Talk:Airbreathing jet engine

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Terminology

The second bullet point refers initially to N₁ and N_g, but then goes on to give an example of N_p. I would presume that this should have been N_g? Also, from a minor editing perspective should "N1" be N₁? Chalky (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

topic ?

Either the topic is combustive engines or it is jet engines consuming air. If it's the former, then nuclear power engines are offtopic (fair enough), if the latter, then they're on topic (again fair enough).

I don't really see how you can have it both ways, but please feel free to continue insulting and reverting out of hand anyone that makes any good-faith changes to the article.Rememberway (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If oxygen is burned then the engine is airbreathing. Binksternet (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a necessary condition or just a sufficient condition? We need a necessary condition. Is Project Pluto an airbreathing jet engine? If it isn't, fine take it out of the article, if it is, then the definition is wrong.Rememberway (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia article, not a propositional calculus. Its first task is to communicate, rather than to define. The sum of meaning deposited in the minds of readers afterwards is more valuable than any extra precision of meaning expressed unreadably. We should of course be precise and accurate, but language is inherently imprecise and attempting to make it strictly defining will just turn it into pedantic legalese. This is especially a risk in a lead paragraph!

We need a scope, a title, and a lead paragraph. Then content that meets the scope. "Airbreathing jet engine" isn't the most clear-cut (what about turboprops? what about turboprops with an appreciable exhaust thrust?) but it's still pretty clear that it will exclude rockets and will include ramjets and pulsejets. It doesn't need combustion, so nukes are in there too. So there we have it: a pretty clear scope, and a title that matches it. Now we need a lead. A lead that is understandable, and that communicates the scope of the article to a naive lay reader. This is not the place to introduce the nuke, or any other topic (HOTOL, SARBE) so equally esoteric. Yes, this means that the lead is less accurate and less precise. Whilst clearly not a desirable goal, this is still a worthwhile compromise to achieve a readable intro. A broadsheet newspaper is a far better role model than a legal statute book. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nice attitude, if you can't be bothered to put the effort in to write a good introduction, if you're going systematically insult and revert war back to a definition that you essentially admit is actually wrong, what the hell are you even doing here?Rememberway (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is that the definition is to be neither over broad, nor over narrow. You clearly are supporting a duff definition.Rememberway (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask if you've done this to any other articles? I just want to know otherwise we'll have to go through all your edits to sort them out as well.Rememberway (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

The total lack of sources in the article make it very difficult to verify the content being discussed here. Before moving forward, I suggest both of you put aside the current dispute and focus on including reliable sources to support your edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion!

I did not realize a third opinion request was filed... I have been watching this discussion but I have not inserted a comment. The basic definition of airbreathing jet engine may be one of those situations where the article must describe two or three definitions without saying that one of them is absolutely correct. Bringing expert sources to the article will show this guess of mine to be true or not. Do the experts differ significantly? Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J-58 combined ramjet/turbojet

I propose rewriting this section with credible references. Only one statement has a reference and that statement doesn't match the reference (variable geometry v fixed flow-vanes). If it did it would still be incorrect, perhaps because the reference is a translation from French and has some awkward wording.

None of the other statements are referenced and are, I believe after plumbing the depths of the internet as well as traditional texts, etc,incorrect.

What is 'largely a compressor-assisted ramjet'? What are the variable geometry vanes? What reference says 80%? Is Specific Impulse commonly used for comparing aero engines? What technical report/ paper/jet propulsion text uses, and hence defines, the term turbo-ramjet or combined ramjet/turbojet for this engine installation and which makes it applicable to this engine? Pieter1963 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Major components'

This section seems identical to that in the article "Components of jet engines". I don't think having the same stuff in more than one article is a good thing. If one gets improved the other loses out. Any ideas on how to control changes? If not I propose reducing the section to a shadow of its former self with its main strength being,of course, its reference to main article "Components of jet engines".Pieter1963 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is much shorter than the subarticle. It's absolutely and completely normal to have a summary here, and to have to keep the two in step. It is work to do so, but it's impossible to have two highly related articles like these to be completely independent.GliderMaven (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"..to have to keep the two in step. It is work to do so." I don't believe this is a professional procedure since they will never be in step and attempts to keep them so waste peoples' time. That is why it is not attempted in the professional world where the content of a document is important.

Re-instating the original version proves the point. Why not copy over the updated version from "Components of jet engines"?

'highly related articles like these to be completely independent". The use of a "main article" heading links them together and as such has great value in controlling content.

What are your suggestions on improving the section as now re-instated in "Airbreathing jet engines"?Best regardsPieter1963 (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is that each article has to be complete in and of itself, but they can vary in levels of detail.

It's not sensible to not have a section on the components, and I don't believe that a diagram on its own is nearly sufficient.

Although it's a nuisance to have to keep parts of Wikipedia agreeing with each other, that is and has always been the policy over at WP:subarticle. Whenever you have two articles that overlap or where an article has broken off due to size, that's what you have to do.GliderMaven (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will update with section from "C o j e".Thank you for your guidance.Pieter1963 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Thrust lapse"

As with the "Major components" section this one is a copy from article "Jet engine performance". The same issue arises with controlling changes so I propose taking out the detailed explanations and leaving a much shorter general comment.Pieter1963 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

current jet engines list

Hello, a table listing current jet engines would be a good thing for comparisons. A good basis would be the jet engines list from Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2005-2006 that I put in a table as I did in Turboprop#Current engines. The List of aircraft engines is too big with many piston engines and defunct engines. Where do you think this list would be more useful? in Turbofan, in Airbreathing jet engine, in a new List of jet engines or List of current jet engines? Or split the List of aircraft engines in propeller/jets, currrent/ancient? thanks for your interest --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page even exist?

Why isn't this merged with "jet engine"? I don't see anything on here that's not covered on there, what is here is very basic and disorganized, and I don't remember ever seeing a link to this page on any of the other pages on jet engines, either in general or specifically. They all link to jet engine, if not to a specific page such as turbojet or turbofan. I don't see how "air breathing jet" is sufficiently different to merit its own page...almost all this is covered on jet engine, and what isn't, is covered on turbojet and turbofan. IF it is going to stay, it could use a lot of work. I did some to the opening section before I realized that I was probably wasting my time..45Colt 06:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The broad definition of jet engine includes rockets and anything else that throws mass one way to generate propulsion the other way. Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am am aware of this. I just don't see why a separate page is necessary in the light of the fact that the page on jet engines (including rockets and everything) has more info on airbreathing jets than this page does. Since we already have a page for turbojet, turbofan, pulse jet, ramjet, etc, I don't see why this page is necessry. It's sole function appears to be to say that airbreathing jet engines are engines that breath air (and it didn't really say much about that), such as how they differ from rocket engines. Everything else is covered on other pages. Maybe if it gave less specific info about turbojets, etc, and limited itself to explaining the basics concepts of a airbreathing jet engine, it would make more sense. Although that info can be just as easily included as a section in jet engine, since the basics are simple, and also described on the pages for each jet engine. I mean, basically all that can be said on the subject is that rockets provide their own mass flow in their fuel, while airbreathing jets use air as the mass flow. Everything else is specific to each type of airbreathing jet engine..45Colt 09:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although now that I think about it, this could provide a handy place to compare turbjets and turbofans, etc, to avoid talking too much about turbofans on turbojet pages, etc..45Colt 09:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea to have two separate articles, although creep has somewhat blurred the distinction. The problem also highlights some of WP's regular problems: lack of consistent editorial direction and "anyone can edit".

We need two articles. One to cover "jet engines" (the things that fly in and out of Heathrow every day) and the over to cover "jet engines" (those that meet the straightforward definition). If the definition is "Airbreathing jet engine", then that implicitly include jet engines (the Heathrow sort) but also includes ramjets, pulsejets and nuclear-powered jets; although it does exclude rockets with on-board oxidisers. We need both these articles because one is there for completeness, one is there to actually be useful to the 99% of readers wanting too know how their holiday airliner works.

The difficulty is that WP is weak on maintaining editorial guidance for articles: Why articles written as one-offs by a single editor are often so much better than those from the "classic" wiki stone soup editing model. Even if one starts two articles and labels the talk pages "Keep this one just relevant to airliners" and the other as "This is a completist overview, don't dig into fine detail here, link onwards to other articles" then other editors will soon smear these together. After all, when Randy pops up and wants to add the Flatulent Air Kraken to jet propulsion, who can stop him? It is after all, "jet propulsion". Just look at the grief over the Coanda 1910 article.

Editors need to work more as editors, less as authors, and much less as authors of trivial unconnected factlets. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbreathing jet engine. 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/20100603225144/http://www.turbomachine.com/history/ to http://www.turbomachine.com/history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airbreathing jet engine. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C834721%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615104534/http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/tech_docs/JBIS_v57_22-32.pdf to http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/tech_docs/JBIS_v57_22-32.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]