Talk:Pratt & Whitney J52

Variants

I've started researching and adding information on the variants of this engine, where they were used, their specs, etc. If anyone has information about the variants that I have haven't added, please do so! SidewinderX (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

P-409 Model

There seems to be some confusion on whether this was ever built and flown. From my sources, and the EA-6B article here, it seems like the P-409 was built and flown in the the EA-6B ADVCAP prototypes. That said, I'm not 100% positive about that, so if someone has definitive infromation on that, let me know. SidewinderX (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No confusion - I knew it had never been produced, which the previous text implied, so I made a guess, and added the fact tags. You've found the sources that clarify this, and added them. End of issue. - BilCat (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me try and be clear... I'm not 100% sure it was installed and run. I know that it was supposed to be used in the EA-6B ADVCAP, and from that article here on wikipedia I know (or I trust the author) that there were three experimental aircraft built, and at least one of them was in the final ADVCAP configureation. I'm reading into that that included the P-409 engine, but I don't know for sure. However I do know, from a source I really can't cite (unreleased), that the P-409 was fitted to an aircraft to check clearances. I'll keep looking around to see if I can get my confidence to 100%. - SidewinderX (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

I saw the peer review request, I've added some bits and pieces to assist. I wonder if the lead could be clarified a bit, we've just had a discussion in the engine task force about the use of grammatical tense, it's not clear to me (or any other reader perhaps) whether this engine is still in service as some (or all?) of the listed types are retired. I also created a Commons category for any images that we can round up. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I worked a bit on the intro. It still sounds a tad awkward to me, but I think I cleared up the tense issue. SidewinderX (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just added the B class checklist above, don't worry about the crosses, it's just because the article has not been checked yet. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a must that the specification section is sourced and cited, see de Havilland Gipsy Major for an example of how it's usually done, some specs templates have a line for the cite but we have to put them in manually at the moment with the engines. Some external links would be nice and a section on 'engines on display', if there are any, I had a quick look but couldn't find any in museums yet. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I'll start with that. Most of this information came from one source (which I can cite like the sample you linked), but some bits an pieces came from other sources... (SFC came from Jane's, for example. Should I just footnote-cite parts that come from another source? And if that source was already used in the article, can I point to the same footnote? SidewinderX (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

... And after checking, Jane's validates everything there, so I just went ahead and cited everything there as Janes. SidewinderX (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If I use more than one source for the specs I keep them together at the top of the table, it's not unusual. I think it is untidy to put cites next to an individual spec personally. It can be a problem when the spec source disagree though! Good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Er...as it is an American engine the Imperial/US units should go first (even if Janes give them the other way round), some guidance here, it's coming on. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yup, that makes sense. I think the unit order was an artifact from the original author. I have switched them. SidewinderX (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's called 'cleaning up'! Lead is much clearer now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Referencing: Nearly there, we can't use another WP article as a reference such as Jane's Information Group, can you provide a more accurate link or book reference? If you can I will tick all the B class boxes. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the Jane's link was the reference, that was just to make it clear that that was the Jane's I was talking about. I don't think I can give a clickable link (the url is messy and probably not permanant), and if I could it wouldn't be useful. I have access to a Jane's Subscription, so the article I'm referencing comes from the subscriber section. I can try and cite it better if you have a suggestion on what else should be included in the note though. - SidewinderX (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's ok I've fixed it using the online Flight archive, luckily it was the same model of J52. I've seen the Jane's subscription service but did not sign up, many others won't have either. If you click on a link here the reader is expecting to see the same numbers. Might be worth remembering that anything you read in another WP article can not be used as a reference, it's very easy to fall in to that trap. I think we are good to go now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I reverted the specs page one back, I want to make sure we're on the same page here. The information from the two sources is conflicting in some cases, as you noticed. I don't know what to say about the length/diameter... they're close enough to make me think that it's unimportant (the difference between 118.5 and 118.9 inches is negligible. The diameter is a more significant difference. That all depends what the diameter spec measures. It might be the fitted diameter of the engine, including accessories, or it might be the the diameter of the largest stage, w/o accessories. I don't know how to resolve that.

• Finally, the compression ratio. Jane's has the 14.5 ratio for the P-408 and the 14.6 ratio for the P-409. I think 14.5 is the correct one.

• An alternative resolution is to use a different model of the engine. Janes and a 1968 Flight International article mostly agree about the specs for the P-8A model (slight difference in compression ratio again though).IDK, what do you think? SidewinderX (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• You know what, I guess it makes sense to have the page reflect what's easily available, particularly in the case where we can't absolutely resolve one way or another. If you want to re-revert your changes, I won't argue with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SidewinderX (talk • contribs) 19:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I've promoted the article to B class, it's a lot harder to get to the next stage, WP:GOODARTICLE, I have tried before with others. Nice working with you, have to get some more engines up the ladder. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't undo it easily now because of your edits since, the differences between the sources are very minor and I would discount them, the important thing is that the figures matched the reference given. As it stands no one can verify the facts there as the Jane's ref is generic and it might well get tagged as such. Would prefer if it was changed back as I promoted the article after that last 'problem' was solved. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten your edits, and eliminated some of the problem by just truncating the length to 118 in. The 0.5 inches isn't important and we've got two conflicting sources. As for the Jane's ref, it's only generic because I don't know what else to include in the citation. What should I include for future reference? I'm referencing the J52 entry in Jane's Aero Engines reference. The URL I have is not permanent. What should I do, if not for this article then for articles I update. Thanks, SidewinderX (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure about that, best to ask an admin. I don't think we can use the subscription Janes service for references. Bear in mind that most editors use good old fashioned books and provide the page numbers. Obviously we don't all have the book to check and so we take the entry in good faith. An editor could look a bit silly if they provide a false reference and it is discovered later. If you like we could look at another engine article of your choice to work on. I don't usually have this much spare time, bad weather is stopping me doing what I'm supposed to be doing!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm done for today, but I've started looking at the Pratt & Whitney F135 article as the next target... there's a lot there to be cleaned up. SidewinderX (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, thought it was familiar, I created the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem article along with Red Sunset, which the F135 powers, we did struggle with references, see you there! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Production numbers

3,000 Skyhawks, 700 Intruders and 150 Prowlers (1,700 engines) and 600 Hound Dogs need more than 4,500 engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Belated, but early-model Skyhawks (A-4A/B/C) used Wright J65 (license-built Sapphire) engine. There were over 1,100 of those models built. That gets the numbers close to 4,500. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pratt & Whitney J52. 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/20140814064746/http://a4skyhawk.org/content/technical-data to http://a4skyhawk.org/content/technical-data

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)