Which planes engine is better?

Ok...a good answer for this won't come in few words:

Lets start from the basics.

The B747-400 comes with a choice of 3 engines. The airlines have to chose between Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and Rolls Royce. Each of those makes several types of engines for this aircraft. Many of them are fitted on other aircraft, like 767's, Tristars, etc, so you cannot call them "747 engines". That would not be correct, since they are designed by separate manufacturers from Boeing and are sold to any aircraft manufacturer to fit them on their aircraft.

The full variants are:

Pratt & Whitney PW-4056; 4060; 4062

General Electric CF6-80-C2B1F; C2B1F1; C2B7F

Rolls Royce RB-211-524G; 524H; 524G/H-T

All variants are good and all along the late 50 000 to early 60 000lbs of thrust. The RB-211 is very popular and is in use on a number of other aircraft including the Boeing 767. The PW and GE engines are of the Twin Spool design, whilst the RB-211 is a triple spool, which sometimes can cause a few more headaches, since its a more complicated design. The PW-4062, at 62 000lbs of thrust is the most powerful.

Before we look into the A380, please note that the 747-400 first started testing over 17 years ago and all three of the engines which can power it are actually even older than that. Some go back to the 60's!!! As great as they are, they are getting older!

Now lets consider the A380

When the plans were drawn Airbus had decide on any current engine available on the market. No such engine was available, able to power the enormous aircraft, so Rolls Royce and the now united General Electric-Pratt & Whitney, started work on totally new models, to meet the demand. Earlier I said that there is no such thing as purpose built engines, but rather they are built for a few aircraft manufacturers. Well thats almost not the case here. Or at least at the beginning it wasnt, since both those engine manufacturers were building them specifically for the A380 and merely hoping that another aircraft manufacturer will eventually approach them with a big enough aircraft and they can supply them too. Maybe that will be the Boeing 747-8!

But back to the topic, here are the A380's engines:

Rolls-Royce Trent 900

General Electric-Pratt & Whitney (better known as Engine Aliiance) GP-7200

The Trent 900 is a trully magnificent Engine and it is huge too! It is already in operation with Singapore Airlines on the A380 and has gone through a thorough test program. I am sure the GP-7200 is fantastic too, but there are still things to be ironed out with it and it would be fair to say, it is by far the less popular of the two. The A380's engines can provide anything between 70 000 and 84 000lbs of thrust, which is greater than the 747's powerplants, but its also a bigger aircraft.

So which is better?

You have to consider that you are comparing engines from completely different eras! The ones on the 747's were produced over 20 years ago, whilst the A380's benefit from the latest technology.

I much prefer Boeing over Airbus, but am also being fair and realistic. The 747-400 is getting old, as much as we might love it! Its engines are too. There are much improved technologies out there today.

So without a doubt and strictly overall speaking, the A380 operates more efficient and cost effective powerplants than the 747-400.

Your other question was about the aircraft themselves. Which one is better? Well a very simillar scenario unfolds. The one is simply a new generation airliner and cannot be compared to the other. The 747-400 is by far my favourite aircraft. 747's in general absolutely revolutionised air travel. For almost 40 years the 747 has been the queen of the skies and it has earned its place in aviation history. But when the queen gets old soomeone else has to step up. I wouldn't quite say the A380 is the new queen of the skies. Such class takes lots of time! Time will tell if it will have such a revolutionary effect on air travel...personally, with all these low cost airlines and rapid development already in progress, I really doubt it!

But without doubt the A380 is a better aircraft than the 747-400. They are not quite in the same class but can still be compared. Anyone who disagrees with that is either a delusional boeing fan, a fanatical airbus hater or simply has no clue!

No more needs to be said. The Boeing 747 is the greatest aircraft ever made, but the A380, benefits from the latest technology and is a better aircraft overall!

The 747-8 should compete nicely against the A380 and if you had asked me to compare those, I think at the moment it would be too close to call!

Here is some info on the aircraft:

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=100

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380

Here is some info on the enines in use for the 747-400:

http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/Certifica...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW4...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_CF6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB211

And here is simillar info for the A380 engines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_900

http://www.enginealliance.com/gpintro.html

747 engines. lets think if the a380 engines are supposed to be so "powerful" why can the airbus a380 land on only a select few airports in the united states when the 747 can land at almost all of the reasonably big airports. i do know the a380 is a lot bigger than the 747 but if airbus wants to compete with Boeing the engines should be powerful. a con about the 747 is they are noisy. i love noisy engines such as the 717 or MD80 (that's me) but what airline is going to buy a aircraft with a noisy engine? most people wont sit Thu a annoying engine sound for 9-12 hours

The A380 has more powerful and technologically advanced engines. The 747s engines use too much fuel.

The 380 may be too expensive and is too big to land at many airports. No way the 380 will even come close to being as successful as the 747

Both are good is more of a marketing thing. As far engines, Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney and GE makes excellent powerplants. This types of transports are not like cars. Both are very reliable, if not, who will fly on some that might fall from the sky? Usually sales are driven by a numbers of things. Some are leased Airplanes with leased Engines. Is about who gives the best ground support, easier turn around, low operational cost. An Airplane on the ground loose money, so you want it back in the air ASAP. If you have engine problems, is not Boeing / Airbus problems, since the engine all together has a Tech Representative from the manufacturer.

As far better or worst.... both are the same.

This question is not like what is better, Chevy, Chrysler or Ford... is a different business altogether.

You don't have the right to tell people not to answer your question. As far as reliability and proven performance the 747 wins hands down. To the person who said GE ran one of their engines in China for 2 years...I will be looking that one up. I worked for Boeing and knew rep's from all the engine suppliers and never heard any such story.

The performance figures you're asking about are unique to each make/model, not just single or twin in general, just as range and top speed for two cars can't be determined based just on both having a V-6 engine. However, twins can do more of just about everything than singles can, just as V-12 engines for the most part can do more than V-6's For kicks... STUDENT PILOT'S GUIDE TO RENTING TWIN ENGINE AIRCRAFT: Range on full tanks: Far enough to make your bank account wish you wouldn't find your way home. Top speed: Faster than you can swipe your credit card and start punching zeros. Max Altitude: [credit limit] x 1.3 (Pardon me if that was lame, it's getting late)

well the ge 90 was put on a testbed and ran 2 years nonstop being fed with continous fuel and oil over in china after 2 years it was shut down and little wear was shown, So its really not about the planes themselves its about the engines,

Rolls made a tremendous engine prior to there fincial setbacks the l-10-11 rolled right along with little problems for the day..

Pratt and whitney made extrodinary engines for great aircraft from the 727 to 747. but overall and age durbility it has been pratt and whitney,, the ge 90 hasnt been around long enough to say its as reliable as the ge

According to the report i herd in the TV from a airbus representative the A380 has more powerfull engines than the B747 and is use around 1/3 less fuel than the B747. The maximum takeoff weight for the A380 is 1.3 to 1.5lbs million as to the B747 is just around 880k lbs. and thanks to the weight of the A380 they need to re-enforce the taxiways at the airports.

P.S. I was at JFK for the first arrival of the A380, and i saw it take off, in around 15secs. the plane was airborne.

the Boeing 747 engine is better if you want power economy and reliability, but it also costs more. I'm not to sure about airbus a380 but i don't know very much about airplanes.

i don't know any sites that will give you any info you want so go ahead and try http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/74...

it includes graphs of everything.

747