Talk:General Electric F404

Who made the article?
That is me (Irfan Faiz) that make the article. I put information that i can think off and thanks to you people for putting more better and other information that i didn't add or forget.

What is the Specific Fuel Consumption in SI units (ie g/kNs)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.98.217 (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. I could be completely wrong but my understanding is that you have 4 main types of Jet Engine. The Turbo Jet (with or without After Burner), the Turbo Fan, the Turbo Prop and the Turbo Shaft.
 * My understanding has always been that Turbo Fan engines have very large Fan at the front of the Engine such as those on 747, 737, A390 or even like those on the A-10 etc. My understanding is that on a Turbo fan Engine, 75 to 90% of the thrust is generated by the very large Fan at the front and only a much smaller fraction of thrust is delivered by the Exhaust Nozzle.
 * On the other hand Turbo Jet Engines (with or without Afterburner) deliver 100% of the Thrust via the exhaust nozzle (No Fan). My understanding that the difference between a Turbo Jet and Turbo Fan is not whether or not the engine has an After Burner, but the method of delivering thrust.
 * This Article describes the F404 as a "Turbo Fan" where I think it might actually be a "Turbo Jet" or to be precise an "After Burning Turbo Jet Engine" I hope this is not being picky. But I came here because I was reading a children's military information website and it would seem it copied portions of the information from this page.
 * Anyway, I could be wrong. I am Private pilot with a life long passion and enthusiasm for Aircraft, I am only a hobby level engineer/tinkerer. Asside from Aircraft I have a long passion for Jet Engines. I hope to own any small Jet Engine some day, just to start it up on Sundays. so I could very well be wrong. I have been wrong before :)
 * It would be great to get the opinion of an actual Gas Turbine Jet Engine (GTJE) Engineer or maybe I will try to email GE for clarification. Actually, I know of a YouTube channel where they are posting videos of Jet engine repair, maybe I could contact them or hell, maybe there is a local Jet Engine repair place. Surely they would know? What is the standard in Wikipedia for confirming or verifying Information? (Im new to this kind of thing)
 * GLA HF Jayson Black1 (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate picture
This page has a picture of a F414 engine test onboard an aircraft carrier, not a F404. Perhaps the picture should be removed and put on the 414 page, and a more accurate picture put in its place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.164.235 (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes you think it is wrong?
 * File:GE_F404_engine.jpg & Navy image page -Fnlayson (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The image is definitly of a F414. I just spent a week working on one, the F414 has the composite casing around the HPC, as well at the horizontal "spars" on the afterburer section. A F404 can be seen here, notice how the compressor case is metal, not composite: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/images/content/328208main_engine_4_226.jpg SidewinderX (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info and that's probably right. But the F404-402 is a newer, improved version of the F404 developed in the 1990s.  It may have included some improved features of the F414. NASA has generally gotten early F/A-18s and older F404 engines.  That image is used in this NASA/DFRC article, for anyone wondering. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the F404-402 has these features. In fact the GE website pictures the F404-402 with the same metal casing and afterburner section at the other F404 versions. http://www.geae.com/engines/military/f404/f404-402.html I am pretty confident that the listed photo is an F414, and I think the photo should replaced. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, there's only 1 more F404 image on Wikipedia or Commons and it is not a good one. What about these: #1, #2, & #3 ? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Man, those look like they have the same compressor casing... can't see the afterburner section. IDK. Here are a couple photos that are definitly an F404, I don't know what you can use. http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=32574
 * http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/aeroenginesjetcutaways/images/5608/640x480/general-electric-ge-f404-cutaway.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by SidewinderX (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SW, you mentioned someone you know who works for GE, so perhaps he can tell you if these are F404s. It seems credible to me that the -402 could be using a composite casing on later production engines. Since we have several similar images labeled F404-402 by the Navy, I think we should give them the benifit of the doubt until proven otherwise. - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the image of the F414 on GE's site is pinched in at least 2 places, while all the claimed F404s are fairly straight lengthwise. - BilCat (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It'll have to wait until I get back to work next week, but I can shoot an e-mail off to a 404/414 guy a GE to clear it up. - SidewinderX (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

402 & Finnish Hornets
Finnish Hornets also use F404-402. Finland ordered Hornets around the same time as the Swiss but I'm not sure who was first exactly exactly and to whom 402 was originally developed. All I know for sure is that deliveries for Finland started before Switzerland. The article gives the impression that Switzerland was the first user, and Kuwait then adopted the engine but this does not seem to be completely accurate since Finns were also early adopters. I added citation needed. Has anyone verified information about the development and adoption of the 402? -Khilon (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of who ordered the engine version first, not who actually received it first. The Swiss requested more power and the -402 was developed to meet that.  Then the US switched to the engine version.  I'll reference that. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware. The point I was trying to make was that the orders were placed around the same time and I wanted to confirm if the 402 was really originally developed for the Swiss. Thanks for confirmation, ref and rephrasing. -Khilon (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Electric F404. 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/20100929062201/http://geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20100719.html to http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20100719.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060310205431/http://www.geae.com/engines/military/f404/ to http://www.geae.com/engines/military/f404/

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) 13:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

first run
This engine flew with the F-18 first flight in 1978. It's guaranteed to have had its first (test rig) run long before 1978. The claim that it first ran in 1978 is almost certainly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.23.224 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Growth I and Growth II
I know I seen talk about those improvements, but I can't see any of it in the article. Anyone got some sources available? BP OMowe (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)