Talk:Jet engine

message: We've just had an undiscussed and uncredited split of the thrust content. However this has moved it to Thrust, rather than a new article at Jet engine thrust. As thrust was a tiny article deserving vital article status as basic principle of physics, that's now a worse article than when the content was here.  If we're going to split, we should split; not just move to an equally bad location. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I readily confess that my choice of target may be poor. In the longer view I'm trying to make the present large article, and related ones, fit better with the suggestions in Wikipedia:Summary style. The material I moved is a detailed theoretical study of one important aspect of airbreathers, and I figured it should go into a theoretical article. Yes, moving a fraction of this large article will make a small article several times bigger. The main alternative target I was considering was the airbreather one, and perhaps that would be better, or maybe someone can suggest an even better one. I am entirely open to suggestions in that vein, though somewhat less open to any idea that none of the several large detail parts of this article properly belong in various more narrowly focused articles. Making a new article would be something of a last resort, as there are already many related articles that, to my eye at least, look undernourished. If an alternative is decided in a couple days, it will just be a case of undoing my two edits and doing the agreed move, followed by a bit of cleanup for redundancy or article layout or similar reasons. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Quicker than that. It is undone. I face an objection from an editor with an excellent track record, and for the thrust article an objection from a stranger with not quite the same concern. Those, together with a second reading of the moved material, were enough. Umm, wet thrust? Yes, I read that before moving it, but what was I thinking? This obscure detail doesn't belong in either of these broad articles. So, the choices narrow to finding a better existing home, or making a new article. Hmm, moving details to the particular kind of engine? Water injection, far as I know, is only for Fighter planes and not many of those. I shall look into that article, and Turbojet and maybe someone can make a better suggestion and save me from surrendering and accepting a new article. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Hee-hee. Should have checked Water injection (engine) before showing my ignorance. Wet is old, rarely used anymore and was even a feature in an airliner designed in the 1960s. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not time for a compromise. It's time for me to surrender unconditionally, having failed to find an alternative existing home, or to be rescued by a smarter editor who agrees with me, and I am sorry for the delay. Incidentally I am surprised at how many decades have passed since I paid much attention to developments in aircraft engines. Anyway,  you seem to have exactly the right idea, so I propose that you go ahead and do the honor of creating a new article from the section. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article? 

message: Why does the lede say, "This, combined with greatly decreased fuel consumption, permitted routine transatlantic flight by twin-engined airliners by the turn of the century, where before a similar journey would have required multiple fuel stops?" This seems to be confusing two entirely different issues. Aircraft had sufficient endurance to fly trans-Atlantic non-stops many decades before twins were allowed to fly the routes in passenger service. Fuel consumption had nothing to do with why twins weren't flying trans-Atlantic passenger routes until the 1980s. Twins weren't allowed to fly those routes even with fuel stops. The requirement was that they remained within 60 minutes flying time of an airport to which they could divert in the event of an engine failure.
If there had been airports close enough to each other such that they could have legally flown across the Atlantic with stops at those airports, then they could have equally legally just flown over those airports without stopping. As jet engines became more reliable, ETOPS began gradually increasing the flying time radii within which twins were required to remain from a possible diversion airport until trans-Atlantic and then trans-Pacific legs became legal. Vbscript2 (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ETOPS discussion in lede 

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