Talk:Europrop TP400

message: :Image:Europrop.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Europrop.png

message: This was on a C-130K on December 17 2008, according to 
http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?id=7012&siteSection=1
and ought to be mentioned. 
86.181.119.232 (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First flight 

message: It states: "...output can be up to 100 kNm (6840 Ft-Lb) of torque...". One of these numbers is wrong, 100 KNm = 73756 lb*ft and 6840 lb*ft = 9273 Nm.
I do not know which one of these is right so I will not correct the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.44.254 (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The 100 kNm is there or thereabouts so the 6840 lb ft has been deleted 109.145.109.91 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torque Rating 

message: How can one have a turbine with an intermediate compressor but no low pressure compressor? The entire meaning of "intermediate" is that is'the stage between two other stages. If it was because it was pressuring air to a greater extent than a typical low-pressure compressor or less than a hi-pressure compressor, "medium" compressor would be more appropriate. But I don't believe that's why it's called that. I think someone decided to call it "intermediate pressure" because it happens to be on the same spool as the intermediate turbine. If it was a 3-spool turbofan, it would be completely correct to call it the "intermediate compressor", but it's not. The Low-pressure turbine is driving the prop, which doesn't count as a compression stage. So to be accurate, the intermediate turbine is driving the low-pressure compressor, and the hi-pressure turbine is driving the hi-pressure compressor. They don't need to correspont with their partners, the name is actually descriptive of what the the compressor (or turbine) actually IS. Calling it "intermediate" because it's on the same stage as the intermediate turbine is as bad as calling aftercoolers "intercoolers" (but in a different way)
Idumea47b (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Intermediate pressure"? 

message: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Europrop_TP400
In wikiwand the heading "Specification" is coming after the contents of the section.Ahmed Afif Khan 14:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiwand is a click-bait site leeching off of the hard work of Wikipedians to make money, none of which they offer back to poor (literally in my case) editors! Frankly if there was a way to cause more issues like that, I'd certainly be for it! I don't know what the technical issue is here in this case, but it's really none of our concern. I don't think we could fix it from here anyway. - BilCat (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Specifications" heading comes after the specifications in wikiwand. 

message: <
The HPC has six total stages, with four of them as fixed stages (blisks),[37] and the other two as variable stages
>
A fixed stage and a blisk are not the same thing. A variable stage can have a blisk. Ref. 37 (Interavia 2003)needs rereading.
86.145.9.127 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that it is confusing and possibly incorrect, it is usually the outer stator blades that are variable, not the inner, rotating, compressor blades. The text was added in this edit by User:D271l. I have no access to the source cited so can't verify. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 05:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the source text, from a passage that describes the various OEMs' work shares: "Rolls-Royce is taking an HP compressor with two variable and four fixed (blisk) stages, developed from the latest Trent models, and from the partly EU-funded ANTLE programme." D271l (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That, to me, is also confusing. The MTU data sheet describes an HPC variable stator actuator. From the Rolls-Royce text I would have to assume that the first two stages have variable stator blades with rotating discs that have individual blades and that the rear four stage stators are not variable but the discs are one-piece blisks. If text is unclear or ambiguous and can't be clarified with another source or drawing/image then it should be left out until it can be clarified. An alternative is to tag the text with one of the templates in this category though they generally clutter articles and are rarely resolved. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed mention of the blisk. If I ever find a source that better explains exactly which stages are implemented as blisks, I will add it back. D271l (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  HPC confusion