Talk:List of aircraft engines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION 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.
Aviation Portal
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] TUrbocompound

Turbocompound isn't (as I understand it) a jet engine. Also, where is the R3350 TC variant, developed after WW2? Trekphiler 23:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

I think the use of flags in this article is distracting and cluttered. I've asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft for anyone who wants to weigh in. --Rlandmann 02:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. - BillCJ 04:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Rlandmann, flags should be removed if the list is to remain ordered by engine name. MilborneOne 11:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. idsnowdog 9:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC) I don't think the flags are distractive. Although I wouldn't mind seeing engines sorted by country in alphabetical order with a single flag entry for each.

I've started to cleaning cleaned this list from flags except "piston engine" section - I'll make it tomorrow. I've entered alphabetical order by country of origin. This should make this article cmore readable and should bring more order to the list. Piotr Mikołajski 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ireally don't see why these engines should be grouped by country. I've re-arranged the list so that it parallels the List of aircraft, a straight alphabetical list, with a subheading for each manufacturer. If you think that a by-country listing is useful, we could always make List of aircraft engines by country, just like someone split off List of aircraft engine manufacturers by country from the List of aircraft engine manufacturers. --Rlandmann 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to clear all these cluttered flags, nothing more. Maybe we should split this article to several smaller with List of turbofan aircraft engines but it's another story. Piotr Mikołajski 10:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that eventually at least a split between piston and turbines (at least!) will be a better way to go, but it's probably not too big yet to worry about... --Rlandmann 11:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It took some getting used too but I think the changes are good. Would anyone be opposed to adding a single country flag next to each manufacturer? Something to remember is that although this list is a wonderful resource for those in the know, I think national flags would provide context to the uninformed. I will abide by your decisions Idsnowdog 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

"Oppose" is probably a bit too strong a word; but I really wish you wouldn't. This list is pretty much just an index to our coverage of aircraft engines - it's not complete and probably never will be. As such, I think it's best to be left as minimalist as possible, leaving the actual content on the pages of the manufacturers and engines themselves.
More to the point, however, I think that adding flags tends to unduly emphasise the importance of the country of origin of the engine. Take a read of this draft proposal - it's not Wikipedia policy (yet), so it's not a "rule" as such, but I personally feel that the two sections Don't emphasize nationality without good reason and Help the reader rather than decorate are strongly applicable to pages like this one. Flag icons can be really useful to express information concisely (like in summaries of battles -example - or sporting events) but in lists they are (IMHO) simply decoration that doesn't tell the reader anything that typing out the country name wouldn't. In most cases, it actually tells the reader less (see the section on Problems with flag icons in this user essay).
Finally, read the discusson that WikiProject:Aircraft has been having about this issue: there's strong support for restricting flags to just the user/operator section of articles.
In short, if you added these icons in, I wouldn't be reverting you, but like I said earlier... please don't! :) --Rlandmann 08:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

While looking around I noticed there is another list of aircraft engines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_engine_manufacturers_%28alphabetical%29 This one is in alphabetical order without sub groups for type of engine. Should this list be merged excluding the links that don't pertain to aircraft engines? Idsnowdog 01:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No - that's a list of manufacturers, this is a list of engines, just as we have a list of aircraft and a list of aircraft manufacturers. --Rlandmann 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] de Havilland Cirrus?

Is the de Havilland Cirrus another name for the Cirrus Minor or Major? The two companies were related. Are there distinct engines from each or would a redirect be in order? Idsnowdog 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

These are completely different engines. The DH Cirrus was a 1924 design by Halford based on half of a wartime Renault Vee-8. If you've got Gunston, you can read about it on p.40. --Rlandmann 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we have different editions? The book I have mentions the Renault but doesn't give much detail of the DH cirrus. Idsnowdog 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The engine that Gunston is describing for the whole first paragraph - specifically, the Cirrus I, II, and III - is the one commonly (and inaccurately) referred to as the DH Cirrus. Cirrus (aircraft engine) would probably be the best name for the article, with de Havilland Cirrus, ADC Cirrus and Airdisco Cirrus redirecting to it. --Rlandmann 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing types

Considering how long this article has been here, I find it odd that no turboprop/turboshaft engines (or cartegores) are listed here. I would start them myself, but I wanted to make sure they weren't left out for a reason not obvious to me. Considering that some turboprop enignes also serve as turboshafts, and vice versa (T700/CT7, PT6 family), it would probably be best to list them together. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

They've always been here - they're just not showing on the Table of Contents at the moment - I'll try to figure out why... --Rlandmann 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, looks like a TOC error, though the Tp and TS aren't showing in the TOC. Makes me wonder if one that complicated is needed. - BillCJ 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wankel Engines

Maybe there should be an entry under the TOC for Wankel style engines? Although not numerous they are an interesting alternative technology. Idsnowdog 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! Do we have articles on any yet (apart from adapted auto engines, that is)? --Rlandmann 23:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that pulse jets, ramjets, scramjets, and pulse detonation engines also merit inclusion? Just as a technology primer? Idsnowdog 01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Again - absolutely! Even the couple of steam aero engines if we can round up the names of specific types. Remember that this is a list of engines, so things should only appear here if we can point to at least one specific example of that type. --Rlandmann 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWI engine table

I found this table and formatted it for wiki and some might find it useful for WWI engine articles. The rough specifications seem to match pretty well but I don't know about the fuel/oil consumption statistics?Idsnowdog 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWI engine table

Type Bore Stroke Comp Rat Liters Nom HP Normal HP Nom@10000ft Normal MEP@rpm Torque(lb-ft) Dry Weight Fuel Use lb/hr Oil Use lb/hr
LeRhone 9J 112mm 170mm 4.83:1 15.1 110 131@1300 95.9 86.7@1300 530 336 lbs 78.07 12.3
Clerget 9Z 120mm 160mm 4.36:1 16.3 110 122 89.3 77.7@- 513 367 lbs 96.4 11.3
Clerget 9B 120mm 160mm 4.56:1 16.3 130 134 98 84.5@1250 563 385 lbs 78.4 17.42
Clerget 9BF 120mm 172mm 2 types 17.5 140 148 108 87.7@1250 622 394 lbs 81.4 17.76
Clerget 11EB 120mm 190mm 5.1:1 23.6 200 197@1300 144 52.3@1300 796 512 lbs 141.8 28.7
Gnome 9B-2 110mm 150mm - 12.8 100 100@1200 - - - 272 lbs - -
Gnome 9N 115mm 170mm 5.2:1 15.9 150 154@1300 112.7 96.7@1300 622 320 lbs 126.28 16.9
Hispano 8? 120mm 130mm 4.7\5.3:1 11.8 200 208 152\161 115/121@2000 546/548 515 lbs 112/118.8 13.9/14.7