Talk:War emergency power

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

teardown requirement

According to the P51 manual, the engine needed to be torn down for inspection after use of WEP before flying again. I don't know if that's true for any other planes or not, but to be on the safe side i just weaseled out of it with "for some airplanes, such as..." Gzuckier 16:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, systems that used the wire required an engine teardown if the wire was broken. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in simulations

I removed "Many flight simulator computer programs now offer WEP simulation for selected fighter aircraft." because simulator implies systems realism - you might as well add a similar notice to the aileron and cannon articles! Thanks for filling out what's here, though, especially with references - great work. ericg ✈ 00:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK/RAF usage

I think it was termed "Emergency Boost", but known colloquially as "pushing through the gate", to the pilots. They did not need to be told that it was only to be used in combat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is correct. The throttle was 'gated' with a piece of thin wire that could be broken by pushing the throttle lever all the way forward. When the aircraft returned from an operation one of the first things the ground crew would do is to look to see if the wire was broken. If so it necessitated an engine strip down. Pilots who used the emergency power were said to belong to 'The Throttle-Benders Union'. In Air Ministry Pilot's Notes the term used was 'Emergency Five Minute Limit' or 'Combat Five Minute Limit' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.57.230 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shock wave interference?

The effect in the exhaust of the MIG21 must be similar to that shown in pictures of the SR71, roughly equally spaced bright spots in the jet exhaust. The phrase "shock wave interference" can be only qualitative at best, because shock waves are essentially non-linear and therefore do not behave like simpler light and sound waves. In this case it lacks even qualitative agreement with the effect. A better, though still qualitative, description would be "resonance". This agrees with the equal spacing and the apparently localized source of the energy and gasses involved. Since gases at supersonic speeds are compressible, the effect could be due to cycles of expansion and compression started by the expansion as the gas leaves the jet. David R. Ingham (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article already says too much about the cause of Shock diamonds, a topic better discussed in its own article. Here, we can say how they looked in MIG-21. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This late variant of the standard Soviet light fighter plane was built as a stopgap measure to counter the newer and more powerful American F-16 and F/A-18 fighters until the next-generation MiG-29 could be introduced to service."

MiG-21bis had made maiden flight eight years before F-16 did. How could it be "stopgap measure"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.72.58 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MiG 21 "diamond regime"

Who called it that? Russian pilots or American observers? What are the Russian names for it? --BjKa (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]