Talk:Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp

Number of cylinders

The article is incorrect in at least one point. The 2800 has only 14 cylinders (two banks of seven), not 18, as the article claims. I didn't bother to edit it, as my knowledge is first-hand, having spent two years wrenching on 'em. Hopefully, someone will find an article to cite with more accurate information. Terry Yager 08:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've checked several sources, both print and online, and they all state the R-2800 has 18 cylinders. I think this user is confusing the R-2800 with the R-1830 Twin Wasp, which has 14 cylinders. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Its 18 cylinders - two banks of nine Highflier (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It has 18 cylinders, I've seen at least 3 of the engines. - (ZLEA 13:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC))

Number of aircraft types

it powered more different types of aircraft than any other radial aero engine.

I bet the Bristol Jupiter powered more. In one of the 1920's Paris Air Salons, almost 95% of the aircraft exhibited were powered by the Jupiter, or versions of it. The Jupiter's ascension over all other engines (particularly French ones) became known in France as 'le Scandale Jupiter' IIRC and is mentioned in Bill Gunston's article on the Jupiter in an early 1980s issue of Aeroplane Monthly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.29 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the Jupiter powered 262 different types of aircraft, however the inline cite supports the claim which gives us a bit of a problem. My instinct would be to amend the wording and remove the cite but that's not necessarily the done thing. I will highlight this at the engine project and see what happens. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That info is from a fanboyish site with minimal content, and no verifiable sources. I don't think we lose anything by removing the sentence from the article until it can be verified from more relaible sources, which I doubt it can. The R-1830 was produced in far more numbers, and was probably also used on more types. - BilCat (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved then! Good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

-21 or -59

Ahh ha - the museum placard might say -21 but the tubular ignition harness shouts -59; although the drum shaped magneto housings are Bendix (G.E magnetos can be identified by their rounded casings) these units were interchangeable. This engine was also fitted with a water regulator for ADI, which was not fitted to the -21. Not a great deal of difference, but 'tis better to be accurate. (now feeling like Stephan Fry on Q.I). ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe but someone will question it as the placard is readable even at thumbnail size. The museum's own factsheet says -21, strictly that's a reliable source being US gov and could be cited. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Tssk tssk, someone in the museum has mixed up the -21 and -59: this [1] is a -21, complete with the cast, "flat" P&W harness, whereas this [2] is a -59, with tubular harness. Ah well, seeing as the placard says -21 i guess we'll have to go with that. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason we have to specify the variant in the caption at all? Most readers, myself included, can't tell the difference between the various models anyway. Just sayin'. - BilCat (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Our last Tiger Moth engine (RIP!) was a Gipsy Major 1 with a shielded ignition harness for radio suppression (from a DHC Chipmunk) and high compression aluminium cylinder heads from a Gipsy Major 10 (instead of bronze low compression standard jobs). It was still a GM 1 and not a 10 (the main difference being a missing starter motor). I expect when the R-2800 in the photo was restored for display the staff grabbed the nearest harness and fitted it, not realising that it might cause problems years later!!

Have to be careful with museum placards, some are very obviously wrong and I don't think they should be used as a 'reliable source' for our purposes. There are a couple of engine articles that cite a museum placard as the only source, not ideal. Bill has a good point, if we are in doubt then it's better to say nothing, I often add images to infoboxes and deliberately leave the caption blank just because it's very obvious what the photo is showing, usually someone follows the edit and adds the 'missing' caption, all good fun! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought that the caption might be better including the location as that is not obvious 'a preserved R-2800 engine at the National Museum of the United States Air Force? We can suffer from excess detail in the infoboxes and leads, I just read in the lead here that it has a capacity of 2,804 cu in, that should be rounded to 2,800 to prevent reader's eyes glazing over. The lead of our Moon article reduces the numbers in a very clever way ... 'The Moon's current orbital distance, about thirty times the diameter of the Earth...' Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nimbus's suggestion makes sense - this is just an intro and the details can be explained in the article, rather than being so particular over an engine which has probably been rebuilt several times and will probably have components from several different engines. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 18:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Gnome-Rhône 18L

Specs in this article don't match the Gnome-Rhône 18L article. 198.53.137.96 (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

These are different types of engines, so the specs should be different. - BilCat (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Cross section?

Surely what the pic shows is a cutaway view, not a "cross section" [sic] ExpatSalopian (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed after 2 years. I believe this is a new record. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)