Talk:Volvo RM8

Incorrect military designation
RM 8 is a Swedish military designation of this engine in the same system of designations as "AJ 37" or any other item in inventory. In other words, "RM8" is a misspelling! Is this important here at Wikipedia? Well, to anyone who thinks it's OK to write, let's say North American Mustang as "P51" instead of "P-51", it is not. To the rest of us who think correct spelling at Wikipedia is as important as every other facts, this article has to be renamed! --Towpilot (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I have had this discussion with someone before, but I can't remember who or where. Anyway, as the creator of the article, I chose "RM8" (no space) because that is the style used in most, if not all, of the printed sources I found that cover the RM designations. Claiming that the RM designation must include a space simply because the aircraft designation series does is not conclusive proof. To continue your US example, if one claimed that General Electric F101 should be F-101 simply because the aircraft series uses the dash, one would be incorrect. Further, RM with no space, IIRC, is used by Saab and the Swedish Air Force on their published sites. As such, there is no basis for the move without a verifiable, reliable published source, preferably from the Swedish military, that explicitly states that the RM designations should use a space, or at least prints them that way. Since the designation is used in several aircraft and aircraft engine articles, this issue should probably be taken up at WT:AIR to get a broader consensus on usage from the Aircraft project. - BilCat (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Saab's English-language Gripen website uses RM12 here. - BilCat (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hindi hint
The swedes sold the Viggen to India in 1979 for licence manufacturer but the british were upset, themselves wanting to sell Tornados and Jaguars instead. London complained to USA and Pentagon put a commerce embargo on the US-made core of the RM-8 turbine, thus the Viggen IN export deal collapsed. (Even though it was effectively a civilian piece, sourced from the DC-9 airliner.) Eventually India purchased and licence manufactured some british Jaguars and some soviet MiG-27s, making the communist monsters richer instead of the democratic swedes. This shameful incident is not mentioned in the current article due to censorship reasons, as the Wikipedia is a US-run venture.

The Viggen IN engine scandal hurt the swedes very deeply and they refused to buy the american F-18 Hornet when the day came to replace the aging Viggen. Today's JAS-39 Gripen was designed the way to be able to accept jet engines of F-404 (USA), EJ-230 (EADS), M-88 (France) and theoretically even the R-93 (RUS). If one country tries to corner the swedes, they can easily change vendor. Currently they rely on F-404/414 but are not dependent on it. The front part of the Gripen air intakes are line replaceble like mobile phone covers, making engine vendor changes easy. 87.97.98.70 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Main reason USA blocked the licensing was not the civilian parts, but the high-temperature modifications done to adapt the engine to military demands. As these modifications were cutting edge technology, it was feared the relatively good relations India had with the Soviet Union could result in the latter gaining access to said technology.
 * As for JAS39 being able to accept several different engines, that is simply not true, as the size and power of the engine is determining the design of the whole aircraft, and the JAS 39 was built around the RM 12. That said, it is probably fully possible to modify the aircraft for another engine at expense of time and money. BP OMowe (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Pumping margins
Pumpning means there are shock-waves and/or oscillating airflows inside the engine that limits power output and in severe cases can damage the engine to the point of total loss. It is described a bit in Effects_of_Mach_number_and_shock_losses_in_turbomachines, but how to formulate it in Understandlish is a bit beyond me for the time being. BP OMowe (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)