![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I've just added a comment to the Lead on the main TF page about the AETF also covering Aero-derivative engines, and added Category:Aero-derivative engines to the Categories page. This has been discussed in a few places before, so I don't think I'm going against consesnus by adding these in. The main reason we ought to cover these engines is simply that no other project appears to do so. However, as a Task Force, other projects can join us in maintaining these articles, such as WP:SHIPS for the marine aero-derivatives, if tyhey so desire.
One issue that has come up before is that of project tagging on the article talk psges, as it might seem odd for WPAVIATION to be covering marine engines, ground-based gas turbines, and even tank engines (both piston andf turbine). One solution is a separate project tag for these engine that emphasizes the aero-derivative aspect of the task force. However, creating such a tag is beyond my abilities,a nd I don't even know if such speciallized task force tags are allowed. - BilCat ( talk) 09:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure I've seen this before somewhere?!! Fair play to the enthusiastic Spanish editor who is doing a good job on his own. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The HOAE site has moved to http://home.comcast.net/~aeroengine/. I suspect this is cited quite on lot in the Boxer cat engines. Is there a way of automating the update, or do we have to work our way through by hand? TSRL ( talk) 20:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it was looking a little quiet around here (I'll take some blame for that... I took a 2 week vacation in Turkey!), so I decided clean up the CFM56 article a bit and nominate it for FA. Feel free to pop in here and leave your two cents! It's time to get a jet FA up there for the aero engine project! - SidewinderX ( talk) 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Propfan is in a pretty bad state currently. Can some of the editors take a look, and comment on the talk page if you have some ideas? We may have brough this up before, but there is a current discussion at Talk:Propfan#Article name. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 01:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
With the recent change in aircraft article naming convention I wondered if the engine naming guidelines were still good. I think they are (luckily!) apart from the US Cyclone and Wasp range where they could conceivably be named manufacturer, designation, name i.e Wright R-1300 Cyclone 7 or Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Junior. Rolls-Royce 'RB' numbers are rarely used if the engine has a common name. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
No big deal, but why is the designer's name entered into e.g. pistonspecs? An aircraft designer's name goes in the infobox box, together with company and country, so why not do the same with engines? TSRL ( talk) 11:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've updated Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines to list the the engines by type only, rather than by company then type. Please take a look, and comment on Template talk:Rolls-Royce aeroengines#New format, whatever your view. Thanks! - BilCat ( talk) 20:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
(Copied from Template talk:Rolls-Royce aeroengines#New format.) I've been bold, and updated the template to list the main divisions by type, rather than by company. I think this format is more intuitive when it comes to finding or adding engines to the list. In fact, it's becoming more difficult to tell where the newer engines come from, as RR isn't making a clear distinction in it's material, usually listing all turboshafts or turbofans on the same pages, regardless of origin. (Note that the German and Italian versions also list by type.) I know some prefer the previous format, so, could we let this run for a couple of week, say to the end of June, and see what the consensus is then? If it's against the new format, I'll revert back to the old one myself. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Gary, I understand your point on the timeline and the progression of the company, but that is covered in the engine lists on the relevant aircraft article. Also, Allison has it's own navbox, and those are the RR Corp types. To me, it just seems more intuitive to group them by type only, as most references to the engines will just state "Rolls-Royce Foo", a piston/turboxxx engine. Thus the navbox enables people to navigate quickly to a given type. As to the RB numbers coming first, some of our navboxes have the model numbers and/or names in the first section, and that was the pattern I was following. Howver, they can go anywhere.
I started today looking at the Turbofan article, which needs plenty of help, and I've now ended up thinking we really need a Turbine blade article. Right now that just redirects to Turbine, but that article doesn't really discuss anything about the blades (materials, cooling, performance, etc). A concern I have is that I'm thinking a turbine blade article specific to gas turbines... would it be better to have this potential article at Turbine blade (gas turbine) or something like that? - SidewinderX ( talk) 20:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any support for a little addition to these specs to cover the difference between take off (or short period) power and the rated or continuous figure? At the moment we just have "power", though of course one can put in both figures and an explanation of the difference. My feeling, FWIW, is that explicit, formatted entries would help both reader and editor to appreciate and remember the difference. At present practice is uneven; some articles use max power, others (more) continuous power, often without any qualifying statements. Defining engine power is always a bit uncertain, but I think this would improve things. TSRL ( talk) 08:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up / opinion poll... User:Wolfkeeper and I have started reworking a series of core articles, starting with Jet engine. These are core articles for the AETF (and, IMO, Wikipedia in general), and thier low quality reflects poorly upon wikipedia. The focus right now is proper organization of the articles. As it was, there was a lot of overlap between Jet engine, Gas turbine, Turbofan, Turbojet, etc., and none of the articles were very good. The idea now is to try and get the proper level of detail in each article, and then work on improving them from there. So, for example, the Jet engine article has a lot of gas turbine detail in, which has now been removed (to Airbreathing jet engine). A lot of that content will be futher removed to the proper Turbofan/Turbojet/etc articles.
The second big push will be to rewrite and cite most of these articles because, as it is, there are essentially no references in these articles.
Anyway, if you're interested in helping out, do so! If you have some opinions on what to do, please share them! Thanks - SidewinderX ( talk) 13:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey everyone... now that the CFM56 FA review is wrapping up, I wanted to tie up some loose ends I had hanging around, and I realized that the A-class review for Combustor was still open. I know it's a technical topic, but if anyone is willing to take a look and review it for me, I would appreciate it! - SidewinderX ( talk) 11:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
In the process of working on the Jet engine article (above), I've stumbled upon a bit a of a mess we have, and I'm not sure the best way to address it. Here's the problem -- There are 5 articles that I've found that are all pretty poor and are heavily related -- Turborocket, Air turborocket, Air-augmented rocket, Air turboramjet, and Rocket-based combined cycle. There not much information in any of the articles, and they all seem to cover pretty similar things. I've done a bit of research, and I think I've got it sorted out in my mind, and I'd like propose a solution.
First, Turborocket, Air turborocket, and Air turboramjet all essentially address the same thing. They're combined cycle engines that use a turbine to compress air that is mixed with either fuel or fuel-rich exhaust and combusted in a afterburner-like nozzle. There are different flavors, but they all operate under the same principles. My suggestion is that they all be merged into one article and the others be redirected. I suggest Air turborocket because that's what my best reference calls it, but I'm open to other suggestions. And honestly, I use the word "merge" loosely... I would be fine with just turning the other pages into redirects and just deleting their "content"...
Second, the Air-augmented rocket (AAR) is slightly different in that it uses a ramjet-like compressor rather than a turbine/compressor setup. The AAR is an example of a Rocket-based combined cycle (RBCC) engine, but there are other types of RBCC engines. The RBCC article is a miserable little stub, but I think it's worth keeping because it will/should be expanded into a much larger article. As for the AAR article... I could see it being integrated into the RBCC article and then redirected, or it could just stay where it is... what do ya'll think?
Anyway, it's a bit of a mess, so let me know what your opinions are, and then we can go about fixing up these articles. Thanks! - SidewinderX ( talk) 15:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, all the content from the now redirected articles ( Turborocket and Air turboramjet) was copied into the Air turborocket article. I'm now spending a little time trying to clean up that article (while the turboprop thing is figured out... I'll focus on the jet engine article once a consensus has been reached). I agree, they are subtly different (and there are other types of that combined cycle engine that are not described... I'll try and include what I can), and I am trying to describe the differences. - SidewinderX ( talk) 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I've just added a comment to the Lead on the main TF page about the AETF also covering Aero-derivative engines, and added Category:Aero-derivative engines to the Categories page. This has been discussed in a few places before, so I don't think I'm going against consesnus by adding these in. The main reason we ought to cover these engines is simply that no other project appears to do so. However, as a Task Force, other projects can join us in maintaining these articles, such as WP:SHIPS for the marine aero-derivatives, if tyhey so desire.
One issue that has come up before is that of project tagging on the article talk psges, as it might seem odd for WPAVIATION to be covering marine engines, ground-based gas turbines, and even tank engines (both piston andf turbine). One solution is a separate project tag for these engine that emphasizes the aero-derivative aspect of the task force. However, creating such a tag is beyond my abilities,a nd I don't even know if such speciallized task force tags are allowed. - BilCat ( talk) 09:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure I've seen this before somewhere?!! Fair play to the enthusiastic Spanish editor who is doing a good job on his own. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The HOAE site has moved to http://home.comcast.net/~aeroengine/. I suspect this is cited quite on lot in the Boxer cat engines. Is there a way of automating the update, or do we have to work our way through by hand? TSRL ( talk) 20:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it was looking a little quiet around here (I'll take some blame for that... I took a 2 week vacation in Turkey!), so I decided clean up the CFM56 article a bit and nominate it for FA. Feel free to pop in here and leave your two cents! It's time to get a jet FA up there for the aero engine project! - SidewinderX ( talk) 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Propfan is in a pretty bad state currently. Can some of the editors take a look, and comment on the talk page if you have some ideas? We may have brough this up before, but there is a current discussion at Talk:Propfan#Article name. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 01:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
With the recent change in aircraft article naming convention I wondered if the engine naming guidelines were still good. I think they are (luckily!) apart from the US Cyclone and Wasp range where they could conceivably be named manufacturer, designation, name i.e Wright R-1300 Cyclone 7 or Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Junior. Rolls-Royce 'RB' numbers are rarely used if the engine has a common name. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
No big deal, but why is the designer's name entered into e.g. pistonspecs? An aircraft designer's name goes in the infobox box, together with company and country, so why not do the same with engines? TSRL ( talk) 11:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've updated Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines to list the the engines by type only, rather than by company then type. Please take a look, and comment on Template talk:Rolls-Royce aeroengines#New format, whatever your view. Thanks! - BilCat ( talk) 20:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
(Copied from Template talk:Rolls-Royce aeroengines#New format.) I've been bold, and updated the template to list the main divisions by type, rather than by company. I think this format is more intuitive when it comes to finding or adding engines to the list. In fact, it's becoming more difficult to tell where the newer engines come from, as RR isn't making a clear distinction in it's material, usually listing all turboshafts or turbofans on the same pages, regardless of origin. (Note that the German and Italian versions also list by type.) I know some prefer the previous format, so, could we let this run for a couple of week, say to the end of June, and see what the consensus is then? If it's against the new format, I'll revert back to the old one myself. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Gary, I understand your point on the timeline and the progression of the company, but that is covered in the engine lists on the relevant aircraft article. Also, Allison has it's own navbox, and those are the RR Corp types. To me, it just seems more intuitive to group them by type only, as most references to the engines will just state "Rolls-Royce Foo", a piston/turboxxx engine. Thus the navbox enables people to navigate quickly to a given type. As to the RB numbers coming first, some of our navboxes have the model numbers and/or names in the first section, and that was the pattern I was following. Howver, they can go anywhere.
I started today looking at the Turbofan article, which needs plenty of help, and I've now ended up thinking we really need a Turbine blade article. Right now that just redirects to Turbine, but that article doesn't really discuss anything about the blades (materials, cooling, performance, etc). A concern I have is that I'm thinking a turbine blade article specific to gas turbines... would it be better to have this potential article at Turbine blade (gas turbine) or something like that? - SidewinderX ( talk) 20:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any support for a little addition to these specs to cover the difference between take off (or short period) power and the rated or continuous figure? At the moment we just have "power", though of course one can put in both figures and an explanation of the difference. My feeling, FWIW, is that explicit, formatted entries would help both reader and editor to appreciate and remember the difference. At present practice is uneven; some articles use max power, others (more) continuous power, often without any qualifying statements. Defining engine power is always a bit uncertain, but I think this would improve things. TSRL ( talk) 08:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up / opinion poll... User:Wolfkeeper and I have started reworking a series of core articles, starting with Jet engine. These are core articles for the AETF (and, IMO, Wikipedia in general), and thier low quality reflects poorly upon wikipedia. The focus right now is proper organization of the articles. As it was, there was a lot of overlap between Jet engine, Gas turbine, Turbofan, Turbojet, etc., and none of the articles were very good. The idea now is to try and get the proper level of detail in each article, and then work on improving them from there. So, for example, the Jet engine article has a lot of gas turbine detail in, which has now been removed (to Airbreathing jet engine). A lot of that content will be futher removed to the proper Turbofan/Turbojet/etc articles.
The second big push will be to rewrite and cite most of these articles because, as it is, there are essentially no references in these articles.
Anyway, if you're interested in helping out, do so! If you have some opinions on what to do, please share them! Thanks - SidewinderX ( talk) 13:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey everyone... now that the CFM56 FA review is wrapping up, I wanted to tie up some loose ends I had hanging around, and I realized that the A-class review for Combustor was still open. I know it's a technical topic, but if anyone is willing to take a look and review it for me, I would appreciate it! - SidewinderX ( talk) 11:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
In the process of working on the Jet engine article (above), I've stumbled upon a bit a of a mess we have, and I'm not sure the best way to address it. Here's the problem -- There are 5 articles that I've found that are all pretty poor and are heavily related -- Turborocket, Air turborocket, Air-augmented rocket, Air turboramjet, and Rocket-based combined cycle. There not much information in any of the articles, and they all seem to cover pretty similar things. I've done a bit of research, and I think I've got it sorted out in my mind, and I'd like propose a solution.
First, Turborocket, Air turborocket, and Air turboramjet all essentially address the same thing. They're combined cycle engines that use a turbine to compress air that is mixed with either fuel or fuel-rich exhaust and combusted in a afterburner-like nozzle. There are different flavors, but they all operate under the same principles. My suggestion is that they all be merged into one article and the others be redirected. I suggest Air turborocket because that's what my best reference calls it, but I'm open to other suggestions. And honestly, I use the word "merge" loosely... I would be fine with just turning the other pages into redirects and just deleting their "content"...
Second, the Air-augmented rocket (AAR) is slightly different in that it uses a ramjet-like compressor rather than a turbine/compressor setup. The AAR is an example of a Rocket-based combined cycle (RBCC) engine, but there are other types of RBCC engines. The RBCC article is a miserable little stub, but I think it's worth keeping because it will/should be expanded into a much larger article. As for the AAR article... I could see it being integrated into the RBCC article and then redirected, or it could just stay where it is... what do ya'll think?
Anyway, it's a bit of a mess, so let me know what your opinions are, and then we can go about fixing up these articles. Thanks! - SidewinderX ( talk) 15:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, all the content from the now redirected articles ( Turborocket and Air turboramjet) was copied into the Air turborocket article. I'm now spending a little time trying to clean up that article (while the turboprop thing is figured out... I'll focus on the jet engine article once a consensus has been reached). I agree, they are subtly different (and there are other types of that combined cycle engine that are not described... I'll try and include what I can), and I am trying to describe the differences. - SidewinderX ( talk) 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)