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)
m (UmbralRaptor moved page Talk:J-33 "Wheesley" Basic Jet Engine to Talk:J-33 "Wheesley" Turbofan Engine: Engine was renamed.)
Revision as of 17:38, 17 January 2016
"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)
"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)