Talk:Aircraft engine

Twins vs Singles

Great article. I think two main areas need reconsideration and both relate to the single engine or twin engine issue. Firstly, I disagree that: "Another difference is that if a car engine fails, you simply pull over to the side of the road. If the same occurs in an aircraft, it will glide but there is a very high chance that it will crash at landing." When you fly a single engine aircraft you do your best to avoid a crash by avoiding hostile terrain and weather. If you are going to fly over hostile terrain or in IFR or at night then you would in general chose to fly a twin. Having done a lot of flying in Australia perhaps I am spoilt in that there is usually a paddock to land in if an engine fails.

The other point is that twin considerations are more complex than mentioned. Firstly you have to rely on the remaining engine being strong enough to allow the aircraft to climb in the event of an engine failure at maximum all up weight, on a hot day at altitude. Thus the engines in twins are rated at higher powers than they would be for single engine use. I have heard that engine failures are about five times more common in twins than in singles. I do not have a reference for this. Firstly, they are twice as common because you have two engines. Then because they are higher stressed there is a further increase in the risk of failure. However, when a forced landing is not a safe option you are better off in a twin. The rather cynical saying that, "the second engine takes you to the scene of the crash" however sums up some of the problems with twins.

Also, what about a mention of turbochargers etc., the diferences between Avgas and automotive gasoline, the reason for chosing magnetos to be independent of electrical failures, manual mixture controls and altitude, carburettor heat and icing, fires.

Let's see what this discussion creates and if there is no comment I might have a go at altering some entries with my limited knowledge. --19:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)CloudSurfer

I have done some of the edits above but do not have the knowledge to discuss turbochargers, Avgas vs Mogas etc. --CloudSurfer 18:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite/cleanup

I'm working on a rewrite of this article (including turbo/supercharger and single/twin safety considerations). I'm not a fan of civil aviation so the part about private/airliner applications will be sparse. I'll post my version in a day or so and I would appreciate a heads-up if anyone is planning to do major revisions. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 08:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

cylinder layour

I think there should also be information about cylinder layouts, radial vs. horizontal. Maybe you could go into cooling because air cooled engines are unique to aircraft at large sizes.

Large displacement for better reliability?

This statement requires a reference: the requirement for high-reliability means that engines must have large engine displacement to minimize over-stressing the engine. IJB TA 07:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm going to change that statement. There are plenty of small displacement automotive engine conversions that have proved to be extremely reliable and are far less expensive. Also the latest light aircraft engine from Bombardier is a small displacement engine that I'm sure will prove to be very reliable [1]. If it had been otherwise during testing it would not have entered production. IJB TA 01:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Large displacement is for high torque/hp at low rpms and low compression ratios, it has nothing to do with reliability. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Auto conversions section

This is a nice article. Perhaps a section on converted auto engines would make a good section. The Mazda Wankels would be part of the section, and Subaru conversions are popular with homebuilts. The diesels might fall into this category too. Dlodge 22:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

fuel injection?

"Likewise, those engines adopted fuel injection instead of carburetion quite early." I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Most piston aircraft engines do not have fuel injection. --Gbleem 20:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fuel injection was quite common on 40's warplanes. For example La-5FN had one. If this isn't early adoption, I'm not sure what is. 78.84.154.176 09:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Article incomplete or misnamed?

This article is titled "aircraft engine", but it is clearly not inclusive of all aircraft engine types. There are at least as many turbine-powered aircraft as there are piston-powered, but they aren't mentioned in the article. For that matter, we could mention rockets and ramjets. They aren't common, but they're aircraft engines too. In my opinion, information on other engine types should be included, or the article should be renamed "aircraft piston engine". What do you think? Shreditor (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved this discussion to the bottom of the page where it belongs. Shreditor (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It could be moved, or expanded to cover turbines, or perhaps both. It would probably be best to ask for opinions at WT:AIR, with a note on the discussion at WT:AVIATION. THis was you'll get a broader opinon from the editors of aircraf-related articles on WP. I'm not sure why it was written to only cover piston engines, but perhaps a longtime editors knows why. Either way, there should be a general article covering aircraft propulsion, and perhaps there is, under another name. - BillCJ (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I've only gotten one response to this discussion, I assume there are not a lot of strong feelings on the subject. I'm going to be bold and start adding information as I get the chance. Big changes coming to this article. Stay tuned... Shreditor (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Article on Jet engines and other types already exist, I suspect this article was original to give an aviation view on piston engines and the more detailed article Internal combustion engine which is mainly focused on road vehicles. Agree with BillCJ would not do any harm to getter a wider view but in my opinion this just needs to be renamed to something like Aircraft piston engine. Perhaps aircraft engine should be a redirect? MilborneOne (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate a bit of WP:BOLD but I do think you need more opinions (it would be more normal to wait six or seven days for other opinions) before you make major changes to the article. Suggest you explain what you want to do here first and gather some more opinions at WT:AVIATION. MilborneOne (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see the new responses to this discussion, and went ahead and reorganized, rewrote, and contributed a bunch of new stuff. Sorry if I jumped the gun. I appreciate that there is already an article on jet engines, but jet engines are not inclusive of turboprops and turboshafts. I see this article as more of an introduction to aviation powerplants for someone who knows very little about them. In that vein I've tried to go over the basics, including all types, without going in to big detail... Check it out and see what you think. The last 20 or so edits are all mine, so it's not complicated to revert if you wish. Shreditor (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was Aero-engine re-directed here?????????????????

Aero-engine coveres the whole spectrum of aircraft powere-plants from athodyds to rockets to turbo-fans. Lets ahave a proper AERO_ENGINE article not this wishy-washy ghostPetebutt (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

To-do list

Here is a list of the stuff I want to do to this article when I get the time. All editors should feel free to add to this list or complete items on the list. Shreditor (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Add overviews of other engine types: Rockets, ramjets, pulse jets, electric motors, human power.

Add section on typical piston engine construction including features, materials and building techniques.

Add section on typical turbine engine construction including features, materials and building techniques.

Expand section on fuels explaining the specific needs of aviation.

Add section on differences between aviation and automotive engines.

Add section on air cooling verses water cooling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreditor (talk • contribs) 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Delink section headings and add {{main|linkname}} as per WP:MOS- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

add history section.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert to Aero-engine as the title!!!!!!!!!!!!

Organization ideas

This article is in need of some kind of clean organization technique. My powerplant textbooks refer to two basic types of aviation engines: reciprocating engines and gas turbine engines, as these are by far the most common. Everything else such as rockets and Wankel engines falls under "other". This is why I organized the article the way I did. However, WolfKeeper (Talk) thinks that we should split them in to engines that turn a shaft, and engines that provide thrust via a jet nozzle. I personally see that as a distinction without a difference, as all aircraft engines provide thrust by moving some kind of gas, and most require some shaft power to do so (even liquid fuel rockets). Opinions? Shreditor (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that reciprocating/Wankel, gas turbine,and rocket/other would be the best way to go, but I'm fine with Wankels under other. Wankels are piston engines, just not reciprocating, and other factors such as location, cooling, and so on are similar. - BillCJ (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thrust/jet engines behave very differently from shaft/propeller engines. Thrust engines have quite flat thrust curves, whereas propeller engines often have variable props with very high thrusts at low speeds and drop off strongly at higher speeds. These engines have very different flight properties along these lines.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't agree that there is any 'clean' organization, as if the other ways are dirty or something. Really, any organization has pros and cons; everything is always a trade-off. I also noticed that rockets were missing, and that the previous organization didn't seem to be able to include them sensibly. I don't particularly like the idea of an 'other' or misc sections in articles I think that topics that are inherently mutually exclusive are generally better ways to go.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but... Look at the way the article reads from top to bottom: " v-type engine, radial engine, opposed engine, TURBOPROP..." A reader who is unfamiliar with aviation is going to be thinking "what the hell is a turboprop and how does it work?" It's much easier to explain when you look at the history: Turbojets came first, and they're the simplest gas turbines. A turboprop is an evolution of the turbojet, therefore it should come later in the article, in my opinion. Furthermore, there are huge fundamental differences between the way piston engines and turbine engines work, so it seems each type should get their own treatment. I also don't agree with where you drew the line in between a shaft engine and a jet engine. Turboprops and turbofans both derive about 80% of their thrust from the fan or propeller... so where is the distinction? Shreditor (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Turbofans have ducting and a nozzle which forms a true jet, propellers don't form a true jet.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And there's also the issue that you seem to be perpetuating, that aero engines are either piston engines or turbine engines. That's not really true. Wankel engines, ramjets, rockets have also been used, and some have features of both- I believe that the latest vehicle by XCOR aerospace is a piston engine powered rocket, and historically there was the thermojet design.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

But back to your main point, I think that some history of aero engines is really needed in this article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now WHY did you delete the turbofan pictures? Shreditor (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Electric "engine's"

There's been some experimental use of solar-electric... probably should be mentioned.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You inspired me, but my expertise is sadly tiny. i've got a junky little styrofoam plane with an electric ducted fan motor, and man that thing has output. and the manufacturers of that electric automobile supercharger which has been floating around the ads in the backs of car mags for a decade or so state that their fan is a similar ducted fan from an aircraft, and they provide a video of the bare fan just launching itself straight up, but that's not exactly wikipedia-standard evidence, but i believe The Truth is Out There. Gzuckier (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rip it all out again

I've been in the aviation world for about 20 years now, and never, not once, did I hear someone use the term "aircraft engine" to refer to anything other than some form of ICE. Yes, jet engines power aircraft, but that doesn't make them "aircraft engines" in the sense of the term here, and more than the DC-3 is considered to be a "swept wing" in spite of the fact that it actually does have wing sweep.

I propose ripping all of this stuff out again, and simply expanding the intro to clearly point out the definition -- which I'm pretty sure it already did.

Maury (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose we leave the definition we use to scope the article to be the general one, since this is an encyclopedia, and if you can find a solid reference we point out the restricted usage that is also in use. I think that's more in keeping with the aims of an encyclopedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I did a quick web search, and I found what looks to be both usages in use (the Encyclopedia Britannica describes some jet engines to be aircraft engines for example).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But I certainly believe that you have only seen one usage, but encyclopedias use general definitions for most things, for example 'jet engine' and 'internal combustion engine' talks about the generalities rather than the specific common usage.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, excuse me for being pedantic Maury, but I believe most jet engines qualify as internal combustion engines. Besides, the term "jet engine" is rather broad and vague... All one needs to do is look at the article on jet engines to realize that there are a million different types, though only gas turbine jet engines are in common use in aircraft. It makes much more sense to classify engines according to the technology used to provide the power. In fact, in my A&P textbooks, they are not called engines; they are called "powerplants"; so maybe it would be more correct to rename the article to "Aircraft powerplant". In any case, I added the info on gas turbine engines because they are important to aviation. To me it seemed right to include the gradual switch from piston engine technology to turbine engine technology when discussing the evolution of powered flight. Shreditor (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, this article, as it stands, is about "aircraft powerplants". Why that is so is a bit of a mystery. It certainly didn't start that way, and the intro clearly explained the scope it was trying to address. But now we have major inclusions into one section, a re-written intro to support it, and the entire rest of the article that now disagrees with it. Looking over the history, both of the article and here in the talk, it appears that had I seen the discussion and said "no" then none of these changes would have taken place. That's worrying. Maury (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the basic idea of an encyclopedia is to present knowledge, and is not particularly about terms (that's what dictionaries are for). There was no page for the concept you call 'aircraft powerplants', and if that page had been created there would have either have been considerable overlap with this one, or the material would have had to move anyway or it would have been scattered awkwardly over two pages. Given that the current page is not large, this seems to me to be a better solution. YMMV.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What I don't get is how or why an aircraft gas turbine powerplant is not considered to be an "engine" and shouldn't be in an article entitled "aircraft engines". Whether a powerplant uses the Otto cycle, diesel cycle, or employs a gas turbine, rocket, or ramjet, it's still an "engine", according to the definition of engine found here: [[2]] I don't see any reason to be exclusive here with regards to types of aircraft engines. They should all be overviewed, though deeper discussions should be left to their respective articles. Shreditor (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinions requested

The opinions of users interested in aircraft engines are invited on the following small matter. On 18 March 2009 Aircraft engine was edited by adding the following external link to an article in the journal Aircraft Maintenance Technology: [3]

The link was then deleted on the grounds that it didn’t appear to be relevant to a general overview article. In an attempt to determine whether users think Aircraft engine should carry this external link or not, the matter has been raised for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines. Users with an opinion on the matter are invited to leave their comments at the WikiProject talk page. Opinions left after 25 March may be too late. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Strongly against, for the reason given. Great article, great EL, not appropriate here. Take it to one of the many articles on petrol piston engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have all missed the point. The article is poorly named and use of the proper term i.e. Aero-Engine would render all previous arguments redundantPetebutt (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Shaft engines?

With all due respect, WTF is a "shaft engine"?
Why are piston engines grouped together with turboprop/turboshaft engines under this made up heading?
A logical grouping would be:
Piston engines (or internal combustion) subdivided into radial, inline, opposed, etc.
Turbine engines subdivided into turboprop/shaft, turbojet and fanjet.
Ramjet engines subdivided into pulsejet, "true" ramjet and scramjet.
Rocket engines subdivided into solid, hybrid and liquid fueled, etc.
By the way, the distinction between turboprop and turboshaft has very little if anything to do with the engine itself. The same basic engine type is frequently used in both applications by attaching different types of gearboxes.
Roger (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a very sensible grouping, with an admittedly unclear name. They're engines that have output via a shaft drive, driving a propeller. This is in contrast to jets (turbojets, turbofans, even ramjets and rockets), where their output is as jet thrust. In aircraft terms, rather than engine terms, there's more in common between a turboprop and a piston engine than there is with a turbojet - just look at the Westland Wyvern for an example. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Have to say that I mostly agree with you Roger, List of aircraft engines is divided into similar groups. I can flag it up at WT:AETF but I fear that we won't get very far. As can be seen from the above discussions there are arguments as to the name of the article, what it should contain/cover etc. Any overhaul is likely to be reverted by those who like the article as it is. The past, undecided, classification arguments go further, piston engine versus reciprocating engine, Wankel engine versus rotary engine (i.e. are they both considered rotaries?). The majority of the text is uncited and could be removed as original research under WP guidelines. Personally I have avoided editing the article apart from reverting obvious vandalism. It is a great shame as this article is probably linked to by the many aero engine articles (somewhere in the region of 1,000 articles now). Will flag it up anyway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Roger's classification. I have never seen turboprops and turboshafts classified with piston engines because they drive shafts. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Straying article scope?

These words are currently in the introductory paragraph: This article is an overview of the basic types of aircraft engines and the design concepts employed in engine development for aircraft. I agree with that aim, whoever wrote it. Sections of this article are straying into financial details and the pros and cons of competing companies, particularly the diesel section. This section has a main article link where, probably at a push, this could be mentioned although the best place for it is in individual company or engine type articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with all points. - BilCat (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Jatho

Added jatho's flight to the list as per the request. I don't know where the later claim of a first flight from Vuia comes from, it contradicts a lot of other sources about a lot of other flights before 1906. However when I altered it before I was reverted and accused of vandalism by user:Man with one red shoe, So I'll leave it for now and wait to se if anyone can explain how Vuia could be first to fly when so many others flew before him without the assistance of a catapult, incline, or rails. Come to think of it, I don't see how rails qualify as assistance anyway. Rails go with flanged wheels like roads go with tires. Is a wheeled aircraft taking off with the outside assistance of a runway? It's unlikely that wheeled aircraft could take off from a mud-bog. Romaniantruths (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, do either of these entries, and any others like them, really belong here? This is an article about engines, not first flights. And just changing the entries to "1900- Joe Blow built an engine that allowed him to make the first flight without this, with that, and in brilliant defiance of the other" to get around this objection wouldn't really improve things. Maybe it should only be a list of new and revolutionary powerplant developments. Romaniantruths (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jatho flew more than twice as far and more than 3 times as high as Vuia. So, anonymous user 79.113.9.72 Why do you claim that Jatho's flight doesn't qualify as continuous flight while simultaneously asserting that Vuia's much shorter, lower hop does qualify as continuous flight? I eagerly await what will no doubt be an enlightening and well-reasoned explaination. However, in the mean time I'll put things back the way they were. I might also point out , in case you were unaware, that Jatho achieved his flight by "only on board means" without any "outside assistance", be it an incline, rails, a catapult, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaniantruths (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Revert war, case of WP:SYNTH, reference check, more contributors needed

There's an ongoing debate (AKA revert war) on this page about whether the engine designed by Coanda is a type of jet engine or a ducted fan, I don't have enough knowledge to make a difference between a propeller and a turbo-reactor so I won't get into this discussion, I just want some things like Coanda patent for a propeller to not be used as reference because this seems to constitute WP:SYNTH: "Coanda patented a propeller, therefore his plane used that propeller, therefore his plane was not a jet" Unless this is clearly explained in a secondary source we should not make this synthesis.

Second thing, I see lot of references from 1910 and 1911, mostly from magazines, can anybody check them?

I also want to see other Wikipedians other than Romaniantruth (former Romanianlies) who seems to have an ax to grind about Romanian lies and truths, and the anonymous IP contributor 79.117.1xx.xxx (who seems he's a defender of the Romanian truths or lies) to contribute to this article. Thanks. man with one red shoe 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Revert war

First, the term turbo-reactor is meaningless. Try using actual English words. Then Try finding any evidence that he built a jet other than his claims made decades later after the invention of the jet. These (later) claims were accompanied by clearly fraudulent blueprints (see Coanda 1910 page, or if it's been reverted again by an anonymous Romanian I.P., check my last version of the page). The fact that various later writers didn't properly scrutinize these unsupported claims doesn't make them true. Coanda Patented a Turbopropulseur, (His term in French for a centrifugal ducted fan). He called it that at the airshow in 1910 where he displayed his Coanda 1910, as is amply confirmed by the magazines of the period which are all freely available on the internet (that's where I found them). Since you apparently can't be troubled to look for them yourself , Redfoot, here are step-by step directions: Go to Googlebooks, limit the search to the appropriate year, search for Coanda 1910. The patents (French 1910, Swiss 1911, British 1911) all describe a ducted fan. (and actually a rather stupidly designed one. Heating the air before compression decreases the mass-flow since centrifugal compressors operate on a given volume of air per unit of time.) the two later patents post-date his claimed (in various self-contradictory unsubstantiated stories: See Coanda 1910 page again for details)flight of dec 1910, but still say nothing about the injection of fuel or combustion. So claiming that he converted it into a jet after the airshow and before his "flight" isn't going to do you much good. Unless maybe you're trying to suggest that he patented (in three different countries) a ducted fan that didn't work, but also developed a revolutionary jet engine which did work at the same time which he kept secret until after WWII and never patented at all? The photographs of his aircraft are entirely consistent with the patent diagrams, including the photographs which show the compressor rotor itself. Numerous secondary scources that actually researched this issue are clear on Coanda's stories being stories and nothing more. Try Gibbs-Smith; his handling of the Coanda fraud in his later work is quite comprehensive, and he is a highly respected authority.

I find it very amusing that you've come to this page pretending to be a disinterested third party when you've been deleting my posts about Coanda and Traian Vuia and tagging them as vandalism all over Wikipedia. I also find amusing your practice of going to talk pages I have posted at merely for the purpose of openly insulting me to third parties(which you have done repeatedly)without making any comment germane to the discussion. You're a funny, funny guy Redfoot! And if ,as you claim, you don't know enough to get into this discussion why ARE you here? Romaniantruths (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to know how someone reverting a claim once is a revert war. all these anonymous posters from Romania have different I.P.s, and even if all reverts came from the same I.P. they could easily be different people. Unless you something I don't about your Romanian friends.Romaniantruths (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't start another discussion, learn to reply within the discussion. I reverted your edits because they looked like trolling (they still do), a new user with the name "Romanianlies" (now changed to Romaniantruths) started to edit all the articles about different Romanian aviators and inventors. As for troubling myself to search for your references I'll pass that, if that's so easy, why don't you link to them directly? Also, mocking people for English mistakes won't lead you too far on this site. man with one red shoe 22:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that you can't be bothered to check references, you'll just delete all my edits because you dont like my name? Is that what you're saying Redfoot? I don't see anywhere where I'm required to direct-link my references. I have already told you where to find them. You seem to be going to an awful lot of trouble attacking me for one who is too lazy to check references. In addition, you shouldn't assume I'm mocking your English, which was not my intent, because I point out that something isn't a word. It is generally conceded that words with agreed definitions must be used for any discussion to proceed satisfactorily. Otherwise even the hoopiest frood could be globbered into willomying floopily... don't you agree? Romaniantruths (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To me "Try using actual English words" sounds mockingly and looking down to people who don't speak/write English perfectly, but if you say that wasn't your intent, I will take your word for it. Also "just google for it" is not a valid response in my view, if somebody asks you for a link to a reference that you provided and you know where to find the link it would be much easier and more polite to offer it instead of saying "google for it" and "you're saying that you can't be bothered to check references" which seem unnecessarily combative. man with one red shoe 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is truly distressing to read that you feel I have not lived up to the high standards of politeness you have set in this discussion. If my response telling you where these references are freely available was not valid in your view then I suppose it will be of little avail when I edit on your own personal wiki. If Wikipedia is your own personal wiki then perhaps your should change the rules to conform to you views. Please inform me when you do so. I am unaware that listing a reference and then , when asked, giving directions to that reference qualifies as "unnecessarily combative". I'm afraid I just don't have your refined manners.Romaniantruths (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"See Coanda 1910 page" -- the one edited by you? Don't you understand that you can't use Wikipedia pages as references? man with one red shoe 22:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

the Coanda 1910 is what you're whining about, Redfoot. The page about it lists references and has a talk page where matters pertaining to the Coanda 1910 should be discussed.

" Try finding any evidence" -- we are not gathering evidence here, we are using secondary sources, there are plenty of secondary sources that claim that was a rudimentary type of jet engine, we are not here to establish THE TRUTH. I don't know either way, my knowledge is limited in this field, but I can identify malicious edits when they are made. I don't say you are not right or at least partially right, the problem is here that I don't want to base my trust on some random ranting guy on the internet who has an ax to grind about Romanian lies or truths, that's why I asked other people to join in the discussion. man with one red shoe 22:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Patents clearly show what this powerplant was. Secondary scources do so also, as well as showing what a worthless liar Coanda was, but they are constantly being deleted by anonymous Romanian I.P.s. I'll restore some of them right nowRomaniantruths (talk)

The Popular Mechanics reference should bo page 359 not 350, and the correct number on theBritish patent is GB191112740(A) not GB19112740(A)Romaniantruths (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill Gunston (former Technical editor of Flight international and well respected author talks about the Coanda 1910 engine in his book The Development of Jet and Turbine Aero Engines (London:PSL, 2002. ISBN 1-85260-609-6.) It describes the aircraft as a biplane powered by a Clerget inline piston engine driving a centrifugal compressor instead of a propeller, generating 220 kg (485 lbf) of thrust - he does not consider it of any significance.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with one red shoe that we are not here to determine THE TRUTH. When we are faced with two versions of truth which are in direct opposition to each other, both with reliable sources, we have to make some choices. One choice is to discuss both versions in their fullness, with attribution for each claim. Another choice is to cut out all mention of facts that are seriously disputed. What is not an option is to present one side or the other as the absolute truth.

My tendency on this topic is to agree with Gunston, Gibbs-Smith and Frank H. Winter that the Coanda-1910 was not important enough to merit mention in a summary article of aircraft engines. Gibbs-Smith winds up his debunking of the 1950s Coanda story by saying this: "However, the 'jet' Coanda was certainly remarkable in its way, and deserves a somewhat modest place amongst the ingenious ideas that were unworkable in practice." – Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith (1960). The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development, pages 220–221. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Since the engine may never have propelled the aircraft (the flight itself is in serious doubt), the engine remains only a curiosity of time, not a major milestone worth listing here. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is being missed that this article should be just about the engines, the engine in Coanda's machine was a Clerget apparently. Propfans, Ducted fans and other variations should be covered at their own articles with links to them from this article. The article scope has wandered off topic. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is that some feel the Coanda engine was a motorjet, that it powered the aircraft in a disastrous first takeoff and crash. According to their version of events, forwarded by Coanda himself in the 1950s and '60s, the engine was a combination of small Clerget inline piston to spin the turbine, and combustion in the airstream to drive the aircraft. Gibbs-Smith knocks this version flat with his description of the aircraft as having no such combustion, based on 1910s photographs, cutaway diagrams of the engine, and articles in 1910s aviation journals. Yes, I agree the engine was a non-notable Clerget, but in the Coanda version, the whole thing was the first motorjet. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless I've misunderstood your claim here (that Coanda embroidered the story afterwards), shouldn't that be, "the whole thing would have been the first motorjet."? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, would have been. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Earlier flights

Any reason for the exclusion of any reference to either Gustave Whitehead or Richard Pearse in the history section?Number36 (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The article Gustave Whitehead states that he designed and built engines that he used in his early aircraft so there is good reason for him to be mentioned in this article. He has his own section in Aviation history#Gustave Whitehead.

Richard Pearse is mentioned at Aviation history#Other early flights. I see no suggestion that he designed or built his own engine. If evidence can be found that he developed his own aircraft engine then he deserves mention in this article. If no such evidence can be found then it would not be appropriate to mention him here. Dolphin (t) 22:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On Richard Pearse, all the information relating to his early flights I've seen note that he created his own engines, it's a major part of what he's known for. They even found remnants, back in '63, of one of his early engines which had cylinders made from cast iron pipes, and built a reconstruction. See here for just one example quickly grabbed off google.Number36 (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that link to the web article on Pearse. It says Pearse's first aircraft engine weighed 57 kg, had 2 cylinders and developed 25 horsepower. I agree it is a suitable source to support an entry about Pearse in this article. Go ahead and insert something about him. Otherwise, I will do it in the next day or two. Dolphin (t) 02:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Article Protection

Constant reversion as continued so I have protected the article to encourage discussion and stop disruptive behaviour. Although a discussion was started above, users have continued to edit war, please come to some agreement or consensus. Also can editors please take heed of WP:CIVIL and only discuss the points at contention, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Civil? Look how the guy talks "what a worthless liar Coanda was". man with one red shoe 20:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Radial engines

{{editprotected}}

Because the cylinder arrangement exposes a large amount of the engine's heat radiating surfaces to the air and tends to cancel reciprocating forces, radials tend to cool evenly and run smoothly.

This sentence needs clarifying as it is unclear what the desired menaing is. I am familiar with aero-engines and I had to stop and think hard for a while before I figured it out. Some thing like:-

Cooling of air-cooled radial engines is commonly more even than engines with different cylinder arrangements. Another adv antage is smooth running through the reduction in forces due to the reciprocating masses.

Petebutt (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have edited this comment to correct indenting/word wrap issues. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've unprotected the page, whatever dispute was happening last month seems to be over. Mr.Z-man 03:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Maintenance tags

{{editprotected}} I request that the {{unreferenced}} and {{original research}} tags be placed on top of the following sections (section numbers and titles as of this revision):

• 1 Engine design considerations
• 3 Fuel
• 6.1 Economics of new designs

Additionally, reference #6 in the "Fuel" section is a dead link; I request the {{dead link}} tag be applied or the reference be removed outright. Judging from the title alone, I can't see how this can be a reliable source to back up the statement given. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I contacted the protecting admin for advice. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

1911 aircraft engine pictures

Perhaps these pictures could be useful (from Popular Mechanics USA 1911 p.11 ff., so they are in the public domain): Renault V4, Canda rotary, Gregroire 40 hp, Breton rotary, Berthaud rotary, Beck rotary and several more on subsequent pages. --TraceyR (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear

Nuke propulsion may deserve mention, as several designs for nuclear-powered aircraft have been produced. Safety is the primary objection to building them, but the science appears to be sound. MrFlibble (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The economics have been sound (You're American, it's the 1950s, throw money at it) but the engineering was a total failure, even if the basic science worked (for plutonium-chewing cephalods from the planet Zog). It warrants an article (or several), and a mention here, but WP:UNDUE would apply very soon. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this was the closest they got Convair X-6. MilborneOne (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There were three or four projects. This (and the NB36-H that actually flew with a nuclear reaction on board, although not delivering useful power), the two rail-mounted reactors in Idaho (one or two projects, depending on who you ask) and then Project Pluto, the supersonic nuclear cruise missile. Then there's NERVA / RD-0410, which are exoatmospheric. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Gee, back when all the guys on the block said Nee-you-kyou-luhr. :P

You would not want to be underneath these pups as they flew overhead. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wimp. These pale as nothing compared to the glory of Project Orion!!!! ;-) (Admittedly not an aircraft engine though).Rememberway (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed reorganisation of pages on powered flight

Please join in the discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

=Fuel?

This is Incorrect. 80/87 Octane(red) avgas is available at all airports and most airstrips for older planes and Newer, Low-compression engines. Not All new planes have necessarily hi-compression. 100/130 Oct (green), No lead is generally available,as well as 100/130 Octane low-lead (LL) (blue). Ref: "How to earn your private pilot license", Dan Ramsey, 1981, page 81-82.70.162.46.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC).

=Compression?

It would be nice to know the compression ratios for typical engine, as well as their hp ratings and RPM.70.162.46.94 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)