Talk:Pratt & Whitney JT8D

message: The JT8D does not power the AWACS and JSTARS...it is the JT3D
:Yes the JT3D (TF33 in USAF parlance) was the original engine, but some were re-engined with JT8Ds - others were re-engined with CFM56s... GCarty 13:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistaken identity

message: The JT8D has been used to re-engine the E-8 J-STARS aircraft!!--Petebutt (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: E-8

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pratt & Whitney JT8D. 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/20071107044727/http://flug-revue.rotor.com/frnews1/FRNews02/FR020512.htm to http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRNews1/FRNews02/FR020512.htm
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) 17:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The current text does not give any connection between the The JT8D-1 and the RM8 engine unless clicking on the wiki link. Should that be remedied? BP OMowe (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? BilCat (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the text, the connection between the  JT8D-1 and the RM8 is non-existent, the reader has to click the RM8 link and read that article to find out. BP OMowe (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you propose to remedy that? BilCat (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I do not propose, suggest or even consider any improvement for the time being until such a point that it is established that it is an issue, and that a solution is indeed desired. BP OMowe (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't really understand what you believe the issue is. I was hoping a proposal would help to make that clearer. BilCat (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote your edit comment: "the reader has no idea what the RM8 is from this sentence - is it something P&W designed? A how don't relate to the JT8D?" As is, the whole passage regarding the RM8 fails to demonstrate relevance for the article and should be removed. Since you reverted the clarification and restored the tag, I consider further improvements of the article to be your problem.  BP OMowe (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We've both attempted to clarify it before, and the other person wasn't satisfied with it, so that makes to both our problem. BilCat (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RM8 

message: I think this could benefit from including the bypass ratio in the graph in the variant section, especially considering the 200 series had a (relatively) significant increase in the ratio and that it is usually included in the info graphs in other Turbo-fan articles. 103.106.90.132 (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bypass ratio missing from graph