Talk:Isotta Fraschini Asso XI

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 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

Calculating displacement from the bore and stroke figures given, I get:

32.14 L (1,961 cu in) from the figures in mm.
32.17 L (1,963 cu in) from the figures in inches.
32.65 L (1,992 cu in) according to Jane's.

I realise that the specifications list uses a wiki-conversion to provide the dimensions in inchs, but then again, the two calculated-here displacement figures are closer to each other than the Jane's figure - and that's using 'inches rounded to the nearest 0.01 inch'.

Something's not right in the specification list. I wonder, given that it's a 1938 Jane's, if the problem is slide rule error or similar on the part of those who prepared the data for publication back then.Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's linear dimensions are the same of those here, so conversion is OK. There is some inconsistency, though, in the capacities they quote, even though these are normally provided by the manufacturer. There was an 18 cylinder Isotta-Frascini engine, the Asso-L1801RCC 15/40, with the same bore and stroke as the Asso XI. Jane's gives its capacity as 48.3 l; 2/3 of this is 32.2 l, not 32.65 l, and close to your 32.14 l.

I'd be inclined to leave Jane's number in the article but add a note giving the calculated capacity (in a Notes section). We are supposed to stick with the source figures and not do original research, but the inconsistency is worth pointing out.TSRL (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a sensible idea. Do you mean like what I've just done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael F 1967 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text is fine; thanks. I've tweaked it into a notes list, accessing it from an inline cite like refs. Gives the reader a little wake-up call.TSRL (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see. Much better. Ta. Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]