Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Redirects

User:Petebutt has redirected Lycoming O-1230 and Lycoming H-2470 to Hyper engine. As someone who finds redlinks useful in letting us know which articles still need to be created, creating redirects to other articles seems counter-productive yo me. Should we leaves these redirects in place, or try to have them deleted? - BilCat (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No those should be redlinks until the articles are written, not redirects to a general article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We also get users in good faith creating redirects to the related companies both for individual engines and aircraft. It does make it difficult sometimes to find the "missing" articles. MilborneOne (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael, what do we need to do to get the two redirect pages deleted? - BilCat (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In practical terms, is it quicker to write stubs for them over the existing redirect? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's probably preferable if it can be done. I don't have any that cover them beyond a sentence or 2, and we'd probably need a little more info than that. - BilCat (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And another one: General Electric GE1 redirected to General Electric J97, creating a circulr redirect in the J97 article. Could someone please inform Pete that these redirects are not helpful? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hyper engine

Speaking of which, the Hyper engine article is currently quite a mess, and totally unreferenced. - BilCat (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, let me have a look at it! - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I have gone though it in detail. It reads okay, but it has been tagged as OR and no refs for over 2 1/2 years! I did a search and it doesn't seem to be a copyright violation, at least not from internet sources. I have no refs for it and even the one ref in there marked "dead link" isn't available from archive.org. If none can be found I think we may have no choice but to reduce it to a stub, given the very old ref and OR warnings. - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, poking around looking for refs has yielded nothing of value, so I will go ahead and stub it. Feel free to revert if it can be improved. - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney PT1

I've created a stub on the Pratt & Whitney PT1, a very interesting engine project. Basically, it's a diesel cycle free piston gas generator with a turbine intended to power a propellor. I've got some more information from my source that I can add to describe the engine, but it requires substantial condensing and rewriting to use it on WP. Unfortunately, my limited understanding of engines prevents me from doing this myself, as it's a bit technical. Would anyone be interested in trying to help me with this? I could probably scan some pages from the source to mail/email if you don't have access to the book yourself. It probably requires someone with a basic understanding of Diesel cycle engines, and possibly gas turbines. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

New template for aircraft and engine programs

Hi all, at BilCat's suggestion, I've had a first go at a template for aircraft and engine development programs: {{Infobox aircraft program}}. It's another addition to the modular system we've already got, so its usage should be pretty familiar to most here. I've put an example in place over at Advanced Tactical Fighter. Comments, feedback, and improvements most welcome before we roll it out more widely! To keep discussion in one place, please leave notes over at WT:AIR] Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be most useful if the documentation page had the complete format that could be copied by a user and pasted onto an article page, as is done with the spec templates at Template:Aircraft specs. - 13:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure RL's planning on that, once the current template has been accepted by the project. For now, I'm just copying it from other pages as I go. - BilCat (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I should probably move that comment over to WT:AIR anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if that came across as snarky - I would like to see it too, but I know RL has a lot on his plate. Forgive me if I overstepped my bounds in answering for him. - BilCat (talk)

I didn't read it as snarky! ;) - Ahunt (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I just wanted to be sure I hadn't stomped on your toes with my respnse. RL has added the complete format now, so that's good. - BilCat (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all! I never expect delicateness! I see that RL has added that - thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And from the peanut gallery... looks good to me! I like this idea! -SidewinderX (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Continental TD-300

I've created a stub for the new Continental TD-300 engine, but it needs some attention from someone who can add in some details from the listed sources. (I'm more accustomed to writing articles for gas turbines than pistons/diesels.) Also, it seems that Contitnetal purchased an existing engine design in Europe - does anyone have a reliable source on what that design is? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it is a poorly guarded secret:

• Continental Unveils a Diesel Project (corrected)
• TCM Buys a Diesel: Does This Make Sense?

- Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Is the SMA SR305-230 supposed to be the engine? - BilCat (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is actually the 300 hp growth version of SMA SR305-230. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've added cross-links to each article. It looks like Continentla bought a license to produce and impove the engine? Also, I found a huge section in the SMA Engines company article about the conversion process for the Cessna 182, which I've moved to the SMA SR305-230 page. It could use some editing to make it into a proper main-text section, and some more source, and I'll try to work on that as I can. - BilCat (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that too, the company article was a bit of a mess. It looks better now, shorter at least! - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

SMA ENgines is a subsidiary of Safran, which the SMA article didn't even mention! I'll see what I can to to expand it too. Company articles are easier to work on the those on small aircraft engines, of which for the latter one usually needs a bit of personal knowledge of the technical side, while company articles just need good sources. - BilCat (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There's some history on the company in the French and German WPs, so I may see If I can find a transltor to help me with them. - BilCat (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I translated them with my browser no problem, but while they both have a bit more info there are no refs cited, so they aren't a lot of help! - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll check it out, and try to find some online reliable sources to cite. - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill Gunston's The Development of Piston Aero Engines, 2nd Edition has a large amount of info on the start of the company, with Gunston's typical commentary on the company's future as a great rival to Lycoming and Continental - typically wrong too! If verifies the origin of the company as a joint venture betwwen SOCATA and Morane Renault. He deatials at least 3 engine products, the MR 180, MR 250, and MR 300. The book was published before SNECMA bought 30% of the company, and its paretn, Safran's purchase of the whole company in 2005. We should be able to find that info inthe FlightGlobal archives. - BilCat (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That all makes sense and would make a good ref! - Ahunt (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added those AvWeb sources and some text in explanation. - Ahunt (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Continental have now been sold to the Chinese company Technify Motors, a subsid of AVIV International, according to AB Aviation World. The hope is that an injection of capital will follow and accelerate the diesel programme.TSRL (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne SJ61/SJX61/SJY61

We have an article on the Boeing X-51, but nothing as yet on its powerplant, the "Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne SJ61/SJX61/SJY61" scramjet. It might be a challenge to put this together, as the sources are somewhat limited., but I thoink having something onthe engine would be worth the effort. - BilCat (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This Flight Int'l article provides some background & early testing info on the engine. Not related, but the X-48's engines or its manufacturer, JetCat might justify an article as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at AIAA and the like and see if I can pull any useful sources out -- there might not be anything really great out quite yet. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And I'm back already -- haven't started a detailed search, but the one article I already had on my computer (The X-51A Scramjet Engine Flight Demonstration Program (2008)) seems like it will be useful. I think we may run into a bit of an issue with what is "X-51" and what is "S--61" specific. The vehicle itself basically a fuel tank and some avionics for the engine. I'm not sure if an easier way to go about it would be to flesh out the X-51 article, and then see if there is enough to pull out into an engine specific article. Do you think there is enough to make an engine specific article? And/or have you started working on a sandboxed version? -SidewinderX (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New category

A user has recently created Category:Twin-spool turbojet engines, I think this is over categorisation per Wikipedia:Overcategorization, under WP:OC#NARROW. It doesn't follow the convention of the other categories and I expect that many more might be on the way. I think it should be deleted before it is populated. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I concure that having it under "tubojet" is definitely overcategorization. But what if it was more generic, such as "twin-spool turbine engine"? This would also cover the two-spool turbofans and turboprop/shafts. Also, which is more common, "twin-spool" or "two-spool"? I think P&W usually called theirs "two-spools". - BilCat (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see the point of this category. Checks of page hits show that users rare visit category pages, even the most common and generic ones. Making lots more won't accomplish much. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I rarely use article-space categories myself, but they can be usful in some circumstances. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The user has some history of having created categories deleted, they may not be aware of the guideline. I am working at the moment but will CfD it as soon as I can, unless someone else wants to. This will save the wasted effort of adding the categories to many articles. 'Twin-spool' in the UK BTW. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur with the CfD. I'm _fd-deficient, or I would nominate it myself. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Now nominated, see here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, category has been removed from articles by bot. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Bill on that one! - Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And I note that the creator of the category didn't even bother to comment on its deletion! - BilCat (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess he wasn't that emotionally attached to it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriesbox Aircraft Propulsion

Most of our articles related to aircraft propulsion carry the Seriesbox Aircraft Propulsion. It contains a Wikilink to our article Propeller. However, this article is about propellers in general, and most of the article is devoted to marine propellers. A superior article for use with aircraft articles is Propeller (aircraft) because this article is devoted to aircraft propellers and contains much relevant information not available at Propeller.

Could someone who is skilled at manipulating this Seriesbox alter the Wikilink? Thanks. Dolphin (t) 06:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, something that was missed when the two articles were split, thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nimbus. Your Propeller (aircraft) is now significantly more appropriate than the older Propeller. Dolphin (t) 20:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, noting that the article is not mine, I have been sadly accused of article/template ownership by others in the past, I create articles and templates for the community to edit per the WP spirit (and the aircraft propeller article was a cobbled together but needed split). I see that I missed a few more link changes! Unfortunately what you are doing is the only way (a bot can't tell the difference). Please consider adding yourself as a member of this task force, your aviation engineering background and level thinking would be invaluable. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I will have a look at what the task force is doing to see if there is something I could contribute to. Cheers. Dolphin (t) 11:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a 'to do' box at the top of this page, a bit out of date but it's something. There is also a page full of missing engine articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Missing articles. Plenty to do! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledged! Dolphin (t) 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to do something that I feel is particularly important, start working on engine component articles (for example Combustor and Turbine blade are ones that I've spent a lot of time improving)! Now, I have no idea what would possess you to take into consideration my feelings, but I figured I could just throw it out there ;) . -SidewinderX (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136

The General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 article's Development sectiob is quite a mess, and could use the attention of a good copy writer. Anyone want to take up the challenge? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)