Talk:General Electric J79

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Aviation Portal

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated projects or task forces:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

Aircraft WikiProject

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military aviation task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

[edit] Smoke in afterburner?

Based on what I read (and what I've seen), I think the bold part of the following quote is incorrect as the afterburner actually reduced the smoke output considerably:

It proved highly successful, although experience in the Vietnam War was to show the disadvantages of its smoky exhaust, particularly in afterburner

Please correct me if I'm wrong! --172.176.149.204 18:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

shuddup

You are correct. J79 smoked at military power but ran fairly clean in afterburner. Emt147 06:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of XB-70 crash to J79 article?

I'm not sure what the GE photo shoot has to do with the J79. I don't think it really belongs here and is discussed elsewhere where more appropriate.J79Thrust (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that really doesn't tell us much. Inappropriate how? - BillCJ (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is discussed in the XB-70 article, where it is an important aspect of that airplane's history. It also has a place in the F-104 article, but it has little to do with the J79 itself. -J79Thrust (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see a problem, but go ahead and take it out. I didn't add it in here, so I can't guess at why the original editor thought it was relevent. Perhaps his username was J57 or J75, I don't know :) - BillCJ (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I must have picked the wrong name to try to edit anything about the J79.... I don't necessarily mind the reference to the crash, but it seemed to me out of place and I was just looking for another opinion. -J79Thrust (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. The more I thought about it, the more I see your point here,a nd I'm sorry for being so contentious about it. Having no actual connection with the engine or the aircraft it has powered, I've always thought the J79 one of the better engines made, and admired it from afar. I think the F11F-1F with the J79 was probably the one of the better fighters never to enter production, and a far improvement over the J65-powered F11F-1. A victim of politics, and bad timing, as often happens to otherwise good designs. - BillCJ (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of XF4D/J79 development flight tests

Curious why the portion of the old J79 article about follow on J79 development testing in one of the XF4D airplanes was deleted in the new version of the article? For an easy to get to reference, all I can give for the actual use of the airplane is from Joe Bauger's website, which I have seen in other discussions here as being something of reasonable value. The Baugher article on the F4D has a blurb about the J79. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f6_1.html Otherwise there is a book called "Seven Decades of Progress" by the General Electric Company.

I'd like to see something about J79 pre-service development with something more than the B-45 added back into this article--it was a very important step in the engine's entry into service. J79Thrust (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I took it out because according to Angelucci-The American Fighter the only engines used in the XF4D were the J35 and J40, with the J57 used for production. The next aircraft the F5D Skylancer was designed around the J79 according to him but it used the J57. I've got to go out but will have a look into this later. Baugher is usually reliable but we have had problems at FA level using his site as a reference. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a good reference for Skyray J79 use in Bill Gunston's Fighter's of the Fifties and added in what was there. Nimbus (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)