Talk:Hiro Type 91

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Military history: Aviation / Asian / Japanese C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Asian military history task force
	Japanese military history task force

Japan: Military history Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 14:17, May 10, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: Kako River (Japan)
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Power, chronology[edit]

So there was a Type 91 engine of 600hp, which was also developed into a Type 90, which was "larger and more powerful" and rated at...600hp? How does that make sense? They are both the same power, and if the Type 90 is larger, and making the same power rating, its actually an inferior engine, not a superior development. To me the fact that its called the "Type 90" suggests that it came BEFORE the Type 91, which would more likely be a smaller engine making the same power rating, which WOULD be an advance. 70.109.132.119 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say the type 91 was developed into the 90, or v.v. It merely says a type 90 existed; this could have been quite different.TSRL (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Developed from ...?[edit]

Gunston, the only cited source, says the 91 was "derived from the Napier Lion", which is also what earlier versions of the article say. The edit that introduced the Courlis was unreferenced, so I've reverted that. Gunston give only type, power and date, so where the detailed data in the article comes from is not known.TSRL (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 December 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiro Type 91 → Hiro Type 91 520 hp water-cooled W-12 – Using only a part of the long designation is meaningless. the item MUST be described in a reasonable translation of the Japanese script. Hiro Type 91 could describe ANYTHING released for production in the 91st Showa year. Explained at Japanese aircraft engine identification systems#Army long designation system. Alternatively disambiguate with (engine) Petebutt (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested per WP:COMMONNAME. Why should it have to be a translation of the Japanese? In the absence of any other thing called Hiro Type 91, disambiguating as Hiro Type 91 (engine) is unnecessary. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know a lot about this subject, but that is not what "Type 91" means. Note that the "Hiro Type 14" was produced in 1929, just four years before this, and the Showa period began in 1926. Dekimasuよ! 07:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this article doesn't just cover the 520 hp version, it mentions the 600 hp version too (although it doesn't go into detail on that). The term is also used in sources as currently formulated, e.g. [1] so I don't see a good reason to change to the proposed title, which is so much less WP:CONCISE than the current one. — Amakuru (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.