Difference between revisions of "Talk:J-33 "Wheesley" Turbofan Engine"
(I edited the discussion page regarding a change that may need to be made on the "Trivia" section of the main page) |
Lone Starr (talk | contribs) (→Info box request (Isp): new section) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
[[User:ParryLost|ParryLost]] ([[User talk:ParryLost|talk]]) 14:14, 10 August 2014 (CDT) | [[User:ParryLost|ParryLost]] ([[User talk:ParryLost|talk]]) 14:14, 10 August 2014 (CDT) | ||
:It turns out that if you pump sufficient intake air into [either of the jet engines], they will still run "properly" regardless of altitude. In this case "effectively" is subjective, because it is relative to how many air intakes you feel is reasonable. Additionally, their Isp is a function of thrust (please confirm), so again, with enough intake air, they operate at full "effectiveness". [[User:SGCam|SGCam]] ([[User talk:SGCam|talk]]) 08:31, 11 August 2014 (CDT) | :It turns out that if you pump sufficient intake air into [either of the jet engines], they will still run "properly" regardless of altitude. In this case "effectively" is subjective, because it is relative to how many air intakes you feel is reasonable. Additionally, their Isp is a function of thrust (please confirm), so again, with enough intake air, they operate at full "effectiveness". [[User:SGCam|SGCam]] ([[User talk:SGCam|talk]]) 08:31, 11 August 2014 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Info box request (Isp) == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Isp in the right-hand statistics box (which is auto-generated?) is still the old 9,600 (instead of the correct 10,500). | ||
Latest revision as of 11:43, 5 March 2017
Designation
"The designation “J-33 Wheesley” may be a reference to the real-life JT3D turbofan jet engine, also known as the TF33, made by U.S. aerospace company Pratt & Whitney which was involved with the Space Race." The J-33 designation is much more likely a reference to the General Electric/Allison J33, which powered some of the earliest operational jets like the P-80 Shooting Star (talk)
Effective Ceiling
"This engine cannot function effectively at a height of much more than 5 km"
I built a simple vertical-takeoff SSTO that uses three Basic Jet Engines to reach a height of about 15 km before switching to a rocket engine. This is a marginal case, so I'm not sure it disproves the above sentence -- which may be referring to the engine's optimal operating height... But still, is 5km maybe not giving the Basic Jet Engine enough credit? ParryLost (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2014 (CDT)
- It turns out that if you pump sufficient intake air into [either of the jet engines], they will still run "properly" regardless of altitude. In this case "effectively" is subjective, because it is relative to how many air intakes you feel is reasonable. Additionally, their Isp is a function of thrust (please confirm), so again, with enough intake air, they operate at full "effectiveness". SGCam (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2014 (CDT)
Info box request (Isp)
The Isp in the right-hand statistics box (which is auto-generated?) is still the old 9,600 (instead of the correct 10,500).
