![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
The reference http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/spitfire/features/the-merlin-engine from the website "ICONS: a portrait of England" includes the Merlin engine in its "The Icons" collection. The folks behind the website are Jane Finnis (Director), Jon Pratty (Editor), Aline Tanner, Marian Cleary, Dawn Marshallsay, Tara Booth, Stuart Walton, Emily Sands, Peter Chrisp and Jane Utting. This is not exactly what you would call a "self-published" website, not at all a personal blog. In terms of being for us a reliable source it sits somewhere between a blog and a well known reportorial website.
However, the people at ICONS are writers selecting "icons" based on a perceived relation to England. They are not selecting icons based on their relation to the Allied war effort, the whole English speaking world, the former British Empire or even just the British United Kingdom of WWII. If the group of writers had included Scottish, Welsh and Cornish ones in addition to English they may well have said the Merlin was a "British icon". Who knows?
What we do know is that the Merlin was built in other places besides England. Glasgow, for instance.
I spent some time looking up the connection between the words "icon", "iconic", "exemplar", "symbolic" etc., the words "Merlin" and "engine", and either "British" or "English". What kept reoccurring in my Google Books search was that the Spitfire was named as iconic or symbolic of British air power in WWII, not the Merlin, and not just "English". "British" was better represented by more than 2:1 ratio. Rather than trying to stretch the one reference farther than it was intended, rather than trying to use logic to change "English" to "British", perhaps what's best here is that the whole battle about the engine being considered an icon be dropped. Binksternet ( talk) 02:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
While I realize it's uncited, it's also elementary math: pi(r2)(stroke)(#cyl)=displacment, & that gives 1648.96ci... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
"...brought about by wartime needs..." ? In 1933/5? What war was that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.122.34.10 ( talk) 12:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Trafford Park is in Stretford which is now part of the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford. While it is in what most people would call "Manchester", and is certainly in Greater Manchester and the Manchester conurbation, there is no need for us to be sloppy. Mr Stephen ( talk) 09:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
At Rolls-Royce Merlin#Carburettor developments, specific power is an unresolved link to a disambiguation page. Art LaPella ( talk) 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there some good reason not to use the convert template? Some of the conversions suffer from excess precision. Rees11 ( talk) 01:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The unit cost of this engine is listed as £2,000. This number is laughably low. Even in 1940 money it would have been at least 5x that amount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.223.46 ( talk) 03:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::Actually, the exchange rate was about US$4.75:£, so US$25000 is about £5300.
TREKphiler
any time you're ready, Uhura
06:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Or not. (Check the sources first... :( ) 06:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Been searching more and remembered that our Rolls-Royce Kestrel article had a cost, it is cited as £2,051 in 1934, the Kestrel being very similar to the Merlin. It adds some perspective at least. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations to all of those involved in the concerted effort to get this article to FA status! It was great to see it there on login today. -- TraceyR ( talk) 10:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Congrats! Well done, it's a fantastic article! Algaean ( talk) 15:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC) (Guapovia)
First of all I'm really sorry I had to edit this section as I wasn't able to start a new topic. Anyway, nowhere I could find when was the production of these engines halted, or is it still in production today? If yes, then which version etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.218.23 ( talk) 15:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I see "2-speed" was change to "2-stage". Is this right? I seem to recall the Merlin used both a 2-speed single stage & a 2-speed 2-stage blower. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Two simple points. The sound of the Merlin engine was unmistakable and very re-assuring. In the section on the carburretor there is some description of a pitch down rotation causing fuel starvation. Perhaps it would be better in these days to finally admit that aircraft with early Merlins were unable to fly inverted. Thus slow or hesitation rolls were out of the question as were outside turns. Which was why the myth about never doing a victory roll over the airfield because you might exacerbate any damage of the aircraft incurred in combat was invented. The truth was that there was every chance the engine might stop and at low level there was room neither to get out nor any chance of restarting the engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg40 ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I completely accept that's exactly right, but you do reaffirm my point that the reasons for not doing victory rolls were not as the myth. Very like the business about carrots improving night vision, the myth is over but the memory lingers on! I'm not sure I buy into your remarks about film coverage, however, as so often the films are too short to be sure what the aircraft is doing or are of the wrong mark of the aircraft and hence probably the wrong engine. AIUI there are very few films taken in the early days of Merlin powered aircraft and many of those are from Luftwaffe gun cameras. This is one of the articles where the lack of an ability to include short films is sorely missed, or is it perhaps that the films are not available? 80.58.205.35 ( talk) 13:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
At
WP:NBSP the guideline tells us to use non-breaking spaces, the
code, between numbers and abbreviated units, such as typing out '400
mph' when we want to see 400 mph without a line break between '400' and 'mph'. We read that hard spaces are appropriate "in expressions in which figures and abbreviations (or symbols) are separated by a space". The guideline specifically does not recommend using non-breaking spaces between a number and a full, unabbreviated word: one does not need to use non-breaking spaces between, say, '10,000' and 'feet', or between '400' and 'miles per hour'. I consider the excessive use of non-breaking spaces to be poor editing—its presence in a featured article sets a bad precedent.
Binksternet (
talk)
17:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
128 million
or 128{{nbsp}}million
to prevent a line break from occurring between them. The article was thoroughly edited for nbsps before the FAC, no comment was made otherwise. Perhaps the
MOSNUM guideline talk page should be visited for clarification and this article can return to a relatively peaceful existence. Cheers
Nimbus
(Cumulus nimbus floats by)
18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
The reference http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/spitfire/features/the-merlin-engine from the website "ICONS: a portrait of England" includes the Merlin engine in its "The Icons" collection. The folks behind the website are Jane Finnis (Director), Jon Pratty (Editor), Aline Tanner, Marian Cleary, Dawn Marshallsay, Tara Booth, Stuart Walton, Emily Sands, Peter Chrisp and Jane Utting. This is not exactly what you would call a "self-published" website, not at all a personal blog. In terms of being for us a reliable source it sits somewhere between a blog and a well known reportorial website.
However, the people at ICONS are writers selecting "icons" based on a perceived relation to England. They are not selecting icons based on their relation to the Allied war effort, the whole English speaking world, the former British Empire or even just the British United Kingdom of WWII. If the group of writers had included Scottish, Welsh and Cornish ones in addition to English they may well have said the Merlin was a "British icon". Who knows?
What we do know is that the Merlin was built in other places besides England. Glasgow, for instance.
I spent some time looking up the connection between the words "icon", "iconic", "exemplar", "symbolic" etc., the words "Merlin" and "engine", and either "British" or "English". What kept reoccurring in my Google Books search was that the Spitfire was named as iconic or symbolic of British air power in WWII, not the Merlin, and not just "English". "British" was better represented by more than 2:1 ratio. Rather than trying to stretch the one reference farther than it was intended, rather than trying to use logic to change "English" to "British", perhaps what's best here is that the whole battle about the engine being considered an icon be dropped. Binksternet ( talk) 02:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
While I realize it's uncited, it's also elementary math: pi(r2)(stroke)(#cyl)=displacment, & that gives 1648.96ci... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
"...brought about by wartime needs..." ? In 1933/5? What war was that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.122.34.10 ( talk) 12:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Trafford Park is in Stretford which is now part of the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford. While it is in what most people would call "Manchester", and is certainly in Greater Manchester and the Manchester conurbation, there is no need for us to be sloppy. Mr Stephen ( talk) 09:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
At Rolls-Royce Merlin#Carburettor developments, specific power is an unresolved link to a disambiguation page. Art LaPella ( talk) 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there some good reason not to use the convert template? Some of the conversions suffer from excess precision. Rees11 ( talk) 01:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The unit cost of this engine is listed as £2,000. This number is laughably low. Even in 1940 money it would have been at least 5x that amount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.223.46 ( talk) 03:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::Actually, the exchange rate was about US$4.75:£, so US$25000 is about £5300.
TREKphiler
any time you're ready, Uhura
06:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Or not. (Check the sources first... :( ) 06:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Been searching more and remembered that our Rolls-Royce Kestrel article had a cost, it is cited as £2,051 in 1934, the Kestrel being very similar to the Merlin. It adds some perspective at least. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations to all of those involved in the concerted effort to get this article to FA status! It was great to see it there on login today. -- TraceyR ( talk) 10:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Congrats! Well done, it's a fantastic article! Algaean ( talk) 15:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC) (Guapovia)
First of all I'm really sorry I had to edit this section as I wasn't able to start a new topic. Anyway, nowhere I could find when was the production of these engines halted, or is it still in production today? If yes, then which version etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.218.23 ( talk) 15:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I see "2-speed" was change to "2-stage". Is this right? I seem to recall the Merlin used both a 2-speed single stage & a 2-speed 2-stage blower. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Two simple points. The sound of the Merlin engine was unmistakable and very re-assuring. In the section on the carburretor there is some description of a pitch down rotation causing fuel starvation. Perhaps it would be better in these days to finally admit that aircraft with early Merlins were unable to fly inverted. Thus slow or hesitation rolls were out of the question as were outside turns. Which was why the myth about never doing a victory roll over the airfield because you might exacerbate any damage of the aircraft incurred in combat was invented. The truth was that there was every chance the engine might stop and at low level there was room neither to get out nor any chance of restarting the engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg40 ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I completely accept that's exactly right, but you do reaffirm my point that the reasons for not doing victory rolls were not as the myth. Very like the business about carrots improving night vision, the myth is over but the memory lingers on! I'm not sure I buy into your remarks about film coverage, however, as so often the films are too short to be sure what the aircraft is doing or are of the wrong mark of the aircraft and hence probably the wrong engine. AIUI there are very few films taken in the early days of Merlin powered aircraft and many of those are from Luftwaffe gun cameras. This is one of the articles where the lack of an ability to include short films is sorely missed, or is it perhaps that the films are not available? 80.58.205.35 ( talk) 13:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
At
WP:NBSP the guideline tells us to use non-breaking spaces, the
code, between numbers and abbreviated units, such as typing out '400
mph' when we want to see 400 mph without a line break between '400' and 'mph'. We read that hard spaces are appropriate "in expressions in which figures and abbreviations (or symbols) are separated by a space". The guideline specifically does not recommend using non-breaking spaces between a number and a full, unabbreviated word: one does not need to use non-breaking spaces between, say, '10,000' and 'feet', or between '400' and 'miles per hour'. I consider the excessive use of non-breaking spaces to be poor editing—its presence in a featured article sets a bad precedent.
Binksternet (
talk)
17:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
128 million
or 128{{nbsp}}million
to prevent a line break from occurring between them. The article was thoroughly edited for nbsps before the FAC, no comment was made otherwise. Perhaps the
MOSNUM guideline talk page should be visited for clarification and this article can return to a relatively peaceful existence. Cheers
Nimbus
(Cumulus nimbus floats by)
18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}}
template (see the
help page).