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:

Rocket engine article format?[edit]

A bit quiet in here isn't it?!! Are we happy with the format of some of the rocket engine articles? They mostly don't follow the layout of other engine articles, using different templates (in the case of the Bristol Siddeley Gamma there are four infoboxes). Could tidy them up quite easily with the agreement of task force members. I do have some rocket engine images that have not been uploaded, been at a loss as where to place them in these articles exactly. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there really any need for that many info boxes? I say some clean-up and standardization is called for! - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably a rule about it somewhere! I'll have a go at one article and see how it looks. There is a 'rocketspecs' template, not sure how different it is to what we are already using. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I've updated Bristol Siddeley BS.605, Armstrong Siddeley Stentor and de Havilland Spectre. Template:Rocketspecs is not quite right, there are parameters in Template:Infobox rocket engine that could be used, smoke and mirrors to me! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks pretty good! A couple of them could use more specs, but we need a source, of course. - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, the sources are out there (mostly Flight for the Brit engines). Would like to get the specs template right, need to dig in and look at coding. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I am sure a few "refinements" to the template would be of help. - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Think I'm getting the hang of it after going cross-eyed with brackets and '#ifs' this morning. Parameters were there but needed unlocking. There is a way to hide unused fields if no value is entered which I need to work out. The purpose of the template (at the top of the page) seems to be a cut and paste from 'jetspecs' and is not right. Most of the aircraft rocket engines seem to be liquid-fuelled (apart from small RATO units) so 'Grain' would not apply. Didn't know what 'grain' was till I looked it up (and I'm still not much wiser!!). All good fun. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I am glad that you are on it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Can only do 10 minute stints, surely template coding could be made more user friendly?!! I'm only interested in rocket engines that powered things with wings so won't be visiting the many others. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It definitely requires some technical skills to get it right! Good luck Mr Phelps! - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm learning about rockets all the time, might go mad and buy a book! This place is very near to me, I do remember that they were not very friendly if you landed a glider there, think it's closed now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Giving up temporarily as I'm making mistakes, have asked Graeme to have a look at it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think I've sorted the problem (for the moment). It would be good to create a proper documentation and sandbox page for working on the template. So far I've left a pointer on the talkpage. I'd do more (essentially taking my cues from Template:Jetspecs or Aeroengine-specs with a dash of (Template:Infobox military installation/testcases) but I have a cat to call upon while on my way out later. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme. I noticed it didn't have a doc page or the option for a sandbox, I tried fiddling with it in one of my sandboxes but it wouldn't display at all, seems that edits have to be 'live' to see the effect. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Now there's a page for tests cases at Template:Rocketspecs/testcases where the current and "experimental" code can be compared
The experimental code is at Template:Rocketspecs/sandbox. Make the changes there, then force a reload of the testcases page and see the result.
I've fixed a couple of elements, you were on the right path and it was a question of a misplaced character or two (a missing '|' in one case and a extraneous '_' in the other). I think you should be able to Take It From Here. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks again. Will be next week now when I get to look at it. I mentioned earlier in this thread about hiding unused fields, am I imagining that or can it be done? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Putting in stuff only if there is data is a case of using a structure like "IF (Parameter name) | 'Some text' (Parameter name) " and so long as you have hundreds of curly brackets it works easily for single lines. Hiding whole sections - so you can suppress section headers - using switches gets a bit trickier with the syntax but a good place to start is reusing code from a working template. I think we should be able to get things working. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

How's @![edit]

Afternoon all: is there any guidance or opinion on the use of @ in specs, such as 100 kW @ 3,200 rpm? It seems a bit unnecessary to me('at' is only one more keypress) but I wondered what others thought. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a good point. I won't use it myself as it's not something found in official publications or engine books. It's probably similar to '&' which I don't use either. I found this in the MOS The at sign (@) should not be used in the place of at in normal text. So no 'I met Fred @ the chip shop' I think is what they are saying. Pretty sure the symbol would not be accepted at FAC, as you say it is a matter of typing two characters instead of one! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Just checked on the ampersand thing, MOS:AMP gives a similar case, should not be used in text i.e. 'Spitfires and Hurricanes' not ' Spitfires & Hurricanes'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The ampersand should indeed NOT be used in ordinary text, but can be useful when the linked items form a kind of unit, such as Penn & Teller. "@" is most useful in, say, "2 bottles of ruby port @ £12 bottle"; but "100 kW @ 3,200 rpm" does not seem out of place either. Arrivisto (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

vertical engines[edit]

Does anyone know of another aircraft engine which ran with its crankshaft vertically apart from the Potez A-4? It sounds a challenge to get working and seems to have been beyond Potez, but attractive with a high power line (turned through 90°) and low cg, a bit like a short, inverted inline.TSRL (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite a number of Lycoming and Continental piston engines have versions that are set-up for vertical mounting to use in helicopter applications, for example the Lycoming VO-540. They seem to run reliably enough. - Ahunt (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Lists of rocket engines[edit]

Noting that List of Rocket Engines has been nominated for speedy deletion I followed the trail and some strange things are happening. When the lists were rationalised in 2010 list of rocket engines was redirected to list of aircraft engines, it now redirects to (a large table) entitled Comparison of orbital rocket engines. List of Rocket Engines is one of PB's unlikely mis-spelling redirects and now contains the content of Template:Rocket Engines, the redirect should be restored.

All a bit of a mess. The rocket engines have always been difficult, I believe this task force's coverage statement doesn't mention them though I do think they should be included (engines that powered winged craft but not space ships or missiles). List of aircraft rocket engines does not currently exist, it could be made a redirect to list of aircraft engines. Any thoughts? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Rocket Engines has been deleted, the link was blue when I typed it! Don't speedies get seven days grace unless they are offensive or similar? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
"Speedy" means quite speedy some days, even instantaneous! I agree that List of aircraft rocket engines should be a redirect to list of aircraft engines and the aircraft rocket engines included there, as they are truly "aircraft engines". - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Six years?![edit]

This project task force's sixth anniversary slipped quietly by in December last year. Since then almost 1,800 articles have been tagged as 'in scope', improved (three to Featured Article status) and many new articles created and expanded. It's a great achievement, the English Wikipedia is definitely in front compared to other language wikis on aircraft engine coverage. Creation of new articles has slowed down to a trickle, probably because most of the notable engine types have been covered now and/or trying to find sources for the more obscure types is near impossible.

The 'things to do' box hasn't been updated for a long time but there is still plenty to do. Just over a hundred articles have no images (may be more), the stubs need expanding and some more articles could make FA. Good job, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

LOLZ, what makes if more amazing is how many of us are working on them! - Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)