![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 March 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gross thrust calculation has to be wrong:
The expression w8 * V8 / g doesn't have the right dimensions. Since Cx is withou dimension, the dimension of w8*V8/g has to be mass*distance/time^2 (=force), but w8*V8 is already mass/time * distance/time = mass*distance/time^2, so multiplying by g gives incorrect dimensions.
I suspect there is some confusion about lbf (pound force) and lb (pound mass) somewhere causing this. If we assume the worked example yields the correct result, I would guess that the expression for V8^2 is also wrong, with the two errors cancelling each other out. Either that, or the result of the worked example is wrong. Avl ( talk) 13:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Disagree. It probably needs a less technical, more explanatory, introductory para, admittedly, but the devil is definitely in the details. Greglocock 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The article needs to quote its sources (or at least _some_ sources!). The nomenclature appears fairly complete, but the article is long, and not everyone can have two copies up at the same time. So, also reference new and/or obscure variables at first occurence, please. Bob aka
Linuxlad 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Slamacceleration.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Slamaccelerationchic.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is just too much gibberish and not a single explanation. I'm just confused, this needs some heavy editing (I don't do it because i don't know nothing about this)-- MakE shout! 18:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is at risk of being deleted. See comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines#Jet engine performance.
Effort will be required to resuscitate the article by removing inappropriate information, adding appropriate encyclopedic information, adding references and in-line citations. Dolphin51 ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
All revision of this page have been transwiki imported to v:Jet engine performance. -- mikeu talk 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Since this article was transferred to Wikiversity long ago I suggest the title be deleted completely from Wikipedia. Whilst it remains it misleads readers into thinking it's the best Wikipedia contributors can do. We know it isn't when we realise the original contributor's work is in Wikiversity. Pieter1963 ( talk) 00:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This article now has references added and a positive appraisal from someone with a geuine interest in the subject matter of the article. Whilst the article may not be to everyone's taste I believe it should be recognised as a valuable addition to wikipedia(It answered a couple of long-lingering questions for me). Perhaps a stumbling block is it being subject matter that pays wages/salaries rather than of purely hobby or intellectual interest. If anyone is adamant it needs changes in line with wikipedia guidelines/suggestions please make specific demands which can be considered by anyone prepared to follow them up.
I believe it is time to remove the "multiple issues" header block from the article. Pieter1963 ( talk) 13:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded the introduction to explain what jet engine performance is and to address the concern on difficulty navigating.
I see no value in adding more references as the entire content is standard engine engineering.
I see no reason to move it to Wikiversity. I was pleased to find it where it is.
I have removed the multiple issues header.
Removed years-old too technical header. Best start afresh if still perceived that way. Pieter1963 ( talk) 18:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"This article.. ..may not reflect the encyclopedic tone..." It follows the tone used by reliable sources so must be ok. The header is too vague. Any feedback has to be specific with examples to give anyone a fair chance at responding.
" written like a manual or guidebook" If the no-textbook rule has to be followed then move article to Wikiversity. If it doesn't need to be followed then it doesn't need the header. Pieter1963 ( talk) 21:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This article has a 'multiple issues' tag. I think there are 2 options if we want to action the tag, ie delete from Wikipedia as is already in Wikiversity or remove 99% of it so tag is no longer relevant. Any comments? Thanks Pieter1963 ( talk) 17:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 March 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gross thrust calculation has to be wrong:
The expression w8 * V8 / g doesn't have the right dimensions. Since Cx is withou dimension, the dimension of w8*V8/g has to be mass*distance/time^2 (=force), but w8*V8 is already mass/time * distance/time = mass*distance/time^2, so multiplying by g gives incorrect dimensions.
I suspect there is some confusion about lbf (pound force) and lb (pound mass) somewhere causing this. If we assume the worked example yields the correct result, I would guess that the expression for V8^2 is also wrong, with the two errors cancelling each other out. Either that, or the result of the worked example is wrong. Avl ( talk) 13:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Disagree. It probably needs a less technical, more explanatory, introductory para, admittedly, but the devil is definitely in the details. Greglocock 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The article needs to quote its sources (or at least _some_ sources!). The nomenclature appears fairly complete, but the article is long, and not everyone can have two copies up at the same time. So, also reference new and/or obscure variables at first occurence, please. Bob aka
Linuxlad 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Slamacceleration.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Slamaccelerationchic.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is just too much gibberish and not a single explanation. I'm just confused, this needs some heavy editing (I don't do it because i don't know nothing about this)-- MakE shout! 18:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is at risk of being deleted. See comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines#Jet engine performance.
Effort will be required to resuscitate the article by removing inappropriate information, adding appropriate encyclopedic information, adding references and in-line citations. Dolphin51 ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
All revision of this page have been transwiki imported to v:Jet engine performance. -- mikeu talk 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Since this article was transferred to Wikiversity long ago I suggest the title be deleted completely from Wikipedia. Whilst it remains it misleads readers into thinking it's the best Wikipedia contributors can do. We know it isn't when we realise the original contributor's work is in Wikiversity. Pieter1963 ( talk) 00:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
This article now has references added and a positive appraisal from someone with a geuine interest in the subject matter of the article. Whilst the article may not be to everyone's taste I believe it should be recognised as a valuable addition to wikipedia(It answered a couple of long-lingering questions for me). Perhaps a stumbling block is it being subject matter that pays wages/salaries rather than of purely hobby or intellectual interest. If anyone is adamant it needs changes in line with wikipedia guidelines/suggestions please make specific demands which can be considered by anyone prepared to follow them up.
I believe it is time to remove the "multiple issues" header block from the article. Pieter1963 ( talk) 13:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded the introduction to explain what jet engine performance is and to address the concern on difficulty navigating.
I see no value in adding more references as the entire content is standard engine engineering.
I see no reason to move it to Wikiversity. I was pleased to find it where it is.
I have removed the multiple issues header.
Removed years-old too technical header. Best start afresh if still perceived that way. Pieter1963 ( talk) 18:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"This article.. ..may not reflect the encyclopedic tone..." It follows the tone used by reliable sources so must be ok. The header is too vague. Any feedback has to be specific with examples to give anyone a fair chance at responding.
" written like a manual or guidebook" If the no-textbook rule has to be followed then move article to Wikiversity. If it doesn't need to be followed then it doesn't need the header. Pieter1963 ( talk) 21:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This article has a 'multiple issues' tag. I think there are 2 options if we want to action the tag, ie delete from Wikipedia as is already in Wikiversity or remove 99% of it so tag is no longer relevant. Any comments? Thanks Pieter1963 ( talk) 17:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)