Talk:Jet engine#Merge proposal

The JT9D in the picture in the 'Uses' section is not undergoing maintenance. The airplane shown is the first 747, and it is on display in the Airpark section of the Seattle Museum of Flight. The engine nacelle has (most likely) been removed so that the inside is visible to visitors. I haven't made enough edits to be able to edit this caption, perhaps someone else can do it.

{{Reflist}}

Why does the lede say, "This, combined with greatly decreased fuel consumption, permitted routine transatlantic flight by twin-engined airliners by the turn of the century, where before a similar journey would have required multiple fuel stops?" This seems to be confusing two entirely different issues. Aircraft had sufficient endurance to fly trans-Atlantic non-stops many decades before twins were allowed to fly the routes in passenger service. Fuel consumption had nothing to do with why twins weren't flying trans-Atlantic passenger routes until the 1980s. Twins weren't allowed to fly those routes even with fuel stops. The requirement was that they remained within 60 minutes flying time of an airport to which they could divert in the event of an engine failure.

If there had been airports close enough to each other such that they could have legally flown across the Atlantic with stops at those airports, then they could have equally legally just flown over those airports without stopping. As jet engines became more reliable, ETOPS began gradually increasing the flying time radii within which twins were required to remain from a possible diversion airport until trans-Atlantic and then trans-Pacific legs became legal. Vbscript2 (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• That sentence should just go. For WP:UNDUE (EROPS / ETOPS doesn't fit into the lead of jet engine), because ETOPS isn't about fuel consumptions, and mostly (as you note) that non-stop transatlantic flying was commonplace decades before the turn of the century. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Albert Fono's ramjet-cannonball in 1915-hu.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article states "A jet engine is a type of reaction engine, discharging a fast-moving jet of heated gas (usually air) that generates thrust by jet propulsion." The second sentence then states that the given definition includes "water jet". So, water jets operate by discharging a fast-moving jet of heated gas? I think some kind of reference is needed for such a claim. 74.196.255.2 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

: It's not a referencing problem, it's a scope problem. See the #Merge proposal thread at the top of this page.

: Water jets et al fall under jet propulsion. But they're not jet engines.

: Wikipedia always fails at these very broad-scope topics, because every idiot has an opinion. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

::I would agree that water jets fall under jet propulsion but are not jet engines. The problem is that the article claims that the given definition of jet engine actually includes water jets. 74.196.255.2 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

::: This is Wikipedia. You're welcome to rewrite it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)