Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft engines (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 
This page is supported by the aircraft engine task force.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines:

Template:Jetspecs JPT or TIT[edit]

Which do we need? Either or both. As probably the most important parameter in a turbine engine specs it makes sense to have the choice of the most used parameters.

JPT
Jet Pipe Temperature - the temperature of the gas flow AFTER the turbine,
TIT
Turbine Inlet Temperature - the temperature of the gas as it enters the turbine section.

Either may be quoted in specs, usually according to the method of fuel control, so it makes sense to have the option of showing either, (but not both at the same time) in Template:Jetspecs. Anybody else have any thoughts?--Petebutt (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither, I can't see how this parameter is important at all in a general encylopedia. The other problem that has just occurred to me is that the Pistonspecs and Jetspecs templates are not transcluded, this means that any changes to the template itself do not appear in articles. What happens then is that the template in articles is at a different form to the master, this could cause a lot of confusion. Often I copy a set of specs from one article to another, amending the numbers as required, doing it this way the template master is bypassed. Many of the articles have the |ref= parameter missing which should be added to align them with the master (with the benefit of a tidier sourcing note at the same time). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Rather obviously we need both as parameters, and will usually whichever (or both) are sourceable. Didn't we already have some idiot decision on this a few years ago, where they ended up merged because the loudest voice didn't understand the difference, and "EGT" doesn't make it quite so clear. Mind you, "I can't see how this parameter is important at all" is pretty bloody ignorant in its own way. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Nimbus seems to be getting a bit heated over this. Whether he wants to see engine specs in an article is neither here nor there. What is more important is to have a template that is a good tool for editors thet doesn't leave them wanting for more. Don't forget, the content is driven by editors, NOT the readers. So I re-iterate both or neither, but both is better!!!--Petebutt (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not getting heated at all. I do follow and applaud the principle of 'less is more' so that important facts can be found easily. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is a fairly short guide as to what should and shouldn't be in an article, WP:NOT is a longer one. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Neither of those apply in this case.--Petebutt (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Different engines use TIT, EGT or JPT as limiting parameters and so will normally just have one specified and not the others. That said, I agree with Nimbus that this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. These are operational parameters that the pilot needs to know, but they don't tell tell the causal reader anything useful and can't be used for comparison purposes. This is really into WP:NOTMANUAL territory. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll play devil's advocate; TIT (Turbine Inlet Temperature) is a valuable specification because that is a defining characteristic of a turbine engine. It's the temperature directly after the combustor and is a design "pinch point". An argument could be made that increasing the TIT has been one of the prime technology drivers in gas turbines (and therefore all high-temperature materials). It is the reason why we developed nickel-based superalloys to replace stainless steel and it is the reason that ceramic-metal composites (CMCs) are being developed today. I'd argue that, where available, TIT is a useful spec to keep around. SidewinderX (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Rocket engine article format?[edit]

A bit quiet in here isn't it?!! Are we happy with the format of some of the rocket engine articles? They mostly don't follow the layout of other engine articles, using different templates (in the case of the Bristol Siddeley Gamma there are four infoboxes). Could tidy them up quite easily with the agreement of task force members. I do have some rocket engine images that have not been uploaded, been at a loss as where to place them in these articles exactly. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there really any need for that many info boxes? I say some clean-up and standardization is called for! - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably a rule about it somewhere! I'll have a go at one article and see how it looks. There is a 'rocketspecs' template, not sure how different it is to what we are already using. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I've updated Bristol Siddeley BS.605, Armstrong Siddeley Stentor and de Havilland Spectre. Template:Rocketspecs is not quite right, there are parameters in Template:Infobox rocket engine that could be used, smoke and mirrors to me! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks pretty good! A couple of them could use more specs, but we need a source, of course. - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, the sources are out there (mostly Flight for the Brit engines). Would like to get the specs template right, need to dig in and look at coding. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I am sure a few "refinements" to the template would be of help. - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Think I'm getting the hang of it after going cross-eyed with brackets and '#ifs' this morning. Parameters were there but needed unlocking. There is a way to hide unused fields if no value is entered which I need to work out. The purpose of the template (at the top of the page) seems to be a cut and paste from 'jetspecs' and is not right. Most of the aircraft rocket engines seem to be liquid-fuelled (apart from small RATO units) so 'Grain' would not apply. Didn't know what 'grain' was till I looked it up (and I'm still not much wiser!!). All good fun. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I am glad that you are on it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Can only do 10 minute stints, surely template coding could be made more user friendly?!! I'm only interested in rocket engines that powered things with wings so won't be visiting the many others. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It definitely requires some technical skills to get it right! Good luck Mr Phelps! - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm learning about rockets all the time, might go mad and buy a book! This place is very near to me, I do remember that they were not very friendly if you landed a glider there, think it's closed now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Giving up temporarily as I'm making mistakes, have asked Graeme to have a look at it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think I've sorted the problem (for the moment). It would be good to create a proper documentation and sandbox page for working on the template. So far I've left a pointer on the talkpage. I'd do more (essentially taking my cues from Template:Jetspecs or Aeroengine-specs with a dash of (Template:Infobox military installation/testcases) but I have a cat to call upon while on my way out later. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme. I noticed it didn't have a doc page or the option for a sandbox, I tried fiddling with it in one of my sandboxes but it wouldn't display at all, seems that edits have to be 'live' to see the effect. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Now there's a page for tests cases at Template:Rocketspecs/testcases where the current and "experimental" code can be compared
The experimental code is at Template:Rocketspecs/sandbox. Make the changes there, then force a reload of the testcases page and see the result.
I've fixed a couple of elements, you were on the right path and it was a question of a misplaced character or two (a missing '|' in one case and a extraneous '_' in the other). I think you should be able to Take It From Here. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks again. Will be next week now when I get to look at it. I mentioned earlier in this thread about hiding unused fields, am I imagining that or can it be done? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Putting in stuff only if there is data is a case of using a structure like "IF (Parameter name) | 'Some text' (Parameter name) " and so long as you have hundreds of curly brackets it works easily for single lines. Hiding whole sections - so you can suppress section headers - using switches gets a bit trickier with the syntax but a good place to start is reusing code from a working template. I think we should be able to get things working. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Unused navbox templates[edit]

Following on from the mass deletion nominations I've discovered a large quantity of aero engine navbox templates that are unused (the only relevant link being aircraft engine in the title). Most of the redlinks contained in them will probably never be written, other templates are hybrids of existing templates (Template:Siemens-Schuckert/Bramo is a mixture of Template:Siemens-Halske aeroengines, Template:BMW aeroengines and Template:Siemens-Schuckert aircraft, completely unused).

I propose that the list at User:Buster40004/Templates is examined and checked then a single entry to delete them is raised. The creator of these templates left the project last year after a copyvio investigation. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support getting rid of any that are not bing used in actual articles on the engine types. If they are being used anywhere though they could probably be kept. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll list them below with notes and we can better assess the problem. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Initial list[edit]

  1. Template:Allen Aircraft Engine Co No company article, one link, little prospect of any more to come.
  2. Template:Ashmusen aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  3. Template:Atwood aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  4. Template:Austro-Daimler All links point to Austro-Daimler 6?!
  5. Template:Breguet-Bugatti aeroengines Only one engine blue link, no company link
  6. Template:British Anzani aeroengines No blue links (but there are engine articles), redundant to Template:Anzani aeroengines, unused.
  7. Template:Charomskiy Engines Two links, no company link.
  8. Template:E.N.V. Motor Syndicate aeroengines One blue link which is an anchor to the company article (which is not linked)
  9. Template:Ford aeroengines No blue links (single link redirects to the Argus pulse jet), unused.
  10. Template:Giannini aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  11. Template:Guiberson aeroengines Four links all pointing to the same engine, no company link
  12. Template:Hiller aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  13. Template:Imperial Japanese unified military aeroengines Strange coding? Unused.
  14. Template:Konrad aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  15. Template:Kirkham aeroengines One blue link which redirects to a Curtiss engine, unused.
  16. Template:Kemp aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  17. Template:Kalep aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  18. Template:Light aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  19. Template:Lenape aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  20. Template:LeBlond aeroengines All links now point to the company article as an editor redirected the engine articles
  21. Template:Maximotor aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  22. Template:Marquardt Corporation aeroengines Only one link but it may be possible to fill this.
  23. Template:Metropolitan-Vickers aeroengines All links point to one article
  24. Template:Mistral Engine Company aeroengines One blue link
  25. Template:Morehouse aeroengines No blue links, unused
  26. Template:Murray-Willat aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  27. Template:N.E.C. aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  28. Template:Panhard & Levassor aeroengines No blue links or company link (a sea of redlinks!), unused.
  29. Template:Rausenberger aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  30. Template:Redrup aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  31. Template:Rearwin Aircraft & Engines Inc aeroengines No blue links, unused
  32. Template:Roberts Motor Co aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  33. Template:Rheinmetall-Borsig aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  34. Template:Scott Motor Cycle Company ltd. aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  35. Template:Siemens-Schuckert/Bramo Redundant to Siemens-Halske, BMW and Siemens-Shuckhert templates, unused.
  36. Template:Statax Engine Company Ltd. aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  37. Template:B F Sturtevant Div, Sturtevant Manufacturing Co aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  38. Template:Szekely Corp aeroengines One blue link, no company link
  39. Template:Thomas Aeromotor Co Inc aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  40. Template:Thorotzkai aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  41. Template:Westphalisch-Anhaltische Springstoff A.G. aeroengines No blue links, unused.

I've struck through templates that I believe are ok, will leave them here for a bit. If we remove the struck entries that will shorten the list. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Have removed the struck entries to shorten the list. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Checked list[edit]

  1. Template:Ashmusen aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  2. Template:Atwood aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  3. Template:British Anzani aeroengines No blue links, redundant to Template:Anzani aeroengines, unused.
  4. Template:Giannini aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  5. Template:Hiller aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  6. Template:Imperial Japanese unified military aeroengines Strange coding? Unused.
  7. Template:Konrad aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  8. Template:Kirkham aeroengines One blue link which redirects to a Curtiss engine, unused.
  9. Template:Kemp aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  10. Template:Kalep aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  11. Template:Light aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  12. Template:Lenape aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  13. Template:Maximotor aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  14. Template:Morehouse aeroengines No blue links, unused
  15. Template:Murray-Willat aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  16. Template:N.E.C. aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  17. Template:Panhard & Levassor aeroengines No blue links or company link (a sea of redlinks!), unused.
  18. Template:Rausenberger aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  19. Template:Redrup aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  20. Template:Rearwin Aircraft & Engines Inc aeroengines No blue links, unused
  21. Template:Roberts Motor Co aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  22. Template:Rheinmetall-Borsig aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  23. Template:Scott Motor Cycle Company ltd. aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  24. Template:Siemens-Schuckert/Bramo Redundant to Siemens-Halske, BMW and Siemens-Shuckhert templates, unused.
  25. Template:Statax Engine Company Ltd. aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  26. Template:B F Sturtevant Div, Sturtevant Manufacturing Co aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  27. Template:Thomas Aeromotor Co Inc aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  28. Template:Thorotzkai aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  29. Template:Westphalisch-Anhaltische Springstoff A.G. aeroengines No blue links, unused.

I have thoroughly checked the 29 templates listed immediately above ('what links here?') and none of them have any blue links or are used in articles (or anywhere else for that matter!) apart from Template:Siemens-Schuckert/Bramo which is redundant as it is covered by three other templates. I'm not usually a deletionist but these fellas are clogging up Category:Manufacturer-based aircraft engine navigational boxes. I would like to nominate them at TfD after consideration by task force members, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree they should be deleted no point in having them lying around if they are not used, worst case they can always be recreated when actually needed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it might be next week now but there is no rush. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Great work. I think we can safely get rid of these ones, they really serve no useful purpose. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Roger, will get round to it eventually, if not you guys could do it. Middle of the holiday season and going away for a few days next week. I did work on a rocket engine article in a sandbox, looks better but it needs expanding and tidying, difficult with few refs! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see it as a "high priority", so it will probably be still here for action when you get back! - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated the first 20 templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 15#Aircraft engine navbox templates. There is a technical limitation with the 'tfd2' template which will require another entry for the remaining nine templates. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The remaining nine templates have also been nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 15#Aircraft engine navbox templates (further entry). I have notified the author even though they appear to have left the project, should I also notify at WT:AIR, strictly we are part of the aircraft project so perhaps this is not needed? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
All the templates in the second list which were nominated have been deleted, it leaves some blue links in the first list which may want improving. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How's @![edit]

Afternoon all: is there any guidance or opinion on the use of @ in specs, such as 100 kW @ 3,200 rpm? It seems a bit unnecessary to me('at' is only one more keypress) but I wondered what others thought. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a good point. I won't use it myself as it's not something found in official publications or engine books. It's probably similar to '&' which I don't use either. I found this in the MOS The at sign (@) should not be used in the place of at in normal text. So no 'I met Fred @ the chip shop' I think is what they are saying. Pretty sure the symbol would not be accepted at FAC, as you say it is a matter of typing two characters instead of one! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Just checked on the ampersand thing, MOS:AMP gives a similar case, should not be used in text i.e. 'Spitfires and Hurricanes' not ' Spitfires & Hurricanes'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

vertical engines[edit]

Does anyone know of another aircraft engine which ran with its crankshaft vertically apart from the Potez A-4? It sounds a challenge to get working and seems to have been beyond Potez, but attractive with a high power line (turned through 90°) and low cg, a bit like a short, inverted inline.TSRL (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite a number of Lycoming and Continental piston engines have versions that are set-up for vertical mounting to use in helicopter applications, for example the Lycoming VO-540. They seem to run reliably enough. - Ahunt (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)