Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines

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, 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)