Talk:Gas turbine

message: Thanks Wizzy for finding Brayton cycle.  From my talk page, Wizzy suggests; 
:"please put all theory discussion on one page, take anything but overviews off the other pages, with prominent links on those pages to that page, so nobody is tempted to start all over again. Then all improvements happen in one place, as opposed to bad rehashes all over the place."
What do other people think? Where should Brayton cycle reside (it is only applicable to gas turbines), and should some of the theory on the Jet engine page be moved to Gas turbine?  See Wizzy's comments at the end of Talk:Jet_engine
At the least, Brayton cycle needs a T-S and P-V diagram with graphical representations of shaft power and efficiency.  I'll try to make these graphics.
Pud,  09:18, 8 Jun 2004 (PST)
Thanks User:Duk for a great graphic. I think there has been some great work done on this page. Wizzy 22:41, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brayton Cycle 

message: I removed the Quasiturbine edit, it has its own page, is a positive displacement engine and doesn't belong on this page.  Duk 06:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quasiturbine 

message: I've reverted a bunch of edits by 65.248.1.80 to this and various other turbine pages;
# foil bearing vs. air bearing, self explanitory, see relevent patents and literature... foil bearing is the correct term. 
# Micro turbine vs. MicroTurbine®, anon editor keeps changing the term to the capstone tradmarked version. I keep changing it back to the non-trademarked version.
# 65.248.1.80 duplicated the micro turbine section as its own article and re-wrote it to sound like a sales brosure for capstone (example- capstone inveted micro turbines (not true)). I changed to re-direct back here.
This page still reads like an advert, can we have a diagram of a turbine which doesn't mention a company ? PeterGrecian
:Yes, you may edit the captions to be more neutral (there is no requirement for these images that the companies be mentioned).--Duk 16:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capstone turbines

message: I removed the external links to turbine manufacturers. Their websites are not useful for someone who wants to know how turbines work. They are only useful for someone who wants to buy a turbine. The only information about gas turbines that they have is the features of their products. If the idea is to tell readers who the major manufacturers are, it can be done in the article without links. For example, it could say: GE, Solar Turbines, Siemens, Mitsubishi... are the largest manufacturers of gas turbines. The links were essentially an advertisement and people kept adding links to their company or a company from their part of the world. I also removed the link to the decentralized energy website, as that is not what the article is about and the website is focused on making a case for decentralized energy, not how the technology works. -- Kjkolb 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, unlinked company names are okay but corporate website links are not. KyuzoGator 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links to manufacturers 

message: I removed some images. The first two didn't have any useful information and the group as a whole was unformatted. --Duk 15:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed images 

message: In section 10.2 (commercial maritime gas turbines) the claim is made that GTS Finnjet was the the first large vessel to use gas turbines for main propulsion in 1977.
In fact, before that date, there had been a number of experiments in which gas turbines were used on seagoing commercial vessels. The earliest of these experiments may have been the Shell tanker "Aurus"  (Anglo Saxon Petroleum) - circa 1949.
Between 1970 and 1982  the container company  "Seatrain" operated a scheduled container service across the North Atlantic with four 26000 tonne dwt. container ships. Those ships were fitted with twin Prat & Whitney gas turbines which were broadly similar to the type of engine subsequently fitted in GTS Finnjet.
The four Seatrain container ships were named  Euroliner, Eurofreighter, Asialiner and Asiafreighter. They were employed continuously on a regular container service between ports on the eastern seaboard of the United States and ports in north west Europe for a number of years before GTS Finnjet was built.  
However, like GTS Finnjet, they began to experience difficulty with rising fuel costs following the dramatic OPEC price increases of the mid-nineteeen seventies. The engine systems on the Seatrain ships were modified to permit the burning of a lower grade of fuel ( standard marine diesel ). These modifications were partially successful insofar as it was proved that this grade of fuel could be used in a marine gas turbine, but the savings made were less than anticipated due to increased maintenance requirements. After 1982 the ships were sold, then re-engined with more economical diesel engines. Because the new engines were much larger, there was a consequential loss of some cargo space.  
Jim Fowler  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.60 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go aheas and edit the article correctly. The additions about Finnjet were made based on information I had at the time and did not know about the Transatlantic GTS freighters. The Finnjet would probably still deserve a mention as the first passenger-carrying gas turbine -powered ship (and of course the first ferry). -- Kjet 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Golden Gate Ferry put into service the MS Marin, a gas turbine powered passenger ferry, six months before the GTS Finnjet. I can't find a reference for when it was laid down but would assume it was prior to the Finnjet. The page for the Finnjet does state that it was the first gas turbine powered car ferry; the MS Marin is a passenger-only ferry. Philip F. Spaulding, the naval architect for the MS Marin, has a referencehttp://goldengate.org/news/ferry/MSMarinBack.php on his page to an article that state's the service date of the MS Marin. . --173.164.165.242 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: GTS Finnjet correction

message: I've moved the information of the use of gas turbines in tanks from that article to this one as part of a clean-up of tank. I hope that you agree that this a better home for it and accept this (sometimes poorly written / formatted) text in your excellent article. Dhatfield (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tank]] use information

message: The history section seems to be mostly about steam turbines, and doesn't mention many major historical events for gas turbines.  What about the Armengaud-Lemale engine?  What about Holzwarth and Stodola?  Theory is missing almost entirely -- dissociation, diluted combustion, etc. DonPMitchell (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See History_of_the_internal_combustion_engine. Wizzy…☎ 20:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I am missing Thomas Edison in the list of inventors. He was the first who developed a working gas turbine. --84.141.38.204 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The intro has experienced some creep since this revision. Duplication, rambling, and I think the following phrase isn't quite right; The heated air with or without products of combustion is expanded in a turbine resulting in work output, a substantial part, about two-thirds, of which is used to drive the compressor.; what about the waste heat? --Duk 05:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: revised intro per above. --Duk 19:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: A gas turbine is different from a combustion turbine. A combustion turbine is a gas turbine that uses combustion. A compressed gas turbine is a gas turbine that uses compressed gas (i.e. compressed air).--147.84.132.44 (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, but unhelpful. "Gas turbine" has an accepted common use (so common I'm not even going to spell it out) and a "non-combustion turbine" is the minor form that warrants disambuiguation, if any. Go and write it if you like, it's a good topic for an article, but it doesn't belong under gas turbine, as that particular name. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

text: As an expansion of that, there's a thermodynamic reason why "gas turbine" has become synonymous with combustion turbines. I note that you've been adding See alsos to Compressed air engine. Yet compressed air alone is a very minor part of the gas turbine picture. They're used where their compactness and power density is useful, not because they're especially efficient as major power producers. The reason is that compressing air alone doesn't make for an effective turbine - there's not enough energy density in the working fluid. It works for water because liquids are denser. It works for steam turbines and combustion turbines because there's heat energy in the working fluid too (and this heat becomes useful work in the turbine). For a simple unheated compressed gas though, it's marginal and fundamentally limited to remaining so too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas turbine and combustion turbine 

message: Mini Turbines are finding new applications in self-launching gliders. Would like to see a picture and a little text to go with it. These mini turbines are stowed after takeoff and the glider then glides.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.133.206.2 (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gliders - Self Launched 

message: I would love to hear which city is located in two countries. Apart from that, numbers below 10 should be written as words, and the space between 'Baltimore' and the comma is extraneous. SeverityOne (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buses 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:BTOLA.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: I have an issue with the words in the second paragraph of the introduction where it says "The products of the combustion are forced into the turbine section." because of the use of "forced". The products of the combustion flow into the turbine section section because the arrangement of the combustion-ducts creates a lower pressure at the face of the turbine compared with that of the compressor outlet end. Using forced in this context is misleading. Lin (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic theory issue with gas flow

message: The main image showing the gas turbine variations is great but they need to be numerated so they can be properly referenced in the description.
: Image author here. Can do! Should I also remove the top item (ie. the useless gas turbine alone)? That was a difficult decision to make when drawing the image. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please remove the top engine - no power output does seem a waste in an otherwise excellent diagram. Also, could the turbo-shaft be shown to accommodate both electric power generation and connection to helicopter rotors, ship propellers and ground vehicle traction (e.g. tanks). Perhaps just the shaft going to the right with a rotation arrow around it and possibly with the shaft coming from a second turbine.  Stepho  talk  14:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done (removed principle item and numbered the rest). We cannot do everything in one drawing, however. I did not include a rotor or other accessories because it clutters the drawing very quickly. A sectioned shaft can also easily mislead (it’s hard to convey the fact that this extra shaft carries power and requires a turbine extension compared to the turbojet case). The same goes for multiple-spool / free turbine configurations. These can all be explored in separate diagrams but wanting to put too much in there will kill the purpose. If the article starts improving I will spend the time needed to make those extra diagrams. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks.  Stepho  talk  09:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Main image

message: Hi All, while researching the advancement in Gas Turbines, the article http://www.hcltech.com/sites/default/files/CFD_for_Aero_Engines.pdf provided great insights into Computational Fluid Dynamics for the analysis and design of components  in aerospace industry. I have added the link as a reference. The articles is an unbiased take on the potential of the CFD tools and application of it to various aerospace problems.Vedanga Kumar (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say much though, does it?  It paraphrases as "Lots of CFD is used to design gas turbines. It's a big-money market. We're not going to explain further."  I can see this as a reference, should anyone challenge the claim "CFD is used". I couldn't see it as meeting WP:EL though, as there just isn't any depth to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD EL 

message: This sentence struck me as odd/inaccurate: "In its most extreme form, amateurs have even rebuilt engines beyond professional repair and then used them to compete for the Land Speed Record." There's no citation for an example of amateurs having done that, but mostly I'm skeptical of the claim that something that is beyond professional repair has somehow not escaped the limits of amateur capability.
Intrepidus (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a well-known story, loads of sources for it.  Art Arfons' J79 for Green Monster.  A Starfighter ate a rock and the engine went for scrap. Rather than rebuilding the damaged blades, Arfons simply rearranged the ones left to balance it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the engine was beyond economic repair for its original application but an amateur rebuilt it anyway in modified form for a new application.  Stepho  talk  23:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur gas turbine section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gas turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150214173822/http://www.ichpa.com/CHP_in_Ireland/Prime_Movers.php to http://www.ichpa.com/CHP_in_Ireland/Prime_Movers.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130603100035/http://www.bladonjets.com:80/news/bladon-jets-wins-tsb-award to http://www.bladonjets.com/news/bladon-jets-wins-tsb-award/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gas turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071016062506/http://www.soton.ac.uk:80/~ge102/Jet.html to http://www.soton.ac.uk/~ge102/Jet.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gas turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090118165708/http://www.internalfire.com:80/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=136 to http://www.internalfire.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=136
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120302052941/http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/pejun04/yearturb/yearturb.html to http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/pejun04/yearturb/yearturb.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120813152350/http://www.greencarreports.com/ to http://www.greencarreports.com/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080302012133/http://website.lineone.net:80/~pete.stowe/pete_howmet.htm to http://website.lineone.net/~pete.stowe/pete_howmet.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111115094226/http://www.navalhistory.dk/danish/Skibene/Skibsklasser/Soeloeven_klassen(1965).htm to http://www.navalhistory.dk/danish/Skibene/Skibsklasser/Soeloeven_klassen(1965).htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110820100754/http://www.navalhistory.dk:80/english/TheShips/Classes/Willemoes_Class(1977).htm to http://www.navalhistory.dk/english/TheShips/Classes/Willemoes_Class(1977).htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110714104428/http://mmengineering.com/pdf%20files/Vol.%2008,%20No.3.pdf to http://mmengineering.com/pdf%20files/Vol.%2008,%20No.3.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090411143933/http://www.memagazine.org:80/backissues/membersonly/october97/features/turbdime/turbdime.html to http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/october97/features/turbdime/turbdime.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081225002742/http://www.energy.ca.gov:80/distgen/equipment/microturbines/microturbines.html to http://www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/equipment/microturbines/microturbines.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Gas turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ichpa.com/CHP_in_Ireland/Prime_Movers.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bladonjets.com/news/bladon-jets-wins-tsb-award/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Gas turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214173822/http://www.ichpa.com/CHP_in_Ireland/Prime_Movers.php to http://www.ichpa.com/CHP_in_Ireland/Prime_Movers.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bladonjets.com/news/bladon-jets-wins-tsb-award/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: http://www.togo84.com/spec05_gas_turbines.pdf
--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 Aviation week specs 

message: "The basic operation of the gas turbine is similar to that of the steam power plant except that air is used instead of water."  Okay, gas is mixed with air to create a combustion.  But is gas mixed with water to create a combustion?  That can't be right. - KitchM (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A steam turbine is similar to the back part of a gas turbine. The steam turbine doesn't have a compressor, combustion chamber or afterburners.  Stepho  talk  00:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So it sounds as though it isn't similar at all, right?  Obviously there was no distinction between the "front" part and the "back" part, nor would one wish to confuse the reader that way.  We should just remove that unnecessary sentence anyway since it serves no purpose. - KitchM (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second kitchM. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

text: * Logically, the subject of this article would be "Gas turbine engine" but the abbreviation has become the WP:Common name, so we use it even though it creates the confusion seen above. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that is an obvious mistake and needs immediate correction. - KitchM (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but we really need a clear consensus here first, as this is a long-standing title. As such, I've reverted the move. - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  A dumb, over-simplistic move is The Wikipedia Way though. 8-( Maybe we can find some hyphens and capitalisation to argue over too? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate it when someone does that.  There had been no discussion and the notice I got had no information about what was going on and/or why.  Very confusing.  Had to look all over to find out how that happened, and stumbled upon the explanation here.  Thanks for fixing that, BilCat.  Much appreciated. So maybe someone can tell me how we got from a simple bad grammar issue to one of a name change.  What's going on.  I'm confused. - KitchM (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You started it by asking for a clarification vs steam turbine. Not a grammar issue but a meaning issue. So after seeing the discussion, user:MidAtlanticRidgeback went ahead and changed the article name to avoid confusion, but User:BilCat revert it stating there wasn't enough consensus for such a bold move on a long-standing title. So we have to build a consensus. I agree this isn't straightforward and the way WP works is convoluted :) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

text: What new name? - KitchM (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Gas turbine engine" --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas Is Similar To Steam Turbine? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gas turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316112717/http://draft.fgm-amor.at/altermotive/study_sheet.phtml?study_id=2866&lang1=en to http://draft.fgm-amor.at/altermotive/study_sheet.phtml?study_id=2866&lang1=en
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.navalhistory.dk/danish/Skibene/Skibsklasser/Soeloeven_klassen%281965%29.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.navalhistory.dk/english/TheShips/Classes/Willemoes_Class%281977%29.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mmengineering.com/pdf%20files/Vol.%2008%2C%20No.3.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gas turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825053006/http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2003/Superalloys/superalloys.html to http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2003/Superalloys/superalloys.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110416025534/http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/marine/marine_20040316.html to http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/marine/marine_20040316.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: : (Moved from main article ) Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I can find surprisngly little about the Auris.  Do you know anything about the gas turbine?  Was it related to the naval turbines being developed, like the RM60 used on  - and then rejected in favour of the re-purposed aircraft designs.  Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine turbines and DES Auris 

message: What's the reason for emphasising that the atmospheric air is fresh? It seems a redundant word so could do with a qualifier. Cheers.Pieter1963 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Looks like it is "atmospheric" in the context of where the turbine is used and "fresh" in the sense that it replenishes that which is ejected, but "fresh atmospheric" suggests something beyond that. DMacks (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses fresh air

message: Improvements to help the average reader, (not those who already know the subject). "area" delete redundant, "gas generator" - tells reader what the 3 components do, "between 1 and 2 above" replace, "often used" clarify 4th component always used and tell reader why, match words better to pictorial arrangements by mentioning nozzle. "greater power to mass/volume ratio" maybe, but not for the average reader.Pieter1963 (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements I hope

message: In disadvantages: 
Longer startup than reciprocating engines.
Less responsive to changes in power demand compared with reciprocating engines.
If reciprocating includes Diesel Engines, neither of these claims are correct. Older US Navy Diesel ships needed at least one day prior to getting underway in order to build-up steam. Gas Turbine ships need only one hour to get underway. Diesel ship lack flexibility in speed & course changes, as opposed to Gas Turbine ships which can easily make those same maneuvers.  Sources 20 years US Navy active duty onboard USS Carr FFG 52, USS John S. McCain DDG 56, USS Shoup DDG 86] [(User:nelsoc4)] 13:15 7 April 2021 (UTC)167.154.232.189 (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is concerned about how long it takes to change revs, rather than how long it takes to start it running. The article is written mostly from the perspective of car/truck/airplane engines where gas turbines have massive lag compared to reciprocating engines. Perhaps very large marine engines are different. Unfortunately, however good your personal experience is, we need an independent, published reference to back it up (see WP:VERIFY). Do you know of any such references?  Stepho  talk  22:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Disadvantages

message: The first image in the article shows that 4 out of the 5 applications of gas turbines are aviation related. But then there are further dedicated sections to surface and marine applications of gas turbines but not to aviation related applications. In terms of overal structure of the article this does not make sense to me. 2601:285:8180:1A10:30AF:128C:F143:2415 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Would you like to create an aviation section? This would obviously cover jets, turboprops, turbofans and turboshafts. It would be nice to show which engines are suitable for which applications. Eg, the early jet bombers had turbojets, then progressed to low bypass turbofans, then higher bypass turbofans but NASA's Balls 8 NB52B with its turbojet engines could fly higher than the later model B52H with turbofans.  Stepho  talk  00:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  aviation applications