Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconAviation: Engines Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This page is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Cirrus range[edit]

The Cirrus and Hermes ranges of engines were produced by a series of manufactures, most of whom continued earlier variants while introducing new ones. They are currently summarised at ADC Cirrus#Variants.

A few have their own articles, most do not. Some of those articles names are, or may be, inappropriate. If we adhere strictly to the Company-Model-Variant (CMV) article naming convention, Some of these article titles are, or would be, clumsy. Following WP:NCAIR, they should be simplified to more common and intuitive titles.

Here are the existing engine articles, together with my suggestions for improvement:

We also have an out-of place company article, Cirrus Aero-Engines, which covers much the same ground as the middle part of the ADC Cirrus article but has a bad title. Cirrus Aero Engines Limited operated from the same address as ADC and lasted only 2 1/2 years; I am unsure if it was a subsidiary of ADC or not. The independent Cirrus-Hermes Engineering Company Limited set up shop at Croydon, lasted over twice as long and introduced many more models. When Blackburn first took it over it moved to their site at Brough and dropped the hyphen. later it was subsumed into the parent Blackburn Aircraft Limited as a separate operating division. So, which Cirrus companies/subsidiaries/divisions should have their own articles and which should be subsumed into other company articles? My best suggestion at the moment would be:

Does all this seem a reasonable way forward? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steelpillow. It does indeed seem a reasonable way forward. I am persuaded by all the changes you suggest. Please go ahead with the changes. Dolphin (t) 13:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll give it a bit longer for other editors to comment. But one peripheral detail bothers me. I find Wikipedia's constant spelling-out of "Limited" to be pedantic and precious. Almost nobody else goes beyond "Ltd." so that is the way that WP:NCAIR and WP:COMMONNAME point. But we have a cadre who insist on the "correct" spelling in case it confuses the poor foreigner - a foreigner who in truth will have come across Ltd. many times but has no idea that Wikipedia is, or can be, an exception to the norm. Do we have an adopted policy or guideline on this? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of most of these articles I don't see any pressing reason to make sweeping changes. I remember that the Cirrus article range was very confusing and I worked quite hard to clarify the situation, creating the Cirrus navbox (Template:Cirrus aeroengines) was another measure that I hoped would be helpful. The article titles are those given by the reference source used (Lumsden, British aero engines) and I agree with them as that is how they appear on UK CAA airworthiness and certification documents, museum placards etc. For British engines it is usual to use 'type' instead of 'model', an WP:ENGVAR difference.
We don't adhere strictly to the MDN system that the aircraft articles use though there is consistency within company ranges and military engines. Engine naming guidance is here, it has worked well for many years. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to WP:AIRENG/PC. Yes the whole thing is confusing, especially when scarce sources conflict as much as they do and even authoritative histories disagree. It is hardly surprising if a fresh eye bringing more sources finds things that need sorting out, I trust that you appreciate this aspect. In particular, I am proposing to rename just two engine articles and one company article; I do not regard that as "wholesale" and I do not regard such aggressive language as helpful.
Now to specifics; we customarily name an article after the brand under which the product was initially launched. For example the Hawker Siddeley Buccanneer aircraft was launched as the Blackburn Buccanneer so we call it that. On the other hand the Blackburn Cirrus Major was launched by Cirrus Hermes (no hyphen), which makes it the Cirrus Hermes Cirrus Major. Except, everyone has always avoided such ugly repetition and simply called it the Cirrus Major, so per WP:COMMONNAME policy and the WP:NCAIR guideline that is what we should call it; note that NCAIR does not address this last point, and what's more is only an essay; it may have worked well for WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it is inadequate for such confusions as surround the Cirrus range.
On the use of "models", my usage does not refer specifically to types as you suggest but also to variants, i.e. as a shorthand for "types and variants". Most or all could be replaced with "engines", if you prefer. But really, that is a distraction from the present discussion, I'd suggest you copyedit as you see fit.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are many instances of engine articles using their common name instead of the launch company or designer, arguments rumble on as to what the common names should be but community consensus and use in sources and official publications generally helps. Rolls-Royce Olympus (Bristol Olympus) and Rolls-Royce Gnome de Havilland Gnome are cases where the designing company does not feature in the article name (but is rightly acknowledged in the article lead section).
The Blackburn Cirrus Minor and Major were wholly designed and produced by Blackburn. The full name of the division was Blackburn Aircraft Ltd, Cirrus Engine Department, Brough, Yorkshire. The assets and production rights of the Cirrus-Hermes Engineering Company were bought by Phillips and Powis Aircraft (Reading) Ltd in February 1934, two years later Blackburn acquired these assets and produced the Cirrus Major (1936) followed by the Minor and Midget (both 1937). They would have kept the Cirrus name to ensure sales in much the same way that Bird's Custard is marketed today. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gunston's encyclopedia (4th edn 1998) discusses the Blackburn Cirrus developments, indeed all developments, under Cirrus, Blackburn do not even get their own entry in the encyclopedia. So we would need to see strong evidence of common usage to the contrary (and not just a list of cherries picked via a search engine) before Wikipedia goes against that.
And your account of the history also conflicts with his. According to Gunston, "In 1934 the business was bought by Blackburn Aircraft at Brough", not two years later. Here are some advertisements for the Minor and Major throughout much of 1935. Notice that they are being offered by the Cirrus Hermes Engineering Co Ltd. with its address given as Brough, i.e. Blackburn's address. Philips and Powis were based in Berkshire and Northern Ireland; why would they have moved the Cirrus factory from nearby Croydon to Blackburn's home ground in Yorkshire? Blackburn had their eye on a new range, they did not want their name associated with the older generation of Cirrus types. So Cirrus Hermes remained a separate operating company under its old name (less the hyphen) within the group, while the Minor (Cirrus III replacement?) and Major (Hermes replacement?) were still under development. Manufacture and sales began under the Cirrus Hermes company name in 1935. Only after they had become established and the older types could be withdrawn, did Blackburn bring the company in as an operating division under their own name, around the start of 1937. (Some of the motivation needs me to find my source again, but the events and dates are unarguable from the sources I give here). If Philips and Powis were involved at any stage, let's see your evidence.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here's the missing source; Grace's Guide. I have added their references as cited in their text: 1936 Public company incorporated: Blackburn Aircraft Ltd.[The Times Apr 03, 1936] This acquired the 2 existing companies of Blackburn Aeroplane and Motor Co, and North Sea Aerial and General Transport [The Times, Thursday, Apr 02, 1936] but the directors decided not to bring Cirrus Hermes Engineering Co, an associated company, into the group at that time because its new products (engines) were still in the development phase.[The Times, Jul 09, 1937]. I confess I have not checked out those issues of The Times.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On company naming in article titles, I have now found the WP:NCCORP guideline. Basically, we stick to the common name and avoid all the "Co. Ltd." bit unless we need to disambiguate. Suits me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On creating (or otherwise) articles for each company involved, I have asked the WP:COMPANIES about them here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having just found the Notability guideline at WP:COMPANY, it appears that the Cirrus Aero-Engines article is not only wrongly spelled but fails WP:GNG and hence also the guideline. Since it contains no information additional to the ADC Cirrus article it ought to be put up for AfD. That also casts a dead hand on my proposed American and Hermes company articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overview article[edit]

The ADC Cirrus article currently covers the whole range of "Cirrus" engines. As I have filled it out I have found that sources tend to describe them according to the manufacturer in focus at the time, there is no definitive usage between say "ADC Cirrus" vs. "Blackburn Cirrus" and under Cirrus-Hermes they tend to be referred to simply as the Cirrus. I am coming to think that the actual ADC products, the ADC Cirrus I, II and III, should be the only subject covered under this title, and the present overview content moved to say Cirrus aero engines. Off hand I can't think of any other engine range that has been kicked about and developed so much between manufacturers but kept its unique identity throughout. Do we have a precedent on how we treat such situations? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any relevant examples, the Cirrus range seems to have bee a unique movable feast. The article on the company Cirrus Aero-Engines is likely to stay fail WP:CORP, so in order to help disambiguate I think I will move the ADC-titled article to Cirrus aero engines unless anybody has a policy/guideline based objection. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[updated 14:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Final solution[edit]

In the end I copied the multi-company content of ADC Cirrus across, which was mostly added by me anyway, and re-purposed it as the Cirrus aero engines article, then cut down the ADC Cirrus to just that engine. Technically bad protocol but saved a lot of faffing with RfCs and edit logs. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Machine Press as reliable source[edit]

Happy New Year! Looking through Lancia Tipo 4 which needed some love I noticed it was sourced to the Old Machine Press website. This was listed at WP:ENGSPS around 2013 but the site owner (William Pearce) has had three specialist aero engine books published, one in 2012, one in 2018 and as joint author one in 2019.

The first two books are published by Old Machine Press (William Pearce) and the last by Specialty Press.

Using the website as a reliable source would open up very useful information, I would say that the last book is not self-published so he now qualifies as a reliable source. Thumbs up or thumbs down?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, meets the exemption in WP:SPS as he is now a published expert. - Ahunt (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I will remove the link from ENGSPS and have a look around his website. Some of the other websites listed no longer exist but I'll leave the links there just in case some articles are using them as a source. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, rather than remove it I placed it in the reliable source section. There are a lot of Flightglobal links in there, the aviation project will need to tackle this somehow this year, presumably by contacting the editor or by asking the top neddies of Wikipedia to pay for block access or come to some kind of arrangement. There was a discussion at WT:AIR but it quietly fell off the radar. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at Two-stroke diesel engine[edit]

An editor has just reverted cited content, apparently on the grounds that it is not the aspect they are personally interested in. More eyes/comments would be welcome at Talk:Two-stroke diesel engine#Special:Diff/1035300967. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:wall of text, unfortunately. You have my sympathy, though!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marc Lacoste: Please ignore the walls of text, you know what they always mean. Just ask yourself whether this revert of properly-cited content looks like it was justified or not. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an edit summary though : "See talk page"; but the talk page can't be read in a limited time.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time flies![edit]

Almost 13 years since creation of this task force. Has been pretty quiet in here this year. I just chanced upon counter-rotating propellers, not in good shape, the single citation relates to contra-rotating propellers. Perhaps the hatnote needs bolding?!! All good fun, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CFM International CFM56 at FAR[edit]

I have nominated CFM International CFM56 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Engines&oldid=1157369560"