Talk:Overall pressure ratio

Delete contradictory section

The lede says pressure ratio and compression ratio mean the same thing in the context of this article, ie aircraft intakes and compressors. This understanding is common in text-books and industry educational publications. The deleted section says they are not the same..... because it was copied from Compression ratio. The equivalent to this volume ratio, that would be relevant in the article, is density ratio or area ratio or specific volume ratio, if anyone thinks it's worth mentioning.Pieter1963 (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Efficiency numbers

I find it extremely hard to believe the 58% cruise thermal efficiency claimed in this article for the best engines. The reference is just some blog post, and not a technical document. Stationary gas turbines of the size used in aircraft reach thermal efficiencies of only about 40% (https://www.ge.com/gas-power/products/gas-turbines). The best combined cycle power plants which make use of the hot exhaust of the gas turbine to power a steam turbine are a bit over 60% efficiency, but that is with the steam turbine which is obviously not on the aircraft... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.86.223.11 (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Short description

LR.127 changed the short destription from:

"The amount of times the pressure increases due to ram compression and the work done by the compressor stages."

to:

"Ratio of pressure in a gas turbine engine"

I don't mean to be snarky or anything but... a pressure ratio being a ratio between pressures? Most people would be able to figue that out them themselves. I thought my description was already quite concise. This new description doesn't tell you anything, in my opinion. My description does require some amount of prior knowledge about gas turbines (what compressor stages are, for example), but at at least tells you what it actually is/what it consists of, unlike the circular definition the article currently has.

J. Geerink (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

I agree the revised short description is circular, but I encourage you to try and stick with 40 characters or less in a short description (see WP:SD40). I've read the lead section of the article again, and I think "Measurement in aeronautical engineering" could work, but I'm not sure. I'm open to suggestions. Cheers :-). LR.127 (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I wasn't aware, I just saw the old description and thought it could use an update. As you can see, I'm kind of new to editing on Wikipedia.

Of the following, which is best in your opinion?

77 characters (-35%): "Times the pressure increases due to ram compression and the compressor stages"

53 characters (-70%): "Amount of times the compressor increases the pressure"

(where 100% ( so -0%) is the 110 char definition I came up with)

Still not 40, can try to shorten it further.

Which one of these is more important, being short (≈20 chars), staying under 40, or "completeness" of the description? J. Geerink (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I did some reading and came across:

"A short description is not a definition, and editors should not attempt to define the article's subject nor to summarise the lead."

so I think:

"Measurement in aeronautical engineering" would be better, although:

"There is no objection to an otherwise-suitable short description that also happens to work as a definition.", so:

"(Design, can be ommited) parameter in gas turbines"

could work as well. J. Geerink (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)