Talk:Pratt & Whitney J58

message: I was never really happy with the stuff I did so will now improve on it. At the same time I'll compartmentalise and verify the other stuff.Pieter1963 (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-do my edits of Jan 2013

message: Unless someone can be specific about the primary sources and why they are not acceptable for this particular article I will delete the header.Pieter1963 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: This article relies on references to primary sources - flagged in 2014 

message: According to Jack Connors book the J58-P-4 was a non-afterburning version for the A3J. He says the correct designation for the Blackbird application was JT11D-20 so it's the specs for this one that are more relevant. I will modify.Pieter1963 (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Under Variants, the article now has : "JT11D-20 (J58-P-4) Production version for the SR-71." - Does that need correcting ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Specification of J58-P-4

message: This is a very popular statement but begs the question "In what way?"
What happens at high speed (M3.2?)that makes it like a turboramjet? It appears insightful but leaves the inquisitive reader hanging with no explanation.Pieter1963 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: moved cite 3 to powerplant section, deleted cite 4 as both statements on this topic are incorrect. Replaced previous statement with explanation using credible sources. Have not linked to turboramjet as the example given there is a very unique paper-only study which I don't think is helpful since the J58 is equally unique and will be explained in detail with its own section.Pieter1963 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: ... at high speed, sent air from after the first four rows of compressors straight to the afterburner section, making it a type of turboramjet

message: A request for additional citations needs to refer to specific sentences. Please provide same. Cheers.Pieter1963 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there are several paragraphs in the article that do not have a citation at the end or have no citations at all. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: All sections now seem to have citations so am removing the global notice. There is one para (Intake) with no citation eg for the M 0.4, so I put a cn on just that. - Rod57 (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations required

message: "The afterburning turbojet at Mach 3 and the J58 as a turboramjet" section seems poorly connected to the rest of the article.  To me the first 2 paragraphs now do not show a clear connection to the J58.  The last two paragraphs on the original J58 seems like background and as such should be combined with earlier info in the article instead of being repeated later, imo.  Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the section and relocated a small part of it. Further comments welcome.Pieter1963 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I didn't mean for so much to be deleted, but whatever you think is appropriate. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loosely connected section  

message: Did the J58 generate electrical power for the aircraft ? If so, was the generator part of the engine, or driven mechanically ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the SR-71 flight manual each engine drove a 60 kVA generator through a constant speed drive (which would be part of the accessory drive). A fairly common arrangement, I believe the B-52 used bleed air turbines to drive generators (prone to exploding in early models). In my experience of engine changes (Lightning, F-4 Phantom, Buccaneer)  any accessories like generators and hydraulic pumps would be removed and transferred to the replacement engine. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/print/1953380  This link has a more readable pdf attachment concerning the remote gearbox, originally to be a Lockheed design responsibility but swapped with the ejector nozzle which was originally P&W as part of the engine. So P&W did the gearbox and the nozzle became part of the airframe structure. After alot of gearbox mount and drive shaft wear it was found that the gearbox moved 4 inches relative to the engine which was fixed with a drive shaft with double universal joints.Pieter1963 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the J58 generate electrical power for the aircraft