Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

P&W/Allison 578-DX

Does anyone have any info readily available on the P&W/Allison 578-DX propfan? It was an important engine in the 80s, along with the GE36 UDF, though neither saw production. I have little about it in print, and I've not been able to check FlightGlobal's archives as yet. I'll try to check there later this week, and try to get a stub going soon. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're still working on this, I can dig through AvWeek archives and a couple other places if you want. SidewinderX (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Action

Remains a red link.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Non constructive edits

Hi guys, I felt concerned enough at the deteriorating state of the piston engine articles to return for the time being and correct them. User:AMCKen has been adding original research (synthesised BMEP figures), changing decimals to fractions and adding false precision by use of a calculator presumably. These changes have been made to clearly cited and accurate specification figures (giving the impression that the new figures are supported by the reference). This problem was highlighted on the user's talk page by an admin, another editor and myself last year. The problem was clearly explained, I have no wish to return there and repeat myself. The contributions of two IPs are also identical in their edit nature and should be reviewed. I have corrected some of the British engine articles but I'm finding it difficult due to intermediate edits by other editors. You may wish to look at the American and other nationality engines for similar 'corrections'. I spent a lot of time and care on the articles that I created (being careful not to own them), I know that you guys do as well. Hey ho, C'est La Vie. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been monitering and have removed a lot of this unsourced WP:OR as well, but all engine articles need to be watched! - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a few thousand then! Seriously though to use a polite British expression it is 'cheesing me off'. It's causing an awful lot of unnecessary work. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that is what passes for 'fun 'n games' on Wikipedia! - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There are now three IPs that are performing identical edits, the last one is new today, [1], [2], and [3]. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

All fixed! - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, check the Curtiss and Wright piston engines! In many cases though their specs have no cited reference so anyone could write what they like in there at the moment. There must be a term for hijacking a cite, 'wikijacking'?! I've seen it done in article text, very subtle sometimes. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that uncited specs are a problem. When I find ones that are suspicious I try to find a ref, cite it and then correct the text to ref. The best source for US certified engines is often FAA TCDS - can't argue with them as they are a government-issued legal document and the basis for certification. - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Shame that there is no equivalent system in the UK that I know of, the DH Gipsy Major official manual has dimensional specs but no performance figures. The performance specs that Jane's and Flight used are very precise and must have come from somewhere, bits of paper long burnt on a bonfire I suspect. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the IPs has been reverting my legitimate reversions: [4] as an example. No edit summary given, I am finding this problem very tiresome. Aware of the 3RR rule, perhaps it's time for an admin or fellow editors to step in. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree - a quick IP address check will show that these are all one editor who has an account and edits under many IP addresses. - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the answer is as the Canadian IP editor appears to change IP regularly so it is difficult to leave them a message. I suspect they think they are doing the right thing but after they have changed the same article a couple of times you would think something wasnt right. We will just have to keep an eye on the situation and possible protect the articles if nobody can communicate with him/her. We would probably need to show that we have left messages on the IPs talk page first to show they have not responded. MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay will start doing that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Detected another 'twitch' today [5], an exact reversion of my reversion in late June, keeping an eye on this guy before formal action as it is getting quite tiresome now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a 'hair trigger' and not putting up with it any longer, any thoughts on the tenses thing? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest giving the ones that keep changing cited numbers a {{Uw-unsourced1}} warning message or other warning template on the user's talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff, one of the IP address talk pages has had a written request to stop and an explanation of the problem placed by both Adam and myself, it seems to have gone quiet for the moment but thanks for highlighting that option. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

More continued defiant acts today, I have once again respectfully asked the editor to stop. Maybe a {{Uw-unsourced3}} is needed next with admin intervention. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverted more uncited stuff at Wright R-1300 . - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed that one, wasn't on my watch list, also been leaving these changes if the specs were uncited, very tempted to take this to WP:ANI at the next instance as it has been going on far too long with no acknowledgement of the problem and even protests that WP policies are wrong. One good thing perhaps to come out of it is that I am adding cites to previously unreferenced specs sections to make them 'waterproof'. Unfortunately the R-1300 was a 'new' engine when my Jane's book was published and it only gets a brief mention. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For certified engines you can always use the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheets! I will add that to the R-1300. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep forgetting that very useful source , amazing how your mind can get 'clouded' by 'interruptions'! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Done! - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job. Slightly OT a lot of the specs sections have an extra line gap where the reference has been put in manually, Bill added the code |ref= to the template recently, it just needs slotting in to old versions of the template when we see it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that - the spacing didn't work without it! - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

He's still arguing against WP policies, I'm off flying for some fresh air, there's little more that I can do. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Went quiet  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Past/present tense?

I see many articles (aircraft and engines) that often have mixed tenses used in the text, whatever tense is used perhaps it should be used throughout. Slightly more tricky is which tense to use, if we take the Rolls-Royce Merlin as an example the lead says 'The Merlin was a V12 etc.....'. I would mildly disagree with that because examples are still flying and even if there were only examples in museums the present tense could still be used. I think it would be safe to use the past tense if there were no examples of an engine flying or known to exist in museums, could also be used for designs that did not materialise. It's a minor but important point in my view and I am tempted to adjust the tense of articles based on what the consensus is here, might also mention it on the main aircraft project talk page. Just been looking through the missing article redlink lists and we seem to be doing pretty well with the engines, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Good issue - I have fixed a number of these. If the engine is still in use I think it should say: "The engine was designed in 1929 and is used in the Cessna X". If all examples are grounded then "The engine was designed in 1929 and was used in the Cessna X" - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Adam, I looked in the MOS but could not find anything on it. Once we've had a think about this we could add a little guideline to the page content. It can take some research to work out whether an engine is an 'is' or a 'was'!. I found one of these stashed in the gliding club hangar last week under a cover, marvellous to touch and think about its history, definitely a 'was' though. It's being stored for a possible Bomber Command museum on the airfield site. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me - go ahead and add a section if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will wait for some more voices, I was thinking of a 'hints for a good engine article' type section if you can think of anything else, it's mostly covered elsewhere and by the use of common sense I suppose. Not keen on laying down military type edicts, I've discovered over the years that people don't respond well! Just some friendly advice (that can be quoted in edit summaries of course!) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nimbus227 raising this issue. It is important to the credibility and professionalism of Wikipedia.

Nimbus has written whatever tense is used perhaps it should be used throughout. There is some good sense to be found at WP:RETAIN which says that where one form of spelling is used throughout an article, that form should be retained even though that will result in lack of consistency across Wikipedia. Here, we are not talking about differences in spelling but differences in tense. If an article is written in one tense throughout, and that tense does not cause the article to look clumsy or non-sensical, it can be retained even though that will result in lack of consistency across Wikipedia. If the chosen tense diminishes the credibility and professionalism of Wikipedia it should be changed.

One of the principles of good communication (certainly in English) is that each sentence should employ only one tense. For example a wordsmith might write "President Obama spoke to the people of Iran and said he was in favour of good relations between the two countries." In this application, "was in favour" is past tense to preserve the chosen tense, rather than past tense to indicate that Obama's wish for good relations came to an end at some time, and was replaced by a wish for something different.

Consequently a wordsmith might employ the past tense and write "The engine was designed in 1929 and was used in the Cessna X". This wordsmith might take offence at another User mangling his sentence by mixing tenses. The best solution is probably to recognise that the year in which the engine was designed, and the aircraft types in which it is installed, are unrelated so no purpose is served by putting them in the one sentence. It might be better expressed as "The engine was designed in 1929. It is used in the Cessna X." Dolphin51 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer your last-mentioned solution - it is more accurate! - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

All good stuff. Thinking about it there may well be unavoidable use of different tenses in an engine article, the rule about using the same tense in a sentence is a good one. I am no wordsmith although I hope my grammar is not too bad. Many of the stub/start class engine articles contain plenty of 'dry' facts but not much in the way of prose and a lot of them might well stay that way. It's probably only now that we are starting to look at how they are actually written. What I might do is pick a few articles and arrange the tense how I think it should be then flag them here for thoughts, will pick current engines, old surviving (flying) engines and extinct ones. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Some example articles

I just selected a few random articles, could not actually find any that were 'wrong' as such, the ticks are my indication that I think they are ok as they are:

• Armstrong Siddeley Deerhound - Extinct engine, no museum examples - Past tense throughout.Y
• Armstrong Siddeley Cheetah - 'Surviving' engine - Described as present tense in the lead (as there are still examples flying) but in the past tense relating to its development.Y
• Bristol Hercules - Museum engine only, described using past tense throughout, probably the best way (have changed my mind now!)Y
• Bristol Mercury - Described in the past tense in the lead first sentence but there are current flying examples (not yet mentioned in the article), if we add survivors then perhaps we should change the first sentence to present tense. Note: Survivors section added, now present tenseY!!!
• Wright R-1820, as above, currently flying in B-17 and probably others, no survivors section yet.

It looks to me that a reasonable guideline for us is that if the article has a 'survivors' section (flying engines) then the first lead sentence should be present tense, if the engine is extinct then obviously use past tense throughout. For museum engines, again past tense throughout. This guideline could apply equally to aircraft. I think it is important to get this right. I have seen minor edit wars over 'is' or 'was'. Fair summary? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now added a couple of lines to the page content guidelines. Hope this is ok. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think placing one or more criteria on the page content guidelines is a good idea. I see a risk of ambiguity with the current criteria - if there is an example still flying but the article doesn't have a Survivors section, should the opening sentence be past tense or not?

I suggest the criterion could be that if one example of the engine is known to be flying, or known to be installed in an aircraft believed to be airworthy, the opening sentence could be present tense. If not, it should be past tense. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed 'was' to 'is' before in engine articles that obviously have 'survivors' flying but no survivors section yet and met with a wall of opposition, one of the reasons for 'formalising' it a bit here because I genuinely thought that I was correct to change it. Might try again and see what happens! The best way is to add a survivors section and then it is difficult to argue the present tense in the first lead sentence. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Action

Guideline added  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I hope you don't mind chaps but I just archived this page up to March 2009, it was getting a bit long. Maybe Trevor can set up a bot for us, 60 days? Nice to see so much discussion in the fairly short time that the group/task force has been going. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Autoarchiving by MiszaBot has been set up. I used 120 days. See how that works for a while and adjust if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that 120 days seems a bit long (this page is getting long). Maybe change it to 75 or 90 days? -SidewinderX (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I think Jeff watches this page so perhaps he can tweak the bot setting, if not I can archive manually in a couple of days. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Skeletons?

Was going through the stubs and found this, I have not the first clue what it is trying to say. Been declined a speedy delete, perhaps it needs a slower deletion method! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The article read like an alien warp drive! - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you guys can have a look through the engine stub category as well, a lot of wacky stuff in there that should have been caught, mostly invented terminology articles, and duplicates of existing articles, need a new category for 'engine terminology stubs'. Done for today. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why does it need to be deleted? With a couple more sources and explanations, would it be an acceptable article? SidewinderX (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The 'speedy delete' tag cited CSD 12 (Copyright violation), it is a direct copy of this however I'm fairly sure that this would be public domain. It would need to be rewritten to avoid plagiarism. It's a complicated subject, a design concept rather than a running engine, probably would not meet project notability requirements, the report at the bottom does explain the concept in fairly plain English in places if anyone wanted to try and turn it into a readable article. May come under What Wikipedia is not - Scientific journal? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Article survived AfD (amazingly!)  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Book find

I just happened to pop in to the local book shop and found this: *Smith, Geoffrey G.Gas Turbines and Jet Propulsion for Aircraft, London S.E.1, Flight Publishing Co.Ltd., 1946.

1946!! Great information on the early turbojets and a foreword by Geoffrey de Havilland no less. I'm sure this will be very useful, covers all technical aspects. Shout if you think there might be something in there, covers mainly British types but also American and German developments as well. I resisted buying a vintage book on Astro-navigation! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I bet it has some neat stuff in there about Frank Whittle SidewinderX (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, goes into his patents in detail, some very interesting period full page advertisements in the back such as 'Rolls-Royce - The foremost designers and constructors of Jet Propulsion Engines in the World', to be fair some would say they still are. It's only a little book, less than 1/2 inch thick but it's packed with good stuff. Just filled out all the specs in the de Havilland Goblin article and added cites where both were previously missing. All for £4! I do love the old books. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice! If you're interested in any old advertisments, lettme know; I've got access to proquest newspaper archives that preserves most of those old newspaper ads! SidewinderX (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm just getting to the supersonic bit, pre Yeager of course. Lots of strange contraptions to launch ICBM type devices at Germany (first edition was 1942) and high speed aircraft projects. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good book on the early stuff. Tom Sawyer's book (yes, really) is a similar find. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Got some great terminology in there, 'turbine-jet' and 'turbine with airscrew'! What is the Tom Sawyer book? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Similar age book on early gas turbines. Lots of content on the 1930s gas turbines for power generation and railway locomotive use, it also makes generous use of the term "gas turbine" in relation to piston engine turbochargers. Reads a little oddly these days, but it's an interesting insight into the (perfectly valid) terminology of the day).

I also like the coverage (can't remember which book) of the Caproni Campini N.1, the Italian aircraft with the jet engine whose compressor was driven by a radial engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Chat only  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Mercury (Spanish version)

Just noticed the interwiki add to the Bristol Mercury at [6]. Created today and they've got a few red links yet. Interesting to think that someone is doing the same as us in another country. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I always get a smile out of that when I see another language version that has been based on the en.wiki version, even more so when I see one of the photos I have contributed turn up on another language version! - Ahunt (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They are getting there, I only added the Fokker image last night. Sometimes useful to look at the other wikis for images/info. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Pegasus now, [7], a busy chap! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Chat only  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

bmep

There has recently been a mass addition / removal as WP:OR of unsourced bmep figures from a number of engines.

We don't class capacity unit conversions with the {{convert}} template as WP:OR, so could we achieve anything similar with bmep? Is there an acceptable objective definition for bmep, such that we could set a calculation template up for it with the accepted and sourced values, then calculate an accepted and non-WP:OR value?

Although I'm unhappy about how these were added in the first place and happy to see them go (for one thing, it would be a lot of fact-checking just to verify their calculation), I do think an acceptable addition of bmep would be useful to a historical development of engines.

We don't even need to use the "right" bmep calculation in the template, just one that's reasonably widely accepted, has some good authority behind it, and has a reference to how they are being calculated. We're happy enough to do that for SAE horsepower after all, and they're no more reliable as an absolute measure. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Brake mean effective pressure is a redirect to Mean effective pressure, there are too many variables to apply it consistently. Metric/Imperial conversions are allowed and encouraged under WP:MOSNUM but this is a complicated calculation that is considered original research i.e. coming up with something that is not in the given reference. The 'pistonspecs' template has actually been trimmed down with parameters being removed as it was becoming unencyclopedic. As it is the specific power and power to weight ratio parameters are rarely provided in references so our completion of them could also be considered OR. Torque figures are not provided either, sometimes a better 'visualisation' of an engine's pulling power. I have never calculated horsepower, always lifted the numbers straight from the reference. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

bmep is a simple calculation if either torque or (power at rated rpm) is known, and the second of these is pretty common for aeroengines. There's also some vague conventions that bmep is quoted as 85% of this figure from the torque peak. Provided we have a WP:RS for using "85% of torque peak" (I'll check Ricardo tonight), then that would seem reasonable.

There's a general problem on wikipedia that precision is incorrectly favoured over accuracy: the usual problem of kids with calculators. Provided that we know what the limits on our bmep figures would be, and we have some level of consistency, then these would seem acceptable IMHO. It's certainly not WP:OR, provided that the formula is cited. bmep's value to an encyclopedia of engines isn't in the Top Trumps points-scoring at 3dp, it's seeing the order of magnitude changes from 1920 to 1950. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

False precision was another problem that was occurring along with the BMEP additions, the same editor was adding both. Surely the power or thrust-to-weight ratio is a sufficient indicator of engine progress over the years, remembering that we are writing these articles for 'laymen' readers, for want of a better term. This is assuming that the ratio has been calculated the correct way round, another problem that I've seen and corrected in many engine articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Power is hidden by some early engines simply being enormous. Thrust to weight also varies according to radials / inlines and air/water. bmep really is the best indicator of "progress". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems I had with the calculations is that, lacking data, one must make a lot of assumptions in doing these calculations, for instance this must assume flat pistons and not hemi-sphericals or other designs. In my mind the number of assumptions, unless clearly spelled out makes these unlikely to be correct. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to know piston crown shape, bore area is enough (and we can usually assume circular bores, so that just means diameter). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(Undent)Here is what Jimbo thinks on the matter from WP:SYN: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Although mathematical calculations are not used in the examples at WP:SYN what is being suggested here is exactly the situation given above and is to be clearly avoided. What it does say is that if the plain fact is there in the reference (in our case the BMEP figure) then it can be used. In all my engine reference books and the various web sources I have viewed I have rarely, if ever seen a BMEP figure quoted. There must be a reason for that. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that's applicable here, because bmep calculations aren't a synthesis, they're a mechanical calculation (as per metric/imperial unit conversions) that imports a subjective standard from some outside authority (more than merely a WP:RS) so that we can consider them to be objective.

It would be a bad piece of synthesis to mix unqualified torque and power ratings from two sources, as these obviously vary with rpm and we otherwise have no way of knowing that they were measured at the same speed. That's what WP:SYN is warning us against, the unwitting comparison of apples and oranges, where two "valid" sources had different underlying axioms (rpm).

A "mechanical" calculation (e.g. unit conversion) is one that has no subjective input. I believe we can reify bmep calculations into such provided that our input data is well sourced from a suitably robust and consistent source (to avoid the risk WP:SYN highlights) and also to clearly indicate and reference our algorithm, having taken that from a "benchmark" (not merely WP:RS) origin, such as Ricardo. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Consensus reached to not include BMEP figures  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cirrus engine

This fella is causing some confusion!! I'm trying to sort it out. The engine was made by the following companies (in chronological order): Aircraft Disposal Company (aka 'Airdisco), Cirrus Engine (aka 'Cirrus-Aero Engines Limited'), Cirrus-Hermes Engineering Company (redlink) and Blackburn Aircraft (as 'Blackburn Aircraft Ltd, Cirrus Engine Dept'). The engine articles involved are the Cirrus Minor (engine) and Cirrus Major. There are (or were as I've fixed some) circular redirects through these articles. I don't think the engines got the major/minor name until Blackburn started making them so the articles might need renaming. I also think that the title Cirrus Engine is slightly misleading (readers might expect an engine here) and it is really the trademark name of the company. I can cover the engines using the existing articles and possibly a separate navbox for the type. I think it needs some careful page moving. Just to make it worse there are two engines missing, the Blackburn Cirrus Midget and the Blackburn Cirrus Bombardier (redirects to 'Cirrus Engine', the company) which were not variants of the original Cirrus! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The mist is clearing a bit! The early Cirrus engines were upright inlines, I propose that ADC Cirrus (redirect page) is the target page for these engines (including the closely related Cirrus-Hermes variants). The minors and majors are indeed Blackburn engines of a new (but related) inverted inline type, therefore I propose that Cirrus Minor (engine) is moved to Blackburn Cirrus Minor (currently a redirect) and Cirrus Major is moved to Blackburn Cirrus Major (another redirect). My last suggestion is that Cirrus Engine be moved to Cirrus Aero-Engines Limited. I don't think this is controversial and it is easier to use this page for discussion rather than tagging the articles and discussing it there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary, those suggestions look good to me. I'd redirect Cirrus-Hermes to Cirrus Aero-Engines Limited (the "Limited" probably isn't needed, per the naming conventionson Companies, but that's minor), as Cirrus-Hermes didn't exist for that long, as is not likely to be more than a stub too. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Minor and Major have been moved. - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bill, I know you're good with moving stuff! Roger on the shortened name for the company and redirect. I've just about finished a navbox and will post it here to help, my only worry is the trail of redirects but shouldn't take too long to fix. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done the template, a bit rough but it's helping. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, looks good. The bots will take care of updating the redirects to the current titles, but of course we'll still have to manually correct the links that pointed to the company article to the correct engine articles. I've created ADC Cirrus with content from Cirrus Aero-Engines; feel free to modify as needed, but I felt we needed something there in place of the redirect. - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Great nearly fixed, the problem now is that the engines described in the articles are not the right ones at all! Just been looking through the 'under construction' templates to find the best one to use. Will take a wee while to straighten it out. This 'problem' has been bugging me for a while and I'm glad we've got to the bottom of it. All for the reader's benefit! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you can read German somewhat, you might look at the de.wp Cirrus Minor and Major articles. Both have alot of text, but I can't read German, so I don't know if they're about the correct engines either! - BilCat (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Aber naturlich!! Got plenty of stuff with my books. Ok, ADC Cirrus and Blackburn Cirrus Minor are basically correct with the right engines now. Can we put some stub text in Blackburn Cirrus Major to get rid of that nasty warning template? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant Blackburn Cirrus Bombardier! I'm on it now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we are basically straight now, the Bombardier page got deleted by Trevor two seconds before I saved the text but it survived! Bit hasty? All the articles need a bit of polish, I can get some Cirrus Minor photos as there are a pair of them attached to the same aeroplane in our hangar. hope the owner lets me open the cowlings. Good job, that was a bit frantic! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Added the interwiki links (and also to the German articles), they are correct BTW (well they would be wouldn't they!). They've got the Midget there as well, little job for tomorrow. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) No problem on the deletion. I added the tag so it would show up as a redlink,as I didn't know how long it would tak to make the article. You outdid yourself on that one! Good luck on the pics, and thanks for coming back! This is fun again! - BilCat (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The German WP is an odd lot - they have articles we don't have, and many are pretty thorough. I just created the Ayres LM200 Loadmaster here, which they have had for a long time. On the other hand, there are many notable aircraft that they do not have articles for, many of those being German aircraft. Whenever I update or create an article, the German WP is usually my first stop when checking the interwikis. - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It can be fun sometimes!! Just have to avoid the troublemakers which is not easy, it only takes one. I think we are making real progress with the engines, I've started getting some up to B class. That little exercise cleared up a mystery for me anyway. Nothing like German efficiency but then again their interwikis were missing! Auf wieder schreiben Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A little update on the Blackburn Cirrus Midget, according to Lumsden it existed and was only used on the Chilton Monoplane, there is a photo and full specs in his book. I contacted the 'world authority' on Chilton Monoplanes who said it was not used to his knowledge and that he knows little or nothing about this engine, very strange. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

New navbox created, confusion resolved!  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Split Bristol?

The Bristol Aeroplane Company article is quite long. I think it might be time to split the engines off to their own page, probably at Bristol Engine Company or Bristol Aero Engines. I realize that both the aircraft and engines were produced under the same company identity for several decades. However, as the current articel exists, it really is two articles on the same page, as the engine sectons are completely separte from the aircraft section. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it Bill. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, had a look through all the related articles, there is some work to be done to improve things but not that much. The Bristol Aeroplane Company article is not necessarily long at 17kb, it appears long because of the long lists which could be formatted into columns to save white space, I'll have a go at that. I looked at the timeline and all the articles to see how they correlate, going to list them here to help understand the fairly complicated history (dates are engine production not necessarily company formation).

• Cosmos Engineering, 1918-1920
• Bristol Aeroplane Company, 1920-1956
• Bristol Engine Company, 1956-1959, is a redirect to Bristol Aeroplane Company where it is mentioned.
• Bristol Siddeley, 1959-1966
• Bristol Aerospace, Canadian subsidiary, possibly named incorrectly as it was MacDonald brothers until 1967? Not clear if they made engines.
• Bristol Aerojet, Bristol/Aerojet collaboration, very short stub, not clear what they made exactly. Could be merged.

Another thing that would help is to group the engines in the Bristol navbox into companies, similar to the RR template, Cosmos engines have their own navbox. I can do that in a minute. There is a potential problem in Bristol Siddeley in the 'personnel' section as it is a direct copy of Flight, it's formatted as a quote but it would be better summarised and wikified by someone's own hand. Keeping me busy anyway! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've 'tweaked' Bristol Aeroplane Company and the navbox, neither perfect but getting there. The Bristol article could be made more interesting with well placed images, there are two 'modern' aircraft next to the WWI list for instance. Need to look at the Canadian/American subsidiaries now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've broken Bristol Aerospace into sections, appreciate it if a Canadian editor could have a look at it, I think there is another article in there (the MacDonald brothers), also changed the lead to past tense as there is no indication in the Magellan Aerospace article that they are still using the Bristol name. Getting out of my depth with this one. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I am a bit too close to this issue as I worked in the Bristol plant in Winnipeg as the government test pilot from 1986-89! They are sort of still identified as "Bristol Aerospace" on the website home page, although the logo is Magellan. The sectioning is okay and the info in the text is generally correct, although it seriously needs some refs added! I do not think they built aeroengines there, although they certainly overhauled afterburners and other engine-related parts. It was one company from McDonald, though the Bristol acquisition and name change, to the RR purchase and then onto the current Magellan ownership, so I don't see any need to split it out into parts. I really should go through my photos albums, I have lots of 35 mm photos from there which would be useful in the article! - Ahunt (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. You're not selling their products so get on with it!! I believe that Bristol Aerojet was British based, a company infobox would be invaluable in these articles just to understand the basic facts. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite the contrary - I was there as government QA, keeping them on their toes! Let me have a detailed run through it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Bristol navbox clarified.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

D-36/D-436

Does anyone have any access to some coherant info on the Ivchenko-Progress and Motor Sich companies related to the D-36 and D436 turbofan engines. We currently don't have an article on either engine, and from our articles on the cmpanies, I'm not ever certain who makes the engines. Most website info, such as Jane's and Deagle, call the D-436 the Ivchenko-Progress D-436, but a user keeps changing it to [[ Progress ZMKB D-436. - BilCat (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A quick search on CSA found a 2004 Flight International Article (Flight International. Vol. 165, no. 4931, pp. 10. 27 Apr.-3 May 2004) that mentions the D-436. I can only read the abstract, not the full article. Here is the full abstract: "Antonov has revealed plans to develop a stretched, 100-seat version of the An-148 regional jet, and proposes to offer a version powered by General Electric CF34 engines for western markets. Developed from the 82-seat An-148-100, the larger -200 variant will be available from 2006, offering a range of 3,500 km (1,890 nm). The Ukranian design bureau is also offering longer-range variants which trade payload for greater range - up to 5,100 km. A 10- to 30-seat business jet version is also planned, which will have a range of 7,300-8,700 km and an uprated version of the 14,100 lb thrust (62.7 kN) ZMKB Progress D436-148 engines providing an additional 1,000 lb of thrust." SidewinderX (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

An additional thought- when I get back to my other computer I can search through the AvWeek archives and see if I can find something. SidewinderX (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here are some notes:

• The "D436-T1 turbofan" was [is?] to be used on the the Tupolev Tu-334-200. ("Aeroflot in plan to buy re-engined Tu-334s" (2000). Aerospace Daily & Defense Report. Vol. 195, No. 8; Pg. 62)
• There was a plan to retrofit Tu-134 aircraft with the D436-T1 to meet EU noise and emission standards. ("Tri-nation team forms to update Tu-134s" (2003). Air Transport Intelligence. March 10, 2003)
• The An-148-100B is expected to be delivered with the engines this year (2009). The engines on that aircraft are rated at "14,740lb-thrust ZMKB Progress D-436-148" from a 2008 Flight International Article.
• The D436 is a candidate to power the Sukhoi Superjet 100. (Competition mounts to power SSJ (2007). Flight International. May 29, 2007.)
• A useful article from Flight International... ("Engine Directory: ZMKB Ivchenko Progress" (1997). Flight International. September 24, 1997). There's tech specs for a bunch of engines from ZMKB Ivchenko Progress. (Possibly the correct name?) I could probably start an engine article with the info I've got here now...

SidewinderX (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

One last bit for the night... none of my searches found anything on a "D-36" engine. I've gone ahead and made a sandbox for a Progress D-436 article here. Feel free to contribute to that, or continue discussion over there. SidewinderX (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've agreed with the user I had the conflict with to simply use "Progress D-436" for the time bieng. I think that is the simplest name, while still being clear who the manufacturere is. Thanks for the research, and the sandbox. I'll take a look and see if I can help out. As to the D-36, it's the precusor to the D-436, and is probably under Ivchenko or Lotarev (sp??). - BilCat (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lotarev D-36 is probably the best name, from its use in WP aircraft articles, esp the Lotarev D-36. - BilCat (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah-ha! I found some info on the D-36 from that name. Actually, now that I'm back at work, I found quite a bit of information about both engines on Janes. Unfortunatley it's in the members section and I'm hesitant to rewrite (and cite of course) that information as few people could verify that. For now I'm putting it in the sandbox article, but suitably tagged so we can replace the ref with another source if we find one. SidewinderX (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've created the page. I think I have more than enough there to get the page outta my sandbox and into the wiki-world. Progress D-436. What do ya'll think? (I guess use the talk page over there) SidewinderX (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! Having acce to the full Janes must be nice! I could give you a whole list of engines to look up, but there are really only two in particular that I've had a hard time finding good information on that I am interested in now. One is the User:BilCat/Pratt & Whitney/Allison 578-DX, and the other is the User:BilCat/Sandbox/Continental Tiara series. I do have specs from a TDCTCDS for a Tiara engine, but not yet for the 578-DX. At some point, once you get tothrough some of your own engine projects, if you could take a look at these on Janes, and see if you can add anything from there.

The 578-DX is interesting becasue of a resurgance of interest in prop-fan/ open-rotor engines right now. The Tiara series in interesting to me because Continental had a chance (through its CAE subsidiary) to build 100 T65 turboshaft engines for the Bell 206, but chose to invest in the Tiara series rather than invest in the strat-uptooling for the T65. The Tiara series was a great flop, but one can only wonder how well the T65 might have done.

Btw, I need an editor who is good at reading TDCsTCDSs to take a look at my Tiara sanbox. There is a link to the TDCTCDS in the specs section, but the details are from another engines. I don't know much about engine specs, so I would like someone to fill out the details if they can. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Check your user page. Propfan stuff is definitely coming back. I've got a friend at GE who is on the development team that's looking at reviving the GE36 work. What does "TDC" stand for? -SidewinderX (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oops! It's supposed to be TCDS - TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET! I mis-remebered it! - BilCat (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I added the interwiki links to the German and Russian articles and the Ivchenko navbox, no photos in the other articles. Will pop in to your sandbox sometime Bill. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to add it to the new engine articles BTW! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for adding the inter-links... is there a list of Progress engines? -SidewinderX (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is the Ivchenko-Progress article and the {{Ivchenko aeroengines}} navbox that I threw together a while ago, our coverage of Russian engines is not very good due to language difficulties and a lack of information. I am quite interested in the WWII era Russian piston engines but the reference book that I need to improve the articles is very expensive, would Jimbo 'sub' me do you think?!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So, if anyone cares, I've created a sandbox page for the D-36 engine. I'll start working on that this week, anyone is welcome to jump in and contribute. One thing we will have to decide is what to call it. I have seen it reliably called both the Progress D-36 and the Loterav (sic) D-36. It may have something to do with what the company was called when, but I'm not sure what's both proper and wiki-proper. Any idea? - SidewinderX (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Page created.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding Images

Couple questions about adding images to articles... first, is there a decent page somewhere in the wikipedia guides about how to add images to an article? When I've done it in the past I just try and copy what other articles do with varying amounts of success. And I find the Wikipedia guides/tutorials/best practices/etc. utterly unnavigable. They are just awful to look through and find stuff.

Secondly, what's the policy with images from a journal article? I tried, again, to look through the wikipedia guides, but I couldn't find anything that made it clear to me. If I were writing a paper, giving a presentation, etc., I know I can use a journal article as long as it's properly cited. That leads me to believe that I should be able to do that same on wikipedia, but I wanted to ask before I did it. Thanks. SidewinderX (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First: Do it simply, do it the way the articles already do it, don't worry about all the bells and whistles that MediaWiki potentially allows:

[[Image:SomeEngine.jpg|thumb|right|[[#R-2800|R-2800]] installed on a [[Parnall Prawn]]]]

• |thumb|right| is the way to do thumbnails and is never wrong. Don't hard-code in pixel sizes, let thumb pick up the user's preference. We don't know how big the reader's screen is, so your "best size" probably isn't theirs.
• Captions and descriptions should state what's needed, but not re-state what's obvious from the context of the page. Use the engine model (got to call it something), but not usually re-state the maker when we're on an article that's just about the engine. Highlighting models or variants can be important though and it might be worth linking to sections within the article ([[#R-2800|R-2800]] is a link to the "R-2800" heading) if there's more than one on a page. Wikilinking to an aircraft's page is often useful when you have a photo of the engine in particular service.

Secondly, copyright is tricky and be cautious! If in doubt, either ask first or don't do it.

Wikipedia is a lot different from Wikimedia Commons. For Wikipedia (and start with WP:Copyright) "we" need to be able to "use" the image. For the Commons we also need to be able to license the image to others, so that they can do pretty much anything with it in the future.

In practical terms, you can't put anything on the Commons unless it's yours, it's time-expired public domain (author's death+70, not image creation) or it's time-expired Crown Copyright (50 years) or else you do some careful study beforehand. For UK engines it's hard to tell if the copyright was the Air Ministry's (probably OK now) or Rolls-Royce's (probably not OK).

For Wikipedia it's much the same - unless you're American, and use the "Fair Use" defence, which isn't applicable in the UK. In practice, much of Wikipedia is a legally curious situation where non-Americans use the Wikimedia servers' location to excuse use under this Fair Use doctrine. There's also paperwork_(sic) to fill out in relation to this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We have our own project guidelines on images, click the 'project page' tab at top left. My idea of image placement is to find the best photo of an uncowled engine for the infobox, possibly photos of variants in the variants section and a photo of one of the rarer aircraft types (preferably inflight) in the 'applications' section, I think this makes the article more interesting. What some people might like to see or add is close-up photos of engine parts but there is not necessarily anywhere to put them, apart from 'Design and development' perhaps. A gallery could be used but they seem to be discouraged, I always make sure that a link to Commons is provided to access the pool of images. As far as copyright goes we have to follow the Wikipedia and Commons guidelines. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, Commons can use any images that are clearly Public Domain. As Andy points out, this may differ from country to country. Under US federal law, almost any image produced by a Federal Government entity will be PD, unless otherwise stated. This is totally differnt from the UK Crown Copyright situation, and is totally legal and clear, unlike "Fair-use". US states have differing laws, so not everything from a US state gov't is PD, if at all. However, US federal government sites often use images from other sources, and we have to be careful to make sure that the images are genuinely PD, not copyrighted by a company or other entity. - BilCat (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Question answered.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

P&W R-2800

An IP editor has raised a fair point here, I don't believe the claim given on the website and would ignore it myself without better 'evidence'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This sort of problem has arisen before where two fairly good refs disagree. I think the safest thing to do is to cite them both and indicate that the information is disputed or controversial. If nothing else that often brings more refs out of the woodwork. - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

'Claims' can be a problem and unless it is a very obvious biggest, fastest, most numerous one etc. I tend to steer away from using them or tone them down in articles. Conflicting refs is a problem and we end up with claims like 'The foo fighter was the fastest ever but then again....' which is a bit awkward, think it comes under WP:WEASEL with things like 'some people say'. Would be nice to know how many aircraft types the R-2800 did actually power. We can expand the applications link just by clicking the 'what links here' tool. Going offline for a couple of hours. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem has been 'solved', ;-) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Resolved.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox application limit?

Should we limit the 'Major applications' to three? This would align somewhat with the aircraft infobox which has 'nowiki' guidance for 'operators', our template does not have any guidance notes. Rolls-Royce Merlin currently has six applications. It can be a 'breeding ground' for POV as we know from the aircraft articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think four or five would be good, though 6 is often necessary. the Merlin is at 5 now, since the P-40 used Packard Merlins! - BilCat (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think three is a good number, there is no need to list them all in the box, that can go under "applications", but the major ones should go in the box. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As you can tell I'm leaning towards three, as you say they should all be in the application list somewhere. Also begs the question 'what is a major application', most famous, most engines? I think it should be most engines (total, not how many the aircraft has!). Many of the infoboxes only have one or two applications entered. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Take for example the Pratt & Whitney J57: It list 15 applications in the main text, and has 6 aircraft in the Infobox - 2 bombers, 2 fighters, and 2 airliners. Each of these was a major type, yet there are others from each class. I'm not suggesting 6 should be allowed for every engine, but in this case, I do beleive it's necessary. (And yes, IIRC, I was the one who added these 6.) At this point, the page covers both the civil and military models, and while a case could be made for splitting off the JT3C to a variant article, the engines were very similar, from what I can gather. Also, there is not much text at all on either civil or milirtary models - if the article can be expanded, a split might then be doable. - BilCat (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I regard the lead and infobox as summaries that should compliment each other, personally when I see a lot of text in the infobox I stop looking at it (whatever the article) and then go looking in the body for the actual situation. With concise and hopefully accurate infobox entries we can save the reader doing that. I often see cites in infoboxes (and leads), there should be no need for that if they are covered in the article. Check Battle of Britain for 11 cites in the infobox for 'decisive British victory', is that really necessary?!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of that example I think Bill has a good point - three should be the guideline, with exceptions, as judgment decrees. I would suggest putting a comment in the box in that case, to avoid over-zealous reverts. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Ok, three normally and six for 'special cases'!  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Engine article assessment

Could I ask you guys to have a look through the B class articles listed here please? Some of them are very 'short of content' shall I say. No 'trans-pond' rivalry but compare Bristol Jupiter to General Electric GE4 for instance. I've been working very hard on moving some Brit engines up the chain, maybe I didn't have to be quite so careful with facts, images, refs and things! In some cases I can't even tell who assessed them. Lycoming IO-720 doesn't have a single image although I note that it is not essential according to this, Can't be right surely? Maybe I'm aiming too high, would like to see some GA's and even an FA first for the engine project. Nice to see articles moving up slowly and steadily looking at the list anyway. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The IO-720 is probably my fault - I took it from a one-liner and expanded it and added the start class tag, as it met the criteria. A photo would be nice to add! - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If we're looking for a GA candidate, I put a fair bit of time into the Pratt & Whitney J52 article, and I'm currently putting time into the General Electric F414 article... I'd be all for getting more serious crits on those to try and promote them. As for getting more of the starts/stubs up to B class... there are a lot that I have my eye get working... -SidewinderX (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

An FA for Christmas would be nice, I don't wish to demean anyone's efforts by my comments, I was perplexed by the different standards applied. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Any chance we want to set some sort of year-end goals for the engine team (like X b-class articles, X-GA, X few stubs) by year end? Just as a little motivation? -SidewinderX (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well one FA would be a 'biggie' and a first, this engine project has only been going about nine months although the engine articles were of course previously under the care of the aircraft project. I only see a few names regularly in here (my own appears like a rash I know!), wider publicity of the project might help. If I happen to add a 'welcome' template to a new editor's talk page (who had edited an engine article) I usually add a note to drop by here. The creation and addition to articles of the navboxes was a major improvement, hopefully benefiting readers and editors alike. Personally I've tried to bring some 'sub-stubs' up to a respectable level, promoted some obvious 'Start' class stubs with very little work needed and worked on the more well known engine articles where often they had evolved into a 'horse designed by a committee' (i.e. a camel!). The last category is the hardest one to work in for me, even if everyone agrees on the facts we all have different ideas of style and what should be included and where etc (even with guidelines). I worked all day recently on one well known engine, an image was thoughtfully placed next to its entry, it was then moved by another editor, I shrugged my shoulders! There are still plenty of articles without images, I've added a lot of 'non-free fair use' ones to 'extinct' engine articles that had no image at all and they have not been contested so far. It's a case of slowly and steadily chipping away at all the articles I think. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that good at assesment, so I'm thankful for the others for your work. One minor point: Technically, this is a Task Force under WP:AIR, not a separate project. I am glad to see the improvements that have been made to the engine and engine company articles since we started this. I do believe the templates have a lot to do with that, and they make it obvious what articles we need (for those engines tht aren't redirected to company pages!), and what articles we have, leading people to read them and then improve them. (We also saw this with the aircraft type articles last year.) It's good to see new people come on board too, such as SideW, especially someone who is a competant writer, and has some enthusiam for the subject. Also, it's good to see Gary (Nimbus) back full-time; the more articles he works on, the more I seem to find that need creating or expanding! - BilCat (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, looks like you're stuck with me now! Quite right, we are a task force within the aviation project, I remember we didn't quite know what to call ourselves to start with. I was working recently on the stub category and got the number down to about 110, imagine my glee when after tagging more articles the total had risen again to 198!! All good fun. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Discussion only.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Little engines

Just created Cisco Snap 100 one of the engines used on Paramotors and the like on the presumption it is as notable as the big boy piston engines. Should we ignore small fry or is it a bit of a minefield to enter! MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all the more the merrier! I am having trouble converting the specs, not used to small units, Adam will be drooling soon BTW! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank Nimbus for tidying it up - doesnt look to bad for only 18hp! MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

More of these will come along, they're all worthy. At 0.6 horsepower per pound, it's just behind the Merlin at 0.8 hp/lb! I've got the equivalent of four of these tied together in a V4 formation between two wheels, can make your eyes water at times! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for fun I compared the 'Snap' and my untuned standard spec bike, the specific power is identical at 130 kW/L, I can't work out the bike engine power-to-weight ratio as I don't know the weight (I do know that it is heavy from fitting it though!), it would be much worse than the paramotor engine because of the gearbox. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay I saw that!! All aeroengines are definitely notable! Has to be at least as worthwhile as the Rotax 185. - Ahunt (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't beat the smell of burnt two-stroke oil! Would like to use Castrol R in my bike but it's not good for modern machines, too much carbon. All the 'oldies' at the Shuttleworth Collection run on straight castor oil, I make a point of standing behind them on start up! Marvellous. It's a good point though, with the attempted AfD of Supermarine Aircraft earlier are we going to have to justify and fight for every article? I hope not. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well we had that one well-covered. My approach with new articles is to make sure every para is well-sourced to as many independent refs as possible, that way they can't argue notability! PS don't ingest too much castor oil! -- Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Should not have been AfD'd in the first place, think it was a DYK wiki gnome having a bad day. I made a point about using company websites as reliable sources and got quoted 'the book' in return. Nobody seems to object to Rolls-Royce company data sheets used as primary sources for specs, what's the difference? Perhaps that policy needs revisiting. 809 engine articles tagged with the task force code now BTW Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know who publishes Janes All the World's Aircraft? Janes Publishing. It is WP:SPS and therefore not a reliable source!!!! I think we need some better rules. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would you consider Jane's a "self published source"? Jane's Information Group is a large organization with many researchers... not some woman with a defense blog. SidewinderX (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) On the attempted AfD of Supermarine Aircraft, I'm kind of in the middle on the sources issue. Manufacturer info is just fine for certain info - basic history and dates, specs, and so on), but they do need third-party sources to prove notability. Usually one of the later will do. I think the article's creator did a good job for someone working on a topic out of his norm, though the AFD may discourage him from doing it again. (I won't go off on premature-AFDs today!) It might be good if someone approached him,a nd offered the WPAIR project's help in the future if he wants do do another one. We might have been able to stave off the AFD had we even know about the article beforehand (assuming a reasonable time gap between creation and AFD - not a given, as I've seen one done 2 minutes after the article's creation! If nothing else, he needs to know he can list new articles on WPAIR's new article age. - BilCat (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD is a last resort, it says so in the policy, I'm touchy about it because my very first article was an attempted AfD, now B class. User:Thruxton is happy I think, we have collaborated on early British aircraft engine articles as a lot of them were converted motorcycle engines and he wrote the company articles, will check in with him just to make sure. As for Jane's, the world's gone mad! I just checked that there is a WP:COMMONSENSE guideline and there is thankfully. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll vote for that! - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Yes, we even allow little engines in!  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A minor brainwave

I've had another thought (dangerous I know!), we don't appear to have a missing article list like Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles. I went through that list trying to help and I didn't see any engines. Should we get a page tagged on to that or start our own list? Just a thought. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! We might talk to Trevor first, as he usually sets up the WPAVIATION/WPAIR pages, and see what he recommends as far as a list or a separate page. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Trevor is our man, hopefully there are no obvious ones missing but you never know. I think the aircraft list is based on a Jane's entry or something like that. Looking at the missing aircraft list there are quite a few that will probably never be written. It would give us a nice job for the 'to do' box, I notice that nobody has been brave enough to have a go at the Tumansky R-29 article yet! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea to start a list somewhere. There are hundreds of engines missing - I have my own list of two strokes (basically all the non-Rotax engines) to do. Refs I have! - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Would this be a list we could add to as we think of things? I think this is a great idea. - SidewinderX (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a list 'that anyone can edit'! Not sure if Trevor watches this page, will flag it up. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've pinged Trevor, in the meantime we can work on the contents of the list here, it's based on an old version of the List of aircraft engines which I note has now been scattered to the four winds without discussion, c'est la vie! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I created the aircraft page with WP:AWB. I could do the same for engines. The result wil not look as polished as your sandbox list tho, no headers, etc, just a list of redlinks. I can do it tonight after work.- Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 13:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Trevor, the sandbox list seems to be evolving into a master cross-check list, I am trying to pull all the blue links out of it. Maybe we can have it as a task force sub-page, it's also showing whether we need a navbox or not for the companies(I don't bother with less than three engines). Certainly some more redlinks appearing, doh! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Trevor has kindly created the page for us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Missing articles, I will add this link to the project page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I started that but have gotten busy elsewhere so its not quite finished, I know there has to be more then 153 missing articles. I 'll try to add to it this weekend.- Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Missing article page started.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Aero engines used in non-aircraft uses ?

I don't see anything on main engine page or talk archive page on this, so I'm asking now. Does WP:Aircraft and this Aero Engines group cover derivatives of aircraft engines used in land or marine applications? I added {{WPAVIATION|class=start|Engines=yes}} to General Electric LM6000 since it is derived from the General Electric CF6. But thought I should ask before adding banners to the other GE LM engines. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "aero-derivative" is often used for these types of engines. I don't really know what projects, if any, watch these articles, so I don't see any harm in us looking after then for the time being. I've even added our infoboxes to a few of these article! Perhaps some of the other projects will get interested in these and other engines, then I'd have no problems handing these articles over to them. - BilCat (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Real good point on coverage. WP:WikiProject Technology seems to be the closest project that might cover engines. So we covering these engines won't be stepping on another project's toes. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think aero-derivatives are well within the scope of the engines project. My 2 cents. - SidewinderX (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Rolls-Royce Meteor and Meteorite where Merlin derived, one is supported by the automobile project, the other is unassessed. They are not included in the current version of {{Rolls-Royce aeroengines}} but they could go in there under 'see also' or something in the piston engine section. Some aero engine articles do cover their non flying derivatives in the 'variants' section. I would be reluctant to tag some of these with the aviation project banner though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Agreed in principal.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Paramotor

Someone put a comment that the Paramotor entry is a stub of Aero Engines and should be expanded. Paramotor in this refers to more than just the engine. It's the engine, harness, attachment points and speed system portion of a two-part ultralight called a powered paraglider. This unique status makes me feel it should NOT be included in Aero Engines since there are many actual engines used on paramotors--everything from 4-stroke to electric.

I don't want to just remove the stub comment but feel that it should be. How best should I proceed?

Thanks. Jeff Goin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffgoin (talk • contribs) 12:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Close enough and there does not seem to be other specific engine groups to cover it. Stub looks right. See WP:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment#Quality scale on the class levels. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, as it stands the Paramotor article does just concentrate on the engine part, the creator of that article believes that the whole thing (engine and parachute) is termed a powered paraglider. When I see one in the air I tend to call the whole thing a 'Paramotor'. Perhaps it's best to ask the same thing at the air sports task force, we can change the name to Paramotor engine or something like that if there is consensus. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Advice given.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Lists?

I am trying to work out the difference between List of piston engines and List of aircraft piston engines? Fair enough, have more lists but it needs to be done with some care and a discussion somewhere first might have been beneficial. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a right-hand/left-hand syndrome. Should probaly be merged to List of aircraft piston engines, or perhaps List of piston aero-engines would be better. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

List of piston engines was a product of User:Petebutt continued unilateral editing, in this case his undiscussed splitting up of the List of aircraft engines article to sub-pages. Note that not one of those sub-pages has "aircraft" or "aero-" in the title, so there may well be more duplicate list articles out there. (Some are misspelled too, such as List of turbo-shaft engines.) I don't mind a little initiative, but this is a perfect example of why some things need to be discussed beforehand! - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! User:Petebutt created List of aircraft piston engines FOUR days before creating List of piston engines! Jsgfoie@jgo%shvi$uvhd*spoj&sli$$#@uoisvfois!!!!!!! - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like "List of piston engines" ought to include ALL aircraft engines and non-aircraft engines. Maybe there's a place for that. But a full list would probably be too long to be useful... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It used to be one list that covered all aircraft engines using, strangely enough, the title List of aircraft engines, one mouse click away for handy reference, now two clicks and you have to choose the right sub-list, ok for us maybe but not an inquisitive reader. It's a mess to be honest. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Appears that the original List of aircraft engines was broken up without discussion, perhaps we should just roll it back! it would bring all the redlinks into one page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur in principle, though some of the sub-pages have been edited in the 2 months since the split. Should we do a re-merge of the split material, or just resoter the pre-split version? - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe go back to the last known clean version of 'List of aircraft engines' and add the new sub-lists in a 'See also' section at the bottom? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be redundant? Not to mention the fct that the list would differ before long though editing, and it would be a job to keep the lists synchronized. Alternately, we could add the Wankels and Compound engines to the piston engine article (since Wanke;s do use pistons, albeit rotary), and combine the the others under jet and turbine engines (turbojet/fan/shat/prop, rockets, and steam). - BilCat (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose the sub-lists would be redundant if they are copies of sections of a larger list. So you are proposing just two lists 'reciprocating' and 'turbine/rocket' in the old format (alpabetic by manufacturer)? Noting that the link in the {{Aviation lists}} navbox is to the single List of aircraft engines title. Things were fine before, whatever happens it needs to be right first time, which it is evident did not happen with the undiscussed split.

I'm suggesting two separate pages as an alternative IF the single page is considered too long. IIRC, Wankels aren't reciprocating (their pistons rotate), but I could be wrong on that! - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we nominate the sub-pages for deletion? I don't think most of them are linked from very many pages as yet. - BilCat (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the best way, making sure that any added material is kept somehow. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish the Wankel engine had never been invented! I believe their rotors rotate. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Action

Reverted.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Merlin FA nomination?

More work on the Rolls-Royce Merlin today has it promoted to B class, I am seriously thinking of nominating the article for FA status, they recommend that an article is peer reviewed first (but not mandatory), they also recommend discussing the possible nomination first in accordance with the guidance at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. It is a logical candidate to choose to my mind. Would appreciate your views on this suggestion either here or on the article talk page. I am prepared to put in any remedial work and have a reasonable set of references if more are required. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple thoughts...

• First, is it a normal practice to list the development engines? If that's the case, then I have a good source for the F414 article...
• Second, the quote in the engine capacity section is way too long and, IMO, not incredibly important. That whole section seems to be responding to an unspoken challenge about the engine being undersized. If you're going to have a section that responds to that challenge, explicitly state the challenge as well. Something like "The Merlin is often overlooked because of its small displacement, but in fact..." (I have no idea if that is true or not, but that's what that section seems to be implying to me)
• In the tech improvements section, why are all the power ratings (2nd paragraph) at multiple altitudes. I know the technical use for that information, but why do they all have to be listed? Service vs Absolute ceiling? Something else? It's very difficult to read as is. I suggest either choosing one rating (max or takeoff or something) and sticking with that, or make a small table so the text isn't so messy.
• Also in the tech improvements section, the emergency boost part confused me (3rd paragraph). I first read that to mean that the supercharger boost was increased, only then to find out that it's only for emergencies at 5 minutes max. Maybe reword it to first introduce the new emergency boost, and then describe it.
• The beginning of the article mentions several production locations and the "Production" section barely adds any more information about most of those locations. Can that be fleshed out some?
• The Applications section writing is jarring to me... the first thing you read is about a Spanish Bf-109... quite unexpected! Maybe an intro paragraph in that section leading the reader through common, aforementioned uses before the odd ones?
• Can the citations be split into two columns for readability?

Anyway, those are my critical thoughts... it seems like this is a good bet for a FA. - SidewinderX (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, I agree, it's by no means perfect. You can add on the article talk page if you like, what I was mainly after here was thoughts as to whether to put it forward for review. Who knows what 'normal practise' is?! Every article turns out different within the guidelines. Most of the text and information in there was pre-existing. What I think the quote is saying is that RR did quite well to squeeze so much power out of it. I can't edit much for the next three days but I'll get back on it next week. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've copied this over to the article talk page and answered more fully there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've now started a preliminary voting procedure at Talk:Rolls-Royce Merlin#FA Nomination? if anyone would like to add their thoughts either way. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: There was a short peer review that is now closed and archived, I have now formally nominated the article for FA at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce Merlin/archive1, please feel free to add supports, opposes or comments there although it looks like this is not always done. If successful this would be the first aircraft engine featured article, fingers crossed but a lot of work has been done recently. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Action

Article now FA, phew!  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugatti

I just found Bugatti U-16, newly created, I did some tidying and invited it's creator over here. Very good IMO. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Although I noticed a couple red-linked categories... -SidewinderX (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A 'U' engine is a new one! Very strange. Not sure if it is worth creating those categories, don't know how many more U engines and Bugatti aircraft engines there are out there. We don't have categories for some of the more well known manufacturers, the introduction of navboxes seemed to make them slightly redundant. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Action

Info only.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce Trent

Could someone else take a look at the Rolls-Royce Trent article, particularly the specs section? It definitely has the "designed by committee" look, and is to me a quite confusing mess. I'm not really sure the best way to go with it, but I'd lke to get rid af everythong there except perhaps the spec table, tho enve that is a monstrosity at this point! Suggestions? - BilCat (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been steering round that one for a long time! I would say go for it, I'm working at the moment but I can help next week. It's a fairly high profile engine/article and deserves to be fixed. There are other engine articles with tables instead of 'jetspecs', a product of having no particular task force to look after them but we have one now with good guidelines. I have not looked at the Trent properly, if there are unreferenced sections that need to be removed I would park them on the talk page (I think we can create article sandbox pages?). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't envy you Nimbus, that looks like a beast of an article to wrangle. I'm not an expert on the RR commercial engines, is the "Trent" line really just a series of similar engines? Or do they mostly just share the name? -SidewinderX (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on them either in fact all I know is that they are big engines that power airliners!! It is amazing what you learn when you go through an article though. It can be formatted to something near project standard fairly quickly, will have a look at it in a bit. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question, Side. I'm under the impression these are somewhat closely-related engines, but I really don't know either. Once the initial clean-up is done, we might have an idea of whether 2 or 3 variant articles are waranted, closely related or not. Just a thought. - BilCat (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a better look through, not as bad as I first thought, biggest problem is a lack of references in certain areas. The article is 47 kb long at the moment. Looking at the series we actually have the history and specifications for the major ones that could easily form the basis of their own article leaving behind more of an overview and coverage of the lesser variants. They are related but distinct types I would say. This is probably the best way forward. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is enough information with references to produce start class articles for the 500, 800, 900 and 1000 series engines, they could all be linked by a special Trent navbox. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. Again, I'm not an expert here, but by looking at the stats (different thrust classes, different bypass ratios, different number of turbine stages, etc., "Trent" seems to be more comparable to GE's "CF", and that merely stands for commercial turbofan, rather than seperate variants of one model. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's a handy name to cover the series, I think I'm going to go for it. Have not mentioned anything on the talk page, the article had not been edited in a long time and splitting can only improve things, it makes the current article shorter and clearer and gives room to expand each type. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First one is out, Rolls-Royce Trent 700. This was a redirect, I suspect the others will be as well. There is a contradiction in the Trent article about which airline is the largest operator, lead says Singapore Airlines, text says Cathay Pacific? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

{Unindent) Wow, looks good. At this point, Garyhas split out the 4 main variants. I don't know if the separate Trent navbox is really necessary, as that info can be conveyed just as easily in the See also section. However, if there is consensus to keep it, we should definitly add the aero-derivitive engines, and . The Industrial Trent 60 may also be ripe for it's own article. The Rolls-Royce Trent (turboprop) should also be listed. Also, would Rolls-Royce RB.50 Trent be a better title for the turboprop? As a further thought, we might move the current Rolls-Royce Trent page to Rolls-Royce Trent series, and make the origianl a DAB/SIA page for all the Trents. - BilCat (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I've just about done splitting now, we have the 500,700,800,900 and 1000. Got to go back into the Trent article to trim it some more. Yes, forgot about the other Trents for the navbox, the second use of the name doesn't seem to be covered (early version of the Spey?). Most if not all of the external links in the Trent article are dead because RR have reorganised their website, the links in the new articles are good and probably contain the missing specs as well. I have got a photo of an uncowled Trent in a museum (already?!!), will see if I can stick it in. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just caught your last point, yes, once it's all done. We need to go through the affected aircraft and link them to the right engine. The leads of the split articles will need some adjusting, they were just a basic line to get them started. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just about done I think, I had a look at my photos, I've got two, a rear view and a front view of an uncowled engine, the rear view has people in it, the front view is ok but I don't know what variant of Trent it is. After all that the Trent article is only down to 36 kb (from 47) but it does follow the normal engine article structure more closely and is hopefully more readable. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Action

Split into variant articles.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Did someone lose an engine?

I just found the RJ500 article, which has been around for over 3 years. I've moved it to Rolls-Royce/JAEC RJ500. There re no sources, and not much text. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Lots of information on ja wiki http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJ500_(%25E3%2582%25A8%25E3%2583%25B3%25E3%2582%25B8%25E3%2583%25B3)&ei=IhK2SsHQNM2i4QbvwfR8&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522RJ500%2522%2BRR%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Action

Article moved.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bypass Ratio

I just wanted to note here that I suggested that Bypass Ratio be added to the jetspecs template here. I don't know how many people watch that so I figured I'd bring it to everyone's attention here. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, we'll have to ask Trevor if and when consensus has been gained to add it as the template is protected. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked Trevor and he has done it for us now, if you add the code |bypass= under |compression= in the templates where it is needed it should work, have not tried it yet myself. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I just tried it in Rolls-Royce Trent 500, it works and even links to Bypass ratio!! Marvellous! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, great! Glad I was able to contribute! -SidewinderX (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Action

Parameter added.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Applications

An editor has questioned the inclusion of a particular aircraft application at Talk:Bristol Taurus, the section was cited with a reliable source and I confirmed the application and provided a link to another reliable source confirming the same. The question was then raised should we include 'testbeds' in application sections, I strongly believe that we should and that we should also include intended applications for engines that never made it into the air. I can add a short line to the project page as this appears to be needed, we are generally doing well without lengthy instructions so far. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I cant see any reason to exclude testbeds, they are an application like all the others, although it would do no harm to add something like Avro Foo (engine tests only) or something similar. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I started adding notes to application sections quite a while ago to cover this situation, personally I would like to be trusted that the applications I enter (or cite) are the ones given in the cited reference, there remains the possibility of the source containing an error but it is very rare in my experience, where an application has appeared out of place I have cross-checked it to make sure. I don't understand the need to question an obscure type using an engine well known for being used in something else if a reliable source has been used. It fogs a bit in places because not all these 'obscure applications' were testbeds, many were operational aircraft. It is a product of digging up strange but true facts through research, it wasn't until recently that I learned that nearly 2,000 Handley Page Halifaxes were Merlin powered, I would have said that they were all Hercules powered before that. It's a good learning process and an example of not relying on what might be in our heads but rather using information that has been documented somewhere in the past. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Until I read a 1946 Flight article on the Napier Test Flying dept I wouldn't have known that a Vickers Warwick C. III was used as a test bed for two 2,600 hp Napier Sabre engines in annular cowlings. Apparently the old girl could mosey along at over 300 knots, speed limited due to the fabric covering. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As our Napier Sabre article suggests but slightly after Flight admittedly!! The Griffon engined Beaufighter was another strange monster, there is a link to an image on the Griffon talk page as that one was questioned as well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As to the Merlin Halifaxes, look at what happened to Alan Blumlein.

I was the commenter on the Taurus Battle. I think it's important to clarify when something was used in a handful of tests (can I say M*rl*n M*st*ng?) for two reasons. Firstly it's not a claim that "production" quantities were built that way, so we should make it clearly obvious that they weren't. Secondly I can't "trust that the applications [you] enter" will be correct, because I'm only reading the head of the article, not the change-log for it. From reading the current state of the article I've no idea if I'm looking at your additions (which I'd probably trust, if only I knew that they were yours) or if it's random poor-quality fact-checking from a fly-by Mustang fan. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - don't bother reading the wiki on Blumlein, it's dreadful (another for the backlog). The crash report is in the autobiog - root cause was a loose tappet adjusting locknut on a Merlin, starting a fire. Not a problem for the Hercules! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Rest assured that virtually all of the British engine articles are on my watchlist, I have been through most of them checking basic facts and if I see something strange being added I revert it after checking my sources, or leave it if the editor is correct. In reality though, it's not happening, in fact I have seen very little vandalism or 'original thinking' in any of the engine articles apart from one editor that we know about, one advantage of editing here! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Action

Guideline not added, common sense prevails.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Continental O-205

On the Aeronca L-16 page, the L-16B is listed as having the Continental O-205, but I can't find a WP article on it. I have U.S. Army Aircraft Since 1947, by Stephen Harding (1997. Atglen, PA, USA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd.. ISBN 96-69996.), and it lists that engine. Des anyone know what it might be? I'm assuming its probably a variant of another model. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems odd - this was basically a certified aircraft but a check of the FAA records shows no such engine was ever type certified. A Google search picked up 488 instances of "Continental O-205" including some like this museum entry that sound authoritative and show "90 hp". So it would have to be a non-certified mil-only engine. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In Aeronca Champion#7CCM, L-16B, it states "the L-16B/7CCM featured a 90 hp (67 kW) Continental C90-8 engine", so I assume O-205 was the military designation for the C90-8. The C90 is covered at Continental O-200, so if if can confirm this is true, we can redirect Continental O-205 to Continental O-200. - BilCat (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is likely that the O-205 was the mil C90. The FAA TCDS shows the C90 family and O-200 as all having a displacement of 201 cu in. Could the military have designated it away from its actual displacement number to differentiate it from the O-200? Aerofiles seems to think so saying: "7CCM Champion 1948 (ATC 759) = 90hp Continental C-90-8F (O-205-1). Larger dorsal fin, and wing tanks. POP: 125, plus 100 to USAAF as L-16B." and "L-16B = Dorsal fin. 90hp Continental O-205-1. POP: 100 [48-424/523]." I think that is probably enough evidence to conclude that the O-205 = C90. - Ahunt (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected O-205 to O-200. As I understand it, the O-200 is an updted version of the C90, but they aren't actually the same exact engine. If true, would it be better to put the C90 on its own page? - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That is great work! Actually they are on the same type certificate and have the same bore, stroke and displacement. They seem to vary only by the max rpm rating, the C90 is limited to 2475 continuous (90 hp) and the O-200 to 2700 rpm (100 hp), so essentially they are the same engine. I think they ought to remain as one article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's all I wanted to know! I'm fine leaving them where they are then. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! - Ahunt (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Action

Mystery solved.  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

General Electric F414

Can I get a third party to check this article (General Electric F414) against the B-class checklist? I think I'm in good shape, I'd just like a second opinion. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added some to the article and asked a question on the talk page about 'fluidic chevrons'!? I've completed the B class checklist bar one item which says 'grammar' but it's more to do with clarifying technical terms, I clarified some of the abbreviations. We have to remember that not all the article readers will have prior knowledge of gas turbine engines, although many do no doubt! Shame we can't find a weight for it to complete the specs, I looked on the net but no joy. Nearly there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! I've tried to clarify it some, it probably deserves it's own article/piece of article at some point. Let me know if that helps. As for weight... I have an approximate weight from Jane's, but it's from the subscription section so it's not really verifiable. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing about 2,200 lbs. If we don't put a weight in the template shows a blank power to weight ratio field which is annoying (it should really be invisible if there are no figures entered). I did wonder if 'fluidic chevrons' had been entered by a certain Italian editor, I don't think you've had the pleasure of conversing with him yet! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The weight I have is likely more accurate, but it's not easily verifiable... :/ -SidewinderX (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Action

Article is C class, maybe remind us again!  Done Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)