Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Archive 4

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 2

Archive 3

→

Japanese aero-engines

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I've just created Template:Japan military gas turbine aeroengines. Unfortunately, I could only find proof of 3 engines in teh system, and only one has an article. I'm working on sandboxes for the other two. Any info/expansion of the template would be greatly appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Bill. There must be more, I know that the J79 was built under license by the IHI Corporation but it was still called J79. Must have a look at the piston engines as well, we've got a few articles on them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So I've started digging around on Janes to see what I can find... the setup isn't ideal for finding military designated engines (and or their military designations), but this is what I have found, hopefully it helps....

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd produced two small military missile/UAV turbojets (likely related), the TJM2 and the TJM3. They also have a turboshaft engine project (mostly for civil applications apparently) named MG5, there was a military derivative named TS1 that is in low rate production and powers the Kawasaki OH-1 helo.

Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd produced a small turbojet for UAVs called KJ14.

IHI produced an advanced technology demonstrator version of the F3 called the XF3-400, which was tested from 1992-1995.

I hope some of this is useful! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Some more

Ishkawajim-Harima Heavy Industries (IHI)

F3-IHI-30 twin-shaft turbofan for the T-4,
J3-IHI-7D turbojet for the P2J and T1B.
P&W F100 for the F-15J
Allison T56 for the P-3C
GE T700 for the H-60J
GE J79 for the F-104 and F-4
GE T64 for the P-2J and PS/US-1
GE T58 for the HSS-2/S-61/V-107
TF40 for the F-1/T-2
FJR710 turbofan for the NAL STOL aircraft ?

Kawasaki Heavy Industries

KT5311A free-turbine turboshaft for the UH-1B and Fuji-Bell 204B
T53-K-138 free-turbine turboshaft for the UH-1H
KT5313B free-turbine turboshaft for the Fuji-Bell 204B
T53-K-703 free-turbine turboshaft AH-1S and UH-1J
T55-K-712 free-turbine turboshaft CH-47J

I havent looked to see if these are already listed somewhere! MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all! The template is primarily for engines designated within the JSDF's designation system, such as the J3, F3, F7, and possibley the TS1. I had forgotten about the TF40-IHI version of te Adour - it should be listed also. The others can probably be listed on the individiual manufacturer templates, as they are created. As far as I know, the IHI one is the only one we have so far, though there may already be some for the Japanese piston engines. Tere a Honda company template with all their products.) As you all probably realize, there is little info in one place on thes engines, much less the designations, so once we get it done, we should start to see some internet traffic, and probably expansions as well. If past experience is a guide, the temp[lates themselves will attract a lot of attention, and we should start to see the redlink articles being created. (I'm still pleasantly-amazed that it works, but the templates really do help grow new articles!)

There is some info on the Japanese WP on some of these engines, but Japanese characters make trolling for info somewhat more difficult than on the Latin-character-based WP such as German. It might be helpful if we could find a Japanese-reading editor, especially one already familiar with Japanese military aviation. - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought (dangerous I know!). In my limited experience, the Japanese seem very organized in terms of military designations (I.e., F1, F2 for the fighters). Maybe they're just as organized in their engine designations (I.e., we've got TS1 for turbo-shaft 1 I'm guessing). Maybe we can use that to help research the other ones (particularly their turbojets, J series. Maybe F3 is the first turbofan, as they already have an F1 and F2 fighter). What do you think? -SidewinderX (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Very dangerous! :) Well, the F-1 and F-2 have hyphens, and the F3 doesn't. Also, the F3 predates the F-2 ey at least a decade or two. It seems to me a similar system to the US DOD 1962 system, but with some changes (TS, not T as in the US system). There may have bee F1 and F2 turbofan designs that didn't go into production. Again, there's not much info out there in English, so it's hard to know one way or the other. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) From Aviation Week's gas turbine list, I think I have some more Japanese engines for you... MHI has several turboshafts, the MG5-110 and the MG6-10, as well as the aforementioned TS1-M-10. They also have two small gas turbines, what I am guessing are turbojets. The TJM3 and the TJM4. Hope that helps some! -SidewinderX (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Manuall

I have dug myself out from snowmageddon and created the Ishikawajima-Harima F3 article, and moved it from my sandbox to the wiki world. Feel free to take a look and fix it! -SidewinderX (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh - I wish we had some snow, any snow at all, up here in Ottawa - no skiing! - Ahunt (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

DC and Baltimore might be getting another 10-20 inches tonight (only 6-12 down here), so this is probably gonna stick around for while... -SidewinderX (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Lucky people - hundreds of miles to the north of DC, we have 5 cm of pure ice on the ground and it hasn't snowed any worthwhile amount since almost New Years. Climate change is really sucking big time this year. Usually at this time of year it looks more like File:GatineauParkSkiing19Dec07.JPG here. Grump, grump, grump. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Updating the engine specs templates

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I wonder if we might ask Trevor about updating Template:Jetspecs and Template:Pistonspecs. Neither one has separate entries for Imp and Metric units, which means they are quite behind the two aircraft specs templates that are being updated/replaced. It might even be possible to combine them into one template, but that wouldn't be necessary if it proves to be too complex. - BilCat (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are the alternative units generated automatically? If they are then the generated numbers don't always agree with cited alternate figures (had to ditch the convert templates in the two Featured Articles because of this and they also broke the MOS unit guidelines!!), if not then I don't see that we would gain anything. I have seen empty parentheses displaying where the second figure has been omitted, maybe that bug has been straightened out. The new templates, although nice, look over complicated to me for simple aircraft types, have to sift through many lines to find the entries that need completing. I'm personally quite happy with our current templates as they contain an encyclopaedic level of detail (apart from 'rocketspecs' which is not quite right). Another problem is that if we update the template code it does not automatically update in the articles (I am still manually adding the 'ref=' parameter that was added earlier this year), there are also many articles with an old version of 'pistonspecs' that does not have the designer/reduction gear/components coding. It would be quite laborious to go through hundreds of articles to update the code unless a bot can do it. I suppose it comes down to a balancing act between improvement, template stability and workload. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Trevor could ive us some advice on your concerns. Also, I belive not all of the fields in the new aircraft specs are mandatory - we could ask Trevor which ones can be eliminated, and possibly produce some cut-down versions of the specs template with the unneeded fields deleted for certain types of aircraft. If nothing else, you could play around with deleting the fields you don't normally need for certain types of aircraft, such as small planes not neededing helicopter or jet fields, etc. Then just keep a copy of the short-field template, and use it for the articles you need it for. You can always add a field if neccessary from the template page.

Anyway, I do think we need separte fields for Imp and met figures, even without the conversion funtionality. That was always conditional anyway, we just wanted to see ihow it would work since we had the ability to do so. We are actually still in the test phase on the new airceaft template, so it may not be included in the final approved version. - BilCat (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What I have been doing with the Template:Pistonspecs is using metric conversion templates on the entry lines, as in Hirth F-33. It works quite well and gives fair degree of flexibility to do that or not. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've not done many engines, but those few have been pistons and raised a couple of questions. Should we not have an Ignition heading (plugs, magnetos etc) within Components? And should we move compression ratio (which is a geometric result of the stroke and cylinder head design) to (say) the line after displacement? It's not a performance (output) parameter. Possible?TSRL (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we have bmep too please. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New Years Resolutions and Goals

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I think it might be a good idea if we can come up with a list of task force goals for the new year. My big goal? Improve Component Articles. While I think I might enjoy writing/researching specific engine articles, I've come to realize that what most people might be coming to Wikipedia for is the basic articles. High school kids wondering how a jet engine works; a college kid looking for a decent understanding of a combustor, some random guy who saw an article in PopSci about hypersonics and wants to know what a scramjet is. One thing all those articles have in common is that they're difficult to understand, incomplete, and mostly unreferenced. My goal will be to try and improve those articles, hopefully some of them to A or FA level (or perhaps that new "Book-class"?). -SidewinderX (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A laudable and important goal! Personally I am hoping to finish all the obscure two-stroke aircraft engines. The Rotaxes (Rotices?), Zenoahs and Hirths are done - the hard parts are left to do! - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Goals are a good thing. There is a 'To do' box at the top right of this page, feel free to add. It is a very big big task to get some of the articles that you mentioned back to an encyclopedic level, I unfortunately avoid them because they are often guarded by people who like to keep them the way they are, plus I don't know much about scramjets nor have the references! There are many piston engine component articles that could be adopted by the project (but there are problems there as well), I would like to improve on this with a navbox. We have a missing engine article list, some of them notable perhaps, others maybe not so notable. Missing photographs from infoboxes, manufacturer categories, engines on display and survivors sections, promoting articles, still plenty to do!! Quite daunting really but we have come a very long way in just a year. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The to-do box is a good idea; I've added my current goal to it (feel free to pitch in!). I know what you mean about these articles, there's a lot of work to be done here. I have made some progress though!, now you can use Combustor#Can_type, Combustor#Cannular_type, and Combustor#Annular_type to link to good (IMO!) descriptions of those types of combustors in articles and spec lists (plus some sweet diagrams I made). We definitely have plenty to do! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I realize that it is only the beginning of March, but with the completion of the rather obscure Arrow engines I have now finished all the engines that I have enough data for to create an article, so I guess I met my New Year's resolution! - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

PT6T

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

An editor keeps changing the PT6T from "1" to "2" on the Bell 212, per this edit. Most sources that I have or have seen treat the PT6T as one engine installation. How should we handle this? - BilCat (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a confusing issue - I flew 212s from 1982 to 2000 and the answer is mostly "depends who you ask". The Bell Helicopters Rotorcraft flight manual says:

1-2. HELICOPTER DESCRIPTION - Model 212 is a single pilot, fifteen place twin engine helicopter with a two-blade semi-rigid main rotor and a two bladed tail rotor that provides directional control. - BHT-212-MC-1 page 1-3

and

1-11. POWER PLANT - Power plant, Pratt and Whitney PT6T-3 or PT6T-3B twin pac, consists of two identical free turbine power sections connected to a combining/reduction gearbox. Each power section has a lubrication system, starter-generator, and fuel control. Combining gearbox has a separate lubrication system. - BHT-212-MC-1 page 1-7

so they describe it as a twin-engine helicopter powered by one engine with two power sections essentially. The emergency and normal operation sections all mention two engines, not one engine with two power sections, so the Bell documentation contradicts itself. The reason this has never been fixed is that that everyone who flies them or works on them knows what we are talking about.

The FAA TCDS for the 212 says:

Engines Pratt and Whitney Canada Corp. (Formerly Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada Ltd. and United Aircraft of Canada, Ltd.) PT6T-3 or PT6T-3B Twin Power Section Turboshaft (Ref. Note 5 on Type Certificate Data Sheet No. E22EA).

However all the certification data treats the aircraft as a twin-engined helicopter for certification and operations.

The FAA TCDS for the engine says:

TYPE - Twin Power Section Turboshaft

Supporting the notion that it is one engine with two power sections. What makes this worse is that the two power sections are PT6As which on other aircraft, like the Twin Otter or King Air, make them clearly twin-engined aircraft.

Confused? I think the safest approach is to indicate that it has a single turboshaft powerplant consisting of two power sections, giving twin engine performance and redundancy. That is the only way of stating it that is consistent with all the refs! - Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Seems a similar situation to the Fairey Gannet which has a single Armstrong Siddeley Double Mamba, I would treat it as a single powerplant. There are helo drivers on here who might be able to clarify. My 'Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide (1995) says 'Power plant: One Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-3B turbo twin pack' for the Bell Model 212 UH-1N Iroquois if you need it citing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Adam, thanks. The proplem is that the specs ask for a number, not a long explanation! As I've understood it, the PT6T is 2 PT6A power turbines with a combining gearbox in a single intallation, and you've backed that up. So it is correct to say the 212 has one PT6T, not two! As Gary points out, that's how the Double Mamba is treated, and the Allison T40 is usually handled the same way. I know it can be confusing, but as Gary also pointed out, it is was the cited sources do say, just one PT6T. This is an issue where I wish Alan was still around, as he was a certified 212/PT6T mechanic. He added the source on the 212 specs, so I'm inclined to agree with him if he listed only one engine. - BilCat (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to added, PWC considers it one engine. It may have been made from two, but the final product is one (interesting) engine. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ahunt. Don't think there is a single (or double) right numerical answer. A brief description along the lines of "The PT6T Twin-Pac consists of two PT6 power turbines driving a common output reduction gearbox.", added as a comment or footnote, describes the situation. "Twin-Pac" sounds like the Double in Mamba, suggesting one not two, but I can't see the number matters a lot. Don't think we should be bossed by the specs templateTSRL (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as the numbers in the specs go, it has to be 1 X PT6T, but I agree that a text explanation should be added higher up, outlining that the 1 X PT6T consists of 2 X PT6As bolted to a combining gearbox. - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The main text does state: The 212's main rotor is powered by a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6T-3 Twin-Pac made up of two coupled PT6 power turbines driving a common gearbox. We can add that in the specs if we need to. Interestingly, PWC also certified the PT6D-135, which is 2 PT6A-135s with a combining gearbox, but it didn't enter production, AFAIK. I'm assuming the -135 is one of the larger PT6A family, and that the PT6T is based on the smaller core. I may try to look that up later. - BilCat (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to make use of the engine note = line in the specs part of the template and put that brief description in there, even at the risk of mild repetition, because then it's close to the disputed number.TSRL (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. - BilCat (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Strikes me that if the gearbox fails then the second engine is not much use and it becomes a (dead) 'twin-single' engine! 'Hydraulic palm trees' are an unnatural form of transport at the best of times IMO!!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I once had a single engine failure (power section) but never more trouble with the CGB than a chiplight. Of course when the engine quit I was doing a single engine topping power check in a 15 foot hover, with the other engine at idle, so the dual-engine redundancy didn't do me much good in that case. The result was an autorotation that took under one second and no damage done. It helps to be into the wind and over grass. - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Combustor Peer Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I have opened a peer review for the combustor article. I've spent a fair bit of time researching and rewriting most of the article as the first step in my new years resolution. I'm hoping that this article will become a model for component articles, and I need ya'lls thoughts on how I've done! -SidewinderX (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Little bump. I know it's a technical topic, but I would really appreciate some feedback. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Week two of no interest! I know it's not the most exciting topic of all time, but I would really appreciate it if a few editors could read through the article and leave their thoughts on the peer review page. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Engine Images

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

In searching for a photo for the J402 article I'm currently writing, I found this guy on flickr. He's got a bunch of photos of aircraft engines from the National Air and Space Museum and the Udvar-Hazy annex. There are a whole bunch of piston engines in there, so I figure'd I'd share. Set 1 and Set 2. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good find, have you tried uploading any? Looks like he's licensed them for use at Commons. I have used this tool [1] and it worked for images that were licensed correctly. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I just uploaded this one, using the tool. I'm pretty sure it'll pass the administrator review. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Too bad it is such a poor photo! Hopefully someone else will take one in focus! - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, I know. I don't live too far away, next time I go by I'll make sure to bring my camera. It's the only free image I can find at the moment though. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Going down there with a camera would be a very good idea! Don't forget to focus ;) - Ahunt (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) And use a tripod, I do get funny looks in museums and it is not just the smell! It is a bit fuzzy that one!!! If the tool accepts it for upload then I think the licensing is good. We should all spend some time in Commons as the categories are in a bit of a mess and there are probably images there that could be used, I have found some using obscure search terms. Will have a look at his sets again to see if there are any for articles that have no image at all. Possibly photos there for engines that we have not covered yet as well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a good licence for Wikipedia use as it doesnt restrict use and only asks for attribution. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Side, I suppose it would do no good to suggest that you "get" on the the flight line at Pax River and "pretend" to be talking on your cell phone while surrepticiously snapping pics of the new F-35B in hover tests, would it? ;) - BilCat (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We can watch (and boy do we) but we can't take photos, much less put them up on wikipedia. They might be able to figure it out. :D -SidewinderX (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought as much, which is why I phrased the comment the way I did. :) - BilCat (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Engine page content guide

Latest comment: 14 years ago36 comments5 people in discussion

I have updated/expanded the engine page content guide, mainly by moving the specification guides from WP:AIR/PC after a short discussion over there, this has usefully shortened that page. I have added some guidelines on the lead section, survivors/engines on display and the 'see also' sections. Please have a look and see if there are any mistakes or anything that you disagree with (or feel like adding). Trying to keep it as short and clear as possible. We still have two unused task force tabs, provisionally named 'Help/FAQ' and 'Notability', will try to fill them in time unless we can think of something more useful to use them for. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look later, but I think the nominal organization should include a aeperate "Development" and a "Design" section. (I think this is how the aircraft guidelines are set) In cases where there is not enough content to warrant two separate sections, they can be combined into a single "Development and design" section. My thoughts for now. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Or 'Design and development' as suggested! An engine would be designed first then developed, although I think 'design' in the header is interpreted by many as 'technical description' and this might be confusing (maybe more so for British readers). I tried using this more accurate term as a sub-header but it was batted out of articles that I attempted to use it in for unknown reasons. I added the phrase 'with some minor differences in the upper sections' to give us latitude to deviate from the aircraft page content, as you say a lot of engines don't have enough history to warrant separate sections. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting the way you put it... I had always interpreted "Development" as being about the history of the engine (how it came to be, tested, built, modified, sold, etc.) and "Design" to be the design (or technical description as you put it) of the engine. For example, in the CFM International CFM56 article, I start with Development, where I go through the history of the engine, and then I move to the Design (technical description) of the engine. Do think that order should be reversed? I think "my" order matches us with most wikipedia articles... for example the Williamsburg, Virginia article lists the history first, then geography comes later. Am I misinterpreting what you are saying? -SidewinderX (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to be confusion with the word 'design' as it generally only means the act of designing over here, a clear sub header would work. Wiktionary seems to support this use [2] and my worn-out Oxford English dictionary has nine meanings for the word with none relating to technical description (I had to look!). 'Development' to me is the continued technical improvement process related to testing and experience gained through in-service use (the line of work that I am in, i.e. Research and development) As for history/timeline I just try to make sure that it progresses logically chronologically from the start to the finish of the text sections. The technical description could fit anywhere really as it is 'timeless', the history/development process is not. Looking at the Merlin we used, in order, the sub-headers of 'Origin' (the requirement, funding and priority), 'Development' (which concentrates on early testing, prototypes and problems), 'Production engines' (leading on in time from the development engines) then 'Basic component overview' (code for 'technical description'!) which seems to be in the right place. The Merlin has a slightly unusual structure with its 'Production' section but again that runs chronologically from top to bottom. Each article will be different but should follow a rough timeline. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I understand what you mean. On this side of the lake, one would say "the engine was designed with two turbine stages" or "this design has an unusually efficient compressor". That's where my interpretation of "design" as "technical description" comes from. I agree that the article needs to have a logical, chronological flow two it. I guess my point is that that should precede the design/technical description of the article, in the same way "history" procedes "geography" in other wiki articles. Ahh.. lunch time! -SidewinderX (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We (Brits) use it the same way as a verb, 'was designed' (the act of someone designing), we have a TV programme Grand Designs where houses get a make-over or are built to a plan. 'Features' is another similar phrase, this engine features a flange valve, (just stating what it has). It's the noun form that is probably slightly at odds. I would not get too bogged down with it all, the design and development header is only a blanket header, we often have production, licensed production and contract information in there for shorter articles but a header of 'Design, development, production and contracts' would be unwieldy even if it is more accurate. The Tumansky R-29 article gets round this minor problem by subtly turning the whole article into a technical description and uses, the not wholly inaccurate, 'Characteristics' as a header, this may or may not be the way forward!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe you mistyped "obvious and terrible" as "subtle" in reference to the R-29... that's one of those things that spell check rarely catches :p. I think you're right that this isn't a big deal... most articles don't need separate headers anyways! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the format might not be entirely subtle, that article should be listed as an international treasure!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)

Turboprops

Just in case you get bored over the weekend! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Only staff appraisals to do!! see what can be done in between, I will try not to cut and paste must try harder in any articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Try this staff member sets himself a low standard and continually fails to meet it, they don't notice if you read it out quickly!! Will have to give this a miss soon, eyes are going square and I've got work tomorrow. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

All in Category:Turboprop engines done except Rolls-Royce RR500 as it is not clear if it has actually run yet? MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff, sorry I couldn't help but someone has to make sure that MS doesn't come last this year! I looked through the RR website, not entirely clear but I found this: FAA type certification for the RR500 is expected in late 2011, with production engines to follow. It probably has run in some form, seems a long time to certification though. Might have a look in Flight. Amusing that we have precise first run dates for 80 year old engines, maybe the companies think that it's not important any more. Turboshafts next?!! I think the parent cat is 'Aircraft turboshaft engines' probably to cater for the land based power generators and marine engines. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure all the turbofans have been done might just need somebody to double check them all. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Need to go through the high-medium low bypass cats slow time and we should be mostly there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Flight engine directory

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Just found this by accident, check it out! Will add the link to our reference page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone seeing a display problem with the task force tabs (disappearing off to the right)? Nothing that I've done AFAIK, perhaps someone has updated the template used at the top of the page. I think we should be using something like this Template:WPAVIATION tabs/tab1 also noting that the projects/task forces seem to be moving to a new 'blue' layout (see WP:AIR). Mystery. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I have fixed it - some of the recent additions made the page very wide so the tabs and stuff just spread out to fill the room. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fixed it, thanks. I last edited it on 15 December and it had been working fine since, mystery. Anyway it's good as new now, might have a look at the 'blue' version to see if there are any benefits. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as a sanity check I suspect it was caused by a change today in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Aircraft engine articles by quality statistics. 22:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha, a bot quietly changing the width code, hope it did not affect anything else, at least it updated the article count which was quite a way behind. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Propeller

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I have managed to painlessly split Propeller (aircraft) from propeller. It's a bit messy at the moment, my hastily compiled lead might not be quite there and it definitely lacks references but it is a good start. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It needed doing and had been on my list for ages, it's not perfect but the bones are there, I've added some suggestions on the talk page. It's all part of a push to release a new engine/propeller component navbox. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on this recent discovery, Propeller head? Is this what it is called in the States? The FAA call it a hub like I would. This seems to be a mixture between a DAB page and a pop culture entry!! We do need an article on prop hubs, especially the workings of the more complex variable pitch ones. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I've never heard a prop hub called that, here or anywhere. I've only heard the "aviation nut" meaning. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article is total uncited OR, make it a redirect to propeller (aircraft). Later, we could create a redirect to propeller hub, if we ever make an articel on it. - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bill - uncited OR - redirect! - Ahunt (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. I thought it sounded strange, when the 'article' was created it had no technical meaning [4]. We're getting there, slowly!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that - Wikipedia is one article better! - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Lists?

Latest comment: 14 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion

I have just gone through List of aircraft engine manufacturers (alphabetical), removing or correcting links (Gnome was a good one! List of aircraft engine manufacturers by country currently contains the same errors. Perhaps we should look at our lists and either correct them or rationalise (delete/redirect?) them. List of aircraft engines is our main type list, List of aircraft piston engines is a fork of it (as is List of piston engines, I think).

We have List of aircraft engines of Germany during World War II which is reasonably informative, List of Chinese aircraft engines is similar. List of compound engines is on the short side, List of gas-coupled engines, not sure what this is supposed to be listing?

List of Rolls-Royce engines has aircraft applications listed that should be covered in each article and does not include RR car engines (as the title suggests). List of propfan engines, pulse jets, ramjets, scramjets (empty) and lists of turbojets, shafts, props etc (bored linking).

Looks to be a bit of a list explosion. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates gives a lot of advice but I suggest that some of our lists are not entirely necessary. I need to get out more! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an essay on the problem at Wikipedia:Listcruft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I have found the proliferation of engine lists to be very confusing. I think they need to be largely re-combined. - Ahunt (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But how?!! Needs a clear head to take them all in and work out the best solution. Need consensus of course before anything is done. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree there are many ways to do it, but the redundancy needs to be reduced. Suggestion you develop a concrete proposal here (with notes linking here on the list talk pages) and let's find a consensus. Then we can divide up the work and get it done. - Ahunt (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I will 'cook' something up! No rush. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A start would be to redirect the sub-lists (that are direct section copies of list of aircraft engines) back to that article. These four or five sub-lists were all created by the same user last June and in most cases they have not been used as links in any other articles (such as here). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked the histories of these lists, and several of the redundant ones were created by the same user without any dscussion. I'm not trying to pick on this user unfairly, but he is very enthusistic (he's also only 16), and much of what he does is without discussion. This seems to be growing trend in other areas too, as with the expanding "Equipment of US..." and "Vehicles of US..." list table articles created by another user. Honestly, with WP's current "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" policy, I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle. We'll continiue to spend time trying to correct messes created by newer enthusiastic users who have no real clue what they are doing! Perhaps part of the solution is a better outreach effort by WPAIR to reach the new users as they start editing. That's not an area I'm good at, but I'd be willig to help to some extent.

As to the immediate problem, consolidationg some of the redundant lists is definite;y needed, and if Nimbus wants to tackle this in due course, I think he'll devise a good plan forward. - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Would turning the primary list into a sortable table help? That might eliminate most perceived needs for alternative lists, since the reader could choose the sort key he wants. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes Colin, that's a very good idea. If the current list of aircraft engines could be made more user friendly with clickable sections etc. then that would be nice. It does already have a reasonable index and it is an alphabetical list. Need to look at that. In the meantime I created a new category Category:Lists of aircraft engines to round up all the lists (confused yet?!!). I count 22 lists, 10 of which appear to be direct copies of the 'master list', these are the ones that I would suggest redirecting. Another thing to bear in mind is that in the {{Aviation lists}} navbox we only have two lists, manufacturers and engines, which is how it should be I think. I hear you Bill on the 'unilateral undiscussed editing' that occurred across the aircraft project, we need to fix the mess now. Phew!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Will get on to this job next week I expect. Check this Japanese version of the RB.162 article [5], love the navbox, seems strangely familiar!!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reduced from 22 lists to 7 after redirecting all the copies of List of aircraft engines. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Been having a look at list of aircraft engines to see how it can be improved. The list is physically long with wasted white space on the right. I wondered about using the multi-column template to shorten it or add the best photograph of an engine that we can find from each manufacturer, or a bit of both. I can't quite see how best to use Colin's suggestion of a sortable list at the moment. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it is dull-looking. I vote for adding some pix. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Will give it a try then, can always be reverted if it does not work. It does need jazzing up a bit, I was surprised to learn that there are actually featured lists, must have a look at what they do so well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, heh, I see what you mean about not knowing how to make it sortable. I hadn't actually looked at the list when I said that; I was thinking of a big sortable table, but you may not want anything that elaborate. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(Undent without the template!) Just spotted List of aircraft manufacturers, it has been split alphabetically such as List of aircraft manufacturers A. Not sure if this is the way to go but it could be a way of practically shortening it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My only concern splitting a list up that way is that it would be hard to search through it as it will be on multiple pages, but then again a reader can always use the main search feature. - Ahunt (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite, it's subtle but what looks like a TOC on the main page (A,B,C,D etc.) is actually all the links to the sub-pages, have not seen this before, one way of dealing with a large list I suppose. I'm not fussed about changing it as the list is manageable as it is (I think!!) and it is all in one place. Are the photos working? Ran out of steam adding them somewhere around 'G'!!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The photos on List of aircraft engines look great! Their addition really dresses up a boring list! I'll see if I can add any. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hirth HM 500?

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

HM 500A

Does anyone know of this? It's not in our Hirth list - nearest is HM 504. Not mentioned in Gunstone. It appears in the Klemm Kl 35 article.TSRL (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an article and a photo of it on Italian Wikipedia ! - Ahunt (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Small bit in my Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft says the Kl 35D is a developed version powered by a 100hp (75kW) Hirth HM 500 which agrees with the article. It also says the enclosed cabin version the Kl 107 has a 105hp (78kW) Hirth HM 500A-1 but that doesnt appear to be mentioned in the Kl 107 article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have established that it exists I have taken the liberty of adding the engine to the Hirth nav box. - Ahunt (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was another name for the 504 but the ref in the Italian article says it is a derivative (or early version perhaps?) and powered two types of Klemm. It's not in Jane's WWII fighting aircraft but the 504, 506, 508 and 512 are. The Hirth designations given in Jane's coincide with the number of cylinders which is unusual for RLM engine designations. An article could be created for it but we have no specs but they appear to be the same as the 504. It's probably a 'variant of' similar to the Gipsy/Gipsy Major story. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Didnt realise the numbering was that organised - http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/germany.html#_Engines_Piston has Air-cooled four-cylinder inline engine (1939); derivative of HM 504; used in (1)Kl 106, (1)Kl 107 MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There's an entry for it in Nowarra's Die deutsche Luftrüstung 1933–1945, along with entries for the HM 8, HM 150, and HM 501, which I have also added to the template. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good digging, one and all. I just found out where to buy the manual (for the HM 500A): http://www.aircraft-manuals.com/himohm500aie.html !TSRL (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Also just noticed we have it as the engine in the Bücker Bü 181A Bestmann.TSRL (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Combustor A-Class Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have opened an A-class reivew for the Combustor article. Please stop by and take a look when you get a chance. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Specific power

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi folks, sorry that I've been inactive lately, real life etc, etc. Wildbot is picking up DAB links in engine articles (specs table links) to Specific power. I don't like the new definitions, noting that they are unreferenced, the bot is telling us to pick a poorer quality article. Needs looking at. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That Wildbot is a real mixed bag - often creates more problems than it solves! - Ahunt (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming FA Attempt

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Everyone -- I'm going to try and push the CFM International CFM56 article ahead for FA. It'd be nice to have a jet join the older engines that Nimbus pushed to FA :P. Anyway, right now I'm going through it, adding content and trying to clean it up before I submit it as an FAC. I would appreciate it if anyone reads through it and points out places that need work, or spots that seem thin, or anything else that might help it through the FA process. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Merlin on the front page

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I see the Merlin is on the front page, no warning!! Nice to see it there but it will need a good look through afterwards, I'm too busy to even attempt to straighten it up, thanks to those who are 'putting out the fires', cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw that - great going to all those who worked on the article. Now to watch for vandals - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look too bad, have tweaked it, will have a better look through when it's all calmed down. The supercharger boost units are causing a problem, the recent conversions are original research. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh no: OR on a FA!!! - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's that 'WP grey area' OR where a calculator is used or an editor's strong opinion that what is written in many reliable sources does not exist or is incorrect. As happened recently, millimetres were converted to metres, then centimetres, then reverted back to millimetres. Jane's gave the conversion as millimetres so that is not unreasonably what I used, perhaps we should provide all possible permutations by moving the decimal point in various directions for those who can not work it out!!!

While I'm here I just created a new manufacturer category: Category:Multinational aircraft engine manufacturers. I had been sorting some manufacturers and wondered what to do with the joint companies, I hope that this is the best answer, please add more that you find. Interestingly this only left Rolls-Royce in Category:Aircraft engine manufacturers of the United Kingdom, perhaps that is true?!! Must hop off to Bedfordshire as we lose an hour tonight. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a moveable decimal point which changes units at random every (say) 12 hours? I'm still scratching my head over this blasted pounds-force per square inch business which has come into currency, in spite of engineers like Cyril Lovesy referring to lb/in². I'm pretty sure that pounds-force/sq.in refers to the physical force exerted by the likes of hydraulic cylinders etc and has little to do with pressures generated by a compressor/supercharger. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Pounds per square inch (Psi) is the same whatever the medium; it's simply a measure of pressure. I've seen it used for the strength of submarine hulls and for the amount of boost of a turbocharger. I've never seen pounds-force/sq.in used, but it sounds like somebody's trying to fancy up that old standard, psi. Nowadays I see kg/sq.cm a bit more often or, more rarely, kPa.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not likely to get anywhere with unit crusaders even with cited examples, better chance of knitting fog. 'lb' is a contraction of lb.sq.in and is very definitely used in engine references and flight manuals. Our own pounds per square inch article notes the different variations, lbf.sq.in is a a rare use. I deal with a lot of pneumatic, hydraulic and pitot/static pressures at work, mixtures of 'Imperial' and SI/Metric units (dependant on the national origin of the equipment). Units are chosen according to the magnitude of the pressure (minimising shuffling of decimal points and excessively long numbers) and include Bar, Millibars, Pascals, Kilopascals and our friend 'PSI'. Converting the units in these old engine articles has exactly the same effect as what Discovery Channel do with their documentaries, for instance 'the British Foo Fighter cruised at 6,096 metres', i.e 20,000 feet!! Sounds completely wrong even if it is technically correct. Just have to shake your head and carry on unfortunately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft engine article

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Flagging up a discussion at Talk:Aircraft engine#Shaft engines?. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

British engine names

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Following a discussion a while back about Merlin, I found an article in an old Aeromilitaria magazine about engine nomenclature as per the Air Ministry circa 1936:

Rolls-Royce - land birds
Armstrong-Siddeley - Animals (Felidae) - which means cat family! (other animals were torpedo-bombers!)
Bristol - Planets and constellations
Napier - Arms and weapons

Just though thought it might be of interest. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Could come in handy for those who doubt that the Armstrong Siddeley Tiger is named after a big cat!! It does happen sometimes, amazingly. The Deerhound seems an odd one out (being a dog). Often wondered about the de Havilland Gipsy range, Sir Geoffrey liked his lepidoptera but there seems to be a mis-spelling with the Gipsy engines and DH.60 Gipsy Moth as the real moth is spelt with a 'y', Gypsy Moth?!!! The engine spelling is easily remembered by using "'I' like in Tiger" (Moth). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Gipsy was a civil engine so dh probably had a plan of their own! The article gives schemes for naming types of aircraft as well but does say it wasnt allways followed! I liked the fighter names best General words indicating speed, activity or aggresiveness. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to wonder who came up with Gnatsnapper!! What does it mean?!! The Rolls-Royce Crecy was named after a battle but there were no more two-stroke diesels from them. I suspect that Wolseley was snakes, Wolseley Viper etc. There is probably enough citeable information to put together an article on engine/aircraft naming, whether it would be an encyclopaedic subject I don't know, certainly interesting though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

UK preserved engines

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just found this from 2003 AERO-ENGINES EXHIBITED & STORED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND http://www.crossandcockade.com/files/UK%20ENGINES.doc. might help with engines on display. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Doh, more museums to visit!! Great find, a little out of date but it gives good leads. How would we cite that? Interesting that fitted engines have been included, the entry on the Rolls-Royce R says that there is an engine in the S.6 at Southampton where other sources say it hasn't. Have to go and have a look. Good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Applications section

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Not wanting to add another guideline to WP:AIRENG/PC but ... ! What is the feeling on application listings? I feel that we should add all known aircraft and vehicle/boat/ship applications (including test beds) when known as part of the wiki building and cross-linking process. The biggest list I can think of is probably the Bristol Jupiter and it's not excessive (is it?!!). I've discovered some very unusual and interesting (notable?) applications during my journey through the engines.

Still looking at the two empty task force tabs (Notability and Help/FAQ), suggestions on a postcard! I did think of using a version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Notability but it's only an essay and we don't seem to have a problem with aero engines being contested for notability reasons. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont see any reason to limit the application section which should have all applications. Nothing wrong with adding notes like test-bed only to minor users. Not sure we need a notability section, as far as I am aware the deletionists have not contested the notability of aero-engines. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to limit it either, I mentioned it as one editor had a different opinion. I will think of a few words to add. I've removed the unused notability page tab, we can cross that bridge if it ever comes to it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree - let's try to add all applications, although I will point out that there have been objections to doing this. - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Had not seen that comment, another reason to discuss it. Someone there mentioned 'thousands of aircraft', I don't think that is likely, the Jupiter is listed at 260 type applications. I think this section complies with WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTDIRECTORY and as you mentioned we can always start a List of ACME Thrunger aircraft applications article if needed but we have not had to resort to this yet. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly! - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a paragraph on applications, see if it makes sense and/or is reasonable. Would have thought that we are pretty much covered on that page now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. At least I can point people who complain there! - Ahunt (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

New category

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I've just created Category:Defunct aircraft engine manufacturers of the United States to go with the same category for the UK and Germany, have added it to some obvious ones (removing 'aircraft engine manufacturers of the United States' along the way), feel free to join in, it's not quite clear from some of the articles if they are still trading. I suppose that we should create this category for all the other countries in time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Et la France ici! Category:Defunct aircraft engine manufacturers of France. Left Hispano-Suiza as they still seem to be trading but not making aero engines. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)

I've removed the empty red-linked 'Help/FAQ' tab from the task force pages, 'help' is well covered by the other tabs (page content, categories etc.) and any FAQs can be directed here (where they will be answered in an efficient, courteous and knowledgeable manner as always!!). An FAQ asked by disappointed air passengers in the UK recently was 'why can't we fly through a volcanic ash cloud', perhaps they should have tried and found out for themselves! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Another new category which was lying dormant was Category:Image-Class aircraft engine articles. Not quite sure how useful it is but it does group all the engine images together, probably more useful for non-free images that don't appear in a Commons category. Just add WPAVIATION|class=image|engines=yes to an empty image talk page and wonder at the technology!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)