Talk:Armstrong Siddeley Deerhound

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armstrong Siddeley Deerhound article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Engines B‑class

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Coventry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Coventry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CoventryWikipedia:WikiProject CoventryTemplate:WikiProject CoventryCoventry articles

Bore/stroke/displacement

Numbers don't match each other. Inches don't agree with millimetres - cubic inches doesn't match litres. AMCKen (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the numbers here directly from Lumsden? If so, a distinctly UN-Reliable Source! (here - and elsewhere)109.145.111.118 (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOT radials

The Hound series were not named after cats because they were Multiple bank in-line engines and not radials!!--Petebutt (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're just as much radials (albeit inline radials) as they are multi-bank inlines. Their cylinder blocks might be inline, but their crankshaft and connecting rods are the same as radial practice. They're certainly not that US ersatz tank engine made by gearing a splay of truck engines together with separate crankshafts. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are two obvious sources for all of these engines: Gunston & Lumsden. Both specifically use the phrase "3-row radial". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a third source, one of the RRHT books on Bristol engines (possibly the Fedden bio) that describe the ASM inlines, from Bristol's viewpoint, as a comparison to Bristol's efforts with sleeve valves. This gives the Hyena's inspiration as being the desire to build a multi-row high-power radial, but with a valvetrain based on camshafts similar to inline engine practive. ASM considered their typical radial valvegear with camrings and long (thermal expansion be-devilled) pushrods to be a problem for an enlarged engine, especially multi-row or triple row. Bristol's solution was of course the sleeve valve. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MMMmm...Of course both radial and in-line could be construed as correct, but I think it may be better to differentiate them more from radials, stressing the inline aspect more, as this affects the performance of the engines and how they operate, (timing, valvegear cooling etc. etc.).. A compromise might be multi-bank in-line engines (resembling radial engines), because the features that mark them are the in-line banks, not that they LOOK like radials!!--Petebutt (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course an engine that is either a radial with inline features, or an inline with radial features starts to merge in the middle.

I might note that Armstrong Siddeley saw these engines as developments of their radial engines, to address issues specific to radial engines. I might even point out that these engines were very far from "inline" engines, as their cylinder blocks were basically still single pot radial designs, turned into alignment. You'll also note that the crankshafts (and rods) of these engines are still built-up, radial-style.

Mostly though, and mindful of WP:OR, I'm just going to point out that both of the robust sources here describe these very clearly as being radial engines. So far you've provided no sort of WP:RS to the contrary. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True enough but that doesn't mean i'm wrong. and there is no reason why a concensus cannot be reached in spite of references. Bill Gunston though prolific has in the past tended to use his own interpretations on technical issues rather than sticking to what is actual. Having said that wereit not for him a lot of stuff would not have been published at all in easily accessible books. I am sure there is a case for change despite the references and I will keep an eye open for info.--Petebutt (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wolfhound at sixes and sevens

How many banks did the Wolfhound have? It is mentioned twice: first with six banks and then, in the citationless paragraph 'Armstrong Siddeley in-line radial engines', with seven. 109.145.108.108 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both. An early Wolfhound design was a 28-cylinder, (7 x 4) and the later design was a 24-cylinder (6 x 4). The original version of this article did not mention the 28-cylinder design. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An edit (with cites, which I don't have, obv) appears to be required. 109.145.108.108 (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cylinder arrangement confusion

On 25 February 2015, the cylinder arrangement of the Deerhound is stated as “7 banks of 3 cylinders“. That of other engines is stated likewise. But the picture of the engine clearly shows three banks of seven cylinders. This also leaves the reader confused as to whether the Wolfhound had six banks of four cylinders as the article states, or four banks of six. I am no expert and will not interfere, but kindly clarify this. --Togifex (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]