Talk:Wright R-790 Whirlwind

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wright R-790 Whirlwind article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Engines

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Displacement[edit]

...is actually closer to 787 than to 788 - 787.263. 68.148.93.15 (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's what you get when you calculate the displacement from the given bore and stroke. But that assumes that bore and stroke are perfectly accurate measurements, ignoring the possibility that they might be a tiny bit bigger than quoted and that displacement might have been measured separately. An increase of as little as 0.002 inches in stroke or just 0.0007 inches in bore would raise the displacement from your calculated value to 787.5, which would round up to 788. Issues like this are one reason why Wikipedia prefers to quote specifications from reliable sources rather than simply calculating them, and the FAA's Type Certificate Data Sheet for this engine gives its displacement as 788 cu in. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Consumption?[edit]

I'm a little surprised that this article doesn't give the engine's fuel consumption in gallons or pounds per hour - it's a pretty basic engine spec. But on the whole I find the article to be pretty good - informative and useful.108.68.36.85 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]