Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Project count

Done a bit of tagging tonight placing articles into Category:Aircraft engine task force articles and the current count is 767 articles (engines and engine companies). Found quite a few 'new' articles. Enjoy! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

904 now, good job! 1,000 by Christmas 2009? Great stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the count now? I keep finding engines that were still tagged as aircraft, so I think we might be getting close! -SidewinderX (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The grand total is 972 according to Category:Aircraft engine articles by quality, might still be some untagged ones out there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

1,082. Good effort chaps. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

General Electric YF120

I have just updated the whole article (General Electric YF120) with a greatly reworked version from my sandbox... any comments/suggestions etc? It's been a bit of a chore because very little was released about the engine. I also went into a bit more detail about the variable-cycle aspects of the engine as the as the variable cycle engine article needs a fair bit of work IMO. -SidewinderX (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Will comment in time and on the other articles you are working on, sorry guys if my replies are a bit short at the moment, my head is on fire with the Merlin FA and I'm also helping with the Spitfire GA review, doh!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone ever get a chance to look at this? -SidewinderX (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I get someone to run me through the B-class checklist here... trying to tidy-up the project! -SidewinderX (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, comments posted on talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ominously quiet!

Anybody in?! Very quiet in here at the moment. Just 36 articles needed to crack 1,000 before Christmas, could be done. Must be our first anniversary soon? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

11 December is time for the party hats, a special barnstar awaits anyone who can turn the Tumansky R-29 article into English! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got my eyes set on writing an article for the Teledyne J402 engine... been collecting sources for awhile now... I've been going on a small jet engine tear for awhile now... if you're looking for something to do, feel free to look over Teledyne F106, Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology, Microturbo TRI-40, and/or Microturbo TRI 60 :p -SidewinderX (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on a bunch of Soviet-era engines. Amazing how little there is available on the early Soviet jet engines, even at this late date. Especially the ones that weren't widely used:-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, now all the most common ones are covered it is getting quite tricky, probably why I've been concentrating on improving existing articles! Quite a few manufacturer categories missing that I planned to attack one day. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

I have just opened a peer review for the Rolls-Royce R at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/Rolls-Royce R if anyone feels like dropping by, certainly not your average aero engine article but it was fun learning all about its history! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

CFM56 and Variants

I have decided that I am going to take a break from low profile engines and take a crack at a pretty high profile engine that needs a fair amount of work, the CFM_International_CFM56 article. I was wondering if there was any consensus on how to deal with a large number of variants that have fairly substantial differences. The original author summarized the differences in the text, but I'm wondering if a table and/or chart would be a reasonable way to do it (not getting rid of the prose, but just as a visual aid). Has that been done before? Or are there any standards I should be aware of before doing that? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Several ways that it could be done, a summary table after 'Specs' or in 'Variants', split to a new 'List of CFM56 variants' article (if you do that with the CFM56 though there would not be much left as there is no design and development section at the moment), more at WP:SPLIT. A mis-diagnosed failure of a CFM56 resulted in the Kegworth air disaster, a nasty accident that I remember well, something for a 'safety' section perhaps. No rules, just whatever works best for each article. I split Rolls-Royce Trent into series articles but that article was enormous at the time. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You could try the approach I used in Lycoming O-320, which is definitely flexible! - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow Ahunt, that is quite the breakdown there! I might try a table if I have that much going on. A development/design section is probably going to be a big part of what I'm adding, so we'll see what the article looks like when I get to it. I may try something, then put it up for peer review and see the reaction. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Lycoming O-360 variants is an even longer list - 167 variants. It is hard to know how to deal with some of those really long lists. - Ahunt (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Just a wee update for now... I have been working a lot on the early history of the engine, and I've almost finished up the background to the development... if anyone's interested in reading what I've got so far, feel free to click through to my sandbox. I've mostly just added the early development stuff. Still tons to do on the article, but the early stuff is really interesting! Lots of political intrigue, some of which was only declassified in 2007! -SidewinderX (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, high bypass ratio can be filled with bypass ratio, we use 'and' instead of '&' in the text on WP generally. Citing will be the harder part of the process. I answered the task force count query BTW, 972 articles tagged with the engine task force to date, not all engines because of components, terminology, companies and people etc. but we are getting up there for sure, cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Good catch on the bypass ratio thing, I'll make sure to fix that before it goes live. I used "&" only in "Pratt & Whitney" I believe, as it is the company's name (not "Pratt and Whitney"). I've been trying to cite as I go, if you see some horrible mistake point it out! -SidewinderX (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is in the lead: A340-200 & -300. I am afraid that in my day job I am paid to spot macroscopic things!! If you can merge this (or parts of it) with the current CFM 56 article (design section is empty?) then move it into the article and we could discuss specific details on the article talk page. I am wearing myself very thin with all the engines I know, we need many more knowledgable volunteers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I copied the current CFM56 page, that's what the basis is for this my sandbox. I was basically going to rewrite and/or reorganize the whole thing, and then replace the current article. Then I was probably going to start a peer-review... I'm kinda hoping for a GA or A class outta this by the end of it. -SidewinderX (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as you are happy that your new version is better and that it does not loose any cited facts added by previous editors. I thought about doing it this way for the Rolls-Royce Merlin article but opted in the end to go for the slow, two-year tortuous approach! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, time for another "philosophy" question: I have reached a point now where I've covered most of the early development history of the engine (take a look here), and I can take one of two paths forward. I could either continue working on the "development" section, taking the engine through to its modern iterations. OR I could break now, write the design section that covers form and function of the engine, and then cover the more recent developments in the variant section, kind of how another editor has started. I'm leaning toward the second option, because most of the more recent development work deals with configuration changes, and that that will be a bit confusing unless they have already read the design section that describes the configuration. Does that sound reasonable? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the design section is empty so that is what I would work on next! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Engine Component Definitions

(Subtitle: A Modest Proposal)
While I have been working on my CFM56 rewrite, I've realized that many common terms/components are poorly defined, or not at all, on Wikipedia. The standard practice is to wiki-link them to the "best" article we have on the subject, like gearbox, but those articles generally don't have a good definition/explanation of how it relates to aircraft engines. So when perusing the wikiworld, I was surprised to discover this page about jet engine components, that does a decent job, in places, of explaining some components and linking to the larger article. However, that article is incomplete and/or covers some topics in too much depth (i.e., those topics are better covered in their own articles).

What I have been doing in my CFM56 rewrite is defining key terms that aren't well defined elsewhere using a nota bene, as seen here.

What I propose is to reformat the Components of jet engines article (and create a "components of piston engines" article if one doesn't exist) to simply have an easy to understand definition of the components and terms as they apply to aircraft engines so that we can link to them in engine articles. For example, there would be a definition of "spools" as they apply to jet engines that I could link to in an article instead of using a nb as I did above. Then, on the definition page, we could have a link to the larger article, if there is one.

Another example: Turbine is regularly linked to from jet engine articles, because the turbine is an incredibly important part of a jet engine. However, that article is really talking about turbines in general, and doesn't easily explain it in the context of a jet engine, which is what a non-expert reader would be looking for when they clicked on the wiki-link. My proposal would have them linked to the turbine definition section in the components article, which would explain the turbine in the context of jet engines. THEN they could click on the link to the larger turbine article from there, if they wanted to learn more details.

In that way, I think that we could make it easier for non-experts to understand aircraft engine articles, while also not compromising the detail and quality of the article. What do ya'll think? -SidewinderX (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I missed this completely, yes, absolutely. I planned to produce an engine components navbox, the problem is that the articles that we want to link to are not always aircraft specific, that can be fixed. Great thinking. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooooh, a navbox would be nice. I will probably focus on the CFM56 article in the near term, as I inch closer to a peer review. But my next project with probably be to start fixing up that jet engine components article. In a related question, do you think that there is any value in breaking off some terms and starting stub/start articles for them, such as "Annular Combustor", or just to try and make a section in the larger combustor article? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, so I'm closer to actually doing this now, and I'm still trying to make my plan of attack. I was thinking of using |this article as my base. Ideally, I would like to set up the headers (maybe have each term be a "4th" level header) so that we can directly link to that definition in article. However, doing that would make the table of contents on that page ridiculous. I personally don't mind doing that for this one case, but would others have an issue with that? -SidewinderX (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We can use a TOC limit to show only the top 3 heading levels; those are usually the most important headers anyway. - BilCat (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And if we do that, we will still be able to directly wiki-link to the sections? What's the syntax to do that? -SidewinderX (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I finally found it: {{TOClimit|limit=2}} - BilCat (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce R, FAC nomination

Although it only has one letter for a name I have nominated this aero engine article for FAC, your comments would be very welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce R/archive1, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Has just been pRomoted, maRvellous!! Thanks are due to Adam and Sidewinder for pitching in with positive comments at the review. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations - you did all the hard work! - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya, congratulations! I'm glad my review helped! Now your're racking up FAs for the AETF! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, not forgetting the hefty input of my tamed copy-editor (you have to watch Top Gear to get this), Red Sunset who had a big hand in the Merlin as well. We are looking at an article that is not an aero engine and will be a challenge, will let you know if and when we go for it. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that some say his arms turn brown and fall off in the autumn.... it's finally in HD! :D -SidewinderX (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

'Some say that he talks to dolphins, all we know is that he's the Stig!!' Compulsive viewing, a new series started last weekend, they are all mad! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Allison T701

Just looking at removing a redlink for the Allison T701, it was a turboshaft and three were proposed for the Boeing Vertol XCH-62. The XCH-62 article had the engine listed as the Allison 501-M62 which was the company designation for the T701. Problem I have is that the Allison 501 links to the Allison T56 pages which also covers some of the 501 series. I have changed the link on the XCH-62 to T701 for the moment as I doesnt not look like a simple variant of the T56 as the power output seems to a lot more than a simple T56/501-D. A lot of later projects appear to have been based on the T701. Should it just be mentioned on the T56 page or have an article created. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There is some info on it from web searches, Bill might have more, worth dropping him a note as he lost his watchlist and might not be visiting here at the moment. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Gary, I'm watching! As far as I can tell, the T701 is a different engine than the Model 501 serieses, especially given the power output. As such, it should have it's own page at some point. If we can find a little more about it, we can make a stub. The Model 570 is also related to the T701, and was used in some early propfan tests. The Pratt and Whitney/Allison 578-DX might also be related to one or both of those. Intersting. - BilCat (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good show, been a bit quiet in here lately, thought we'd got them all for a minute!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the T701... if you want to front the money, I can order a paper copy of this report about T701 derivative concepts. It's approved for public release, so you might be able to find it floating around somewhere else. Additionally, I have an AIAA paper about the T701 derivatives that I can send you if you want (700 kb). (more follows)

Janes says this about the 501-M62: Military designation T701-AD-700. Turboshaft engine for Boeing XCH-62 heavy-lift helicopter (developmernt abandoned). Upgraded variable-stator power section. T-O rating 6,025 kW (8,079 shp). Interim stage in route to AE1107, which see.. The AE1107 being the V-22 engine (aka T406). -SidewinderX (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

CFM56 Peer Review

I have just opened a peer review for the hugely updated CFM56 article. Feel free to whack at it if you have some time! CFM56 Peer Review Link -SidewinderX (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I've added a "engine failures" section to the article and left a couple of comments on the peer review page. Once I get some feedback on that, I'd like to close the peer review and put it up for A-class. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

An old friend?

Been noticing edits like this [1] lately. I'm watching it, the pattern is small 'corrections' to cited specification figures in piston engines with no edit summary. I think that this is one editor with an account who also uses three additional IP addresses though I'm not allowed to say so or report this minor annoyance. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup that looks like him. - Ahunt (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I hope that he doesn't burn his calculator out! On a different subject there is a red-linked category at the bottom of this page 'Project-Class aircraft engine articles', I think Trevor added it a while ago. Just wondering what we are supposed to use it for? Maybe the missing engine page (which I can't remember where it is!!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No clue on that one! That IP has been busy. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well we could put the main engine page and the missing engine page in there I suppose, the missing engine article page is linked on the project page. The aircraft project doesn't seem to have a similar category in use. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am really not sure what the intention was. - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Must ask Trevor as he created the red link, I don't think we need it at the moment. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Could we perhaps get some of the articles our IP is editing semi-protected? He's obviuously not interested in discussing this now, but preventing him from editing these pages may force him to discuss it. He seems to be using dynamic IPs, and range blocks are even more difficult to justify than protection. Thanks. (As an aside, flagged protection would be really useful in these cases - if their edits are never "published", they might give up. Here's hoping Jimbo will quit dithering and get something done of flagged revisions soon.) - BilCat (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have protected Allison V-1710 and left a note on the IP talk page, if they dont respond we may need to consider protecting other articles. As Bill says with a dynamic IP it does make it harder to get him/her to talk. MilborneOne (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If he does use a registered name to make the same type edits, at least we'll have a consistent place to contact him. - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-standard specs table

There is a quite-ugly (it used to bw even uglier!) specs table format being used on the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW500 and Pratt & Whitney Canada PW600 articles, and perhaps more, all added by the same user a few years back. I know there is a better format out there, but I haven't been able to find it yet. Can someone help out? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would use 'jetspecs' and add any extra info in a variants section in plain text. I don't like these tables either. They are also virtually uncited. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this, just use jetspecs and describe important differences in the variant sections. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Walter M601/GE H80

Per this article, GE Aviation Czech is preparing the "new" H80 turboprop for testing. According to the aritcle, the H80 is based on the Walter M601, but with new components. I did find a reference to "M601-H90]] for the upgraded engine. My question is: Should we cover ithe H80 on the M601 page, or create a new article? Of course, we can do them subseqyently also, splitting of the H80 at a later point. This article also has some details. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they are describing it as a new engine and not a variant, also going to be a GE product so I think it can have its own article. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, but I wanted to get some opinions from the TF too. - BilCat (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's going to be a new engine it should have it's own page. Stubs aren't a necessarily a bad thing IMO! -SidewinderX (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For a title, should we go with General Electric H80, or GE Aviation Czech H80? For comparison, all the newer engines from Rolls-Royce North America (formerly allison) are labeld just "Rolls-Royce", even by Rolls-Royce itself. I'm not sure how GE is going to label the H80. Also, we probaly need to create an article for GE Aviation Czech, keeping the old Walter Aircraft Engines article separate. Walter Aircraft Engines still has its own webpage unbfer that name at http://www.walterengines.com/ . - BilCat (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

FWiW, here are some links about the H80. PR1, PR2. The second link calls the company "GE Aviation's wholly owned subsidiary, GE Aviation Czech s.r.o.". I don't know if that helps much. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Done! GE Aviation Czech H80 - it's a start anyway. The M601 article is not much better. - BilCat (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternate RR template

I've found the layout of the current Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines to be difficult to use, partly because it's listed by manufcturer, and I'm not that familiar with who made what engine. As an alternative, I've created User:BilCat/Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines to test listing them by type. Please take a look, and let me know if the new template is workable as a replacement for the current one, or if you prefer the current one. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the existing version relatively easy to use, probably because I've got used to it!! It does give a company timeline progression on the left. I have been pondering the size of the navbox lately and thought of splitting the piston engines and early gas turbines into their own boxes. Some of the later RB numbers are post-1971 which is not quite correct. I had a look at WP:NAVBOX there is an option to collapse the groups: Template:Navbox with collapsible groups. With this we could retain the existing layout and add new groups of turbofans, turboprops etc. Not sure how it would look fully expanded though! RR is a big company with many products over the years which gives us a challenge to overcome. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate boxes for the pistons and turines is worth condidering. I'm not so sue about the internal collapsing, but I'd like to see an example. I can work up the piston/turbine splits in sandboxes, but I might need some help on the piston configurations (Vs, radials, etc.). Also, the paistons mostly came in a earlier time period, so that will be informative too. - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's how the Germans do it: [2], I like the little company logo! I'm not 100% for a split at the moment, see what others think. The key with the navboxes is related articles, the piston engines and early jets were built by the same company (RR Limited) and designed mostly by the same people so they should stay together (pistons/early jets and designers). It gets trickier later on with the collaborations (I did add what type of engine each one was in that case) and where would the 'RB' numbers go?. Definitely needs some thought before doing anything as it will affect many articles. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Task force tweaking

I've done a little maintenance in here, added all the task force pages to Category:Project-Class aircraft engine articles which has fixed the redlink at the bottom of this page. I had an idea to add a task force page listing all the reliable sources that we can find. Will help us and any editor who would like to have a go at the missing article list. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Reference sources, feel free to add anything. I'm trying to list only reliable sources although I don't see why we could not list some less reliable ones that lead in the right direction, (the reliability of sources is definitely questioned at FAC level and several were thrown out during the Merlin and R reviews). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What do people think about using some of the pages at the Aircraft Engine Historical Society as sources? They seem to have a wealth of useful information there, both on their Reference page and elsewhere. (No, I'm not a member. Just happened to stumble across it a while back.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy anniversary

Well folks it is one year today that this task force was born. Membership is fairly static, myself, Adam, Bill and Sidey, must improve on that in the new year. What have we achieved? Structured guidelines that help content and reduce arguments, close to 1,000 articles tagged with the task force support, two hard fought featured articles and many more moved up the ladder.

The Tumansky R-29 remains the 'black sheep' of the family, an extra special barnstar would be awarded by Jimbo to anyone who could turn it in to English!!

What for 2010? Add more missing articles, improve existing articles and more importantly overtake the aircraft project with featured articles!! ;-) Cheers and all the best to you guys. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Has it been a year already? Or, has it only been a year? Don't forget Michael (Milb1), who pos in every so often. TSRL and Minorhistorian also drp by on occasion, and I think I've seen Jeff (Fnlayson) here to. Btw the way, what's our aticle count up to now? Weren't we trying to make a certain number (1000?) by the end of the year? I can throw a few stubs together if need be. :) And I'm glad to have Gary back with us full-time, for now anyway, as "real" life can intervene in cyberspace activities. And thanks to all for helping to keep editing fun. Thankfully we haven't had any knock-down drag-out fights so far!

As to projects, we probably need to make sure we have navboxes for all the aero-engine manufacturers that we have articles on, and probablay for some we don't, and that all the engine and company articles have the navboxes that already exist. Not sure how best to go about this, but do we have a master list of companies? We could split it up by sections, or just check off the list once a company has been checked. - BilCat (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a year already. Has certainly whizzed by, I'm happy on WP with nobody bothering me at the moment!!! Yes, there are other editors dropping by and thanks are due to them, I was going by the task force user box transclusions. The current count is 983 articles/templates/categories so just 17 to go. We are missing manufacturer categories, the navboxes sort of took over but we should have the categories as well, I will have a go at adding some later. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been a good year, although I have to admit I have been doing more on aircraft types than engines - must tackle the morass of two-strokes soon! Hope everyone has a good holiday season, with the opportunity to steal away to the PC now and then! - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Adam. Well with some new manufacturer categories created and tagging some stray articles I make the total 1,001!!! The count is here Category:Aircraft engine articles by quality. I have a feeling that the next 1,000 won't be so easy!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to be contributing... piece by piece things are getting better around the aero-engine world! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We're all happy then!! I wonder what will happen next year? Looking generally across Wikipedia it's my perception that many small edit wars or discussions are now occurring over minor style issues and the 'nitty-gritty' of our existing articles, especially higher profile ones as the majority of encyclopaedic information is already in them. I can't see this situation getting any better. I suppose that we are lucky in that we have many engine articles that need proper expansion, that's mainly where I hang out as it is nice and peaceful in most of them!!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the early days on Wikipedia, the days of rapidly writing tons of articles, is mostly coming to an end and the focus is now on quality rather than quantity. This seems to lead to more disputes over spellings, style and also in deleting the trash that has accumulated. It is needed, but a more contentious part of the process. Fortunately there is much article writing to be done here on aircraft engines! - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And the 'little planes' of course! You seem to be doing quite well with your one-man task force!! I'm sure that there is more discussion on the way forward for WP at places like the 'Village Pump', not on my watchlist, I just plough on blindly!! One area that I would like to revisit next year is some of the 'dodgy' engine component articles, particularly the Supercharger (aircraft) idea. Will be a challenge. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan - let's announce that here and then we can all have a look at it, rather like I did with Tundra tire. - Ahunt (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(arbitrary undent) Getting work done on some of those component articles seems like it would mesh well with my component page suggestion. That would be a good thing for us to add for sure! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that Supercharger is in a state of daily flux and I worry that splitting it will attract the same people (without commenting on what they are doing exactly), will have a look at it in the new year. There are some other less contentious aircraft piston engine components that I might have a go at first. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after not writing any new articles for a while (List of STOL aircraft ate up way too much time) I have now decided to tackle the Hirth two strokes, starting with Hirth F-23, which is done. Nine more to go. - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the Hirth two-strokes are all done, unless another secret one appears. Man they have a lot of them! Criticisms welcome - list at Template:Hirth aeroengines. - Ahunt (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work - Just noticed that the list of engines at Hirth is different to the navbox! (but not my many) MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It was on my list! Fixed, as is List of aircraft engines ! - Ahunt (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A thought

Had another dangerous thought!! We seem to be 'the odd one out' with organisation of task force pages, only just noticed that most (all?) of the others are using tabbed pages (like Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force). Would we be better moving to this format? I use this format for my user space and find it very handy. Would take a little bit of page moving (making sure that the AETF and AIRENG shortcuts still work) but it should not be particularly difficult. There are tabs that I had not thought about like 'AfD record' (have we ever had an engine AfD?!!). Happy to do it if you guys think that it is an improvement over what we currently have. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS check Tundra tire!!

I can fill several tabs already with what we have, the 'force' pages were set up quickly by RL, we are a tab of the aircraft project at the moment which might be useful to keep (noting where we might have moved to!). Gives scope for other stuff, we don't have notability guidelines for instance (we only need these to prove an article's worth to 'outsiders' as you know!). I checked the Tundra thingies, yep, we spell it wrong over here! Great expansion, I saw the early version. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Trevor should be able to help out if you need it, and perhaps make some further suggestions as to how to do it (layout, etc.). - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Righty then! Will probably have a look tomorrow, will ask Trevor if I get stuck. I think he overhauled the main aircraft page recently but all the av sub-projects and task forces are using the same tabbed layout (except us!). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I lied! If you have a look at the main page WP:AETF you will see some new tabs, no new content really at the moment. I have created two new shortcuts WP:AETF/PC and WP:AIRENG/PC to point to the page content page (handy for edit summaries). Everything is still working (minor miracle!) and we are still a tab of the aircraft project. The categories page is slightly more tidier and useful now as I have applied a 'tree' template to some of the bigger ones, manufacturers for instance, just click on the '+' to open them. Need to look at Category:Aircraft engines as it seems confused as to what should be in there exactly. There are two red tabs left, notability and help/FAQ. I will work on both of these soon. The article count box that I added to the main page is out of date. Have opened talk pages for all the new pages and am watching them, you might like to add them as well. Started a 'Participants' page and I took the liberty of adding names based on the user box transclusions. Happy surfing! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, I think you have mastered the tabs format! - -Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the code looks different on some other task force pages but the effect is the same! It has left the main page a bit empty, will try to jazz it up. My plan for the other two red pages is to crib a much shortened notability guide from the aircraft one (why is this an essay with a disclaimer?) and for the FAQ page I thought I would expand briefly on the article structure (Lead = who, what, where, when, etc.) Hope that nobody is planning to fly British Airways over the holidays BTW, a planned 12 day strike will finish it off, nice to see that British unions are still being helpful!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can jazz the lead page up with some engine photos, it looks like British Airways won't need theirs. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the possiblilty of BA aero-engines not working for 12 days

Maybe we can jazz the lead page up with some engine photos, it looks like British Airways won't need theirs. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! It's a scandal really, I have several friends who are BA pilots. Must not turn this into a forum but the union rep on the news tonight was proper old school, did not care one jot about people's travel plans. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thst seems to be the attitude of many unions here in the US also. I used to fly on Eastern Air Lines as a child with my family, and it was a great airline, probably better than Delta was at that time (early 80s). The pilots' union killed Eastern about 20 years ago (though to be fair, the owner probably had it on life support already). I remember flying through Miami Intl about 2 years after the airline had folded, and the union was still picketing Eastern at the airport! These people really don't live in the real world! I hpe BA has better luck - I've never flown it, but I'd like to have the option someday! - If we want to keep this thread going, feel free to move it to my talk page. - BilCat (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, they should stay home, permanently! - Ahunt (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the cabin crew moaning this time, it's glaringly obvious that they will all lose their jobs through their own actions when the airline folds, incredible. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my point on the Eastern pilots - two years after they lost theoir jobs, they were still picketing! I wonder if they ever flew airliners again. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course they might need to inhibit the engines and we should look into that with all due speed. ;-) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, just saw the story. What a way to make holiday air travel that much better :/. While this specific incident is easy to blame on the unions, it seems like the underlying issues are the airline business people, and us customers to some extent. With how bad all the major airlines are doing, I really think we just go used to paying too little for flights. We want better service for less money, and it just seems like the legacy airlines can't do that for us. It's going to get tougher and tougher to fly international inexpensively. And while it's easy to blame the unions for a lot of these strikes, most of these people really get sh** on by the airlines. A friend's dad was a pilot for Northwestern (now for Delta), and he really got screwed when they merged (retirement money, salary, hours, everything. The airline industry is one that I have no interest in being involved in. Whew, that was a mouthful! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

All that goes to show why it's pure self-interest for a union to strike when its company is stuggling to survive. However legetimate the issues may be, striking cannot help the company financially. I understand that the threat of a strike is a negotiating tool, but actually striking never helps a company financially - unless the company can replace the unionized workers wtin non-union wrokes (called "scabs" by unions, but "breadwinners" by hungry childern whose parents now have better jobs than they used to have.) WHile having benefits cut is no fun, companies can't survive in the current environment, as most low-cost airliners are non-union. I'm not here to argue the pros or cons of being unionized, but it's certainly more expensive for companies to have unionized enployes, and companies can't compete. Without renegotiating contracts, the only other option is to go out of business. Defunt unionized companies pay even less than non-union ones! - BilCat (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce R feedback

The R survived its day on the main page, was satisfying to see it there. An editor has added a 'media nod' tag to the talk page which links to this. They seemed to like it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we got away with only about a half a dozen vandal attacks, too! - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for batting a few off! Strange how this one came up before the Merlin, that's the one that worries me, it's already causing grief. Something to look forward to in the New Year!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the vandals were out at the Boxing Day Sales yesterday or else this article just didn't grab the vandal imagination, like say Sex Life of Tiger Woods might have. - Ahunt (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphan

I just found this lonely chap: M45SD-02, tempted to redirect it to Rolls-Royce/SNECMA M45H after the (uncited) info has been milked from it! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be a fair amount of references to it in the Flight Global archives, but I agree, probably can just be listed as a variant of the M45H. The M45H article is pretty thin as-is anyway. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite a bit for both engines there and a missing RB number (RB410) as well, might be able to stand on its own. It stood out as it did not have a manufacturer in the article name. I have got a photo that I took in a museum for the M45H, must upload it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A-Class Review for CFM56

Just letting everyone know that I have opened an A-Class Review for the CFM56. Please drop by and leave your comments! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A little reminder/request: the A-Class Review for the CFM56 is still open! I would really appreciate it if another couple editors could head over a take a look at it and leave comments! Specifically, if someone could take a look at the sources (regarding reliability) and the images (regarding suitability), that would be great (see Nimbus's comments on the review page). Thanks. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hispano-Suiza 9V

Just created an article on the Avia 57 airliner that was fitted with three 575hp Hispano-Suiza 9Vd radial engines, the Hispano-Suiza 9V is a licence built-copy of the Wright Cyclone. Should we link Hispano-Suiza 9V to Wright Cyclone ? although that makes no mention of licence production, also not sure which Wright Cyclone it actually is. Any thoughts, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd redirect it to the Wright Cyclone, and then add a sentence to the lead saying that "the Cyclone was also built under license as the the Hispano-Suiza 9V". That way a reader who clicked through would immediately understand. That's what I did for the Chinese WP-5

The 9Vd (from JAWA1938) had a swept volume of 1823 cu in, like the R-1820 series, but there may not have been an exact Wright match, as the Hispano engine had a compression ratio of only 5.7:1 and was not supercharged. The R-1820-Fxx in Jane's all have a (General Electric) supercharger and higher compression (>6.4). Maybe there were early unsupercharged R-1820-Fs?TSRL (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There were definitely earlier R-1820s than the F series, like the E series. The R-1820E matches the 9Vd's power value of 575 hp, but it seems to have been supercharged with a 5.1:1 compression ratio, and I don't know if any pre-F R-1820 Cyclones were unsupercharged. (Sources: [3], p 14, [4], p. 4.) Supposedly the R-1820E was covered by engine ATC 61, but the FAA doesn't have that data sheet or any others for R-1820s before the F series. As you said, there may not have been an exact match. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)