Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Core power

Just found Core power, which needs to be sourced/fact-checked. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Alos Core size. - BilCat (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Vehicles powered by Napier Lion engines

Just seen Category:Vehicles powered by Napier Lion engines being used on aircraft articles, just seemed a bit strange as you dont normally see aircraft described as vehicles or aircraft categorised by engines used. MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a bit unorthodox. More to the point, it could really get out of hand. Checking the history it was started by User:Andy Dingley more than three years ago. WP:CFD? - Ahunt (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The aircraft entries and the boats should be de-listed, the WP definition of a vehicle includes aircraft and boats but it seems a very strange definition to me (just things with wheels). PS: How do you stop a fox barking?! What a din!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That was a real fox BTW, stopped now, probably choked on the mole that was living under my shed with any luck. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Poetic justice? - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I respect all god's creatures, a Red Kite showed us the way today at a model gliding comp but our local foxes like to have their nightly sing song, it's an awful noise, like they are in pain or something. Anyway, back OT. I suspect the category creator did not add the aircraft, just de-list them and leave be. I'll work through from the back end of the alphabet. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys, seems a reasonable idea to de-cat the aircraft. I have Hedgehogs at night that produce a sound far louder than you expect from the size, in fact I thought they were Foxes at first because of the noise!, sorry no-relevance to aero-engines at all. MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Have removed about five aircraft types from the category, looking at the Napier Lion applications there were about 15 other aircraft types that the category was not applied to, someone gave up adding them perhaps. Problem resolved hopefully. Hedgehogs don't make any noise surely?!! They do raid the dog's dinner bowl though, bad for them as he has the exploding dry nugget stuff. WT:AETF? Nah, Animal Magic! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I know from personal experience that hedgehogs can make a lot of noise - they make an alarm call "KATHUNKACHOONK - KATHUNKACHOONK" as one rolls over them in a car. Minorhistorian (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't be good for your tires though?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Lists again

Long time since I've posted here but I had a go at some more engine stuff tonight. The lists that we have are creeping ever longer but what I noticed more is that they are very poorly referenced and someone will notice soon for sure. Even our main list of aircraft engines only has two cites and I'm not sure if either are reliable sources. I don't think the referencing standard for lists is any different to other articles and we should do something to fix it fairly swiftly. As a suggestion, to avoid hundreds of individual citations, the source for the entries could be placed under each manufacturer. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right, lists are required to be referenced as well as articles are, qv Wikipedia:Verifiability, which says "This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception..." In many cases refs can be transferred from the articles quite easily. - Ahunt (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a fair sized job, just wondering how best to do it. I can reference the British and Russian piston engines very easily. Something like Source:Gunston (cite) in italics under each section header? Maybe there is a 'section source' cite template? Strictly any red links that can not be easily found should be removed. Don't know why but referencing has become more important than it used to be for me. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Flight is a reliable source of course, doh! Time to give up for today. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've sourced most of the British piston engines as a start. There are completely empty sections there (could be no wikied), and whole red linked sections. It could look untidy if 'section ref improve' tags are added. We could use one 'refimprove' tag at the top or just leave it as we know there is a problem and we're working on it (honest guvnor!). Reluctant to add to the advice at the top but it appears that some editors want to list all possible type variants and alternative names (redirects) there (I think some duplication is unavoidable though). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think one tag at the top should do it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's very tasteful!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I moved the first image up as well - it looked odd with an empty info box - just a title with a frame around it! We could use a few more images for the list just to dress it up a bit. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the image when a 'major change' happened last year, it pushed the ABC engine image down to the 'C' section! Oh well! Some of the longer lists there could usefully be 'multi-colled' to save white space, two columns at least, three for some (I know a trick to keep the images on the right without spacing problems). I'm sure there is a wiki guideline about not linking in section headers, will keep quiet about that one!! All the German '109-' entries are just alternate designations for better known types AFAIK, there might be a few that are not. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That all sounds good to me! - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How should we present cases where a single source covers most but not quite all engines? For examplle, all the Turbomeca entries are mentioned by Gunston 1989 except for the Ardiden/Shakti, which is too recent. So put him as the source at the top but add a specific ref or cn for that one?TSRL (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is how it will have to be done, modifying the italic note to something like Source:Gunston (except where noted). That's how we do it in engine application sections. Looking much better, I did go a bit 'square-eyed' adding sources but it was relatively straightforward, working from the front of several books to the back. I read in our citing guidelines that the page numbers are not necessarily required but it helps me at least go straight to a section in case of doubt and is 'belt and braces'.

The main American engine lists remain unreferenced, I probably don't have the right sources to check the entries, if I used Gunston alone they would be much shorter and there are blue links (that are not redirects) there that are obviously bona fide entries. Gunston's book is 20 years out of date and my Jane's engine refs date to 1945. The other problem (for want of a better word) is that some of the American engines have been converted to Manufacturer, Designation, Name (MDN) format (possibly in line with the aircraft article renaming push) but others have not. I don't remember the discussion here to change them, no problem with it but there seems to be variations that go beyond the common name, Wright R-540 J-6 Whirlwind 5 is there for instance. Should that be Wright R-540 Whirlwind, Wright R-540 J-6 Whirlwind 5, Wright R-540 Whirlwind 5, Wright R-540 J-6 Whirlwind or something else? I cheated in the Rolls-Royce sections and added a note inviting the reader to visit the company navbox for a full list of alternate designations (the 'RB' numbers), the same could be done with P&W and Wright although I have not looked at their navboxes to see if they can cope with this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

After picking off a few for which I had specialised refs, like Liron for Farman, I've started working through Gunston from A, now at F, though I chickened out of Allison, Bristol Siddeley, Chinese and Continental. Probably should chickened out of Franklin, too, though there are some in Gunston and some later ones in JAWA 1966. Am I right in thinking http://home.comcast.net/~aeroengine/Contents.html is not citeable, even for the mere proof of existence that we want in this list? There's an awful lot of Franklins, and whilst the main point of the current exercise is to ref stuff that's already on the list, it's tempting to fill out the lists while the books are on the table.TSRL (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Ah! I've noticed that the source above is used in some articles, e.g. Franklin 4AC. I'd still welcome views on citeability.TSRL (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Great work there, I chickened out of the big ones as well (but they will have to be done sometime!). That website does list its sources, I get the feeling that it would be treated the same way as Joe Baugher's site though (deemed not a reliable source). I've got some of the book sources that they list, will have a look. There might be lists in the Flight archive, I've seen them before but they're tricky to find again (they often did an aero engine review once a year). They do have an excellent searchable directory for the more modern engines, browsing by manufacturer in the lower box produces a list. I don't think Flight's credentials as a source are in doubt. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the Wright R-540 problem. The trouble is that you have two different designation schemes for the same thing, and Wright switched from one to the other mid-career. Before the change, they used "J-6" for all three Whirlwind versions, R-540, R-760, and R-975. ("J-6" was the successor to the previous R-790 Whirlwind version, which they called "J-5".) A few years later they dropped the J-6 and just went with the R-# designators. I think the J-6 designation is now more obscure and should be left out for the article titles, but I get the feeling that it was fairly common to use names like "Whirlwind 5" which included the number of cylinders in order to distinguish the three sizes. So my personal taste, for what that's worth, would be for us to have Wright R-540 Whirlwind 5, Wright R-760 Whirlwind 7, and Wright R-975 Whirlwind 9. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Colin, I only just caught this post due to being away for a week. Could start a new section on this naming consistency problem below if we want to fix it. I would have thought that the capacity number would be enough of a disambiguator (so not needing the cylinder number at the end), that would align with the 'M-D-N' format of the US military aircraft and keep the title short. We could analyse what is the most common name by checking sources or even the 'google hits' test. I guess some engines in the series were not used by the military? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Another dangerous thought!

Many of the aero engine articles do not have engines on display sections but it is very obvious that the photos are of museum exhibits. We could add an 'Engines on display' section and add an {{Empty section}} template to encourage entries. We could take the location information from the photo description, which might be pushing it (especially if it is not there now!). I do wonder sometimes if this section is busting WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:NOTDIRECTORY but it's educational surely? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We certainly have them in aircraft articles and I think they should be included in engine articles where applicable. I think they are useful in that they tell readers where to go and see one close up and as a bonus may just get us some photographs for the articles in return. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Right then! I like to cite the engine entries but many museums don't bother listing them, can use some editorial judgement. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I note in the R-R Merlin someone has added Fantasy of Flight in Florida, which is the Hermit Weeks' homebase - problem is neither the article nor the website for F of F list display engines, although there are (I think) Merlins on display; certainly in some of Weeks' aircraft. From this perspective including the likes of F of F could become a little confusing unless some direct evidence of Merlins on display can be shown? Minorhistorian (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It has to meet WP:V!! - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, the entries should strictly be individually cited. The Merlin section is completely uncited, it was 'overlooked' during the review perhaps but it can be fixed. I'll get onto it pronto. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Of 11 entries there I can cite only three. It's quite poor that major museums don't bother to list their engine collections. Grrr! I can reduce the list to the three citable ones and amend the text (to 'not many') or add untidy cite tags to the other entries which can't be filled (Catch-22). Per WP:V we have to go for the short version!. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I keep running into museums that don't even list the aircraft they have in their collection. Too many volunteer webmasters! - Ahunt (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the big museums pay web monkeys over here, at the end of the day it's a minority subject and we have to sift through the dying embers to meet our goal of educating peeps who do not love aircraft engines! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The big museums aren't the problem, for instance the Canada Aviation and Space Museum has a page on each aircraft index, although they skip their engine collection! The smaller private museums often have ghastly websites that don't help researchers like us at all! - Ahunt (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The London Science Museum has a very notable set of aero engines, I would class that museum as one of the most important in Britain but I have to say that their website is rubbish. The RAF Museum OTOH goes into such great detail that it's hard to find what you are looking for. What are we to do?!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess even some of the major museums are short-staffed/use underpaid volunteers (er oxymoron)/plebs in times of economic recession - I emailed MOTAT in Auckland several times over the rumoured R-R Type R engine supposedly lurking in a dark, dusty store-room and had no response whatsoever. The NZ Air Force Museum, Wigram has a paltry little page showing it has an engine collection (complete with whatisit? photo) but nothing verifiable, except I can swear that they have a Napier Sabre. Speaking of Canterbury - Asburton, to the south of Christchurch, has a burgeoning Aviation Museum complete with more engines - but no website. *Sigh* Minorhistorian (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A book on Aeronautical Engineering

Just discovered Practical Aeronautical Engineering on a local equivalent to EBay...looks mighty tempting...and there's more than one copy available, with t'other going for $5!!! There's also Major Piston Aero Engines of World War 2...or Bill Gunston's Development of Piston Aero Engines. Sod it, I'm going for the $5 Practical Aeronautical Engineering - as a student its all I can afford. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds useful, good luck! - Ahunt (talk)!

"Major Piston Aero Engines" is a good big slab of a reference book that's worth some money, but Gunston's "Development of..." are (there's a jet one too) thin, pretty much prose only, and is halfway between a history and an engineering chronology. If that's what interests you, keep an eye out for either of the versions of Ricardo's autobiog/biography which will give you a very good grounding in the real engineering behind engine development over this period. 1st editions are an awful price, but there's a later IMechE(?) re-issue that's much cheaper. Beaumont's "Aeronautical Engineering" is a fairly common (thus usually cheap) overall guide (engines, airframes, instuments) of the '30s and certainly worth snapping up. Don't pay too much though, as it is common. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice AD - I landed the cheap PAE although the one with bidding starting at $39 is in better shape; nothing wrong with a well used book. I know Bingham would be reasonably thorough from his book on the Westland Whirlwind while Gunston usually seems to be a once-over-lightly aviation historian. Minorhistorian (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, great going. I look forward to seeing it turn up in reflists! - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus it could be very helpful when it comes to overhauling the Bristol Centaurus I have stashed in the garage. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Old thread I know, but I couldn't let this pass: "Major Piston Aero Engines" is absolutely the worst book on the topic I have ever seen. It is nothing more than a largely unedited collection of other people's articles pressed together into a single tome. In the case of the BMW 801, for instance, you're reading along and suddenly you get to another introductory paragraph, followed by an entirely similar article - it appears this chapter was created simply by cutting and pasting two other articles together with no editing applied. Uggg. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

We seem to have Hiro Type 91 (engine) and Hiro Type 91, appears to be the same content in both and the latter is marked as a disambiguation page where it doesn't look like one to me. Whatever happens the link in Template:Hiro Naval Arsenal needs to point to the correct article so that it 'lights up' in bold when the navbox is opened. Would try to fix it but I'm away for a wee while. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed both problems, the second link has been reverted back to a disambiguation page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Gebus

If you're going to delete the majority of an article's content based on years old tags even though the article was written long before current tagging rules were introduced, when you have a discussion about it maybe you might spend a second or two inviting the original author? And would a little assumption of good faith for an article that's half a decade old been too much to ask? Sheesh. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As per the discussion there was no bad faith, it was just old and unref text that no sources could be located for and failed to meet policy. Feel free to reinstate any text that you have refs for. - Ahunt (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As per your discussion, made in what is essentially an echo chamber. No attempt was made to reach consensus, ask for references from 3rd parties, or contact anyone else involved. There was no post on any of the author's talk pages, and nothing on the article talk page. Evidence suggests that basically zero was effort expended to fix the problem. This is simply not good enough. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia articles don't have authors, only editors, and it is normal to watch articles that you care about. I watch all articles that I started, just to see how they progress. Regardless, as I said, feel free to reinstate any text that you have refs for. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's it? The best response you can come up with is a grammar issue? I'm not going to argue this any more. If you delete material en-mass like this in the future, ensure you have reached real consensus first. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The policy says "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references." In this case the text was tagged for two and half years, so I think that was sufficient "time to provide references". Jimmy Wales also stated on this subject in 2006 "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." No where does the policy say that an editor requires consensus to remove challenged text or to consult with the editor who started the article or other contributors who have worked on the article. In fact I spent a couple of days going though my own library of aviation books, plus extensive internet searching to try to come up with some refs myself, because that policy also says "It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." If you can show me which policy, guideline or standard I offended in removing text challenged for two and a half years I will be happy to not offend that policy, guideline or standard in the future. The aim here is to create a verifiably-referenced encyclopedia, so if you have refs for that text that I removed then please do let me know and I will revert the text to the last full version myself so that you can add the refs. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Far from being an 'echo chamber' I believe this page is watched by many members of the aircraft project, usually more than would be watching relatively obscure individual article talk pages, this is why discussion is often brought up here instead of article talk pages (in an attempt to better publicise problems), I do it myself, bearing in mind that the article creator (main watcher?) may have retired. I saw the related discussion here, saw that the text was clearly unreferenced and did not comment or object per WP:SILENCE. I don't believe the problem was grammar related. As older articles get revisited they will naturally be improved using the current WP policies and guidelines, just a fact of life. Please excuse my ignorance but what does 'gebus' mean? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is painfully clear on this issue; if you're going to have a discussion about a topic, invite the interested parties. You were not interested, so that's not a problem. I was interested, so that was a problem.

"gebus" is a Simpsons reference. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't think I know that particular policy, the only ones I know that do require discussion notification are user behaviour problems like RfC/U and ANI, otherwise WP:BOLD applies. If you care about an article it would be on your watchlist, if you don't react or comment on changes then WP:SILENCE applies, complaining later will understandably fall on deaf ears. You would know this as a Wikipedia administrator surely? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Useful reference source

Just found a 1978 turbine engine directory listing from Flight International, covers turbine engine types and companies. There's about 10 or 12 pages, I've added it to the reference source page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Engine descriptions

While rambling through a reasonably large number of articles verifying my links to those articles, I find a variety of ways to write descriptions. The template for template: pistonspecs is written in this order:

No. of cylinders, turbo/supercharged, air/liquid-cooled, inline/rotary/V-# ,piston aircraft engine

I added commas to help sort out the individual fields used.

Is this method the correct way of describing an engine? I would like to be consistent in the articles I edit, and I would think all articles should be consistent as well (I guess this is a remnant of my years writing technical manuals and training materials.) I know it says one does not need to follow the guidelines, but I want to do it so to avoid errors. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 04:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is the correct way to describe an aero engine, the template advice was agreed by consensus long before I started editing here (3.5 light years ago). I just looked at the Rolls-Royce Merlin for an example; 12-cylinder, supercharged, liquid-cooled, 60° "Vee", piston aircraft engine. Seems fairly concise to me. How would you suggest to re-arrange this or is it other articles that have differing styles? We like consistency, makes everything easier!! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nimbus, I have no intention to rock the boat, I only ask so that my new article I am working on about hyper engines has consistent wording as I have found so may variances while cutting and pasting the specs from a number of existing engine articles. Do you suppose I should fix the articles that vary to what the template suggests? Also, some list prop type and some have special gearing mentioned - what about adding those to the template?

Here are some examples of what I have discovered:

• Lycoming XR-7755 36-cylinder turbosupercharged liquid-cooled "star" (4 banks of 9 cylinders) aircraft piston engine
• Wright R-2160 42 cylinder radial engine. 6 rows, 7 cylinders per row
• Daimler-Benz DB 604 Water-cooled 24-cylinder X (4 rows of 6-cylinders) piston engine
• Junkers Jumo 222 24-cylinder supercharged liquid-cooled "star" (six banks of four cylinders each)

Note mix of written and Arabic style numbers and order of presentation.

• Allison V-3420 24-cylinder turbosupercharged double-"Vee" liquid-cooled piston engine
• Chrysler IV-2220 16-cylinder turbosupercharged liquid-cooled 60° inverted V aircraft piston engine
• Continental I-1430 12-cylinder, liquid-cooled, inverted Vee
• Daimler-Benz DB 601 Twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled supercharged 60° inverted Vee aircraft piston engine

Note mix of written and Arabic style numbers and order of presentation.

• Dobrynin VD-4K 24-cylinder, four-row, turbo-compound radial engine
• Armstrong Siddeley Deerhound 21-cylinder, triple-row air-cooled radial engine

Note order of presentation.

Regards, Buster40004 Talk 01:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is important as long as the main features are described. Looking at a Jane's WWII reference they appear to use number of cylinders, layout, cooling method and supercharger type (if it has one but not always!). Their description for the Rolls-Royce Griffon is 'Twelve-cylinder 60° Vee liquid-cooled', our description is 12-cylinder supercharged liquid-cooled 60° Vee aircraft piston engine, adding the fact that it is an engine. Some orders of words are easier to read or say than others, distinctive or unusual features might well get included. For example if I describe two motorbike engines I have I would call one an 'overhead valve parallel twin' and another a 'two-stroke V4', not mentioning that the first one is a four-stroke.

The mixture of written and arabic numbers is reflected by Jane's. They use 'twelve' and '24' quite consistently. Wikipedia has a guideline that numbers below ten should be written in full, numbers above as numerals (WP:ORDINAL). The guideline suggests though that numerals are used throughout in a table (which a specification section is effectively), I will write 'two inlet valves' instead of '2 inlet valves' as the second version looks wrong. If you are comparing types in a list then it makes sense to treat them consistently, in individual articles there is no need to be rigid. From watching many aero engine articles I seldom see changes to descriptions in specs tables being made so editors are agreeing (or not disagreeing!) that what is there already is correct. Hope that helps a bit, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nimbus. By themselves, they do indeed look just fine, but when listed as a group or tabulated, it looks messy. What I will do is transplant the fields into a consistent order in the article I am working on, letting the sleeping dogs lay (or is it lie?) as I find them. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 14:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not been in here for a while! Just spotted a question that can be answered; ...some list prop type and some have special gearing mentioned - what about adding those to the template? The current version of the 'pistonspecs' template does cater for propeller gearing with the parameter '|reduction_gear=', it might be missing from some articles as updating the template does not automatically update it in all articles using it (unlike transcluded templates). For engines with no gearing I will often enter 'Direct drive, right-hand (or left-hand!) tractor (or pusher!)' just to indicate that it's not geared and to add a fact on which way the engine turns. The parameter also now links to the Propeller speed reduction unit article which is a useful feature. I would not add details on the propeller itself as this may vary between aircraft types using the same engine or even vary between a single aircraft type using a single engine type. It could be argued that the propeller is not part of the engine, in the UK variable pitch props have their own logbooks (fixed pitch props don't) and prop serial numbers are recorded in airframe logbooks as they move between aircraft. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, A template change is a good idea. I would also propose making it with choices already in place. Perhaps something like this: rotation=right/left, mounting=tractor/pusher, prop drive=geared (ratio)/direct, prop=single/contra-rotating, supercharger= # speed/# stage, exhaust=collector/ejector stack. And yes, props here are serialized and logged. Just about any accessory has a data plate or stamp with a serial number on it. I agree on props being pretty much airframe related. Perhaps prop spline type (SAE #) could be included, if known. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 20:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The template is pretty much stable and it was agreed some time ago that adding many more parameters to it would become unencyclopaedic (excessive detail). Extra lines can be added though for unusual features if required and many editors do add more detail for each existing parameter. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that side as well. If the template is again open for changes, be sure to ring me up. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 23:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Japanese wartime engines

I've noticed that Japanese WW2 engines are often inconsistent in their titles. Many use names or designations, but few have both when available. For example, the Nakajima Homare is desingated the Ha-45. Sometimes it's quite difficult to find the designation in the articles. Since we now allow the m-d-n format (Manufacturer-designtation-name), would it not be prudent to move these article to the m-d-n format? I'm primarily referring to using ht emilitary designations, though in some cases the engine may better known by company desgnation. In most other articles, we title engines that were primarily military by their military designations. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It would need the engine naming guideline changing. It would be easier to move the Japanese WWII engines to just manufacturer and name if consistency is desired. This method would not require research to find out what the number designation was.

I suspect that Nakajima Homare is a much more common name than Nakajima Ha-45 Homare. Redirects could be created in MDN format if they are not already in place (per the Homare!). Alternate designations and names should be bolded in the lead, particularly important when a redirect has taken the reader there, the Homare is a good example where one designation is bolded but another (Ha-45) is not!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nimbus. The primary point of the title is to help the reader find the article; you have to be a regular to know the best way is via Google and perhaps a bit of a petrol-head to know the number. So I'd keep it simple, as Nakajima Homare. One found, the article can and should inform on manufacturer's number, military and alternate styles etc., bolded.TSRL (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We need to update the guidelines to match the project guidelines for m-d-n, but of course that format isn't mandatory, just allowed now. But I understnad your points. Also, do we have a navbox for the "Ha-" engines? I've not been able to find one, and this would certianly help, especially in linking to the correct engine articles from aircraft articles, which is my main concern, and also in finding any duplicate articles. - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Several of the aircraft articles only use the Ha-numbers, and most of the ones I found today were redlinked. I've just now redirected several aof those redlinked Ha-## articles to the named articles, and I'm sure there are more. Alos, I've noticed that some of the named engines use several different Ha-numbers, so just having the articles ant the names is probably the best way to go. Note that Kawasaki Ha-40 doesn't appear to have a name, but there may well be one; hopefully it doens't have an article too! :) - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Both the Aichi Atsuta and the Kawasaki Ha-40 are license-built Daimler-Benz DB 601, but they appear to be separate engines. - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've created Template:Japanese Imperial Army aeroengines. I've also created Category:Aircraft engine navigational boxes to aid in finding engine navboxes, and it includes the existing cat Category:Manufacturer-based aircraft engine navigational boxes. - BilCat (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Zoche aero-diesel

An article on the Zoche aero-diesels has just been created. It could use some attention from editors familiar with the topic, and also needs some third-party sourcing. Overall, it appears to be a good effort. - BilCat (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wilksch WAM series

Another new page on aero-engines for attention. Arrivisto (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirects to Renault 8Gd

Renault 8B and Renault 8 Bd engine, which both currently redirect to Renault 8Gd, have been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 3#Renault 8B and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 3#Renault 8 Gd engine respectively. Your comments are invited. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This is all the result of Pete making undiscussed moves again. It would help if he'd discuss things first, and get a consensus. There was a previous move discussion for that engine article that was held a year or two ago just this past March, and closed with no consensus - awaiting better sources. Now, as he often does, Pete discovers a supposedly definitve source, and just moves it anyway. Should I mention that there appears to be no reliable third-party sources in the article, and Pete's definitive source hasn't been established as reliable either? This is getting really old. - BilCat (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. - Ahunt (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the 8Bd was generated out of an error in the A.R.1 article and should have been 8Gd! MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Propeller spinner

An editor has noted on the aircraft prop talk page that spinners are not covered. I suggested that we could create a spinner (aircraft) article after discussion here. I would say that it is a notable component but finding enough material to fill more than a stub might be tricky. Appears to be a simple component but there are variations (de-icing fluid slingers etc) and the history might be interesting, i.e. when were spinners first used and with what aircraft. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it is a notable component. Other variations include those for contra-rotating props and those with gun muzzles in. Some early examples, like those on the Clerget engined Bristol Scouts (c.1916), were much flatter than the familiar inline engine spinner form. Their role on later radials is (I guess) primarily to shroud variable pitch gear as well as smoothing cooling airflow through the engine. It's common term that deserves an explanation, however terse.TSRL (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely needed - I may even have a ref for it! - Ahunt (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: When the article is started, the disambiguation page at Spinner will need amending. - Ahunt (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Does not have much content but a starter at spinner (aircraft) is available for improvement. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Is a propeller hub considered the same thing as a spinner? Either way, it should probabvly be mentioned in the new article. - BilCat (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff guys, should keep the OP happy. The challenge will be to fill the whitespace! I do have smaller, more compact photos of spinners, could upload them to a new Commons category. The cylindrical part of a prop hub on a Hamilton Standard propeller is called the 'dome shell' and is effectively the outer case of a hydraulic accumulator, they are sometimes hidden by a larger spinner. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Feathering

I ran across Autofeather, and it is a short, unreferenced stub, yet Feathering (propeller) is a redirect to a section in the main Propeller (aircraft) article. Is featherign something we should have a separate article about? Either way, I think Autofeather should be merged/redirected somewhere, as it's more of a propeller setting. - BilCat (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggest that propeller (aircraft) is the best place for feathering (where it is presently) and feathering the best for autofeather. One article, not repetitive fragments.TSRL (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Aircraft/Engines to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 21:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed merges of Category:Sunbeam aircraft engines

User:Petebutt is engaged in a series of large merges within this category. Although (see the navigation template) there are a large number of redlinks here and expanding to cover the whole range is welcome, these merges seem to be bundling engines together beyond their real connections. They are also removing the original articles in favour of redirects. Oddly though, this has also removed a previous article, Sunbeam side-valve aircraft engines that was the one group that really did represent a family with a coherent development history. We're now left with articles like Sunbeam Afridi that bundle four different engines on the sole basis of being V12s, including the Tartar that has almost nothing in common, but excluding the Afridi's direct ancestor, the V8 Nubian.

No interest so far in responding at Talk:Sunbeam_side-valve_aircraft_engines, despite this being his request. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Typical behaviour from this user unfortunately, some very strange edits as well (removing TOCs from long articles?), even after discussion they carry on as they want, evident at list of aircraft engines which I have temporarily given up on. Requires admin intervention. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)