Talk:Compressor stall

I placed {{confusing}} in Trivia because it is not clear what is meant by a "spectacular compressor stall" or by "an interesting ride for the crew." The author might want to clarify this for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. -- Scetoaux 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fail Safe 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)

Image of Flight 1549 useful?

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)

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)

Use of word or words being defined in the definition

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)

Stalls in turbo/supercharged reciprocating engines

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)

Guns NOT "obsolete"

"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))

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)

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)

Pratt & Whitney J58 engines

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)

Rewrite "Causes" section

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)

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)

1973_Paris_Air_Show_Tu-144_crash

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)