Talk:Afterburner

message: The image in this article doesn't exactly show an afterburner, but rather the exhaust nozzle. Perhaps a more illustrative image demonstrating an afterburner in action, such as this one http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-14-Carrier-Launch2.jpg could be used instead?
: added pics
The first image on the page shows the SR-71 without an afterburner. For an article about afterburners, wouldn't it be more logical for the first image to show a plane with an afterburner? --Scottie theNerd 08:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Could somebody knowledgeable add a section on why you get diamonds in an afterburner exhaust? Cheers, miterdale 11:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are caused by the exhaust gas velocity exceeding Mach 1.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamonds 

message: This is a well written article, but, I do not know much about aircraft (probably why I am looking at articles like this one), and this page is almost impossible for me to fully understand without doing a whole lot of background research first. I don't have a clue as to what some of the words in this article mean, so could someone please dumn it down a bit, for people who don't know much about aircraft. Thanks!
((Nosource autor|J58 AfterburnerT.jpeg))81.107.12.151 05:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: "Then while they [the gas] pass the turbine they expand at a constant pressure thus losing temperature."
When gases expand through a turbine they lose pressure and temperature. For an ideal turbine the process is isentropic i.e. happens at constant entropy, not pressure.
See the article on the Brayton cycle and look at the P-V or T-S diagrams for details - it is clear that the pressure does not remain constant through a turbine.
Generic name08 (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Principle" section error 

message: Shouldn't there be actual examples (figures) for the net increase in thrust (in percent) when using re-heat on a few particular planes?
It's all very abstract without...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of increase in thrust 

message: Reheater redirects here. however, a reheater is a very important, efficiency boosting heat exchanger in a power plant, should therefore be a separate article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.53.253.51 (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, we need to make sure that such an article doesn't already exist, or should exist, under another name, or as part of another article. - BilCat (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Is Thermal power station#Reheater what you are talking about? - BilCat (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Reheat redirects here also.  That is an alternate term for Afterburner.  Maybe Reheater should redirect there instead (??). -fnlayson (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An afterburner is the device that provides reheat. One is the machinery (the afterburner), the other is the process (reheat). It's called 'reheat' because the air downstream from the combustion chambers/turbine is then again heated. It's called 'afterburning' because the air is heated again 'after' passing through the combustion chambers/turbine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.233 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, an afterburner is a specific example of a reheat system, the other (rarer) example being a reheated gas turbine, where there is a second combustion chamber between turbine stages - it's the turbine analogue of intercooling (the use of both would enhance the performance of a recuperator) but such a system would be prohibitively expensive to develop, so is very rare. The point though, is that a reheat system isn't necessarily an afterburner, so such a redirect should have some clarification.80.229.172.13 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reheater 

message: I was watching a video on youtube  about an inventor called Joe Holden (who was born in 1930 so the age is about right) who said he invented the afterburner whilst he was an apprentice at Rolls Royce, I think this would be worth investigating and rolling into the article Back ache (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A 1957 Flight article by Hayne Constant with some info on early reheat development here:  Initial tests were in 1943-44 with a Power Jets W.1 and later a reheat Meteor I was flown.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Roll-Royce's Joe Holden the inventor of the afterburner? 

message: and I am not sure the mention of the SR71 is appropriate - isn't that more of a ramjet than an afterburner?  Midgley (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs re-writing, it has grown repetitive 

message: In the United States, there was an engine called the Lockheed L-1000, later designated the XJ37: It had an afterburner either from the outset or when the L-133 was proposed.
While the engine's designer, Nathan Price, had started working on gas-turbines as early as 1938; he wasn't working for Lockheed then (Lockheed, got interested in jets when they began working on a paper-project known as the L-133, which was aimed at overcoming compressibility effects: Supersonic flight in a dive at least, if not in level flight) but was during the L-133 development.  While the engine was a failure, the idea was also being cooked up in the US 69.127.45.17 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  XJ37 

message: "the afterburner is, at its simplest, a type of ramjet"
I believe this is a somewhat personal viewpoint and as such adds no value to the article.
For example I would have said the afterburner is, at its simplest, a second combustion chamber. The reasoning for the viewpoint can be found in the referenced "Tailpipe Reheat" article and I think it is best left there for the serious reader rather than trying to use it in this Wikipedia article as an insightful one-liner.
I propose deleting the statement.Pieter1963 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: explanation

message: "Older designs did not have a variable geometry nozzle but managed to operate well enough"
I'll replace this statement as I don't believe it's true. Fixed nozzle running only lasted for the very first preliminary running, eg initial Solar I-16 testing. Also initial Derwent V testing ("Fast Jets - the history of reheat development at Derby" by Cyril Elliott).
The Solar afterburners for the GE I-16, Westinghouse J34 (F6U and F7U), Allison J33/35 (F-94/89) all had 2-position eyelid nozzles ref SAE871354 "The First U.S. Afterburner Development".Pieter1963 (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Design

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Afterburner. 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/20050919130058/http://www.skomer.u-net.com:80/projects/olympus.htm to http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/olympus.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "In addition to the increase in afterburner exit stagnation temperature, there is also an increase in nozzle mass flow (i.e. afterburner entry mass flow plus the effective afterburner fuel flow), but a decrease in afterburner exit stagnation pressure (owing to a fundamental loss due to heating plus friction and turbulence losses).[citation needed]"
The same process shouldn't both increase and decrease afterburner exit stagnation pressure without any note on which there is more of. Obviously it's a net increase, as otherwise afterburners would be useless aside from the increase in mass flow (but at that point you may as well just squirt water backwards and you'd gain just as much thrust). I've rewritten the sentence in two ways that may be more correct with regards to stagnation pressure: 
"While net afterburner exit stagnation pressure is increased by the combustion of fuel in the afterburner, some of the gain is offset by losses from friction, turbulence and fundamental loss due to heating. In addition to this increase in afterburner exit stagnation pressure, there is an increase in nozzle mass flow due to the injection of fuel.[citation needed]"
or
"In addition to the increase in afterburner exit stagnation temperature, there is also an increase in nozzle mass flow (i.e. afterburner entry mass flow plus the effective afterburner fuel flow), but a decrease in turbine exit stagnation pressure (owing to a fundamental loss due to heating plus friction and turbulence losses).[citation needed]"
I don't think the latter is correct, as the stagnation pressure shouldn't decrease at the turbine exit due to afterburner use.
I'm also not sure what the original author meant by "fundamental loss due to heating". Do they mean the loss of heat from conduction? This would decrease stagnation pressure at the afterburner's exit, but it's not directly "due to heating" but an increase in conduction due to higher heat at one side of the thermal transfer. Do they mean other inefficiencies inherent to burning stuff, such as noise? I'm not sure if this is a fundamental loss as much as a cycle efficiency issue.
:It looks like the above misreads temperature for pressure so is not relevant as a query.Pieter1963 (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting uses of "afterburner exit stagnation pressure" in same sentence