Talk:Bleed air

message: I've been working on the pro-contra section, although if you want to take a look at it and possibly edit it, go ahead! I've tried my best to be neutral, but if you see room for improvement, please enhance it. I'm still learning the Wikipedia ropes! --QuantumEleven 09:59, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I edited the pro-con section a bit to eliminate some wordiness and replace noted weasel words like "skeptics say..." with more neutral diction identifying the cons of the bleedless systems without assigning the point of view to anyone specific. -IamTHEbrassMunky  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.34.167 (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

message: Actually, the main use of bleed air on modern aircraft is pressurization rather than heating.  The ambient temperature at 40,000 ft is indeed -67 deg F, but the ambient pressure is only 2.36 psi.  (Data from "Airplane Performance..." by Perkins & Hage, 1949)  
Heating the cabin to 75 deg F is comparitively easy because the cabin is insulated and full of kilowatts of heat-producing people and electonics.  Some airplanes even need to be cooled down during cruise instead of heated.  Raising the air pressure from 2.36 psi to 11 psi (max cabin altitude) is the real duty of bleed air during cruise.
Komodon 07:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heating vs. pressurization 

message: Very new at this, would some mention of the use of engine bleed to control compressor stall or surge be justified? Oldspoonhead 12:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bleed valves control stall and surge 

message: I believe we can consider modifying the comment about A350 not eliminating bleed air.  As far as I can see on General_Electric_GEnx, A350 is being offered only with either the same engine as the 787 (which is bleed-less), or with Rolls-Royce_Trent#Trent_1700 (which is also bleed-less).  (Although Factbites claims that Airbus is in talks about modifying both alternatives so that they still can supply bleed air for their A350)  --Filik
Bleed air is also used to de-ice the articulations on slats and flaps, but one of the greatest problems is that there is also a 
limit to the amount of bleed-off from a turbine, this was why we introduced an APU in the first versions of the Harrier, because on  
that aircraft the bleed-off was very limited because of the amount of power used for take-off and manovering.
I worked as a designer in Rolls-Royce and later with Boeing on varios aircraft. johnriggotte@hotail.com   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.75.215 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New planes (Airbus 350/Boeing 787) to stop using bleed air 

message: I am removing the Critism and Ill health sections since they constitute a renewed attempt to engage in multiple article link spamming.  That is prohibited by the WP anti-spamming rules. 
The Aerotoxic Syndrome article is the proper place to discuss that alleged medical syndrome, and not by spamming every possible other page in Wikipedia.
:"Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references in a manner inconsistent with accepted standards. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation."
:"Sometimes, people come to Wikipedia with the intention of spamming—creating articles which are mere advertisements or self-promotion, or spewing external links to a web site over many articles."
[]  EditorASC (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple spam linking

message: It should be structured. The section "Use of bleed air" needs no subsections, but could and needs structure, too. 
Best: Introduction shortened, too, and content moved to subsections.
Its outdated: 787 systems not fully covered: If you have less bleed air, electrical systems must replace it: Not fully described.
Does not list the increased need for batteries: No Perpetual motion existing. Seems to list mostly advantages of bleedless; also i think this will be the future in the next decades. Tagremover (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleedless: Essay-style, outdated, and gets [[energy]] from  [[Perpetual motion]] 

message: Reference #1 is a broken link (^ Discussion paper on the cabin air environment, COT, 2006).  Needs to be updated or removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtraskos (talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid Reference 

message: I am reverting this well-intention edit by an IP editor
::"Air can be "bled" from the compressor at any stage for various purposes including but not limited to, internal cooling of the engine, pressure reduction while starting or for any other purpose. Air that is bled from the engine for use in other than the engine is most correctly referred to as "Customer Bleed Air"
for these reasons:
a) The first part does not add anything to the article which is not already explained elsewhere.
b)  The phrase "Customer Bleed Air" is not industry standard nomenclature.  The few places that I can find any definitions of that phrase, do not consistently agree on what it means.
c)  The source given as citation support (A You-Tube Video) does not meet WP:RS standards.  Nor do the other rare sources on the Internet that mention it; they all seem to be wikis or blogs.  None of these are acceptable as Wikipedia RS.
d)  The gentleman in the You Tube video, while interesting, is not a known authority, nor does the video serve as a secondary reliable source.  He often uses terms interchangeably in that video, which adds confusion, not clarity. An example would be his using the term "bleed air" while describing the function of Pressure Relief Valves, which have nothing to do with the first and second stage bleed air systems on modern airliner engines.
Adding a non-standard phrase like "Customer Bleed Air" does not clarify anything; it only adds confusion. EditorASC (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper nomenclature 

message: https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/eng/64b7-205.html
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013119520A1?cl=en
http://www.easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/docs/engines/EASA-TCDS-E.021_%28IM%29_GE_CF34--10E_series_engines-05-03012013.pdf
http://mil-spec.tpub.com/MIL-E/MIL-E-8593A/MIL-E-8593A00103.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.94.206 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional "Customer Bleed Air" References 

message: :I have added a POV tag to the Fume section. I notice that the above debate is over 5 years old, and it seems since then this section has grown more and more one-sided. I am far from an expert on the issue,  but the section reads as very biased and negative to me. Could really use some attention!  Air  ♠  Combat What'sup, dog? 09:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bleed air. 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/20100827071537/http://www.esam.aero/main/docs/ecam08/No%207%20Bagshaw%20paper.pdf to http://www.esam.aero/main/docs/ecam08/No%207%20Bagshaw%20paper.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) 20:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified