Talk:Hyper engine

How is this engine hypothetical if it's already been built? Heck, a production Dodge Viper is pretty close at 505 cu.in. displacement and 500 hp at the crank.

The hyper engine was a hypothetical aircraft engine design,... - was-being in the 1930s. Ian Dunster 12:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In my involvement with the Aircraft Engine Historical Society Finding Aid for records of the Engineering Division at the US National Archives, I have read tens of thousands of pages of original correspondence and reports having to do with all of the so-called "hyper" engines. In no case does the term "hyper" appear except in connection with the initial Air Corps experimental cylinders and with the XO-1430 and IV-1430 engines and test components thereof built by Continental. Because of this, I conclude that application of the term "hyper" to the engines of Allison, Ford, Chrysler, Lycoming, Wright Aeronautical and Studebaker is incorrect. -- Kimble D. McCutcheon 2007-07-31 23:02

I think the article is fairly clear on this, should it be made even more obvious? Maury 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on User talk:Buster40004/Sandbox/Projects/Hiper engine/Hyper engine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 01:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I have abandoned the move request and have copied my new article to the article and talk pages here. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 00:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my sandbox

This is a complete revision to the existing article. The existing article is nothing more than a lede, as all of the contents were deleted due to lack of citations, which are now included. Buster40004 Talk 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Or history-merge? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - bit early to be moving/merging. While you have made an admirable attempt at resurrection, at the moment most of the article is a list of powerful engines with their specification and use. The last two elements are largely redundant, as we have articles on them. And unless authors have compared them to the hyper project, it would be OR/SYNTH to include them. There seems to also be too much detail on how the engine p/w ratio could be improved. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

, is that directly referenced in

• Thanks for your work in restoring and citing this, after its recent brutal deletion. However as Anthony suggests, I think there needs to be something clever done here, not just a move, so as to preserve contribution history. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• No need for a move but the scope of the article title does need to be very clearly defined before it is expanded. I have also read that it related to a new type of cylinder design as mentioned in this sandbox lead, Bill Gunston mentions only a couple of American engines that may have been described as 'hyper' (it is true that he is not the only source out there though). This statement Over time, "high performance" was shortened to "hyper", a term that came to represent all engines capable of meeting the above design criteria... would need to have a solid reliable source. Have to agree that repeating specs sections from engine articles is unnecessary, it's content forking or duplication. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I applaud your intention to find refs for this subject and expand the article on the basis of them! I have to indicate that I don't see any reason to move anything here, why not just add new text to the existing article at Hyper engine? Also I have to agree with the comments above, your current draft has a lot of specs in it. I don't think we need a large number of specs, as these should be in the individual aircraft engine type articles and this article under discussion should be an overview of the subject, with a list of engines that are considered to be hyper engines, with links to the individual engine type articles. - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to all who took a look at this work in process. I will streamline it as suggested, and add that pesky cite for what may be the most significant point in the whole "hyper engine" debate. I will ring the bell again when I try my best to bring this back from the dead. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 14:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have streamlined the article by reducing the detail in the development section, removed the specifications and applications from the engines directly connected to the project, and removed those engine not specifically in the project. I fear that any deletions or major revision to the development section will detract from the overall value of the article. I invite all concerned to jump in and smooth the rough edges as necessary. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 16:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Commenting after talk page request. Much better, just some brief points as time is not on my side; a competition is mentioned, it's not quite clear to me when and how that competition ran, it's not mentioned in the lead. Were all the engines listed in that competition and classed officially as hyper engines? Possibly on the too technical side in places for lay readers. Cites should be the author name, not the book title, and 'designations.net' would be deemed a non-reliable source. Web sources used as references are not generally repeated in the external links section. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. As per Nimbus, I'd like the article to say how the project/"competition" ran, plus what those in the USAAC thought of the engines produced and when the project was wound up (I'm guessing once every man and his dog was able to turn out a engine with a high p/w and p/displacement ratios). There's some stylistic stuff, but I'd leave that until the work hits mainspace. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Other than the small points raised above I have to say it looks quite good - almost ready to merge into the existing article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My sincere thanks for the above advice. I sat back, took a few deep breaths, and added a whole lot about what I should have written in the first place. I have taken each of your comments and applied them as I wrote. I ask you take a second look. Thanks again for the splendid advice, and the lessons in improving my editing skills. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 01:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A thought, there are only a few hyper engine designs - have you considered a table showing their overall characteristics? Nothing too detailed - name, configuration, no of cylinders, displacement. 08:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a table would be a great idea and would show which individual articles had been written or needed writing, though the link colour. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I brought the most important data to this page, divided into FY 1940 and FY 1940 tables. From there, one can go on to the pertinent engine article. Missing engines are red linked as suggested above. Again, thanks to all of you for helping me to become a better editor. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Why don't you just replace the contents of the current article with the contents of your article? Makes it easier all around and preserves contribution history. The only thing you'll lose is the timing and content of each individual edit of yours. (If that's important, then a history merge is the only alternative.) --rgpk (comment) 19:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Done. Regards, Buster40004 Talk 23:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)