Talk:General Electric GEnx

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Composite fan blades? I guess that means carbon-carbon. Is that a wise idea after RCC failed so tragically on STS Columbia? 195.70.32.136 10:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they are made from carbon fibers in an epoxy matrix. This is a good reference for technical data: [1]

Museum airplane with museum engines having museum thrust.

Hello all! The unit of jet thrust is kilonewtons (kN). Wikipedia looks retro with all of its museum units like "lbf", which 97% of the world population has no clue about.

The weirdest thing is anglo-saxon units are just unofficial variants of the SI system. All pound, feet, etc. are actually derived from the Paris SI measurements, because no comparable precision etalons exist in the anglosaxon world. 91.83.16.172 (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thrust

Wikipedia looks retro because that is the unit that is used in industry. I worked at GE on the GEnx project for three years and I never heard anyone say "kilonewton" once. The problem is that you have this huge company that has (literally) millions of legacy drawings and specifications that are in the "old" system of units. Changing them all over to the "new" system would cost a fortune. So they stick with what they've got. I'm sure the marketing brochures that they distribute in Europe say kN, but all of the engineers say lbf. Sorry. Kiracofe8 (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link, and more on units

Actually, in my experience, engineers from most parts of the world use metric units or even better the exact SI units, I've never heard an engineer use an imperial unit, but then again I've never spoken to an american or British engineer. The first reference's link is dead "http://www.flightlevel350.com/Boeing-787_aircraft_facts.html" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.178.146 (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in the industry in the USA. Aerospace/gas turbine manufacturers based in the UK and other countries (Rolls Royce, Airbus etc.), NASA, the USAF, and US Space Force all use metric. Providing it in both systems here is correct though, since both are in use in industry. 90.241.10.18 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally bla

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)cklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.[reply]

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/dreamliner
Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partners

Can anyone provide any details on the industrial risk sharing partners for the GEnx? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.159.58 (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Electric GEnx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119133931/http://www.flightlevel350.com/Boeing-787_aircraft_facts.html to http://www.flightlevel350.com/Boeing-787_aircraft_facts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interchageability on 787

Look, I get it, there is a sourced comment that correctly says the 787 was originally designed to have interchangable engines, but that hasn't actually been true for 15 years. So why revert the edit to retain this amazingly out-of-date (and now incorrect) information?

Since you didn't like my edit that corrected this to say it was originally true, I'll just delete it entirely. It's not actually relevant to an article about the engine, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.24.19 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires reliable sources. If you want to change cited content, you need to provide a reliable source that says it was changed, or was never implemented. Anyone can claim anything on the internet, what prevents someone else showing up, perhaps from GE IP this time instead Boeing, claiming that it is true, has always been true, and was never removed? Reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2007-06-13/boeing-still-hasnt-solved-engine-swap-challenges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.24.19 (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's 11 years old, and still implies they are trying to make it work. I'm looking for more recent sources. - BilCat (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like the sources you have for this are "reliable". Wikipedia was originally supposed to rely on many eyes spotting mistakes working better than a professional editor could. But these days mistakes are locked in to Wikipedia because some unreliable, unsourced website somewhere posted something, and that somehow gets transmuted into a "reliable source" just because it is external to Wikipedia. It's completely true that Boeing once hoped to use a common pylon and make the engine swap extremely quick and simple, but they gave up on that long ago. I have no idea why you insist on keeping it here in this article, which isn't even about the 787. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.40.141 (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the sentence with the AIN ref provided, noting it wasn't solved by 2007. A more recent update would be welcome. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NTSB link

I have used the web archive link as the original page isn't there any more. Please replace if you can find a link to the NTSB notice. Gusfriend (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]