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:

Aviation Rocket Engine template.[edit]

Since we are changing the scope of Template:Rocket Engines to only include "orbital launch vehicle rocket engines that have flown", I've took the liberty of writing this template for aviation engines User:Baldusi/sandbox/Template:Aviation Rocket Engines. If you like it you can move it and arrange it in the usual way of this project. If not, please tell me so I can delete it. Baldusi (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving it into template space and using it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I've had a rearrangement and added a few engines - it's at template:Aviation rocket engines - and used it to link a few of the engines together. But my bed calls out to me.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! This is why I wanted to do the contribution. I will replace the template in the listed aircraft engines. But I've also created the Talk page so any further discussion should be held there.Baldusi (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Suborbital rocket engines[edit]

Since we are changing the scope of Template:Rocket Engines to only include "orbital launch vehicle rocket engines that have flown", I've took the liberty of writing this template for suborbital engines in my sandbox Template:Suborbital rocket engines. Since it might be of interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation, I would kindly request, that any comment be discussed in its TalkPage. Many thanks for your collaboration and time. Baldusi (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Due to lack of comments I assumed nobody had any problems and I've moved it as a template to Template:Suborbital rocket engines. I will add it to the named engines.Baldusi (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The lack of comments is probably because spacecraft or 'wingless' missile rocket engines are outside the scope of this task force, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
There are the X-15, SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo engines. Which are all airplanes. In the near future XCOR Lynx will probably also go in there. I guess it is not pure aviation, but that is somewhat related to it. In any case it is up an if anybody feels that it is a mistake, can write so in the template Talk page. Baldusi (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, they are aircraft. The problem has been that different task forces and projects have different ideas or standards in article layout for rocket engines, personally I have stayed away from it (apart from rocket engines used in conventional 'low flying' aircraft which do come in the scope). No easy answer. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've pulled Skylark from the suborbital engine template - that's a rocket system. It's engines were the Rocket Propulsion Establishment Raven and Goldfinch. No articles for those. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rocket engine proposal.[edit]

Hey! It's me again! Thanks to all for helping me improve the rocket engine templates. I've been working on a nav template Template:Rocket engine (its in my user space) for the concept of rocket engine. Please note the dangerous similarity in name with the recently discusses Template:Rocket Engines, which is plural and has different caps. I believe that now that the latter is better scoped, we should rename it to Template:Orbital launch vehicles rocket engines. But that is a different discussion.

This Template:Rocket engine is currently not ready to go into an article, but I believe that it is a good tool to navigate in a glimpse all concepts about rocket engines and, at the same time, to have an idea of areas to enhance regarding rocket engines in Wikipedia. Basically, everything in black should be worked on. This is a big undertaking, and I will need help. I will ping some of you just to get an opinion and post this same request on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation since all use rocket engines. As usual, please respond on the template's Talk Page. Baldusi (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Calculator operator[edit]

Quiet in here?! There is a new specs section tweaker using a couple of Quebec based IP addresses. Obviously not reading the guideline shortcuts in my reversion edit summaries. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the other IP address.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Chaise engines[edit]

Is there a piston expert out there who could help me understand the point of the Chaise layout? It seems to have been basically an inverted 4 cylinder air-cooled motor but (probably, I've only found a head-on photo so far) with alternate cylinders forming a shallow V. French contemporary sources refer to it as "quinconcés", which I read as quincunxed; must refer to the crankshaft, I guess. But why this unusual layout? Balancing? Does it relate to Chaise engines previous main applications, motorbikes and cars? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Having looked again at the photo, the cylinder axes clearly do not converge at the output shaft, as on a conventional V; this is telling us something, but what?TSRL (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC) There is another photo of a different (bigger) Chaise engine at an angle, which helps a bit; the first two cylinders seem to be almost in the same transverse plane. Maybe the cylinders are the corners of the "quincunx" for air-cooling, but what's at its centre?TSRL (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Pardon my stream of conciousness. This three page article has some very helpful diagrams and photos on pages 2 and 3. The two staggered Vs are well separated so air-cooling will be improved as the last article suggested. Still don't understand this "quinconcés" description but they also describe some radials in the same way. Staggered? Puzzled, certainly.TSRL (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, "en quinconce" translates as staggered. So perhaps it was about cooling, inspired by the V-twin biker heritage. What are the implications for crankshaft vibration etc? Why did it not catch on?TSRL (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
So, for an aircraft article, is shallow angle inverted V-4 (which answers several questions) a reasonable description? V4s seem still to work on bikes. Which is where they came in ...TSRL (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting engine. Benefits from the text seems to be a short length (as a VR6 engine) and better cooling than an inline engine. It's possible that the cylinder offset to the crankshaft is due to a Desaxe design (can't see it in the text though), the Yamaha MT-09 uses this feature. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Quincunx is an old (Roman) Latin term for "staggered". As opposed to Quincunx in medieval terms, which had come to mean cross-shaped (of 5 objects).
The Chaise was an interesting, although supposedly temperamental, engine. It was another solution to the old problem of "as much power as possible in the smallest space." This involved tricks like closely-set engine barrels (fine, unless you try to use all that power on takeoff and discover there's no cooling without airspeed), narrow angle Vs and most unusually but typically French, an undercut crankshaft.
You can work out the rest. Fresh from the factory it was expensive, but effective. Maintenance though was nightmare. A bottom end teardown in particular. Also the valve actuation was poor, with the rocker arm pillars and their unstable shafts getting a particularly bad reputation for getting out of order long before an overhaul was due. They were seen by English engine mechanics as a reason why the French should stick to cookery and by French pilots (I think St Ex. had some pithy comments) on the lines of "I'm not flying across Algeria with one of them".
Narrow angle vees BTW aren't too hard to balance, they're no worse than inlines. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to your helpful comments, it's much clearer now. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Propelling nozzle[edit]

Hello all,

Something I read on the article Propelling nozzle worries me. The first bullet point of 'Principles of operation' says that nozzles work using the throat to increase pressure by constricting airflow - which runs contrary to the Venturi effect and what is described in this diagram illustrating de Laval nozzles. It also mentions that the nozzle 'back-pressures' the engine; sure it does, but by underexpanding the airflow, not by constricting it. I pointed it out on the talk page, but nobody got back to me. I contacted MilborneOne, but this apparently isn't his area of expertise.

Should I change it?

Regards, Hayazin (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It is obviously wrong, so yes please do fix it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
It would good if you could include a suitable inline ref; several sections of the article, including this one, are distinctly short of such.TSRL (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)