This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Turbojet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For a time, some turbojet engine designs included the ability to inject water onto the engine to cool the exhaust in these cases. This was particularly notable because of the huge amounts of smoke that would pour out of the engine when it was turned on.
Is this "smoke" in fact steam formed due to the evaporation of injected of water onto the turbine blades, or was it smoke due to some other factor? -- Abqwildcat 23:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Generally speaking, for aspirated engines at lower altitudes the previous statement holds true, but the mass of the fuel must also be considered. Regardless of whether we're talking rockets or jet engines, it's simply the change in momentum that either produces thrust, or creates a net drag. When considered as a system, including all the air drug forward by the aircraft, at a constant velocity, the net momentum of the total mass of air through with the jet, airplane, or helicopter flies through will have a net change in momentum along the direction of flight of zero, but will have a negative change in momentum along the verticle plane. It's than downward increase in momentum which holds the airplane up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugaliens ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 15 August 2006
The article states that the ME-262 was Germany's first jet fighter. It actually was the HE-280. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.201.236 ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 5 February 2007
Please clarify the definitions of each term under "Net thrust". Fuzzform 02:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The statement comparing the fuel expenditure of the Concorde to an aircraft using a turbofan is true, but misleading. The TSFC of the Olympus 593 on the Concorde was around 1.9 compared to around 1.1 for a General Electric CF-6 series. That is, the engine on the Concorde needed more fuel for the same amount of push per second as a turbofan. The statement on fuel per mile is true, since the Concorde was traveling twice as fast while doing this. However, the wing design is optimized for speed over lift, so it cannot carry as much weight. This is analogous to saying a Corvette is more efficient than a city bus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven.i.davis ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The accidental deployment of a thrust reverser during flight is a dangerous event that can lead to loss of control and destruction of the aircraft.
It's nice to see that the Lauda B767 is remembered, but does in-flight reverser deployment happen often enough that a broad statement such as this is warranted, or might it be better if the Lauda incident was more directly acknowledged? 59.167.244.69 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC) PWA flight 314 crashed in Cranbrook, BC after touching down, they noticed a vehicle on the runway and went around. The left hand thrust reverser did not stow, and the aircraft rolled over and crashed. /info/en/?search=Pacific_Western_Airlines_Flight_314 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.240.26 ( talk) 20:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a nice article, pity it doesn't have inline citations and more references. -- Colputt 17:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
In this Article they state that Albert Fonó's patent was the first: Albert Fonó MarkMT42 ( talk) 02:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Might be worth mentioning the work of Arkhip Mikhailovich Lyulka in the Soviet Union, in the late 1930s. His experimental jet engines figured prominantly in the History Channel's documentary on "Secret Russian Aircraft of World War II". His work was not given appopriate resources by the Soviets, who prefered rocket and ramjet technology in the 1930s. DonPMitchell ( talk) 00:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There are "toy" jet engines available, eg Jet Cat USA and Wren Turbines UK that develop between 5 and 50 lbs thrust, available in turbojet, turboprop and turboshaft configurations for radio controlled planes and helicopters. See a functional description here. Is it appropriate to mention these in the Jet Engine articles? Chalky ( talk) 05:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
How the heck can nozzle temperature remain the same whilst turbine temperature increases? The statement makes absolutely no sense! The purpose of increasing the compression ratio is to correspondingly increase the burn rate of the fuel... a higher compression ratio allows the engine to burn more fuel at any given time or to run more efficiency. Combustor inlet temps have little to do with nozzle temps, or even turbine temps for that matter - this is because combustor inlet temps are much, much lower than outlet temps and the net transfer is low. That said, compressed, pre-combusted air that's used to cool the nozzle, will invariably become less effective at higher temps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.67.97 ( talk) 07:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Currently trying to address "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia". Pieter1963 ( talk) 19:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Please review my attempt at improving the style as requested..with a view to removing the"style improvement" header. Pieter1963 ( talk) 01:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a technojizzforum. So please can we have an explanation that folks without PhDs can understand, of the difference between turbofan and turbojet. Rcbutcher ( talk) 07:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jet engine.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 11, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-08-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The article has the following quote-
"At the time of its design the turbojet was still seen as the optimum for cruising at twice the speed of sound despite the advantage of turbofans for lower speeds. For the Concorde less fuel was required to produce a given thrust for a mile at Mach 2.0 than a modern high-bypass turbofan such as General Electric CF6 at its Mach 0.86 optimum speed."
- This needs clarification. As it's written it suggests that the Concorde was more fuel efficient than a modern turbofan airliner. I can believe that Concorde achieved better mileage than a 747, for instance, but not that it achieved better passenger miles per gallon, which is what airlines are concerned with when choosing planes.
Confusion as to what is being claimed may arise because Concorde has been retired for some time now, and never had many passengers. A casual Wiki user might not know that a 747 seats four or five times the number that Concorde did. If indeed its passenger MPG was lower, then that's an amazing fact and should be cited. If it's simply a comparison of total fuel consumption, that's a bit like saying an old Chevy Corvette with a 7 liter engine uses less fuel per mile than a modern bus; it may be technically true, but is a bit misleading.
2602:306:39BC:1129:17F:F8C4:7F10:8739 ( talk) 08:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Turbojets seem to be used as backup in power plants. It is a cheap oil turbine easy to start and fast to connect to the network. (Engie Electrabel in Belgium in the news these days.) Is there literature on this in general? It would be then worth mentioning in the page. -- Dominique Meeùs ( talk) 07:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The article says: The turbine exhaust is then expanded in the propelling nozzle where it is accelerated to high speed to provide thrust. I would think that expansion would slow down the exhaust gases, not speed them up. Gah4 ( talk) 00:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
What does the noise depend on, thrust, rpm, exhaust velocity ... ? How is it controlled ? - Rod57 ( talk) 12:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)