Talk:D-Motor LF26

2 engines
My renaming/moving of the article was reverted, perhaps prematurely, while I was in the process of rewriting and updating the article. It seems unnecessary to have two separate pages on the D-motor units, so I suggest the page is renamed/moved to "D-motor aero-engines" and then updated. Arrivisto (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * By consensus on WikiProject Aircraft/Engines we don't give articles the name of two different engines. WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content provides the normal layout. The way to cover a second engine would be either to add it as a "variant" to the existing article if it is just a slightly new model based on the LF26, with a redirect from D-Motor LF39, or start a new article with that name. If you have specs for the new engine then it would be better as a separate article, as we only use one set of specs per article. We pretty much never group different engines together in one over-arching article because as more models are added it usually would need splitting anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding my dislike of the Pluralis majestatis, I fully support the preceding comment. And there is not a single reason for not having separate articles, at least if each engine is of "encyclopedic interest" but I see little issue there. The only way to mention the various engines in one article would be to do it in an article about the company as such. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on D-Motor LF26. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328094443/http://d-motor1.vpweb.be/Recent-information.html to http://d-motor1.vpweb.be/Recent-information.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328094526/http://d-motor1.vpweb.be/News.html to http://d-motor1.vpweb.be/News.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Original Research?
There is this sentence: ''An inherent disadvantage of the side-valve design is the relatively inefficient shape of the combustion chamber, but this is not a real issue at the low engine speeds this engine operates at, since there is plenty of time for complete combustion to occur even with the oddly-shaped combustion chamber, unlike in higher-RPM engines which have a very limited window of space in which to combust the fuel/air charge. In addition, there remains potential for squish to promote turbulence of the fuel/air mix, and the low rpm means that the flame front is able to ignite all the fuel in each power stroke''

I think this is messing up cause and effect. The oddly shaped combustion chamber causes the air-fuel-charge to burn slowly, which has the effect that the engine speeds are low. Saying that the badly shaped combustion chamber is not a "real issue" because the engine speed is low anyways, is therefore a bit misleading. Even if the engine has "plenty of time for complete combustion to occur", the flame velocity is still inferior compared with overhead valve engines, which is still not very ideal. The potential of the "squish" is also nothing special, especially when compared with engines that are designed in a way so that they would not work without sudden air turbulences.

Source 6, which serves as evidence in this case, most likely does not conform to WP:SPS. Source 7 is not ideal, but acceptable, as far as I can tell. However, it does not at all prove the claims made in this article. I believe this article relies too much on original research. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It is at least WP:SYNTHESIS if not plain OR, as neither ref discusses this engine. Furthermore the whole para really amounts to "the design is inefficient but that doesn't affect performance due to low rpm", so it is not even a relevant criticism, even if it was sourced properly. Feel free to cut all of that out. - Ahunt (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)