Why not 4 GE90s

I know that GE90s can lift up a ginourmous amount of weight. But why dosent Boeing or Airbus make an airplane with 4 GE90s. It could easily lift 1.5 million pounds and easily over 650 passengers and it could be 2 times bigger than a 777-300ER. This could be even bigger than an A380. What do you people think

1 Like

It could also produce 460,000 pounds of thrust at full power

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

2 Likes
  1. 4 engines regardless of the engine type is less fuel efficient than 2 engines. That also means that less airlines will buy it
  2. Based on the A380’s performance, there is no need to make any competitor to it, or anything larger for that matter!

Development costs would more than outweigh the sales

2 Likes

But if you do the math im sure the fuel cost would be cheaper than the passengers

Difficult. FOD, ground clearance are two of the smaller problems. Hanging 2 GE-90s on one side might not be the best idea. The outboard engine will require an extraordinary amount of support to keep it from falling off. And there isn’t really a market for such a large airplane.

If airlones want a 550 seat fat whale plane why wouldnt they want this

But it could be the future like a 30 foot wide plane and it could be 350 feet long

30 feet wide? You know the 77W has a 200 feet wingspan right?

1 Like

JFK already has enough headaches from the A380, having a larger airplane would cause so many headaches.

2 Likes

Yes like 350 feet long by 30 foot cabin width. And 250 feet wing span.

Not possible, doesn’t fit in the 80 metre box, not to mention the wing won’t be able to lift such a large fuselage off the ground.

But if the wing was 350 feet. What bout that

??

I would expect pathetic loads on this. There’s a reason why only one airline has ordered an 850 seat A380, and they cancelled their order eventually. Pax profit wouldn’t outweigh fuel prices. Not to mention the additional costs associated with maintaining this airplane.

Assuming this plane sells poorly like it likely would, maintenance costs would be through the roof because there would be few spare parts

The Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 are already proven to be too big. The freighter market is still too slow for the -8F to garner large numbers of orders, Emirates is the only airline interested in an A380, and Airbus could develop the A380neo and A380-900neo.

The wing required to keep a plane of this size and weight would have to be enormous. You’d have a hell of a time trying to taxi that aircraft around airports. With airports lagging on upgrading their gates and taxiways to accomadate A380s, I doubt that they would feel the costs would be worth it to justify expanding the infrastructure there. One thing they could do is drive up the landing fees per passenger or airport usage fees significantly so one or two customers could fly in their massive plane, but that would cut into profitability, deterring additional orders.

Developing the technology required to make this plane work would cost lots of money and take lots of time. Sure, they have sold 300+ A380s but keep in mind only 1/2 of those are for an airlnie that is actively pursuing VLAs. Maybe one more airline would buy the plane for vanity reasons and you have a fair sized orderbook, but that doesn’t mean the production costs and development costs have been negated.

The floorspace and resources required to build such a massive aircraft would be enormous. Factory space would have to be acquired and a building would have to be built cutting into production costs. And if the manufacturer was to reuse already existing factory space, couldn’t the location be better used for guaranteed profitable aircraft that have huge backlogs and guaranteed potential such as the Boeing 737, Airbus A320, Boeing 787, and Airbus A350.

Then there’s additional financing. The manufacturer would have to find funding from some investors that would likely not see much the airplane having much of a viable future.

Frequency is something that is valued in the aviation world. If frequency didn’t matter, then you’d see Airbus A380s flying daily, or more than daily between JFK and BOS since AA 737-800s, US E190s, DL A319s, 712s, and CR9s, and B6 A320s ply the route almost every hour of the working day. But business travelers are huge money makers-Businessmen prefer frequency so they can hop on a flight to their desired destination to meet an important client whenever they want, without the costs of flying and maintaining a private jet. You could hypothetically fill up an airplane at the magnitude that you are proposing, but that would be a huge inconvenience on business travelers. It’s not all about economy tourist passengers in the aviation world.

One of the reasons why BA hasn’t sent the A380 on its cash cow LHR-JFK route is because it would be too big to maintain the frequency that its passengers enjoy. Instead, it sends multiple 747s, a couple 777-200ERs, an occasional 777-300ER, and an A318 on weekdays. That is in addition to Virgin Atlantic’s multiple Boeing 747-400s, Airbus A340-600s, Delta’s 767-300ERs, AA 777-300ERs, and KUs Boeing 777-200ERs (Occasionally subbed for an Airbus A340-300 or Airbus A300-600). You sure could fly a crapton of Airbus A380s on that route, but do you see that happening? No.

Rant over.

2 Likes

Can you imagine how fricking big that is?

Don’t just throw around numbers-You have to take under consideration that the Antonov An-225 has a smaller wing than that. Folding the wings up on a plane with 350 ft. wingspan would take lots of power and the the mechanics to make that possible would increase the weight of the aircraft and make an already complex aircraft even more complex. It would have increased maintenance costs and increased places to maintain leading to higher costs due to the plane having to sit out of service for longer. To keep minimize keeping it on the ground for maintenance, you could hire more workers but that costs extra $. The hangar you’d have to put a 350 ft. wing in is enormous. Folding the wings up would require pushing the roof up to a high elevation. Lufthansa doesn’t put the tail of the A380 inside of its hangar for a reason.

Uhm… You might be happy that FDS put the GE90 on each 777.

Why only Boeing?
Every aircraft manufacturer is able to buy the General Electric GE90.
Just like the CFM56, it’s used on both the 737 and the A320.

What ever it more of a genral question not saying just boeing but i change it