Talk:Renault 90 hp

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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Release notes

Naming: Engine name is given as “90 hp” this is the name used in contemporary publications from both Renault and others. It is notable that Renault French language publications from this time period use hp (horsepower) rather than ch (chevaux) or cv (cheval-vapeur) when giving the name of the engine.

The “12A” name was given to the engine retrospectively and was not used in contemporary publications. This is the case for all early Renault aircraft engines.

Nominal rating: 90 hp is the nominal rating of the engine and should be not be taken as maximum power output. This causes a lot of confusion with early Renaults. For example an article might describe an aircraft being fitted with a “100 hp Renault” when the actual model was the Renault 80 hp (despite its name the 80 hp model had a maximum power output of 105 horsepower quoted in its manual). The actual maximum power output of the 90 hp is unknown though some contemporary accounts describe it as a 100 hp engine.

Bore size: Sources are not consistent regarding bore size. All cited sources agree that the 90 hp model preceded the 100 hp model and that two engines had near identical weight and a stroke of 140 mm however some sources put the bore at 90mm some put it at 96mm which would be the same as the 100 hp model. I have used “Angle” for the engine specs (bore given agrees with Ludvigsen) as I consider these sources to be more reputable than the magazine articles however I suspect that the magazine articles are also correct and there is more to this story.

--Stivushka (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would think of XX hp as a name that is only loosely related to the power output, it was a common naming convention in the 1910s until engines were given names, examples are the Beardmore 160 hp and Rolls-Royce 190 hp which was the Rolls-Royce Falcon. Where this does occasionally cause problems on Wikipedia is use of the convert template in an image file which instantly turns it red and insistence of inserting non-breaking spaces in the name. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That said, it seems to be the Renault category on the aircraft engine list where it’s caused the biggest proliferation of “unciteable” engine models. I plan on gently working through the list removing those that don’t have an article and are uncited and can’t be cited by either Hartmann and/or Angle (those being the two sources given at the top of the section) … does that seem reasonable? Stivushka (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that the list is mainly the work of a banned user, many hours have been spent cleaning it up by myself and others and it still isn't brilliant. The Renault section is particularly bad. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bore size - Mystery resolved, seems the Aeroplane’s report from the 1911 Paris airshow has an error which has cascaded through the decades. The report looks to have swapped the 96mm bore of the 70hp and the 90mm bore of the 90hp in the column. Stivushka (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]