Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Disregarding the difficulties in flying.... it is possible to have a GE on one wing and a RR on the other...
It wouldn't be a simple case of swaping the engine, you'd also have to swap the strut as there are some differences in wiring within the strut, fire extinguishers and such.... So you're interchanging back to the strut disconnect point.
Even with that said there is a different set of drawings for the wiring up to this strut disconnet point for an RR engine and GE... so as always it's not a simple case of offering one up or the other.
As posted in an earlier thread this is RR T1000 engine on RR's flying test bed...a 747
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/boeing-dream-lifter-747-lcf-6494-2.html
So it is possible to have different engine, physical sizes of engine on different wings, I suppose as long as the pilot compensates for it ?
regards
Simon
Conceivably its possible to co mingle engines on an aircraft such as the 787. The fuel management system, if set up to do so will take care of any differences in power settings the pilot may have to deal with.
Possible but not probable.
How about "uneconomical"
Disregarding the difficulties in flying.... it is possible to have a GE on one wing and a RR on the other...
It wouldn't be a simple case of swaping the engine, you'd also have to swap the strut as there are some differences in wiring within the strut, fire extinguishers and such.... So you're interchanging back to the strut disconnect point.
Even with that said there is a different set of drawings for the wiring up to this strut disconnet point for an RR engine and GE... so as always it's not a simple case of offering one up or the other.
As posted in an earlier thread this is RR T1000 engine on RR's flying test bed...a 747
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/boeing-dream-lifter-747-lcf-6494-2.html
So it is possible to have different engine, physical sizes of engine on different wings, I suppose as long as the pilot compensates for it ?
regards
Simon
In what terms? Operationally this shouldn't pose a problem and maintenance wise it would be a benefit. The FMS would ensure that each engine operated to its top efficiency. Unless there's something aerodynamically which would degrade performance, I can't see why this couldn't be done.
Personally as a pilot, I would rather have "two of the same."
The weight is negligible between the two engines and the trim system (which is computer controlled) will take care of any "unbalance" (if any).For one, different weights of the engine mean unbalanced wing loads, requiring less than optimum flight control settings. That cuts down on fuel efficency.
I dont suppose the drag ratio's of either engine is all that different.
And finally, logistics....... cheaper to have one set of spare parts than two.
No the 787 is the first aircraft that will allow you to just replace the engines. It has a common electrical interface for both engines.
Engine C of G? Where did you come up with that? If the engine mounts are designed to fit the same point on the pylon, it doesn't make a difference. And its that way on many airliners designed to take on different engines. Once that engine is on that pylon it's part of the airframe and computed into the entire CG.Then I have to wonder if the strut wiring, the wiring between the strut disconnect and the engine disconnect is the same for both engines and whether this is an easy interchange operation.
The engines CoG are different... T1000 are a lot shorter than the GE engines...
Simon
Then I have to wonder if the strut wiring, the wiring between the strut disconnect and the engine disconnect is the same for both engines and whether this is an easy interchange operation.
The engines CoG are different... T1000 are a lot shorter than the GE engines...
Simon
If you dont care to believe me on it, go and check out the Boeing website.
Then I have to wonder if the strut wiring, the wiring between the strut disconnect and the engine disconnect is the same for both engines and whether this is an easy interchange operation.
The engines CoG are different... T1000 are a lot shorter than the GE engines...
Simon
Wrong.Makes sense . . .
To keep the A/C's CoG in the same place, the engines would probably have to mount in a slightly different place if their CoG's are different.
Wrong.
The aircraft C of G has nothing to do with the engines C of G. Once attached to the airframe it all becomes one "moment" with the aircraft. Here's some info on weight and balance
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/FAA-H-8083-1A.pdf
I could tell you that during engine installation, the CG is attained while hoisting the engine (I did a few, DC-9, DC-10, B-727 and B-737). I would also guess that both RR and GE engines have a similar C of G but either way once attached to the aircraft it has nothing to do with the over all aircraft C of G.
That's right - because once the engine is on the plane then only thing that matters is its weight and "moment."Flyboy.... you're doing the maths from the point of the CoG of the plane...
Have you considered that an engine manufacturer would do the maths from a point of it's engine and the stresses applied to it's mounting fixtures ?
Simon