Talk:General Electric YJ93

X279E / J-93 Rated for Mach 4?

I have a book written by Steve Pace which is about the XB-70 and I remember there was a part in the book when it was talking about the competition that lead to the XB-70 which included the B-804 and the XB-70 design. Regardless, it said that the engines the X279E (which was an earlier name for the J-93) were rated for Mach 4. I don't remember exactly what page it was on, but I am looking for the book...

Additionally I have heard other information to suggest that the J-91 and J-58 were designed to achieve the same top speeds as the J-93. Granted saying "I've heard" isn't exactly the best proof, but it does seem to be a commonly accepted fact that the J-91, and J-93 have the same performance in terms of maximum mach number. The J-58 was basically an 80% scaled down version of the J-91 and was also to have the same maximum mach number as the J-91. AVKent882 (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This document (AEDC-TR-73-132) says the maximum flight speed for the J93 was Mach 3.2. www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0766648Pieter1963 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

J93 and Boron Fuel

It is my understanding that the J93 was originally intended to exist in two forms. I forget the dash numbers, but essentially one version was supposed to be powered by a kerosene jet fuel (albeit higher performance than conventional JP-4), while the other variant was supposed to use a boron-based liquid fuel that offered more range and endurance. I'll have to take a look through the library tonight and see if I can flesh this out.--Voodude (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The combustion chamber was to use JP-4 initially, with the afterburner being able to use either JP-4 or ethyldecaborane or HEF-3. The fuel burned hotter and as a result was to offer a 20% boost in range when used in the engine's afterburner, it also had a higher flash point as well. Of course it had a number of side-effects, the most notable being that it was 5 to 10 times more toxic than cyanide, and it burned in contact with air. Predictably, the high-energy fuel program was cancelled. In the aftermath of this JP-6 was developed which had a higher flashpoint than JP-4 and also burned cleaner and may have produced a hotter flame too, as it did provide performance benefits over JP-4. AVKent882 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Electric YJ93. 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/20080724113441/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b58_9.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b58_9.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)