Talk:General Electric GEnx

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Museum airplane with museum engines having museum thrust. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  thrust 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally bla
 This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done.  No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Partners 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Interchageability on 787 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NTSB link