The second guy's right, engines aren't fast, the plane is. If by "fast" you mean powerful, here it is straight from GE's website.
In the early 1990s, GE developed the GE90 turbofan engine to power the large, twin-engine Boeing 777. The GE90 family, with the baseline engine certified on the 777 in 1995, has produced a world's record steady-thrust level of 122,965 pounds. To honor this achievement, the GE90-115B was recently named "the world's most powerful jet engine" by the Guinness Book Of World Records. The latest GE90, the GE90-115B, has the world's largest fan (128 inches), composite fan blades, and the highest engine bypass ratio (9:1) to produce the greatest propulsive efficiency of any commercial transport engine.
2007-01-01 02:26:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by JET_DOC 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, not possible. The cones in front of the engines on the SR-71 were used to slow the airflow into the engine to subsonic speeds. Looked what happened to the X-15 during one of its high speed flights. First video records some of the damage after a Mach 6.7 speed run. Aircraft was made from a nickel alloy called Inconel. Note how much of the aircraft received heat damage. No, there will not be a need for a fighter to hit speeds of Mach 6 or faster.
2016-03-28 22:59:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jana 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
the SR-71's ram jet (see above)
even aircraft that go supersonic need subsonic air at the compressor blades for the engines to operate. There are different methods of slowing the air down, but that is a major limitation to the turbo jet / turbo fan design. I think a ram jet needs subsonic air as well but uses the shockwave for compression rather than compressor blades. However I'm not positive.
2007-01-01 05:06:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by three_man_riot 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The record just changed
Pegasus booster rocket ignites to send the X-43A on its record setting flight on Nov. 16, 2004. NASA photo
It's Official. X-43A Raises the Bar to Mach 9.6
Guinness World Records recognized NASA's X-43A scramjet with a new world speed record for a jet-powered aircraft - Mach 9.6, or nearly 7,000 mph. The X-43A set the new mark and broke its own world record on its third and final flight on Nov. 16, 2004.
ATK-GASL (formerly Microcraft, Inc.) at Tullahoma, Tenn., and Ronkonkoma, N.Y., built the X-43A aircraft and the scramjet engine,
[which is a form of ram jet requiring acceleration to high speed before fuel is entered.]
In March 2004, the X-43A set the previous record of Mach 6.8 (nearly 5,000 mph). The fastest air-breathing, manned vehicle, the U.S. Air Force SR-71, achieved slightly more than Mach 3.2. The X-43A more than doubled, then tripled, the top speed of the jet-powered SR-71.
The J58 (also JT11D-20A but NOT J-58) engine was developed in the 1950s by Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division of United Aircraft Corporation to meet a U.S. Navy requirement. The engine was designed to operate for extended speeds of Mach 3+ and at altitudes of more than 80,000 ft.
2006-12-28 13:40:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mike1942f 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The B230F in the 1990-1993 Volvo 240.
2006-12-28 13:00:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ryan 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, technically all engines are inert. They do not move except when attached to a plane. The PLANE moves and they move as a part of the plane.
With that said, prob. the current crop of warplanes have the fastest speeds. But I doubt that you are going to get the statistics from the govenrment for some security reason.
2006-12-28 12:57:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by ca_surveyor 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well the fastest is the scramjet engine which can fly very fast they dont have them in operational jets yet. The SR-71 uses a combination turbo/ ramjet and it holds most of the jet aircraft speed records.
2006-12-28 19:19:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by jawbertsc 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think concorde is the fastest engine aircraft in the world, which can bring you only less then 4 hours to go from London to NY
2006-12-28 20:57:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by mhzqrs88 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Pratt & Whitney.
2006-12-28 12:56:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The one on the concorde, i presume.
2006-12-28 13:00:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋