Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft engines (Rated Project-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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
This page is supported by the aircraft engine task force.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines:

Help needed at Articles for creation (Wanted: a rocket scientist or jet engineer)[edit]

I would appreciate it if someone with the necessary expertise would take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blast Compression Valveless Pulse Jet Engine and express an opinion about the concept; is it a known technology, fantasy or hoax? If it is a plausible subject please express an opinion about the draft article content itself. There is a space near the top of the page for posting comments (directly below my comment). Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Valveless pulsejets with U-shaped tubes are workable, not new, and have been successfully built by amateurs. Probably the most famous example was Scrapheap Challenge, where they built a U-tube rather than trying to build petal valves. I don't know if "Blast compression" is something additional.
We should cover pulsejets. We should cover valveless pulse jet and U-tube pulsejets too, but probably as a section within it. I'm not currently seeing this third article as needing a new article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Stahlwerk Mark St.M3[edit]

Anyone have anything on this engine? It's a low power (probably less than about 50 hp), German (you guessed), maybe flat twin from around 1924. It was used on the Albatros L.66 two seat parasol light aircraft in that year. Any leads welcome.TSRL (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Only from Google! This link in German has some info. The company built aircraft and engines, from that link there are seven aircraft types and four engine types. Only mentions three and five cylinder radials. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The only info on Stahlwerk engines in the little Albatros I found was also HistAv, though in English. They don't give a power but the prototype had a 30 hp Haake (what?) flat twin, so the 3-cylinder, 35 hp job sounds about right for a slightly more powerful alternative. Any feeling for the reliability and citeability of histaviation?TSRL (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Would say it is a non-reliable source by the WP definition. The Haacke twins seem to be the other engines used in the Mark aircraft, we have no article on them but there are two images on Commons, File:Haacke HFM 3.jpg and File:Haacke HMF-2a Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo.JPG. I checked German WP for an article on Stahlwerk Mark, it gets a mention through the designers that worked there and its merger into another company later but no article, not even red-linked. I checked Flightglobal as well, the aircraft types get mentioned but not the engines. Engines of the 1920s seem to be particularly difficult to research. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Specifications section - Level of detail?[edit]

An editor has been expanding specification sections with a level of detail that I believe is unencyclopaedic and is breaking the spirit of WP:NOT, an example can be seen at Piaggio P.XII. I realise that the 'jetspecs' and 'pistonspecs' templates have the option for more parameters but it is only generally used for notable extra details.

The specs section usually has the variant described in brackets, there is a creeping trend to add details from other variants, we discussed the inclusion of BMEP here some years ago and decided not to include it, other parameters (short reach spark plugs, piston speed and oil viscosity for instance) are only of use to an engineer which is effectively turning the specs sections into a guide or manual.

The effect in smaller articles is to overwhelm the text sections which are already mostly in list format (applications and variants). I would like to trim some of these additions down but wanted to discuss it here first in case others disagree and wish to add every possible parameter that we can find. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Could add that the inclusion of figures to five decimal places is not exactly encyclopaedic either! Less is more basically. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree. The specs should only contain data on version xxx named in the Specification (xxx) header. The overprecision comes from using convert with the decimal place parameter set to 2, e.g. 1,250 hp (932.12 kW) when it should be 0 or-1, giving 1,250 hp (932 kW) or 1,250 hp (930 kW), so as to match the precision of the converted number to match the original. Depends on the data precision and choice of converted units, but personally prefer -1 here. One's trying to match the precision of the implied uncertainty of original and converted quantities.TSRL (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree as well. As we have discussed in the past, the specs are supposed to be representative of one chosen variant, not exhaustive and cover all variants, making them excessively long and complex. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the one spec for one nominated variant, any significant differences (like power output) can be covered in a variants section. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad that I'm on the right lines. A more precise shortcut that covers this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, bullet point three: Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. I note that this is a policy, not a guideline. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • We now have edit-warring crap like this, where the significant development growth of this important early engine (a 50% increase in thrust from the same engine over a very short time) is blanked altogether. Not a constructive move by any account, but it's the aircraft project cabal, so it's unchallengeable. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Which is why we have a design and development section so these sort of things can be described, I would have thought it would be a lot better to explain the development of the engine in text section which is sadly lacking in detail. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
So do so. That's a lot different to just blanking the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to assume good faith and check the recent edits on the page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Milb1, my thrust of the above section and the 'edit warring crap' was to maintain the high quality of articles that are categorised under this task force. It is an attempt to avoid wounding parodies such as this gem from 2006 which was obviously one editor on two computers. I take the accusation of being non-constructive quite personally, it was my intention back in 2008 to vastly improve the coverage of aero engine articles which has happened largely due to the efforts of dedicated editors (presumably the 'cabal' mentioned). I used to create articles but they have all mostly been written, I now find my that most of my editing is removal of uncited content, original research and editorial narrative/comparison with God knows what. Quite depressing but I will stick at it unless Jimbo tells me otherwise. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
There are no less than three sets of specifications at Power Jets W.1 now (it was created with one) and one set is for an engine with its own article, I get the feeling that a losing battle is being fought, hey ho. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge needed[edit]

The articles Bendix-Stromberg pressure carburetor and pressure carburetor is about the same thing, and should be merged. Should also be aligned and linked with carburetor, possibly merged. -- Egil (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bendix article is on a list to be checked for copyright violations (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Buster40004) and doesn't appear to have been checked yet. The other article is uncited which is not good either. To me the theory of a pressure carburettor should be explained in one article and the other article should focus on that particular company's variation of it (history, novel features, applications to engine types etc.) There is room for both articles if they were straightened out. An analogy would be Rotary engine (generic) and Clerget 9B (specific type of rotary engine). If we could improve both articles the difference might become clearer and it's possible that both could stay, the generic article should be the one that remains failing that. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
No issues from my side, but as the articles are now, it is no good. A related issue: is diaphragm carburetor and pressure carburetor much the same thing? -- Egil (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Diaphragm and pressure carburettors are very different. That would be a bad merge. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
A diaphragm carburettor is a very small and simple device, could not find an image on Commons but if you visit this page and download TM 4603-12 you will see images and an exploded diagram. I have stripped and rebuilt one of these on a 'turbo' (self-sustainer) glider. A redirect could be created to the 'Diaphragm chamber' section of the carburetor article as that is what it appears to be describing.
Have looked further at the problem, the two articles are actually very similar. I did some copyvio checking (limited to the Flight source which strangely has been cited as a book source where it was most likely taken from the online archive), it follows the text closely but does not appear to be a direct copy, I can't check the book sources as I don't have access to them. First time that I have seen an editor's own Excel spreadsheet used as a source, novel!
Bendix carburetor redirects to pressure carburetor where it should ideally redirect to the other article. They do seem to be known as Bendix carburetors, other sources that I have might confirm that. Merging looks more likely to me now but it won't be a five minute job for the editor who takes it on. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Jetspecs JPT or TIT[edit]

Which do we need? Either or both. As probably the most important parameter in a turbine engine specs it makes sense to have the choice of the most used parameters.

Jet Pipe Temperature - the temperature of the gas flow AFTER the turbine,
Turbine Inlet Temperature - the temperature of the gas as it enters the turbine section.

Either may be quoted in specs, usually according to the method of fuel control, so it makes sense to have the option of showing either, (but not both at the same time) in Template:Jetspecs. Anybody else have any thoughts?--Petebutt (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither, I can't see how this parameter is important at all in a general encylopedia. The other problem that has just occurred to me is that the Pistonspecs and Jetspecs templates are not transcluded, this means that any changes to the template itself do not appear in articles. What happens then is that the template in articles is at a different form to the master, this could cause a lot of confusion. Often I copy a set of specs from one article to another, amending the numbers as required, doing it this way the template master is bypassed. Many of the articles have the |ref= parameter missing which should be added to align them with the master (with the benefit of a tidier sourcing note at the same time). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Rather obviously we need both as parameters, and will usually whichever (or both) are sourceable. Didn't we already have some idiot decision on this a few years ago, where they ended up merged because the loudest voice didn't understand the difference, and "EGT" doesn't make it quite so clear. Mind you, "I can't see how this parameter is important at all" is pretty bloody ignorant in its own way. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Nimbus seems to be getting a bit heated over this. Whether he wants to see engine specs in an article is neither here nor there. What is more important is to have a template that is a good tool for editors thet doesn't leave them wanting for more. Don't forget, the content is driven by editors, NOT the readers. So I re-iterate both or neither, but both is better!!!--Petebutt (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not getting heated at all. I do follow and applaud the principle of 'less is more' so that important facts can be found easily. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is a fairly short guide as to what should and shouldn't be in an article, WP:NOT is a longer one. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Neither of those apply in this case.--Petebutt (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Different engines use TIT, EGT or JPT as limiting parameters and so will normally just have one specified and not the others. That said, I agree with Nimbus that this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. These are operational parameters that the pilot needs to know, but they don't tell tell the causal reader anything useful and can't be used for comparison purposes. This is really into WP:NOTMANUAL territory. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)