Talk:Pratt & Whitney JT8D

Mistaken identity

The JT8D does not power the AWACS and JSTARS...it is the JT3D

Yes the JT3D (TF33 in USAF parlance) was the original engine, but some were re-engined with JT8Ds - others were re-engined with CFM56s... GCarty 13:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to see a KC-135/VC-137 etc. with the JT8D- only CFM56s, J-57s and TF-33s. Would be interested to view pic of JT8D birds though, hey, I could be wrong.

However, one company did use the JT8D-200, in what seemed to be MD-80 nacelles, in a civil B707 conversion- I saw this airplane recently at LAX in a corporate paint scheme, beautiful. I think the mod was done at San Antonio as I saw the plane there a lot in flight test in the late 90s...

-D. Macomber

The JT8D is not on the AWACS or JSTARS - yet. Marimvibe 06:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-engining

I would absolutely LOVE to see some of the old DC-9's/727s/707 re-engined with the new JT8Ds and put back into service. Maybe even back into production, considering how successful they initially were. If the old engines were the only reason they went out of production and service, this could be a plausible solution.

-Erik Terock

E-8

The JT8D has been used to re-engine the E-8 J-STARS aircraft!!--Petebutt (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pratt & Whitney JT8D. 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/20071107044727/http://flug-revue.rotor.com/frnews1/FRNews02/FR020512.htm to http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRNews1/FRNews02/FR020512.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

RM8

The current text does not give any connection between the The JT8D-1 and the RM8 engine unless clicking on the wiki link. Should that be remedied? BP OMowe (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Huh? BilCat (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Reading the text, the connection between the JT8D-1 and the RM8 is non-existent, the reader has to click the RM8 link and read that article to find out. BP OMowe (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

How do you propose to remedy that? BilCat (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not propose, suggest or even consider any improvement for the time being until such a point that it is established that it is an issue, and that a solution is indeed desired. BP OMowe (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really understand what you believe the issue is. I was hoping a proposal would help to make that clearer. BilCat (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

To quote your edit comment: "the reader has no idea what the RM8 is from this sentence - is it something P&W designed? A how don't relate to the JT8D?" As is, the whole passage regarding the RM8 fails to demonstrate relevance for the article and should be removed. Since you reverted the clarification and restored the tag, I consider further improvements of the article to be your problem. BP OMowe (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We've both attempted to clarify it before, and the other person wasn't satisfied with it, so that makes to both our problem. BilCat (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)