Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Aero-derivative engines

I've just added a comment to the Lead on the main TF page about the AETF also covering Aero-derivative engines, and added Category:Aero-derivative engines to the Categories page. This has been discussed in a few places before, so I don't think I'm going against consesnus by adding these in. The main reason we ought to cover these engines is simply that no other project appears to do so. However, as a Task Force, other projects can join us in maintaining these articles, such as WP:SHIPS for the marine aero-derivatives, if tyhey so desire.

One issue that has come up before is that of project tagging on the article talk psges, as it might seem odd for WPAVIATION to be covering marine engines, ground-based gas turbines, and even tank engines (both piston andf turbine). One solution is a separate project tag for these engine that emphasizes the aero-derivative aspect of the task force. However, creating such a tag is beyond my abilities,a nd I don't even know if such speciallized task force tags are allowed. - BilCat (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me. Someone needs to ensure these are covered, it may as well be us! - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anexo:Motores aeronáuticos

Sure I've seen this before somewhere?!! Fair play to the enthusiastic Spanish editor who is doing a good job on his own. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You see that a lot - Chinese Wikipedia is mostly cribbed from the English version, much of it not even translated! - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that we are leading the world on the incredibly interesting subject of aero engines! Permission to shout 'Bravo'?!! (Blackadder joke). Must be time for another FA. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the best copies/translations of our aircraft articles are on the Vietnamese wiki. (Ho Chi Minh would roll over in his grave, or churn in his urn, or whatever!) Anyway, the editor(s) doing the work seem to be quietly doing a great job in expanding their coverage of aircraft. The Polish and Italian WPs also seem to do a good job using our articles as a start. One of my greatest thills on WP was in unexpectedly finding articles that I had started being translated into other wikis. (I can't speak to the accuracy of any of the translations, as the only foreign languages I speak are Redneckish (Southern American "English"), and Jamaican Patois, though neither fluently.) I don't know how may of those have started translating engine articles yet, but they ought to be showing up soon. - BilCat (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, Bill, I always get a thrill to see my Commons photos on other language articles! It makes me feel like global harmony may yet be achieved though international personal cooperation! Politicians could learn from Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Horizontally opposed

The HOAE site has moved to http://home.comcast.net/~aeroengine/. I suspect this is cited quite on lot in the Boxer cat engines. Is there a way of automating the update, or do we have to work our way through by hand?TSRL (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is used much as it's not really a reliable source as far as wiki sourcing goes (it would get thrown out at FAC review if it was used, same as Joe Baugher's excellent aircraft website was thrown out of the F-4 Phantom FAR), but it is very useful all the same. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

CFM56 FA Nomination

Well, it was looking a little quiet around here (I'll take some blame for that... I took a 2 week vacation in Turkey!), so I decided clean up the CFM56 article a bit and nominate it for FA. Feel free to pop in here and leave your two cents! It's time to get a jet FA up there for the aero engine project! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sidey (do you have a first name? Mine is Gary), I do hope that you do not take any personal offence to my comments at the FAC. Unfortunately, the support votes will be ignored by the FAC delegates because no explanation was given. Quite happy to run through the article and tweak things. Even if I did this they will still think it is an 'inside job' because of our joint involvement in this task force (yes, they come here as well!). Sandy was right about independent review and we got one, if he (David is a very regular and I think respected FAC reviewer) changed his 'oppose' to a 'support' then the 'tide will turn'. Still looking at the Walter Minor, there was a discussion recently on how short an FA could be, a challenge that I would like to try. Chin up! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm David, for the record. No, I'm not taking any offense! I know that FA is the highest level, and as such, it should be tough to get. I got used to the point-by-point reviews, which are easy to respond to. "Prose" is slightly more difficult to tackle! I'll look forward to reading through your changes! -SidewinderX (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Shortened to 'Dave' in the UK, Ok with that? FA is a chess match, I've got another one going through at the moment, tumbleweeds are rolling there. It seems that nobody loves jet engines, 18 months ago nobody loved any type of aero engines except me! I think the answer is that engine articles are terminally boring to most folk to be honest. I think that I was lucky with the Rolls-Royce R as it had a fascinating human story behind it and no one else was editing it. The Merlin (my first FA) was much harder because people would not stop changing it (adding mistakes) while the review was in progress despite asking them to stop politely several times. But still I'm here!! It's a treacly quagmire out there for sure. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Propfan

Propfan is in a pretty bad state currently. Can some of the editors take a look, and comment on the talk page if you have some ideas? We may have brough this up before, but there is a current discussion at Talk:Propfan#Article name. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the lead looks good! No discussion on the talk page about article overhaul at first glance, I did see mention of 'anal referencing' there, I know all about that from working in F1! That technology seems to have died a death, no clear advantage. Propfan as a title sounds good to me. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in working on the article, I've got a whole mess of journal articles that could be useful... I'm just not ready to tackle such a large task (after writing the Combustor article nearly from scratch...) myself. I also have an inside source at GE how is/has worked on their UDF project, and I can ping him for details/sources if needed.-SidewinderX (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming guideline

With the recent change in aircraft article naming convention I wondered if the engine naming guidelines were still good. I think they are (luckily!) apart from the US Cyclone and Wasp range where they could conceivably be named manufacturer, designation, name i.e Wright R-1300 Cyclone 7 or Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Junior. Rolls-Royce 'RB' numbers are rarely used if the engine has a common name. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think using the names where they are common with the designations, as with the Wasps and Cyclones, would be a good idea, as print sources often use one or the other about half and half. We probably don't need the nubers such as "7" though. I think a good example is the Pratt & Whitney R-4360, which is often called the Wasp Major, especially in civilian contexts.

As to the EB numbers, I changed the dabbing on the Tay engines to use the ARBs rather than "turboxxx". If this doesn't work, we can change it back. - BilCat (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Designer name

No big deal, but why is the designer's name entered into e.g. pistonspecs? An aircraft designer's name goes in the infobox box, together with company and country, so why not do the same with engines?TSRL (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the piston specs dates from before infoboxes were used and nobody noticed the duplication! MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd not realised "designed by" was available in the infobox, because I only saw the what was on the WPAVIATION creator page. Should have looked at the Template: earlier. Perhaps I'll add designer to the creator page so others don't overlook it.TSRL (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The designer parameter was added (apparently without discussion) to 'pistonspecs' in May 2008, the engine infobox was created in July 2008. Seems more logical to only have it in the infobox as it is not a specification as such. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no designer parameter in 'jetspecs'. I think that's right. The WPAVIATION creator page is protected, but I think all the parameters in the template should be visible, so we all know they are there. Anyone have the permissions to change it?TSRL (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added the designer field to Template:WPAVIATION creator/Engine/content which is not protected. The infobox was at an older version. There are several versions of the engine infobox in use in articles as they have not all been updated. Next move is to remove the designer parameter from 'pistonspecs' if everyone is ok with that. Before we do that though we should check current articles as I know that there are wikilinked designers entered in the specs. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through piston engines Z-Q. Only 5 ( 2xSunbeam, 2xRR and 1xRAF) entered designer in pistonspecs. I moved those to Infobox. If anyone fancies A -?, I'll meet them in the middle. TSRL (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff, just to note that there is no panic as when and if the designer field is agreed (by consensus through discussion) to be removed from 'pistonspecs' it will still appear in the specs sections that have it as the template does not automatically update in articles like a navbox, would be nice if it did but that is just my (minority?) view. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines

I've updated Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines to list the the engines by type only, rather than by company then type. Please take a look, and comment on Template talk:Rolls-Royce aeroengines#New format, whatever your view. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't agree with the change. It looses the timeline and the progression of the company (reference to Allison is now missing for instance). The RB number list (gas turbines) appears before the piston engine list. This is/was a large navbox which I personally felt was in the best format considering the size of the subject. I had thought of other ways to deal with this as it was admittedly not perfect, the piston engines are far removed from the modern products and most of the designers are only related to the piston engines. It may be time to separate this box into more specific company navboxes, RR Limited, RR PLC, RR Corporation etc. This would allow expansion of the piston engine list to include engine type letters etc. I am happy to create a new Rolls-Royce Limited navbox and replace it in related articles, these related articles would need to be removed from the current template. I can't do it until 15/6 as I am working. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from Template talk:Rolls-Royce aeroengines#New format.) I've been bold, and updated the template to list the main divisions by type, rather than by company. I think this format is more intuitive when it comes to finding or adding engines to the list. In fact, it's becoming more difficult to tell where the newer engines come from, as RR isn't making a clear distinction in it's material, usually listing all turboshafts or turbofans on the same pages, regardless of origin. (Note that the German and Italian versions also list by type.) I know some prefer the previous format, so, could we let this run for a couple of week, say to the end of June, and see what the consensus is then? If it's against the new format, I'll revert back to the old one myself. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(Response to Nimbus)

Gary, I understand your point on the timeline and the progression of the company, but that is covered in the engine lists on the relevant aircraft article. Also, Allison has it's own navbox, and those are the RR Corp types. To me, it just seems more intuitive to group them by type only, as most references to the engines will just state "Rolls-Royce Foo", a piston/turboxxx engine. Thus the navbox enables people to navigate quickly to a given type. As to the RB numbers coming first, some of our navboxes have the model numbers and/or names in the first section, and that was the pattern I was following. Howver, they can go anywhere.

I honestly think splitting the template up by RR Limited/RR plc would end up being too complicated, as there is no clear cut division between the types of each company. Another option would be having the pistons and turbines on separate templates; though I don't think that's necessary, it's better than the company-group option. - BilCat (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Still disagree but there seems little point in me explaining why. The code 'noinclude' is appearing under the navbox in every article BTW. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Gary, if no one else supports the change, I'll revert it back myself. This is jsut a test. As to what you "Still disagree" on, I gave a serious option, so does that mean you disagree with all of them? - BilCat (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Simple error in copying the template over, and now fixed. - BilCat (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the undiscussed single edit that introduced the update that you asked for comments on in the first paragraph of this post. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted, but since you originally changed the format without previous discussion, I didn't think you'd mind a short test of a return to the original type format. I guess I was wrong. - BilCat (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I will leave it for other editors to comment on whether the version you linked to above was an improvement over the immediately prior version or not. My edit summary of Upgrade/expansion of original template, all content retained was the description of my thoughts and actions at the time. I did not feel the need to discuss it and did not feel that I was being at all bold (unlike your recent change where you say yourself that you had been bold). Being bold to me means that there is an element of uncertainty in an edit that is likely to lead to comments or reversions (this is highlighted in the '...but please be careful' paragraph and particularly in the 'Template namespace' section). As I felt that my edit was neither bold nor contentious I did not discuss it. If the edit had brought discussion then I would have listened to the reasoning and either changed it back myself or defended the change as the case may have been, there have been no comments on the template at all since March 2007 apart from your recent post. If it is felt that I was in error for not discussing this change then I apologise for my past error of judgement. The fact that the template remained in this format for just short of two years indicates to me that there was not much wrong with it (I mentioned above however that it has now grown to a size where thoughtful splitting may be needed). Changes to these larger navboxes are immediately visible in all the contained articles, I am very aware of the consequences of this when editing them now. Lastly, we don't normally test things in the mainspace unless it is a prior agreed project or task force trial such as the recent aircraft renaming trial (which as you know has resulted in a guideline change and the moving of many articles). As this discussion seems to be descending to a personal level I will await independent comments, I think that I've said what I want to say on the matter. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you're taken so much offense to my version, only viewing it as "bold" and your own changes as "normal"! I had tried to talk with you about these changes before, but you're very attached to your version, and were dissmisive, so I felt a live test was the only way to get a fair hearing. However, no one else seems to even care, so I'll restore your preferred version now. I won't edit any Rollos-Royce related articles or templates again, other than to fix obvious erros, as I don't know what you'll take offense at. - BilCat (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no offence involved or taken, my disagreement is factual based on the change that had been made. You asked for comments, it is entirely possible that some of them might be negative (and some might be positive). This edit summary is very unhelpful and accuses me directly of owning the template. I am very aware of the WP:OWN policy, my adopted editing style does not follow the examples of an 'owner' given there (constant reversions, messages 'not to touch' on talk pages etc.) There is a very fine line between editors maintaining an article (or template) to a standard (which may involve many edits) and being accused of ownership. Nominators of Featured Articles are never accused of ownership even though they often take hold of an article for a short while they prepare it or are even the main contributor. During the Merlin FAC I did ask very respectfully that editing be limited to minor edits while it was under review which the other contributors active at that time understood, it was for the good of the article (which sits there quite happily, unmolested by me since 7 April (and the last three of my edits were needed minor improvements). I did not revert your change to the RR template, choosing instead to discuss it as you requested. This is the way I like to work (and is the way the wiki is supposed to work as well I believe).

The bold, revert, discuss cycle does get editors annoyed when they are the one being bold then reverted. I prefer to see boldness, discuss it then possibly revert, a less abrasive version of the cycle. I really do go out of my way to be civil when editing, observe the guidelines and at times I think that I stick to the consensus principle so closely that it slows things down, i.e. I am not bold enough, this goes against Jimbo's ethos. Still I do it, notice that every time I formed a guideline for this task force that it was discussed beforehand and then I made a point of asking task force members to check the guideline after it had been entered for agreement that it was in order (also guarding against potential future task force page ownership accusations, a shame but this possibility has always been on my mind). I note that you have left this task force, I hope that you will reconsider. I was instrumental in creating this task force (with the grateful help of Rlandmann) with the sole aim of improving the aero engine articles as part of the aviation project, also in the hope that many more editors would join in. Many task forces fall by the wayside but this one has been very active and constructive considering the small number of dedicated editors involved. Whatever happens in the future everyone involved should be proud of what has been achieved. Now, if my continued involvement in this task force is going to cause problems then I will happily back away from it if editors so wish, I do have other interests but with my aircraft engineering background and interest in aero engines this seems currently the best place to concentrate my efforts on Wikipedia. Yours respectfully Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Lastly, we don't normally test things in the mainspace unless it is a prior agreed project or task force trial such as the recent aircraft renaming trial" I called them a "test" as a courtesy, not to give you an avenue of attack, but to let you know I'm not trying to force my view on you, as I was pretty certain you'd object to my changes. You seem to have takine my calling it a "test" in an entirley different sense than I meant it, while refusing to acknowledge your original major changes as "being bold". Time issues aside, I honestly don't see the difference in your original changes, and my edits which returned to the original format, though with the current style. Would my edits have been OK if I had doen them without calling them bold and explaining my reasons? I doubt it! That's why felt like you were exercising ownership, because of what I percieve as a double standard. I know I am stubborn, and have a quick temper at times, so I hope you can see why I became frustrated as I did. While I'm not going to quit WP, I think some time away from pages you keep an eye on would be good, which is why I removed my name from the project list. I won't go too far. - BilCat (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Potentially Useful article - Turbine blade?

I started today looking at the Turbofan article, which needs plenty of help, and I've now ended up thinking we really need a Turbine blade article. Right now that just redirects to Turbine, but that article doesn't really discuss anything about the blades (materials, cooling, performance, etc). A concern I have is that I'm thinking a turbine blade article specific to gas turbines... would it be better to have this potential article at Turbine blade (gas turbine) or something like that? -SidewinderX (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the other type, steam? I would just use Turbine blade. Can't see that it is going to be an enormous article so yer common or garden power station turbine blade could be added (in the future!) The theory must be the same, just the operating temperature that's different. Level 2 section headers can distinguish between the main types. Supercharger has an aircraft section heading, one day I will sneak over there and quietly remove it into a Supercharger (aircraft) article!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and created the article at Turbine blade. I may have gotten a bit carried away... it ended up longer than I meant it to, but I think I did an ok job of starting it. Go on over, take a look, and let me know what you think! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a read through it - good job there! - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff, you even got Single crystal in there! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Pistonspecs

Is there any support for a little addition to these specs to cover the difference between take off (or short period) power and the rated or continuous figure? At the moment we just have "power", though of course one can put in both figures and an explanation of the difference. My feeling, FWIW, is that explicit, formatted entries would help both reader and editor to appreciate and remember the difference. At present practice is uneven; some articles use max power, others (more) continuous power, often without any qualifying statements. Defining engine power is always a bit uncertain, but I think this would improve things.TSRL (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I could support this. I have been just using the maximum power, whether that is a continuous or limited time power. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I could support this as well, but I think we would need wikilinks (or something else) that define the difference between the two. While having two makes more sense for us engine folks, it may confuse the average reader. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Rolls-Royce Merlin specs has three alternative power outputs, just added in extra lines. Often I just put two figures in the power line, max and max continuous if they are known. Most Lycoming engines are rated for unlimited full continuous power so there would only be one power rating (unless it is given for all density altitudes!!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Jet engine, Airbreathing jet engine, etc.

Just a heads up / opinion poll... User:Wolfkeeper and I have started reworking a series of core articles, starting with Jet engine. These are core articles for the AETF (and, IMO, Wikipedia in general), and thier low quality reflects poorly upon wikipedia. The focus right now is proper organization of the articles. As it was, there was a lot of overlap between Jet engine, Gas turbine, Turbofan, Turbojet, etc., and none of the articles were very good. The idea now is to try and get the proper level of detail in each article, and then work on improving them from there. So, for example, the Jet engine article has a lot of gas turbine detail in, which has now been removed (to Airbreathing jet engine). A lot of that content will be futher removed to the proper Turbofan/Turbojet/etc articles.

The second big push will be to rewrite and cite most of these articles because, as it is, there are essentially no references in these articles.

Anyway, if you're interested in helping out, do so! If you have some opinions on what to do, please share them! Thanks -SidewinderX (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Any thought to merging those articles into one better overview? - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Which articles? The idea is that Jet engine will be an overview of air breathing jet engines, rockets, and water jets. Then Airbreathing jet engine will be an overview of gas turbines, ram/scram jets, and pulse-type jets. Then gas turbine will have a lot of the detail about gas turbines, as well as overviews of turbofans, turbojets, turboprops, etc.

The disadvantage of this reorganizing is that the random user will enter "jet engine" expecting to learn an aircraft turbofan, for example, and not directly get there. The advantage, I think, is that it will be more correct, better organized, and won't repeat information across a bunch of articles. And I think if we're smart with our linking and "Main Article:..." usage, users will be able to easily find what they're looking for. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that - the logic makes sense. - Ahunt (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I was checking out the scramjet article, and I was thinking of overhauling it in the next few weeks. Since the X-51 flight, quite a bit can be updated, and I feel a few sections with slightly more rigorous theory and mathematics would add quite a bit for the more inquisitive reader. GreyTrafalgar (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of work to be done there if you're willing to do it! Things that come to mind, just looking at it right now...

• Lots of citing needed... vast chunks of text have no citations.
• Rework of "Advantages and disadvantages" section... I think there is a much more elegant way to discuss the topics there, and some should just be removed (e.g., "Lack of stealth" section).
• Likewise, advantages and disadvantages for orbital vehicles needs some serious thought.
• Pop culture section should probably be vaporized.

If you're interested in adding more technical material, please try and cite it (it's a pain to try and cite technical stuff from afar... if you've got the book in front of you it shouldn't take much time at all! Also, I'll urge you to build up to the technical material with basic explanations (or improve the intro/basic description that's already there)... I think that helps a lot for non-expert readers. I've got a couple good books/sources in digital form that I can send your way if you're interested... just let me know. Good luck! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has a minute, I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the Jet engine talk page... there is discussion about whether or not Turboprop and Propfan should be mentioned in the article. Any opinions on the matter would be much appreciated! -SidewinderX (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Combustor A-class review

Hey everyone... now that the CFM56 FA review is wrapping up, I wanted to tie up some loose ends I had hanging around, and I realized that the A-class review for Combustor was still open. I know it's a technical topic, but if anyone is willing to take a look and review it for me, I would appreciate it! -SidewinderX (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Turborocket, Air turborocket, RBCC mess

In the process of working on the Jet engine article (above), I've stumbled upon a bit a of a mess we have, and I'm not sure the best way to address it. Here's the problem -- There are 5 articles that I've found that are all pretty poor and are heavily related -- Turborocket, Air turborocket, Air-augmented rocket, Air turboramjet, and Rocket-based combined cycle. There not much information in any of the articles, and they all seem to cover pretty similar things. I've done a bit of research, and I think I've got it sorted out in my mind, and I'd like propose a solution.

First, Turborocket, Air turborocket, and Air turboramjet all essentially address the same thing. They're combined cycle engines that use a turbine to compress air that is mixed with either fuel or fuel-rich exhaust and combusted in a afterburner-like nozzle. There are different flavors, but they all operate under the same principles. My suggestion is that they all be merged into one article and the others be redirected. I suggest Air turborocket because that's what my best reference calls it, but I'm open to other suggestions. And honestly, I use the word "merge" loosely... I would be fine with just turning the other pages into redirects and just deleting their "content"...

Second, the Air-augmented rocket (AAR) is slightly different in that it uses a ramjet-like compressor rather than a turbine/compressor setup. The AAR is an example of a Rocket-based combined cycle (RBCC) engine, but there are other types of RBCC engines. The RBCC article is a miserable little stub, but I think it's worth keeping because it will/should be expanded into a much larger article. As for the AAR article... I could see it being integrated into the RBCC article and then redirected, or it could just stay where it is... what do ya'll think?

Anyway, it's a bit of a mess, so let me know what your opinions are, and then we can go about fixing up these articles. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have put forward a good solution here! - Ahunt (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, none of those articles are on my watchlist. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support-- So to be more blunt with my question, should I just blank Turborocket and Air turboramjet and turn them into redirects, or should I look for a way to merge their "content"? -SidewinderX (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Man it's quite here... any comments? -SidewinderX (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll break the silence: merge would be my choice, for the reasons you give in para 2. Better to show the family and point out the distinctions, using a common intro. Saves a deal of repetition and offers a chance to compare and contrast the technologies even-handedly.TSRL (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and merged/edited/redirected those articles. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So far as I am aware, they're all subtly different. Merging them might be OK, if you make clear what the differences are.- Wolfkeeper 17:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think at the moment you've just unilaterally deleted articles.- Wolfkeeper 17:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, all the content from the now redirected articles (Turborocket and Air turboramjet) was copied into the Air turborocket article. I'm now spending a little time trying to clean up that article (while the turboprop thing is figured out... I'll focus on the jet engine article once a consensus has been reached). I agree, they are subtly different (and there are other types of that combined cycle engine that are not described... I'll try and include what I can), and I am trying to describe the differences. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)