Talk:Eurojet EJ200

PM?
PM is mentioned as an abbreviation in this article with no explanation of what it means.

I suspect in this context it means Powder metallurgy is used as a method of fabrication for these hi-tech components since this allows the use of exotic materials like metal matrix composites. I hesitate to put this in the article until someone else can confirm this or find a suitable citation. I am aware that Rolls Royce has explored this area of technology however. Soarhead77 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

90kN?
Why is this article telling BS about simple maths? 20.000lbs doesn't make 90kN

RR Doc released in 2009 is quite more reliabe than this fanboyism article, http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/EJ200_tcm92-6698.pdf

its like the EJ2xx, never developped, but here its big "Name"!

regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.196.104.72 (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Indeed, the unit conversion is inaccurate, which makes the figures misleading. To the nearest 250lbf, 60kN and 90kN make 13,500lbf and 20,250lbf respectively.http://www.convertunits.com/from/kilonewtons/to/pounds Amended accordingly.86.166.16.46 (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

odd number of engines
Why are an odd number of engines being delivered when each plane requires 2 engines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.91.43 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is just a guess, but that's probably just the number reported at the time the source was published. Anyway, operators usually have spare engines in stock, and often only one engine needs to be replaced, not both. Hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

French Rafale and M-88 project parting is falsely explained.
> The announcement of this agreement confirmed that France had chosen not to proceed as a member of the project. One issue was French insistence that the aircraft be powered by the SNECMA M88

This is not true. France was sacked because they demanded planes with potential for flat-top carrier use naval modifications, but the british and the germans refused to carry the app. 10% weight and cost penalty.

Now the british must buy single-engined high risk, belated F-35s, because the EFA-2000 is not carrier capable and the french Rafale suffers from inferior domestic radar-comms set. Europe has always been a collection of stupids. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote states "One issue was French insistence...." The carrier aspect was another issue, apparently, but isn't relevant here. You'll need to provide a verrifiable, reliable source to show that the carrier requirement was the only issue for France's departure from the program. - BilCat (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC).mature engie


 * BAe proposed a ASTOVL version of the EFA called Naval EFA but the UK government cancelled it around 1990. The engine was a vectored thrust one based on the EJ200 and known as the Rolls-Royce RB571 - &   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This actually gets the size issue completely reversed, France needed a lighter aircraft for CV compatibility. From the 44 page article on the genesis of Eurofighter by Jon Lake in World Air Power Journal 35 Winter 98:
 * "By February 1985 there were two competing concepts, both based on the agreed twin-engined canard delta configuration, but differing in detail. Britain, Italy, Spain and Germany were happy to agree on the first, but France favoured an alternative design, closely based on its Rafale A demonstrator, and lighter and smaller than the first configuration. France demanded design and industrial leadership of any collaborative project on the basis of Dassault's experience of building delta-winged and canard delta aircraft. The French also expected all prototype construction and all flight test to be undertaken in France, and demanded 50% workshare and leadership of the Joint Industrial Group which would nominate equipment suppliers and look after all exports. France was effectively demanding that its partners should subsidise a French aircraft, optimised for French needs, in return for being allocated 'titbits' of work by Dassault. An insider remarked "One wonders what France would have demanded had it not been interested in collaboration and had it wanted to put us off the idea".
 * Lake further notes that, without French involvement, three of the four remaining partner nations were RB.199 operators, with which EJ.200 was fit-compatible, allowing early aircraft to potentially fly with an existing, mature, engine, and the fourth partner, Spain, was happy to agree to this.

86.8.177.103 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eurojet EJ200. 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/20121011160900/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=13500 to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=13500

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eurojet EJ200. 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 tag to http://www.eurojet.de/docs/EUROJET%20Press%20release_Tranche%201%20Engines_221206Final.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150125004123/http://www.brahmand.com/news/Turkeys-ASELSAN-inks-deal-with-Eurojet-for-EJ200-engine/13417/1/13.html to http://www.brahmand.com/news/Turkeys-ASELSAN-inks-deal-with-Eurojet-for-EJ200-engine/13417/1/13.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100731153302/http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html to http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606031448/http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/EJ200_tcm92-6698.pdf to http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/EJ200_tcm92-6698.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726062329/http://ceoworld.biz/ceo/2009/07/23/eurojet-offers-its-ej200-engine-for-the-tejas-lca-indian-light-combat-aircraft/ to http://ceoworld.biz/ceo/2009/07/23/eurojet-offers-its-ej200-engine-for-the-tejas-lca-indian-light-combat-aircraft

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Why the Rolls-Royce XG-40 should not be listed in the infobox
The reason is simple: The "developed from=", "developed into=" and "variants with their own articles=" parameters are for engines that have separate articles. The Rolls-Royce XG-40 doesn't have a separate article, and thus should not be listed there. It is mentioned in the Lead, and in the first sub-section of the article, and that is sufficient. I'm not arguing whether or not the XG-40 should have a separate article, but unless it does, we don't list it in the infobox. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)