Talk:GE Aerospace/Archives/2012

GE Transportation
For about 10 months, this article claimed that GE Aircraft Engines is part of GE Transportation Systems. This is incorrect. GEAE and GETS are both part of GE Transportation (which apparently is not supposed to be abbreviated to "GET"). GE Aircraft Engines has never been a subsidiary of GE Transportation Systems - in fact, GEAE is several times larger! Aerion//talk 04:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New format
I like the new format, but I have one question on the new headings: Can engines such as the F101, F110, F120, and F135 really be considered "light turbofans"? Perhaps it should be changed to "Low-bypass turbofans", which is what most of them are. THe TF/CF34 family is usually considered a high-bypass engine, even though it has lower thrust that the larger high-bypass units such as the CF6. - BillCJ 03:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am open to other category suggestions regarding grouping. The TF39 was the first high-bypass turbofan, and the TF34 predates it. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Low- and High-baypass would be good.

The TF39 was the first "large" high-bypass engine, but both engines were developed around the same time. the TF39 has a bypass ratio of 8:1, while the TF34 has a ratio of 6:1 (for the origianl models). THe F101, F110, and F404 have much lower ratios, well under 2:1, if not under 1:1. So even thought the TF34 is a small engine, it's still considered high-bypass. See GEA page on TF34- BillCJ 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. With a couple of exceptions (like this one), it is a way to group the small and large turbofans based upon technical criteria. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

LM2500+
Hi, can anyone provide more info on LM2500+ which is different from LM2500 enough to be considered a separate engine line by GE? --TRakowski 11:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GE Aviation logo.png
Image:GE Aviation logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First jet engine
GE absolutely did not have the first US jet engine. That title clearly belongs to the Lockheed L-1000. GE did beat them into production, but only because they used a copied British design. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Every US jet engine ever produced beat the L-1000 into production, as it never entered production! Anyway, I've added a source that clearly calls GE's engine the "first jet aircraft engine in the US." - BillCJ (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill, you removed widely known information that is cited in the reference you posted. Did you even read that reference? The page number you quote is wrong, so I'm not so sure.
 * I am restoring. If you delete it again you will be starting down the path to 3RR. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Military wins, civilian success
sure does feel like a sales brochure in here...I insist this article be rewritten. take other manufacturer articles as a template (example sikorsky or tupolev dont include a 'modern powerhouse' section...whatever the fuck that means.) we might want to include information on the GE contract scandal of 1985 or its new solar farm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.150.77 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Glad you fixed that heading itself. I, for one, have never had an occasion to do any real work on this article so far, but your points for improvement are excellent. 69.26.150.77 or anyone else, please feel free to beat me to it—I may not get to it for a while. — ¾-10 23:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

GE Transportation
For about 10 months, this article claimed that GE Aircraft Engines is part of GE Transportation Systems. This is incorrect. GEAE and GETS are both part of GE Transportation (which apparently is not supposed to be abbreviated to "GET"). GE Aircraft Engines has never been a subsidiary of GE Transportation Systems - in fact, GEAE is several times larger! Aerion//talk 04:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New format
I like the new format, but I have one question on the new headings: Can engines such as the F101, F110, F120, and F135 really be considered "light turbofans"? Perhaps it should be changed to "Low-bypass turbofans", which is what most of them are. THe TF/CF34 family is usually considered a high-bypass engine, even though it has lower thrust that the larger high-bypass units such as the CF6. - BillCJ 03:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am open to other category suggestions regarding grouping. The TF39 was the first high-bypass turbofan, and the TF34 predates it. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Low- and High-baypass would be good.

The TF39 was the first "large" high-bypass engine, but both engines were developed around the same time. the TF39 has a bypass ratio of 8:1, while the TF34 has a ratio of 6:1 (for the origianl models). THe F101, F110, and F404 have much lower ratios, well under 2:1, if not under 1:1. So even thought the TF34 is a small engine, it's still considered high-bypass. See GEA page on TF34- BillCJ 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. With a couple of exceptions (like this one), it is a way to group the small and large turbofans based upon technical criteria. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

LM2500+
Hi, can anyone provide more info on LM2500+ which is different from LM2500 enough to be considered a separate engine line by GE? --TRakowski 11:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GE Aviation logo.png
Image:GE Aviation logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First jet engine
GE absolutely did not have the first US jet engine. That title clearly belongs to the Lockheed L-1000. GE did beat them into production, but only because they used a copied British design. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Every US jet engine ever produced beat the L-1000 into production, as it never entered production! Anyway, I've added a source that clearly calls GE's engine the "first jet aircraft engine in the US." - BillCJ (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill, you removed widely known information that is cited in the reference you posted. Did you even read that reference? The page number you quote is wrong, so I'm not so sure.
 * I am restoring. If you delete it again you will be starting down the path to 3RR. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Military wins, civilian success
sure does feel like a sales brochure in here...I insist this article be rewritten. take other manufacturer articles as a template (example sikorsky or tupolev dont include a 'modern powerhouse' section...whatever the fuck that means.) we might want to include information on the GE contract scandal of 1985 or its new solar farm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.150.77 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Glad you fixed that heading itself. I, for one, have never had an occasion to do any real work on this article so far, but your points for improvement are excellent. 69.26.150.77 or anyone else, please feel free to beat me to it—I may not get to it for a while. — ¾-10 23:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)