GE Aviation – Aircraft Engine History and Technology | Jet Engine25 comments

25 Comments

1. 60knightsix said on June 20, 2011 at 3:30 pm

   Propjets (’propfan’), by their very nature (physics), are restricted as to how fast they can go. Pure jets have no such restrictions.
2. Marcus666Sund said on June 20, 2011 at 3:42 pm

   i still dont get it, Why dont they start produce the propfan engine again? It looks so freakin cool!
3. 121arocks said on June 20, 2011 at 4:23 pm

   Very good video, thank you.
4. iphonik4 said on June 20, 2011 at 4:45 pm

   1:08 2:05 really beautiful engine!!
5. cesky69 said on June 20, 2011 at 4:49 pm

   Who is speaking on this video?
6. applesweeter said on June 20, 2011 at 5:31 pm

   Dear All,

   I have some questions about psychology:

   (1) Why do we love flying and aeroplanes?

   (2) Why do we so curious about the design jet engines?

   (3) Why do we so curious to know how jet engines operate, especially children?

   (4) Why so we like to design and to build new-creative jet engines?

   (5) Why some of us want to design and to build home-made jet engine at our backyard?

   THANK YOU IN ADVANCE for your creative ideas and brainstorm!!!
7. applesweeter said on June 20, 2011 at 5:56 pm

   Dear All,

   I have some questions about psychology:

   (1) Why do we love flying and aeroplanes?

   (2) Why do we so curious about the design jet engines?

   (3) Why do we so curious to know how jet engines operate, especially children?

   (4) Why so we like to design and to build new-creative jet engines?

   (5) Why some of us want to design and to build home-made jet engine at our backyard?

   THANK YOU IN ADVANCE for your creative ideas and brainstorm!!!
8. applesweeter said on June 20, 2011 at 6:00 pm

   This engine design is quite innovative. In my opinion, I think that the blue paint and the prototype should be stored up for future in case that oil price will over US$100.

   What do you think?
9. FMorris308 said on June 20, 2011 at 6:12 pm

   russian ukranian version calling
   nk-12 – tu95 an22
   d-27 – an-70
   nk-56 – was desired for il-96, tu 204
   nk-93 – il-96 tu-330 il-106
   have in midle 20% beter fuel consumtion to usualy counterpart. nk-93 sfc 0.49 kg/kg/h(typ?).
   ciam now make research for new turboprop for snecma ,
10. glennjgd said on June 20, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    Energy sources without the need for fuel or energy input exist ,But Elite controllers don’t want ppl to be free from the costs of energy,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be part of the revolution!
11. jdmk20aek said on June 20, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    GREAT VIDEO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12. brickandfanal said on June 20, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    The Soviets had something at least as good back in mid 1950.
    It the Kuznetsov NK-12 that propel the TU-95 bomber, the fastest propeller driven aircraft.
    The biggest difference is that the NK-12 have a planetary gearbox.
    Even by today standard, the NK-12 have everything to dream about; speed, extreme fuel efficiency, extreme reliability, very low maintenance cost and exceptional longevity.
13. aleframil said on June 20, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    Great video. Look forward to see a GEnx flying in the Boeing 787.
14. unambitious said on June 20, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    I personally don’t like the carbon fiber props/blades today. As a mechanic, they are not nearly as durable. They need constant inspection and maintenance which often enough will not prevent damage from getting out of limits. You’ll end up spending a ton replacing props and blades. I would be surprised if they end up spending money replacing a plane because a prop blade flies off someday…
15. orangeat said on June 20, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    Yeah
    its impossible that the UDF-engines were not introduced. I mesn, these were the most fuel efficent engines of their time.
    But itwas, and still is like a taboo:
    Propellers are bad
    nozzles are good
    Thus in any case public opinion.
    That adapt to the developpers, against better knowledge, this opinion is scandalous.
16. obiwan8926 said on June 20, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    Loved watching this video. Very Good.
17. Cougar545x39 said on June 20, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    best
18. LTF85199 said on June 20, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    great, thanks for the quick response..
19. trent8002003 said on June 20, 2011 at 10:15 pm

    The UDF is closer in principle to a turboprop than the advanced RR or GE turbofans on the 787, meaning the UDF relies on very very high bypass ratio to save fuel. But turbofan technology has grown in leaps and bounds since the UDF. I am sure the 787 engines are just as efficient, if not more than the UDF even though on paper, the 787 turbofans should have lower bypass ratio than the UDF.
20. LTF85199 said on June 20, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    why is the advantage of UDF engine vs the 787 engine? Are there any?
21. jmorello123 said on June 20, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    that was well worth my time watching, excellent job, : )
22. trent8002003 said on June 20, 2011 at 11:44 pm

    Love the UDF. The PW/Allison UDF looks even handsomer than the GE UDF. Wonder if the hiking fuel prices aren’t gonna bring them bk.
23. irisconda said on June 21, 2011 at 12:32 am

    cool
24. gigagdragoon2345 said on June 21, 2011 at 12:44 am

    GE you should remake this model

    but make it a little larger

    or just keep it the same
25. CumminsISBe said on June 21, 2011 at 1:11 am

    In terms of efficiency, how does the UDF compare to the latest and greatest that GE has to offer?