Talk:Aircraft engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft engines (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

Twins vs Singles[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

"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?[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 19:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

{{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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 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[edit]

{{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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Fuel?[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

You'll have to define exactly what you mean by "typical" first - IMHO there's no such thing as a "typical" engine. Piston engines for aircraft range from 2-cylinder ultralight engines producing 50hp or even less up to huge multi-row radials rated at thousands of hp. Roger (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rotaries[edit]

I've quickly rewritten this section since it was so misleading, implying that rotaries were a WW1 development and clling them two-strokes. And they were neither cheap nor particularly easy to produce. I hope its an improvement, although engines are not really my area of knowledge.TheLongTone (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Word "unsuccessful" does not exist in the references related to Coanda 1910[edit]

I deleted "unsuccessful".(Binksternet stop denigrating Coanda and other inventors.)

On the contrary. All publications consider Coanda 1910 as an interesting concept where the ordinary propeller was replaced by a ducted turbine.

This Wikipedia page is about "Aircraft engine". Coanda-1910 engine was functional. It delivered thrust (jet engine in cold thrust regime). It is not clear if Coanda-1910 plane flew, powered by this engine. The power plant itself was fuel efficient for the year 1910, it was not an idiocy. 30 years later Caproni-Campini N.1 plane got airborne using the same ducted turbine principle as Coanda-1910. Some flights were made without injecting and igniting fuel in the air stream (cold thrust regime).

"1910: Coandă-1910, an unsuccessful ducted fan powered aircraft exhibited at Paris Aero Salon.[2][3][4][5][6]"

changed to:

"1910: Coandă-1910, an experimental airplane powered by a piston engine that did not turn an ordinary propeller but a turbine, enclosed in a duct, which blew a jet of air to the back of the plane pushing it in the forward direction. The aircraft was exhibited at Paris Aero Salon in 1910. The publications of the time do not mention any flight test performed by this aircraft.[2][3][4][5][6]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The design was most certainly unsuccessful as it did not fly, nor did it move technology forward. Do not remove the word unsuccessful and especially do not add the word turbine which is absolutely wrong. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Please stop sending personal messages. Stop bulling. You are well known for these dirty tactics. It is more than clear that you and other names you use are the only one on wikipedia that denigrates some inventors just for personal reasons. You have to come with publications of the time that have the word "unsuccesfull" associated with Coanda-1910. The references given by you do not use "unsuccessful". You are the known "romanianlies" user suspended for his attitude. There is no mainstream opinion related to Coanda-1910. You try to mislead people.

Text changed back. Please do not modify it because it is written in manner as neutral as possible based only on publication of the time not later claims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Coanda 1910 used a turbine not an ordinary ducted propeller[edit]

It looks like user Binksternet is not aware that Coanda-1910 used a kind of turbine that would have produced no thrust (unlike a propeller) if it had rotated in open space (not enclosed in a tube). Amongst other publications, a 1952 English article in "Flight" clearly talks about "Coanda Turbine" (modern terminology "Compressor") (see http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1952/1952%20-%200480.html?search=coanda ) also a 1910 picture (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coanda_turbo-propulseur_1910.jpg ) shows the turbine used by Coanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not an "article" in Flight, that's a letter to the editor (recalling a conversation 8 years previously) and so not reliable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(1) Binksternet (same person as GraemeLeggett and romanianlies), your stile is so evident that I can recognize you no matter what username you use. Stop please hiding behind a multitude of identities to create the impression of numerous people.

(2) Binksternet - STOP BULLING ME WITH PRIVATE MESSAGES USING VARIOUS NAMES.

(3) As long as "Flight" is heavily quoted for all kind of aspects related to aviation history and accepted by Wikipedia users as a reliable source there is no reason to divide its articles in good ones and bad ones depending on weather we like them or not. There could be mistakes in "Flight", things not supported by strong contrary evidence but in this case there is no reason to believe the article from 1952 about Coanda-1910 plane is not reliable. The short text is written by a man that discussed with Coanda himself in 1944 much before Coanda said (in 1956) that Coanda-1910 was the first jet plane, a statement that triggered attacks from Gibbs-Smith. We have a confirmation dating back to 1944 that Coanda-1910 flew a few feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Only Coanda-1910 "unsuccessful" in the entire Timeline of aircraft engine development. Quite strange![edit]

I have noticed that the entire timeline of aircraft development, ranging from 1848 to 2004, has a single engine labeled as "unsuccessful". All other motors are considered successful also many o them are in the same situation as Coanda-1910. More, some engines never left the drawing board being years later developed by other inventors in efficient motors, with major modifications.

I will delete the epithet "unsuccessful" because I consider it was not placed in good faith. Coanda-1910 power plant itself was built, worked and it was an original design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It is referring to the aircraft, not the engine. - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia page about engines (power plants) not aircrafts. Please delete the word "unsuccesful". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The Coanda-1910 in an aircraft, not an engine, and it was unsuccessful. However, if other editors agree that the word "unsuccessful" should be removed, then fine, but until then it stays in. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The aircraft was unsuccessful because of the engine. The same basic airframe was modified a year later into a fairly successful flyer with the replacement of the "turbo-propulseur" with a double engine arrangement driving a standard propeller. That places the blame squarely on the turbo-propulseur. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You do not want to understand Coanda-1910 was an experimental plane, a new concept. Coanda-1911 was built for a contest organized by the French Army. There is no evidence that the Army would have accepted a design like Coanda-1910. Secondly Coanda-1910 was able to fly short distances it could not compete against planes that flew hours. Not even the Campini-Caproni jet plane from 1940 could have competed ordinary planes from 1911. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no solid evidence for the Coanda-1910 being able to fly at all. Frank Winter says it did not. Charles Harvard Gibb-Smith says it did not. Winter points out that the weather at Issy-les-moulineaux was rainy and useless for flying during the conflicting dates (10 or 16 December 1910) that Coanda said he flew. Flight magazine confirms the poor weather. We must conclude that the aircraft did not fly even though Coanda said it did. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I stand corrected, the engine was indeed unsuccessful. - BilCat (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. As this clearly was unsuccessful, why is such an entry listed? Perhaps we should remove it? Thanks for the suggestion and bringing it to our attention. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Double standards in evaluating the success of an engine/plane[edit]

1848: John Stringfellow made a steam engine capable of powering a model, albeit with negligible payload. - Firtst claim the 1848 plane flew was made in 1892 by the son of Stingfellow. No contemporary evidence clearly states the plane flew.

1908: René Lorin patents a design for the ramjet engine. -This is just a patent. No plane powered by Lorin's engine flew in 1908.

1930: Frank Whittle submitted his first patent for turbojet engine. -First plane powered by a Whittle kind engine flew in 1939 not in 1930 and was build by somebody else with major modifications.

So, three engines in Coanda-1910 situation or worse and they are not considered unsuccessful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.60.68.153 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Whittle was not able to follow up his patent due to lack of funds. When he did get these a few years later he was able to build and run his engine in 1937 - about the same time as von Ohain. On the other hand, no-one seems to have followed up Coanda's design to give a flying example.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Coanda "jet engine" not a latter claim. It dates back to 20 July 1910[edit]

In his patent, forwarded on 20 July 1910, Coanda clearly describes a plane powered by a "propulseur à réaction" (English translation "jet engine") see: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=FR&NR=418401A&KC=A&FT=D&date=&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP page 1, line 5. Coanda does not talk about ducted fans or other things. He was aware from the beginning that his 1910 aircraft was powered by a jet engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.60.68.153 (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The 'latter' claim is for fuel ignition in the air stream. Coanda did not put this feature into his 1910 design (which could push air or water) but in the 1950s he started saying that he did. In the 1960s he made new drawings to try and prove the 1910 engine had fuel ignition in the air stream, but Frank Winters pointed out the fabrication. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
"propulseur à réaction" translates reasonably as "jet propulsion machine", but it doesn't translate as "jet engine", where "engine" has the specific meaning of generating power from the consumption of fuel and it certainly doesn't imply that it was in any way similar to what we would now understand as a "jet engine", or even a motorjet. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Gears[edit]

Do aviation piston engines have a gearbox? If yes, did they always have gearboxes, since the early days of avation? Are all gearboxes considered to be "transmissions?" Marc S., Dania Fl206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We have an article, propeller speed reduction unit, which might help. Generally the larger engines used gearboxes, though there are exceptions. I think helicopter gearboxes are known as transmissions but not heard it used for prop reduction units. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Engine Weight[edit]

Is there some formula or standard rule for determination of the maximum allowable engine weight for an aircraft? Is the airframe weighed without the engine/engines, and then the engines cannot exceed a certain percent of the weight of the airframe? Also, in Miami Florida, not too many years ago, was the deadly crash of the Seaplane operated by Chalks Seaplane Service. Allegedly, the basis for lawsuits by the families were that the increased horsepower of the plane's new engines contributed to the increased stress-fatigue on the airframe. However, The engines were reported to be much lighter. So second question: Doesnt decreased engine weight counteract increased engine horsepower, thus making any increase in stress fatigue minimal. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm personally aware of but there may well be, if anyone finds a source on this then it should be added to the article. Engine power-to-weight ratio and specific power have been steadily improved over years with aircraft manufacturers wanting lighter, more efficient engines and the engine manufacturers using new techniques and materials to provide this.
Many of our aircraft engine article specification sections have a thrust to weight or power to weight ratio figure, the improvement over the years can be seen. Re-engining an existing aircraft design is a major modification and would be subject to a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) controlled by the FAA in the States (similar in other countries), all sorts of flight limitations may need to be applied, as an example fitting the Lycoming O-360 to a de Havilland Chipmunk gives more power for glider towing but intentional spinning is prohibited (lighter/shorter engine shifting centre of gravity aft) and aerobatics are also not allowed (no inverted oil system plus risk of inadvertent spinning), this is clearly noted as an amendment to the flight manual.
Afraid that some of your questions can not be answered as Wikipedia is not a discussion forum but I do think you have a fair point and hope I answered in a way that is not forumising!! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Difference of opinion, mate. Often the discussion found in these talk pages presents a thought basis that can be molded and modified into some edited information which might be relevant, even crucial, to the given article. But thanks for your reply. You mention some things I will read up on. Marc S., Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Quite, it wasn't meant as a 'thread killer' just that these discussions can get lengthy with nothing being added to the article. Personally if I was designing an aircraft I would want the engines to weigh nothing, the undercarriage once it is up is also dead weight, believe they tried doing away with it on the DH Vampire, landing on an aircraft carrier with a rubber deck, rather them than me!! There is a category of aircraft weight terms, might be something in there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)