Talk:General Electric J79

Based on what I read (and what I've seen), I think the bold part of the following quote is incorrect as the afterburner actually reduced the smoke output considerably:

It proved highly successful, although experience in the Vietnam War was to show the disadvantages of its smoky exhaust, particularly in afterburner

Please correct me if I'm wrong! --172.176.149.204 18:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

shuddup

You are correct. J79 smoked at military power but ran fairly clean in afterburner. Emt147 06:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what the GE photo shoot has to do with the J79. I don't think it really belongs here and is discussed elsewhere where more appropriate.J79Thrust (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Uh, that really doesn't tell us much. Inappropriate how? - BillCJ (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is discussed in the XB-70 article, where it is an important aspect of that airplane's history. It also has a place in the F-104 article, but it has little to do with the J79 itself. -J79Thrust (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I really don't see a problem, but go ahead and take it out. I didn't add it in here, so I can't guess at why the original editor thought it was relevent. Perhaps his username was J57 or J75, I don't know :) - BillCJ (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I must have picked the wrong name to try to edit anything about the J79.... I don't necessarily mind the reference to the crash, but it seemed to me out of place and I was just looking for another opinion. -J79Thrust (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's OK. The more I thought about it, the more I see your point here,a nd I'm sorry for being so contentious about it. Having no actual connection with the engine or the aircraft it has powered, I've always thought the J79 one of the better engines made, and admired it from afar. I think the F11F-1F with the J79 was probably the one of the better fighters never to enter production, and a far improvement over the J65-powered F11F-1. A victim of politics, and bad timing, as often happens to otherwise good designs. - BillCJ (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Curious why the portion of the old J79 article about follow on J79 development testing in one of the XF4D airplanes was deleted in the new version of the article? For an easy to get to reference, all I can give for the actual use of the airplane is from Joe Bauger's website, which I have seen in other discussions here as being something of reasonable value. The Baugher article on the F4D has a blurb about the J79. http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f6_1.html Otherwise there is a book called "Seven Decades of Progress" by the General Electric Company.

I'd like to see something about J79 pre-service development with something more than the B-45 added back into this article--it was a very important step in the engine's entry into service. J79Thrust (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I took it out because according to Angelucci-The American Fighter the only engines used in the XF4D were the J35 and J40, with the J57 used for production. The next aircraft the F5D Skylancer was designed around the J79 according to him but it used the J57. I've got to go out but will have a look into this later. Baugher is usually reliable but we have had problems at FA level using his site as a reference. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I found a good reference for Skyray J79 use in Bill Gunston's Fighter's of the Fifties and added in what was there. Nimbus (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

it was one of the first US-designed engines to outperform designs from the United Kingdom[citation needed], which had previously led in the jet field. - hmm, what about the Rolls-Royce Avon and Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire. I would say that the J79 was one of the first US-designed engines to approach the performance of UK designs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.40 (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would say (as a Brit) that the statement is generally correct but that the cite tag may be warranted. The J79 was a revolutionary design mainly due to its variable compressor stator blade system. The Sapphire was in a lower thrust class, its licensed-built American version, the Wright J65, could not achieve Mach 2 in the Lockheed XF-104. The Avon is in a similar thrust range but a much older design, its specific fuel consumption was higher than the J79 ('performance' covers less obvious things like fuel consumption and pressure ratios). It might be of note that the British versions of the F-4 Phantom replaced the J79 with the physically larger Rolls-Royce Spey although this was more a political decision than performance related. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

According to Flight, the nearest UK counterpart to the J79 was the de Havilland Gyron - [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The UK Phantom F-4K and F-4M used the turbofan Spey in order to provide greater over-water range than was possible with the turbojet J79, and also to give engine commonality with the Buccaneer S.2.

The Royal Navy knew that at least 90% of the total flight time of its Phantoms would be spent at or below Mach 0.9, so using a turbofan while reducing overall top speed slightly, would give great benefits in additional range and endurance. The two-spool Spey also gave the aircraft better acceleration than the J79 variants.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.209 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Electric J79. 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/20081211200939/http://www.naa.aero/html/awards/index.cfm?cmsid=155 to http://www.naa.aero/html/awards/index.cfm?cmsid=155
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203000321/http://www.geae.com/engines/military/j79/index.html to http://www.geae.com/engines/military/j79/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply