Talk:General Electric Catalyst

Name/Title
In Janyary 2016, sources such as FlightGlobal began using "GE93" as the name for this engine, so I moved it to that title in May. Since then, it appears that it is not an official GE name, and "Advanced Turboprop" has continued to be used in published sources, including FlightGlobal, and on GE's website. Recently, and an IP located to GE Drive Systems in Connecticut (same person?) have been changing the name in the article back to "Advanced Turboprop", but without giving any explanation in the edit summaries. Given that "Advanced Turboprop" is still the common name in reliable published sources, are there any objections to my moving the page back to General Electric Advanced Turboprop? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Definitely, Advanced Turboprop is more suited right now, and could be renamed again GE93 if necessary. Cheers! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello!
 * Its now the GE Catalyst.


 * Germsteel (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, we figured that out a while back. BilCat (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Canadian freezing summer temperatures
"and will test this in Canada's cold weather in summer 2018.[19]"

It ain't cold in Canada during the summer. Even north of the artic circle. Summer may not last long. But it ain't cold. Antifesto (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * true, source reads "will be tested on Engine 5 later this summer in a cold weather facility in Canada". modified accordingly.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Update required to correct wrongly stated ownership of the Warsaw GE Aviation EDC global site by the GE Aviation Avio site.
Update required to correct wrongly stated ownership of the Warsaw GE Aviation EDC global site by the GE Aviation Avio site. Also the shared design responsibility stated for the GE Aviation engine is incorrect and also require correction: Warsaw GE Aviation EDC is responsible for some engine modules design including the stationary and rotating parts. GE Aviation Avio global site is also responsible for the engine design but just different modules. The GE Aviation Czech is assembly and test facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.238.13 (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The ref is "Major components of the new engine are already split between GE-owned facilities in Poland and Italy, both locations belonging to Avio, the Italian engine specialist that GE acquired in 2013. The gearbox, power turbine and combustor will be made in Turin, Italy and the rotating components will be supplied from Warsaw, Poland." . You have to back up your claim (and please try to write clearly, thanks.) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ref is obsolete or incorrect. Official Avio Aero, GE Aviation business site states, that there is no Avio Aero facility in Warsaw: Avio Aero, GE Aviation business--Szymonpiotrmarciniak (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe it was one at the time of the ref. Anyway, FlightGlobal supports it and is a top quality source. It can be wrong, but it needs an equally serious source to correct.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Official Avio Aero company site shows their locations and there is no location in Warsaw. For simplicity I just removed part of sentence mentioning Warsaw location. I will not argue if in 2016 there was a plan to manufacture components in Warsaw, but as for 2021 it is not true. Additionally Avio Aero, A GE Aviation business should not be confused with Avio S.p.A. --Szymonpiotrmarciniak (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The ref was published in 2016.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Published in 2016 and as I showed it isobsolete. Use most current data i.eg. official Avio Aero site.--2A02:A318:C03F:A780:1423:93D4:215A:DA38 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You can add another statement to explain what you want, but the current statement is correct and referenced. Please learn how to use referencing in wikipedia, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Lets discuss that sentence here and after all doubts will be cleared it can be published. And let's keep it professional and not use ad personam arguments, let's focus on facts.

In 2016 one of the sources stated that "Major components of the new engine are already split between GE-owned facilities in Poland and Italy, both locations belonging to Avio, the Italian engine specialist that GE acquired in 2013. The gearbox, power turbine and combustor will be made in Turin, Italy and the rotating components will be supplied from Warsaw, Poland." There are two statements: 1 - there are two GE-facilities in Poland and Italy belonging to Avio, 2 - PT and combustor will be made in Turin and rotating components will be supplied from Warsaw. It is not equal to statement, that Turin and Warsaw facilities belongs to Avio.

Secondly, there are no additional sources stating that Avio Aero, A GE Aviation business has/will buy/build/create any facility in Warsaw. From 2016 to 2021 there was no single article referring that. Thirdly Avio Aero official site snows no location in Warsaw as for 2021.

It means that flightglobal wrote in 2016 single article mentioning Avio Aero has facility in Poland and that rotating parts for Catalyst will be supplied from Warsaw. There is no information in any source (and never was) that Avio Aero has facility in Warsaw so such sentence nor suggestion should not be present in article. Moreover currently (2021) there are no information that any rotating parts are being produced in Warsaw (Avio Aero nor GE has no manufacturing facilities in Warsaw) so disputed statement has no value in article about Catalyst.--Szymonpiotrmarciniak (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As you notice, there is no other source on the (rather not so important) fact that rotating parts are made in Warsaw or not since 2016, so the FlightGlobal ref still stands and is undisputed. Maybe it's made by a subcontractor or many other possibilities, it does not matter : Wikipedia is an aggregation of sources, not your best guess. see WP:OR and WP:TRUE. Anyway, if it is the assumption that there is a Warsaw facility that belongs to Avio, it can be precised with another sentence.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

So here you have source explaining, that facility is in Bielsko-Biala (not in Warsaw): "And for ATP we have also changed our approach to the way of working: efficiency and the speed of working became even more important to us. In fact at Bielsko we will manufacture the rotor blades for the three stages of the Power Turbine for the promising TurboProp, now in the process of dealing with the FETT (first engine to test). " It is again official Avio Aero, a GE Aviation Business site. https://magazineabout.com/en/invent/German-rigour-Italian-brilliance. Article is from Dec 2017.--Szymonpiotrmarciniak (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary Technical Terms
These are fair enough when directly relating to the subject - eg "centrifugal compressor", but what does "serialized part count" mean? It sounds like a production engineering term or possibly just advertising bs for "number of parts". That paragraph would be better with something more easily understood. Chris.Bristol (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Produced in serial production ie, not prototype.--Marc Lacoste (talk)