Talk:Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6/Archive 1

Untitled
These figures for power output (1090 to 1940) are not correct for the PT6-A series reverse flow turboprop engine, only one small part of that family. The PT6 line consists of a sizeable family of reverse flow free turboprops and the figures quoted are only for one branch of that family, namely the large PT6A. Have a look at http://www.pwc.ca/en/3_0/3_0_2/3_0_2_1_1.asp where you can find far more useful peer reviewed information direct from the manufacturer. 86.31.0.86


 * Actually, this page is largely useless. It is certainly not peer reviewed, is missing models, doesn't mention the Twin-Pac versions, has a poor description, offers contradictory or missing specifications, and doesn't have production numbers. I'm glad their engines are more reliable than their web developer! Maury 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit
Before I rewrote parts of this page, I thought I'd post this to make sure there's no objections; I'll leave this up for a week or so and see if there's any input. There are several things I'd like to change:
 * The comment about air entering the "back" of the engine is not correct...it all depends on which way the engine is mounted in the aircraft. Sometimes the inlet is at the front of the mounting, sometimes at the back.
 * The comment about the power section requiring most maintenance therefore is put at the front, and implying this is why the engine was designed that way is incorrect. There is plenty of maintenance done at either end. The actual design motivations are more centered on the reduced length of the engine, the ability to have an inline power output shaft, and consequent reduced frontal area.
 * In the PT6A section I want to discuss the fact that there are two distinct "families" of PT6A engines, noting the main difference.
 * Expand the descriptions of the other PT6 models, and then bulletize the aircraft models they're used on, like the list is for the A model. Akradecki 17:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So what remains is whether or not the "used on" list is too long or not. Personally I vote "too long". Maury 22:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

does anyone know...i was told that the pt6 was initially designed to pump oil in the alaska pipeline. They put a prop on it and it became an aircraft engine?


 * The PT6 was around as an aircraft long before that. However, turboshaft engines are routinely used in many industrial applications. Akradecki 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed PZL W-3 as an application of PT6C. The W-3 uses a PZL-10W turboshaft engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grendel1976 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user: I added an entry to the Applications section, the DHC-2T Turbo Beaver. I also did the citatio, and it's mostly alright, but it says that it's a press release. I don't know what to substitute "cite press release" for. Can anyone help?

Horsepower
I am currently becaming more and more confuse with definitions of ESHP: does this stand for Equivalent Shaft Horse Power or Effective Shaft Horse Power? Please note that "Horsepower" entry at wiki simply do not mention the first one (equivalent), and defines that "E" as Effective, only. In other hand, Pratt & Whitney manufacturer and FAA certification data sheet for its engines mention the term "Equivalent" for ESHP (see PDF doc at reference #26 on "Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6" entry). Equivalent to what, after all?

I would like to see a light on this subject, and - at the same time - some coherence between both entries. Can somebody explain that tiny letters? RRMola (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that in terms of turboprop engines, "eshp" is "equivalent shaft horsepower." It is based on a formula where the thrust from the exhaust is converted to an equivalent horsepower value and is added to the shaft horsepower from the turbine. I have read that the exhaust thrust is usually a small contribution to eshp, around 5%, but can be as much as 25% of eshp in some designs.


 * A previous version of this article had some unsourced information on PT6 exhaust thrust: "The exhaust gas escapes through two side mounted ducts in the power turbine housing, and is directed away from the engine in order to provide about 600 lbs. of supplemental thrust at full power." which appears to be from here. 24.142.50.87 (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

re:Most popular in history

 * ''The Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 is the most popular turboprop aircraft engine in history.

That's a pretty bold statement, especially since the reference provided doesn't work. I've changed it to the somewhat softer "..is one of the most popular...", at least until somebody can provide a legit ref stating that it is THE most popular. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "popular" statement refers to the number of applications (aircrafts) and units sold. No other turboprop engine matches that record. I suggest to revert to the original form (most popular) simply because it´s true! Discussions on the theme are welcome. Roberto R. MOLA 1446UTC, 4 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.207.222 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

B-class flunked on grammar etc.
The criterion appears to be:

''The article is reasonably well-written.

''The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.''

When was the assessment done, i.e. when did the flunk happen? Is the article still deficient in its current state? 86.181.119.245 (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)