Talk:Bristol Taurus

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

Start

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Bristol Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fairey Battle

Strange as it may seem the Fairey Battle did fly with a Taurus fitted, various different Battles also tested the following engines:

The section was cited already, all five aircraft types listed by Lumsden are given (including the Fairey Battle), this [1] Flight magazine extract confirms the applications. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the Fairey Prince at least out of that list, if not the radials, but are we counting engine development hacks as "fitted" engines, same as we do for production aircraft? If nothing else, we should clearly qualify them as such, otherwise it's misleading. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I always include testbeds, it would be a factual and historical omission not to, in some cases the only aircraft application was in a testbed aircraft, the Napier Nomad is one I can think of (Avro Lincoln). I usually add a note with the cite to the effect that a particular aircraft did not necessarily use an engine as the main powerplant (as I have done in this article). Adding a cite note to each and every application would quickly become untidy IMO. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engine HP

I am correcting the variant outputs to their war emergency ratings as per Lumsden as he gives the specific output hp and the parameters by with these were obtained. The nominal hp rating are not explained and as such are not of historical significance nor of much value in making comparative evaluations since engine output is typical given as the maximum under war emergency conditions.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Can't be bothered to discuss it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, British military aircraft engine stated power figures were almost invariably those for Take-off, not 'Emergency 5 Minute Limit", the view being that stating a power rating that was routinely available was a more useful guide to engine performance than stating one that may, or may not, be available, and which required an immediate engine inspection after its use.