Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Italian engine images

Have discovered a haul of older Italian piston engine types on wiki:it. It would have been useful if the uploader had sent them straight to Commons as they are mostly tagged as copyright expired. I've moved a couple already using the Commons upload bot but it's a painful process. Many of our Italian engine articles need images and there are a few images there that we don't have articles for. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney classic engine links

Looks like Pratt & Whitney have reshuffled their website which is causing broken links, I spotted one in 'External links' I guess any citation links are also broken. They've removed 'about us/classic engines' from the code but doing the same in our links doesn't seem to work. Here's a good link to the R-1830, others are listed there. All good fun! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a trip to Archive.org! - Ahunt (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not! I've fixed all the links in the external links sections and added to engine types that had not been linked. There are broken citation links however. Someone got paid for not leaving redirects, we do it for free! It's worth checking the modern engines for linkrot. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like they are all broken, doh!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Have fixed the military engine links, seems to be a new one in the pipeline the HPW3000. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll continuing editing P&W R-2800 asap - I wrenched my shoulder playing rugby and cannot do much typing for now without becoming severely and painfully cramped; just doing the -18W took courage, determination and sacrifice. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 05:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Your courage, determination and sacrifice in the face of overwhelming wiki editing are appreciated! - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Four years to the day and just short of 1,700 articles in the task force's scope. Great stuff and thanks to everyone who has helped with the massive improvement in aero engine coverage. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey that is great - congratulations for the great work to all involved! I wonder how many engines we have left to cover? - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Good question! There are about 130 red links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Missing articles but that's not exhaustive. Many more at list of aircraft engines but a lot of those are variants of main types. I've probably come to the end of creating articles from my own paper sources apart from Russian piston engine types listed in Kotelnikov's book. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I ran out of refs a while ago, doing all the two-strokes! - Ahunt (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Naming issue

Going through some Fiat engines and came across their aerodiesel, the Fiat AN.1. No problem there at first sight but the aircraft they used to flight test it was the specially designed Fiat AN.1. A pair of articles seemed natural and the engine one is underway, but how to distinguish them? At the moment I have tentatively named (in my sandbox) the aircraft as the Fiat AN.1 and the engine as Fiat AN.1 diesel but there are other choices, eg Fiat AN.1 diesel engine. It is probable that this clash is unique; any thoughts?TSRL (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:DAB might help. Whichever article is created first would not need a DAB suffix, the second one would but...we could argue that the aircraft type is more important than the engine type so the engine should have the suffix! The suffix usually goes in brackets like Rolls-Royce Eagle and Rolls-Royce Eagle (1944). I don't think it's unique with Fiat, there is the Fiat AS.1, seems to be missing from the engine type list which makes you wonder. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
There is an AS.2 variant of the AS.1 aircraft, a redirect could exist for it. We might need some hatnotes if it gets confusing. All good fun! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
We do have the Bristol Jupiter Fighter but Bristol had the sense to DAB it themselves! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do Fiat AN.1 and Fiat AN.1 (engine) (moving the former first!). The aircraft page will not take long to write as not a lot of info seems to exist on it. There are certainly a lot of Fiat engines without articles and not on the 'Missing engines' list - I've just added several of which we have photos (that recent bunch) - but there is no AS.1 engine mentioned in Gunston or in Thompson. The first of these racing motors seems to be the AS.2; possibly the AS.1 was not completed, run or flown, or perhaps Fiat were avoiding the name clash (unlkely?). Could search Flight, which had a helpful piece on the AN.1 in 1931.TSRL (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be a 'one up' on the Italian wiki, they don't have the diesel in the navbox (yet!). Italian naming and designations make no sense to me, I think they re-use 'MM' serial numbers but then again so does the FAA with 'N' numbers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Ought to know better than to suggest something may be unique! I suggest there should be a redirect Fiat AS.2 (aircraft) on the basis of WP:DAB. But, for consistency we perhaps should have Fiat AN.1 (aircraft) and Fiat AN.1!TSRL (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Done that now.TSRL (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The phrase 'can of worms' comes to mind! I'm sure we'll get there eventually. Noticed while rummaging around that we don't seem to have a navbox for Ansaldo aircraft and the category is only half populated (I was thinking the AN.1 might have been an Ansaldo aircraft but it was just designed by the chap apparently). There are a few photos of a 'Colombo' engine on Commons, I don't have anything on it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I did a little reorganising of Template:Fiat aircraft with a separation of the Ansaldo series. Gio. Ansaldo & C became the main Fiat subsidiary in 1926 and are represented by the prefix letter A in the Fiat name (Thompson). Can of vermicelli!TSRL (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC) The Colombo engines were taken up by Alfa-Romeo in 1931: try Jane's c.1930, in the British Library when next at St Pancras with time in hand?TSRL (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Airship engines?

There is a conversation on my talk page about Zeppelin article naming and I offered to help with improving airship engine coverage (will probably struggle mightily with refs but you never know!). As there are relatively few types I thought it might be useful to create a category for airship engines. I'm aware that we have a lot of categories now but this one could be very useful (and possibly a matching category on Commons for images?). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you will get an argument for a cat like that! - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Possibly not though I thought some fairly common engines might be used for modern ones, looked at the Goodyear Blimp article for the answer, it tells us all about the LED lighting system but not what pushes it along, think I'll log in as an IP and add some negative feedback! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
LOL, I think modern blimps use modern aircraft engines, but the article does need to state that! - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I would guess at Lycoming O-360s. Some WP articles are quite long but often at the end you think 'but how does it work?!!!'. The airship engine category is up, there was already a matching category on Commons. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Had to find out! To be fair the Goodyear Blimp article is an overview of all of them but it's not made entirely clear (to me at least), the main type seems to be the Goodyear GZ-20 which has two Continental IO-360s so I was quite close! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
An important recent ('70s) engine is the Porsche, derived from the 911 engine. The venerable Beetle four was used too, for at least two British airships of the 1960s. As airships have neither the forward velocity of prop aircraft, nor their continual use of engines, airship-specific versions of these engines (and the Continental) are required, with extra fan cooling. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Good point. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a note about airship engines being in the piston engine cat, the Loral GZ-22 uses a turboprop Alison 250! MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I did wonder if it was the best parent cat, I've changed it to plain 'aircraft engines', nothing higher than that and it's probably more generic. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Le Rhône copyvio

Hi folks, hope you are enjoying the festive season! The Le Rhône article has just been tagged for copyvio, looking at it the second and third paragraphs in the 'Operation' section have been directly copied and pasted from the website given in the tag. I looked back and it has been there since article creation. Juts wondering what best to do with it? Delete the text completely, move it to the talk page or nowiki it with a note saying it needs re-writing? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep and re-write! - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Well if you've got a spare five minutes!! Amazing that it has been there for so long. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Tied up right now, but I can do in the next day or two. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I have it fixed up, but please do review what I have done there! - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking it! - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing photo category

Mooching through the aviation maintenance department I noticed that there were categories for articles that are missing images. So...I've created Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of aircraft engines, not quite working properly at the moment, adding the template 'image requested|aircraft engines' works but adding to the WPAVIATION banner parameters doesn't seem to. It's a start at least! I've added the template to Talk:Armstrong Siddeley Ounce and it has populated the category. Needs somebody clever to tweak the coding. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Afraid I have to put a policeman's hat on and bring up the subject of self-published sources (SPS). Aero engine articles have been referenced recently using SPS, there are probably many more articles out there that are already using them. These are websites by enthusiasts and societies that look good and sometimes cite their own sources but have not had books or other works actually published (the criteria to be able to use SPS as a source). Enginehistory.org is one and Jack Erickson (Comcast.net) and Oldengine.org are two more that I can think of.

I started a task force page for reliable sources some time ago, I propose that known self-published sources are added there in a section with a note that they are not to be used. Draconian perhaps but entirely by the policy (not guideline) of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

One I missed, has been used in the last hour to reference Nakajima engines: The Classic Airplane Museum - Personal site of K.Takenaka. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Probably a good idea! - Ahunt (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've added a section on the reference page and created a shortcut for it, WP:ENGSPS. Begs the question what to do about articles that are already using these sources as citations, WP:USERGENERATED doesn't give advice on that. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Well since they are unacceptable they should be removed and if there are no other citations for then text, then tag it {{Citation needed|date=January 2013}} - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
There are 85 articles using Enginehistory.org but in some cases it is appearing in the 'External links' section and is not being used as a source, would have thought that is perfectly ok. A job for a rainy day to trawl through all of them! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Personal web sites are listed as external links to be avoided! but certainly enginehistory.org has been created by the Aircraft Engine Historical Society so would qualify as an external link if it added information not in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
That's another job then!! Need to revisit the WP:ELNO guideline. I added a couple more sites to the list, Aerofiles.com and Minijets, I looked hard to see if they qualified but they don't appear to. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
As Aerofiles' staff includes Walter J Boyne, William T. Larkins and Peter Bergen, I think that it might pass muster.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, was not sure about them, they say themselves that they've not published a book, acid test would be to try and use them at FAC or perhaps some other wiki department could look at the site and give a verdict either way, would be useful if it could be used. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Specs template headers

Just reverted a change that I could not understand to 'Pistonspecs' and 'Jetspecs' but when I reverted I could see the problem, all the specs were appearing in the TOC!! Something has happened somewhere, l'm too tired to see what the problem is at the moment, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rolls-Royce Trent series

Template:Rolls-Royce Trent series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JetBlast (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page, task force members may wish to comment. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Nomination was closed as no consensus. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at Articles for creation (Wanted: a rocket scientist or jet engineer)

I would appreciate it if someone with the necessary expertise would take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blast Compression Valveless Pulse Jet Engine and express an opinion about the concept; is it a known technology, fantasy or hoax? If it is a plausible subject please express an opinion about the draft article content itself. There is a space near the top of the page for posting comments (directly below my comment). Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Valveless pulsejets with U-shaped tubes are workable, not new, and have been successfully built by amateurs. Probably the most famous example was Scrapheap Challenge, where they built a U-tube rather than trying to build petal valves. I don't know if "Blast compression" is something additional.
We should cover pulsejets. We should cover valveless pulse jet and U-tube pulsejets too, but probably as a section within it. I'm not currently seeing this third article as needing a new article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Stahlwerk Mark St.M3

Anyone have anything on this engine? It's a low power (probably less than about 50 hp), German (you guessed), maybe flat twin from around 1924. It was used on the Albatros L.66 two seat parasol light aircraft in that year. Any leads welcome.TSRL (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Only from Google! This link in German has some info. The company built aircraft and engines, from that link there are seven aircraft types and four engine types. Only mentions three and five cylinder radials. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The only info on Stahlwerk engines in the little Albatros I found was also HistAv, though in English. They don't give a power but the prototype had a 30 hp Haake (what?) flat twin, so the 3-cylinder, 35 hp job sounds about right for a slightly more powerful alternative. Any feeling for the reliability and citeability of histaviation?TSRL (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Would say it is a non-reliable source by the WP definition. The Haacke twins seem to be the other engines used in the Mark aircraft, we have no article on them but there are two images on Commons, File:Haacke HFM 3.jpg and File:Haacke HMF-2a Keski-Suomen ilmailumuseo.JPG. I checked German WP for an article on Stahlwerk Mark, it gets a mention through the designers that worked there and its merger into another company later but no article, not even red-linked. I checked Flightglobal as well, the aircraft types get mentioned but not the engines. Engines of the 1920s seem to be particularly difficult to research. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Specifications section - Level of detail?

An editor has been expanding specification sections with a level of detail that I believe is unencyclopaedic and is breaking the spirit of WP:NOT, an example can be seen at Piaggio P.XII. I realise that the 'jetspecs' and 'pistonspecs' templates have the option for more parameters but it is only generally used for notable extra details.

The specs section usually has the variant described in brackets, there is a creeping trend to add details from other variants, we discussed the inclusion of BMEP here some years ago and decided not to include it, other parameters (short reach spark plugs, piston speed and oil viscosity for instance) are only of use to an engineer which is effectively turning the specs sections into a guide or manual.

The effect in smaller articles is to overwhelm the text sections which are already mostly in list format (applications and variants). I would like to trim some of these additions down but wanted to discuss it here first in case others disagree and wish to add every possible parameter that we can find. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Could add that the inclusion of figures to five decimal places is not exactly encyclopaedic either! Less is more basically. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree. The specs should only contain data on version xxx named in the Specification (xxx) header. The overprecision comes from using convert with the decimal place parameter set to 2, e.g. 1,250 hp (932.12 kW) when it should be 0 or-1, giving 1,250 hp (932 kW) or 1,250 hp (930 kW), so as to match the precision of the converted number to match the original. Depends on the data precision and choice of converted units, but personally prefer -1 here. One's trying to match the precision of the implied uncertainty of original and converted quantities.TSRL (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree as well. As we have discussed in the past, the specs are supposed to be representative of one chosen variant, not exhaustive and cover all variants, making them excessively long and complex. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the one spec for one nominated variant, any significant differences (like power output) can be covered in a variants section. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad that I'm on the right lines. A more precise shortcut that covers this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, bullet point three: Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. I note that this is a policy, not a guideline. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • We now have edit-warring crap like this, where the significant development growth of this important early engine (a 50% increase in thrust from the same engine over a very short time) is blanked altogether. Not a constructive move by any account, but it's the aircraft project cabal, so it's unchallengeable. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Which is why we have a design and development section so these sort of things can be described, I would have thought it would be a lot better to explain the development of the engine in text section which is sadly lacking in detail. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
So do so. That's a lot different to just blanking the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to assume good faith and check the recent edits on the page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Milb1, my thrust of the above section and the 'edit warring crap' was to maintain the high quality of articles that are categorised under this task force. It is an attempt to avoid wounding parodies such as this gem from 2006 which was obviously one editor on two computers. I take the accusation of being non-constructive quite personally, it was my intention back in 2008 to vastly improve the coverage of aero engine articles which has happened largely due to the efforts of dedicated editors (presumably the 'cabal' mentioned). I used to create articles but they have all mostly been written, I now find my that most of my editing is removal of uncited content, original research and editorial narrative/comparison with God knows what. Quite depressing but I will stick at it unless Jimbo tells me otherwise. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
There are no less than three sets of specifications at Power Jets W.1 now (it was created with one) and one set is for an engine with its own article, I get the feeling that a losing battle is being fought, hey ho. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge needed

The articles Bendix-Stromberg pressure carburetor and pressure carburetor is about the same thing, and should be merged. Should also be aligned and linked with carburetor, possibly merged. -- Egil (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bendix article is on a list to be checked for copyright violations (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Buster40004) and doesn't appear to have been checked yet. The other article is uncited which is not good either. To me the theory of a pressure carburettor should be explained in one article and the other article should focus on that particular company's variation of it (history, novel features, applications to engine types etc.) There is room for both articles if they were straightened out. An analogy would be Rotary engine (generic) and Clerget 9B (specific type of rotary engine). If we could improve both articles the difference might become clearer and it's possible that both could stay, the generic article should be the one that remains failing that. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
No issues from my side, but as the articles are now, it is no good. A related issue: is diaphragm carburetor and pressure carburetor much the same thing? -- Egil (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Diaphragm and pressure carburettors are very different. That would be a bad merge. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
A diaphragm carburettor is a very small and simple device, could not find an image on Commons but if you visit this page and download TM 4603-12 you will see images and an exploded diagram. I have stripped and rebuilt one of these on a 'turbo' (self-sustainer) glider. A redirect could be created to the 'Diaphragm chamber' section of the carburetor article as that is what it appears to be describing.
Have looked further at the problem, the two articles are actually very similar. I did some copyvio checking (limited to the Flight source which strangely has been cited as a book source where it was most likely taken from the online archive), it follows the text closely but does not appear to be a direct copy, I can't check the book sources as I don't have access to them. First time that I have seen an editor's own Excel spreadsheet used as a source, novel!
Bendix carburetor redirects to pressure carburetor where it should ideally redirect to the other article. They do seem to be known as Bendix carburetors, other sources that I have might confirm that. Merging looks more likely to me now but it won't be a five minute job for the editor who takes it on. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Jetspecs JPT or TIT

Which do we need? Either or both. As probably the most important parameter in a turbine engine specs it makes sense to have the choice of the most used parameters.

JPT
Jet Pipe Temperature - the temperature of the gas flow AFTER the turbine,
TIT
Turbine Inlet Temperature - the temperature of the gas as it enters the turbine section.

Either may be quoted in specs, usually according to the method of fuel control, so it makes sense to have the option of showing either, (but not both at the same time) in Template:Jetspecs. Anybody else have any thoughts?--Petebutt (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither, I can't see how this parameter is important at all in a general encylopedia. The other problem that has just occurred to me is that the Pistonspecs and Jetspecs templates are not transcluded, this means that any changes to the template itself do not appear in articles. What happens then is that the template in articles is at a different form to the master, this could cause a lot of confusion. Often I copy a set of specs from one article to another, amending the numbers as required, doing it this way the template master is bypassed. Many of the articles have the |ref= parameter missing which should be added to align them with the master (with the benefit of a tidier sourcing note at the same time). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Rather obviously we need both as parameters, and will usually whichever (or both) are sourceable. Didn't we already have some idiot decision on this a few years ago, where they ended up merged because the loudest voice didn't understand the difference, and "EGT" doesn't make it quite so clear. Mind you, "I can't see how this parameter is important at all" is pretty bloody ignorant in its own way. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Nimbus seems to be getting a bit heated over this. Whether he wants to see engine specs in an article is neither here nor there. What is more important is to have a template that is a good tool for editors thet doesn't leave them wanting for more. Don't forget, the content is driven by editors, NOT the readers. So I re-iterate both or neither, but both is better!!!--Petebutt (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not getting heated at all. I do follow and applaud the principle of 'less is more' so that important facts can be found easily. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is a fairly short guide as to what should and shouldn't be in an article, WP:NOT is a longer one. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Neither of those apply in this case.--Petebutt (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Different engines use TIT, EGT or JPT as limiting parameters and so will normally just have one specified and not the others. That said, I agree with Nimbus that this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. These are operational parameters that the pilot needs to know, but they don't tell tell the causal reader anything useful and can't be used for comparison purposes. This is really into WP:NOTMANUAL territory. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll play devil's advocate; TIT (Turbine Inlet Temperature) is a valuable specification because that is a defining characteristic of a turbine engine. It's the temperature directly after the combustor and is a design "pinch point". An argument could be made that increasing the TIT has been one of the prime technology drivers in gas turbines (and therefore all high-temperature materials). It is the reason why we developed nickel-based superalloys to replace stainless steel and it is the reason that ceramic-metal composites (CMCs) are being developed today. I'd argue that, where available, TIT is a useful spec to keep around. SidewinderX (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Unused navbox templates

Following on from the mass deletion nominations I've discovered a large quantity of aero engine navbox templates that are unused (the only relevant link being aircraft engine in the title). Most of the redlinks contained in them will probably never be written, other templates are hybrids of existing templates (Template:Siemens-Schuckert/Bramo is a mixture of Template:Siemens-Halske aeroengines, Template:BMW aeroengines and Template:Siemens-Schuckert aircraft, completely unused).

I propose that the list at User:Buster40004/Templates is examined and checked then a single entry to delete them is raised. The creator of these templates left the project last year after a copyvio investigation. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support getting rid of any that are not bing used in actual articles on the engine types. If they are being used anywhere though they could probably be kept. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll list them below with notes and we can better assess the problem. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Initial list

  1. Template:Allen Aircraft Engine Co No company article, one link, little prospect of any more to come.
  2. Template:Ashmusen aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  3. Template:Atwood aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  4. Template:Austro-Daimler All links point to Austro-Daimler 6?!
  5. Template:Breguet-Bugatti aeroengines Only one engine blue link, no company link
  6. Template:British Anzani aeroengines No blue links (but there are engine articles), redundant to Template:Anzani aeroengines, unused.
  7. Template:Charomskiy Engines Two links, no company link.
  8. Template:E.N.V. Motor Syndicate aeroengines One blue link which is an anchor to the company article (which is not linked)
  9. Template:Ford aeroengines No blue links (single link redirects to the Argus pulse jet), unused.
  10. Template:Giannini aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  11. Template:Guiberson aeroengines Four links all pointing to the same engine, no company link
  12. Template:Hiller aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  13. Template:Imperial Japanese unified military aeroengines Strange coding? Unused.
  14. Template:Konrad aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  15. Template:Kirkham aeroengines One blue link which redirects to a Curtiss engine, unused.
  16. Template:Kemp aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  17. Template:Kalep aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  18. Template:Light aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  19. Template:Lenape aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  20. Template:LeBlond aeroengines All links now point to the company article as an editor redirected the engine articles
  21. Template:Maximotor aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  22. Template:Marquardt Corporation aeroengines Only one link but it may be possible to fill this.
  23. Template:Metropolitan-Vickers aeroengines All links point to one article
  24. Template:Mistral Engine Company aeroengines One blue link
  25. Template:Morehouse aeroengines No blue links, unused
  26. Template:Murray-Willat aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  27. Template:N.E.C. aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  28. Template:Panhard & Levassor aeroengines No blue links or company link (a sea of redlinks!), unused.
  29. Template:Rausenberger aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  30. Template:Redrup aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  31. Template:Rearwin Aircraft & Engines Inc aeroengines No blue links, unused
  32. Template:Roberts Motor Co aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  33. Template:Rheinmetall-Borsig aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  34. Template:Scott Motor Cycle Company ltd. aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  35. Template:Siemens-Schuckert/Bramo Redundant to Siemens-Halske, BMW and Siemens-Shuckhert templates, unused.
  36. Template:Statax Engine Company Ltd. aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  37. Template:B F Sturtevant Div, Sturtevant Manufacturing Co aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  38. Template:Szekely Corp aeroengines One blue link, no company link
  39. Template:Thomas Aeromotor Co Inc aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  40. Template:Thorotzkai aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  41. Template:Westphalisch-Anhaltische Springstoff A.G. aeroengines No blue links, unused.

I've struck through templates that I believe are ok, will leave them here for a bit. If we remove the struck entries that will shorten the list. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Have removed the struck entries to shorten the list. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Checked list

  1. Template:Ashmusen aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  2. Template:Atwood aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  3. Template:British Anzani aeroengines No blue links, redundant to Template:Anzani aeroengines, unused.
  4. Template:Giannini aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  5. Template:Hiller aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  6. Template:Imperial Japanese unified military aeroengines Strange coding? Unused.
  7. Template:Konrad aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  8. Template:Kirkham aeroengines One blue link which redirects to a Curtiss engine, unused.
  9. Template:Kemp aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  10. Template:Kalep aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  11. Template:Light aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  12. Template:Lenape aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  13. Template:Maximotor aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  14. Template:Morehouse aeroengines No blue links, unused
  15. Template:Murray-Willat aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  16. Template:N.E.C. aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  17. Template:Panhard & Levassor aeroengines No blue links or company link (a sea of redlinks!), unused.
  18. Template:Rausenberger aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  19. Template:Redrup aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  20. Template:Rearwin Aircraft & Engines Inc aeroengines No blue links, unused
  21. Template:Roberts Motor Co aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  22. Template:Rheinmetall-Borsig aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  23. Template:Scott Motor Cycle Company ltd. aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  24. Template:Siemens-Schuckert/Bramo Redundant to Siemens-Halske, BMW and Siemens-Shuckhert templates, unused.
  25. Template:Statax Engine Company Ltd. aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  26. Template:B F Sturtevant Div, Sturtevant Manufacturing Co aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  27. Template:Thomas Aeromotor Co Inc aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  28. Template:Thorotzkai aeroengines No blue links, unused.
  29. Template:Westphalisch-Anhaltische Springstoff A.G. aeroengines No blue links, unused.

I have thoroughly checked the 29 templates listed immediately above ('what links here?') and none of them have any blue links or are used in articles (or anywhere else for that matter!) apart from Template:Siemens-Schuckert/Bramo which is redundant as it is covered by three other templates. I'm not usually a deletionist but these fellas are clogging up Category:Manufacturer-based aircraft engine navigational boxes. I would like to nominate them at TfD after consideration by task force members, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree they should be deleted no point in having them lying around if they are not used, worst case they can always be recreated when actually needed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it might be next week now but there is no rush. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Great work. I think we can safely get rid of these ones, they really serve no useful purpose. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Roger, will get round to it eventually, if not you guys could do it. Middle of the holiday season and going away for a few days next week. I did work on a rocket engine article in a sandbox, looks better but it needs expanding and tidying, difficult with few refs! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see it as a "high priority", so it will probably be still here for action when you get back! - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated the first 20 templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 15#Aircraft engine navbox templates. There is a technical limitation with the 'tfd2' template which will require another entry for the remaining nine templates. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The remaining nine templates have also been nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 15#Aircraft engine navbox templates (further entry). I have notified the author even though they appear to have left the project, should I also notify at WT:AIR, strictly we are part of the aircraft project so perhaps this is not needed? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
All the templates in the second list which were nominated have been deleted, it leaves some blue links in the first list which may want improving. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Rocket engine article format?

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

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

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

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

vertical engines

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

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

How's @!

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

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

Lists of rocket engines

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

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

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

Six years?!

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

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

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

Time to Branch Template:Rocket engines?

I've been working on this template a lot. I've written no less than 20 new articles, added quite a bunch of engines, motors and categories. But the template lacks a clear scoping. One underlying problem is that I've been seeing a clash between Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation! In fact, the template is claimed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight. To be frank, I will open discussions on the three boards because I want to propose to separate the template in three different templates, one for each project. I believe that aircraft engines should be on a separate template, or even a list. I also wonder what is the correct project for the military rocket missiles. Please discuss it in the Template TalkPage

Baldusi (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Aviation Rocket Engine template.

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

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

Template:Suborbital rocket engines

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

Due to lack of comments I assumed nobody had any problems and I've moved it as a template to Template:Suborbital rocket engines. I will add it to the named engines.Baldusi (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The lack of comments is probably because spacecraft or 'wingless' missile rocket engines are outside the scope of this task force, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
There are the X-15, SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo engines. Which are all airplanes. In the near future XCOR Lynx will probably also go in there. I guess it is not pure aviation, but that is somewhat related to it. In any case it is up an if anybody feels that it is a mistake, can write so in the template Talk page. Baldusi (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, they are aircraft. The problem has been that different task forces and projects have different ideas or standards in article layout for rocket engines, personally I have stayed away from it (apart from rocket engines used in conventional 'low flying' aircraft which do come in the scope). No easy answer. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've pulled Skylark from the suborbital engine template - that's a rocket system. It's engines were the Rocket Propulsion Establishment Raven and Goldfinch. No articles for those. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Engines/Archive_10&oldid=746238097"