Talk:Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6

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. 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 Aircraft WikiProject

These figures for power output (1090 to 1940) are not correct for the PT6-A series reverse flow turboprop engine, only one small part of that family. The PT6 line consists of a sizeable family of reverse flow free turboprops and the figures quoted are only for one branch of that family, namely the large PT6A. Have a look at http://www.pwc.ca/en/3_0/3_0_2/3_0_2_1_1.asp where you can find far more useful peer reviewed information direct from the manufacturer. 86.31.0.86

Actually, this page is largely useless. It is certainly not peer reviewed, is missing models, doesn't mention the Twin-Pac versions, has a poor description, offers contradictory or missing specifications, and doesn't have production numbers. I'm glad their engines are more reliable than their web developer! Maury 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edit

Before I rewrote parts of this page, I thought I'd post this to make sure there's no objections; I'll leave this up for a week or so and see if there's any input. There are several things I'd like to change:

• The comment about air entering the "back" of the engine is not correct...it all depends on which way the engine is mounted in the aircraft. Sometimes the inlet is at the front of the mounting, sometimes at the back.
• The comment about the power section requiring most maintenance therefore is put at the front, and implying this is why the engine was designed that way is incorrect. There is plenty of maintenance done at either end. The actual design motivations are more centered on the reduced length of the engine, the ability to have an inline power output shaft, and consequent reduced frontal area.
• In the PT6A section I want to discuss the fact that there are two distinct "families" of PT6A engines, noting the main difference.
• Expand the descriptions of the other PT6 models, and then bulletize the aircraft models they're used on, like the list is for the A model. Akradecki 17:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So what remains is whether or not the "used on" list is too long or not. Personally I vote "too long". Maury 22:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

does anyone know...i was told that the pt6 was initially designed to pump oil in the alaska pipeline. They put a prop on it and it became an aircraft engine?

The PT6 was around as an aircraft long before that. However, turboshaft engines are routinely used in many industrial applications. Akradecki 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)