Talk:Turbofan

Feedback on the opening paragraph
Here's my feedback on the opening paragraph (my feedback is in the square brackets): — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminGSlade (talk • contribs) 17:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * MOS:LEAD gives some advice: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight, and the MOS:INTRO section for the text itself. My usage is to summarize each body section, here: 1	Principles 2	History 3	Common types 4	Turbofan configurations 5	Overall performance 6	Improvements 7	Manufacturers 8	Extreme bypass jet engines 9	Terminology. Cheers--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Mechanical impedance
The product of thrust (force) and velocity is power. The ratio is Mechanical impedance. Reducing the velocity improves efficiency in the usual way that impedance matching does. My old favorite explanation of mechanical impedance matching compares a ping-pong paddle and baseball bat hitting a ping-pong ball. The bat is good for hitting baseballs, but the impedance mismatch makes it not good for ping-pong balls. Gah4 (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A higher BPR provides a lower fuel consumption for the same thrust
There is a cn on: A higher BPR provides a lower fuel consumption for the same thrust., but no discussion in talk, as is suggested for those adding one. Since much of the whole article is on that subject, what, exactly, needs citing? In fact, it isn't 100% true, as it assumes that the turbine exhaust is faster than the airplane. But then again, if it isn't, then jet engines don't work. OK, discuss away! Gah4 (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the statement isn't 100% how would you revise it such that it is? Thanks. Pieter1963 (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, it is not true when the airplane is going straight down, from a high altitude, and just before hitting the ground. For supersonic flight, it is usual to use turbojets. The whole idea behind turbofans, and this article, is the more efficient matching of exhaust speed to airplane speed. There is some inefficiency in any thermal engine. I suspect that you might find one that has 1% higher BPR and also 1% higher fuel consumption. It is a statistical statement for well designed engines, and is the reason for building higher BPR engines. A poor design could just put in excess fuel, wastefully, but that isn't really a fair comparison. At this point, even a 1% improvement in fuel efficiency is worth doing, as it saves airlines much over the life of the airplane. There is no market for poorly designed engines. Gah4 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The tag is self explanatory: a citation is needed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Above I asked for thrust specific fuel consumption to be added to the table. That would make comparisons of engine efficiency possible. Since we don't have that, it is pretty hard to make any statement about efficiency. That said, there is the complication of comparable conditions. Both TSFC and bypass depend somewhat on operating conditions, such as incoming air speed, air pressure, and temperature. Gah4 (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The tag is self explanatory: a citation is needed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Above I asked for thrust specific fuel consumption to be added to the table. That would make comparisons of engine efficiency possible. Since we don't have that, it is pretty hard to make any statement about efficiency. That said, there is the complication of comparable conditions. Both TSFC and bypass depend somewhat on operating conditions, such as incoming air speed, air pressure, and temperature. Gah4 (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Above I asked for thrust specific fuel consumption to be added to the table. That would make comparisons of engine efficiency possible. Since we don't have that, it is pretty hard to make any statement about efficiency. That said, there is the complication of comparable conditions. Both TSFC and bypass depend somewhat on operating conditions, such as incoming air speed, air pressure, and temperature. Gah4 (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * A simple google search yields several tentative references: bypass ratio (BPR) increases the overall efficiency of the engine; The desire for higher engine efficiency has resulted in the evolution of aircraft gas turbine engines from turbojets ... to today’s high bypass ratio turbofans; propulsive efficiency and lower specific fuel consumption (SFC) brought about by high BPR; higher BPR ... can yield significant improvements in fuel burned. Pick your favorite(s) or find another, more relevant ref(s) at your convenience.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, inferring from some TSFC examples that efficiency is higher due to higher BPR would be subpar, close to wp:synthesis, and higher efficiency can also be due to higher thermal efficiency (higher turbine temperature, intercooling, etc.).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It could be WP:SYNTHESIS if we do it, but readers can do anything they want with table data. Any such comparison has to be with other factors as similar as possible. The complication is that you can't so easily change BPR. Well, I suppose if you have gearing between the turbine and fan, you could change gears and compare. Then changing BPR would change the load on the turbine, and might change something else. It probably doesn't compare well if you compare a new design to a 50 year old design. If you increase BPR too much, the speed will be lower. Does the statement assume the same airplane speed? Gah4 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It could be WP:SYNTHESIS if we do it, but readers can do anything they want with table data. Any such comparison has to be with other factors as similar as possible. The complication is that you can't so easily change BPR. Well, I suppose if you have gearing between the turbine and fan, you could change gears and compare. Then changing BPR would change the load on the turbine, and might change something else. It probably doesn't compare well if you compare a new design to a 50 year old design. If you increase BPR too much, the speed will be lower. Does the statement assume the same airplane speed? Gah4 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I think I've got it. I will edit the article and we can go from there. Pieter1963 (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thrust section
I propose deleting this section as unnecessarily difficult (poor paraphrasing of a NASA kid's page which is itself just a mass of mdots). It don't think it says anything worthwhile anyway but can be simplified somewhat if necessary. Does anyone have any thoughts? Thanks Pieter1963 (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean Turbofan. I thought I would say no, but looking at it now, I agree. It doesn't really help much. Gah4 (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean Turbofan. I thought I would say no, but looking at it now, I agree. It doesn't really help much. Gah4 (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It's referenced. The NASA ref target audience is "college, high school, or middle school students", not kids (that would be this this). It could be better explained or replaced by another ref, though.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Etymology
@Andy Dingley First, thanks for your help on cleaning up the etymology! You're entirely right that Dictionary.com is not a good source; my bad! (It DID support the etymology, however; you may have just missed that bit, and it was a bad source anyways.)

However, Collins Dictionary seems to be a bit better, and [| offers the same etymology]. Your proposed etymology would make sense, but has no source at all supporting it. What would you think of keeping the turbo- + fan etymology cited to Collins? Or, if you're certain that it's just a continuation of turbojet (what was its etymology?) then is there a source you have in mind? I ask because I was unable to find any other etymology for turbofan than the one I listed.

Thanks again for your help! EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The bit where it said first recorded in 1940–45? (about 10 years too early)  The term wasn't in use that early, at least not in that form. UK work on them was terming them as either "augmenters" (like the Metrovick) or as "bypass turbojets" (R-R). It's probably the US that first coins this particular term, but not until the mid-50s.
 * It's a hard term to source. Non-technical dictionaries are never much use for this (the OED tries harder, but it's not in my old paper set). Technical books tend to treat it as "too simple to bother defining". The best source for this would have been the Flight archive, but we blew that one years ago.
 * The usual 'starter guides' cover this:, , and  is probably the best to look at, but I can't find my copy just now to give you a page. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Gotcha! I really appreciate you taking the time to give an in-depth response. And now I've learned a little more about sourcing technical definitions; what you said makes perfect sense, I just never thought of it that way. I don't have those sources myself at the moment, but if one of them has the etymology, would you be willing to add in the citation? If not, I can see about getting my hands on a copy.
 * Thanks again for your awesome response; on top of improving the article, you've also taught me a few things. Thank you! EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do a lot of reading of 1950s textbooks, because when they describe a technique it's often brand new, and so it's described thoroughly. Flight from the mid-50s would have been good, because there would be news pieces, maybe long and detailed articles (Flight had some excellent writing) on a new technique like turbofans. Sadly though the archive has gone. I wonder if Tom Sawyer's The Modern Gas Turbine (1946) has anything, but it's maybe too early?
 * I suspect that Hünecke would be the clearest description here, when I find it. But in the meantime, Gunston. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)