| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aerojet M-1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Recent M-1 Image edit
I recently took a photo of the M-1 and have added it to the article. It is interesting to note that the SVG 'scale' drawing is much larger than the actual engine in the photo. I'm assuming that the nozzle extension must have been very large in the diagram depicted, but absent in the museum display.
As you can see from the thumbnails added on the right, these two depictions are quite different.
I will leave the page as is for comment. -Kyle(talk) 06:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Comparison with F-1 edit
According to F-1, the F-1A rocket produced over 2 million lb-f thrust, more than the M-1. Also this article would make it appear that since no hydrogen pumps were tested, no M-1 was ever completed, whereas the F-1A would appear to have been completed but never flown. 74.134.236.69 06:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well the article does state that it was the largest hydrogen engine built. It also says it was more powerful than the F-1. It does not link the two however, there is no claim that it was the most powerful engine of any sort, which is what you seem to be suggesting here? Maury 13:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with anonymous IP. I am changing "built" to something like "component tested” per the original comment... it's clearly spelled out in the cited final report on page 11. The term "built" is very misleading out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auroranaut (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't mean to highjack these comments but while going over the F-1 and M-1 today I found a problem with the claim for the "most powerful ..." engine ... The problem is that the F-1A as tested is given with a sea level thrust of 8 MN and the M-1 as component tested is also given with a sea level thrust of "8 million N" (why nor use 8 MN ?). So they apear equal at that point. It is not clear if the later "uprating" of the M-1 design (unfortunately now given in unscientifical "million pounds force") has been covered by any component tests. If these developments were "only" on paper then they should not enter into a competition because for sure there were all kinds of giants on paper in east and west. While barely accepting "component tested" as enough, a pure design on paper could never compete (my personal opinion of course). So can anybody claim that designs above 8 MN were completely "component tested" ? JB --92.195.35.26 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- The 6.67-8 MN figure is for the M-1 running in vacuum, not sea level. See http://www.astronautix.com/m/m-1.html Kaleja (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)