Talk:Turboshaft

2005
This article has been dramatically altered. When I last left it the claim was that the turboshaft and turboprop were similar, and differed primarily in historical terms -- that modern turboshaft and turboprop engines are basically identical.

web 84.73.58.149 changed this to state that turboprops are one type of turboshaft, and that a turboshaft is essentially any turbine with a PTO. I have seen this definition as well, but only on recently published statements. I had not seen this definition prior to 1990, or thereabouts.

Now it's possible that I simply never saw the "generalist" use of the term, but currently I simply think it's wrong. I think this is a recent phenominon, one created when someone got fed up trying to define the difference and failing when someone would introduce a new engine that "broke the rule"

Maury 13:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed turbine vs. Free turbine
there is no mention of fixed turbine versus free turbine. this whole article discusses free turbine only.
 * Fixed - but the vast majority of large turbo-shafts are or have been free-turbine designs, once the benefits became known.Petebutt (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Power output of turboshaft turbines?
What is the rough order of magnitude of the range of power outputs (shaft power) of typical turboshaft turbines used in aviation service today?

Also, what is the available power outputs of fixed/ground-based turbines. I'm familiar with GE having a line of heavy-duty turbines in the 50-100 MW size that they consider "small scale" -- but what other offerings are in the market from a broader range of worldwide manufacturers?

In both cases, some sense of the size/scale of commercial products would improve the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Free-turbine turboshaft be merged into Turboshaft. I think there's no interest for Free-turbine turboshaft to be an independent article, and its content should be merged into Turboshaft, an article of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.--Gradebo (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't know what "there's no interest for Free-turbine turboshaft to be an independent article" means, editors clearly thought it was so enough to create it. It's also, despite being newer, the larger and better sourced of the two articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support First I'd like to say that Andy (opposed, above) has a point: If you suggest the merge/deletion of a page, offering a concise and supportable reason is important, and the declaration "There's no interest" is going to get you hit with the WP:IDONTLIKEIT stick by editors of a conservative bent. Having said all that, I think you're right and it should be deleted. I offer a few reasons:
 * Almost all of the content is already in the turboshaft article, so simply deleting the FPT page is also a possibility, so long as you fix the links to it.
 * (From the Turboshaft#Overview section) In most designs, the gas generator and power section are mechanically separate so they can each rotate at different speeds appropriate for the conditions, referred to as a 'free power turbine' 
 * A quick peruse shows that pages which link back to "turboshaft" are actually free power turbine devices. From this a reasonable person might infer that this term is probably not a differentiation widely made in the industry in question, and thus does not meet WP:ENC
 * The number of links back to the explicit page for Free Power Turbines is miniscule (< 10) whereas if it were actually being used, it would have many (turboshaft has 500+)


 * Yes, it's different. Yes, we could "fix" all the links to turboshaft that really should link to 'free power turboshaft', but just because it exists doesn't necessarily mean it's worth a page. Much like "whole-germ organic unbleached cake flour" does not need a separate entry from "flour".
 * " Almost all of the content is already in the turboshaft article,"
 * It's usually considered a good idea to read the article in question before advocating its deletion.
 * Also, aren't you just pissed that I reverted your blanking at Cementation process Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL, next time it'll be longer, thanks for the warning. I thought the problem was so self evident, just wanted to make it noticeable... Free-turbine has been created independently, in disregard of the most encompassing article were it undoubtedly belongs, Turboshaft, that lacks any link to it, being also the only occurrence in Wikipedia. So, it should be done. The harder question is how. --Gradebo (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * oppose (at present)
 * (from User talk:Andy Dingley)
 * I can't see any reason to delete free-turbine turboshaft. The overlap is tiny - nothing outside the lead.  We also have a variety of articles here at turboprop, turbofan, gas turbine, turbojet etc.  There are 20 articles under gas turbines, even without counting the per-model articles. If it's worth splitting turboshafts and turboprops, or jet engine / gas turbine / turbojet, then I cant see why free-turbine is so urgent to merge. I'm also concerned about the quality of the turboshaft article. It looks like any "overlap" here is mostly because turboshaft is failing to cover the non-free turbine forms and all thats left is the overlap. You can't fix that omission by getting rid of the free-turbine article. If anything here needs to go, it's the plane-spotter stuff in turboshaft that is listing a bunch of aircraft models without explaining anything about why they're important to this article. Viam Ferream (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

* delete obvious WP:CFORK 82.132.247.198 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY obvious sock - see Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate. I don't think this is Hengistmate, but it's obviously not a GF editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Turboprops and free shafts
Are turboprops usually fixed shaft or free shaft designs? That seems like an important clarification. And for what it's worth I personally think it's pretty clear that a turboprop is just a form of turboshaft. AnnaGoFast (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Free turbine, for both turboprop and turboshaft. There are still plenty around that aren't, but they're all old engines and even older designs. A turboprop is different from a turboshaft in that if it has considerable jet thrust, that's a useful advantage for it, not a waste of power and a difficult problem to silence.  Early turboshafts (which often were just land-based turboprops) could be very wasteful and noisy for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Turboshaft. 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/20140413145013/http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost:361db9aa-4f91-4719-bab3-a7bc544c1019 to http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost:361db9aa-4f91-4719-bab3-a7bc544c1019

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) 04:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia
What is the alternative to turbo shaft? 203.171.96.126 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)