User talk:Nimbus227/Archive 13

Xmas

 * 2018 XMAS.pdf FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Mercedes D.III
Hi Nimbus, I didn't understand why you reduced the proper informations I HUMBLY added to the voice (which seems written by some Mercedes 'public relations and press guy', trying to hide the 'competition' with BMW (in fact more a positive emulation, being the BMW based on the same scheme of the Mercedes and the evolution of the Mercedes on the innovations introduced by BMW :-) ) The whole chronological sequence of events is largely ignored by the page, not to mention the embarrassing mistakes I've found also on the German pages of the engines. I would like to stimulate a deepening of this intriguing history (as any of the developement of things in general and of these engines in particular and how and how much wars did stimulate a REAL innovation and breaking technical prejudges encouraging (yes, 'giving courage'!) both the technicians and the decisors/financiers to support this courage, this researches, these jumps, because we do need nowadays still that courage to stop to make 'cosmetic innovation' instead to a concrete, useful for anyone of us rethought of obsolete schemes (and just the engines are the best example: one century ago already SOHC, 4 valves... ) Well, help me to improve instead to 'revert' to a less complete information, I mean while thanking you for the attention you gave me :-) --GianMarco Tavazzani (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason for the revert was clear in my edit summary 'Poor grammar and spelling'. Assuming you are Italian grammar translates to grammatica, spelling translates to compitazione. An earlier revert in another article corrected your plural of aircraft (aircrafts) to aircraft. Also, no source for the information was provided (WP:UNSOURCED). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  09:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed and did thank you for your correction about the plural of aircraft and I would thank you with pleasure again and again anytime you would correct me again; I'm here to learn much more than teaching. While I could only suggest reading carefully the German page (which I had to correct too, by the way, for embarrassing confusions) and the official site of historical engines of Mercedes about this engine and the related ones to find the 'sources', I should at the contrary strongly protest for having reverted to statements that are false and hiding the historical and chronological truth as only advertising would dare to do. I assume you are even-handed and so I MUST fairly assume you to be less informed about the technical content of my enrichment of information (at the contrary, on your grammarian knowledge I have no doubts at all). So please tell me precisely which statements of mine lacs of sources and I would be honoured to can make a better job in the interest of you, the readers and Wikipedia.

Have a happy new year GianMarco Tavazzani (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the late reply, I have been working. You ask what facts need a source, I've highlighted your additions in bold here, ...230 hp, was available later and built in about 700 exemplares. Compared to it and to the Allied engines it faced, the D.III was generally outdated.


 * The horsepower figure needs a source.
 * 'Later'. When? Needs a source.
 * The number of this engine built (700) needs a source.
 * The comparison section needs a source (noting that some of this text was existing and needed a source).


 * Searching 'Exemplares' online comes up with either a Portuguese word or the Latin 'exemplar' which means the original item or pattern, the correct English word is 'examples' but in this engine article sentence better choices of word would be,'engines or units'.


 * Thinking further it is irrelevant to this article that 700 BMW engines were built (WP:OFFTOPIC), possibly relevant is that it was apparently a better engine (source required) and even that fact is not essential to the article. Hopefully you can see that your addition was a very small edit but it introduced several new problems. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  13:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar
Way back when, in early 2009, you edited the specs section of this engine to read " 680 hp (507 kW) " ?

Is this credible for the Jaguar I ? or any other version of it, come to that ?

86.148.153.189 (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome. The main article section for the Jaguar I gives 300 hp, I could not see the figure of 680 anywhere on the same page. Weights are not given on that page and the reader is referred to the performance tables at the back of the book which is where the 680 hp came from, the Jaguar II immediately below gives 360 hp. The error is likely a type setting error. I should have spotted it though as the variants section in the WP article gives the correct figures, I am more thorough in cross referencing nowadays, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  10:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Decade categories for aero engines

 * Now added Category:Decades in aviation and Category:1990s in aviation etc Hugo999 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sunbeam Matabele: Revision history
You reverted an edit that included the convert template. Please explain as there are many people to whom horsepower is no longer used. Avi8tor (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I had hoped my edit summary was clear, Incorrect use of convert template, breaks image coding. The infobox displays a black and white image with the file name File:Sunbeam Matabele 420 hp L'Année Aéronautique 1920-1921.jpg, we can see that is a blue link and following it displays the image. You altered the file name by using the convert template to end up with this File:Sunbeam Matabele 420 hp L'Année Aéronautique 1920-1921.jpg which is clearly a redlink as it does not exist. If you had used 'show preview' you would have seen that the article was left with no image and the red text '300px' as here.


 * Many early aero engines included the nominal horsepower rating in their name or it was their name with just the manufacturer in front such as the Beardmore 160 hp. Even applying the convert template to the caption was incorrect because it was displaying the engine's correct designation. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  18:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my error, your explanation is very good and understandable.Avi8tor (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Aircraft Engine Contributor
Hi

I noticed you are a facilitator of the aircraft engine taskforce. I would be prepared to help if it is useful but I know next to nothing about editing.

On the other hand a know a lot about aircraft engines. Degrees in mechanical and aerospace engineering. I started my career with RR aircraft engines in the UK in 1978 and since 1986 I have been with GE Aviation. I spent 25 years in design engineering and led a large chunk of the design team. Then I was the GE90 program leader for 7 years, and then the LEAP program leader for 5 years, and today I am the leader of GE Aviation in front of Airbus.

Let me know if I can assist. Thanks Jetlife2 (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome. There used to be a 'to do' list but I don't know what happened to it. There is a list of missing articles at WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Missing articles, they are mostly older engine types. Some articles need more references adding, some need photos or better photos. Articles in this category either need specifications adding or citations for the specification section or both. The engine task force talk page is at WT:AETF. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  21:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

!!Barnstar!!

 * Thanks, I don't do it often, we spend way too much time on the problem, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  14:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverting changes
Hi Nimbus227, I noticed you keep reverting my changes, which I am sure you have a reasonable explanation for. I am merely trying to update the page to reflect current information since the page as it stands is extremely outdated. I am committed to the integrity of Wikipedia as an entity and will be referencing all changes, if you would just let me. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryKumar (talk • contribs)
 * Your changes resemble vandalism and also those of User:Grobng. If you have a problem with the article then discuss it on the talk page (Talk:Grob Aircraft). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  14:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Beezumph triple query
I saw your post to the Wikiproject Motorcycling and just wondered if you knew when Amal Mk2 carburettors were introduced (presumably pre-1976, as were supposedly used on a racing triple in 1976). The Amal site doesn't have any history that I can see (homepage, Mk2 page). Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll have a dig in my books, my 1977 T140V had Mk I Amal carbs and my 1979 T140E has Mk II. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  15:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything on Amal but my best Triumph twin source says the MkII was introduced in early 1978 for the T140E to meet US emissions limits. They must have existed before then of course. Fitting them on a triple would be fun as they are quite a bit wider than the MkI. Perhaps ask at Norman Hyde, if they don't know then nobody will, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  15:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I was aware that the Amal article needed more flesh and it's come to my attention in the last few weeks that a contact in Australia raced one (purely as a rider, twice only, neither being a successful outing) in 1976, a Seeley chassis with BSA inclined cylinders.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)