Talk:Pratt & Whitney PW4000

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.

Record ?[edit]

An early version of this engine is the last entry on Aircraft records. TGCP (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failure list[edit]

I understand it was prompted by the overmediatised United 777 failure in Denver (must be slow news otherwise). There is no way this list could be exhaustive. The Encyclopedic thing to do would be to find the IFSD rate like the GE90 or the Trent XWB.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really unconvinced the East Mids 767 incident is relevant here. Engines get shut down everyday for all sorts of reasons, the 4000 series is "interesting" at the moment because on the specific variant on the 777 which has big hollow fan blades that have been failing and doing quite spectacular damage. But there is nothing to suggest that is the same on any other type with the same core engine (they have different fans) and we can't list every minor operational event for 2,500+ engines. Thoughts? Skenu (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced it's totally irrelevant, so I deleted it. 81.156.29.97 (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D'accord, I've added a hidden text "Section is for notable incidents and accidents involving an engine failure only, particularly with parts (blades, cowl, etc.) separated from the engine (contained as well as uncontained one.".87.200.157.27 (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This event mediatisation is growing out of proportion.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of mediatisation is subjective as one may be sympathetic with the airline industry or passengers. The facts that form the basis of a worldwide mediastorm however are encyclopaedic and many people will look to wikipedia in response to reading worrying media stories for unbiased verity.Veej (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Reads Like an Advertisement[edit]

"it was the A330 market leader with more than half of the installed base and one million hours, more than twice that of each competitor."

The Talon ("Technology for Affordable Low NOx") single-row combustor improves fuel-air mixing, for over 10% better NOx, CO, and HC emissions." - Than what?

"The PW4000 is up to 3.4 dB (cumulative) quieter than competitors.[1]"

Can someone make these claims more specific or clean them up to be more encyclopedic?

Gfox88 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Ref 330 fairly sure Rolls claim 60% with the Trent 700 (the 700 wiki page has that) Skenu (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, but you have to add solid, serious, established WP:RS; preferably reputable aviation media.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lauda Air flight 004[edit]

Why is Lauda Air Flight 004 not included in the incident section, since the aircraft used P&W 4060 engines? The incident caused a huge amount of redesign work and had major implications for all operators because they were unable to use thrust reversers for some time afterwards. Flanker235 (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]