This ENGINE Can Make The Twin-Engine 747 POSSIBLE! 

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

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.

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.

The 747 is still popular with carriers, but the 777 offers economy along with cargo space. No one, not even Boeing is going to resurrect a dinosaur. Refurbishing existing airframes will be the continued trend.

$$$$$$$

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...

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

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.

They have the amazing MCAS for that….

GE has one on a 747 as a test bed.

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.

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.

Same thought

Airbus has no place to do such a thing. They’ve retrofitted their former A380 facility for the A320 Neo.

It would! But a 747 with 2 engines is out of question! U can only hope for a 777-10x at the most

The title of the video should read: "How a paper towel idea of an engineer becomes a boring 20 minute video by a youtuber."

yep, and make the 2 outboard engine pylons for extral fuel tanks.

The A380 is out of production

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.

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 ?

Nope. structure torsional limits won't allow single engines...

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.

The A380 weighs too much for any 2 jet engines ever made.

Just quadruple the size of the rudder. Add a IYAS. Ignore Yaw Augmentation System (tell no one about it)

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.