Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

More list fun

Something strange. This DAB page, Lists of aircraft engine manufacturers links to two manufacturer lists which themselves redirect to something else!! We don't appear to have the plain and simple List of aircraft engine manufacturers (that redirects to the DAB page)!! One list is suffixed 'alphabetical' (it would be by default wouldn't it?) and the other is a list by nationality (which is orphaned). Strikes me that we just need one list, the nationality aspect is covered very well by categories now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote for one list! The problem with two lists is that they will never be the same, stuff will be missing from one of them. - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better, should spend some time looking at both lists to see if there is stuff missing from one or the other or whether they are just forks of each other. Do we just fill the DAB page with the list material? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The DAB page was created in 2005 to restore someone's personal list! I think the current situation is an oversight. Getting there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

List of aircraft engine manufacturers (alphabetical) has been worked on recently to remove DABs and the nationality is mentioned after each company which seems to kill the need for the orphaned List of aircraft engine manufacturers (by nationality) (where I note that Gnome is still a small person and not a French engine builder!!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How about just redirect List of aircraft engine manufacturers (by nationality) to List of aircraft engine manufacturers (alphabetical) - problem solved? - Ahunt (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we ought to move List of aircraft engine manufacturers (alphabetical) to List of aircraft engine manufacturers, and redirect everything else there. Lists of aircraft engine manufacturers has only been a DAB page, so there should be no problem deleting that one once all the articles linking to it have been corrected. - BilCat (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do it when I've got a bit more time unless you guys want to do it (move the text to the simply titled List of aircraft engine manufacturers). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I like Bill's idea and I see he has asked MB1 to carry it out as it requires an admin to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I figured we had a consensus to do it, so I asked. ANyways, it's done, along with the Salmson 9 page too. - BilCat (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Can we go ahead and redirect List of aircraft engine manufacturers by country and Lists of aircraft engine manufacturers to List of aircraft engine manufacturers too? - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't see why not. A little job that needs doing is to change the title in the 'Aviation lists' template to avoid the redirect (it's protected). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I took care of those redirects, I think we will need an admin to fix the Aviation list template. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Aviation list template done. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Super, I think that completes the job, unless we have missed something. - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Need to revisit List of aircraft engines at some point, recent 'improvements' have not indeed improved it to my mind (forgetting the changes against the talk page consensus for a moment)!! I saw an edit earlier in a list which removed a red link (citing notability and the fact that it had not been written yet). That editor might have had a good point, a list full of red links (for articles that may never be written) is not very useful. WP:SEEALSO says no red links for the very good reason that they can't be 'seen' if they don't yet exist. As virtually all the major engines and manufacturer articles have been created would it not be sensible to ask (with a nowiki note or on the talk page) that red links are added to the missing article list? We have a missing engine article list but not a manufacturer list, easily fixed. For instance, who is K & S (recently added to the engine list), give us a clue!!! Thanks for sorting out the problem I highlighted folks, very busy at the moment, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be in favour of leaving the redlinks in List of aircraft engines and List of aircraft engine manufacturers if only to make it more complete and also to perhaps increase the chances of someone seeing the redlink and becoming inspired to write the article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Alvis Leonides Major

I have split the Alvis Leonides Major off of the Alvis Leonides article. I did this without discussion as I felt it was an obvious case of an engine that should be covered separately. The Leonides was a 9-cylinder single-row radial, while the Major was a 14-cylinder 2-row engine (7 cylinders per row). So while the engines are related, they are also quite different. This should also satisfy the "P&W and Wright has separate articles for all their related engines so this should e separate too" crowd. :) The Leonides Major page needs specs and photos, neither of which I have access to. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The specs are on the way.TSRL (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Done: I think it would be good to have an "ignition system" parameter in the template. "fuelsystem" is not the ideal place.TSRL (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And Gary went out to his nearest aircraft museum this afternoon and snapped a pic of the L Major just for me! ;) (Or he just uploaded it today.) Thanks, Gary! - BilCat (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just happened to be in the area on holiday by chance (well the route was planned slightly in advance!). Nice museum, got some more photos of various flying objects being uploaded to Commons (didn't bother creating a commons category for the Major but there's no reason why not). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what this engine was in, if it was? Evidently a geared version, not from helicopter (Jane's 1956 doesn't do L Major type numbers).TSRL (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Most likely a Handley Page Herald, the museum plate (which I removed for the photo) said this and the two helicopters but it is not a heli version. Not many of these about. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah such dedication, doing wiki-work on his holidays! - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not much else to do in the hotel at night, back home tomorrow. I have amassed a fair few engine photos this year, need to upload the better ones this winter and organise the rest into some sort of order. I have got quite a few more Leonides photos, both heli and fixed-wing versions (and a rear view of the Major). Also bought a ton of used books for a very good price from one museum which should be able to fill some more reference holes. The wonders of Wi-Fi and a laptop! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A friend of mine in Germany (engine fitter) on the very old aeroplanes that we were using as communication hacks went for a ride one day. A cylinder from one of the equally old engines came clean off (much to his surprise!) and went through the Townend ring and landed somewhere near this town, they limped home on the other engine. Slightly later we accidentally set fire to one of these fine old aeroplanes in the hangar (static spark while draining petrol) and all that was left was the main spar sitting on two jacks. All good fun. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And since it was a very old aeroplane, the taxpayers were good natured about it, too. - Ahunt (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fun stuff

It can be a bit 'dry' going through these articles however tonight I found the longest image caption in Wikipedia!

Add any good 'finds' in here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That is hilarious! Since most users will not set the image preferences they will see it at 180px! Even at max (300px) none of those details are visible, which means you have to click on the image to go to the image page to see the details, but then the caption is gone because it is back on the article page!! The description (currently caption) needs to be moved to the image page and removed from the article image caption! - Ahunt (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I calculate 441 characters, ones that certainly should be mirrored at the image page. Oakland, California has an image saddled unnecessarily with 492 characters, but the God Emperor of image blurb length resides at Nanking Massacre controversy where some images carry 600, 700, and even 826 characters. Whew! Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The HE S 011 caption definitely need to be cut back on the article. As to moving the details to the image page (on Commons), should we have some sort of sorce for the details? I don't even see a source for the image itself, though it is credited to the USAF. - BilCat (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I was disappointed that the type of bricks in the wall were not described! The article does not have an infobox so this image could go in there and maybe place the caption on the talk page for posterity. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the cradle, the floor, and the aircraft (an Me-262?) in the background! Good idea, though. I was going to add the infobax yesterday, but got sidetracked. I might get to it later tonight. - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Spotted an IP editor's indignant response to being locked out of the 'Jetspecs' template here, I did chuckle! The Heinkel article is relieved of its caption now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's my "fault"! I reverted his changes to the specs template, and then asked at WTAIR for an admin to semi-protect the page. Milb1 did so, and then Trevor made some tweaks to the template that might have been what the OP was tring to do. The same user is trying to edit-warring with me over the usefulness of line spaces on several articles, including the General Electric J79 page. Might get a bit interesting before it's over! - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if he logged in with a name and some background we might have more sympathy, it's really not difficult, even I managed it! I can see more stuff getting locked out in the future, the constant vandalism reversion in the Boeing 747 article (amongst others) is silly and a total waste of editors time, I wouldn't object to it at all. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, templates are quite complex, and they should be limited to people who know what they are doing. I really don't, so when I do make edits, like adding the ref tag functionality to the Jetspecs last week, I'm careful to make sure my changes work (esp if I have help from other users!) If they don't, I revert myself, as I've done on some of the other templates in the past. Sometimes people who work with code feel able to just jump right in and make changes, but wikicode is somewhat unique. This guy may well know code, but without explaining edits to show he does know what he's doing, I wasn't taking a chance. And I note that he didn't explain himself in this rant either, which I would have done if I knew my changes were good and necessary! - BilCat (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Time for bed this side of the pond, tomorrow is another day. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

More fun

This reminds me of the 'skeleton' engine: Pressure loss in supersonic inlet, needs a few more tags at the top I think! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your tag and raise you one tag. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You stopped me adding two tags (edit conflict), the tag you added was the main one that I was thinking of! I was wondering what 'Laser effluent' is, something smelly perhaps?!! Would we get in trouble for adding as many tags as we can find? There is a 'multiple issues' one but I can't remember what the code is. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And there it was, gone! I knew exactly what it was explaining all along of course! Nice to see the system working properly, hope the creator doesn't take it to heart but I think that 'article' was his one and only edit on WP. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Some more fun of my own making, what is this device folks? I visited the RAF Museum at Cosford today which has a large collection of engines, I took about 300 photos (most unusable!). I spotted this device on the DH Gipsy Queen and also on the Alvis Leonides but I'm stumped as to what it does exactly. I think it is some kind of barometric ignition timing adjuster, the word 'degrees' is hidden under a control lever. Any ideas?!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys what is this device, something 'fiendish?!' no doubt -----> Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I've finally found out what it is! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit of light relief.

File:Female workers who works in Rolls Royce Factory.jpg

Ada to Flo: "Keep this to yourself, but our Stan toasted the lawnmower engine last weekend and I'm smuggling one of these out bit-by-bit to replace it. Any suggestions where I can stick the crankshaft?"

The alternative lead to the Merlin article:

This is the story of the Merlin, the unseen, but by no means unheard, wizard that brings victory among the stars. Hidden beneath the cowling of the British fighters, its mighty roar rose triumphant when the last Nazi went whining down to earth in the battle of Britain . Now, in Bombers as well as in Fighters, from dawn to dusk and through the night, in the skies above Europe and the world, it sings a paean to the oppressed, roars a dirge to their oppressors. Spitfires, Hurricanes, Lancasters and Halifaxes are among the list of mechanical stars that draw their power from the Merlin engine. Into the Rolls-Royce works come the feather-light alloys, the bar-metal, the forgings, and other raw materials of victory. Through fire and water and a mechanical wonderland, the brains and hands of men and women guide them and shape them into a gleaming light compact unit - a wizard of the air, a Merlin with Power beyond the wildest dreams of King Arthur's mighty magician.

Did not try it on the FA team, maybe I'll slip it in next April 1st! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Must note that this was not my work, was found during a search (but it is very good!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course an entire article written in that style would be murder! - Ahunt (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Another alternative caption?

It makes one's heart swell with overwhelming gratitude, and gives one a sense of purpose and focus in this hum-drum life, to know that there are such examples as those, prodigeous, shining, virtuous, yet so ordinary English womenhood who, day after day, arrive at our typically humble, yet well equipped workshops and factories, and are then able to plant the seeds which, carefully nurtured, slowly, quietly, and gently, but with supreme and indefatigable purpose, grow out of the rich soil of scientific and physical possibilities and flower this miraculous feat of engineering called, simply, the Merlin engine, which has done so much to sweep aside the foul, screeching vultures that currently darken the sweet blue skies of our fair country, and has filled our senses with the strong, throbbing, thrilling whine of finely engineered British steel, all parts smoothly meshing together in a well oiled, synchronous cry of freedom.

Apparently part of a long letter to Beaverbrook from a grateful person...Minorhistorian (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For anyone wondering how the FAC process works, here is the truth of what goes on behind the scenes. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I knew the Rolls-Royce "R" was quite a battle to get there... - Ahunt (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We had the en dashes covered. Went to a sub-page for more interrogation but I did not crack under the pressure ! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah that is it - coolness under fire! That is what won us the Battle of Britain. - Ahunt (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"We will fight them on the FAC pages" Winston Churchill. Have to pick another one, maybe the Walter Minor, cute but notable in its own little way. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you pick the CFM56, and do all the hard work for me. :D -SidewinderX (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How to get the kids interested

I visited both The Helicopter Museum (Weston) and the Fleet Air Arm Museum earlier this week and have quite a few photos of engines, helicopters and naval aircraft, if anyone thinks a related article needs more photos just shout. The Bristol Siddeley BS100 was an unexpected find, there were only six made, there is another one about I think. Anyway, we (yes, Mrs Nimbus loves aircraft museums!) spotted a fluffy toy of a dog sitting on a Sopwith Pup, very puzzled I asked a guide who said that they scattered fluffy toys around the museum and the kids have to spot them!! Fantastic idea! I spotted a fluffy Cheetah under the Armstrong Siddeley Cheetah but didn't get a prize for it!! Might be worth mentioning to your local aviation museum (they might think that you have gone mad though!!), cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Great story! I am looking forward to seeing the photos, with or without the fluffy Cheetah. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to see the photos with the fluffy Cheetah! -SidewinderX (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I left them out of the frame, the cat stuffed in the wing fold of the F4F Wildcat looked very like Sylvester to me!!! have to go back and see if I can find the rest of them!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Found 'Sylvester' in a picture! File:Hellcat FAAM.JPG, found the 'pup' as well. It was a Hellcat, not a Wildcat, WWII carrier fighters are obviously not my forte! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Check the cabane struts for an interloper here: File:Sopwith Pup FAAM.JPG! Lots of school children were visiting that day, I asked the guide how many there were and he said "92" with a resigned look on his face!!! Bless them. Just by the Pup is the world's only remaining Short Type 184 (or what is left of it), it has a Sunbeam Gurkha engine in the nose, will create an article soon for that engine redirect. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Great shots! - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

They're a bit fuzzy and the light (like most museums} is not brilliant (excuse the pun!). Have got some reasonably good shots that I will upload slowly. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just tweaked the archive settings (lowered to 31 days) and I think I had the bot directing to the wrong page, the bot did not seem to be working. If you want to keep a section on this page make a post in it! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Are we happy with the archive setting? I wound it down to 31 days as I thought it wasn't working, it's doing a grand job now of emptying this page! It's all in the archives anyway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I will say that the new settings really make us look like slackers... I'm hoping to pick things up once this CFM56 thing is done... I'd like to get back to updating component articles to make them comprehensible... -SidewinderX (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the aircraft talk page is set at 21 days and the aviation talk page at 45 so we are in the middle. A month is probably long enough for posts to hang around, if a subject is active the bot won't archive it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wanna go faster than anyone else?!

I have been watching the progress of the Bloodhound land speed record attempt, the basic concept is to fit a Eurojet EJ200 engine and a rocket motor to three wheels and hope that it stays in a straight line up to 1,000 mph! More here. Barking mad if you ask me. I assisted these guys with the ThrustSSC project by ~~stealing ... borrowing ...~~ lending them two throttle control linkages from a gate guard F-4 Phantom that might have been removed in the middle of the night. Best of luck to them, they are using a very measured approach but I am still worried. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Note to self, must check WP:AIRCRASH to see if this would qualify or not. - Ahunt (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Has to involve a hull loss and the simultaneous deaths of more than 500 ~~LGBT~~ notable people so probably not! They are in the funding stage but they seemed to quietly go for it last time and succeeded. Still worried. Bloodhound SSC is our article on the project BTW. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess if they succeed or fail, either way the results will be spectacular! - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

True! Let's think positive, the 'pilot' is very positive (and he needs to be) 'Balls the size of melons' as we say! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. We do need to remember them in their hour of "speed". (Pun intended, but taken seriously.) - BilCat (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest they get a Hamster to drive it... I hear he has a good track record with jet powered cars! -SidewinderX (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The 'Hamster' is not known for keeping high speed vehicles in a straight line! To be fair though I think that he had a front tyre puncture. What has happened to the North American Eagle Project? I think they ran out of money officially. The supersonic aerodynamic effects of these things are very tricky, sending your own shock wave down six inches and bouncing it back off of the ground does not seem like a sensible thing to do to me! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

An interesting story from Sky News: [1]. Fails to mention that Rolls-Royce are doing well but the rest of it is true enough. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The US is has similar issues... Our baby boomers are starting to retire, and there aren't enough engineers to back fill their spaces. That said, more of the problems we have are self induced... we're big fans of the "boom and bust" type of aerospace engineering :/... no one has figured out how to maintain a steady workforce. Particularly NASA. That said, I could spend a couple years working overseas... UK, here I come! :p -SidewinderX (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't like the rain and warm beer, trust me!! It's a general problem in all engineering fields in the UK, it's not going to be put right quickly. Looking at Category:Defunct aircraft engine manufacturers of the United Kingdom and Category:Aircraft engine manufacturers of the United Kingdom shows the demise quite clearly although some companies were merged into RR. A student (aeronautical engineering) at work put the cubic capacity of his car as 'four passengers' on a motor mileage claim form recently, makes you wonder what they are teaching nowadays?!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I blame systems engineering. Particularly the idea that systems engineering can be an undergraduate degree. How can you manage complex systems if you don't understand anything that makes up those systems? You might be right about the rain... maybe I'll try and solve the critical engineering shortage in the Cayman Islands! ;) -SidewinderX (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite. I had an RAF engineering officer ask me once which way he needed to undo a nut when changing the tailskid on a sport glider (very unlikely to be left-hand thread). At another station they made the engineering officers do a week's work experience with the guys on the shop floor, a good idea. All we can do is sit and watch, I have been thinking of going into teaching but I don't think many schools have the kind of basic engineering lessons that I might be interested in. My metalwork teacher (yep, we actually had to make things from metal at school in those days!) took great pleasure in making us hold hands and connecting us up to a hand-cranked magneto!! Wouldn't be allowed nowadays, shame. Many experienced Brit aerospace people are working in Saudi Arabia, better pay (tax free) and it probably does not rain much!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Salmson 9 series

As far as I can tell, the Salmson 9 is a term applied to a family of engines that includes both water- and air-cooled variants. Back in November, the Salmson 9 article was moved without discussion to Salmson 9 (air cooled engine),with a DAB page in its place that also linked to Salmson 9 (water cooled engine), which is still a redlink. I really don't see a need to have 2 articles on the same basic family of engines, especially when one doesn't exist, and the other one appears to cover both types anyway. So, rather than moving Salmson 9 (air cooled engine) to the corrected Salmson 9 (air-cooled engine), should we just move it back toSalmson 9? I figure if the article ever expands much more, we can start splitting off pages on the individual types when needed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to sort it out a while ago but the Salmson range is quite large and confusing. I created a navbox which helped a bit. As well as the undiscussed article title change the text was not altered to suit. From memory there is quite a time gap between the engines, I think the water cooled ones were WWI era and the air-cooled ones appeared in the 1930s so they are probably quite different designs. There was a British Salmson company which is what I based the navbox variants on and some other stuff that I added. Still no reason why they could not be covered with just one article (Salmson 9) as long as the differences are noted using section headers. The current titles could be redirected to the relevant sections. using the '#' trick. 07:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The "9" is just a cylinder count, so though it denotes a family of sorts it's a fairly extended one. Think RR 12! Not all Salmson water cooled engines were 9 cylinder ones. To decide how the Salmson engine articles should be subdevided (given that we will never have one article per motor), we need to know, I think, how different the water cooled N-cylinders were from the air cooled N-cylinders. I've never seen an analysis of that. As an example of technology vs cylinder count, suppose much of the history of the Junkers/Jumo/Junkers engines had been lost. You could divide up the types by cylinder number, then by diesel/4 stroke, or you might decide to make the major classification (genus, if you like) diesel and the cylinder count the species. I suspect most of us would go for the latter; of course, there were much greater differences between those opposed piston diesels and the four strokes than between air and water cooled 4 strokes. Result: two articles, "Junkers diesel engines" and "Junkers 4 strokes". I could therefore see a case for articles "Salmson air cooled radials" and another "Salmson water cooled radials", if convinced these were technically very different in detail. If not convinced, then stick with simple cylinder count. Like you, I don't care for the splitting of the cylinder specific "Salmson 9" into two articles. The article (given our info is limited) should titled by genus, containing the species within.

According to Gunston, Salmson's first engine was a water cooled radial and they continued to produce such engines until 1920. After that all were air cooled; the British Salmsons were always air cooled: A.C.9 and A.D.9 are detailed by Lumsden. French engines had a letter designator, e.g. 9Z (or Z9).TSRL (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There's just not much info on them unfortunately. If, hypothetically, they were currently in production each engine type would probably have its own article (All the Lycoming opposed engines are very similar, they just have different displacements and attached gadgets). I was hoping that a French engine editor would create them all for us and then we could steal them!! On a similar theme the Clerget article should be about the company or the designer but describes the engines instead, there are individual types that could have their own articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Milb1 has sorted it, we are back to where we started. I have stumbled upon a vast engine library by accident today, will see what I can find on the range. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Engine number stub

I was looking for an article to explain engine numbering (left to right) and found engine number. It could do with some help. The auto section seems to be talking about serial numbers and I'm not sure what the train bit is saying!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be a DAB page and we should have Engine number (aircraft) or Aircraft engine numbering? I think it can be expanded from just a definition (I can just about remember what was the No 1 engine in the Lightning!! What about 'port inner' or 'starboard outer'?!! What does '#' mean? ;-) !! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the train bit is talking about the equivelent of the registration number. Feel free to make it a DAB if you think you can expand the aircraft side of things... if there isn't much to expand on, maybe it's a topic better suited for Wikitionary? -SidewinderX (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to know quite what to do with it!! Will have a think about it. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft engine edit warring

I don't know if you guys have this on your watchlist, I do but only watch from a distance. There is some minor edit warring going on in the Aircraft engine#History of aircraft engines section. Currently it is an unreferenced time line section and does not appear to be very useful. Should discuss it on the talk page over there but I suggest that we remove that section to stop the warring. The article needs work but I am running out of imagination and enthusiasm, shame as it is essentially the main article for this task force. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The contribs of recent editors should be checked as well by someone not as tired as I am at the moment, could be 'socking' going on and it is spilling into other articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's like a game of ping-pong in there now! It will all end in tears! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the Henri Coandă bit that someone seems to be citing up to the hilt to make some kind of point, not delved into it myself. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks totally silly over there! I suggest waiting a bit until everyone gets bored before fixing it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to be occuring on several other pages too, such as Jet aircraft. I've dropped a note on Milb1's page asking him to look at Aircraft engine, and consider full-protecting it. But with the other pages too, and one user being a dynamic IP, I'm not sure what we can do. I have a feeling if we protected all the pages involved, they'd start edit warring at air, Paris, and Romania, and possibly even Europe and Earth! - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That is Wikipedia, never a dull moment! - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave them the benefit of the doubt as a discussion was started on the talk page but the reversion has continued so I have protected the article from editing. Like to think if editors involved calm down then a consensus can be reached but if anybody has any knowledge of 1910 engines to guide them along it may help. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, a bit before my time 1910!! It would help if we could see the insides of that Coanda 'jet' to see who might be on the right lines. To my mind that article should be just about the engines, whether they are driving a ducted fan, six-bladed propeller or a set of rotor blades should be covered somewhere else like propeller (aircraft) and ducted fan?!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this last. If we want an article on aircraft propulsion systems and have not got one, then we can write it; but this one says engines and should mean just that. Don't say jet, for example, but turbine if it is, piston if it is etc.TSRL (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly editors 'at war' can rarely 'see the wood for the trees'. It's not an article that I edit for various reasons that might be apparent but it does need a major overhaul, in theory every aero engine article links to it, at times I feel like not linking it at all which is not how things should be. Perhaps an informal peer review would help at this stage, we seemed to have stopped using this option in the aircraft project lately (then again reviews can generate their own problems!!!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith says the 1910 Coanda aircraft never flew (it was sold whole to another), never had any kind of fuel injected into the ducted fan airstream, and that if it did the pilot would be burnt to a crisp sitting there exposed to the engine's air output. Frank H. Winter of the Royal Aeronautic Society wrote in 1980's ""Ducted Fan or the World's First Jet Plane? The Coanda claim re-examined" that the 1910 Coanda aircraft did not meet any of Coanda's claims which came four decades after the fact, that his story of it taking off too steeply, crashing and burning are a fantasy of his elderly creation. How is it that we can form an RfC that will encompass all of the articles which the 1910 engine appears in? Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Tumansky R-29

The Tumansky R-29 article has been nominated for speedy deletion, I have promised that we will fix it. A reason given is copyvio but the original source is in a foreign language and the section headers look different? Anyway, it's overdue a makeover. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted while I was editing it, I give in!!! I did restore it mid-edit but all we have now is a very brief description of the turbine!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything from the old page you need to recover? Milb1 could probably do that for you. What you have there looks good enough for what you had to work with. - BilCat (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not really thanks Bill, just annoying that whoever deleted it didn't take care to look at the talk page or the edit history. What was there was pretty bad as we know. Still can't understand how a translation is a copyvio, I don't believe it was a direct translation anyway. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Motorjet

Hey guys, I'm wondering if anyone has any decent sources describing a motorjet engine. I'm still slowly working my way through the Jet engine article, and I'm converting the table descriptions of the different types to cited prose descriptions, and I'm stuck at motorjet. I think the article here is fine, but I'm trying to cite everything in the jet engine article so I need a source. All of my usual sources (USAF Dictionary, Cambridge Aero Dictionary, AIAA, Google Scholar, etc.) have turned up nothing. So if anyone has a source and is willing to turn that line of the table into a several-sentance paragraph, that would be great! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You can probably adapt the text from the Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250 article, one of the few motorjets to actually fly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to cite everything here... one of the big problems with the jet engine article has been that absolutely nothing was cited. It's an important article and I think it should be of high quality. Plus, if it's cited it usually discourages random additions. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, the relevant paragraph is cited so that's not an issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I don't have that source. I have no idea how it has been adapted, and I don't feel comfortable doing a second-level adaptation and still using the same citation. If you have the source available, I would really appreciate it if you wrote up a short paragraph explaining it. It doesn't have to be long, see Jet_engine#Turbojet or Jet_engine#Ramjet. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC open: Coandă-1910

There's a request for comments at Talk:Coandă-1910 where the aircraft's propulsion system is being discussed: Talk:Coandă-1910#RfC: How to present the controversy to the reader. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing categories?

We have Category:Aircraft engine terminology stubs, it follows that we should also have Category:Aircraft engine terminology as the parent category, for some strange reason we don't?!! I think this would be a useful and logical category to group things that are not actually engines that currently come under another engine category, like MW 50 for example. There is Category:Engine technology and there is overlap with other engines in many articles but there are plenty of aircraft specific engine terminology articles to warrant their own category. We could also have Category:Aircraft engine components and/or Category:Aircraft engine systems as some terminology articles are more about a component or system (group of components} than being a pure term. Just checking first. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, although I often wonder just how much use categories get from casual readers! - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably none! After all they are effectively hidden at the bottom of the page. They are useful to editors though. Think I will go for it in a bit. Should I create all three that I mentioned? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I definitely think we should have the component and system categories (says the guy who has been working on a lot of component and system articles!). I'm not as sure about the terminology articles... I'm not sure where we're supposed to draw the line between Wikipedia and Wikitionary. Most of those terms (like Corrected flow) are pretty dense. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

How does the overlap look between components and systems? Could we get away with just components? As far as terminology goes, are these potential members of this category also components, or do we need two cats? I am all for simplicity! - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That corrected flow article (and the others in the 'see also' section) is not very encyclopaedic, apart from being completely unreferenced!! It's good that we can discuss this as I'm not entirely sure myself how best to go about it. Take afterburner, currently categorised under 'jet engines' (it's not a jet engine so that is not quite correct). The lead implies that it is a single component but it is really a group of components that make up a system. It could be classed as terminology or a system (but not a component). Bypass ratio is straight terminology. It might make sense to create the terminology category, add it to the relevant articles and see what that leaves. A problem I find is that many of the current categories do not say what exactly should be in them where it is not completely obvious, helpful ones link to the article that relates them all, I saw one like that this morning but I can't remember which one it was now!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at Category:Aircraft components, it has Category:Aviation terminology as a parent and Category:Aircraft engines as a sub-cat. In the mix is the under-populated Category:Gas turbine technology which strictly a lot of this stuff could go under, it caters for ground based engines but putting afterburner in there wouldn't work very well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You make some interesting points. I'm not sure if I agree that we can't call the afterburner a component though. Strictly speaking, you're right, it's a system of smaller components. But in the context of an aircraft engine system, the afterburner is a component. In that case, I don't think we're ever going to have an Afterburner petal (picture) article. So I'd say most things like that can be called "components" and not worry about an "aircraft engine systems" cat. At least for convience's sake.

Bypass ratio is a good example of what should be in the terminology, but I'm struggling with what else should be there (that wouldn't better fit in Wikitionary). Any thoughts? -SidewinderX (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree there, anyway some random articles that may well come under engine terminology (and maybe some of them want looking at!!): T6NL, Power by the Hour, Integrated Engine Pressure Ratio, Engine number, Podded engine, Compressor stall, Windmill restart, Constant Torque On Take-off, Flame out, Turbojet, Turbofan, Turboshaft and Turboprop. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good list! I wasn't sure how to consider the "type" articles (Turbofan, Turbojet, etc.) If we want to call them terminology, I won't disagree! A lot of those articles need help, in the same way a lot of the component articles do! -SidewinderX (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few more and a few yet to be found no doubt. It is debatable what could be contained in a terminology category but I believe that turbojets etc are terms or definitions strictly speaking, in the same way that radial engine and rotary engine are. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me to do it that way! - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Which way?! I've lost the plot! Just a 'terminology' category to start with? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you put up a good case for all three, but perhaps start off with terminology and see what's left. - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok! I come back to these threads to see what my idea was originally, must be getting old! Still thinking about ejection seat articles as well, a job for the winter. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Specs templates linking?

I've just added a link to the recently expanded propeller speed reduction unit article through the code in Template:Pistonspecs. Looking at how the template shows in articles the terms are half blue and half black. If we linked to all the other possible terms there we would still have some black ones. Would we like to link any more of these, link less or something else?!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming CFM56 Mainpage

Hey folks -- just saw that the CFM International CFM56 is going to hit the main page on the 12th, so keep an eye out. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! I have it "watched" for vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You can note that the article has been protected as part of its FA status - is this normal these days? - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it has only been 'move' protected, they've obviously had fun with this in the past, it is normal procedure. It will be unprotected from normal editing AFAIK. Have fun! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, you are quite right, it is just move protected! - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

With the IP vandals being active, some semi-protection would be good now. I seriously don't understand why Semi-protection isn't standard for FA, as it doesn't make sence to feature an article if you're also featuring vandalism! If Pending Changes is ever made permanent and workable, perhaps that can be made standard. - BilCat (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia bills itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" it would seem a bit hypocritical of the project to feature articles each that anyone can't edit. I think to get the IP editing shut out of FAs you would first have to shut down IP editing as a policy and require an account to edit at all. I know you don't support IP editing at all, which is a reasonable position. I tend to support IP editing as that is how most people get started here and I think without allowing people to take a crack at the FA we would have a lot few editors on Wikipedia. The cost is putting up with the vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And there it was, gone! The vandals weren't particularly inventive, unlike the sock who drew a penis on the Merlin infobox image when it was on TFA!! I notice that they protect the lead images now. IP editing is fine but we have to get a zero-tolerance policy on vandalism, whether that will ever happen who knows. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

General Electric TechX

Any info out there on the General Electric TechX ? Per this article it's supposed to power the new Bombardier Global 7000 and Bombardier Global 8000. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

GE TechX engine set to lead new generation of GE turbofans

Maybe this article will be of use -- Betting Big on Business Aviation (AvWeek) -SidewinderX (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

IP Spamming External links

An IP user (Special:Contributions/88.100.223.222) has been adding external links to many engines pages, just a heads up. I don't know what the procedure is to block him or something, but if that's possible, that'd be great. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, I didn't think it was spam as such but they are not really allowed under WP:NONENGEL anyway unless they add something special to an article. Support their removal. A message on the IP talk page linking to that guideline might be enough to stop them adding the links. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney F401

Does anyone have some reliable sources on the Pratt & Whitney F401? It's currently a redirect to the Pratt & Whitney F100 but while closely related to that engine, it had motre thrust (roughly 5,000 lbs more). Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A quick search on the AIAA website turned up a little info -- "The P&WA F401 engine is, in fact, very similar to the F100, in that they utilize a common core and a similar BOM control system. The F401 low spool, however, is sized to provide approximately 15% more airflow than the F100." (Deskin, W.J., and Hurrell, H.G. (1979). Summary of NASA/Air Force Full Scale Engine Research Using the F100 Engine. AIAA/SAE/ASME 15th JOINT PROPULSION CONFERENCE. June 18-20,1979 / Las Vegas, Nevada. pg. 12) -SidewinderX (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a link for that? And what is a "BOhl control system"? I'm not fa,iliar enough with turbine engines to know all the little abbreviations used. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Haha, that appears to be a case of poor OCR on the paper, should be be "BOM" which I beleive stands for "Baseline Object Model", which in the context of the rest of the paper refers to a baseline F100 engine. I downloaded the .pdf from the AIAA website (you need an account), but that paragraphy is literally the only description of the engine in there, so it's not much help. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Thomas Shepherd

Not normally something to bring up on an engine project but I have just created an article for Ronald Thomas Shepherd the chief test pilot for Rolls-Royce. Hardly mentioned on the engine pages but he is said to have been the first to fly the Merlin, Kestrel and Griffon piston engines and the Nene and Avon jet engine and help with better references appreciated. Is he worth a mention on the RR template? MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look, certainly a notable person, strange that he is not known. Where did he fly from? Hucknall? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I did have a look in 'Magic of a name' and there is some more. There is a biography section for each prominent employee at the back of the book. He was known as 'Ronnie' and written as 'Shep' in company shorthand (Arthur Rubbra was 'Rbr'). There were two other pilots who get mentioned. I was going to add him to the Merlin article but the book doesn't actually say that he was the first to fly the Merlin (it doesn't say who did either). I would have needed to cite it and realised that the source is not strictly a reliable one (seems to be an enthusiast's web page). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Gnome Monosoupape

I have made a suggestion at Talk:Gnome Monosoupape. The term or name applies both to the valve system and the distinct engine type that used it. All I would like to do is add the relevant info to cover the engine type (killing two birds with one stone as they say!). Does this sound acceptable? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Makes good sense to me! - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a go next week (assuming no objections on the article talk page), burnt myself out a bit with two new Gnomes today!! The rotaries do need looking at in time, redirects have been created to send people looking for the engines to the company articles e.g. Clerget and Le Rhone (yes, I know I can't type that little hat thing over the 'o'!!). The Gnome Delta had a warning that it had been deleted in 2005, could not quite tell why (could have been a DAB page or something). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Finished all the Gnomes in the navbox (unless there are any more out there!). I'd like to do the same with Clerget, currently everything is contained in one article but there should be one on Pierre Clerget, one on the company Clerget-Blin and their engine design and then four or five engine type articles (and a navbox as well). Getting there! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Clergets

I have a sandbox company article prepared, to be titled Clerget-Blin, and have created a navbox Template:Clerget aeroengines. For the plan to work I will need to redirect Clerget to Clerget-Blin then move Clerget to Clerget aircraft engines (or similar) as an overview article. Then I need to create type articles (can do that now actually). Will post a note on the Clerget talk page. My only worry is that the engine types linked in aircraft articles will redirect to the company for a short while until the specific types can be tracked down and linked. Hope this is all in order. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable plan we just need to help with the aircraft article links once your set up. MilborneOne (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry should have said you need to do the move first (Clerget to overview) then change the Clerget redirect to the new Clerget-Blin article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do, probably tomorrow now as I'm 'rotaried' out! According to the French wiki they found poor old Pierre Clerget dead in a canal in 1943, circumstances unknown. It's not always easy working out which engine the old types used as they interchanged between types and companies quite freely, I think the Avro 504 must have tried them all! The vast majority will be linked to Clerget 9B (currently a redirect). I'm looking for a photo of a seven-cylinder Clerget, all the Old Warden aircraft are using Le Rhones so no luck there. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's moving along, I've created a category, redirected Clerget to Clerget-Blin, revised and moved the Clerget article to Clerget aircraft engines and created Clerget 9B (filling a redirect) for the first type article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Le Rhône

I'd like to do virtually the same thing with the Le Rhône range, it seems to be working well so far. There are about five rotary engine types, and there was a Le Rhône company but only for a couple of years. It's a bit confusing but as I understand it Gnome et Rhône (the merged company) was producing two distinct types of rotary at the same time, the 'Monosoupapes' and the 'Le Rhône' range (hence the name!!). Might have to combine the navboxes and categories in a clear way. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Navbox and category are good as they are, ignore me!! Although I would like to combine the 9C and 9J in one article they do have different specifications and applications, both are redirecting to Le Rhône at the moment. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Engine numbering

Just created Aircraft engine position number as an improvement on Engine number which covers other forms of transport. Appreciate any help in referencing or images, thanks. And if anybody has a better name then open to suggestions. Are helicopters the same ? MilborneOne (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A good question. The only multi-engine helicopter I flew, the CH-135 (Bell UH-1N Twin Huey) has two PT6s numbered, from left to right while sitting at the controls, 1 and 2. Other manufacturers may do it differently. - Ahunt (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Be interesting to know how they were numbered in the shade-bringers of my youth, the magnesium overcast B-36Ds. Port to starboard, irrespective? Or by type?TSRL (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did think about them but without any refs I stopped at four! but the more than four may be worth a mention. MilborneOne (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about the Dornier Do X! - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That raises the issue of push-pull aircraft, like its sister the Dornier Do 18, the Moynet Jupiter or the Ryan FR Fireball. Was there a convention? How were the throttle laid out? The Lightning and Hawker P.1072 are others with multiple engines on the midline.TSRL (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have found a ref for the Lightning (#1 above and behind, #2 below and forward) and added it to the article, it appears to be a subject that is assumed by most sources but finding it difficult to find reliable references! Anybody have a aircrew manual for the B-36! MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The B-36's engines were numbered 1-6 from left to right, but I haven't been able to figure out how the jets were numbered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the Lightning entry is wrong, the No 1 engine is the forward lower, I think the source says this as well. Spent many happy hours in Lightning intakes and engine bays. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nimbus, sorry it was my error and I have corrected it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It threw me for a second!! The throttles and instruments are laid out conventionally (No 1 on the left). For other twin jets in RAF service (F-4, Buccaneer, Tornado etc.) numbers weren't used by either air or groundcrew, just port and starboard. I've got some manuals that I can look at. Need to look at the Trislander as well, fairly unusual that one. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Photos of the B52 cockpit show conventional labelling (p->s, 1-8). B36 pics show conventional 1-6 but I've not located the turbine throttles. The Cessna Skymaster had a quadrant with a pair of levers, possibly not numbered and without any immediately obvious fore and aft info. Moynet thought Cessna had ducked the issue, and were themselves working on a "natural" solution, but for now had a standard pair with the rear throttle nob covered in red tape! No engine numbers mentioned in the Flight article..TSRL (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Found navboxes

Just found Template:High-bypass turbofan aeroengines, there are three more similar ones I think. Created by the same user, their only contribs on WP, they are not used in any articles. Would have thought they were redundant because of the more inclusive categories? TfD perhaps? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Might be related to the strange addition of non-article Indonesian interwiki links that seemed to be added by a drawer full of socks (the user added one that was removed from the PW600), these were all removed by a bot, all very strange anyway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Me again, sorry! I think there is a problem in Category:Aircraft templates. From what I can see quite a few Indonesian (and others?) navbox templates have been created on this wiki for no apparent reason. They're not doing any harm sitting there but then again someone might use them. Needs looking at, I would but I'm working for the next three days. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Indonesian WP has been quite prolific at copying our templates to user there. I quess the use felt we needed these, and just created them to match the ones they had there. O don't think the template are necessary, as the cats handle them much better, as you pointed out. SHopuld probably take them to TFD. - BilCat (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ten templates nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 9 if anyone would like to support their removal (or campaign to keep them!). Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

All gone, painless! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Turbofan/Turbofan efficiency?

Just found turbofan efficiency, someone added a merge tag but there is no discussion. I think it should be merged. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Or possibly redirected? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My eyes hurt from looking at that! Yeah, that can probably be merged. That falls into something that I would have liked to take care of in my push to improve component/root articles, but my wiki-editing has slowed down recently. :/ -13:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SidewinderX (talk • contribs)

Could send some Optrex?! I can't see anything there that is not covered more concisely at Turbofan (which it is not even wikilinked to). I think a straight redirect is the easiest answer. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing links to it either: [2]. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Haha, maybe just some more coffee -- long weekend + frustrating work (we're trying to "cooperate" with a couple different groups) = tired SidewinderX. Looking at it now, I say prod / redirect it. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirect and merge any useful content! - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's partially copied from this:[3] Public domain but should have been changed or acknowledged, I suspect the rest of it is copied as well. It's the user's only edit on WP. If any of it is Copyvio it has to go. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Inline engine?

I saw inline engine (aviation) a while ago and it didn't look right to me. The definition of an inline engine from the FAA is the same as a straight engine which this stub seems to be an unreferenced fork of (with the added bonus of the inline engine DAB page). It should be redirected back to 'Straight engine#Aviation use IMO, don't know what the process is for the DAB page. The link is being removed by other editors quite rightly, mainly from infoboxes where we see something like 'V12 inline aircraft engine. Thoughts welcome, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Crap article discovered on wiki: shock, horror. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm redirecting it as proposed. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree "inline engine (aviation)", as written, was crap, but it's not incorrect. Historically, "inline" engine has referred to V/inverted V and other engine configurations in aviation. The use of "inline" to refer only to straight engines is correct in non-aviation use, and it does seem to be the modern usage in aviation too. However, I have sevaral printed sources that refer to the Merlin as an "inline" engine, and that usage needs to be covered and described better than one line in the "Straight engine article. - BilCat (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Darn it, BilCat, here's your proof of that usage. I hate being wrong. :P

Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I hate being wrong too! We probably don't need both a DAB page and a separate article for the term. I'd recommend keeping all the information on aviation usage at inline engine, with a hatnote for its use as a synonym for Straight engine. - BilCat (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see this matter being straight-ened out inline with what I have been trying to do for ages - really vee-ed me off at times. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you really cranked me up with that one! :) - BilCat (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce Crecy

Or should it be Rolls-Royce Crécy?. January 2011 issue of Aeroplane has a five-page article which gives some different specs to the article - e.g. displacement is given as 1593.6 cu in. Aero engines are not my area of knowledge, but maybe a member of this TF could revisit the article and make any necessary changes. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I created that article using the dedicated book written and published by the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust, spellings etc, are as they appear in the book. I'll have a look at the specs again as we have someone who goes round changing them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

<not serious>Most words like Crécy are normally just treated in English as if the funny foreign bits didnt exist, I dont have an é on my english keyboard! </not serious> MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold down alt key, type 0233 on number keyboard (not numbers at top of letter keys), release alt key = voila! é Mjroots (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Have checked the specs, they have not been altered and are exactly as written in the book, the capacity in the lead matches the specs section. No changes to be made as far as I can see with regard to the question, I would ask them where they got their figures from. The engine was named after the Battle of Crécy, Rolls-Royce obviously dropped the diacritic for convenience as they do with Turbomeca. It might be mentioned in the book as there are 130 pages on it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Joint development sections in engine templates

After some discussion on the talk page of Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines about the length of the template, I've integrated all the joint-development engines into the main sections of the template, along with some other changes, to try to reduce the template's length. I'm still not sure if removing the J-D section is the best way to go on the issue, but they do tend to be the longest sections in the larger engine manufacturer navboxes. Would there be any interest in doing this for the other navboxes too? If so, should we create a navbox for joint development engines, and what format should it take? It has the risk of be a large template if we use the current style of the sections for the whole navbox. - BilCat (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a sandbox at User:BilCat/Sandbox/Template:Joint development aeroengines as an example. - BilCat (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the sandbox to Template:Joint development aeroengines. It could probably use some sub-group templates for the manufactures, but I don't know how to do that. Also, I've added asterisks to engines in the joint-development engines in the Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines - if there's no opposition to the new format and infobox, I'll update the other engine navboxes to remove the J-D sections later this week. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: Does anyone know of any genuine joint-development piston engines (not just licensed-produced) that we can add to the J-D template? - BilCat (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A good question! There have been several cases of piston engines based on other designs, like the Thielert Centurion and the Austro Engine E4 based on the Mercedes-Benz OM-668, but there doesn't seem to have been any Mercedes-Benz cooperation in the design of that aircraft engine version. I'll check my refs and see if I can find any real joint dev engines. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Allison J33 based on the Derwent?

I've run into two separate assertions that the Allison J33 was based on the Rolls-Royce Derwent. (See here and here for my good-faith corrections of the assertions.)

From my sources, including Gunston's World Encyclopedia of Aero Engines, 5th Edition, the J33 was GE's development of the I-16/J31 (which was based on the GE's I-A licensed near-copy of Whittle's W.1), with no assistance or licensing from anyone else. Any ideas on where the Derwent-licensing story may come from? Is this an accepted version of the J33's development history in Britain? Is it controversial, and not cut-and-tried error/mistake as it first appeared to me? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Specs requested

Does anyone have access to engine specs for the Rolls-Royce RB.44 Tay, or its Hispano-Suiza Verdon licensee? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See the Flight archive for Verdon 350 specifications. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Liberty engines

I've been updating some early aircraft engine articles based on my recent visit to the Udvar-Hazy Center and was struck by the names of the Liberty engine articles. Liberty is the name of the engine itself, not of its designer or manufacturer, but the articles are named Liberty L-12, etc. Shouldn't that be reversed to read L-12 Liberty, etc.?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Liberty appears to be used as a catch-all name for the engine series, regardless of manufacturer, similar in concept to the Liberty ships of WW2. I'd stick with the current format for now. - BilCat (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

We may have covered this one before, but I can't remember, and don't have time to search the archive now. What is the status of material at the Aircraft Engine Historical Society website as reliable sources? Also there is a page here with some great photos, the first section of which is labeled "Images from Kimble D. McCutcheon (please distribute freely)". It would be great if we could use these images in the project. - BilCat (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

PROD

CFE Company has been PRODded (by a user with few edits, but 3 PRODS already). ANy help with the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved request

I found this request misplaced on a template talk page and will e-mail the enquirer with what I know. I will post a copy here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Old wooden CHEETAH PROPELLER

I am hoping someone can help me with information on an old propeller.

It is an old wooden CHEETAH X. It has I think brass on the opposite sides of each prop. The markings are as follows.

                           DRG. NO. L.A. 591/2
                             CHEETAH X.
                               L.H.T.
                           D.7.33.  P.6. 96
                           on the other side
                              N.1 787.
                                4/41.                                

                                Thank you
                                yours truly
                                Sylvia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.191.246 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

E-mailed reply

Dear Sylvia,

Luckily I found your request for information about a propeller, it was misplaced on a template talk page but I rescued it!! No problem at all.

Let’s have a look at the information you posted from it.

DRG. NO. L.A. 591/2 CHEETAH X. L.H.T. D.7.33. P.6. 96 on the other side N.1 787. 4/41.

DRG. NO. means ‘Drawing Number’. The company blueprint design that the propeller was made from.

Cheetah X means that the propeller was intended to be used fitted to an Armstrong Siddeley Cheetah aircraft radial engine, the Wikipedia article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Siddeley_Cheetah. The X is a Roman numeral for the tenth version of this engine, a design dating from 1938.

L.H.T means ‘Left Hand Tractor’, this means that the propeller rotates in an anti-clockwise direction when viewed from the cockpit (common for British engines, American engines generally rotate the other way) and ‘Tractor’ means that the propeller is designed to pull the aircraft from the front as opposed to a ‘pusher’ configuration where the engine would be mounted at the rear of an aircraft (relatively uncommon).

D.7.33. P.6. 96, this is the diameter (D) and pitch (P) of the propeller in feet and decimal feet. It should measure then about 7ft 2 inches from tip to tip. The pitch measurement is a theoretical measurement but describes the distance that the propeller would move forward after one revolution (imagine it doing this in butter!). Because of aerodynamic effects (slip) it would not actually move this far in air. The pitch measurement also relates to the ‘twist’ that you can see when looking along a blade from the tip.

N.1 787 is the propeller’s individual serial number for maintenance paperwork/aircraft logbook records.

4/41 is the month and year of manufacture, April 1941.

The brass strips (probably attached with small screws) are to protect the leading edges of the wooden laminated blades from erosion caused by flight through rain etc. and loose stones on the ground.

Given your location and the information that we have deciphered between us I would say that the propeller was most likely fitted to an Avro Anson twin-engined training aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Anson

These aircraft were used by the Royal Canadian Air Force, from the date it is also very likely that the aircraft was being flown by trainee Commonwealth pilots (training of pilots was moved to Canada from Britain in Word War II as it was far safer, training aircraft were known to get shot down by German fighters when flying locally to British airfields).

If the propeller is in good condition then it may be valuable to a historic aircraft organisation (Anson aircraft still fly today), it could possibly be restored and certified for flight. If not then a popular use of these items is to mount a clock in the middle and hang it on a wall (often found in flying club bars!!).

Hope that helps.

Happy New Year

Will post any replies that I get. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A little more

Dear Sylvia,

There was one piece of information missing for the propeller, the manufacturer.

The ‘LA’ in the drawing number almost certainly relates to the Hordern-Richmond company, this information comes from the de Havilland Tiger Moth parts catalogue where alternate manufacturers’ propellers are listed. Wikipedia has an article on this company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hordern-Richmond

The LA appears to relate to Mr Lang, a key figure in the company. An interesting link here: http://www.haddenhamairfieldhistory.co.uk/propellers.htm

Haddenham airfield is still there and is used by a gliding club, it is possible that factory buildings are still standing and are used as hangars. You could try contacting them at http://www.ubt.org.uk/html/contacts.html, being local they might be able to tell you more about the company.

Regards

Amazing what you can learn from a handful of coded letters and numbers!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well done sleuthing! Great history, I hope she finds a good home for this prop! - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It was fun looking into it, no replies as yet. I have a spare fine pitch prop for the Tiger Moth (for wing walking), tempted to put a clock in that!! It has similar numbers stamped into the wood and dates from the same era (must have a look). Another reason that it was relatively easy is that I had researched propellers last year as we weren't sure if we had the right pitch on the main propeller, we have but other owners use coarser pitch props which explains why we can't keep up with them in formation!! Eight hours of this year left over here, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just impressed that you had the decode for all the numbers on the prop so quickly - nicely done and Happy New Year! - Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What?! And give up wing walking? How will you otherwise get your exercise? ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Using m-d-n format on aeroengine articles

Would there be any objection to updating the aeroengine articles to use the manufacturer-designation-name (m-d-n) format, where applicable? Examples would be moving Pratt & Whitney R-1830 to Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp, and Pratt & Whitney R-4360 to Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major. There may be some cases where a name or designation is unclear or obscure, and those could be handled on an individual basis, either here as a list, or on each article's talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea for article names, so long as we leave a redir in place for shorter links from other articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, I have been doing that with new articles created for some time. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't object. I prefer that format as well. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason not to. Many engines don't have a name, so they wouldn't have to be moved. (For example General Electric F414). -SidewinderX (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved some of the titles to include the names in the past couple of weeks. However, there are some that need to be moved by an admin. which I'll list below. - BilCat (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin moves

Pratt & Whitney R-1340 → Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp Done MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Pratt & Whitney R-4360 → Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major Done MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)