanes they also have issues with them already too
Wow this is more than just great information Totally awesome
By lack of numbers on fuel consumption, MTBF, maintenance hours / distance flown / noise production, I choose the Rolls-Royce just because they produced the most important air plane engine of all time: the Merlin.
Yes I have more than 32500 flight hours, and more than 10000 on the A330 covering all engine types.
By far the Trent 700 leaves the others for dead, the Pratt gives up the ghost in the heat, the CF-6 is OK but coughs and farts weekly when thrust is required.
The Roller covers every scenario, it’s climb is amazing, then great fuel flows.
I know engineers will say the Pratt is simple, but they don’t fly our aircraft, the roller is fantastic.
both all nippon and air new zealand said a few years ago that they would be switching from rolls royce to ge and and all nippon took delivery of there first two ge 787s recently
I wonder why?
@@donaldstanfield8862 because of issues with rolls royce 787 engines that have maybe been solved by now
RR all the way 😀🇬🇧
More like 🇧🇪
CMON ENGLAND AAAOOOOUUU
I agree brilliant engines
787 8 Jetstar going to Sydney and 787 9 scoot going to Singapore both take off over my house.
The rolls Royce are about 20% quieter although being on a smaller plane going a short distance.
Inside both models the rolls Royce are also quieter.
But I heard from an aeronautical engineer that GEnx has overheating issues and when taking it apart heat damage is very apparent.
I also felt the poor cooling of GE engines while flying the flight factor 767. When I used the GE CF6 it gets overheat warning then engine fire whenever I use TOGA thrust, but when I switched to the RB211, during my first flight I left the thrust at TOGA and forgot about it, nothing happened throughout the entire flight.
I however do feel RR's engines to be slightly weaker
Yes my favorite would be Rolls Royce as it is a three-shaft engine and is shorter, it is interesting that on the airbus A.350 only the Rolls Royce Engine is chosen and on the Boeing 777 X They have chosen General Electric. both Engines have had their problems as it appears to me that when you raise the turbine heat to try and squeeze more economy out of the Engine you can have more breakdowns but recently these appear to have been overcome, I also not that Rolls Royce is developing a new Utra Fan Engine for the future to compete with the very big American Engines.
Me too
The ultrafan will be a game changer
@@Vanzable1 why? Cos it's bigger?
@@kellyb0279 it’s going to introduce a lot more technology. Also, it’s scalable so can be used on narrow and wide body aircraft
Thanks for using Kenya Airways in your videos, you have one more subscriber,
Would love a Long Haul video for this and also for A320neo family's CFM LEAP and PW1000G engines.
One more thing about B787 is that you can swap the Genx for RR Trent 1000 although it carries the risk of repeating AA191 disaster if done incorrectly. Commenting in 2022
For those that blame Boeing for engine issues, how come the GE powered 787s weren't grounded when the RR powered ones were? How come the GE/RR powered 777s aren't grounded when the PW powered ones are? And how come the LEAP powered A320NEOs weren't grounded when the PW powered ones were? And how come you see RR logos on the RR powered 787s? The engine maker is the one that deserves both credit and blame for their engines.
787s are facing issues because of the structure of the fuselage. last I know RR does not design that. not to mention 787s have been grounded in the past for battery issues. afaik also not designed by RR. there is complete lack of oversight in the engineering process of Boeing and is only meant to showcase flashy designs to investors and low fuel cost numbers to airlines. the company should have been completely dissolved after the 737 MAX incident.
Your first point, I don`t think RR powered B787`s were at anytime `grounded`. The issues with Trent-1000 were known & inspections carried out until all the engines were permanently fixed. RR took the cost of this work & replacement aircraft with the minimum of disruption to Boeing. PW B777`s are grounded because of a couple of engine issues until they are satisfactorily addressed. If these issues appeared on RR or GE, the same would apply! If an airline wants an RR logo they get one, the same goes for GE, you see them both on B787 if you looked. Finally on the last point there was a major issue with the PW engine on A320 that warranted grounding, when there wasn`t with LEAP. Not sure were you`re coming from but you sure are anti RR, & you conveniently forget to mention early problems with GEnx which also impacted some airlines. Do your research, at the end of which you`ll understand that as of last summer B787`s come with two very equally matched & highly reliable turbofans.
manufacture logos displayed depending on if the airline wants it or not, UPS for examble are know not to display any manufacture logos or lettering on their planes
Ignore this guy, he's vile and biased and he'd better hope I don't bump in to him one day
I'm glad they're getting away from that buzzsaw sound that is so annoying near airports.
I have my own favourite. It is the Trent 1000. It is much quieter than the GE 90 that powered the Boeing 777, that I travelled on immediately before the Boeing 787 that had the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines. 3:05
So why didn’t you cover which one is more fuel efficient?
They are roughly the same.
Amazing information videos make boeing 777 300er engines vs boeing 777x
the GENX is the beast on the 787
I was not aware of all the engine options for 787
Just split the difference, one RR on the left wing and a GE on the right wing 👍👍😲😲
A maintenance team's nightmare
Stability 100
My favorite manufacturer is GE. My favorite jet engine is the GE 90-115 B
Very good topic.
For some reason Rolls-Royce just sounds cooler. Which engine cost more up front and what's the operating costs between the two?
Its obvious that special interests are at play here which are not those of airlines. American Boeing plane manufacturer deliberately makes use of American GE engines, while Airbus of the EU countries makes use of Rolls Royce engines. Even if airlines prefer to choose what is best for their aircrafts, their choice will be disregarded unfortunately if it is outside that of the plane manufacturer...
Unfortunately, this complicates logistics for airlines who have engine preference over the plane. Great examples are Qantas and Philippine Airlines. Qantas almost always go for Rolls-Royce engines, regardless if they're Boeing or Airbus. On the other hand, Philippine Airlines almost always go for GE despite having an Airbus-biased fleet.
I didn't realize that GE had such an advantage on orders for the 787.
RR has had lots of problems with Trent 1000s, costing airlines lots of downtime. Put Norwegian Air, out of business.
@@brkitdwn problem was rectified a long time ago
@@ant2312 The problem went on for sometime and cost them a fortune
Rolls Royce - always!
Seems like airlines say differently
@@danielmeador1991
Because Americans find it hard to buy European, their pride takes a nose dive (pun intended)........
@@artrandy what about Australia they went with General Electric on there 787s and so did Lufthansa and several others it isn’t your nationality it’s the decision you make
Does Brexit have a result in the choice for GE or RR? For Airbus both manufacturers are now outside the EU.
Needed this
Rolls Royce all the way, better sounding engine is all of us need
So the most powerful is genx 1b75/p2 or 78/p2 ?
Boeing initially didn't want to give engine options for 787. Only after customers protested did Boeing relent.
A350 doesn't have an engine options because GE doesn't want to supply engines for the aircraft. Strange but true.
GE didn’t because of their exclusivity deal on the 777 2nd generation variants
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 Boeing and GE seems to prefer exclusive deals. Another example is B737 and CFM (which is a joint venture between GE and Safran). Airbus seems to prefer giving engine options.
@@ajqkit7gt For the native A320neo yes but no longer with widebodies since A340 as they also did another exclusive deal with RR in 2015 after Boeing gave GE exclusive on 777X the year prior. The 787 is the last widebody with 2 choices at least and I’m not really expecting that to change even in a 787 re engine as I believe there’s a 50 to 60% chance GE will get an exclusive deal and P&W will still remain out the widebody market
Turns out a350 is a great success and b777x sales isn't that good yet
(Sorry for slightly out of topic)
GE since I love the GE-90 takeoff sound
Some early 787 RR operators have selected GenX for subsequent 787 deliveries.
Huge omission: whenever comparing market share, the numbers should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt...GE not only makes the engine, but also is a major lessor, and thus effectively both a major supplier and customer. If more planes have GE this doesn't necessarily mean the engine is technically better or superior, it's simply two branches of the same company looking out for each other. Take GECAS out of the question, and we would probably have much much percentage figures for the 787 engine marketshare.
Also, there are GE/P&W collabs (the Engine Alliance GP7200 series), Safran has their finger in a lot of engines (including the JV with GE called CFM), and even a GE/Honda JV (GHAE HF-120), and many smaller suppliers make bits for literally all large turbofans.
That being said, go GE! As my day job is assisting FAA/EASA certification of those, I am biased!
Very good point !
Not anymore. GE sold off GECAS.
@Alfred Weber Not anymore. GE has basically sold off or spun off everything to other other companies to focus on making engines and the power and medical divisions. They are now a fraction of their former size>. It's not the banking or finance business and hasn't been for some time now. Got sold off long time ago now. Basically the GE that once was has been broken up and sold off. The US conglomerate model is now outdated.
Can the A380 be retrofitted with a newer engine option to improve efficiency and, perhaps, keep it flying ? There, we got some A380 discussion into the story.
To costly, would need to re design the wings to take different engunes, due to mounting, weight and id say airflow
The A380 is done. The plane is not profitable and because of the design, it can not be easily transformed into an air freighter like the 747. You are seeing them in the bone yards. There is a video on youtube of one being scrapped. It feels like the A380 just came out last year and they are already being decommissioned.
@@tdrewman this didnt age well
use round numbers... too much details makes it hard to follow.. or what about a chart!?
Agree, these vids have too many numbers, it's crushing to listen! 🙉🎯
I knew about RR and GE making engines for the 787 but I didn’t know about the specific engines each airframe had
Both great companies making great products, both have made some iconic engines thinking of the RB211 and GE90
The 757 with RB211 were fantastic very powerful in fact over powered some will say loved 757
RR and PW still has the best Roar Sound.
CFM
GE90s too :(
yes👍
Are these engines later interchangeable or is it impossible?
You can interchange them it takes 20 something hours to do so though
Competition breeds innovation, but what about when the engine developer only sees 400 planes in the future for their engine type. Those costs have to be passed on to the buyers, and ultimately to the passenger.
I think your forgetting that a single engine can have multiple different variations for future times tho.
For example, the first GE90 variants were the least successful engine variant for the classic 777 i.e 777-200/200ER/300 with not even 250 of them using GE engines. They weren't as good as Trent 800 or PW4000 and a flopped program.
However GE upgraded their GE90, made it more powerful, modern and efficient which resulted in GE90-115/110B that won the battle to be the exclusive engine over whatever new engine RR and PW were bringing for the wildly successful 777NG series i.e 777-200LR/300ER/F. This has resulted in GE90-115/110B being seen on more than 1000 air frames world wide and being the exclusive engine of the most successful wide body variant in history of aviation i.e 77W.
This here was an example of a direct upgrade to an existing engine, GE90. However, even on a new engine the developments and research done that were done on an older engine are very useful. For example Trent 7000 shares the same architecture as Trent 1000 TEN and many technologies from Trent XWB.
@@aseem7w9 I hear you, but I'm not sure how many planes will ever need a GE9X or anything close to it with a 134 in fan. Maybe a single engine 737?
Well it's always an equation between the engine capacity vs fuel economy as far as high end planes are concerned...
Ill go with the Pratt & Whitney.
GE now and forever!
It aint a football team buddy, but maybe you think it is........
I would like to see GE and RR do a special collab for a pair of 787 engines.
This isn’t like a RUclips video where both parties basically just need to show up. There are SO many problems that would result from a collaboration, and very few benefits. decision making during design, intellectual property ownership, who gets to sell maintenance, who actually produces it, what about future revisions, the list goes on. While it would be pretty cool, there are just too many issues, and not very many benefits to a colab
thats conflict of interests
I don't know, competence is too high this day.
I still think PW engine innovations on A320 Neo’s outsmarts all engines no doubt problems too 😅
The ultra fan is going to have the gear box for the fan too which is cool
Could you please use the unit kN to indicate thrust next time as this is the international SI unit. This would make the understanding of these figures much easier :)
Only a few undecided customers remain !!!!
Interesting to see where Emirates and Lufthansa goes for their powerplants ..
Haven`t Lufty gone for T-1000? That`s what I heard, but yes Emirates is interesting, they are so equal in performance, fuel & reliability ( RR issues resolved 18 months ago ) that I guess it`ll be down to best deal & or service agreement arrangements.
I'm guessing Emirates will go with the trents for the 787-9 considering they ordered the a350-900 instead of the 787-10 due to performance issues.
Lufthansa also ordered the trent-1000 for their 787 fleet. Rolls Royce announced it.
Bamboo airways and Arik air ordered GE engines. Ruili airlines and Okay airways are currently unknown about the engines
Im with the genx
GE for the win!!!!
I prefer the General Electric beacuse the GE sound is better and quieter
Yes Indeed GenX
GE would be my pick, fewer problems!
Why use the obsolete fps units?
Do the same for the A320neo engine options.
The GE for the 777 produces 115,000 pounds of thrust vs each B-52 engine that produces 10,000 lbs. So all 8 B-52 engines make less thrust than one 777 engine. Roll Royce is at 54,000 lbs.
I wish there was a way to tell them apart. without the R-R sticker, both models look a lot alike.
Whatever happened to PW ? (Pratt n Whitney)
Team GE, but I love them all.
What happened to Pratt and Whitney?
PW move to narrowbody market with their PW1000G engine
imagine the ge9x on the 787 lol
Wouldn’t fit
@@danielmeador1991 fr
@@sls12III Yup as the 787 is lower to the ground than the 777 is hence why it was able to in the X 3rd generation use it . The 777 is one of the twin widebodies with the highest ground clearance
Unrelated to the video but I just wanna send prayers to the pilot's (of N880Z) families from a fiery crash in San Diego 🙏🏼
A missed opportunity to talk about how a 787 can actually swap engine types as they have a common engine pylon and interface and thus can swap engine types, something that is harder on other types
imagine GE9X on all 4 engines on 747
Rolls Royce is the best.
What about Pratt & Whitney?
Rolls Royce were clockwise while American engines were anticlockwise viewed from the front of the aircraft.
Viewed from front:
All PW = CCW
IAE V2500 = CCW
All CFM = CCW
All GE (except GEnx) = CCW
RR BR700 = CCW
All RR (except BR700) = CW
GEnx = CW
Neither of these are geared turbo fans which seems to be the immediate future due to the efficiency. PW seems to be spearheading their development and debugging
The ultrafan is geared
Power force? What's happened to Newtons?
Rolls Royce wins!
GE90 N series ? Never heard of it ?
GE CF6 was superseded by the GE90 85b first seen on the 777 launch aircraft with British Airways, then came updated models including the 90b & now the 115b.
The GEnx was then the one of two engine options on the Dreamliner as discussed then fitted to the 747-8 & 8F.
Since then we have seen the new GE 9x on the planned 777-9.
GE rarely get an exclusive deal to supply engines like Rolls Royce do, as mentioned, all A350 XWB aircraft come with RR Trent XWB engines & whilst the A330 ceo had a GE CF6 option the new A330neo comes only with RR Trent 7000s.
@Alfred Weber 777X is still in it’s design phase so you can discount that for a start.
The 777s have always been multi engine option between GE, RR & PW, you can!t count variant sub models ! GE have had no exclusive engine deal with an Airbus model, The Lockheed L1011 was a RR exclusive & although the 757 did have an engine option the mass of them were flown with the RR RB211.
747-8s are such a small seller they are not worth counting.
GE only have their market share due to both Boeing & GE being US companies.
@@WhiskeyGulf71 GE on DC10 & MD11.....lots on exclusive deals for GE! Alfred Weber is totally correct.
Yes, I did know.
Wouldn’t mind knowing the difference in dimensions.
When I get on an aircraft I want to feel safe. I live in Derby in the UK so I prefer a Rolls Royce engine made by people in my community. I prefer Airbus because it comes from Europe with jobs in my country. It comes back to my first point, I want to feel safe and in the end I choose to fly the airline that suits my holiday plans and is accepted as safe.
Not very logical but then again you're a european.
RR sounds waaaaay better and performs better too
Vanguard and Blackrock own it all. So its a monoploy on air travel and I suspect engines that run on very little fuel.
Like the video... Sorry but I thought that jet engines are leased.....
I love the GE engines. I was on a flight with RR engines and seem to come apart in flight on an L1011 many years ago. I know they are better now, but it did scare the heck out of me.
If you like luxury, go with Rolls Royce, economical, go with GE.
Lol ok if you like luxury yes rolls royce premium luxury and economical General Electric
விமானத்தைப் பற்றி உங்கள் மூலம் அரிவதில் மகிழ்ச்சி 💙நன் உங்கள் கானோளியை ஒருவருடங்களாக பார்ப்பதில் திருப்தி
60% are GE and 33% are RR I think I might be missing 7% somewhere
Gliders ?
Some airline orders have no engines selected yet. Emirates is an example.
@@hodb3906 Emirates is sorta expected to go with GE as the the Boeing 777’s, the only Boeing aircraft in their fleet they use GE (not by choice though) whilst the Airbus fleet excluding 88 of the 121 A380’s (which use P&W and GE’s Engine Alliance joint venture company GP7200 engine by choice) is to be RR powered because it’s the only engine on A350
GE 💯
Would have liked to see the thrust in Newton as well as differences in engine design like number of spools, compression ratio, noise, etc.
As long as it keeps working I honestly don't care
GE is the best