Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Commons Aviation Wikiproject

Several editors have decided to start a Commons Aviation WikiProject which is going to be devoted to aviation-related content on Commons; Commons:Commons:WikiProject_Aviation. Some of the main tasks for the project include maintaining and sorting aviation content, as well as working on obtaining permission from photographers to upload their photos to Commons, in addition to working on introducing photographers to Commons to get them to upload photos directly to Commons. There is a discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation at which we are trying to ascertain what the needs of the community-at-large are, so please feel free to join in the discussion. Also, if there are any project members who are willing to do some translation work for us that would be great. See Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Translations for more info. Also, anyone with scripting knowledge would be welcome, as there are some ideas which would require such expertise. Look forward to hearing from project members over on Commons with any ideas, etc. Please feel free to translate this message as needed. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 14:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy birthday AETF!

I missed it by a week but the engine task force has been going for three years now, hard to believe!! Been pretty quiet in here this year (or I was anyway!), it must be because things are fairly well organised and stable. Cheers, Merry Christmas and happy editing for 2012! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce navbox (again!)

Here's the current navbox: Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines. It is very clear to me that it needs splitting. Has been discussed before (check the template talk page and the archives here for some heat) but it ended in stalemate. My preferred solution is to split into the two companies (Ltd and plc) which will also split them into eras. The piston engines have type letters which are not currently covered. Just checking as most engine things seem to change undiscussed lately! I promise I will do an exemplary job of it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could create some sandbox versions to show exactly what you mean, that would be convincing! - Ahunt (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that, possibly not before the blackout though! No rush. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No rush! I think I will spend the blackout writing articles off-line in a text editor for later posting! - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, slightly quicker than I expected. There are three navboxes here, top is the current one, middle is RR Ltd (to 1971) and bottom is RR plc (1971 on). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks a lot easier to use. My only question is if aeroderivative is a real word? I know what you mean, but perhaps you could use aircraft-derived or somesuch instead?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

They look pretty good to me! - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, good. I'll leave it for while in case anyone else has any opinions. 'Aeroderivative' does not look right to me either, it was added by another editor a while ago, probably should be hyphenated or just spaced (we use the non-hyphenated 'aero engine' consistently).

General Electric use the word, I'll have a look and see if RR use something similar.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like marketing bumpf to me! - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Landomatic is marketing bumpf!! Rolls-Royce hyphenate it, sorted! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Italian engine designations

OK, I have found out what R. and C. mean - Ridottori (reduction geared) and Compressore - (super-charged), bit what are R.A. and I.R.C.C.? On top of that what is the significance of the numbers after the R.C. etc.. Help would be appreciated!Petebutt (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look through some Bill Gunston and Jane's books but it's not explained. Seems to vary between companies as Fiat used a different system. Might be worth clicking on some Italian interwiki links and see if it is explained there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the Italian piston engine category, I'm trawling through it but not found anything yet. I notice that some of those articles now have Commons images where some of ours don't yet and I think there are engines there that we don't have articles on. Just came across a V.6 which is not a V6!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

With Alfa-Romeo engines for sure, and probably for others, the number after R.C. indicates the rated altitude, e.g. the Alfa 126R.C.34 was rated at 3,400 m.TSRL (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I could find only one I.R.C.C. with details (in JAWA1938), the Isotta-Fraschini A.120 I.R.C.C.40. It had output speed reduction (so R), and was supercharged to 4,000 m (so 40). It differs from most of the other engines by having a two speed supercharger (so C.C. ??) and by being an inverted inline (so I for inverted (invertire) ??). It was air cooled but there seems to be no letter that related to cooling. R.C. motors include water cooled upright, water-cooled Vs as well as radials, so the I is probably not for inline. Only guesswork but more examples would probably nail it.TSRL (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Propeller manufacturer's category?

I think there are just enough aircraft propeller manufacturer articles to justify a category for them and possibly a navbox as well. Any thoughts? Companies I can think of are MT Propeller, de Havilland Propellers, Dowty Rotol, Hamilton Standard, Hamilton Sundstrand, Fairey Reed, Hoffmann Propeller, Hartzell Propeller, McCauley and Sensenich. Probably more out there. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. As you say, there are certainly more manufacturers: Aviation Sales, Anglo American Aviation, Breguet, Hawker Siddeley Dynamics and Propfin come to mind; the classified ads pages in Jane's over the years should provide more. Some articles will have propeller stuff mixed in with other activities. There's a recent GA list [here]. Ord-Hume's British Light Aeroplanes 1920-1940 has a chapter with sections on all propeller manufacturers active in the UK between the wars. Perhaps we should add props to our list of things to photograph when out and about.[User:TSRL|TSRL]] (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It shows that we have missing articles (or missing article sections) as well, there are obviously a few redlinks here. Often the manufacturer categories get split into active and defunct and also by nationality, probably not enough to sensibly do that but it's worth getting it right first time. Category:Aircraft propeller manufacturers would be a start and they could be subdivided later if needed. I have quite a few propeller photos, the Hoffman article needs writing, our Tiger has a Hoffman prop and almost the entire Shuttleworth fleet are fitted with them (anything brown/cream is a Hoffman prop). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just checking my spelling of Hoffmann (can never remember!), here's their homepage. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a good point - we are missing most prop manufacturers. On the lighter end ones like Powerfin, Ivoprop, Tennessee Propeller, Warp Drive, Inc, Sterba Propellers all come to mind as needing articles. I need to dig around and see what I have for refs on these. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Purdy, Don: AeroCrafter - Homebuilt Aircraft Sourcebook, page 162-164. BAI Communications. ISBN 0-9636409-4-1 has a complete guide to props. It is from 1998, but is a good start. Perhaps I can create stubs on each prop manufacturer and we can go from there. Do we want a cat and a nav box for them ? - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Category is live, not sure about a navbox at the moment. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The cat looks good! The nav box is an interesting question. It could get a bit big, but it will at least prevent "orphan" tags on prop manufacturer articles. I am thinking that we don't have single nav box to gather together airframe manufacturers, so that may mean it isn't justified. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There is this beauty which is an attempt to list everything and hurts my eyes! Just had a trawl through the Commons categories, spotted two shots of an MT Propeller on a Beech Bonanza, should use one of them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay I can see why you would want to avoid something that looks like that nav box. If we do one it can be better organized that that, but let's leave that idea for now and see how many turn up in the category. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a go at the pre-war Brits from Ord-Hume, skipping any post-war survivors (there are not many) if you're happy. I'm going to the library today and will look for MT propellers GmbH to help the article in its own section noted above. BTW, do you know if there are online records of company histories? Some of the prop co.s are almost certainly defunct but faded away without any note in Flight etc of their passing.TSRL (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There's Companies House Webcheck but it's not so good for the older companies. Sometimes company closures are mentioned in Flight but their search engine is not brilliant. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the companies house link. Certainly worth knowing. I now have the Jane's 2011/12 Propeller section copied out. For many manufacturers, Jane's give a sample of specific props, sometimes as many as 20, though mostly less. Should we do the same where we have the info?TSRL (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably not encyclopedic to list prop types (but would please prop spotters no doubt!), the MT article lists applications which is probably ok as there aren't that many. I've just bashed out Hoffmann Propeller and stopped short of trying to add applications as there are a lot. On Companies House, many of the old companies appeared to be dissolved very late (in the 2,000s), this was probably when they entered them on computer, I expect they have a paper archive. All good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth having a list of propeller companies somewhere? MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That might be better than a nav box. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, wouldn't have thought it would be very long though. Could be used as a home for companies not worth an article and even have some prose in it!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

List of aircraft propeller manufacturers starter. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that going - it will save some orphan tags. - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Going to be longer than I thought! Have added it in 'See also' sections so the list itself isn't orphaned. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I am doing that as well! - Ahunt (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Finished for the moment, thanks for your help and the image, some red links to keep you guys busy! most from Janes 2003 and the FAA/EASA websites. One not clear was R Hunt Propellers of the US did they just take over certificates of older props or do they actually build them. Really should be an article for somebody else to start if they did! MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Now there is a question - perhaps we are related? - Ahunt (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added companies from Jane's 2011 and the 1920-1940 British ones from Ord-Hume.TSRL (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A minor naming issue: I added LAK (Lietuvos AeroKlubas, cf the Lithuanian gliders), a heading used in JAWA2012, but noted the company, according to Jane's, is JSC Sportine Aviacja ir Kro. The entry in our list Sportine Aviacja is presumably the same gang. I was about to delete both of our entries and replace them with JSC Sportine Aviacja ir Kro, then noticed that LAK's website refers to UAB Sportine Aviacja ir Kro at the top of their page. However they use JSC in the first para! Don't know what the acronym stands for but my inclination is to go for JSC. Any thoughts? There are a few other cases where the product name differs from the company's.TSRL (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Should have trusted WP! Apparently Uždaroji akcinė bendrovė is essentially Lithuanian for Ltd. Since we don't use that in English articles, suggest Sportine Aviacja ir Ko is the right choice. Almost back to the start ... !TSRL (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Break

Just found two very comprehensive articles, The Airscrew Company and Hordern-Richmond. Just shows what we had already but was not very well linked. I visited them briefly last year when the Canadian lady asked for help with identifying a prop. It's in the archive here but basically it was from an Avro Anson and she thought it was worth a lot of money, sadly not!! Just wondering if we have missed anything else very obvious to do with the front end of aeroplanes! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be possible to create Commons categories for some of these articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

...and it's almost time to start a defunct manufacturers category! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That might be useful. I have done a bunch of companies today that were in business when my 1998 ref was written and I think most are now defunct! - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not easy finding out when they 'defunked', most company articles say when they started but not when they finished! Mergers make things difficult as well, there was some discussion at Dowty Rotol recently, consensus is that the name at least is defunct but nobody has the info to nail it firmly (or is brave enough to edit the article!). Over 1,500 articles tagged under engines now, great stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It can be very hard to determine when a company went out of business as there is usually no one there to make the announcement. For internet-era companies sometimes the last website version held at Archive.org will have an announcement, or you can guess by going by when the website disappeared on Archive.org! - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirects for Engine variants models (Petebutt again)

User:Petebutt appears to be creating redirects for individual engine models (for example BMW 132M to BMW 132 and Rolls-Royce Buzzard IIMS redirecting to Rolls-Royce Buzzard and then changing links in aircraft articles to link to the variant redirect. The latter seems completely reduntant and unhelpful, essentially creating un-necessay redirects for the sake of it - - this is what piped links are for, not redirects. Comments please.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Overspecific wikilinks don't strike me as very useful. There's not a lot of guidance at WP:Redirect. I think the questions are a) is there a genuine need for them? b) Are they are problem in the search box? As this subject touches upon other aspects of the Aviation Project eg should we redirect specific aircraft marks eg Supermarine Spitfire Mk.V, is it worth taking the discussion up to a higher project level? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning is that if you mention Rolls-Royce Buzzard IIMS for instance then Buzzard IIMS should link directly to the relevant article without piped links. When all is said and done what harm is a re-direct? If you have good reasons for not creating re-directs then state them. There is very little time penalty as it ytakes about the same time to create a re-direct as to develop a piped link, So what is the real objection. If you read WP:Redirect it actually encourages what I am doing and discourages Piped links!! What is the Problem????Petebutt (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nigel, the practise of creating redirects to avoid piped links in aircraft specification sections is unnecessary, these piped links have existed for many years without anyone else feeling the need to 'correct' them. Where it does become a problem is in the list articles, particularly list of aircraft engines. Redirects are being used to create pseudo variant sub-lists, using the entry there for the Gnome-Rhône 9K as an example, there are four redirects below it listing variants that are not even mentioned in the article, variants should not be listed there anyway unless they have their own article, explained quite clearly at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The effect of clicking on these links is the same as kicking a puffball mushroom. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't help feeling that a mountainis being made out of a molehill see Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creepPetebutt (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

After careful thought I shall continue to re-direct where I find piped linkds or incomplete links during normal editing and stop actively searching for them. As for the llist of aircraft engines variant the intention is to develop re-directs and remove the variants from the list after re-directs are written. I still assert that if an engine or aircraft mark is mentioned in an article then any link should re-direct the complete title including mark or variant. Having said that I will abide by any policy that states Do not do this.Petebutt (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that the reader clicks on these new variant links and expects to be taken to an article on that specific engine, the redirect takes them to the top of the generic engine article and they are left wondering what it was all about. At the very least to make these new links useful anchor them to the 'Variant's section, this is how redirects work for aircraft variants (see Boeing 777-200ER as an example). Many of these piped engine variant links have been in place for years with nobody else feeling the need to change them, still don't see the need to do it now. Strictly, it's an aircraft article problem.

Creating multiple variant redlinks in the engine list article implies that we have more articles missing than we actually have. The intention of the task force missing article list was to keep things tidy and keep track of our missing articles but it's not really working. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Citing of specifications?

Just been having a surf through some unloved engine articles (as I do!). There are about 140 articles tagged as having no specs, they actually do have most of their specs but the tag is there because they are uncited (although I notice the wording doesn't make this clear). The kicker is Template:Aeroengine-specs at the bottom of each page. I get the feeling that editors reading the tag think that specs are missing but they actually just need citing. In short, I don't think it's working very well.

A more direct and obvious way (taken me four years to work it out) is just to add a 'fact' or 'cn' tag where the citation would sit, I did this just now at the J47 article [1]. Often missing is the '|ref=' parameter, easily added at the top of the specs list (but it doesn't produce italic text sadly).

If anyone knows the weight of a Rolls-Royce Vulture then please add it and remove the tag, can't find it anywhere!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree - they just need fact tags. Then they need sources! - Ahunt (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing how many uncited specs sections there are still. In the early days of WP it was often claimed that the numbers came from the single source given in the reference section (usually Bill Gunston!), they probably did but it's not good enough now.

The disadvantage of simply adding a fact tag to the specs sections is that it does not group them in to a category like the template does so we have no idea what articles need attention. A 'belt and braces' method would be to use the fact tag and the template but we are certainly within our rights to add fact tags at the least. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

LeBlond

Have been sifting through the stub articles to see if any could be improved and promoted to start class (have managed a few). There is a strange situation with the LeBlond Aircraft Engine Corporation and the LeBlond 5. There is far more information on the two engines (there's a related seven-cylinder job) in the company article than the engine, it is also well cited there where there are no references at all in the engine article and it is tagged for having no sources. Did not want to do a WP:CUTPASTE move so I thought I would come here for help or suggestions! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You can copy and paste the bit you need as long as you use a Template:Copied on the two talk pages. It points back to the original article for attribution purposes. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't think that was quite the right guideline shortcut that I gave but it's much the same thing! I'll have another look at the articles later. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons categories

Have to admit to not sorting out the LeBlond articles yet! I spend a fair amount of time searching through the aero engine images on Commons, mostly looking for orphaned images that have no article (my last two engine articles were created this way). The categories there are fairly well organised with a few oddities. It struck me that a potentially useful sub-categorisation of aero engine images would be by museum collections.

Some of the aircraft museum categories have hundreds of images now and it can be quite difficult looking for the engine exhibits. I was basically after suggestions on what best to call these new categories. There is at least one museum engine category. Not sure if this is the best convention (in, at, of?) and it needs a parent category ('Aerospace museum engine collections' or 'Aircraft engine collections' etc.)

I think it's important to get the category naming convention right first time (not always the case over there), I did drop into the Commons aviation project talk page offering help with engine images a while ago but received no reply. Could be a long job (but not too bad with 'HotCat') and I think worth it in the end. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds worth doing. That proposed nomenclature sounds okay to me. I don't see any obvious traps there. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Good. The main category over there is 'Aircraft engines', someone, quite sensibly, has been sub-categorising using the convention 'Aircraft engines by brand, Aircraft engines by type, etc. so that would be the form to go with. I've found two more engine collection categories. It's a picky thing but if we used 'Aircraft engines at the ACME museum' we can also include the close-ups of engines actually bolted to aeroplanes (which are often used in our articles). I'll make a start and see how it pans out. If all fails it can be changed (but things are not so easy over there). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Good luck! - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I went for it and created Category:Aircraft_engine_collections which is a sub-cat of aircraft engines, I am creating sub-categories in the museum articles, have done the Shuttleworth Collection so far but that will possibly be it for tonight! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It will be a big job to finish it all, but should help actually find photos over there! - Ahunt (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's fun! A bigger task is identifying the unknown engines on the main page, should have another category for unknown ones. There should also be a category for 'airliner engine cowlings taken out of airliner windows', plenty of those available! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well as long as you are enjoying the work. I am sure not many will object over there on Commons, so you should have a peaceful time of it. Actually a cat for "unknown engine type" would be good, as it may encourage people to identify them. It always amazes me how many pictures show up on Commons with no useful description. There are tons of "an airplane at an airshow" captions, which pretty much guarantees we can't use them for anything. - Ahunt (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The museum cat is fairly well populated now, re-categorised some images in the process and found some new ones. It's a bit of a free for all over there (several categories for Lyulka engines for instance, we have Ljulka and Ly'ulka as well!). Musn't grumble though! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That was fast! - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No hanging about! Just found an absolute gem of a file, lurking right on the first Commons page. Here's the link. It's a 160 page scan of a 1939 Russian aero engine book covering military engines of the world (but not their own), could fill a lot of blanks in with that. Would need translating of the title and publisher but I think it would be good to use as a reliable source, would have to check. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Title Авиационные моторы военно-воздушных сил иностранных государств is "Aircraft engines of the air forces of foreign states"

Publisher Воениздат НКО СССР is "Voenizdat USSR NKO". - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ta. Is it good to use? Just cite it like a normal book (or link to the file perhaps), it's a bit unusual. Can't make much sense of the text but the specs are laid out pretty much like ours and the numbers are arabic. At a push some of the images could be screen captured and used (as a derivative work). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not on all counts! - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Roger. Still doesn't tell me how much a Vulture weighs, got the Merlin and Kestrel in there though. Hours of fun ahead. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And as a bonus you will improve your Russian, too. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've worked out that 'P' is 'R' but that's about it! Have added the book file link to our reference page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This book is actually being used in some articles already as a citation. The link in the citation takes the reader to an index page where the types are fairly readable, I don't know if you can get beyond that page though, follow the cite link (I'm lazy!!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Klimov RD-33

I just undid an edit at Klimov RD-33, the edit changed the description to turbojet from turbofan with no edit summary. I noticed it had a bypass ratio in the specs so thought this was someone messing about but I popped to the Klimov website where they call it a turbojet and had a look at Flight where they call it both but mostly turbofan.I think it is an afterburning turbofan like the Rolls-Royce Spey, perhaps Klimov don't have it quite right?!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be a translation error on their part. - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Their English is pretty good but could be translated by a non-technical person, possibly a native English speaker. I surfed round the wikis, the cz article and a source there describe it as a turbofan and even say that the RD means turbofan (Reaktivnyj Dvuchkonturnyj), the Russian article seems to describe it as a turbojet. A bit tricky when the manufacturer describes it as a turbojet. Flight would be a preferred secondary source though I think. Must go to Russian classes! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Хорошая идея - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Я думал так! - Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing category?

We have a few articles on 'gas generators' (Napier Oryx, Turbomeca Palouste and some others that I can't remember!). Would like to create a category for these, just wondering what best to call it, 'Aircraft gas generators'? There are some APU's surfacing, many of them were/are gas generators but not the main propulsion engine. APUs probably need a category as well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would go with separate cats for aircraft gas generators and APUs. - Ahunt (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Leaning toward 'Aircraft gas generators' (thinking that there might be other kinds of gas generators!) or 'Aircraft gas generator engines'? OBOGS is a gas generator strictly! I think 'Aircraft auxiliary power units' may be too long though it does make it clear what the category is for.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In this case I would support clarity over brevity! - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, when someone complains that the categories have the wrong name I'll point them here! I'll get on it soon(ish). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Created both cats, just can't remember the articles that need to be in them! Floodgates should be open for more APU articles to be created. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Jane's 1956/7, there were two more Turbomecas, the Autan and the Arius {sic}. WP has no article on the first and JAWA has only a couple of specs, fuel consumption and compression ratio. The Arius is puzzling, for WP has it as a turboshaft and lists conventional helicopter applications. The FAA cert bears this out and supports the WP spelling, Arrius. Their specs include both shaft hp, much lower than WP's figure, and air delivery, so maybe it could do both. WP, under components, does mention a gas generator turbine but I guess that's in the "gas generator" = "engine core" sense of this multi-purpose phrase.TSRL (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Turbomeca have a habit of re-using names, there were two completely different 'Oredons', could well be a different engine. Turbomeca have been dropping the older engines from their website, external links in articles are broken but some can be fixed. I'm sure it will all come out in the wash! Microturbo is another company with a large range of APUs, we could add red links to our missing article page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Gunston mentions the Arrius I and II of the 1950s, 'air compressors larger than the Palouste' he says. Palouste's were good on a cold day for warming your hands in the exhaust! Used them to start Buccaneers, F-104s and German F-4s. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Turns out the Arrius had at least one app as gas generator, the Farfadet. Added a Flight ref.TSRL (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that was a different engine, was hoping for clues from Wiki fr but they're quite a bit behind us on engine coverage. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

On a similar subject

Tempted to merge Air-start system and Huffer, adding references at the same time! It's an interesting subject with plenty of scope for expansion.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

They do seem to have enough overlap to justify merging them! - Ahunt (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Learn something everyday, never heard or seen the term Huffer before. Do we have an overview article on engine starting to point to all these diferent methods? MilborneOne (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Think 'Huffer' is a purely US term, bordering on slang (at least for an article title). Can't say I've seen an article on aircraft engine starting, just the individual systems, might be time to join them all together. There's the gyro starter (groundcrew winding a handle) which I've not seen covered at all. Not forgetting the dear old Hucks starter! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Aircraft engine starters" sounds a useful topic. To cover older methods, there's a handy illustrated section in Lumsden on piston starting and a brief but informative 1954 summary of starters for all types in the Flight Handbook.TSRL (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, another mini-project to start. The starting method is not something that is currently covered in the 'specs' sections, it's often not given in sources, could be worked into the text though. Can get complicated as early de Havilland Gipsy Majors were hand start (by prop swinging) where later ones had the luxury of an electric starter (and possibly a Coffman as well!). A new article should also cover re-starting shutdown engines in the air (which would modify the title), I'm thinking of 'windmill' starting, good fun assuming that you have lots of height!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Have made a start ('scuse the pun!). I'm using one of my re-cycled sandboxes to throw together some thoughts, it's in list form but hopefully would become more prose. Feel free to add notes etc. and we'll see how it goes. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is live after a push of several hours! Aircraft engine starting. I have nowikied some text for lack of sources, may be able to expand it in the future. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Packard V-1650

A new editor User:Tell the truth brits has made a whole host of odd changes to this article, inserting what appears to POV together with a host of tags dated September 2009. It probably requires closer scrutiny (along with the rest of the editors edits).Nigel Ish (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the whole mess. - Ahunt (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That article remains 'start' class unfortunately, it has been subjected to various POV edits by different editors over the years. I thought about trying to sort it out but found other things to do!! Maybe this winter. Don't know if you guys noticed some strange goings on with a large crusade of 'speedy rename' tagging on engine categories, seemed to be withdrawn by the nominator? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw it, but it didn't seem to warrant actual participation! - Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

T'was quite strange, was prepared to fight the case but it went away after myself and another editor opposed the bulk moves. Just had a look at the V-1650 again, the large number of cite tags is what put me off (quite right to be there) and I don't have the sources to fill them (and I wonder if anyone else has!!), rainy day job that one. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent Commons uploads

There is a small band of people on Commons improving aviation topics, one of their initiatives is to create galleries from recently uploaded images related to aviation (a bot does it using the categories added by the uploader I think). Here is the link to the main list page. The idea is that editors view the images and add more specific categories if they are needed. I've found quite a few new engine images including some that we don't have articles for. It's a great idea but I am having problems with page loading, possibly due to the size of the thumbnails, I've asked for them to be reduced (but nothing ever happens quickly on Commons!). Would be interested if anyone else has these problems in there or if it just my old computer protesting, Jimbo owes me a new one!! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just tried again, I seem to be getting two 'unresponsive script messages', didn't catch the first one but the second one is Script: resource:///modules/PageThumbs.jsm:53 if that means anything to anyone!! Most frustrating. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem was solved by reducing the thumbnail size to 150px from 300px in the code on each page, still slow but eventually loads up. Quite a few good new photos emerging. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey that is great - more engine photos can only be a good thing! - Ahunt (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We're getting there! Most of the uploaders are adding descriptions now, even the variant, which makes life easier. There are some strange images in the galleries, London buses and female tennis players, can't see the connection to aviation at first glance! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably just bad categories! The biggest problem I have found on commons is when someone uploads a ton of airshow photos with descriptions like "an aircraft". You can spend the rest of your life sorting those. I always wish people would do it right or not at all! - Ahunt (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I was curious, the tennis players are there because they were tagged with 'Roland Garros' French Open and the buses were there because it was a rally at North Weald Airfield. Can sleep soundly now! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that is tenuous at best! - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No idea how the bot works but it seems to be scanning words in the description rather than the categories themselves, hopefully it will be tuned as there an awful lot of non-aviation images being collected (which is not helping the page upload time either). I've asked the bot owner if the thumbnail size can be fixed for future upload galleries, you can actually set your own page up using it so in theory we could set up an 'aero engine recent upload' page, might give it a try. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully he can tune it a bit! - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Too technical?

Was just surfing around and came across this guideline: Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. Most of our articles are pretty good but there might be one or two that might be heavy going. Don't really want to increase the size of our 'page content' guideline but wondered if it would be an idea to squeeze this link in there somewhere? There is no guidance on completing 'Design and development' sections where this problem is likely to occur (the header should be self-explanatory I suppose but we have plenty of guidelines site wide for other self-explanatory things!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea to include it - some editors do get a bit carried away! - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

An example! Could be that it applies more to terminology articles. Will revisit the content page soon, looks unbalanced by the 'specs' advice (might be better on another sub-page with a shortcut). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yikes. Aside from incomprehensible to lay-readers I would prod that as unref and probably WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There's core power as well, much the same without the equations! The articles were left out of the original version of the component navbox. Neither term appears in Jane's Aerospace Dictionary. Core size gets a couple of ghits, core power gets none (apart from WP, the top entry). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That one quotes definitions, but no refs! I would Prod 'em both. No indication they are anything more than WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Prodded both. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Good move! - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Mystery engine

Here's a challenge! I visited the Midland Air Museum recently, they have a fair collection of engines but not enough room to display them properly. Hidden behind two RR Avons was this small turbojet that caught my eye. Difficult to photograph due to poor access but I tried. The museum staff would very much like to know what it is and I said I would try to help.

All they know is that is was donated by Coventry University, they thought it was from a VFW-Fokker 614 because it is mounted on a short vertical pylon but I explained that it used the M45H which is a much larger engine than this one.

Some clues: I would say that is British built from the AGS (Aircraft General Standard) pipe fittings and Dzus fasteners on the fibreglass shroud (which does not look as if it was designed to be flown). It's about four feet long, the compressor inlet is about 18 inches diameter (looks axial but maybe centrifugal behind!). I've ruled out the Turbomeca range (they were built under license in the UK) and the Rolls-Royce Soar, pretty much stumped to be honest!

Only other thought is that there is a Rolls-Royce plant at Ansty, they did some experimental aero engine work in the past and perhaps it came from there? It looks like a ground school running demonstrator to me. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It does have 'X 33' written on it in two places but that may be a museum exhibit number, searching that came up with nothing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It would have been amusing if it had turned out to be a Blackburn Nimbus, which had an axial then centrifugal compressor. Later it became the RR Nimbus. Bit too large, I guess, at 19.5 in OD and also, fatally a shaft engine. Shame!TSRL (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the Nimbus is about two to three times the size of this engine, it's a real 'head scratcher'! Looking closely at the photos it has some wirelocking but all the fuel pipe unions are not wirelocked (and look like they never have been), indicates that it has not been used in an aircraft (we locked everything!). I'm going to go back up there sometime and dig it out for a better look, it's jammed behind two RR Avons, next to a Spey from a Phantom and stuck under the wing of a Meteor, they just don't have enough space to display the engines properly, there's an Olympus lurking behind a noticeboard and a J79 outside partly covered with a tarpaulin. One day we'll find out what it is. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like Aladdin's cave in there! Would ground based gas starters have had wirelocked fuel pipe unions?TSRL (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The shape of the casing over the hot section looks like Turbomeca. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Tried looking in the list of preserved engines [2] but nothing jumps out. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce are very kindly looking into it for me, we'll see if it stumps them as well! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

After lots of e-mails Rolls-Royce have also come up a blank. I'm sure there are more clues available on the engine, need to get back to the museum sometime and get a better look at it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully it has a plate on it somewhere!

Engine stub category

Category:Aircraft engine stubs has been nominated for deletion. There are 260+ engine stubs, this category refers only to those that have been marked with a template (in theory they should all have it). Can't see how we can improve the project if we don't know what the stubs are? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Was about to add {{engine-aircraft-stub}} to articles but noticed that most are actually start class, not helped by an editor recently demoting many (any article with a structure, infobox image, references and navboxes is not a stub according to WP:ASSESS), Winter job to fix. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

We always seem to have to deal with "two steps forward and one step back". - Ahunt (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a 'stub sorting' project/task force that seems intent on deleting stub categories. Can not understand this at all (should be creating categories, not deleting them). One stub category was quietly deleted last year despite my protests, Category:Aircraft engine terminology stubs. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah these do help us find articles that need work. So does it help make the encyclopedia better to delete the cats - no! - Ahunt (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination has been withdrawn now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Good move on his part! - Ahunt (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Polish Aviation Museum

Was just surfing through some museum articles and trying to marry them up with Commons images, the Polish Aviation Museum seems to have an exceptional collection of engines and their website lists them in English, most links have images. Can be used to expand the 'Engines on display' sections (can even be cited!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Good find! - Ahunt (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

100 engines according to the article lead. Had a look through Commons and Flickr for photos to upload but the engines don't seem to be as popular as the rusty jets on display outside! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't remember if I mentioned it but I started a new category on Commons grouping collections of aero engines by their museum which seems to have caught on with other editors creating sub-cats. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea! - Ahunt (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)