Talk:Compressor stall

Reverted for multiple reasons. For one, it was apparently added by the author, and is essentially original research. Two, even though the page suggests that it's presenting a technical concept, all it does is present what such a device would do. There are no technical details whatsoever. Three, it makes the statement that is patently untrue, that rotating stalls are safe. While certainly not as dramatic as a surge, rotating stalls can result in severe blade excitations, potentially leading to broken compressor blades and the damage that follows downstream when you break off a chunk of metal at 10,000+ RPM, or leading to much higher turbine temperatures as a result of the dramatic loss in efficiency, potentially causing safety issues there. And overall it just doesn't add anything to the discussion. Marimvibe (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Someone added an image of Flight 1549 floating in the Hudson. Although a hot topic right now, does this really add to the informative content of this article? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not really useful, especially because the caption doesn't explain why the picture is there. Shreditor (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The first sentence of this article violates what I believe is the most basic rule of a "definition." The definition should not contain the word or words being defined, even if arranged in different order. I realize the two words "compressor stall" are linked in the 1st and 2nd sentences. I also realize this rule is often violated in technical documents, and is hard to follow in some instances. But perhaps the original authors and / or experienced editors could improve upon the sentence. I hesitate to attempt it, since I came here to learn about the topic. Perhaps something along the line of the following:

"...abnormal fluid flow resulting from the disruption of the working fluid (in a gas (e.g., air) or a liquid (e.g., water)) over aerofoils within a device (the compressor) used to increase the density of a gas, or the mass transport of a liquid, by the addition of mechanical work.

I do understand "lift," "drag", "stall", et cetera at the professional level, and I found the remainder of the article informative and helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.57.109 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Been taken out a few times, but stalls do occur in turbochargers and superchargers for reciprocating engines. It's the same physics - axial or centrifugal flow compressor, loss of lift due to the operating line being pushed too high. Just because between the compressor and turbine there's a reciprocating engine instead of a burner doesn't make it any less of a compressor - in fact, it's not an entirely uncommon undergrad student project to build a small jet engine from automotive turbos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marimvibe (talk • contribs) 06:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

"On the Starfighter Lockheed F-104A gunsmoke of the guns mounted disrupted compressor intake. This problem might have affected other early jet fighter designs. (Guns became obsolete.....) On this type a variable nose cone design in both compressor inlets was applied to tackle the problem."

Guns on fighter aircraft are not obsolete. (64.79.177.254 (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC))Reply

I think that at the time, guns started to be regarded as obsolete. (Incorrectly, as it turns out later). This may need checking --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Later on, things like the ward hog A-10 appeared with guns. And yes some F-104's had guns (Luftwaffe). Nevertheless official F-104 manual state gunsmoke in compressor intake as problematic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.80.240 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC) This page is considerably altered and genuine background content removed. When I studied the F-104 (1977), A-10 Warthog was not in sight and has engines located in quite different position as a F-104 [Comment Robert Smit]. Rotating stall, is stall induced from one compressor blade to another, thus circulating around in de compression process. Can be induced by a damaged rotor blade or FOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.169.227.132 (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have not been able to support the statements in this section with a reference, despite reading Col Graham's book and other sources, so I propose deleting this section. The unstarts were caused by the intake, not spectacular compressor stalls. The loss in "thrust" was high increase in spillage drag as well as afterburner blow-out. Whether the compressor stalled or not in this sequence of events doesn't warrant a mention in this article since it was not the cause of the unstart. The improved computer controls alluded to were not on the engine but for the intakes.Pieter1963 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I propose rewriting this section for a couple of reasons. This article is not written at the same level as "Axial compressors" so terms like compressor or blade loading are best not used. Nor 'Airfoil lifting capability'.

I think the content covered in the 2 separate "Factors..." sub-headings should be in one heading as they all relate to the same thing, loss of surge margin.Pieter1963 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, my mistake. I see now below the ambiguous preamble that there is now a concise list of possible causes. I apologize for the rant. It's my milieu. lol Good job all. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

There was some years ago a PBS NOVA show suggesting that 1973_Paris_Air_Show_Tu-144_crash was due to (as well as I remember now) compressor stall or surge during an evasive maneuver. That the way to recover is a high-speed dive to get enough air though the engine, but that they hit the ground before recovering. I suspect NOVA isn't a WP:RS, and don't know where one would find such source. I don't see anything here or in 1973_Paris_Air_Show_Tu-144_crash to suggest this. In any case, if a high-speed dive is used to recover from a compressor stall, that could be added to the article. Gah4 (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply