Talk:Heinkel HeS 3

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 articles

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 met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

corrections

"The first HeS 3 design was generally similar to the HeS 1, using a 16-bladed centrifugal compressor supported by an 8-blade impeller to smooth out the airflow in the intake" "A redesign started as the HeS 3b, which dispensed with the "folded" arrangement and returned to simpler flame cans for combustion. In order to keep the dimensions small, the widest part of the cans were arranged in front of the engine, the compressed air first flowing forward into the cans, and then rearward to the turbine"

I will replace the above with a professionally worded description based on reading the C.Rodgers ref that I have already added. Also some of the specs were wrong according to that same ref which appears to be a definitve description of the engine with many refs itself.Pieter1963 (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bentele's autobiog is worth a read too. Especially for the way in which he developed early ideas in cooling hollow turbine blades by gas flow through them, as an ersatz measure for not having the creep-resistant nickel alloys that the Allies did. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that source. I was not able to confirm the He S1 and first HE S3 layouts as described in the article because they are not mentioned in the C. Rodgers ref. Based on the inaccurate description of the He S3b it would be worth verifying directly from a suitable source.Pieter1963 (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]