Template talk:Thrust engine efficiency

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles

Physics

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles

Engineering

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles

several problems

I split the unwieldy giant table in 4 separate ones according to the situation for legibility, as comparing between different conditions is pointless, and I had to shorten the descriptions for each to stay in 1 line (on a PC browser, it's still ugly on a phone even when tilted horizontally). Those tables still have several problems:

The "mass" (and thrust/weight) column is not so useful. If we really need another column than thrust efficiency, the thrust class is more interesting as large engines do have a better efficiency than small ones with similar technology, due to engineering tolerances being the same.
the ranges (eg 20400–21300) are too wide, a single value should be selected
SI and EEV may be relevant for rocket engines, but should be avoided for jet engines
picking values from different sources can lead to wp:synthesis and should be avoided, like self-pub sources. A single reliable ref would be way better. The best I know is Aviation Week's database
static TSFC is nearly useless as no work is produced and efficiency is nil. cruise TSFC is much more interesting.

I don't know why, but the transclusion is not updated in Thrust-specific fuel consumption but is in the others articles.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weight and T/W removed as proposed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I liked having weight and TWR. (In other news, there was a formatting issue that caused the headers to not display, which I have fixed.) – Anon423 (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]