Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/Combustor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Combustor

I've listed this article for peer review because I have spent the past week or so greatly reorganizing, rewriting, and expanding this article to be a useful article about a jet engine component. I also added images where I could, and where I couldn't find free images, I made them myself. This article is the first article I've tackled as part of my Wikipedia New Year's resolution, which is to improve the engine component article to the point where they are actually useful to people, as most of them are in really terrible shape.

I have put a lot of work into it at this point, and I'd like to get some opinions before I move on with either expanding it or trying to get it promoted to A-class. There are several issues I would particularly like the reviewers to weigh in on.

First, this is a very technical topic that gets very complicated, very quickly. I have tried to write this article in a way that it will function on two levels. I want the article to be approachable by reader who has little prior knowledge. I don't want that reader to be scared away like some technical topics tend to do here. Additionally, I want there to be enough information in this article for a more advanced reader to read and learn something. How have I done so far? Is it too technical? Not detailed enough? If you read something and don't know what it means, or have a question about it, point that out here and I'll try and remedy that.

Second, organization. I have generally organized this article in the same manner as the books much of the material is sourced from is. Is this an intuitive manner to read about the subject?

Finally, I want to reiterate point 1. If you read something and don't know what it is, or what it means, let me know and I'll try and correct it.

Thanks,

SidewinderX (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was how do the different types of combustor fit in with the history of the development of the jet engine? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I talk a little bit about the history in the section about the types of combustors, but you're talking about a honest-to-goodness section with a history of the combustor, right? I'll have look around for a couple of sources (I have some stuff in my existing sources); I could probably write a decent history about what drove combustor design through time, but it would mostly be OR. I'll look for some sources. -SidewinderX (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The history section now added is a base to build on. Perhaps some more history could be added in other sections of the article eg when was the first cannular type introduced, how many combustors did an early jet use, did the number of combustors/injectors increase with the larger engines developed or was it size of combustor? that sort of thing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll look for some of that and see what I can add. That said, jet engines come in all shapes and sizes, and combustors of all types are used, so there isn't a simple progression from can to cannular to annular to double annular or anything like that. Likewise, even though there are very advanced liner cooling methods, for example, not all new engines use them, for cost or complexity reasons. For a lot of those specifics, I've tried to cover the general progression in the section about the component itself; for example, take a look at the fuel injector description. In my mind, that's the most sensible way to cover a lot of the history. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo Graeme that a history of the development of the combustor would be useful. Your citations should be formatted "source, pp. x-y". Your current method threw a bit, although it does offer the virtue of shortening the length of the citation list. And separate the citations from the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of argument, I'll say that the sources don't have be cited in any particular style, and editors are welcome to us Template:Rp as they see fit. That said, using it was more of an experiment in efficiency than anything else, and now you're the second person to complain about it. I think it has an elegant simplicity to it, but it clearly has several drawbacks. With the count at 1 yay and 2 nay comments, I will go ahead and move it back to the more standard style. Citation style aside, any other thoughts? -SidewinderX (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the citations are done. I'll look for sources about the history. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was probably one of the two nays, I'm pleased with the change of citation style! Two minor points: There are a few citations which refer to the same page numbers - these could be combined by using named references, to reduce the total number of entries. The other point is about using "pg." instead of "p." short for "page" - is this an accepted standard? I think that "p." is more commonly used. As for the article as a whole, it's way too technical (for me) for a quick scan assessment. I like the use of clear illustrations to support the text. --TraceyR (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs combined as mentioned above. --TraceyR (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning that up, I guess I didn't notice that when I was switching ref styles. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the description of the types of combustor "can-annular" is mentioned. Everywhere else "cannular" is used; I suggest e.g. "...can-annular, also known as 'cannular'...". OK? Also the statement "combustor or combustion chamber" suggests that the terms are equivalent. If this is the case, why not merge the 'combustion chamber' article (which is much shorter) into this one? If they are not equivalent, the wording needs to be changed. --TraceyR (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clear up the cannular/can-annular line... thanks for catching that. That's the kind of thing that I just read right past without noticing.
I don't want to merge the two articles because combustion chamber applies to things other than gas turbines. The combustor is a type of combustion chamber, but not all combustion chambers are combustors. Does that make sense? Now, to confuse the matter more, that's probably not a universal definition, but it is commonly used, at least in the American engineering community. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The position of the first image (before the intro) is unfortunate - it needs to be to the right of the text. --TraceyR (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen, the first image is to the right of the text. Can you describe how it is showing up on your screen? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK on my PC too, just not on my notebook. That's no doubt due to corrupted settings, since it was used with an LED projector which always does that until the next reboot. False alarm! --TraceyR (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undent Ok, I've reworked the "Fundementals" section, and add a brief history section to the article. Any comments? -SidewinderX (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.