Talk:General Electric YJ93

X279E / J-93 Rated for Mach 4?
I have a book written by Steve Pace which is about the XB-70 and I remember there was a part in the book when it was talking about the competition that lead to the XB-70 which included the B-804 and the XB-70 design. Regardless, it said that the engines the X279E (which was an earlier name for the J-93) were rated for Mach 4. I don't remember exactly what page it was on, but I am looking for the book...

Additionally I have heard other information to suggest that the J-91 and J-58 were designed to achieve the same top speeds as the J-93. Granted saying "I've heard" isn't exactly the best proof, but it does seem to be a commonly accepted fact that the J-91, and J-93 have the same performance in terms of maximum mach number. The J-58 was basically an 80% scaled down version of the J-91 and was also to have the same maximum mach number as the J-91. AVKent882 (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This document (AEDC-TR-73-132) says the maximum flight speed for the J93 was Mach 3.2. www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0766648Pieter1963 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

J93 and Boron Fuel
It is my understanding that the J93 was originally intended to exist in two forms. I forget the dash numbers, but essentially one version was supposed to be powered by a kerosene jet fuel (albeit higher performance than conventional JP-4), while the other variant was supposed to use a boron-based liquid fuel that offered more range and endurance. I'll have to take a look through the library tonight and see if I can flesh this out.--Voodude (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The combustion chamber was to use JP-4 initially, with the afterburner being able to use either JP-4 or ethyldecaborane or HEF-3. The fuel burned hotter and as a result was to offer a 20% boost in range when used in the engine's afterburner, it also had a higher flash point as well.  Of course it had a number of side-effects, the most notable being that it was 5 to 10 times more toxic than cyanide, and it burned in contact with air.  Predictably, the high-energy fuel program was cancelled.  In the aftermath of this JP-6 was developed which had a higher flashpoint than JP-4 and also burned cleaner and may have produced a hotter flame too, as it did provide performance benefits over JP-4.  AVKent882 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Electric YJ93. 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/20080724113441/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b58_9.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b58_9.html

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) 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)