Talk:General Electric CFE738
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-01. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] Requested merger
CFE CFE738 → General Electric CFE738
- Duplicate pages. - BillCJ 21:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
- Support - BillCJ 21:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support Akradecki 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Itsfullofstars 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
I support making this the main page with CFE CFE738 as the redirect, because that article does not follow wikipedia naming conventions, and this one does. Akradecki 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale refers to the engine as a "GE CFE-378" on an official record holders page (from google cache). There is no "CFE" company. Until the newer "CFE CFE738" page was created, there were no engines using "CFE CFExxx" nomenclature on Wikipedia. The GE Aviation corporate website has a page for the engine. For all those reasons I vote for using General Electric in the main article name instead of CFE - Itsfullofstars 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Decision
Merge completed. - BillCJ
[edit] GE38
Check [1] out.
As the CFE738 is a derivative of the GE38, I have been putting info on the new CH-53K engine, the GE38-1B, on that page. The T407 engine developed for the P-7 is also a GE38 derivative. I assume the DOD will assign a T-number to the GE38-1B in the next few years, either in the T407 series or a new number.
As information increases about the new engine, I assume we will ba able to give it it's own page. My question is, do we want to wait on more info, or should we split the pages now. If we do split, there's the question of what to call it. As the T407 is a GE38, General Electric GE38 would be fine with me for now. At such time as the GE38-1B engine is named (be it T407 or something else), we could then rename it at that time.
While I don't have a problem including the CFE738 with the other GE38 derivatives for the time being, given that the 738 is a turbofan, AND a collaborative effort with Honeywell, it would probably be less confusing to keep them separate. Comments? - BillCJ 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- BillCJ pointed this article about the new GE38 engine, which is derived from the same prototype GE27 engine that the 738 was developed from. Does this mean they're a "family" of engines that should be handled together? The 738 is only on one low-rate bizjet, and the GE38 will power the new generation CH-53. Incorporate all in one article, including the T407, and rename it "GE27 family"? Akradecki 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Bill, after reading your above, I think it should be emphasized that the 738 isn't a derivative of the GE38, but rather both are from the GE27, just like the C/KC-135 isn't a derivative of the 707, but rather both were developed from 367-80. Akradecki 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that too, but I wasn't sure the modifiers were correct there. I've seen other reports claiming the 738 is developed from the GE38, not the 27. The 38 in CFE738 seems to bear that out. We can do some checking on it to make sure before renaming. - BillCJ 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
