Talk:Pratt & Whitney PW1000G

No heading

I find it very unlikely that the PW8000 would have had a two stage fan - unless it was for a military application - does anyone know of any references for this??AlekH (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It didn't, and I've changed the article accordingly. 86.176.165.110 (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This engine will be having its fan blade shear testing by the end of the 4th quarter 2008. They have completed preliminary structural tests of the fan casing cowl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.35.245 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

the data for fuel consumption, noise, CO2 and NO are relatively useless, tbh if we don't have anything to compare it with. if we are going to say that this engine consumes -15%, we should also say: compared to what? 2620:0:1052:2:1260:4BFF:FE6B:3DD3 (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Article states 'The first flight test on one of its intended production airframes, the Airbus A320neo, was on 25 September 2014.' but the first flight for the Bombardier CS100, which uses the PW1500G, was on 16 September 2013 - one year earlier (see and ). 199.64.6.151 (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

185.3.34.31 (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Rotation speed 4.000-5.000 RPM is optimal for 1.4 m diameter fan (PW1200G and PW1700G). Larger fans (2.06 m) should have 3.000-3.500 RPM. See technical data at https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/EASA%20TCDS%20IM.E.093_issue2_20152311_1.0.pdf185.3.34.31 (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Family description

The table is repetitive and does not explain well the differences between the various engines. A simpler version, something like that below, might help. On all engines the HP spool has an eight-stage compressor and a 2-stage turbine, and the LP turbine has three stages.

Small - 56" fan - 2-stage LPC - bypass ratio 9

PW1200 for MRJ

PW1700 for E-jets E2 175

Medium - 73" fan - 3-stage LPC - bypass ratio 12

PW1500 for C Series

PW1900 for E-jets E2 190/195

Large - 81" fan - 3-stage LPC

PW1100 for A319/320/321 - bypass ratio 12.5

PW1400 for Irkut MC-21 - bypass ratio 12

86.141.61.177 (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work on re-arranging the table! You've got the LPC stage numbers back-to-front: the 73/81" fans turn more slowly and need more LPC stages than the 56" fan. Also, the lengths and weights are mudddles - the sources (EASA TCDS) have metric first/then imperial throughout 86.141.61.177 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats :). It's back to front because the A320neo's PW1100G was the first to be introduced, so 81" fans first, then the Cseries' PW1500G so the 73" fans next, and the 56" fans will be introduced finally (if ever). Feel free to change the units order.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Done 86.141.61.177 (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This article should be split into the different variants.

The PW1000 variants are in different type certificates and hence considered to be "independent" of each other from a regulatory viewpoint. Further there are some substantial differences in between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.153.122.210 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really more than the CF6 or CFM56 for example. If there are large variants sections, maybe, but right now there are non existent.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Combustor

Having worked at P&W during the early years of the Geared TurboFan,I have some knowledge of its gestation and configuration. Your table listing the combustor type as twin annular pre-swirl if 100% wrong. Twin annular pre-swirl (TAPS) is General Electric's current very low emissions combustor family.It is a very costly design with a complicated fuel injector. The concept relies on fuel staging, i.e., multiple fuel circuits, some of which are not fueled during certain flight regimes. For the GTF, P&W developed a much simpler Talon X design which is not significantly different from previous generation combustors and does not require fuel staging. EMissions levels of both approaches are very similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbxstr (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the mistake. Note that personal knowledge matters less than references for Wikipedia (but personal knowledge helps noticing errors!). --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Any mistakes in the rest of the article?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Is the subsection really too long?

I don't think the sub-subsection "PW1500G failures" is too long. I think splitting it into parts doesn't make much sense, and removing information from it would be a bad idea.

Still, a header saying it's too long was added by a bot. How about just removing this header? Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not a kind thing to compare me to a bot :). That said, having a discussion about the section length is a good thing. The section must maintain WP:DUEWEIGHT compared to other incidents. WP:AIRCRASH, while not directly applicable, is full of wisdom: the important thing are the consequences, (ie the airworthiness directive or the operational changes) not the incidents themselves (inflight shutdowns are WP:run of the mill incidents). Right now the incidents are maybe over-represented, and the operational consequences are not that important: the AD limits the power at the top-of-climb, there will be a software update to avoid the problem. MuchNot an hardware issue like the earlier bearings issue, or the Trent 1000 blade problems, grounding part of the fleet. The resulting trade press coverage is rather low.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)