Rolls Royce Vs General Electric - Boeing 787 Engine Options Explained 

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"

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

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

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

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?

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

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

@@Brtt4849 Not really.. GE is master

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

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

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.

Silly question, right? Lol 😂

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.

Agree, these vids have too many numbers, it's crushing to listen! 🙉🎯

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 wonder why?

@@donaldstanfield8862 because of issues with rolls royce 787 engines that have maybe been solved by now

A maintenance team's nightmare

Stability 100

They are roughly the same.

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)

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

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.

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.

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?

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

you havent worked for many big companies then

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

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

This isn’t like a RU-vid 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.

So does RR so not really a differentiator. They have very similar contracts in that regard.

This comment provided much more insight than the video. Thanks!

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

You can interchange them it takes 20 something hours to do so though

More like 🇧🇪

CMON ENGLAND AAAOOOOUUU

I agree brilliant engines

The ultra fan is going to have the gear box for the fan too which is cool

The 757 with RB211 were fantastic very powerful in fact over powered some will say loved 757

The ultrafan is geared

@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.

It aint a football team buddy, but maybe you think it is........

PW move to narrowbody market with their PW1000G engine

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

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

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

CFM

GE90s too :(

yes👍

That aircraft will never happen. It's been "planned" since 1998 and little has happened. I don't know why people even still talk about it anymore. It's gone knowhere.

@@johniii8147 A unique development program based on early certification flight testing using 2 existing Fokker 100 aircraft converted into 2 compliant Fokker 130 prototypes targets entry-into-service in five years. The Fokker 130 will be certified to latest EASA and FAA requirements.

Is this a biplane.........?

@@artrandy No, The Fokker 130 NG is based on the Fokker F70, it is also good to know that they are made from metal and composite materials and not from wood. You can read all about it when you Google: " Netherlands aircraft company "

@@RoderikvanReekum I read about it 20 years or so ago bro, and just to remind you, it took less time for aviation to develop from WW1 biplanes to WW2 monoplanes, with twice the top speed. After all this time moribund, what makes you think this project will ever be relevant..........?

Lol ok if you like luxury yes rolls royce premium luxury and economical General Electric

GE wanted to buy Rolls. It can never happen though.

@@ALV-gs1xg that would be amazing because GE have definitely got the money and knowledge to make it happen but I don't think the government will allow it

@@CE11SCANif the government knows they have the money and knowledge, they would know the correct decision to be that if merging the companies. However both companies manufacture many different products, and are very diverse companies in terms of spending economics.

@@flya350tk8 I ❤ both companies although I'm British I still love General Electric because they are so innovative in what they do not with just aircraft engines but as a whole what they innovate and give back to mankind an absolutely amazing company and I'm pretty sure GE is a gem of a company in the american peoples eyes

Thank you lol. I had to scroll way too far to find this comment. I thought “pound-force” was wrong too but after further review… I think he’s right. Look at the “pound (force)” page on Wikipedia vs the “foot-pound (energy)” page.