User talk:Nimbus227

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Happy NY[edit]

All the best for 2013!

PS: The latest contributor to R-R Merlin shows a high degree of maturity - I guess he thinks he's a better editor than the normal run of illiterate wikignomes who develop F Articles. Min✪rhist✪rianMTalk 18:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Again I can not comment but thanks for the new year wishes. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Walter NZ60[edit]

Evening Nimbus: I see you have contributed to Walter NZ 60 and wondered if you had heard it called the Walter NZ IV? A Dutch book talks about the latter (well, the Walter IV) and says it produced 60 hp; and I have some strong evidence that the Walter NZ VII, referred to by a 1932 Flight article, is the same engine as the Walter NZ 120. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've not much to go on unfortunately, I found this link to a Walter IV which was a licensed copy of the BMW IV. I look to the Czech pages to help but they don't have a navbox yet, they are using a couple of Czech books for sources that might have the answer. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
There's a little bit in Gunston on the W.IV which apparently was built in numbers; but it's not what powered the Pander E light biplane, as it produced 220 hp continuous rather than 60 hp. I'm reasonably sure, from pictures etc, that the Pander E engine was a radial, though Wesselink doesn't say; Pandar seem to have fitted the NZ 60, NZ 85 and NZ 120, 5, 7 and 9 cylinder variants of the same family with the same stroke and bore. There is an article in vol 1 of Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology on this Walter NZ family and I have an idea that my old Uni library may be a subscriber, so I'll pursue it. I'll also try the Czechs. If you turn up anything more I'll be interested to hear. It seems to have been a well-known family amongst European light aircraft builders of the late 1920s - early 1930s.TSRL (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Good stuff, it's difficult at times to discover facts about these older engines, keep at it! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rolls-Royce Trent series[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Rolls-Royce Trent series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JetBlast (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoffman Propeller's acquisition of the V-Prop[edit]

Hi, Was it really necessary to delete this information as "unsourced" quite so quickly when the longstanding first sentence ("Established in 1955...") is also unsourced but remains undeleted?! The article is currently very short, barely more than a stub, and it deserves enlarging. The V-Prop information could be of huge importance both to the company and to GA. I learned this news from a completely reliable source, namely the seller of the rights. Of course, I wish to avoid WP:OR, but it may be some time before this information can be officially sourced. Should readers be denied this news? Arrivisto (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit, but put a "citation needed". I'll try to get an acceptable source; and I've written to Hoffman to try to get them put the news on their website. Arrivisto (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
From the policy of WP:V: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
Clear enough, adding a cite needed tag is still against this policy. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft Engine Historical Society[edit]

Morning Nimbus: your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to infiltrate the Aircraft Engine Historical Society http://www.enginehistory.org/join_aehs.shtml and assist agent Minorhistorian in drooling over information and files that are available only to members. Minorhistorian has already extracted and secreted several files to a protected location and is planning on using them to expand and improve various Wikipedia articles should time allow. He is currently investigating whether AEHS members hold any information concerning the weight of the Rolls-Royce Vulture but is not expecting such information to be divulged at any time soon. Good luck. Min✪rhist✪rianMTalk 22:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Very good! Unfortunately it is a self-published source, there was a discussion at WT:AETF not so long ago and this site along with some others were added to a list of sources not to be used (WP:ENGSPS). Although it looks good I won't use it myself, shame. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

Bolas navideñas.jpg FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Pressure carburetor[edit]

I've added a comment and a question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines. -- Egil (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The PROPER displacement for the Nakajima Homare Japanese radial engine of WW II[edit]

Dear Nimbus227:

The PIPE Here...the calculation of the PROPER total swept displacement of the Nakajima Homare, using the same formula that you can find at Engine_displacement, the complete swept volume of the Homare comes out to be 35.84 litres, or 2,187 in3.

This figure IS computed from using the sourced bore and stroke of the engine itself, and using the formula for finding the volume of a round cylinder times the number of cylinders in the complete engine.

As the bore and stroke ARE sourced from a documented, existing source, the calculated volume SHOULD be fully acceptable as the factual value for the engine's displacement, don't you think?

Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Using a calculator is complete original research, the problem is well known at the engine task force and guidance was added to the article content page; Avoid false precision. Where the specifications are cited by a reliable source the figures and conversions may differ from that obtained with a calculator or conversion programme, per Wikipedia:Verifiability they should be left uncorrected.
There are many reasons why displacement figures don't match bore and stroke shown in articles, one is the use of articulated connecting rods. A V12 engine using these rods will have six cylinders using the nominal stroke, the other six have a different stroke. Calculating the capacity using a single stroke figure for all 12 cylinders does not work. Many radial engines use articulated rods, their geometry is complicated.
Until manufacturers' blueprints show the actual situation we have to use WP:V against 'the truth'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Control Surface Copy Edit[edit]

Dear Nimbus,

How could my copy edit be improved?

-Duxwing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talkcontribs) 04:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We can look at individual sentences: Original; They were used in early aircraft and are currently used in small aircraft where the aerodynamic forces are not excessive replaced with They were used in early aircraft and are used where the aerodynamic forces are small. This changes the meaning, 'not excessive' means that the pilot can cope with the forces where 'small' is not so descriptive.
Original text; The Cessna Skyhawk is a typical example of an aircraft that uses this type of system replaced with the Cessna Skyhawk is a typical to use this type of system. Has a missing word and does not make sense, an error has been introduced where copy editing (to me) is about correcting errors.
Some aircraft have gust locks fitted as part of the control system replaced with some aircrafts' control systems have gust locks. The plural of aircraft is aircraft and the apostrophe use doesn't seem right to me and is avoided in the original version. More accurately it should read some aircraft types have gust locks fitted as part of the control system.
Original; Gust locks are often used on parked aircraft with mechanical systems to protect the control surfaces and linkages from damage from wind changed to Gust locks are often used on parked aircraft with mechanical systems lest wind damage the control surfaces and linkages. 'Lest' is not commonly used in plain English, I understand what it means but younger readers may not. To use that form probably needs a comma between 'systems' and 'lest'. An effective copy edit there would have been to remove the repetition of 'from' to leave Gust locks are often used on parked aircraft with mechanical systems to protect the control surfaces and linkages from wind damage.
Original; A hydro-mechanical flight control system has two parts replaced with a hydro-mechanical flight control system comprises two parts. A longer word with the same meaning has been used, copy editing should work the other way around (replace long words with shorter ones if possible). To make sense it should have been 'comprises of' which is even longer.
Original; The pilot's movement of a control causes the mechanical circuit to open the matching servo valve in the hydraulic circuit replaced with the pilot's control movement causes the mechanical circuit to in the hydraulic circuit open the matching servo valve, which a mechanical feedback linkage closes when the control surface is at the desired position. Introduces a longer sentence, the first part of which doesn't make sense (to in the).
Original; With hydromechanical flight control systems, however, the load on the surfaces cannot be felt and there is a risk of overstressing the aircraft through excessive control surface movement replaced with whereas hydromechanical flight control systems' control surfaces' load cannot be felt, allowing excessive control movement to overstress the aircraft through. This makes no sense at all.
Original; A stick shaker is a device (available in some hydraulic aircraft) that is attached to the control column, which shakes the control column when the aircraft is about to stall replaced with a stick shaker is a device (available in some hydraulic aircraft) that is attached to the control column and shakes it when the aircraft soon will stall. 'Soon will stall' is an odd phrase to me.
Some sentences were re-arranged to start with the word 'such' which doesn't read well to me (also highlights that there were quite a few instances of the word such there which is not ideal). Apostrophes have been introduced where they weren't there before, their correct use confuses a lot of editors (including me).
My idea of copy editing is pretty much what is outlined at Wikipedia:Basic copyediting, correcting obvious typos and spelling errors in single words, anything more than that would be a 'stylistic re-write' and I would leave an edit summary to that effect. This article had a major overhaul in mid-2010 when 'fly-by' wire text was split off to its own article, it is interesting to see the effect of four years community editing, reminds me of a phrase that I don't know the origin of, 'a camel is a horse designed by a committee'!! Wikipedia:Writing better articles is a link I visit sometimes, acknowledging that my own language skills could be better. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

--

Thanks for replying and line-by-line deriving principles from examples: you understand me! :D Following your format:

-You're right. I could without removing information have deleted "currently" and "small aircraft". -Ok. No more "lest". I think that I should review the definition of "plain English". -Right again. Also, "comprise" means "consist of". -I never saw the word "through". I should read my rewritten texts before submitting them. -"Soon" is a preposition, which follows the verb phrase "will stall". -Right. I should have written "X like Y" instead of "Such X as Y". -Oooooh. So that's what I do. Where can I get help with stylistic rewrites?

If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just glad it helped. The golden rule (for me) when copy editing is to read everything twice before hitting 'save', the irony of introducing mistakes when stating that mistakes are being fixed is not lost on article watchers! 'Clean up' is another oft-used edit summary fraught with danger. Stylistic changes are discouraged, especially if the same facts are just being expressed in a different way (same applies to citation methods and header levels). If you want to see your own preferred style then I could suggest creating an article (you use all your own words) then stand back and watch what happens to it. Beware of WP:ENGVAR when fixing 'spelling errors'. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

Why did you undo my edit, with no explanation? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Exactly as MilborneOne says, I did provide an explanation. Every edit screen contains these words: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I could have added a fact tag, if a source was given neither action would have been needed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So then why didn't you do that? Instead, you assumed bad faith, and followed "delete first and ask questions later". This is precisely the sort of BS that is chasing away everyone that's trying to join the project. Please don't do it again. If you have a question about something and there's the slightest doubt, ASK FIRST. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) No bad faith was assumed. Any unsourced edit can be removed, and it always has been. The solution is simple: don't add things without a source. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Jetspecs[edit]

Hi Nimbus I see you have remove the JPT spec. The idea was not that it should always be filled out but to give the option, as the temperature parameter varies between engines: some use temperature of the gas going into the turbine and others use the temperature after the turbine. If you remove JPT then, by extension, you should also remove TIT. Which way do we want to go No temperature info (probably the most important parameter in the specs) or the choice to give the relevant parameter?--Petebutt (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Afraid I can't keep up with what you are doing. The templates have been stable for a long time as the feeling in the engine task force is that there is nothing major missing from them. Adding unimportant parameters to them makes them unencyclopedic (WP:NOTMANUAL). The only people interested in JPT/TIT would be operating aircrew or ground crew, where is the limit of adding specs, how many blades there are on each turbine wheel? Why do readers want to know the exact DERD fuel spec? My preferred solution would be to restore the stable versions of the templates but feel free to discuss it at WT:AETF as I suggested. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the point. There is already a TIT entry, so there should also be a JPT entry or Neither--Petebutt (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Why? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought it had been added recently but looking through the template history it was added in March 2006. It is not often used in articles, showing that the figure is probably rarely given in sources other than TCDS and manuals. Discussion to remove it or keep it should take place at the usual talk page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Renault 70 hp[edit]

I'm fairly pig-ignorant with respect to aero-engines, so I thought I'd run this by you before actually doing anything. I'm pretty certain that this article is very misleading, and that the engine is in fact a French design originating in 1908 & flown in 1909]. The 1909 engine is rated at 60hp but has the same principal dimensions & layout: at that date its both historically very significant & it's also technically interesting, since the propeller drive is off the camshaft at half engine speed & it used forced-draught cooling. Is this in your opinion the same engine? I'm certain that furtling about in l'Aerophile will uncover a lot more about the engine.TheLongTone (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I can help a bit but not much! I've re-read the sources used in that article and can't really add anything. Bill Gunston describes the range of purely French Renault's but does not mention British manufacture of them at all where Alec Lumsden only details the engines that were built in Britain. What he does acknowledge is that Renault originated in Billancourt (Moteurs Louis Renault Cie) and started making engines in 1907 but nothing more. He very rigidly sticks to British built engines and their British applications. Afraid I don't have anything to cite the fairly obvious fact that they were French designs! The Flight archive goes back a fair way, could be worth looking in there. To be fair the article states that the engines were manufactured in the UK, it does not say that they were designed in the UK, not misleading as such, just not the full story.
This image is near identical to a photo of a 'Renault 70 hp WC' given in Lumsden's book. The forced fan cooling that you mention was only for pusher installations, the engine in the Commons image has the shroud between the cylinder banks for this type of cooling. I would say that the propeller shaft in the Commons image is the end of the camshaft as the valve pushrods are pointing directly at it and there is a bearing housing in the case below the propeller shaft which is very likely the end of the crankshaft. This arrangement was used later on the Continental Tiara series if I remember correctly. Another photo in Lumsden's book of a '70 hp Renault' shows what appears to be a crankshaft driven propeller speed reduction unit. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been looking at the contemporary sources, and they are pretty infuriating: an example of something not being written about at first appearance and then being so familiar it isn't worth writing about. So, lacking any truly reliable source, I guess there's little to do. Shame, since it powered some remarkable early endurance flights.TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It can be a frustrating struggle at times, just have to be content with what we have and allow ourselves a small grin when something new and important comes to light. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Images on Wiki[edit]

Morning Nimbus and thanks for the comment on my Flight images query. I'm sure I should know this, but how do you put an image into an article if it is not on WikiCommons? I've loaded 100-ish Flight images into Commons, partly because I know no other way. Until this one I've had no queries (except one when I forgot to include the editor's statement). Someone (Milbourne ?) suggested cc-by-3.0 should be OK, so that's what I've used, without previous objection. After posting the query I wondered if there was a significant difference in copyright status between a photo and a drawing but am not sure. There is a photo in that article as well as the sketch and its status has not yet been queried. I just hope they don't delete the rest! Cheers.TSRL (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Morning! It is a bit of a grey area. I was under the impression that all Flight images (from the online archive) were property and copyright of themselves. I haven't used many but there is a special case where an image is needed for an article and there is no way of obtaining one (by taking your own photo for instance). Comes under WP:NONFREE, I believe it is allowed because WP is hosted on American servers and some editors disagree with it. File:ASCougar.JPG is an example, the licensing is in the coding. Non-free images are uploaded to Wikipedia only (not duplicated on Commons). I'm quite surprised that there are Flight images on Commons, perhaps the situation has changed and I missed it?! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I've added some thoughts at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kellner-Béchereau E.1 sketch.png, including your non-free approach as a possibility. See what you think. On the history: I recall the original proposals (3 years ago?)which produced Target's comment, after which things went quiet. I was keen to make progress and posted a note on the Project talk page about a (?) year ago which, rather to my surprise produced advice saying get on with it and suggesting the 3.0 copyright. I half expected immediate trouble but got none, so since then have uploaded away. Cheers,
I checked Commons to see how many files contained "Michael Targett", as his name is in the permission text: there are at least 500, by no means only mine!TSRL (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It's obviously still a grey area despite the clear enough statement about releasing the material, OTRS is mentioned, not a system I've used as I think it's probably complex and time consuming but if a blanket permission can be fixed then we're quids in. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to put an image into Wikipedia non-free images, following your route. Thanks for the sample, which I have followed. I'm doubtless being dim, but where do I put the image and how? I've always uploaded to the Commons in the past. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Been a while for me as well! In the Wikipedia task bar (on the left of every page) is a 'tools' box, sixth option down is 'Upload file'. A box appears with two options, Commons on the left and Wikipedia on the right, should be plain sailing from there. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed it was: thanks for the pointer and the coding.TSRL (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries, any time! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)