Talk:Ramjet

message: Put this link to the article? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duHJjcMAoWM&feature=related 84.56.62.55 (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Random YouTube videos don't usually go in articles as reliable sources. The view count looks sus 🙄 184.69.159.242 (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saying, that comment is a decade and a half old :P    Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Youtube

message: Article needs more information about Stechkin, who worked out the theory of the ramjet with compressible fluid flow and supersonic flow.  That work was widely acclaimed at the time, and prompted Crocco's famous paper on "Superaviation". DonPMitchell (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stechkin 

message: The J58 at M3.2 is classified in authoritative sources as an afterburning turbojet (http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2013/SR-71PropulsionSystem-2013.pdf)
or a turbojet with bleed air recovery (US Patent 3,344,606)
or a turbojet with afterburner and compressor bleed bypass at high Mach (Flight Manual)
I have deleted the J58 from this ramjet article as I believe the statement "act as turbojet-assisted ramjets at high speeds (Mach 3.2)" is misleading and unhelpful without some explanation of how and why which of necessity would be a somewhat personal viewpoint, perhaps only for the serious thinker.User:Pieter1963|Pieter1963]] (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the J58 (in SR-71) is often described as operating like a ramjet - it might be worth saying briefly why it is not considered a ramjet (eg. not all the compressor stages are bypassed, the turbine always operates ...) ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me try that. "is often described as operating like a ramjet" Do you have any examples?  Cheers.Pieter1963 (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

text:  The problem with the ramjet association is that the author may be delusional or insightful. Since they rarely explain why they use the term you don't know which they are.Pieter1963 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Added explanation.Pieter1963 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: J58 deleted - not a ramjet

message: I rate this as a below average article for Wikipedia. look at the table of contents - then overall the article. Mixed in are some short paragraphs/ phrases tha read like they might be section headers- but are not marked as such in per table of contents. Also look at the structure of the table of contents, use of subsections.  Content on its own for the article seems pretty good but headings/ structure gives article a poor feel. Wfoj3 (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article style / layout / table of contents 

message: History section is mainly split by nation. It might be more helpful to organise it chronologically ? Any reason not to ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout of history section

message: Nowhere is it stated where the name comes from.  Neutron Jack (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: CAN-TYPE COMBUSTOR DESIGN FOR A LOW COST SUBSONIC RAMJET ENGINE may be a useful source re subsonic ramjets. - Rod57 (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old source on flame stabilisation in subsonic ramjets 

message: The two sections : Aircraft using ramjets, and Missiles using ramjets could be easier to use if they were tables. But what columns to add ? Maybe dates, engines, ranges, max speed, and a comment (eg for launch method) ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert lists into useful tables  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion