Talk:General Electric YJ93

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

X279E / J-93 Rated for Mach 4?

I have a book written by Steve Pace which is about the XB-70 and I remember there was a part in the book when it was talking about the competition that lead to the XB-70 which included the B-804 and the XB-70 design. Regardless, it said that the engines the X279E (which was an earlier name for the J-93) were rated for Mach 4. I don't remember exactly what page it was on, but I am looking for the book...

Additionally I have heard other information to suggest that the J-91 and J-58 were designed to achieve the same top speeds as the J-93. Granted saying "I've heard" isn't exactly the best proof, but it does seem to be a commonly accepted fact that the J-91, and J-93 have the same performance in terms of maximum mach number. The J-58 was basically an 80% scaled down version of the J-91 and was also to have the same maximum mach number as the J-91. AVKent882 (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This document (AEDC-TR-73-132) says the maximum flight speed for the J93 was Mach 3.2. www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0766648Pieter1963 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J93 and Boron Fuel

It is my understanding that the J93 was originally intended to exist in two forms. I forget the dash numbers, but essentially one version was supposed to be powered by a kerosene jet fuel (albeit higher performance than conventional JP-4), while the other variant was supposed to use a boron-based liquid fuel that offered more range and endurance. I'll have to take a look through the library tonight and see if I can flesh this out.--Voodude (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The combustion chamber was to use JP-4 initially, with the afterburner being able to use either JP-4 or ethyldecaborane or HEF-3. The fuel burned hotter and as a result was to offer a 20% boost in range when used in the engine's afterburner, it also had a higher flash point as well. Of course it had a number of side-effects, the most notable being that it was 5 to 10 times more toxic than cyanide, and it burned in contact with air. Predictably, the high-energy fuel program was cancelled. In the aftermath of this JP-6 was developed which had a higher flashpoint than JP-4 and also burned cleaner and may have produced a hotter flame too, as it did provide performance benefits over JP-4. AVKent882 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many?

While this engine was far from operational, it would be nice to include how many were built. minimum is 12, with the two Valkyries having 6 each. But I got no idea. Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]